2025 government mandated 54.5 mpg

[Nick1994]

Originally Posted By: Brons2
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Ridiculous. I'm sick of hearing about the environment.


It's only the air you breathe, the food you eat, and the water you drink, nothing important, right?
54.5 mpg is way too strict. They should build cars that get that mileage, but they should also build simpler more reliable cars that get less mileage. I'm ok with a car with lower gas mileage as long as it's a decent car. 40 mpg is good enough for me. That push to 54.5 mpg is ridiculous and I'm tired of environmentalists. What's next? No white cars because they reflect sunlight and clouds won't form?

 

[Nate1979]

Easy peasy.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Cars are one of the few segments where the environmental slogan "reduce, reuse, recycle" is never used. Apparently, cars defy the laws of physics that state that the more we use, the more we damage the environment for raw materials, and the more waste is left to be disposed of.

As long as the EPA allows companies to export their messes to other nations, and turn a blind eye to the environmental impact of new vehicle construction, the environment will remain in peril.

And as long as people believe that raw materials fall out of the sky completely processed, and that 100% of a car is recyclable with zero waste, well continue to believe that we're being "green". The only thing green about it is the money changing hands throughout all of this.

 

[bvance554]

I drive a lot so I'm all for efficient vehicles. I still miss my Saturn SL1. It would now be 15 years old and was easily capable of getting 40 mpg back then. It hurts to refer to 2000 as 'back then.' In the 90's you had Hondas getting 50 mpg and no they weren't hybrids. So it seems like we went backwards a little after the turn of the century in regards to fuel economy. Much of that is due to safety standards and equipment resulting in increasingly heavier vehicles, and also the fact that a typical mid size sedan now comes with a standard 250-300 horsepower and will blow the doors off what we used to call muscle cars, and they're doing it much more efficiently and with far less emissions. Efficiency is the key and I'm sure that if hard pressed to meet higher CAFE standards car manufacturers will easily be able to do so by shifting this efficiency in the other direction, but we may have to make do with Camry's that only produce 200 HP, but yet get 50 mpg.

 

[kozanoglu]

Originally Posted By: HKPolice
The 54.5mpg figure is misleading, it doesn't translate directly into EPA window sticker mpg figures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_A...ar.2C_2011-2025

As you can see, the CAFE MPG varies depending on car size.

That being said, 54.5 CAFE MPG will be a hard target to hit in 10 years if oil prices continue to be ~$50 a barrel. Even Toyota has admitted that it'll be impossible to hit with cheap oil because people will be buying more gas guzzlers. Nothing is written in stone though, the standards will be changed if all manufacturers agree that it's not realistic. Worst case scenario, they'll just get fined for selling gas guzzlers (search the CAFE wiki about fines, it's only about $100 per car sold)


Toyota is not blind as some are. 50 dollar oil is a momentary thing, can be 250 next year. Can anyone say no?

 

[kozanoglu]

Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Yup, anxiously anticipating what the mfgs come up with.

Anyone living in the 1960s might appreciate the gains that have been made in reducing harmful pollutants from tailpipes.

Liking this

http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/LApollution.html


Eco lib or not, nice picture, the second one.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Trav
They wont be satisfied till we are all driving lawnmowers with seats.

I'd be satisfied with a more minimalist car (yes, coming from the guy who had a Town Car, a Lightning, an Audi, then an Infiniti). A riding mower might be a little too minimalist.

In this province, a few municipalities are trying to get authorization to permit golf carts on town roads (i.e. with 40 km/h and less speed limits, with very small populations).

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: bvance554
I drive a lot so I'm all for efficient vehicles. I still miss my Saturn SL1. It would now be 15 years old and was easily capable of getting 40 mpg back then. It hurts to refer to 2000 as 'back then.' In the 90's you had Hondas getting 50 mpg and no they weren't hybrids. So it seems like we went backwards a little after the turn of the century in regards to fuel economy. Much of that is due to safety standards and equipment resulting in increasingly heavier vehicles, and also the fact that a typical mid size sedan now comes with a standard 250-300 horsepower and will blow the doors off what we used to call muscle cars, and they're doing it much more efficiently and with far less emissions. Efficiency is the key and I'm sure that if hard pressed to meet higher CAFE standards car manufacturers will easily be able to do so by shifting this efficiency in the other direction, but we may have to make do with Camry's that only produce 200 HP, but yet get 50 mpg.


The tighter NOX standards killed Honda's lean burn MPG champs.

 

[IndyIan]

Doesn't a plug in Prius meet this already? Seems much ado about nothing. If you want a gas guzzler I'm sure there will be still lots of choices for those too.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Brybo86
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Well, here's the answer.


Lol

Still waiting for the Eco libs to chime in.

Because if the EPA sets a bar the car makers will just have to use the technology that has been out for decades but that they have been hiding from us all

Suuure


The Elio will never happen. It's a giant scam. I wish people would stop buying into it.

With that said, if the greenies would back off on certain things, we could get better mileage. Let the manufacturers enable lean burn mode, etc ... sure, it may have slightly higher emissions PER GALLON OF FUEL BURNED, but it will be less overall.

The Mitsubishi Mirage can already easily achieve 55MPG easily in the real world. Once they drop down to $4 or 5 K ... I'm buying one.

 

[The_Jeff]

With GPSs a car would know if it was in LA or not and could adjust its NOx output to save fuel or run slightly cleaner. Heck, if a region were having a particularly bad atmospheric day, onstar or an FM radio subcarrier could alert the car to further detune itself temprorarily.

CARB is its own multi-headed monster and would have to be appeased to meet reality.

CAFE was great in the 90s, it subsidized escorts and cavaliers, saving us all some fuel. Now the Focus and Cruze are upper middle market and we have some worse crackerboxes... sonics and fiestas, huh? Why are they shaped so wierd (eg short wheelbase) and yet only get 40 MPG?

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
With GPSs a car would know if it was in LA or not and could adjust its NOx output to save fuel or run slightly cleaner. Heck, if a region were having a particularly bad atmospheric day, onstar or an FM radio subcarrier could alert the car to further detune itself temprorarily.

CARB is its own multi-headed monster and would have to be appeased to meet reality.

CAFE was great in the 90s, it subsidized escorts and cavaliers, saving us all some fuel. Now the Focus and Cruze are upper middle market and we have some worse crackerboxes... sonics and fiestas, huh? Why are they shaped so wierd (eg short wheelbase) and yet only get 40 MPG?


They are geared more for "city people" than those who go on the highway. Aerodynamics and axle gearing are more for city driving than highway.

The fiestas are at like 3000RPM at 70

 

[Mykl]

When large-ish "mid sized" sedans are hitting at around 40 mpg, right now, I feel like it's not out of the realm of possibility that manufacturers hit that target.

These cars aren't even that much more expensive to purchase. There are a number of brand new vehicles hovering at the 40 mpg mark that can be hand from $15k to $20k.

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Yup, anxiously anticipating what the mfgs come up with.

Anyone living in the 1960s might appreciate the gains that have been made in reducing harmful pollutants from tailpipes.

Liking this

http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2013/LApollution.html


Environmental gains for automobile emissions have been realized. At this point further advances are trying to squeeze blood from a stone. 55MPG is completely possible with hybrid electrics or turbo diesels or mini-cars. I'm guessing that hybrid electrics is where the market will be in 10 years, but we'll have to see.

 

[bulwnkl]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
...Let the manufacturers enable lean burn mode, etc ... sure, it may have slightly higher emissions PER GALLON OF FUEL BURNED, but it will be less overall...


Nope, that results in higher overall emissions. Emissions regs are grams/mile, so automakers already have the flexibility do what you're talking about. The overall g/mile of the regulated pollutants are higher that way, so it doesn't pencil out as you claim.

 

[d00df00d]

So, not to necessarily defend the fuel economy mandate, but here's something to think about.

Right now, we are doing a great job producing oil at a high rate, but we also consume at a high rate. Our consumption means we are still at the mercy of global oil prices. Every time some wack-job dictator in an oil-rich nation throws a tantrum, we have to wring our hands about what it means and what to do about it. Commit troops? Undermine foreign governments? Enact sanctions? Just sit there and eat it? There are no good options.

If we maintain our production and cut our domestic demand, we will control a much larger proportion of the supply, and most of our economy will be less vulnerable to fluctuations in oil prices. We'll be FAR more economically resilient, and we'll have a LOT more economic leverage globally.

Demand for oil in China and the Third World is going nowhere but up, and FAST. As it stands now, we will have to compete with them more and more for a dwindling supply of cheap oil. I'd rather have US in the saddle, with THEM competing for OUR oil.

High fuel economy standards are a really ham-handed way to work toward that goal. I hate how they affect our cars. I'd rather see a massive expansion of nuclear power, backed up by renewables in key areas, and massive investments in improving energy storage techniques to make power grids more efficient and electric cars more viable. Unfortunately, most of those measures tend to be opposed for purely political reasons -- ironically, mostly from people who claim to be very concerned with national security.

Either way, no matter how much I dislike this particular method, I think the ultimate goal is one of the best things we can work toward as a nation.

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

Right now, we are doing a great job producing oil at a high rate, but we also consume at a high rate. Our consumption means we are still at the mercy of global oil prices. Every time some wack-job dictator in an oil-rich nation throws a tantrum, we have to wring our hands about what it means and what to do about it. Commit troops? Undermine foreign governments? Enact sanctions? Just sit there and eat it? There are no good options.


Right now, oil-rich Russia is throwing a tantrum, the West is boycotting all their energy products, one major Middle East oil producing nation is nearly shut down due to war, another just had a revolution and change of government last week, and gasoline prices in the US are at a low. Why? Because of the lowest US energy import percentages (quoted previously) in decades, fracking, redundant supply, oversupply, lower European demand, and other issues.

So, I reject your rant.

 

[TiredTrucker]

The government does not care what a vehicle mpg is. They play the silly game of acting like they are looking out for the environment and other goofy stuff. It is all a ruse to end up increasing control and increasing their take. Like cigarettes. If they are so harmful, then just ban them. Nope, can't do that. Just restrict them more so that they are stigmatized, then they can raise taxes on them without getting much static. They win.

Same for CAFE mpg stuff. Raise the standard to make it look like they are doing something, Then they can justify raising fuel taxes under the guise that they are not taking in as much because of the increased fuel economy. Meanwhile, most vehicles on the road aren't getting those inflated CAFE mpg numbers, so the people lose once again while the government rakes it in.

But, this is what they do.

 

[surfstar]

Yes, its all about gov't "control".

Don't smoke. Don't drive a gas/diesel vehicle, then they won't "control" you.


Seriously.
Did you not see the before/after LA smog picture? Those aren't fake/photoshopped. Have you seen China's air pollution? Guess where we'd be without EPA and CARB requirements.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: eljefino
With GPSs a car would know if it was in LA or not and could adjust its NOx output to save fuel or run slightly cleaner. Heck, if a region were having a particularly bad atmospheric day, onstar or an FM radio subcarrier could alert the car to further detune itself temprorarily.

CARB is its own multi-headed monster and would have to be appeased to meet reality.

CAFE was great in the 90s, it subsidized escorts and cavaliers, saving us all some fuel. Now the Focus and Cruze are upper middle market and we have some worse crackerboxes... sonics and fiestas, huh? Why are they shaped so wierd (eg short wheelbase) and yet only get 40 MPG?


They are geared more for "city people" than those who go on the highway. Aerodynamics and axle gearing are more for city driving than highway.

The fiestas are at like 3000RPM at 70


Shame they can't fix that with another gear. But then the EPA test would indicate low mpg, or people would complain about too many gears.