Feds: 36 mpg for cars by 2015

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
right now it's robbing from the people who drive higher mpg cars/don't drive as much to give to those who drive more/drive lower mpg cars. how does that make sense at all? it's not an entitlement, it's forcing people to properly internalize the externalities inherent in how we generate and use energy. there is a failure in the market and higher gas taxes would correct it.

That's your feel good approach I believe. Look at fuel taxes in europe (granted the size and distance traveled is not comparable) and see how that is working out. Higher gas taxes would do nothing more than limit productivity as those dollars could be better spent elsewhere by the producer of those dollars.

I respect your opinion but fundamentally disagree as your experiment does not yield the results you believe in. Forcing people to internalize the externalities sounds a lot like communism/marxism to me and forcing that belief is a dangerous approach that has proven to be a failure.

I digress, I'm getting P&N. I've spoken my point and I'm not going to convince anybody but forcing such socialist beliefs on people just is wrong to me. It's a dog eat dog world and let the strongest dog eat the weaker one.

-edit-
My POV is because I drive 160 miles each day to/from work and I'm damn productive. I don't like it but I do what I have to do to get mine.

 

[Black88GTA]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Black88GTA

An overdramatic worst-case scenario maybe, but there's no arguing that large, older vehicle > tiny little fuel efficient speck in the event of a wreck. Fuel economy at the expense of everything else FTL. There's no beating fundamental physics - you can't just "rework the ratio" to favor MPG over all else. There has to be a balance.

15 year old volvo wagon vs. newer econospeck

Well, that's all well and good, for a frontal impact with a car-based wagon at more or less equal ride height...but what about a true frame-based SUV or pickup, etc?? Or a side impact with a height / weight disparity?

Text

The Civic looks to be about a '94-95 ish, so it's older...but the (80s?) SUV absolutely demolishes it. As in, nearly cuts-it-in-half demolishes it. The crash test dummy in the Civic loses multiple limbs!

You can only build so much chassis bracing into the side of a small car where the doors have to go. Add to that the lower beltline of the small car compared to the elevated frame of the truck, and the Suburban's bumper comes thru the window anyway - side-curtain airbags be damned. And the huge weight disparity can't be ignored either - if the passenger compartment of the econo car doesn't give / crumple upon impact (squishing the occupants), the kinetic energy of the 5000 lb SUV vs. the 2300 lb econobox would likely punt it across traffic - all of that energy has to be dissipated somehow. If neither car yields, the lighter one will most certainly come out for the worse.

Yes, much of this could be applied to larger cars as well, but the disparities in weight and additional structure of the larger car would at least afford the bigger car a much better chance.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

I know that, but I don't understand why it would cost them anything if it doesn't involve some new technology. It just makes no sense. Are they planning to make every car a hybrid and cut their profits? That 46 billion figure sounds like BULLSH!T.

Basically, yes.

It forces them to sell more small economy cars, which are typically the cars sold for little profit.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
50 mpg should be the benchmark

Not using oil should be the benchmark.

 

[judasmachine]

By then the price of gas will be so high that it will still cost you $50 to fill up.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Black88GTA

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Citrix
a 1960 ford falcon got 30MPG. so why cant todays cars with ALL of the computers onboard, better designed engines, cleaner fuel, more advanced over all technology achieve this ??????

2300 pounds, 90 HP, a 20+ second 1/4 mile

yea and none of that matters

Yes, it does matter when people piss and moan that we haven't seen any increases in efficiency when that's an absolutely incorrect statement. Cars are 1000 pounds heavier, can run circles around older ones, are safe enough to drive into a brick wall, and are still as, if not more fuel efficient than similar size/styles of any other era and produce a fraction of the emissions.

Fuel economy is a formula that is increased or decreased depending on a number of factors(weight, power, gearing, emissions restrictions, turbo's, ect). It's not a magical number that can be significantly altered without serious compromises made in any one or several of those areas.

We have made incredible strides in many of those other areas while maining, if not advancing ecomomy. People have voted with their wallet. That's what matters to them.

so rework the ratio

i was mainily commenting on the low HP and slow 1/4 mile time, which IMO are 10000% meaningless

First off, I disagree wholeheartedly. Performance may not matter to you, but there are many car enthusiasts out there that will prioritize performance over MPG any day of the week. Bottom line, you can't force people to buy something they don't want. .

ehh if the Govt wanted to they could make that happen

and you are right i dont care about performance at all, ive owned 2 cars in my life, a Forst Tempo and a Volvo 240 wagon neither had anything you could call performance, neither had issues getting up to merging speed on short onramps, both got me from point A->B just fine, which is all a car is, a tool to get you from A-B faster then walking

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Well I guess my main point is legislation like this seems nothing more than feel good without really understanding the ramifications of it. Let the customers decide what they want. If they want poor gas mileage (or as we've seen with trucks NEED it) and are willing to pay for it who is to say that they shouldn't?

Here is the thing about that statement. I don't see why trucks "need" poor gas mileage. What is wrong with forcing companies to engineer new designs for trucks and SUVs that can do the same job that they do now except have better mpg? The only people that I see getting the short end of the stick here are the companies which need to fork out the cash to meet these design requirements. From there, competition alone will keep the prices of the vehicles low enough for the consumer like they always have done in the past. The customers will still get to decide what they want. The only difference is that all of the choices presented to them will be better than they are now and for the same prices.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: spidey07
That's your feel good approach I believe. Look at fuel taxes in europe (granted the size and distance traveled is not comparable) and see how that is working out. Higher gas taxes would do nothing more than limit productivity as those dollars could be better spent elsewhere by the producer of those dollars.

I respect your opinion but fundamentally disagree as your experiment does not yield the results you believe in. Forcing people to internalize the externalities sounds a lot like communism/marxism to me and forcing that belief is a dangerous approach that has proven to be a failure.

I digress, I'm getting P&N. I've spoken my point and I'm not going to convince anybody but forcing such socialist beliefs on people just is wrong to me. It's a dog eat dog world and let the strongest dog eat the weaker one.

-edit-
My POV is because I drive 160 miles each day to/from work and I'm damn productive. I don't like it but I do what I have to do to get mine.

personal responsibility, except for when you'd actually have to be responsible for it.


go take something beyond intro level economics and you'll learn all about externalities. recognizing that the market doesn't always factor everything into the price of a good is hardly communism or marxism, nor is it socialist.

Originally posted by: Black88GTA


< snip >

i'm not advocating or even defending older, traditionally designed small cars against older, traditionally designed larger cars. i'm refuting your statement that a larger older vehicle is necessarily > than an efficient speck, at least for the newer CAD-designed cars with tons of airbags. the various designs can be crashed hundreds or thousands of different ways on the computer before the first piece of metal is forged. even in your montage, the newer small cars with side airbags, etc., all fare decently well when getting rammed. especially by the newer, better designed SUV. and the expert said the driver probably bled to death in that SUV anyway.

and, of course, if the F-250 as a commuter car goes the way of the dinosaur, then the risk is lowered.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: spidey07

Well I guess my main point is legislation like this seems nothing more than feel good without really understanding the ramifications of it. Let the customers decide what they want. If they want poor gas mileage (or as we've seen with trucks NEED it) and are willing to pay for it who is to say that they shouldn't?

Here is the thing about that statement. I don't see why trucks "need" poor gas mileage. What is wrong with forcing companies to engineer new designs for trucks and SUVs that can do the same job that they do now except have better mpg? The only people that I see getting the short end of the stick here are the companies which need to fork out the cash to meet these design requirements. From there, competition alone will keep the prices of the vehicles low enough for the consumer like they always have done in the past. The customers will still get to decide what they want. The only difference is that all of the choices presented to them will be better than they are now and for the same prices.

Don't you think if a manufacturer could provide a high mileage vehicle with the towing/power capacity needed that they would do so? They would dominate that sector. What purpose does legislation serve when the incentive and motivation for manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles is already there?

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: potato28
My solution: bicycles. They won't catch on early, like now, but pretty soon thats all you'll see in cities because of fuel prices.

If I actually lived in a city I'd definitely own a bicycle. Parking prices & finding spots make owning a vehicle bad enough. But if you're traveling into a city from the burbs, you'll still have a lot of vehicle congestion. I don't think it'll really make a difference as most people will not be bicycling into the city from the burbs. I mean, that's usually a 20+ minute drive - how long is that each way for a bicycle?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Just switch all the engines to diesel, they get better MPG.

To bad the fuel now costs 33% more, completely wiping out any savings, and then some.

errr diesel is $4.45 a gallon. no thanks.

Yeah...thats what I said!

 

[moparacer]

What purpose does legislation serve

Political brownie points to give the impression our elected representatives are doing "something" about the energy crisis we are in....

Kinda like "going after big oil" as one presidential candidate is promising...


This concludes my daily rant about sad shape our government is in...

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: spidey07

Well I guess my main point is legislation like this seems nothing more than feel good without really understanding the ramifications of it. Let the customers decide what they want. If they want poor gas mileage (or as we've seen with trucks NEED it) and are willing to pay for it who is to say that they shouldn't?

Here is the thing about that statement. I don't see why trucks "need" poor gas mileage. What is wrong with forcing companies to engineer new designs for trucks and SUVs that can do the same job that they do now except have better mpg? The only people that I see getting the short end of the stick here are the companies which need to fork out the cash to meet these design requirements. From there, competition alone will keep the prices of the vehicles low enough for the consumer like they always have done in the past. The customers will still get to decide what they want. The only difference is that all of the choices presented to them will be better than they are now and for the same prices.

Don't you think if a manufacturer could provide a high mileage vehicle with the towing/power capacity needed that they would do so? They would dominate that sector. What purpose does legislation serve when the incentive and motivation for manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles is already there?

No, I don't think they would bother. Read the article I posted. The amount of money it costs to engineer a new design which is capable of doing what they will now be forced to do should legislation pass is extremely expensive. Until recently, the market has not expressed enough demand for such a thing. On top of that, sales on trucks have not declined enough due to their mpg to warrant such a costly change even though demand does exist. Even if a company did decide to make such a vehicle, it would not sell enough to justify the expense or else they would have done so already. The exception would be if the price of such vehicles were cheap enough when they hit the market but that will not happen unless most companies design these vehicles so that competition reduces the prices.

You would really be surprised with what we "could" have in terms of efficient technology that we do not. Costs of engineering, fears investors have of a new product not selling, and patents are a serious thorn in efficiency's side. Then you got the people who fear new technology being created by a competitor because that advancement would destroy their current business plan so they end up muscling the competitor out using money and the court system. The list goes on and on and it gets really complicated and time consuming. This is why legislative ultimatums can be useful in some cases including this one.

 

[Ktulu]

So pretty much the days of the car enthusiast is over? Let's all take some time to remember automobile. Let's all welcome in the people transporter.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: EarthwormJim

Originally posted by: ViperVin2
Why not focus on hydrogen technologies and making it more affordable? That seems like the only valid long-term solution.

Because the short-term matters. If all automakers focus on only long term solutions, they'll be bankrupted.

Besides it's debatable whether or not hydrogen will be the fuel of the future. It's not cheap to make, and it's difficult to store.

And would require a replacement of most of the fuel distribution infrastructure in the entire country.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Just switch all the engines to diesel, they get better MPG.

To bad the fuel now costs 33% more, completely wiping out any savings, and then some.

Yeah, WTF is with Diesel costing more than even regular gas now?

It has cost more then regular gas for a long ass time...doesn't it cost more than premium now?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Just switch all the engines to diesel, they get better MPG.

To bad the fuel now costs 33% more, completely wiping out any savings, and then some.

Yeah, WTF is with Diesel costing more than even regular gas now?

It has cost more then regular gas for a long ass time...doesn't it cost more than premium now?

It does where I am from. Speaking of Diesel, how does it compare to regular gas in terms of its effects on the environment?

 

[Enig101]

36mpg seems a little pathetic for 2015. The average mpg in places like Europe has been well over that for some time. It is not out of reach technologically. It's just that cars in the US are not designed to be efficient, but to be unnecessarily powerful and bulky.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Enig101
36mpg seems a little pathetic for 2015. The average mpg in places like Europe has been well over that for some time. It is not out of reach technologically. It's just that cars in the US are not designed to be efficient, but to be unnecessarily powerful and bulky.

People in the US have been wanting big and powerful since forever and have just recently changed their viewpoints to small and gas saving. It takes time to overhaul an entire industry especially one with as many problems as the auto industry.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Enig101
36mpg seems a little pathetic for 2015. The average mpg in places like Europe has been well over that for some time. It is not out of reach technologically. It's just that cars in the US are not designed to be efficient, but to be unnecessarily powerful and bulky.

But, a lot of our infrastructure is also designed for more powerful cars. i.e. short highway onramps. You don't have much time to get your vehicle up to 65mph or 70mph.

 

[ultimatebob]

Honestly, they should just leave the standards where they are and let the market work this out on it's own.

Trust me... Once gas gets up to $5 a gallon, you won't need a government mandate to convince people to buy fuel efficient cars!

 

[dds14u]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: dds14u
I find it funny that the "average" has to be 36 mpg. How do you decide which company makes the low mileage one's and which one's have to step it up?

The regulation should stipulate a minimum for all cars. This lax mpg restrictions for trucks is BS.

If you did away with the lax for trucks then you'd kill a large part of the economy - construction and every small business out there in that sector. They need to haul, pull massive weight around and you aren't going to get good mileage doing it. That darn physics.

Exactly what I was going to post. Some people just don't get it.

We're talking about MPG when the truck isn't hauling anything right?

A truck can be just as fuel efficient while not hauling and still haul whatever it needs.

If you're going to give trucks more lax requirements. Why not coupes or SUVs? Especially seeing as how most of the people around the west coast don't ever seem to be hauling anything except themselves.

I'm pretty confident engineers will step it up when they have to... or rather management will eventually be forced to use the technology that's already there.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Enig101
36mpg seems a little pathetic for 2015. The average mpg in places like Europe has been well over that for some time. It is not out of reach technologically. It's just that cars in the US are not designed to be efficient, but to be unnecessarily powerful and bulky.

its not really if you consider its an average. some vehicles use more, some less.

europe has different way of measuring mpg, bigger gallon, less emission requirements, and more diesel. there is no miracle there.

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: potato28
My solution: bicycles. They won't catch on early, like now, but pretty soon thats all you'll see in cities because of fuel prices.

If I actually lived in a city I'd definitely own a bicycle. Parking prices & finding spots make owning a vehicle bad enough. But if you're traveling into a city from the burbs, you'll still have a lot of vehicle congestion. I don't think it'll really make a difference as most people will not be bicycling into the city from the burbs. I mean, that's usually a 20+ minute drive - how long is that each way for a bicycle?

Thats what I mean, and thats how I do it right now. Bicycle, mass transport and walking in the city and I'll drive out of the city, but not in a huge SUV or truck. And 35mpg is a hard task, but they can do it easily.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ElFenix
right now it's robbing from the people who drive higher mpg cars/don't drive as much to give to those who drive more/drive lower mpg cars. how does that make sense at all? it's not an entitlement, it's forcing people to properly internalize the externalities inherent in how we generate and use energy. there is a failure in the market and higher gas taxes would correct it.

That's your feel good approach I believe. Look at fuel taxes in europe (granted the size and distance traveled is not comparable) and see how that is working out. Higher gas taxes would do nothing more than limit productivity as those dollars could be better spent elsewhere by the producer of those dollars.

I respect your opinion but fundamentally disagree as your experiment does not yield the results you believe in. Forcing people to internalize the externalities sounds a lot like communism/marxism to me and forcing that belief is a dangerous approach that has proven to be a failure.

I digress, I'm getting P&N. I've spoken my point and I'm not going to convince anybody but forcing such socialist beliefs on people just is wrong to me. It's a dog eat dog world and let the strongest dog eat the weaker one.

-edit-
My POV is because I drive 160 miles each day to/from work and I'm damn productive. I don't like it but I do what I have to do to get mine.

How is it Marxism to associate the cost with the product that is directly related to? It's more capitalistic if anything... Do you think we should do away with hunting and fishing licenses? EVERY taxpayer subsidizing low mileage vehicles sounds like income redistribution to me.