Carmakers say new fuel economy regulations are unattainable. BS!
The latest draft of the fuel economy regulations has been released and it would require carmakers to raise their fleet averages to 28.5mpg by 2015 and 35mpg by 2020. After that the target would continue to rise by four percent a year. That last part may be a bit unreasonable, or not depending on how you factor in electrically driven vehicles. According to Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers: "Basically, it is unattainable up until 2020 and unattainable afterward."
This is ridiculous. It is utterly obtainable, we just need consumers to actually buy them. Since the current standard of 27.5 mpg was reached in the late 1980s, fleet averages have remained stagnant, while power output has gone through the roof. Car makers just need to throttle back the output of new vehicles and crank up the fuel economy. A BMW 530d diesel can get 35mpg combined fuel economy today. While it may not be quite as quick as a 535i or 550i, it shows that an upper mid-sized sedan can get excellent fuel economy and go from 0-62mph in 6.8 seconds which is plenty of performance for almost anyone.
Carmakers have been showing off plenty of advanced high-efficiency cars, it's now time for them to stop whining and just acknowledge that even if people buy Chrysler 300 SRT-8s and Chevy Tahoes, few of them ever need to go 0-60 in 5 seconds or tow a 6,000 pound trailer.
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Hank 9:25AM (5/07/2007)
I'm telling ya, if a '78 Olds could get 27 hwy mpg, there's not excuse for today's cars not getting 35. In fact, I'd a Chrysler New Yorker with a V-6 in '89 that got 33 hwy and had plenty of power. The horsepower wars of the last 10 years have been huge fun, but a big mistake.
Reply
Chris MacMillan 9:48AM (5/07/2007)
I believe it is possible to raise the MPG to 35 and beyond. I drive an '02 Buick Century, nice for the daily commute. I average 31-32 MPG commuting, 60 percent interstate and 40 percent stop-n-go. Realize that I don't 'drag race' away from traffic lights and stop signs and I also drive 2-3 MPH under the speed limit (yes I stay in the right line) to accomplish this but it is possible. I think that on thing that would help is lowering the current posted speed limits back to 65 MPH. This is just my opinion, I believe it would help.
Reply
Angelo 11:02AM (5/07/2007)
The problem is that if they keep on shouting this out loud enough, the majority of people will believe them! This is a very reasonable goal that was set and absolutely obtainable. GM's relatively inexpensive BAS system alone increases fuel economy around 15%, and that was designed so that it could be implemented on nearly every product they market. Direct injection with lean burn technology is worth close to a 10% improvement. Variable vale lift - another 5-8%. These are all technologies in mass production right now. Other technologies are right around the corner too, like variable compression engines, HCCI gasoline engines, and even heat recovery systems like BMW's Turbosteamer concept. Combined with improved hybrid technologies, this should be easily obtainable. By 2010, GM has recently committed to having plug-in series hybrids in production too.
Reply
MikeW 10:57AM (5/07/2007)
ZF 8 speed auto will be cool in the new 7-series
Just look at those gear ratios
http://dieselblog.net/2007/05/zf-will-build-an-8-speed-automatic-great-news-for-diesels/
BMW can have a top gear of ~45mph per 1K. The LS460 top gear is ~40mph (Operating largely unthrottled, and around the BSFC minimum)
Reply
Marcus 11:30AM (5/07/2007)
I think the problem is that we have yellow-bellied politicians on both sides of the aisle who created the ridiculous CAFE requirements out of cowardice. Rather than taxing fuel and thereby altering the demand curve, they mandated that the car companies build car that are not demanded by the consumer. So for a few decades now, carmakers have been building small cars at a loss just to earn the right to sell a car that the consumer actually wants and will earn the company a profit.
You want people to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars? Then do something to make them demand those cars. Making Detroit et al build cars that people don’t currently want definitely isn’t the answer. Of course, politicians and their Cool-Aid drinking staffs care about one thing and one thing only – getting elected. Gutless bastards.
Reply
Chris 12:07PM (5/07/2007)
Gutless bastards? All they care about is getting elected? Uh, DUH! This IS a representative democracy last I checked, and if they raise gas taxes and get kicked out of office, then that was a dumb move because apparently people don't like high gas prices. So, if we through out that prospect, CAFE regulations ARE the best thing to do. CAFE has forced car manufacturers to come up with new technologies that limit fuel consumption, and raising the standards will only further that. Car manufacturers will drag their feet all day long until the gov't forces them to do something. Just watch testimony during the 1977 Clean Air Act revisions. The execs are sitting there talking about how catalytic converters are too expensive, too unreliable, and how many jobs we will lose. Well, look how that turned out. Now every car has one. This is the same situation, don't buy into economists' anti-regulation rhetoric. Regulations work.
Reply
Chris 12:09PM (5/07/2007)
*Throw* out, sorry.
Reply
Ron Fischer 12:44PM (5/07/2007)
Customers choosing a smaller engine with less performance expect to pay less. Customers buying a smaller car (which is usually more efficient) expect to pay less. For automakers, this is the problem: less profit. There is more than enough technology available, consumers aren't offering to pay proft-generating premiums to get them. The regulatory circus on efficiency is largely a side show.
Reply
Chet 1:31PM (5/07/2007)
The "unattainable" part is getting people to buy them. Carmakers have been building fuel-efficient cars since the 1970s, but few people want to buy them. Fuel efficiency is less important to new-car buyers than performance, safety, or luxury. This is because there's little financial incentive to purchase a fuel-efficient car -- certainly not enough to overcome the style and prestige of that shiny sports-luxury Keeping Ahead Of The Joneses lustmobile.
Americans have long bought more car than they needed, and often more than they could afford. Until our gas-guzzling ways hit us in the pocketbook, new fuel economy regulations ARE unattainable.
Reply
Marcus 1:49PM (5/07/2007)
I don't have a problem w/ emissions (catalytic converters) or safty mandates (seat belts, airbags, etc.). It's just that the CAFE requirements were a cowardly approach to trying to get people to use less gas (oil) and a great example of the hostility that our government has towards business. Until they go out of business - then government will want to subsidize them.
Reply
pamela lorraine 6:50PM (5/07/2007)
few americans may want to buy 4cyl cars but in australia the bulk of new car sales are this class.
Reply
Joseph 8:48PM (5/07/2007)
35mpg is perfectly reasonable. 35+ afterward...maybe not
A cafe average of 35mpg is probably the reasonable limit. What we need afterward is the gov't mandating for alt. fuels.
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 8:48PM (5/07/2007)
All I can say is 200 HP in a my wife's Honda Pilot is Scary, if you floor it. I can't imagine what kind of fool would Demand 300 hp in an SUV.
I think it's a question of people having no real conception of what 200 hp is. It's still the pulling power of 200 horses. There hasn't been any horsepower DEFLATION. My guess is most Americans think 300 is better then 200, buy the car, and then NEVER USE the POWER. Well, if you never use 300 hp, you probably won't use 200 hp either. I doubt if we even use 50 hp in that SUV, it's just too dangerous.
Reply
susan.kraemer 12:17AM (5/08/2007)
Well maybe these poor crybabies can't meet it, but that doesnt mean we have to buy from them. Lets all call congress and demand they fix thje laws stopping us from importing the 60 mpg cars they make in Europe
It also would help a lot if we accepted European emission and safety rules for all automobiles which achieve more than 45mpg. All of the following cars get lower lifetims carbon emissions than a Toyota Prius.
They're illegal to import into the US.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/5/5/91725/64779/30#c30
Citroen gets 57 mpg
CITROEN C1 1.4 HDi 55 3-door 57.4
TOYOTA Yaris 1.4 D-4D Linea Terra 3ov 56.0
CITROEN C2 1.4 HDi 8V 56.5
PEUGEOT 206 XR HDi 1.4 3 ov 54.7
CITROEN C3 1.4 HDi 8V 55.7
TOYOTA Aygo 1.0 VVT-i 3-door 51.1
SMART ForTwo Coupe Brabus 49.9
TOYOTA Aygo 1.0 VVT-i 5-door 51.1
CITROEN C1 1.0 3-door 51.0
AUDI A2 1.4 TDI 54.7
PEUGEOT 107 1.0 (68 bhp) 51.0
RENAULT Clio 1.5 dCi (100 bhp) 54.9
PEUGEOT 206 SW X Line HDi 1.4 54.7
SEAT Arosa 1.4 Tdi S (75 bhp) 53.2
FORD Fiesta 1.4 TDCi CL 3 & 5 Door 54.9
DAIHATSU Charade 1.0 EFi 49.0
Reply
GreyFlcn 3:00AM (5/08/2007)
Actually as of roughly... now.
Car makers no longer have the excuse that they can't do diesel.
Since various car companies have fixed the diesel problem with new catalytic converters.
These new converters now able to exist due to nearly all the sulfur being removed from US Diesel fuel as of October 2006.
VW has already planned a Diesel Jetta for early spring 2008 which gets mileage comprable to a Prius.
_
However the real point is that car makers have no excuse primarily because electric drivetrains have become so much more powerful, and electric batteries have exceeded all expectations.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/plugins
For instance, here's some electric cars which will be on the road in 2008.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png
Cool part is, even if you ran an electric car on the LEAST green grid electricity in America.
It'd still be no worse off than a comprable car using Oil in CO2 emmisions.
http://www.aceee.org/press/t061pr.htm
Car companies are just whining because electric cars require virtually no maintenence or spare parts compared to a normal car.
This was a cash cow for them.
So it's not a matter of them not being able to.
It's a matter of automanufacturers throwing a tantrum, in hopes that they can get their way.
Reply
Lost_N_Confused 8:05AM (5/08/2007)
/Stepping up on soapbox
It is truly amazing how many people here think that their situation applies to all other people on the planet. From what I have seen written here most everyone is a city dweller who drives 2 feet and has only 1 person in the car.
I see some people scared because an SUV dosen't need more then 50 HP. Really? Please explain to me how I haul water to my house? I don't have the benefit of city water and haul water to dump into my cistern. Please explain to me how I move 1000 gallons of water around with 50 HP.
For those of you who think that SUVs should be banned, how many of you live in the country? My nearest neighbor is 1 1/2 miles away. I live in the upper midwest and the road in front of my house runs east to west. I have a shelter belt (a row of trees) to protect my property from the wind. A shelter belt saves an amazing amount of heat when you don't have the 40 to 50 mph wind blowing directly against the house. A side effect of this is I get drifts that are 3 to 4 feet on the road. I use an large SUV in the winter to get thru the drifts to get out.
For those of you who love to point out the wonders of micro-cars I welcome you to actually drive 1 of those beer cans in a 40 to 50 mph crosswind. I had a Geo Metro and was almost blown off the road several times when the wind gusted. The last time I drove it a large gust of wind blew me into the on coming lane and I almost hit a truck head on. It scared me so bad I parked it and never drove it again.
For those of you who love to say just tax the hell out of gas that will make it work. I have to drive 40 miles to go grocery shopping unless I want to buy my food at a gas station. You live in a big city where you only have to drive 2 or 3 miles to any amenity.
All I see is a bunch of self righteous people that have the answer to all the problems. I would listen to more of what this people have to say if they didn't drive at all and actually rode a bike to work when feasible. I ride mine 18 miles 1 way in the summer when the wind isn't too bad.How many of you would do that or are you just armchair environmentalists?
The comments I agree with is cars don't need 300 HP in a small car. I want a car with enough power to do the job but don't need 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds.
I drive a 1998 Saturn because it gets 34 to 36 miles to a gallon. By the way I don't have to drive 3 to 5 mph below the speed limit to achieve that. The only problem is it has 215,000 miles on it and after 3 deer strikes it is getting a bit long in the tooth.
I am waiting for the day when I can buy a decent diesel car and not be slammed in the butt by a dealer who feels his product is worth $2500 more then sticker price. If enough diesel cars were imported or built then this raping would stop. Oh by the way you hybrid fans when the wind is blowing your Prius gets about 38 mpg (I work with a guy who loves his).
You can't force people to do something it never works. Also if you are willing to put your future in the hands of the morons in Washington and let them decide what your cars will be like I hope you survive. Education and changing society is the way to make changes. Home Depot recently announced that they would be labeling products that are green. Why did they do this because they want to help the planet? Nope they did this because enough people are willing to pay a bit extra for something green. Why are people willing to pay something extra? People's views have changed and people are starting to see they need to make a change not a big one but a change. That is a changing social value.
I have 7 different vehicles and choose the right tool for the right job. Anyone here ever volunteer to go to a local school to present a program on the importance of saving our planet. Educate the children and you will change the future.
/Stepping off of soapbox
Reply
Derek 8:40AM (5/08/2007)
200hp in a heavy SUV is scary? The 2007 model does 0-60 in 8.2 sec (with 244hp). Now, I agree we do not technically need even that much to get groceries, but this is very very far from being a fast vehicle. I hope you mean that it is scary because that power is available in a top-heavy overweight chassis.
Actually, if people would stop driving all the Stupid Useless Vehicles then maybe people who want fast cars and people who want high MPG cars could all get along. 200hp is not necessary if you don't have several tons of weight to lug around. Now maybe you'll never be able to drive a hopped up go-kart on the street, but there are oodles of cars that have been made over the years that can go very fast and return great mileage as well when driven moderately (talking Prius numbers here) but few people feel safe driving them on account of 6000++ lb trucks hurtling around ready to crush you. Start taxing curb weight and then we can start seeing vehicle weights fall back into a reasonable range. Then MPG can increase without having to be boring as well.
Reply
Derek 9:14AM (5/08/2007)
Lost_N_confused, somehow your post wasn't there when I typed mine. Anyways, from your comments you are not the type of person that is causing this problem. The people who drive their water-hauling, snow drift-busting SUV to McDonalds in the summertime are the problem. From the sound of things, you leave the truck at home when you don't need to tow or haul and that's what more people should do. I have no problem with someone driving a truck to do truck things because sometimes you just do need it, but people driving it because it gives them a needed testosterone boost just bug me.
PS, I'm sure their SUV needs more than 50hp to get around. One of my cars is a 60hp, 3000# diesel Benz and she comes up a bit shy on power on some hills.
Just for the record, I do not live in a city, I am 15 miles from town, my daily commute is 70mi round-trip and I am fine with $3/gal gas. I get a hair over 30mpg in my V6 Chrysler averaging 65mph (5 over) and I'm not willing to trade the power for better mileage because I need it to get around all the slow pokes on the highway trying to get better mileage out of their truck by going slow.
Reply
TRAyres 12:37PM (5/08/2007)
A bunch of hippies sitting around telling people what they need, and don't.
I need AT LEAST 300 horsepower, and if you think a VAN would be ok with 50 horsepower you have no concept of 'horsepower'. What else. Oh yeah, small cars make no profit, and are really pretty gay. We could make small crappy cars that got great gas mileage - who wants those though? So you're poor and can't afford gas - sorry you're so stupid you've failed at the American dream. Small crappy cars with great gas mileage are what you buy highschoolers (safe, small crappy cars) - sorry you didn't do well enough to warrant a better car later.
If I bought the gas, who are you to tell me I can't use it in a sports car or an SUV? You all sound like a bunch of self righteous pussies (Except the guy who drives the SUV to put water in his cistern - rock on, country man). Most of you here need to get bent.
Reply
Chris 3:20PM (5/08/2007)
YOU need to take your homophobic redneck rant elsewhere is what YOU need to do, Mr. TRAyres.
I agree with Derek - the problem isn't country folk or farmers or work-a-day men who need their trucks and what not. The problem is people who drive huge Dodge Rams in the city, where they drive from their suburb house to their job pushing papers, a 50 mile commute getting 18mpg. WTF do they need a Ram for? All they're doing is pushing gas prices up for the rest of us and funding terrorism. Selfish traitors.
Reply