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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Clearly the literal only reason why advances in automotive technology come is because CAFE standards are raised. Customers actually WANT lower MPG and to spend lots more money at the pump and the car makers would oblige if not for those darn meddling kidsCongress. Surely the Fords and such of the world are simply sitting on tons of 100MPG carburetor technologies and forgoing the opportunity to differentiate their products in the marketplace with higher mileage because - reasons I guess? Because they are in cahoots with big oil in a conspiracy to sell the lowest mileage cars? Because they think Americans enjoy spending more money on gasoline?

Oddly enough the CAFE standards didn't go up for nearly a couple decades yet progress marched on with a host of new innovations from automakers. Surely that's impossible, cars only improve and get better mileage when Congress dictates it so.

light_duty_vehicle_standards_1978-2025_0.jpg
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
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.

yeah, I have a manual and while I'm not a super pro dude racer and on it 100% with the rev matching all the time, the advertised 31 highway in this car is actually at 38-41 for most reporting owners of, at least mk7 Golfs/GTIs.

But I don't think manual is appreciably different in terms of gas mileage compared to the new fancy auto transmissions, like the DSG that you find in MQB cars, and that super smooth one that BMW uses these days...FH or something? I forget. The advantage is mostly gone, isn't it?
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,359
1,555
126
^ Yes, and what a PITA it would be to have to constantly be a slave to paying this much attention to manual shifting. It's one thing to get a manual for fun, or lower initial price and tranny longevity (lower TCO excluding fuel), but for most people vehicles the fuel economy difference is not remotely close to being worth consideration.

Besides, the best way to increase fuel economy is driving slow enough (acceleration and deceleration) that you infuriate everyone else on the road. I'm not suggesting everyone should drive fast, just that it is what it is, roads get congested and need to handle a certain flow rate, and people think 2 minutes of their commute time is everything.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,944
2,175
126
Oddly enough the CAFE standards didn't go up for nearly a couple decades yet progress marched on with a host of new innovations from automakers. Surely that's impossible, cars only improve and get better mileage when Congress dictates it so.
The biggest driver is consumer demand for more fuel efficient vehicles, such as when gas prices are very high....doesn't need Congress for that. Unfortunately right now gas prices are low, but higher fuel efficiency has other positive side effects such as less emissions, which is good for everyone but at a time like this requires gov't regulation.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
8,359
1,555
126
The biggest driver is consumer demand for more fuel efficient vehicles, such as when gas prices are very high....doesn't need Congress for that. Unfortunately right now gas prices are low, but higher fuel efficiency has other positive side effects such as less emissions, which is good for everyone but at a time like this requires gov't regulation.

Mmm, no, slightly lower emissions amounting to a drop in the bucket compared to total emissions (of everything, not just automobiles) is not so clearly good for everyone when it comes at higher expense. If nothing else the funds have to come from (someone) working which produces emissions too.

The biggest demand is not more fuel efficient vehicles. Vehicle size crept up over time instead of down, while buyers became able to buy luxury features in smaller vehicles (unlike decades ago, so it wasn't that) AND there are now far more SUVs on the road than ever before. Consumers clearly prefer comfort, price, and weight (as it relates to crash survival) over fuel economy, unless the most important factor is cost and then it's typically up front purchase price.

It does need Congress, automakers were stating it was either impossible to meet the eventual fuel economy targets or very expensive to do so. No consumer demand makes the impossible possible nor makes someone spend thousands more just for better fuel economy, unless it's a radical change like going EV.

If it didn't need Congress, Congress wouldn't have acted.
 
Last edited:

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,817
952
126
Federal standards should be the minimum. Think of if this was minimum wage, you wouldn't want t federal minimum wage to be set for the whole country.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Federal standards should be the minimum. Think of if this was minimum wage, you wouldn't want t federal minimum wage to be set for the whole country.

This...isn's a great comparison for vehicles. There is a reason the EPA and CARB decided to harmonize their standards a while ago: it's far more cost effective for auto companies to make vehicles that meet an agreed to universal standard. California has a unique position in the fight over anything that emits due to how the Clean Air Act of 1970 came to be. CA had already moved to restrict emissions before the feds did and in order to secure their votes for the act CA got a carve out that they could set their own higher standard if they desires (and other states could follow it). CARB states have grown to represent a huge chunk of the market and Canada just signed on as well.

Every individual state setting a unique emissions standard would create an awesome mess.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,720
146
The biggest driver is consumer demand for more fuel efficient vehicles, such as when gas prices are very high....doesn't need Congress for that. Unfortunately right now gas prices are low, but higher fuel efficiency has other positive side effects such as less emissions, which is good for everyone but at a time like this requires gov't regulation.

Better fuel efficiency doesn't necessarily mean better emissions, which is why they mandate emissions on their own.

Gas prices are artificially low because we've been subsidizing the fuck out of its production in various ways. That would also fix the dumbass argument that the Turmp administration put forth for relaxing fuel economy standards (that more efficiency leads to more driving, which leads to more car related injuries/death; higher fuel prices would resolve that).

Federal standards should be the minimum. Think of if this was minimum wage, you wouldn't want t federal minimum wage to be set for the whole country.

You should tell that to the car companies who have been asking for a single unified standard. They're the ones that pushed for unified standard, but then decided they didn't want to follow through with actually meeting the stipulations they agreed to in order to get it.
 
Last edited:

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,433
229
106
yeah, I have a manual and while I'm not a super pro dude racer and on it 100% with the rev matching all the time, the advertised 31 highway in this car is actually at 38-41 for most reporting owners of, at least mk7 Golfs/GTIs.

But I don't think manual is appreciably different in terms of gas mileage compared to the new fancy auto transmissions, like the DSG that you find in MQB cars, and that super smooth one that BMW uses these days...FH or something? I forget. The advantage is mostly gone, isn't it?
one adv manual has over auto is physic, it can use momentum to roll(not in gear) to stop or roll down hill while maintaining speed or roll in gear to exist. That reduce mpg by tons.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,720
146
one adv manual has over auto is physic, it can use momentum to roll(not in gear) to stop or roll down hill while maintaining speed or roll in gear to exist. That reduce mpg by tons.

Modern automatics are a lot more advanced than you seem to realize. Plus regenerative braking is a far superior solution and will have a bigger impact on mpg.

No clue what you're talking about "roll in gear to exist".

Due to other technologies and advancements in efficiency of automatics and transmissions in general, you really don't save that much unless you're really pushing hypermiling behavior (and I think a fair amount of that can be done with autos these days, or would be nullified by other systems like cylinder deactivation or stop-start where you'll use even less gas by shutting the engine down entirely, which with modern braking and power steering doesn't mean you lose brakes or steering by doing so).
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,817
952
126
This...isn's a great comparison for vehicles. There is a reason the EPA and CARB decided to harmonize their standards a while ago: it's far more cost effective for auto companies to make vehicles that meet an agreed to universal standard. California has a unique position in the fight over anything that emits due to how the Clean Air Act of 1970 came to be. CA had already moved to restrict emissions before the feds did and in order to secure their votes for the act CA got a carve out that they could set their own higher standard if they desires (and other states could follow it). CARB states have grown to represent a huge chunk of the market and Canada just signed on as well.

Every individual state setting a unique emissions standard would create an awesome mess.
They could just meet the highest stardard they wanted to and not sell in the sates that had higher standards. I understand why it's better for the auto companies because not only is it easier to aim for one standard but it's easier to lobby once than 51 times.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,116
14,484
146
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.

To be fair the mid 00’s Acura TSX was one of the better sedans for MPG. I crossed shopped the 08’s with the 09 Malibu I eventually bought because they were two of the few gas cars to get 30+ on the highway at the time with 160-200 hp.

I’m not surprised it still compares somewhat favorably.

Now going from an 04 Suburban to a 15 increased our observed fuel economy by over 30%. That new diesel would increase it by another 50%.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Clearly the literal only reason why advances in automotive technology come is because CAFE standards are raised. Customers actually WANT lower MPG and to spend lots more money at the pump and the car makers would oblige if not for those darn meddling kidsCongress. Surely the Fords and such of the world are simply sitting on tons of 100MPG carburetor technologies and forgoing the opportunity to differentiate their products in the marketplace with higher mileage because - reasons I guess? Because they are in cahoots with big oil in a conspiracy to sell the lowest mileage cars? Because they think Americans enjoy spending more money on gasoline?

Oddly enough the CAFE standards didn't go up for nearly a couple decades yet progress marched on with a host of new innovations from automakers. Surely that's impossible, cars only improve and get better mileage when Congress dictates it so.

light_duty_vehicle_standards_1978-2025_0.jpg

You realize there is actual research on this that indicates CAFE is effective at raising MPG, right?
 

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,433
229
106
Modern automatics are a lot more advanced than you seem to realize. Plus regenerative braking is a far superior solution and will have a bigger impact on mpg.

No clue what you're talking about "roll in gear to exist".

Due to other technologies and advancements in efficiency of automatics and transmissions in general, you really don't save that much unless you're really pushing hypermiling behavior (and I think a fair amount of that can be done with autos these days, or would be nullified by other systems like cylinder deactivation or stop-start where you'll use even less gas by shutting the engine down entirely, which with modern braking and power steering doesn't mean you lose brakes or steering by doing so).

I know all about the auto over stick in advancements, I know stop-start and brake regenerative. I drive a crz, it has all those with a stick. But that's not the point, I have drove lots of cars in my life and I ALWAYS beat est by 10-30% when it is stick shift.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,648
26,746
136
I know all about the auto over stick in advancements, I know stop-start and brake regenerative. I drive a crz, it has all those with a stick. But that's not the point, I have drove lots of cars in my life and I ALWAYS beat est by 10-30% when it is stick shift.

You're that guy driving like a nun then. :D
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Clearly the literal only reason why advances in automotive technology come is because CAFE standards are raised. Customers actually WANT lower MPG and to spend lots more money at the pump and the car makers would oblige if not for those darn meddling kidsCongress. Surely the Fords and such of the world are simply sitting on tons of 100MPG carburetor technologies and forgoing the opportunity to differentiate their products in the marketplace with higher mileage because - reasons I guess? Because they are in cahoots with big oil in a conspiracy to sell the lowest mileage cars? Because they think Americans enjoy spending more money on gasoline?

Oddly enough the CAFE standards didn't go up for nearly a couple decades yet progress marched on with a host of new innovations from automakers. Surely that's impossible, cars only improve and get better mileage when Congress dictates it so.

light_duty_vehicle_standards_1978-2025_0.jpg

This.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,133
30,084
146
It's very important to pace right next to somebody doing the same in the right lane for maximum effect. It's clear sailing ahead, regardless of what's happening in the rearview mirror.

I concur, my friend.

My favorite is when there is a semi in the right lane and I can so clearly demonstrate, to all those behind me, my confidence and enjoyment of pacing right next to a semi, in their blind spot, for as many miles as possible. It is good activity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Trump "enraged", EPA process unraveling, and other automakers moving to join CA pact:

The White House, blindsided by a pact between California and four automakers to oppose President Trump’s auto emissions rollbacks, has mounted an effort to prevent any more from joining the other side.

Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and General Motors were all summoned by a senior Trump adviser to a White House meeting last month where he pressed them to stand by the president’s own initiative, according to four people familiar with the talks.

But even as the White House was working to do this, it was losing ground. Yet another company, Mercedes-Benz, is preparing to join the California agreement, according to two people familiar with the German company’s plans.


Mr. Trump, described by three people as “enraged” by California’s deal, has also demanded that his staffers step up the pace to complete his plan. His proposal, however, is directly at odds with the wishes of many automakers, which fear that the aggressive rollbacks will spark a legal battle between California and the federal government that could split the United States car market.


In addition to Mercedes-Benz, a sixth prominent automaker — one of the three summoned last month to the White House — intends to disregard the Trump proposal and stick to the current, stricter federal emissions standards for at least the next four years, according to executives at the company.


In the Trump administration, three senior political officials working on the rollback, a complex legal and scientific process, have all left the administration recently. A senior career official with years of experience on vehicle pollution policy was transferred to another office.

That means the process is now being helmed by Francis Brooke, a 29-year-old White House aide with limited experience in climate change policy before moving over from Vice President Mike Pence’s office last year. Given the lack of experienced senior staffers, people working on the plan say it is unlikely to be completed before October.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/climate/trump-auto-emissions-rollback-disarray.html


It would appear unlikely that Trump will succeed into bullying his looser standards through even if they can somehow manage to finish the new regs, which seems unlikely. What a massive display of idiocy and incompetence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: esquared

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
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.

Maybe the government should confiscate 90 of everything over 10 mil. Certainly, the rich people who don't swim in gold can afford that more than the despised lesser classes when considering disposable income.

CA should do this and any state as states often have equal or stricter laws and regs on a whole host of things. If automakers want to lose major market share in many of the most populous states they have that right but not in CA, likely NY and most of the Northeast as a whole along with Oregon, Seattle, CO, I don't know how many others once CA gets this done. There's the market in action and yes regulations are part of that no matter how one might protest.

I do however like the idea of leveling the playing field for disposable income and using taxed money to fund alternatives. to foolish and just plain stupid and greedy.