New fuel economy standards for 2016 = +30%

[SubLGT]

Originally Posted By: rationull
Just to be clear, are these mpg figures based on EPA ratings or some other ratings gathered specifically for CAFE? They seem too unrealistically high to be EPA ratings...


This is NHTSA's ambiguous answer:

"Do NHTSA’s CAFE values differ from EPA’s fuel economy data?
Three different sets of fuel economy values- NHTSA’s CAFE values, EPA’s unadjusted dynamometer values, and EPA’s adjusted on-road values exist. NHTSA’s CAFE values are used to determine manufacturers’ compliance with the applicable average fuel economy standards and to develop its annual report, the Automotive Fuel Economy Program Annual Update. The EPA’s unadjusted dynamometer values are calculated from the emissions generated during the testing using a carbon balance equation. EPA knows the amount of carbon in the fuel, so by measuring the carbon compounds expelled in the exhaust they can calculate the fuel economy. EPA’s adjusted on-road values are those values listed in the Fuel Economy Guide and on new vehicle labels, adjusted to account for the in-use shortfall of EPA dynamometer test values."

 

[rationull]

Interesting, thanks for that clarification. That makes sense given there really aren't many cars with 2008+ EPA ratings at 42 highway, let alone average.

I'm on the fence about this as well but honestly I don't think it's a bad idea (within reason -- I'm not that familiar with the specifics). I love cars just like everyone here, but there was never any guarantee that high performance cars would be cheap forever. Frankly, so many cars out there have so much power compared to what they had even 10 years ago -- does the average commuter really need > 200 HP, even with the increased weight of modern cars? If we can encourage "average" drivers to drive more fuel efficient cars, even if it's through supply limiting, I think we'll be ahead of where we are now.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a Mustang right now. I don't think laws like this are meant to take away that possibility. But there's no reason the fleet average mpg in this country shouldn't be better.

 

[keith]

The most likely way to meet these new regulations is for the fleet to downsize, which as already noted, can only be accomplished with gas tax increases because on average we don't like driving small cars. Curious timing, coming quite soon after the report of poor crash ratings when a small car collides with a larger car.

Has anyone done the math yet to calculate how many these new regulations and car downsizing will kill?

 

[Shannow]

1950 Holden 5 seat family car seated 5, travelled at the speed limit (was slow to get there), and got 30MPG (Oz).

2009 Holden 5 seat family car seats 5, travels at the speed limit (fast to get there), and gets 10-12km/l

 

[swalve]

First off, I think this is a good thing. Or, it will be. This will spur car manufacturers to innovate new ways to make cars. We will see things like direct injection, direct fire solenoid-based valving, electric muscle cars, diesel (and biodiesel) engines and other alternate fuels.

Something needs to be done- imagine how much gasoline would cost if they hadn't increased the cafe requirements over the years? Imagine how dirty our cities would be? Imagine how terrible the economy would be?

In the interim, however, what this will do is change the marketplace for car buying. The manufacturers will cut production on "guzzlers" and demand will rise the prices. They will have to increase production on efficient vehicles and cut prices on them to be able to sell a yearly "fleet" of vehicles that meet the averages.

 

[Cutehumor]

Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Originally Posted By: PT1
These rules will end GM for sure. They won't be able to turn a profit w/o their SUV line up and I want to see a Suburban get 10% better fuel economy.


Don't worry about the Suburban:

"Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards. These vehicles include pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and large vans."

From: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm


It's a free country and you can drive what you want. I'm sure in 2016 when gas is $5/gallon, there will be plenty of unsold SUVs for people to drive while I drive my 46 mpg car. Either way, it's going to force people to drive fuel efficient vehicles. The sale numbers for SUVs will go so low that the automakers will drop the SUV models. Probably..

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: keith

The most likely way to meet these new regulations is for the fleet to downsize, which as already noted, can only be accomplished with gas tax increases because on average we don't like driving small cars. Curious timing, coming quite soon after the report of poor crash ratings when a small car collides with a larger car.

Has anyone done the math yet to calculate how many these new regulations and car downsizing will kill?


Where will the larger cars be if the average fleet's been shrunk?

We could get those deaths back and then some with a slightly more difficult driving test, and aggressive penalties (eg jail) for stuff like cell phone use causing accidents.

Continual one-upmanship in taller, heavier vehicles compared to anything else on the road, because of some rooted fear of one's own mediocre driving causing an accident, is eventually unsustainable. (as I bet a % of the "tank" buyers go for consciously or unconsciously)

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: keith

The most likely way to meet these new regulations is for the fleet to downsize, which as already noted, can only be accomplished with gas tax increases because on average we don't like driving small cars. Curious timing, coming quite soon after the report of poor crash ratings when a small car collides with a larger car.

Has anyone done the math yet to calculate how many these new regulations and car downsizing will kill?


Where will the larger cars be if the average fleet's been shrunk?

We could get those deaths back and then some with a slightly more difficult driving test, and aggressive penalties (eg jail) for stuff like cell phone use causing accidents.

Continual one-upmanship in taller, heavier vehicles compared to anything else on the road, because of some rooted fear of one's own mediocre driving causing an accident, is eventually unsustainable. (as I bet a % of the "tank" buyers go for consciously or unconsciously)

I hope that someday someone at the NHTSA will pull their head out of their butt and make some real regulations about accident compatibility between cars and pickup trucks. There is no real reason a 4x4 truck has to have bumpers 3' off the ground, they didn't in the 70's and 80's. Now the trucks are so tall that you need a step to put something in the bed...
The NHTSA should make standards for how much force a passenger vehicle can exert in an accident and at what height. This would make the big vehicle carry around the energy absorbing system so it won't hit a regular vehicle any harder than the average car. Probably this would result in some big funny looking bumpers on pickups but if you really need a pickup you shouldn't mind...

Also just enforcing the speed limits would reduce fuel economy and the death toll. Getting T-boned at 25 mph is much less deadly than getting T-boned at 40. Going 65 mph on the highway uses 10% or more, less gas than 75mph.

 

[rshaw125]

It won't happen.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Cutehumor

It's a free country and you can drive what you want. I'm sure in 2016 when gas is $5/gallon, there will be plenty of unsold SUVs for people to drive while I drive my 46 mpg car. Either way, it's going to force people to drive fuel efficient vehicles. The sale numbers for SUVs will go so low that the automakers will drop the SUV models. Probably..


Being able to drive want you want only works in a market where companies are free to build what the consumer wants...

 

[wannafbody]

Originally Posted By: jsharp
Originally Posted By: Cutehumor

It's a free country and you can drive what you want. I'm sure in 2016 when gas is $5/gallon, there will be plenty of unsold SUVs for people to drive while I drive my 46 mpg car. Either way, it's going to force people to drive fuel efficient vehicles. The sale numbers for SUVs will go so low that the automakers will drop the SUV models. Probably..


Being able to drive want you want only works in a market where companies are free to build what the consumer wants...


That died with the Obama admin

 

[labman]

The low hanging fruit is gone. All the reasonably priced improvements, electronic ignition, fuel injection, computer control, etc. are already in use. The only major improvements left will have to come from reduced driving and the size of the fleet. One way or another, we are going to have to end the practice of hauling nothing more than yourself 50 miles each way in a big gas guzzling truck. A nice, fat gas tax might be the fairest way. Those that use a truck to make their living, will have to pass on the expenses. Others may recalculate housing expenses and commuting.

 

[Bamaro]

They need to eliminate the differential between cars and other vehicles used primarily to transport people. Until they do that SUVs and such will continue to be unfairly 'exempted' from real standards.
The fee-bate is a much better way to level things out.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: rationull
Just to be clear, are these mpg figures based on EPA ratings or some other ratings gathered specifically for CAFE? They seem too unrealistically high to be EPA ratings...


I assume it would carry on like it has been. For Ford to sell so many Lincolns and GM/CV, they had to sell so many high yield chassis to fit them into the average.

50mpg is doable today ..without a hybrid.

The problem will be keeping the safety police in check. They're the real reason you can't produce 65mpg gasoline econo-boxes.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
This is REALLY great information for our struggling auto industry.

Nothing like adding more costs during a major down turn in the economy.

Hmmmm...I wonder where they will get the money from??


That is exactly how I feel, why not kick them while they're down? Just what a struggling auto industry needs, more hurdles. Don't get me wrong the idea is good, its the timing that stinks. JMO

 

[Gary Allan]

The timing will always stink. We're in ..what they call..exponential times. The time lag for need and reaction is getting very compressed. 10 year plans aren't going to be functional or appropriate in half that time.

Lots of bold initiatives are going to look too ambitious/demanding ..but they're going to fall short of needs.

 

[Win]

The article I read:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30810514/

claims this measure "....would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years."

If I did my arithmetic correctly, 1.8B bbl divided by 21M bbl/day consumption is less than 86 days worth of oil at current consumption levels.

It looks to me like this is about little more than telling the poor and lower middle class what they must drive, by a government that prefers edict to choice.

 

[Gary Allan]

I agree ..but probably not for the same reasons. There's really no breaking our addiction to this level of consumption since we really don't want to. No matter what happens, it usually self levels (like water seeking an outlet) back to the same thing.

The issue is built in. We're a personal transportation nation. I don't think the rest of the globe matches us for the number of cars owned by 10 times the people. I don't know if we have much of a true economy outside of that which revolves around car and the sector that supports it.

 

[Arradiance]

An interesting discussion on this came up on the WSJ boards today. The question was brought up which fuel are these new standards based on. Currently most automotive fuel in the US is 10% ethanol. Are the standads based on this fuel or on straight gasoline?

There is a push for at least 15% ethanol content in fuel for emission purposes. Even a 5% increase in the ethanol will have a dramatic impact on milage. What happens if we decide, or mandate, large amounts of non-food stock ehtanol and make E-50 or E-85 the standard? There is no way to easily hit the standard, without reducing displacment,that I know of.

 

[BrianWC]

WSJ has boards? Wow, I'm a daily Journal subscriber and even I couldn't imagine the hilarity that no doubt takes place there.