backtop

Print 141 comment(s) - last by Keeir.. on Nov 30 at 5:14 PM
Current standards are 35.5 mpg by 2016

The U.S. government is looking to increase the fuel economy standards in America and claim that an increase from the 35.5 mpg figure dictated for 2016 to a goal of 45 mpg across an automakers fleet will save consumers a combined $140 billion on fuel costs. The increase in fuel economy standards would also cut green house gas emissions by 42 billion tons.

IMarketNews reports that 78% of Americans are willing to pay more for cars with better fuel economy by there are not enough vehicles built to meet the demand. Mark Cooper from the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) said, "This is a case of utter market failure. Consumer demand is not being met by vehicle supply."

Cooper goes on to day that the auto industry is capable of meeting a 45 mpg target by 2020 with off the shelf technology available now. Automobile Magazine reports that the CFA also wants to change the governmental agency responsible for setting fuel economy standards.

Currently, the standards are set by the NHTSA and the EPA in a joint effort. The CFA wants to see the authority to set economy standards given solely to the EPA because the CFA feels that the NHTSA has been unduly influenced by the automotive industry in past years.

Jack Gillis from the CFA said, "We want to make sure we don’t just rest on the 2016 numbers and that we’re prepared today, and get the industry to prepare, to move substantially beyond 2016."

It is important to note that these mileage figures are fleet wide. That means that the fuel economy of a carmaker's entire fleet is averaged and has to meet the set standard. This allows the car markers to continue offering vehicles that get fuel economy less than the goal as long as there are more efficient vehicles available to raise the average.

Edmunds called for a change in the way window stickers are displayed this week. The publication wants stickers to focus on cost to operate rather than fuel economy.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Survey says what?
By michal1980 on 11/25/2009 10:53:42 AM , Rating: 5
Question: would you pay more for a car that gets better gas milage?
Answer yes.

Quetion: would you pay $10,000 more for a car that gets better gas milage?
Answer: Generally now.

In this surveys question the person answer is free to determine what the 'more' amount is. Heck, it could just be a dollar more.

PS no 'consumer advotace' group speaks for this consumer




RE: Survey says what?
By michal1980 on 11/25/2009 10:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
question 2:

answer should be 'generally NO' not now. d'oh


RE: Survey says what?
By kattanna on 11/25/2009 11:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
and thats why i dont pay attention to "surveys" at all anymore.

the way they ask a question is as equally as important as what they ask.

plus, all you ever hear are their "results" with no info as to even how they got those.

all agenda and BS


RE: Survey says what?
By Scabies on 11/25/2009 11:55:48 AM , Rating: 3
"it was found that over 90% of surveyed individuals said that they answer surveys"


RE: Survey says what?
By roostitup on 11/26/2009 5:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
And it's found that 58% of statistics are made up on the spot! :-P


RE: Survey says what?
By theapparition on 11/25/2009 12:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention that some groups have a history of "losing" the results that don't fit into it's agenda.

But I call BS on the supply not meeting demand. Demand for some cars such as the Prius is high right now, but nowhere near at critical.
BTW, demand for trucks is also sky high (far higher than the Prius and all hybrids combined). So that tells you something about what consumers are demanding.


RE: Survey says what?
By mcnabney on 11/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Survey says what?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 2:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, no. Go look at the numbers during the cash4clunkers program.
Actually, yes. Go look at ACTUAL car sales.

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autos...


RE: Survey says what?
By mcnabney on 11/25/2009 4:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
Are we looking at the same chart?

On the left we see light trucks outselling cars every month. In recent months cars are now outselling light trucks. During cash4Clunk they REALLY outsold trucks, but cars have outsold trucks every month since 2009 began.


RE: Survey says what?
By Keeir on 11/25/2009 6:29:36 PM , Rating: 4
Ummm... yes and no. Your looking at it without understanding.

"Cars" Include all cars sold, not just "fuel-sippers" like Civics/Priuses.

If we throw autos that get 28 mpg+ (EPA combined, not CAFE) into one bucket and autos that get less than 28 mpg into another... Clearly less than 28 mpg will win. Sadly, if we balance that 28 mpg+ bucket against sales of just Ford and Chevy truck lines (not SUVs, just trucks)... the trucks are likely ahead. The #1 and #2 most sold autos are Trucks btw.

Here, lets look at a "Car" example

Lets look at the Ford Fusion. Total Sales 2009 - ~160k units

Sure Hybrids make up a large part
~ 32k (41/36) YAY

But ~48k are V6 Models (18/27 or less with AWD)

The remaining ~80k are the base 4 cylinder models that outside a striper special get ~ 22/31.

Unfortunely the data says that not only do -more- customers choose the less fuel efficient models than the hyper efficient in the same model range, C4C suggests that it requires giving people 1,000 dollars to get the to choose the more fuel efficient automobile (Like a Focus over a Fusion).


RE: Survey says what?
By Moishe on 11/30/2009 9:25:21 AM , Rating: 1
Cash4Clunkers was a very specific program and it had limitations. In order to qualify for the Cash, your purchase had to have a certain better gas mileage than your Clunker.

Trucks tend to have the worst gas mileage, so nobody (very, very few) taking advantage of that program would be trading in anything and getting a truck.


RE: Survey says what?
By Alexstarfire on 11/25/2009 1:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
I thought they couldn't make enough Priuses ATM to meet demand? Just something I recall from another article on DailyTech not too long ago.


RE: Survey says what?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 2:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I thought they couldn't make enough Priuses ATM to meet demand?
Prius sales are down 16% from last year. If there is a supply issue it's because the automakers have scaled back production and the dealerships are stocking less cars.


RE: Survey says what?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 2:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
My mistake. YTD sales are down 16% from last year but up 14% from last October.


RE: Survey says what?
By Alexstarfire on 11/25/2009 5:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
Are those numbers just for the US? Cause they do sell the car in other countries.... like Japan. I know they are opening up another plant so that they can manufacture more. Either they are short on supply now or they foresee a short supply in the future.


RE: Survey says what?
By Keeir on 11/25/2009 7:00:25 PM , Rating: 3
Sure they Prius sells well. So what?

maybe 200k a year seems like alot, but its likely that

Chevy Silverado, Ford F-Series, and Dodge Ram will each sell more than Toyota Prius this year. GMC Siera, Toyota Tundra and Titan together will likely also sell more than the Prius

Demand from other countries is unimportant and the article specially mentions the US.

In fact, if the Prius sells 200k, the Insight 50k, the Fusion Hybrid 30k, Escape Hybrid ~15k, All other Hybrids ~30k

Just the F-150 and Silverado 1500 will beat all the Hybrids in Sales. Ford F-150 Alone may due to trick.

(BTW, even in 2008 with spiking fuel and downturn in the economuy, the Ford F-150 still sold more than 500k units in the United States alone.)

Guess what I am getting at is demand is relative. Its encourging sign that Truck sales are at a 10 year low... but its not as if small cars or hybrids even come close (still) maybe in one-two decades if the trends continue a Hybrid/Sedan will best the F-150 for most sold auto.


RE: Survey says what?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 11:21:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
but its not as if small cars or hybrids even come close (still) maybe in one-two decades if the trends continue a Hybrid/Sedan will best the F-150 for most sold auto.
I would also say in 10 years or so, a mid-sized hybrid sedan could be a consistent best seller in the US. But, IMO, will only happen if truck fuel efficiency does not improve with gas price increases. I'll tell you right now, if Ford makes a 30 mpg 1/2 ton, you'll never see a sedan topping the charts in the US consistently.

That said, the first automaker to sell a diesel electric hybrid 3/4 or 1 ton pickup gets my money.


RE: Survey says what?
By Keeir on 11/30/2009 5:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll tell you right now, if Ford makes a 30 mpg 1/2 ton, you'll never see a sedan topping the charts in the US consistently.


It has alot to do with lifestyle. I am watching a large percentage of the city I live in turn from Suburbia to Urbia. More dense packing of people. Garages/parking spaces too small for the traditional truck. Its entirely possible that within 10-20 years, large sections of the US will become "Eurofied" where having even a F-150 size truck is consider inconvient.


RE: Survey says what?
By Alexstarfire on 11/26/2009 3:21:18 AM , Rating: 2
My whole point was just that they couldn't keep up with demand, that's all. I believe it was Ford, on perhaps it was some other American car company, that was switching production in one of its plants because they no longer needed the type of vehicle it was making. I wasn't even attempting to compare it to other vehicles. It was a mere observation. The post I responded to says it wasn't at a critical point, but a critical point for what? Supply being lower than demand is pretty critical for most things. I would also clarify I mean a critical problem as you're missing out of profit.

Although, I fail to see what your post had anything to do with what I was talking about. Also, what article are you talking about? The OP didn't mention an article, and I'm pretty sure the article I was referring to is worldwide, though I could be wrong. To say that demand outside of the US is unimportant is very short-sighted. The US is only one market and it isn't make or break either.


RE: Survey says what?
By InvertMe on 11/25/2009 11:05:17 AM , Rating: 3
First off what's an "advotace" group?

Second you are not as unique of a snowflake as you may believe. No one is. Most people are more or less the same in what they want.

If a focus group with a large enough sample comes up with 80% of people liking something chances are you will too.


RE: Survey says what?
By nafhan on 11/25/2009 11:49:24 AM , Rating: 2
Grammar aside, he's right about consumer advocate groups. They generally speak for the interests of whoever is sponsoring the group, not the hypothetical "consumer".
If 80% of all people like something, yeah, I'll probably like it, but there's no reasonable way to know what all people like. Conversely, if 80% of a focus group likes something... that tells me only that 80% of a focus group likes something.


RE: Survey says what?
By stimudent on 11/25/2009 3:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the oil companies put an end to this nonsense before any headway is made.


RE: Survey says what?
By psychobriggsy on 11/26/2009 7:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's likely the price of oil will be double what it is today when 2020 comes around. There'll be a couple more oil speculation rushes, and the price will never settle back down to where it was before.

On the other hand mileage will only be 30% better.

So they'll be raking it in regardless, unless oil does start running out (being significantly below demand for a long duration). Then it'll be 3x more expensive, and people will actually start car sharing or looking for alternatives. You could see city-based businesses move outside cities, and building employee housing and the workplace together. Businesses will be the new city states, the new kingdoms...

Those algae fuels had better be arriving soon, Exxon!


RE: Survey says what?
By nafhan on 11/25/2009 11:38:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
90% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
That's the first thing I think of whenever I see something like this in the news.
Without knowing details about the survey, that number is completely useless. With details to put it in context, we'd probably realize the survey method was flawed.


RE: Survey says what?
By Moishe on 11/30/2009 9:02:24 AM , Rating: 2
You're right.
I always get the heebies when some group claims to speak for me and claims that I want something that will greatly increase the cost of my future vehicles.

To hell with that. Cars cost enough and are advancing fast enough for me.


influenced...
By bdot on 11/25/2009 10:58:11 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
CFA feels that the NHTSA has been unduly influenced by the automotive industry in past years.


The government is in the auto industry...




RE: influenced...
By jsonc on 11/25/2009 11:31:15 AM , Rating: 5
soon to be the health industry also.


RE: influenced...
By kattanna on 11/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: influenced...
By Regected on 11/25/2009 12:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
Better as in cost more and limiting how doctors can do their thing? How much does a doctor's visit cost you and how much actually goes to the doctor and how much goes to complying to heath insurance regulations?


RE: influenced...
By bissimo on 11/25/2009 12:44:26 PM , Rating: 1
Ever known anyone on Medicare/Medicaid? They get pretty freaking good health care. Better than I do, anyway. And I'm middle-class.

If you really think our insanely expensive health care system is caused by government regulation, you're living in a fantasy land, buddy.

It's profit, plain and simple. Is there another service that HAVE TO HAVE that is run by for-profit, publicly traded organizations (i.e.: hospitals and insurance companies)?? Fire Department? No. Police? No. Roads? No. Schools? No. These are all things that we all need and a profit-based system should not be the only option we have.

Why is that EVERY country with government-run health care has HEALTHIER PEOPLE than we do? Because they're not scared of getting reamed by their medical bills, so they go to the doctor. Sorry to get of-topic, but your comment is infuriating and based on a misinformation.


RE: influenced...
By Regected on 11/25/2009 2:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
My mother and grandmother are on medicare. They must wait on long lists to see a doctor. When they do get to see a doctor, a bean counter has to write off on anything that needs to be done. The doctors practice medicine as to what's better financially rather than what's better medically.

I also have friends in Canada and just outside of London. All of them complain that their health care systems need an overhaul. Lines are long and services are limited. Remember, the grass is always greener on the other side. What looks good now might not feel good later.

If you don't think our high health care costs arise from government regulation, then do some research. Heck, just ask your doctor next time you are in his office.

I lived in a fantasy land when I was young. My eyes have opened since then. The world has more depth and consequences than most people can wrap their minds around.

Free market would bring costs down, but the government will never step out of the way to let it do it's thing. Well meaning people like yourself are little more than sheeple following the flock.


RE: influenced...
By mcnabney on 11/25/2009 4:22:23 PM , Rating: 1
You are completely making that up.

Processing health care for Medicare is a breeze. Far simpler than insurance companies. You might be thinking of Medicaid which has a lot of State rules and regs.

And the Canadians and Brits LOVE their health care system.


RE: influenced...
By jjmcubed on 11/26/2009 9:46:13 PM , Rating: 3
Nice try. I'm on Medicare and I see the same doctors as that I saw before I was on Medicare. It is a form of insurance. They pay for 80% of whatever I need, I pay 20%. If I want to go to another doctor, I look it up in the phone book and make an appointment. Any doctor with an opening will take me. What insurance you or I have doesn't matter.


RE: influenced...
By lightfoot on 11/25/2009 3:56:38 PM , Rating: 3
Food is a for-profit industry and it works just fine.

So too is shelter. (Housing is a very profitable business, maybe it should be nationalized too.)

Why do people scoff at paying a doctor out of pocket but have no problem paying for everything else? Is it because people don't value health care?

If it is worth having, it's worth paying for.

Government sponsored monopolies never increase quality or reduce costs.

You make it sound like Health Care is not regulated at all and that these businesses are trying to get away with what ever they can. The problem is that it is already the MOST regulated industry and these businesses are doing whatever it takes to simply stay in business!

Other countries have healthier people because they don't subsidize McDonald's and other fast food, and their people actually have to get up and walk a couple of times a day. How much walking does the average American do? (Walking to the car doesn't count.)


RE: influenced...
By Alexstarfire on 11/25/2009 5:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't walk all that far each day, that's for sure. I'm not lazy, so let's take a look at some numbers. Now granted this can vary from person to person. I don't live in a city mind you. Closest friend's house (outside of my neighborhood) is 3.5 miles, second closest 5.5 miles, third is 9.5 miles (where I go the most), other friends are outside this range. School is over 20 miles away. My job was about 17 miles away. We do have some stores that are only a couple miles away, but considering the amount of stuff we usually get it's out of the question to carry it all. I'd really love to use my car less, but the reality is that it'd be damn near impossible for a lot of people to go places even remotely quickly if you live outside of a city. Walking would take me at least 45 minutes to get to my closest friend's house, and that's assuming you pretty much power walk the whole way. Walking about 10 miles to my friend's house would take me probably about 3 hours each way. Biking would certainly be an option for his house and my 2nd closest friend's house, that's really about it, but I don't have a bike nor can I afford one at this time. Still have the problem of rather limited capacity on carrying stuff from the stores near us. Then you also run into the problem of weather.

On a side note, when I go to some place like the mall I usually end up walking miles.

Our country is bigger than most, 4th biggest I believe, and if you live outside a city then you're going to live farther apart from things. It's only natural to find alternate means to get from point A to point B.


RE: influenced...
By Chaser on 11/27/2009 9:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
Medicaid and Medicare are rampant with fraud and waste and unless we go into further unfunded debt current CBO projections show they will go bankrupt by 2016. Our country is in unprecedented historic levels of debt right now with the bankuptcy word floating around world financial circles. Our economy is at a 10% unemployment rate. The last thing we need right now is to create yet another unfunded entitlement with 1/6 of our country's GDP and turning it over to the government. We need jobs! Not debt taxpayer China loaned jobs with incompetent politicians "overseeing it" like kids in a candy store. Private sector "stimulus". This ridiculous heathcare fiasco is the last thing our country needs right now.


RE: influenced...
By Moishe on 11/30/2009 9:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
I have way better insurance and I can get into a quality doc's office immediately. I know plenty of people on welfare health and they are always having trouble with service and delays.

Stop trying to make it seem like the govt ever runs *anything* efficiently or "better"... With the exception of the military (which is inefficient) everything it touches is a disaster. Why? Because the govt is run by corrupt @r$eh0les.


RE: influenced...
By sinful on 11/25/2009 1:24:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Better as in cost more and limiting how doctors can do their thing? How much does a doctor's visit cost you and how much actually goes to the doctor and how much goes to complying to heath insurance regulations?


John McCain uses government provided healthcare....
and NOT private healthcare (Senators all get government healthcare).

Considering he's still alive at HIS age, I'd say that's a HUGE WIN for "Government provided healthcare".

If Private healthcare is so great, why don't they put their money where their mouth is and stop using that "SOCIALIZED" government healtcare?

Oh, that's right, it's because it would cost zombies like John McCain a bazillion dollars to stay alive and result in worse care.


RE: influenced...
By Regected on 11/25/2009 2:34:23 PM , Rating: 3
Private health care does not mean that the government is not involved. The large companies lobby everyone to pass regulations to drive up how much money gets put into the pockets of people who don't add any value to the service you get.

I can't find any proof of what you say about McCain using medicare. I find it doubtful that someone of his wealth would limit himself to the same clinics as everyone else.


RE: influenced...
By Scabies on 11/25/2009 8:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
I believe he bundled McCain into the group that more or less gets healthcare for free, functionally like the military.
Walk in, show ID, be treated, walk out. Government healthcare at government hospitals.

Which is a little different.


RE: influenced...
By Moishe on 11/30/2009 9:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
Which is significantly different.

Welfare healthcare is not what the elected officials use. Nobody is going to make a senator wait or question their need for a procedure.


ONLY 45MPG?
By Sunday Ironfoot on 11/25/2009 6:15:27 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously, the title isn't being sarcastic. 45MPG doesn't seem that much, 45MPG is pretty standard here in Europe. My Fiesta gets 36MPG city and 62MPH highway. Granted it's not a sports car, it's a 1.4L 95BHP engine which is pretty midrange/average in terms of performance. I'm not sure what people in America consider typical/average engine size/performance. But to me, and considering cars available in Europe, 45MPG doesn't seem that big a deal. What gives!?




RE: ONLY 45MPG?
By Jeffk464 on 11/25/2009 8:28:13 PM , Rating: 3
Well double the horsepower of your car and add 50. Thats about what americans like.


RE: ONLY 45MPG?
By Sunday Ironfoot on 11/25/2009 8:53:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well double the horsepower of your car and add 50. Thats about what americans like.


In Europe that would be considered sports car territory. Do Americans and Europeans have wildly different perceptions of performance, or are American engines really ineficient? Or maybe everyone in America drives huge trucks?


RE: ONLY 45MPG?
By Moishe on 11/30/2009 9:44:54 AM , Rating: 3
Here is my logic.

I like a powerful car, I can afford to pay for the gas, and it is perfectly legal.. so why shouldn't I have what I want?

Why is it that some pothead can justify reasons why he thinks pot should be legal and most people will back him up (myself included). But when some citizen has the money and the desire to do something legal that harms nobody... those people are demonized?


RE: ONLY 45MPG?
By FreakyD on 11/25/2009 10:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I find it amusing that in America, we simply aren't offered the lower fuel consumption engines in cars. For example, I was just looking into the base model VW Golf I purchased recently with a 170hp engine. This engine is more powerful and fuel hungry than all of the 9 different engine varieties offered on the same model of car in the UK. So in some ways I do feel forced into buying an engine I'd rather not have.

I would like to be able to purchase a smaller engine in a car. If one is even available on the lot though, it is a stripped down car with no options available. It's all marketing when they sell cars with bigger engines, more options, higher price.

So yes the technology is available for greater efficiency, just swap in a smaller engine and the problem is solved, and the cars should be cheaper as well!! What a concept, paying less for greater fuel efficiency!! Even the Toyota Prius uses a 98 HP gas engine for efficiency since the electric engine really doesn't do much once you're at cruising speed on the highway.


RE: ONLY 45MPG?
By dubyadubya on 11/26/2009 6:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, I find it amusing that in America, we simply aren't offered the lower fuel consumption engines in cars. For example, I was just looking into the base model VW Golf I purchased recently with a 170hp engine. This engine is more powerful and fuel hungry than all of the 9 different engine varieties offered on the same model of car in the UK. So in some ways I do feel forced into buying an engine I'd rather not have. I would like to be able to purchase a smaller engine in a car. If one is even available on the lot though, it is a stripped down car with no options available. It's all marketing when they sell cars with bigger engines, more options, higher price. So yes the technology is available for greater efficiency, just swap in a smaller engine and the problem is solved, and the cars should be cheaper as well!! What a concept, paying less for greater fuel efficiency!! Even the Toyota Prius uses a 98 HP gas engine for efficiency since the electric engine really doesn't do much once you're at cruising speed on the highway.


No just using a smaller engine will not always increase fuel economy. It takes the same horse power to move the same weight including drag at a given speed. An ICE engine is an air pump. The more air it pumps the more fuel it will use. On a gasoline engine the rpm it turns and the throttle opening determine how much air is pumped. Since the fuel mixture must be maintained close to 14.7 to 1 more air pumped means more fuel used. If excessively small engine is used the rpm will need to increase and or the throttle opened up which will increase air flow and fuel usage. Diesel engines are a little different since they have no throttle. Engine speed and output are increase by adding fuel so the overall affect would be similar.

So engine size is very critical if you want max mpg. I just laugh every time I hear some one say just gear it up, stroke it, turbo it etc. to increase mpg. Lets see gear it up will cause wider throttle opening so the same air will be pumped. Stroke it! bigger engine so bigger air pump. Turbo it bigger air pump again.


RE: ONLY 45MPG?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 11:43:27 PM , Rating: 4
Our fuel mileage testing methods are different in the US so 45 mpg in Europe would not be 45 mpg in the US. A typical car in the US is a mid sized sedan (we love our 4 doors) powered by a 2.2 to 2.4L 4 cyl making somewhere around 160-170hp (more or less). Also typical (and purchased more than the sedans) are 1/2 ton pickup trucks with engines ranging from around 5.0L to 6.0L making 300-400hp. Gas and cars are cheap here so people buy accordingly. We also have tons of small business owners and entrepreneurs so they buy accordingly.


RE: ONLY 45MPG?
By Alexstarfire on 11/26/2009 3:30:26 AM , Rating: 3
Is that imperial gallon or US gallon? Cause we have smaller gallons which makes all the difference. Also, you guys have smaller cars. Way smaller cars. The Prius is a mid-size vehicle with an engine very similar to the one you mention and it doesn't get that kind of mileage at all, just looking at the gas engine. Though if those are imperial gallons then it's pretty close.


RE: ONLY 45MPG?
By dubyadubya on 11/26/2009 5:53:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Seriously, the title isn't being sarcastic. 45MPG doesn't seem that much, 45MPG is pretty standard here in Europe. My Fiesta gets 36MPG city and 62MPH highway. Granted it's not a sports car, it's a 1.4L 95BHP engine which is pretty midrange/average in terms of performance. I'm not sure what people in America consider typical/average engine size/performance. But to me, and considering cars available in Europe, 45MPG doesn't seem that big a deal. What gives!?


You must be talking Imperial gallons not US gallons. So knock 20% off the top because a US gallon is approx 20% smaller. Your Fiesta also does not meet US emissions and safety standards. Its hard to say how big a hit your Fiesta would take in mpg to meet US standards but a safe guess would be 10% so knock off another 10%. So a US Fiesta would get 25.2 mpg city and 43.4 highway. Sounds about right to me but its not 45 mpg average that the government thinks we need.

The only way we will see 45 mpg is by building cars using expensive building materials like carbon fiber and or lessen the safety standards to bring the weight down. It will also be necessary to loosen up emission standards so the engines can be tuned for max mpg. More ignition timing and leaner air fuel mixtures.


RE: ONLY 45MPG?
By psychobriggsy on 11/26/2009 7:24:54 PM , Rating: 4
Imperial Gallons are larger than American "English" Gallons.

My old 2006 2L Mondeo supposedly gets 35MPG on the motorway, but we're talking about

a) different measurements and standards
b) 35 (miles per Imperial gallon) = 29.1435844 miles per US gallon

Yeah, loads of people here drive 1.0L to 1.4L cars, but they all want 2.0L to 3.6L cars still...


Priuses for everyone!
By peldor on 11/25/2009 10:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
Buy your Toyota shares now!




RE: Priuses for everyone!
By kattanna on 11/25/2009 11:07:48 AM , Rating: 2
the only thing i have against the prius is some of its drivers.

you can see some of them paying more attention to the MPG meter on the dashboard then the friggin road. some just LOVE to drive nice and slow in the faster lanes effectively blocking traffic.

the car itself, not bad. my parents have one and its a decent enough car and does get good mileage, though, thankfully, they DO pay attention to the road when they drive.. LOL, at least when im in the car with them.


RE: Priuses for everyone!
By Spivonious on 11/25/2009 11:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
I wish more car companies were coming out with competitors to the Prius. It's ugly and pricey for what it is (a compact sedan). Still, it's cheap enough where the savings in fuel pay for the premium in a couple of years.


RE: Priuses for everyone!
By ouranos83 on 11/25/2009 12:03:31 PM , Rating: 4
Couple of years in this case = about the lifetime of the batteries. Then the replacement packs will offset that repaying interval again. So there really isn't a grand benefit here. If the Prius was getting 100 mpg then we would have something.


RE: Priuses for everyone!
By Alexstarfire on 11/25/2009 2:11:20 PM , Rating: 1
I find it funny that people still don't know crap about this car. First, it's a mid-size sedan. Anyone who has even seen one, up close, would not call it compact anyway. Secondly, the batteries last a lot longer than "a couple years" as you put it. Nearly every battery is lasting well outside it's warranty period. I know the battery from my old '02 Prius was still working in 2008 before it got totaled. Wasn't even showing signs of going bad. You probably have a better chance of finding a defective battery than one that's going to die quickly.


RE: Priuses for everyone!
By Spivonious on 11/30/2009 11:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
Oh believe me, I've seen plenty of them close-up, and it's a compact sedan. The size of an older 4-door Focus.

Batteries are rated to last 10 years, which is fine for me. The break-even point was a little over 2 years. I just wish it wasn't ugly and small.

To the poster who posted about diesels, see my other post a little farther up. The break-even point between the gas Jetta and the TDI is about 9 years.


RE: Priuses for everyone!
By GotDiesel on 11/25/2009 2:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
LOL.. it's been the other way round for nearly 9 years..

The 2001 VW Jetta and Golf TDI averages about 50mpg @ 75 mph on the freeway.. it's mpg and drivability is superior to the prius and it's only taken the THIRD generation prius to equal the Jetta's overall performance.. America needs to wake up to Diesel technology and stop sucking the oil industry's and politician's cocks.. there IS competition.... go try one and see..


RE: Priuses for everyone!
By Runiteshark on 11/25/2009 7:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
Oh noes but diesel cars are dirty and smelly and is loud!1!

I'm still pissed Honda killed the diesel cars. A Diesel fit with a good amount of torque would of been badass.


RE: Priuses for everyone!
By Jeffk464 on 11/25/2009 8:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
Tell me about it. I would absolutely love to have a diesel jetta, but I'm terrified of VW reliability. They are famouse amoung mechanics for being completely unreliable and hard to work on. I would buy a Honda diesel in a second.


RE: Priuses for everyone!
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 11:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm still pissed Honda killed the diesel cars.
You can thank the recession for that one. All of the automakers were scheduled to build diesel 1/2 ton trucks too but that was killed also.


RE: Priuses for everyone!
By Alexstarfire on 11/26/2009 3:23:38 AM , Rating: 2
You can't directly compare gas to diesel like that though. Would still love to see a diesel/electric hybrid.


Old 45 MPG car
By Regected on 11/25/2009 12:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
I had a car that got 45MPG. It was called a Geo Metro. A 91' model at that. 18 years later and you can't find a new car that cost relatively the same with the same MPG.




RE: Old 45 MPG car
By bobsmith1492 on 11/25/2009 12:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
You couldn't make or sell those anymore because they are not "safe enough."


RE: Old 45 MPG car
By lightfoot on 11/25/2009 1:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
And by "not safe enough" you really mean that they aren't big or heavy enough. The smart car proves that a small car can be made to be safe, the problem is that every other car on the road is at least twice the weight so it still gets destroyed in a traffic accident.

In a head-on collision between a car and a vehicle of twice the mass, the occupants of the car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants in the other vehicle. All the airbags, crumple zones and reinforced passenger compartments in the world can't overcome simple physics.


RE: Old 45 MPG car
By Regected on 11/25/2009 2:08:50 PM , Rating: 3
Motorcycles are even smaller than compact cars, and even less safe. If they are allowed on the road, small, cheap cars should be too.


RE: Old 45 MPG car
By Alexstarfire on 11/25/2009 2:12:51 PM , Rating: 5
Welcome to the world of legislation. :) Enjoy your stay.


RE: Old 45 MPG car
By Aeonic on 11/25/2009 2:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
Haha yeah exactly, and be careful what you say or they'll just ban motorcycles...


RE: Old 45 MPG car
By lightfoot on 11/25/2009 4:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
Or require special certifications be added to your drivers license to drive a small car...


This will save a lot of fuel
By lco45 on 11/25/2009 11:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine how much fuel this is going to save. I'm surprised it wasn't done earlier.

I can't think of a downside. I suppose people will have to drive smaller cars? It will certainly spur the auto industry on to make cars as efficient as possible, and if they've got to make them efficient for the American market that benefit will spill over to other countries where those cars are sold.

Nice one!

Luke




RE: This will save a lot of fuel
By SuperFly03 on 11/26/2009 2:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
Downside? How about being forced into cars that can't even get to freeway speed before you are forced to merge and end up causing accidents or even have an 18 wheeler rammed up your ass?

Speaking to Euros, another problem when comparing Euro cars to American cars is the perception of the place of a vehicle in a persons life. In Euro, afaik, you guys don't drive 12-15k/year and alot of those miles are spent fighting traffic, passing grey hairs, trying to pull out into traffic during rush hour, etc. In America you have to do those things and in addition your car is a status symbol. It is a reflection on your overall wealth.

I drive a Shelby GT500 and I use the power every day, sure the 13MPG sucks but 500 supercharged ponies is blissful. Does everyone need 500? hell no... but you can't get around with <100HP in America.

Another flawed comparison is due to the increased regulation in the US relative to Euro. On my Shelby GT500 the federal regs add over 1K lbs in curb weight all in the name of safety. It's ridiculous and unnecessary.


RE: This will save a lot of fuel
By Alexstarfire on 11/26/2009 3:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
Should I introduce you to sarcasm?


RE: This will save a lot of fuel
By SuperFly03 on 11/26/2009 4:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
It's Thanksgiving... I'm allowed to miss the obvious :p


By Alexstarfire on 11/26/2009 3:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ohh, and yea, you can. In an SUV it wouldn't cut it.... but most don't need SUVs anyway.


Yeah, and I want $1,000,000.00
By iFX on 11/25/2009 10:57:13 AM , Rating: 3
That doesn't mean it's going to happen.




RE: Yeah, and I want $1,000,000.00
By maverick85wd on 11/25/2009 2:00:36 PM , Rating: 1
only $ 1 M? That's not going to be worth that much in a few years. I would have said something like $100M or $1B.

But yea, I get your point and I do agree 45MPG is a bit high unless we go to diesel or something.


RE: Yeah, and I want $1,000,000.00
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 3:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't need to pay off a house 1 million is enough. If you can find some investments that will give you a yearly 10% return on that million, you're good to go. I don't know too many people that can't live off $100k a year even in CA.


RE: Yeah, and I want $1,000,000.00
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 3:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! That didn't come out right. Nevermind.


Title of article is very accurate
By SublimeSimplicity on 11/25/2009 12:01:44 PM , Rating: 5
"Consumer Advocates Want 45 MPG Standard for Vehicles by 2020"

Note it's the consumer advocates that want a 45 MPG standard, not the consumers.

The consumers seem to love their full sized trucks and SUVs. My very scientific study is based on the cars I see consumers driving in traffic everyday.




By lightfoot on 11/25/2009 4:29:23 PM , Rating: 3
What consumers are they advocating for? Clearly not American consumers.


Why not 100mpg by 20xx???
By NA1NSXR on 11/25/2009 3:14:05 PM , Rating: 3
The free market mechanism will exceed all these dumb guidelines if mileage and environmental friendliness are what people collectively want. This is nothing more than some imposing their will on others. It is bad economics and not the way a free people conduct emissions policy.

I thought these were the same liberals who love to counter "supply creates its own demand" with "demand creates its own supply". So which is it? Actions speak louder than words.




RE: Why not 100mpg by 20xx???
By lco45 on 11/25/2009 11:23:39 PM , Rating: 1
Liberals want fewer regulations, dopey. You probably meant commie hippy pinko treehuggers.

The problem is that the free market is wasting fuel, so the government is giving it a smack.

Luke


RE: Why not 100mpg by 20xx???
By NA1NSXR on 11/26/2009 6:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
Your comments are so unbelievably stupid I do not even know how to reply. I tried twice and deleted both my replies before posting because it just felt too weird to forcibly state what should be obvious to any knowledgeable individual.

Get an education, please. While you're at it, get a clue.


CFA
By KeithP on 11/25/2009 2:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
How is limiting consumer choice and making them pay more for vehicles they don't want considered consumer advocacy?

This is just another left-wing group hiding behind the "consumer" title to provide BS studies that the press happily spits out without a second glance.

Get used to it folks. The die has been cast. Too many people think the answer to all problems is having the federal government take our money to finance agencies that control every aspect of our lives. Cars, healthcare, food, etc.

I know most people will just write this off as a rant by some nut job...and that is OK. The fact of the matter is I am old enough that I won't have to live is the US that is coming in another 50-75 years.

-KeithP




RE: CFA
By mcnabney on 11/25/2009 4:27:37 PM , Rating: 1
In case you didn't know, more Federal dollars go to Health spending through Medicare than is spent by every private insurer in the nation. You have got to stop watching Fox News...


RE: CFA
By Chaser on 11/27/2009 10:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
And how are those programs doing? Do they look anything like what they were intended to do when they were created?

Entitlement programs such as these are bankrupting our country. More and more people are opting for these programs which isn't a good thing as you try and suggest. And now they are rushing to make a new one.


RE: CFA
By sinful on 11/26/09, Rating: 0
Fuel
By btc909 on 11/25/2009 2:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
What happends when the demand for fuel goes down?

If you really want to control pollution get a Prius, later on a plug in Prius, drive around & sample the smog comming out of a vehicles tailpipe. You can nab motorists for having expired tags as well. The driver gets a letter in the mail, the vehicle must be tested at a city run smog check location, fixed, retested at a city run smog check location. Am I saying "some" of these independent smog check locations are bogus, yes I am.




RE: Fuel
By Jeffk464 on 11/25/2009 8:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think the only thing that will cause the demand for fuel to go down is a global economic collapse. So hopefully It will stay expensive until we figure out how to get away from it.


MPG rating needs to go...
By Iaiken on 11/25/2009 12:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
The MPG rating will become less and less relevant as automotive power plants and their fuel sources diversify.

Something like an average operational cost or the like would be more preferable as it would allow consumers the ability to discern between vehicles based on the one thing they care about: "How much will it cost me?" Currently, trying to compare ethenol, gasoline, diesel and electric vehicles is enough of a pain in the ass that very few people could actually do the comparison math in their heads (or even if they were armed with a calculator for that matter).

For example, ethanol vehicles currently have a higher cost operate because of the combination of higher cost fuel and lower potential energy within it. Meanwhile diesels are relatively cheep to operate and maintain, with gasoline engines nipping at it's heals thanks to direct injection. Finally you have the cheapest of the bunch, fully electric vehicles, however they are have additional infrastructure requirements that can be quite pricey on their own.

Consumers would then be free to choose the vehicle that best suits their needs and finances.




Vague...
By Aeonic on 11/25/2009 2:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The report said 78% of Americans said they would pay more for high mileage vehicles


That's such a useless statement. It's like asking a child if they want candy. Of course they do. But does it take the other costs into account, such as size, utility, safety, reliability, or performance?

If they instead asked "Would you like to be forced to drive a Prius?", how high a percentage would be in favor then? Because I feel that's exactly where the original, deceptive question leads.

I also fail to see how the fleet-wide average makes this any less of an attempt to force this agenda down the throats of consumers, although if GM can continue to claim the Volt gets 230 miles per gallon I guess that gives them some wiggle room :]




By Fallen Kell on 11/25/2009 4:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
While I am not against a 45MPG car, unless it does 0-60 in the 4 second range, a track tuned suspension, and corners like a dream, I'm not buying it. That last requirement is the one which kills a lot of the cars out there for me.




My two cents
By smithkey08 on 11/26/2009 5:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
I would pay more for coke bottle lines and a big block V8 with enough torque to snap your neck but we all can't have what we want.

What has my interest now are diesel vehicles. They are up there one my list for my next purchase. I was thinking something like the Jetta of Golf TDI.




Really?
By macthemechanic on 11/28/2009 12:50:49 AM , Rating: 2
How about 45 by 2015? I was almost tempted to get a smaller car for around town, like a Mini Cooper or SmartCar, but the MPG was so disappointing. I would do better with a used Scion XB. We really need better gas mileage. Spent this summer in Europe and had wonderful gas, er diesel mileage.

My point is, that now is the time to move towards better fuel efficiency and to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.




45mpg definitely do-able....
By goku on 11/25/09, Rating: 0
Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By SoulBlighter on 11/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By wookie1 on 11/25/2009 11:14:17 AM , Rating: 5
And if we could put wings on a frog, it wouldn't bump its ass.

I find it hard to believe that there is a "market failure". That's the phrase you hear everytime someone wants to foist their desired behaviour onto others. If there was this big group of folks that wanted to pay enough additional money to get the extra mileage, someone would build the cars. The failure is probably in the advocate group's guess on how much extra these mandates would cost, and how general consumers would like the vehicle designs that result.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By ouranos83 on 11/25/2009 11:45:30 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
...and how general consumers would like the vehicle designs that result.


Why would the designs have to change? The major overhaul is in the engine or electric motor or whatever you do make the car go. There is no reason that the designs can't follow suit from the previous incarnations (e.g. Civic Hybrids et al.)

And yes 45 mpg does seem like a high number if you are grouping SUVs. Maybe a tiered mpg rating push is needed. 35 for SUVs and trucks. 45 for compact and mid-sized cars. The fact that the market gets flushed with a new model year car that has just a new set of headlights is ridiculous. Do they think that people wont buy their cars if they don't modify something cosmetically? I wouldn't mind ponying up a little extra cash (keyword: little) for the sake of gaining a more efficient vehicle.

My old 1996 Mazda Protege was getting my around 38 mpg (though it was rated around 30 mpg) and new cars cant push 30!!? Where is the R&D actually going?


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/25/2009 11:50:38 AM , Rating: 2
Cars are getting heavier and heavier due to safety regulations and manufacturers designing in "quality feel" with extra weight. In fact, a new Corvette gets about 26 mpg with an extra 800 lbs over what it weighed in the 1960's when it got 8 - 10 mpg, with the same power output. Imagine if it weighed the same and was tuned for that lower weight (engine and transmission).


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By RDO CA on 11/25/2009 3:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
I had a 64 vette in 1965 and it was not 2400 lbs or even close and it got 21 MPG with the 365 HP 327cid engine which was only 10 hp less than the fulie. Thats 45 years ago folks
aero/weight and Hp drive the MPG


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By theapparition on 11/25/2009 3:40:53 PM , Rating: 4
Keep in mind, 365hp in 1964 also was not near the same as 365hp in 2009. More like 240hp under the SAE rating. Nor did it have to meet the stringent emissions standards todays cars must.

Curb weight was ~3150lbs, so hasn't increased much over the years.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 4:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Curb weight was ~3150lbs, so hasn't increased much over the years.
Amazingly, the vettes weight hasn't changed much at all.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Yawgm0th on 11/25/2009 1:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
35 for SUVs and trucks
I wouldn't lump SUVs and trucks together anymore than I would sedans and SUVs. There are about eight 2010 model SUVs (granted, there are only three different vehicles in that group) that can do 30MPG or better. In ten years I wouldn't be surprised to see that number at or above 40.

Compare this to trucks. Even the smallest of pickup trucks fail to reach the high 20s. Trucks are more powerful and have greater utility, but the problem is that a lot of people use them entirely (or almost entirely) for basic commuting and don't care about the mileage at all. We'll be lucky to see 30 for trucks by 2020, while 45 average for mid-size and compact cars actually seems like a weak goal.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By zerocool84 on 11/25/2009 2:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but those SUV's you speak of are those tiny little girly ones like the RAV-4 and Escape. Those are hardly SUV's. What sucks is that this would kill performance cars as well. Want a performance version of a mid-size sedan? Well you can't cus it'll fall in the mid-size category unless there's some stipulation for specialty vehicles but it doesn't say anything about that in the article.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Jeffk464 on 11/25/2009 3:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
Check out the new chevy equinox, it seems about the equivelant of a mid size car on the inside and gets 26mpg mixed mileage. Not to shabby on todays standard technology.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 11:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What sucks is that this would kill performance cars as well.
No it wouldn't. Most of the performance cars are over 25 mpg hwy already. Shrink the engine a tad then add a turbocharger or two. You can boost hp AND raise mpg at the same time. And since people pay more money for performance cars, you add some exotic materials to reduce weight without pissing people off. See the new Ford Taurus SHO. That's the direction performance is going. And there are some innovations out there too, check out the twin compressor, single turbo that Ford is putting into their new Super Duty pickups. Something not as new is Porsche's variable geometry turbo's. And we all have seen the proliferation of direct injection. And DI in a performance car is nothing but awesome. MORE performance is what's coming not less.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 1:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would the designs have to change? The major overhaul is in the engine or electric motor or whatever you do make the car go.
Trucks and SUV designs would have to change. There's no way in hell that a vehicle with a CD of .54 is going to get anywhere near 30 mpg let alone 45 mpg. It will also take significant weight reductions through the use of exotic materials. Smaller engines making less power would have to happen but if the weight is low enough, it will still accelerate the same.

My only question is towing and payload capacity for the larger (3/4 and 1 ton) trucks. Is the extra weight needed for towing? Currently, 3/4 and 1 ton trucks can tow anywhere from 10,200 lbs to 24,000 lbs depending on configuration. Will significant weight reductions on these types of vehicles reduce capacity?


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Alexstarfire on 11/25/2009 2:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that the Cd is only part of the equation, right? Just having a lower Cd doesn't mean it's more aerodynamic.

Actually, considering what I saw on Mythbusters last week, or was it the week before, making golf ball type dents on the car can help MPG by over 10% in certain circumstances. They were testing highway MPG, but it's safe to assume that you'd get better MPG all around.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 2:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do realize that the Cd is only part of the equation, right? Just having a lower Cd doesn't mean it's more aerodynamic.
Yes I know but my trucks (and most trucks/SUV's) frontal area still sucks and would need significant improvement to meet really high fuel mileage targets.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By ebakke on 11/25/2009 2:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, considering what I saw on Mythbusters last week...
Really? That's how you want to add validity to your argument?


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By lightfoot on 11/25/2009 2:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Hey! They put a good disclaimer prior to every segment that might have "Science content."


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Jeffk464 on 11/25/2009 3:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
Lets be honest by 2020 the only people buying big heavy trucks will be people that really need them for work or have money to burn.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 4:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets be honest by 2020 the only people buying big heavy trucks will be people that really need them for work or have money to burn.
So far, the top two sellers in the US are trucks. Chevy actually passed the Camry last month. I wasn't expecting that. The long term trend says trucks first then mid sized sedans. I honestly thought the sedans would have taken over by now but nope. Will be interesting to see what happens. Will DT be around so we can argue about it then? :)


By Alexstarfire on 11/25/2009 5:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
Does it really matter where the idea comes from? And are you going to argue that a golf ball has dimples because it doesn't reduce the wake behind it? I'm pretty sure I could find independent tests/research on the golf ball effect that has nothing to do with Mythbusters. They just tested the idea of combing the golf ball effect with a car. Seems like a good idea if you want to reduce drag..... not so good with the looks I imagine.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By wookie1 on 11/26/2009 12:07:04 AM , Rating: 2
"Why would the designs have to change"

Well, they arent't getting 45MPG or even close now, so it seems something needs to change. The Smart Car only gets 33/41 (city/highway), so it seems it would require improvements to make it.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By surt on 11/25/2009 11:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
The real test of the market for high mileage vehicles will be the release of the first american made high mileage car. There are a lot of people who won't buy a prius because its made by toyota.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Oregonian2 on 11/25/2009 2:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Hard part will be the small companies (or foreign ones) that want to sell us in the US only pure electric-cars that don't have any MPG at all (really -- unless they install a tiny sealed gasoline tank), so they'd be forced to come out with a gasoline car just to have an average that would allow selling of their plug-in electric-only ones!


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Keeir on 11/25/2009 3:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hard part will be the small companies (or foreign ones) that want to sell us in the US only pure electric-cars that don't have any MPG at all (really -- unless they install a tiny sealed gasoline tank), so they'd be forced to come out with a gasoline car just to have an average that would allow selling of their plug-in electric-only ones!


Current Standards only apply to certain sized automakers.

Second, current standards also use the very controversional "petroleum equivalent" MPG function. This allows relief for Flex-Fuel as well as other types of fuel


By Oregonian2 on 11/25/2009 9:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
I understand that for say, alcohol. But how many KWH of electricity does it take to make up a gallon in calculating MPG for a plug-in-only electric car?


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Spivonious on 11/25/2009 11:52:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yes it does, but 45 is an average. If the car company wants to make a 10mpg truck, it needs to make an 80mpg car to balance it out.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By theapparition on 11/25/2009 12:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite, they have to sell one 10mpg truck and one 80mpg car. Or they could sell two 62.5mpg cars for each 10mpg truck they sold, etc. Point is, offering the cars is not enough, they also must sell them. It's a minor difference from your point, but a signifigant one. Having affordable cars that don't meet CAFE will only hurt the companies bottom line, so don't expect to see many of them, at least being affordable for the average consumer.

Quote from Wikipedia: (granted not the best souce but still true)
quote:
Historically, it is the sales-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the United States.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By mcnabney on 11/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 2:02:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If you want to create an incentive to use less gas and encourage production of efficient cars - tax the gas .
Gas is already taxed. People that use more pay more already.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By lightfoot on 11/25/2009 3:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
The gas tax in the US is trivial, and doesn't even cover the costs that it is designed to cover (road and highway maintenance.)

The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon (or roughly 6% of what you pay for gas.) That is less than most sales taxes. Some states have higher taxes, but it never exceeds 50 cents per gallon.

As gas prices rise, the gas tax becomes less significant.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Keeir on 11/25/2009 3:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The gas tax in the US is trivial, and doesn't even cover the costs that it is designed to cover (road and highway maintenance.)


Errr... in most states, this could be true. However, large numbers of states refuse to use the gas tax to pay for road maintaince.

Since Gas is a basic input into the economy, taxing gas will result in higher costs, reduced consumption, and an increase in government waste.

Not saying it might not be worth it, but keep in mind there will be a definate economic and social consquence to say tripling or doing a 100% gas tax.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By lightfoot on 11/25/2009 3:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
But if your goal is to reduce fuel consumption, nothing would work better than a targeted tax on fuel.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By IcePickFreak on 11/25/2009 4:42:45 PM , Rating: 3
How about a proper driver licensing system? Don't give a license to every fool that walks into the DMV. If you can't drive then you're stuck with public transit and dealing with you're own short-comings on your own for once. Less cars on the road = less fuel consumption.

It's a bit ironic that cars come with more and more gadgets and power options when a lot of people apparently can't figure out how to even operate the turn-signal lever. Oddly it seems the more feature-rich a car is, the less likely the turn signals are to work. Mercedes needs to have a recall because I rarely see the turn signals working on their cars.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By xmichaelx on 11/25/2009 6:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about a proper driver licensing system? Don't give a license to every fool that walks into the DMV.


This is among the best ideas I've seen, and I couldn't agree more. It would not only mean "less fuel consumed overall", but would make the roads MUCH safer, thus reducing medical and insurance costs.

But like all ideas that have no down side and only result in improved quality of life for Americans, it will never happen. Lobbyists for the auto, medical, insurance, & oil industries would kill it instantly.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By mcnabney on 11/25/2009 4:11:55 PM , Rating: 1
Since tax revenue doesn't come from magical faeries I am going to guess that any tax is going to have an economic consequence. A gas tax will at least have an effect of being both fair and balanced. It will increase costs for everyone due to the basic needs of transporting goods and services. It would increase costs more for people using less efficient vehicles, have longer commutes, and use their vehicle for business.
The benefit is that in many ways this is a win-win solution. Taxes destroy, so might as well tax something we want less of. If we use less gas there is less tax revenue, but less imported oil and dependence. If nothing changes it is a far more effective usage-based tax that is paid by the user of a product.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Bagom on 11/25/2009 6:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem with more taxes is government will spend it on pet projects and waste it on more government. A heavy new tax on gas will be a double whammy on the lower income more then people in the upper class. The lower income brackets mostly likely will be the ones living outside the city due to the fact they cannot afford a house closer to work and driving older cars. Then everyone will be forced to increase prices due to higher transportation costs for goods and services.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Keeir on 11/25/2009 6:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hrm, Fair and Balanced taxes have traditionally been the most unpopular.

I could support a higher gas tax if

1.) It was phased in over 10 years
2.) We drop CAFE
3.) Money is spent directly on Reducing Debt or Fixing Roads. IE, its not counted by the government as new money to spend

Since I can't see 1, 2, or 3 happening, I would rather oppose something that will have a drastic shock to our economy system and best case senario enable oil to be cheaper for China and India.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Scabies on 11/25/2009 11:59:11 AM , Rating: 1
having a fuel efficient truck is like having a desktop computer that doubles as a cell phone.

you really need to rethink what it is you need compared to what it is you own (or do.)


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By ouranos83 on 11/25/2009 12:18:21 PM , Rating: 5
Fuel efficient does not have to equal less power


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 2:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fuel efficient does not have to equal less power
To get to a 45 mpg average it will, at least initially. But lighter weight can counteract the power loss. In reality though, the government's not going to give up the ever increasing safety and emissions standards which add weight (safety) and reduce fuel efficiency (emissions).

Example, current Ford diesel pickups get worse gas mileage because of tightening emissions standards than diesel trucks of a few years ago. My truck has gotten 22 mpg on the freeway whereas the current trucks can't seem to get past 18, at least from what I've read. I still find it amazing that a huge 4 door, brick wall in the wind, 7000 lb truck can get anywhere near 20 mpg. A testament to diesel engines for sure as our old, significantly lighter, smaller engined Tundra got 18 mpg on the freeway and no more no matter how I drove.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By ClownPuncher on 11/25/2009 1:01:08 PM , Rating: 5
Having no idea of how analogies work is like eating pickles out of Bigfoots armpit.

I, for one, would gladly accept a more fuel efficient truck.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Scabies on 11/25/2009 7:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Having no idea of how analogies work is like eating pickles out of Bigfoots armpit.

in that snarky internet vigilantes will come out and chest-thump at you?

A fuel efficient truck is nice, but dumbing down the platform meant to tow and haul to car-like levels... as opposed to just getting a car instead? Pardon the straw man, but let a truck be a truck.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Hiawa23 on 11/25/2009 2:32:03 PM , Rating: 3
We put a man on the moon, have computers that can do amazing calculations per second, have found cures to many diseases, & every time I open up my power bill or go to the gas pump, or even start either my 1997 Honda Civic which gets 30+ MPGs even with 225,000 miles on it or my 2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart 2.4L, which gets in the twenties,
I am baffled & wonder why haven't gas engine powered vehicle technology not improved to the point where we have 40MPG or better by now as standard for autos, forget trucks, but why hasn't this been a priority, & why haven't we strived to use more of our own resources to produce more fuel for ourselves & depend less on foreign countries. We have had decades to solve this issue, & have not. It would have saved many troops lives as we would have probably occupied less countries over the years in the name of oil, masked as something else, would have saved alot of money that could have been actually invested back into our country & fixed many of the social ills that still plagued this great land, & inequality that many still face, or other.

I say that to say this, why do I or anyone else expect 45 by 2020, which to me seems unatainable at this point. That number just seems to big, maybe 35 or something but 45, heck hybrids barely get better than that, & they are saying this should be standard. I don't see it.

How in the heck can you get 40MPG out of a truck not electric vehicle? I just don't see it, unless the truck is like 4cylinder, 120hp, & small? Just doesn't seem realistic at all, in the time frame given & given the control that oil companies have over us, they definitely would be against this. Good try, sounds good, but I just don't see it.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Spuke on 11/25/2009 2:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We put a man on the moon, have computers that can do amazing calculations per second
It's not whether we can, it's whether we can do it cheaply. The moon mission was a damn it all to hell, bonzai run. Building a car is not. People will only pay so much for car and a 45 mpg fleet average WILL increase the price of an average car.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By lightfoot on 11/25/2009 3:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
The internal combustion engine is a technology that is very mature. In the 60's the engine was over 60 years old and already had 60 years of innovation and incremental improvement. Computer technology at the same time was less than ten years old and barely worked. (Computer bugs were things like moths that shorted out the vacuum tubes.) Today (40 years later) computers have advanced incredibly because the technology is now 5 times more mature (500%). Engine technology at best is only 60% more mature. Both technologies have had vast improvements, but the scale of those improvements cannot be compaired.

You will note that just because computers are fifty times faster now than they were a decade ago, the office buildings that they are in are not fifty times taller. Different technologies, different levels of maturity.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By Keeir on 11/25/2009 4:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am baffled & wonder why haven't gas engine powered vehicle technology not improved to the point where we have 40MPG or better by now as standard for autos


Alright. The reason is simple engineering. Without a game changing innovation based change (which can never be adequately predicted)

A Gasoline Engine runs the Otto Cycle the best. An Otto cycle maximum theotrical efficieny at pressures and temperatures that can be used safely in an automobile is typically 45% (Turbos, Supercharges, other cycles such as Atk. are different)

A gallon of gasoline contains ~33 kWh of energy.

Maximum theotrical conversion, at the shaft is 14.9 kWh.

Lets say we create a drivetrain that is 90% efficient. (90% of shaft energy gets to the wheels). This is physically possible, I have never heard of this in an actual production car, the best efficieny I have ever read about is the supposed 85%+ of the Prius System. (Which is not really that great. Dual Clutch systems also get 85%+ supposedly)

Maximum Energy to Wheels, 11.9 kWh.

Now, Humans like a few things in this life. They like to be able to sit two wide in a car. Lets assume each person likes to have a .75m wide x 1.5m tall x 1.25m long volume to sit in. Minimum swept area for this shape is 1.5m x 1.5m or 2.25 m^2 (BTW, this is the swept area of a Smart FourTwo car). Now lets talk Cd. Minimum Cd I have seen reported on a practical car is .22. Lets go with .2 then.

Energy= Distance*.5* Density of Air * Cd * Swept Area * V^2

Energy loss due to Aerodynamic forces to go one mile at
20 mph (~9 m/s) - 0.01 kWh
40 mph (~18 m/s) - 0.04 kWh
60 mph (~27 m/s) - 0.1 kWh
80 mph (~36 m/s) - 0.17 kWh

Energy loss due to Rolling Resistence- Constant depends on wieght. Assuming New payment and fancy Low RR tires, Coefficient can be as low as 0.005
Wieght
2000 lbs (8900 N) - 0.02 kWh (Actual Wieght with people)
2500 lbs (11,100 N) - 0.025 kWh
3000 lbs (13,340 N) - 0.03 kWh

Mileage from a Smart Car with better than every constructed drivetrain and body using a fancy maximum efficieny Engine. Driving with new tires with superior rolling resistance and new roadway. Oh its 70 degress, cloudy, no wind and you don't want to use the radio, lights, an instrament panel (you get the picture). Also, the car magically is travling at this speed at 0 grade (no acceleration).
20 MPH - ~400 MPG
40 MPH - ~200 MPG
60 MPH - ~100 MPG
80 MPH - ~63 MPG

Now to reality, Smart FourTwo is awefully small. Something more along the lines of a Honda Fit (Small B/C class car)
Increase Swept Area by 13%. Cd of .2 is pretty dang small. A Hatch/Sedan type body is more likely limited to the ~.23-.24 without having large fairing panels supported all over the place. Wieght.... as safety increases either cost or wieght go up. Its hard for me to imagine a car getting less than 2500 lbs with people in it in the future. Safety standards will only go afterall. Additionally, its hard to see people going without a Radio, CD Player, Speakers, Turn Signals, Stability Control, etc.

Running the Numbers, its hard to see a -usable- car for an average 6' tall person (I define the Fit as usuable so clearly I not including much comfort here) getting more than 50-60 MPG on Otto Cycle, 70 MPG on Atkins Cycle, or 70 on Diesel Cycle and this is traveling at a constant 60 MPH.

This is why I support EVs, as EVs have the promise to funamentally change the equation. If we go Wall to Road, most EVs are above 75% efficient (Maximum 99% possible), wheras Pump to Road for most ICE cars is ~ 20% with a maximum of 35%.


RE: Does it include Trucks & Suvs?
By mindless1 on 11/29/2009 7:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
Your thinking is entirely illogical. It is the equivalent of us already getting 40 MPG and you asking "surely with all this great tech around why can't we get 60 MPH".. or 60/80, 80/100, etc., etc., etc.

Or to put it another way, since it is governed by the laws of physics as defined by humans, it could also be like asking "why can't we get 10 ounces in an eight ounce cup, surely that is possible by NOW".


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki