Your Thoughts Regarding The New EPA Mileage Mandate

fezo · September 2012

I never used to worry about Top Tier gas (Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Conoco, 76, Phillips 66 and NOT Gulf, Lukoil, BP and Sunoco - google top tier gas for more explanation until I had to get a set of fuel injectors cleaned. You can also add Techron, the best of the detergents available at most auto parts stores, but not someplace like Wal Mart every 3,000 miles or so. Or do both...

stever · September 2012

I got some Techron at Walmart not long ago. May be a store or regional thing.

fezo · September 2012

Ah! Could be. This one has shrunk its automotive section to put in more groceries. There's a Super Wal Mart 15 miles up the road but I dread going to it.

stever · September 2012

I avoided them until we moved to the UP. Now going to one is like going to Macys, the Bon, Nordstrom, Home Depot, Target, Best Buy and Whole Foods, all rolled into one. :shades:

Costs me a few bucks in gas to get there though.

berri · September 2012

Try a Menard's!

stever · September 2012

Oh yeah, got quite a few things from those guys. But WallyWorld is still closer.

Radio today said winter gas was in the pipeline and that it was cheaper to refine so the prices should go down. I thought all the ethanol in gas made winter and summer blends a thing of the past.

Regular here is up to $4.10. Getting 26mpg on the road in the van is okay, but 54.5 would sure be better.

hpmctorque · September 2012

Hey, 26 mpg is pretty good for an old van. Considering that it's ~85% depreciated it's cheap transportation for something so roomy.

robr2 · September 2012

Ah! Could be. This one has shrunk its automotive section to put in more groceries. There's a Super Wal Mart 15 miles up the road but I dread going to it.

I dread all Wal Marts. They are my last resort.

xwesx · September 2012

I second that!

benjaminh · October 2012

Good article about the complications of CAFE. Remember how there used to be one standard for cars and another for "trucks" including SUVs? Well, the new standards make that difference even more extreme, according to this good article:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/how-cafe-killed-compact-trucks-and-stat- ion-wagons/

ateixeira · October 2012

That could effectively kill subcompacts and compacts.

They actually end up being penalized for being efficient now. Plus it's harder to make improvements when they are already pretty efficient.

We'll end up with long wheelbase everything and no small cars at all.

stever · October 2012

"A move toward more fuel-efficient vehicles has helped American car manufacturers navigate the latest surge in fuel prices with relative strength.

all of Detroits continuing models became more fuel efficient, and Detroits market share continued to be higher than in the 2008 period, even as Japanese car makers became more competitive."

U.S. Car Makers Navigating Gas-Price Surges Better (WSJ)

ateixeira · October 2012

http://green.autoblog.com/2012/10/10/challenges-ahead-to-reach-54-5-mpg-as-ameri- cans-get-heavier/

LOL, obesity means 54.5 mpg may end up being high 30s for most drivers.

andre1969 · October 2012

LOL, obesity means 54.5 mpg may end up being high 30s for most drivers.

Eh, just doing the conversion from the raw CAFE numbers to what gets dumbed down and put on the window sticker probably translates to high 30's right there.

ateixeira · October 2012

Yet they stubbornly refuse to correct the system since they'd have to advertise lower numbers. :mad:

xwesx · October 2012

The funny thing is that the CAFE requirements don't take obesity into the equation, so why is this being mentioned at all? From a personal fuel economy perspective, it might be a factor. They way they presented it, though, is a non sequitur.

I suppose if some obese guy was upset that his new car wasn't returning the mileage he expected, he could make an issue of it. :confuse:

ateixeira · October 2012

People complain about real-world mileage not meeting expectations all the time.

Funny thing is driving style is the biggest factor, by far.

xwesx · October 2012

Sure is. Of course, there are also those crawl-style commutes (yes, driving style influences that as well) that aren't really considered in the calcs either. People just need to understand that it is all an estimate.

In the anti-responsibility, instant-gratification age, though, that isn't a popular notion!

stever · October 2012

On the road this weekend. This afternoon we passed a Honda Insight that was drafting a gasoline tanker in the right lane of the interstate, going about 60 in a 70 zone. 54.5 was a definite possibility for him.

At the motel tonight here in Minneapolis, there are two cars from Iowa parked next to each other. One's an Insight and one's a Prius. Will have to try to spot them at the free breakfast tomorrow.

xwesx · October 2012

I wonder if they're traveling geese-style. :shades:

Where ya headed, Steve? At any rate, enjoy the trip!

stever · October 2012

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

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

ateixeira · October 2012

Did you see the drafting episode on Mythbusters?

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

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

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

I do wonder if you're in the lane next to them (wes' geese style), not in the blind spot though, if you'd still get small gains?

stever · October 2012

Drafting has long been big in bicycling so it makes sense. Can cause spectacular pileups there too.

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

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

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

ateixeira · October 2012

You need a DVR or TiVo. :shades:

stever · October 2012

Except the commercials are usually better than what's on the tube. :P

Ford is touting the MKZ's mpg.

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

Gotta help them reach the new mandate.

ateixeira · October 2012

I'll take a loaded Fusion. Looks better.

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

Though to get a manual you have to skip AWD.

nippononly · October 2012

It's getting harder and harder every year to find models that offer a stick shift with AWD. :-(

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

hpmctorque · October 2012

As far as I can tell MPG is the only bragging right the MPZ has in its class. That wouldn't be enough for me to choose it over its competitors.

stever · October 2012

"Because gas taxes in the U.S. are the lowest in the Western world and have been stagnant for 20 years, they fail to reflect the costs of providing highway infrastructure and energy security, reducing air pollution, tackling greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating traffic-related social ills such as congestion and noise pollution.

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

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

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

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

xwesx · October 2012

gasoline tax of at least 55 cents a gallon is needed just to address personal transportation's impact on pollution, greenhouse gases and security

Wait, why is that necessary? If a fuel tax was used for interstate transportation infrastructure, then fine. I guess that could even play into the "security" aspect. But pollution & greenhouse gases? Seriously? :sick:

stever · October 2012

Ah, so you like living in the land of poisonous ice fog at -50 F eh? :shades:

(fairbanksirl.com)

fintail · October 2012

The "security" bit irks me more. Let the coddled so-called private industries who directly benefit from our idiotic foreign policy pay for the waste. Of course, that might make them flee to Zug or Singapore to escape responsibility, seems to be the "we built this" capitalist way.

fintail · October 2012

Impossible without better transportation and housing infrastructure being developed first. As it is today, that tax would be carried virtually entirely by the working class, who are already being kicked in the head by the do-gooder globalist idiots. Unless some benefit is guaranteed, I suspect the monies would just go to continued public sector salary bloat and more lavish pensions.

ateixeira · October 2012

I sorta like the idea of a price basement for a barrel of oil. That creates a little predictability for alternative sources.

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

Politicians have an incentive to keep oil prices down because they only collect revenues if they do so.

xwesx · October 2012

No, and if the "poisonous" part of that equation had anything to do with vehicle exhaust, I would certainly encourage a local tax on automotive fuel. Unfortunately, it is due to structural heating appliances, and the local Neanderthal population will die sucking down their own ignorance before addressing that problem. :mad:

stever · October 2012

LOL, did I strike a nerve? Hm, 18 and snowy up there per my weather bug. Here's hoping for some wind this winter to keep the skies clear.

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

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

Cue Joni Mitchell again.

xwesx · October 2012

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

Really, I just hate breathing the residue from folks burning tires and poorly tuned wood heating appliances. If people would internalize their stewardship responsibilities when they live in a community, this topic wouldn't even exist.

fintail · October 2012

My area has plenty of both parking lots and paradise areas, no need for tree museums here. Constant traffic jams as well. Maybe the Joni Mitchell crowd isn't as effective as they think :shades:

stever · October 2012

"The U.S. government has set tough fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, and Detroit's automakers couldn't be happier.

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

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

Industry buys into fuel economy rules (Detroit Free Press)

cannon3 · October 2012

is attainable. First the tech is there for automobiles to easily reach 54mpg. Cost and profits is what is holding the industry back. Government needs to slash the cost of doing business so businesses can develop this technology at a fair price to consumers. Who would have thought you would be seeing as high as 35MPG out of a family size sedan? I am all for these mandates, but government has got to release some of its hold on business. These kind of MPG ratings will give the U.S. its freedom from the middle east, cleaner air, cleaner waters ect.. It is a win, win here folks.

fezo · October 2012

This is the same battle that the car makers fought for years on safety equipment. That all changed once the companies figured out taht safety was a selling item.

Now, as opposed before in the days of "we can't average 25 mpg!" they realize mpg sells.

xwesx · October 2012

Who would have thought you would be seeing as high as 35MPG out of a family size sedan?

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

Oh, the possibilities! :sick:

andre1969 · October 2012

Imagine where we'd be today if the drivetrain technology we've come up with to get our bloated vehicles around more efficiently was available with the same vehicles at half the weight?

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

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

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

So, cars really have come a long way, in spite of the added bulk. But, it does make you wonder...if they took a 1985 Camry and gave it all the drivetrain improvements, but kept the bulk to a minimum, just how far advanced the fuel economy and performance would be.

hpmctorque · October 2012

A '85-size sedan with today's features would have to use a lot of pricey materials to match the weight of the '85 Camry. The upshot is that it would probably cost a lot more than, say, a '13 Corolla, which is roughly the size of the '85 Camry.

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

andre1969 · October 2012

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

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

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

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

Oh, and a 2013 Corolla is EPA-rated at 26/24, even with its outdated 4-speed automatic (in 1985, the Camry's 4-speed automatic was probably considered cutting edge). And while not a musclecar, 0-60 probably comes up in around 9-10 seconds, compared to the 13.4 that Consumer Guide got out of their 1985 Camry. I think a 2013 Camry 4-cyl, which is rated around 25/35, will do 0-60 in around 8.5.

xwesx · October 2012

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

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

My truck scoots with enthusiasm, yet its 307 cu in V8 is rated at 200HP. If it had that Hemi in it, I'd probably have trouble finding traction out of a light! :shades:

hpmctorque · October 2012

Good comparisons. Thanks. Unfortunately the average American is bigger than he/she was in '85, which may explain, in part, why the Camry has grown.

I imagine the '13 Corolla costs less or no more than the '85 Camry, in inflation adjusted dollars, even though it has more safety and convenience features.

andre1969 · October 2012

I think my Ram is around 4900 lb. At least, looking online, they have the 4.7 V-8 SLT model listed at 4828 lb, and the Tradesman 5.7 Hemi listed at 4894.

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

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

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

Today I drove my '85 Silverado, just to get it back in circulation. Checking its fuel log, it was last filled up on 9/25, and had only gone 1.6 miles. So basically, I filled it up two days after I bought the Ram, drove it home, and it hasn't been touched since. I thought it would feel like a real dog after getting used to the Ram. It's lighter than the Ram, but still weighs about 4200 lb, according to the scale at the local dump at least. And it only has a 165 hp 305, 3-speed THM350C tranny, and a tall 2.56:1 axle. But, making the transition back to it wasn't that bad.

andre1969 · October 2012

I imagine the '13 Corolla costs less or no more than the '85 Camry, in inflation adjusted dollars, even though it has more safety and convenience features.

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

Working backwards, that Corolla price would come out to around $10,116 in 1985 dollars.

hpmctorque · October 2012

That's progress!

Your Thoughts Regarding The New EPA Mileage Mandate

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles