New Emissions standards

[Troy]

The new rules, jointly written by the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, set emissions and mileage standards that will translate to a fleet average of 35.5 miles a gallon by 2016, nearly a 40 percent improvement over today's fuel economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/science/earth/02emit.html

I've been looking for a new car for a few months and can't find anything that I like that gets much better than low 30s. I know there are some really good engineers out there but, honestly, I think the only way any company is going to meet this is to kill off any large/luxury models and, for American manufacturers, severely reduce the number of trucks in the fleet. The article also goes on to state that the regulations will increase the cost of each vehicle by $1,000. Is this for the technology or the fees/fines? Smaller manufacturers don't have to comply of course but do have to purchase "credits" from the bigger ones.

Troy

[Brock Samson]

 I saw actually heard that on TV last night,.. more feel good stuff, by that time another Admin. will be in office - who knows maybe they'll set a 40 MPG standard for two years after they're gone..
Now Troy, we're not going to go all political now are we, I hear the Admins. here take a dim view on that sort of thing...
   

[Brock Samson]

 the new trend is to turbo 4 clys... even sixes are making north of 250 HP these days...

here's one that i saw today,.. maybe worth a look see...

http://jalopnik.com/5505977/2011-hyundai-sonata-turbo-274-hp-34-mpg-no-manual

[Charger 1]

What bothers me is that if they do start producing cars that get 35 mpg or better, then you can be sure that gas prices will increase.  So, we will get more miles per gallon, but gas will cost more per gallon - where's the savings???  Kind of cancels each other out.

[Brock Lee]

They are not out to save you one penny. They are out to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, even if it means you have to pay more.

[Tilar]

It's all about making more money for less work. If the government can force the automobile manufacturers that they own to get better gas mileage and use less fuel, Then the oil companies that they are in the back pocket of won't have to work near as hard to make more money and the people that run government can get more kickbacks.  That's not too political is it? 

[resq302]

And so starts the push for electric cars.......

[draftingmonkey]

Here's an interesting read about this news
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8811-Detroit-Autos-Examiner%7Ey2010m4d1-New-government-CAFE-laws-explained--Math-lesson-included

[Charger RT]

We use to make nice cars that did more them 30 mpg. But cheap fuel atopped them from being made.

I have a 92 dodge daytona iroc r/t. Its a 2.2 turbo with a 5 speed fully loaded and weighs 3100lbs. In stock trim it put out 224 hp. I have a 3 inch exhaust on mine and raised the boost up 4 more psi to 15 and beat the crap out of it and get a mixed city highway of 28. (probably 30% city 70% highway) If I do straight highway and stay out of the boost it will do a good bit over 30 and it is 18 years old. We already could do these numbers and make a car that is fun to drive and fit 4 people.
Tim

[Mike DC]

 
The earth won't give us 100 million barrels of (cheap, sweet, light grade) oil per day over the long term. 


So let's all blame the US government for starting to try to deal with it. 

     

[elacruze]

And so starts the push for electric cars.......

Precisely.
This is not about using less gasoline, or saving the environment, or saving you any money. It's about creating an artificial environment where gasoline is not the only economical fuel alternative.

Bastiges.

Write. Vote.

[Mike DC]

        
We can't write & vote ourselves another 20-30 million barrels of oil per day.  We struggle to find enough new stuff to offset the declines in existing fields. 

[Troy]

 
The earth won't give us 100 million barrels of (cheap, sweet, light grade) oil per day over the long term. 


So let's all blame the US government for starting to try to deal with it. 

     

I didn't say that. Just pointing out that it's 6 years away and, as far as I can tell, the only companies that might hit the target are Toyota and Honda (and a bunch of others that won't pass US crash test standards).

The article did point out that the manufacturers are at least happy that they now only have a single standard to deal with instead of multiple ones for different states. Although, California is planning changes for 2017 so that's short-lived.

We use to make nice cars that did more them 30 mpg. But cheap fuel atopped them from being made.

I have a 92 dodge daytona iroc r/t. Its a 2.2 turbo with a 5 speed fully loaded and weighs 3100lbs. In stock trim it put out 224 hp. I have a 3 inch exhaust on mine and raised the boost up 4 more psi to 15 and beat the crap out of it and get a mixed city highway of 28. (probably 30% city 70% highway) If I do straight highway and stay out of the boost it will do a good bit over 30 and it is 18 years old. We already could do these numbers and make a car that is fun to drive and fit 4 people.
Tim

Yeah, I remember those days. My step dad has a 1996 Camry V6 that averages about 32 mpg. I don't think the new ones get that kind of mileage. It's a full size passenger car with plenty of room and plenty of power. I won't claim to know why the cars have seem to have gotten worse over time - although I know that some have gotten much better (ie anything with a direct injection engine).

The vehicles I have been looking at recently aren't SUVs, trucks, or even full size cars. Unless I get the bottom of the line economy model (or some hybrids) I'm really not seeing a lot that beats 30 mpg. I was looking to double the mileage of my Tahoe (18-20) but, if I can't, it's not worth having 2 vehicles (1 for towing and one for daily driver duties).

Troy

[Troy]

Ok, so I guess I should have asked: is this realistic or not? What targets are these manufacturers hitting today?

Troy

[Mike DC]

  
Sorry Troy, I didn't mean to go after your original post.  I was reacting to the whole thread's mood.



The incongruencies between the requirements are indeed a problem.  

As I understand it, the luxury foreign makes like Benz & BMW get exemptions in Cali for their low total numbers being imported compared to the domestic & Asian brands.  In english it means that the rich get an exemption for their fun cars unlike the rest of us.  

That state is infuriating.  They seem to regard it as their duty to raise the CAFE requirement on principle just because everyone else has met it now.  A few times in the past the OEMs have muttered about wishing they could stage a boycott and stop selling cars in Cali until the state eases up.  I wouldn't blame them one bit if they did. 


After going to the OEM's auto show a few months ago, I've really been bowled over by the sheer size of what the're making.  Not just the SUVs/trucks, I mean literally everything they're putting on the road these days.  The cubic feet is growing and the density of components per volume is growing too.  IMHO we're not serious about MPG improvements until the size arms-race stops.

[Troy]

I agree. That was sort of my reasoning behind dumping the Tahoe - it's overkill for driving myself to work. However, it's a great compromise in a tow vehicle which is why I bought it. It's cheaper to pay for the gas than a second car though (payments, maintenance, insurance, registration). The only way this will work is if I buy an old(er) truck and a used car but then I start running into reliability issues - which is what put me in this situation in the first place. Vicious circle. If I had a family and needed a large vehicle so we could all go places together it would be the same deal. I'd end up driving myself 95% of the time. People are willing to do it just for the convenience (I know I will do nearly anything to lessen frustration in my life).

As for the government's role, I think they rarely do anything on principal. In that second link I believe it said the manufacturers paid $500 million in penalties for not meeting the CAFE standards. I wonder what that's paying for? In this day and age with so much technology and parts crossover between brands why do they still let the smaller manufacturers skate? Never mind, I know the answer.

Troy

[Silver R/T]

How would someone afford a new car if they're working part-time making minimum wage?

[Troy]

How would someone afford a new car if they're working part-time making minimum wage?

They would walk or take a bus to school, learn a new skill, and get a better job. Heck, jump online and learn - it's cheaper. Owning a car is not a right (nor a necessity in many places). If they have to have a car they should do what most other people with low incomes do - buy a used one. New cars haven't been affordable to minimum wage earners for as long as I've been alive (and probably not since cars were invented).

Troy

[Silver R/T]

How would someone afford a new car if they're working part-time making minimum wage?

They would walk or take a bus to school, learn a new skill, and get a better job. Heck, jump online and learn - it's cheaper. Owning a car is not a right (nor a necessity in many places). If they have to have a car they should do what most other people with low incomes do - buy a used one. New cars haven't been affordable to minimum wage earners for as long as I've been alive (and probably not since cars were invented).

Troy

Henry Ford made his cars available to low income families. I think all car companies could learn a thing or two from H. Ford
Maybe they could sell more cars that way instead of complaining how their cars don't sell and take OUR money for bailouts.

[Troy]

How would someone afford a new car if they're working part-time making minimum wage?

They would walk or take a bus to school, learn a new skill, and get a better job. Heck, jump online and learn - it's cheaper. Owning a car is not a right (nor a necessity in many places). If they have to have a car they should do what most other people with low incomes do - buy a used one. New cars haven't been affordable to minimum wage earners for as long as I've been alive (and probably not since cars were invented).

Troy

Henry Ford made his cars available to low income families. I think all car companies could learn a thing or two from H. Ford
Maybe they could sell more cars that way instead of complaining how their cars don't sell and take OUR money for bailouts.

Better check your facts - the Model T was aimed at middle class (or "average") families.

A quote from the man himself:
"I will build a car for the great multitude. It will be large enough for the family, but small enough for the individual to run and care for. It will be constructed of the best materials, by the best men to be hired, after the simplest designs that modern engineering can devise. But it will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one—and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God's great open spaces."

The initial price was approximately equivalent to 1 year's pay for the average worker. I believe that would be around $35,000 today. Ford was so intent on making the Model T affordable that he cut his profit margins - but still did ok due to  increased sales. This gave Ford (the company) a considerable increase in market share. Over time, this massive increase in sales led to efficiencies in production which allowed the price to drop on it's own. By the 1920s this would have been about 4 months wages.

Troy

[Mike DC]

  
For 100+ million americans, the automobile/gasoline/insurance amounts to a utility that is not govt-regulated like water or electricity is.  

[Troy]

Insurance is (for the most part). Ohio requires insurance for every vehicle but does nothing to control costs. It's generally used as another revenue enhancement tactic (randomly send out proof of insurance requests and fine/suspend the owners whether the car was drivable or being driven).

The automobile is still a choice - either on it's own or due to other choices the person has made. Even though some people will disagree, so is cable/satellite, telephone, and internet service. On the other had, it's much harder to live without water (and, in part, indoor plumbing!). Electricity is a modern convenience but pretty much a necessity for most people (light!).

But any way, it's not the government's job to make sure we can all afford cars or the gas to put in them. Cleaning up the air is a noble goal and something the government should be concerned with. One thing I have learned is that it's a bad idea to set others up to fail (especially co-workers) so I originally asked this to see if that's the case. Are the manufacturers being saddled with unrealistic expectations in order to generate more revenue?

Wouldn't it also make sense to do something about coal? Electric cars will just increase our reliance on the main energy source that pollutes more than oil.

Troy

[Silver R/T]

It sucks that American car makers are losing to competition. My cousin just bought a brand new Kia Soul. Thing is hideous imo but the chose it cause her payment is considerably low, gets great mpg and offers 10 yr warranty. If Big Three could make same offers to customers I'm sure they could sell many more cars and bring jobs back to U.S.

[Mike DC]

Wouldn't it also make sense to do something about coal? Electric cars will just increase our reliance on the main energy source that pollutes more than oil.

I think we need to start bringing down our oil dependency a lot worse than we need to worry about the air.   

[NHCharger]

In the past the automakers had an ace up their sleeve. SUV's were classified as light trucks and their sales were not factored into the automakers annual MPG's for the CAFE standards. So the auto makers pushed the sales of these SUV's, avoided the CAFE standards on their entire fleet and made a huge profit as an added bonus. With these new standards set by the government the SUV's are no longer excluded. However it may be a mute point since SUV sales have plummeted with the recession and higher gas prices.

As far as gas mileage my boss said he has rented several cars while traveling in Europe that got 50-70 MPG and had plenty of giddy up. They weren't full size or SUV's. He said they'd never get released over here because of the crash standards our government has.   

[Mike DC]

The govt wouldn't be keeping those crash standards so high if the public weren't so bonkers over the issue.  

 
The lack of truck MPG rules was a loophole around the intent of the existing CAFE laws.  This was obvious 20 years ago.  No decent company builds their entire profit margin on an unsustainable thing like that.  

    

[flyinlow]

Oil is a renewable energy if you can wait 200 million years for the next batch.

The universe runs on nuclear energy. Make  electricity and you can reshuffle the existing chemicals into any fuels you want. Alcohol, hydrogen,methane,diesel.

Fusion energy , I think is the long term solution. But until that technology is fully developed we need to use fission.

Conservation will of course be part of the answer, but every BTU of energy on this planet comes from the stars.

I do get feed up with the hysteria and power broking Al Gores in the system.

Look at the way we addapt and improvise our 40 year old cars and we are just hobbyist.

Good old Yankee engineering can solve the problems if we let it.    .

[LaOtto70Charger]

In Europe those cars were probably turbo diesels.  Try and find one in the states relatively cheap and not in a large truck.  There the VW and some Mercedes but still not common.  Bringing up safety standards try and find a vehicle that will take 3 car seats/booster seats in the backseat.  Minivans can do it but even those not necessarily in a row.  That and than you buy the seat on the width to make it happen. 

As for nuclear energy in whose backyard are you going to build the reactor and store the spent rods thousands of years?

I think they can make the new standards only because they the companies well throw every engineer at it.  Check into all the work the diesel industry has done to meet the 2007 and 2010 standards.  The cost increase though is huge.

[Troy]

You still can't run everything on diesel - it's a byproduct of refining oil into gasoline.

I'm all for improving fuel economy and emissions. I was just wondering if it's a case of too much, too fast? Since the general trend (in consumers) is to save money (and some "save the planet") I'd think the manufacturers would be trying their hardest to build cars they can market to that audience. I'm always hearing commercials touting the overall mileage/efficiency of a brand. Companies will spend money on the technology if its a financially sound plan (ie we won't see jet engines or flux capacitors in them any time soon). I like the new direct injection technology and I can see that as the next big step. I don't think the cost is a major deterrent and the benefits seem pretty big.

Troy