Print 29 comment(s) - last by boeush.. on Jun 27 at 6:41 PM

The discussion aims to map out the future of advanced autos that will abide by the new fuel efficiency standards

Only weeks before the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is expected to complete the new fuel efficiency standards, the White House will hold a three-hour forum this Wednesday on the future of advanced vehicles.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality will host a forum on Wednesday called "Advanced Vehicles, Driving Growth." The discussion aims to map out the future of advanced autos that will abide by the new fuel efficiency standards.

"The Obama administration is bringing together diverse auto-sector stakeholders at a White House event to celebrate success stories in the remarkable resurgence of the auto industry and spotlight leaders who represent President Obama's vision of out-innovating and out-manufacturing the rest of the world," said Taryn Tuss, White House CEQ spokeswoman.

"In partnership with auto manufacturers, the United Auto Workers, states and environmental stakeholders, the Administration has developed historic fuel efficiency standards that will nearly double the fuel efficiency of cars and light duty trucks by 2025, save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump, and encourage innovation and investment in technologies that increase our economic competitiveness and reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

The forum aims to continue taking suggestions for rule changes, mainly from foreign automakers from countries like Germany who feel the rules have been biased toward U.S. automakers.

Last year, major automakers, the state of California, and the White House agreed on the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) proposal for 2017-2025 that would boost fleet wide fuel economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The effort aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the country's dependency on foreign oil.

The new fuel efficiency standards for 2017-2025 will cost the auto industry $157.3 billion and add an extra $2,000 to the sticker price of new autos, but it will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump.

The NHTSA will finalize the fuel efficiency standards by the end of July 2012.

Source: The Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

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

By chucky2 on 6/26/2012 12:07:03 AM , Rating: 2
...all the EPA needs to do, at the direction of the Admin, is commit to the manufacturers who market vehicles in the US that we will remain in lockstep with the EU on Clean Diesel regs for onroad diesels for the next 20 years.



By lagomorpha on 6/26/2012 12:32:38 AM , Rating: 2
Now if you can only convince the Americans that grew up in the 70s (the people old enough to be buying most new cars) that the GM 5.7 Diesel was a horrible pile of garbage and that not all diesels belch black smoke, spray oil everywhere, sound like a tractor, and break down every time you attempt to start one...

By chucky2 on 6/26/2012 11:39:37 AM , Rating: 2
That's easy. You stick them on the lot with their impressive mpg and let those same folks take them for a spin. When they bring up how it used to be, you can tell them that all of EU uses these new CD cars day in and day out, and don't have any of those problems.

Or we could just stick to gasoline DI equipped cars, and breath in tons more superfine particulate. Or stick a GPF in the exhaust like diesels have to have, thereby negating DI tech gains.

CD is the answer until battery tech advancements can solve the US's petro needs.

By lagomorpha on 6/26/2012 12:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
Easier said than done. My own mother actually still claims to be allergic to diesel exhaust, though when she was in Europe a few years back she didn't even seem to notice that most of the cars she rode in were diesels.

If you want to start seeing a change to diesel in America the place to start is cutting the diesels from 3/4 ton trucks down to fit in 1/2 ton trucks. Not only will you see a larger difference in fuel use per vehicle, those trucks also tend to stay on the road a longer number of years and truck people love torque ratings.

By chucky2 on 6/26/2012 6:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the older folks that remember them would take lots more advertising and sales pressure to consider one. The other 2/3's of the market doesn't even know about GM having a diesel back then. Put it on the lots, it will sell like hotcakes. As VW has found out...

By lagomorpha on 6/27/2012 4:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
In VW's case it helped that they were the only company offering a small diesel car in the US.

By geddarkstorm on 6/26/2012 8:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I find it kinda ironic that GM ruined diesel for America.

By knutjb on 6/27/2012 12:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds great until you consider the realities of the US fuel market. About 1/3 of a barrel is made into diesel/jet fuel depending on the type of crude. The highest demand is for that chunk of oil. Look at diesel vs gas prices. Diesel used to cost less than gas, now it costs more.

The only reason gas isn't cheaper is we are exporting gas out of the market. Though that will change if our economy gets better then all prices will go up; but thats for political reasons on the domestic supply side.

Once trains the number one consumer of diesel, followed by aircraft #2, and then 18 wheelers #3 get their chunk there isn't much left for cars.

So your delusion for all those diesels running over the road isn't going to happen. There will be some, but not many. The extra cost of a diesel drive line buys a lot of gas. Kind of like hybrids and electrics vs gas.

Personally I would like a natural gas option, diesel or gas type engine for cars and 18 wheelers.

By lagomorpha on 6/27/2012 4:50:04 AM , Rating: 2
Jet fuel is similar to kerosene which is between gasoline and diesel in hydrocarbon length, not identical to diesel. Other than that detail I agree with you. There IS a natural gas option at present provided you want to drive a Honda Civic GX, and even a home refueling option (machine takes the gas line from your home and compresses it for use in the car). Supposedly it actually has half the fuel cost of a gasoline Civic (which is already fairly cheap), the problem is range is fairly limited.

It makes sense that more manufacturers should start offering a natural gas option given how inexpensive it is in the US at present and how we don't have to buy it from those dirty Saudis.

By knutjb on 6/27/2012 8:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
My point was jet fuel and diesel take a large portion of the barrel because they are the largest demand fuel but you can make only so much from a given quantity of oil. About a third of a barrel goes to diesel and jet fuel. Because of that, combined with who use the greatest quantities in the US, makes a large volume diesel cars unlikely.

Ford has a NG option with their trucks too. The problem is an administration that believes anything other than their chosen energy; wind, solar, and maybe biomass will be stifled through politically driven regulations. So don't expect to see NG around the corner anytime soon. As to those who say increasing production of oil won't help look at what it did to NG. It went from ~$7 to ~$1 from the increase in production.

As for the home refill machines, are you zoned? Cars need ~ 3500 psi to fill. Practical commercial high pressure systems exist, the home version is pretty slow.

It would be quite inexpensive to pipe the highways for semis. T. Boone Pickens says it could be done for about $3.8B though tax credits for the infrastructure builders. That could be recouped through a small tax on the sale of NG. How much have we wasted on foolish loan guarantees through the DOE? Because a tank fills much faster than electricity it is much closer to gas in practical mobility. Plus an engine on NG will out last the rest of the vehicle.

It makes sense that more manufacturers should start offering a natural gas option given how inexpensive it is in the US at present and how we don't have to buy it from those dirty Saudis.
Knocking the Saudis, is that necessary? Denigrating them like that only denigrates you.

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki