Officially, Official: Obama directs EPA to look at CA waiver, DOT to enforce CAFE increase
Photo by dcJohn. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Whether you think it's a disaster or delight, President Obama has made it official. Reports that he would ask the EPA to move quickly on reconsidering the Bush Administration's December 2007 decision to deny California a rules waiver (for background, read this) were true. Obama issued just such an order this morning. On top of the potentially game-changing emissions tailpipe regulations this could result in, the President also told the Department of Transportation to write and finalize rules requiring a 40 percent increase in car and light truck mpg ratings by 2020. This is something that President Bush failed to do, even though he did make a big deal about signing a 35 mpg CAFE law and draft rules were released last spring. It looks like Obama may issue a temporary order so that vehicles sold in the 2011 model year will be the first affected by the new regs. Obama's take on the new rules: this will "insure that the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow are built right here in America."
Joy, lawsuits and complaints to come, I'm sure.
[Source: New York Times]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Arno 1:32PM (1/26/2009)
Someone explain this to me please. a 40% increase doesn't seem that dramatic, not when there's 10 years to do it. So if all cars next year must be 35 MPG or more, then by 2020 they are only required to be 49 or above. I think the increase could easily have been doubled, since companies to have 10 years to get to a mere 70 MPG.
Reply
Phil L. 2:00PM (1/26/2009)
Given the sizable infrastructure all automakers have in place, a 40% increase is still a very big deal. Recall they're talking about the *entire* car and light truck fleet, not just small, high-MPG "halo" cars popular here on ABG. Significant automotive platform changes are still big-dollar, long-term investments. Changing many platforms at the same time is downright scary.
Quick examples to think about: My in-laws currently drive a Toyota Avalon - which gets nowhere near 35 mpg, but does OK given its size. Between a family history of back problems and a recently-replaced knee joint (and another likely in the future), small cars that require any kind of ingress/egress agility simply aren't in the cards for them. They specifically tracked down a front bench seat (a rare option at the time, and now no longer available for the Avalon) for this reason. What kind of vehicles will meet such needs - and get 49 MPG or 70 MPG of whatever the standard ends up being?
My own situation includes 3 small kids, all still in car seats. Minivan shopping ended up being pretty limited for us: Traditional choices like the Honda Odyssey aren't available in family-friendly seating layouts that offer 3 LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for CHildren) positions. Typical 2-row sedans don't have room for 3 car seats, even if they have 3 seats belts; forget about 3 LATCH positions. Minivan mileage has jumped in recent years - but hasn't hit 35 mpg yet. Plus, for some unfathomable reason, the OEMs have ignored the hybrid minivan market. What realistic, high-MPG choices will be available for families like mine?
I understand why the automakers are very wary of potential legislation in this area, particularly now that even financially stable makers are watching sales figures slide away.
Chad 2:30PM (1/26/2009)
Phil L.:
"What realistic, high-MPG choices will be available for families like mine?"
I don't mean to sound insensitive or anything, but couldn't you put your oldest child in the middle seat of a sedan without a safety seat?
I realize you want to keep your family safe and obey your local laws, but families with three children did travel in cars in the recent past before vehicles with three rows of seats were commonplace.
Phil L. 2:35PM (1/26/2009)
Chad -
We had twins - and a third 18 months later. So the kid's ages aren't spread out nicely; something that most automakers appear to presume.
Yes, I grew up in the era where it was presumed you just packed the kids in the back of the sedan/station wagon. Things have changed.
Chad 2:52PM (1/26/2009)
I see your situation would make buying a car difficult.
Have you looked at the Mazda5? Three rows of seats and is rated at 21/27 auto and 22/28 manual. If you drove carefully you could probably average 30 mpg.
People in your situation are excluded, but my other point still stands. People nowadays think that they are not safe unless they drive a car with all the newest safety equipment and keep all their kids in safety seats until they are 5 years old and in booster seats until they are 10.
Phil L. 3:37PM (1/26/2009)
I like what I've seen of the Mazda5. There doesn't seem to be very many on the road yet, which poses some challenges: The realities of raising three kids means I'm pretty much stuck with the used market. That said, decent used examples are starting to show up.
Also note that the safety standards keep going up. My state now requires seats/boosters for all children under 8 (the law was just updated last June). I'm waiting for the story about the first teenager who has to take a driver's test while in a booster... :)
Chad 4:12PM (1/26/2009)
Hmmm . . . If I were in your situation, I'd just spend 5K-10K on a used dodge caravan or ford windstar with 50K-75K miles and just live with the fact that it won't get as good of gas mileage as you'd like. I'm not sure what years have the proper amount of LATCH tethers that you'd need though.
My Dad's windstar is still running with over 150K miles on it.
Those late model American minivans are a lot more reliable than people think they are.
Phil L. 5:01PM (1/26/2009)
Chad -
As it turns out, we did buy a used Ford Windstar. Yes, once you get past the early transmission-and-headgasket-problem years ('95 through '98 were problematic), they're surprisingly reliable, as well as being cheap to maintain. Plus their value drops like a rock on the used market; this is a feature in my book.
Our '00 Windstar has 4 LATCH positions and optional center-row removable captain's chairs (full admission: We then had three small kids in car seats *AND* a St. Bernard; removing one seat was the only way to get enough space to move everyone down the road). We lost the dog to bone cancer, so this particular configuration isn't the concern it was. Sadly, later Freestar models (which are really just an update to the Windstar design) added the "disappearing" third row seat - but with only 1 LATCH position, a step backward in my opinion.
I wish the pushrod 3.8 were more efficient - but it does pretty well given how affordable it is. Today, the Duratec 3.5 makes more power than the 3.8, and would be more efficient - if Ford were still in the minivan business.
It's also proven to be remarkably versatile: Ford spec'd the Windstar with generous cargo/passenger *AND* tow capacity ratings. It does well towing a popup camper, something I appreciate in the US market, where there are few non-SUV, family-friendly vehicles that can also do light-to-mid grade towing duty. Comparing European tow ratings to comparable US models (for non-SUV/truck platforms) is an eye-opening experience.
Chad 5:13PM (1/26/2009)
Great, it looks like you did your homework and got the best vehicle to suit your needs within your means. I wish more people thought things through. Another little trick that I like to do is to put my used vehicles on liability only insurance. It cuts down the cost of insuring vehicles by more than half! What's the point of having collision insurance on a vehicle that's only worth 5K anyway? :)
Best of luck to you and your family
summazooma 7:05AM (1/27/2009)
How about a base FWD Flex, Taurus X or one of GM's Lambda models?
Not quite as efficiently packaged as a Minivan, with lower roofs and, overall, lower interior height but surprisingly close to a Minivan package.
Fuel economy, too, seems to be equivalent (remember FWD, not AWD)... If you can get past the Flex styling, it's actually a particularly good alternative and, I would believe you'd get a great deal on one right now.
Phil L. 1:41PM (1/26/2009)
I find it interesting that Obama included the line:
“...to insure that the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow are built right here in America.”
I didn't see anything in the description of the order that specifically encourages domestic production. Did I miss something, or is this just a feel-good line that doesn't mean anything?
Reply
Mark Barcinski 8:05AM (1/27/2009)
I read many years ago in Scientific American how the current CAFE standards are bad for american car industry in the long run. They've written that if american car manufacturers don't improve their mpg ratings, no one wil buy their car in the future. I guess the future is now but maybe it's not to late to change the regulations.
jeffzekas 1:59PM (1/26/2009)
You know, "excuses are like a** holes, everyone has one, and no one wants to see yours"... US car makers will make excuses from now until eternity, but we don't have eternity... global climate change in NOW. So, if we go to 30 mpg, we no longer need to buy Arab oil (which means, no more wars for oil). This is bad?!! Yes, we can make fuel-efficient cars HERE... read Autoblog Green: folks build their OWN electric cars, put solar arrays on their own roofs, build their own biodiesel fuel plants in the garage... but Ford and GM cannot?!! Ha! Open you eyes. The glaciers are melting. The ozone hole is bigger. Time is running out.
Reply
Brn 1:26AM (1/27/2009)
Um.. Ford, GM and Toyota have built electric vehicles in the past. I'm not sure about GM, but I know the Ford and Toyota ones did go into production. Both Ford and Toyota abandoned them.
I really don't understand why you specify American auto makers, as foreign automakers don't do what you think they should be able to do either. If it were as easy as you say, they'd all be doing it.
Randy C. 2:36PM (1/26/2009)
There needs to be a way to update the CAFE regulations to include electric cars in a way that offsets the gas guzzlers. So building an EV1 that goes over 150 miles on the same amount of energy as a gallon of gas can compensate for 2 Hummer's at 12 MPG. This way the best of everything comes about. The auto makers can still make those behemoth land yachts that we've come to love. And those that care about the damage automobiles cause to the environment get the cars we want.
Quite frankly we are at the limits of ICE fuel burning efficiency. The engines can't be made any more efficient so the alternative is more aerodynamics (less style), lower weight (more plastics), smaller cars (only 2 seats), running the engines less with start/stop and hybrid technology. So raising the MPG means we will ALL have to drive European size econo boxes. No more Hummer's, no more personal pickup trucks, no more Lincoln Continentals can be made. It's a Smart 2 seater or nothing for everybody.
With the tweak of allowing electric cars to offset gas MPG in CAFE everybody wins. More efficient cars, cars that don't pollute, and it can be done now, not in 30 years waiting for hydrogen to work. The auto makers can keep building the cash cow SUV they have been relying on for profit these past 15 years. The drastic reduction in the amount of oil that has to be imported from less than friendly countries. All it takes is a slightly different mindset about the situation not 10 trillion dollars or more for minimal hydrogen usage. And you wouldn't have to grant individual states special status.
Reply
Dave 6:17PM (1/26/2009)
Randy C wrote:
"No more Hummer's, no more personal pickup trucks, no more Lincoln Continentals can be made."
You say that like that would be a bad thing...
Red 3:05PM (1/26/2009)
"What realistic, high-MPG choices will be available for families like mine?"
Several companies are working on projects specifically for your situation. I'd give a name or two, but there'd be a bit of a conflict of interest. I'm sure you'll hear about them soon. And these will be, I'm told, very affordable.
Also, people really shouldn't listen to the automakers complaining. The cost of development is lower than they lead people to believe. I speak as someone who has worked on similar projects.
Reply
Phil L. 3:19PM (1/26/2009)
I'm sure there are. However, understand that many people tend to be wary of big entities promising to address their concerns soon, and keep within their budget.
I remember the first go-round with CAFE: The family-friendly station wagons and sedans of the era suddenly disappeared from dealer lots. It's no wonder some buyers looked around the lot and said "Hey - what's that?" The salesman said "It's a Suburban - we sell them to surveying crews and people like that."
Big changes often result in unintended consequences.
Paul 3:58PM (1/26/2009)
Yep, unintended consequences. Like CA's stupid CAFE waivers of the past helping to keep high-efficiency diesels out of the US market. No manufacturer wanted to certify a car for only 48 or fewer states, especially when one of the states missing was the most affluent, car-crazy, and trend-setting market in the country. Sure, there were other factors keeping them out of the US market (not the least of which being perceived consumer disinterest because of the crap they tried to sell in the early 80's), but this was a huge component. I'm 100% for increased CAFE requirements, but I'm for these requirements covering 100% of the states. State-by-state standards are more likely to hurt than help.
Rei 3:23PM (1/26/2009)
It's not hard to do; it just costs money.
1) Use lighter alloys (aluminum for non-structural parts being a big one)
2) Get rid of body-on-frame for most applications; switch to unibody
3) Increase the amount of silica and other high-quality materials in tires so they can have higher pressure/lower rolling resistance at the same traction level.
4) Whether gas or diesel, use the latest, high-efficiency engine technologies.
5) Start the process of moving towards more widespread use of composites (ala Boeing)
6) Hybridize everything.
7) Let the aerodynamics engineering team have first go at each vehicle, not the stylists. Stylists get round two. And the engineers get round three to undo any disasters that they create. People's tastes in vehicle styles will change as what becomes "the new thing" changes. Remember back when people loved tailfins?
8) Quit trying to convince everyone to buy a behemouth; promote your smaller vehicles the way you used to promote SUVs. Let the behemouths go to the people who already know that they need them -- construction, transport, etc.
9) Add gauges as standard features that show how efficiently you're driving.
Reply