New auto mileage standards regulation

Ski_Banker

Suspended
Joined
24 September 2005
Messages
2,997
Location
Yesterday, today and tomorrow
Thoughts on this auto industry development?

_______________________________________________________
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos..._N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular&loc=interstitialskip

Obama drives up miles-per-gallon requirements


By James R. Healey, USA TODAY
The Obama administration announced Tuesday what amounts to a sweeping revision to auto-emission and fuel-economy standards, putting them in the same package for the first time.

The plan would require cars and trucks to average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, President Obama said at a ceremony with legislators, regulators, executives of 10 car companies and the United Auto Workers union. The plan would increase the standard and accelerate the requirement from 35 mpg in 2020 set by the 2007 Energy Act.

OPEN ROAD: Obama plan could spell boom for these gas guzzlers

"The status quo is no longer acceptable," Obama said. "We have done little to increase fuel efficiency of America's cars and trucks for decades."

It also is expected to boost the average price of a new vehicle $600 on top of the $700 price boost already envisioned in the 2007 law, for a total of $1,300.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: United States | California | Barack Obama | White House | General Motors | Chrysler LLC | United Auto Workers | Natural Resources Defense Council | washington, d.c. | Jennifer Granholm | Kelley Blue Book | Center for American Progress

Obama agreed that "it costs money to build these vehicles." But he also stressed that "the cost of driving these vehicles will go down as drivers save money at the pump."

Over the life of the program, the USA would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil.

"While the United States makes up less than 5% of the world's population, we create roughly a quarter of the world's demand for oil. And this appetite comes at a tremendous price," Obama said.

The plan was leaked Monday night and Carol Browner, the White House energy and climate director, publicly confirmed the initiative in appearances on morning network news shows Tuesday, calling it a "truly historic" occasion and saying that such tougher environmental standards have been "long overdue."

The plan would effectively end a feud between automakers and states over emission standards — with the states getting tougher standards they want, but automakers getting the single national standard they've been seeking.

If a fragile compromise among often-warring factions — federal regulators, states and automakers — can last though the rulemaking process, the new regulations would be the first to blend emissions and fuel-economy standards, becoming perhaps the most dramatic suite of auto rules since the Clean Air Act of 1970. That law set auto-pollution standards for the first time and banned poisonous lead, which was used as a lubricant, from gasoline.

To streamline the rulemaking process, the two agencies mainly responsible — the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation — would work jointly, something almost unheard of.

The regulations would limit, for the first time, the amount of carbon dioxide vehicles could emit. The only way to cut that much CO2 is to burn less fuel. CO2 is vilified as a major greenhouse gas (ghg), blamed for global warming.

"Groundbreaking," said the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.

"Unprecedented — the first time the federal government would require reductions in global-warming pollution," said Daniel Weiss, senior fellow at the not-for-profit Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Key: California has agreed to follow the new federal standards, instead of imposing its own, at least until 2016. California, plus 13 other states and the District of Columbia, previously asked for a waiver allowing them to impose stricter greenhouse gas standards than the federal ones.

The plan requires improvements in fuel economy — via reductions in greenhouse gas emissions — for all cars and light trucks, based on their size. By 2016, cars will have to average 39 miles per gallon and trucks, 30 mpg.

The mileage numbers you'll see on new vehicles will be significantly lower, however, because those are calculated differently.

If the regulations encourage automakers to build smaller cars — administration officials say they won't — highway safety could decline. Statistics show small cars are less safe in crashes.

And decades of sales numbers show American buyers prefer larger vehicles, moving down in large numbers only because of high fuel prices or economic hard times.

If the regulations result in less-appealing vehicles, they will be "a very convoluted way" of trying to change buyer habits because of environmental concerns, says Jack Nerad, market analyst for Kelley Blue Book, a car-shopping service.
 
My own opinion is that this is actually -depending on how it's implemented- a good thing overall. I don't have any objections to increasing metrics like "average fleet mileage." Although that's not a perfect solution (think: how does this impact specialist automakers like Porsche or Ferrari), it will help increase the fuel efficiency of everyday cars. And, frankly, the targets could be easily reached *today* simply by not making 300hp Accords and 3-series Bimmers. The free market alone hasn't gotten everyday cars to this level of fuel efficiency due to competition (ie, BMW makes a 250hp 3 series, so Acura competes by offering a 300hp car). Think back to the '80s -- a "nice" Prelude, Legend, or 325i only had 150-200hp and ordinary folks were perfectly happy with that).

That said, I would be obviously completely against a regulation that said something along the lines of "No passenger car can be sold with less than 25mpg efficiency" which would kill the market for enthusiast vehicles.
 
I think it is just another tool for tax revenue. That is why they would impose a fine if the standard is not met instead of imposing bans on the sale of non-conforming models.

I do agree that the horsepower wars should come to an end. From what I have seen I think it would significantly increase the cost of high end cars which will need to do the most to achieve the mandates.
 
Better get rid of ethanol then, as it can KILL your mpg! In my BMW I can tell if the pump I went to used ethanol or not by watching my average mpg over a tank.... No ethanol, 19mpg. Ethanol, 16 mpg. But hey! I saved TWENTY WHOLE CENTS per gallon!! However, I had to stop for gas FOURTY FIVE miles sooner, meaning I 'lost' three gallons of efficiency ($6.00) so to SAVE $3.00, I SPENT $6.00!!!

No wonder our economy sucks... American's are stoopid!
 
I think its good news for the industry.

What has always puzzled me is why people need trucks? I see people driving trucks everywhere empty...hardly do I ever see pickups loaded or being utilized. Europe and most other countries get along well without using monsterous pickups, etc. just fine.

Also, I understand that pickups and SUV's haven't been subject to the same emissions standards as other vehicles due to the "Farm" or "Offroad" category they belong to yet almost every single one is used for taking the kids to school. Here in the UAE you never saw these vehicles on the road until around a year ago when Ford, GM, and Chrysler started selling them. Now you see so many people driving these trucks with Nada in the box and maybe two people riding in the vehicle...shame.

I'm no saint as I've owned a Jeep SRT8 which consumed gas on a much needed basis so I guess I've answered my own question here...but I'm also the type of guy happy with a S2000. I tend to agree with the other poster above that many of us were happy with lower HP vehicles prior so why do we need the super big HP every car comes with nowadays? My god even Honda Accords have good HP...
 
The biggest news is making this Federal versus decided by the states.


That's going to save the car makers a ton of money. No more making cars "special" for California/NY.

I honestly don't know how anyone is going to make this average...but I think it's a good idea for the security of this nation to get off foreign oil.
 
Better get rid of ethanol then, as it can KILL your mpg! In my BMW I can tell if the pump I went to used ethanol or not by watching my average mpg over a tank.... No ethanol, 19mpg. Ethanol, 16 mpg. But hey! I saved TWENTY WHOLE CENTS per gallon!! However, I had to stop for gas FOURTY FIVE miles sooner, meaning I 'lost' three gallons of efficiency ($6.00) so to SAVE $3.00, I SPENT $6.00!!!

No wonder our economy sucks... American's are stoopid!

Seriously. I averaged 28-29 mpg with cruise off driving through texas w/ texas fuel at an average of 85-90 mph with a few deep triple digit runs.

In colorado I averaged ~26-27 mpg using colorado fuel, cruise on. Average speed ~80 mph.

In california with california fuel, cruise on set at 70 mph, ~24mpg. Cruise set @ 65 mph, 24.5 mpg. Sometimes even drafting behind a semi truck @ ~55 mph, never once going above 24.5 mpg. This is actually TRYING to maximize my fuel economy too.

How lame. I don't know exactly what additives are in our fuel but it's killing my fuel economy here in california.

I also confirmed this with my V6 truck, which had 3+ mpg difference from colorado to california.

My past AP1 S2k always had crappy fuel economy lol. I never kept real track, just that it never went above 20 mpg lol.
 
Last edited:
Seriously. I averaged 28-29 mpg with cruise off driving through texas w/ texas fuel at an average of 85-90 mph with a few deep triple digit runs.

In colorado I averaged ~26-27 mpg using colorado fuel, cruise on. Average speed ~80 mph.

In california with california fuel, cruise on set at 70 mph, ~24mpg. Cruise set @ 65 mph, 24.5 mpg. Sometimes even drafting behind a semi truck @ ~55 mph, never once going above 24.5 mpg. This is actually TRYING to maximize my fuel economy too.

How lame. I don't know exactly what additives are in our fuel but it's killing my fuel economy here in california.

I also confirmed this with my V6 truck, which had 3+ mpg difference from colorado to california.

My past AP1 S2k always had crappy fuel economy lol. I never kept real track, just that it never went above 20 mpg lol.


Exactly!! I've been saying for YEARS Ethanol is the dumbest idea ever and stating all my reasons why, and the local treehuggers just tell me I don't know any better!

Fortunately, I'm starting to see more mainstream outlets (MSN etc) voice that it is a crappy idea... Oddly, a few of these SAME libs are running around here saying what I said two years ago and acting as though they'd never heard it!
 
There is just SO much wrong with this...... but as the off topic caption says: "Tread lightly on religion and politics."

Bunch of crap from people who have no business making such decisions. :mad:
 
I think it's a good idea but it's going to kill cars like my V10 M5 that gets 11.5 mpg. I will say I have a corolla also that gets about 36 so it is a balance :)
 
Excellent reading:

http://www.autoextremist.com/


An excerpt:

"the rationalizations given by the apologists in the Obama administration that the increase in costs of the extra emissions equipment will be offset by the mileage gains consumers will get is unmitigated bullshit."
 
See through the Fog.. another tax you will see. Every wide scale emissions reform not based on technological advancements is utterly in vain. Just during the time it took to write this post there are another 1,000 cars on the road in China and one more coal power plant (one chinese coal plant pushes as many toxins into the WORLD'S atmosphere as every car in California).

I gave up on this a long time ago. This is the same reason they give away suckers at the bank.
 
Last edited:
I chose to believe that the intentions of this are good.

However, the implementation is horrible. Simply horrible. And we as consumers are going to pay for it.
 
I'd rather have no restrictions on mpg, but enact a law that prevents people from bitching about how much it costs to fill their tank when the price goes up. Man, was I tired of those whining 15mpg SUVers last summer when gas was pushing $5/gal.

The free market should be sufficient to determine an "optimal" average mpg.
 
What has always puzzled me is why people need trucks? I see people driving trucks everywhere empty...hardly do I ever see pickups loaded or being utilized. Europe and most other countries get along well without using monsterous pickups, etc. just fine.

Well it's not a going to be a puzzle any longer. Big brother is going to tell you exactly what you should be driving.

It's going to be small, light-weight, small displacement, less reliable, gutless, yet have a catchy green name for the new power-plant like "eco-boost". It's going to have a bunch more crap you don't want, and you are going to pay for it and like it for the next twenty five years.

So in short, you can flat out forget about 500hp Honda mid-engined super-car you have all been salivating over in the near-term, because the next 47 billion is going to re-tool their factory so you can fit inside the green window of happiness alongside everyone else.

By 2016, it won't matter what car forum you are, they are all going to be tree hugger forums!!!
 
I'd rather have no restrictions on mpg, but enact a law that prevents people from bitching about how much it costs to fill their tank when the price goes up. Man, was I tired of those whining 15mpg SUVers last summer when gas was pushing $5/gal.

The free market should be sufficient to determine an "optimal" average mpg.

Once again, our level of unified thinking is uncanny. Almost scary.
 
I think this will be a knife in the future of any performance cars. like stated, how will this affect ferrari, lambo, porsche, and even mercedes? everyone is so worried about less emissions and weaning ourselves off oil. they keep saying they wanna save the planet. The planet is not going anywhere!!! we are not trying to save the planet but save ourselves as a species.
 
What has always puzzled me is why people need trucks?

The point is people should be able to drive what they want. That is/was the beauty of the United States.

If they want to get 8mpg...let them pay a fortune for gas.

This legislation will just open doors to more government control regarding what we can and cannot do.

What a shame...the country is moving backwards not forwards.
 
Back
Top