OCT 21

It's not like the US government will be trying to make a 35mpg car, it's the car industry. I don't like this comparison since the government spent huge amounts on the race to the moon and the us tax payers didn't have a choice to pay for it or not. Where if the auto industry wants to make all of it's cars get 35 mpg the cost will be past on to the consumer. It's not like they can't it's that the jump needs to be pushed by the consumer by taxing gas, to drive demand for better mpg.

We owned a 1986 Celebrity (Chev) with a 2.5liter engine that consistently pulled 41 - 46 mpg and that was loaded with 3 people in the car and the trunk full of luggage. It was totalled, and the 1987 and 1988 that we bought following wouldn't pull even 28 mpg. My car has a3.1 liter engine and won't pull 27 mpg but the new 3.8 liter engine pulls 31 mpg. It isn't that hard to get higher mileage, but the industry tells us we have to drive smaller cars. That's not true. You can get 30 easily with a regular sized car or even a suburban if you use a computer to regulate the air flow and lean the engine out. (You have to toughen up the valves and pistons so they won't burn out).

all they're doing is dragging their feet to delay it, and subsequent moves to 45mpg, as long as possible.
If buyers decide to buy cars with better mpg - manufacturers will soon find a way to deliver!
Look at the New York taxi drivers - one's driving more economic cars earn $30 a shift more...

So far, a majority of consumers are choosing not to invest in cars that get good gas mileage. Is that the auto industries fault?

Consumer behavior is the driving force in our energy use. The number of people driving SUV's and pickups on their daily commutes has more to do with what's getting sold then whether Congress passes a new regulation.

Clearly, the auto industry has to be forced to up the MPGs. We've been using the same antiquated internal combustion technology for 100 years, and the industry still can't figure out how to make it more efficient? HOGWASH! Oh, I forgot - all Americans need the ability to do 90 up a mountain pass pulling a trailer!!

The only way things will change for the better, is if consumers choose to buy cars with better gas mileage. As long as people insist on buy SUV's with poor gas mileage, the auto industry will refuse to stop selling them.

The only way that the federal government can spur this change is to increase the gas tax until consumers are forced to buy cars with better mpg. In real life, the best motivator is always money!

All you people complaining about how customers need to change need to realize companies need to change to, and the only way they'll change is if the government forces them to. Some people need trucks for work, and if all the trucks manufactured by all the companies pull 15 mpg, how will they find a truck that pulls 35mpg if no one manufactures one? If the government makes the requirement then things will fall into place.

why not ? we built atomic weapons, bombs, fight plans & many more. this isn't a challenge at all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo

...78 miles per US gallon.

If they knew how to build cars, they wouldn't be lobbying against this.
They'd be innovating.

No amount of advertising can ever convince me that they actually know how to engineer cars at this point. They've lost a customer for life.

My Prius consistently gets 50 MPG. Thats why I avoid American made cars, they are just gas guzzlers. At least the Japanese are working on better gas mileage.

Japanese and European cars regularly do 50mpg to 70mpg depending on size. I wouldn't buy a car that did as little as 35mpg! I've got a 13year old 1.6 VTEC Honda Civic that does 40mpg ... which is pretty bad! It's a guzzler, so my next car is a Mazda 2 1.4D 5-door which does 60mpg . Even big cars like a BMW 3 series now do around 55-60mpg.

My 1990 Honda CRX Si (yes, Si, the sporty model) averaged 41 mpg new on a trip from Seattle to San Francisco. It's now 17 years old with 334,000 miles on the odometer, and still gets about 38 mpg highway.

Why not check out the majority shareholders in most American auto manufacturers. Would you be surprised to find that most are conglomerates that also hold large positions in oil companies?
Huge savings in fuel efficiency are possible. All that's needed is the will to do so. With today's technology we could easily achieve well over 35mpg on average size automobiles and some SUVs. The "additional cost" of developing these cars is a load of marketing BS. The work's already been done and the technology is already well past it's infancy. The big auto makers simply refuse to adopt it.

In 1969 I bought a 1970 VW Type 411 Squareback. It was fuel injected and got 33 MPG over 77,000 miles. And most of that mileage was on poorly patrolled interstates to visit my new bride's mom on alternate weekends. Too bad the car died horribly, but it proves we have gone mostly nowhere in auto technology.

Now I'm driving a 1995 Mercedes Benz E300D Special Edition. This car gets 35-38 MPG in combo city-hwy driving, and is in it's second 100,000 miles. What is wrong, according to most auto buyers, is that this car has no turbine and won't do 0-60 in 3 seconds flat!

Did we really go to the moon?

We don't need a 35mpg car we need another power source. Stop, trying to extend the oil thing and start looking to move towards something else.

As if we didn't go to the moon, no one would be complaining.

Notice that it says "average", and in the fine print at the bottom it sets the goal for suv's at 33.2mpg

Has anyone noticed that in the epa's listing for new model year cars that right next to the hybrids in efficiency, you know, 40-50 mpg-have been diesels? No advanced, out of reach, untried technology, but current technology that has a proven history and that manufacturers have experience with.

that :

gets 40% better mileage,

has an engine life expectancy of 200,000-300,000 miles,

can be run unmodified on a 100% biofuel,

and can produce more torque than a gas engine of the same size.


What happened to the billions in subsidies that the clinton administration gave to the auto industry to develop an 80mpg supercar by 2004? Which was a compromise that came about in response to the attempt to pass legislation that would have required any new car to get 40? mpg.

The pictured ad at the top of the page states in it that this is a "senate compromise auto fuel efficiency bill", does anyone know what was in, or have a link to, the original auto fuel efficiency bill?, I'm curious what the compromise was.


Also, as a side note, have we really been to the moon?

getting into space is easy, but the moon is a whole lot farther than the orbit that satallites and space stations are parked in.

JFK, americas favorite president, who set the goal for reaching the moon by 1969, had been assasinated many years before, the country had been in the vietnam war for 7 years already, and remember that they had the draft back then, randomly choosen men, forced into military service, protestors being shot and beaten and jailed.

what do you do to take the mind of the nation off of the problems at hand?

I don't think a darkened stage with some dirt and rocks was beyond the capabilities of filmmakers at the time.

I currently work on diesel engine performance and emmisions, and the short story is this: You can have good perfomance and poor emissions or you can have good emissions and poor performance. You can not have both. Leaning out the fuel mixture or raising the compression ratio to increase performance and fuel economy both raise the level of emissions that the EPA, the enviromentalist and the global warming people want us to reduce.

Go to your local college and take course called themodynamics instead of wasting your time trying to discuss here what you know little about!!

We don't desire cars that get that high of mileage. You can easily make a car that gets 50 , you just can't make it big or fast. Many people desire one or the other, I like both.

@Nick Hess:
Look at the cars you're comparing. Small, underpowered, and probably no-frills. American car companies don't really make anything in that category. Chevy's Aveo is really a Daewoo, Ford's Fiesta/Festiva/Aspire all had more Kia DNA than Blue Oval.

My daily driver is a Ford Probe, which for all intents and purposes is a Mazda MX-6 wearing a Ford badge. It gets about 24 MPG with my normal driving, 27 if I baby it out of a 2.5L V6. My Ford Thunderbird with a 4.6L V8 and an extra 750 lbs of car got about the same. Japanese cars built to actually accelerate don't get that great mileage. Sure, my roommate's Civic gets upper 30s even if we beat the piss out of it, but it's got under 100 HP and can be passed by an Amish buggy. It's not fun to drive at all.

Before anyone posts it, you can use lots of boost to make a car that has performance and fuel economy. Stay out of the boost range, get good mileage. Step in to boost, go fast. The problem is that basically by definition this leads to significant turbo lag (can't really have that kind of control with a blower) and if you want to get notable power out of a 45 MPG engine, it won't last long under hard driving without being built out of expensive parts and maintained far beyond how well the average American driver is willing to go (look at the number of Mazda RX-7s which have been trashed because someone didn't know how to handle a rotary). A big V8 can make power all day and take serious abuse.

Basically it comes down to four things. Efficient, reliable, powerful, cheap/maintainable. Pick three.

35mpg, that's, very roughly, about 9 liters for 100km?! That's insane. Absolutely crazy. I drive an average sized car, five doors, four seats, 115hp. It uses about 5-7 liters for the same distance. So wtf is wrong with those you guys over the pond? srsly?!

The first stage of the Saturn V rocket used 2000 metric tonnes of RP-1 Fuel and LOX, at some 0.81 g/ml that means there was 1'620'000L or 427'958.723 US gallons, and you know how far that first stage went? 61km, or 37.9036427 mi
So, the first stage of the Saturn V got 0.0000886mpg
Yes, we can put a man on the moon, but that sure as hell doesn't help us to make cars do 35mpg

Some of you want the government to tax fuel as a mechanism to raise prices and force people to buy cars with a higher gas mileage. Taxes just create bureacracy. Let's let the market work. It already has driven many of the big SUV guzzlers out of the market.

35 mpg is easily attainable if you want to drive a little underpowered car. People make choices and those choices cost.

Always blame it on the big oil companies. You fuckers don't have a clue.

That is a very rough estimate. It's more like 6.5 liters per 100km.

that mistakenly found its way to a regular customer in PA in 1974. The man drove it to Niagra Falls with his wife, got 140mpg, came home and called the dealer to complain that there must be something very, very wrong with it? Bigshots in a black limo showed up at his doorstep, offered him $5 mil to keep mum on it and they replaced the car as well. It ran on gas vapors, droplets.
What happened to the scientists/entrepreneurs who made their own conversions on regular engines to run on hydrogen after the big oil companies offered them $30 million and they refused 30 years ago? They wound up dead, all paperwork and prototypes missing.
The technology has been there for many, many years.
Bottom line is GREED, PROFIT---go thank Uncle George for yet another debacle.

I'd have read the article if shitty ads didnt cover half the fucking text. The webmaster is a dumbass who can't do his job apparently.

We don't need a 35mpg car we need another power source. Stop, trying to extend the oil thing and start looking to move towards something else.

I totally agree. Increasing fuel efficiency can slow down global warming, but it's only delaying the inevitable unless we find a new way to power our transport system. I think improved batteries offer the best hope so far.

Let people decide without Congress's help. If global warming is really a threat and 35 mpg cars are really a good idea most people will buy them. But if people reject the global warming argument and buy Hummers instead, who's to say their values are wrong? In this democracy, no one, not even environmentalists.

how about fuck 35 mpg and just using a pollutionless abundant source altogether... if you believe they can make an engine that can run 35 mpg why even use gas at all..... cant afford to.... period even if it was free

Moving mass takes energy. If you think you're going to get 35mpg from an H2 *and* do 0-60 in 10 secs, you're on crack. The auto industry will do their best to fudge the numbers but energy, mass and velocity are at odds.

ummm

i dont know if you guys have heard about this little thing called a honda civic but... 40 mpg

fuck yea civic

my diesel car (peugeot 206 1.4hdi) offically gets 65.7mpg (uk gallon) or 78mpg (US). A tank of diesel (45litre tank or 10uk gallon or 11.9 US gallon) will get me at least 650miles (if im driving hard it gets about 610miles)

Innovation at the end of a gun is not innovation at all.

It is not the place of the federal government to impose restrictions/goals on the automobile industry such as this. A interest group could start a petition, or people could start buying the more economical cars in order to push the industry that direction. We are part of a Capitalist market economy and the car manufacturers have the right to make what people buy.

Well, one problem with American drivers (myself included) is that if you either increase MPG, or drop fuel prices, we want to drive more. Extra range, oh good, we can go on the vacation down in Florida for a week.

Lower/change emissions standards and we could all be driving turbo diesels in a couple of years.

Smokey Yunick developed the adiabatic engine which got 50MPG back in the late 70's/ early 80's. His innovations weren't used at the time, and it seems there's little interest in them now. http://www.gafiero.org/smokey.asp

Now, one thing people keep wanting is a sort of big bang replacement of technology. I think we need to be more realistic and accept some dirtier short-term solutions until better, more economic solutions present themselves.

As my fellow Brits have stated, its not impossible as most care here in Europe easily get abover 35 mpg, its actually quite hard to find a car that doesnt! I have a unique view here, as I grew up in the U.S. so I have owned everything from Ford Mustang GT, Chevrolet Avalanche, Mitsubishi Evo 8 and more. I now drive the U.K. standard Civic which is different from the U.S. version, it has a 1.8 VTEC, its not slow at all and i average 40MPG I know of cars that get 80 MPG without breaking a sweat. I think the bottom line is in the UK fuel is expensive as hell ($9/gallon) so cars need to do more mpg, whereas in the U.S. fuel is cheap so the gov't need you to fill up more to make more profit.

If people stopped using their car to commute and used a motorbike for that, and other times when they don't need to carry more than 1 other person or carry a load, they'd save a lot of fuel. I ride a 1989 Honda CBR400RR which does 0-60 in about 5 seconds and consistently gives 65-70 mpg. Looks, sounds, handles, accelerates, and brakes like a racer - no worries about traffic jams or queues - only cost £1500 (about $3000). Obviously if you have kids or need the space then you need a car but a lot of people just sit in traffic with their engine running getting about 10mpg in the city.

35 miles per US gallon is a joke..im gobsmacked that the US auto industry is lobbying against such an embarressingly low target...
I know Mr Bush had only been out of the US twice when he kind of got elected the first time, but i assume that Automaker CEOs have done. shame on you guys.

innovation at the end of a gun is still innovation!
That said: 35 mpg is no big deal, given future gas prices and shortages. We now have vehicles that can do that.Dislike the govt intervening? they set standards for just about everything so why not mpg? Don't like the govt? refuse to take medicare, social security and unemployment benefits...oh, yes: and insured bank accounts.

As the gentleman pointed out, there are already vehicles in the U.S. that get 65-70 mpg. If people really, really want economy it's available. Some do, but most have other priorities.

So when persuasion hasn't succeeded in making the environmentalists' case, when tripling the price of gas has failed to make people see things their way, what's left? The ethically bankrupt always hit on the same solution: You enlist Congress to rig the economic game your way.

I agree with Adam - 35 mpg is a joke. It's lame that the auto industry is lobbying against such a low standard and even lamer that Toyota, a car manufacturer that has achieved a 55mpg vehicle, is siding with them (though they probably have their eye one gaining market share in the long run, as fewer people will want inefficient American cars)

Fuel efficiency is as much an energy resource as renewables. It will take longer for the country to develop scale the renewable energy sector to meet our consumption needs, so BOTH need to happen at the same time.

Currently Congress is debating behind closed doors the inclusion of the 35 mpg CAFE standard and Renewable Electricity Standard, which calls for 15% of U.S. electricity to be sourced by renewables. I'm supporting a coalition that is lobbying that these provisions be included without compromise.

Since industry is not taking the lead, it's up to us as citizens to make lots of noise.

Please consider signing this petition and passing it on:

http://www.energybill2007.org

Cheers,

Lorna Li
Green 2.0

Here's my blog post on the subject, BTW.

Why CAFE and RES Matter for 2007's Energy Bill

Cheers,

Lorna

Arnold:
I believe the original bill you are thinking of only regulated emissions. see here:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2004/2004-01-27-10.asp

After this mini-boom, in the next deep trough of the cyclic capitalist economy, we will face a deep, prolonged, depression, with astounding inflation, due to government fiat money printing sprees. At this time we will gladly return to a better time in America, a time of trains, trams, trolley cars, but this time around, replaced by electric bullet trains with intercity connections, timed to local subways, trains, trams and trolleys for smooth non-stop no waiting transportation to our destinies, complete with bar cars, computer plug-ins, and a full 400% more efficient, and powered by locally generated nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, hydro, and geo thermal power! The new America after the great crash will be oil free, having learned a severe lesson, marked in memories with starvation, and hardship, severe paradigm shift, and with a new morality based on sustainability. America, you are growing up! This recession is just growing pains!