It's great that they're finally going to raise it, but this:

Quote :

"fuel-efficiency standards that would require cars, trucks and sport-utility vehicle to achieve 35 miles per gallon by 2020."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html

is mind-blowingly awesome if it means what I think it means. CNN is phrasing it the same way... apparently the higher 35mpg standard will apply to a company's entire fleet-- no dual standards for cars and trucks/SUVs.

1. This means that cars are going to have to average way more than 35mpg by 2020 to balance out the trucks. (Detroit might actually have to innovate ).

2. This would finally cut out stupid loopholes that allow PT Cruisers and the like to be averaged into a company's truck CAFE.

6/22/2007 12:19:13 PM

I think this is awesome as well. Its been ridiculous that this hasn't been done more recently.

6/22/2007 1:13:35 PM

Does this mean vehicles have to follow the standard or it is it like a recommended guideline??

6/22/2007 1:21:28 PM

This is stupid. Eliminate Unions, eliminate steel tariffs, stop helping the US automakers and let them go out of business.

Let the market sort this out properly, not the government.

6/22/2007 1:22:59 PM

i could agree with (^)

what is really going to fuck people is if the amnesty bill passes, the unions are going to have a shit load of people that they can recruit and really fuck up some other sectors

6/22/2007 1:25:50 PM

^a lot of the immigrants up here in my industry are staying out of the unions. They're building in numbers enough too so that eventually (pretty soon probably) it'll really hurt the unions, put'em on the decline even.

^^Eliminating unions would HELP American car companies immensely!

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 1:36 PM. Reason : k]

6/22/2007 1:34:14 PM

Good first step. Now all they need to do is close the loophole that exempts ethanol from counting against fuel efficiency standards.

6/22/2007 1:36:19 PM

Quote :

"Does this mean vehicles have to follow the standard or it is it like a recommended guideline??"

Wikipedia says:

Quote :

"If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of car and/or truck production falls below the defined standard, the manufacturer must pay a penalty, currently $5.50 per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer's total production for the U.S. domestic market."

So if Ford makes 6.6 million autos a year, and if they only average 34mpg in 2020, they're be paying the gov't $363 million each year.



[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 1:39 PM. Reason : (actually, the 6.6 million number is worldwide sales. The CAFE penalty only applies to domestic sale]

6/22/2007 1:37:41 PM

You're basing that on the assumption that Ford will be around in 10 years.

6/22/2007 2:02:23 PM

Ford(R) by Google (TM)

6/22/2007 2:03:08 PM

As an engineer for Cummins Diesel, this is great news.

6/22/2007 2:32:33 PM

What? Cummins is into the TDI diesel stuff?

6/22/2007 2:53:51 PM

I dislike this immensely. Now, the only car companies that can compete in the market for towncars, SUVs, and trucks will need to be huge conglomerates, selling compact cars at a loss just so they can compete (profit) in the other markets.

For example, if Jeep was not already owned by Chrysler, it would need to sell out to Chrysler or face huge fines. If I wanted to manufacture a small pickup that gets 30 mpg and compete against Ford pickups which only get 25 mpg, it is I that will be paying fines for being 5 mpg too low, where-as Ford gets to write off the entire deficit thanks to selling Ford Escorts.

At the same time, Hummer will be free to sell as many 6 mpg Hummers as it can, thanks to GM also owning Saturn. Any bill aimed at increasing fuel efficiency that does not manage to make Hummers more expensive is a failure, in my mind.

All this is going to do is make some companies rich at the expense of other companies and consumers. If, in fact, low fuel economy is an externality then we should fix it with a tax. All cars managing less than 35mpg could be levied a tax in proportion to the loss.

But even this is prone to produce waste, as we are fining people for buying a big car, which in-itself does not harm anyone, and not fining people that just drive a lot.

Eliminate CAFE standards and increase the gasoline tax. The government earns revenue, everyone will drive less and buy smaller more fuel efficient vehicles, and new automobile competitors will be free to enter any market they wished at any time.

6/22/2007 3:05:11 PM

Odd... it's only the huge conglomerates that are going to have serious trouble meeting these requirements (Ford, GM, Chrysler).

6/22/2007 3:33:54 PM

LOL, I think you mean BMW, Daimler Benz, Fiat, Lotus, and Porsche. You know, the companies that have consistently failed to meet the CAFE standards currently in place.

Domestic automakers have almost never been in violation of CAFE standards.

Nice try though.

Don't be surprised to see more conglomeration of the industry as European automakers try to dodge having to pay millions of dollars just to sell their luxury cars in America.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 3:52 PM. Reason : 2]

6/22/2007 3:45:17 PM

^but those companies arent American

6/22/2007 3:50:39 PM

Yeah, I feel kind of bad for ruining Boone's attack on American automakers.

But hey, industry consolidation is mind-blowingly awesome! I can't wait until my Porsche is actually a re-badged Civic!

6/22/2007 3:55:25 PM

It might pinch BMW and M-B a little, but really though... what large conglomerate are they competing against? Cadillac/GM? lol. If BMW and M-B introduce a 1 series and A class to the US (and they certainly wouldn't have to be sold at a loss with their cache), I don't see how they would have any trouble catching up, especially with the technologies they've been working on (like BMW's steam stuff)

Fiat/Ferrari, Porsche, and Lotus are already paying penalties. They're horrendously expensive, and now they'll be a little more so. Their buyers aren't going elsewhere for their sports cars.



It's unfair to compare any of the big three to MB or BMW. When it comes to technology, the big three are behind. It's not a domestic v. import thing-- it's a complacent v. innovative thing.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

6/22/2007 3:56:39 PM

I think that some of the consolidation of the industry in the 80's and 90's was actually the result of the original CAFE standards. Raising these standards only gives a bigger advantage to the largest automakers, who already produce trucks and luxury cars.

This is a substantial competitive disadvantage for any company specializing in trucks, sports cars or luxury cars. At a time when people frequently complain about the power of big automakers, I think we need to encourage competition from smaller companies, not put them at a disadvantage.

I agree with LoneSnark. Tax gasoline if you really want to encourage innovation and efficiency.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 4:16 PM. Reason : 2]

6/22/2007 4:13:03 PM

Quote :

"Tax gasoline if you really want to encourage innovation and efficiency. get voted out of office"

i mean, i agree but it's not going to happen for a while.

6/22/2007 4:17:03 PM

OK thats a very valid point. Proposed taxes on oil were scratched off of this energy bill. I guess that shows the power of the oil industry is stronger than the power of the auto industry in Washington right now.

6/22/2007 4:27:52 PM

From a couple weeks ago when the heads of Ford, Chrysler, and GM were in Washington:

Sen. Dorgan (Democrat-North Dakota)-

Quote :

"We protected you from CAFE and you lost market share, jobs and money anyway. You’ve lost. Your position is yesterday forever."

Ouch.

For once I agree with Congress on this. How the Big Three are run nowadays is absolutely farcical. Someone needed to give them a kick in the ass and they got it.

Quote :

"What? Cummins is into the TDI diesel stuff?"

No. Diesels kick gasoline engines' ass.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

6/22/2007 4:30:55 PM

Lets just hope that diesels can get clean enough to meet California emissions standards.

Diesel is superior in a lot of ways, but nitrous oxides and particulates are still a big issue.

6/22/2007 5:05:23 PM

biodiesel doesn't have nitrous oxide, has reduced PAH and nitrited PAH emissions.

biodiesel, it's the way to go.

6/22/2007 10:16:09 PM

Quote :

"We protected you from CAFE and you lost market share, jobs and money anyway. You’ve lost. Your position is yesterday forever."

dizzam

6/22/2007 10:35:17 PM

Quote :

"biodiesel doesn't have nitrous oxide, has reduced PAH and nitrited PAH emissions. biodiesel, it's the way to go."

Nitroxides are the result of combustion at high temperatures. Combustion temperatures are higher in diesel engines than gasoline engines, so NOx emissions are higher. Biodiesel has higher energy density than dino diesel, so combustion temperatures are higher than normal and NOx emissions are the highest of any commercial fuel.

Biodiesel doesn't have sulfur, so particulate emissions are very low. And it doesn't have the carcinogens that are found in dino diesel.

[Edited on June 23, 2007 at 1:16 AM. Reason : 2]

6/23/2007 1:15:05 AM

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9712548-7.html

Honda's releasing a diesel Accord in 2010 that will get 62.8mpg.

In 3 years there will be a mid-sized sedan getting 60+mpg. A number of auto companies need to stfu about 35 being too low.

7/30/2007 12:34:55 PM

Quote :

"what large conglomerate are they competing against? Cadillac/GM? lol."

Lexus, Acura, and Infiniti, who are part of Toyota, Honda, and Nissan, respectively.

I wonder if domestic companies will just buy up foreign companies (kinda like how Saab is now a GM brand just like Chevy), or have mergers like a la Daimler-Chrysler.

BMW also makes the Mini-Cooper, so that should help them.

Quote :

"No. Diesels kick gasoline engines' ass."

Not for a performance oriented car. They're good for fuel economy.

Quote :

"How the Big Three are run nowadays is absolutely farcical. Someone needed to give them a kick in the ass and they got it. "

True.

Quote :

"It's unfair to compare any of the big three to MB or BMW. When it comes to technology, the big three are behind."

I'm not so convinced of that. All 3 of them have proven their ability in recent years to churn out some stellar products...it's just hit or miss, and usually miss. I think maybe the engineers can do it, but the accountants, marketing, and management types keep getting in the way.

Quote :

"Fiat/Ferrari, Porsche, and Lotus are already paying penalties. "

I find it hard to believe that Lotus pays any CAFE penalties. I mean, the Elise and Exige? I don't know what the current CAFE standard is, but a 1975 lb, 190hp Toyota powered car has GOT to meet it. Maybe once they reintroduce the Esprit they'll have problems, but I don't see how they could right now.

Quote :

"This is a substantial competitive disadvantage for any company specializing in trucks, sports cars or luxury cars. At a time when people frequently complain about the power of big automakers, I think we need to encourage competition from smaller companies, not put them at a disadvantage. "

I agree with this sentiment...

on the other hand, I am so tired of seeing the small car segment marginalized. The only lightweight sports cars even available are the Miata, MR2, and Lotus. Even stuff like the S2000 was kinda heavy, and the Z4, 350Z (especially), CLK, etc are fat pigs. The BMW 3-series has gotten so overgrown that they had to bring us the 1-series to occupy the slot that the 3 formerly held. Altimas, Civics, Accords, Maximas, and the like have gotten HUGE.

some carmakers have even swapped in larger, less conforming seats to accomodate disgusting, fatass Americans.

All of our cars keep growing bigger and heavier. It's retarded. Maybe at least this will make the giant mall-crawler SUV a specialty item, rather than the modern day every-mom minivan or wagon (especially when there are some great wagons that would be SO much better for that job). Maybe it'll turn the engineering and production spotlight towards smaller cars.

7/30/2007 7:18:19 PM

Quote :

" I'm not so convinced of that. All 3 of them have proven their ability in recent years to churn out some stellar products...it's just hit or miss, and usually miss. I think maybe the engineers can do it, but the accountants, marketing, and management types keep getting in the way. "

Also, I believe that Toyota traded its hybrid technology for some American car maker's truck technology.

7/30/2007 7:24:22 PM

^^ No, Duke, it will not. All it will do is discourage new competitors from entering the market and encourage existing competitors to consolidate. That means less choice and higher priced vehicles for consumers.

It is even possible for this to make the average fuel economy flatline. If consumers are dissatisfied with the cars currently on sale, they will just keep their old ones, which are invariably less fuel-efficient than a similar new car.

7/31/2007 7:39:41 AM

I find it impossible to believe that the market for new cars is that flexible.

It did wonders in 1975, and that was at a time when the gas-guzzlers were actually good cars.

7/31/2007 8:08:39 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "No. Diesels kick gasoline engines' ass." Not for a performance oriented car. They're good for fuel economy."

so i guess you missed audi winning multiple endurance races with diesel engines

7/31/2007 8:14:40 AM

^But don't diesels get a displacement advantage over gas-powered LMP1's?


Regardless-- as far as gas-sipping cars go, diesel will at least give you some low-end torque.

I've never driven one, but I've read that the VW TDI's are pretty zippy compared to other cars with similar mpg.

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 8:44 AM. Reason : .]

7/31/2007 8:41:27 AM

Quote :

"All it will do is discourage new competitors from entering the market and encourage existing competitors to consolidate."

In case you haven't been paying attention, that is already happening. It's a process that began many many years ago.

I don't know about you, but I don't see new car companies. I haven't seen one of those in ever.

7/31/2007 8:59:31 AM

delorean, tesla, and tucker are the only ones i know

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 9:04 AM. Reason : 

7/31/2007 9:03:49 AM

The impact on the state's tax base concerns me. Being that I work in the construction industry, the fact that vehicles are burning less fuel than they did 10 years ago means that there is less money being made by the way of a gas tax. Therefore, capital improvement projects do not have the funding they need to be completed. Take the I-40 widening from US1 to Wade Avenue. This project has been put on the back burner for years it seems (sorry, I am too lazy to look for a source) due to budget issues. If one was to research it, there probably is a correlation to the fact that there is not as much fuel tax being taken in, and the rising cost of petroleum directly affects the cost of construction, specifically highway construction, due to the types of materials involved. I do not doubt that making vehicles more effecient is a good thing from an environmental perspective, but there are other economic effects that are not directly related to the issue.

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 9:08 AM. Reason : .]

7/31/2007 9:07:11 AM

^^^ Korean, Chinese, maybe Indian

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 9:08 AM. Reason : sd]

7/31/2007 9:07:55 AM

Lotus Electric SUV. 644HP with a 350 mile range, and only a 10 minute charge time. It just needs to be released already. The Teslas coming out a little sooner. Imagine how cheap it would be to drive 350 miles. Aside from the initial cost of the car obviously.

7/31/2007 9:15:07 AM

unions serve a purpose, but in most cases the purpose has passed or been eclipsed

7/31/2007 11:02:13 AM

I will believe it when its on the market and can be bought. a car that gets 50 mpg would be something great to have.

7/31/2007 11:05:03 AM

So why aren't we seeing any diesel hybrids? Do gas engines do a better job at powering electric motors?

7/31/2007 11:05:23 AM

gas engine emissions are easier to control than diesel

7/31/2007 11:08:18 AM

Quote :

"I will believe it when its on the market and can be bought. a car that gets 50 mpg would be something great to have."

My mom's friend Hannah has a Tesla in San Diego. Don't know how she got it though.

My civic (94) gets close to 40 on the highway. I'm happy. So much cheaper than a hybrid.

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 11:12 AM. Reason : ..]

7/31/2007 11:12:04 AM

Quote :

"So why aren't we seeing any diesel hybrids? Do gas engines do a better job at powering electric motors?"

I'm not really sure what the entire reason is, but here's something that might have something to do with it. A diesel drivetrain usually costs more than its equivalent gasoline drivetrain. Add the additional expense of a hybrid drivetrain and you're looking at a double bump in cost over the gasoline variant, and maybe that would discourage a lot of consumers? Then again I'm sure they'd enjoy the 70-80mpg they'd get from it.

7/31/2007 1:14:34 PM

One of the advantages of electric motors is the low-end torque, which is the same advantage that diesels have over gasoline engines. Gasoline engines can usually rev up higher than diesels, gaining efficiency at higher speeds. Therefore pairing up an electric motor/generator with a small, high-revving gasoline engine makes more sense than a diesel from an efficiency standpoint.

That said, a hybrid with an electric drivetrain and a small diesel engine specifically used as a generator would be a very interesting combination, because you could do away with the transmission and complex circuitry / planetary gear shifts to change between powertrains. GM has a concept built with this in mind:

Quote :

"More important the Volt is to be the first variant built upon GM's E-flex system, which will enable GM to utilize the same chassis for multiple electric drive propulsion systems. As a result, GM can pair lithium-ion batteries with diesel, gasoline, hydrogen or flex fuel engines for power assist - these engines don't drive the wheels, they simply create electricity. In the future, fuel cells could be added to the Volt, and there would no longer be any need for an internal combustion engine to assist with electricity production. In fact fuel cells would also reduce the need for lithium-ion batteries. Ultimately, the idea here is flexibility. Adapt to local, available energy sources, especially grid electricity, and evolve into a pure fuel cell electric vehicle. Flexible. Adaptable. Evolutionary. As a result the Chevrolet Volt is powered completely by electricity. While lithium-ion batteries fuel the vehicle with electricity, a 1-liter, 3 cylinder turbocharged engine - again using multiple fuels - can create electricity to fuel the batteries. This combination of fuel and batteries gives the Volt an extended road trip range of 640 miles averaging an impressive 50 mpg. Still, for the daily commute, the Volt electric can provide 40 city miles of pure electric vehicle range when the battery is fully charged - achieved by plugging into a 110-volt outlet for roughly six hours. No emissions. No gas. No joke. For trips of 60 miles - using a combination of liquid fuel and electricity - the Volt can achieve an impressive 150 mpg. Since most Americans only drive about 60 miles per day, or less, most Americans could regularly achieve 150 mpg. And, if your commute is less than 40 miles per day, a driver might never need to fuel up with gasoline, diesel or any other liquid fuel. So, is the Volt electric for real? GM's E-Flex system is real and it is being developed for production. While there is no production date for either it or the Volt, GM is now conducting core engineering and manufacturing feasibility studies."

http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/hybrid_cars/hybrid_car_types/gm_chevrolet_volt_electric_concept_vehicle.htm



[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 1:38 PM. Reason : 2]

7/31/2007 1:36:09 PM

Yeah the chevy volt is a sweet car. It's not very fast though. 0–60 in 8 to 8.5 seconds. Compared to a electric tesla 0-60 in about 4 seconds. Although the volt is much more practical and cheaper.

In regard to the thread...

Quote :

"A survey conducted in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Tennessee and Ohio between July 13 and July 20, found that "almost 90 percent of the 3,900 likely voters surveyed favor requiring the automobile industry to improve fuel efficiency" to 35 mpg by 2018. Those surveyed believe that increasing fuel economy will both reduce gasoline prices and decrease fuel economy. Most surveyed also do not believe that increasing fuel economy would adversely affect the U.S. economy."

-http://www.hybridcarblog.com/



[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 2:14 PM. Reason : ..]

7/31/2007 1:57:07 PM

Quote :

"In case you haven't been paying attention, that is already happening. It's a process that began many many years ago. I don't know about you, but I don't see new car companies. I haven't seen one of those in ever."

Odd, CAFE standards have been around for, like, ever... So has a whole slew of other methods of regulation specifically designed to stamp out new competitors... While your statement was apparently intended to imply I was wrong, it turns out to actually be proving my point. Way to go nutty!

7/31/2007 2:25:23 PM

Could you name a couple successful start-ups in America between 1945-1975?

The only successful start-ups in America in the past 60 years (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, VW) rose to power under CAFE, so I can't imagine how you're attributing mileage restrictions to killing new car companies.


And back to your original argument-- is further conglomeration really the worst possible result of this? That doesn't seem that bad considering the benefits. Heck, is further conglomeration even possible?



[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2007 3:51:42 PM

Give me one start up that wasn't bought out, or wasn't part of another corporation (meaning no Scion, Saturn, etc.)

Hell, give me one start up in an industry that is over 100 years old

7/31/2007 5:07:18 PM

Quote :

"is further conglomeration really the worst possible result of this? That doesn't seem that bad considering the benefits."

Well, conglomeration itself is not a problem. The problem arrises when companies are forced by circumstance to achieve dis-economies of scale, meaning all their products cost more to produce and waste resources. As a company grows in size and the number of divisions increases, the cost of oversight increases dramatically. This is offset by growing economies of scale up to a point, beyond which the benefits are swamped by the costs.

An example would be, if GM spun off Saturn, that would cut down on the depth of management, so the two companies apart would be more profitable than they were together. Regretfully, even if the situation warrants it, severance would involve CAFE fines for the GM division, since it no longer enjoyed Saturn's numbers.

While the situation would have to be extreme, it is possible that the new 35mph CAFE standards will actually make fuel economy worse than it otherwise would be. By forcing companies to skirt efficiency for regulatory reasons, we may be driving up both GM and Saturn vehicle prices. If we are, then people are buying fewer new cars than they otherwise would, which means keeping old cars around longer, which are less efficient than new cars.

And if instead of comparing higher CAFE standards to the status quo we compared it to alternative police positions, such as gasoline taxes or vehicle taxes, there is no question CAFE standards are in the interest of oil companies. If the intention is to increase the efficient of America's motor fleet, any system that does not make buying a 6 mpg Hummer less attractive fails common sense.

Quote :

"Give me one start up that wasn't bought out, or wasn't part of another corporation"

Hmm, my argument is that the regulatory environment, parts of which have been in place since the late 50s, of which CAFE is only one component, strongly encourages conglomeration. So of course all new entrants will be either bought out or spawned inside an existing corporation.

Quote :

"Hell, give me one start up in an industry that is over 100 years old"

Well, as I don't have the detailed economic history of the United States memorized, just a quick check of the top oil companies reveals Valero Energy Corporation, the largest refiner in the United States, founded in Texas in 1980. Devon Energy founded in 1971. Contrast that with the Marathon Oil Corporation founded in 1887.

I suspect, provided a sufficient list, I could find such companies in other older industries. But this has nothing to do with my argument, and even acts to undermine my argument, as similar pro-conglomeration legislation covers most industries.

7/31/2007 5:44:11 PM