usa national standard for cars/vehicles minumum 35mpg

[dirtydeeds]

how do you guys that side of the pond see this?

does it mean the end of general gas guzzlers and fix or repair daily SUVs

even worse

smaller vehicles 

smaller engines 

 

[Tom the Remodeler]

I'm curious to see how/if it affects work trucks, such as will it apply to 1/2 ton trucks but not 3/4 tons?

 

[PeterK]

I am really dubious of the success of reaching 35mpg as an average across a production line. Honda as a company has the best mpg ratings yet the Civic is at 34mpg and the Accord is at 31. Used to be rated 40 and 34 before the government dropped ratings for all vehicles. Unless everything goes to hybrid type functionality (which really only benefits low speed city type driving), I just don't see the increase happening without serious downsizing. Would love to see my Honda Ridgeline get 30mpg but it currently is rated 21 highway. Long way to go!! Toyota would have to dump over half it's product line to stand a chance at meeting the new ratings.
Pete

 

[b_m_hart]

I'm curious to see how it plays out.  It's interesting to note that there are a TON of production sedans out there that have over 180 HP these days.  Cars are bigger, heavier, and faster than they were 25 years ago, but they still get the same gas mileage.  I think that the car manufacturers will figure out ways to (read: turn R&D to efficiency now as well as pumping out raw power) meet these requirements.

Are there any carrots for manufacturers to start building all electric vehicles?  That Tesla 4 door is $50k after the tax credit, but supposedly has a 300 mile range, and costs about $4 to operate per "fill up".  Now, that doesn't pencil out for the average income in the US, but for someone like me who drives 25K+ miles a year, it is fairly attractive, even if it is still a premium over the honda accords I beat into the ground and replace every 6ish years.

I think that some teeth will need to be put into it.  The ONLY reason we have hybrids now was because of California's 'no emissions' law that eventually got eased up on (due to the technical hurdles that remained, Honda and Toyota were the only companies willing to mass produce vehicles that even attempted to come close to meeting the requirements).

Now, I know that it costs more to make the cars and trucks to have the better mileage, but from first glance at the numbers, it looks like it pays off in the consumer's favor in the long term.  Well, unless you're the lil old lady like my grandmother was that drives her car maybe 5k miles a year.   Then, it doesn't help you any.

 

[Gene Howerton]

I think the US will look like Cuba.  People will hoard F-150 trucks and the like, so in 2020, a good 2008 F-150 will hold its value.  Those folks in Washington never think of the unintended consequences of their decisions.

 

[mwhafner]

I'm curious to see how/if it affects work trucks, such as will it apply to 1/2 ton trucks but not 3/4 tons?

I think the current definition covers vehicles below 8,500 pound GVW, which should only cover 1/2 ton and smaller. 

 

[EcoFurniture]

It was about time for the government to put a cap on the waste of oil.... Nobody can tell me that it is impossible to develop gas sipping engines! If we can build stealth bombers and remote controlled war planes so can we expect cars that run on air... That is correct, there are already manufacturers out there (in France) that have functioning compressed air driven cars/vans !!!! Let's do it, I know we can!

BTW, we are driving a 2003 Toyota Echo sedan that gets 50mpg.

 

[Rob Z]

how do you guys that side of the pond see this?

does it mean the end of general gas guzzlers and fix or repair daily SUVs

even worse

smaller vehicles 

smaller engines 

My sister and her hubby have two toyotas, and they have had more problems by far with them than I have had with my three full size company trucks....a bit of a twist on the prevailing view that toyotas are problem-free vehicles...

I don't know how I would get some jobs done without the payload of the larger truck I have (a one-ton GMC pickup).  It does suck the gas, but it can do in one trip what the 1/2 tonners would need in three.  I frequently commute in one of the lighter trucks and only start up the gas pig when I have a pay load to carry.

It will be interesting to see what the "normal" work truck looks like in 20 years.

 

[EcoFurniture]

Forgot to mention that my company vehicle is a 1996 VW Eurovan  1 tonne Cargo with a gas engine. 220,000km ( or about 160,000miles) on it. It's millage is about 40mpg. For a 13 year old work vehicle not bad I would say. If they were able to dial in that millage back then, imagine what could be possible these days if they really wanted to...But I guess there is still too much money to be made by selling fuel and combustion engine parts.

Just think how much money you could save by using 1/3 of the fuel you are using now!

 

[polarsea1]

The manufacturers seem to be ok with the standards, at least they'll be uniform. One complaint they had previously was states having their own seperate set of standards (think CARB), which made it more costly. They can do it and it wouldn't happen at all without some sort of stick being applied. The market isn't always right and the govt isn't always wrong.

 

[bruegf]

Personally, I think this is long overdue.  My current car is a Hyundai Elantra and it gets 35-37 mpg and still has plenty of power.  My Honda Civic back in the early 90's got 40mpg consistently.  It just amazes me that 20 years later there are hardly any cars that can beat that on highway mileage.

Fred

 

[bonesbr549]

My response is to those with those little cars that have the great gas mileage, Thats fantastic if thats what you want.  For me it's none of the governments dam business what I drive and and in order to achieve those metrics the cars will be tiny and lighter and safety will suffer.  If I want to drive my pickup that gets 17mpg and can afford it that should be my right.  At my size I just do not want to be in a car that can double as a coffin.  No offense, but not a big fan of socialism

 

[b_m_hart]

My response is to those with those little cars that have the great gas mileage, Thats fantastic if thats what you want.  For me it's none of the governments dam business what I drive and and in order to achieve those metrics the cars will be tiny and lighter and safety will suffer.  If I want to drive my pickup that gets 17mpg and can afford it that should be my right.  At my size I just do not want to be in a car that can double as a coffin.  No offense, but not a big fan of socialism

Enacting laws to protect the environment does not in any way equate to socialism.  Just out of curiosity, you speak of not wanting to be in a car that can double as a coffin - so you are a fan of enacting safety laws for the design of vehicles, but not a fan of enacting laws for the design of the fuel efficiency of vehicles?

 

[Jimhart]

My response is to those with those little cars that have the great gas mileage, Thats fantastic if thats what you want.  For me it's none of the governments dam business what I drive and and in order to achieve those metrics the cars will be tiny and lighter and safety will suffer.  If I want to drive my pickup that gets 17mpg and can afford it that should be my right.  At my size I just do not want to be in a car that can double as a coffin.  No offense, but not a big fan of socialism

My take on 'rights' is that they don't include a right to infringe on others, like smoking in crowded places or throwing your trash out the window while driving down the road. Social responsibility does not equate with socialism. Putting out 2 to 3 times the emissions necessary to get you where you want to go is no different.

I think they need to figure out how to allow trucks for those that NEED them for work without some sort of financial penalty. I won't mind driving around in a little car if that's what it takes to reduce my impact on the environment. I just don't want to get run over by someone driving a huge pickup with tires meant for an airplane. I think a very high percentage of Hummers, SUV's and trucks are driven by people who have no practical need for the size.

There will be no progress made to reduce our dependence on oil or to improve the environment as long as too many people see it as a 'right' to continue to drive whatever they want. 

The $4/gallon gas scenario did wonders for making people get creative to reduce gas use.  London uses cameras to record license plate numbers coming in and out of the center city and charges something like 8 pounds per day toll. 

It's pretty clear we can't continue on the gas comsumption path we're on. It's also pretty clear that auto manufacturers and consumers are not going to lead the way in changing the direction.

 

[bonesbr549]

My response is to those with those little cars that have the great gas mileage, Thats fantastic if thats what you want.  For me it's none of the governments dam business what I drive and and in order to achieve those metrics the cars will be tiny and lighter and safety will suffer.  If I want to drive my pickup that gets 17mpg and can afford it that should be my right.  At my size I just do not want to be in a car that can double as a coffin.  No offense, but not a big fan of socialism

Enacting laws to protect the environment does not in any way equate to socialism.  Just out of curiosity, you speak of not wanting to be in a car that can double as a coffin - so you are a fan of enacting safety laws for the design of vehicles, but not a fan of enacting laws for the design of the fuel efficiency of vehicles?

I'm for the market deciding what cars to make.  If the high mileage car sells then they win!  If you don't want it and don't buy it they will stop making them.  IT's called market driven!  The topic is MPg not safety.  Start that thread and I'll happily join in.

 

[bonesbr549]

My response is to those with those little cars that have the great gas mileage, Thats fantastic if thats what you want.  For me it's none of the governments dam business what I drive and and in order to achieve those metrics the cars will be tiny and lighter and safety will suffer.  If I want to drive my pickup that gets 17mpg and can afford it that should be my right.  At my size I just do not want to be in a car that can double as a coffin.  No offense, but not a big fan of socialism

My take on 'rights' is that they don't include a right to infringe on others, like smoking in crowded places or throwing your trash out the window while driving down the road. Social responsibility does not equate with socialism. Putting out 2 to 3 times the emissions necessary to get you where you want to go is no different.

I think they need to figure out how to allow trucks for those that NEED them for work without some sort of financial penalty. I won't mind driving around in a little car if that's what it takes to reduce my impact on the environment. I just don't want to get run over by someone driving a huge pickup with tires meant for an airplane. I think a very high percentage of Hummers, SUV's and trucks are driven by people who have no practical need for the size.

There will be no progress made to reduce our dependence on oil or to improve the environment as long as too many people see it as a 'right' to continue to drive whatever they want.   

The $4/gallon gas scenario did wonders for making people get creative to reduce gas use.  London uses cameras to record license plate numbers coming in and out of the center city and charges something like 8 pounds per day toll. 

It's pretty clear we can't continue on the gas comsumption path we're on. It's also pretty clear that auto manufacturers and consumers are not going to lead the way in changing the direction.

I think you said it well when you said "decide who needs them"  The problem is who gets to decide!  The government?  Thats right they could have someone CENTRALLY PLAN on what goods and services can be produced and how much we can make, oh wait a minute maybe they could set the price of gas at 7$ a gallon.  Pretty clear thats not free market.  If people want those cars and could sell thats all that would be out there but its not the case.  People want safe larger cars.  As to how's its done in london, with the camera's and the 8 pound toll, I'm glad I'm on this side of the pond.  Of course if Obama has his way we will be more socialist.  Hopefully we can stop him in 2010 and a lot of this madness.   Think I'll go fire up the SUV run around the block and turn on all the lights.  Life is good (for now)

BTW my wife told me when I bought my Corvette You don't need a vette and my reply was NEED ain't got a dam thing to do with it!

Heres a link to my carbon burning monster!

 

[b_m_hart]

My response is to those with those little cars that have the great gas mileage, Thats fantastic if thats what you want.  For me it's none of the governments dam business what I drive and and in order to achieve those metrics the cars will be tiny and lighter and safety will suffer.  If I want to drive my pickup that gets 17mpg and can afford it that should be my right.  At my size I just do not want to be in a car that can double as a coffin.  No offense, but not a big fan of socialism

Enacting laws to protect the environment does not in any way equate to socialism.  Just out of curiosity, you speak of not wanting to be in a car that can double as a coffin - so you are a fan of enacting safety laws for the design of vehicles, but not a fan of enacting laws for the design of the fuel efficiency of vehicles?

I'm for the market deciding what cars to make.  If the high mileage car sells then they win!   If you don't want it and don't buy it they will stop making them.  IT's called market driven!  The topic is MPg not safety.  Start that thread and I'll happily join in.

And they have.  They (American car manufacturers) have designed poorly engineered vehicles, and built them to loose standards.  Now, don't take this to say that Americans can't build fine cars - because they can.  Honda, Toyota, etc. make GREAT cars with American workers on our own soil.  The upshot of all of this is that "the market" has been allowed to build lousy cars, and much like the 70s/80s, American manufacturers got trounced by Japanese competitors (as well as some ugly economic times).

Now, given the amount of subsidies that the "free market" companies begged the government for - I'm going to go out on a limb here... and say that it's not "free market" anymore.  Now, you want "free market" to decide how companies can operate, that's cool, but me?  I'm a fan of some safeguards for the public here and there.  Here's a GREAT example of what's happened over the last 100 years.  Another GREAT example is the infamous Ford Pinto - yes, that's right, they did a cost - benefits analysis to decide if it would cost them more to settle with the families of people that were going to DIE in their cars, or to do a recall.  That's "free market" in this country, always has been.  When you buy something from soneone in good faith, but they aren't dealing with you in the same manner - it's kind of hard to just go out and buy another car.  They're not inexpensive.

"Big safe cars" were NEVER safe until the government mandated it.  Car companies fought seat belts.  They fought air bags.  They fought the extra cost associated with designing crumple zones and reinforcing vehicles to withstand side impacts (t-bone).  Even over the last 20 years, cars have made HUGE advances in terms of safety.  I can attest to this first hand, having been driven into a guard rail on the freeway, getting flipped over, and grinding to a halt upside down.  I walked away with some bruises, and a sore back. 

 

[Brice Burrell]

..............Just think how much money you could save by using 1/3 of the fuel you are using now!

Don't worry by that time it will cost us 2/3 more to use 1/3 the fuel.  ;D

 

[Woodenfish]

And they have.  They (American car manufacturers) have designed poorly engineered vehicles, and built them to loose standards.  Now, don't take this to say that Americans can't build fine cars - because they can.  Honda, Toyota, etc. make GREAT cars with American workers on our own soil.  The upshot of all of this is that "the market" has been allowed to build lousy cars, and much like the 70s/80s, American manufacturers got trounced by Japanese competitors (as well as some ugly economic times).

Now, given the amount of subsidies that the "free market" companies begged the government for - I'm going to go out on a limb here... and say that it's not "free market" anymore.  Now, you want "free market" to decide how companies can operate, that's cool, but me?  I'm a fan of some safeguards for the public here and there.  Here's a GREAT example of what's happened over the last 100 years.  Another GREAT example is the infamous Ford Pinto - yes, that's right, they did a cost - benefits analysis to decide if it would cost them more to settle with the families of people that were going to DIE in their cars, or to do a recall.  That's "free market" in this country, always has been.  When you buy something from soneone in good faith, but they aren't dealing with you in the same manner - it's kind of hard to just go out and buy another car.  They're not inexpensive.

"Big safe cars" were NEVER safe until the government mandated it.  Car companies fought seat belts.  They fought air bags.  They fought the extra cost associated with designing crumple zones and reinforcing vehicles to withstand side impacts (t-bone).  Even over the last 20 years, cars have made HUGE advances in terms of safety.  I can attest to this first hand, having been driven into a guard rail on the freeway, getting flipped over, and grinding to a halt upside down.  I walked away with some bruises, and a sore back. 

Incredible!

When you buy something from soneone in good faith, but they aren't dealing with you in the same manner - it's kind of hard to just go out and buy another car.  They're not inexpensive.

Now that Obama has fired the CEO, has taken the car companies from the evil bond holders and gave control to the Union members and himself, things will be better and consumers will be lining up to buy!

 

[b_m_hart]

And they have.  They (American car manufacturers) have designed poorly engineered vehicles, and built them to loose standards.  Now, don't take this to say that Americans can't build fine cars - because they can.  Honda, Toyota, etc. make GREAT cars with American workers on our own soil.  The upshot of all of this is that "the market" has been allowed to build lousy cars, and much like the 70s/80s, American manufacturers got trounced by Japanese competitors (as well as some ugly economic times).

Now, given the amount of subsidies that the "free market" companies begged the government for - I'm going to go out on a limb here... and say that it's not "free market" anymore.  Now, you want "free market" to decide how companies can operate, that's cool, but me?  I'm a fan of some safeguards for the public here and there.  Here's a GREAT example of what's happened over the last 100 years.  Another GREAT example is the infamous Ford Pinto - yes, that's right, they did a cost - benefits analysis to decide if it would cost them more to settle with the families of people that were going to DIE in their cars, or to do a recall.  That's "free market" in this country, always has been.  When you buy something from soneone in good faith, but they aren't dealing with you in the same manner - it's kind of hard to just go out and buy another car.  They're not inexpensive.

"Big safe cars" were NEVER safe until the government mandated it.  Car companies fought seat belts.  They fought air bags.  They fought the extra cost associated with designing crumple zones and reinforcing vehicles to withstand side impacts (t-bone).  Even over the last 20 years, cars have made HUGE advances in terms of safety.  I can attest to this first hand, having been driven into a guard rail on the freeway, getting flipped over, and grinding to a halt upside down.  I walked away with some bruises, and a sore back. 

Incredible!

When you buy something from soneone in good faith, but they aren't dealing with you in the same manner - it's kind of hard to just go out and buy another car.  They're not inexpensive.

Now that Obama has fired the CEO, has taken the car companies from the evil bond holders and gave control to the Union members and himself, things will be better and consumers will be lining up to buy!

Incredible, indeed.  For example, in 1975, 1.327 trillion highway miles were driven, and there were 34,988 fatalities.  In 2001, there were 2.797 trillion highway miles driven, and there were 35,829 fatalities. 

That works out to roughly 37.94 million miles driven per fatality in 1975, compared to 78.07 million miles driven per fatality in 2001.  Now, given the vast improvement (I think we can all agree that fewer people dying while driving around is a good thing) and a nearly static death rate given a more than doubling of the amount of driving done, how do you explain the difference?  Are people twice as careful as they were in 1975?  I think that it's safe to say that vehicles in general are SUBSTANTIALLY safer in accidents these days.

Here are a couple of great examples of cars that are built in a "free market", unencumbered by such frivolous safety concerns: Chinese SUV crash test (sorry, don't speak french here, but you can get the idea of what's going on just by watching) and another and an old US car and an old Suburban - note the HIC (Head Impact Criteria) of 1477 for the driver, and 1175 for the passenger - when hitting a wall at 35 MPH - they're likely both dead.  Compare that to the 2009 Suburban crash test results.

Oh, of course folks are going to be lining up to buy the "great new cars" coming out of Detroit.  Sarcasm aside, it will take the "Big 3" (or what's left of them) are going to have to start engineering and building some dramatically better vehicles before folks start to line up and buy them.  (edit And on a side note, bond holders have no voting rights whatsoever in any company.  Bonds are a form of debt, not a form of equity.  Now, if those bonds are convertible, and are turned into shares of stock, that's different, but until they become stock, they're just debt obligations, nothing more, nothing less.  It's like saying that your bank has control over how you maintain and add on to / remodel your house.