backtop


Print 164 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Mar 24 at 12:15 AM


Hybrids and EVs like the Focus Electric will help makers reach CAFE standards
VW will spend more than anyone to meet 2016 standards

While the intentions of increasing the fuel efficiency standards for vehicles in the U.S. are noble, the reality is that it will ultimately cost consumers more when they purchase a vehicle. The cost to build and develop the more fuel-efficient vehicles will simply be tacked onto the car’s price tag.

The CAFE standards for an automaker’s fleet wide fuel economy currently require an average of 34.1 mpg by 2016. The current CAFE requirement is 27.5 mpg. According to the EPA, the price for an automaker to reach that fuel efficiency varies, but on average each vehicle requires about $948 in upgrades to meet the new efficiency standards. The EPA also claims that while the car will cost more upfront, the driver will save $3,000 over the life of the vehicle in fuel costs.

The NYT reports that the $948 average doesn't tell the full story though and some carmakers will see significantly higher costs to meet the 2016 standards than others will. The reason for this is that some brands have already invested heavily in fuel efficiency and technology. The EPA figures that Toyota will only pay about $455 for each of its vehicles to reach the 2016 standards. This is thanks, in part, to vehicles like the popular Prius hybrid

Less efficient car brands like VW will spend $437 to simply get its fleet up to the 2012 standards for the incremental efficiency mandate. VW will pay out $1,693 per vehicle to reach the 2016 standards. BMW will also spend heavily to reach 16 standards at $1,453 per vehicle with Chrysler next at $1,328, and GM spending $1,219 per vehicle. Ford will spend $1,228 per vehicle to meet the 16 standards.

One thing that becomes clear is that the American automakers with larger cars, SUVs, and trucks that use V8 engines will be the ones spending more to reach the lofty standards.

Foreign makers will spend less with Honda needing only $574 to hit 2016 compliance, Hyundai needing $745, and Kia needing $501. The EPA numbers are based on figures that come from automakers. Some of the costs are assumed to be standard across the marker for things like direct fuel injection, better aerodynamics, and reduced weight.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Could just drop a few models/engines
By Flunk on 3/17/2011 11:59:48 AM , Rating: 5
They could save a lot of development money by simply dropping the most inefficient vehicles they sell, especially low-volume ones. Who's to say that people who would have bought a V8 Mustang wouldn't make do with a V6 were the V8 no longer available.




RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/17/2011 12:05:33 PM , Rating: 5
Pulls out lawn chair and a beer. Fitcamaro will be with you shortly :)


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 12:23:52 PM , Rating: 3
Glad to not disappoint.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Azethoth on 3/18/2011 1:05:47 AM , Rating: 2
What I do not get about the muscle car argument is this: an electric bike is the fastest on the planet: http://www.killacycle.com/. Granted its a drag race kinda example but it can be applied to a vehicle as well: http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/segments/view/1686

Bottom line, you just want to kick dust in face off the starting line.

So lets go electric, one racing category at a time!


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Nexos on 3/18/2011 3:43:38 AM , Rating: 2
Next category: Le Mans 24 hours

good luck!


By JediJeb on 3/18/2011 6:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
I guess they could install electric rails on the track at Le Mans and we could use electric cars and have the best slot car race ever :)


By teldar on 3/18/2011 8:29:37 AM , Rating: 3
Range?
Are you an idiot?
Do you live in Europe?
Do you live in a 3+million person metro area?
One of the above is applicable.
There is a compete difference in engineering between a drag racer and something you can drive a couple hundred miles.
You figure or what I'm saying.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 12:20:58 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry for being late. Had to finish laughing at my introduction.

It would make more sense to cancel vehicles where this was done outright. Sure the majority of Mustangs sold are V6s. But the reason for offering the car in the first place is to provide a performance car. Sure the 300hp V6 isn't terrible, but it doesn't provide what performance enthusiasts want. Offering a single or twin turbo option to the V6 really wouldn't improve fuel economy that much vs. the V8 either. Just look at the F150 which offers an Ecoboost V6. Just 5%(22 instead of 20) better fuel economy for a few grand premium.

The only thing you WOULD accomplish there is driving up the price of any used V8 Mustang or other sports car.

I'm not against turbo V6 options by the way. Just not for the reasons of fuel economy. The Grand National and Turbo Trans Am were badass.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By robertisaar on 3/17/2011 12:38:49 PM , Rating: 5
while i can agree with the rest of your post, FIT, but simple math says 20 to 22 is a 10% bump, not 5%.


By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 1:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry. Brain fart.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 5:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
If we could cut our dependence on terrorist funding foreign oil by 10% I say go for it.


By RivuxGamma on 3/21/2011 2:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
I, for one, think we should only use terrorists for every aspect of life. If we can increase our dependence on terrorist funding foreign oil by 10% I say go for it.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By torpor on 3/17/2011 5:41:20 PM , Rating: 3
He might end up being right....there are lots of ways to fudge your CAFE rating. Check out the wikipedia article, here's a snapshot that explains why virtually every car in the GM and Ford lineups will run on E85:
quote:
For the fuel economy calculation for alternative fuel vehicles, a gallon of alternative fuel is deemed to contain 15% fuel (which is approximately the amount of gasoline in a gallon of E85) as an incentive to develop alternative fuel vehicles.[ -or subsidize corn agribiz -Torpor ] The mileage for dual-fuel vehicles, such as E85 capable models, is computed as the average of its alternative fuel rating—divided by 0.15 (equal to multiplying by 6.666) -- and its gasoline rating. Thus an E85-capable vehicle that gets 15 mpg on E-85 and 25 mpg on gasoline might logically be rated at 20 mpg. But in fact the average, for CAFE purposes, despite perhaps only one percent of the fuel used in E85-capable vehicles is actually E85, is computed as 100 mpg for E-85 and the standard 25 mpg for gasoline, or 62.5 mpg.


It's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap.
-Eric Cartman.


By sigmatau on 3/17/2011 11:24:18 PM , Rating: 4
They are phasing out that advantage in fudging the numbers for E85 compatible cars. They should have never allowed this type of calculus as ethanol is the biggest scam.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By FaaR on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By ebakke on 3/17/2011 1:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
With enough money, I can.


By YashBudini on 3/24/2011 12:15:00 AM , Rating: 2
You and Charlie Sheen.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By F4iHorn on 3/17/2011 1:43:25 PM , Rating: 5
No Sh*t!

But don't you think how hard you work, how much you save, or the good/ bad decisions in life should determine what you can and cannot have? Or some douche in Washington that tells you what you can have while he/ she flies in a private jet funded by YOU all over the place.


By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 1:58:15 PM , Rating: 5
This.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By MadMan007 on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
By Kurz on 3/17/2011 11:13:31 PM , Rating: 3
Except the knowledge is never concentrated.
The market is always smarter than a few Politicians/scientists/regulators.


By FITCamaro on 3/18/2011 12:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
You're right.

Go to your room.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By tayb on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 2:13:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If there was no V8 you would never know the performance benefits of it and you would be perfectly happy with a V6.
No.


By ebakke on 3/17/2011 10:53:12 PM , Rating: 4
Do you not see that what you are advocating is the opposite of freedom? Or do you just not care?


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By callmeroy on 3/17/2011 1:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
As an owner of a new 2010 Camaro RS (v6 - 304 hp) I can see both sides to the debate here.

I could have afforded the price of an SS -- my deal breaker to ease back for the RS was really the insurance (allstate wanted almost $600 more per year -- $50 more per month) and the fuel cost.

My car is "EPA rated to be 29 mpg highway and I believe around 23 city"....it has one of those computers in it that tell you what kind of mileage you are getting...I've never seen it better than 19.7 MPG in the year since i've had the car.

But I'm not complaining just kind of laughing at how the EPA comes up with MPG ratings...I guess for a car as heavy as mine (which was one of the complaints against it in reviews -- for its size and class its a heavy car) and for 304 HP almost 20 mpg isn't that bad, and though I mostly drive on the highway its stop and go bumper to bumper traffic quite often.

I could only imagine what my MPG would be if I had gone with my first choice of getting the SS (V-8 426 HP)...

Anyway...I just think if people buy cars for performance, they don't give a rat's arse about the fuel pump...if they do they are a bit stupid to be honest...I mean you know what you are getting into before you drive off the lot -- its your fault if you only get 8 mpg and gas rises to $4.50 / gallon....don't cry about it.


By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 1:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
I drove around an automatic V6 rental Camaro for 4 days in Seattle and averaged 25 mpg. Even did a 120 mph run in it.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 1:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
And when I bought my GTO, I figured $4/gallon gas.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 2:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't figure in gas at all in my Solstice even though i can hit 33 mpg with it (I do it for sh!ts and giggles on occasion). Quite frankly, I don't care. As fas I'm concerned, the price of gas is part of the cost of owning a car, whatever that price is. Now my wife DOES consider gas prices in cars (didn't know that until a few months ago) so when the cost of filling her truck reached $100 a couple years ago, she decided she wanted something more fuel efficient. No Prius', mind you, but something that gets at least as good as mine. Although, I think I'm going to point her in the direction of something that's even more fuel efficient than mine. So I won't hear her complain when gas prices are even higher than now.


By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 2:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm very happy with the 2002 Saturn Vue I picked up as a daily driver. 25 mpg around town and the utility I need that comes with owning a home.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Hiawa23 on 3/17/2011 2:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
I considered fuel efficiency as I have a 1997 Honda Civic with 225,000 miles runs good but the car has alot of miles, & my only gripe wit the car is when you hit the AC button you lose alot of power, still gets 30MPG, but I only drive it on weekends around town. In 2006 I went out & bought a 2006 Mitsu Lancer Ralliart 2.4l. Ticket said 21MPG city 29MPG hwy. The car has never gotten 29MPG, but gas prices really scare me, as it does most families especially in these times, cause if gas goes up along with food, I run short paying my student loan, or mortgage, & I am certainly not buying another car. It's sad that our govt has had decades to produce more of our own oil, or do something that would bring down the costs of fuel so when crap happens in the Arab nations, our prices don't go through the roof. For many families, if gas goes up .50/gallon it causes a financial heartache, especially since the recession.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By JediJeb on 3/17/2011 2:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
If say 50% of the people who normally take vacations this year would stay home, then the big vacation spots would squeal loud enough that the government would do something about gas prices since they would be losing tons of money in taxes from places like Disney World and resort hotels.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 4:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't the big vacation spots taking a hit during the toilet bowl part of the recession?


By YashBudini on 3/18/2011 12:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's hard to tell, we're still spinning around the bowl at an awful rate.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By JediJeb on 3/17/2011 2:55:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I could only imagine what my MPG would be if I had gone with my first choice of getting the SS (V-8 426 HP)...


Just depends I guess, if the car is too heavy then the V8 may get better mileage than the V6. When I started college I had a 79 Mustang 4 cylinder and it got worse mileage than my friends who had the V8s, mostly because it was a very heavy car and the little 4 just couldn't move it easily.

As a comparison my Mustang got maybe 22MPG highway, yet the 99 Trans Am I had with the LS1 could get 25-27MPG highway with way more power, yes it is 20 years difference in technology but also better power to weight ratio helps a lot.


By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 3:49:27 PM , Rating: 3
My dads 2002 Trans Am WS6 6-speed averages 27 mpg highway. We're taking it on the Hot Rod Power Tour in June. Can't wait.

Had planned for $3.50 a gallon. Looking like its going to be significantly more. At least in the more northern states.


By Keeir on 3/18/2011 3:06:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I'm not complaining just kind of laughing at how the EPA comes up with MPG ratings


GRAH.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.s...

Its not a secret. It has never been "hidden" information.

Significant use of Heater, AC, power, etc lower MPG
Significant "Idle" time lowers MPG (which seems to be your issue)


By HrilL on 3/17/2011 12:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
Fords new V6 has more horse than the older V8 just less torque but not by much.
http://www.dailytech.com/Ford+F150s+EcoBoost+V6+Ge...


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By lightfoot on 3/17/2011 1:14:42 PM , Rating: 5
One problem with your logic is that CAFE is based on number of vehicles sold, not the number of models available. Eliminating a low volume vehicle like the Mustang GT would have far less impact than getting rid of a high volume model like the Crown Vic or the Taurus.

The problem is that you can't just get rid of your high volume model lines; that would be business suicide.

What the article doesn't mention is that it is a common tactic of auto companies to subsidize small fuel efficient vehicles to boost the sales volume in order to allow them to continue selling massive land barges that people will buy at any price. What this means is that the premium you will pay on an Explorer or Taurus will be much higher (possibly $5000 or more) but the price of a Ford Feista won't budge.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Flunk on 3/17/2011 2:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
Too late on one of those. The Crown Vic is dead. The Taurus is a lot more efficient too, but the volume model is the Fusion. Which is quite good on gas for a mid-size.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By lightfoot on 3/17/2011 2:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Crown Vic is dead. The Taurus is a lot more efficient too

My point exactly. They are the low hanging fruit. The problem is that if Ford intends to use the Taurus as the replacement to the Crown Vic, then they need to keep the size and performance. They also need to make it much more fuel efficient.

Getting rid of the Mustang GT, or the large displacement V8's won't have nearly the impact on Ford's CAFE rating as tweaking the Taurus and Explorer. It is all about volume.

The Fusion is a good start, but it can't take the place of the Crown Vic large sedans. Police, and to a lesser extent Taxi companies, need the larger more powerful vehicles.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 4:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Getting rid of the Mustang GT, or the large displacement V8's won't have nearly the impact on Ford's CAFE rating as tweaking the Taurus and Explorer. It is all about volume.
Well, the F150 sells more than those two cars combined on a bad day. Making the V8's there more fuel efficient would have the largest dent on their CAFE BUT fuel efficiency isn't just about engine displacement. We know the Ecoboost V6 can do MUCH better in other applications and the reason it does in aerodynamics. The Taurus is a much sleeker shape than the F150.

Taurus
CD - .33
Frontal area - 30 sq ft

F150
CD - .40
Frontal area - 46 sq ft


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By lightfoot on 3/17/2011 6:34:43 PM , Rating: 3
Correct me if I am wrong, but the CAFE average is calculated seperately for cars and light trucks.

Fuel economy ratings will be 37.8 MPG for cars and 28.8 MPG for trucks by 2016.

Cars like the Mustang GT would be averaged with the Fiesta, Fusion and Taurus, not the F-150.

Trucks like the F-150 have always been held to a lower standard. So, no the F-150 would not have any impact on Ford's CAFE average for cars. It would however be the largest factor of their light truck CAFE average, which again has lower standards.

By making the new Explorer a crossover (based on the Taurus platform,) I suspect it will be averaged with the cars, not the trucks.


By Spuke on 3/17/2011 7:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fuel economy ratings will be 37.8 MPG for cars and 28.8 MPG for trucks by 2016.
Ah, I had thought they threw them together for the 2016. Just did a Google and you are correct. Thanks.

Found this article but it's from 2009.
http://blogs.trucktrend.com/6556560/industry-news/...


By ElFenix on 3/18/2011 12:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
iirc, anything with a 'flat load floor' is considered a truck for purposes of meeting the definition under 40 C.F.R. § 86.082-2 (as a flat load floor allows for the easy transport of property). so the new station wagon explorer counts as a light truck. i don't see why a focus wagon with flat fold seats couldn't count as a truck, given that definition.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 2:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with the new Taurus is that its so damn heavy. It's about as large a car as my GTO and it weighs over 4000 pounds. 250 pounds more but with just a V6. The SHO Taurus is nearly 4400 pounds.

It's actually not a terrible looking car. It just needs to go on a major diet. Same goes for the Camaro. They need to get the weight down to about 3700 pounds at least.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By lightfoot on 3/17/2011 6:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that Americans have come to believe that the weight of a vehicle equals safety.

The physics tend to agree, but it only increases your survival at the expense of the other person. It's a bit of an arms race when you think about it. Everybody wants their vehicle to be just a little bit bigger than all of the other idiots on the road.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 6:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
The government doesn't even concern itself with evasiveness.

/epic fail


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By lightfoot on 3/17/2011 7:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
Mandatory ABS and ESC would suggest otherwise...


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 8:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
Evasiveness is a lot more than that.

A lot of that money could have been better spent on driver training, so the "suggestion" does pan out all that much.

ABS and ESC treat symptons, not causes. If driving skills are limited to turning a wheel and pressing 2 pedals those people will end up in a ditch or worse anyways. And with a more expensive totaled car.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By JediJeb on 3/18/2011 6:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
I saw something on how drivers get their license in Finland, there you have to spend three sessions on a water soaked skid pad as part of your drivers training to get your license. They actually teach you how to drive there, not just how to point it in the general direction you want to go and press the gas.


By YashBudini on 3/18/2011 6:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
not just how to point it in the general direction you want to go and press the gas.

With a cell phone in one hand and a Big Mac in the other.

Here drivers can learn a great deal more about safety by taking a motorcycle safety course. One learns how to avoid potentially dangerous situations before hand.


By Spuke on 3/17/2011 2:12:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Who's to say that people who would have bought a V8 Mustang wouldn't make do with a V6 were the V8 no longer available.
The low volume models don't have much, if any, of an impact on the standards, that's why they're still built. I'm happy we DO have lots of choices in vehicles to buy, low volume or not.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By walk2k on 3/17/2011 2:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
You don't even necessarily need to get rid of the V8. The vehicles with the worst MPG problems have them more because of size and weight. You could design a small, lightweight car with a small V8 (3.5 liters or so) that goes like stink.

I'd love to see what kind of mileage a V8 Ariel Atom (that weighs about nothing) could get if you just putzed around town with it. =)


By Spuke on 3/17/2011 4:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd love to see what kind of mileage a V8 Ariel Atom (that weighs about nothing) could get if you just putzed around town with it. =)
Somehow, I don't think it's very good.


By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 10:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
Plus you can do the displacement on demand to help a little bit.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Hiawa23 on 3/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By JediJeb on 3/17/2011 3:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Mainly because the way to get to the higher MPGs is less weight and better aerodynamics, which does mean more cars that look like the Prius. Look how the Volt changed from the sporty looking prototype to what it is now. Car companies have stayed away from making less appealing cars or adding a lot to the price by using more composites to lower the weight. But once the government says they have to, they will just charge us more to make those changes.

You could shed some weight by getting rid of the airbags and anti lock brakes and things like that, but then those are now pretty much mandated so that route is out. The bad thing is the government wants things that make cars heavier and they want better fuel efficiency, two things that go counter to each other. Like saying you want to move farther from work but have a shorter commute.


By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 5:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah who the hell wants ABS, stability control, airbags, and uni bodies that are structurally designed to do well in crash tests? What a bunch of useless crap. :) Give me a lightweight death trap muscle car any day.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Hiawa23 on 3/17/2011 8:02:12 PM , Rating: 1
Mainly because the way to get to the higher MPGs is less weight and better aerodynamics, which does mean more cars that look like the Prius. Look how the Volt changed from the sporty looking prototype to what it is now

But I like the look of the Volt. I donot like how the Prius or the honda knockoff looks. To me the Volt is a great looking normal looking vehicle


By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 10:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, the volt is a darn right handsome car. It looks way better than a prius, but the new prius looks a little better than the old one anyways.


By Keeir on 3/18/2011 3:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
It wasn't his point that the Volt looks bad.

It was he point that the Volt needs to look very normal (remove all the fancy detail design and its very similar shape and size as the Civic) rather than extrordinary as the Concept car did....


By DanNeely on 3/17/2011 3:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel economy, engine power, emissions levels (smog), and cost are all interrelated. Any time you improve one you take hits in the other three. Much tighter emissions levels are why we haven't seen any major gains in fuel economy is that progressively tighter emissions requirements have been eating the gains from efficiency and performance; both have been kept more or less where they were in order to minimize the amount costs went up.

The other drag on economy/cost is weight due to more safety systems and consumer demand for more gadgets in their cars. Using material like carbon fiber can cut the weight down to balance the gains from other items, but at the cost of major increases in cost which are prohibitive for mass market vehicles. The use of more aluminum, and stronger/lighter (bot more expensive) steel alloys is being done but is one of the factors driving costs up.


RE: Could just drop a few models/engines
By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 5:23:48 PM , Rating: 1
Ford seems to be kicking ass in this department. They have some nice dual clutch 6spd auto transmissions with direct injected 4 cylinders. I like the idea of boosting mileage this way rather than making overly complex hybrids. Hell the F150 with the new 300+hp V6 gets the same mileage as my Tacoma V6, pretty impressive figuring it weighs about 2000lbs more. Only fit camaro could get upset about increasing efficiency.


By Spuke on 3/17/2011 7:15:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Only fit camaro could get upset about increasing efficiency.
You guys just make up sh!t. Why the hell would ANYONE be for worse gas mileage if they can get better? He never said he was against it but since he doesn't agree with you, in entirety, he's automatically against you in your mind.


By Shane McGlaun (blog) on 3/18/2011 8:38:57 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm... me. The Mustang and a V8 are two things that must go together. IMHO the only reason to spend huge money on developing EVs and hybirds considering the fact that many sell in very low numbers is to allow makers to meet CAFE and still offer cars the masses and enthusiasts are interested in with big V8's.

That said, I forsee a new SVT Ecoboost finding its way under the hood of future limited edition Mustangs sort of like the SVT turbo 4 from the fox days. An engineer from Ford once said that teh ecoboost V6 in the SHO was eaisly good for 20psi in testing. The V8 will always be there though and the economy of the new 5.0 proves that power and efficiency can go together.


Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By dsx724 on 3/17/2011 11:52:38 AM , Rating: 1
$1000 can be made back in 4 years in fuel savings. Thats $1000 less of our GDP going to the toilet.




RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By HakonPCA on 3/17/2011 12:05:19 PM , Rating: 1
but probably, the savings is based on a static cost of fuel, if the MPG (average over all cars in the company fleet) goes up 15% but fuel also goes up 15% then "savings" is gone but consumer pays for the extra fuel they would have used without upgrades up-front instead of a little bit each time they fill up.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Xaussie on 3/17/2011 12:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
That's the best piece of nu-math I've seen in a long time. If the cost of fuel goes up, the savings increase not decrease. The only time this argument could even remotely be plausible were if the increased efficiency required more expensive fuel. Here they are talking about making the vehicle more efficient using the same gasoline we are currently using.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By GatoRat on 3/17/2011 1:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
If the fuel mileage increases by 15% and the price of gas increases by 15% it's a wash.

This, however, assumes that the two prices are linked. They aren't. This doesn't make this a good idea. If an individual wants to save money on gas, great, but why equally insist that if a person want a car with crappy gas mileage, they would be prohibited?

That said, my Honda Civic averages about 36 MPG--over 90% of which are highway miles, thus the high number. (When I commuted on city streets, I'd get 32 MPG without ethanol, about 30 MPG during winter with ethanol and 29 MPG if my daughter drove it, regardless of additives.)

Assuming gas prices stay the same ($3.39), I'd save about $214 a year with a 15% mileage improvement. So that would pay off in 5 years but only IF I compared buying a new car without the improved mileage to one with it. As it stands now, buying a new Civic would actually cost me a lot more money in depreciation and so forth. And the new Civics are bigger and heavier than mine, so a 15% improvement in gas mileage would barely get it back to where my mileage is now.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Solandri on 3/17/2011 1:38:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If the fuel mileage increases by 15% and the price of gas increases by 15% it's a wash.

No, he's right. You need to be comparing to the vehicle with the old mileage at the new gas price, not with the old mileage at the old gas price.

Old Vehicle = 20 mpg
New Vehicle = 23 mpg (15% higher, costs $1000 more to buy)

If you drive 12k miles/yr, that's a difference of 78.3 gal/yr. To save $250/yr, gas has to be priced at $3.19/gal. So the annual fuel cost looks like this:

Old Vehicle = 12000/20 = 600 gal/yr = $1914/yr
New Vehicle = 12000/23 = 522 gal/yr = $1664/yr ($250 lower)

If gas then goes up 15%, that'd be $3.67/gal. And the new annual fuel cost looks like this:

Old Vehicle = 600 gal/yr = $2202/yr
New Vehicle = 522 gal/yr = $1914/yr ($288 lower)

The owner of the new vehicle pays the same amount on gas per year ($1914) as the owner of the old vehicle would at the old gas prices. That's what's a wash. But the owner of the old vehicle doesn't get to pay last year's gas prices. He has to pay the same gas price as the owner of the new vehicle.

So the annual savings from having the new vehicle is 2202-1914 = $288/yr. So the $1000 price increase is paid off in just 3.5 years instead of 4 years. A fuel price increase works in favor of the higher mileage new vehicle.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 2:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A fuel price increase works in favor of the higher mileage new vehicle.
I'm assuming this does not include the negative equity that most people roll over into the new car, right?


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By GatoRat on 3/17/2011 4:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
What I said is literally true. I wasn't comparing anything, simply stating a mathematical fact.

The bigger point is that once you factor in depreciation, higher insurance premiums and so forth, odds are that buying the new car makes no economic sense no matter the realistic gas prices except in rare edge cases. (12,000 miles a year isn't an edge case. I put 20,000 miles a year on my car and still can't justify buying a car with 15% mileage. In fact, I may get [a used] one with 15% worse mileage that is much more comfortable figuring that the $300 a year such a costs is worth it.)


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By sxr7171 on 3/17/2011 9:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
Trust me if gas hits $10 a gallon a 15% increase in mileage will be worth it. Just think about it. Very simply he's right, the higher gas costs the more "worth it" it is to choose a car with higher mileage.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By YashBudini on 3/18/2011 12:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
When gas hits $10/gallon we'll be buying enough 20 pound bags of rice and beans to fill the pantry, and bullet proof vests in a variety of fashion colors.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 5:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
It usually doesn't make economic sense to buy a new vehicles to save money on gas. The upfront cost of buying the new car isn't offset by the money saved in gas. If you are in the market anyways though, it makes sense to shop around for the most efficient vehicle that fits your needs.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 7:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you are in the market anyways though, it makes sense to shop around for the vehicle that fits your needs.
Fixed that for you.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 10:30:10 PM , Rating: 1
The price of gas isn't going to be getting any cheaper. High prices are here to stay.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Keeir on 3/18/2011 3:15:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm... why did you bother making that correction.

If Company A's CUV gets 22 MPG and Company B's CUV gets 25 MPG, wouldn't Company B's CUV be worth looking at?

quote:
If you are in the market anyways though, it makes sense to shop around for the vehicle that fits your needs and your budget, of which fuel economy plays an important role.


Fixed it for you.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Spuke on 3/23/2011 2:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ummm... why did you bother making that correction.
Because fuel efficiency is part of "vehicle that fits your needs" or maybe not. It's not mutually inclusive or exclusive, depends on your needs.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By RussianSensation on 3/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Christobevii3 on 3/17/2011 1:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
Does your wife/gf save you money by going shopping on a sale? No, she still spends money either way.

If you have a car that is paid for and is worth $8k and gets 20mpg and you replace it with $20k getting 40mpg you are still spending money on gas and the cost of the car. The first few years of depreciation will outweigh any savings in fuel costs. Also, you might save $1000-2000 a year on gas but just spent $12k more after selling your old car. Saving crap.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By gamerk2 on 3/17/2011 1:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you have a car that is paid for and is worth $8k and gets 20mpg and you replace it with $20k getting 40mpg you are still spending money on gas and the cost of the car.


Why are you adding $12,000 to the price of the car, when the projected increases are only $1,000? Thats a GREAT way to make the math work in your favor, but totally invalid.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 2:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
He missed a few words. He was saying if you have a car worth $8,000 and buy a car for $20,000, you now have to pay off a $12,000 loan on top of buying gas. Now lets say 1000 gallons of fuel a year before and only 500 now. Also figure $4.00 gallon.

Before you were just paying $333 a month on gas.

Now you're paying $416 a month on gas and a car payment.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By gamerk2 on 3/17/2011 1:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does your wife/gf save you money by going shopping on a sale? No, she still spends money either way.


Also invalid argument. A gas tank is a fixed size; if you have a 16/gal tank, you can't buy more then 16/gal worth of gas, no matter what its price is. To take your analogy and correct it, yes, you save money by going shopping on a sale, as you can't physically buy more gas then the tank can physically hold. [Well, you CAN, but thats not a very good idea...]


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By SilthDraeth on 3/17/2011 2:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. All this funky math implies that you don't own a vehicle.

Of course I was once in that trap and I am glad I am free of it.

I own a 1990 F250 xlt lariat with a 7.6 liter V8, sure the new Ford trucks have more power, and get better mileage. They also would cost me a around 40k for a 30k vehicle. Obviously things change based on APR, amount down, amount financed, etc.

Now my truck gets around 16mpg in every day driving. I say thats pretty impressive, and at close to 400 a month it would cost me in truck payment alone on a new vehicle that wouldn't be payed off for 5 years, I can get a ton of work done on my truck if it has any mechanical issues. Two months of payments is enough for a new paint job, another two months I could have the entire interior replaced, another 2 months I could replace the engine, and transmission.

Basically 1 year of payments I could fix anything that could possibly go wrong with my truck.

Same thing, I also own a 2005 crown vic, I bought outright. So my truck set me back $2800, and is in really good condition, came with an auxiliary fuel tank tool box. Total cost of repairs I have had to do, thermostat, and ignition coil, $100. Needs a fuel pump now, another $30... So still under 3 grand.

Crown Vic, bought outright for 4k cash.

Sure neither gets 40 mpg, but lets do some basic math.

Buy a new focus at 20k assume it gets 40mpg (we know it won't) vs the 20 mpg my CV gets.
Using best case scenarios, we assume I bought a focus cash for 20k, and it gets 40mpg. We know I bought my CV for 4k and it gets 20mpg. Price difference for buying vehicle... 16k

Assume I drive 12k miles per year.

Lets use $3/gallon of fuel.

12k/20mpg=600 gallons 600*3= $1800 on fuel.(900 for focus)
So I would save 900 dollars per year driving the focus...

Would take me 17.7 years to save 16k in fuel. Obviously the higher fuel prices go the shorter that time would be.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 2:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
It'll be pretty hard to produce a twin-turbo V6 that's lighter than a V8. Those turbos, the piping, and the intercooler aren't light.

It isn't the weight holding it back. It's consumer demand.

As I said, I'm not against turbo-V6 options. I would buy one.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 2:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It isn't the weight holding it back. It's consumer demand.
It's not just that, a turbo V6 doesn't get THAT much better gas mileage than a NA V8. Compare and contrast the Ecoboost V6 in the F150 to its equivalent V8.

Ecoboost
16/22
15/21 4WD

5.0L V8
15/21
14/19 4WD

Wow! A whole 1 mpg difference. To be fair, the hwy mileage of the 4WD improves by 3 so you would get an extra ~60 miles out of a tank there.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 2:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
I mentioned that above.

And 21 - 19 = 2 ;)

In a lighter vehicle with different gearing the Ecoboost V6 might give a better fuel economy difference. But in the end, it's really not going to be huge. Fact of the matter is for neither the focus is fuel economy. It's fun.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 4:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And 21 - 19 = 2 ;)
Crap! LOL!


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 5:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
They also put the 300hp V6 engine from mustang in the F150 and it gets even better mileage.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 6:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
F150

# 3.7L V6 flex-fuel
# Automatic transmission
# Up to 17 cty/23 hwy mpg


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By JediJeb on 3/18/2011 6:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how the mileage is for that V6 when you have the truck fully loaded or pulling a heavy trailer? Does it have enough low end torque to do the job, or do you have to run in with higher revs in a lower gear which would be less efficient than a larger V8?

Just wondering because I haven't seen the torque curves for comparison. I do know though that the 4.9L inline 6 in my truck will pull a trailer better than the V8 of the same size, but they quit making those engines back in 96-97.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By theapparition on 3/17/2011 3:06:11 PM , Rating: 1
Show me one turbo engine that gets similar power, better fuel economy, is lighter and cheaper than a modern V8.

Fact of the matter is there isn't one that I know of. If you can find one, then I'll eat my words.

There are always tradeoffs, but right now the V8 is a better option for most real sports cars for a variety of reasons. Sales on those models typically are so low that they don't adversely affect CAFE. Trucks on the hand, I do think you'll see Turbo'd V6s as an increasing option.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 4:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Show me one turbo engine that gets similar power, better fuel economy, is lighter and cheaper than a modern V8.
There's some that get the same but not better. Ecoboost vs 5.0L V8 in the F150 application.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By theapparition on 3/18/2011 11:46:00 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. But also is more expensive and tends to weigh more, including turbos and associated piping.

I'm not against FI by any means, as most of my cars are supercharged. But when you get down to some science, it becomes clear that it is a fine balancing game with power and fuel economy.

An engine is an air pumping device. More air means more power. You can get more air in by more and bigger cylinders, or by compressing air into fewer and smaller cylinders. However, you always have to maintain an air to fuel ratio. So either way, you end up use the same amount of fuel to get the same power.

Of course there are always trade offs. Big displacement engines have a large rotating mass and suffer larger pumping work losses, but can run at higher compression ratios. FI cars have to run lower compression ratios and ALWAYS suffer from parasitic loss from either supercharing or backpressure from turbos. But thier typically lower rotating mass and higher volumetric effiency tend to make this up. Another issue is that FI vehicles have to run richer (use more fuel) in open loop PE mode than comparable NA engines. Floored you'll always see a NA engine use less fuel than a comparable Turbo'd engine.

One area where FI shines is in non-PE mode, where the engine is running in closed loop mode and trying to maintain a 14.1:1 ratio. The larger engine always has the mass and pumping work to deal with, but a Forced Induction engine running in closed loop can vary the boost based on application, which definately gives it a slight edge in EPA testing (real world can be completely different).

Now other factors such as size, weight, complexity and of course, cost are also deciding factors.

I'm not claiming either is superior technology, just that there are tradeoffs either way. But it does crack me up when I see the "death of V8" rants or "Turbos 4 life" arguments.

FWIW, Ford did an excellent job with thier Ecoboost lineup, but even Ford engineers realized they needed a new V8 in thier Mustang.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Parhel on 3/17/2011 12:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
If I can spend $1000 more on the vehicle, and save $3000 in fuel, I'm in. It's a no-brainer. I mean, I need a car, and I'm not going to triple my money in my savings account or my 401k, right? But, if it sounds too good to be true, well . . .


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By JediJeb on 3/17/2011 3:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
$1000 can be made back in 4 years in fuel savings. Thats $1000 less of our GDP going to the toilet.


But it is $1000 going out of my pocket now, and will take me four years to get it back. When you don't have an extra $1000 it doesn't sound like such a great idea.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By YashBudini on 3/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 7:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anything that reduces middle east oil use is a positive step.
How does one do that actually IF one is STILL buying oil? Also, where does most of our oil come from again?


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By YashBudini on 3/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By Spuke on 3/23/2011 3:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And isn't decreasing demand a good thing overall regardless of where it came from?
Depends on what the goal is. If it's to get off Mid East oil, we're essentially there already. If it's simply to not use much if any foreign oil, then we have a ways to go. And with oil being a commodity, how do you do that anyways? BTW, I don't know why you got downrated either. This whole rating system sucks.


RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By YashBudini on 3/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Quit Yo $#@@@ing
By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 11:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone care to address why a question would be downrated?

Do questions frighten people? They shouldn't.


Yay
By MrTeal on 3/17/2011 11:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some of the costs are assumed to be standard ... better aerodynamics, and reduced weight.


Sweet, plastic eggs for everyone!




RE: Yay
By Flunk on 3/17/2011 12:00:51 PM , Rating: 1
If you don't want one you can pay more for a steel box.


RE: Yay
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 4:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't want one you can pay more for a steel box.
Make mine carbon fiber and we have a deal!


RE: Yay
By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 9:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't steel offer more energy absorption by crumpling/being more malleable? Doesn't carbon fiber tend to shatter?


RE: Yay
By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 10:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think they can design it to crumble, absorbing energy as it goes.


RE: Yay
By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 11:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
Carbon fiber?


RE: Yay
By SilthDraeth on 3/18/2011 12:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
I sure wouldn't want carbon fiber that was designed to crumble.


RE: Yay
By JediJeb on 3/18/2011 6:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well carbon fiber is used to make Formula one and Indy race cars and it does very well at absorbing the energy of crashes and protecting the drivers.


RE: Yay
By YashBudini on 3/18/2011 6:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
Formula cars tend to be no holds barred vehicles, probably more so with weight. The question still remains is steel more malleable and energy consuming?


RE: Yay
By Spuke on 3/23/2011 3:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
Steel is definitely more malleable. Not sure on the energy absorption. I would think it wouldn't be, money no object, else it would be used in F1, etc. I'm no expert here though.


RE: Yay
By YashBudini on 3/23/2011 9:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on priorities. Is weight savings more significant than some extra crushability? How many cages get crushed or damaged in any case? In accidents that kill the driver would more steel have made any difference?

A carbon fiber rod may bend to some extent, but what happens to the energy when it snaps?


RE: Yay
By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 7:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sweet, plastic eggs for everyone!


If you go back to the beginning of CAFE standards auto companies were making this Chicken Little claim decades ago. According to them it should have occurred by now, and yet vehicles are safer and heavier while meeting higher CAFE and emission standards.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

/Chicken Little.


And also
By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 5:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
Ask yourself how the method of law implementation is causing the cost increases. Would we have all been better off if CAFE standards simply went up .5 miles per gallon every year regardless. But that won't happen since all we do it continue to flip/flop administrations and not get off the 2 party coin.

This all could also lead to the development of light weight sound insulating materials, which would not be a bad thing.

Obviously car makers have not been that concerned about mileage in a while. Cars have become wider, much wider, and the Taurus is large in all dimensions. Then compare weight savings that can be obtained between shortening the car 2 inches versus narrowing the car 2 inches. The difference is significant.




RE: And also
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 7:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then compare weight savings that can be obtained between shortening the car 2 inches versus narrowing the car 2 inches. The difference is significant.
Site one example where that is true. Thanks.


RE: And also
By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 7:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well you won't believe anything I say or reference, so why not get results from someone you trust, like any auto engineer.


RE: And also
By sxr7171 on 3/17/2011 9:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
Common sense escapes many. I mean just think simple geometry. A middle school student would find it intuitive that you would reduce the area of a rectangle more by reducing the shorter side by a given measure.


RE: And also
By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 9:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
The question may have more to do with bias.


RE: And also
By Spuke on 3/23/2011 3:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The question may have more to do with bias.
Nope! It has everything to do with persons on the internet making claims without backing it up. It's that whole, I said it so it must be so, thing. Try this one on. WE don't know each other here so the assumption should be made that we're not speaking to each other as colleagues. Qualify your assertions. Not too much to ask for IMO.


RE: And also
By YashBudini on 3/23/2011 9:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It has everything to do with persons on the internet making claims without backing it up.


Fact: Had FC made the same claim you would have instantly agreed.

quote:
Not too much to ask for IMO.

I already answered this. Besides people on Faux qualify their propaganda, err, assertions, what's that worth?

My comment: The sun will be there tomorrow. I have no proof. Deal with it.


RE: And also
By Spuke on 3/23/2011 3:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Common sense escapes many. I mean just think simple geometry. A middle school student would find it intuitive that you would reduce the area of a rectangle more by reducing the shorter side by a given measure.
Geometry is not what I would consider "common sense". But thanks for the answer anyways.


RE: And also
By YashBudini on 3/23/2011 11:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's not rocket science either.


Real engineering needed
By Divide Overflow on 3/17/2011 12:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
The automakers are telling us that they will need to charge us more because they will have to design more fuel efficient cars. I guess there will be a huge hiring spree for engineers who can actually do this rather than churn out the aesthetic tweaks that the auto industry passes off as model year upgrades these days.




RE: Real engineering needed
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 12:23:18 PM , Rating: 3
Cars are typically redesigned every 8-10 years. Its far too expensive to drastically change the look of a car much more often than that.


RE: Real engineering needed
By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 5:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
Na, the are just bringing over technologies that have already been on the market in Germany. US companies were so far behind that all they had to do make huge improvements was copy.


And who did they think was going to pay....
By Dr of crap on 3/17/2011 12:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it always put that way -
"The car buyers will have to pick up the tab for car makers to reach the CAFE standards."

Who did they think was going to pay for it??




By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 5:50:23 PM , Rating: 1
You put up a little more money up front to save more money over the life of the car. Its a good deal.


Of course it is
By ebakke on 3/17/2011 11:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
Umm... duh. Whoever didn't see this coming is an idiot.




VW
By btc909 on 3/17/2011 5:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
I would suppose the VW number is $1437 not $437.




typo in article title
By newmachineoverlord on 3/18/2011 8:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
The title of the article says "higher costs for everyone" when it should say "lower costs for everyone". The text of the article clearly indicates that on average the fuel economy benefits will save three times as much money as the increase in purchase costs. Furthermore the article implies That the brands that will spend the most are the least efficient, and therefore will save substantially more over the lifetime of the vehicle. Yet even assuming average gas savings with above average costs, the worst case scenario listed in the article (VW) would save 1300 dollars over the life of the vehicle.

I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt as to the use of the word "higher" instead of "lower" being a typo rather than a deliberate attempt to create a deceptive headline to influence people that don't read beyond the headline.




By newmachineoverlord on 3/18/2011 7:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
The headline should read "2016 Automotive CAFE requirements Mean Lower costs for Everyone".

The text of the article indicates that fuel costs will be reduced by an average of $3000 while purchase price will be increased by less than $1000 on average, producing an average net savings of $2000 for every vehicle. Furthermore, the carmakers whose costs will increase the most are said to have less efficient vehicles, indicating greater than average savings on gas. Thus VW customers would have net savings of more than $1300 per vehicle on gas.

The headline seems designed to give a false impression to the many people who just read headlines rather than reading the article. This is a tactic more akin to what is normally seen on fox news than on dailytech.




CAFE requirements
By mosu on 3/20/2011 1:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
2 questions:
1 Are there different standards for gas and diesel fuel?
2 If there is no difference, why don't you switch to diesel.




Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By tayb on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 2:10:39 PM , Rating: 3
I know you think everyone cares about your opinion on how they should live their lives.

Psst. You're wrong.


RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By walk2k on 3/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 2:40:04 PM , Rating: 4
No they taught winning in my kindergarten.


By SilthDraeth on 3/17/2011 3:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
LOL I would rate you up for that reply if I hadn't posted. +1


By JediJeb on 3/17/2011 3:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
You went to the same one I went to apparently. Now days they just teach you everybody wins, there is no such things as losers and you can always have what you want.


RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By walk2k on 3/17/2011 8:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously flunked.


By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 8:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well public schools teaching how cooperation can get things done better and faster has been the epic fail of all time.


By Dr of crap on 3/17/2011 3:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
You really need to get laid!


RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 3:24:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We all live on the same planet chief.
You were just waiting to say this!!! LOL! You are correct, we ALL live on the same planet and the "rules" of consideration apply to EVERYONE. Since we chose to continue living in a free society, by participating in said society, we agreed to a few things:

1. Inalienable rights thing
2. Law

NOWHERE does it say I must consider your opinion or live by it. WE are only required to live within the law AND abide by each other rights. Por example, your right to fuel efficient vehicles does not trump my right to fuel inefficient vehicles. As long as we abide by law and rights, we can do WHATEVER we want. Consideration makes live more livable but it's certainly not a requirement and most definitely not a one way street.


RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 5:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
You can't beat mother nature, don't worry if people use more resources than what nature can provide there will inevitably be blow back.


RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 7:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't beat mother nature
My life is not a competition.


By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 7:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
Sure it is, you were competing with millions of other sperm just to be born.


RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By walk2k on 3/17/2011 8:12:33 PM , Rating: 1
What about everyone's right to breathe clean air or drink clean water? To hell with other people right? As long as you get to drive your V8 Penismobile, the rest of the world can go @#$% itself? NICE attitude.


RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By sxr7171 on 3/17/2011 9:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
They have the right to buy what they want to buy, I wouldn't take it away from anyone. However the total social costs of gasoline use has not been fully passed on to consumers and only recently has it started to reflect some of those costs. When gas hits $6 a gallon, then they'll still have that right to choose as they should, but I'll bet a lot of the poseurs won't pick that big huge SUV anymore.


RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By Spuke on 3/23/2011 3:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I'll bet a lot of the poseurs won't pick that big huge SUV anymore
If you look at actual sales, those huge SUV's are more like sports cars. Niche market. None ever made it into the top 20 here in the US. But because they're seen by people that dislike them, they draw their ire. Seriously, in the grand scheme of car sales, they're a drop in the bucket. You want to make a real dent? Go after the pickups. Those sell by nearly a 100,000 per month!! Although, I have to admit, that during the last gas spike, sales went down but Ford and Chevy still maintained their dominance so I'm not so sure you'll pull people away from them. If anything, Ford and Chevy will simply make them more fuel efficient (Ecoboost etc.).


By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 8:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NOWHERE does it say I must consider your opinion or live by it.

Aren't they addressing more than that?

quote:
Por example, your right to fuel efficient vehicles does not trump my right to fuel inefficient vehicles.

But you also impact national security more, which leads to higher military and DHS costs for everyone. Don't they count? Suppose others did similar stuff that raised your cost of living, you would just sit back and enjoy that?


RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 6:23:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Get rid of all the big cars and these companies won't have to spend nearly as much money to meet the fuel efficiency standards.

-----------------------
Taken to an extreme if every trip in a vehicle was determined by # of passengers many trips could be completed with a scooter. And yet sales aren't up all that much.
-----------------------
Logic went out the window the moment people started having "love affairs" with cars. Status has no logical means or end.

Cars as heavy as the Taurus SHO is the legal equivalent of Ford selling Dr Feelgood; it's in demand, it works, there's a societal price, and the buyer says STFU who invited you?

But your leaning may happen anyway. The middle class continues to have less disposable income and the smarter ones will not forget recent past times. For those who's memory doesn't extend that far a few shortages and flair ups in price will become constant reminders. Only then will people start to see the car is not working for them, it's they who are working for the car.

There's always going to be people whose cars are the center of their universe. Its why you see poverty stricken adults who buy beer, cigs, and lottery tickers over food. They're just hard wired that way at this point.


RE: Or just get rid of the huge cars?
By Jeffk464 on 3/17/2011 7:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
Scooters, motorcycles and bicycles are great until someone plows you over with one of those cars they are in love with.


By YashBudini on 3/17/2011 8:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
You can substitute the scotter with a small 2 seater, the overall argument remains the same.

But yeah, bikers tend to disappear with certain weather. Except the real hard core types.


This is good
By cknobman on 3/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: This is good
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2011 2:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
See response to tayb.


RE: This is good
By fishman on 3/17/2011 2:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the fuel economy of Japanese and Korean SUVs of similar size, you will see similar fuel economy. Even a couple of years ago, the Hummer H3 got similar fuel economy to a comparable Toyota SUV.

And look at Hyundai - it is coming out with bigger luxury cars that have lower fuel economy.


RE: This is good
By JediJeb on 3/17/2011 3:36:25 PM , Rating: 1
If they make the more economical cars cheaper then people will buy them, problem is they keep making them more expensive than the other cars. Why would I pay $5000 or more extra for a less comfortable, less capable vehicle? And I don't necessarily mean more comfortable in decked out with luxury items like power everything, I mean with enough room in them that my legs don't cramp after driving them more than 10 minutes.

I drive a full size pickup, which I use anywhere from once a month to once a week to haul something that only it will haul. But according to your assumptions I am wasting it because I am not using it for that purpose every day and I am riding in it alone. If you will buy me a second car that is small and efficient and pay the insurance on it I will gladly drive it when I don't need my truck, but I am not going to spend the money for a second vehicle just for myself so I can appease your ideals of how I should live.

Maybe how I drive does use more fuel overall, but it saves me money in the end and until I win the lottery or someone dies and leaves me a fortune I will just have to keep going as I am now. I have even done the math several times considering purchasing a more efficient vehicle. My truck gets 18mpg, and if I were to purchase an vehicle that gets 36mpg, cutting my fuel costs in half, I would have to find a vehicle that would have payments of about $80-100 per month to use the fuel saving to pay for it. Show me a new car that gets 36mpg and cost about $5000 and I will buy it in a heartbeat.


RE: This is good
By Spuke on 3/17/2011 4:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you will buy me a second car that is small and efficient and pay the insurance on it I will gladly drive it when I don't need my truck, but I am not going to spend the money for a second vehicle just for myself so I can appease your ideals of how I should live.
See, this is what I don't understand. Some of these people imply that we should have multiple cars JUST so we don't use too much gas on one of them. This just sounds like reactionary "thinking" to me. How is having a bunch of cars efficient or environmentally friendly? How does JUST owning a fuel efficient car, but doing NOTHING else, make you environmentally responsible? I've been rated down before for making statements like this without any explanation.

I vacation in the central coast of CA on occasion (beautiful place BTW) and all I see are Prius'. LOL! Homes with no solar, no wind genny's, wood-framed, single pane windows and old insulation. But, damn it, I'm environmentally responsible because my car is!!!

Clean up your house first! Change your light bulbs to LED, rip out your old school insulation and do some spray foam, all energy efficient appliances and electronics, low E windows all around, wind or solar grid tie, etc.

You know, with all of this "save the earth" talk, you'd think average energy consumption would be way down but the average American household STILL uses 1kWh each month.


RE: This is good
By sxr7171 on 3/17/2011 9:47:23 PM , Rating: 1
You haul once a week, that's fine by me. But even you have to admit that that those Navigator/Range Rover driving soccer moms is a bit much to bear. I also see the biggest SUVs being shown off in the poorest neighborhoods. Boy, that's going to stop really fast.


RE: This is good
By Spuke on 3/23/2011 3:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also see the biggest SUVs being shown off in the poorest neighborhoods. Boy, that's going to stop really fast.
That's because they have crap for resale value and people can get them dirt cheap with high miles. Gas has spiked twice (second spike right now) and "those people" are still buying them. Regardless, the sales of those vehicles is meaningless in the grand scheme of car sales.


RE: This is good
By YashBudini on 3/23/2011 9:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also see the biggest SUVs being shown off in the poorest neighborhoods. Boy, that's going to stop really fast.

More likely you'll see the price of crack go up to a quarter.


RE: This is good
By sxr7171 on 3/17/11, Rating: 0
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki