Auto Industry FINALY Supporting Fuel Economy Amendment

[jewelerdave]

Looks like they auto industry is waking up

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...ndustry_s.html


I was wondering how long it would take them to realize that CAFE standards are just that....averages.

For every car that they make thats a plug in that averages 150mpg they can still pump out 5 15mpg SUVs and hit the 2022 target of 36mpg

Toss in other cars and hybrid systems and the targets are in fact quite reasonable.

[boulder_bum]

This really isn't as good as it sounds. Automakers are pushing a bunch of propaganda on talk radio urging voters to call in and ask for this alternative bill to be passed. They have these radio actors talking about how cars will become less safe by becoming more fuel efficient (because of less weight), and that you won't be able to tow your boat if the CAFE standards increase. Ugh!

Note: some of the information below is from a previous version of the bill (from 2002). I'm not sure what all changed, but I do know that the current bill has the same authors (one of whom represents Detroit) and still empasizes the use of alternative fuels like ethanol, which allows companies to focus less on the actual efficiency of their vehicles and more on the type of fuel used.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3823555.html
06.14.07

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of the chief proponents of the Senate bill, said the alternative was a "major step backwards" because it would accomplish less than half of the fuel savings, greenhouse gas reductions and savings for consumers as outlined in her bill.
[/b]

http://secure.environmentaldefense.org/pre...?ContentID=1803
Levin/Bond Proposal Could Actually Lower U.S. Vehicle Fuel Efficiency
03/11/2002

...

In addition to using scare tactics to block tighter fuel economy regulations, CAFE opponents are preparing an alternative, "let's not do anything, but say we did" amendment to draw votes away from a genuine proposal for higher CAFE. This effort, being led by senators Kit Bond (R-MO) and Carl Levin (D-MI), would create new loopholes for automakers while letting the industry dodge real requirements to improve efficiency, by leaving it up to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to set standards without any real energy savings requirements.
[/b]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/artic.../01_energy.html
The Flip Side of the Energy Bill
May 1, 2002

Another problem with the Levin-Bond Amendment is called the "duel fuel loophole" The duel fuel loophole actually allows CAFE standards to drop if the cars have a capability to use alternate fuel, like ethanol, but never ACTUALLY use ethanol. Even these insignifiicant rule changes are being left to the Bush Administration's Energy Department to initiate, and they have up to two years to make the rule changes. The Bush Administration probably agrees with most, if not all, of the Levin-Bond amendment.
[/b]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/14/news/econo...utos.fuel.reut/
June 14 2007

The Levin/Bond proposal also does not include standards for trucks.
[/b]

[jewelerdave]

That sucks people cant realize that average does not mean that powerful cars wont be around in 10 years

If people need to tow a boat. use a farm truck etc they will still be able to do the job. They will still be able to buy just such a car. People who use a big tuck to use a boat twice a year and still use it as an everyday driver should consider renting or other options.

If someone can afford a boat they can afford to buy a second car/rent etc.

That one 150mpg car allows 5 other 15mpg cars to drive about. people should not worry, no one is going to take away there right to drive an inefficient car, we just need to give people the right to be able to buy a hyper efficient car!

[Stringmike]

I don't know whose math you're using, but the average gas mileage of five 15 mpg SUVs and a 150 mpg supermiler each driven the same distance is 17.6 mpg ( the six vehicles would require 5.1 gallons to drive 15 miles each for a total of 90 miles) The average of one 15 mpg SUV and one 150 mpg supermiler is 27.27 mpg.

It's pretty clear that if many people are going to continue driving SUVs, a modest improvement in performance of those is better than the addition of a very small number of super-efficient vehicles.

Mike

[MikeSF]

I really hope they don't put any sort of plug in cars into those averages. Simply because seriously how can you say a car has "150 MPG" if it's a plug in? If you drive it very short distances, and don't need to use any sort of gas then it has an infinite MPG, if you drive long distances distances in one shot you'll have a much smaller MPG rating. At least with a hybrid (non-plug in) there is no deception involved, sure you can get "99.9 MPG" if you're going 30 all on electric, but eventually the electricity goes away and the gas engine takes over and your back to a real average.

Unless they find a way to figure out how much pollution X # of kWh of juice is to charge your batteries then they should stay out of any CAFE standards.

[onlynark]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stringmike @ Jun 15 2007, 04:02 PM) [snapback]462642[/snapback]</div>

I don't know whose math you're using, but the average gas mileage of five 15 mpg SUVs and a 150 mpg supermiler each driven the same distance is 17.6 mpg ( the six vehicles would require 5.1 gallons to drive 15 miles each for a total of 90 miles) The average of one 15 mpg SUV and one 150 mpg supermiler is 27.27 mpg.

It's pretty clear that if many people are going to continue driving SUVs, a modest improvement in performance of those is better than the addition of a very small number of super-efficient vehicles.

Mike
[/b]

5*15 = 75

75+150 = 225

225/6 = 37.5 MPG

[Stringmike]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nark @ Jun 17 2007, 09:08 PM) [snapback]463677[/snapback]</div>

5*15 = 75

75+150 = 225

225/6 = 37.5 MPG
[/b]

Sorry, but you can't average mpg by adding them up this way. This is a common error frequently made by the mathematically challenged. Math examiners trip students up by getting them to calculate average speeds - for example, if you drive 60 miles at 60 mph and another 60 miles at 20 mph, what is your average speed? Your (incorrect) approach would say (60+20)/2 = 40 mph. In fact, it takes 1 hour to drive the first leg and 3 hours to drive the second leg, so the average speed is 120 miles/4 hours = 30 mph.

In the same way, you calculate the average mileage of a fleet by taking the total miles and dividing by the total fuel.

Mike

[Stringmike]

Check here for how the government does it:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

Mike

[Missu]

Wanted to add...

For those that have a boat or trailer to pull, the 2006/2007 Highlander SUV can tow up to 3500 pounds, and the one coming out in the fall (2008 model) has a towing capacity of 5000. Most folks dont use or need more than that.
We have a 2006 Highlander and are getting 26ish MPG. (more on longer trips). So no need to buy a gas guzzling SUV, this truck is a great option.

I get tired of hearing the US auto industry whinning about not being able to get milage high enough to meet new CAFE standards, and that it isn't feasable. When 3 SUV's on the market already do!!!! and two of them are american (ford escape/saturn)!!

[joe1347]

So this is the best that Congress can do, while peak oil is looming along with dependence on imported oil from a hostile (to the USA) and unstable region? Americans certainly deserve better from our Government.

Why do we have to wait until after 2020 for SUV's with >30mpg. The Honda CRV already gets 30mpg - today. Instead of spending a few extra thousand dollars for the leather interior, how about substituting a weak hybrid powertrain along with replace a few steel components/panels with aluminum and you're now at 35mpg (for about the same additional price as a leather interior, dual climate, wood trim, etc). Car manufacturers can meet the proposed post 2020 mpg standards today -even for SUV's. Creating a post 2020 mpg standard is nothing more than a political feel good stunt that the politicians can use to pretend that they are doing something without actually doing anything of substance that might offend a corporate contributer or a couple of voters.