Your reference is simply a conversion table. It says that "For Europeans, fuel consumption is measured in liters per 100 kilometers" which is perfectly fine, it's exactly equivalent to k/l unless it's used for averages. AFAIK, there is no European equivalent to CAFE.
If I sold two cars and told you that they were both driven 1000 miles and their average fuel efficiency was 25 mpg you could not tell me how much total gas these cars burned. Now if I told you that they averaged .04 gallons per mile you could answer that question.
Absolutely true .but we’re talking about an average of many thousands of cars in each "mpg-point", and they, on average, drive the same amount of miles, so this is not a factor. If the miles are the same, then both ways calculate the same amount of gas consumed.
. If instead CAFE was .04 gallons per mile then if an auto manufacturer sold a 10 mpg vehicle he would now have to sell 4 40 mpg vehicles to be in compliance.
But that’s because the average of .1 gpm (10 mpg) and .025 gpm (40 mpg) is 16 mpg, which is much lower than the mpg avg of 25. As I've already pointed out, the 2 averages are not equivalent, you cannot compare them directly.
If instead CAFE was .04 gallons per mile then if an auto manufacturer sold a 10 mpg vehicle he would now have to sell 4 40 mpg vehicles to be in compliance.
If "compliance" meant that they would have to average .04 gpm, you're right. But that would simply mean that the requirement was to have a sliding scale.
If you told me that you had 100 miles to drive and asked how long it would take I could care less about your average miles per hour.
Don't follow. If my avg speed for that 100 miles was 60 mph, I did it in 1:40.
If you drove the first 50 miles at 90 mph and the next 50 miles at 10 mph then your average speed was 50 mph.
As was pointed out, this erroneous.
For CAFE to be anywhere near accurate it needs to use a weighted average, which is accomplished by the inverse method.
One has nothing to do with the other. Anything can be weight-averaged.
Funny you should mention it, since I work with Nielsen ratings, which one must weight-average (duration-weight in this case) to compare a 30 show with a 60 min show (for ex).
The CAFE formula does, in fact work exactly this way, weight-averaging the mpg averages by number of vehicles sold at each mpg point.
The way it stands right now people believe that if you doubled CAFE you would cut your fuel consumption in half. That's just not true.
Well, actually, if mpg goes from 27 to 54, one's consumption is, indeed, cut in half.
You could theoretically double CAFE and actually increase your fuel consumption if you did this by creating some ultra-high efficiency vehicles, say 70+ mpg.
It would be great if they actually did that
Although true that different combinations could, in fact, be utilized, yielding varying overall consumption, the reality is that carmakers work under many constraints and wind up evening it out pretty much.
This is the polarization of the fleet that I am referring to.
This polarization, for the reason you suggest, doesn't exist...or if it does, it's pretty near impossible to prove.
I think the facts are this. No matter how CAFE sets their regulations the automakers will build what the people want to buy.
If that were true, then CAFE would not have worked, and it most definitely did. It stopped 'working' long ago (since its points were reached) but that's another matter.
The dealer told me that Chevy had reached their quota on 1998 Suburbans and had to start selling them as 1999 models. This was to avoid paying CAFE fines.
I think that it can be shown that the cars that sell best at any given time is directly related to the price of the fuel for that vehicle. For instance I bought both diesel vehicles when diesel was at a high point a year apart. I sold them when diesel was cheaper than gas and made a profit. SUV sales are in a slump when the gas price is high. As soon as it goes down again the SUV sales will soar. Right now you pay a premium to get a little high mileage car.
As far as the 1999 Suburbans I asked that very question "what happens when you sell all the 1999 quota". He really did not know. When I bought it was the beginning of the 1998s GM strike. That may have had a bearing on it. The dealer in Sun Valley had pre-ordered a lot of them as it was his biggest seller. I was lucky to get one at all. Oh, and it served me well. I wish I still had it instead of this GMC Hybrid.
No wonder MB cars cost so much. I'm sure they tack that fine on the price of the car. Now that Ford and GM trucks are mostly flex fuel they will get a bye on CAFE fines even with the new standards. CAFE is such a major rip-off on the American people.
I agree, but that's not the way CAFE works. Just like average velocity is distance/time average mpg should be miles/gallons So if one vehicle burns 10 gallons over 100 miles (10 mpg) and another burns 2 gallons over this same 100 miles (50 mpg) then they have collectively travelled 200 miles on 12 gallons of gas. 200/12 = 16.67 mpg. CAFE would have come up with average mpg using the following method. (50+10)/2 = 30 mpg. That is just as flawed as my method of arriving at average velocity, so I think we are in agreement.
You're trying to hold distance constant as the Europeans do (eg 3L/100km). [volume/distance]
In the US, we hold volume constant, how far on a given amount of fuel - miles/gallon. [distance/volume]
So average mpg would average the amount of miles travelled for a gallon of gas.
If you were to use gallons/100 miles travelled, then the average gallons/100 miles would be the average amount of fuel burned over a 100 mile distance.
So for your argument to work, you have to stop using the term "average mpg".
So for your argument to work, you have to stop using the term "average mpg".
Why? I gave an example of two vehicles that travelled a total of 200 miles and burned 12 gallons of fuel. It sure seems to me that you should be able to compute an average mpg from these figures. In fact that's exactly what the Department of Transportation does. They have an accurate estimate of how many miles are driven on our roadways. They also have an accurate estimate of how much fuel was consumed. They divide one by the other and arrive at an average mpg, which I believe is around 21.
If the miles are the same, then both ways calculate the same amount of gas consumed.
I stated that the miles were the same and even knowing this you cannot tell me how much total fuel these 2 cars consumed. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. If you have a fleet average of 25 mpg the least amount of gas will be burned if every single vehicle gets exactly 25 mpg. Any deviation within the fleet will result in more gas being burned even if the average stays the same.
While I don't believe that CAFE is effective I do believe that when you are talking about a fleet average it should reflect total miles driven divided by gallons of gas consumed. EPA mileage stickers include an annual fuel cost. This is based upon 15,000 miles being driven and, I believe, a gas cost of $2.85/gallon. Back out the $2.85/gallon and you will get the gallons of fuel consumed over 15,000 miles. This is the number that should be used to obtain CAFE and it would currently require the average fleet consumption to be around 550 gallons. And yes it is possible to do and no more difficult than averaging mpg ratings.
Maybe CAFE should come up with a plan to give every driver a 550 gallon allotment of gas per year. When you have used that there is a couple bucks per gallon added tax. Personally I feel the guy in a Prius driving 30k miles per year is more wasteful of fossil fuel than my driving 7500 miles per year in my PU truck. Plus, he is using the roads four times as much and should be taxed extra for that.
If CAFE were to get the automakers out of the equation and set the blame where it lies on the individual, we may see some results.
Personally I feel the guy in a Prius driving 30k miles per year is more wasteful of fossil fuel than my driving 7500 miles per year in my PU truck.
I would agree with that but on average I suspect that there isn't a big difference in how many annual miles are driven between the different vehicle types.
Plus, he is using the roads four times as much and should be taxed extra for that.
If automakers can successfully deliver the 100+ mpg plug-in hybrids that they are now developing the current gas tax system will have to eventually be overhauled.
I wonder what kind of EPA mileage rating a vehicle like the Chevy Volt will get? Possibly over 100 mpg. With the current CAFE system if GM could sell these in any kind of numbers it would make it much easier for them to continue selling gas guzzlers and still be in compliance. Overall fuel consumption would go up but that is not a concern of CAFE.
Sounds like a cottage industry in the making. Same thing happened during WW2 with rationing. I used 496 gallons over the last 12 months. My wife uses less than I do, about 250 gallons per year. She has averaged 4888 miles per year on her 1990 LS400.
Maybe a better plan for CAFE would be charge per mile. With first 15k miles @ a penny per mile then jump to 3 cents per mile after that.
I stated that the miles were the same and even knowing this you cannot tell me how much total fuel these 2 cars consumed. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.
First, I urge you to drop the uncivil tone. You have no idea what is being 'grasped'. Stick to questions and answers, thank you.
Second, I didn't claim to know how much each car consumed. I said that, considering the national fleet, it didn't matter, since that averages out over the entire fleet.
While I don't believe that CAFE is effective...
What empirical evidence do you have to support this claim?
m6vx:So for your argument to work, you have to stop using the term "average mpg".
you:It sure seems to me that you should be able to compute an average mpg from these figures.
You can compute almost anything. But you can't directly compare average mpg with average gpm. The average of 2 numbers do not equate to the average of their inverses.
Maybe CAFE should come up with a plan to give every driver a 550 gallon allotment of gas per year. When you have used that there is a couple bucks per gallon added tax.
I think that would be a great idea. Political suicide for anyone that proposed it, but very constructive.
Personally I feel the guy in a Prius driving 30k miles per year is more wasteful of fossil fuel than my driving 7500 miles per year in my PU truck.
Without knowing what use it was for, how could you possibly know that? Since when is 'use' and 'waste' synonymous?
If CAFE were to get the automakers out of the equation and set the blame where it lies on the individual, we may see some results.
LOL, Americans feel no need to conserve unless it's right in their face. Sometimes, not even then. Just look at all the "support our troops" magnets on the back of big honkin gas guzzlin, grocery haulin SUVs. Total disconnect.
I kind of like the stats that the EPA uses on their fuel economy site. It is based on cost per 25 miles driven. I think that would have more impact on a prospective buyer. If you see on the EPA ratings that it will cost you $4.78 to drive 25 miles in a new Toyota FJ Cruiser, and $55.58 to fill your tank, you may look at a more economical ride.
What empirical evidence do you have to support this claim?
Even you stated that mpg has decreased lately. Have CAFE standards been reduced? I don't think so but it certainly is true that the fleet's efficiency is less today than in 1987. I've asked this before. Why did the manufacturers ever exceed the standard? If the only reason they increased efficiency was to satisfy this mandate they never would have. It's not like they don't have absolute control over the composition of the cars they build.
You've also stated that market forces are ineffective or less effective than CAFE. Then you've pointed out how places like Europe and Japan have nothing comparable to CAFE. Then why is it that their fleet's fuel efficiency is far higher than ours? In Europe it is partly attributable to the greater use of diesel but that definitely is not the case in Japan.
Whether or not you understand the flaw in averaging mpg to determine a fleet's efficiency the fact is that with higher mileage hybrids and other technologies being developed everyone will eventually be forced to realize this as CAFE increases but the corresponding reduction in fuel consumption is not realized.
What does that mean? Do you consider this an intelligent rational for dismissing anything that is computed? Isn't CAFE computed? I defy you to do a websearch and find any reputable scientist or economist that considers average efficiency (mpg) to be as valid as average consumption (gpm).
But you can't directly compare average mpg with average gpm. The average of 2 numbers do not equate to the average of their inverses.
Yes gpm is the inverse of mpg. You're correct, average mpg will not equal the inverse of average gpm. If they did then it wouldn't matter whether you used mpg or gpm as your metric for measuring the fleet's efficiency. Have I not repeatedly stated that average gpm is a better method for determining fleet efficiency. The fact that I consider it better is a clear indication that I must also consider it to be different. So why are you pointing out to me that the two are not equitable?
You can compute almost anything. But you can't directly compare average mpg with average gpm. The average of 2 numbers do not equate to the average of their inverses.
Actually I'm starting to wonder just how CAFE is computed. After doing some research they may very well be computing average gpm and then inverting it, which is how it should be. I've come across conflicting information, some stating that it uses average mpg, which of course is the wrong method.
Does anyone definitively know the answer to this? Specifically, if an auto manufacturer sells one 10 mpg vehicle and one 40 mpg vehicle have they achieved a CAFE of 25 or 16? If it turns out that this results in a CAFE of 16 then they are, in fact, doing it correctly and basing it on average gpm.
I've asked this before. Why did the manufacturers ever exceed the standard?
I answered this before...they exceeded it by very little. And it's hardly surprising that they wouldn' tbe right on the mark given the indirect mechanism...basically marketing and price.
If the only reason they increased efficiency was to satisfy this mandate they never would have.
Again, there is nothing to support that conclusion, afaik. The fact that CAFE requirements and the fleet avg is so close is very unlikely to be coincidence.
It's not like they don't have absolute control over the composition of the cars they build.
But it is like they don't have absolute control over the sales. And that's what matters, not what they build.
Then you've pointed out how places like Europe and Japan have nothing comparable to CAFE. Then why is it that their fleet's fuel efficiency is far higher than ours?
You're kidding, right? Do you know the price of gas in Europe? In fact, this is a very strong case for why we need CAFE here in the US....because gas is so cheap here (relatively).
You've also stated that market forces are ineffective or less effective than CAFE.
The reason market forces are ineffective at forcing improvment in the current fleet is that gas price is based on the supply and demand of the oil produced without much regard for what will be able to be produced in the future. And also does not account for the political impact of the $. Those are the reasons we should improve the efficiency of our fleet and the market mostly ignores that.
Whether or not you understand the flaw in averaging mpg to determine a fleet's efficiency...
I understand your point. And the "flaw" is not re efficiency but rather in measuring consumption. The fact is that it's thoretical and as a practical matter, is pretty much irrelevant.
I agree that CAFE should be re-cast (it is, in fact, being recast as we speak) to address the current condition. It will very likely be weight-based and possibly have other variations. There is no reason that we can't use a mpg-based system to set targets for various segments and be very effective at lowering consuption.
Emprical evidence shows that CAFE did, in fact, lower consumption, per vehicle, over its initial period.
Again, there is nothing to support that conclusion, afaik. The fact that CAFE requirements and the fleet avg is so close is very unlikely to be coincidence.
In 1980 the domestic fleet average was 24 mpg, CAFE was 20 mpg. I don't consider that to be very close. The fleet average for imports that year was 30 mpg, these cars were coming from countries that didn't have CAFE.
But it is like they don't have absolute control over the sales. And that's what matters, not what they build.
I suspect that the manufacturers typically sell every vehicle that they produce. If at the end of the year certain models aren't moving then discounts are offered. Ultimately your fleet sales average should be identical to what you produced.
Empirical evidence shows that CAFE did, in fact, lower consumption, per vehicle, over its initial period.
Empirical evidence only shows that per vehicle consumption declined over this period. It did not show that CAFE was the cause. CAFE will not change what people want to buy it will only change what they can buy. During this same, initial period people wanted to buy efficient vehicles. CAFE was a non-factor.
In 1980 the domestic fleet average was 24 mpg, CAFE was 20 mpg. I don't consider that to be very close.
CAFE had barely started in '80. Afer '82 or so, CAFE and the fleet average have tracked pretty closely.
The fleet average for imports that year was 30 mpg, these cars were coming from countries that didn't have CAFE.
What relevance is that? Those vehicles were sold here, where there is CAFE.
I suspect that the manufacturers typically sell every vehicle that they produce.
Sure, but you think they don't adjust production to match demand over the course of the MY? We were talking about what they have more control over, production or sales. I think that's a no-brainer.
During this same, initial period people wanted to buy efficient vehicles. CAFE was a non-factor.
Not convincing. After the shock wore off and the incentive faded, efficiency remained at CAFE levels. It wasn't magic.
What relevance is that? Those vehicles were sold here, where there is CAFE
The relevance is that these imported economy cars were developed and first adopted in countries that didn't have CAFE but were driven by market conditions. The consumer isn't required to comply with CAFE yet these vehicles that far exceeded CAFE standards became popular during this period. Why is that? You state that CAFE was in its infancy in 1980 but it had been 7 years since the first oil embargo and the fleet's efficiency had already almost doubled. Why is that? BTW, it's my understanding that the auto industry really didn't object too much to CAFE standards in 1975. Again, why is that?
With gas above $3/gallon the feds probably could push through higher CAFE standards. Because just like in 1975 they are telling the auto makers to produce what the consumer wants. If the feds do this, in fairness to the auto industry, they better keep fuel at this price level or higher. Otherwise they are now telling a manufacturer to make something that its customers don't want. What will that accomplish? People will simply keep their existing vehicles much longer. The most efficient vehicle in the world doesn't do much good until it makes it's way into the fleet.
The question is :confuse: "what happens to Detroit's "domestic auto manufacturing infrastructure, including personnel" IF the EU solves the NOx emission and become California compliant by 2015 (as is being proposed)and the EU cars become importable :shades: "? ! :mad: :sick:
It is more than NOx it is also Particulents and the life span of the emissions equipment. California requires the emissions equipment to be covered for something like 100,000 miles and filter traps aren't in most cases. They require replacement or servicing at much shorter intervals.
But we have had European cars before and they are hardly a booming success in most cases because our driving style and the distances we drive seem to be harder on them than the countries they come from.
But the real point it that Europe and Asia managed to increase fuel economy far more than the US without CAFE. This fact alone should make one question the value of a government system that doesn't work as well as the free market system in countries not known for free market but government controls.
One simple mnemonic, ULSD. The EU could see that gasoline was never going to result in good economy. So they let the automakers solve the problem. They built high performance diesel cars and the government mandated Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel. They worked together without getting the cart before the horse as the EPA & CARB have done. The gap keeps widening between diesel and gas engines. I would say a current 2L diesel engine will be 35% better on economy than the best 2L gas engine in the same vehicle.
That is the reason they have so many cars running around getting 44 MPG and we have a couple complex hybrids.
the EU DOES have "CAFE", it is just a requirement for reductions in CO2 emissions instead, like the inverse of CAFE, but with the same effect.
And the new standard is 120 g/km (about 44 mpg), which they are saying it looks like the automakers will not be able to meet by next year when it is supposed to be in force, so they are going to be discussing this in the near future. This, per the latest issue of R&T. There are even stricter fuel economy requirements scheduled for the future.
If the most "draconian" CAFE proposed by our Congress made it into law, we would still be behind the Europeans and the Asians in our FE standards by 2020. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
True, but if we added our particulant standards that CARB has suggested Europe would have to cut back on their diesel fleet. I totally agree diesel is more fuel efficient than Gas but even with a great trap it isn't ULEV and not PZEV by any stretch. As stated earlier CARB and CAFE got the cart before the horse. CAFE simply doesn't work in conjunction with EPA and CARB doesn't work with either. I believe we wasted 22 years with both CAFE and CARB.
naw, you're wrong there, the 2009 emissions standard is what ULEV would be today, and the Germans and Honda all have a diesel engine ready to go that meets the '09 regs. VW is bringing theirs to market next March, Mercedes, soon thereafter, and Honda by the end of CY 2008.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I wonder if ULEV will be enough. How about PZEV? I can tell you from experience that there a a whole lot of diesels in Europe that can no way meet our particulant standards. I don't know how that effects the older fleet in Europe but I do know we are simply selling out commercial government and construction fleet to other countries. There was a big article on that in the LA times a few weeks ago. You have to wonder how that relates to real world issues? I think VW could make a Pzev diesel. After all they are in the shop so often they can't be polluting. LOL
And the new standard is 120 g/km (about 44 mpg), which they are saying it looks like the automakers will not be able to meet by next year when it is supposed to be in force,
That is a proposed standard which was to be met by 2012. It probably won't make it into law because, as you stated, there is a lot of opposition from the auto manufacturers. The current proposed standard that exists is 140 g/km by 2008 and it represents a voluntary agreement between the automakers and the EU, not a mandate. 75% of the automakers selling vehicles in Europe are not on track to meet this voluntary target.
One other thing to keep in mind. This is not quite the inverse of our mile per gallon scheme of measuring efficiency. The difference is that diesel fuel has about 13% more carbon per gallon, which means that under this g/km CO2 measuring system a diesel vehicle needs to get about 13% better mpg to meet the same CO2 emission level of a gasoline burning vehicle. For instance if they were to meet this voluntary 140 g/km level then gasoline vehicles would have to get 39.2 mpg and diesels would have to get 44.4 mpg.
My point is that Europe has a voluntary form of CAFE that the auto manufacturers are not in compliance with yet the European fleet is significantly more efficient than the US fleet. So as far as CAFE goes the European model is not an example of its effectiveness. There must be something else going on that is motivating drivers.
Well in Europe the motivation for diesel is two fold. Mileage and a tax break. While I don't support our method of taxing people into compliance I do support getting tax breaks to achieve the same goal. As the old saying goes about flies and honey verses vinegar. We have long suffered at the hands of political minorities pushing for taxes to fund their cause rather than rewarding people with tax breaks for helping with a problem. Still one has to question how they will make a diesel that starts our with more Particulents cleaner than gas if people are working on making gas cleaner as well? CAFE simply doesn't address both of these issues.
Tax breaks/incentives certainly are more appealing to the average voter, which is why politicians are more likely to support them. The question I have is how are these tax breaks paid for? It seems to me that there are 3 possibilities. Either a tax hike somewhere else. Reduction in a government service, which is essentially a penalty on whoever was benefiting from this service. Or, the government can choose to simply not fund this tax break and just add it to the deficit, which is a tax hike on the future.
Imagine this scenario. What if instead of a tax deduction for children and dependents there was a tax penalty for not having kids? The tax rates could be adjusted so that everyone's tax burden would end up being the same with this method but the psychology would be very different. The people without kids would be wondering why they are being penalized for this. So its easier to sell a tax break even though these breaks end up in higher tax rates for those that don't take advantage of them. So what if everyone took advantage of these tax breaks, wouldn't everyone benefit? Again, I don't see how that's possible.
I wouldn't oppose tax incentives and credits for adopting fuel efficient vehicles but they need to be paid for. Since the goal is to reduce fuel consumption what would be the most logical way to pay for these tax breaks? It seems to me that they should be paid for by a fuel consumption tax. That would represent the carrot and stick approach.
That could be why I keep returning to the free market approach. Build a vehicle the people want and they will buy it. Give them the fuel mileage they want and they will buy it. Things like CAFE simply limit those options to the consumer. Once the government sets a standard then the manufacturer doesn't have any reason to exceed that standard. I believe the EU tax break I was referring to was that they simply didn't tax diesel, or tax it as high, rather than indicating they cut the taxes on diesel. There is no one to take services from because the taxes were never applied in the first place.
For most of CAFE's life it did nothing to improve fuel consumption. To even say that without CAFE fuel consumption would have been even higher is pure speculation. Fuel consumption average dropped slightly for the first few years and then started to flatten and then rise every year till people started realizing that CAFE was a waste or time. If a private business took this long to produce results it would have been bankrupt several times over.
I don't mind letting the free market sort this out. However it might not result in the smoothest transition to oil alternatives. I believe that barring a global economic recession gas prices will continue to climb. This climb probably won't be gradual and steady. In all likelihood it will be an overall trend that involves increasingly large price swings in both directions. Now I'm not referring to you with this comment but I wonder how many free market advocates will be asking for government intervention on the price spikes.
You don't think the politicians know that all eyes turn accusingly to them every time the price of gas spikes? That's the reason we have these ridiculous "investigations" into "price gouging" every year or two, all of which inevitably come to naught, and is the reason there will continue to be some kind of government intervention into fuel efficiency.
And boaz, my simple response to your proposed system of market forces solving this problem is to point out that consumers are selfish and fairly uninformed on long-term costs of vehicle ownership, the U.S. has a massive effort in place to keep oil prices artificially low, and fuel efficiency won't sell itself to the average American buyer enough to make the U.S. a good global neighbor with regard to oil consumption.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
There is no such thing as a good global neighbor in this case Nippon. We are selling our excess industrial diesels that won't meet our air standards to China who has air quality as bad if not worse than ours. The air they breath in China is the same air we breath. We are simply moving the problem out of sight. Go visit some of these developing countries and see what selfish and disregard is. I know they have economic reasons and understand why they do what they do but if they would make a vehicle that people wanted they would buy it. Look at the Iphone. People waited in line to get them even though they were way more expensive than other phones. If they make a product the people want they will sell them by the boat load. But if you try to force something on them they don't want they will break their neck trying to find a loop hole that allows them to avoid getting what you want. Why in the world do you believe Trucks are getting so big? Because 3/4 ton trucks are exempt from many of the restriction placed on other vehicles. CARB and CAFE created these loopholes and people litterly drove a truck through them.
Why in the world do you believe Trucks are getting so big? Because 3/4 ton trucks are exempt from many of the restriction placed on other vehicles.
That is exactly right. I know several people that buy big trucks to get the diesel engine. It costs more but has a lot more to offer including better mileage than any 1/2 ton PU. In CA no smog checks on those big diesels. First thing they do is head to the muffler shop and strip all the factory crap off and get straight exhaust. VW built the Touareg V10 diesel heavy enough to be sold in CA. A bit overkill but you don't have to put up with the ignorance in Sacramento.
Didn't you hear? They've been disappointed with iPhone sales, and have just anounced they are dropping the price by $200, barely 3 months after its debut! ;-)
I will say it again: consumers won't ever spend one thin dime more to pay for something that is good for everyone else, they will only pay more if it is better for themselves. That is why at a societal level, the only reforms we will initiate successfully are the ones we institute at the government level. Your idea of letting market forces solve the problem would only work if pollution in the air including CO2 emissions were assigned a dollar value commensurate with the harm it is causing, then that cost in dollars were spread out and charged equally to all licensed drivers who own a vehicle. Since that is clearly NOT the system, market forces will not help us out of this predicament.
Hey, didja notice the German foreign minister was here this week to praise California for taking steps to stem global warming, and was suggesting California join the EU coalition of countries trying to fight the problem? Oh, and did you notice where else he stopped to congratulate folks in this country on their efforts (nowhere)?! ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes my friend. I did hear about a price drop for Iphones. I also realize it didn't take government intervention for the consumer to let the manufacturer know how they felt. It also didn't take more than 20 years to drop the prices.
You concern for "other people" is fine if your legislation effects what those other people do as well. We discovered that particulants were a health hazard yeas ago and in fact banned diesel sales of new vehicles in California for 4 years. Who else cared? We have had higher cost for Gas because of the cleaner fuel we require in this state for years. Who else cares? More states didn't and hardly any other country does.
Sure, over a very long period of time government action may show some sign of change but in our case and CAFE how long is long enough? Consumer demand can change Iphone in a matter of month. Government intervention takes years to do what the market can do in months.
we may both want the same thing but our road to get there is different. I believe people want better fuel mileage and cleaner cars. But once the government sets a standard we as a society seem to figure that standard is good enough and the manufacturer has no incentive to do better. And don't even get me started on CARB and the wasted years spent on EV research only to get just exactly what was offered to them in the very beginning of the effort. Maybe the greatest failure was the mandate to have a percentage of every fleet to have some zero pollution vehicles by 2000 was it? Only to forget the whole thing and except hybrids as the solution. I guess I am just tired of government smoke and mirrors.
Um, Edwards is the pol who suggested that people give up their SUV's. He is Mr. "Two America's" Clearly, he prefers to live in the rich America,and has zero qualms about it.
That does not come close to mitigating the carbon footprint of a 25k sq foot home.
You need to research our President's Crawford ranch home. He is far more environmentally astute than Edwards or Gore. GW Bush's carbon footprint may be even less than yours.
Some politicians talk a good story. Some just do it and keep quiet about it.
Comments
If I sold two cars and told you that they were both driven 1000 miles and their average fuel efficiency was 25 mpg you could not tell me how much total gas these cars burned. Now if I told you that they averaged .04 gallons per mile you could answer that question.
Absolutely true .but we’re talking about an average of many thousands of cars in each "mpg-point", and they, on average, drive the same amount of miles, so this is not a factor. If the miles are the same, then both ways calculate the same amount of gas consumed.
. If instead CAFE was .04 gallons per mile then if an auto manufacturer sold a 10 mpg vehicle he would now have to sell 4 40 mpg vehicles to be in compliance.
But that’s because the average of .1 gpm (10 mpg) and .025 gpm (40 mpg) is 16 mpg, which is much lower than the mpg avg of 25. As I've already pointed out, the 2 averages are not equivalent, you cannot compare them directly.
If instead CAFE was .04 gallons per mile then if an auto manufacturer sold a 10 mpg vehicle he would now have to sell 4 40 mpg vehicles to be in compliance.
If "compliance" meant that they would have to average .04 gpm, you're right. But that would simply mean that the requirement was to have a sliding scale.
Don't follow. If my avg speed for that 100 miles was 60 mph, I did it in 1:40.
If you drove the first 50 miles at 90 mph and the next 50 miles at 10 mph then your average speed was 50 mph.
As was pointed out, this erroneous.
For CAFE to be anywhere near accurate it needs to use a weighted average, which is accomplished by the inverse method.
One has nothing to do with the other. Anything can be weight-averaged.
Funny you should mention it, since I work with Nielsen ratings, which one must weight-average (duration-weight in this case) to compare a 30 show with a 60 min show (for ex).
The CAFE formula does, in fact work exactly this way, weight-averaging the mpg averages by number of vehicles sold at each mpg point.
The way it stands right now people believe that if you doubled CAFE you would cut your fuel consumption in half. That's just not true.
Well, actually, if mpg goes from 27 to 54, one's consumption is, indeed, cut in half.
You could theoretically double CAFE and actually increase your fuel consumption if you did this by creating some ultra-high efficiency vehicles, say 70+ mpg.
It would be great if they actually did that
Although true that different combinations could, in fact, be utilized, yielding varying overall consumption, the reality is that carmakers work under many constraints and wind up evening it out pretty much.
This is the polarization of the fleet that I am referring to.
This polarization, for the reason you suggest, doesn't exist...or if it does, it's pretty near impossible to prove.
If that were true, then CAFE would not have worked, and it most definitely did. It stopped 'working' long ago (since its points were reached) but that's another matter.
The dealer told me that Chevy had reached their quota on 1998 Suburbans and had to start selling them as 1999 models. This was to avoid paying CAFE fines.
Then what happened in 99?
Funny then, that GM has never paid any CAFE fines. Nor Ford, nor Chrysler:Summary of CAFE Fines Paid
I think the market can best regulate the mileage of vehicles.
LOL. I guess that's why mpg has gotten worse, not better, since CAFE reached its numbers.
As far as the 1999 Suburbans I asked that very question "what happens when you sell all the 1999 quota". He really did not know. When I bought it was the beginning of the 1998s GM strike. That may have had a bearing on it. The dealer in Sun Valley had pre-ordered a lot of them as it was his biggest seller. I was lucky to get one at all. Oh, and it served me well. I wish I still had it instead of this GMC Hybrid.
No wonder MB cars cost so much. I'm sure they tack that fine on the price of the car. Now that Ford and GM trucks are mostly flex fuel they will get a bye on CAFE fines even with the new standards. CAFE is such a major rip-off on the American people.
You're trying to hold distance constant as the Europeans do (eg 3L/100km). [volume/distance]
In the US, we hold volume constant, how far on a given amount of fuel - miles/gallon. [distance/volume]
So average mpg would average the amount of miles travelled for a gallon of gas.
If you were to use gallons/100 miles travelled, then the average gallons/100 miles would be the average amount of fuel burned over a 100 mile distance.
So for your argument to work, you have to stop using the term "average mpg".
Why? I gave an example of two vehicles that travelled a total of 200 miles and burned 12 gallons of fuel. It sure seems to me that you should be able to compute an average mpg from these figures. In fact that's exactly what the Department of Transportation does. They have an accurate estimate of how many miles are driven on our roadways. They also have an accurate estimate of how much fuel was consumed. They divide one by the other and arrive at an average mpg, which I believe is around 21.
I stated that the miles were the same and even knowing this you cannot tell me how much total fuel these 2 cars consumed. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. If you have a fleet average of 25 mpg the least amount of gas will be burned if every single vehicle gets exactly 25 mpg. Any deviation within the fleet will result in more gas being burned even if the average stays the same.
While I don't believe that CAFE is effective I do believe that when you are talking about a fleet average it should reflect total miles driven divided by gallons of gas consumed. EPA mileage stickers include an annual fuel cost. This is based upon 15,000 miles being driven and, I believe, a gas cost of $2.85/gallon. Back out the $2.85/gallon and you will get the gallons of fuel consumed over 15,000 miles. This is the number that should be used to obtain CAFE and it would currently require the average fleet consumption to be around 550 gallons. And yes it is possible to do and no more difficult than averaging mpg ratings.
If CAFE were to get the automakers out of the equation and set the blame where it lies on the individual, we may see some results.
I would agree with that but on average I suspect that there isn't a big difference in how many annual miles are driven between the different vehicle types.
Plus, he is using the roads four times as much and should be taxed extra for that.
If automakers can successfully deliver the 100+ mpg plug-in hybrids that they are now developing the current gas tax system will have to eventually be overhauled.
I wonder what kind of EPA mileage rating a vehicle like the Chevy Volt will get? Possibly over 100 mpg. With the current CAFE system if GM could sell these in any kind of numbers it would make it much easier for them to continue selling gas guzzlers and still be in compliance. Overall fuel consumption would go up but that is not a concern of CAFE.
Maybe a better plan for CAFE would be charge per mile. With first 15k miles @ a penny per mile then jump to 3 cents per mile after that.
First, I urge you to drop the uncivil tone. You have no idea what is being 'grasped'. Stick to questions and answers, thank you.
Second, I didn't claim to know how much each car consumed. I said that, considering the national fleet, it didn't matter, since that averages out over the entire fleet.
While I don't believe that CAFE is effective...
What empirical evidence do you have to support this claim?
you:It sure seems to me that you should be able to compute an average mpg from these figures.
You can compute almost anything. But you can't directly compare average mpg with average gpm. The average of 2 numbers do not equate to the average of their inverses.
I think that would be a great idea. Political suicide for anyone that proposed it, but very constructive.
Personally I feel the guy in a Prius driving 30k miles per year is more wasteful of fossil fuel than my driving 7500 miles per year in my PU truck.
Without knowing what use it was for, how could you possibly know that? Since when is 'use' and 'waste' synonymous?
If CAFE were to get the automakers out of the equation and set the blame where it lies on the individual, we may see some results.
LOL, Americans feel no need to conserve unless it's right in their face. Sometimes, not even then. Just look at all the "support our troops" magnets on the back of big honkin gas guzzlin, grocery haulin SUVs. Total disconnect.
What empirical evidence do you have to support this claim?
Even you stated that mpg has decreased lately. Have CAFE standards been reduced? I don't think so but it certainly is true that the fleet's efficiency is less today than in 1987. I've asked this before. Why did the manufacturers ever exceed the standard? If the only reason they increased efficiency was to satisfy this mandate they never would have. It's not like they don't have absolute control over the composition of the cars they build.
You've also stated that market forces are ineffective or less effective than CAFE. Then you've pointed out how places like Europe and Japan have nothing comparable to CAFE. Then why is it that their fleet's fuel efficiency is far higher than ours? In Europe it is partly attributable to the greater use of diesel but that definitely is not the case in Japan.
Whether or not you understand the flaw in averaging mpg to determine a fleet's efficiency the fact is that with higher mileage hybrids and other technologies being developed everyone will eventually be forced to realize this as CAFE increases but the corresponding reduction in fuel consumption is not realized.
What does that mean? Do you consider this an intelligent rational for dismissing anything that is computed? Isn't CAFE computed? I defy you to do a websearch and find any reputable scientist or economist that considers average efficiency (mpg) to be as valid as average consumption (gpm).
But you can't directly compare average mpg with average gpm. The average of 2 numbers do not equate to the average of their inverses.
Yes gpm is the inverse of mpg. You're correct, average mpg will not equal the inverse of average gpm. If they did then it wouldn't matter whether you used mpg or gpm as your metric for measuring the fleet's efficiency. Have I not repeatedly stated that average gpm is a better method for determining fleet efficiency. The fact that I consider it better is a clear indication that I must also consider it to be different. So why are you pointing out to me that the two are not equitable?
Actually I'm starting to wonder just how CAFE is computed. After doing some research they may very well be computing average gpm and then inverting it, which is how it should be. I've come across conflicting information, some stating that it uses average mpg, which of course is the wrong method.
Does anyone definitively know the answer to this? Specifically, if an auto manufacturer sells one 10 mpg vehicle and one 40 mpg vehicle have they achieved a CAFE of 25 or 16? If it turns out that this results in a CAFE of 16 then they are, in fact, doing it correctly and basing it on average gpm.
I answered this before...they exceeded it by very little. And it's hardly surprising that they wouldn' tbe right on the mark given the indirect mechanism...basically marketing and price.
If the only reason they increased efficiency was to satisfy this mandate they never would have.
Again, there is nothing to support that conclusion, afaik. The fact that CAFE requirements and the fleet avg is so close is very unlikely to be coincidence.
It's not like they don't have absolute control over the composition of the cars they build.
But it is like they don't have absolute control over the sales. And that's what matters, not what they build.
Then you've pointed out how places like Europe and Japan have nothing comparable to CAFE. Then why is it that their fleet's fuel efficiency is far higher than ours?
You're kidding, right? Do you know the price of gas in Europe? In fact, this is a very strong case for why we need CAFE here in the US....because gas is so cheap here (relatively).
You've also stated that market forces are ineffective or less effective than CAFE.
The reason market forces are ineffective at forcing improvment in the current fleet is that gas price is based on the supply and demand of the oil produced without much regard for what will be able to be produced in the future. And also does not account for the political impact of the $. Those are the reasons we should improve the efficiency of our fleet and the market mostly ignores that.
Whether or not you understand the flaw in averaging mpg to determine a fleet's efficiency...
I understand your point. And the "flaw" is not re efficiency but rather in measuring consumption. The fact is that it's thoretical and as a practical matter, is pretty much irrelevant.
I agree that CAFE should be re-cast (it is, in fact, being recast as we speak) to address the current condition. It will very likely be weight-based and possibly have other variations. There is no reason that we can't use a mpg-based system to set targets for various segments and be very effective at lowering consuption.
Emprical evidence shows that CAFE did, in fact, lower consumption, per vehicle, over its initial period.
total production
________________
model1 production/model1 mpg + model2 production/model2 mpg + model3 production/model3 mpg
Using your example:
2
__________
1/10 + 1/16
= 16
A link for the formula is here
So after all this, it turns out that it's a moot point. But it was very entertaining and educational
In 1980 the domestic fleet average was 24 mpg, CAFE was 20 mpg. I don't consider that to be very close. The fleet average for imports that year was 30 mpg, these cars were coming from countries that didn't have CAFE.
But it is like they don't have absolute control over the sales. And that's what matters, not what they build.
I suspect that the manufacturers typically sell every vehicle that they produce. If at the end of the year certain models aren't moving then discounts are offered. Ultimately your fleet sales average should be identical to what you produced.
Empirical evidence shows that CAFE did, in fact, lower consumption, per vehicle, over its initial period.
Empirical evidence only shows that per vehicle consumption declined over this period. It did not show that CAFE was the cause. CAFE will not change what people want to buy it will only change what they can buy. During this same, initial period people wanted to buy efficient vehicles. CAFE was a non-factor.
CAFE had barely started in '80. Afer '82 or so, CAFE and the fleet average have tracked pretty closely.
The fleet average for imports that year was 30 mpg, these cars were coming from countries that didn't have CAFE.
What relevance is that? Those vehicles were sold here, where there is CAFE.
I suspect that the manufacturers typically sell every vehicle that they produce.
Sure, but you think they don't adjust production to match demand over the course of the MY? We were talking about what they have more control over, production or sales. I think that's a no-brainer.
During this same, initial period people wanted to buy efficient vehicles. CAFE was a non-factor.
Not convincing. After the shock wore off and the incentive faded, efficiency remained at CAFE levels. It wasn't magic.
The relevance is that these imported economy cars were developed and first adopted in countries that didn't have CAFE but were driven by market conditions. The consumer isn't required to comply with CAFE yet these vehicles that far exceeded CAFE standards became popular during this period. Why is that? You state that CAFE was in its infancy in 1980 but it had been 7 years since the first oil embargo and the fleet's efficiency had already almost doubled. Why is that? BTW, it's my understanding that the auto industry really didn't object too much to CAFE standards in 1975. Again, why is that?
With gas above $3/gallon the feds probably could push through higher CAFE standards. Because just like in 1975 they are telling the auto makers to produce what the consumer wants. If the feds do this, in fairness to the auto industry, they better keep fuel at this price level or higher. Otherwise they are now telling a manufacturer to make something that its customers don't want. What will that accomplish? People will simply keep their existing vehicles much longer. The most efficient vehicle in the world doesn't do much good until it makes it's way into the fleet.
HOWEVER ... the EU has a very STRONG CO2 Emissions requirement!
The CO2 fleet average for 2005 was 160 g/km CO2 which in practice results in a fleet fuel average of about 35 mpg(US) combined average. The CO2 requirement for 2008 is 140 g/km which most EU manufacturers are already meeting which results in a fleet fuel economy of 44 mpg(US) combined.
see
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/how-to-use-the-data-tables.asp#petr- ol
and
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/search.asp
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/fuelConSearch.asp
The question is :confuse: "what happens to Detroit's "domestic auto manufacturing infrastructure, including personnel" IF the EU solves the NOx emission and become California compliant by 2015 (as is being proposed)and the EU cars become importable :shades: "? ! :mad:
But we have had European cars before and they are hardly a booming success in most cases because our driving style and the distances we drive seem to be harder on them than the countries they come from.
But the real point it that Europe and Asia managed to increase fuel economy far more than the US without CAFE. This fact alone should make one question the value of a government system that doesn't work as well as the free market system in countries not known for free market but government controls.
That is the reason they have so many cars running around getting 44 MPG and we have a couple complex hybrids.
And the new standard is 120 g/km (about 44 mpg), which they are saying it looks like the automakers will not be able to meet by next year when it is supposed to be in force, so they are going to be discussing this in the near future. This, per the latest issue of R&T. There are even stricter fuel economy requirements scheduled for the future.
If the most "draconian" CAFE proposed by our Congress made it into law, we would still be behind the Europeans and the Asians in our FE standards by 2020. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
http://www.spotlightingnews.com/article.php?news=3363
But saying you will meet the standards by 2009 and doing so are questions that have to be seen to be believed.
That is a proposed standard which was to be met by 2012. It probably won't make it into law because, as you stated, there is a lot of opposition from the auto manufacturers. The current proposed standard that exists is 140 g/km by 2008 and it represents a voluntary agreement between the automakers and the EU, not a mandate. 75% of the automakers selling vehicles in Europe are not on track to meet this voluntary target.
One other thing to keep in mind. This is not quite the inverse of our mile per gallon scheme of measuring efficiency. The difference is that diesel fuel has about 13% more carbon per gallon, which means that under this g/km CO2 measuring system a diesel vehicle needs to get about 13% better mpg to meet the same CO2 emission level of a gasoline burning vehicle. For instance if they were to meet this voluntary 140 g/km level then gasoline vehicles would have to get 39.2 mpg and diesels would have to get 44.4 mpg.
My point is that Europe has a voluntary form of CAFE that the auto manufacturers are not in compliance with yet the European fleet is significantly more efficient than the US fleet. So as far as CAFE goes the European model is not an example of its effectiveness. There must be something else going on that is motivating drivers.
Imagine this scenario. What if instead of a tax deduction for children and dependents there was a tax penalty for not having kids? The tax rates could be adjusted so that everyone's tax burden would end up being the same with this method but the psychology would be very different. The people without kids would be wondering why they are being penalized for this. So its easier to sell a tax break even though these breaks end up in higher tax rates for those that don't take advantage of them. So what if everyone took advantage of these tax breaks, wouldn't everyone benefit? Again, I don't see how that's possible.
I wouldn't oppose tax incentives and credits for adopting fuel efficient vehicles but they need to be paid for. Since the goal is to reduce fuel consumption what would be the most logical way to pay for these tax breaks? It seems to me that they should be paid for by a fuel consumption tax. That would represent the carrot and stick approach.
For most of CAFE's life it did nothing to improve fuel consumption. To even say that without CAFE fuel consumption would have been even higher is pure speculation. Fuel consumption average dropped slightly for the first few years and then started to flatten and then rise every year till people started realizing that CAFE was a waste or time. If a private business took this long to produce results it would have been bankrupt several times over.
And boaz, my simple response to your proposed system of market forces solving this problem is to point out that consumers are selfish and fairly uninformed on long-term costs of vehicle ownership, the U.S. has a massive effort in place to keep oil prices artificially low, and fuel efficiency won't sell itself to the average American buyer enough to make the U.S. a good global neighbor with regard to oil consumption.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That is exactly right. I know several people that buy big trucks to get the diesel engine. It costs more but has a lot more to offer including better mileage than any 1/2 ton PU. In CA no smog checks on those big diesels. First thing they do is head to the muffler shop and strip all the factory crap off and get straight exhaust. VW built the Touareg V10 diesel heavy enough to be sold in CA. A bit overkill but you don't have to put up with the ignorance in Sacramento.
I will say it again: consumers won't ever spend one thin dime more to pay for something that is good for everyone else, they will only pay more if it is better for themselves. That is why at a societal level, the only reforms we will initiate successfully are the ones we institute at the government level. Your idea of letting market forces solve the problem would only work if pollution in the air including CO2 emissions were assigned a dollar value commensurate with the harm it is causing, then that cost in dollars were spread out and charged equally to all licensed drivers who own a vehicle. Since that is clearly NOT the system, market forces will not help us out of this predicament.
Hey, didja notice the German foreign minister was here this week to praise California for taking steps to stem global warming, and was suggesting California join the EU coalition of countries trying to fight the problem? Oh, and did you notice where else he stopped to congratulate folks in this country on their efforts (nowhere)?! ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You concern for "other people" is fine if your legislation effects what those other people do as well. We discovered that particulants were a health hazard yeas ago and in fact banned diesel sales of new vehicles in California for 4 years. Who else cared? We have had higher cost for Gas because of the cleaner fuel we require in this state for years. Who else cares? More states didn't and hardly any other country does.
Sure, over a very long period of time government action may show some sign of change but in our case and CAFE how long is long enough? Consumer demand can change Iphone in a matter of month. Government intervention takes years to do what the market can do in months.
we may both want the same thing but our road to get there is different. I believe people want better fuel mileage and cleaner cars. But once the government sets a standard we as a society seem to figure that standard is good enough and the manufacturer has no incentive to do better. And don't even get me started on CARB and the wasted years spent on EV research only to get just exactly what was offered to them in the very beginning of the effort. Maybe the greatest failure was the mandate to have a percentage of every fleet to have some zero pollution vehicles by 2000 was it? Only to forget the whole thing and except hybrids as the solution. I guess I am just tired of government smoke and mirrors.
-Rocky
-Rocky
Either is John Edwards. But even John, with his large house has done things like change to flourescent ligh bulbs to reduce his emissions.
-Rocky
He is Mr. "Two America's"
Clearly, he prefers to live in the rich America,and has zero qualms about it.
-Rocky
You need to research our President's Crawford ranch home. He is far more environmentally astute than Edwards or Gore. GW Bush's carbon footprint may be even less than yours.
Some politicians talk a good story. Some just do it and keep quiet about it.