2025 government mandated 54.5 mpg

[supton]

Originally Posted By: 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.



Yeah but... mpg limits are not the same as emissions limits. Cars are uber clean today, so long as you think CO2 is not a pollutant. And even if you do, CO2 is not in the same class as partially unburnt hydrocarbons.

 

[supton]

I didn't read the link, and so I have no idea how they calculate the mpg. But is this a case were if it is E85 ok then it gets 6.67 times better mpg, because only gas burned per mile counts?

 

[mjoekingz28]

Instead of focusing so heavily onmiles per gallon, I think we should try to have more vehicles on the road with antique tags on them. Of course, this would mean building vehicles that are easily serviced that folks dont mind holding onto and enjoy wrenching on them.

Manufacturers could make really user friendly and detailed service manuals and use fewto none specialized tools. So Joe could rebuild his worn out engine at the very least or install a reman one at the most, instead of junking it or letting the dealership have at it. Of course, it is nice having junkyards with abundant supply of parts, so we cant have a new model every other year.

Of course weve been there and done that, but technology is the bees knees and having a computer controlling your car is much safer than taking driver ed every four years when you renew your license. I think it would be cool and fun to take a real test at a proving ground or racetrack from time to time to evaluate your skills and roadworthiness and possibly save on insurance if you ace the tests!

 

[artificialist]

They will just put a huge tax on cars that don't meet the limit. After all, Lamborghini and Ferrari don't meet the CAFE standards, so people just pay about $10,000 extra in taxes on them.

I bought my car when I did, because I feared the crackdown on fuel hogs would have happened earlier.

Here is another problem with taking photos of smoggy cities. It doesn't count the smog generated by other things. If you look at photos of China, what you will see is coal fired power plants with no smog filters attached to them. That is the biggest reason there is so much smog in China.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: 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.


We are burning less oil in this country, we are also saturated in terms of the number of vehicles on the road. It actually went down during the recession.

Everyone who converted their house from oil to natural gas, or who bought a more efficient vehicle in the last decade is to thank for this.

CAFE really doesn't do much, $3-$5 a gallon gas is much more affective. SUV's and large trucks were just about free in 2008 when gas first spiked. The same thing will happen again. 3/4 ton trucks are flying off the lots, in a couple years when oil hits $200 or more a barrel they will be just about free again.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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


So? Who cares what it's spinning if it's designed to do so? Hondas ran 3000RPM at 60 for decades. Heck, my Burgman is running 7000RPM at 70.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: 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.


MPG does not mean less pollution! Offhand, a 50cc scooter gets 100+MPG, but is filthy. My 20MPG Magnum (Tier II ULEV) blew ZERO on a smog test...and there are two levels of cars that actually run CLEANER than it!

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: 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.


It seems ironic that someone with an RX-8 would post this.

I tend to agree with you, I'm just saying.

 

[d00df00d]

Hah.

The two people who engage with the substance of what I said disagree with me.

The one person who agrees with me... doesn't engage with the substance.

Can a guy get a break??

 

[zzyzzx]

It just means that if I ever want to replace my vintage Ford Escort after 2025, I might actually be able to buy something that gets better gas mileage!

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: 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.



At some point, good enough is just that; good enough. The laws of diminishing returns take over; there's a point where the ROI is not going to pay back.

Most any of us would agree than the 1960s and 1970s were horrible in terms of air and water pollution. But things have changed. Cities have decently clean air. The Cuyahoga isn't going to catch fire again. I am NOT advocating removing regulation or going backwards. I'm stating it's reached a point where it's sustainable and quite tolerable, therefore spending billions on ever decreasing improvements in the name of efficiency and/or the environment doesn't pay for itself.

Certainly OTHER industries (such as the shipping industry) need to make changes. And so do other countries.

There are only two logical reasons to reduce consumption:
1) reduce pollution
2) reduce demand on base product

Generally the US and Canada have done a fantastic job and they have reached a point where ever-tighter regulations won't make a significant shift in our perceived lives. Making the auto-industry stretch for such a goal will not reduce pollution here; it's already quite low. Even if we went total electric cars, we'd still have to produce the energy; can't get it for free, despite what lies we may be told to the contrary. Even if we went total electric, other nations and industries outside our influence will still consume and pollute far worse than us.

We have reached a point where the efforts do not return a reasonable result. We're no longer at significant risk from our own consumption or pollution. And therefore continued tightening of restrictions will not greatly alter our condition. Why spend money we cannot get benefit from? There's ever growing proof that we're at a point of ever diminishing returns when it comes to efficiency and pollution in terms of vehicle development dollars, but we have controlling entities that value dogma over data. Industry is not the cause here; regulation is. And regulation has run it's due course. We don't need to backtrack, but we don't need to mandate improvements where there's no sensible return. Stop, assess, realize and choose something different to work on.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Hah.

The two people who engage with the substance of what I said disagree with me.

The one person who agrees with me... doesn't engage with the substance.

Can a guy get a break??


lol, it wasn't that I didn't want to engage, it's just hard to come up with something to add when I think your thoughts are reasonable.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
At some point, good enough is just that; good enough. The laws of diminishing returns take over; there's a point where the ROI is not going to pay back.


If that attitude were prevalent throughout history we wouldn't be where we are today.

When we reach a real dead end in regards to technological development, you'll know. We aren't there yet.

 

[TiredTrucker]

Originally Posted By: 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.



But a large portion of that smog was from other than auto sources like coal plants, manufacturing, etc. Cleaning up things is not the question, it is the fuel economy ruse that it has a wonderful environmental impact.

We have been able to clean up things wonderfully, but the modern pickup doesn't get that much better mpg in relation to it. It is one thing to reduce NOx and CO, it is quite another to claim better mpg will do the same thing. We are using substantially more oil than we did in the 1960's, but the environment is cleaner than then. How can that be? Because there is no relation to fuel economy standards and environmental cleanliness.

My contention still stands... government will dictate stuff that has nothing to do with reality. They play a silly game of claiming one thing, to increase cost to the consumer, all the while as a means to increase revenues, another increased cost to the consumer. They remain the winners.

 

[Kestas]

To add - The EPA did a good job cleaning up the environment through the 70s and 80s. Tailpipe emissions in the late 70s were <5% of what they were in pre-EPA days. It is now time for the EPA to disband and leave a skeleton crew of people to enforece what's been accomplished, instead of dreaming up new ways to maintain the empire they've built. The EPA has evolved into a "solution in search of problems," much to our consternation.

 

[Al]

Gov is so stupid..more mpg means more miles will be driven promoting more congestion and requiring more roads and road repair...idiots.

The smart move would to raise the tax..less fuel, fewer miles driven, roads last longer, less congestion..oh well.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
Instead of focusing so heavily onmiles per gallon, I think we should try to have more vehicles on the road with antique tags on them. Of course, this would mean building vehicles that are easily serviced that folks dont mind holding onto and enjoy wrenching on them.

Manufacturers could make really user friendly and detailed service manuals and use fewto none specialized tools. So Joe could rebuild his worn out engine at the very least or install a reman one at the most, instead of junking it or letting the dealership have at it. Of course, it is nice having junkyards with abundant supply of parts, so we cant have a new model every other year.

Of course weve been there and done that, but technology is the bees knees and having a computer controlling your car is much safer than taking driver ed every four years when you renew your license. I think it would be cool and fun to take a real test at a proving ground or racetrack from time to time to evaluate your skills and roadworthiness and possibly save on insurance if you ace the tests!


The last thing government wants is anything that is comprehensible by a layman.

 

[LX289]

It actually wouldn't be hard if we switched all to TDI diesels. If you can get at least 50 in a VW Jetta TDI it shouldn't be that hard. America needs to figure out small diesel engines and put them in vehicles. There are diesels all over europe getting around 40-50 mpg's. I thought they were more worried about emissions rather than mpg's. Why don't they go with hydrogen. The tailpipe emissions is zero because what comes out is steam.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: Al
Gov is so stupid..more mpg means more miles will be driven promoting more congestion and requiring more roads and road repair...idiots.

The smart move would to raise the tax..less fuel, fewer miles driven, roads last longer, less congestion..oh well.


This is a really stupid idea that fell apart years ago, when they realized that this would end up destroying the lives of people who are self employed, and those with long commutes, and would adversely affect commerce.

There comes a point when all of the really good ideas are gone, and the only ones left are arbitrary, ridiculous, ineffective, and a pound of effort for a grain's return.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: LX289
It actually wouldn't be hard if we switched all to TDI diesels. If you can get at least 50 in a VW Jetta TDI it shouldn't be that hard. America needs to figure out small diesel engines and put them in vehicles. There are diesels all over europe getting around 40-50 mpg's. I thought they were more worried about emissions rather than mpg's. Why don't they go with hydrogen. The tailpipe emissions is zero because what comes out is steam.


You can't pump hydrogen out of the ground, no infrastructure, ..... Hydrogen is a dream that will never come.