Recent Comment
Share
It's been a long time since there has been any movement at all in the corporate average fleet efficiencies (CAFE) for cars and Trucks in America. I've stood by and campaigned for higher targets for years, and car companies (yes, even Toyota) kept saying it couldn't be done (meanwhile, it was being done without trouble in other countries.)
But now someone (President Obama) is finally taking a stand and will be catching America up to the rest of the world by 2016. The current fleet fuel economy laws require companies to have an average of all their cars at a powerfully inefficient 27.5 MPG. Obama's regulations will bump that up to 42 MPG, something only three cars in America currently beat.
Light trucks (read SUVs) will only be required to bump from 24 mpg to 27 mpg by the 2016 deadline. However, the rules would require a total fleet efficiency for cars and light trucks of 35.5 mpg. So if car companies started relying heavily on SUVs, the law would require greater light truck efficiency.
The auto industry looks as if it is actually 100% behind this new fuel-saving, greenhouse gas-reducing plan. The President of the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers had this to say:
For seven long years, there has been a debate over whether states or the federal government should regulate autos. President Obama’s announcement ends that old debate by starting a federal rulemaking to set a National Program. What’s significant about the announcement is it launches a new beginning, an era of cooperation. The President has succeeded in bringing three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and many environmental groups to the table. We’re all agreeing to work together on a National Program.
The final obstacle to this legislation is that, by 2016, all major car companies will be selling electric vehicles. How CAFE legislation will treat electric and range-extended electric vehicles could have several effects. If the government creates huge loopholes for companies that create a few hundred EVs, it could significantly weaken the legislation. But we play our cards right, this could help usher in the age of electric vehicles.
It finally looks as if we might have effective fuel efficiency legislation in this country for the first time in 30 years. We're still waiting on details...but it looks like tomorrow will be a good day for fuel efficiency legislation.
Hits: 11713
Comments (23)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by kerry bradshaw, May 19, 2009
The planned CAFE requirements were already 36 MPG before - upping them to 42 means very little, especially when SUVS and small trucks get a pass - THAT is the big loophole, not the claimed building of a few EVs - it depends upon how many you SELL, not build. Why not learn something about the subjedct before publishing embarrassinlgy inept and lying articles like this one? Huh?
-
- +0
-
-
written by John Rowell, May 19, 2009
Of course the auto alliance is behind it - it contains a loophole the size of the Empire State Building! All they have to do is build more SUVs ... err, "light trucks" [rolls eyes] - which they're quite happy to do.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brooks Boliek, May 19, 2009
I think this is great news. It gets the ball rolling, without unfairly damaging the remaining U.S. industrial base.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Patti, May 19, 2009
"But now someone (President Obama) is finally taking a stand and will be catching America up to the rest of the world by 2016" Be careful what you wish for... while the Europeans have high mpg standards they have much lower exhaust emissions standards and many cars that have great mpg aren't allowed in the US due to their exhaust emissions problems. so don't be in such a hurry to praise the Pres for "catching up to the rest of the world" things are much more complex than that.. they always are.
-
- +0
-
-
written by HeadTater, May 19, 2009
It doesn't matter about the average fuel economy of models made, the fuel economy of cars sold is what really matters. It doesn't matter if a company makes a car that gets 300 mpg if no one buys if. A similar thing happened with stock car racing in the 1960s. Car makers would make these cars like the Plymouth Super Bird. To qualify. a minimum of cars had to be sold but it wasn't an accurate representation of the average car. Remember an article posted on EcoGeek a while ago about how Toyota really isn't the fuel economy leader? The Prius gives Toyota a high average economy per model made, but the Prius accounts for very few sales. This means that Toyota is ranked lower than Chevy and VW in economy of average vehicle SOLD. People are complaining about the SUV (light truck) loophole. Well, what about the sales loophole?
-
- +0
-
-
written by kballs, May 19, 2009
There may be loopholes somewhere in this, but it's not about built vs sold. CAFE _IS_ calculated from the average of vehicles sold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...lculation
Also, sold = built, as they aren't going to build millions of 100mpg cars if nobody wants them (too expensive, too crappy, etc.) just to raise their CAFE numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...lculation
Also, sold = built, as they aren't going to build millions of 100mpg cars if nobody wants them (too expensive, too crappy, etc.) just to raise their CAFE numbers.
-
- +0
-
-
written by shek, May 19, 2009
Is it safe to assume, that eventually all (or almost all) of the vehicles built are sold? Even though some might eventually be at a loss if the demand isn't high.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ashb, May 20, 2009
Why dont they make all cars E85 compatible for God sake, that is so easy to do and for once domestic car companies have a leg up on this.
-
- -1
-
-
written by Yellowlab, May 20, 2009
Lets see, take a standard from a FAILED state, make it even tougher and costlier, model it after Europe which has higher unemployment than us because of such restrictions and apply it to the rest of the USA. Buy Auto companies under the guise of a Bail out, fire the ceo and force them to do your bidding. Increase the cost of manufacturing, require re-tooling on companies that are already BROKE. Take away the rights of one citizen, the bondholder of said company, and give those rights to another the Union. (Well he did promise to redistribute wealth, by the way is why I didn't vote for him.)
OBAMA is the biggest Socialist that has no clue on what this country was founded on. This is just regarding the auto companies and not any other socialistic tendencies that he has already put forward. Obama is a Divider and has no interest on bringing this country together or even adhering to the rights given to us under the constitution. I was once in the middle but I have swung far right after seeing his actions.
IF you want socialism move to EUROPE and China. GET The F@#$ out.
Freedom isn't Free, and if you are so intent on giving it away you are a FOOL that never deserved it in the first place.
Obama is a Fool
OBAMA is the biggest Socialist that has no clue on what this country was founded on. This is just regarding the auto companies and not any other socialistic tendencies that he has already put forward. Obama is a Divider and has no interest on bringing this country together or even adhering to the rights given to us under the constitution. I was once in the middle but I have swung far right after seeing his actions.
IF you want socialism move to EUROPE and China. GET The F@#$ out.
Freedom isn't Free, and if you are so intent on giving it away you are a FOOL that never deserved it in the first place.
Obama is a Fool
-
- -1
-
-
written by shek, May 20, 2009
Elections matter. Perhaps it's time for you to consider secession.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rojelio, May 20, 2009
So we're giving away our freedom and going socialist because we're finally going to implement mileage standards? You don't make any sense, dude. Maybe you should move to the middle east after we "redistribute" all of our wealth over there.
-
- -1
-
-
written by HeadTater, May 20, 2009
Ashb has it right. From what I have heard, making an engine E85 or biodiesel compatible doesn't cost much (if any) more. That would also help with another idea I've had: turbocharge more cars. It makes an engine more efficient and the 100+ octane of E85 is sufficient for a boosted engine but cheaper than premium.
I hope there is some kind of accommodation for biofuel vehicles. They may not get the much higher mileage as hybrids and EVs, but the fuel is renewable, domestic and cleaner.
I find it ironic, that in the middle of their attempts to save Detroit, the Obama administration shoots them in the foot like this. Making every car over $1000 more expensive isn't going to help anyone, let alone car companies teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.
I hope there is some kind of accommodation for biofuel vehicles. They may not get the much higher mileage as hybrids and EVs, but the fuel is renewable, domestic and cleaner.
I find it ironic, that in the middle of their attempts to save Detroit, the Obama administration shoots them in the foot like this. Making every car over $1000 more expensive isn't going to help anyone, let alone car companies teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.
-
- +0
-
-
written by shek, May 20, 2009
Your comment is a little conflicted since you advocate turbochargers but then state that making every car $1000 more expensive is dumb.
-
- +0
-
-
written by HeadTater, May 20, 2009
Shek, you got me there. Turbocharging engines would make them more expensive.
Also, I was just checking out the Car and Driver site and they had an interesting article on this too. As could be expected, they were calling BS on Obama's plan. They cite the Ford Focus for their example (similarly sized in the US and Europe). In the US, a Focus cost $15k, makes 140hp while getting 28mpg combined. In Europe, the Focus costs $20k, makes 79hp and only gets 2 more mpg combined. To get a 10% increase in economy, they pay $5k more and sacrifice 44% of their power.
And forget getting more economy by 2016 for only $1300. It takes, on average, about 6 years for a new technology to go from the drawing board to the factory floor. Even if they started now, the automakers would barely be making the deadline. And then there is the price. Our president (law degree, not engineering degree) estimates a $1300 increase. C&D (in the biz since 1955) says this estimate is absurd (their exact term). They go on to say "Only if consumers trade down a few vehicle sizes and pay $1300 can the targets be met." C&D also stated "Mandate of 35.5 mpg by 2016 is like fighting obesity by outlawing large clothing."
Call me cynical. Call me whatever you will, but I don't think Americans in general will be to open to buying European sized cars with European pricing and power.
Also, I was just checking out the Car and Driver site and they had an interesting article on this too. As could be expected, they were calling BS on Obama's plan. They cite the Ford Focus for their example (similarly sized in the US and Europe). In the US, a Focus cost $15k, makes 140hp while getting 28mpg combined. In Europe, the Focus costs $20k, makes 79hp and only gets 2 more mpg combined. To get a 10% increase in economy, they pay $5k more and sacrifice 44% of their power.
And forget getting more economy by 2016 for only $1300. It takes, on average, about 6 years for a new technology to go from the drawing board to the factory floor. Even if they started now, the automakers would barely be making the deadline. And then there is the price. Our president (law degree, not engineering degree) estimates a $1300 increase. C&D (in the biz since 1955) says this estimate is absurd (their exact term). They go on to say "Only if consumers trade down a few vehicle sizes and pay $1300 can the targets be met." C&D also stated "Mandate of 35.5 mpg by 2016 is like fighting obesity by outlawing large clothing."
Call me cynical. Call me whatever you will, but I don't think Americans in general will be to open to buying European sized cars with European pricing and power.
-
- +0
-
-
written by torahmike, May 21, 2009
How many humans will die a painful and fiery death due to driving little Euro-cars? Why doesn't our President take that into account? What about the children? How many will die so Al Gore's hedge fund can make money?
No matter, the human race deserves to die. We were mean to the polar bears.
No matter, the human race deserves to die. We were mean to the polar bears.
-
- +0
-
-
written by rocket88, May 22, 2009
I read that in 2016 that looking at the world envirement as whole this will only account for a 0.6% reduction in greenhouse gases. So what is the point? I'm guesing it is so Al Gore can waste more natural resources on his mansion. Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't our climates tempeture allways fluctuated? Now all of a sudden it's horrible? It is a fact of life get over it.
-
- +0
-
-
written by wally144, May 27, 2009
RE: Head Taters comments on the Ford Focus.
Some facts: The base model Focus in the US has a double overhead cam 2.0L engine developing ~200bhp, and at best managing 35 highway mpg. It cost $16k.
The base model Focus in Europe has a 1.4L engine developing 79bhp, and achieving 46 highway mpg.
There is also a base model diesel version with a 1.6L engine developing 109bhp, and achieving 62 highway mpg. These cars do cost $20k, but bear in mind we pay much higher taxes in Europe, and the final cost of disposing of the car at the end of its life is also built in. Please note that we also pay much higher fuel prices in Europe, typically $6.50/US gallon for regular unleaded.
Cars here are taxed annually on their CO2 emissions, and we feel that the overall cost represent better the true overall cost of motoring.
Some facts: The base model Focus in the US has a double overhead cam 2.0L engine developing ~200bhp, and at best managing 35 highway mpg. It cost $16k.
The base model Focus in Europe has a 1.4L engine developing 79bhp, and achieving 46 highway mpg.
There is also a base model diesel version with a 1.6L engine developing 109bhp, and achieving 62 highway mpg. These cars do cost $20k, but bear in mind we pay much higher taxes in Europe, and the final cost of disposing of the car at the end of its life is also built in. Please note that we also pay much higher fuel prices in Europe, typically $6.50/US gallon for regular unleaded.
Cars here are taxed annually on their CO2 emissions, and we feel that the overall cost represent better the true overall cost of motoring.
-
- +0
-
-
written by R Staton, May 27, 2009
I think Obama is awesome. Finally a smart president who gets it. If you want to call it socialism fine, than I am all for socialism. Anything is better that what we had the past 8 years. At least he is trying to do something for the environment instead of keeping the status quo so his oil friends can get richer. Go Obama!
-
- -1
-
-
written by bud weiser, June 01, 2009
many of the criticisms in the comments are extremely misplaced. the poster is not wrong on the loophole, the 35.5 average means that all passenger vehicles sold must average out to 35.5 miles per gallon.
furthermore this is calculated by using a harmonic mean, not an arithmetic mean, which takes into account that a vehice that gets low mileadge will more than off set the savings of a vehicle that gets high gas mileage, over the same distance traveled. (As opposed to two vehicle right in the middle, that each get the same gas mileage. In both cases, the arithmetic mean would be identical for each group, but the actual gas consumed for equal amounts of driving, as well as the corresponding harmonic mean, would be lower.)
What is being missed in all of this is that DOT has had the authority to set standards for years. In 2007, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the Energy Independence and Security Act(EISA), which required a new vehicle fleet average of 35 mpg (essentially the same target as Obama's) by 2020. what this announcement did, essentially, was re-emphasize, and move up the target date by four years.
Also, in May of 2008, before Obama came into office, the NHSTA had completed a draft final rule increasing the CAFE standards under the EISA, which authorized setting incremental target dates, from years 2011-1015, which as early as 2011 set an increased std of 31.2 mpg for cars, and 25 mpg for light trucks,and increased them each succeeding year thereafter, up to and including year 2015.
furthermore this is calculated by using a harmonic mean, not an arithmetic mean, which takes into account that a vehice that gets low mileadge will more than off set the savings of a vehicle that gets high gas mileage, over the same distance traveled. (As opposed to two vehicle right in the middle, that each get the same gas mileage. In both cases, the arithmetic mean would be identical for each group, but the actual gas consumed for equal amounts of driving, as well as the corresponding harmonic mean, would be lower.)
What is being missed in all of this is that DOT has had the authority to set standards for years. In 2007, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the Energy Independence and Security Act(EISA), which required a new vehicle fleet average of 35 mpg (essentially the same target as Obama's) by 2020. what this announcement did, essentially, was re-emphasize, and move up the target date by four years.
Also, in May of 2008, before Obama came into office, the NHSTA had completed a draft final rule increasing the CAFE standards under the EISA, which authorized setting incremental target dates, from years 2011-1015, which as early as 2011 set an increased std of 31.2 mpg for cars, and 25 mpg for light trucks,and increased them each succeeding year thereafter, up to and including year 2015.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
I wonder how much this has to do with the government strong arming the auto industry nows that it controls the purse strings.