CA and 4 major automakers cut a deal, bypassing Trump EPA

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

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
That wasn't the implication of your post when you said "The feds set a national "floor" level requirement" like this was a plan.

The automakers themselves said the Obama era standards were achievable, after all they were deeply involved in writing them.
He also thinks Obamacare is too much. He doesn't get that most of the reach by Obama's administration was to the middle, and not remotely progressive.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Maybe your paycheck needs to take a backseat to the environment and we should just confiscate it.

Sorry but this stupid progressive thinking that believes rich people and corporations just spend all day swimming in vats of gold like Scrooge McDuck and can easily afford whatever policy idea you have just by "buying one less yacht" is the thinking of a 4 year old. If you want to achieve some policy goal, then have taxpayers fund it and don't expect private companies to lose money and put themselves out of business for you. If you want people to drive electric cars instead of gas powered SUVs, have the government pay the automakers to produce them and give them away.
The way you need to simplify the world to this level of stupidity so that you can deride it is really pathetic.

Just letting you know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Maybe your paycheck needs to take a backseat to the environment and we should just confiscate it.

Sorry but this stupid progressive thinking that believes rich people and corporations just spend all day swimming in vats of gold like Scrooge McDuck and can easily afford whatever policy idea you have just by "buying one less yacht" is the thinking of a 4 year old. If you want to achieve some policy goal, then have taxpayers fund it and don't expect private companies to lose money and put themselves out of business for you. If you want people to drive electric cars instead of gas powered SUVs, have the government pay the automakers to produce them and give them away.

Nah, regulations are better than the government giving them money so long as the regulations serve a valid governmental purpose and for which the cost of compliance is reasonable related to the costs automakers are inflicting through poor gas mileage. After all, automakers have been getting a massive subsidy through externalities they have never paid for related to the pollution that their products create. It's perfectly reasonable for the government to require them to take less in subsidies each year for this.

Saying 'your products can only poison the planet X amount for free' is just the government making up for a market failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Yeah, sorry the auto companies don't suddenly stop making the hugely profitable trucks and SUVs that consumers want to buy, and instead switch over to using non-existent technology or change their production to money losing subcompacts you want them to make for reasons and can barely be given away.

Yep, absolutely no ways to improve MPG on trucks. Don't even try. Can't be done.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/c...5/chevy-silverado-1500-pickup-mpg/1820263001/

he 2020 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 diesel just hung a big number of the wall, challenging Ford and Ram to match it.

Chevy’s new diesel scored 33 mpg on the highway in EPA fuel economy tests, topping the 2019 diesel Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 by 3 mpg and 6 mpg, respectively.

Three miles a gallon is a massive advantage in a race where engineers sweat bullets to gain fractions of a gallon. Six mpg is out of sight, though Ram can be expected to at least narrow the gap when it launches a new diesel later this year.

"That’s rarefied air," Silverado executive chief engineer Tim Herrick said, pointing out that GM’s new Flint-built 3.0L straight-six Duramax diesel engine gives the Silverado full-size pickup better highway fuel economy than some popular midsize sedans.

The 2020 Silverado 1500 diesel should be in dealerships in late summer or early fall. The engine produces 277 horsepower and 460 pound-feet of torque. Its maximum towing capacity is 9,300 pounds.
 

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,433
229
106
It's across fleet, not per vehicle. This is very reasonably achievable when you switch a certain percentage of your fleet over to electric/hybrid, and your ICE vehicles with smaller, turbo boosted engines, lighter oils, and fancy stuff like regenerative breaking. If your "worst" performer is something like 33/40, then it's not a stretch to get your fleet up to those average standards.

Obviously, this isn't as easy for moron companies like Ford that decide to stop making cars and only make garbage trucks and Crossovers or SUVs. Yeah, they are responding to idiot consumers with terrible taste, but it would certainly help if consumers actually had a memory that lasted more than 3 months at a time, so that horrific gas prices were more the assumed standard than a seasonal thing. --but, these things can still be done with hybrid engines for these big, ugly, useless vehicles that only Americans want.

2025 is only one refresh away and turbo(1.5-2.0T), lighter oil(0w20) and other fancy stuff aren't getting you 45mpg in any car let alone across fleet, go take a look at how much the latest civic 1.5L mpg. Unless every start selling 1/2 their cars/trucks with plugin 45mpg isn't going to happen, heck 37mpg isn't happening either. Even if Toyota only sell prius of all kind it still won't get them to 45mpg.

I am all for fuel econ and save the earth I just don't see it happening.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
2025 is only one refresh away and turbo(1.5-2.0T), lighter oil(0w20) and other fancy stuff aren't getting you 45mpg in any car let alone across fleet, go take a look at how much the latest civic 1.5L mpg. Unless every start selling 1/2 their cars/trucks with plugin 45mpg isn't going to happen, heck 37mpg isn't happening either. Even if Toyota only sell prius of all kind it still won't get them to 45mpg.

I am all for fuel econ and save the earth I just don't see it happening.

Above 40mpg you need hybridization. That said modern sedan hybrids get considerably more mpg these days than 45...Like the Ioniq hybrid that gets 58mpg combined at the rather reasonable price of 22K base.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Based on my limited understanding of the auto industry, it seem like as far as using fuel more efficiently in the engine itself... There really isn't much we can do there at this point. There has been practically nothing done in the last 10 years to make engines more fuel efficient, and I have already experienced that myself. My 2006 Acura still gets the same gas mileage as a ton of NEW vehicles today.

So what does that leave? Cheaping out and going for lighter-weight so that the engine doesn't have to work as hard to bring a 2 ton vehicle up to speed, but rather only a 1.5 ton vehicle. You get the picture. What does that mean? Definitely will raise an eyebrow as to how durable the product is, and also how good it is with crashes. You're basically just boiling it down to replacing what was previously steel/metals with plastics.

Good for the automakers and CA here I guess though. Personally I think it's a waste of time. If it isn't hybrid or all-electric than it's a stupid discussion in the first place.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Based on my limited understanding of the auto industry, it seem like as far as using fuel more efficiently in the engine itself... There really isn't much we can do there at this point. There has been practically nothing done in the last 10 years to make engines more fuel efficient, and I have already experienced that myself. My 2006 Acura still gets the same gas mileage as a ton of NEW vehicles today.

So what does that leave? Cheaping out and going for lighter-weight so that the engine doesn't have to work as hard to bring a 2 ton vehicle up to speed, but rather only a 1.5 ton vehicle. You get the picture. What does that mean? Definitely will raise an eyebrow as to how durable the product is, and also how good it is with crashes. You're basically just boiling it down to replacing what was previously steel/metals with plastics.

Good for the automakers and CA here I guess though. Personally I think it's a waste of time. If it isn't hybrid or all-electric than it's a stupid discussion in the first place.

Not true, check out the Skyactiv-X engine just developed by Mazda. Looks to improve MPG by about 20-30%.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Based on my limited understanding of the auto industry, it seem like as far as using fuel more efficiently in the engine itself... There really isn't much we can do there at this point. There has been practically nothing done in the last 10 years to make engines more fuel efficient, and I have already experienced that myself. My 2006 Acura still gets the same gas mileage as a ton of NEW vehicles today.

So what does that leave? Cheaping out and going for lighter-weight so that the engine doesn't have to work as hard to bring a 2 ton vehicle up to speed, but rather only a 1.5 ton vehicle. You get the picture. What does that mean? Definitely will raise an eyebrow as to how durable the product is, and also how good it is with crashes. You're basically just boiling it down to replacing what was previously steel/metals with plastics.

Good for the automakers and CA here I guess though. Personally I think it's a waste of time. If it isn't hybrid or all-electric than it's a stupid discussion in the first place.

The industry has become more fuel efficient as the standards increased:

OEM05_150609925_AR_-1_GAYFTOWPPMEL.gif



But you can see the gains leveling out as larger vehicles start becoming more popular as gas prices cratered at the end of 2014 due to the oil glut.

Then everybody seeing cheap gas ran out and bought CUVs and trucks to drive on their commutes through city traffic...
 

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,433
229
106
Above 40mpg you need hybridization. That said modern sedan hybrids get considerably more mpg these days than 45...Like the Ioniq hybrid that gets 58mpg combined at the rather reasonable price of 22K base.

Not just hybrid you need plug in hybrid to get you over 50mpg, all other get under 45(sometime way under).
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
The industry has become more fuel efficient as the standards increased:

View attachment 8847



But you can see the gains leveling out as larger vehicles start becoming more popular as gas prices cratered at the end of 2014 due to the oil glut.

Then everybody seeing cheap gas ran out and bought CUVs and trucks to drive on their commutes through city traffic...

Right - but my post is saying that the majority of MPG gains these days isn't from the engine - it's from cheaping out on parts. Reduce weight of vehicle -> Less mass that the engine has to move.

My Acura TSX from 2006 gets ~34mpg highway. The fact that today, 13 years later that it is still within a decent range of TODAYS competition is absolutely pathetic.

Engines have made no progress. They simply have cheaped out on parts.

As I said, it's time to go Hybrid / Electric - not trying to be more fuel efficient.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Not true, check out the Skyactiv-X engine just developed by Mazda. Looks to improve MPG by about 20-30%.

I always forget about Mazda for some reason. I'll be curious to see what the Skyactive-X gets on EPA testing. The NEDC figures are...somewhat generous to say the least.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Not true, check out the Skyactiv-X engine just developed by Mazda. Looks to improve MPG by about 20-30%.

And prior to that? See my post above, my current 2006 Acura gets 34 MPG highway. As I said, that's very much in-line with what they are coming out with today 13 years later
 
  • Like
Reactions: Instan00dles

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Right - but my post is saying that the majority of MPG gains these days isn't from the engine - it's from cheaping out on parts. Reduce weight of vehicle -> Less mass that the engine has to move.

My Acura TSX from 2006 gets ~34mpg highway. The fact that today, 13 years later that it is still within a decent range of TODAYS competition is absolutely pathetic.

Engines have made no progress. They simply have cheaped out on parts.

As I said, it's time to go Hybrid / Electric - not trying to be more fuel efficient.

Cutting mass is (much) easier than increasing engine efficiency but they are doing both.

I don't disagree. I'd make basically everything a PHEV with a base EV range of 40 miles which would cover the vast majority of daily use. Need to drive 800 miles in a day? No problem, gas engine is still there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,461
996
126
My Niro plain jane hybrid, not a plugin or electric, routinely gets over 50mpg and occasionally hits as high as 55.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,720
146
Above 40mpg you need hybridization. That said modern sedan hybrids get considerably more mpg these days than 45...Like the Ioniq hybrid that gets 58mpg combined at the rather reasonable price of 22K base.

The other thing that gets overlooked is there's a lot of vehicles that get a LOT better highway gas mileage (compared to how people normally drive them in non-highway use). Hybrids get almost the same in both situations (heck the Prius gets better mileage city driving).

Based on my limited understanding of the auto industry, it seem like as far as using fuel more efficiently in the engine itself... There really isn't much we can do there at this point. There has been practically nothing done in the last 10 years to make engines more fuel efficient, and I have already experienced that myself. My 2006 Acura still gets the same gas mileage as a ton of NEW vehicles today.

So what does that leave? Cheaping out and going for lighter-weight so that the engine doesn't have to work as hard to bring a 2 ton vehicle up to speed, but rather only a 1.5 ton vehicle. You get the picture. What does that mean? Definitely will raise an eyebrow as to how durable the product is, and also how good it is with crashes. You're basically just boiling it down to replacing what was previously steel/metals with plastics.

Good for the automakers and CA here I guess though. Personally I think it's a waste of time. If it isn't hybrid or all-electric than it's a stupid discussion in the first place.

If you posted more like this I wouldn't have nearly as much of an issue.

It is limited, but you admit so and that's a nice thing to do.

There are things we can do, and there are things we have done in just the past 10 years to do so. Direct injection for instance was fitted to gasoline (it has been used in diesel engines for some time, and is part of the reason they got so much better gas mileage) which boosted fuel economy. Mazda has some new tech (I can't recall exactly, I want to say it is some special way of sparking the ignition which lets them use less fuel; look it up they brand it Skyactiv-X), Nissan has some new combustion chamber design (it allows for variable combustion chamber). Greater valve timing control (Koenigsegg for instance uses solenoids to replace camshafts which offers greater control over the valves, but they're expensive so most car companies aren't going to use them). Better use of turbochargers (enabling them to get higher outputs from smaller displacement/engines). They're researching laser ignition to replace spark plugs. Formula 1 has actually gotten engines to be about 50% thermally efficient (most cars are like high 30s these days I believe, used to be like 25%, I think some certain ones like maybe the Prius' gas engine and other Atkinson cycle engines and the Mazda one I mentioned are like low 40s). There's been improvements. They're not always easy and they're not always cheap (if everyone could afford $100k vehicles, we could probably have 100mpg as the norm, of course that wouldn't matter if people instead chose to go for less efficient more fun vehicles - and that's an issue at all prices is consumers choose fun or fast over practical or economical).

That's not true. Basically none of it is true. Its actually not cheap to get lighter (aluminum costs more than steel, carbon fiber and other materials cost even more; but they're using a mix of materials on cars to try and maximize the right material for different areas - maybe steal monocoque with aluminum body panels, plastic bumpers, etc). Reliability (of the mechanical powertrain) on cars has actually improved (its generally all the electronics for comfort stuff that makes cars seem less reliable today - but even that is changing). Certainly if we all drove tube framed fiberglass bodied cars with like 150hp engine, we'd get good gas mileage, but we'd be miserable most of the time while driving.

Safety has improved (its plateaued though because the weak link in the safety chain is the drivers, where they're driving faster and with more distractions than probably ever; point being you can make the car safe, but if idiots are gonna tailgate going 85mph well accidents are gonna happen, or if they're distracted texting or talking on cell phones; but that's why they're introducing autonomous technology which in the interim is bringing automatic braking systems that can brake before a human could even react to start braking). Safety improved because it was mandated. And yet even though cars weigh more now, their efficiency has also gone up. And not only did both of those improve, but new cars are loaded with features and creature comforts (seriously, even "economy cars" now have like heated leather seats and stuff). But that does make it tough to make cars lighter because people expect the modern comfort and tech, and they expect safety (although they'll look the other way often if they're allowed to, much like helmet laws, where mandating it protects people from their own stupidity because otherwise they'll think it won't happen to them), and they expect power as well. There's been some argument that if we stripped away the safety and comfort that drivers would naturally drive slower and more cautiously, but I'm not sure how true that would be.

The biggest issue is that consumers keep actively choosing less efficient vehicles. They want horsepower and SUVs. Electrification helps with that but right now its expensive and if we banned ICE and mandated electric cars, we wouldn't be able to satisfy demand. Heck, I don't know that we could produce enough to just replace say the sales of just the Ford F-150. There's limits because of the materials needed for batteries (there's a race to develop new batteries that can run on less rare/costly material, like replacing cobalt - er I think its used more in the electric motor but its still something that needs addressing with electric vehicles).

That's exactly what this pushes though. By mandating higher fuel efficiency and emissions standards, they have to go to hybrid and electrification to achieve them, without explicitly banning ICE.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,720
146
Cutting mass is (much) easier than increasing engine efficiency but they are doing both.

I don't disagree. I'd make basically everything a PHEV with a base EV range of 40 miles which would cover the vast majority of daily use. Need to drive 800 miles in a day? No problem, gas engine is still there.

Which that's not easy on its own because of safety mandates (which are absolutely worthwhile though). And I admit I enjoy some creature comforts (connecting my phone for navigation/listening to podcasts; heating/cooling - A/C is mandatory where I live because of the heat, and other places heater would be, and then others both because of hot summers and cold winters).

I think a good compromise would be to mandate that all cars over a certain power figure be hybrid or electric (start out by saying all cars over 500hp, then 400hp, then 300hp, then 200hp, then 100hp, with it dropping every 5 years; and make it so people can't bypass it by buying a lower powered car and then just putting in a new ECU chip and getting extra 200hp or something ridiculous like that). This would get companies to push smaller engines (which are more than enough), get people to drive smaller, lighter vehicles (if they want good acceleration) or have to go hybrid. It'd also benefit more from the hybrid as shutting down big engines benefits more stop/start than little 1.0-1.5 liter 3 and 4 cylinder engines.

I think its almost outright criminal that regenerative braking isn't a requirement. That would help tremendously (and it wouldn't necessarily require electrification, they can do mechanical flywheel storage). It would especially help the red light racers (the ones that take off on green just so they can race to the speed limit before the next red light). My sister is hell on vehicles because she drives like that, which goes through tires and brakes (and then they don't replace tires properly, they replace them one at a time which screws up the alignment and suspension, and then that leads to issues).

My Niro plain jane hybrid, not a plugin or electric, routinely gets over 50mpg and occasionally hits as high as 55.

My Mom's almost 15 year old Prius has been getting about 50mpg average the entire time we've had it (summer time in Phoenix get about 47.5, but then get about 52.5 during the winters). We did finally have to replace the battery right around 175,000 miles (we got it about 120,000 and it was over 10 years old at that point). We're expecting to use it for another 75k at least (as long as nothing that makes no economic sense to repair comes up, we should be able to get another 10 years/125k out of it - lots of high mileage Priuses out there, where they might've had a battery change and some other relatively light work, but otherwise they're pretty reliable and cheap to maintain).
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146
Maybe your paycheck needs to take a backseat to the environment and we should just confiscate it.

Sorry but this stupid progressive thinking that believes rich people and corporations just spend all day swimming in vats of gold like Scrooge McDuck and can easily afford whatever policy idea you have just by "buying one less yacht" is the thinking of a 4 year old. If you want to achieve some policy goal, then have taxpayers fund it and don't expect private companies to lose money and put themselves out of business for you. If you want people to drive electric cars instead of gas powered SUVs, have the government pay the automakers to produce them and give them away.
Actually, I've been spending a fair amount of my paychecks (and time) on home efficiency improvements, as well as cultivating trees (see the home & garden threads I've started). I know that in your world, every dollar gained by an individual is totally justified, legal, and means that he absolutely earned it, but that will mean shit all if we're all on fire in thirty years.

Honestly, yes, the ultra-rich should probably have funds confiscated. There's a good chance it's going to happen sooner or later anyhow. I guarantee you when we have a true crisis event, where the entire populace of central and south america decide they would rather be in Utah, nothing will stop the US Government from seizing whatever it needs to Make Shit Happen, regardless of what team holds the various offices.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,117
10,939
136
And prior to that? See my post above, my current 2006 Acura gets 34 MPG highway. As I said, that's very much in-line with what they are coming out with today 13 years later

and its emissions are probably drastically worse. MPG isn't the only metric.

Edit: You're also omitting technological advances (stability control, etc.) as well as crash safety
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
2025 is only one refresh away and turbo(1.5-2.0T), lighter oil(0w20) and other fancy stuff aren't getting you 45mpg in any car let alone across fleet, go take a look at how much the latest civic 1.5L mpg. Unless every start selling 1/2 their cars/trucks with plugin 45mpg isn't going to happen, heck 37mpg isn't happening either. Even if Toyota only sell prius of all kind it still won't get them to 45mpg.

I am all for fuel econ and save the earth I just don't see it happening.

lol. my 2019 4C 2L GTI gets up to 41mpg on the highway (based on my own receipts and hand math, plus the car's computer) ~24-28 in the city, 34-35 overall. that's with 250 lb/ft @1500rpm and 228 horsies to the wheel, and I'm still having fun with it. But If I drove it like grandma....lord only knows.

This engine is kinda magic, and it's pure gas. Nothing super fancy, but it's the first gen with 0w20 spec, though I think the 2018 and earlier were just as efficient, tbh.

so what if the car stalls! whatever. :D
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
And prior to that? See my post above, my current 2006 Acura gets 34 MPG highway. As I said, that's very much in-line with what they are coming out with today 13 years later

lol. not at all.

wake up.

engines have progressed a shit-ton. you just aren't paying attention. cheeping out on parts like interior and door handles, that happens. but you also add tech that makes up many more gains (regen braking). That's the nature of the game, and forces the pocket protectors to make shit work better when they have a mandate to do so. It is literally the only way that we progress. Don't believe the horseshit otherwise. The bean counters that control the engineers WILL NOT allow progress unless the government makes them do it. It's the same fucking natural law of evolution, gravity, entropy. It's all the fucking same.

I just don't understand conservatives: "Let's not do anything new because, you know, I like this thing how it is. We just can't make it better because I don't want to and it scares me and fuck you for telling me that I'm wrong."

that's the conservative mind, and you know I am right.
 
Last edited:

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,433
229
106
lol. my 2019 4C 2L GTI gets up to 41mpg on the highway (based on my own receipts and hand math, plus the car's computer) ~24-28 in the city, 34-35 overall. that's with 250 lb/ft @1500rpm and 228 horsies to the wheel, and I'm still having fun with it. But If I drove it like grandma....lord only knows.

This engine is kinda magic, and it's pure gas. Nothing super fancy, but it's the first gen with 0w20 spec, though I think the 2018 and earlier were just as efficient, tbh.

so what if the car stalls! whatever. :D

Glad you said 41MPG on the hwy and 35 combine, the 1.8T isn't getting any better than your GTI and R just slight worst. Like I said 2025 is only 1 refresh away, 35 is about the wall for ICE combine. Add a battery it is around 45 but you get less for hwy, add a plug you get 50ish. Unless company sell 70% of their cars with battery it is not enough to over come all the SUV and truck.

Also I assume you drive stick? A good manual driver like myself :cool: can beat spec by 15-30% but we're the 5%er. My car rated for 30mpg combine and I get 40mpg(CRZ), your car rated at 27.