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

cooterbfd · July 2008

I do see your point about shaving brands. Selling Hummer, and Saab, and restricting GMC to the Commercial nameplate only makes sense. Maybe one way to keep some brand names around, and successful, would be to "value price" the brands. First, instead of separating the brands at different dealerships, put them all under one roof. If someone wants a mid to large sedan, and has say $26k to spend, they should be looking at 3 brands only. That would be Chevy, Pontiac, or Saturn. now the question becomes what type of car are you looking for? If they want value, Chevy, Euro styling, Saturn, sporty, Pontiac. Currently, they would have 5 choices: Malibu, Impala, Aura, G6, or G8. By right, the Lacrosse should be above these, luring people looking for a Lexus GS, or Avalon. If they have say, $35k to spend, that is where you turn their attention to a Lacrosse, or CTS, and the Lacrosse should be BIGGER than the CTS, so they have a decision to make.

Fuel economy isn't going to be as big a deal as you think, if they are willing to put 2 mode hybrid trannys in these cars. Volume production should keep the cost to a minimum

huntzinger · July 2008

It is precisely because the US Automakers have turned to DC for bailouts (such as the E85 charade) and keeping competitors out of the US market (such as diesel pollution standars), instead of being themselves a key innovative leader that is better alligned with world realities (the handwriting has been on the wall for expensive oil for years) and what all of the consumer market segments want, for why they've been losing market share everywhere except in big honking SUVs.

And insofar as the fuel economy angst, Blu-Tek technology exists in diesels -- all GM has to do is licence it from Mercedes: technical risk: ZERO!

If they want to beg for regulatory relief, then let them relax the diesel pollution standards to harmonize them with EU ... GM can then licence the VW / Audi TDI, as well as the plain Mercedes CDI. Again, technical risk is zero.

-hh

cooterbfd · July 2008

Why would GM have to "license" anything from anybody, when they have those products for sale in the EU already??? Tech risk: zero. Cost: ZERO

lemmer · July 2008

Don't you know? According to GM, we don't want that European stuff here. They understand that Americans only want big pickups and Suburbans.

nippononly · July 2008

The Prez commited yesterday to a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. Needless to say, that's not nearly a big enough reduction, and other countries called him out on that score. But even if we just settle for the 50% figure, the automakers won't have any time to rest in 2020 - they will have to get cracking on improving fuel economy even further, just as quickly....

hpmctorque · July 2008

"Needless to say, that's not nearly a big enough reduction..."

How much is enough, and why?

wtd44 · July 2008

MPG being the question is a situation that won't last long, if we turn to the more important question of just what alternative (to gasoline) fuel shall we use to replace gasoline. We have a tremendous supply of natural gas in America. We could "quickly" begin this substitution process while we work on a future fuel of whatever sort for the long haul.

nippononly · July 2008

Well 80% by 2050 is enough to negate the worst effects of global warming by the year 2100, according to the report by the IPCC. That is for all developed nations, but especially for what is by far the biggest energy consumer and polluter in the world, the United States.

If we switch to natural gas, we will still be consuming a non-renewable energy source that produces greenhouse gas emissions.

If we can manage to produce massive quantities of cellulosic ethanol, then I like E85's chances. But that's a long way off, if ever. We need to diversify our automotive energy sources as much as possible, as soon as possible.

Oh yeah, and my original remark was slightly tongue in cheek, as there were no specific obligations agreed to by the G8 leaders on Tuesday, and no-one expects them ever to have the courage or the foresight to actually oblige themselves in any specific way, so automakers don't really need to worry...

wtd44 · July 2008

Let's get graphically fundamental: The natural gas for IC engines is aimed at fueling our transportation to get us to work each morning, after which we will do our jobs developing the future fuel. Eventually we start using the new future fuel and quit using the natural gas, which had itself already replaced gasoline in significant proportion. None of this will occur instantaneously. Yes, we will use gasoline and natural gas for a while. And on another vein, we should consider the conversion of our vast coal resources to other fuels. Key word: consider. We really must also consider that to get from A to Z, we may need to linger briefly at F, K, O, and V. Patience and pure science are mandatory. Double punt the emotionality! (he said, with some notable emotion...) :shades:

kernick · July 2008

We have a tremendous supply of natural gas in America.

You are right about the tremendous supply - but it is in the ground or under the oceans.

The problem is how do you deliver it economically? I live in NH and the vast majority of the state does not gas-lines. The areas that do have natural gas, usually run short on supply near the end of the winter. So there is no extra supply for more people to run there houses, never mind running their vehicles on them too.

LNG also comes into the area on tankers, and the LNG is stored in tanks. There are a lot of safety and terrorist concerns even at present levels of use.

We use many fuels right now to heat our homes, and power our cars ... You can't eliminate any unless you have a viable - economic and quick way to do so. It's just theory and dreaming to state otherwise.

dtownfb · July 2008

We use many fuels right now to heat our homes, and power our cars ... You can't eliminate any unless you have a viable - economic and quick way to do so. It's just theory and dreaming to state otherwise.

Which is why any energy plan must include drilling oil and more refineries to address short term issues (next 20 years). The alternative solutions will take time to get integrated into our society.

nippononly · July 2008

Except that the negative impact of allowing more drilling and more refineries is that then we say "See? That is what we are spending our money on for the time being, and that is what we are doing to solve the energy crisis" and then we do NOTHING. ELSE. AT ALL.

When the oil supply jolts of the 70s came along, we did nothing at all to plan for our energy future or protect ourselves from the whims of OPEC etc. Do you really want that to be our only reaction AGAIN this time?

It is time to diversify, not intensify our production of one fuel, ESPECIALLY not the one that has got us in so much trouble here.

nortsr1 · July 2008

Well, what you say is true, howver; if we would have started drilling back in the 70's
(off shore, Artic, etc.) we sure as he-- wouldn't have to be as dependent on all those foreign countries that LOVE us, as much as we are dependent on them now. Let's at least start drilling...even though I read that it wouldn't change the course of are dependency on the LOVE countries for at least ten or more years. We will ALWAYS need oil...why not get and use our own!!!! Let's get the ball rolling. We already missed the boat a long time ago and still haven't learned our lesson!!!!!

nippononly · July 2008

keeps trumpeting the fact that oil companies already have unused leases on 60 million acres of land. I guess some are saying the oil companies should drill those lands before they are allowed to drill in other places. How come the oil companies aren't doing that already?

lemmer · July 2008

I would guess that if the oil companies have oil that they aren't extracting, it is because at current prices they can buy it more cheaply elsewhere. We have plenty of oil; it is cheap oil we lack.

stever · July 2008

Plus there aren't enough rigs around and there haven't been for years. Now there's a shortage of drilling ships.

Tap existing land leases before drilling offshore (Island Packet)

Back in the 70's we started the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's just crude - there's not much gas or diesel or heating oil stored in the US.

nippononly · July 2008

it will be cheaper for oil companies to explore new areas underwater at the edge of the continental shelf than to just exploit the on-land leases they already have? I find that a little hard to believe.

I think it likely that the reality is that both represent very expensive oil, which is no solution to the oil price problem, obviously.

lemmer · July 2008

I suspect you are right about offshore drilling being similarly expensive, but the psychological effect of allowing offshore drilling might scare off some of the silly speculators pushing up the price.

nippononly · July 2008

has announced they are dumping all their big engines in favor of smaller turbos, across the board, to be fully implemented by 2010:

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080717/FREE/233692635/1528/- newsletter01

I'm still holding my breath waiting for some automaker, ANY automaker, to announce a major program of weight reduction, to help comply with the new standards...

fintail · July 2008

Does that headline reflect what was really said? I think it means MB will have a turbo in each "class" by then, not to drop all existing non-turbo engines. Still interesting.

I think we'll see significant car weight reduction about as soon as we see people weight reduction.

huntzinger · July 2008

I don't specifically know GM's European products, and while I wouldn't be surprised if they have diesels, my point is that merely being a diesel is not enough, due to the USA's incredibly strict standards.

Thus, the diesel today has to be of the "BluTek" (Urea injection) type for the USA market.

So the question is: who's already has a Blu-Tek diesel?
I know Mercedes does, and a few others. But I don't think GM has one.

If GM doesn't, then their only options are "make or buy".

"Make" - means doing the Blu-Tek type of development work in-house themselves, and not violate any existing patents or IP. This requires at least a couple of years of engine development, followed by a couple more years to figure out how to integrate those engine changes into a specific production automobile - - I think its safe to say 5-6 years absolute minimum until they get production product out to retail, which equals the 2014-2015 Model Year as their first opportunity for relief through this strategy.

"Buy" - means that for whatever reason -- ie, GM is bleeding and might not survive to 2014 -- then they have to slash the schedule by buying (licensing) someone else's Intellectual Property (IP). This cuts off the 2-3 year's worth of the engine's half of the development timeline and if they were dead serious, could have a product out by 2011-2012.

Of course, there's also the option of:

"Cheat" - get Congress to change the rules. Relaxing the diesel pollution standards would let them bring over their current (Euro) motors immediately. However, due to lack of fleet commonality, there still would be some engineering integration work to be done, so while they could conceivably get a few models by 2010, the 2011-2012 timeframe is more likely. What's "in it for GM" is that they won't have to be licensing someone else's technology - - but the problem for them is that Europe and possibly also Japan already have this engineering work done and can beat GM to market.

-hh

nippononly · July 2008

Well, I dunno: just how many engines do you think they will make available for each model? I am sure they will be keeping the monster engines they use in AMG models now, but take the E-class or S-class for instance. I doubt they will ADD a turbo to the line-up, I think they will add a turbo and REMOVE one of the other optional engines. There go a couple of V-8s...

fintail · July 2008

In Europe there are many engines per class, where here we usually see no more than 2 or 3, including AMG.

I could see all smaller engined cars reach a turbo design, and perhaps the upcoming hybrid S-class will work its way down the line, too. But the current performance engines aren't suddenly going away by 2010, too much invested in the 6.2 unit especially. The article is somewhat misleading.

wtd44 · July 2008

If we get real lucky, we will use natural gas in place of some gasoline, as we move on to a future fuel such as hydrogen. Our natural gas resources are very high, and using them will not compete with food as does corn-based ethanol, although we use natural gas for heating, etc.

texases · July 2008

"I think it likely that the reality is that both represent very expensive oil, which is no solution to the oil price problem, obviously. "

You are exactly right. The undrilled onshore leases held by oil companies large and small are being explored as fast as the rigs allow, but the basic truth is that the large, easily-produced onshore oil accumulation in the US were found years, well decades, ago. High oil prices allow exploring for high-cost oil, but these aren't the wells that'll produce at high rates.

edit-I almost forgot - if an oil company actually 'sits on' a lease, they can (and are) sued by the property owner for 'failure to develop', so it's really a myth that there are all these millions of acres of productive land that the oil companies just don't want to drill. Simply untrue.

texases · July 2008

In other words, has the rapid sales switch to higher-mpg vehicles made the government mandate unnecessary? Is there any data on what the current weighted-average mpg is of the cars being bought today?

hpmctorque · October 2010

It's happening, and the trend is bound to accelerate, as the next increase in mileage regs goes into effect in 2014. It is evident among my neighbors and friends who've traded their cars since the last message was posted on this forum, in July 2008.

Did the last car you bought have better fuel economy than the one it replaced?

stickguy · October 2010

probably the next car purchase in my family will be something to replace our Odyssey minivan. And I hope to make it be something that gets better MPG, especially around town!

the Ford C-maxx (or whatever it will be called) or Mazda 5 look perfect. To me at least, not sure about the wife! she probably wants some sort of CUV, and most of those dont get any better MPG than the van, unless you go real small (and I doubt that is happening).

MPG though will not be the primary consideration, but it will be in the equation.

hpmctorque · August 2011

Well, we're seeing it already, but the pace will quicken, maybe exponentially as we get to 2020, and then race to even tighter standards to meet 54.5 mpg by 2025. Virtually every major manufacturer is introducing or expanding its offerings of hybrids. Most, such as Nissan/Renault, BMW, and Fiat are developing full electrics. Weight reduction and space efficiency are being given more attention than at any time in the past. Finally, a wide array of technology, such as start/stop (just one of countless examples), are being employed to improve fuel efficiency.

Among the effects of the sum total of these changes will be significant vehicle price increases. More buyers will be relegated to the used market. Cars will become throw-away items to a greater extent than even today, as the cost of repairing a car that's been in an accident becomes increasingly uneconomical. I'm also thinking that driving and car ownership will probably be less fun.

And that's just for starters.

benjaminh · August 2011

I see it as half full because of this...

But, I wonder if the moderators should focus the CAFE threads. It seems we have three. Maybe we need just one? Close the other two?? I don't care which one, but it does seem like people here should have one thread in news and views to talk about this important issue...

stever · February 2012

Let's pick it up here.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles