You have a solid point there & I agree. There is more to my post & I'm not here to attack anyone so I hope the OP doesn't take offense but it seems like there's something more going on here than what meets the eye. If the OP was so paranoid about the Gov. telling them what to buy by referencing vehicles then why are they running out to buy the latest vehicle that the government wants you to buy? Seems like chasing one's tail to me. The Camry has been approved to be sold under current CAFE standards so why wouldn't this stop them from buying it if they don't want to do what the gov wants them to do? lol
How will 2024 CAFE standards impact your buying?
- Thread starter Elkins45
- Start date
You think I‘m driving all of them at once?According to your signature you've presumably have 4 vehicles under one roof. I would imagine that is not exactly dumping all but it's a good chunk contribution so I wouldn't claim "It's not me".
Let me use this example: Your 4 vehicles put out more CO2 then my 1 Vehicle. So you are putting out more than I. You seem to claim "not me" but that isn't the whole story.
You claim "leave me alone" but no one is forcing you to buy a new vehicle Including the gov.
CAFE standards have been a part of automobile history since 1975. Did that stop you from buying the vehicles in your sig? This post is questionable. It screams "The gov is out to get me & I need to buy a new car now!".
What is appealing about this new Camry? Could it be that it has good MPG? Oh the irony LOL
Which puts more CO2 into the atmosphere, (a) getting 0.2 fewer MPG or (b) having to manufacture an entire replacement vehicle because your car is effectively totaled at 70k miles by the failure of mandated tech that isn’t yet mature?
I’m not opposed to the idea of CAFE standards. I am opposed to the idea of using them as a political virtue signal and enforcing poor long-term policies for the publicity of perceived short-term gains.
Or maybe you just enjoy paying $$$ to replace a turbo or CVT? You do you.
I like the current Camry just the way it is, I just don’t need one quite yet. When I do need one I’m afraid it won’t be available. I don’t want to have to buy a car with immature and failure-prone tech because CAFE forced it to market before maturity.
CAFE sets the mpg standards. How the manufacturer executes those targets is the technology used. Americans want more power so to meet both requirements of MPG & Power they put a turbo on smaller engines.
Turbo's have been around for a long time. They are tried & true. They add another item to maintain but they're not exactly worthless either. If you want power out of a small engine that's a great way of doing it while keeping costs down.
Perhaps taking more time to see how things go in the auto industry may help your buying choice more. Unfortunately, I don't think Toyota is immune to the same issues across the makers. All of this may very well lead to more sales of EV's/Hybrids b/c they got burned on that 70k GDI vehicle.
All the manufacturers know that EV's are the next gen but what they've done to fill the gap between now & then is make these low displacement high powered engines that all seem to suffer from fuel delusion b/c we are not willing to sacrifice power for fuel economy so they had to do both.
Look at it another way for the good of CAFE evolution. Do you want to be energy independent or give our money away to foreign lands & have foreign lands dictate how much you pay for fuel each day? I think that is another big reason in driving change for the better.
The charging infrastructure will only get bigger too.
I am assuming you have electricity since you wrote this post on a electronic device. The new RAM has up to 500 miles of range. The technology will filter down to other vehicles. Is 500 miles not enough? How far out of the city do you live?
The above comments are not meant to be "snarky". But rather have you (and everybody else) think about the big picture-instead of just saying-"I live out here" or "this will not work because".....
Don't know how old you are-but on the highway 500 miles is more than my bladder will do.....
Is the charging infrastructure sufficient? How long does it take to add 500 miles worth of charge from 110 or 220 domestic service? And how much does this vehicle cost?
I live on the outskirts of a town with 1300 people. There isn’t a single rapid charger within 40 miles of me, but there are two gas stations within 10 miles. The gasoline infrastructure is pretty mature. And I can carry extra fuel in a jug.
I wish batteries could be standardized and swappable by an automated machine, like trading in your empty propane tank. Don’t wait for a charge, just pick up a new one.
Different thinking required. I am assuming unless you go on a road trip-your daily millage is much less than 500 miles. So you wouldn't need 500 miles of range to be added every night. The rest of your objections will be addressed as the EV thing matures-just as the gasoline infrastructure has.
And agree-swappable batteries would be nice.
A gas F350 weighs 6305 lbs while a Civic weighs 2877. Road damage is increased by the fourth power of axle weight. (source) So the F350 does 23x the damage of a Civic. 18 wheelers, BTW, really pound the tar out of our highways compared to what they pay in registration and fuel tax fees. I'm cool with that-- government funded and subsidized infrastructure is how nice things get to stores near me.
Last edited:
I'd like this, but as a "booster" battery, maybe on a trailer. I'd like to keep my well maintained "good" battery under my floorboards just like I like my good propane tanks. And I don't want to drag around 500 miles worth of battery capacity on my daily commutes, as the added weight will subtract efficiency.
And in the interim, if they had to, they could make gas or diesel powered trailers with the same connections as the rental battery.
We all have a "Fuel Station" at our house but I don't blame you for our current layer of electric stations. Although, Electric Co. standards may need to be met outside of a standard 115v plug-in.
Everyone, F350, & Heavier is paying the extra tax to build the highways to meet the higher infastructure standards. Its not like they are building roads that can only handle a civic. They did the investigating in the 50's as your cite noted & adjusted how they build them from there on.
A model 3 long range weighs in at about 4100LBS, does it pay ~32% more road tax?
I doubt a 10MPG increase is technically possible by 2026, which is my issue with the rule. I imagine there's a lot of discussion right now as to whether its cheaper the be out of compliance or try to be in compliance. Assuming anyone is finished reading the 1230 pages... bet you know who hasn't read it...
For the record in case any one is confused i have nothing against hybrids or BEV... It all depends on ones circumstances...
I doubt a 10MPG increase is technically possible by 2026, which is my issue with the rule. I imagine there's a lot of discussion right now as to whether its cheaper the be out of compliance or try to be in compliance. Assuming anyone is finished reading the 1230 pages... bet you know who hasn't read it...
For the record in case any one is confused i have nothing against hybrids or BEV... It all depends on ones circumstances...
I understand how the current state of EV could not work for a lot of folks, help me understand how a Hybrid wont work...?
The only folks EVs wont work for are apartment dwellers who can't install a charger at the place where they live-or in very rare instances those who drive beyond the range of the batteries every single day.
As a side note-there are now EV Amazon vans delivering my packages.
We ae in infancy of tax per mile.
It will happen, there is no doubt about it.
But, how will that be executed is SERIOUS issue. That will be Supreme Court drama par excellance.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,572
It is more but in those ranges - almost negligible, That 1950's theory was proven false long ago. A 20,000 ton axle on a semi does 300 times the damage as a passenger car. But when you get down to car / F350 level - your literally at 10% of the road design limit hence the difference in wear is neglibible - although possibly measureable over a long period of time.
Its like asking how much faster will your rear springs wear out if you keep a jack in the trunk vs not. The answer is some amount, but not enough to matter. However if your trunk is loaded to design capacity, the answer is pretty fast.
PSI in the tires also comes into play - direct PSI onto the asphalt surface itself vs design. But again, anything passenger pressure is nelgibeable.
"Short run marginal road costs from autos and other light vehicles are directly related to miles driven and, despite increasing variance in vehicle weights (and fuel efficiency), there is not much difference in the damage done to the road by different types of light vehicles (whereas there is a big difference in damage to the road done by heavy trucks of different weight groups and with different axle configurations). Indeed, Merriss (2004) notes that the “difference in pavement damage imposed by a 6,000-pound large SUV versus a 3,500-pound compact car is inconsequential as compared to the difference in (pavement) damage imposed by either of these vehicles versus a fully-loaded 80,000-pound truck” (p.2)."
Source:
Chicago's SUV Tax and Road Damage: Do the Numbers Add Up?
The Mayor's proposed SUV tax—which would actually encompass heavier sedans—is predicated on the idea that heavier cars cause more damage to roads. But is that actually true?
www.chicagomag.com
Extra cost and complexity for marginal benefit. I do almost no driving where the hybrid system would help. I would be paying extra for a battery and electric motors that would rarely be activated.
I suppose it’s possible that a plug-in hybrid might be OK, but again I’m paying for extra complexity that gives me very little real world benefit.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,572
This we agree on.
From a maintenance stanpoint, passenger cars create almost zero wear - compared to trucks.
Passenger cars do cause congestion, requiring bigger roads - so there is that. But passenger car traffic creates economic activity in a region - which benefits everyone locally - so maybe everyone should pay not just drivers.
Then there are the privacy issues.
Supremes best set aside a couple months to hear this one.