New fuel economy standards for 2016 = +30%

Status
Not open for further replies.
EPA figures for flex fuel vehicles are based on miles per gallon of gasoline. It also assumes that the driver will drive 50% of the time with E85. That's why a year ago Toyota was advertising most of their vehicles get over 30 mpg.

I've read many articles in the past few days about the announcement. It's always a hollow read. They talk about all the wonderful things that will happen... how much fuel we'll save... how the air will be cleaner... how we'll be less dependent on foreign fuel. But never does it mention how we're going to achieve it. It's as though one can snap their fingers and it'll happen... gimme a break!

I remember how this went down back in the late 70's. The same type of thing was mandated. I think few people remember how CAFE panned out.
 
Originally Posted By: 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.



Betcha I can achieve better overall mileage then an intown-red-light-racing soccer mom who decides to do the speed limit for the day, if I travelled at 75mph (as opposed to her 65).


Here's a novel idea. Maximum acceleration limits. No faster than an empty bus/truck. Should really cut down on the people who cut off such large vehicles too!
 
And, since these figures are coming from the government, it's far more likely that the actual savings will be markedly less than what they estimate, and the increased cost to the automobile buyer will be substantially more.

So, the very real possibility is that the people least able to afford it, will be paying about an extra $2500/car, to save 50 or 60 days worth of oil.

The subsequent manipulations of the gas tax will just add insult to the injury. But hey, it's change. It's just not an improvement.
 
You expected better? We haven't had advancements of merit in 30 years. Communication and information ..but not a whole lot else..people live longer. The reciprocating engine hasn't been trumped after 100 years of development. 100 years.

We've been in one form of band-aid'd "less worsening" since the 70's.

Every day is the good old days
grin2.gif


moderate income people will buy the leftovers from the newer buyers. the problem being is that, as usual, we're behind the curve. Instead of doing this when it took only a few years to change over your leading edge buyer to the newer offerings, now it will take a few more years..since less people will be able to afford the change over. It will subsequently take more years to "trickle down" to the rabble.

(I love that term
grin2.gif
)
 
I have no idea why anyone would buy a car that is less than at least 27mpg today for the worst case. Heck, If it was not because my wife have to get a luxury car, we would have raise the min requirement to 33mpg today. We end up getting the IS250 which gives us 29mpg average.

The car companies are not fighting the government anymore because 1) they got the bail out and were hold on to their lives by the testicles. 2) The customers got the shock last year and are now buying efficient cars. 3) The resale value of SUV and big V8 are dropping like a rock, no one is going to buy a new one only to depreciate 50% in 2 years anymore.

CAFE or not, no one is buying a sub 20mpg SUV new in 2013.
 
Originally Posted By: 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..


It was already over $5 a gallon last summer in Canada and SUV's were still selling and being driven... Not as much, but still out there... So it's gonna have to get a lot worse for people to cut back IMO.
smirk2.gif
 
Yeah. I expect I'll reach my $7 threshold for newer wheels well before 2016. Then it's time for a beater NEON. 33+ on the long mileage. The wife can live with that for her commute.
 
How can CAFE decide your car purchases any more than a 55 MPH speed limit stops you buying a Camaro ?
 
I just wish that they made decent small cars for tall people. It's a PITA trying to find something that is comfortable when you are tall like me. Even my Neon hurts my back because I have to lean the seat back a bit and there is no room for my legs...
smirk2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
I just wish that they made decent small cars for tall people. It's a PITA trying to find something that is comfortable when you are tall like me. Even my Neon hurts my back because I have to lean the seat back a bit and there is no room for my legs...
smirk2.gif



Same here. My height prevented me from considering the IS350 when looking at new cars. With the seat in it's lowest position I could sit straight up and touch my head on the roof. I used to feel retarded when I drove a Civic and was all hunched over. Actually my height limits me from a lot of newer cars and I'm not that tall.
 
I thank god that I totalled my Ford Tempo in an accident with a deer because it was ruining my back. I still have lower back problems because of that car and spending so much time on the road.

I understand that they want to trim as much as possible out of the car for fuel economy and to keep production costs low etc. but it's ridiculous. You have to be 4FT to drive some of these econo-boxes.

Yet in Europe when I was there over 10 years ago and driving in the smaller cars there, there was more than ample room.
21.gif


Give me something like an old Dodge Omni anyday! I could fit in it and it was cheap/reliable. (Fuel injected ones anyways...)

grin2.gif
 
You'd best get used to smaller cars, or buy a larger one or two while you still can.

AFAIK, there is no advanced technology on the horizon, so to meet these standards in mainstream cars, the cars will be smaller, or have to be made of much more costly lightweight materials.

Since most people can't afford the cost of aluminum cars, they will be stuck with a smaller car they may or may not want.

The irony is that if a new domestic oilfield was discovered that had 1.8B bbls of recoverable crude, the environmentalists would be caterwauling nonstop that it was not worth it for a mere 85 days (best case) of oil.

Maybe the new Government Motors project to meet these standards will be called the Yugobama.
 
Originally Posted By: StevieC
I just wish that they made decent small cars for tall people. It's a PITA trying to find something that is comfortable when you are tall like me. Even my Neon hurts my back because I have to lean the seat back a bit and there is no room for my legs...
smirk2.gif



ALlow me to once again hawk my new Fit. Tilt and telecoping steering wheel. And, although I am only 5'10", I'd point out there's a LAGRE amount of room between the top of my head and the roof of the car.
wink.gif
 
Stricter mpg rules may help automakers
Move by Obama could help revive industry in long run, experts say

By Roger Fillion
msnbc.com contributor
updated 1:21 p.m. ET, Wed., May 20, 2009

President Barack Obama is trying to shove U.S. automakers toward the future, a high-stakes wager that could help revive the industry in the long run, experts say.

By issuing rules aimed at sharply boosting vehicle gasoline mileage and slashing greenhouse gas emissions, experts say the Obama plan is just what carmakers need given the prospect of higher gas prices and worries about global warming.

“If you look toward the future, these standards will put carmakers in a more competitive position as they address future requirements and trends,” said Douglas Allen, associate professor of management at the University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business.

At a White House ceremony Tuesday where he was flanked by top auto executives, union leaders, and environmentalists, the president said the rules would give auto companies “clear certainty” at a time when the industry is weathering a “historic crisis.”

Experts who support the plan say it will deliver needed change: Automakers will have to plow research dollars and know-how into cleaner engines, better transmissions and alternative-fuel vehicles such as hybrid and electric plug-in cars. Diesel engines also are expected to get more scrutiny and use.

The University of Denver’s Allen, who has worked in and studied the auto industry for decades, acknowledged the new rules would impose short-term pain as automakers retool factories, cars and technologies to meet the stricter requirements. But over the long term, automakers would gain, predicted Allen.

“Without these guidelines, the U.S. auto industry would come up short," he said. He said the rules clarify the road forward for car companies and remove the threat that individual states would impose a patchwork of regulations governing fuel efficiency and new vehicle carbon emissions.

Automakers, in fact, reversed decades of opposition to stricter mileage standards by supporting the administration’s new rules — likely spurred in part by the industry’s heavy reliance on bailout money from U.S. taxpayers. Auto executives, for their part, said they like the plan’s unified approach to rulemaking.

"For seven long years, there has been a debate over whether states or the federal government should regulate autos," Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in a statement. "President Obama's announcement ends that old debate by starting a federal rulemaking to set a national program."

Still, some experts argue the changes amount to harmful government meddling in the auto industry when the Big Three are struggling to pay bills and consumers are avoiding new car purchases.

Chrysler LLC is in bankruptcy and General Motors Corp. may follow suit. The new plan, which will result in Americans driving smaller, more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, will cut the industry's profit margins and could weaken them further.

“Nobody makes money producing small cars in North America,” said Dennis DesRosiers, president of DesRosiers Automotive Consultants Inc. in Toronto.

The plan’s 30 percent boost in fuel economy would translate into a 35.5 mile per gallon average for cars and light trucks in 2016, four years earlier than the existing law called for. New passenger cars sold here would need to average 39 mpg, up from the current 27.5 mpg. Light trucks, which include pickups and sport-utility vehicles, would need to average 30 mpg, up from 23.

The White House projects the plan ultimately would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil. The administration also forecasts it will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 900 million metric tons — the equivalent of taking 177 million cars off the road.

An administration official told reporters the extra cost per vehicle would amount to about $600 per car in 2016, on top of the estimated $700-per-car cost of the fleetwide corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards carmakers already had to achieve by that year. The administration maintains that resulting fuel savings will offset the added cost.

Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Clean Vehicles program, said automakers can use off-the-shelf technology, including cleaner engines, more efficient transmissions, better air conditioning systems and cleaner fuels, to meet the standards.

"This agreement is the breakthrough the nation needs to cut carbon emissions and help consumers deal with volatile gas prices," Kliesch said. "Automakers have the technology they need to meet and beat these standards while saving consumers billions."

Jeff Boyd, president of electric carmaker Wheego Electric Cars in Atlanta, said the rules are “critical” for the survival of the U.S. auto industry. ”The world doesn’t need another internal-combustion car,” said Boyd, whose company is a division of RTEV Inc.

But Mark Zupan, dean of the Simon Graduate School of Business at the University of Rochester, argued the Obama rules amount to excessive government interference in the auto industry and ultimately will hurt carmakers 10 to 20 years more from now.

“We’ve had plenty of cases where governments run cars companies, and it doesn’t work,” said Zupan, a macroeconomist specializing in energy issues. He pointed to the former East Germany, among other places, and the communist country’s Trabant automobile.

The vehicle was produced for about three decades, through the 1980s.Time magazine declared the 1975 Trabant among the 50 worst vehicles of all time. “You can look back at places like Russia and East Germany, where they ended up with jokes of automobile companies,” said Zupan.

He said a better idea for the Obama administration would be to increase the federal gasoline tax so market forces and consumer choice would dictate the changes needed for the auto industry to survive.

“It leaves power to the people as opposed to keeping power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats deciding what should be produced and where,” said Zupan.

Jack Nerad, executive editorial director and executive market analyst for Kelley Blue Book and kbb.com, said it’s too early to know the ultimate impact of the Obama plan on U.S. carmakers.

He said the new rules will ensure that carmakers “immediately reconsider” conventional hybrids, plug-in hybrids, electrically powered vehicles and battery electrics. Rather than bet on one technology, carmakers will offer a variety of vehicles to consumers in the next decade.

“On the face of it, the new regulations seem to be yet another blow to the beleaguered American auto manufacturers since consumers regard high fuel efficiency as a province of the import-brand manufacturers,” said Nerad.

“That blow could be softened somewhat, though, by the proposed multibillion-dollar federal subsidies to foster technology that would increase vehicle fuel efficiency,” added Nerad.

“But the last chapter on this has not been written. In fact, this seems like the opening paragraph in a completely new book.”

© 2009 msnbc.com
 
Last edited:
Relax, you'll still be able to buy an SUV but it will just cost more. Right now there are makes like Porsche which violate the CAFE and they pay a penalty for it. I can see mfrs pricing in the penalty into the cost of the car.

I like the push for 42 mpg. Like the original emissions mandate of the 70s, it will be painful initially but look how better off we are now because of those 70s laws. Had we left it up to the car makers to reduce emissions, cars would still be belching 500ppm HC now. You have to challenge them or they'll never do the right thing on their own. I can see cars initially being smaller on average and underpowered when the 42 rule first takes effect. But it will improve over time because the makers will be forced to employ new technologies
 
I can see that the new MPG standard will severely hurt federal and state governments because of reduced gas tax revenue. What will likely happen is the government will raise gas taxes proportionately with the new CAFE
 
I saw a Toyota exec. last night say that a total redesign of larger models will have to be done to make them lighter. So there will be less material there and will make the cars more dangerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top