White House Issues New Gas Mileage Standards 555
Hugh Pickens writes "NPR reports that the Obama administration has signed off on the nation's first rules on greenhouse gas emissions and set new fuel standards to meet a fleet-wide average of 35.5 mpg that will raise current standards by nearly 10 mpg by the 2016 model year. Although the new requirements would add an estimated $434 per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016, drivers could save as much as $3,000 over the life of a vehicle through better gas mileage, according to a government statement. 'We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air,' says Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Dave McCurdy, leader of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing 11 automakers, says the industry supports a single national standard for future vehicles. 'Today, the federal government has laid out a course of action through 2016, and now we need to work on 2017 and beyond.' As the auto industry seeks to emerge from ashes, many manufacturers already are trying for the right mix of approaches, experts say. Some will try to sell more hybrids. Others are introducing not-so-gas-guzzling SUVs. They may also push slightly downsized and small cars, such as the Ford Fiesta."
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
and? (Score:2, Insightful)
> Won't this just make people buy new cars less often?
and this is a bad thing... how?
Re:So what about trucks? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:and? (Score:3, Insightful)
>> Won't this just make people buy new cars less often?
> and this is a bad thing... how?
Considering that cars are one of the few products that are still manufactured in the US, I'd say it could be a bad thing. A country that thinks that it can survive on imports without making anything itself is going to get exactly what it deserves: bankrupcy.
Smaller engines would be a good start. (Score:4, Insightful)
They may also push slightly downsized and small cars, such as the Ford Fiesta.
I've been to America several times and there are a few things that prevent this happening. First of all the Fiesta is far too small for your average American consumeer. These cars sell massively here in Ireland but they just won't work in America because you'll hear all of the horror stories about how they're not safe because they're small. Realistically the average weight and size of your average American citizen is a lot more too.
The problem is that I saw the VW Golf (you call it Rabbit now) all over the place in San Francisco, LA and Vegas. That sounds great except I only saw them in two sizes: 1.8l and 2.5l engines. You look at that same car in Europe and they sell better at the 1.4-1.8l range. What's the point in going to a smaller car if the engine is still big? I can only imagine if the Fiesta was to be pushed it'd have a 1.6l engine anyway.
Much in the same way that I think the Hybrid market was mostly lip service I think this isn't enough either. If you need a powerful car get one, if you don't then just get an economical one. Even with hybrids, it'd have made just as much sense for your averager American to switch to a 1.5l car to begin with because all of the cars out there are already overpowered or desperately inefficient - they're all automatic for a start! Just imagine the savings if every American switched down 30% in their engine size, more if your average Joe forget about his oversized petrol powered SUV and drove a modest saloon.
Let me put this another way; I look forward to electric or decent hybrid cars at a minimum. In the meantime I drive a SEAT Leon which is a badge-engineered VW Golf. I drive the 1.9TDI variant and on one 55l tank of diesel I drive 900-1050Km (550-650 miles roughly). I know that's diesel rather than petrol but the point is efficiency and it puts out the same horsepower as a 1.6l engine which would get you a good 450 miles plus per tank.
Forget the massive forced changes which will be rejected by the public - just start by reducing engine displacement and increasing efficiency. And hey, would it kill you to write the engine size on the back of your car like we do in Europe...awareness is half the battle!
Re:More deaths (Score:5, Insightful)
For survivability you don't want "sturdyness", you want the car to be crumply. The crumpling absorbs the crash energy so the occupants don't. Lighter cars also means lower crash energies. Lighter cars are less likely to crash in the first place owing to better handling and manuverablilty.
Some things not noticed - electric and size (Score:4, Insightful)
If you read through it, you'll notice they allow all-electric cars to count as zero-emission vehicles, when in actual practice, the emissions depend on where you get the energy from.
So, each manufacturer gets an allotment with a cap for any electric cars they churn out.
But someone in a state which makes electricity from coal - like Wisconsin - creates more emissions pollution using the same all-electric Chevy Volt car than someone in a state using hydroelectric, nuclear fission, solar, wind, and tidal like Washington State.
In Seattle, our utility is carbon-neutral - no emissions. In Madison it's carbon-heavy - coal.
Another thing to notice is that the mpg requirements vary based on the footprint of the vehicle.
So if you made a very thin batmobile you could get sucky mileage and be "better" than a car with twice the mpg that has a small footprint like a Smart Car.
Of course, none of this will prevent somebody installing an industrial electric turbine in their batmobile to go 0 to 60 in 0.9 seconds - cause all-electric dragsters outrace even the best gasoline or diesel vehicle. Unless you use jet fuel.
Re:No bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultra-Lightweight cars were attempted before.
You crash, you die.
No, not at all. Indy cars, for example, are vastly lighter than any standard American cars, and they crash at extremely high speeds with very few fatalities, and often without even injuries to the driver. Lightweight cars can be made quite safe. If I were designing cars from a safety point of view alone, I'd go with styrofoam as the main structural element. You crash it-- well, go and spend the ten bucks and buy a new shell to replace the one you broke.
The problem is that vastly overweight cars are dangerous to other cars on the road. To the extent that fuel economy makes all the cars on the road lighter, it doesn't hurt safety, and likely improves it.
Re:Social engineering is evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, probably it it's the best we can do (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuel economy standards are actually a stupid way to reduce petroleum usage. A far more effective way to do this would be to put a hefty tax on gasoline, and then the market can decide what the optimum trade is for fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, tax is such an incredibly dirty word in politics that this is just flat out impossible; anybody trying to do such a thing would not merely be voted out of office, they'd very likely be lynched.
Re:More deaths (Score:5, Insightful)
Until those who are driving around overweight behemoths are made to pay for their huge negative externalities. E.g. with mandatory sentences for manslaughter every time they bump into a smaller car and kill someone, increased taxes, etc. It's hardly fair that those who do the responsible thing are penalized.
Re:Smaller engines would be a good start. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're exactly correct. A huge reason why Americans aren't seeing much better gas mileage now versus 30 years ago isn't due to a lack of progress in engine technology. It's due to ever-increasing horsepower. If our parents and grandparents could get by with less engine displacement but even heavier cars why can't we?
Re:No bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod This up! I have a hard time looking at the stats on new cars and see nothing but HP improvements, not MPG improvements. For example, I had a '89 Mustang GT with 225 HP, and it was fast enough to be dangerous. I could shift out of 2nd gear at 75 mpg, and spin the tires in 3 gears. It got (for the time) decent mileage, namely 18 in the city, close to 25 on the highway. Fast forward 20 years, and the new mustangs get THE SAME MILEAGE, but have 300+ horsepower. The government can mandate all they want, but until people's attitudes change, horsepower sells more cars than MPG.
Re:Smaller engines would be a good start. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we come to the heart of the matter.
America is about consumption. Whether it's oil, food, bling or large-screen TVs, we are taught from childhood to buy, to use, to waste. Everything has to be supersized and extra sauce on the side and there is no such thing as "enough". In fact, continuous and endless consumption is institutionalized here to the point where our very economic existence depends on it. When people stop buying for a few months, things start to fall apart and our economy is like a cancer patient, sucking smoke through their tracheotomy hole. It's just not in our social vocabulary to economical or for that matter, rational.
It wasn't always so. Ben Franklin and Henry David Thoreau very eloquently expressed a thriftiness that was uniquely American. It went hand in hand with self-reliance. When I see the over-fed, demanding, soft, food-stamp using Americans of 2010 who are claiming to champion a return to "every man for himself", I wonder how long they would last if any one of them were to actually be expected to pull their own not inconsiderable weight.
No. Americans aren't going to like the new fuel-efficiency standards, because they believe the world owes them whatever amount of fuel it will take to power their personal locomotives down the federally-funded highway, so they can waddle into the all-you-can-eat buffet. Like one of the porcine princesses we see on television, telling Maury Povich how she's going to "do what I want!" we're not going to even consider being more efficient with fuel until we suffer a shock to the system. They're not going to slow down slurping down the Colonel's Special Gravy until they get that massive cardiac arrest and they need a pair of high-voltage paddles to the chest.
And maybe not even then.
Re:Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
FWIW Ford is becoming quite competitive once again in the US as well. The 2010 Fusion has won numerous awards and is favorably reviewed against its peers. Quality ratings are consistently rising and are now as good as or better than their Japanese competitors. The new line of "ecoboost" turbo engines, finally replacing the trash version of the Focus with the superb model available in Europe, the introduction of the new Fiesta - all of these things are conspiring to resurrect Ford's passenger car line and sales are rising to match.
Alan Mulaly has done great things for that company and I hope he continues.
Nope (Score:3, Insightful)
They do. They crumpled. Now what? That truck is still moving into the passenger compartment at 75 miles per hour.
Incorrect. The crumple zones absorb the energy from the truck so that the passengers don't have to... the truck is not still going 75 mph. The chance of surviving a high speed head on collision is still pretty low... it's not magic. But there's no question today's crumpling designs are far safer than old cars with separate frames.
Extra stiffness from something like a roll cage only works well if you are securely fastened down with a 5 or 6 point harness and are wearing a helmet... that's the safest way to go and how it's done in race cars, but we don't really wish to sacrifice so much convinence for that level of safety on the street.
Re:and? (Score:3, Insightful)
Finding ways to push more cars out, as a way to fight hypothetical downfall of the industry caused by people restraining from buying new cars, is pretty close to broken window fallacy...
I'm driving an 11 year old car. It's in great condition, comfortable, reliable, safe, gets good gas mileage...why should I replace it?
Re:and? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Social engineering is evil (Score:1, Insightful)
Hello, just saw your post. I checked your link, and I'd (genuinely) like more info. Calling it "pollution" is far too simplistic, don't you think? Basically, I'm just wondering if you have more info on this, such as some kind of emissions breakdown (what substances are released, masses, etc.) Because saying 16 ships pollute more than all the cars in the world doesn't really tell me much. More sulfur, I guess? What about everything else?
Not trolling, I just want more info. Because all I see tossed around is blah pollutes more than blah, and that's the end of that.
"Do the fractions, factor in things like coal power plants (instead of nuclear) and put cars in perspective. The math should make priorities clear, even if those priorities are politically taboo."
Oh yes, I agree. But what is the math? Where can I see some numbers? I don't doubt it, but I want to see some numbers, too.
And just saying this one more time to be extra careful. I suppose I don't need to; your responses seem quite level-headed, so I don't think you'll explode at me =) but I just want a little more info, and I'm just hopeful you know where I can get it.
Re:Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
idiot...
Re:and? (Score:3, Insightful)
What, and you think failing to keep up with the rest of the world in MPG standards would help American cars' competitiveness?! We already can't sell half the shit the Formerly-Big Three make in (for example) China, because we fail to meet Chinese standards!
This is a typical government trick. (Score:5, Insightful)
You've been taken by the oldest ploy in politics. They are telling you "these regulations aren't for you, but are for someone else". All government regulations are for you. The government is only capable of passing regulations on people and the burden of any government action will ultimately fall on your shoulders.
Think about it this way, will these new regulations affect your ability to buy the car of your choosing? Yes, it will because manufacturers will need to balance the number of low mileage vehicles they sell with the number of high mileage vehicles to maintain an average that meets the regulations. That means they will change their line-up and may charge higher prices to dissuade customers from buying the lower mileage vehicles. Ultimately, that means that low mileage vehicles will either not be offered, or will be offered at a price that some will not be able to afford.
Does this bother manufacturers? You bet, because the resulting line-up will be less appealing, and that means fewer sales. Should you be bothered as well? Most certainly absolutely yes! You may no longer be able to buy/afford a vehicle that meets your needs once these regulations take effect.
Re:More deaths (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideally hard and you go right through the obstacle, feeling nothing
Only if the obstacle is made of marshmallow fluff. If it is made of a similar material, the collision energy is dissipated by the squishiest object involved in the collision - the human.
Lighter = less momentum, sure, but it also means less control.
Clearly the Lotus Elise is the apotheosis of the ungainly clunker, unable to turn any corner at more than 20 mph.
Better handling is subjective, and I vastly prefer the feel of a heavier vehicle.
You clearly have never driven a light car, or suffer from terminal confirmation bias. Better handling can be defined by at least one absolute number (lateral g-force it can hold) and one relative number (exit speed from a corner).
Finally, stability is related to where the center of gravity is located, not with absolute weight. And most heavy cars on the road today are SUVs, which are terminally top-heavy.
Sheesh. I expect that any moment now you're going to tell me that 4-wheel drive helps in stopping distance.
Impact Absorption of Carbon Fiber Structures (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree strongly with the parent. Light weight carbon fiber cars can have extremely high crash safety if they are engineered intelligently. Indeed, my suspicion is that they can be more safe than steel cars. It is all a matter of engineering structures that will efficiently absorb shocks. I can imagine structures that would have carbon fiber parts that would come under tension in impact situations, and would fail in a cascading fashion throughout an impact event, thus absorbing and perhaps isolating the shock from a crash. I suspect that the crash behavior of carbon fiber cars could be "fine tuned" far more than steel structures. We can see the potential safety of carbon fiber structures carried out in Formula 1 race cars, that absorb crash impacts that are at least an order of magnitude more severe than anything a regular driver would ever experience.
Bottom Line (Score:1, Insightful)
We don't need a bunch of fucking assholes in Washington telling us what to drive.
Re:Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that the Ford Focus sells for (starting at) nearly $30,000 USD in Europe. That's why Ford can afford to put in extra quality into the European Focus - I've driven one before and they're very nice.
No American would buy one at that price. They'd expect almost an entry-level luxury car (i.e. BMW 3-series) at that price range. In America, the Ford Focus sells for around $15,000. The barebones model with manual, roll-up windows, no power locks, etc. will be under $12,000.
Re:and? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we're in the shitter because our constitution grants a minority party [prospect.org] veto power over the majority of people who want government to work and actually accomplish things. Raise taxes on the very wealthy, lower taxes for average people, reduce sales tax, give more funding to K-12 and higher education, improve the health care system's quality and availability, fix our crumbling infrastructure; these are all things that the majority of Californians want, but our nearsighted attempts at expanding democracy (ballot initiatives and requiring super majorities to accomplish basic tasks) have paralyzed our government.
The money is there, we could balance the budget tomorrow, but a handful of Republicans who hate the government, hate taxes, and hate the middle class are perpetuating the crisis while at the same time running on a platform that claims government doesn't work. So guess what they make sure happens when they get into office; they make sure government doesn't work, just like they say it doesn't.
Re:Well, probably it it's the best we can do (Score:3, Insightful)
Do not forget the Law of Unintended Consequences. When you raise taxes on gasoline, you also raise prices on food and every other good that needs to be transported, which includes just about everything. The US is flat-out large and even though we try to do large-scale transportation for goods (such as trains and river shipping where applicable), everything comes down to trucks in the end.
Yes, they're diesel. You think that not taxing diesel would work when there's a heavy tax on gasoline?
Re:_AND_ it will get 50mpg on ICE (Score:2, Insightful)
60mpg makes the Toyota Prius look stupid. Not that diesel engines are all that clean, but these 60mpg diesels are a lot bigger than a Prius. And they probably won't drive themselves into a wall either.
Re:and? (Score:5, Insightful)
The income gap is frightening, and it's getting worse. The most disturbing trend is that most of those people made their fortunes by simply manipulating money in creative and novel ways, finding new schemes and techniques to move funds around in different ways for a profit. They produce nothing of value, contribute nothing to society, and are actually actively working to make the world a worse place for the majority of the population. The perpetuate debt-slavery, kick people out of their homes, and ship jobs overseas all in the name of short term profits. The free market breaks down when there is no regulation because people cannot and will not consider long term stability and sustainability over short term pleasure and gains. It's a flaw of humanity, but it IS one that we can overcome--and we must to survive.
The majority of what happens on Wall Street should be illegal. It's not only unproductive, it's harmful, it's toxic, it kills and drives millions into poverty and wage-slavery to perpetuate a system that benefits 1% of the population at the expense of everyone else. When the 99% wake up and realize they are getting a raw deal, then we'll see real change but right now too many people are convinced of the lie that if they work hard enough and sacrifice more and more that some day they will be part of that 1%.
When they realize the American Dream they've been sold is a lie, that the top 1% have created a system that ensures they'll never get ahead, then we'll see real change.
And not soon enough will it come.
Re:Smaller engines would be a good start. (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember several years ago seeing an ad for an oil company, where the whole ad was talking about clean energy and the environment and all that. At first I thought, "Cool, I'm glad they're doing something positive." Then a while later I read an article which pointed out that such ad campaigns were of course feel-good nonsense, and the oil companies were acting just the same as before. I felt like an idiot, and that was a big wake-up call to me. I'm not dumb by any means, but I had just been accustomed to the normative view that advertising is at least MOSTLY true, right? I mean, they can't outright lie, right?
Yeah, now I know better.
Re:and? (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you possibly get any more things wrong in one post? Please tell us that the Sun rotates around the Earth and that the Earth is flat and at least we'll know that you are completely insane. Please do yourself and the rest of us a favor and don't ever speak again.
Re:Well, probably it it's the best we can do (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's actually a very important protection here.
In some countries, it wouldn't be so important, but those countries all have multiple viable parties. The US is naturally a de facto two-party system, because our demographics just work out that way. (The list of political parties has changed several times in our history, most often because one of the parties split in half, but it never takes more than a couple of elections before we're back to having exactly two relevant parties. The others fade into obscurity very quickly. This is not a coincidence.)
When you only have two parties, you generally have one party that's a majority all by itself. That would be very dangerous if the minority party didn't have any ability to hold them back.