Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Your Thoughts Regarding The New 54.5 MPG Mandate

1235711

Comments

  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,633
    edited October 2012
    We've arrived. Saw a Swedish tapestry exhibit and will be doing some chowing down tomorrow, home Sunday. One of the cars in the museum parking lot had Alaska plates and a logo bracket touting a Fairbanks knitting shop. :-)

    The van got 24 on this tank, but some of them weren't trip miles. Rolled over 180k too. :-)

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited October 2012
    Did you see the drafting episode on Mythbusters?

    http://green.autoblog.com/2007/10/28/mythbusters-drafting-10-feet-behind-a-big-r- - ig-will-improve-mile/

    Funny thing is it makes a notable difference. Even at 100 ft they did 11% better.

    Don't try this at home (or in the car).

    I do wonder if you're in the lane next to them (wes' geese style), not in the blind spot though, if you'd still get small gains?
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,633
    Drafting has long been big in bicycling so it makes sense. Can cause spectacular pileups there too. :)

    Did get to watch TV for a change, but stuck to baseball (on mute to avoid the commercials).

    Returning to the motel late Saturday I wound up parking next to yet another Prius fron Iowa. I thought those folks all burned biodiesel. Probably did have ethanol in the gas tank.

    Oh, and I saw a biodiesel filling station attached to a farm supply store. It was $4.11 (diesel in that area was about a dime to fifteen cents higher a gallon).

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You need a DVR or TiVo. :shades:
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,633
    edited October 2012
    Except the commercials are usually better than what's on the tube. :P

    Ford is touting the MKZ's mpg.

    "All-new Lincoln MKZ Hybrid delivers more miles per gallon than every other luxury vehicle in America: EPA-certified 45 mpg city, 45 mpg highway and 45 mpg combined." (Yahoo)

    Gotta help them reach the new mandate.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I'll take a loaded Fusion. Looks better.

    Heck, a 2.0T with AWD, while you're at it.

    Though to get a manual you have to skip AWD. :(
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,693
    edited October 2012
    It's getting harder and harder every year to find models that offer a stick shift with AWD. :-(

    Soon it will just be Subaru and the few lux carmakers that cheaped out and didn't develop a RWD platform (Audi, Acura, anyone else??). And after a while, maybe not even Subaru any more. The CAFE mandate might force them to go CVT-only. Gawd what a thought. :sick:

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,312
    As far as I can tell MPG is the only bragging right the MPZ has in its class. That wouldn't be enough for me to choose it over its competitors.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,633
    edited October 2012
    "Because gas taxes in the U.S. are the lowest in the Western world and have been stagnant for 20 years, they fail to reflect the costs of providing highway infrastructure and energy security, reducing air pollution, tackling greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating traffic-related social ills such as congestion and noise pollution.

    The Rand Corp, has suggested that a national oil tax of $15 a barrel would be needed to help recover those costs — particularly energy security — and that a gasoline tax of at least 55 cents a gallon is needed just to address personal transportation's impact on pollution, greenhouse gases and security, said Constantine Samaras, a Rand analyst and engineering professor and an adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania.

    Motorists, ... citing Edmunds.com car shopper data, still don't place fuel efficiency very highly on the list of car purchasing motivations."

    California ZEV Mandate — Would a Gas Tax Be Better? (Inside Line)

    Which Would You Rather: ZEV Mandate or Gas Tax? (Straightline)

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,651
    gasoline tax of at least 55 cents a gallon is needed just to address personal transportation's impact on pollution, greenhouse gases and security

    Wait, why is that necessary? If a fuel tax was used for interstate transportation infrastructure, then fine. I guess that could even play into the "security" aspect. But pollution & greenhouse gases? Seriously? :sick:
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,633
    Ah, so you like living in the land of poisonous ice fog at -50 F eh? :shades:

    (fairbanksirl.com)

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,189
    edited October 2012
    The "security" bit irks me more. Let the coddled so-called private industries who directly benefit from our idiotic foreign policy pay for the waste. Of course, that might make them flee to Zug or Singapore to escape responsibility, seems to be the "we built this" capitalist way.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,189
    Impossible without better transportation and housing infrastructure being developed first. As it is today, that tax would be carried virtually entirely by the working class, who are already being kicked in the head by the do-gooder globalist idiots. Unless some benefit is guaranteed, I suspect the monies would just go to continued public sector salary bloat and more lavish pensions.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I sorta like the idea of a price basement for a barrel of oil. That creates a little predictability for alternative sources.

    Also, you're only taxed when the product is cheap. When it's expensive everyone automatically gets relief.

    Politicians have an incentive to keep oil prices down because they only collect revenues if they do so.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,651
    No, and if the "poisonous" part of that equation had anything to do with vehicle exhaust, I would certainly encourage a local tax on automotive fuel. Unfortunately, it is due to structural heating appliances, and the local Neanderthal population will die sucking down their own ignorance before addressing that problem. :mad:
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,633
    edited October 2012
    LOL, did I strike a nerve? Hm, 18 and snowy up there per my weather bug. Here's hoping for some wind this winter to keep the skies clear.

    Juice, cheap gas would encourage people to drive more and that would mean more tax revenue.

    The result I guess would be more pressure on the highway infrastructure, so there'd be a need for the increased tax revenue.

    Cue Joni Mitchell again. :)

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,651
    edited October 2012
    Hahahah; yes, a little bit, but only in terms of the ignorant amongst us. We're staring down an EPA "takeover" deadline to address winter air quality issues, and if a local/state plan to address it is not developed quite soon, they'll step in and come up with their own plan. The local populace just voted to hamstring the local government on this issue, so now the "solution" will at best come from the state. :sick:

    Really, I just hate breathing the residue from folks burning tires and poorly tuned wood heating appliances. If people would internalize their stewardship responsibilities when they live in a community, this topic wouldn't even exist.
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,189
    My area has plenty of both parking lots and paradise areas, no need for tree museums here. Constant traffic jams as well. Maybe the Joni Mitchell crowd isn't as effective as they think :shades:
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,633
    "The U.S. government has set tough fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, and Detroit's automakers couldn't be happier.

    What mad world is this? The famously balky industry that once swore people could never afford cars with crazy technology like air bags has taken a leap of faith in its ability to invent and innovate.

    "It's not outlandish at all to expect cars rated at 40 to 50 m.p.g. in combined driving 10 years from now."

    Industry buys into fuel economy rules (Detroit Free Press)

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • cannon3cannon3 Posts: 296
    is attainable. First the tech is there for automobiles to easily reach 54mpg. Cost and profits is what is holding the industry back. Government needs to slash the cost of doing business so businesses can develop this technology at a fair price to consumers. Who would have thought you would be seeing as high as 35MPG out of a family size sedan? I am all for these mandates, but government has got to release some of its hold on business. These kind of MPG ratings will give the U.S. its freedom from the middle east, cleaner air, cleaner waters ect.. It is a win, win here folks.
  • fezofezo Posts: 9,413
    This is the same battle that the car makers fought for years on safety equipment. That all changed once the companies figured out taht safety was a selling item.

    Now, as opposed before in the days of "we can't average 25 mpg!" they realize mpg sells.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,651
    Who would have thought you would be seeing as high as 35MPG out of a family size sedan?

    Funny enough, my family's 1985 Toyota Camry (a family sedan of the day) routinely returned 35 mpg. It's no wonder that when you add 1000#+ to a car that its fuel economy drops! Imagine where we'd be today if the drivetrain technology we've come up with to get our bloated vehicles around more efficiently was available with the same vehicles at half the weight?

    Oh, the possibilities! :sick:
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,108
    Imagine where we'd be today if the drivetrain technology we've come up with to get our bloated vehicles around more efficiently was available with the same vehicles at half the weight?

    I've often wondered that myself. To use a personal example, my recently-purchased 2012 Ram Hemi got about 19.1 mpg recently on a trip up to Carlisle PA and back, which also included some local driving. In old car terms, that's probably akin to taking a 1964 Lincoln Continental and giving it the performance of a '64 GTO, an the fuel economy of a '64 slant six Valiant.

    I think the '83-86 Camry is a really impressive car. It was rated as a compact at the time, but I'd consider it to be a good 4-passenger car. It doesn't have the shoulder room of something like a Plymough Caravelle, Ford LTD, or Chevy Celebrity of the era, but it definitely had adult-sized legroom and headroom.

    However, my 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Camry. Its MSRP was $14,058. Adjusting for inflation, that's about $30,200 today! And it did 0-60 in 13.4 seconds, and its EPA rating at the time was 27/32, 29 combined. Adjusted to today's ratings, it's down to 23/29, 26 combined.

    So, cars really have come a long way, in spite of the added bulk. But, it does make you wonder...if they took a 1985 Camry and gave it all the drivetrain improvements, but kept the bulk to a minimum, just how far advanced the fuel economy and performance would be.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,312
    A '85-size sedan with today's features would have to use a lot of pricey materials to match the weight of the '85 Camry. The upshot is that it would probably cost a lot more than, say, a '13 Corolla, which is roughly the size of the '85 Camry.

    Andre, you have a lot of specs at quick disposal; is the '13 Corolla indeed similar to the '85 Camry? I just guessed that they're comparable, but I imagine the'new Corolla weighs more than the old Camry.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,108
    Andre, you have a lot of specs at quick disposal; is the '13 Corolla indeed similar to the '85 Camry? I just guessed that they're comparable, but I imagine the'new Corolla weighs more than the old Camry.

    I'd say the 1985 Camry is closer in size to the current Corolla than it is to the Camry. According to the EPA, the 2013 Corolla has 92 cubic feet of passenger volume, while the 1985 Camry had 93. The 2013 Camry has 103 cubic feet. To put that in old-car perspective, that '78 LeMans you once owned had 102.

    However, I think the 1985-era Camry was laid out better than a modern Corolla. I've been in a few of them, and foud them to have good legroom, both front and rear. In contrast, I think the Corolla is a bit tight with regards to legroom. But, I'm sure a modern Corolla would do much better in crash-testing than a 1985 Camry would.

    Weight-wise, I think the 1985 Camry Consumer Guide tested was around 2500 lb. I think a Corolla is aound 2600 lb, while a 4-cyl Camry is probably around 3200l lb.

    Oh, and a 2013 Corolla is EPA-rated at 26/24, even with its outdated 4-speed automatic (in 1985, the Camry's 4-speed automatic was probably considered cutting edge). And while not a musclecar, 0-60 probably comes up in around 9-10 seconds, compared to the 13.4 that Consumer Guide got out of their 1985 Camry. I think a 2013 Camry 4-cyl, which is rated around 25/35, will do 0-60 in around 8.5.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,651
    I've often wondered that myself. To use a personal example, my recently-purchased 2012 Ram Hemi got about 19.1 mpg recently on a trip up to Carlisle PA and back, which also included some local driving. In old car terms, that's probably akin to taking a 1964 Lincoln Continental and giving it the performance of a '64 GTO, an the fuel economy of a '64 slant six Valiant.

    That's no joke! What's the curb weight on your truck? I have essentially the same the same truck, only 43 years older, and it is (supposedly) 3,990 empty. Well, okay, mine's a 3/4 ton, which will add about 300# or so. Other than that, it is the same: Single cab, 8' bed, 2WD, V8.

    My truck scoots with enthusiasm, yet its 307 cu in V8 is rated at 200HP. If it had that Hemi in it, I'd probably have trouble finding traction out of a light! :shades:
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,312
    edited October 2012
    Good comparisons. Thanks. Unfortunately the average American is bigger than he/she was in '85, which may explain, in part, why the Camry has grown.

    I imagine the '13 Corolla costs less or no more than the '85 Camry, in inflation adjusted dollars, even though it has more safety and convenience features.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,108
    I think my Ram is around 4900 lb. At least, looking online, they have the 4.7 V-8 SLT model listed at 4828 lb, and the Tradesman 5.7 Hemi listed at 4894.

    According to Edmund's, the GVWR on the Tradesman is 8610 lb, whereas it's 6600 lb on the ST and SLT models.

    To make it more confusing, mine is an ST model with a "Tradesman" option package. Which is different from a "real" Tradesman. :confuse: Mine has the Hemi, but only a 6600 lb GVWR. I wonder what they do to the "real" Tradesman to beef up the GVWR like that? I'm sure just the Hemi V-8 alone would add weight compared to the 4.7, so I'm surprised there's not much weight difference.

    For comparison, a Ram ST 2500, with the 8' bed, regulat cab, and Hemi, has a curb weight of 5464 lb and a GVWR of 9000 lb. So, it looks like the 1/2-ton Tradesman actually has a slightly higher payload capacity than a 3/4-ton ST. That doesn't make sense. :confuse:

    Today I drove my '85 Silverado, just to get it back in circulation. Checking its fuel log, it was last filled up on 9/25, and had only gone 1.6 miles. So basically, I filled it up two days after I bought the Ram, drove it home, and it hasn't been touched since. I thought it would feel like a real dog after getting used to the Ram. It's lighter than the Ram, but still weighs about 4200 lb, according to the scale at the local dump at least. And it only has a 165 hp 305, 3-speed THM350C tranny, and a tall 2.56:1 axle. But, making the transition back to it wasn't that bad.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,108
    I imagine the '13 Corolla costs less or no more than the '85 Camry, in inflation adjusted dollars, even though it has more safety and convenience features.

    Oh, definitely! That $14,000 Camry that Consumer Guide tested in 1985 would come out to around $30,108 today, adjusted for inflation. But I just spec'ed a Corolla on Edmund's, and the most I could get it up to was $21,755 with freight.

    Working backwards, that Corolla price would come out to around $10,116 in 1985 dollars.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,312
    That's progress!
Sign In or Register to comment.