Auto companies prepping for "nightmare" of dual US vehicle standards

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
If you need to meet a fleet average of 54MPG then you effectively cannot sell more than a few SUVs or minivans. The math doesn't work out to sell a bunch of 22MPG combined Honda Odysseys and still meet the fleet standard. There's not enough Prius and electric cars being sold to make up that deficit.

Feel free to explain how I'm wrong. I'll wait.

CAFE is calculated based on the unique models of vehicles sold, not on the number of vehicles of each model sold.

You don't know what you're talking about so you should probably just stop now while you're less behind.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
You going to pass a law to repeal Jevon's Paradox as well? Honestly what the last 40 years or so is telling us loud and clear is that regardless of CAFE folks will buy whatever car they need for utility sake first and foremost (passenger capacity, hauling capacity, range, etc) with gas mileage being an extremely distant concern. That you think you can speak for the "best option for every single human in the U.S." is just a neon sign advertising your hubris. That wouldn't change if you put the CAFE standard at a billion MPG, people won't buy cars that don't meet their needs, period full stop. You wishing they had different needs that coincide with your preferences doesn't make it so.

Really descending into ranting gibberish at this point.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
So the answer indeed is no, you do not understand how CAFE works. Like at all apparently.

Harmonic mean and vehicle footprint calculations don't change the basic math of overcoming the "bad" fuel economy of the more profitable cars in a fleet as a contribution to the overall CAFE number.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,245
16,716
136
That's why government needs to set standards for all vehicles. Now asshole Trump want to pollute our air even more.

I don't give a rats ass if idiots in West Virginia want to do this...
article-2683735-1F75AC3000000578-626_638x374.jpg

That’s actually something that can be added to diesel(?) engines that makes the output different.
Basically food coloring and filler for exhaust it does not pollute but it trolls real well.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,208
12,527
136
I don't know why this is some kind of "nightmare" at all. Car manufacturers hace had "regular" and "California emission" models for decades. It's only in recent history that they made their cars/trucks "50 state compliant."
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
You going to pass a law to repeal Jevon's Paradox as well? Honestly what the last 40 years or so is telling us loud and clear is that regardless of CAFE folks will buy whatever car they need for utility sake first and foremost (passenger capacity, hauling capacity, range, etc) with gas mileage being an extremely distant concern. That you think you can speak for the "best option for every single human in the U.S." is just a neon sign advertising your hubris. That wouldn't change if you put the CAFE standard at a billion MPG, people won't buy cars that don't meet their needs, period full stop. You wishing they had different needs that coincide with your preferences doesn't make it so.
Seems like you're the one arguing against Jevons Paradox.
Anyway, I predict that those states that implement reasonable and achievable efficiency standards will continue to be more prosperous than who choose to continue to encourage waste. Not really a prediction though, as that will just be a continuation of the last 40-50 years of policy.
And yes, those states with higher efficiency standards will continue to have higher costs of living too. Efficiency creates wealth, and wealthy areas are more expensive to live in than poorer ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
I don't know why this is some kind of "nightmare" at all. Car manufacturers hace had "regular" and "California emission" models for decades. It's only in recent history that they made their cars/trucks "50 state compliant."

I agree. And given California's monstrous market share, and the fact that anti-pollution equipment no longer hinders engine performance, I expect most manufacturers to continue to sell 50 state compliant vehicles.
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
CAFE is calculated based on the unique models of vehicles sold, not on the number of vehicles of each model sold.

You don't know what you're talking about so you should probably just stop now while you're less behind.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, manufactured for sale in the United States, for any given model year. Fuel economy is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) consumed as measured in accordance with the testing and evaluation protocol set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

You're right, my mistake!
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,999
1,520
136
That's not how CAFE works



Totally untrue but that's never stopped you from arguing similar things before.
Of course, the standard is the fleet average. 54 mpg is a pretty lofty goal, though, since only the most efficient hybrids like the Prius are able to reach that. Seems like there should be a reasonable compromise between that and total roll back to 37 mpg. I definitely dont like the trend to SUVs and pickups though. I would favor an increase in the federal gas tax, with the money earmarked for infrastructure improvements and development of green energy sources, and also bringing back tax credits for efficient vehicles.

If I ever buy another car, I would definitely consider a hybrid, but not an electric unless the range increases a lot, or I intended it solely as a second car.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Carmakers should just produce the cars they can sell and pay the fines for non-compliance with CAFE the way that companies like BMW always has.

Then they should increase the non-compliance fines until they comply. This is not meant to be optional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I hope they do too, and I hope it becomes increasingly irrelevant as electrics take over.

I need a vehicle that can travel 500 miles on a charge or that can make that length of trips with abundant charging stations that takes no more than 10 minutes to recharge in total over the length of the trip. It must cost no more than the equivalent internal combustion vehicle in initial purchase or long term and be as reliable. 200k miles on an engine isn't remarkable these days.

So we need a heavy investment, more than we have without being strangled or controlled by lawyers for profit.


Someone figure that out and let me know when it happens, or at least when it becomes a top priority and that proper resources are devoted to it.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Harmonic mean and vehicle footprint calculations don't change the basic math of overcoming the "bad" fuel economy of the more profitable cars in a fleet as a contribution to the overall CAFE number.

Now you have changed your argument in an attempt to fit reality. That's progress, of a sort I guess.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I need a vehicle that can travel 500 miles on a charge or that can make that length of trips with abundant charging stations that takes no more than 10 minutes to recharge in total over the length of the trip. It must cost no more than the equivalent internal combustion vehicle in initial purchase or long term and be as reliable. 200k miles on an engine isn't remarkable these days.

So we need a heavy investment, more than we have without being strangled or controlled by lawyers for profit.


Someone figure that out and let me know when it happens, or at least when it becomes a top priority and that proper resources are devoted to it.

^ This. If you want to know what's holding back "future tech" cars it's a lack of next generation infrastructure and support. Aside from early adopters, most people aren't going to buy electric cars because they fear being the next Betamax VCR owners and being stuck with a $25k paperweight instead of a $250 one. They already saw this go down with the initial push towards Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the subsequent abandonment of that technology in the consumer market. It's also telling the military hasn't switched to an electric fleet, if it really was such a slam dunk as proponents say then the Army would have been leading the way in buying electric vehicles.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
I need a vehicle that can travel 500 miles on a charge or that can make that length of trips with abundant charging stations that takes no more than 10 minutes to recharge in total over the length of the trip. It must cost no more than the equivalent internal combustion vehicle in initial purchase or long term and be as reliable. 200k miles on an engine isn't remarkable these days.

So we need a heavy investment, more than we have without being strangled or controlled by lawyers for profit.


Someone figure that out and let me know when it happens, or at least when it becomes a top priority and that proper resources are devoted to it.
Some of those are a bit silly, considering the advantages. Right now you can't buy a vehicle with that long of a range (max range on the Model S is 335 miles), nor can you recharge that quickly. In all likelihood you could get away with that 500 mile trip with about 20, maybe 30 minutes of charging, though. That specific model will cost you more than an equivalent ICE initially, but over the long run it will probably cost significantly less. There's virtually no maintenance on electric's, the batteries last for hundreds of thousands of miles with virtually no degradation, as do the electric motors. You pay for brakes (rarely thanks to regenerative braking) and tires, and that's about it.

Honestly, I've considered selling the Camaro and getting a 4wd model 3, if the prices were lower (not in a financial position to handle that atm). I'm willing to eat the extra 15-20m of 'refuel' time once or twice a year when I actually take long trips, to avoid the general maintenance that comes with an ICE, the costs, etc. Literally waiting for free charging is so low on the list of 'problems' in my life it doesn't even register.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
^ This. If you want to know what's holding back "future tech" cars it's a lack of next generation infrastructure and support. Aside from early adopters, most people aren't going to buy electric cars because they fear being the next Betamax VCR owners and being stuck with a $25k paperweight instead of a $250 one. They already saw this go down with the initial push towards Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the subsequent abandonment of that technology in the consumer market. It's also telling the military hasn't switched to an electric fleet, if it really was such a slam dunk as proponents say then the Army would have been leading the way in buying electric vehicles.
The military uses electric where it makes sense, like aircraft tugs. It hasn't swapped to electric vehicles entirely because for their use case, it doesn't make sense. It's far easier to ship JP-8 to some desert outpost than it is to try to keep an electric grid up and running. In addition to that, things in the military move goddamn slow. Even if it made universal sense (and it might eventually) it'd take them three decades and a quarter trillion dollars to switch.

Hell, it's 'makes sense' to update the C-130 line for about 20 years, and you don't see that moving very quickly.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Some of those are a bit silly, considering the advantages. Right now you can't buy a vehicle with that long of a range (max range on the Model S is 335 miles), nor can you recharge that quickly. In all likelihood you could get away with that 500 mile trip with about 20, maybe 30 minutes of charging, though. That specific model will cost you more than an equivalent ICE initially, but over the long run it will probably cost significantly less. There's virtually no maintenance on electric's, the batteries last for hundreds of thousands of miles with virtually no degradation, as do the electric motors. You pay for brakes (rarely thanks to regenerative braking) and tires, and that's about it.

Honestly, I've considered selling the Camaro and getting a 4wd model 3, if the prices were lower (not in a financial position to handle that atm). I'm willing to eat the extra 15-20m of 'refuel' time once or twice a year when I actually take long trips, to avoid the general maintenance that comes with an ICE, the costs, etc. Literally waiting for free charging is so low on the list of 'problems' in my life it doesn't even register.

That's kinda the thing, many seem to feel that cars are somehow immune to the technology adoption curve and people will just change to electric en masse. If electrics can bridge "the chasm" part of the curve where they are now (via infrastructure, complementary technology advances like "fast battery swaps", etc) then you won't need CAFE to drive the transition.

1*JzEpa6aK92q5KTyJGYDn_g.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zorba

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
I need a vehicle that can travel 500 miles on a charge or that can make that length of trips with abundant charging stations that takes no more than 10 minutes to recharge in total over the length of the trip. It must cost no more than the equivalent internal combustion vehicle in initial purchase or long term and be as reliable. 200k miles on an engine isn't remarkable these days.

So we need a heavy investment, more than we have without being strangled or controlled by lawyers for profit.


Someone figure that out and let me know when it happens, or at least when it becomes a top priority and that proper resources are devoted to it.

The fringier use cases will, like all technologies, be the last to implement. Tens of millions of people could benefit from iterative development of existing tech. Just like how the automakers iterated to meet current fuel efficiency standards that they previously described as impossible or the cost of which would hugely burden consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
That's kinda the thing, many seem to feel that cars are somehow immune to the technology adoption curve and people will just change to electric en masse. If electrics can bridge "the chasm" part of the curve where they are now (via infrastructure, complementary technology advances like "fast battery swaps", etc) then you won't need CAFE to drive the transition.

1*JzEpa6aK92q5KTyJGYDn_g.png
Honestly I think we're already past the gap. The innovators were the richies buying the first Roadsters. The first half of the gap really was the west-coasters buying up model S's prior to the expansion of the supercharge network across the nation. At this point, there's 11 manufacturers making electric cars that are available in the US, and I'd be willing to bet that >75% of hybrid owners spend >90% of their time on electric only, and basically all manufacturers that sell cars in the US make hybrids. We're probably now rising up the curve of early majority.

I accept that where I live is a bubble, but it's a bubble in the middle of rural NY and I see electrics *constantly*.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Some of those are a bit silly, considering the advantages. Right now you can't buy a vehicle with that long of a range (max range on the Model S is 335 miles), nor can you recharge that quickly. In all likelihood you could get away with that 500 mile trip with about 20, maybe 30 minutes of charging, though. That specific model will cost you more than an equivalent ICE initially, but over the long run it will probably cost significantly less. There's virtually no maintenance on electric's, the batteries last for hundreds of thousands of miles with virtually no degradation, as do the electric motors. You pay for brakes (rarely thanks to regenerative braking) and tires, and that's about it.

Honestly, I've considered selling the Camaro and getting a 4wd model 3, if the prices were lower (not in a financial position to handle that atm). I'm willing to eat the extra 15-20m of 'refuel' time once or twice a year when I actually take long trips, to avoid the general maintenance that comes with an ICE, the costs, etc. Literally waiting for free charging is so low on the list of 'problems' in my life it doesn't even register.


That would be your life, however, what I am describing what is needed for electrics to competitively replace internal combustion fossil fuel cars.

All of what I said is possible to implement, however not by some natural process of competition. Investment by people who haven't a profit stake will be required as it was during a far lesser threat, the Axis powers and their getting the Bomb first, in order to do what needs to happen. This can happen in many ways, but they are going to have to bypass marketing, release cycles and corporate stockholder concerns.

The real challenge isn't technical, but political and with the idiots I watched arguing with Kerry I'm pretty sure we're going extinct but there are potential approaches that will likely save us.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
They don't seem to care is my point.

The only way (IMO) is to push consumers in a certain direction. Ultimately they are the driving force in the market - regardless of what you WANT to happen.

The price of gas (no doubt) plays a factor. When it was $4-5/gallon consumers were much more likely to complain at the pump and (IMO) buy more fuel efficient cars.

A good start would be to increase the Federal Excise Tax for gasoline - which hasn't been adjusted for even inflation (let alone an actual increase) since 1993 @ 18.4 cents per gallon.

We also need to bring back tax credits/incentives for buying electric.

Engines are becoming more and more efficient. Perhaps you haven't noticed? These big trucks, while not boasting the same efficiency as smaller cars, are using similar engines that are more efficient than they were before.

Also, this is a uniquely American thing. The rest of the world, which is vastly greater than the US market, roundly prefers efficient, smaller cars. American doesn't need stupid giant cars for any particular mythical reason--we are just collectively very stupid.

Also, the Auto Industry is being as predictably stupid as they always are: they hate new regulations because "it is too hard! and it is too expensive!" ...but it never is. It just never is. If they stopped bitching and started developing, they'd actually be saving on costs, that translate to the consumer, and hell, if they did this decades ago, we'd already be in a much better place. We simply would be. Accepting the Auto Industry argument that new regulations spell doom for them (for reasons) is like believing the Tobacco Industry's claims that 9 in 10 doctors recommend cigarettes for better health. They do this every other decade, and they are always wrong.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
That would be your life, however, what I am describing what is needed for electrics to competitively replace internal combustion fossil fuel cars.

All of what I said is possible to implement, however not by some natural process of competition. Investment by people who haven't a profit stake will be required as it was during a far lesser threat, the Axis powers and their getting the Bomb first, in order to do what needs to happen. This can happen in many ways, but they are going to have to bypass marketing, release cycles and corporate stockholder concerns.

The real challenge isn't technical, but political and with the idiots I watched arguing with Kerry I'm pretty sure we're going extinct but there are potential approaches that will likely save us.
I humbly disagree, they can already 'competitively' replace ICE vehicles. Right now the big issue is lack of a used market for those that cannot afford to drop 30k on a vehicle, and individuals that live in places where electricity isn't freely available where they park, which are both very understandable issues. Virtually nobody really needs the mileage listed, and/or can live with spending 20 minutes recharging on a long trip vs 20 minutes fueling up, taking a piss, grabbing more Doritos, etc. I really think people overestimate how much of a 'problem' a 300-mile range with recharging is.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Honestly I think we're already past the gap. The innovators were the richies buying the first Roadsters. The first half of the gap really was the west-coasters buying up model S's prior to the expansion of the supercharge network across the nation. At this point, there's 11 manufacturers making electric cars that are available in the US, and I'd be willing to bet that >75% of hybrid owners spend >90% of their time on electric only, and basically all manufacturers that sell cars in the US make hybrids. We're probably now rising up the curve of early majority.

I accept that where I live is a bubble, but it's a bubble in the middle of rural NY and I see electrics *constantly*.

So let me ask a simple question to anyone in this thread and let's get your honest answer. Let's say that companies would spend $N in achieving the 54MPG CAFE standard. Would we not be better off spending that same $N on building out infrastructure to remove the primary obstacles that remain in more widespread electric vehicle adoption instead of trying to gain the increasingly more difficult fuel efficiency gains for ICE vehicles? At what point can you just admit we're reaching a point of diminishing returns on that front?