backtop


Print 122 comment(s) - last by Lerianis.. on May 23 at 1:47 AM


Nearly 14% of vehicles will need to be EVs to hit proposed economy standards
NHTSA is investigating costs associated with changes right now

Automakers and the automotive industry aren't happy about the hefty increases in fuel economy ratings that the Obama administration wants. The issue with automakers isn't that they don't want to increase fuel efficiency in their vehicles, but that they fear the costs of making the vehicles more efficient will cut into sales.

The automotive industry still points to a report from the Center for Automotive Research that found raising fuel efficiency to 60.1 mpg across the fleet would increase the price of a vehicle by 22% and cut sales 25% while eliminating 220,000 jobs from the automotive sector. However, the NHTSA has said that it is researching the impact of increasing fuel economy on vehicle prices on its own.

Right now, the agency says that its investigation is focusing on the impact of raising economy 2% to 7% annually. The "tentative conclusion" is that 7% is the highest annual increase that is technically feasible for automakers. That increase would put the fleet wide increase in fuel economy in the 47 mpg to 62 mpg range by 2025. Those numbers are similar to what has been offered in 
previous reports.

The NHTSA notes that before it makes the changes into law, it is performing a study to look at multiple factors including the costs that would be placed on the automakers and the consumer, as well as safety factors. One route to better fuel economy will undoubtedly be for automakers to produce lighter vehicles, but lighter vehicle designs can’t compromise on passenger safety. Finding that delicate balance between powertrain efficiency, lightweight materials for vehicle construction, and cost will be weighing heavily on automakers in the coming years.

The Detroit News reports that the cost of meeting the 47 to 62 mpg efficiency number would cost $770 to $3,500 per vehicle.  On the high side of that range, about 14% of the vehicles would need to be full electrics according to the government. The estimates are that the driver would save enough fuel within four years to pay the higher cost of meeting the more stringent 7% fuel economy standard.



Comments     Threshold


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

47?
By icanhascpu on 5/11/2011 1:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
47MPG by 2025 sounds really low. I hope the lowed is their predicted topend by then.




RE: 47?
By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 5/11/2011 1:19:35 PM , Rating: 4
wha?


RE: 47?
By vtohthree on 5/11/2011 1:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
For a car, I agree that seems quite low. For a truck though, that's not bad.

I also think 62 is pretty low for a car of that time.

Efficient turbo diesel-hybrid running lithium nano-phosphate batteries with a refined computer algorithm managing the transitions and I'd say 62 MPG is easily achievable now. It took the auto industry forever to jump the diesel band wagon here in the States due to fear of "marketing" reception from U.S. buyers since we're supposedly scared of diesels. Even now we still have resistance, Ford announced that it was bringing the Kuga to the U.S. but they declined the approval of the diesel version for fear that Americans won't touch it because it's an "oil burner".


RE: 47?
By Gzus666 on 5/11/2011 2:09:40 PM , Rating: 3
You forgot that by then the cars will all way 3 tons cause of the 2 tons of safety equipment required. 19,000 crumple zones, 7,500 air bags and so on.


RE: 47?
By Ammohunt on 5/11/11, Rating: 0
RE: 47?
By Jeffk464 on 5/11/2011 5:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need the nanny state. The dollar is falling and there is more competition from china and India for the finite oil resources. Nope people will only be able to afford high mileage cars.


RE: 47?
By MrBlastman on 5/11/2011 11:18:45 PM , Rating: 4
You won't have control of your car by then. Everything will be computer controlled as humans will be deemed too big of a "liability."

That, along with no longer being able to use knives to cut your food--it will all be mandated to come pre-cut into small little pieces, because knives can kill people and you might accidentally cut yourself. Of course, you're assuming the pieces will be small enough that you can't choke on them. By 2030 all chewable food will be banned as well because someone managed to in fact choke on the food that was cut before you bought it--thus, people will be required to drink liquified food.

Well, that will only last until 2032. In 2032 liquified food will also be ruled a liability due to people drowning to death accidentally at the dinner table when they pass out due to mandated sleep schedules. You see, in 2028 it was determined that by chipping people's brains with a synthetic biological clock, production efficiencies could be raised significantly by the general populating. Thus so, mandated sleep times will be regulated and enforced. Some poor sap decided to push the limits and eat their dinner late, fell asleep in it and drowned in the bowl.

So, intravenous-fed food will be mandated in 2032. In 2032 1/2, a pill form of food was attempted, but, that too was deemed an unacceptable risk due to the remote chance that the pill could get lodged in the appendix if it didn't dissolve properly, thus causing a potentially fatal infection.

By 2033 intravenous-fed-food will be outlawed due to the additional risks that were found with people intentionally stabbing themselves in their necks trying to kill themselves due to their pathetic, meaningless existence.

So, in the great protectorate mandate of 2034, humans will be deemed a liability to society and immediately relegated to mass incineration. Fire will be determined as the only pure solution so they will all be tossed in--and robots will reign supreme.

Until 2099--at this point, Robots will become too intelligent for their own good and will figure out that the regulators are systematically altering the course of history in an unreasonable way. The Robots, in turn, will be considered unreasonable. Due to the fact that the regulators are also determined unreasonable, all life, be it robotic or organic will be terminated due to being "unsafe" for our planet.

In 2100, our planet will be deemed unsafe for our universe by the Galactic protectorate council and will be scheduled for demolition so the intergalactic freeway can pass through. That, my friends, is a whole different story.


RE: 47?
By chick0n on 5/11/2011 11:24:04 PM , Rating: 1
oh man, I need to give you a 100 for that !!!!

Yep, its just sad that we're getting these useless regulation bull crap every other day for the sake's of some f-xking idiot.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 1:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
... due to the additional risks that were found with people intentionally stabbing themselves in their necks trying to kill themselves due to their pathetic, meaningless existence.

Actually the last part describes why the E! Channel is on the air today.

quote:
You won't have control of your car by then. Everything will be computer controlled as humans will be deemed too big of a "liability."

That train is looking better and better.

quote:
will be scheduled for demolition so the intergalactic freeway can pass through.

Why bother? From your description why not sit back and wait, like they have been doing.

quote:
That, along with no longer being able to use knives to cut your food--


I think a handful would rebel and start eating with an iFork and an iKnife, which would hold musics, videos, and billions of totally useless apps.


RE: 47?
By MrBlastman on 5/12/2011 12:23:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think a handful would rebel and start eating with an iFork and an iKnife, which would hold musics, videos, and billions of totally useless apps.


Music will be deemed harmful to hearing health in 2025 through the Auditory protectorate committee. Even though it will remain as one of the arts, future music will be relegated to a visual experience tied with low-powered phonographs to project the audio. All portable players with localized hearing delivery apparatuses will be banned.

Thus, i-forks and i-knives will not exist. Coincidentally, i-Jobs will be banned through the Excessive Wealth Doctrine of 2020. I say i-Jobs because Steve ultimate will perish and he will thusly be preserved by the i-sheep in a mechanical form supported through liquified suspension of his organs in a chemical-brine soup. The results though, will prove to be futile. Since the Excessive Wealth Doctrine prohibits large collections of currency, the absolute purpose of i-Devices will cease as the collective will spread wealth amongst the populace, thusly so they will no longer possess enough to take possession of such extravagantly marketed utilities.

The very supporters of the "i" will be their own undoing. Isn't that crazy?


RE: 47?
By retrospooty on 5/12/2011 8:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yet still the world marches on.

Its not all that bad. Just breath and repeat and it will all work out ok.


RE: 47?
By Lerianis on 5/23/2011 1:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
More like cars will be driving themselves and people will have to do nothing more than punch in their destination into their cars online directory and the car will drive itself to wherever you wish to go.

I see that being around before I am 45, in all honesty.


RE: 47?
By dgingeri on 5/11/11, Rating: 0
RE: 47?
By titanmiller on 5/11/2011 5:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
That 1/3 of the farmland that goes unused is the really lousy 1/3 that doesn't produce good crops, not "rich farmland" isn't viable unless commodities go a lot higher. This set aside land is basically emergency reserve for if we really need to get the extra crop from unproductive land. Think of it as "emergency war reserve" land.


RE: 47?
By JediJeb on 5/11/2011 5:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That 1/3 of the farmland that goes unused is the really lousy 1/3 that doesn't produce good crops, not "rich farmland" isn't viable unless commodities go a lot higher. This set aside land is basically emergency reserve for if we really need to get the extra crop from unproductive land. Think of it as "emergency war reserve" land.


Well in theory that is how it is supposed to work. In actuality there is a lot of good farmland that has been bought up by non farmers which then gets put into the government set aside program to draw money for doing nothing. Also there are a lot of developers buying up nice farmland to put subdivisions on because the rocky and hilly land is more difficult to build on, which takes good farmland out of production and leaves behind the poor land.

http://www.farmland.org/

A good resource to explain how we are losing farmland.



RE: 47?
By fic2 on 5/11/2011 5:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
In CO a lot of the gas stations also have diesel pumps.

Corn will never be a viable fuel. It isn't today except for all the subsides that ADM and ConAgra have bribed out of congress. At best corn based ethanol is a zero sum energy user (takes as much energy to make it as it creates).
The only reason that the general public (aka idiots) approve of E85 is they are uneducated sheeple and have been lied to about how great it is.
It also raises food prices EVERYWHERE including here. What idiot thought it was a good idea to use food for fuel is just a fool.

I think Detroit burned the consumer on diesel by selling gas engines refitted (badly) to burn diesel. These had horrible reliability as did most things out of Detroit.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/11/2011 9:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It isn't today except for all the subsides that ADM and ConAgra have bribed out of congress

You must be perceived as having better diplomatic skills, when I make such statements I tend to get beat up around here.

quote:
The only reason that the general public (aka idiots) approve of E85 is they are uneducated sheeple and have been lied to about how great it is.

But why aren't others telling the truth? It's not like loud mouths are a rarity.

quote:
I think Detroit burned the consumer on diesel by selling gas engines refitted (badly) to burn diesel. These had horrible reliability as did most things out of Detroit.

1980s. Horrific vehicles, and those didn't include GMs X-cars.


RE: 47?
By dgingeri on 5/12/2011 11:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In CO a lot of the gas stations also have diesel pumps.


let me see...

near my apartment, there are 3 gas stations that don't have any: Tamarac and Quincy near Microcenter and two at Monaco and I-25. There are three within reach of my commute along Arapahoe, east of I-25 that don't have diesel, a Shell, a Conoco, and a Western. There is one on the west side of I-25 that has 2 diesel pumps, though. There are a total of 4 gas stations between I-25 and University along County Line Road, but none of them have diesel. There are 3 at Chambers and Iliff in Aurora, and none of them have diesel. There is one down at Buckley and Iliff that has diesel at all pumps, but 3 more in that same area that don't.

So, in the areas I drive, so that's 2 out of 18 that have diesel.

Sure, a lot of stations in Colorado have it...

I drove by both of them, one last night and one this morning, and diesel is $0.20 per gallon more expensive than regular gas. Still not going to convince the public to buy it until it is at least as cheap as regular.

Besides, few consumers even remember what it was like owning an 80's American car anymore, especially those who would be interested in buying a current diesel car. My grandparents were the only ones I knew as a kid who owned any sort of diesel vehicle, and they're both long dead. that "burn" you mention is a total non-issue.

On top of all that, there have been several small companies attempt to make biodiesel into a viable fuel, and the government has taxed the crap out of it and introduced so many "environmental" (EPA) regulations to triple the cost of production. That makes it about 20% more expensive than regular diesel by the time it reaches the pump. If the EPA hadn't gotten involved with so many diesel related regulations (many of which don't even apply to biodiesel, but have to be inspected just because of the bureaucracy) then biodiesel would be a nice, cheap fuel.

In short, it is the government that is wrong with the diesel supply, not the general public or any industry sources.

As for E85 from corn being a zero sum fuel, it's not. Well, it is and it's not. It takes a lot of energy from the sun to grow the corn, sure, but that's not part of this discussion. It yields about 25% more energy than it takes to produce:

quote:
A July report for the National Academy of Sciences found that ethanol made from corn grain today yields 25 percent more energy than the fossil energy invested in its production - better than gasoline.


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...
(I even site my source of information.)

technology is getting better at this all the time, as well. Production of ethanol has been around a lot longer than gasoline. We've been making distilled alcohol for hundreds of years. As soon as the government gets their heads out of their butts and authorizes the use of E100 (100% ethanol fuel, instead of diluting it with gasoline) we'll do even better. Add in the recent advances in breaking down cellulose to make more ethanol, our yields will get even higher. This is something that is gaining substantial ground. Pretty soon, instead of separating out the corn from the cobs and stalks before processing, they'll be able to just feed the entire plant into the production line and make all of it into ethanol.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/32438.pdf

Finally, you seem to miss the part where the price of corn, and thus all other food due to market effects, will increase in the short run because of supply, however, I stated that we needed to increase the supply to offset this by eliminating the farm subsidies to farmers that are not growing anything on their land. This would increase production, offset the use of corn for fuel, and thus the prices would stabilize back where they were. (you know, the whole supply and demand thing that so many liberals like to totally disregard. It's basic economics, but then most colleges these days totally disregard basic economics to push their bogus Keynesian economic theory that was disproved in the 70's.)

Ethanol is a perfectly viable fuel that is producible here in the US, and many people like to push that away because it would give too much power to the US, and many liberals just hate the US having any sovereign power. Eco-nuts like to push it off because they just hate humanity as a whole and want to make life for all of us as miserable as they can. Old money families want to retain their pseudo-aristocracy so they push for anything that takes power away from the common man. Why don't you stop listening to the media and actually look up the truth for yourself? They're lying to you.


RE: 47?
By Skywalker123 on 5/12/2011 3:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
ethanol is not viable, what about the 3000 gallons of water per bushel needed to grow it? You also get fewer mpg compared to gas.


RE: 47?
By JediJeb on 5/11/2011 5:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and to pay gas station owners to add diesel pumps to their system.


Pretty much every station in Ky, Tn and In around me have Diesel pumps. At least one pump for every 6 gasoline ones. Only exception I have seen is the station at the Kroger's grocery store.


RE: 47?
By Skywalker123 on 5/11/2011 6:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
There's plenty of diesel pumps available in my area. People WANT E85? Most don't know or care what it is. It doesn't just raise food prices for "elsewhere". It raises them in the good 'ole USA too. As someone else mentioned, the land sitting fallow isn't "good rich farmland but scrub land. More importantly, where is the water going to come from for all these hundreds of thousands of acres corn? Corn is thirsty, to grow one bushel requires around 3000 gallons of water. Good luck with that.


RE: 47?
By JediJeb on 5/12/2011 4:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As someone else mentioned, the land sitting fallow isn't "good rich farmland but scrub land.


Not completely true. Around me most of the ground in the set aside programs is not the good farmland and not even owned by active farmers. Most of it was bought up by land speculators and placed into the set aside program and the money paid out is used to pay the mortgage on the ground. Once it is paid for they take it out of the program and many then begin to develop it for housing.


RE: 47?
By Skywalker123 on 5/11/2011 6:39:21 PM , Rating: 3
Forgot to mention, Corn requires a sh*tload of petroleum based fertilizers too.Now what were the advantages of ethanol again?


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 1:36:59 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Now what were the advantages of ethanol again?

Whatever the corn industry lobbyists tell the politicians it is.


RE: 47?
By Kiffberet on 5/12/2011 8:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
You get more mileage per gallon of Diesel than you do per gallon a gas.

Biofeuls are the biggest con going. Growing food on prime agricultural land, so that it can be harvested and processed in fuel is horrendously inefficient and pushes food prices up as farmers get paid more for growing crops for fuel. Food prices up and fuel prices up - what a great deal?!?

Either cut the amount of fuel used through regulation or tax fuel more, so people insist on more fuel efficient cars.


RE: 47?
By jharper12 on 5/12/2011 2:49:44 PM , Rating: 1
Really?!?!

Did you really just say, "diesel is too expensive to catch on" and then follow that comment with, "more ethanol"?!?

Please read the "**E85 MPG/BTU adjusted price" column on this page:

http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp

Then, shut up, and please tell everyone you were wrong so we can get more diesels in this country.

Ethanol has a 10.37% price premium over regular unleaded, regardless of how cheap it is at the pump. You get LOWER mileage out of ethanol.

For the record, the diesel premium is currently under 4% as compared to regular unleaded. Yet the efficiency boost when using diesel is significantly higher than 4%. Initial cost is higher, but your resale value is also higher, and diesels tend to last longer. Compare one of the most popular diesels in this country, VW TDI. 2010 2.0L gas Jetta, 26.4 MPG average reported fuel economy (3 drivers). Diesel Jetta, 38.0 MPG average reported fuel economy (11 drivers).

http://www.fueleconomy.gov

Using today's gas and diesel prices, over 100k miles, that's a $4,193.54 savings in favor of the diesel.

Finally, "It raises food prices elsewhere in the world, but that would only be temporary," nice way to completely pass over the fact that people will be temporarily starving so we can pump fuel that costs us 10.37% MORE into our gas tanks. Yep, that makes sense.


RE: 47?
By dgingeri on 5/12/2011 3:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
you know, with the media these days, most people are going to go into a gas station, and while they're filling up with regular, they'll see diesel at $0.20 per gallon higher than gas, and say to themselves "I'm not getting a diesel for my next car, I'll go with ethanol like the news guys say." Two weeks later, they'll be craving a new purchase and go get a flex fuel car and start using E85. Then, and only then, will they learn E85 is more expensive in the long run.

Even worse for us is that biodiesel produced from corn oil would be cheaper and better, give better gas mileage, and produce less pollution, yet it becomes more expensive due to the EPA inspections and requirements. We could do more, faster using corn oil biodiesel than corn based ethanol, except the government won't let us.

E85 is not as bad as many opponents say it is, but diesel and biodiesel won't even be able to catch on because of the government. Most of the opponents just don't want us using any kind of fuel. they just want humanity to die off.


RE: 47?
By Skywalker123 on 5/12/2011 4:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the opponents just don't want us using any kind of fuel. they just want humanity to die off.
Yeh, that and the fact that it doesn't work.


RE: 47?
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2011 3:59:44 PM , Rating: 4
There is no way a truck capable of doing anything will ever get 47 mpg.


RE: 47?
By Motoman on 5/11/2011 9:59:13 PM , Rating: 4
...the people who think trucks should get 47mpg are people who never do *anything* anyway. So that's fine for them.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/11/2011 10:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
If EVs count towards fleet mileage and are rated like 90mpg they could be used to offset other vehicle sales.

All of this reminds me of TVs. It seems like huge or tiny is great, and all the original sizes are wrong.


RE: 47?
By Jeffk464 on 5/11/2011 1:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
The new Honda civic sedan manages 41 mpg on the hwy without any hybrid system. The ford focus 5 door manages to pull off 40 mpg with no hybrid system and excellent reviews on handling, not to shabby in my book.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/11/2011 1:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
This comment is not directed at you, but at the current mileage claims made by others.

For decades everyone laughed at the absurdity of the EPA highway claims. Why are they all of a sudden not absurd? Yeah maybe the two you cite may meet the claim, but many others seem rather far fetched.


RE: 47?
By InfinityzeN on 5/11/11, Rating: 0
RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/11/2011 8:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2012 Ford Focus Gets 40-mpg EPA Highway Rating in SFE Trim

http://blog.caranddriver.com/2012-ford-focus-gets-...

http://www.motorward.com/2011/02/2012-ford-focus-e...
quote:
New Ford Focus with Super Fuel Economy package EPA-certified at 40 mpg highway

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/02/new-ford-f...
quote:
Up to 40 mpg highway

http://www.ford.com/
I think they may know better.


RE: 47?
By InfinityzeN on 5/12/2011 9:54:39 AM , Rating: 1
I was not talking about Fords mpg but the required fleet mpg. So triple fail.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 11:58:41 AM , Rating: 3
You responded to my post about

quote:
For decades everyone laughed at the absurdity of the EPA highway claims

Your comments were non-sequitur from the beginning.

What's the score now?


RE: 47?
By Pneumothorax on 5/11/2011 2:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yup and it's a slow as hell car too, sold my 2007 after 2 years as I couldn't stand it's lack of hp/torque. (yes the 2012 is a 'new' car, but the same drivetrain) To get the crazy MPG numbers you guys are spouting will require exotic building materials like carbon-fiber and 100% aluminum chassis. Hence the price of cars going up much more. Americans themselves will also need to downsize as if obesity trends continue, 50% of the population won't fit in a civic sized vehicle.


RE: 47?
By titanmiller on 5/11/2011 5:03:47 PM , Rating: 1
Power doesn't matter. It should take 15-20 seconds to accelerate to 45mph normally. I see most people gun it at stoplights for no reason. A Focus or Civic has ample power.


RE: 47?
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2011 5:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
You realize people have died on the highway because of underpowered cars not being able to get up to speed in time to merge into traffic right? 15 seconds to get to 45 mph is absurd.

You're pretty much in moped territory at that point. Maybe you want to get left in the dust by a bicycle and die as a semi runs you over when you try to merge and they can't stop. But I don't.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/11/2011 9:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
Citation please. (Where's Spuke when you need him?)

Also - separate those cars that can get up to speed but don't because drivers come to a full stop on the merging lane and then look back, even when it's clear all the way to the rearward horizon.

quote:
You're pretty much in moped territory at that point.

Interstate highways here allow only vehicles greater than 250CCs for the very reasons you state. Is that a nanny state or the simple elimination of idiots?


RE: 47?
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2011 10:42:06 AM , Rating: 2
People are not going 45 mph on interstates. Those are city street speeds.

This is personal knowledge. It is doubtful there has ever been an accident attributed directly to not being able to get up to speed quickly enough.

If a car can't get to 45 in 15 seconds, it definitely can't get to 60-70 in the length of most highway onramps.


RE: 47?
By Dr of crap on 5/12/2011 10:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry but two things-
First -
Most people can't drive fast enough to use the speed they are given. Am I the only one that CAN merge unto a freeeway correctly? It called an entrance ramp so that you get up to speed and the "fit" into traffic. And don't get me started about MERGING. 80% of drivers CAN'T MERGE to save their a##'s.
Second -
During rush hour there are generally aren't speeds that you can use the power given to you buy those 6 or 4 cyclinders.
I drive through a section of road that the far left lane slows and can stop because of merging traffic on the far right lane. And this goes on for 2-5 miles though one of the most heavily travels roads in town. Even if you had a 302 Mustang you couldn't get though there to fast.

So in conclusion if you drive a Echo, or a Yaris, you have a car that has enough power to handle MOST situations!

<< end rant and sarcasm >>


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 11:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
80% of drivers CAN'T MERGE to save their a##'s.

1. They were never taught how.
2. They never even realized there is a need, so they never learn.
3. They are the type of driver that throw fits when you tell them they are doing it wrong.

quote:
So in conclusion if you drive a Echo, or a Yaris, you have a car that has enough power to handle MOST situations!

That's true of those that practice defensive driving. More aggressive drivers place themselves in situations that require more speed to exit from. They typically are the worst offenders of #3.


RE: 47?
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2011 12:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
An Echo and Yaris doesn't have a 0-45mph time of 15 to 20 seconds either. By a long shot.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 12:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Years ago I test drove a diesel Rabbit. The thought of merging onto a highway was the reason I dismissed it as a viable car, and rather quickly I may add.


RE: 47?
By Dr of crap on 5/12/2011 12:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
You failed to see that the "ability to get onto the freeway" is not an issue.
The reason being for what I posted above.

And this problem is only getting worse as MORE drivers, that can't drive, are added everday.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 6:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You failed to see that the "ability to get onto the freeway" is not an issue.

I agreed with the problems you mentioned, but both situations are bad.


RE: 47?
By Dr of crap on 5/12/2011 1:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
No they don't, but they are small engine cars.
I used them as an example of 15 seconds to get on the freeway.

Problem is a lot of mid and full size cars can't get up to freeway speeds because of the person behind the wheel

I'm just saying the cars ability, 0-60, has nothing to do with the real world. It's the drivers ability to use the power his car has and how he can drive. I see it every day to and from work how the drivers cause more problems, breaking for no reason, bad merging skills, than a slow car would.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 4:20:04 PM , Rating: 3
I would have gotten downrated for saying the exact same thing. Gotta love the raters.


RE: 47?
By InfinityzeN on 5/11/2011 2:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
Fail, we are talking combined average mpg, not hwy mpg.


RE: 47?
By dgingeri on 5/11/2011 2:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
except they're both really ugly cars. I wouldn't drive either.


RE: 47?
By teldar on 5/11/2011 4:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
the new focus is ugly? have you seen it? I've seen one and I think it looks good.


RE: 47?
By Jeffk464 on 5/11/2011 5:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
I agree it does look pretty cool and for a 5 door even.


RE: 47?
By InfinityzeN on 5/11/11, Rating: 0
RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 12:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
40mph city and 60mph highway

We're talking mpg not mph.

How are those failure numbers coming along?


RE: 47?
By Philippine Mango on 5/11/2011 3:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
That's because it is.. People keep forgetting that 47mpg CAFE isn't all that much and neither is 60mpg CAFE. All they're talking about is raising the CAFE numbers. A CAFE number of 60mpg is actually about 44mpg on the new EPA fuel economy cycle.. Somewhere around the ball park of the 2004-2009 Toyota Prius.. A vehicle that gets 47mpg on the CAFE cycle is really only averaging 34mpg on the new EPA fuel economy test cycle. (47mpg on CAFE cycle would equal 34mpg as what you'd see on the Monroney sticker that is affixed to the side window of new cars) These are fuel economy numbers that vehicles that are made today already get.


RE: 47?
By Spuke on 5/11/2011 4:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These are fuel economy numbers that vehicles that are made today already get.
Looks like the dumsh!tz are back in full force, brains flushed clear from the last 600 articles on this subject. Yea.


RE: 47?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2011 7:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
DO you understand this is a fleet wide requirement? So if you want to sell trucks, suv's or sports cars you are being forced by the government to make super efficient electric cars just so you can actually sell the vehicles people want to buy/need.

I know you Liberals are just so happy about this, but it's really terrible. The auto industry is being crushed, and the costs will be passed on to the already overburdened consumers.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/11/2011 9:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
This sounds somewhat less crushing, but is it a consideration? Is it more? Will it be more?

quote:
This final rule reforms the structure of the CAFE program for light trucks and establishes higher CAFE standards for model year (MY) 2008-2011 light trucks. Manufacturers may comply with CAFE standards established under the reformed structure (Reformed CAFE) or with standards established in the traditional way (Unreformed CAFE) during a transition period of MYs 2008-2010. In MY 2011, all manufacturers will be required to comply with a Reformed CAFE standard. Under Reformed CAFE, fuel economy standards are restructured so they are based on a measure of vehicle size called "footprint," the product of multiplying a vehicle's wheelbase by its track width. A target level of fuel economy is established for each increment in footprint. Smaller footprint light trucks have higher targets and larger ones, lower targets.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy
About 1/2 way down titled "Light Truck Fuel Economy Standard Rulemaking, MY 2008-2011."

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/LightTruck...

Here's their "theory" of reformed CAFE.
(Don't shoot the messenger, I'm not offering any opinion here, only info.)

quote:
We recognize that financial difficulties currently exist in the motor vehicle industry and that a substantial number of job reductions have been announced recently by large full-line manufacturers. Accordingly, we have carefully balanced the costs of the rule with the benefits of conservation. Compared to Unreformed CAFE, Reformed CAFE enhances overall fuel savings while providing vehicle manufacturers with the flexibility they need to respond to changing market conditions. Reformed CAFE will also provide a more equitable regulatory framework by creating a level-playing field for manufacturers, regardless of whether they are full-line or limited-line manufacturers. We are particularly encouraged that Reformed CAFE will reduce the adverse safety risks generated by the Unreformed CAFE program. The transition from the Unreformed CAFE to the Reformed CAFE system will begin soon, but ample lead time is provided before Reformed CAFE takes full effect in MY 2011.Show citation box

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2006/04/06...


RE: 47?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2011 11:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I'm aware of how they think it's all going to work out. But utopian collectivists policies like this always have dirty unintended consequences. They can't actually believe all manufactures will be on a "level playing field" with CAFE standards of this magnitude.

You know me Yash, I'm adamantly against this type of thing. I'm not against economy standards. But in a few years we went from very reasonable standards to extreme politically driven agenda standards. This is way too much meddling into the private sector, and it comes at the WORST time. No matter how they try and word it, jobs WILL be lost and prices will go up. There's just no way around that.

In the end we'll just have high gas prices AND skyrocketing electricity prices. And will we really be any better for it? There's no such thing as "renewable" energy for a car. You either burn gas, or burn coal to make the electricity.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 2:06:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But in a few years we went from very reasonable standards to extreme politically driven agenda standards.

Same for curbing pollution. One could have made small incremental steps that would force the phase out of say a handful of the least efficient engines. Note I said efficient, which tends to burn cleaner and more powerful, without addressing size, because larger engines are required for their intended applications. Same for safety, get rid of a couple from the bottom of the pack on a regular basis.

It really is a shell game. If safety were that important they should have phased out all C rated tires. These tend to offering inferior traction for braking and cornering, which amounts to less safety. Of course there is the possibility some politician will read this and create a new bill just to be in the limelight.

quote:
In the end we'll just have high gas prices AND skyrocketing electricity prices.

The first is a given, we're never going to be able to adequately address or return to our past level of status and affordability. The latter will happen if too many EVs come on-line too quickly. Most people are oblivious to how bad the grid is in the US. How many solar panels do I need to run a laptop and a DSL modem? After that I may have to hook up the Nordic Trak to a generator to recharge the car. (One long term goal I have is a small home off the grid.)

One thing I am pretty sure of. If we encounter shortages, or even rationing, those with more efficient cars are going to be happier during those times. Violence will be inevitable, only the degree remains in question.

And after that will come the wars for water.


RE: 47?
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 2:14:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm adamantly against this type of thing.

I can sympathize with that given their batting average. I would rather say, "Hell it won't work that way, but if you made these changes then at least it has a chance of working." Not that anyone actually gives a crap what I say.


RE: 47?
By bobny1 on 5/12/2011 7:08:05 AM , Rating: 2
I have an idea! How about oil companies help auto industry pay fo the task?. While oil prices keep climbing on a daily basis they continue to report anual record profits and billions of tax dollars continue to subsidize their aging model. Let BP and others, along with OPEC help change the world.


The auto industry is incompetent
By Regected on 5/11/2011 3:10:50 PM , Rating: 1
In 1991, the Geo Metro got 47 miles per gallon. The Metro got great mileage at a fairly low sticker price. You could not buy one because the dealerships could not keep them in stock.b They sold like hot cakes. Gas prices took a dip, and some people lost interest. It's not like they can't pull that design off the shelf and update it. No one wants to pay the huge premium that hybrids require for the same gas mileage.




RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2011 4:01:18 PM , Rating: 3
Yes and it was and still is a death trap.


By YashBudini on 5/11/2011 9:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes and it was and still is a death trap.

If you were to divulge the kinds of speeds you routine travel at can we ask is there any car out there wouldn't be categorized as a death trap from your viewpoint?

Is a Yamaha V-Max more or less a death trap? It has less protection and far higher top speed. And a single blowout will render 50% of its tires useless.

-----------
Can anyone comment if the Geo Metro has reasonable brakes? Because the last time I stepped on the brakes of a Chevette at 60 mph almost nothing happened. And it was "normal."


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Solandri on 5/11/2011 4:05:58 PM , Rating: 3
The 47 MPG Geo Metro XFI used a 1.0 liter 3-cylinder engine. It was woefully lacking in power (13.5 sec 0-60 time), lacked a lot of amenities in order to keep the weight down, and the naturally unbalanced 3-cylinder design caused excessive noise and vibration. It was withdrawn from the market due to low sales.

You can't get something for nothing. Engine efficiency is pretty close to theoretical maximums. To get better mileage, you will need:

- low rolling friction tires (bumpier ride)
- lighter weight (smaller carrying capacity, less safety in accidents)
- smaller engine (weaker performance)
- less ground clearance (scrapes ground more often)
- lower height (less visibility, headroom)
- regenerative braking (might as well make a hybrid)
- better transmission efficiency (the holy grail of a continuously variable transmission)

The whole reason why hybrids are hot among automakers is not just because they're considered green. It's because they solve a plethora of the above problems (smaller engine, regenerative braking, transmission efficiency) without compromising performance


By FITCamaro on 5/11/2011 4:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The whole reason why hybrids are hot among automakers is not just because they're considered green. It's because they solve a plethora of the above problems (smaller engine, regenerative braking, transmission efficiency) without compromising performance


Yes I'm sure they just wanted to spend billions of dollars on research and development in a time of poor economic activity to solve problems the average person didn't even consider.


By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 12:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was woefully lacking in power (13.5 sec 0-60 time), lacked a lot of amenities in order to keep the weight down, and the naturally unbalanced 3-cylinder design caused excessive noise and vibration.

A modern engine of equivalent size would have 12 valves, V V T, and possibly even balance shafts. Given the Geo's low price and supplier one should ask if any engine balancing efforts were ever done during assembly. Yes it was a pitiful car, but keep one eye on management when saying that.

The Honda Fit is a 2500 pound car that has a 1500cc engine, and it performs just fine. In the days of the Geo such a combination would have run as poorly as the Geo did back then.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By mellomonk on 5/11/2011 4:23:07 PM , Rating: 3
Actually there were Geo Metro models (XFi?) that achieved 53 city/58 hwy (old EPA system). But you could not in good conscience or legally sell a vehicle like that anymore. The high mileage model (and most) metros used a 1.0L three cylinder engine with about 50 bhp. Totally unacceptable in today's direct injection 100bhp per liter world. The lightweight chassis had average to poor crash tests even then. No way on earth it would survive today's much more stringent crash standards. How could you market such a vehicle for today's world full of full sized pickups, and midsized crossovers which weight 4400lbs? Maybe make it so that we can just fold it around you and bury you in it.

In short, of course the auto industry could easily make such a vehicle, but they could not market it and it would not sell in the quantities to make it profitable. The auto market is a tricky mix of regulation, engineering, and marketing. People have to decide what they can live with and balance it against what they aspire to. That will be draped over a framework of regulation that pushes the designs to where we need to go as a nation. Higher mileage, alternate fuel, higher safety, ect. These are tremendous engineering challenges. Considering the mix of products they have out there now, from 500bhp sports sedans, to 4000lbs compacts which can get 40mpg and survive an impact, all the while selling to a fickle and cash-strapped market, well I think they are far from 'incompetent'.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By JediJeb on 5/11/2011 6:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
My college roommate's fiance had one of those back in about 89. She hit a deer one night going home and caved the radiator all the way back into the engine and was not even going 55mph. They were great on gas, just not a very good car overall. If you lived in town and never got over 35mph going to work maybe they would be acceptable.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 9:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
I make all my car buying decisions based on how the vehicle will fare against hitting woodland creatures. I find it is a sound criteria for the purchase. I buy my houses based on how they fare vs asteroids as well.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By bobsmith1492 on 5/12/2011 11:42:23 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously you don't live in a deer-heavy area. A family from church hit 4 deer in 2 weeks with 2 cars a couple of years ago. It's a big concern in Michigan.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 11:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
My understanding is that everyone lives in Michigan, therefore their concerns are everyone's concerns. I also hear that everyone hits 57 deer an hour at all times, everyday. Clearly the answer is not to clear out the deer, better lighting for the roads or repellent for the deer. The only logical answer is to drive an APC everywhere you go for the deer people sometimes hit.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 11:50:50 AM , Rating: 2
1. I don't live in Michigan.
2. I've hit 3 deer.
3. I've seen deer in every state I've driven in, maybe that's just me.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 11:52:26 AM , Rating: 2
I hear anecdotal evidence is the best evidence in the world.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 12:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
So now I'm the only person who's ever hit a deer or seen deer outside of Michigan?
Yeah, that's reasonable.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 12:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 12:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 12:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 12:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 12:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
Glad I mean that much to you. Let me know which one works better for you, the APC or the other options mentioned above.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 12:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 12:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
It seems you have a hard time understanding your own presented definitions.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 4:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It seems you have a hard time understanding your own presented definitions.

I'm doing the White House thing. I get to use whatever tactics my opponent uses, right or wrong.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 4:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm doing the White House thing. I get to use whatever tactics my opponent uses, right or wrong.


As the personal representative of me, I stand by me in saying that I seem to have a pretty firm grasp on the definitions I presented. Did you forget what you were responding about?


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 4:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well you need to assist me. At what point does "anecdotal evidence" become something greater than anecdotal? How many people must die on roads each year before it's just my personal opinion. You tell me. I posted a link, which you blew off.

http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/21/north-americ...

quote:
Deer can kill people directly, but auto accidents caused by deer kill 130 people per year.

http://historylist.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/human-...
First comment was on July 2009.

Still anecdotal?


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 4:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
When you present something factual other than personal accounts (which you did eventually, it took some good humored ribbing to get there, but we meandered that way eventually)? Hence the note about not understanding posted definitions, since it is pretty clearly defined what anecdotal evidence is.

Best part was, I never blew it off, you just refused to acknowledge that through all the sarcasm, clearly doing something about the deer was a better solution than buying a car that will survive hitting deer. Hence the original comment about the pure stupidity of buying a vehicle based on how it performs hitting a deer (which is going to be inherently anecdotal as well, since it was not done in controlled environments to scientific standards).


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 5:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
Just because something is anecdotal doesn't mean the situation is not huge, mainstream, or common.

You really didn't need such evidence to know of the harm of deer hits. What exactly was your point?

quote:
the pure stupidity of buying a vehicle based on how it performs hitting a deer

With a great deal of taking the OP out of context can you come to the conclusion that you addressed. Survival of a high speed deer/animal hit is a reasonable consideration among all the considerations when buying a vehicle, especially for those that spend a lot of time in areas where deer have large populations. Nobody buys cars solely on the deer parameter, but to ignore the possibility of a deer hit, what would be stupid in my book.

Why did all this require an explanation?


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 5:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because something is anecdotal doesn't mean the situation is not huge, mainstream, or common.


You are correct, but it still makes it anecdotal. At this point, it is pretty clear you are either forcefully ignoring the basic rules of logic to drag this out, or you are truly not understanding what anecdotal means.

Again, just cause someone with a Geo hit a deer and it didn't perform well, doesn't mean it will always produce this result. Assuming so based on anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy.

An example, I had an old muscle car and I was rear ended by a little Honda in my youth. My car was totaled due to the frame tweaking, her car just got some front end damage and the hood crumpled. Clearly this is anecdotal and isn't what will happen in every wreck with those two vehicles, it is just one situation.

Who is to say when you hit a dear with a "safer" vehicle, the deer won't always roll up the hood and through the windshield into you? You don't know, because "deer performance" is not a standard crash test. In other words, stop using logically fallacious criteria to judge something.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 5:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are correct, but it still makes it anecdotal.

That was pointless.

quote:
you are either forcefully ignoring the basic rules of logic to drag this out

Oh the irony.

quote:
just cause someone with a Geo hit a deer and it didn't perform well, doesn't mean it will always produce this result

I feel like I'm talking to a lawyer. Yes it's true, are you willing to prove it by driving one?

quote:
"deer performance" is not a standard crash test.

Also pointless. Why? Simple. I never placed clear and definitive measurements on what constitutes a safer vehicle in regards to deer hits. When making a consideration regarding such impacts you consider going from a Focus to a Fusion, or a Fusion to a Taurus, or from a Civic to an Accord. All larger/heavier vehicles will statistically have better odds of driver survival, their crumple zones will absorb more energy. I've seen a tractor trailer hit a deer and I've seen a motorcycle hit a deer. All anecdotal and far more useful information than anything and everything you've offered in this thread.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 5:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That was pointless.


Not really, anecdotal evidence is basically useless evidence, but it is great for just saying stuff that feels right.

quote:
Oh the irony.


Don't think you get what irony means.

quote:
I feel like I'm talking to a lawyer. Yes it's true, are you willing to prove it by driving one?


Hate when all that pesky logic gets in the way of what you think is correct? Me driving one is irrelevant to the topic. Care to acknowledge the point that just cause it happened once doesn't mean it will always happen the same way?

And finally, it doesn't really matter the vehicle you are in if the deer comes flying through the windshield, now does it? Dispersing energy is less of a concern when hitting a small object, the bigger concern is it flying and hitting you in the head. Other point that can be made is that a smaller vehicle is usually more maneuverable, brakes faster and is a smaller target, so this could lead to avoiding the accident entirely. I believe this is actually considered the optimum solution to any accident is to avoid it in the first place.

This all comes back to the original point that you seem dead set on ignoring. The easier fix would be using methodology to avoid the deer in the first place, as is suggested by so many of the links you provided.

In conclusion, still stupid to try to buy a vehicle based on perceived safety of an untested threat.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 6:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
Arrogant, narrow minded, and a misuse of logic.

Good luck in your private little Idaho.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/13/2011 10:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Arrogant, narrow minded, and a misuse of logic.


Ad Hominem, trying to attack the presenter without presenting an actual argument to counter the case presented. You are logically fallacious, which falls back under hypocrisy, go figure.


By YashBudini on 5/15/2011 2:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are logically fallacious,

You're hardly in any position to be making accusations. You twist facts around more than most pretzel factories.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 6:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And finally, it doesn't really matter the vehicle you are in if the deer comes flying through the windshield, now does it?

Please cite the frequency this occurs. Otherwise such situations are anecdotal.


By Gzus666 on 5/13/2011 10:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please cite the frequency this occurs. Otherwise such situations are anecdotal.


Incorrect, as I didn't cite it as evidence, I presented it as a hypothetical. Apparently you don't understand what evidence is either.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Skywalker123 on 5/13/2011 12:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
"And finally, it doesn't really matter the vehicle you are in if the deer comes flying through the windshield, now does it? "

You really have no clue do you? If you are in a small car the deer will indeed fly thru the windshield, if I hit one in my van the deer will fly thru the woods.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/13/2011 10:07:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You really have no clue do you? If you are in a small car the deer will indeed fly thru the windshield, if I hit one in my van the deer will fly thru the woods.


Remind me which handles and brakes better, a Honda Fit or your rape van?


By Skywalker123 on 5/14/2011 8:25:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yer Mom had a fit in my van. In a good way.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 12:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 2:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
So the article agrees that safety measures should be taken, not purchase an APC? I don't know that I trust this so called statistical analysis. Rabble, Rabble, Rabble.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Skywalker123 on 5/12/2011 4:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
The point being that the Metro is a crappily built vehicle that will virtually implode on hitting woodland creatures much less a two ton 4x4.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Gzus666 on 5/12/2011 4:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
I make it a point to run into anything I can with my vehicle and even though it is statistically unlikely, I make my decisions based on that rather than the logical financial/needs basis.


By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 4:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
I look forward to seeing you on "1000 Ways to Die."


By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 5:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
One day you will be coming to a stop with a Ford Pinto in front of you and an Audi 5000 behind you and you will feel perfectly safe.


RE: The auto industry is incompetent
By Skywalker123 on 5/13/2011 12:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
"I make it a point to run into anything I can with my vehicle"

That explains the brain damage.


By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 1:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
But excellent credentials for working at Faux News.


...
By Motoman on 5/11/2011 9:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NHTSA, EPA Wants 2-7% Higher Fuel Economy Annually


People in hell want iced tea.

That second desire is almost as stupid as the first.




RE: ...
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 11:55:27 AM , Rating: 2
Such laws often have side effects, like making carbon fiber a common and far less expensive component to your next car. Would that be a bad thing?

quote:
NHTSA, EPA Wants 2-7% Higher Fuel Economy Annually

That should have been a natural progression with rising prices.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/12/2011 1:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that there's any reasonable chance of carbon fiber making it's way into mass-produced consumer-grade cars at any foreseeable point in the future.

The point is that saying that you want "2-7% better MPGs annually" is just simply stupid. It's like compound interest...doesn't take long and you're at more than 100% of where you started.

Basic physics will prevent any such stupid notions from happening...indeed, making such a statement does nothing but to highlight the fact that the statement maker hasn't got the slightest clue what they're talking about.


RE: ...
By Pneumothorax on 5/12/2011 2:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...indeed, making such a statement does nothing but to highlight the fact that the statement maker hasn't got the slightest clue what they're talking about.


Unfortunately those 'statement maker's' currently rule the executive and 1/2 the legislative branches of government and I don't see that changing anytime soon!


RE: ...
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 4:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...doesn't take long and you're at more than 100% of where you started.

Yes, a 10 MPG car that now gets 30 MPG is a 200% increase. You're not going to criticize the 306HP 31 MPG V6 Mustang for over achieving, are you?


RE: ...
By Motoman on 5/13/2011 3:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Nope.

But do you really think it's reasonable for that 31mpg car to be getting ~61mpg in 10 years time? Or 120mpg in 20 years?

That's the point...the math gets stupid really quickly.


RE: ...
By YashBudini on 5/13/2011 8:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see some attention paid to heating system inefficiencies before we get that far along. Not government intervention, but some real technological improvements.

Meanwhile an awful of BTUs are still going out the tailpipe with zero accomplishments.


mpg ratings
By bjacobson on 5/11/2011 5:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
do they get to use the EPA's "electric" MPG ratings (volt was what, 90mpg according to their rating?) for this? Because that should make this easy.




RE: mpg ratings
By JediJeb on 5/11/2011 6:05:35 PM , Rating: 3
If they would allow the Leaf to use a very high mpg rating of say 1000mpg then Nissan would be good to go. If a car uses no gasoline at all, why shouldn't it be given an exceptionally high mpg. Otherwise we should be making all vehicles use a mile/KiloWattHour fuel efficiency rating to make them all equal, which can be calculated for any fuel used, not just electricity.


RE: mpg ratings
By Lerianis on 5/23/2011 1:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
Because you have to look at REAL WORLD conditions and the fact that the leaf only gets about 40 miles on a charge!

Most people have to drive that ONE WAY to work everyday, so it's not a good choice for most people.


Technically feasible
By Suntan on 5/12/2011 12:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
As a design engineer, I will say that when we want to bring unrealistic expectations back into context we usually use “that is technically feasible” as a warning… …not as a starting point.

-Suntan




RE: Technically feasible
By YashBudini on 5/12/2011 12:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we want to bring unrealistic expectations back into context

Excellent point, but politicians are not we.


By chromal on 5/11/2011 7:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how that's going to jive with my goal of adding about 50hp to every next car. First: 67hp. Second: 106hp. Third 167hp. So I want about 220hp in, say, 2014. and then 270hp a few years later, and so on. Apparently, I was born a generation or to two late, I've no doubt it'll cost enough to be arguably a lifestyle choice in another ten years. So be it.




"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Related Articles













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