Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?

rockylee

Wagoner, took a lot of the EV1 technology and is using it for the Volt. So as a total waste ??? I think not. GM, did bring us the first electric car and while it had it's short comings it wasn't a total disaster as it was the founding father to the hybrid engine trend and GM's renewed pursuit of the electric car. Look at ZAP, Tesla, making attempts. Every era will have some so-called failures but we need to take risks and if we lose at the first attempt eventually someone will come a long someday and study up on your mistakes and try again. I say if we don't try we will never solve the problem. As far as giving money goes I would dump a lot of it in battery company's, big 3, hydrogen, bio-fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, ocean turbine, etc, etc, etc, and let's not forget one of the best fuel source of em' all is Cold Fusion

1 gallon of COLD FUSION=40 gallons of gasoline.

-Rocky

boaz47

To use your Cubs example we could say they would have a much easier time winning the pennant if they used the CAFE example. Simply put, all they have to do is win whatever number of games they are already winning and continue winning that number of games for the next thirty years and they get the pennant. That is how CAFE works. Not only that if you lose a game on Thursday you simply say that thursday games don't count as a loss for the Cubs. Sort of like exempting SUVS over 8900 pounds from the requirements of CAFE so the manufacturers could sell more 8900 pound vehicles without the fuel useage going against their corporate average. Yes believe it or not trucks count against their average. These are things CAFE has created themselves. Congress has decided the standards not the president. Congress has voted on these standards several times in 30 years and in some of them Gore was part of the process. Still no change. Well unless we think he created CAFE like it has been said he created the internet. Red bunting or Blue bunting has made no difference in 30 years so it is much harder to believe it will make any difference now. However when Gas hit 3 bucks a gallon the shift towards smaller cars and away from Suburbans was dramatic. It took less than three years and the Public directed the change with their wallet and the manufacturers responded without a fight.

saying all CAFE has to do is raise the standards may be true. But in thirty years they have pretty much done zip and all of that they have done with the help of congress not the president. It doesn't matter which animal you support.

fezo

With some of what gagrice and boaz47 say. This is unusual but by no means unique.

Points of agreement - the government isn't serious about reducing the amount of gas we use. They certainly are interested in looking like they are.

Indeed the CAFE numbers got stalled by Reagan. You have to realize that it is almost 20 years since Reagan has been president. Through 8 Democratic years and 10 Republican ones nothing has happened.

I do think that raising the standards would be helpful. Sure the folks that make the biggest cars will complain the loudest but better they know about predictable requirements than to have a sudden market disaster, such as the Saudi government falling, decide for you.

I would love to see serious tax breaks for individuals and families who do something concrete to reduce energy use. Years ago there were heavy tax credits for installing things like solar hot water. More recently you had the hybrid car credit, though it declined as individual manufacturers filled their quotas. I'd like to see more of this.

li_sailor

Who do you think would be best to give these billions to?

Are you seriously suggesting that we give up on the notion of R&D? What private firm do you have in mind to do this? Halliburton?

Look at what NASA did with the Apollo program. And despite the problems that the Shuttle has had, it's a technological triumph.

The problem is not technical execution but of leadership. If America can agree that this is important enough, we can do almost anything.

Government is lousy at coming up with solutions to problems.

And private enterprise is lousy at anything but lining the pockets at the top. This is nihilism at its worst.

Government can accomplish things, the question is what things and how. It comes down to leadership.

We would have diesel cars...

Diesel is fossil fuel and there's no long term future in that.

li_sailor

These are things CAFE has created themselves.

CAFE didn't create itself. And if you think its goal and settings are insufficient, you can change them. It's not the mechanism, it's the setting.

...Gore was part of the process.

LOL, cheap shot. Gore was a traditional VP, he 'let' Bill run the country, what a concept. Things have changed, but that's another topic.

Red bunting or Blue bunting...

We were talking about CAFE and whether it works and/or can work.

But in thirty years they have pretty much done zip...

If doing "zip" is the problem, then what would be the answer? Who are you arguing with?

fezo

That was probably the last great "show we can do it" project the US took on. Were we to pursue energy independence with the same dedication and decided failure was not an option we could accomplish that.

I will admit to the fact that CAFE probably gave us the first generation of FWD disasters like the Citation but we learned from it and the descendants of those cars are far better and get much better mileage.

grbeck

li_sailor: Actually, no. The Sect'y of transportation administers CAFE and is responsible for the standards set and he reports to the Prez.

And after the 1992 election, President Clinton appointed the Secretary of Transportation. And there was a Congress controlled completely by Democrats (which lasted until the fall 1994 elections).

For the first two years of his term, President Clinton had the momentum of his electoral victory behind him. The Secretary of Transportation was his appointee. He had a Democratic Congress.

Still no CAFE increase...

grbeck

li_sailor: We could argue about parties and interests, but the fact is that the current administration is not in favor of increasing CAFE. That's a fact.

Oh really? Here is an except from an April 24, 2007 article in The Detroit News:

Feinstein's bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by 16 senators, raises the fleet-wide average fuel economy for passenger cars and light trucks from 25 miles per gallon to 35 mpg by 2018. It will face amendments at the May 8 hearing.

The proposal is similar to what President Bush called for in January, when he said he wanted to reduce gasoline usage by 8.5 billion gallons, or 5 percent, a year by increasing fuel economy by an average of 4 percent annually beginning in September 2009 for passenger cars. The Bush proposal would result in a fleet-wide average of about 34 mpg, experts say. (emphasis added)

The key difference is Bush would leave it to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set the actual increases through a rulemaking process.

If the Bush proposal would result in a fleet-wide average of "about 34 mpg," and the current standard is set at 27.5 mpg, that sounds like he is supporting an increase to me.

If you have another interpretation that will prove incorrect that fact, please share it with us.

li_sailor

And there was a Congress controlled completely by Democrats...

This is not about parties. It's about what we should do and what's possible under the current leadership.

Still no CAFE increase...

So, you think there should be one?

li_sailor

If you have another interpretation that will prove incorrect that fact, please share it with us.

What fact, that he said something?

He also said he was a uniter, not a divider, that he didn;t believe in nation building and that the mission was accomplished.

Now, I have no intention of turning this topic into a political debate, but pretending that words and actions are synonomous bears rebuttal.

beginning in September 2009

I think Dubya will be focusing on golf by then, pretty easy to make claims about it.

The fact is that he has done virtually nothing to match those words, and plenty to bely them.

Now, getting back to the topic, to make CAFE "work" beyond its present terms would take some political will. I don't see any at the present. There will be some opportunity for change next year, we'll see.

grbeck

li_sailor: This is not about parties. It's about what we should do and what's possible under the current leadership.

Sorry, but when you (inaccurately) criticize the current administration of being against an increase in CAFE, and say that "elections" will solve the problem, most people would reasonably conclude that the suggestion is that one party is better than the other in this regard, given that most elections involve a choice between the two major parties (discounting Libertarians, Greens, etc.).

li_sailor: So, you think there should be one?

No, because higher gas prices are already driving people toward more fuel-efficient vehicles. SUV sales have been in the dumps since last year (check out the collapse in Explorer sales, despite a much-improved model; even Honda has had to offer incentives to move the Pilot).

A few months back, Car & Driver's Csaba Csere traced the history of the new vehicle fleet's fuel efficiency since CAFE was instituted, and noted that when gas prices rose, the fleet's efficiency gains outpaced those required by CAFE.

Given that it is highly unlikely that we will see drops in fuel prices, with increasing demand in India and China, we will see consumer demand moving in that direction without a CAFE increase.

But since both Bush and Congress appear to favor a CAFE increase, we will probably get one.

grbeck

li_sailor: What fact, that he said something?

No, that he went on the record with a policy proposal.

li_sailor: He also said he was a uniter, not a divider, that he didn;t believe in nation building and that the mission was accomplished.

There is a considerable difference between campaign rhetoric and a policy proposal.

li_sailor: Now, I have no intention of turning this topic into a political debate, but pretending that words and actions are synonomous bears rebuttal.

And saying that the Administration is against a CAFE increase, and stating that it is "a fact," also bears an invitation to provide a rebuttal. Which I did.

Instead of dodging and weaving, what you need to say is, "At this point, it looks as though I am wrong" and, as they say, "move on."

fezo

While I share li_sailor's skepticism about Bush's sincerity on the issue he indeed made a very public policy statement on that and I would think it very unlikely that he would block or veto a bill that accomplished this.

Like grbeck I am doubtful about gas prices coming down but I still think that the manufacturers will not think beyond a one week drop and get their act together without being pushed.

li_sailor

when you (inaccurately) criticize the current administration of being against an increase in CAFE, and say that "elections" will solve the problem..

If you think this administration is not against a significant increase in CAFE at the present time (not in 2009, when they will not be around), you're in fantasy land.

And I never said that elections would solve the problems, only that it was an opportunity. This discussion is not about politics.

No, because higher gas prices are already driving people toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.

But the overall efficiency of the fleet is not increasing, so what's the goal here? Some people are going there, others are going the other way.

...noted that when gas prices rose, the fleet's efficiency gains outpaced those required by CAFE.

I don't know of anyone that doesn't recognize that higher prices reduce consumption. Higher gas prices are certainly a possible alternative to CAFE, but there are disadvantages, many of which have been discussed here. And so far, over the long haul, it's not effective enough to increase overall efficiency.

...we will see consumer demand moving in that direction without a CAFE increase.

"moving in that direction" by what measure? Overall efficiency is not improving.

But since both Bush and Congress appear to favor a CAFE increase...

Did you notice that bridge for sale?

gagrice

Gore was a traditional VP, he 'let' Bill run the country

What did he accomplish all those years in Congress besides getting wealthy? Gore is a poor excuse as an example with his use of natural resources. Basically he is a demagogue that would like to control the country. If he cared about the environment he would be driving a hybrid bus around the country instead of a jet. A bus run on biodiesel would get him a lot more credibility than jetting across the country and living like a king with all the burning of fossil fuel to maintain his opulent lifestyle. He is a joke even to most in his own party.

li_sailor

What did he accomplish...

You want a list??? I don't think that's on topic.

If he cared about the environment he would be driving a hybrid bus around the country instead of a jet.

Ah yes, time is overrated

A bus run on biodiesel would get him a lot more credibility...

Well, it depends on one's POV. If one is more interested in the merits of a particular set of proposals than in thepersonal details of the messenger, then the answer might be different.

I have news for you. Anyone in a position of high leadership in this country is going to have a vastly larger carbon footprint than the rest of us. It's unavoidable. Get over it.

He is a joke even to most in his own party.

Actually, surprisingly, not.

gagrice

I have news for you. Anyone in a position of high leadership in this country is going to have a vastly larger carbon footprint than the rest of us. It's unavoidable.

Not in my opinion. Why would you think that you are inferior to Al Gore or anyone else? Leaders should lead by example. He sets a horrible example. I am light years ahead of Al Gore in my environmental approach to living. As much as I disagree with Ralph Nader I would consider him a good example. Do you think Egore has ever been in a car that met the CAFE standard? It is pretty easy for me to live a life that is an environmentally sound example to my children. My whole family are far better citizens of the planet than the likes of Egore. Even Bush on his ranch probably does not live as wastefully as Mr. Gore. Your belief in an elite leadership is what is wrong in this country. No different than corporate leaders that are bringing this country down. In fact they pretty much look alike.

fezo

But Bush's ranch is everything that you would expect Al Gore to live in. It's full of energy saving technology and even saves the rainwater. It does have the advantage of being pretty new construction (somewhere in the 90s) and all that was built into the place to start with.

gagrice

I had read something about his ranch. I don't buy the carbon credits BS for the wealthy. They want to waste resources they get blasted in the media for what they are. If we don't want anyone to be above the law, why do we make exceptions for those that are damaging the environment? Driving a Prius to the airport for a trip to the Caymans in your Gulfstream is a gross waste of fossil fuel. The trip in the Prius does not negate the waste of the jet. In fact it makes the whole scene smell of hypocrisy.

Claires

and back into the CAFE, please.

cornmeal64

Seems to me that gas mileage could increase if more emphasis was given to turbo/super charging smaller engines. Many smaller cars get great MPG, but when you load them up, they can lack power.

100 HP in a compact car can be very adequate, but add 3 more people, (probably fat people if they are related to me...) you will be driving with your right foot close to or on the floor just to keep up.

What I am saying is that maybe a smaller engine is useful most of the time, but having computer controlled enhancements would give the extra umph when needed.

This kind of thinking might not negate our need for fuel, or cafe regs, but maybe lighten the burden until a solution is found.

Just an idea.

nippononly

On that note, I am curious to see how good the mileage is from VW's new 1.4L twin-charged engine this year (or next?). A little engine like that should pull some pretty good mpgs when you aren't laying into the gas pedal. And yet you have 170 hp ready to go any time you need it.

cornmeal64

That's a perfect example of what I mean, a small engine that can act bigger, instead of big engines that act smaller.

Kind of the opposite of displacement on demand currently used.

Isn't the VW engine a diesel?

nippononly

The twincharged engine runs on gas. VW does also have a new 50-state diesel that they say they will begin selling here in January 2008.

rockylee

How much power and what models nippon ?

-Rocky

nippononly

The 50-state diesel makes 140 hp, I forget the displacement, and it will be the diesel option for all the VW cars eventually, Beetle through Passat, but going initially into the Jetta I believe.

The twincharged engine appears this year in the States, but I forget which models. In Europe there is a twincharged GTI, but I think here they are going to keep the current turbo as the base engine. I bet there will be a twin-charged Rabbit eventually, as well as this new Scirocco and subcompact, if they bring those models over next year.

I just heard on the radio that the national average price of gas has just crested $3/gallon again, to remain high throughout spring and summer I imagine. I do think with or without a gas tax, and no matter what they do with CAFE, consumer pressure to have more fuel-efficient vehicle choices will do the job that the government and automakers won't. These gas prices are going to keep spiking year after year, and here in California, many expect the $4 gas to arrive in the next month or so.

rockylee

Nippon, any idea on tq numbers for the diesel ????

So the 140 hp engine is the twincharger. I remember reading about it in a car mag. Looks like a good engine for small cars. I'd like to see something like it in a Malibu. I hope diesels get popular here as I think bio-diesel cars would be cool. Audi, still makes my all-time favorite diesel engine the 4.2 Twin Turbo V8. The diesel version is quicker than the gas and get's 35 mpg :surprise:

-Rocky

nippononly

Hold it! You have it backwards.

The twincharger gas makes 170 hp.

The new diesel makes 140 hp, and more than 200 lb-ft of torque.

rockylee

nippon, I thought the twincharger was the new diesel ??? So the twincharger is a regular gas engine.....got it !

-Rocky

rockylee

Auto leaders call Senate's proposal to raise fleetwide averages to 35 mpg 'unattainable.'

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070505/AUTO01/705050363/1148- /rss25

These idiots are nuts thinking we all should drive AVEO's. :mad: :sick:

-Rocky

gagrice

Take heart Rocky. They can easily make those numbers by offering diesel vehicles. Congress will have to make some compromises with the EPA on emissions. It depends on priorities. Ever drive an E320 CDI? It will do 0-60 in about 6 seconds and gets 38 MPG on the highway. Handles great and has as good of a safety rating of any car on the road.

rockylee

Ever heard of the Audi A8 4.2 V8 Twin Turbo diesel ? It will smoke it's gas sister doing 0-60 in the 5's and still get ya 35 mpg.

-Rocky

gagrice

Yes I believe the companies that push ahead with diesel options will make the money. 2008 will be an interesting year with some decent cars that get decent mileage.

boaz47

Yes, diesel is an option. However the rub will be the EPA. Even with filter traps Diesels produce more particulants than a gas engine. Not as much as they once did but more none the less. And filter traps have to be serviced more often and in California they run into CARB and the smog devices have to last 100,000 miles without servicing. But compromises need to be made or diesel will have a hard time in the states that have adopted California standards.

gagrice

There is a debate as to which emissions are the most harmful. I am not ready to take what the EPA says as fact. If you follow the emissions ratings of many of the popular cars it is plain to see that as emissions became cleaner mileage suffered. I guess we have to decide which is more important. Current diesel offerings by VW & DC are cleaner than the most popular cars 5-6 years ago according to the EPA website. With millions of those cars still on the road I do not see it as that big of a compromise. I believe we have reached beyond the point of reasonable with regards to automotive pollution. The government needs to get serious about the real culprits.

boaz47

While I tend to agree with you. I have been a fan of diesels for a long time. Not the smell or soot of the old ones. But some of the new ones are almost a quiet as a gas engine. My f-250 Powerstroke was a great improvement over a 351 or even a V-10 gas rig. But european particulant standards are less strict than our for new vehicles. while I agree older vehicles may or may not be any cleaner than a new diesel it is CARB that sets those standards in our state and they will be a tuff nut to crack for any new diesels coming here. The EPA will simply have to step in and negotiate a reasonable compromise. Not that the Air in Europe says a lot of the effects of diesel as they have been using it for so many years.

gagrice

Remember CARB mandated 10% ZEV or electric cars by 2001. Then pulled the plug so to speak. I find CARB about as phony as silicone implants. It is hard to decide which agency is the least useful in our quest for clean air and fuel economy. My view of CARB is they are just puppets of the Hollywood elite. All hoping to be invited to celebrity parties.

grbeck

li_Sailor: If you think this administration is not against a significant increase in CAFE at the present time (not in 2009, when they will not be around), you're in fantasy land.

No CAFE increase will be immediate. It will take a few years to implement. If you don't know that, then you are either living in Fantasy Land, or are completely ignorant of how government works.

You also may want to check your calendar - 2009 is less than two calender years away, and the automakers can roll out 2010 models (which will be the first ones directly affect by the proposed increase) in less than two years. (New models can be introduced for the next model year in January.)

The simple fact is that you specifically said that the Bush Administration is opposed to increasing CAFE, I proved you incorrect by citing an article from a reputable source, and now you are trying to weasel out of your error by saying that because it the increase will not be "immediate," it doesn't count.

li_sailor: And I never said that elections would solve the problems, only that it was an opportunity. This discussion is not about politics.

A distinction without a difference. And if it's not about politics, then I'd suggest that you stop bashing Bush and the, indirectly, the Republicans.

li_sailor: But the overall efficiency of the fleet is not increasing, so what's the goal here? Some people are going there, others are going the other way.

But, if people shun gas guzzlers, and move toward more fuel efficient vehicles, the fuel efficiency of vehicles actually purchased does improve, as has been documented by Casba Csere of Car & Driver. And it improves faster than the the increases demanded by CAFE.

If you have research that contradicts his findings, please share it with us.

li_sailor: I don't know of anyone that doesn't recognize that higher prices reduce consumption. Higher gas prices are certainly a possible alternative to CAFE, but there are disadvantages, many of which have been discussed here.

Higher prices are coming, with their disadvantages, whether we like it or not, so consumption will be reduced, or at least moderated.

li_sailor: Did you notice that bridge for sale?

And did you notice the final paragraph an article, titled "Compromise Expected on Fuel Economy Bill," in the May 4, 2007 edition of The Detroit News? Here it is:

Requiring all automakers to average 35 mpg "would put one American auto company out of business," Levin said -- and he would mount a filibuster to stop it. He noted that Chrysler Group, with 70 percent of its sales in light trucks, "couldn't make it," under that standard.

The Bush Administration endorsed raising fuel economy standards by an average of 4 percent annually beginning in September 2009 for passenger cars and September 2011 for light trucks in order to reduce gasoline usage by 5 percent annually in 2017, or 8.5 billion gallons annually. (emphasis added)

You may find that reading The Detroit News on a regular basis would make you better informed on this subject, and help you to avoid errors of this sort in the future.

nippononly

of automakers going "wah wah wah, we just CAN'T..."

I guess some things really DON'T change. :sick:

stever

"Even as foreign rivals developed fuel-efficient models, increasing their sales and market share amid rising gasoline prices, U.S. auto makers kept investing in ever-bigger vehicles -- and in lobbyists who worked in Washington to defeat the fuel-economy changes "that could've saved their industry,"

Ok, who said it, and then guess where it was said. (quote is from today's WSJ btw).

More CAFE news today - US Senate panel sets 35 mpg auto standard by 2020 (Reuters)

gagrice

It looks like we have a new Big 3 opposing CAFE. Toyota, GM & Ford. Is DC happy with the bill?

li_sailor

I'm guessing Obama. There's an article in the NYT about his speech in Detroit and only a small quote, but that was his drift.

Trouble is that it looks like LTVs are the only vehicles US automakers can actually make that stuff from....oh, what's it called again??? Oh, yeah, a profit.

li_sailor

The whole idea of CAFE is that carmakers won't do it otherwise. It's bascially a "cease and desist" order on their preferred marketing. After all, how do you suppose CAFE actually works? The automakers have to change their marketing to match it. See "SUV Ads and the Market They Created".

stever

Right on both counts. The speech part that is. Trying to decipher corporate profits is beyond me. :P

Sounds like CAFE could be around for another 20 years easily.

grbeck

li_sailor: It's bascially a "cease and desist" order on their preferred marketing.

Who told you that one - the same person who said it's a fact that the Bush Administration is opposed to any increase in CAFE?

May I suggest that you find a new source of information?

If you think that this is merely a marketing problem, and CAFE will cure it, you really don't have a clue as to how this business works.

li_sailor: After all, how do you suppose CAFE actually works? The automakers have to change their marketing to match it.

Sure...if GM just changes its advertising and marketing programs, it will sell 400,000 Impalas with almost no rebates to retail customers, and Buicks will start selling to hip 40-somethings, and people will swap their Civics and Mazda3s for Cobalts.

And I guess the failure of the Aztek was all in the marketing. A few clever ads, and all of the trendy people would have snapped them up like hotcakes.

Poor GM - it didn't realize that the difference between failure and success is so easy!

Since it's that easy, I wonder why you don't journey to Detroit and share this wisdom with GM and Ford management.

li_sailor: See "SUV Ads and the Market They Created".

See, "People who don't understand how the auto market really works."

li_sailor

If you think that this is merely a marketing problem...

I think you misunderstood what I said, but I can't really tell. No, I don't think our problem of low vehicle efficiency is 'merely a marketing problem'. However, I believe that the marketing of SUVs has exacerbated it. And that's what I said. Hard to imagine that it didn't.

Since it's that easy...

I have no idea what you imagine is easy, or what relation that has to anything I said. Creating effective marketing is not easy, that's why those folks make big bucks.

tpe

Sounds like CAFE could be around for another 20 years easily.

My understanding is these new CAFE rules will be based on a vehicles weight/size. So while larger vehicles will have to improve their efficiency they will be allowed to get worse mileage than smaller vehicles, which will also have to improve their efficiency. This is just a horrible idea that could only be hatched in DC. It is highly likely that this approach will simply push people into larger vehicles. Pretty much defeating the purpose. Of course it still has all the problems of the current CAFE in that it doesn't encourage people to drive less, drive more conservatively, keep their cars maintained, etc.. I'm sure it will be very popular. I'm even more sure it will be 100% ineffective.

li_sailor

So while larger vehicles will have to improve their efficiency they will be allowed to get worse mileage than smaller vehicles...

Well, that's certainly true, but of course, larger vehicles will (all else being equal) get worse mpg. That's a fact of life, which is what weight-based CAFE is recognizing.

It is highly likely that this approach will simply push people into larger vehicles.

Well, if they are driven by mpg, then the opposite will be true.

...it still has all the problems of the current CAFE in that it doesn't encourage people to drive less, drive more conservatively, keep their cars maintained...

That can't be a 'problem of CAFE' since it was never designed to do any of those things. It was designed to produce a more efficient fleet, which it has done.

I'm sure it will be very popular. I'm even more sure it will be 100% ineffective.

The devil is in the details, which we do not know and until then, it's pretty hard to evaluate.

tpe

That can't be a 'problem of CAFE' since it was never designed to do any of those things. It was designed to produce a more efficient fleet, which it has done.

I disagree. The purpose of CAFE was to reduce fuel/oil consumption. Improving the efficiency of the fleet was the simply the method for achieving this goal. If total consumption doesn't decrease then the method was ineffective. Anyone who acknowledges that consumption continued to increase but defend CAFE by saying it would be worse w/o it have set the bar pretty low in terms of what they consider a successful policy.

Well, if they are driven by mpg, then the opposite will be true.

The consumer is only going to be concerned with mpg if they are concerned with the price of gas. I think that the consumer who is currently satisfied with an Accord or Camry that gets 30 mpg might not feel the same when this car is mandated to get 33 mpg. I guess it all depends on how this increased efficiency is achieved. If the manufacturers really have this secret technology that they are witholding then maybe these increases can be achieved without the consumer making sacrifices. If not then these cars will become less appealing. If nothing else people will just choose to hold onto their existing vehicles longer.

li_sailor

I disagree. The purpose of CAFE was to reduce fuel/oil consumption. Improving the efficiency of the fleet was the simply the method for achieving this goal.

No, actually, then, you agree because what I said is consistent with that. CAFE is, in fact, a method, not a goal.

total consumption doesn't decrease then the method was ineffective.

Nope. Method effective, goal not achieved. Consumption is out of the scope of CAFE. It has no mechanism for controlling miles driven, for example.

The consumer is only going to be concerned with mpg if they are concerned with the price of gas.

My turn to disagree. It depends on the consumer. Many consumers (the 'green' ones, to simplify) are interested in mpg for many reasons that are not economic. I am one of them, although economic reasons are also compelling.

I think that the consumer who is currently satisfied with an Accord or Camry that gets 30 mpg might not feel the same when this car is mandated to get 33 mpg.

I really don't know what this means. Somehow, the fact that a previously desired mpg was 'mandated' will make that mpg undesireable?

If the manufacturers really have this secret technology...

I don't think there's any secret about it. It's rather a question of motivation to employ it.