Senators introduce bill to force higher SUV fuel standards

[Queasy]

Link

Couple of highlights:

Under the bill SUVs and light duty vehicles would have to average 23.5 mpg by 2008; 24.8 mpg by 2009; 26.1 mpg by 2010; and 27.5 mpg by 2011.

The bill is timely, they say, since gasoline and energy prices are on the rise.

So how is this timely? Does changing the fuel standard in 2008 help with gas prices today? They also fail to mention the fact that the current rise in fuel is partly the anxiousness over the war with Iraq, partly the oil worker strike in Venezuela, and partly just the current economic situation.

 

[jahawkin]

Perhaps this will be Bush's first use of the veto pen (if the bill passes - unlikely...)

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Perhaps this will be Bush's first use of the veto pen (if the bill passes - unlikely...)

According to the article, Bush already has a proposal to increase fuel efficiency to 22.2 mpg by 2007. This new bill just increases it a little more.

 

[vi edit]

Eh, doesn't sound that tough. It's all about averages. Ford's going to release the hybrid Escape soon. It's supposed to pull close to 40 MPG on the highway. Sell a couple of those puppies and those 18MPG Explorer and Excursions don't have to up the ante as much.

 

[radioouman]

The fact is, that 15 mpg to 27.5 mpg in 8 years really isn't that hard. They know how to do it, they just need to do it cheaply so that everyone can afford it. They also need to figure out how to make it reliable.

I personally can't wait. It will be like the 80s again where all of the land-yacht cars of the 70s will be worth next to nothing. The SUVs are those land yachts, and it will be great when they are worth nothing.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: axiom
How about they just tell Detroit and Japan that Ford Excursions are not Light Trucks? Escalade? Not a light truck. Durango? Not a light truck.

And how about Congress STFU and let the people decide what kind of cars they want to drive.

You will be able to drive whatever you want to, but it will get better gas mileage. Oh gnoez!!11

 

[Damage]

[sarcasm]

Yeah, to hell with those dirty SUVs and thier un-american drivers.. They support terrorist ya'know.. uh-huh uh-huh...

[/sarcasm]

 

[Evadman]

maybe not timely, but it is a good idea. I support it. Hopefully it will result in smaller engines that are more efficant, and get some hybrid stuff going on in there. It would suck if it just resulted in smaller SUV's.

BEsides, they could always just make the vehicle heavier to get past the laws if they wanted too.

 

[prontospyder]

I think it's doable by the automakers. Hopefully it gets passed as it's co-sponsored by senators on both parties.

 

[Zenmervolt]

18MPG Explorer

I get 22 mpg on the freeway with my dad's fully loaded V8 Eddie Bauer Explorer. Averaged 21 mpg on a trip from Ohio to NH according to the little digital readout.

ZV

 

[Spac3d]

I don't support it. If people want to spend more money on gas, go ahead. Helps the economy.

Spac3d

 

[Fausto]

Honestly, I wish emissions were the big push right now over mileage. Creating LEV/ULEV cars is a much smaller technological hurdle for manufacturers and would make a HUGE difference in quality of life for us big-city folks. There are plenty of days in the summer here in Atlanta where I might as well stay home and smoke a pack of Luckys than go exercise in our lovely, lung-searing smog. :|

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Honestly, I wish emissions were the big push right now over mileage. Creating LEV/ULEV cars is a much smaller technological hurdle for manufacturers and would make a HUGE difference in quality of life for us big-city folks. There are plenty of days in the summer here in Atlanta where I might as well stay home and smoke a pack of Luckys than go exercise in our lovely, lung-searing smog. :|

I know what you mean. I never really noticed how bad the smog was in Atlanta until I went to the top of Stone Mountain for the first time.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Spac3d
I don't support it. If people want to spend more money on gas, go ahead. Helps the economy.

Spac3d

Um... actually no it doesn't, since the majority of that fuel is coming from over seas. It help an enonomy, just not ours... If industry was forced to make more efficient cars, then that means more jobs for engineers and laborers, then more people would buy new cars for the better mileage, which is more jobs for the salepersons, advertising companies, steel/aluminimum/glass industry, and all the other industries that go into making parts for the car including semiconductor... and then when Americans have their more efficient cars, they have more leftover money to spend locally than on gas.

History shows that some of the biggest booms in economy have been lead by a rise of production and purchase in the Automobile industry.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Honestly, I wish emissions were the big push right now over mileage. Creating LEV/ULEV cars is a much smaller technological hurdle for manufacturers and would make a HUGE difference in quality of life for us big-city folks. There are plenty of days in the summer here in Atlanta where I might as well stay home and smoke a pack of Luckys than go exercise in our lovely, lung-searing smog. :|

You make a very good point. The only problem is that emissions laws would come down hard on old cars instead of the new ones. (Ford's Expedition is an LEV.) And as we all know, it's much easier and more popular to target wealthy people in new SUVs than it is to target poorer people who drive cars that belch oil or are just too old to meet the standards.

ZV

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Honestly, I wish emissions were the big push right now over mileage. Creating LEV/ULEV cars is a much smaller technological hurdle for manufacturers and would make a HUGE difference in quality of life for us big-city folks. There are plenty of days in the summer here in Atlanta where I might as well stay home and smoke a pack of Luckys than go exercise in our lovely, lung-searing smog. :|

Hydrogen powered vehicles should solve that problem...

 

[Dragnov]

I was watching the news and they were talking about the average mpg these things get...

they said the average SUV gets from 15-18mpg.
they said the average car gets in the mid 20's.

Damn those gass guzzling SUVS!

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Honestly, I wish emissions were the big push right now over mileage. Creating LEV/ULEV cars is a much smaller technological hurdle for manufacturers and would make a HUGE difference in quality of life for us big-city folks. There are plenty of days in the summer here in Atlanta where I might as well stay home and smoke a pack of Luckys than go exercise in our lovely, lung-searing smog. :|

I know what you mean. I never really noticed how bad the smog was in Atlanta until I went to the top of Stone Mountain for the first time.

You know what's really sad? We didn't have smog when I moved here in 1989 to any great extent. It's only been the last 5 years or so that it's gotten really bad. I rode my bike to work last summer on what turned out to be a "code purple" day and felt like someone had sandblasted in the inside of my lungs when I got home.

You make a very good point. The only problem is that emissions laws would come down hard on old cars instead of the new ones. (Ford's Expedition is an LEV.) And as we all know, it's much easier and more popular to target wealthy people in new SUVs than it is to target poorer people who drive cars that belch oil or are just too old to meet the standards.

Very true and that's the rub with emissions standards. It just hacks me off when I'm behind some 1973 POS that's belching black smoke that has a "historical vehicle" (read: emissions? What emissions?) tag on it. That kind of loophole is BS in my opinion. An early-70's rustbucket hoopty =/= "historical vehicle". :|

 

[rh71]

Good luck to them, my gas mileage is 12/15mpg right now. And it's only a regular-size SUV. They've got a LONG way to go.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Very true and that's the rub with emissions standards. It just hacks me off when I'm behind some 1973 POS that's belching black smoke that has a "historical vehicle" (read: emissions? What emissions?) tag on it. That kind of loophole is BS in my opinion. An early-70's rustbucket hoopty =/= "historical vehicle". :|

Sad thing is that if you get an old engine tuned up properly, it's really not all that dirty. Sure it's not as clean as a new car, but there's no excuse for an old car being in that poor of repair. I rather like Germany's laws regarding this (note, this is what I've read in automotive publications, no personal experience). In Germany, I've heard that it's illegal to drive a vehicle that is in poor repair or that has heavy accident damage. Basically, you get fined if your car is leaving trails of fluids and smoke all over the place. Seems like a good idea to me.

ZV

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Fausto1
Very true and that's the rub with emissions standards. It just hacks me off when I'm behind some 1973 POS that's belching black smoke that has a "historical vehicle" (read: emissions? What emissions?) tag on it. That kind of loophole is BS in my opinion. An early-70's rustbucket hoopty =/= "historical vehicle". :|

Sad thing is that if you get an old engine tuned up properly, it's really not all that dirty. Sure it's not as clean as a new car, but there's no excuse for an old car being in that poor of repair. I rather like Germany's laws regarding this (note, this is what I've read in automotive publications, no personal experience). In Germany, I've heard that it's illegal to drive a vehicle that is in poor repair or that has heavy accident damage. Basically, you get fined if your car is leaving trails of fluids and smoke all over the place. Seems like a good idea to me.

ZV

I totally agree. No reason an older Mustang or whatever can't burn fairly cleanly. They likely won't pass modern emissions, but then there aren't that many of them on the road so they make this exception. Perfectly reasonable. The problem is that every cheapass mofo with an old car uses this as a loophole to keep their smoke machine on the road. I can't count the number of times I've been behind some smoking hunk of crap that had one of these tags on it. Total horsesh*t.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
I was watching the news and they were talking about the average mpg these things get...

they said the average SUV gets from 15-18mpg.
they said the average car gets in the mid 20's.

Damn those gass guzzling SUVS!

So, if I understood you correctly, SUV's get 15-18mpg, whereas average car gets in the mid 20's (23-27mpg?). To me that seems like a quite a big difference.

Difference between best SUV and worst car: 5mpg.
Difference between worst SUV and best car: 12 mpg

Of course, I only included the cars that are in the "mid 20's". There are bound to be even more efficient cars

 

[0roo0roo]

and now they should set standards for lowering the bumpers of suvs. really...those things are set too high.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and now they should set standards for lowering the bumpers of suvs. really...those things are set too high.

They should just lower the whole frame....

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and now they should set standards for lowering the bumpers of suvs. really...those things are set too high.

They should just lower the whole frame....

Ok, I'm going to throw this out right here. The primary purpose of the height of SUVs is ground clearance. Get it?

Now don't go and tell me "but how many people go climbing rocks or mountains?" ... because you know what? How many people need sports cars that go 0-60 in 6 seconds or less? But they're out there, aren't they? Yeah... thought so.