35 MPG would be a fleetwide average, so traditional SUVs are still in the game provided manufacturers can develope / sell enough higher-efficiency vehicles to offset them. My sense, though, is that fuel costs will have a greater long-term bearing on the SUV market, paring it back to the relative niche status of the pre-'90s. The Suburban will again be a vehicle for serious towing rather than the grocery run.

The new legislation is a good thing, but in practical terms is a mixed blessing for Californians. Auto industry mandates allow the state to defer making difficult (and finally inevitable) political and economic decisions at home, where bad planning and conflicting interests are the crux of our environmental woes. The most efficient vehicle on Earth will still achieve zero MPG when gridlocked in mid-day traffic.

:neutral:

 

Right off I see a big problem with the bill.

It mandates an increase in MPG from the current average 25 mpg to 35 mpg. The problem lies in the fact that the bill also forces increased ethanol production. Unless an engine is designed to run ONLY on ethanol (or even E-85), the fuel efficiency drops wildly. If the automakers have to make vehicles that will run on gasoline AND E-85 (like the current crop of flex-fuel vehicles), efficiency will plummet on E-85. Just take a look at the EPA ratings for flex-fuel vehicles when running unleaded and when running E-85. You can check this at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectMake.jsp?year=2007

I sincerely hope that legislators accounted for this in the wording of the bill.

E-85 is actually a pretty good fuel...burns clean, and has a really high octane. But it has considerably less energy per gallon than gasoline, meaning that the amount of fuel used will go up. But it will allow for smaller engines that make more power (because high octane will allow high compression and high turbo/supercharger boost levels), and smaller engines will help with overall fuel efficiency. The biggest downside to E-85 is that corn is not the best choice for a fuel stock...it takes a LOT of water to grow corn (water that you would otherwise drink or shower with), and environmentalists are already forecasting problems in the Gulf of Mexico due to increased corn farming...it seems that corn farming tends to "leak" a lot of fertilizer that ends up as runoff that makes its way to the Gulf of Mexico...this fertilizer encourages the growth of algae, which in turn eats up LOADS of the oxygen in the water when it dies, which in turn kills off sea life and creates giant "dead zones" in the Gulf where no plant or animal life can live.

Again...I really hope that the legislators thought about some of this stuff before making a knee-jerk decision to increase fuel economy standards. I think increasing fuel economy of vehicles is a good thing, as long as it doesn't hurt the environment in the process.

 

Way back in the dark ages of 1978, I bought a new car that required leaded premium. Not long after, leaded gas was banned, and premium became ethanol "enhanced". I understand all the numbers, and the labs saying this and that re ethanol and higher octane, but in the real world, my carburetted non-computer car with a 10:5 to 1 compression ratio would diesel for days, and spark knock like a mf with the "higher" octane of ethanol. I ended up trading the car :-( These days, I take a "show me" attitude re octane numbers, and yes, I grew up in Lee's Summit,Missouri

 

One other thing came to mind....

The current fuel economy standards apply only to vehicles that are below a certain Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). This is why (for example) a Ford Expedition is subject to fuel economy standards, yet a Ford Expedition EL (the extended model) isn't. Same thing holds true for the half-ton full-size pickups vs. the 3/4 and 1-ton models.

The intent of this (as I understand it) was to protect vehicle manufacturers from being penalized for building heavy-duty work vehicles that used to be owned mostly by businesses. Now, the heavy-duty "work" vehicles are being bought by people to use as commuters back and forth to work, to tow the HUGE travel trailers being built, and many don't have anything to do with owning a business and using the vehicle for that business.

What the GVWR limit has led to is perhaps an intentional "porking up" of big trucks and SUVs to push them over the GVWR limit. Big pickups and SUVs give automakers large profits, so by building vehicles heavier than they need to be, automakers can sell high-profit (and low MPG) vehicles without taking any penaltes on the corporate average fuel economy.

I'm not suggesting that automakers are involved in a conspiracy to build inefficient vehicles. But what they are doing is taking advantage of a loophole in the existing law that enables them to make more money by selling large, heavy vehicles. I don't fault them for that...they are in business to make money, and there is nothing wrong with working the rules to your advantage, especially since the auto industry is hugely competitive.

I'm just curious if the GVWR loophole remains or if it has been closed in the new rules. If the loophole is still there, it would not surprise me at all to see more high-profit vehicles get heavier to meet the letter of the law. If the loophole is still there, can you imagine seeing Grandma Bluehair driving a 6500 pound Cadillac in 2020? :shock: :shock: :shock: "Get the kids off the streets! Granny's going to the grocery store and she's piloting her car that weighs as much as the house!"

 

What the GVWR limit has led to is perhaps an intentional "porking up" of big I'm just curious if the GVWR loophole remains or if it has been closed in the new rules. If the loophole is still there, it would not surprise me at all to see more high-profit vehicles get heavier to meet the letter of the law.

What I understood (haven't read the entire bill, of course) but, this "loophole" was supposed to be eliminated. That was one of the sticking points because, as you said, this has been something the automakers have enjoyed for so many years. I sincerely hope that's the case. It's really annoying when they advertise a car with "good gas mileage" as one that get 29-34 MPG highway. That PATHETIC for a 4 cylinder!!

They even advertise the E as having good fuel economy (and we all know how true that is!!!) :lol::lol::lol:

 

I agree that ethanol is a great substitute for gasonline in the small car market and the performance car market but I fear the environmental damage that will come with the increased corn farming. It seems that the red tide in the Gulf has been becoming a much more regular site and with more corn farming it can only increases its growth.

I would love to see Congress really make a step forward and legalize HEMP! That crop could solve many of our nations agricultural problems. Here in KY the tabacco farmers are selling off their farms because of the loss of profit and unpredictable weather patterns. To allow farmers to switch to a crop that could produce an abundance of fuel and textiles with very little input would be a god send to the American Family Farmer. I know that it won't happen anytime soon because too many people can't get over the "it looks like Pot" factor and are afraid kids will try and smoke it.

 

Lee's Summit?

Lee's Summit? Isn't that where guitarist Pat Methany is from?

I went to school at the University of Mo. at Rolla.

 

Lee's Summit? Isn't that where guitarist Pat Methany is from?

I went to school at the University of Mo. at Rolla.

yes indeedy!

 

Congress and the govt needs to stay out of the fuel mileage business. The previous CAFE laws from the 70's never worked. Let the amrketplace rule since it is hell of lot more efficient the govt regualtion. If folks want to buy more fuel efficient cars than the automakers will produce them and if not they wont sell any cars. The US is not Europe many folks need pick ups and SUVs for work and their hobbies and they cant afford to own multiple vehicles ie a hybrid for commuting and a SUv to haul thier digs to herding events.

And we dont need any new taxes on gas or carbon emissions to change behavior they dont work either.

And we dont need the Federal, state or local govts funding mass transit. Lets fix the roads first and then worry about mass transit and bike lanes.!

Fred

 

Ta Da!

http://www.nealo.com/blog/2007/12/21/farming-the-old-fashioned-way-dec-21-2007/

 

The US is not Europe...

...though there are regions which could benefit from European approaches to transportation regulation and planning. Not least is southern California, where traffic congestion wrings annual costs of $2 billion in lost productivity, nearly a billion gallons of wasted fuel and 90-plus hours of travel delays for the average driver. Add to that environmental (and related health care) costs, higher insurance premiums, damage to infrastructure, business relocations to neighboring states and an attendant loss of jobs / tax revenue, and you've a fiscal impact that most European governments would brand unacceptable.

Transportation studies have shown that each dollar invested in public transit yields an average $6 in regional economic growth and cost savings. Combine that dividend with cleaner skies and a better overall quality of life, and it's an investment I'm happy -- nay, eager -- to make.

 

i dont consider the E an SUV.

to SUVs, i say, axe em. they are damn near useless. drink gas, too big and heavy for real camping, annoying on the street, a mortal hazzard to everyone else on the street, and are whats making american automakers pathetic.

seriously, if they focused all the effort they put into the h2, expedition, and explorer, seriously, we'd have some bad-ass sports cars and sedans from them that can actually compete with toyotas. focus and fusion? bah!

i want station wagons, woodys, pickups, subies, and minivans to replace em accordingly.