Automakers Embrace Tough New 54.5-MPG Standard

[ej510]

Source: Edmunds Inside Line

WASHINGTON — In an amazing about-face, major automakers stood shoulder-to-shoulder with President Obama on Friday as he proposed tough new fuel economy standards that will require a 54.5-miles-per-gallon corporate average by 2025, up from the current 27.5 mpg.

It is the largest increase in mileage requirements since the government began regulating vehicle fuel economy in the 1970s. Just four years ago, the Detroit automakers were so enraged about higher fuel-economy standards that executives camped out in Washington in an attempt to defeat them. Initially, the Obama White House aimed at a more ambitious target of 62 mpg by 2025.

"Gas prices have just been killing folks at the pump," Obama said. "It (the new standards) means filling up your car every two weeks instead of every week. It will save a typical family more than $8,000 in fuel costs over time."

The Detroit Three's meek acceptance of the new standards follows a federal bail-out of Chrysler and General Motors at the height of the Great Recession. Without mentioning that specifically, Obama noted that the U.S. auto industry is just emerging from a "difficult time." But it may explain the docility of auto executives in accepting the strict new rules.

Read more: http://www.insideline.com/nissan/leaf/2011/automakers-embrace-tough-new-545-mpg-standard.html

[TygrBright]

1. "Meek acceptance?" They're frackin' THRILLED!

They're hoping this means more sales as people shift from expensive gas guzzlers to newer models. And they know darn well little incremental improvements aren't going to provide enough incentive for people in a shitty economy to give up a car that works okay. There's going to have to be SERIOUS savings to persuade rapidly-impoverishing peasants to invest in new buggies.

This way they not only protect sales, they can pretend they're all, like, "green" and everything. They get to wear white hats while improving their own bottom line (and bonuses!)

cynically,
Bright

[Cant trust em]

4. What's wrong with them making more sales out of this? nt

[Wait Wut]

11. And, providing jobs.

There's obviously something evil going on here.

[aquart]

6. Yup. Everybody gotta buy a new car.

[ChrisBorg]

7. You have to trade in that new car you got for your cash for clunkers

sometime.

I will just have to wait until they get 100mph and keep driving my beater.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. I am a platinum-irridium cynic myself

but I see it this way:

Somebody sat some Detroit people down and explained all of the reasons you stated above to the little greed-mongers and finally they twigged that it was in their best interest to DO THE RIGHT THING, since it would be PROFITABLE.

Somewhere in those little dim executive brains a tiny light appeared.

I take my victories where I can get them.

[quakerboy]

14. Just as cynical, but you are only part right

Key words: by 2025

They get all the benefits you mentioned, if they decide to actually upgrade their milage requirements.

But if they get a few years out, and they don't feel like it anymore, What are the chances that their agreement with Obama will hold up after he is out of office. Especially if any of the presidents between now and then are R?

[blueclown]

2. Bye-bye, SUVs.

[ChrisBorg]

10. Not yet...

As part of the agreement, regulators agreed to a review of the costs and progress of achieving the goals before some of its toughest conditions on pickup trucks and SUVs take effect.

[Kolesar]

16. Hybrid trucks only get about 22mpg city. I don't know how a vehicle that can haul 10,000lbs ...

...could even meet 40 mpg.

There *is* an application for vehicles that can tow 10,000 pounds. Like towing equipment to your neighborhood for construction. Not everybody who buys a pickup truck is buying it for appearance.

[Firebrand Gary]

3. Ugh, what happened to the 62 MPG?

[Ter]

19. It's called compromise

Republicans should try it too. :)

[madrchsod]

5. they`ll have to take trucks out of the formula.

automobiles will easily meet the 54.5 mpg. trucks should be a separate category.

[ChrisBorg]

9. They did....

As part of the agreement, regulators agreed to a review of the costs and progress of achieving the goals before some of its toughest conditions on pickup trucks and SUVs take effect.

[madrchsod]

17. thanks

[FreeBillClinton]

8. 2025? I'm sure they'll find a way to get rid of these rules by then.

[sylveste]

18. hopefully

i don't think i'd want a car that gets 54mpg,be like driving a golf cart.

[left on green only]

20. Maybe, maybe not

My 2003, Jetta, Wagon, TDI, is EPA rated at 50MPG. The most I have ever consistently achieved from it is 52MPG, but that was driving at the legal fwy speed limit (which is 65 MPH here in Cali). It can also easily cruise at 100 MPH, albeit at increased fuel/mileage consumption. You see, it is a German car that was designed and manufactured in Germany, where speed laws are different, and many people do cruise at 100 MPH. I have never timed it, but I would estimate that zero to sixty is about 7 seconds. But my point is that it is far from being akin to a golf cart; and with the rear seats folded down, its' documented cargo carrying capacity rivals that of many SUV's that also have their seats folded down. But perhaps the best part is that standard equipment *does not* include 300 lbs of expensive, exploding batteries that require replacement at given intervals. Which also means that it does not ever need to be plugged in to a source of electricity.

The newer models have slightly larger engines which equate to better performance in the zero to sixty category, but they also do not achieve quite the same fuel mileage.

This is not rocket science, and these cars have been available since 2002. All a person has to be willing to do is take an educated look at what is actually out there, rather than becoming swayed by all of the crap that is advertised in the media. It seems that "Dieter" was correct all along.

[Selatius]

23. Lmao, your grasp of technology is feeble if you say things like that.

As of now, you can buy a full-size Ford Fusion hybrid that will get you 41mpg in city driving.

[sylveste]

25. lmao

a ford fusion? yeah thats a fucking rocketship. too funny.

[Selatius]

27. Oh, so you wanna move the goalposts? You didn't mention performance.

At first, I understood your previous post to mean driving an awful looking vehicle (a golf cart), and I mentioned a full-size sedan that doesn't look like such a thing but like any ordinary car, but since you mentioned "rocketship," I can only assume you mean a high-tuned performance machine. What, you want an all-electric Tesla Roadster if you talking about performance if you talking about moving goalposts? A car that goes from 0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds?

[sylveste]

26. lmao

a hybrid ford fusion, yeah thats a fucking rocketship. too funny.

[Kennah]

24. 41 EPA = 56.2 CAFE

The differences between CAFE MPG and EPA MPG are very significant and often misunderstood. To some extent, it is understandable.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/06/white-house-floats-562-mpg-cafe-plan-for-2025.html

"In effect, a 56.2-mpg CAFE standard equates to an EPA rating of 41 miles per gallon in combined highway and city driving. The 2016 CAFE standard of 35.5 mpg equals about 27 miles per gallon in the EPA ratings and a 62 mpg standard would equate to a combined 44 mpg on window stickers."

Using the same EPA to CAFE ratio, 54.5 CAFE should equate to 39.8 EPA in combined driving mileage.

Selatius mentioned the Ford Fusion hybrid. 41 MPG city, 36 MPG highway, 39 MPG combined. And that's today, right now.

This means the Ford Fusion hybrid, a full sized car, is only 0.8 MPG shy of the 2025 standard, today, right now. And, since CAFE is a fleet average, that means there could be less efficient pigs so long as there are more fuel efficient cars sold.

A 50 MPG (EPA) Prius equates to 68.5 MPG (CAFE). And again, that is today.

When you toss plugins into the mix, which might hit triple digit fuel efficiency, if anything this standard is too little too far in the future. The Chevy Volt has an EPA MPG-e rating of 93 MPG in combined driving.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Should be much sooner.

The technology for passenger cars with 50-60mpg is here now. 14 years from now this is going to look pathetic.

[Morizovich]

15. Of course they do!

By the time it's actually implemented, we shall all have eaten each other!

[and-justice-for-all]

21. It should not be to hard, they did it in the early 80s....

and with that, cars today should be getting almost 100mpg. Automakers should be held to a far higher mpg requirement, including EVs

I would also change that 2025 date to 2015.

[grahamhgreen]

22. Not bad! Hopefully they'll be obsolete by then.