Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That article stated an mpg improvement from 21 to 27.8 mpg, not 37 mpg. Still impressive. It also stated that one of the ways this was accomplished was through a better engine. That's kind of vague. The article claimed that this more efficient vehicle had improved hauling capacity. I don't see how you can accomplish this with a less powerful engine. I think the American public would really be interested in this "better engine" if it provided significantly higher mpg with no sacrifice in power.
The XSE making 36 mpg in the UCS example was a 4-cylinder engine, wasn't it? I am sure the automakers could achieve huge fuel economy improvements in most vehicles out there, but the vehicles would be a lot slower as a consequence. And in speed-crazy America, it's a hard sell to improve a vehicle but make it slower at the same time....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Read the PDF file again and look at the last charts on the last page.
Hauling capacity or towing capacity? Hauling capacity, or payload, or whatever you want to call it can be improved by beefing up the body and frame, but doesn't necessarily involve a stronger engine. For example, a 1970's Dodge Dart, with just a 100-110 hp slant six, has more payload capacity than probably any car, and most SUVs built today. The GVWR on something like that was around 4800 pounds, but they only weighed around 3200, so that's a 1600 pound spread. Today, even many full-sized body-on-frame SUVs only have about a 1300 pound spread. My '85 Silverado only has a 1400 pound spread (GVWR 5600 lb, curb weight around 4200)
And it is unibody, but then of course Ford plans to make the next Explorer unibody anyway.
And of course it has this 2.3L "stoich-GDI" engine, I don't even know what that means, but I do wonder if it will only increase cost by about $3000 as they claim. As for towing, with 40 hp less and much less weight in the towing vehicle itself, you can bet the XSE won't be tow-rated anywhere near what the Explorer is.
And if you are not going to tow, I maintain you have no business buying an Explorer or any BOF SUV in the first place - get an Edge instead! You will save gas, you will have better handling, all the same interior space, and all for less money! Now of course, the Edge is a vehicle that could stand to lose at least half a ton in weight, and probably more. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Stoichiometric gasoline direct injection. Basically lean burn; good for mileage but not so good for emissions, which is the primary hidden culprit in the cruddy mileage we see today.
(we have asthma inhalers around this household, and I sort of like the idea of keeping the particulates down to a manageable level).
I have something against flawed environmental policy.
How is this for a true example?
I live in a non-attainment area for pollution levels in the air. In order to improve the air quality the EPA imposes sanctions on industry and transportation sources of pollution in the non-attainment area (where I live).
Majority of the air pollution in my area has been determined to be from the neighboring state which is NOT subject to the sanctions because the source area of the pollution meets required pollution levels.
So you can pollute and screw up someone elses air and health and it is OK with EPA. Icing on the cake is EPA then punishes the recipients of the pollution instead of the creators of the pollution.
Liquid fuel is just too convenient to get away from. I can see it becoming economical to convert coal to liquid fuel. We have plenty of the black rock.
:shades:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/FREE/980167430/1023/- - LATESTNEWS
He also says people won't willingly transition in the next decade to the smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles that the new CAFE law will likely necessitate that the big automakers offer. I DON'T agree with him there. He thinks they will just keep their old cars longer, but I think they will go right on replacing them at the same intervals as they otherwise would have.
And even as Lutz whines, whines, and whines some more, word is they are planning to offer more models with small turbocharged engines, which will go part of the way to helping them comply with 2020 CAFE regs. And the much-reported removal of big new V-8s from future product plans at GM has already been rescinded too, so they must think it's not ALL that hard to meet the new standards and still make vehicles people want.
Oh yeah, and he is still pushing the dead-end E85/ethanol thing as America's best solution to the problem of imported oil. Get off it GM! If you could produce anywhere near enough E85 to make a dent in the problem, you would cost consumers more between their new gas and food prices than they would save if you just built some honest-to-God efficient cars that ran on gas (or diesel) in the first place!
His remarks are in fact quite self-contradictory, as he still states that GM feels the ultimate future of automotive propulsion is electric. So get busy and make that Volt work for the street then! I know they will manage that well before 2020, and the key will be to see if they can then make its powertrain work for other larger models. Toyota will have the same problem with their plug-in Prius.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not necessarily; if consumers are not thrilled with the cars that must be produced to meet the CAFE standards, many will simply hold on to the ones they have longer.
I think you are misreading the American car buyer. I know it will not make any difference to me what I drive. Go check out the Toyota Sequoia threads. They are way more active than the Prius or Camry hybrids. Only a few people that should not have bought a large SUV to start with will be getting rid of their big comfortable rides.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I do think a lot more folks are considering mileage when shopping. If Corolla passes the Camry as #1 it should tell the automakers that the CamCord has gotten too big for those midsized sedan shoppers.
I have to agree. Many SUV owners buy them because they have several kids. They simply can't drive 'em all to school each day in a Prius, or even a Ford Escape Hybrid.
And, of course, pickup trucks are the only vehicles that work for contractors, farmers, and other hard working folks.
That said, I hold U.S. automakers responsible for negligence in NEVER developing an alternative method to power those trucks and SUVs. They've had several decades to do it. And high gas prices are nothing new -- we had a similar warning back in the early 1970s.
We've all been shortchanged on technological advancement.
.
I could be wrong. Won't be the first time, won't be the last.
What I'm saying is, peoples' perceptions about size and value won't change as quickly as the new cars and pricing will, and during the adjustment period, sales will be adversely affected, by an amount to be determined. Some will look at the '09 1.4L Cobalt and wonder, "sure the power is the same as last year's 2.2 naturally aspirated one, but will the smaller engine last as long? How about maintenance and repair costs? Maybe I should wait, and let someone else be the guinea pig."
http://gizmodo.com/344941/top-gear-coming-to-nbc-in-remake-form
You do know that they are in place to keep us ALIVE, don't you?
I don't want a small, unsafe, dirty polluting little car under any circumstances, and neither should anyone else.
Hey, Ford, bring back the Excursion !!
.
And as far as safety goes, if you have a large breakfast that thing can't go fast enough to hurt anyone too seriously. Even squirrels would be safe.
I agree diesel and more hybrids in the smaller cars is the short term solution. many people think the Prius is ugly but honestly, over half of us should be driving a vehicle that gets over 40 mpg as our daily commuter. We haven't demanded it in the past which is explains why some manufacturers are lagging. Why make what people aren't buying? There will always be people that need a pick up, SUV, large van, etc. They should have those choices. I don't want to hear someone complain about gas prices who choices to buy one of these vehicles and doesn't need the full capabilities of the vehicle.
The additional safety and emissions measures over the years have also cause a rise in car prices. Plus the standard $100 increase every quarter and model year increases.... In other words, the price of cars always goes up for some reason.
The reason I disagree is again at this auto show people were really looking hard at the fuel efficient cars. Plus you are assuming that people already have one of these class C cars. Many people have SUVs and they pale in comparison with regard to fuel efficiency.
There was little incentive for the domestic car manufacturer to invest in making a good small car. The American public did not demand it until a couple of years ago and quite honestly, they were making too much money selling large SUVs and pickup trucks. The Cobalt is very close but it took GM a long time to finally update the Cavalier into something better then a fleet and rental vehicle. I think the Civic, mazda 3, Versa, Yaris, Scion Tc, Corolla, Accord, Altima, Camry (4 cyl for the last 3) are examples of successful fuel efficient vehicles. Appealing and they get bought in bunches. many are more expensive then their GM counterpart. The Cobalt is much much better then the Cavalier. The 2008 Focus looks promising. Auto sales continue to slump each year so I doubt will have much of a hit on sales then what is already going on.
If the turbo direct injection get significantly better gas mileage then the current models, people will buy it esp. if gas stays this high. The key is the car itself must be appealing. We haven't seen that from GM until recently. I do think the turbo direct are a better short term solution then ethanol.
If the new rule is anything like the current, it is not an absolute requirement to meet CAFE. If you don't meet CAFE now, the manufacturer simply pays some sort of fine/fee/whatever.
I don't believe those companies now meet CAFE. I'm sure Ferrari, Aston Martin, Maserati and Lamborghini don't meet our current CAFE rules either.
The cost for not meeting CAFE is simply passed along in the price of the car. If you have $$ you're vehicle choice will not be affected. Nor will how much you drive.
The only stragglers will be the AMG cars - and the buyers of those can afford the penalties.
They have done it in the past though. Ford's Escort was a great small car in the early 90s, and the Focus was a great small car in the early 00s. The frustrating thing with the domestics is they have proven they CAN do it, but they don't try hard enough. The Aveo is a surprisingly good (although not great) subcompact from GM. I would say the same of the Cobalt when it debuted. Now, four years down the line, Cobalt doesn't compare quite so favorably, but it could easily be the basis of a great GM compact car for '09. The Astra looks pretty darn good, another great jumping-off point for a great, fuel-sipping, small GM car (and the European Corsa too).
Chrysler is the only one that never seems to be able to do ANYTHING as far as producing a good small car.
I think all the Big 6 automakers grouse WAY more than they ought to regarding the new regs. There are some fairly cheap paths to compliance. GM, with its new idea regarding the use of small turbos, is implementing just one of many possibilities (and of course, if they can make the Volt a reality, they will be well on their way to another).
I have to believe that it wouldn't be too expensive to make Aveo/Cobalt/Focus a lot more fuel-efficient than they are too. And I am hoping that the 2010 Verve from Ford, using Mazda2 mechanicals, will be a real sipper too.
If the major automakers apply some creativity, I don't think it is a mandate that we downsize the fleet drastically to meet the new regs, as some have indicated.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree that it's possible, but I disagree that it's fairly cheap, taken in the total context. That's because, in the short term, at least, consumers won't pay the big premiums that would be required for small cars to be as profitable as the mix of vehicles they sell now. Remember, the Big Three (which, incidentally, aren't so big anymore) are currently losing massive amounts of money in North America, and that's with lots of large vehicles in their sales mix. I think it's unrealistic to think they can improve their margins sufficiently to turn large losses into reasonable profits, all while increasing their mix of fuel efficient small cars. Anything is possible on paper, but in reality I think the domestic manufacturers, in particular, have a huge challenge. I hope they're up to it, because American consumers, not to mention the employees, stand to lose a lot if Detroit goes the way of the British auto industry. Sure, given time, everything can be worked out, but it would take many years for our economy to replace the lost jobs, and for the marketplace to offer the consumer the automotive choices we enjoy today.
Many times in the past, Detroit executives blew smoke or made misguided statements. An example is when Roger Smith answered a reporter's question of what GM's answer to the low cost Japanese imports was, and he answered, "a used Buick." That was laughable, but Bob Lutz is at a point in his life and career where he's proven himself, and can speak the truth. I believe him on this issue of small car demand and profitability.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The average american makes $30,000 per year. The average family makes less than $50,000 (U.S. census bureau). So $3 gas already cuts into most people's wallets.
The average guy is toughing out the $50 fill-ups. He's cutting back on some unnecessary expenses. But he's quietly simmering, too.
He sees the price of everything creeping up because of transport costs. He's fully expecting another gas hike to $4. He hears the gov't whine that it needs another 40 cents per gallon gas tax. He watches his property taxes go up, even as the value of his house goes down. He's making 3% interest on his savings, and watching his 401K nervously as the stock market stumbles.
He hears daily talk of impending recession, and hopes he can dodge a layoff at work. He watches college tuition skyrocket, and wonders how he'll ever pay for his kid's education.
He's worried about the future and the present. He knows he's getting squeezed. Yet, the wise men in Detroit think he'll keep buying their SUVs, even if gas goes to double-digit prices.
I'd guess that their market research consists of throwing a cocktail party at a lake-front country club, surveying all the luxury vehicles in the parking lot, then proclaiming, "Those are the cars that America wants!"
And they wonder why they're sales are in the toilet.
.
I think there are many like Traub at the top of the food chain in this country that could care less if gas was $13 per gallon. It would be devastating to the bottom 95% of US.
As Darth Vader once said “ Don't be too proud of this technological vehicle you've constructed. The ability to put a 500 hp motor in a 6,000 pound vehicle is insignificant when compared to the power of higher gasoline prices.”
Over the next ten years or so we will need to buy vehicles similar to what is sold in Europe. I don't think the 35 mpg requirement will change the trend.
However, the GVWR of the Expedition/Navigator is "only" around 7700 pounds, well south of that 8500 lb cutoff. Did the EPA lower the threshold for 2008? Or did Ford find some kind of loophole to get these behemoths exempted?
"*Due to weight and vehicle classification, Expedition EL versions are not tested in EPA cycle."
Standard-length Expeditions are rated at 12/18 in 2wd form. I guess 4wd is also above the weight threshold.
They will survive. The law will force them to work on something besides cup holders and 500+ hp cars. The law will probably save their bacon. If they continue on their merry way they would be in a heap of trouble when gasoline prices climb and everybody starts buying smaller cars.
“Also, how is this new tech that needs to be invented going to translate into cars people can afford?”
Europe already has a fleet of cars that can meet the 35 mpg rule. GM and Ford make cars in Europe. Its not a problem.
“That are nothing more then death mobiles if they happen to tangle with me in my full size truck.”
Sounds like you are getting a bit dramatic – death mobiles! Your truck is not as safe as you think. If you tangle with a tree or semi you can still have a problem. Trucks also have a higher rollover rate. The insurance industry stats show that all vehicles have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to single car, multi car or rollovers.
“Once the people of this country stop believing the Dem's scare tactics & bogus data on global warming. “
Sorry, but you are wrong about the bogus data. The data is supporting increased GW by both man and nature. But after 8 years of an administration that doesn't want to hear the facts we are getting further behind in understanding the problem. We need to do more monitoring and put money into the science so we can understand what we might be facing. Can we make a change or do we need to ride out global warming? Solutions can only come after you really understand the problem.
“We come to our sences, start drilling, ..”
We are drilling. You need to read some of the industry oil and gas web sites and journals. They are drilling like crazy in North Dakota and other western states. They are also still trying to get the Thunder Horse rig going in the Gulf of Mexico. It should produce 250,000 bbl a day. But offshore oil is expensive. Costs can each $70 a barrel. The problem is the easy oil in the US and many parts of the world is GONE, GONE AND GONE. There are also numerous other problems that are preventing the oil industry from drilling more (worker shortages, engineer shortages, high cost of raw materials, rig shortages.....).
“stop hurting our economy by staying dependant on the middle east for oil!”
Not going to happen any time soon. The US increase its oil imports by 3.6 million barrels per day from 1996 to 2006. China increased their imports by 3.1 million barrels per day during the same period. We do not have nor will we have in the next ten years the capacity to produce enough home grown oil. :shades:
Ford simply does not have the cash to develop this type of technology. Plus they need to focus on just surviving. The new F150 is the most important vehicle ever for any company. the F150 is Fords cash cow esp. since the Explorer sales are in the toilet. i don't see how they can achieve the new standard without partnering with another company.
Chrysler...... I think they will be sold by this fall, either as parts or as a whole. They are looking to partner with another company to build a small car. Daimler emptied the tank before they sold to Cerebus. They are simply trimming the fat and making themselves "attractive" for potential buyers.
Global warming is for real and no I am not a bleeding heart liberal. Yes the earth has been warming since the ice age (the Sun) but our burning fossil fuel along with other practices is not helping the situation. (We are leaving our kids a nightmare to deal with) No one knows how much oil is available, accessible and more importantly, how expensive is it to get it. I posted in another forum here on Edmunds that GM had made significant progress in the 90s toward a viable electric car. But they were making so much money selling Silverados, Tahoes, Blazers, etc that they decided to stop development. Gas was $1.00 - $1.50 and no need to spend $xx billion to develop a technology that may or may not be needed. Hindsight is 20/20.
As a country, we got comfortable with the status quo. Gas was cheap and we all wanted SUVs. Who thought gas would ever reach $3? The positive thing is there appears to be several viable technologies to help meet the 35 mpg standards and more importantly, lessen our dependency on foreign oil. The Volt is exciting but Honda's hydrogen car is unbelievable. Toyota has great technology with their hybrids plus we'll see more diesel in the next few years. i agree with you regarding ethanol. The lobbyist earned their money on this one.
As I understand it, the manufacturers lineup has to meet 35 mpg not the individual vehicle. So if GM can build cars that get 40-50 mpg, they can still sell pickups that get 25 (I'm optimistic fuel economy will improve to this level if not higher). I think you'll see diesel and hybrid technology dominate the pickup arena for a while.
It is NOT the Dems or the enviro-greenies that were pushing for this increase in fuel economy. It was the Conservative Republican Administration of G W Bush that demanded the increase and pushed the Dems to pass the legislation. If you need verification look at the website of the White House and the 2007 State of the Union speech.
So lets put that silly idea aside. This has nothing to do whatsoever with any greenie idea. Now if it's not the 'Greenies' and it's not the 'Dems' and it is the current Administration then why do you think it was forced through so quickly? Any ideas?
Here's a hint: Ask yourself who does the Executive Branch rely upon to get its information in order to propose legislation? Hmmmm. Ask yourself this question then: Why would a Conservative Republican Administration run by two oilmen demand that Congress pass stricter fuel economy standards? Hmmmm.
Something doesn't make sense does it. What's going on here?
OK here's the last hint: The President created a comission back in 2001 to report on ways to reduce our usage of petro-fuel. That comission made its report to the President last July. It's first recommendation??? Take the American public out of its current SUVs and trucks and make them drive more efficient vehicles. Ask yourself WHY? Oh, it's not because Dubya suddenly saw the light and embraced everything his good buddy Al Gore has been promoting. :surprise:
Now you've entered the 21st Century. Think about why Dubya and his Veep are so hot on this subject?
And those 18-20 mpg vehicles are such a good idea, huh? Sending billions of oil dollars overseas at a time when the dollar is this weak on the global market?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Who has been running this government for the last 7 years - two oilmen.
If there was a need for additonal refinining capacity don't you think it would have been pushed through with this Administration and EPA run by it? But it wasn't. Now that's weird. Why wouldn't the Big Oil Companies get more refining capacity put into service since we will need to use an additonal 2-3 million bbl/day within the next 5-7 years.
Why would the oil companies NOT invest in making more money? Very strange.
Hint: They've been telling us but we have not been listening that the supply of oil is going DOWN and in the next decade it's likely to start to go down sharply. So why should they invest in new refinery capacity that can handle upto 23 million bbl/day when they see that they may only be able to source 19-20 million bbl / day. Why build excess capacity that's going to sit unused?
This is what you personally have to look forward to in the next 5-10 years. Your GMC gets about 15 mpg and uses about 25 gal to go about 375 miles. If the oil companies can't get enough oil to satisfy our growing population and millions of new drivers then we all will have to play nice and share. Instead of 25 gallon for your truck you might have to make do with only 20 gal or 15 gal once a week.
The oil companies are telling us that the easy oil is all gone and only the hardest oil is still to be developed. If they can't get it to us and there are more of us driving there's only one solution .... we all have to use less to share it with others.