TCCoA Forums banner

Federal government passes new CAFE laws - 54.4 MPG avg by 2025

14K views 72 replies 19 participants last post by  XR7-4.6 
#1 ·
Over the past few years, we’ve seen Ford, GM and Chrysler make changes to the fuel economies in their vehicles, with some of the most drastic changes seen in today’s pickups.

From the EcoBoost to the AFM technologies, automakers are making great strides to produce a quality vehicle that not only pleases consumers, but meets regulations set by the federal government.

As the government begins enacting environmentally-friendly guidelines for automakers, companies are being forced to take additional approaches to control emissions and gas mileages.

Over the past couple of days, the Obama Administration finalized new gas mileage standards to take effect, starting in 2025. All cars and trucks will have to produce a fleet-wide average of 54.4 miles per gallon.

According to Detroit News, the rules give automakers credits for building hybrid light trucks and adding fuel-saving features that the government didn’t take into account in prior years.....


See whole article here: http://blog.powerblocktv.com/?p=4927
 
See less See more
#37 ·
Same or not - the Porsche used a 6 cylinder air-cooled flat motor for years.

The 6 in the Volkswagon Microbus? Was a Porsche 6 with the cylinders flat instead of up and down.

The original 4 cylinder Porsche? Was a VW motor.

Back in the 70's, the hot rod tip for VWs was a Porsche motor.

Transaxle bolted right up.

I don't think the Panamerica is the Beetle match, BICBW.

RwP
 
#38 ·
I am for higher mileage. I am not sure why we do not already have such. Shoot Ford makes a 65mpg Fiesta in Europe. I would buy one.

What disturbs me in all this is as a country we keep 'leading' the charge for a better world all while cutting off our nose despite our face. When everyone has to do as we do I am all for it. I know that isn't progress, that is lazy and would lend itself to just staying in the same ol easy rut, or would it. Now I could go on and be much more political on this but I'll leave it as that.
 
#39 ·
You guys were talking about VW's earlier - shoot the TDI turbo used over in Europe also gets in the 60+mpg range. There was an article awhile back where they put it up against a Prius and beat it - the VW TDI was faster and used less fuel.

It just came to this country, but I doubt it will get that high with all the pollution-control crap we require...
 
#45 ·
Gee Mikey, right off the deep end there, weren't you? That was quite the series of theories/points you made there! lol

I see what you're saying, but that snowball effect may or may not happen. I bet you said the same thing about the current CAFE regulations that went into effect (even with Bush's delays).

I'm sure the new standards will also be delayed, and I hate the govt making decisions for us just as much as the next guy, but also hate big corporations controlling my money!
 
#46 ·
XR7, I couldn't agree with you more. I wasn't advocating any artificial incentive imposed by the government, I was just saying that a higher gas tax would be a less harmful way to do it than the CAFE laws. I completely understand how all the laws did was kill off the large family sedan in place of the SUV

NetKeym, yes I did say the same thing when the last round of CAFE laws went into effect, and if you would like to take a look at the current new car market compared to 5 years ago, you will see that I was correct then too. Average base price of a midsize car has gone up about 15% in the last 5 years. As for the rest of it, those aren't theories but basic economics. If the price of one good goes up, that cost gets passed along and drives up the price of every good or service that depends on it. Increased prices mean decreased demand, which means less of the goods being sold, which means less being produced, which means fewer jobs available producing and selling the now smaller quantity of goods. If you want more fuel efficient vehicles sold in this country, you need to convince people of the benefits of more fuel efficient cars, and that those benefits are worth the costs in terms of price, comfort, safety, reliability, aesthetics, or whatever reason it is that drives people to want the biggest most powerful car they can afford. When people WANT the smaller more fuel efficient cars, the manufacturers will produce them to meet the demand. Trying to alter the supply side without accounting for the demand is a recipe for bankruptcy, and we have already seen at least 3 times now that the government will bail out the auto makers to prevent them from going bankrupt, which ultimately means that the people are going to pay for these small econoboxes whether they like them or not.
 
#47 ·
Diesel is a very good answer.

As for 60HP not being enough my Tempo was at 83HP, why does the Fusion that fills it market share NEED 170 HP? 600 more lbs doesn't mandate a additional 90 HP.
 
#48 ·
Maybe because we don't like falling asleep while waiting to finally get up to the speed limit.
 
#49 ·
I test drove one of the new C-max cars recently and was surprised at how quick it was. It really drove very nicely, was relatively peppy, and is supposed to get 47 mpg in the city and hwy.

I don't think I'll buy one as I'm not too high on hybrids in general but as far as these type of cars go this one pretty much acts like a normal car.
 
This post has been deleted
#50 ·
Hybrid-electric cars suck. Might be great on gas mileage but don't get yourself stuck behind one going up a steep hill or mountain. There were 18-wheelers passing hybrids on I-70 in Western, MD. Mind you, those mountains arent even high and shouldn't be considered mountains. I feel sorry for those hybrid owning schmucks west of the great plains. The world's not running out of oil...the government & media want you to believe that though.
Tell that to Nobuhiro 'Monster' Tajima. Who set a new personal record of 9:46.530, winning the Electric class and placing 5th overall at the 91st Pikes Peak International Hill Climb this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K6oOVET6fQ

I hesitate to belive that the cars couldn't hang on the hills and, more likely, the "tree huggin'" drivers chose to "Hyperdrive" their Hybrid's up the mountain.
 
#54 ·
Via satellite, in the future when the CEL comes on the owner may be notified to have the system fixed within a prescribed time frame. Similar to a smog check, failure to remedy the alert, the owner my be required to pay fines, and/or registration denial.

Conservatively, tens of thousands of cars/trucks are driven with the CEL on. The concern is that even though the driver may suffer no drive ability, or performance problem, the vehicle is not getting the designed amount of MPG, and/or excess tail pipe emissions. Yet, the vehicle remains in service.

Bills have been authored, co-authored, to address this concern in all 50 States.
 
#56 ·
I still say hybrids--as they are now--are a waste the Prius is one of the worst(C-max is better than it). If you want MPG get a Corolla and save the $8k yeah you loose 11mpg (advertised) but by the time you make up that difference you will probably need new batteries which is ~$3k.

Now yes if you live in a area where the car will rot before need a new battery get a hybrid. Just remember there are manual SCs getting mid 30's mpg, so take advertised MPG with a grain of salt.
 
#57 ·
I don't know what manual SC you are driving, but it isn't going to come close to mid 30s for mileage. The best I ever got with any of mine was 31mpg in my 89 XR7, and that was straight highway with no traffic, and that was before they were putting ethanol in the gas. A manual SC will get high 20s on the highway if driven conservatively, and around town will probably be closer to 15mpg. I love my SC for a lot of reasons, but gas mileage simply is not one of them. With regards to the battery, I was curious about that when they came out, and since they were only rated for 100K miles I thought there would be a major problem once they got higher mileage, but they have been out for over 10 years now, and I know many people who have racked up a lot of miles on them, and I have not seen or heard of a single instance of the battery failing due to anything other than a heavy rear-end impact. I also have not seen any prii in the junkyards other than collision losses, so it appears the batteries last much longer than you would expect. I still maintain that if gas mileage and cost of operating are your concerns, you are better off with a TDI jetta, but for a cheap comfortable commuter car, the hybrids do have a lot going for them.
 
#58 ·
Drummer on SCCOA gets mid 30s Hwy in Memphis area 100% stock 91 SC, and my SC gets 17/24 (3.73) with the tune on the rich side.

Consider Hybrid, maybe but I agree with you they are not the most economical decision unless you live in HIGHLY urban areas, and there are many hwy vehicles that are better.
 
#61 ·
Face the fact that I am in the minorty? I live in the 21st century and still enjoy the hell out of cars, no **** I'm in the minority lol. They're my primary occupation, my hobby, my catalyst for research and learning, and subject of dreams, fantasy and adventure. I think you're making the false assumption that I revile CAFE because I can't get a V8, I'm not that short sighted;)

I revile CAFE because it's yet another regulation that uses specious reasoning to showcase it's effectiveness. It's greatest effect was rewarding the automakers who already made small economical cars and punished those who didn't. In 1975, that was very lopsided. Now a days there's several different manufacturers, several different segments and more economical AND powerful cars than ever, all developed under a long stale CAFE target. The new target only serves to basically eliminate the CHOICE of a V6 and V8 option for the consumer, and that is what I am against.

Second of all, I don't have/nor want kids, so the stow the "for my children's sake" pitch. I just hear the silver bullet political ploy that it is. Yes, the future is full of challenges, foreseen and unforeseen, but guess what? It always has been. Future generations will find a way. I know that goes against the grain of modern society's coddling nature, but it's been the way humans have persevered forever and it takes quite the ego to assume that "only we can solve it for them". Personally, I think the worst thing we can do for future generations is sabotage the present and pile on loads and loads of debt for our kids to attempt to pay off for the futile efforts we come up with to keep the sky from falling on them. And there's far bigger fish to fry than the automobile.


As for electric companies, I'm sure there's no shenanigans going on with them and their elected overseers....
 
#62 ·
It's all for the children - our future! What kind of world are we leaving them ?!?!? :D

 
#64 ·
So what is the end game to protecting YOUR children then? What's the next horrible evil thing that's too dangerous for them that I'm doing now? Yeah, it will always be the viable argument because nobody dares counter it, pretty much the futurist equivalent of playing the race card. Although, ironically enough, "think of the children" was often used to fight against school desegregation :rolleyes:
 
#65 ·
The end game is solutions are going to be generational. It's not going to be a quick fix solution that will create a better future for us in our lifetime, but perhaps in the lifetime of our kids and even our grandkids.

You brought up the race card example. This is a perfect example of what I mean. Racism is still around to this day, and while it isn't as prominent as it once was, it for sure is still around. One of many reasons why it's not as prominent today as it once was is simply because of a culture change that has taken several generations to implement, some of which had to be done through legislation.

With emissions and environmental protections in place and in fact growing environmental protection laws in place, things like CAFE make it so that vehicles can be sold here in the U.S. that meet those environmental protection standards. Granted, not all of it has been done as a result of CAFE itself, but they have been able to manage to do some of these changes themselves as has previously been mentioned. Now, these CAFE rules and whatnot are not seen by all consumers as something they want, so they'll go out and get whatever they can from somewhere else. Typically something older where the modern CAFE rules didn't apply back then and things can be gotten away from.
 
#66 ·
Cultural change is never accomplished through legislation, it is always the other way around. When people want small fuel efficient cars, the manufacturers will produce them. When people don't want them, forcing the manufacturers to produce them is going to mean decreased sales, which means to offset the costs of development and make a profit, each car will have to be priced higher. If the price goes high enough, the demand goes down even more, and at a certain point, it won't be profitable to manufacture cars anymore. Cars are a commodity just like anything else, and their price must be determined by supply and demand. If you alter the supply without accounting for the demand, you create scarcity, which means simultaneously increased costs for the consumer and decreased profits for the supplier. It also means that people will meet their demand elsewhere, so a mandate that manufacturers make cars people don't want will only result in people keeping their old cars, which are going to consume just as much fuel as they do now, if not more. This is what CAFE does, and it is bad for everyone involved. This is basic economics, so that means that all these supposedly intelligent people in government either don't understand basic economics, or don't care about the harm they are doing to the american people now. If your goal is to reduce oil consumption, you have only 2 ways of doing it; alter the demand, or artificially increase the price. Purposely raising the price of gas would be political suicide, so that won't happen, so all that leaves is explaining to people why they should conserve oil, and just like any major cultural shift, it will not be an easy road and there will be push-back from people like myself and XR7-4.6, but simply passing a law only creates new problems without solving the existing ones. My opinion on the whole thing is leave it alone, and the price of oil will slowly go up to reflect how difficult it is to obtain, and as the price goes up, the demand will go down, and it will constantly remain in an equilibrium where people who want/need the fuel will be able to obtain it, and as the price goes up, people who can do without will spend their money elsewhere.
 
#67 ·
Well, since I fueled the fire by making a silly, funny comment - I'll say my real two cents.

I find it sad that the general public is so stupid that the government even HAS to make decisions for us. And it's not necessarily stupidity, either. Obviously, a lot don't even care that the oil is gonna run out at some point since it's not gonna be in our lifetimes. People lie, give and receive misinformation, and ignore the real facts be it by business, political, or personal reasons.

Fact is, it is what it is, CAFE rules are necessary, and the only argument is how fast the changes come along so y'all might as well get used to it.
 
#68 ·
Speaking of misinformation, has anyone here taken a Statistics class in college? Anyone with college education knows that statistics can be made to portray things in any fashion you wish, there are so many variables that make statistics invalid, but if they benefit your cause you will use them regardless to make others follow.

Rick has it right, lying is just part of the political agenda to generate more money and funding to remove our fun and freedoms in order to fuel their(lawmakers and lobbyists) hobbies. Funny how those who are involved in legislation and politics are always 'excluded' from laws or end up in some loophole where they don't have to abide by the laws they create. Genius. :rolleyes:
 
#69 ·
Published, objective, statistics based on scientific methods are used as tools to reach convergence conclusions.

Yes, one may be wary of "bumper sticker" statistics. However, statistical significance levels may show validity when those variables of probability, data, default position, and confidence, for example, are used in a comprehensive paper.

So no, one would not want to reach a conclusion based solely on a statistics. The stats' may show bias traits, corrupt motivations, errors etc...

Without understanding cause and effect, I often question statistics before reaching a personal conclusion on whether, or not, I think a statistic(s) are true, or false. And, I am not unique. Informally, these personal conclusions are based in part on observation, experience, assumption, conjecture, known facts, and wholistic knowledge. I will also not discount intuition.

Statistically, Since the first CAFE regulations were passed in 1975 new vehicles today, sold in the U.S., have become more efficient, and less polluting. Conclusion: Because of new CAFE regulations, new vehicles sold in 2025 will be even more efficient, and less polluting than vehicles of today.

Conclusion true, or false?

False: Based on small significant level.

Default position.
Consumer demand will dictate Prius or 7,000 lb. suv's. Which in turn is based on economics, i.e. the cost of a barrel of crude, GNP, GDP, etc, etc, etc...

Federal regulations, subsidies grants, loans, fines..."The greater good"?
Nah, not so much...


Race
 
#70 ·
Published, objective, statistics based on scientific methods are used as tools to reach convergence conclusions.

Yes, one may be wary of "bumper sticker" statistics. However, statistical significance levels may show validity when those variables of probability, data, default position, and confidence, for example, are used in a comprehensive paper.

So no, one would not want to reach a conclusion based solely on a statistics. The stats' may show bias traits, corrupt motivations, errors etc...

Without understanding cause and effect, I often question statistics before reaching a personal conclusion on whether, or not, I think a statistic(s) are true, or false. And, I am not unique. Informally, these personal conclusions are based in part on observation, experience, assumption, conjecture, known facts, and wholistic knowledge. I will also not discount intuition.

Statistically, Since the first CAFE regulations were passed in 1975 new vehicles today, sold in the U.S., have become more efficient, and less polluting. Conclusion: Because of new CAFE regulations, new vehicles sold in 2025 will be even more efficient, and less polluting than vehicles of today.

Conclusion true, or false?

False: Based on small significant level.

Default position.
Consumer demand will dictate Prius or 7,000 lb. suv's. Which in turn is based on economics, i.e. the cost of a barrel of crude, GNP, GDP, etc, etc, etc...

Federal regulations, subsidies grants, loans, fines..."The greater good"?
Nah, not so much...


Race
Well said!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top