Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
I agree with you on most counts: I think the new standard is just going to backfire - too many loopholes - and I would give up most creature comforts for significant fuel economy improvements.
I hate the way automakers package options. I use cruise control almost every day, I like a good/great stereo and A/C, but I would happily hand-crank my windows and lock the car manually all day long. And I have no use for anything beyond there really. I really object to the ones that add a lot of weight like power windows and mirrors, a gazillion airbags everywhere, stuff like that. ABS can be useful and seems to add very little weight, so that one passes the nippon sniff test! :-P
Try and find my fave combination (A/C, upgrade stereo, cruise) out there on America's dealer lots though. The car I currently commute in has that combo, but only because the stereo and cruise are aftermarket.
A lot of the extra weight goes into reinforcing the steel structure of the car for more torsional and bending rigidity. These new cars are tauter than a drum, and certainly more so than sport sedans of the 80s. Why the heck does a commuter in a Cobalt or a Civic need that? Better to lighten the load by a quarter ton, reduce the engine power accordingly, and save some gas,.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
we will drive whatever they build and sell. But if someone makes a car just a bit faster or more comfortable we will drop the basic car just as fast. Our country is simply hard wired that way. We talk about cars and they are less than 50 percent of our energy useage in this country. Look at the energy use the average single family house has compared to stack housing. Who here would give up our rather large homes compared to other places just to same some energy? Not many. We fly in commercial jets that simply burn energy and say we are forced to because time is money. No I believe we are a long way off from conserving for the sake of conserving.
Would you relinquish some of the creature comforts and 0-60 times to save at the pump?
Honestly, probably not. Even at $3.00/gal gas isn't unaffordable. Europeans have been paying more than that for decades,and they still produce plenty of big high hp cars,and now SUV's.
we will drive whatever they build and sell. 1) But if someone makes a car just a bit faster or more comfortable we will drop the basic car just as fast. Our country is simply hard wired that way.
2) We talk about cars and they are less than 50 percent of our energy useage in this country. Look at the energy use the average single family house has compared to stack housing. Who here would give up our rather large homes compared to other places just to same some energy? Not many. We fly in commercial jets that simply burn energy and say we are forced to because time is money. No I believe we are a long way off from conserving for the sake of conserving.
1) This used to be true but no so much anymore. Since 2003 the buying public has walked away from nearly 1 million SUVs and trucks from just the top 4 makers. They switched to something smaller and more efficient. It's all in the sales stats.
2) Vehicles might be under 50% of the 'energy' consumers in our country but they account for 65% of the total petroleum products we use on a daily basis. In fact our vehicles in the US use more petroleum products ( daily, monthly. annually )than any other nation on earth uses in total. Our vehicle usage uses the equivalent of the entire output of Saudi Arabia every single day...and then some.
The 35 MPG is for the headlines on mainstream Media Reporting. I would be interested in adding up all the PORK that is attached to the bill. We know they are going to hand out gobs of money to the likes of ADM to build more ethanol stills.
That sounds good. I think we have some Jimmy Dean spicy in the refrigerator.
I would be interested to read the 822 page bill in its entirety. It has been a while since I was bored to tears. I may have to eat my words if there is a little pork for all of US in the bill.
Congress gave final approval to the 822-page measure Tuesday, delivering it to the White House in a Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle. Bush drove to the signing ceremony in the presidential motorcade, which includes his armored Cadillac sedan.
The legislation calls for a 40% increase in fuel efficiency for new cars and light trucks by 2020, for a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon. It also requires a fivefold increase -- to 36 billion gallons -- in the amount of alternative homegrown fuels, such as ethanol, that must be added to the nation's gasoline supply by 2022.
15 states are getting set to enter the lawsuit on California's side. I wonder how long the feds will be able to drag it out before there is a decision. Originally, California's law limiting greenhouse emissions from automobiles was supposed to take effect with the MY 2009 new vehicles. It has already been more than 3 years since the law was passed.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
California's law limiting greenhouse emissions from automobiles was supposed to take effect with the MY 2009 new vehicles.
I think we should vote to make every car, SUV and PU truck get 75 MPG. Just because some misguided law is enacted does not mean anything will happen. It would just end up costing the consumers more money for less of a vehicle. Do we have any idea what this law would mean to the average car buyer?. Or was it one of those well disguised propositions designed to make the voter feel good just before it stabs them in the back?
Hehehehe, everything of any worth costs money, gagrice. Can you imagine if folks in the 50s had said "why the heck build a national interstate highway system? It's just going to cost taxpayers more money"?! :-P
Or how about if Californians in the early 70s had said "why the heck limit smog emissions from cars? It's just going to cost consumers more money"
Even YOU have to admit that it was worth the price to eliminate those 1st, 2nd, and 3rd stage smog alerts in the LA basin 30 years ago. This is just a slightly less obvious problem - CO2 emissions aren't brown.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
They are not pollution either. They are being used to promote a political agenda. Can you name anyplace in the USA that has had CO2 at a toxic level? The major contributor to the smog in LA was leaded gas. When that was removed the air got cleaner. The amount of good we are doing currently with these new ridiculous levels of emissions control devices is not worth the price it costs to implement.
a 2006 Corolla is no cleaner than a 1996 Corolla. PZEV is no cleaner than SULEV II. It is all just a game to get more money out of the consumer. While CARB looks the other way on the REAL polluters in CA.
The Supreme Court may not have specifically called CO2 pollution but they concluded the EPA/federal govt. had the right to regulate it. Anyway, something doesn't have to be toxic for it to be referred to as pollution. I know around airports the term noise pollution frequently comes up. I doubt this noise has ever reached a toxic level.
Reducing CO2 definitely represents an agenda. Just like fighting crime, disease, poverty, illiteracy, etc., represent agendas. I believe it only recently became a political agenda. This is because it only recently became an issue that interested most voters. Obviously not every voter is concerned about CO2 or global warming but we've reached the point in this country where most voters are. So if a politician wants to get elected he needs to be addressing global warming.
It is all just a game to get more money out of the consumer.
CARB's not getting more money out of the consumer. The only group that I see that might be getting more money is the auto manufacturers. Why would CARB engage in some "game" to facillitate the auto manufacturers being able to charge more for their cars?
Why would CARB engage in some "game" to facillitate the auto manufacturers being able to charge more for their cars?
The more crap forced onto the auto mfg, the higher the cost to the consumer. I don't need air bags in the 2nd and third row of my SUV. Yet I am forced to have them. By the time CARB, EPA and NHTSA get through with their mandated add-ons a car weighs about 25% more than it needs to. Every time they add emissions devices to bring a vehicle closer to PZEV the gas mileage drops for that vehicle. That raises the CO2 output.
Example: 2001 VW Jetta TDI rated 38 MPG under new formula 5.6 tons CO2 2005 VW Jetta TDI rated 34 MPG under new formula 6.2 tons CO2 Same car engine and transmission. with added devices to raise the emissions rating by ONE lousy point. Now it dumps .6 of a ton more CO2.
And as you have stated. The Supreme court gave the EPA the right to regulate CO2. Not CARB or any other state wannabe. So when this current frivolous waste of money on suing the EPA gets to the Supreme court they will just have to reiterate that the control of CO2 is with the EPA. The last case was brought by the losers in Massachusetts.
If CARB and Jerry Brown are sue happy they should sue the states of the Midwest. They have cut down most of the hardwood forests to grow corn. Or maybe go International and sue Brazil for cutting down the rain forest. When I was a kid Orange County was all orange groves. A great Carbon Sink. Now it is all paved and part of the warming problem. Plenty of opportunities for sue happy goobers.
Every time they add emissions devices to bring a vehicle closer to PZEV the gas mileage drops for that vehicle. That raises the CO2 output.
That's probably more true for diesels but I don't see the mpg ratings of non-diesels suffering as they've become cleaner. Have the mpg ratings for the 4 cylinder Camry or Accord gone down in the last 10 years?
The Supreme court gave the EPA the right to regulate CO2. Not CARB or any other state wannabe.
For one thing I believe that most of the governing should be done on the state level. Of course that's a personal opininon and some people would like to see more power shifted to the feds. As you well know CARB has been granted the unique authority to deviate from EPA and set more stringent standards. The other states are then offered the option of adopting these tougher standards. No other state was granted the authority to initiate their own standards.
A federal court did grant CARB the right to regulate CO2. An appointed bureacrat overturned this decision. My guess is that if this ever gets to the Supreme Court the justices will interpret the law more in line with the federal judge than with the bureacrat. It may not get that far because there are already many in Congress that oppose the EPA's denial of the CARB waiver.
If CARB and Jerry Brown are sue happy they should sue the states of the Midwest.
I'm sure they realize that they have no authority over other states. They do influence other states by acting as a leader. That is what they are trying to do now.
I haven't lived in CA for some time now. You make it sound like this policy is being driven by a small percentage of CA's population, the hollywood, elitist, treehuggers. I could be wrong but I find it somewhat difficult to believe that these new CARB standards don't have the support of the majority of Californians.
I could be wrong but I find it somewhat difficult to believe that these new CARB standards don't have the support of the majority of Californians.
There is no doubt that the majority of Californians want cleaner air and will vote for propositions to that end. The problem is the hidden agenda in some of these Props are not fully known until it is passed. If you put in the proposition that the only vehicles that will be able to reach these lofty emissions goals are the size of a Corolla, do you think the proposition would pass? Just what do you think will happen if CARB gets its way on CO2? CARB and Jerry Brown need to be shot down once and for all. The Supreme Court is probably the only way it will happen.
As far as the 9th district Federal court. It is a joke and gets overturned on a regular basis. Many times by the other members of the court. It has several very loose cannons sitting on that court. I know as an Alaska resident there is much resentment being stuck with that bunch a yahoos. It is far and away the most liberal court in the US. It is also the most overturned district court in the USA.
Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.
If you put in the proposition that the only vehicles that will be able to reach these lofty emissions goals are the size of a Corolla, do you think the proposition would pass?
That's somewhat of an exaggeration. The numbers used by CARB will be from the NHTSA, not the EPA's numbers. I believe the Corolla already exceeds the CARB mandate. There is little doubt that by 2016 more hybrids and maybe even plug-in hybrids or EVs will be on the market that considerably exceed this new standard. This will allow some room for selling vehicles that get around 25 mpg. They probably will cost more to keep the numbers down. However if gas prices continue to rise significantly the automanufacturers will probably meet these CARB targets well ahead of schedule because the consumers will be demanding fuel efficiency.
because the consumers will be demanding fuel efficiency.
I have been demanding a fuel efficient 1/2 ton PU for over 15 years. It has done very little good. I would even consider a smaller PU if the mileage gain was good enough. It is not even close to what the rest of the world is getting. So forgive my lack of optimism where any government entity is involved.
This second one clearly delineates that Californians are more at risk than the rest of the nation, making it appropriate that California should set special standards for itself for CO2 emissions.
5 of the 7 worst cities in the nation are apparently here in good ol' Cali, including LA, Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia, and Sacramento. What a shocker.
CO2 is clearly a culprit here...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I thought Arnie drove a Prius? Last I heard he gave away the Hummer, or purposefully quit driving it, or something?
He has a fleet of Hummers. He also has a prototype Hydrogen Hummer 2 for show. Ahnold in a Prius would be funny though...
In what the company has called a "bold experiment," Hummer has prepared a hydrogen-powered version of its H2 SUT (sport utility truck), the H2H. The vehicle is not intended for production, and a Hummer spokesperson said yesterday in a phone interview that the company will not divulge the prototype's development cost.
GM does not allow Schwarzenegger to use the "Self-Serve" lane at the hydrogen station. The company fills the tank itself, keeps the vehicle in Lake Forest, Calif. (near its engineering facilities and Quantum's offices) and requires that a GM engineer ride in the car at all times.
For Arnold to drive a Prius after Toyota thumbed their nose at him would look real bad. Remember he tried getting the Auto giant to start building the Prius in CA. They not only said NO, but H--- NO...
Those cities are going to get worse in the SJ Valley. The trucks coming up from Mexico can make the whole round trip on their very cheap high sulfur diesel. Wonder what CARB is doing about truckers coming into CA with dirty diesel from AZ, NV and Mexico?
Here's why I thought he had sold them all - it was reported in many trustworthy news sources about 18 months ago. Four days later, it turned out that he had in fact only sold four. He claims he doesn't drive the other three (!!). Of those three, one is the alt fuel experimental H2 that GM has converted to run on hydrogen.
Ahnold has gone full time Politician. What do you want to hear from me this election. I would bet he still has a couple Hummers at his home in Sun Valley.
steve: Actually, less crap forced onto the auto mfg. means a higher cost to the consumer.
And how much have medical costs declined since safety standards and emissions control standards were phased in during the late 1960s, even adjusted for inflation?
steve: We talking more tax funded hospital stays if air bags weren't common and seat belt laws weren't enforced.
Actually, no, because if people were killed, which is what happened quite often in the old days, they didn't go to the hospital, they went directly to the funeral home, and then to the cemetery, and didn't cost taxpayers much of anything, except possibly for death benefits related to Social Security for survivors.
steve: No emissions controls means more asthma attacks and sick people missing work.
Except that the incidence of asthma has been increasing even as levels of pollutants have been decreasing for decades...
No bribing the opposition, this is not a political campaign
I can foresee the car of the future. It kind of looks like a giant bumper car. One of these days the Insurance companies are going to say enough with the high cost of totaling these throwaway crumple cars.
"Proving once again that Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules are a failure in boosting fuel economy, the federal government Wednesday released the list of fines automakers will pay for not meeting fuel-efficiency standards in 2007. And new records were set."
• General Motors Corp.: 29.9 mpg for domestic cars, 31.9 mpg for imported vehicles and 22.6 mpg for light trucks.
• Ford Motor Co.: 29 mpg for domestically produced cars, 29.9 mpg for imported cars and 22.2 mpg for light trucks.
• DaimlerChrysler: 28.6 mpg for domestic vehicles, 24.7 mpg for imported vehicles and 22.6 mpg for light trucks.
• Toyota Motor Corp.: 31.6 mpg for domestically produced cars, 38.5 mpg for imported cars -- largely based on Prius hybrids -- and 23.9 mpg for light trucks.
• Honda Motor Co.: 33.5 mpg for domestically produced cars, 39.6 mpg for imports, and 25 mpg for light trucks.
• Nissan Motor Co.: 25.6 for imported cars, 34 mpg for domestically produced cars and 22.9 mpg for light trucks.
I think that she's referring to the Mercedes part of the former DC that had to pay the fines. BMW is no surprise they always ignore the rules and just pay the fines ( well the buyers pay the fines ).
"NHTSA officials would not disclose any details, but the average for cars is 27.5 miles per gallon now, while trucks are at 22.7 mpg. That means the necessary hikes, spread over just four increases, are going to have to be pretty substantial -- averaging almost two miles per gallon each time for cars, and a little more than three mpg for trucks."
by a Smart doing at least 80. Wonder what fuel economy he was getting at that speed?! :-P
I am all for ramping up gas taxes some to instill some more common sense out there among the buying public. I don't know about $5/gallon though. I was thinking that $1.50 would be OK, spread out over 7-10 years.
Forget CAFE, and start regulating emissions of CO2 instead. Let's get at the heart of the matter.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
There's three problems that need attention in this fuel supply/demand/pricing conundrum.
The Federal Gov'ts concern which is mainly about there not being enough supply to maintain our economy and our way of life - and our security. The Environmentalit's concern which is about minimizing the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels The Populace's concern which is simply about not going broke paying for fuel.
Sometime these concerns intertwine and move in concert such as the increase in fuel economy by implementing CAFE 35. Frankly I don't see this Administration having any interest in minimizing the environmental effects of burning oil. However it is deeply concerned about making hostile countries richer by our gluttonous use of petro-fuel. The populace IMHO has no inkling that it's on the verge of potentially running out of fuel to go to Grandma's house on the weekends.
Again this is an industry average so Honda's good performance benefits GM for example. In addition I think that individual manufacturers only have to be within 92% of the industry average, meaning about 33 mpg.
But most importantly our entire buying pattern might be entirely different in 5 or 7 or 12 years. If a jump of $1.50 in fuel has caused 1 million buyers to get out of their BOF vehicles in favor of something more efficient what would a $3.00 jump in prices do? ( $4.50 / gallon ). How about a $5.00 jump in prices by 2015 up to $6 or $7 a gallon? What will the public be demanding at those price levels? Probably it won't be a 16 mpg SUV or CrewCab truck. My guess is that at those elevated fuel prices the mix of vehicles will be heavily weighted in favor of the ultra-efficient models making well over 40 mpg.
I'm curious about the unintended consequences. Some people will still need a gas thirsty SUV or truck for hauling (unless diesel wins the day). But the majors may not sell them in 12 years.
Maybe we should buy and garage a few HUMMERS or F-250 V-10s on speculation?
The other consequence someone mentioned around the boards yesterday goes - gas gets to $6 or $7 quickly. People quit driving. The majors quit making SUVs. Oil demand crashes and there's a glut of cheap gas. And then there's nothing new to drive but smarts and Yarises.
The kicker is how political these things are and how many way around them people find. I was filling up the Tahoe the other day, and yes it takes more fuel than the Pontiac, and parked next to me was a brand new Tahoe with the words Flexfuel on the back. I walked over to the owner and asked what flexfuels they could use and they didn't have a clue. But they get a exemption and some kind of tax break. And they take just as much gas as my Tahoe.
"until recently there was only one publicly available ethanol station in the entire state, and it was in San Diego County"
"(Yes, sounds weird, 50,000 flex fuel vehicles sold in a region where its almost impossible for most to get anything but gasoline to run their cars and trucks on, but that's how the game is played. The federal government gives automakers mileage credits for making and selling the vehicles and hasn't seemed to care whether anyone actually puts an alternative fuel into them.)"
I started this thread back when gas was shooting up in price with no end in sight. Since then a deep global recession has started and gas is now lower in price than I have seen it since well before Katrina.
In the light of these new gas prices, I expect some people will revert to their old buying habits, so CAFE is a good secondary measure to keep automakers working towards the goal of making more fuel-efficient cars available. It would be sort of nice to see the new president and congress develop a cohesive energy policy for the country, and maybe it could include a further boost from 35 mpg for the standard - we are still below most developed countries and even China with CAFE 35.
We still need all the loopholes out of CAFE too - that's a problem that has existed forever that persists even with the new legislation this year.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If so, that's enormously stupid of them for two reasons: (1) the congress has already set aside money to give the domestics to help meet the new standard, as soon as (if) they get back on their feet, and (2) if you allow the domestics to delay in producing more fuel-efficient models, that will just leave them in even hotter water the next time gas prices spike, which I'm sure isn't more than 10 years out, and probably less than 5.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I have to agree with Steve. If the government is involved with handing out money they will more than likely hand out exemptions as well. How much has Cafe done in all of the years they have been in business? I know the answer will come back with a few Ya Buts and if only they could. Or at least they kept things flat. But just like CARB they are guard dogs without teeth. And as myopic as they been there is very little reason to believe those bozos will do better in the future. If we can in good conscience condemn the domestic auto manufacturers as failures then we can't turn a blind eye on the failures of CAFE and CARB. I say toss them and find something better to do with whatever we pay them. With all of the trucks and SUVs Ford, Chrysler and GM made over the last 15 years just how much in fines did CAFE get from them? If you had a security guard that didn't do their job any better than CAFE wouldn't you fire them?
Mercedes-Benz's U.S. division paid a $28.9 million fine in December for violating federal fuel efficiency requirements, the government said Tuesday.
Mercedes-Benz USA LLC paid the fine for imported passenger cars from the 2007 model year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in documents released to The Associated Press.
Isn't SOMEONE at MB smart enough to say, "all we need is a couple of small diesel hybrids making 70+ MPG and we can save these fines."
Obviously MB didn't make any pick-up trucks or enough SUVs. But CAFE and CARB did make it hard on large imports. But with what they got for a MB the fine must not have meant much. We should dump CAFE and let the market decide.
The new administration has until April 1st to set new CAFE 2020 standards for the period 2011-2015, or else they will miss the window for modifying the requirements for the 2011 model year. They have to decide how much of the ramping-up in standards must occur by 2015.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"The new administration has until April 1st to set new CAFE 2020 standards for the period 2011-2015, or else they will miss the window for modifying the requirements for the 2011 model year. They have to decide how much of the ramping-up in standards must occur by 2015."
Shall we at this point make a friendly wager as to if they will pass the new standards by April? My bet is they will not set the new standards in 09 because they just gave the auto makers a huge amount of money and most pundants are saying the new administration will give them even more. :confuse:
Do you believe they will stand up and be counted or will they keep their mouth shut?
Oh, I'm quite sure they will set the new standards, and I hope they set them high for 2015, because it coincides with one of the planks in Obama's campaign platform.
Will they also give the automakers loads more money to flush down the drain? Sure, I think so. And I bet their first priority will be to disburse the $25 billion in loans already approved to help automakers increase their average fuel economy. And I'm sure the requirement originally set in that legislation that automakers would have to prove long-term viability before they can get the money will be out the window from the word "go".
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I thought the CAFE was set in the 2007 Energy Bill.
The Senate late last night passed the energy bill by a Yea-Nea vote of 65-27, including a compromise version (SA 1792) of CAFE legislation that increases new light-duty vehicle fleetwide fuel economy to an average 35 mpg by 2020, but that eliminates the mandatory 4% per year increase thereafter that had been part of the original proposal.
Comments
I hate the way automakers package options. I use cruise control almost every day, I like a good/great stereo and A/C, but I would happily hand-crank my windows and lock the car manually all day long. And I have no use for anything beyond there really. I really object to the ones that add a lot of weight like power windows and mirrors, a gazillion airbags everywhere, stuff like that. ABS can be useful and seems to add very little weight, so that one passes the nippon sniff test! :-P
Try and find my fave combination (A/C, upgrade stereo, cruise) out there on America's dealer lots though. The car I currently commute in has that combo, but only because the stereo and cruise are aftermarket.
A lot of the extra weight goes into reinforcing the steel structure of the car for more torsional and bending rigidity. These new cars are tauter than a drum, and certainly more so than sport sedans of the 80s. Why the heck does a commuter in a Cobalt or a Civic need that? Better to lighten the load by a quarter ton, reduce the engine power accordingly, and save some gas,.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Honestly, probably not.
Even at $3.00/gal gas isn't unaffordable.
Europeans have been paying more than that for decades,and they still produce plenty of big high hp cars,and now SUV's.
1) But if someone makes a car just a bit faster or more comfortable we will drop the basic car just as fast. Our country is simply hard wired that way.
2) We talk about cars and they are less than 50 percent of our energy useage in this country. Look at the energy use the average single family house has compared to stack housing. Who here would give up our rather large homes compared to other places just to same some energy? Not many. We fly in commercial jets that simply burn energy and say we are forced to because time is money. No I believe we are a long way off from conserving for the sake of conserving.
1) This used to be true but no so much anymore. Since 2003 the buying public has walked away from nearly 1 million SUVs and trucks from just the top 4 makers. They switched to something smaller and more efficient. It's all in the sales stats.
2) Vehicles might be under 50% of the 'energy' consumers in our country but they account for 65% of the total petroleum products we use on a daily basis. In fact our vehicles in the US use more petroleum products ( daily, monthly. annually )than any other nation on earth uses in total. Our vehicle usage uses the equivalent of the entire output of Saudi Arabia every single day...and then some.
I can't wait to see the comments Alternate Route's entry for today generates...
Is Not, Is Too
Just incredible :confuse:
The 110th Congress is a JOKE.
That does it - I'm having sausage for breakfast. Just don't make me watch it being made.
One of the comments on John O'Dell's blog was good - it's the percentage improvement that counts, not the number.
That sounds good. I think we have some Jimmy Dean spicy in the refrigerator.
I would be interested to read the 822 page bill in its entirety. It has been a while since I was bored to tears. I may have to eat my words if there is a little pork for all of US in the bill.
Congress gave final approval to the 822-page measure Tuesday, delivering it to the White House in a Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle. Bush drove to the signing ceremony in the presidential motorcade, which includes his armored Cadillac sedan.
The legislation calls for a 40% increase in fuel efficiency for new cars and light trucks by 2020, for a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon. It also requires a fivefold increase -- to 36 billion gallons -- in the amount of alternative homegrown fuels, such as ethanol, that must be added to the nation's gasoline supply by 2022.
2007 Energy bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080102/ap_on_re_us/california_greenhouse_gases
15 states are getting set to enter the lawsuit on California's side. I wonder how long the feds will be able to drag it out before there is a decision. Originally, California's law limiting greenhouse emissions from automobiles was supposed to take effect with the MY 2009 new vehicles. It has already been more than 3 years since the law was passed.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think we should vote to make every car, SUV and PU truck get 75 MPG. Just because some misguided law is enacted does not mean anything will happen. It would just end up costing the consumers more money for less of a vehicle. Do we have any idea what this law would mean to the average car buyer?. Or was it one of those well disguised propositions designed to make the voter feel good just before it stabs them in the back?
Or how about if Californians in the early 70s had said "why the heck limit smog emissions from cars? It's just going to cost consumers more money"
Even YOU have to admit that it was worth the price to eliminate those 1st, 2nd, and 3rd stage smog alerts in the LA basin 30 years ago. This is just a slightly less obvious problem - CO2 emissions aren't brown.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
They are not pollution either. They are being used to promote a political agenda. Can you name anyplace in the USA that has had CO2 at a toxic level? The major contributor to the smog in LA was leaded gas. When that was removed the air got cleaner. The amount of good we are doing currently with these new ridiculous levels of emissions control devices is not worth the price it costs to implement.
a 2006 Corolla is no cleaner than a 1996 Corolla. PZEV is no cleaner than SULEV II. It is all just a game to get more money out of the consumer. While CARB looks the other way on the REAL polluters in CA.
The Supreme Court may not have specifically called CO2 pollution but they concluded the EPA/federal govt. had the right to regulate it. Anyway, something doesn't have to be toxic for it to be referred to as pollution. I know around airports the term noise pollution frequently comes up. I doubt this noise has ever reached a toxic level.
Reducing CO2 definitely represents an agenda. Just like fighting crime, disease, poverty, illiteracy, etc., represent agendas. I believe it only recently became a political agenda. This is because it only recently became an issue that interested most voters. Obviously not every voter is concerned about CO2 or global warming but we've reached the point in this country where most voters are. So if a politician wants to get elected he needs to be addressing global warming.
It is all just a game to get more money out of the consumer.
CARB's not getting more money out of the consumer. The only group that I see that might be getting more money is the auto manufacturers. Why would CARB engage in some "game" to facillitate the auto manufacturers being able to charge more for their cars?
The more crap forced onto the auto mfg, the higher the cost to the consumer. I don't need air bags in the 2nd and third row of my SUV. Yet I am forced to have them. By the time CARB, EPA and NHTSA get through with their mandated add-ons a car weighs about 25% more than it needs to. Every time they add emissions devices to bring a vehicle closer to PZEV the gas mileage drops for that vehicle. That raises the CO2 output.
Example:
2001 VW Jetta TDI rated 38 MPG under new formula 5.6 tons CO2
2005 VW Jetta TDI rated 34 MPG under new formula 6.2 tons CO2
Same car engine and transmission. with added devices to raise the emissions rating by ONE lousy point. Now it dumps .6 of a ton more CO2.
And as you have stated. The Supreme court gave the EPA the right to regulate CO2. Not CARB or any other state wannabe. So when this current frivolous waste of money on suing the EPA gets to the Supreme court they will just have to reiterate that the control of CO2 is with the EPA. The last case was brought by the losers in Massachusetts.
If CARB and Jerry Brown are sue happy they should sue the states of the Midwest. They have cut down most of the hardwood forests to grow corn. Or maybe go International and sue Brazil for cutting down the rain forest. When I was a kid Orange County was all orange groves. A great Carbon Sink. Now it is all paved and part of the warming problem. Plenty of opportunities for sue happy goobers.
That's probably more true for diesels but I don't see the mpg ratings of non-diesels suffering as they've become cleaner. Have the mpg ratings for the 4 cylinder Camry or Accord gone down in the last 10 years?
The Supreme court gave the EPA the right to regulate CO2. Not CARB or any other state wannabe.
For one thing I believe that most of the governing should be done on the state level. Of course that's a personal opininon and some people would like to see more power shifted to the feds. As you well know CARB has been granted the unique authority to deviate from EPA and set more stringent standards. The other states are then offered the option of adopting these tougher standards. No other state was granted the authority to initiate their own standards.
A federal court did grant CARB the right to regulate CO2. An appointed bureacrat overturned this decision. My guess is that if this ever gets to the Supreme Court the justices will interpret the law more in line with the federal judge than with the bureacrat. It may not get that far because there are already many in Congress that oppose the EPA's denial of the CARB waiver.
If CARB and Jerry Brown are sue happy they should sue the states of the Midwest.
I'm sure they realize that they have no authority over other states. They do influence other states by acting as a leader. That is what they are trying to do now.
I haven't lived in CA for some time now. You make it sound like this policy is being driven by a small percentage of CA's population, the hollywood, elitist, treehuggers. I could be wrong but I find it somewhat difficult to believe that these new CARB standards don't have the support of the majority of Californians.
We talking more tax funded hospital stays if air bags weren't common and seat belt laws weren't enforced.
No emissions controls means more asthma attacks and sick people missing work.
It's not a zero sum game.
There is no doubt that the majority of Californians want cleaner air and will vote for propositions to that end. The problem is the hidden agenda in some of these Props are not fully known until it is passed. If you put in the proposition that the only vehicles that will be able to reach these lofty emissions goals are the size of a Corolla, do you think the proposition would pass? Just what do you think will happen if CARB gets its way on CO2? CARB and Jerry Brown need to be shot down once and for all. The Supreme Court is probably the only way it will happen.
As far as the 9th district Federal court. It is a joke and gets overturned on a regular basis. Many times by the other members of the court. It has several very loose cannons sitting on that court. I know as an Alaska resident there is much resentment being stuck with that bunch a yahoos. It is far and away the most liberal court in the US. It is also the most overturned district court in the USA.
Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.
That's somewhat of an exaggeration. The numbers used by CARB will be from the NHTSA, not the EPA's numbers. I believe the Corolla already exceeds the CARB mandate. There is little doubt that by 2016 more hybrids and maybe even plug-in hybrids or EVs will be on the market that considerably exceed this new standard. This will allow some room for selling vehicles that get around 25 mpg. They probably will cost more to keep the numbers down. However if gas prices continue to rise significantly the automanufacturers will probably meet these CARB targets well ahead of schedule because the consumers will be demanding fuel efficiency.
I have been demanding a fuel efficient 1/2 ton PU for over 15 years. It has done very little good. I would even consider a smaller PU if the mileage gain was good enough. It is not even close to what the rest of the world is getting. So forgive my lack of optimism where any government entity is involved.
How clean is clean enough?
How safe is safe enough?
A Hummer ONE is a heck of a lot safer than a Prius. Just not quite as clean. You see what our man Arnold drives.
How safe is safe enough?
Ask me again in 30 years. Change is constant but progress seems awfully slow.
Here are a couple of different reports on the report Stanford released today on global warming, and the dangers it creates for humans.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/caganone-010908.html
http://parkwayblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/stanford-report.html
This second one clearly delineates that Californians are more at risk than the rest of the nation, making it appropriate that California should set special standards for itself for CO2 emissions.
5 of the 7 worst cities in the nation are apparently here in good ol' Cali, including LA, Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia, and Sacramento. What a shocker.
CO2 is clearly a culprit here...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
He has a fleet of Hummers. He also has a prototype Hydrogen Hummer 2 for show. Ahnold in a Prius would be funny though...
In what the company has called a "bold experiment," Hummer has prepared a hydrogen-powered version of its H2 SUT (sport utility truck), the H2H. The vehicle is not intended for production, and a Hummer spokesperson said yesterday in a phone interview that the company will not divulge the prototype's development cost.
GM does not allow Schwarzenegger to use the "Self-Serve" lane at the hydrogen station. The company fills the tank itself, keeps the vehicle in Lake Forest, Calif. (near its engineering facilities and Quantum's offices) and requires that a GM engineer ride in the car at all times.
http://www.forbes.com/2005/01/04/cx_dl_0104vow.html
Those cities are going to get worse in the SJ Valley. The trucks coming up from Mexico can make the whole round trip on their very cheap high sulfur diesel. Wonder what CARB is doing about truckers coming into CA with dirty diesel from AZ, NV and Mexico?
http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2006/09/22/5/
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And how much have medical costs declined since safety standards and emissions control standards were phased in during the late 1960s, even adjusted for inflation?
steve: We talking more tax funded hospital stays if air bags weren't common and seat belt laws weren't enforced.
Actually, no, because if people were killed, which is what happened quite often in the old days, they didn't go to the hospital, they went directly to the funeral home, and then to the cemetery, and didn't cost taxpayers much of anything, except possibly for death benefits related to Social Security for survivors.
steve: No emissions controls means more asthma attacks and sick people missing work.
Except that the incidence of asthma has been increasing even as levels of pollutants have been decreasing for decades...
Cafe as in a latte - we're not talking the Morning Call or Cafe' du Monde. mmmm, a couple of beignets would sure taste good right about now ....
I can foresee the car of the future. It kind of looks like a giant bumper car. One of these days the Insurance companies are going to say enough with the high cost of totaling these throwaway crumple cars.
"Proving once again that Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules are a failure in boosting fuel economy, the federal government Wednesday released the list of fines automakers will pay for not meeting fuel-efficiency standards in 2007. And new records were set."
http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/01/automakers-fine.html#more
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2007 CAFE results show auto makers exceed the current standards
Estimated 2007 model year results are:
• General Motors Corp.: 29.9 mpg for domestic cars, 31.9 mpg for imported vehicles and 22.6 mpg for light trucks.
• Ford Motor Co.: 29 mpg for domestically produced cars, 29.9 mpg for imported cars and 22.2 mpg for light trucks.
• DaimlerChrysler: 28.6 mpg for domestic vehicles, 24.7 mpg for imported vehicles and 22.6 mpg for light trucks.
• Toyota Motor Corp.: 31.6 mpg for domestically produced cars, 38.5 mpg for imported cars -- largely based on Prius hybrids -- and 23.9 mpg for light trucks.
• Honda Motor Co.: 33.5 mpg for domestically produced cars, 39.6 mpg for imports, and 25 mpg for light trucks.
• Nissan Motor Co.: 25.6 for imported cars, 34 mpg for domestically produced cars and 22.9 mpg for light trucks.
I think that she's referring to the Mercedes part of the former DC that had to pay the fines. BMW is no surprise they always ignore the rules and just pay the fines ( well the buyers pay the fines ).
NHTSA Submits Plan For Meeting 2020 CAFE Standard (GreenCarAdvisor)
I am all for ramping up gas taxes some to instill some more common sense out there among the buying public. I don't know about $5/gallon though. I was thinking that $1.50 would be OK, spread out over 7-10 years.
Forget CAFE, and start regulating emissions of CO2 instead. Let's get at the heart of the matter.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Federal Gov'ts concern which is mainly about there not being enough supply to maintain our economy and our way of life - and our security.
The Environmentalit's concern which is about minimizing the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels
The Populace's concern which is simply about not going broke paying for fuel.
Sometime these concerns intertwine and move in concert such as the increase in fuel economy by implementing CAFE 35. Frankly I don't see this Administration having any interest in minimizing the environmental effects of burning oil. However it is deeply concerned about making hostile countries richer by our gluttonous use of petro-fuel. The populace IMHO has no inkling that it's on the verge of potentially running out of fuel to go to Grandma's house on the weekends.
But most importantly our entire buying pattern might be entirely different in 5 or 7 or 12 years. If a jump of $1.50 in fuel has caused 1 million buyers to get out of their BOF vehicles in favor of something more efficient what would a $3.00 jump in prices do? ( $4.50 / gallon ). How about a $5.00 jump in prices by 2015 up to $6 or $7 a gallon? What will the public be demanding at those price levels? Probably it won't be a 16 mpg SUV or CrewCab truck. My guess is that at those elevated fuel prices the mix of vehicles will be heavily weighted in favor of the ultra-efficient models making well over 40 mpg.
Maybe we should buy and garage a few HUMMERS or F-250 V-10s on speculation?
The other consequence someone mentioned around the boards yesterday goes - gas gets to $6 or $7 quickly. People quit driving. The majors quit making SUVs. Oil demand crashes and there's a glut of cheap gas. And then there's nothing new to drive but smarts and Yarises.
"until recently there was only one publicly available ethanol station in the entire state, and it was in San Diego County"
"(Yes, sounds weird, 50,000 flex fuel vehicles sold in a region where its almost impossible for most to get anything but gasoline to run their cars and trucks on, but that's how the game is played. The federal government gives automakers mileage credits for making and selling the vehicles and hasn't seemed to care whether anyone actually puts an alternative fuel into them.)"
Ethanol For the Masses...If You're Near Brentwood (GreenCarAdvisor)
In the light of these new gas prices, I expect some people will revert to their old buying habits, so CAFE is a good secondary measure to keep automakers working towards the goal of making more fuel-efficient cars available. It would be sort of nice to see the new president and congress develop a cohesive energy policy for the country, and maybe it could include a further boost from 35 mpg for the standard - we are still below most developed countries and even China with CAFE 35.
We still need all the loopholes out of CAFE too - that's a problem that has existed forever that persists even with the new legislation this year.
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)
Mercedes fined for violating fuel efficiency rules
Mercedes-Benz's U.S. division paid a $28.9 million fine in December for violating federal fuel efficiency requirements, the government said Tuesday.
Mercedes-Benz USA LLC paid the fine for imported passenger cars from the 2007 model year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in documents released to The Associated Press.
Isn't SOMEONE at MB smart enough to say, "all we need is a couple of small diesel hybrids making 70+ MPG and we can save these fines."
The new administration has until April 1st to set new CAFE 2020 standards for the period 2011-2015, or else they will miss the window for modifying the requirements for the 2011 model year. They have to decide how much of the ramping-up in standards must occur by 2015.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Shall we at this point make a friendly wager as to if they will pass the new standards by April? My bet is they will not set the new standards in 09 because they just gave the auto makers a huge amount of money and most pundants are saying the new administration will give them even more. :confuse:
Do you believe they will stand up and be counted or will they keep their mouth shut?
Will they also give the automakers loads more money to flush down the drain? Sure, I think so. And I bet their first priority will be to disburse the $25 billion in loans already approved to help automakers increase their average fuel economy. And I'm sure the requirement originally set in that legislation that automakers would have to prove long-term viability before they can get the money will be out the window from the word "go".
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Senate late last night passed the energy bill by a Yea-Nea vote of 65-27, including a compromise version (SA 1792) of CAFE legislation that increases new light-duty vehicle fleetwide fuel economy to an average 35 mpg by 2020, but that eliminates the mandatory 4% per year increase thereafter that had been part of the original proposal.