Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive

hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
edited July 2015 in General
If the newly revised 35 miles-per-gallon law by the year 2020 becomes law, as now appears very probable, it will have a profound effect on the auto industry and the vehicles we drive. It's difficult to predict the widespread effects of this law, without knowing such things as how consumers will react, what technological breakthroughs lie ahead, the effect fuel efficiency gains will have on sticker prices and the demand for new vehicles, and the value of used ones, etc., What's almost certain is that we'll see a lot of changes, as well as some unintended effects.

It's likely that most motorists haven't focused on the significance or this legislation, and are in for a surprise. I'll acknowledge that, other than an increase in hybrids and diesels, and reductions in average size and weight, the future of vehicle designs is hazy to me. What are your thoughts on this subject?
«13456711

Comments

  • volvomaxvolvomax Member Posts: 5,238
    In essence, what happened in the early 80's will happen again.
    Cars will get smaller and less powerful.
    Big SUV's will probably become extinct, at least until technology allows big cars to make a comeback.
    The difference this time is, no manufacturer will have a headstart on the market.
    Even the japanese make big gas sucking cars and trucks.
    That is one of the reasons why Toyota is lobbying so ahrd against this legislation.
  • andys120andys120 Member Posts: 23,368
    Big SUV's will probably become extinct, at least until technology allows big cars to make a comeback.

    The technology already exists to meet 35 MPG standard in larger vehicles. Big Mercedes and BMW diesels do it all the time in Europe where fuel costs more than $6-$7/gal.

    Toyota is resisting out of solidarity with the other makers and because businesses instinctively resist regulation.

    IMO the legislation is a bit of a joke. Gas will probably cost as much as in Europe and Japan now so the market will demand better than 35 MPG well before 2020.

    And yes I confidently predict that cars will cost more. :P

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    cars will become slower, maybe smaller and more hybrids and diesels. I doubt if SUVs will cease to exist however. I have wondered if Gas is 8 bucks a gallon in the US what is the world will Asia and Europe do? It would seem to me they could be spending 16 bucks a gallon by then. If the fuel is increasing because oil costs more then it has to cost more in Europe and with all of their taxes they will get hammered. Because unlike the US they are already driving smaller lighter cars and using diesel to boot.
  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    All these "oh, the humanity" cries regarding the new CAFE standards are nothing new. They began in 1975, when Congress first enacted the Energy Policy Conservation Act.

    It applied to model year 1978 cars, and required the average fuel economy ratings of 18 mpg. Auto enthusiasts at the time recoiled in horror at such a requirement; said it would ruin the auto industry. It didn't. Then from 1978 until 1985, the CAFE standards increased gradually to 27.5 mpg. Auto makers whined all the way, but they met the standards, and the world did not end.

    Then, from 1985 until the present day, a funny thing happened. The CAFE standards never increased. Not once. They're still set at 27.5 mpg. So car makers today aren't required to produce anything more efficient than what they made 22 years ago.

    But now Congress has finally agreed to move up CAFE from 27 to 35 over the next 12 years, and all we hear is whining again. What B.S.! I guess the financial downfall of the Big Three has cut into the bribe money ..... OOPS! I mean "campaign contribution" money ..... that allowed auto makers to enjoy a 22 year free ride from Congress.

    As usual, car companies simply want to churn out the same junk decade after decade, and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

    Keep this in mind; the internal combustion engine is 100-year-old technology. Since its invention, we've seen the development of nuclear power, space travel, and the personal computer. Are we supposed to believe that in all that time, GM, Ford and Chrysler simply couldn't come up with anything better than a gasoline engine?

    .
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    "The technology already exists to meet 35 MPG standard in larger vehicles. Big Mercedes and BMW diesels do it all the time in Europe..."

    The '08 Mercedes E320 diesel gets 23 mpg city/32 highway. While they probably sell smaller Mercedes and BMW diesels in Europe, it's unlikely that they get 35 mpg in mixed driving. I think we're a long way off from what the proposed new law requires. It's a case of so close, yet so far, as it gets increasingly difficult to increase average fuel economy after you've done what's already been done, without big reductions in size and weight, or expensive technology, that will make cars significantly less affordable for the average motorist.

    The '08 Toyota Yaris, with manual transmission is rated at 34 mpg city/40 highway, while the Prius is 48/45.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    Where, exactly, are they pulling this 35 mpg number from? If it's, say, the average of the EPA/s unadjusted numbers for city/highway driving, 35 mpg for a fleet average shouldn't be too hard to attain. Basically, the numbers that the EPA used to publish throught 1984, before they adjusted them downward.

    For instance, a 1984 Accord with a 5-speed manual got 30/42 in the lab tests, and they gave it a combined number (I think 55% city/45%highway) of 34. Once they started adjusting those numbers downward for 1985, to reflect more realistic driving conditions, it came out to 27/33, with a combined number of 29. And now that they've adjusted those numbers downward again for 2008, it's only rated at 23/30 with a combined number of 26.

    Using the old, unadjusted numbers, even a big car like a 1984 Caprice with a 305/overdrive automatic scored pretty well, 17/28 with a combined number of 21. Using the 1985 numbers (or rather, a 1985 Caprice) equipped that way, the figures drop to 17/24, with a combined number of 19. With the 2008 numbers, it's down to 15/22, with a combined number of 18.

    A 2007 Camry with the 4-cyl/automatic is EPA-rated at 24/34, with a combined number of 28, using that 1985-2007 style of rating. With the new 2008 ratings, it drops to 21/31 with a combined figure of 25. Those combined numbers really aren't that far off from the figures that the 1984-85 Accord posted. So I imagine that the combined raw number for Camry could be something like 28/44, with a combined figure of 33.

    So when you figure that something like a 2007 Camry is basically the stereotype of a mass market car today, that 35 figure might not be too hard to meet, if it's that raw, unadjusted average number they're using. At least, with passenger cars. Where we're really going to get screwed is with trucks.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    Your overriding point, as I interpret it, that we need to know more details before we can discuss this topic intelligently, is very true. I presume the newest method of calculation (the 2008) will be used, but I'm not certain, and am basing my argument that achieving 35 mpg is likely to be challenging and expensive. Help, anyone?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    I did some digging on the internet, and found that the CAFE fuel economy ratings actually come from NHTSA. Here's the website: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

    Here's an excerpt from it...

    "EPA is responsible for calculating the average fuel economy for each manufacturer. CAFE certification is done either one of two ways: 1) The manufacturer provides its own fuel economy test data, or 2) the EPA will obtain a vehicle and test it in its Office of Transportation & Air Quality facility in Ann Arbor, MI. EPA will do actual tests on typically about 30% of the existing vehicle lines, using the same laboratory test that they use to measure exhaust emissions. The entire certification test procedure, including the vehicle test preparation, the actual running of the test on the dynamometer, the recording of the data, etc., is specified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations."

    "Three different sets of fuel economy values- NHTSA’s CAFE values, EPA’s unadjusted dynamometer values, and EPA’s adjusted on-road values exist. NHTSA’s CAFE values are used to determine manufacturers’ compliance with the applicable average fuel economy standards and to develop its annual report, the Automotive Fuel Economy Program Annual Update. The EPA’s unadjusted dynamometer values are calculated from the emissions generated during the testing using a carbon balance equation. EPA knows the amount of carbon in the fuel, so by measuring the carbon compounds expelled in the exhaust they can calculate the fuel economy. EPA’s adjusted on-road values are those values listed in the Fuel Economy Guide and on new vehicle labels, adjusted to account for the in-use shortfall of EPA dynamometer test values. "


    I find it a little confusing, but it sounds to me like the number they use for CAFE averaging is probably similar to the EPA's raw,unadjusted laboratory numbers.

    I also found this blurb from a Wikipedia article on CAFE:
    "The EPA laboratory measurements of MPG have consistently overestimated fuel economy. This results in a shortfall of about 15% in actual vs. measured CAFE goals. Starting with vehicles in model year 2008, the EPA is improving their estimates of MPG. This change does not affect CAFE ratings, only Consumer Guide values will change to reflect more realistic fuel efficiencies."

    So it sounds like these down-rated EPA ratings they're putting on the Monroney stickers on cars have no bearing whatsoever on the CAFE standards.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    So it sounds like these down-rated EPA ratings they're putting on the Monroney stickers on cars have no bearing whatsoever on the CAFE standards.

    That is how I would read that also. It seems that GM was given a 31.5 MPG rating on their PU trucks that are able to burn E85.

    Manufacturers can earn CAFE “credits” to offset deficiencies in their CAFE performances. Specifically, when the average fuel economy of either the passenger car or light truck fleet for a particular model year exceeds the established standard, the manufacturer earns credits.

    It makes it profitable for Toyota to sell lots of Prius to offset the Tundra and Sequoia gas guzzlers.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    Thanks for these clarifications. Your quotes and interpretations make these new standards seem less daunting than what I had feared, but still rather difficult to achieve without significant changes in vehicle designs and product mix. For example, GM recently indicated that it will probably introduce a "B" class Chevy (Trax?) in the U.S. This is one size smaller than the Aveo, which, from what I've read, will grow a little in a future redesign (the generation after the newest one, which is already on the road in Korea and Europe, arrives here as the '09 model). In the absence of a major technological breakthrough, GM and others will have to sell a significant number of B class cars to compensate for continued sale of traditionally profitable SUVs, pickups, large sedans and powerful sportscars. Ford will introduce the smaller-than-Focus Verve, and Chrysler will pump out Hornets and Demons, or similar size vehicles. More diesels and hybrids (traditional and plug-ins), plus refinements on existing technologies will help, of course, but will also add to costs.

    If my interpretation of what will be required to meet the higher standards is more than what you perceive it will take, it's because each incremental mph is more difficult to achieve than the preceding one. One could conclude that going from, say, 27.5 mpg to 35 is only 27%, so it's not such a big deal, but I think it'll require more changes than the numbers suggest. Now, it's true that the tighter standards will be phased in, beginning in 2011, and that a lot can happen in terms of technological breakthroughs in the next several years, so I'm more interested in seeing how this all plays out than I am concerned about it.

    Continued high fuel costs, in the form of a trend of higher highs and higher lows, would continue to put upward pressure on the demand side of the equation for higher mileage vehicles.

    It'll all be interesting to watch. Andre, are you ready for a somewhat downsized 3,300 lb. '11 Intrepid II, featuring a 190 hp/230 lbs. ft. direct injection four cylinder turbodiesel hybrid powerplant, for $29,995?
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    One could conclude that going from, say, 27.5 mpg to 35 is only 27%, so it's not such a big deal, but I think it'll require more changes than the numbers suggest. Now, it's true that the tighter standards will be phased in, beginning in 2011, and that a lot can happen in terms of technological breakthroughs in the next several years, so I'm more interested in seeing how this all plays out than I am concerned about it.

    Yeah, on the surface, a 27% increase doesn't seem like too big of a deal. After all, the original CAFE requirements called for a 100% increase in just 10 years! Starting in 1978, when the CAFE requirement was 18 mpg, they wanted to get up to 27.5 mpg by 1985, which was about double what the average fuel economy was in 1974-75.

    But that first time around, there was a lot of fat to trim. Many cars could easily lose 600-800 pounds or more, with little to no sacrifice in interior room. And in many cases, simply upgrading from a 3-speed automatic to a 4-speed ovedriver automatic would see a pretty big boost. For instance, the 1978 Caprice, with a 305-2bbl and 3-speed automatic was rated at 16/22. And that's the raw, unadjusted numbers! The 1984, with a 305-4bbl and 4-speed automatic, was up to 17/28 with the raw numbers.

    Switching from carburetors to fuel injection, and getting the bugs worked out of the computer systems helped alot, too. By 1996, the Caprice with the LT-1 350 V-8, actually scored something like 19/32, using the raw numbers! The window sticker said 17/26 though, using the adjusted numbers, and accounting for the 2008 adjustment, is probably something like 15/23.

    Oh, as for where I'm pulling these numbers, the EPA has a bunch of old files listed here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml.

    I have a feeling though, that it's going to be hard to make the cars get much more enonomical than they already are. Or at least, it's going to be much harder to realize than the gains that were made in the 70's and 80's. For instance, when we made the leap from the 3-speed to the 4-speed automatic, it helped alot, but then jumping to the 5-speed, 6-speed, or CVT isn't going to help as much. You can only make a car rev so slow on the highway before it downshifts to get more power, so you're pretty much limited by how slow you can make it rev.

    Similarly, how much weight can you trim out of a car and still make it safe AND affordable to build? A lot of those 70's cars had weight to spare, but some of the cars got downsized TOO far, and were little more than rolling deathtraps. Similarly, cars tended to be over-built in many ways before downsizing set in. But how many midsized cars really need to be beefed up for a 1500+ pound spread between GVWR and curb weight, or be able to tow 4000-5000 pounds? Believe it or not, many compact cars back in the 70's had a bigger spread between payload and GVWR than full-sized cars do today! I've seen slant six Darts and Valiants that probably weighed around 3000-3200 pounds with a GVWR sticker stating 4800 pounds. Yet today, you're lucky if there's a 1000 pound spread there anymore.

    Still, the computers and electronics and such keep on getting more and more sophisticated. So while I don't think it's going to be easy to keep pushing these fuel economy ratings higher and higher, it won't be impossible. Just as long as the electronics don't get so sophisticated that they develop their own intelligence and try to revolt against mankind! :surprise:
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    That's mostly what the new legislation is, although I still hope they pass it because any step in the right direction is better than none at all.

    Specifically:

    1. The CAFE rating will still be based on the old measurement system, which isn't even the numbers that appeared on LAST YEAR'S Monroney stickers, but an even higher number based on lab tests.

    2. E85 vehicles will be rated much higher than the mileage they make burning gas, which as we know is all that 99.999% of those E85 cars will ever burn.

    3. Certain trucks will continue to be exempted from the regs, while others will have to meet lesser standards depending on how big their footprint is. So, make the truck even bigger, and it doesn't have to make as high a fuel economy rating. That one ought to be good for highway safety.

    And I for one will not get on the "the fleet has no weight to lose" bandwagon. The fleet has hundreds, in some cases THOUSANDS, of pounds to lose. The latest crop of midsizers is pushing and often exceeding 3500 pounds. Please! They buff these cars up with hundreds of pounds of extra metal to resist torsional and bending forces so they can drive like race cars. Then they add bigger rims and tires to account for the extra anticipated speed. Then they add extra sound-proofing to soften the added noise of the low-profile tires they've just installed. Then they plunk a bigger heavier engine in there to compensate for all the weight they just added. All this, for what? To sit in the almost-gridlock that is the reality for 50% of all these cars' daily use? To hot-foot it from one stoplight to the next, sometimes almost hitting the lofty speed of 45 mph, in those suburbs?

    I would hope the automakers would treat this new law, finally, as a wake-up call, but I doubt they will. The domestics will pump out hundreds of thousands of additional E85 cars and trucks (GM sells almost half that way already, including some of the most popular models like the Impala and the pick-ups) so they can continue to offer exactly what they have been offering, while Toyota will lay on the rebates to sell Priuses like they are going out of style - every single one is a 60/51-rated (remember, old rating system for the new CAFE :confuse: ) credit against 16/20-rated trucks and SUVs (and those are the smaller ones - the new Land Cruiser is rated like 13/17) that go for big profits.

    I AM a little curious to see how Nissan will tackle the problem. Honda is already not far off the 35-mpg standard as it is. With a few more hybrids and small cars in the next decade, models it was already planning, it should find its way there without much trouble.

    Business as usual is going on in Washington and will be in Detroit and Japan too, despite what blowhards like Lutz whine to reporters about.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    will lay on the rebates to sell Priuses like they are going out of style - every single one is a 60/51-rated (remember, old rating system for the new CAFE )

    Oh, it's worse than that. Remember, even last year's rating, of 60/51 is down-rated from the raw laboratory numbers. The EPA used to publish the raw and adjusted numbers, but the most recent raw numbers I could find were for 1996.

    The raw laboratory numbers are what used to get printed on the window stickers from 1978-84. From 1985-2007, they used numbers that were adjusted downward. But for 2008, they've adjusted the numbers down ever further. I'd imagine that 60/51, by the 1985-2007 standard, could very well be something stratospheric like 70/60 using the raw numbers!

    As for weight, I agree that cars could give up a little. But I can't think of a car out there that could lose 1000 pounds. Unless we go through a wave of downsizing again. For instance, when downsizing started back in the late 70's, one reason the cars got lighter was simply that they got smaller. A 1977 Caprice V-8 4-door, which was pretty much the poster child for the family car back then, came in at 3701 pounds according to my old car book. In contrast, the mastodon-class 1976 Caprice V-8 4-door weighed 4,285. Now these are base weights...I've heard that a/c alone in those days could add 100-150 pounds worth of weight.

    Just for comparison, a 1977 Malibu Classic V-8 4-door, which is about the same size as the downsized Caprice, had a base weight of 3,824 pounds. So on one hand, a new full-sized car that weighed almost 600 pounds less than its predecessor yet had virtually the same amount of room almost sounds miraculous. But then, when you figure that it still weighs about as much as existing cars that are its same physical size, not such a big deal. Now a Caprice was a roomier car than a Malibu, despite being the same size, but there was no real magic there...they simply made the car taller and boxier!

    Nowadays though, I doubt if you're going to be able to just lop 600 pounds and a foot off of a 4-cyl Camry, and end up with a car that's just as roomy. What you're going to end up with is a Corolla. And the Camry is already a fairly upright, tall car, so it wouldn't be practical to make it taller and boxier, as GM did with the '77 Caprice.

    As for Nissan, aren't they already pretty fuel-efficient? I know that the Altima, with the 2007 redesign, got a boost in the EPA figures. The Sentra did as well. Plus, now they have the Versa to help boost their average. On the upper end, the Maxima really isn't that much of a guzzler. Their trucks aren't that fuel-efficient, but the big'uns like the Titan and Armada don't sell in very big numbers, anyway. Their smaller trucks are pretty guzzly too. For example, my roommate's '06 Xterra is rated at 16/22. However, their trucks are also sort of over-powered. The Xterra's 4.0 puts out something like 265 hp and gets it from 0-60 in something like 7-7.5 seconds. I'm sure if things got rough, Nissan could figure a way to put a de-tuned 4.0 in that truck, or even a smaller-displacement V-6, to get better economy. Guess they could also start churning out more 4-cyl Frontiers and then loading them up with hefty rebates, to help boost their figures.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    I think you are more than likely correct. I noticed the new Focus on TV says it gets 35 MPG average. And like you I suspect they will simply make trucks heavier to avoid some regulations and find loopholes. I will freely admit my First 3/4 ton was purchased mostly because it was a lot easier to smog than a 1/2 ton in my area. Fuel mileage wasn't much different from a 1/2 ton but a 1/2 ton had to be smogged just like a car.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    the CAFE ratings are based on last number's Monroney stickers plus 11%. So I was just speaking in round numbers. To be exact, each Prius gets Toyota a credit to the tune of 66.6/55.5, combined figure of about 60. Sell 200K of them as they will this year, and you can also sell 200K Tundras (as they will this year) rated only 10 mpg (which it isn't). Or 400K Tundras, 4Runners, and Sequoias with an average rating of 22.5 (which is probably about right using laboratory numbers). See how it's not looking like Toyota needs to do much of anything?

    Check out GM: they are 60/40 trucks/cars in the mix, but the E85 thing is a boondooggle. A full-size E85 Silverado counts around 30 mpg with the E85 credit, IIRC. E85 Impalas will be well over the required 35 mpg figure. Imagine if they also stick an E85 powertrain in a quarter million fleet Malibus every year? Doesn't sound like much of a stretch as far as investment, yet it will quickly boost them over the new standard. And we haven't even talked about Equinoxes or Colorados.

    As for Nissan, no, they are not very fuel-efficient. In fact, they always shadow Toyota's combined rating, which is never that good because of all the trucks. But unlike Toyota, Nissan doesn't have a Prius in its back pocket (not to mention two small gas cars that already exceed the new standard) to bring their average way up.

    boaz: I believe if you look closely you will find they are claiming that the Focus makes 35 mpg HIGHWAY, not average. Indeed, with these high gas prices, suddenly every automaker is hauling out ridiculous ads trumpeting their usually very mediocre highway mpg ratings. Go, you tall fifth and sixth gears! But what will people average? A whole lot less, that's for sure. My fave is the ads Chrysler was running. Their most fuel-efficient model made only 30 mpg HIGHWAY, yet they wanted to boast about it! Pathetic.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    From what I'm reading in this discussion (smoke and mirrors, etc.), my suspicion that the new CAFE standards amount to another failed energy policy is being confirmed. It appears that the new standards will be easy for the manufacturers to game, as the current ones are. Although nothing is perfect, the Europeans have already achieved an average of 36 mpg. Better fuel economy could have been achieved more effectively and efficiently by gradually increasing fuel taxes, and making the increases revenue neutral by reducing other taxes, such as the state sales taxes, so the incremental fuel tax, as a whole, would not be regressive.

    Also, diesel fuel should cost less than gasoline, at least by a little, as it does in Europe, to incent rather than penalize the use of diesel. Although I'm not knowledgeable about the costs associated with refining fuels, but doesn't diesel fuel require less refining and, therefore, cost less to produce, than gasoline? If yes, then it would seem logical for prices to reflect this, but maybe someone who knows more about refining than I do can chime in on this.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    That whole E85 thing and the credit that they get for it really bothers me. For one thing, vehicles tend to get worse economy when they're running E85, but I guess they're getting credit because they're still using less gasoline.

    But wait...at the current technological level, doesn't it basically take about 1 gallon of gasoline to manufacture 1 gallon of E85, anyway? So while the vehicles may be burning less, once you factor in the production of the stuff, it's still taking just as much gasoline, if not more, in the long run.

    As for Chrysler, I think they really shot themselves in the foot by replacing the Neon with the Caliber. While the Caliber is selling okay (or at least it was initially), it doesn't get near the economy that the Neon did. And that's not saying much, because the Neon still tended to use more fuel than the Civic or Corolla. IIRC, the 2.0/automatic was rated at 24/32. And oddly, when they went from the 3-speed automatic to the 4-speed automatic, fuel economy didn't change much, if at all.

    Another thing that's odd, I just found out, is that it's the midsized Avenger/Sebring, that gets 30 mpg on the highway. In 2.4 4-cyl/automatic configuration, it's rated at 21/30 (24/32 under the 1985-2007 style ratings). That's actually kinda sad, when your most economical vehicle is a midsized car!

    Oh, and it looks like the 2.7 is one of the engines that's being converted to run on E85. It's rated at 19/27 (22/30 old ratings) on gas and 13/20 (15/22) on E85.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    You are correct in that diesel takes less refining than gas. Diesel is produced from what is called the first crack when it is refined. However we do have the problem in our country in that we use a lot of diesel in the winter for heating oil.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    "So while the vehicles may be burning less, once you factor in the production of the stuff, it's still taking just as much gasoline, if not more, in the long run."

    And let's get real anyway: less than 1% of all E85 vehicles ever burn anything but gasoline their whole lives.

    By contrast, hybrids do actually save gas, but they cost their owners more money to buy in the first place. I think in the long run saving gas in order to import less oil will have a cost to consumers, so in that sense I don't mind that hybrid buyers are paying a bit more. It gets everyone used to the notion that times are changing and cars will cost a bit more in the future.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    "And oddly, when they went from the 3-speed automatic to the 4-speed automatic, fuel economy didn't change much, if at all."

    Andre, did the substitution of the 4-speed for the 3-speed coincide with the introduction of the second (and last) generation Neon, which was a little larger and heavier than the first, or did the transmission change come while the gen II was already in production?

    Thanks for the clarification, boaz.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    California will get the go-ahead (a waiver from the EPA) on their new program to reduce CO2 emissions, along with eight other states that will follow California standards.

    That would mean that new cars and trucks for sale in California in 2016 would have to achieve about 36 mpg, going up from there, effectively superceding the new CAFE regs with more strict standards, and without the CAFE loopholes like E85 etc.

    We could see change even more quickly than we thought...OR automakers could choose to merely change the mix of vehicles offered in California and the other 8 states so as to meet the higher standard only for those areas.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    Andre, did the substitution of the 4-speed for the 3-speed coincide with the introduction of the second (and last) generation Neon, which was a little larger and heavier than the first, or did the transmission change come while the gen II was already in production?

    Nah, Chrysler was REALLY late to the game with a 4-speed automatic in the Neon. The gen II Neon debuted in April 1999 as a 2000 model. Chrysler rushed it out because they wanted to lay claim to "first new car of the new millenium". So it was stuck with the 3-speed automatic, which dates back to the 1978 Horizon/Omni. As equipped, it was EPA-rated at 24/31. The 4-speed automatic was finally added for 2002, and the EPA ratings stayed the same...24/31.

    The only thing I can think of is perhaps the 4-speed automatic was just the larger unit that's used in midsized cars such as the Stratus/Sebring, as opposed to something that's actually sized for the lighter-weight, smaller engine Neon? So while the extra gear could theoretically help fuel economy, maybe the internals were just beefier, requiring more power to operate, and that offset it?

    I just looked up the EPA ratings for the older Neon. The 1999, with the 2.0/3-speed automatic was rated at 23/32. So a bit less on the city cycle, a bit more on the highway cycle.

    The 2000 Dodge Stratus was rated at 20/28 with the 4-cyl/4-speed automatic and an almost V8-like 18/26 with the 2.5 V-6/4-speed automatic. So heck, when I bought a 2000 Intrepid rated at 20/29, I was actually making a more economical choice! Even compared to the Neon, there wasn't much difference in those ratings.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    "when I bought a 2000 Intrepid rated at 20/29, I was actually making a more economical."

    Well, sure, that's because yours came with the 7-speed Benz automatic and the light weight carbon fiber body...just kidding.
  • tgkoenigseggtgkoenigsegg Member Posts: 52
    Can't we just adapt the diesel engines that they have in Europe. I mean they get around 45-50 MPG for the small cars and the SUV's get around 30-35 MPG. The only problem is the emissions standards. But, we could adapt those engines to work with our emissions standards here. Mercedes Benz has made the BLUTEC which meets emissions standards for all 50 states.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Check out this link:

    http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.autos.toyota/2007-12/msg01394.ht- ml

    It talks about how Toyota will be offering E85 Tundras and Sequoias within a year. They are "jumping on the bandwagon" in order to boost their CAFE average. In their case, it will boost their overall average more than a point, even though they don't sell that many of these two models annually.

    But then I read further down, and discovered something I didn't know, namely:

    The E85 loophole closes after 2014! Interesting. No wonder the domestics are scrambling, and this puts Lutz's comments in a different light for me. While that is still 6 or 7 years out, it means they will have to have major changes ready by that time.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    Where, exactly, are they pulling this 35 mpg number from? If it's, say, the average of the EPA/s unadjusted numbers for city/highway driving, 35 mpg for a fleet average shouldn't be too hard to attain. Basically, the numbers that the EPA used to publish throught 1984, before they adjusted them downward.

    [EDIT: Before posting I didn't see your several excellent followups to your original post]

    First things first. CAFE is administered by the NHTSA. It has it's own rules for how vehicles are tested which are entirely different than the ones on the Maroney labels mandated by the EPA. Across the board the CAFE fuel economy numbers are signicantly higher than the EPA numbers right now today. As a matter of comparison the current averages for 'trucks' under the outgoing CAFE is 22 mpg!!! That's Silverados, Tundras, Tacomas, Frontiers, Odysseys, CRVs, etc. This is also before any of the new technologies are applied to the current fleet.

    The average number for autos presently is 27.5 mpg.

    With a few exceptions all vehicle makers meet these standards today.

    When you begin to add the new technologies to the whole fleet of vehicles you have to take the EPA numbers and then inflate them by some factor due to the different testing cycle of the NHTSA ( CAFE monitor ). As an example a hybrid Camry ( 34 mpg EPA ) might actually be a 40 mpg vehicle for CAFE purposes. A 46 mpg Prius might be a 55 mpg Prius for CAFE purposes. We just don't know a lot about the NHTSA methodology AFAIK...only that it's more lenient.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    The Euro-diesel push much lighter smaller vehicles than we use here in the US but most importantly almost none of them will pass the emissions standards that will soon be in place here.

    So the engines will have to be larger and they will have to have additional equipment added to make them comply with our emissions standards. Both are economy reducers. But we will know soon enough when the new Jetta debuts this Spring and the 2.2L Accord diesel debuts in Sept. At that time we will have a good feel for how the efficiencies migrate from Europe to here....and what the extra costs might be.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    The E85 loophole closes after 2014! Interesting. No wonder the domestics are scrambling, and this puts Lutz's comments in a different light for me. While that is still 6 or 7 years out, it means they will have to have major changes ready by that time.

    Yes this gives them a cycle or two to press the technologies while not putting a knife in the heart of any existing programs. Also the final level of 35 mpg is at the end of a ramp-up period. This actually was good business/good politics in recognizing that changing a vehicle maker's direction takes a long time.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,889
    As others have said, the technology is here. Its just a matter of cost efficiency and production-ready. This homogenous charge tech seems to be promising. And Benz says their Dies-Otto (if i'm spelling that right) can get 36 mpg in an S-class. I think we are right on the cusp of fairly big changes.

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    One of the 'peculiarities' of the CAFE system is that in computing the averages it uses the harmonic mean as the methodology. Here's the wiki reference..CAFE wiki

    "Fleet fuel economy is calculated using a harmonic mean, which results in slightly different values than simple averaging.[2"
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    the most recent year I have read numbers for is 2005, when Ford was the only one of the biggies to miss the truck standard, by like 0.1 mpg. But they are all at right around the 22.0 mark today, and that is including Toyota. And considering they are using smaller car-based models as "trucks" for CAFE purposes, that's really extremely underwhelming. RAV4s, Outbacks, and PT Cruisers all count as "trucks" for this purpose. But then. that's old news.

    Did the truck loophole go away with the new CAFE bill the Prez is about to sign? I heard they had done away with it, but I don't know specifics. Anyone?

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    What this means is that to achieve a CAFE average of 35 mpg on two different vehicles one must first convert them to a 'usage' coefficient such as gallons per 100 mi ... then average them.

    Example:

    1) a 35 mpg vehicle uses 2.86 gal / 100 mi driven
    2) a 25 mpg vehicle uses 4.00 gal / 100 mi driven

    If another vehicle is to be added to balance out the 25 mpg vehicle ( 4 gal used per 100 mi ) it has to be a vehicle that only uses 1.72 gal per 100 miles driven. Why? The two vehicles together must average 2.86 gal / 100 mi ( 5.72 gal / 100 mi together ). Thus if one vehicle uses 4.00 gal then the other must only use 1.72 gal. This is a very accurate and rigorous mathematical application of the idea of 'averages'.

    The result is that to balance out a 25 mpg vehicle that uses 4.00 gal to drive 100 mi a manufacturer must also sell a 58 mpg vehicle ( 1.72 gal / 100 mi ).

    Thus the key factors then are...
    ..two vehicles together must only use 5.72 gal each to go 100 mi.
    ..three vehicles together must only use 8.58 gal each to go 100 mi.
    ..four different vehicles, 11.44 gal to go 100 mi each.

    It would behoove the manufacturers not to have too many vehicles at 25 mpg or lower ( CAFE testing procedures ). For every 30 mpg vehicle, a 42 mpg vehicle is required in order to balance out at 35 mpg.

    OTOH if a vehicle maker has 2 vehicles getting 58 mpg ( 2 x 1.72 ) then a third vehicle can as low as 19.5 mpg.
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    The appeareance of diesels will solve the mpg problems for some makers. Think of Honda. They will be in compliance almost immediately with their diesels.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    It's a very good likelihood but it's by no means a slam dunk. First they are only intro-ing the diesel Accord, probably in limited numbers and probably as a premium trim. We shall see soon enough.

    Then they, along with VW, have to educate the American public on the benefits and savings of diesels.

    Then they have to achieve very good fuel economy. I think after the emissions are taken into account as well as our heavier vehicle weights here they should easily get about 40 mpg which is fantastic.

    But then they somehow have to convert their entire fleet, which is not so certain - at least not right away.

    But yes since they don't have any heavy vehicles they should be the first to reach the 35 mpg average out of all the vehicle makers. The Ridgeline, Odyssey, MDX, Pilot and Accord all as diesels will put them easily at the new CAFE levels.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    the problem of filter traps and longevity standards. I am a big diesel fan but realize my choices escape scrutiny because 3/4 ton vehicles have a commercial rating and don't have to meet car standards. If they did in California then the trouble free smog equipment standard comes into play. Nippon might have the real numbers but I believe the standard is something like 60 or 100k miles without servicing. If a particulant filter has to be replaced or serviced in 20 or 30K the rules would have to change and the manufacturer would have to pick up the whole cost of the servicing. At least that is how I used to believe the standard was prior to the 2002 ban on new diesels in our state. At that time only VW was grand fathered in and of course heavy duty diesels. It will be interesting to see if the new diesels offered in cars will meet the current gas standards. I can promise you this, the diesels I saw in London in 2006 didn't meet the sight and smell test of this one Californian. But they may have been older diesels.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    "Nippon might have the real numbers but I believe the standard is something like 60 or 100k miles without servicing"

    100K miles, boaz. They want to extend it to 150K miles, basically the serviceable life of the vehicle, so they won't have so many poorly tuned, poorly maintained cars running around not meeting smog standards. 150K miles is already the required warranty for emissions performance for all cars sold as AT-PZEV (a California-only standard).

    And BTW, Californians have that 100K mile rule to thank for not having to smog check their new cars for the first five years of ownership. :-)

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress by a wide margin approved the first increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years Tuesday, and President Bush has signaled he will accept the mandates on the auto industry."

    Congress Requires Better Car, SUV Mileage
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    All I remembered was that the smog equipment had to last as long as my PT was warenteed when I bought it. I got the 100,000 mile warrentee that was offered at the time but didn't realize a 60,000 mile Chevy had to have the same coverage for smog equipment.

    From what I have read to meet our standards for air quality they have had to install filter traps in the low sulphur diesels and those traps required service at 20 or 30K. Would that have to be addressed for California?

    All 3/4 diesels require now is a visual inspection to make sure you still have a diesel. some people were buying old diesels and replacing them with new gas engines to avoid the required smog check.
  • volvomaxvolvomax Member Posts: 5,238
    Keep this in mind; the internal combustion engine is 100-year-old technology. Since its invention, we've seen the development of nuclear power, space travel, and the personal computer. Are we supposed to believe that in all that time, GM, Ford and Chrysler simply couldn't come up with anything better than a gasoline engine?


    "Better" is a relative term.
    While there may be more efficent powerplants available, the saving grace of the IC is the inexpensiveness of the powerplant AND its fuel.
    This inexpensive quality has allowed cars to become widespread.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    "From what I have read to meet our standards for air quality they have had to install filter traps in the low sulphur diesels and those traps required service at 20 or 30K. Would that have to be addressed for California?"

    Yes, that wouldn't do in California. But systems like Honda's which produce their own urea rather than needing a refillable tank like the Mercedes system would be fine, as long as Honda will certify that they will continue to operate without human help for 100K miles. It is the EPA's intent to follow this guideline from California too, but they are considering granting a temporary waiver to Mercedes and others to sell diesels with the traps for a few years.

    But last I heard, I thought Mercedes and VW had a 50-state diesel ready? So maybe they have gotten around this obstacle?

    Edit...my mom, who has extensive recent experience driving in Europe, asked me recently what hybrids they might be able to replace their Explorer with next year, because of gas prices and a desire to "do something for the environment". I explained that the hybrid SUVs don't really do that great for gas mileage despite being hybrids, but what about considering some of the fab new diesels that are about to come on the market. Her response? Oh no way, those diesels stink when you go to the gas station, and they don't run well. Apparently her last rental in Europe a couple of years ago was a diesel, and it sucked. I wish I knew the brand. It stalled out a couple of times, wouldn't start properly in cold weather, etc etc. I dunno how well diesels are going to do the second time around here in the States...

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    That's also a concern for my wife. She also hates the smell of raw diesel fuel and the risk of tracking it all over on the bottom of her shoes.

    Then her key question. 'Can i get diesel at any station, anywhere, anytime so that I don't have to drive around a dark town looking for a diesel pump with a low fuel light flashing.' When the answer is yes she'll consider a diesel.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    You will appreciate this kdh: FWIW, it looks like my folks are going to end up in a Prius, and give up some of the cargo space from their Explorer in the process.

    I think for regular old passenger cars, diesel is going to have a hard uphill struggle, but despite that it will be the sole response of some automakers to the new CAFE standards.

    I think they will all speed up development for diesels in their trucks and large SUVs though, places where diesels are a lot more acceptable to the public.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    " the saving grace of the IC is the inexpensiveness of the powerplant AND its fuel.
    This inexpensive quality has allowed cars to become widespread."


    Gasoline engines are only "inexpensive" because all the automakers started using them before our great grandfathers were born. That economy of scale that developed made the engines affordable, not the other way around.

    If, instead, they chose electric power, it would be cheap, efficient and ubiquitous today. And, as I said, we wouldn't have to buy electricity from the Middle East.

    .
  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    One other very key factor in the success of the ICE is the energy density of petroleum. That, combined with its historic, low cost, made the ICE the powerplant of choice for the past 100 years.

    james
  • volvomaxvolvomax Member Posts: 5,238
    Gasoline engines are only "inexpensive" because all the automakers started using them before our great grandfathers were born. That economy of scale that developed made the engines affordable, not the other way around.


    If we were using the exact same gas engines as our grandfathers used,you would be correct.
    However, each new gas engine has its own R&D and manufacturing costs.
    Electric power simply isn't sufficent for most peoples needs. Even today.
    Batteries can only store so much energy,and they take time to recharge.
    Gasoline is easier to obtain and store,and the refuel time is measured in minutes,not hours.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    today the EPA refused California its waiver to enforce a strict limit to greenhouse gases from automobiles. This was a law voted in three years ago, and would have reduced automotive CO2 emissions from cars and trucks a lot more than the new CAFE standard, without CAFE's loopholes, and sooner.

    In 35 years of California enforcing its own emissions standards, this is the first time that I know of when California has been refused the authority to set its own standard more strict than the feds.

    I really hope they sue over this one. What happened to rights being reserved to the states unless specifically reserved to the federal government? California's clean air laws PREDATE the federal ones. That is why California has always had the authority to enforce stricter standards, which has most often been a necessity because of air pollution problems that were worse here than in most other parts of the country.

    As of the latest count, SIXTEEN states representing well over 50% of all vehicle sales in the U.S. were set to follow the California standard, yet the EPA chief's explanation of the denial was that he wanted to avoid a patchwork of standards. The California standard would be the majority, hardly a patchwork.

    I will be encouraging my representatives at the state level to sue the feds over this one, but I don't suppose they will need a lot of encouragement. I hope we prevail.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Missed that story. Here's a link from Environment News Service.

    Sounds like a suit is coming (and who calls Jerry Brown "Edmund G. Brown Jr."?),
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I'm tickled the EPA finally did their job. Slapping CARB down is a good thing for the USA. We Californians would like to think we control the Universe. It just ain't so. If Jerry Brown wants to waste his own money suing the Feds let him. Quit wasting the CA taxpayers money.

    How can you expect automakers to build cars for a reasonable price if every state in the Union comes up with something they want on them? I could sure get behind a proposal to split California across the middle. If CARB wants to do something about the smog coming into the LA basin, they need to block any ship running on dirty diesel far out to sea. CARB would rather block someone that is trying to use less fuel by owning a diesel car.

    Two big cheers for the EPA!!!!!
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Now gagrice, I know you really dislike CARB, but let me count the number of misapprehensions in your remarks:

    1. This was not a CARB "edict". This was a proposition put to popular vote on the November ballot three years ago.

    2. This would not have been an attempt to "control the universe", but rather merely what goes on inside California borders. The fact that 16 other states want to follow our example is not our responsibility.

    3. 17 states representing more than half of all vehicle sales every year all agreeing to do the SAME thing is hardly "every state...coming up with something they want..."

    4. Jerry Brown will be using money from California taxpayers to sue the feds in their name, as those taxpayers are the ones that passed the bill.

    5. This was not a bill related IN ANY WAY to smog in the air.

    6. While this has nothing to do with what happened today, I will add that several car companies have diesel powertrains ready to go in the next 3-15 months that meet California CARB-imposed standards. You are really crying over something that doesn't exist there.

    Now ask yourself: even if you voted against this bill, do you really want the federal government to have the ability to negate California popular legislation next time we pass something you DO vote for? The power IS reserved to the states in federal law, you know.

    Edit: after reading the article in the link steve provided, I feel a little better. Not only does it seem that a lawsuit has strong odds of being decided in California's favor, but fairly powerful, monied folks like the NRDC are getting involved on California's side, which could help quite a bit.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    LOL...Are you young., or what.? My greatgrandfather was born before the Civil War.
This discussion has been closed.