U.S. Raises Standards on Mileage /// (but don't feel too good about it)

[lindisfarne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/business/30fuel.html?pagewanted=print

But the overall fuel savings, 8.1 percent when the rule is fully phased in, were characterized as too modest by many conservation advocates, who also noted that the biggest pick-up trucks will still be unregulated. Remarks by auto manufacturers were restrained.
snip
The rule covers "light trucks" in the model years from 2008 to 2011. The current rules cover vehicles weighing up to 8,500 pounds. But the new one will cover S.U.V.'s that weigh up to 10,000 pounds. That includes the heavier variants of the Chevy Suburban and the Hummer H2. (The H1 is over 10,000 pounds and still exempt.)
snip
The rule will save 10.7 billion gallons of fuel over the lifetime of the vehicles in those model years, the department estimated. Currently, the United States uses that much gasoline in less than a month.

snip
Transportation officials estimated that the rule would cost vehicle manufacturers about $6.7 billion, a big number even by the standards of federal rule-making, and would add about $200 to the cost of the average vehicle. But owners would save that much within four years, officials said, based on a fuel price of $2 a gallon at the beginning of the period, rising to $2.39 over the vehicle's lifetime. In fact, average gasoline prices are already slightly above the second figurThe standard is 21.6 miles a gallon for the current model year; it would rise to about 24 miles a gallon in 2011, the last year of the rule, but it would be calculated differently. The new rule sets a fuel economy standard based on the vehicle's "footprint," or how far apart the wheels are. Actual fuel economy will depend on the mix of vehicles sold. The smallest S.U.V.'s, like the Suzuki Grand Vitara and the Jeep Wrangler, would have to meet a standard of 28.6 miles per gallon. The car standard is 27.5 miles per gallon.

[mduffy31]

1. I don't understand why they fight it.

There is a reason that GM has been losing billions of dollars. A lot of people can no longer afford to drive SUV's. You would think that they would increase the mileage on their own and not have to depend on the government to mandate it. What is really needed is the Japanese to once again out engineer Detroit and force them the build better cars.

[lindisfarne]

2. My answer is that GM board members have lots of oil stock. That's

the only answer that makes sense - I've wondered the same thing myself. (or perhaps they're board members of oil companies).

[brmdp3123]

3. People only care about gas mileage

when there is a big spike in prices. Once the price stabilizes and everyone gets used to the new prices, horsepower is what matters.

[OhioNerd]

4. In all fairness...

In all fairness, there's no point in being too bummed out because vehicles over 10,000lbs are still exempt. Unless of course you don't really understand how big that is.

The Hummer H1 is over 10k and therefore exempt? So what? It's a commercial vehicle favored by armies, forest service agencies and the like. Sure there are a few being used for promotional/advertising purposes and another few being used by overpaid hollywood actors, but that's the exception that proves the rule. Besides which, if you removed every non-military H1's from the road, you'd be hard pressed to show a reduction in fuel consumption without going to a really ridiculous amount of decimal places.

What else is exempt? Probably Chassis/Cab vehicles. I used to own one. It was a big Chevy pickup truck with a Reading utility bed. That's the big boxy thing with all the doors on it and a ladder rack up top. That thing only weighed 6500lbs.

My central point is that 10,000lbs is a LOT of weight, and you'd have to have a truly enormous and most likely special purpose vehicle to exceed it. In other words, NOT the "Soccer Mom" type of SUVs, that generally weigh in at less than half of that. In other words, the glass is NOT half-empty.

[lindisfarne]

5. I was bummed out about the fuel economy increase being only

8.1 % over years!

[OhioNerd]

6. Well think about it.

You can't just wave a magic wand over an engine and lower it's Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. The more you try to do, the more you run into the Law of Diminishing Returns. There really isn't a 200mpg carburetor sitting on a shelf in a back room somewhere in Detroit or a special program that you could load in your car's computer to suddenly cut your fuel consumption in half.

[lindisfarne]

9. The Union of Concerned Scientists (and others) have shown that

existing, off-the-shelf parts can increase SUV fuel economy by 30-50%, with only a small increase in cost (which is quickly recovered in fuel savings). No magic wand required. :party:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/building_a_better_suv_web_exsum.pdf

The average fuel economy of cars in Europe is much higher than it is in the US.

[OhioNerd]

10. I'm sorry, that's just flat out nonsense,

Existing, off-the-shelf parts that will increase fuel economy by 30-50 percent?
Yeah, maybe if you take away a Chevy Suburban and substitute a Subaru Forester.

If you can take ANY vehicle and using ANY parts, reduce THAT vehicle's fuel consumption by 30-50%, I'll kiss your hind end in the town square and GIVE you a half hour to draw a crowd first. :D


Seriously...
I'm not trying to bust your chops. I would LOVE to see dramatic increases in mileage, for very simple and selfish reasons. But that article you linked to is very misleading.
For instance, they talk about a BLUEPRINT for a vehicle. They didn't build it, they just thought it up.
In automotive circles that's called "bench racing", which is a polite euphamism for horse***.
I'm not even going to get INTO the cost figures that they pulled out of thin air.

The problem is, they think up these groovy ideas and people like you, who WANT to believe in it, get sucked in. It's like in the Dilbert cartoon where the pointy-haired boss comes up with these amazing ideas and then expects Dilbert to just build them, laws of physics be damned.

It is a HUGE deal to increase fuel economy of a given vehicle by even a few percentage points and until someone replaces the Otto cycle internal combustion engine with something radically better then that's just how it's going to be.

[One_Life_To_Give]

7. Actually Full size Pickups will be doing well

Getting a 3/4 ton pickup to give 21MPG isn't all that bad. Concidering that in the 80's these vehicals only got 8-10mpg and as recent as 2000 most had trouble breaking 15mpg on the highway.

What remains to be seen is will consumers buy the fuel efficent trucks or opt for diesels and unregulated duallies.

[phantom power]

8. It seems to me that events have overtaken the usefulness of CAFE.

The tripling of oil prices over the last few years, combined with the softening economy, will make SUVs and other lower-mileage cars uneconomical for most people, unless they have some specific need for one. People are going to start buying smaller cars, and/or driving less, if they can.

The concept of more agressive CAFE standards would have been useful 10 or 20 years ago, in a "plan for the future" kind of way. Bu that future has now arrived. With a bullet.