Mazda and Subaru to build plug-ins

Seems that every body wants to come to the ball room and tap dance....

 

I thought carb gave an exemption for low volume manufacturers, that they require phevs is wierd. Even if they don't, I think its far cheaper for mazda to simply pay nissan or tesla for credits, or have one of them develop a car for them, than develop there own plug in.

With subaru, if they are forced, toyota owns 16.5% (If it hasn't changed) of them. I would expect toyota would simply sell a few extra mirai and sell the credits to subaru.

 

Do the CARB rules require a California resident or is it just buying it in the state?

The reason I ask is whether or not I pay my aunt to buy the car I want.

Bob Wilson

 

i think it's where you register it. in ma, you're supposed to be a resident. needless to say, there are a lot of florida plates around here, and enough new hamster that the government instituted a drop a dime program.

 

I think the headline of this thread misleading as Mazda and Subaru MAY only choose to build a plug in.
Even as things stand, they would still have the choice to buy credits to bypass developing and marketing a Zero Emissions product.

And as much a proponent of EV's, Plug Ins and Hybrids, and all the envelope pushing that "alternative" automobiles represent, that I believe I am, I don't know how I feel about a regulatory board forcing or fining automakers for not making a product "they" think is needed.

In the USA we mostly embrace Laissez Faire. I think regulatory boards can set standards, perhaps even reward business's meeting those standards, fine those that do not, but they shouldn't be in the business of forcing automakers into presenting specific types of products they do not produce.

I say Laissez Faire.

And mostly because I think what it could result in is automakers making poor or zombie like products whose primary function is simply to allow the automaker to reach certain standards.

I'd rather Mazda and Subaru build a product because they want to, and are really invested into it's success, than build a product they would rather not produce, simply to have it in their line-up.

Obviously I'm a proponent of Hybrids, ( I own a Prius ). But I don't particularly want to see any automaker "forced" to produce a product they for whatever reason aren't interested in producing. That's a recipe for a very poor product reaching the sales floor. If Subaru and Mazda decide to produce and EV or Plug In, I want it to be because they WANT to do it, and are really vested into the product's success. NOT because they want to avoid buying credits or essentially paying a fine for NOT reaching a regulatory boards standards.

 

Remember automakers, all of them get a great deal of government money and act as a oligopoly, often doing measures that are counter to the interests of stock holders and the country. I don't think after bailing out gm once and chrysler twice, who actively worked regulators to not force them into making efficient vehicles we can say efficiency regulation is excessive.

Certainly though CARB probably is not the place for these regulations.

We certainly don't have that today. The US taxpayer subsidized the automakers to the tune of over $10B last year.

Well then they can choose to subsidize tesla, nissan, and toyota (because it partially owns subaru, I'm guessing they will buy from them) to build the vehicles. Really it probably is not a huge portion of their sales. Shared risk. I don't think the CARB zev mandate is well worked, with 0zev for a 50 mile phev like the leaf, and 9 for a fuel cell vehicle. I don't see the problem with forcing gm and honda to partially fund development, why not mazda and subaru?

 

i would be interested in a miata with a 500e drivetrain.

 

I still disagree.

First of all we are not talking GM or Chrysler. And their respective bail outs were debatable actions of government and business as well as "national interest". We can start a whole different thread if you want to debate the bail outs and government subsidy of automakers.

I DO see a problem with a regulatory board forcing business to create a product they may have little interest in creating.

Not because I don't like the cartoon Blue Bird of Clean Air happiness landing on my shoulder, as Subaru and Mazda might roll another EV or low emmission product onto the show room floor. But because I do support Laissez Faire. And I support it in the most simplistic of ways. That is my greatest fear is automakers simply balancing the cost of the "fine" vs. The Cost of Product Development and marketing, and launching a really under funded low cost band-aid product.

Dentists may NOT like candy bars with sugar. But the ADA doesn't fine or force Candy Makers to put X amount of sugarless products in their line-up. As much as believing having these options might make the world a better place. We generally say...build/make the product you want to sell. And your business succeeds or fails on the merits of this/these products.

 

I wish CARB would go by fleet emissions rather than have quotas of ZEV cars.

Not me. A reliable Fiat mini electric, however, would be so enticing. Outside of CA, obviously

 

that would be acceptable to me.

 

That would be a seriously fun car to drive.

 

I believe this about up coming requirements. Subaru likely was able to meet their current requirements with just their PZEV cars. But it sounded like a BEV or FCV was going to be required in the future. From the article, "Mazda and Subaru were not alone in appealing the rules that will require automakers to have electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel cell cars on the road by 2018. Automotive News reports Mitsubishi, Volvo, and Jaguar-Land Rover joined the two Japanese companies at a May 18 CARB hearing to petition regulators to ease up mandates on smaller companies. In some measure, it worked.

CARB officials conceded that small automakers could get by with plug-in hybrids rather than pure electric vehicles. With Volvo and Mitsubishi plug-ins headed to American in the next calendar year, that would not be a burden for either manufacturer."

Keep in mind that Mazda and Subaru are only small in comparison to the other major automakers. They are also likely facing similar regulations in their home country. Madza did license a hybrid from Toyota for the Japanese market already.

And while laissez faire is all fine and dandy, it was regulations forcing car makers to make cleaner and safer cars.

 

I am not debating the bailouts, but we can see that there are huge subsidies, and these automakers don't actually do the right thing very often. Laisez fair seems to be quite bad in the auto industry, and we have set up some bizarre incentives. If the government is going to tax us to give to the automakers, included foreign ones like mazda and subaru, it can make rules for them to sell here. zev is much smaller than that nixon tarrif or the regan voluntary trade restriction.

I can agree here, that an unelected board has so much power, with little to no oversite.

It doesn't exist in the auto industry. The big boys often collude. The government gives them huge hand outs (that includes germany and japan, and every other car making country.

Dentists don't make candy bars. Mazda and subaru make cars. The US uses far too much oil, and the status quo is not very good. I don't think it is onerous for either of these two companies to subsidize plug-in development for other car companies.

I do agree that carb is probably the wrong body to make the rules, but I don't think the make or buy idea is a bad one at all.

 

on the other hand, where would we be without carb?

 

I wondered about that.
I didn't want to bring it up without investigation or knowledge for fear of complicating the discussion.

But I did wonder if what could happen would be simple partnerships between automakers. Where non-hybrid producing automakers simply go and strike an agreement with a hybrid producer to produce X amount of re-badged products. Which then "become" that automakers "hybrid" or "Plug In". Sort of in the vein of the Corolla/ Geo Prism.

I should be clear. I'm NOT against regulations. Especially in relationship to things like clean air.
But I think a regulatory boards relationship to these regulations should start with creation and end with enforcement of any fines. If we reach the point where a regulatory board is determining the production line-up of a separate business? Then we've gone too far.

This is NOT exactly what is happening here. Even though the article itself uses the word "forced" and I think automakers themselves will complain that the standards are too harsh and that they are being "forced" to do something they would rather not.

In my simplistic example the ADA would be the regulatory board, and the candy bar makers the producers (Automakers).
The dentists? They could represent those of US that would like cleaner air.

 

mazda already licenses toyota's hybrid technology in a small way, but there is a new agreement.
Toyota, Mazda form partnership to share technologies, confront cost challenges

Mazda is going to make scion ia and toytoa yaris, based on the mazda 2, for toyota in North America and not sell the mazda 2 here. Both will use skyactiv engines.
Toyota and Mazda Styling Clash in Scion's New iA Sedan
Next Toyota Yaris to use Mazda SkyActiv Engine » AutoGuide.com News

mazda has access to toyota's fuel cell and phev technolgy, but we have no indications that they will build a car.

Oh well CARB tried to make gas stations make hydrogen. I guess that would be the candy equivalent The threatened lawsuits ended that, but zev is not like that example.

In the 70s and 80s they seemed to help clean air progress. In the last 2 decades, we may have better regulations, and less expensive cars ;-) I may be forgetting some accomplishments, but this plug-in push came from doe. I'm not sure, but there must be something in the last 2 decades, but all that comes to mind is crushing ev1, mbte leaking, fuel cell push, diesel rule based on a guy with a fake doctorates flawed research. No they must have done something positive in those years, but the negatives make bigger stories.

 

did they get us the 10/150 hybrid warranty?

 

CARB did indeed force a 15 year/150,000 waranty on emissions equipment in CARB states. They included the battery in hybrid and phev cars as emissions equipment, IRRC to make it more expensive to sell these than zev vehicles. They later granted a waiver to hybrid and phev makers to 10 years / 150,000. In non-CARB states these sell with 8 year/100,000 mile waranties but MSRP is the same.

We can see from the honda hybrid battery fiasco, this only led to the illusion of consumer protection. Whether it was a good thing or a bad thing is all up to debate.
Honda Hybrid IMA Battery Defect Class Action Lawsuit