Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamie B on August 28, 2012, 11:01:44 PM
-
http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2012/aug/28/new-mileage-standards-would-double-fuel-efficiency-ar-1153284/
The rules mean that all new vehicles would have to get an average of 54.5 miles per gallon in 13 years, up from 28.6 mpg at the end of last year. The requirements will be phased in gradually between now and then, and automakers could be fined if they don't comply.
President Barack Obama said the new fuel standards "represent the single most important step" his administration has taken to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
But Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has opposed the standards, and his campaign on Tuesday said any savings at the pump would be wiped out by the rising cost of cars and trucks.
Already, automakers have committed to an average of 35.5 mpg by model year 2016 under a deal reached with the Obama administration three years ago.
There is a clause indicating that if automotive sales drop that new numbers can be discussed.
There is also a congressional review in 2018 to ensure that technology is in place to support the new numbers.
-
How about get the .gov out of the energy/car field and let the market decide?
-
Legislating something does not make it a reality.
-
Legislating something does not make it a reality.
This. A government comprised of people who believe that because they write something on a piece of paper it happens Out There. There's a term for this: Magical Thinking. And it sums up the extravagancies of Progressivism.
We're going to driving something in 10-15 years but it might be a stretch to call it an automobile...
-
This. A government comprised of people who believe that because they write something on a piece of paper it happens Out There. There's a term for this: Magical Thinking. And it sums up the extravagancies of Progressivism.
We're going to driving something in 10-15 years but it might be a stretch to call it an automobile...
Great! Now comes the Jamis rant about personal aircraft! =D
-
In order to meet the current standards cars are getting smaller and lighter, with fewer ponies under the hood. To meet the new standards they'll most likely have to be even smaller and lighter, with even less power.
There will still be 18 wheelers on the road.
Smaller and lighter isn't always the safe way to go....
-
In order to meet the current standards cars are getting smaller and lighter, with fewer ponies under the hood. To meet the new standards they'll most likely have to be even smaller and lighter, with even less power.
There will still be 18 wheelers on the road.
Smaller and lighter isn't always the safe way to go....
Yep. Here's a timely quote from tonight's column by Michelle Malkin:
For years, free-market analysts and government statisticians have warned of the deadly effect of increasing corporate auto fuel economy standards (CAFE). Sam Kazman at the Competitive Enterprise Institute explained a decade ago: "(T)he evidence on this issue comes from no less a body than the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a report last August finding that CAFE contributes to between 1,300 and 2,600 traffic deaths per year. Given that this program has been in effect for more than two decades, its cumulative toll is staggering."
H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis adds that NHTSA data indicate that "322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles." USA Today further calculated that the "size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths."
-
Is is possible to make cars significantly lighter without compromising safety? Damn skippy. But it's also hideously expensive. A Formula 1 chassis without engine or ballast could be picked up by a few guys and allows the driver to walk away from wrecks that in any current road car would leave the occupants looking like chunky salsa. But they also cost tens of millions of dollars. Each.
Even if you look at high end sports cars, thanks largely to carbon fiber, the weight is amazingly low when you consider the power it has to absorb. And crash survivability is also very good. But again, you're talking well into 6 figures to buy one.
For a typical family sedan that technology is simply not affordable. And economy of scale really won't bring the price down all that much.
Far better than screwing with CAFE standards would be to "drill baby, drill" while also building a metric crap-ton of nuclear plants and using the gas/coal saved to produce whatever "drill baby, drill" doesn't, and then use the excess power from the nukes to start making synthetic hydrocarbons and reserve all that oil for value added products like plastics, fertilizer, etc.
-
Well, I guess we just have to sacrifice a few lives on the altar of environmentalism.
-
Well, I guess we just have to sacrifice a few lives on the altar of environmentalism.
A nation that sacrificed a space shuttle and crew on that same altar and is willing to compromise the performance of its military's small arms for environmentalism should have no qualms about the lives of a few thousand motorists a year.
-
There is a clause indicating that if automotive sales drop that new numbers can be discussed.
Kind of reminds me of the joke about how to get a bolt tight enough, "twist it until it breaks and back off half a turn".
-
A nation that sacrificed a space shuttle and crew on that same altar and is willing to compromise the performance of its military's small arms for environmentalism should have no qualms about the lives of a few thousand motorists a year.
No argument from me on the space shuttle.
-
The rules mean that all new vehicles would have to get an average of 54.5 miles per gallon in 13 years, up from 28.6 mpg at the end of last year.
Might as well require that all vehicle run on unicorn farts....
-
Most motorcycles don't even get 54mpg, do they ???
;/
The new cars will all have a big handle on the back end to wind the spring =D
-
My Roadking doesn't , didn't when it was stock either. About the best I've ever gotten with it was around 45 MPG during the first 500 break in miles. 40 mpg is about the best it'll do 2 up taking it easy, 35 or so running the freeways and interstates.
The people setting these "standards" know exactly what they are doing and it isn't wishful thinking. The only way to make those number is smaller, lighter vehicles with limp wrist performance. Big pickups, muscle cars and SUVs are on the chopping block deliberately .
-
You know how folks started buying light-truck based SUVs when all the big cars went away...
well, the next thing will be those medium-truck based rigs for hauling big fifth-wheel and gooseneck horse trailers. :facepalm:
-
Bastards the lot of them
-
Most motorcycles don't even get 54mpg, do they ???
;/
The new cars will all have a big handle on the back end to wind the spring =D
My Honda Shadow is a 750cc engine, about half the size of a harley. I get 50 to 55mpg depending on my riding habits and the terrain. It could get down to mid 40's if I'm climbing a lot of elevation, And peak around 60 if I'm doing a bunch of downhill and keep it under 55mph.
But, it only weighs about 550 pounds.
-
I get 40-45mpg on my bike, and it only weighs like 430lbs....of course, nearly 200hp does hurt that a bit :)
-
The people setting these "standards" know exactly what they are doing and it isn't wishful thinking. The only way to make those number is smaller, lighter vehicles with limp wrist performance. Big pickups, muscle cars and SUVs are on the chopping block deliberately .
Not only that, but the EPA is always at the verge of mandating 15% ethanol fuels. If the CAFE standards can'tbe met with straight gasoline, they surely cannot be met with E-10 or E-15.
A properly tuned turbo-deisel in a rally car sized vehicle could probably easily do it, but the EPA isn't going to allow that either.
-
I get 40-45mpg on my bike, and it only weighs like 430lbs....of course, nearly 200hp does hurt that a bit
A friend of mine is always amazed that my 20-some year old Sportster gets over 50mpg where his Honda VFR only gets around 36- with a smaller engine, I have to remind him that he gets 3x the HP and has 4 times as many valves allowing his engine to breath a lot more.
-
My '89 Harley will get a bit over 50 mpg if all I'm doing is highway riding.
My Mustang gets 10 to 11 mpg around town in the summer with the A/C on. That must drive tree-huggers crazy. :)
-
My '89 Harley will get a bit over 50 mpg if all I'm doing is highway riding.
My Mustang gets 10 to 11 mpg around town in the summer with the A/C on. That must drive tree-huggers crazy. :)
My old 89 Mustang GT with a 310 HP 5.0 (mildly modified) would get 25mpg all day long on the highway and about 14-15 in town if I kept my foot out it.
-
My rickshaw gets 70 mpg. So there.
-
Wonder how many mpg my horse gets, considering the diesel fuel used harvesting hay ...? =|
-
A friend of mine is always amazed that my 20-some year old Sportster gets over 50mpg where his Honda VFR only gets around 36- with a smaller engine, I have to remind him that he gets 3x the HP and has 4 times as many valves allowing his engine to breath a lot more.
I don't understand.
If his engine, albeit smaller, has better intake and exhaust floe, and it is less efficient?
-
I don't understand.
If his engine, albeit smaller, has better intake and exhaust floe, and it is less efficient?
Im guessing this is because the better intake and exhaust system allow it to burn more fuel to generate more horsepower.
-
Not only that, but the EPA is always at the verge of mandating 15% ethanol fuels. If the CAFE standards can'tbe met with straight gasoline, they surely cannot be met with E-10 or E-15.
A properly tuned turbo-deisel in a rally car sized vehicle could probably easily do it, but the EPA isn't going to allow that either.
There is also the known fact that 15% ethanol is not compatible with older vehicles. The newest vehicle I own is 10 years old the oldest is 60 years old. There is a war on older cars as well. We saw some of that with the cash for clunkers program where it was required to destroy the engines of the traded in cars. Another tactic to deny lower income people the ability to afford a car and thus be slightly more independent of government.
-
Wonder how many mpg my horse gets, considering the diesel fuel used harvesting hay ...? =|
Are oats or bucket feed higher octane?
-
55mpg hmmmm....
Seems like they are requiring the vast majority of passenger cars to be diesel, hybrid, or full electric. Regardless of the cost/benefit.
I think the trucks and suvs (because suvs are considered trucks) don't actually apply to this standard. Minivans might be under the "car" category, if I recall correctly.
Sooo.... expect SUVs to continue to sell strongly as the only cheap large passenger vehicle available. I expect this will be the death blow to the station wagon. If I am right about minivan classification, I expect they come out with a hybrid or diesel version. New minivans are already expensive, so I expect that market will also shrink.
-
IIRC, trucks and SUV's fall under this, as it's "Corporate Average Fuel Economy"
Yep, from Wikipedia:
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) are regulations in the United States, first enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1975,[1] and intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) sold in the US in the wake of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. Historically, it is the sales-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per US gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the US. If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of vehicle production falls below the defined standard, the manufacturer must pay a penalty, currently $5.50 USD per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer's total production for the U.S. domestic market. In addition, a Gas Guzzler Tax is levied on individual passenger car models (but not trucks, vans, minivans, or SUVs) that get less than 22.5 miles per US gallon (10.5 l/100 km).[2]
Starting in 2011 the CAFE standards are newly expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle "footprint", a measure of vehicle size determined by multiplying the vehicle’s wheelbase by its average track width. A complicated 2011 mathematical formula was replaced starting in 2012 with a simpler inverse-linear formula with cut-off values. [3] CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint. For example, the 2012 Honda Fit with a footprint of 40 sq ft (3.7 m2) must achieve fuel economy (as measured for CAFE) of 36 miles per US gallon (6.5 l/100 km), equivalent to a published fuel economy of 27 miles per US gallon (8.7 l/100 km), while a Ford F-150 with its footprint of 65–75 sq ft (6.0–7.0 m2) must achieve CAFE fuel economy of 22 miles per US gallon (11 l/100 km), i.e., 17 miles per US gallon (14 l/100 km) published. CAFE 2016 target fuel economy of 38.5 MPG (44 sq. ft. footprint) compares to 2012 actual advanced vehicle performance of Prius hybrid: 50 MPG, plug-in Prius hybrid: 95 MPGe and LEAF electric vehicle: 99 MPGe.
CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks", despite the majority of "light trucks" actually being used as passenger cars. The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001 and remained in 50% numbers up to 2011. [4] More than 500,000 vehicles in the 1999 model year exceeded the 8,500 lb (3,900 kg) GVWR cutoff and were thus omitted from CAFE calculations.[5] More recently, coverage of medium duty trucks has been added to the CAFE regulations starting in 2012, and heavy duty commercial trucks starting in 2014.
Bolding mine
-
So, do Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Lotus, Audi, BMW, Jaguar and Bugatti all pay the CAFE penalty?
Does "manufactured for sale in the US" mean:
-manufactured in the US
-manufactured anywhere, but sold in the US
?
Strikes me as the peak of Mount Stoopid if we are penalizing domestic manufacturers and not holding auto importers accountable to the same standard.
-
Strikes me as the peak of Mount Stoopid if we are penalizing domestic manufacturers and not holding auto importers accountable to the same standard.
Welcome to .gov thinking....
If it's stoopid or really, really, really stoopid, then the .gov is behind it.
-
So, do Porsche, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Lotus, Audi, BMW, Jaguar and Bugatti all pay the CAFE penalty?
Yes, millions. Or at least the customers pay it even if it is channeled through the company. A company such as Ferrari is pretty hard hit because they don't sell any economy cars that increase their average.
-
Porsche has been working with hybrid tech. Though, IIRC, they use the electric motors to increase performance as much as to reduce fuel consumption.
Chris
-
Let's see ...
No cars
No garbage trucks
No long haul trucking
Won't that be fun ? ;/
-
Yes, millions. Or at least the customers pay it even if it is channeled through the company. A company such as Ferrari is pretty hard hit because they don't sell any economy cars that increase their average.
Ferrari is owned by Fiat.
-
54MPG?
My Honda motorcycle will just barley get 54mpg on the highway if you are easy on the throttle.
It will be interesting to see how expensive this makes buying cars in the future.
-
I don't know that it will make them all that much more expensive in the long run. My 93 Paseo (big enough for 2 adults and 2 kids) got an honest 40mpg on the highway with a 5spd transmission and my lead foot (30mpg in town without AC). The current generation Mustang V6 gets 20mpg in town and nearly 30mpg on the highway with an automatic transmission, while being more powerful than the previous generation V8. I think we can get there, but it'll take work and a change in tech (diesel, small turbocharged engines, smarter engines, etc).
Chris
-
so if a bicycle gets 10000 miles per gallon, if Ford buys Trek and sells bikes, then they can offset a 250 superduty rather nicely
-
I don't know that it will make them all that much more expensive in the long run. My 93 Paseo (big enough for 2 adults and 2 kids) got an honest 40mpg on the highway with a 5spd transmission and my lead foot (30mpg in town without AC). The current generation Mustang V6 gets 20mpg in town and nearly 30mpg on the highway with an automatic transmission, while being more powerful than the previous generation V8. I think we can get there, but it'll take work and a change in tech (diesel, small turbocharged engines, smarter engines, etc).
Chris
Maybe. I'm just wondering how much more one can squeeze out of a gallon of gasoline. These engines are already pretty darn good. I wonder how close engines are to theoretical carnot cycle, and how much of that difference is in losses that can't really be mitigated?
-
Would a price tag of $100,000 be considered "economy" for Ferrari? I wonder what they could build for that price that would meet CAFE standards.
-
Ferrari is owned by Fiat.
Yes but still a different company, so the average computed on Ferrari's products, not their parent company. (I am not a lawyer and this is only based on my layman's understanding) They could put Fiat badges on them I suppose, but then who's going to pay 300K for a Fiat?
-
Yes but still a different company, so the average computed on Ferrari's products, not their parent company. (I am not a lawyer and this is only based on my layman's understanding) They could put Fiat badges on them I suppose, but then who's going to pay 300K for a Fiat?
Maybe 300K in fiat currency .... :lol:
-
I don't understand.
If his engine, albeit smaller, has better intake and exhaust floe, and it is less efficient?
Think of Harley engines as tractor engines versus Formula-1 engines in sport bikes- the Formula-1 engines make a lot more horsepower but don't any more torque than a tractor engine, and their torque peaks are up high in the RPM range.
Now imagine those same engines geared for best driveability- your tractor engine will be loping along not more than 2-3x its idle speed at cruising speed, while the formula-1 engine will be revving much higher. Same displacement, the engine that is breathing more at the same RPM is going to use more gas.
That's the best analogy I can give. The Harley engine doesn't rev very high, but pulls at low speeds like a mofo, while the high performance engines are a lot more powerful once the throttle is cracked open.
-
Yes but still a different company, so the average computed on Ferrari's products, not their parent company. (I am not a lawyer and this is only based on my layman's understanding) They could put Fiat badges on them I suppose, but then who's going to pay 300K for a Fiat?
that can't be the case. GM is/was the parent company of both hummer, Saturn, Pontiac, Cadillac, and yet the higher MPG vehicles of Saturn offset the Cadillacs.
How do you/them define different companies? Ferrari is just as much Fiat as scion and Lexus are Toyota. U Ferrari/fiat different than Cadillac/GM? Chevrolet/GM? Lamborghini/VW?
Badge doesn't matter.
-
Maybe. I'm just wondering how much more one can squeeze out of a gallon of gasoline. These engines are already pretty darn good. I wonder how close engines are to theoretical carnot cycle, and how much of that difference is in losses that can't really be mitigated?
I don't expect us to get 54mpg out of a truck or full size sedan, but there's no reason we can't get to the mid 50s in a compact car (current Civic or Corolla size cars) and mid 30s in the full size sedan. Toss in a few subcompacts (Geo Metro, etc) hitting 60mpg and we'll have our 54mpg average for CAFE. We're nearly there today with naturally aspirated gas engines. Maybe make a wholesale switch to diesel for the midsize and larger trucks to bring them up to the 20s (know a guy with a newer dually 4x4 F350 diesel that gets into the 20s on the highway). An SUV the size of my 4Runner with a turbodiesel I4 will hit the mid 20s with roughly the same power (lower HP, but more torque). The Crosslander 4x4 (ARO in Europe) that never made it to the US back in 2003 was supposed to have those specs. IIRC, it didn't make it because of emissions.
Chris
-
I passed a EV Fisker Karma last week
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F92%2F2012_Fisker_Karma_EC_EVer.jpg%2F800px-2012_Fisker_Karma_EC_EVer.jpg&hash=40e4a7f9d6d577371b0870704837af2e7f76054e)
how many CAFE indulgences is that worth?
-
how many CAFE indulgences is that worth?
I dunno. I heard that if you order a Chevy Volt, Obama himself will deliver it to your door while wearing a Pope hat.
-
Increase CAFE and increase road deaths.
Let people / the market decide what the ywant to prioritize.
-
that can't be the case. GM is/was the parent company of both hummer, Saturn, Pontiac, Cadillac, and yet the higher MPG vehicles of Saturn offset the Cadillacs.
How do you/them define different companies? Ferrari is just as much Fiat as scion and Lexus are Toyota. U Ferrari/fiat different than Cadillac/GM? Chevrolet/GM? Lamborghini/VW?
Badge doesn't matter.
I think you're right. I looked up the way they calculate it and it's confusing since they have exceptions and the rules change year to year. Plus I think I was confusing the gas guzzler tax on individual cars with the penalties paid by the makers. Anyway, millions are paid by some foreign brands, including Fiat, each year.
-
55mpg hmmmm....
Sooo.... expect SUVs to continue to sell strongly as the only cheap large passenger vehicle available. I expect this will be the death blow to the station wagon. If I am right about minivan classification, I expect they come out with a hybrid or diesel version. New minivans are already expensive, so I expect that market will also shrink.
Station wagons have been gone for sometime, minivan and SUV replaced them. I would imagine a station wagon built with today's engine technology would dow quite well MPG wise.
-
Station wagons have been gone for sometime, minivan and SUV replaced them. I would imagine a station wagon built with today's engine technology would dow quite well MPG wise.
The Chevy HHR sure looks like a station wagon :P
-
I dunno. I heard that if you order a Chevy Volt, Obama himself will deliver it to your door while wearing a Pope hat.
I think Chevy has stopped production on the Volt.
-
I think Chevy has stopped production on the Volt.
They were charging too much for it.
-
I think Chevy has stopped production on the Volt.
Not stopped, just shut down for four weeks. Second shut down this year.
http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/cars/chevrolet-volt-plant-to-close-four-weeks-1.3934483 (http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/cars/chevrolet-volt-plant-to-close-four-weeks-1.3934483)
Article on the new CAFE regulations.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numbers-game-making-sense-of-the-new-fuel-economy-regulations-feature (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numbers-game-making-sense-of-the-new-fuel-economy-regulations-feature)
The money quote,
In the end, there’s little question that the technology exists—or can be developed—to meet these standards. But even more certain is that such technology will make 2025 vehicles far more costly than today’s cars and trucks. Whether the increment will be tabulated using four- or five-digit numbers remains to be seen.
-
Re: New CAFE Mileage Numbers Announced
« Reply #49 on: Today at 06:06:59 AM »
Quote
Increase CAFE and increase road deaths.
Let people / the market decide what the ywant to prioritize.
Bbbbut the might choose wrongly! We as-global village couldn't permit tha, no, can we?
-
I think Chevy has stopped production on the Volt.
Chevy could not keep current.
-
Station wagons have been gone for sometime, minivan and SUV replaced them. I would imagine a station wagon built with today's engine technology would dow quite well MPG wise.
Except for Subaru. And some cars might be considered station wagons (at least by your insurance company), even if they are smaller and sportier than Mom's old station wagon of yore. The Mazda 3 hatchback, for example.
-
Station wagons have been gone for sometime, minivan and SUV replaced them. I would imagine a station wagon built with today's engine technology would dow quite well MPG wise.
What about all those Subaru Outbacks? Between my parents and sister alone they own 3.
-
What about all those Subaru Outbacks? Between my parents and sister alone they own 3.
Subaru markets them as a sport utility wagon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_wagon
-
And the difference is??
-
And the difference is??
Size, passenger seating, tailgate vs hatchback.
-
So they're compact station wagons. Nothing new.
-
The station wagons I remember as a kid mostly had lifting hatches and seated 5-6 in 2 rows. Other than maybe having a bit more truck space that current wagons there's not that much of a difference.
-
Thanks Scout.
I think the wiggle room is this part:
CAFE has separate standards for "passenger cars" and "light trucks", despite the majority of "light trucks" actually being used as passenger cars. The market share of "light trucks" grew steadily from 9.7% in 1979 to 47% in 2001 and remained in 50% numbers up to 2011. [4] More than 500,000 vehicles in the 1999 model year exceeded the 8,500 lb (3,900 kg) GVWR cutoff and were thus omitted from CAFE calculations.[5]
This Wiki entry suggests there are 2 numbers. The 55mpg number everyone talks about. And the other number that affects SUVs, Sport Utility Wagons, and trucks that everyone who can afford to, decides to drive instead because of these stupid rules.
-
CAFE is not about cars, it is not about auto technology, it is about mass transit and fulfilling, by imperial edict, the collectivist dreams hatched on European drawing boards back in the '30s.
-
CAFE is not about cars, it is not about auto technology, it is about mass transit and fulfilling, by imperial edict, the collectivist dreams hatched on European drawing boards back in the '30s.
CAFE provides the Left with another tool to use in their quest to 'desuburbanize' America. If POVs are too expensive and unobtainable for the middle class, then living in single family homes in the suburbs becomes impossible. Americans will eventually be forced into dense multifamily urban housing via an assault on their pocketbooks.
A prime example of this is the expansion of the light rail system in the Portland area. In reading the explanations and edicts that have come down from Metro (Portland area elected regional government), they make it very clear that urbanization is their goal.
I suspect this is the case in much of the country.