New CAFE Standard: 35mpg by 2016
05-19-09, 03:53 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
What are these car companies gonna do say no to their biggest market on the planet? They have no other choice.
they grow nowhere near as fast as the US car market does. US market has a hell of a lot more freedoms in design and economic viability. Europe wouldn't have some of the cars and tech if it wasn't for the US market existing.
Luxury market wont collapse the cars will just get crappier. Keep your old car the value of your pre 2016 vehicle will hold. Buy a 2014-2015 car and keep it forever. Every car is going to increase in price to try to be compliant. More govt control BS.
they grow nowhere near as fast as the US car market does. US market has a hell of a lot more freedoms in design and economic viability. Europe wouldn't have some of the cars and tech if it wasn't for the US market existing.
Luxury market wont collapse the cars will just get crappier. Keep your old car the value of your pre 2016 vehicle will hold. Buy a 2014-2015 car and keep it forever. Every car is going to increase in price to try to be compliant. More govt control BS.
Exactly. They are not trying to make carmakers stop making super cars and cars that excite us. They are saying "hey can we see some serious MPG improvements"? As much as people hate on the Prius, Toyota took a big gamble and put people first in producing a 50 MPG car, instead of a 20 MPG Supra. Toyota also makes the IS-F. You can have both.
One problem though is Europe is compact, America is not. We drive big cars b/c we drive with 18 wheelers. We have long commutes (suburbs). We grew up on cheap gas and V-8s. Its going to require a big change in OUR thinking as consumers.
I'm happy with my "h" and find it the best of both worlds. Toyota might have its head up its *** about sports cars but not about fuel economy (Honda to a lesser extent). While other companies SCRAMBLE to meet these standards, toyota saw this happening back in the early 1990s.
Thus we can have our Prius and LF-A in the same garage.
(hopefully)
05-19-09, 04:56 PM
#33
Lexus Champion
05-19-09, 05:24 PM
#35
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then when gas spikes to $4/gallon we have to listen to them whine as to how it's cutting into their beer and fast food budget.No reason to. Off the 500,000+ Toyota hybrids on the road, there have only been something like 300 reports of premature replacement.
05-20-09, 02:26 PM
#36
Pole Position
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good discussion,
Its about time the US caught up with the rest of the world regarding fuel standards.
The fears are legitimate, but my question is why can't we have powerful cars and great gas mileage? We have the ability to innovate and adapt.
I dont understand why people resist having the best of both worlds? You can have Hybrids, body panels to collect solar power, plug in electric cars and gasoline motors. All these things should be possible while driving a car the size of a 7 series and get 30 mpg.
Having the government mandate higher MPG speaks more about the oil and car companies than it does the supply and demand of the auto market.
When a third pary has to analyze/influence a market (due to the demise of GM/Chrysler/Ford) then the efficiency of that market must be questioned.
Its about time the US caught up with the rest of the world regarding fuel standards.
The fears are legitimate, but my question is why can't we have powerful cars and great gas mileage? We have the ability to innovate and adapt.
I dont understand why people resist having the best of both worlds? You can have Hybrids, body panels to collect solar power, plug in electric cars and gasoline motors. All these things should be possible while driving a car the size of a 7 series and get 30 mpg.
Having the government mandate higher MPG speaks more about the oil and car companies than it does the supply and demand of the auto market.
When a third pary has to analyze/influence a market (due to the demise of GM/Chrysler/Ford) then the efficiency of that market must be questioned.
05-20-09, 06:40 PM
#38
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The technology to make cars achieve this type of gas mileage is literally already here - it's just not available in the US. Part of the problem is that the American consumer is somewhat narrow-minded in that regard. The most obvious part of the market that is in conflict right now is the luxury sector. Why can't the American buyer accept a large luxury sedan (LS, A8 etc.) with a torquey, economical, refined and yet agile diesel or smaller gasoline engine? Why do we feel the need to have a powerful V8 under the hood whose power we will never fully exploit. Status and bragging rights can be achieved by simply owning such a car, but I seriously doubt that the average Joe on the street cares what is under the hood. Somebody cruising through the neighborhood in an S class or A8 is automatically considered wealthy and the envy of the crowd - regardless of what is under the hood. I've ridden in large diesel luxury sedans like the V6 diesel S class they have here and it is a fine car. Refined, smooth, quiet and of course all the other characteristics that make an S class an S class can be found in it. The only difference to the S550? It's slower. So what? Is speed and acceleration that important? How often do you brutally accelerate from a standstill to 60 mph each week? I cannot even recall the last time I actually did a kickdown in my current car! I drive my car in a relaxed and elegant manor - as do the vast majority of luxury car owners.
Also, part of the poor economy my fellow Americans achieve back home is part of the "I don't know how to drive properly" process. When I moved to Germany I could drive with my American driver's license for one year. After that expired, I had to take a German driver's test. Let me tell you that I was seriously impressed by the care that goes into teaching newbies how to drive properly. A veteran driver like me even learned a few things which I would never have been taught back in Maryland.
The most important thing taught to students here was how to drive economically. Shift up early and watch the road ahead and adjust the driving style appropriately. This means that instead of staying on the gas when the light ahead is red, remove your foot from the pedal and let the car roll gradually slowing down using brake power. I was never ever taught something as simple (yet so incredibly useful) when I was doing my license back in the late '70s. We were also taught how to make way on the highways (autobahns) for merging traffic. It always amazes me how disciplined people drive here. In the US when merging into a highway, I had to rely on horsepower and torque to make it but here this isn't the case. I've driven in Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic and in all these nations people automatically give way to merging cars on the highways by pulling over into the fast lane, overtaking the slower merging cars and then pulling in a safe distance in front of them. I cannot recall seeing such discipline in the US at all.
Some of the comments here are complaining about "underpowered cars". Take it from me, there is nothing underpowered about some of the smaller engines found in your typical European premium car of today. My ex-Mercedes C200 CDI was the lowest engine available in the Euro C class and I was impressed with the general agility of this car (and the great gas mileage). My current Mercedes E230 (yes, E230!) is a refined 2.5 V6 that is both agile, refined and also delivers decent fuel economy. I always ask myself the question, "What more do I need?" These engines are completely adequate. They're refined, modern, efficient and also deliver agility meaning they are not slow. Before I married her, my then girlfriend had the Toyota Aygo 1.0 VVT. It wasn't slow. Granted, on the autobahn it struggled but as a city car I found it zippy and quick!
Personally, I would love to see these cars available in the US. How many people are "forced" to buy an E350 because there is no E230 or E280 available in the US for example? The same questions can be applied to almost any luxury car in the US at the moment. Give people a choice and they can select the car that suits their needs if they are realistic. And that's another problem - most people in the US aren't that realistic about their car choices based on the fact that gas is relatively cheap, as is insurance and we don't have the extreme car taxation problems that are "plaguing" Europe. In effect, however, the fact that Europe has expensive fuel, pricey insurance and a gazillion car taxes of all kinds has shaped their car buying mentality to the point where people are realistic about what they need. This was also something that was taught to me while attending my German driver's license course. If I am going to live in the city and use my car on a daily basis, then I probably would not need say a Lexus IS350 (if available in Europe) but rather an IS220d. Naturally this also depends on if you can afford it or not but the point of this is that people here do keep realism in mind when shopping for cars.
I apologize if my post is a bit jumbled up but I just returned from work and I am dead tired and can't think that clearly! Later, folks!
Also, part of the poor economy my fellow Americans achieve back home is part of the "I don't know how to drive properly" process. When I moved to Germany I could drive with my American driver's license for one year. After that expired, I had to take a German driver's test. Let me tell you that I was seriously impressed by the care that goes into teaching newbies how to drive properly. A veteran driver like me even learned a few things which I would never have been taught back in Maryland.
The most important thing taught to students here was how to drive economically. Shift up early and watch the road ahead and adjust the driving style appropriately. This means that instead of staying on the gas when the light ahead is red, remove your foot from the pedal and let the car roll gradually slowing down using brake power. I was never ever taught something as simple (yet so incredibly useful) when I was doing my license back in the late '70s. We were also taught how to make way on the highways (autobahns) for merging traffic. It always amazes me how disciplined people drive here. In the US when merging into a highway, I had to rely on horsepower and torque to make it but here this isn't the case. I've driven in Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic and in all these nations people automatically give way to merging cars on the highways by pulling over into the fast lane, overtaking the slower merging cars and then pulling in a safe distance in front of them. I cannot recall seeing such discipline in the US at all.
Some of the comments here are complaining about "underpowered cars". Take it from me, there is nothing underpowered about some of the smaller engines found in your typical European premium car of today. My ex-Mercedes C200 CDI was the lowest engine available in the Euro C class and I was impressed with the general agility of this car (and the great gas mileage). My current Mercedes E230 (yes, E230!) is a refined 2.5 V6 that is both agile, refined and also delivers decent fuel economy. I always ask myself the question, "What more do I need?" These engines are completely adequate. They're refined, modern, efficient and also deliver agility meaning they are not slow. Before I married her, my then girlfriend had the Toyota Aygo 1.0 VVT. It wasn't slow. Granted, on the autobahn it struggled but as a city car I found it zippy and quick!
Personally, I would love to see these cars available in the US. How many people are "forced" to buy an E350 because there is no E230 or E280 available in the US for example? The same questions can be applied to almost any luxury car in the US at the moment. Give people a choice and they can select the car that suits their needs if they are realistic. And that's another problem - most people in the US aren't that realistic about their car choices based on the fact that gas is relatively cheap, as is insurance and we don't have the extreme car taxation problems that are "plaguing" Europe. In effect, however, the fact that Europe has expensive fuel, pricey insurance and a gazillion car taxes of all kinds has shaped their car buying mentality to the point where people are realistic about what they need. This was also something that was taught to me while attending my German driver's license course. If I am going to live in the city and use my car on a daily basis, then I probably would not need say a Lexus IS350 (if available in Europe) but rather an IS220d. Naturally this also depends on if you can afford it or not but the point of this is that people here do keep realism in mind when shopping for cars.
I apologize if my post is a bit jumbled up but I just returned from work and I am dead tired and can't think that clearly! Later, folks!
05-20-09, 07:58 PM
#40
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read through this thread and one thing I noticed is that people seem to assume that this CAFE standard means that all vehicles need to achieve at least 35mpg. That we won't see SUV's, powerful luxury and sports cars ect...
This is NOT the case.
CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE_standard#Calculation
Automakers will still offer relative gas guzzlers, but they will need to balance it out with more fuel efficient vehicles.
Also, let's not assume we'll be forced into small, under-powered vehicles.
Even today, that assumption is proven false.
This is NOT the case.
CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFE_standard#Calculation
Automakers will still offer relative gas guzzlers, but they will need to balance it out with more fuel efficient vehicles.
Also, let's not assume we'll be forced into small, under-powered vehicles.
Even today, that assumption is proven false.
05-21-09, 12:20 PM
#41
this is the rundown basically.
Cars need to go from 27.5 -> 42 (OVER 50% improvement)
Trucks need to go frmo 24 -> 26.2 (UNDER 10% improvement)
No one see a problem with the above? 42 mpg is one of the numbers the govt is thinking about, not just 35. 35 mpg would be over 20% improvement. Basically they are asking us to do in 5 years what took the automotive industry decades. We've already had the hybrid concept and things like dual overhead cams back in the 1960s, its nothing new. There was no point to build a hybrid in the 1960s. There hasn't been any new major automotive tech for decades. But yet we're suppose to do something in 5 years. Don't kid yourself into thinking this wont have any negative effects on the automotive market trying to artificially force this change.
average vehicle mpg has been stagnant for many years, the weight keeps going up, govt keeps requiring more safety and emissions equipment which ups the weight. Cars will have to go back to boring undesireable and expensive bare bones vehicles to get this mileage. How is this suppose to encourage you to buy a car? This is a gigantic red flag to keep your old car.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/...o-benefit.html
some of the exact things I've been saying.
Cars need to go from 27.5 -> 42 (OVER 50% improvement)
Trucks need to go frmo 24 -> 26.2 (UNDER 10% improvement)
No one see a problem with the above? 42 mpg is one of the numbers the govt is thinking about, not just 35. 35 mpg would be over 20% improvement. Basically they are asking us to do in 5 years what took the automotive industry decades. We've already had the hybrid concept and things like dual overhead cams back in the 1960s, its nothing new. There was no point to build a hybrid in the 1960s. There hasn't been any new major automotive tech for decades. But yet we're suppose to do something in 5 years. Don't kid yourself into thinking this wont have any negative effects on the automotive market trying to artificially force this change.
average vehicle mpg has been stagnant for many years, the weight keeps going up, govt keeps requiring more safety and emissions equipment which ups the weight. Cars will have to go back to boring undesireable and expensive bare bones vehicles to get this mileage. How is this suppose to encourage you to buy a car? This is a gigantic red flag to keep your old car.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/...o-benefit.html
Opposing view: All cost, no benefit
Higher fuel standards would hurt car industry as well as consumers.
By Jerry Taylor
The Obama administration's plan to require new passenger vehicles sold in 2016 to get an average of 39 miles per gallon or better (30 mpg or more for SUVs, pickups and minivans) is likely to be all cost and no benefit.
If the proposed fuel efficiency standards were in place today, Edmunds.com reports that only four cars — the 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg), the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg), the 2010 Honda Insight (41 mpg) and the 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid (39 mpg) — would meet the standard. Angry environmentalists might thus find themselves key-scratching "gas guzzlers" such as the 2009 Honda Fit (31 mpg), the 2009 Mini Cooper (32 mpg) and the 2009 Smart ForTwo (36 mpg).
There is little dispute that, as a consequence, cars would become more expensive and industry profits more scarce. Even the Obama administration concedes that automotive costs would increase by $600 per car on average and that industry revenues would decline by $13 billion to $20 billion a year. Others offer larger figures, but it's difficult to peg costs with any certainty.
What do we gain by this? Very little.
We wouldn't reduce our reliance on foreign oil: If we reduced global demand for crude oil, the most expensive-to-produce oil would go away first, and that oil is not in the Middle East. It's in North America.
Consumers would not be better off: If gasoline prices remained in today's neighborhood (that is, near their historical average, adjusted for inflation), the fuel savings from these new hybrids would not offset the higher sticker prices.
Moreover, many consumers would be forced to buy cars they don't want.
Greenhouse gas emissions might not decline much, if at all. U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for — and consumption of — oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere.
Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities.
Reduced fuel consumption is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end. These means wouldn't achieve the advertised ends.
Higher fuel standards would hurt car industry as well as consumers.
By Jerry Taylor
The Obama administration's plan to require new passenger vehicles sold in 2016 to get an average of 39 miles per gallon or better (30 mpg or more for SUVs, pickups and minivans) is likely to be all cost and no benefit.
If the proposed fuel efficiency standards were in place today, Edmunds.com reports that only four cars — the 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg), the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg), the 2010 Honda Insight (41 mpg) and the 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid (39 mpg) — would meet the standard. Angry environmentalists might thus find themselves key-scratching "gas guzzlers" such as the 2009 Honda Fit (31 mpg), the 2009 Mini Cooper (32 mpg) and the 2009 Smart ForTwo (36 mpg).
There is little dispute that, as a consequence, cars would become more expensive and industry profits more scarce. Even the Obama administration concedes that automotive costs would increase by $600 per car on average and that industry revenues would decline by $13 billion to $20 billion a year. Others offer larger figures, but it's difficult to peg costs with any certainty.
What do we gain by this? Very little.
We wouldn't reduce our reliance on foreign oil: If we reduced global demand for crude oil, the most expensive-to-produce oil would go away first, and that oil is not in the Middle East. It's in North America.
Consumers would not be better off: If gasoline prices remained in today's neighborhood (that is, near their historical average, adjusted for inflation), the fuel savings from these new hybrids would not offset the higher sticker prices.
Moreover, many consumers would be forced to buy cars they don't want.
Greenhouse gas emissions might not decline much, if at all. U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for — and consumption of — oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere.
Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities.
Reduced fuel consumption is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end. These means wouldn't achieve the advertised ends.
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 05-21-09 at 12:29 PM.
05-21-09, 12:27 PM
#42
The new CAFE standards are 39 mpg for cars, and 30 mpg for light trucks. This has been reported everywhere, but here is a link if you need it:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520664,00.html
05-21-09, 12:35 PM
#43
Obama has been dancing around higher numbers than this 35, 39 or whatever it is. 30 mpg for a truck, lol that's never going to happen without making the thing grotesquely expensive and undesireable.
Central planning FTL and this is going to be one huge set sail for fail. The govt knows NOTHING about building a car, yet they pull some number out and expect it to work out in the real world. In before the unintended consequences
the economics are going to negate any of govts good intentions and high hopes and will hurt both the auto industry and the consumer.
Central planning FTL and this is going to be one huge set sail for fail. The govt knows NOTHING about building a car, yet they pull some number out and expect it to work out in the real world. In before the unintended consequences
the economics are going to negate any of govts good intentions and high hopes and will hurt both the auto industry and the consumer.
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 05-21-09 at 12:39 PM.
05-21-09, 12:46 PM
#44
i don't think its car's fault getting bad mpg. it's really had heavy traffics major cities in the United States and way too many traffic lights every blocks. i don't think it's a great idea. I disagreed this statements.
Last edited by Lexwang07; 05-21-09 at 12:51 PM.
05-21-09, 01:20 PM
#45
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opposing view: All cost, no benefit
Higher fuel standards would hurt car industry as well as consumers.
By Jerry Taylor
The Obama administration's plan to require new passenger vehicles sold in 2016 to get an average of 39 miles per gallon or better (30 mpg or more for SUVs, pickups and minivans) is likely to be all cost and no benefit.
If the proposed fuel efficiency standards were in place today, Edmunds.com reports that only four cars — the 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg), the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg), the 2010 Honda Insight (41 mpg) and the 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid (39 mpg) — would meet the standard. Angry environmentalists might thus find themselves key-scratching "gas guzzlers" such as the 2009 Honda Fit (31 mpg), the 2009 Mini Cooper (32 mpg) and the 2009 Smart ForTwo (36 mpg).
There is little dispute that, as a consequence, cars would become more expensive and industry profits more scarce. Even the Obama administration concedes that automotive costs would increase by $600 per car on average and that industry revenues would decline by $13 billion to $20 billion a year. Others offer larger figures, but it's difficult to peg costs with any certainty.
What do we gain by this? Very little.
We wouldn't reduce our reliance on foreign oil: If we reduced global demand for crude oil, the most expensive-to-produce oil would go away first, and that oil is not in the Middle East. It's in North America.
Consumers would not be better off: If gasoline prices remained in today's neighborhood (that is, near their historical average, adjusted for inflation), the fuel savings from these new hybrids would not offset the higher sticker prices.
Moreover, many consumers would be forced to buy cars they don't want.
Greenhouse gas emissions might not decline much, if at all. U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for — and consumption of — oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere.
Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities.
Reduced fuel consumption is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end. These means wouldn't achieve the advertised ends.
Higher fuel standards would hurt car industry as well as consumers.
By Jerry Taylor
The Obama administration's plan to require new passenger vehicles sold in 2016 to get an average of 39 miles per gallon or better (30 mpg or more for SUVs, pickups and minivans) is likely to be all cost and no benefit.
If the proposed fuel efficiency standards were in place today, Edmunds.com reports that only four cars — the 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg), the 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid (42 mpg), the 2010 Honda Insight (41 mpg) and the 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid (39 mpg) — would meet the standard. Angry environmentalists might thus find themselves key-scratching "gas guzzlers" such as the 2009 Honda Fit (31 mpg), the 2009 Mini Cooper (32 mpg) and the 2009 Smart ForTwo (36 mpg).
There is little dispute that, as a consequence, cars would become more expensive and industry profits more scarce. Even the Obama administration concedes that automotive costs would increase by $600 per car on average and that industry revenues would decline by $13 billion to $20 billion a year. Others offer larger figures, but it's difficult to peg costs with any certainty.
What do we gain by this? Very little.
We wouldn't reduce our reliance on foreign oil: If we reduced global demand for crude oil, the most expensive-to-produce oil would go away first, and that oil is not in the Middle East. It's in North America.
Consumers would not be better off: If gasoline prices remained in today's neighborhood (that is, near their historical average, adjusted for inflation), the fuel savings from these new hybrids would not offset the higher sticker prices.
Moreover, many consumers would be forced to buy cars they don't want.
Greenhouse gas emissions might not decline much, if at all. U.S. emissions would likely decline, but reduced U.S. demand for crude would mean reduced global crude prices, which in turn would increase demand for — and consumption of — oil outside the USA. Eventually, most if not all our reductions might be offset by increases elsewhere.
Finally, drivers and passengers would be less safe. Plenty of hard evidence suggests that smaller, lighter cars equal more highway injuries and fatalities.
Reduced fuel consumption is not an end unto itself. It is a means to an end. These means wouldn't achieve the advertised ends.
China is consuming more and more oil each year. And they hate the Japanese so much that Toyota sells far less than 1,000 Priui a year over there. The demand and prices will hold. Oh and would it be so terrible for Americans to set an example by polluting less? I don't think so.