Auto Mileage Standards Raised to 35 mpg 746
Ponca City, We Love You writes "The Senate just passed a bill that will increase auto mileage standards for the first time in three decades. The auto industry's fleet of new cars, sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and vans will have to average 35 mpg by 2020, a significant increase over the 2008 requirement of 27.5 mpg average. For consumers, the legislation will mean that over the next dozen years auto companies will likely build more diesel-powered SUVs and gas-electric hybrid cars as well as vehicles that can run on 85 percent ethanol. Automakers had vehemently opposed legislation in June that contained the same mileage requirements and Fortune magazine reported that American automakers were starting the miles-per-gallon race far behind Japan and that the new standards could doom US automakers. At the time, Chrysler officially put the cost of meeting the proposed rules at $6,700 per vehicle. The White House announced the President will sign the bill if it comes to his desk."
It's about damn time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nutating motors need very complex seals. They provide high power to weight ratios, but suffer from similar surface area to volume ratio problems as gerotors, so causing high emissions and low efficiency.
I see no evidence that the traditional piston and crankshaft, poppet valve, type of mechanism is going to be replaced by a new IC engine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They get around the seal issue by not having one. By making the rotors with tight tolerances, and by using the Brayton cycle rather than the Otto cycle, thus allowing lower compression ratios, they reduce leakage to a negligible level with no seals to deal with. I've got my eye on this company for the next few years. As for nutating engines, the seal issue probably will get the best of them, but it's still a neat concept that may see limited use.
Gas is too cheap! (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to improve efficiency is market forces. Once gas is expensive enough to be a real consideration when buying a vehicle, people might actually see past the marketing hype and realize they don't need that huge StupidUglyVehicle after all.
Yes, gas got expensive enough to get people to complain. But for most families it's still less than their cable bill. Clearly not something that would change habits.
Another major component in reducing fuel consumption or CO2 emissions is modifying our behavior: number of trips, distances traveled, and god help us car-pools and public transport. Raising the mileage standard does nothing on any of these fronts. Increasing gas prices gives a strong incentive to reduce consumption in any way possible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Holy shit! How much do these people pay for cable?!
I'm single and I drive an economy car. Up until last month, I'd been doing a typical Atlanta commute (Gwinnett County to downtown via I-85; about 30 miles or 45 minutes -- yes, this is typical for Atlanta). I was spending at least $150/month for gas alone, which is larger than any sane cable bill by itself. An actual family, with at least one member doing about the same commute but in a 15mpg SUV
Wolf! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, while 35MPG sounds good the bill is little more than a whitewash, with a loophole large enough to drive an SUV through. Apparently once again the 35MPG is a "fleet" standard, so not every vehicle has to meet it as long as the fleet as a whole does.
Worse, vehicles get a 50% milage "credit" if they're ethanol-friendly. Add $50 or so worth of corrosion-resistant fittings and seals to that Chevy Subdivision so it can burn E85, and bingo: that 20MPG land bruiser now gets 30MPG in the eyes of the bill, raising fleet averages considerably.
And which in passing gives yet another sop to the corn/ethanol industry.
Did you honestly think they'd pass a bill that managed to do something positive?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's very difficult to get some vehicles to that level. While the muscle cars are slowly moving up and will probably reach that mark (and probably well short of 2020), large trucks and SUVs have a lot of mass to move, and there's a legitimate market niche for them. If the company comes up with a couple of vehicles that exceed 50mpg, are you not willing to grant them any concessio
Re:Wolf! (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally would have liked to have seen 50MPG by 2020 for cars, and 30MPG for trucks (and an SUV is NOT a truck).
Or are you saying that given 12 years of R&D those numbers are impossible to hit?
35MPG on a fleet-wide scale by 2020? That puts the bar too low to be a meaningful target.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wolf! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a loophole. That's an intelligent, effective solution. In order to meet the standards, car companies can either improve all cars to X MPG (very expensive) or subsidise high-MPG vehicles, thus allowing people to get large vehicles if they really want and making it easier for low-income people to get fuel-efficient vehicles. Both solutions have the same effect on emissions, yet the latter does so without taking away people's freedom to drive a ridiculously massive SUV and with the added bonus of rewarding people for buying fuel-efficient vehicles.
I do think the E85 part should be removed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as the MPG, my Honda FRV (diesel) which is a big 6 seater (it still does 0-60 in 9s) does 50+ in summer and 40 winter. My wife's car which is a 2003 Daihatsu Siron once again hits 0-60 in sub-9s and does 52 MPG in the summer (if you do not drive in a binary manner). So frankly 35 MPG is a joke. Any self-res
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's about damn time (Score:4, Informative)
From their October 2007 report:
Re:Here is what is going to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
*Sigh*.
Guess it is time to buy another Corvette in the near future...while they still MAKE a fun, high powered sports car.
Why doesn't the govt. try a different route, rather than dictating what car companies have to do....why not give them tax breaks and incentive, to build more efficient and alternative fuel cars? Then, let the market sort things out.
I mean, with gas prices now....people, at least the poorer ones, are gonna start shedding those SUV's pretty soon anyway. This is another area we don't need the govt. involved in. By the way, what constitutional power enumerates the govt. regulating private businesses like this? I forget.....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Spot on. Every single piece of German equipment I have bought in the last 8 years has arrived with a factory defect and/or broke down within the next year after the warranty expired. For example the German washing machine was marked with a crayon on the side that it is defective and needs to be returned to the factory line and it was shipped none the less. Cars are the same. I used to have an Astra and it was the same story. German cars (and especially th
Re:It's about damn time (Score:5, Insightful)
Radically changing engines or drive trains or anything else would mean expensive retooling and redesign and research, all things that tend to impact next quarter's profits. The Japanese, on the other hand, seem to actually have been paying attention to events outside of the NY Stock Exchange, and spent considerable time and effort on technologies like the hybrid and in making their existing models even more efficient.
The result? Once again the Japanese are making small fuel-efficient vehicles while the US was making big heavy gas guzzlers. And again they're eating Detroit's lunch.
And deservedly so.
Only 35? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And to preempt a flood of angry responses, I believe in Global Warming and Emissions control. But MPG and carbon tailpipe emissions are only weakly correlated. Instead of wasting large amounts of money on improving MPG, we could focus these resources on CO2 control.
Re:Only 35? (Score:5, Insightful)
Odd. I thought the combustion of petrol split up the hydrocarbons in to CO2, CO, H2O and a few other things.
One gallon of gasoline will pretty much always give out the same amount of CO2.
Now assuming the amount of miles you travel stays the same, if the MPG is higher doesnt that mean less gasoline is burnt?
In addition to lower CO2 emissions, it also has the benefits of reducing our dependency on oil and giving us more cash to spend.
Please do correct me if my logic is wrong but it seems valid to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ammount of carbon in the fuel is pretty much fixed. And what goes into the engine must come out.
Some comes out as CO2, for the most part this is the preffered outcome, it causes global warming but thats about it. It also represents a complete
Re:Only 35? (Score:5, Informative)
No they don't. All the carbon in the fuel ends up as carbon, carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. CO is oxidised to CO2 in the cat, and C will be oxidised in the cats of 2010 diesel engines. C (soot) is not a problem in current gasoline engines.
"They are weakly correlated to be sure"
They are strongly correlated. >>0.9
Stop talking out your arse.
Re:Only 35? (Score:5, Insightful)
The favored argument is that the 40mpg their prius is getting is better for the air than my 44mpg I get with my Geo Metro.
As a side observation: why do they buy a hybrid and then continue to drive it like idiots destroying the MPG capabilities of the car? They still drive at 90mph, drag race to the next stop light, etc...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have this argument monthly with PRius and other hybrid owners that hate it when you pierce their cloud. I drive Suzuki cars. I have a Suzuki 4WD SUV that get's 32mpg, and a Suzuki(geo) car that regularly get's 44mpg both achieving "hybrid" mileage with far lower technology engine and drivetrain systems. My point in regular car milage debates is that we have had the tech to get high mileage for decades, it's that the car makers in the USA refuse to make them.
The Prius and Civic hybrids are "look at me"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've GOT to be kidding me? A look at me car?
The Prius has got to be just about the most fugly car I've ever seen?!?!
\ Gimme the sleek lines of a 911, or Vette.....or if you must go alternative...the Tesla.
Why can't they make the hybrid cars look nice for God's sake....?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cat's were not required until 1973 in the US. It's a carburated engine, so if you add one, the extremely rich mixture causes the exotherm to exceed 750 deg/C and destroys the catalyst. They couldn't add a catalytic converter until they could control the mixture enough to prevent it.
This is why there were so many mechanical fuel injection systems and oddball "electric carburator's" in the 70's.
Re:RANT: MPG vs L/100km - why not km/L? (Score:4, Informative)
50kms = half of 100kms so if I get 12l/100km and I only need to drive half of that I'll consume 6l and gas right now is about $1.00/litre so it's an easy $6.
That's the beauty of metric. It's all base-10. Slide a decimal place around and calculations are almost non-existant.
Your rant reminds me of an American gentleman who once scorned the metric system because he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1/4lb of meat is enough for a healthy sandwich so he doesn't have to think at the deli counter. (Strange, since that equates to 113 grams. When working in restaurants I've always made sandwiches with about 80 grams, but I suppose 113 grams or thereabouts would make a healthy sandwich. {shrug} I guess you can insert some sort of American weight stereotype here :)
Re:Only 35? (Score:5, Insightful)
This would of course be because some engines use the CO2 to produce pixie dust rather than releasing it into the air, yes?
Burning a gallon of gas will produce the same amount of CO2 regardless of what type of engine you do it in. It's not like some engines have a magical device for transmuting the carbon in their fuel carbon another element.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only 35? (Score:5, Funny)
Finally. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Finally. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You put anti-freeze in your tires???
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Finally. (Score:5, Interesting)
As you may know, we aren't as rich as the US and cars/SUV/Trucks are more costly than the US. If you come here, you'll see that the compact cars are very popular. Trucks and SUV is something you don't see often, except in construction. For the same truck, we can see a difference of 15 000$ US, some time more, between you and us, even if our dollar is near or at parity with the US dollar since two years.
Honda Civic, Pontiac Sunfire, Chevrolet Cavalier are best-selling cars right here, especially Civic. For your, the USA, those kind of car are sh*t. I went to the USA and it's very rare that I see those cars...
That being said, our winter is same or even worse than in the North of the US, and still, we manage to drive in the roads even in the big snow storm with the small car. You don't need a SUV if you know how to drive in that kind of conditions. For sure, it helps a lot, but did you know that among the accidents that happens because of the snow, it's the SUV that are often out of the roads, upside down. I'm not exaggerating, it's in the statistics of the Surete du Quebec (Our "state police").
The main reason (this is my own opinion) is that the driver is feeling too confident because he have a SUV. It's big, it has four wheel drives and the driver think he is better than the small cars, you know, those small sh*t that are having a hard time in the storm.
If you know how to drive with your car in all conditions, you won't have any issue even in severe snow storm, car or SUV or Truck, no matter what. Been there, done that. I sometime drive in those conditions, it's not easy (you know, that kind of server snow storm in the night that you cannot see more than 1 feed ahead of you with almost 10 inch of snow on the roads) but if you adapt your driving ability in all conditions, you will go everywhere with your car. Of course, I did it because I didn't have choice, otherwise I would stayed home.
We never put chains on our wheels, it's forbidden by the Law because it breaks the roads.
It's all the driver, not the vehicle.
Re:Finally. (Score:4, Informative)
In the US, is it required to take a slippery driving course to get a drivers' license? Or is it up to the individual states? Anyway, it is mandatory here (in Sweden)since some time ago, and it was quite interesting. You learned what to do and what to not do, as well as what happens if you do the wrong thing (such as turning and braking at the same time).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, no. That would be a really great idea, but here in the States, driving is seen as a right, not a privilege. Any monkey can take the written part of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was visiting friends in Utah, and as normal, we were going up to Alta for some skiing. In the 2wd Jetta TDi. In the snow. We were making good (but very careful) progress - the roads had the worst type of slippery compacted snow you usually get, and going up the mountain, you have to be careful to maintain traction.
Then a 4wd SUV roared past us.
Three hundred yards later, the same SUV was stuck in a ditch, back wheels in the air
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the record, my car has a 1.8L inline 4 that gets 30+ MPG.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
$160 / $4/g = 40 gallons * 18mpg = 720 miles per day commuting?
Yeah, I'd say you need a different job. Preferably one that doesn't involve math.
Ugh (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'm not really thrilled with the other provisions of the bill, namely requiring 15% of every utility's power from every state to come from non-renewable sources. This is going to draw a lot of capital away from Nuclear energy, and in the states without wind or clear skies, will likely prompt a lot of wasteful programs(Apparently, burning Forests for energy counts as renewable energy).
And the CAFE standards? I don't care enough to fight about it(mainly since it seems the market is heading that way anyway), but I would prefer more specific mandates that don't smack of populism. CO2 emissions are pretty poorly tied to gasoline consumption, and regulation on tail-pipe CO2 emission would make a lot more environmental sense(And cost a lot less money), at least until a carbon credit scheme is implemented.
The funny thing, is that nobody is even considering implementing CAFE standards for the military and other government agencies. The Government's massive purchase of fuel inefficient cars, since agencies have very little incentive to save on gas costs, has a surprisingly discretionary effect on the production decisions of American Car Makers. We've all seen police drive around in SUVs.
Instead of saddling American consumers with extra costs, why don't we mandate that all agencies that receive money from Congress must not use cars with a MPG below 35? This includes charities, police departments, the Military, and even foreign governments.
Except that this was left out of the Senate Bill (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm going to assume the 'non-' was a typo... but since that whole section of the bill was dropped from the Senate version anyway, it's a moot point. I will agree, though, that passenger-sized vehicles owned by the government should adhere to the same standards as passenger-sized vehicles sold to individuals. There's no reason for anything f
Re:Except that this was left out of the Senate Bil (Score:2)
Sorry, it was indeed a type. I'm glad to hear that provision was dropped from the bill after all, thanks for brightening my day a bit.
And indeed, I guess you could justify military vehicles as commercial vehicles.
Ethanol subsidies are bad policy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not. You are absolutely correct. The main useful effect of subsidizing corn/maize derived ethanol is to drive up food prices. Much/most of the food eaten here in the US has some corn/maize component in it. It does not in any substantial way reduce our oil dependency, it uses valuable arable land [wikipedia.org], and it is basically a handout to farmers who are already subsidized quite heavily. Like steel tariffs [wikipedia.org] it benefits a few at the expense of the rest of society.
I have no beef with ethanol being a part of our energy supply, particularly from bio-waste. Diversity in energy sources is a good thing. But corn derived ethanol is just a terrible product to subsidize.
by 2020... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, why else do you think Bush is going to sign it -- it looks like a good thing when it isn't.
Legislation that's just good enough to keep pace with the status quo is exactly what the auto industry wanted. They know that if they completely succeeded in opposing the legislation, that they'd face consumer revolt. And as long as everybody else has to keep up with the status quo -- the most cost-effective manner for them -- then they don't have to worry too much about being undercut by companies in Korea and China that don't have emission controls. Instead, they only have to worry about Japanese and European cars, which they'll likely never be able to beat.
All in all, it's a good deal for the auto industry, and a bad deal for the customer, as we'll never get an incoming Democratic administration to support higher CAFE standards in the future. Last time they were raise significantly was during Reagan. His administration also introduced the catalytic converter as a requirement, too. *sigh*
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Car makers, wishing to capitalize on this demand to increase sales, then proceed to produce fuel efficient models for this subgroup of consumers, while continuing sales of less efficient but cheaper cars to other consumers.
Where does the government come i
Re:by 2020... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was invited to the party by yet another market failure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>catalytic converter as a requirement, too
Wow, that Reagann could do *anything*. Mandating catalytic converters five years before he was elected. Wow.
Catalytic converters were the only way (almost) to meet emission requirements at the time. Thus, they appeared on every vehicle sold in the US starting in 1975, save for honda with that silly dual-chamber cvcc engine, which managed to put it off until 1979. Reagan was elected in 1980.
What's no
Very optimistic (Score:4, Insightful)
peak oil (Score:5, Informative)
1,312,000,000,000 bbl
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html [cia.gov]
(notice Canada's oil shale is second to Saudi Arabia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale [wikipedia.org]
Oil - consumption for the world (bbl per day):
82,590,000 bbl/day
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html [cia.gov]
I agree that, even now, we will be seeing an exponential increase in the price of oil. That doesn't diminish the fact that Hubbert's "peak oil" is real, and will occur on a global scale in a matter of decades if not already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Conservative_predictions_of_future_oil_production [wikipedia.org]
I work in the oil exploration industry.. Oil isn't so easy to find, you know.
-metric
Re:Waiting for the oil to run out will hurt much m (Score:5, Insightful)
35mpg isn't great... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why aren't they doing this /anyway/? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two things need to happen here for the automakers to get their fingers out of their arses or die like the dinosaurs of the 1970's.
1. Tell the automakers they have zero time to build a car that complies wit hthe
2. Give the people incentive to choose the ecobug. Hike gas prices to come in line with eg the UK. We're paying the equivalent of
Re: (Score:2)
You complain about prices, yet want them pushed higher?
I don't support Gasoline taxes precisely because they harm the poor. Gasoline is highly price inelastic, and so prices have to be hiked enormously in order to decrease demand. This takes away money that consumers could have spent on other things.
If we want to control Global Warming, that is another issue entirely, that can be dealt with by controlling tail-pipe emissions. But with a
Re: (Score:3)
Regulating emissions from cars might help climate change, but it doesn't help people get to work quicker or find a parking spac
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, the idea that cities would not be dense, or that commutes would even be possible, is a quite recent aberration, and evidently not a sustainable one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's always seemed pretty self-evident to me.
But for starters, transportation is inherently inefficient in terms of time and money. Ideally, your home, your place of work, all the people you want to meet, all the cultural activities you want to engage in, and all the goods and services you want to use, would be right at your fingertips, all the time. The next best thing is for them to be only a very short distance away, s
Re:Why aren't they doing this /anyway/? (Score:5, Informative)
There's the knock on effects as well, my performance motorcycle does 60MPG, my last motorcycle did 110MPG, my parents car does 54MPG on average, my various work mates cars all do 40+MPG. When I needed to get to a neighbouring town 6/7 miles away I had the choice of various buses and a train (it actually took as long to get there by train/bus as it normally does by car.)
The *high* fuel costs in america are already getting people to consider better performing cars why not capatilise on this and use it to improve your infrastructure as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People in Norway manage fine with small cars. People in the Northern parts of Russia manage fine with small cars. Snow really is no excuse for large cars unless you are actually going to drive off road or your local government can't do their job properly and keep the roads clear.
It's a culture thing.
In the cities, Americans don't have any problem driving small cars (or no cars at all), just like folks in other countries.
But whether you like it or not, this country has a tremendous amount of suburban population. When density is lower, it takes quite a bit more time to clear the snow. The suburbs also require a vehicle to get anywhere (little to nothing is in walking distance) and there is no worthwhile public transportation. Add to this the fact that American culture is not a fa
Re:Why aren't they doing this /anyway/? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have lived in the lower Northeast, Mass and CT, for a long time now, where the snow levels are lower than hill country. I used to drive a Miata for 7 years and never, ever got stuck. Now I drive a Mini Cooper S and have yet to get stuck. I will say that for the first time, this year, I installed some snow tires I was given (versus the previous 15+ winters without them) and am quite happy with the results. As long as the difference in height between the ruts and the snow level doesn't reach 6 inches I can navigate just fine - if it does get that high, then the front airdam will act like a snowplow. But this has not happened locally for many years, and yet still the suburban environment here is packed with SUVs. My opinion is that the snow argument is not a rational one, but has been a very strong part of the sales pitch for these vehicles nonetheless.
So I think we will survive just fine without the SUVs. As for the water crossings in the midwest and southeast, I'd bet that is potentially part of 1/1,000,000 people's lives. Most people I know there are smart enough not to try to ford a stream that has flooded the road as the current can quickly surprise and take vehicle and/or life with it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Why aren't they doing this /anyway/? (Score:4, Interesting)
If I can get 31MPG in a car with heated, leather seats and tons of room for 6 people, and enough power to tow a boat, I'm pretty sure they can make a mid sized car with a V6, plenty of power and comfort, that can squeeze out an extra 4 miles per gallon. What they fear is that people won't want them.
The recent sales of SUV's boil down to two factors: Soccer moms wanting to feel safe, soccer dads wanting more horsepower. Even the Hummer is EXCLUDED from the CAFE standards because its GVWR is "too high", same as the 2500HD Chevy truck I also own (this also means excluded from pollution testing, which is stupid). I couldn't get published ratings for my 2500HD for gas mileage anywhere: they don't have to publish it and they won't, and it doesn't count toward CAFE standards either since it is a "work truck". (it gets 13MPG, no matter how I drive it or where, 6.0L, etc.)
All you have to do is LOOK at what Detroit is putting out to see they are chicken shit and not willing to take any risks, be it in design or for mileage. They have been so far behind the pack for so many years, and I don't expect them to catch up anytime soon. Fortunately for them, they are good at importing Japanese technology (1980s Nova was really a Toyota) or just ripping it off eventually. Detroit has not made it easy to "buy American" over the years, that is for damn sure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Never underestimate large masses of stupid people (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh and electric cars? No demand on the scale that would break even the costs. It wasn't GM that killed the electric car back in the 90s (whenever that was). It was a combination of very immature technology and total and utter consumer apathy. GM lost a lot of money on that little venture. They couldn't actually sell the cars because to do so would have been a huge loss for them, so they just leased them. And when the car was deemed "finished," GM brought them all back and destroyed them. Because the cost to GM of leaving them with the few people that wanted them would have been far too high in terms of GM's maintenance obligations.
Ironically, it's these large, gas guzzling SUVs that stand to benefit the most from hybrid technology. They are already large enough to easily replace the transmission with the hybrid module. Then in city driving an SUV should actually get close to 30 MPG, and have the perceived increase in acceleration (perceived power) that people think they want.
In short, it's all of us who keep the auto industry back. Computer-controlled, constantly variable transmissions for optimal engine efficiency? Nope, it feels too unnatural and the acceleration feels poor, even though it's actually better: put in artificial shift points so I can feel my body pushing back into the seat as I accelerate in spurts. Electrically-controlled breaks? No way! what happens when a wire is cut? Too dangerous! More efficient vehicles? Oh yeah, as long as I can accelerate off the light to 25 MPH in 1 second flat! Oh, and I might need to go 90 MPH on the freeway too. Oh, and I want to be able to drive 500 miles on on tank of gas. But it's so wrong that it costs me $130 to fill up my tank every day. Someone needs to do something.
Bad headline -- a bill is not a law (Score:2)
First sentence of summary: "The Senate just passed a bill that will increase auto mileage standards for the first time in three decades."
Of course, given the current state of affairs, it seems unlikely this bill won't become law (considering Democrats can force it through the House even if it doesn't get support from Republicans and Bush says he'll sign it). But it's still a bill, not law.
Then again, given the current state of affairs, it would seem
Remember US gallons are smaller... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On a full tank, thats about £22 vs. £60 (thats $46 vs. $122!)
Yeah. We brits get a great deal!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And for us that don't know gallons and miles... (Score:3, Informative)
BS threats by auto industry (Score:3, Interesting)
destroy the US automakers ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, the crying from automakers is silly, like the DaimlerChrysler announcement that "we cant make it". Well, tough luck. Innovate or die. Its a market and competition, you dont have any birthright to sit there and dictate things.
Auto industry is long overdue for some serious shakeup, and the ones that get with the future sooner will likely survive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Each and every company HAS to comply with the regulations of that market AND be able to compete. Is that news to you ?
Otherwise it would be OK for car companies to whine about passing safety tests and supplying airbags as well. Your comment is a non sequitur.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft would state that they cant unbundle IE or Media Player from their products because they would not "make it" would anyone feel sorry ? Or RIAA complaining that without DRM sanctions, they cant make it on the music markets ?
Who gives a rats ass, there are better technology solutions waiting take over.
Its not a US vs Japanese automakers thing either. Both sides are scram
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Too little too late (Score:5, Insightful)
The smart thing for the American manufacturers to do would be to start using Japanese or European engines and start achieving 30-40mpg now, while they develop their own technology.
Ethanol and diesel (Score:4, Insightful)
Ethanol looks attractive, more so now that fuel is in excess of $3.00/gal. Brazil tried switching in the 1980s IIRC and last I checked continued to promote the use of the sugar beet surplus to make Ethanol.
Turbo diesel engines on the other hand look even more attractive. Diesel makes MORE sense for SUVs and trucks than petrol or Ethanol, and AFAIK is are much more flexable as far as the fuel medium due to the very high compression ratio and fuel injection at the top of the stroke cycle.
Methane, while not as practical to store as fuels which are liquid at standard pressures, is another form of fossil / renewable we should look into as well. We produce a ton of waste, some is converted to tegro, a form of fertilizer made from human waste.
But regardless of the path America decides to go as far as fuel, we NEED good public transportation.
Fuel Efficiency and E85 (Score:2)
Re:Fuel Efficiency and E85 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Beyond that, the original poster missed this from the E85 article:
Confusing units... (Score:4, Interesting)
But still do not know under which circumstances these 6.7l shall be attained. City traffic, highway, or total mix? I have trouble keeping my moderately motorized car on 7l/100km in city traffic, it can do much better on the autobahn (if i don't push it too hard).
Good for now, crappy for future (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually 6,7 L/100KM is moderate for now, but in 2020 that should be considered more or less crap. In example new BMW 3-series with 3 liter diesel gets 6,1 L/100 KM and the 2 liter version gets 4,8 L/100KM. Even X3 with 2 liter diesel gets 6,5 L/100 KM. So in that sense that todays cars can get to that standard easily, it's really abysmal to set the standard for the future on the level what can be achieved in today.
In my opinion the standards should be set so that they make the car industry to invent and make innovations in order to stay in business. Actually in developed markets, I would say that it's actually a good way to protect own car industry by setting the standards higher as then the low cost low R&D manufacturers from developing countries can be easily closed from the markets. Thought as the US car industry really hasn't spend any money to R&D in the last 20 years, maybe in the point of view of US administration, that wouldn't be so good idea.
Some numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
I somehow think that the $6700 extra per car is highly exaggerated. Your average European or Japanese car is already there, and they're not more expensive than the American cars (at least not in Europe, if you exclude the luxury cars). I mean, you can get an *entire new car* for about $9000 (not a very big one, though). On the other hand the current development of the Euro and the US Dollar will probably make European cars less and less attractive for US residents. I don't know about the Japanese ones, though.
Assuming that the average car does 100k miles in its lifetime, the new regulations imply that it'll use 100k/35 = 2857 gallons instead of 100k/27.5 = 3636 gallons. That's 779 gallons saved. At a price of $4 per gallon that's $3116 saved. Which is less than $6700.
Assuming that it does 200k miles that's $6232. Still less than $6700, but much closer.
At European gas prices (I'm taking $7/gallon) the saved costs would be $5453 and $10906.
Assuming that gas prices in the US go up another bit, that the $6700 are exaggerated and that your car will run 150k miles, I don't see the big deal. The costs are about the same, with the additional benefit of wasting less fuel. If you don't buy a bigger car than what you actually need, you might even save some money.
Americans should just stop with big engines! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think the US pays roughly 1/3 the price for petrol that we do in the UK, if they really wanted people to start helping the environment, they'd add tax onto fuel costs, forcing people to get smaller cars, and with the spare tax money they could use it to fund research into better, renewable fuel sources...
But of course, that makes FAR too much sense for any politician to think about, and cer
Still quite lax (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop Blaming Detroit! (Score:4, Interesting)
If we were really serious about cutting gasoline consumption, we would take a serious look at land use and zoning, so that people didn't have to drive such long distances to get to work or shop.
Widespread ethanol blends - and the water scam (Score:5, Informative)
In case you aren't aware, gasoline-ethanol blends are subject to a little trick known as the water scam. As you are probably aware, water is not soluble in gasoline - but water is soluble in ethanol, and this ethanol-water mix is partially soluble in gasoline. In short, water can be mixed into gasoline-ethanol blends.. I'm sure you can see where this is going.
As high-ethanol blends such as E85 become more widespread, and fuel prices climb, the opportunity and ability to scam the consumer will multiply. Fortunately, testing for water in gasoline blends is relatively simple, requiring only a simple, inexpensive test kit.
Believe it or not, I actually managed to get an Amoco station shut down (temporarily) in the late 1980s for pulling just this scam. I was in tech school at the time, and noticed that fuel from this station had a way of making my fuel-finicky BMW motorbike run very badly. Did the test, found something like 8-10% water, and called the regulatory authority. Saw the closed sign on the station several days later..
Unintended Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
As Congress has sought to target the increasingly large vehicles that Americans seek to buy, the auto makers response is to market larger and larger GVW vehicles to the consumer segment of the population. While many people will end up buying the more economical vehicles, there is a certain segment of the population that cannot deal with the tradeoffs* in performance and will switch to the next larger size. Currently, our local GMC dealer is beginning to carry pickup trucks based on the 4500 Series [gmc.com]. They are selling like hot cakes. Larger vehicles are also possible, depending on how the MPG standards are written.
*One interesting tradeoff has nothing to do with fuel economy, but rather with the IRS's treatment of vehicle expenses allowed for 'cars' (and other light vehicles) vs those allowed for heavy trucks. People who use vehicles for business purposes, even if these do not involve the hauling of goods or equipment, realize such a tax savings by purchasing a vehicle that qualifies as a large truck, that fuel costs just vanish in the economic equation. Until the IRS removes the penalties for using smaller vehicles, I anticipate that this trend will only continue.
Re: (Score:2)
That's more than I paid for my current gas-guzzling SUV. And why do you care what other people drive? I don't understand why people feel the need to tell other people what to do when it's not hurting anyone.
Re:1:14 isn't much (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:LIES, and Numbers are all garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Finish your drug bender.
2. Look into grouping sentences which share a theme into seperate blocks (commonly called "paragraphs"), why this is a good idea, and how to do this on Slashdot.
3. Try to focus on one or a few topics when writing your post; Incoherently stumbling through a dozen or so makes for a poor reception.
Although without a basic understanding of geology, thermodynamics, and governance your post will still be devoid of meaningful content, at least it can be devoid in style. Okay? Cheers!
Re:Now for those of us... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate measuring consumption instead of mileage. Calculating range is easier when using distance per quantity: multiply the quantity left by the constant and there you go.
Also, mileage lends itself to handier values; as cars improve, the mileage numbers grow and occupy a higher range of values. With consumption, values asymptotically approach zero. Comparing 100mpg with 80mpg is easier for most people (and probably quicker for all people) than comparing 2.35L/100km with 2.94L/100km. If you start getting into very high efficiencies, it's the difference between comparing 500:600mpg and .470:.392L/100km. While both are mathematically similar, the former is more intuitive for most people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)