New CAFE Standard: 35mpg by 2016
#61
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (3)
x2 Dustin makes a great point. I was a consumer who felt luxury was only big engines but I am now much more open minded to different engines in these vehicles, particularly smaller ones.
Again though, the luxury market is the vast minority of sales. I need to understand why the general "i hate cars" public needs these high hp VOLUME selling cars/SUVs. They are the majority of sales and sucking the gas up.
Why, so they can brag "hey I beat a Lexus/BMW etc in my Altima"
Your missing the plot, its still an Altima.
My G/F 4 cylinder 07 Altima maybe rough but it handles traffic fine and gets around fine and I've never felt it was underpowered with 180hp. I also get over 30MPG on the highway and 500 miles to the damn tank.
Why the hell does anyone need more power in an Altima/Camry/Accord etc is beyond me. So you can handle worse faster?
Again though, the luxury market is the vast minority of sales. I need to understand why the general "i hate cars" public needs these high hp VOLUME selling cars/SUVs. They are the majority of sales and sucking the gas up.
Why, so they can brag "hey I beat a Lexus/BMW etc in my Altima"
Your missing the plot, its still an Altima.
My G/F 4 cylinder 07 Altima maybe rough but it handles traffic fine and gets around fine and I've never felt it was underpowered with 180hp. I also get over 30MPG on the highway and 500 miles to the damn tank.
Why the hell does anyone need more power in an Altima/Camry/Accord etc is beyond me. So you can handle worse faster?
And more props to you, its your money, and if you can afford it - more power to you! This is still America after all.
#62
Lexus Test Driver
Under the new CAFE rules, average US fuel efficiency in the year 2016 will still be worse than it is in Europe TODAY.
If you want to imagine what things will be like here in seven years, you don't have to fantasize about a post-apocalyptic landscape of Tata Nanos. Just look at what Europe is like today.
Only things will be a lot better, because hybrid technology will have reached economies of scale.
If you want to imagine what things will be like here in seven years, you don't have to fantasize about a post-apocalyptic landscape of Tata Nanos. Just look at what Europe is like today.
Only things will be a lot better, because hybrid technology will have reached economies of scale.
"you're allowed to own boats?"
#63
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (3)
Under the new CAFE rules, average US fuel efficiency in the year 2016 will still be worse than it is in Europe TODAY.
If you want to imagine what things will be like here in seven years, you don't have to fantasize about a post-apocalyptic landscape of Tata Nanos. Just look at what Europe is like today.
If you want to imagine what things will be like here in seven years, you don't have to fantasize about a post-apocalyptic landscape of Tata Nanos. Just look at what Europe is like today.
#64
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
oh hey:
Light Cars are Dangerous Cars
Light Cars are Dangerous Cars
The Clean Air Act's requirements have sent emissions in the right direction. According to the EPA, since 1980 annual emissions of carbon monoxide are down 52%, emissions of ozone are down 41%, and emissions of nitrogen dioxide are down 37%. (Emissions of lead are down 97% thanks to taking the lead out of gasoline in the early 1980s).
The Obama plan could slow this progress. An economic phenomenon called "price elasticity of demand" is well established when it comes to automobile purchases. In other words, if you raise the price of new cars, people will buy fewer of them or, at a minimum, put off the purchase for a year or so while they drive the old clunker for a few thousand more miles. And fewer new cars means more pollution, which can cause significant health problems. Yet environmentalists and the press have ignored this issue, so as not to inject a note of complexity or doubt into the chorus of glee that greeted the president's attack on greenhouse-gas emissions. Ive been saying this the entire time
Last fall, however, both the press and the green community paid significant attention to a study conducted by researchers from California State University at Fullerton and Sonoma Technology Inc. The study showed that, from 2005-07, California's South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins experienced more than 100 days in which ozone levels exceeded the National Ambient Quality Standard. In each of those areas, more than 60% of the population was exposed to unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter.
The study concluded that if these areas had simply met the federal standard, these regions could have experienced 1,950 fewer new cases of adult-onset chronic bronchitis; 3,680 fewer premature deaths among those 30 and older; 141,370 fewer asthma attacks; almost 500,000 fewer lost days of work; and, importantly, avoided approximately $28 billion in total costs to the Southern California economy.
Clearly the health risks from fine particulates especially and also from smog are substantial. It is also true that many scientists and economists predict significant long-term costs associated with climate change. But the costs associated with excessive emissions of criteria air pollutants are immediate and observable.
The Obama plan could slow this progress. An economic phenomenon called "price elasticity of demand" is well established when it comes to automobile purchases. In other words, if you raise the price of new cars, people will buy fewer of them or, at a minimum, put off the purchase for a year or so while they drive the old clunker for a few thousand more miles. And fewer new cars means more pollution, which can cause significant health problems. Yet environmentalists and the press have ignored this issue, so as not to inject a note of complexity or doubt into the chorus of glee that greeted the president's attack on greenhouse-gas emissions. Ive been saying this the entire time
Last fall, however, both the press and the green community paid significant attention to a study conducted by researchers from California State University at Fullerton and Sonoma Technology Inc. The study showed that, from 2005-07, California's South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins experienced more than 100 days in which ozone levels exceeded the National Ambient Quality Standard. In each of those areas, more than 60% of the population was exposed to unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter.
The study concluded that if these areas had simply met the federal standard, these regions could have experienced 1,950 fewer new cases of adult-onset chronic bronchitis; 3,680 fewer premature deaths among those 30 and older; 141,370 fewer asthma attacks; almost 500,000 fewer lost days of work; and, importantly, avoided approximately $28 billion in total costs to the Southern California economy.
Clearly the health risks from fine particulates especially and also from smog are substantial. It is also true that many scientists and economists predict significant long-term costs associated with climate change. But the costs associated with excessive emissions of criteria air pollutants are immediate and observable.
The Obama fuel efficiency plan may also contribute to a significant increase in highway deaths as vehicles are required to quickly meet the new CAFE standard and will likely become lighter in weight as a result. According to a study completed in 2001 by the National Research Council (NRC), the last major increase in CAFE standards, mandated by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, required about a 50% increase in fuel economy (to 27.5 mpg by model year 1985 from an average of 18 mpg in 1978). The NRC study concluded that the subsequent downsizing and down-weighting of vehicles, "while resulting in significant fuel savings, also resulted in a safety penalty." Specifically, the NRC estimated that in 1993 there were between 1,300 and 2,600 motor vehicle crash deaths that would not have occurred if cars were as heavy as they were in 1976.
The president now proposes a fuel economy increase of similar magnitude in an even quicker time frame -- to 39 mpg by model year 2016 from 27.5 mpg now. Given the time it takes for new technologies to be developed, tested and incorporated into new car models, it is likely that down-weighting of cars will be an important means of meeting the new standard. And one result again could be highway deaths that might otherwise not have occurred.
Well, one might argue, this would not be the case if everyone drove smaller cars. The NRC study considered this countervailing fact and included it in its estimates. But nearly half of all car crashes (more than 48% in the years studied) are one-vehicle crashes. Put another way: If your car hits a tree or a post or a bridge abutment, you are most certainly better off in a larger car.
The president now proposes a fuel economy increase of similar magnitude in an even quicker time frame -- to 39 mpg by model year 2016 from 27.5 mpg now. Given the time it takes for new technologies to be developed, tested and incorporated into new car models, it is likely that down-weighting of cars will be an important means of meeting the new standard. And one result again could be highway deaths that might otherwise not have occurred.
Well, one might argue, this would not be the case if everyone drove smaller cars. The NRC study considered this countervailing fact and included it in its estimates. But nearly half of all car crashes (more than 48% in the years studied) are one-vehicle crashes. Put another way: If your car hits a tree or a post or a bridge abutment, you are most certainly better off in a larger car.
#65
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Otherwise, I don't see luxury marques adhering to these CAFE standards unless their whole lineup uses advanced hybrid tech or other alternative. There's just not to many ways to increase the efficiency of traditional combustion engines which we still see in most cars today.
#66
Lexus Fanatic
I found that out when I got my Outback. I gave up a significant amount of power compared to the Lexus I owned previously, but, in return, got far more versatility and far better wet/snow traction.
But I, admittedly, often drove more car than I "needed", especially when I was a teen and young adult. I didn't NEED big, 60's-vintage luxury and muscle-cars....but yes, I liked them. I found out, like many other people, when the gas crunches hit in the 70's, that a small car got me where I was going just as well as the dinosaurs and the tire-smokers......less expensively.
#67
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
I'm with Mike on this one. Yes, the fact is that many of us drive more vehicle than we actually need, but the equal fact is that many of us don't need them, and can get along just as well with lower-powered, less expensive cars.
I found that out when I got my Outback. I gave up a significant amount of power compared to the Lexus I owned previously, but, in return, got far more versatility and far better wet/snow traction.
I found that out when I got my Outback. I gave up a significant amount of power compared to the Lexus I owned previously, but, in return, got far more versatility and far better wet/snow traction.
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mike, its easy to throw "why does any average Joe need more than 180hp?" comment, as long as you are not that average Joe. I'm sure you didn't "need" a 340hp Lexus, but you got one, right?
And more props to you, its your money, and if you can afford it - more power to you! This is still America after all.
And more props to you, its your money, and if you can afford it - more power to you! This is still America after all.
Wouldn't it have been better if they all concentrated more on economy? Thats what they did in the 1980s. The 1990s came and marketing came, the horniness came, Nissan then promoted power of interiors and everything else important and everyone had to follow suit here.
Och, I looked at Mini Coopers, Prius's and Camry Hybrids as well. I wanted more fuel efficiency and I did the math and I saw the lower emissions and it made sense to me. I didn't need the government to tell me "buy a more fuel efficient car". I was getting 20 MPG if I was LUCKY since 2001. When it cost $80 to fill up the GS and I'm getting 320 miles to the tank, well, it kind of hit home. The "h" gave me the flexibility of actually moving up to a new GS, getting more economy, more power. I lose some trunk space. Neither GS is a stock canyon carver. Now I get 26 MPG easy and if I focus more, 28 MPG. Thats what a 40% difference or so?
I am certain from now on all my vehicles will either be hybrids unless its a sports car/sedan. Why not?
Again the other aspect is just drive less. My G/F and I are looking to move where our commutes are shorter and we can walk around more/near transit.
Its a lifestyle change. My "**** the world" 2Pac days are over
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
oh hey:
Light Cars are Dangerous Cars
Light Cars are Dangerous Cars
I wonder if the "loophole" will simply be large gas guzzler taxes or "luxury" taxes on such vehicles. There will obviously always be those who want there 500 hp beasts and they should have the option but that option may just have to come at an even higher cost than today. That will make these cars even more exclusive. And isn't exclusivity what the luxury car buyer wants?
Otherwise, I don't see luxury marques adhering to these CAFE standards unless their whole lineup uses advanced hybrid tech or other alternative. There's just not to many ways to increase the efficiency of traditional combustion engines which we still see in most cars today.
Otherwise, I don't see luxury marques adhering to these CAFE standards unless their whole lineup uses advanced hybrid tech or other alternative. There's just not to many ways to increase the efficiency of traditional combustion engines which we still see in most cars today.
I'm with Mike on this one. Yes, the fact is that many of us drive more vehicle than we actually need, but the equal fact is that many of us don't need them, and can get along just as well with lower-powered, less expensive cars.
I found that out when I got my Outback. I gave up a significant amount of power compared to the Lexus I owned previously, but, in return, got far more versatility and far better wet/snow traction.
But I, admittedly, often drove more car than I "needed", especially when I was a teen and young adult. I didn't NEED big, 60's-vintage luxury and muscle-cars....but yes, I liked them. I found out, like many other people, when the gas crunches hit in the 70's, that a small car got me where I was going just as well as the dinosaurs and the tire-smokers......less expensively.
I found that out when I got my Outback. I gave up a significant amount of power compared to the Lexus I owned previously, but, in return, got far more versatility and far better wet/snow traction.
But I, admittedly, often drove more car than I "needed", especially when I was a teen and young adult. I didn't NEED big, 60's-vintage luxury and muscle-cars....but yes, I liked them. I found out, like many other people, when the gas crunches hit in the 70's, that a small car got me where I was going just as well as the dinosaurs and the tire-smokers......less expensively.
Dude, your IS 350 is luxury, sport with fuel efficiency. You made a good choice.
#70
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like to point out that my car already exceeds the 2016 CAFE standard.
Yaris baby! And I LOVE it!
Average about 38 mpg without trying (including city). Achieves 45 mpg on highway at a steady 55 mph.
Many have made it clear that they wouldn't be caught dead in these types of cars, and that's fine. But let's stop saying "nobody wants them". I chose the Yaris sedan because I wanted it, not because I had to get it. It's fun to drive, reliable as a swiss timepiece, and get's me to work in the same time as a Porsche. Go to any subcompact car forum and you'll see bashing of anything that get's less than 30 mpg because these people actually don't have any interest in big inefficient vehicles even if they have money. Remember that there are many who just prefer small cars. And there are many reasons for this.
Yaris baby! And I LOVE it!
Average about 38 mpg without trying (including city). Achieves 45 mpg on highway at a steady 55 mph.
Many have made it clear that they wouldn't be caught dead in these types of cars, and that's fine. But let's stop saying "nobody wants them". I chose the Yaris sedan because I wanted it, not because I had to get it. It's fun to drive, reliable as a swiss timepiece, and get's me to work in the same time as a Porsche. Go to any subcompact car forum and you'll see bashing of anything that get's less than 30 mpg because these people actually don't have any interest in big inefficient vehicles even if they have money. Remember that there are many who just prefer small cars. And there are many reasons for this.
#71
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (3)
I am no elitist. What I am saying is 200hp Accords/Camrys etc were fine. We now have heavier, bigger, 250hp + ones that are barely more efficient.
Wouldn't it have been better if they all concentrated more on economy? Thats what they did in the 1980s. The 1990s came and marketing came, the horniness came, Nissan then promoted power of interiors and everything else important and everyone had to follow suit here.
Wouldn't it have been better if they all concentrated more on economy? Thats what they did in the 1980s. The 1990s came and marketing came, the horniness came, Nissan then promoted power of interiors and everything else important and everyone had to follow suit here.
Och, I looked at Mini Coopers, Prius's and Camry Hybrids as well. I wanted more fuel efficiency and I did the math and I saw the lower emissions and it made sense to me. I didn't need the government to tell me "buy a more fuel efficient car". I was getting 20 MPG if I was LUCKY since 2001. When it cost $80 to fill up the GS and I'm getting 320 miles to the tank, well, it kind of hit home. The "h" gave me the flexibility of actually moving up to a new GS, getting more economy, more power. I lose some trunk space. Neither GS is a stock canyon carver. Now I get 26 MPG easy and if I focus more, 28 MPG. Thats what a 40% difference or so?
I am certain from now on all my vehicles will either be hybrids unless its a sports car/sedan. Why not?
Again the other aspect is just drive less. My G/F and I are looking to move where our commutes are shorter and we can walk around more/near transit.
Its a lifestyle change. My "**** the world" 2Pac days are over
I am certain from now on all my vehicles will either be hybrids unless its a sports car/sedan. Why not?
Again the other aspect is just drive less. My G/F and I are looking to move where our commutes are shorter and we can walk around more/near transit.
Its a lifestyle change. My "**** the world" 2Pac days are over
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well I think all three are concentrating on economy and power. You have the four cylinder models that are made for economy and the 6 cyls for power. Don't see any problem with that logic.
Well its one thing when people make sensible decisions themselves, its another thing when the government is trying to dictate what people must do. I admire you making sensible decisions when it comes to fuel economy, and believe me, I'm pretty sensible myself, and if I drove a lot I would too get something economical. But since both me and my wife work mostly from our home office, we drive very little, with both our cars resting in the driveway, so fuel economy for me just isnt a concern.
Well its one thing when people make sensible decisions themselves, its another thing when the government is trying to dictate what people must do. I admire you making sensible decisions when it comes to fuel economy, and believe me, I'm pretty sensible myself, and if I drove a lot I would too get something economical. But since both me and my wife work mostly from our home office, we drive very little, with both our cars resting in the driveway, so fuel economy for me just isnt a concern.
That is why I applaud the Fusion Hybrid. 41 MPG in the city and Tax credits.
The time is going to come where the HP wars are truly over and economy is the name of the game. Wahts wrong with that? For those that want to pay more for a V-8 or exotics etc, well they can make that choice.
Does it seem again the rich are taxed for enjoying pleasures? Yup. We've seen the luxury tax and the gas guzzler tax already. Sadly, it comes with the territory (or your accountant finds a way to lease it and write it off)
#74
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
people keep thinking hybrids are all good for the environment. The bodies of hybrids contain magnesium. First, who knows how much carbon footprint and energy it took to mine the magnesium needed for a hybrid body. There's other fun tidbits like if a hybrid catches on fire the fire burns really hot you cannot put it out with a regular fire extinguisher because of the magnesium. Toyota even has emergency manuals for rescue crews how to deal with a hybrid because you can electrocute rescue crews if they use the jaws of life on a crashed hybrid and nick the power cable. There's only specific points where you can cut the car. Battery packs are extremely dangerous if they have to cut or hose down a car.
Yea good for the environment What a joke.
https://techinfo.toyota.com/techInfo...erg&_nfpb=true
Yea good for the environment What a joke.
https://techinfo.toyota.com/techInfo...erg&_nfpb=true
#75
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
also, with huge fuel and other taxes in europe, cars are absurdly expensive, typically 50% more than in the u.s.
If you want to imagine what things will be like here in seven years, you don't have to fantasize about a post-apocalyptic landscape of Tata Nanos. Just look at what Europe is like today.
Only things will be a lot better, because hybrid technology will have reached economies of scale.