After sifting thru the recent flurry of posts, I found a few things that I thought should be addressed:
CAFE: some espoused putting some "teeth" in CAFE, and others said it doesn't address consumption. I certainly agree with the former (as a way to deal with $4 or $5+ gas) and while technically it doesn't address consumption directly, it certainly does indirectly. When CAFE was first enacted, consumption actually dropped, and then rose again, but at a slower pace. A more efficient fleet will certainly consume less gas than a less efficient fleet, all else being equal.
Folks need to buy big SUVs to handle big families - average family size in the US is 3.14 2000 US census. Average household size is 2.59.
Folks with $60k vehicles daon't care about gas prices - might be true (below $10, at least) but the % of the US car fleet that is near $60k is very small. When you pay $20-25k for a car, you might care when your gas bill goes from $11,500 to $19,200 (over 8 years at 25 mpg, from $3 to $5/gal).
Better yet would be a CNG Civic. If you fill it at your house, it comes out to roughly $1.00-1.20 a "gallon" (equivalent).
And it gets those green access pass stickers like a Prius. The perfect alternative to really save the planet AND save your wallet. Plus, there's no yuppie wanna-be-image like with the overpriced hybrids.
As for what I'll be doing? I'll finally be able to stop hearing the people over in Europe whine about how low our gas prices are. At least they get those 50mpg+ turbo diesels to compensate.
The Civic GX is far and away the smartest commuter car for those that have natural gas available. Unless your commute is over 100 miles each way. It is also the cleanest ever tested by the EPA. AND unlike the hybrids there is no limit on how many get the HOV sticker in CA. Gas will have to drop back to $1.50 per gallon for the Prius to be competitive with the Civic GX.
and while technically it doesn't address consumption directly, it certainly does indirectly.
Why address a problem indirectly when it can be addressed more directly?
A more efficient fleet will certainly consume less gas than a less efficient fleet, all else being equal
As you mentioned the key is "all else being equal". That's unlikely. The miles driven per vehicle will almost certainly rise since that has been a very steady trend over the past 40+ years. How can you address consumption without addressing this? People seem far more concerned with the trend towards heavier more powerful vehicles and have little concern over the fact that we continue to drive more. They have equal importance if the goal is to reduce consumption. Is CAFE an effective tool for encouraging the individual to drive less, more conservatively, more efficiently? The answer is obviously no. So even if CAFE proved to be somewhat successful there's no way it will be as successful as an approach that took into account all aspects of the consumption equation. If we believe that reducing oil consumption is an important national objective why advocate an inferior strategy?
driving less is a nice goal and the utopian ideal of communities where people live, work, shop and recreate in close proximity has been touted for decades yet we continue to move farther from it and the automobile has facilitated that departure. Actually it is a VERY old idea, we call them cities and few of us seem to prefer to live in them, myself included. Now we have a new generation of developers calling the same old concept "new urbanism" and proposing NEW suburban developments in that model (what of the old ones?). Some of you may recall that Reston Va was conceived in that image when it was carved out of farmland in the '60s but it quickly became a bedroom community for Wash. D.C. 20 miles away.
Making the concept more difficult to achieve today are workplace changes over the past couple of decades. I once worked for may years for a company from which I planned to retire and when the company needed for me to move, I did so at Company cost. In that environment, I located as close to work as I could find acceptable and affordable housing. Then the company moved my division to a new facility 20 miles from my home and of course did not pay for employee moves. Since then I have been laid-off 3 times and have commuted to 6 different locations ranging from 15-30 miles in opposite directions from my home, plus one 4 month stint in a location 200miles away.
My point is that for an increasing number of us, it is not practical to relocate with each job change in an ephemeral employment environment and for us, "New Urbanism" will not work. Similarly an EV would be folly, even if one existed, because even if one could fullfill my current 65+ mile /day requirement, it may be inadequate for my commute tomorrow. So, if you can live, work and play in the same sandbox, more power to you. Many of us cannot.
I think when they quote cost per mile, that's taken into account. With no highway taxes CNG has an advantage. The requirement to compress natural gas and store it in bulky cylinders, resulting in the GX's lower range. This is similar to the storage problem with hydrogen, where it either has to be liquid or highly compressed.
Yeah all of that is correct as I remember it. The shop that I used to run had a contract with the local gas company. About 90 percent of their gas/petrol vehicles were converted over to CNG. They bought all of their vehicles from DCX so the had a bunch of Ram and Dakota trucks, a few Jeep Cherokees, and some nicer Chrysler/Dodge cars. This was before the 300 was released though.
I remember the drivers telling me the the CNG vehicles were a little slower off the line then the gasoline ones and got slightly lower mileage.
I will tell you one thing though the oil coming out of those engines was much, much cleaner then the oil coming out of your average car/truck. They were on a 5,000 mile OCI plan and the oil rarely looked dirty. The engines always looked clean on the inside too.
drivers will by economics voluntarily lower their highway speeds from 80+ to between 55 & 60.
When the speed demons complain about the price of gas and find they can no longer afford their former excessive speeds their mph will drop faster than Paris Hilton's panties.
Yes, CNG is far cleaner than gasoline, also for emissions and CO2. I'd wonder when you'd have to change the oil based off of condition, instead of miles? That's another plus I hadn't thought of. An issue with CNG is the effect widespread use would have on heating gas availability. The US system was stretched pretty tight during the cold snaps last winter. Wonder what would happend with, say, 2 million cars 'gassing up' during one of those cold winter nights?
If I had a fleet of CNG vehicles I would be doing oil an analysis every six months or so to figure out what the optimium oil change interval was. I know it would be longer then gasoline and conventional oil but not sure how much longer.
I know it has less energy, but the equivalent cost per "gallon" based upon the gasoline powered Civic works out to about $1-$1.20. It's a silly low amount if you have one of those devices in your garage.(which have tax incentives on them as well)
ie - you fill the car with the energy of roughly 7 gallons of gasoline, which takes up abut three times that volume. Each unit gets about 30mpg - a bit less in actual driving than the 35mpg of a typical Civic. But the CNG is about $10 to fill up to go 200 miles! In effect, with gas at $3.20 nationwide(avg on the news), the CNG Civic gets:
3.2/1.2=2.667*30mpg=80mpg! As gas prices go higher, it'll get more attractive. Imagine filling your car for $40 a month(800 miles) when with gasoline it would cost $80-$100 with a Prius(let alone a SUV - more like $200-$300). That's a big difference. A CNG SUV could be $150-$200 less per month to run as opposed to gasoline. One year payoff for the home filling device.
At the "pump" - CNG runs about $1.60-1.80. You only downside is that the car has a ~200-240 mile range. But that's 2-3 times what a typical electric vehicle gets. And the car is only about $1000 more to make(would be $1000 less but economy of scale/production isn't a factor yet).
And, it has a greener lifecycle(dust to dust) than most cars as well - especially hybrids and future fuel cell cars.
My only gripe is that they should have reworked it to fit a second tank someplace - preferably two where the gas tank is and maybe raise the trunk a coupe of inches. If course, a reinforced metal cage would go around it to protect it.
That would give it a 400 mile range, which would be ideal.
Outside the US many people have converted old body Range Rovers, that would be p38s to those in the know, to CNG with great sucess.
I have no idea what the conversion costs for the vehicle as it involves too much currency exchange and the labor rates over there are very different.
Since the Range Rover is a much larger vehicle, with a strong boxed steel frame, I know they are putting much larger tanks in them and getting ranges near 400 miles.
Why address a problem indirectly when it can be addressed more directly?
Because there is no way to address it directly. No one consumes gasoline directly, but only as a function of vehicle efficiency, distance traveled and a few other factors like vehicle maintenance.
As you mentioned the key is "all else being equal". That's unlikely.
Whether it is or isn't is irrelevant. The point is what the effect of each factor is, and the only way to reasonably assess that is by keeping the others constant.
...miles driven per vehicle will almost certainly rise...
Probably, yes. Would it be better to have more efficient or less efficient vehicles for ANY given total miles. That's a rhetorical question
How can you address consumption without addressing this?
I mentioned the factors, above. Any of them, alone, can impact consumption. Also in combination.
People seem far more concerned with the trend towards heavier more powerful vehicles and have little concern over the fact that we continue to drive more.
As Daysailer mentioned later, a lot of our driving is not discretionary. Some is. Again, why would you want to address one factor and not the other? Not to mention that one must have a method of addressing it.
Is CAFE an effective tool for encouraging the individual to drive less, more conservatively, more efficiently?
Absolutely. Higher MPG vehicles do exactly that.
...as successful as an approach that took into account all aspects of the consumption equation...
And what systemic approach would accomplish that? Do you envision some national limit on miles driven per person?
...why advocate an inferior strategy?
This implies a comparison of strategies. CAFE is one...what is the other?
When gas rises above $4, I'm going to lobby harder for an improved CAFE
Hasn't the CAFE train left the station? Didn't Bush propose 35 mpg in several years? You can bet if (when?) a democrat president is elected that timetable will move up.
Because there is no way to address it directly. No one consumes gasoline directly, but only as a function of vehicle efficiency
That's the most ridiculous statement you've ever made. It's like saying that no one consumes food directly, its a function of their metabolism. Actually it's worse with fuel. Because an individual cannot really choose his body's metabolism/efficiency but he does have that option with a vehicle. In other words, consumption of fuel is purely an individual decision, don't isolate them from the consequences. Don't say it's the auto manufacturers who are really responsible because of their marketing and we are malleable sheep. If that's really true then I must be exceptional because I watch my share of TV ads and have no more desire to drive a truck than I did 30 years ago. Why so many people in this country want to project this "Joe Dirt" hemi powered, stump pulling image is beyond me. Could be the topic for some sociology or psychology thesis.
of our driving is discretionary than many here would like to let on. That's natural, because enthusiasts WANT to drive places.
I doubt there are more than 1 in 4 here that couldn't do their commute by bike, foot, bus, or train (or ferry, even telecommute for those few lucky folks). And I bet for the 3/4 that could commute without using their cars if they chose to, the dollars on an annual basis would work out to less than the per-mile cost of having and running their cars.
As for everything besides the work commute, 99% of it is discretionary. Sure, the things we do with our free time and that of our children is worthwhile stuff most of the time, no question, but it is still discretionary. And certainly where we choose to buy our homes or rent is also discretionary.
Out of ALL THAT discretionary stuff, if everyone could reduce their mileage by just 10% (pick a couple of those weekly trips and don't do them any more) we would have the oil companies over our knees. If we could reduce those miles driven by 20%, we would begin to spank the oil companies HARD (not to mention, the most often cited reason for current high gas prices, tight gasoline inventories, would go away).
But everybody has to pitch in and help, this can't be only your neighbor's responsibility. And then watch those gas prices fall, and watch the monetary savings in the meantime!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You can bet if (when?) a democrat president is elected that timetable will move up.
Out of curiosity, has a Democrat President ever raised CAFE standards?
Actually I don't think that timetable will be moved up or even met. The reason being is that the only way to actually achieve that is to completely prohibit some of the vehicle types that are currently being sold. Despite the rhetoric coming out of Washington that just isn't going to happen without some gaping looplholes being enacted.
Don't know about the President, but the Senate's having hearings: "The bill that will be up for a vote is sponsored by Sen. Diane Feinstein and would raise fleet averages to 35mpg over the next decade."
CNN declared today (Anderson 360) that the rise in gas price is not due to crude cost, but due to reduced refining capacity. There has been no refineries built in the last 30 years, and oil companies have no incentives to do it because it will only help reduce gas prices, which is not in their interest. This artificial shortage is causing the gas price spike.
My proposal: Lets invite China, Japan, Russia, Venezuela and a few middle eastern oil producing nations to set up refineries in the USA, and sell gasoline to the public at free market price. For our lifestyle and the state of public transportation, we need the cars as well as the gasoline to power it. The Japanese did make an impact of reducing the shortage of cars - lets use them to solve the gasoline crisis, too.
Anybody got another idea, for how to increase US refining capacity when the oil companies are not interested? To me, that is the only way to stop spiraling gasoline costs. Best wishes and good luck, - MS.
These averages are going to voluntarily rise to 35 or so as soon as diesel Honda and Toyota passenger cars and trucks become available and the gasser fleet starts to turn over. The U.S. will be 50% diesel in 9 years.
True, no new refineries have been built (in fact a large number of small, inefficient, and polluting ones have been shut down over that period) but the capacity of the current refineries has increased through numerous additions to existing refineries. The problem we're in right now is partly due to an unusual number of unexpected refinery shutdowns. Trust me, you don't want China, Russia, or Venezuela setting up shop more than they have (Venezuela owns Citgo). Oil prices of $65 also are a big part. We aren't getting low gas prices with oil prices over $60/bbl. Also, we buy large volumes of refined products from other countries.
My Mother has an old Saturn that is fully capable of about 40 MPG highway. She's had the car for going on 14 years, yet her normal drive is about 1.5 miles each way. She's 73, so don't suggest walking or biking to work. No public transportation is available either.
My brother has a Honda Civic that he uses for his work. He goes place to place repairing office equipment. His car is also capable of 40 MPG or so, but he doesn't drive it under those types of conditions most of the time. He told me that he fills up the tank every 2 - 3 days on average.
My oldest sister worked for the Police department at a University. They used big SUV's because they didn't get much worse gas mileage than Neons, because they were mostly idling, and/or driven very slowly.
My car doesn't rate the mileage claims of my sibling's transportation, yet I use less gas than either of them.
The USA is not Europe. I can visit a sibling, a niece or nephew, and travel further than some Europeans travel to visit another country, without leaving my home state.
I am not wise enough to present a formula for long term fuel reduction in this country. I do know that trains, airplanes, semi's and people sometimes need to travel vast distances. Some people need to travel short distances, but public transportation is often out of the question.
America is VAST. Priuses, electric, CNG, plug in hybrid, etc. are not, and can not, be the only answer to America's fuel use problems.
Artificial gas taxes or fees will only hurt the wrong people, and not affect the real "abusers" of America's fossil fuel supplies, in my humble opinion.
Today 5/22, OK, yesterday my wife told me Union 76 reg. unleaded went from $3.45 a gal. to $3.39 a gal. in Gig Hbr, WA I’m still not going to drive again until the 27th
These averages are going to voluntarily rise to 35 or so as soon as diesel Honda and Toyota passenger cars and trucks become available and the gasser fleet starts to turn over. The U.S. will be 50% diesel in 9 years.
I agree. The only way we'll ever see a fleet average of 35 mpg is by incorporating diesel and more hybrid/electric technology. It won't happen with a 100% gasoline burning ICE fleet. But where do you go from there? There is a fixed amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline/diesel. No amount of technology will change this. The belief that some people have is that as time goes on cars will continue to go farther on a gallon of gas and this can be legislated.
Anyway that represents around a 30% improvement in efficiency. How many years do you think it will take to replace our fleet? I can tell you that given the current rate of increased consumption that 30% improvement will be negated in less than 15 years. Probably close to the time it took to recycle the fleet. So at best it represents standing still but I doubt it will even accomplish that. So where's the rest of the plan?
i think you have got very bad informations price in my country is 5.80USD per gallon. Central Europe. Countrie around have prices about 5.80-6.50USD per gallon. if u want count with TDi motors, u have to use another type of gas, costs about 6USD/gallon too. but wage in my country is about 1000USD/moth. so, do you think u have expensive gas anymore? .) i hope price in USA will grow up to 8USD/gallon, because your waste of fuel is incomprehensible.... do u know, that exist cars with 1.4 motors? u dont have to have 5l motors with automatic transmission with 15mpg
There has been no refineries built in the last 30 years,
Actually there are considerably fewer refineries today than 30 years ago, but that is very misleading. What's more important than number of refineries is refining capacity. The existing refineries have been increasing capacity at a rate that is comparable to adding a new refinery every year. This is by far the simplest, most cost effective approach for them to take. Mainly because they can bypass a large part of the extensive, time consumimg process of getting a new refinery approved.
Is CAFE an effective tool for encouraging the individual to drive less, more conservatively, more efficiently?
Absolutely. Higher MPG vehicles do exactly that.
I don't follow this rational. If I drive a 40 mpg vehicle as opposed to a 20 mpg vehicle my fuel cost per mile has been effectively cut in half. Exactly how will this encourage me to drive less? You're describing a reverse elasticity for the fuel market. Do you have any credible sources that will back you on this?
When gas rises above $4, I'm going to lobby harder for an improved CAFE
It will be irrelevant. When gas rises above $4/gallon the fleet efficiency will automatically increase. Then maybe a year or two later higher CAFE will get enacted and someone will point to this increased efficiency as proof that CAFE is effective. That's what happened last time.
I don't follow this rational. If I drive a 40 mpg vehicle as opposed to a 20 mpg vehicle my fuel cost per mile has been effectively cut in half. Exactly how will this encourage me to drive less? You're describing a reverse elasticity for the fuel market. Do you have any credible sources that will back you on this?
The real question may be: Even with a 40 mpg vehicle, how much will gasoline have to cost to encourage you to drive less ?
Not that Li Sailor, needs one, but I am a "credible source" for his data and back him up. Hi Tom
Not that Li Sailor, needs one, but I am a "credible source" for his data and back him up
What makes you a credible source? The fact that you believe having a more fuel efficient vehicle will be an incentive to drive less makes me seriously doubt your credibility. From a purely common sense perspective, why would that be the case? By that rational switching to a less fuel efficient vehicle would be an incentive to drive more.
We are spoiled no doubt. We also have much longer distances to travel visiting friends and relatives than a lot of people in the EU. Unless you are in Russia which is huge. I doubt we will ever see gas as expensive as Europe. Most of your gas price is taxes. You are paying the same amount for crude oil as we are. It is what happens to it when your government gets involved that sets pricing. Some of the highest petrol prices are in EU countries that are oil independent. We vote tax and spend legislators out of office if at all possible.
Lets make it simple for you. Suppose gasoline costs $80 a gallon. Will you drive less even with a more fuel efficient vehicle ? How about $40 a gallon, any change in your driving habits ? How about $30 a gallon, any change ?
Now do you understand what I meant by: Even with a 40 mpg vehicle, how much will gasoline have to cost to encourage you to drive less ?
Yes I still doubt it. Actually there's not much doubt left.
I don't care whether gas costs $1/gallon or $100/gallon, it's immaterial to the point I am making. Given a certain price for gas, whatever it is, switching to a more fuel efficient vehicle will not create an incentive to drive less. It was stated in a previous post that higher CAFE standards, i.e. more efficient vehicles, will create an incentive to drive less. I am stating that it absolutely does not, which is a major deficiency in this approach.
You are right on this one for sure. Most people looking and buying fuel efficient vehicles are wanting to travel longer distances on the same amount of fuel. Hybrid sales in CA with HOV tags was a good indicator of that. I would imagine the average hybrid owner uses more fossil fuel in a year than I do with a full sized PU truck. I used 448 gallons of gas in the last 12 months. That would carry the average Prius owner about 20k miles. I know several hybrid owners that post here went a lot more miles than that.
I also used my truck & trailer to haul topsoil, gravel, mulch, sand etc about every couple weeks. The Prius would not even be able to move with 5000 lbs of sand hooked on the back.
The bottom line is to get the vehicle that will fill your needs. Look at mileage second of third. Gas is still a small part of the overall expense even at $4 per gallon.
Oh, and because my PU only gets 15 MPG around town, I consolidate my trips as much as possible.
No one really wants Iran's oil. It is a VERY poor grade with very high sulfur content. Probably not worth $50 per barrel in the current market. I do believe they support terrorist activities against others.
Yesterday, I saw a guy dump $35 of gas in his beat up, 12 yr old Chevy. He went up to the cashier, and paid cash for the gas, then bought a $30 carton of cigarettes, grumbling about the price of the gas!
Figuring that he's going through at least a carton a week, that's $120 a month he's spending on suicide on the American plan.
I think it's the cost per mile that is really working in people's brains, not the MPG of their car or the cost per gallon.
I agree, if gas cost $10 a gallon and cars got 90 mpg, Americans would drive just as much, because the cost per mile is the same as when it was $3.33 a gallon @ 30 mpg.
I'm a pretty sensible buy (YOU back there, keep quiet :mad: ) and I was out car shopping (okay I'm a junkie, I admit it) and you know, the cost per mile thing was definitely on my mind, BENDING my decision away from what I wanted 100% to something I wanted 90%.
So I'm thinkin'....hmmm...car A gets 20 mpg and goes like stink on premium fuel, car B gets 35 mpg and goes pretty good on regular gas, so let's see, per year what's the diff?
Holy moley Gasman, for a guy that does 18,000 miles a year (me) that's $1,540 extra in fuel per year at current pump prices in my neighborhood.
Added to that is a slight bump in insurance for the extra HP, so we have about $1,575 a year more for that occasional burst of exhilirating speed.
To a millionaire, a pittance. To a working stiff, that's a nice week's vacation, a year of golf (or whatever) a really nice bike.
So yeah, this gas thing is really starting to work on me, and like I said, I'm a car junkie.
And if gas goes up more, these numbers get really ugly, because to SPEND $1575 or $2000 a year you need to MAKE an additional 28% or whatever your tax rate is.
And what will the average American do? He has a few choices:
1. Buy the more fuel efficient car and learn to love it
2. Buy the less fuel efficient car and spend less elsewhere
3. Buy the less fuel efficient car and just charge it.
That's the most ridiculous statement you've ever made.
You apparently didn't understand it. That's fine, we can move on.
In other words, consumption of fuel is purely an individual decision...
You're missing the point entirely. I'll repeat the salient point: gas consumption is primarily a function of miles driven and vehicle fuel efficiency. CAFE can address efficency. How do you propose to convince Americans to drive less? Yes, higher gas taxes would accomplish this and Frank Zarb in today's NY Times calls for this, specifially a 50 cent rise per year over the next 4 years, with rebates for low-income taxpayers and then using the money for for tax credits for fuel-efficient autos. If our lawmakers had the guts to pass this (they do not) and the voters wouldn't throw them out if they did (they would), I would say that was the correct answer. But it's simply not politically possible, unfortunately.
Don't say it's the auto manufacturers who are really responsible because of their marketing and we are malleable sheep.
I wasn't going to. But marketing definitely affects demand and many buyers are indeed malleable sheep. But we digress.
Why so many people in this country want to project this "Joe Dirt" hemi powered, stump pulling image is beyond me.
Hasn't the CAFE train left the station? Didn't Bush propose 35 mpg in several years?
LOL. A lot is proposed, but what is passed is what counts. Something will come of it, but who knows what, at this point. If we weren't spedning so much energy on Iraq, maybe we could get something done, but that's another topic.
Out of ALL THAT discretionary stuff, if everyone could reduce their mileage by just 10%...
There's no question that it could be done, and more than 10%. But one has to be willing to accept the premise that there's a problem and most Americans think the problem is evil oil companies (not that they are not enjoying this) and not demand and politics. America has to come to grips with the challenge, and we are not. Our leaders are not, and the general population is not. Americans think cheap gas/energy is their birthright.
Yes, they're all distracted, but now we're hearing the same thing from both sides of the aisle re: mileage, with California pushing for 40 on top of that. Something might finally happen. (that's not necessarily a good thing ) I would prefer the tax/credit method, but perhaps something that discourages H2s at the source has some merit.
specifially a 50 cent rise per year over the next 4 years, with rebates for low-income taxpayers and then using the money for for tax credits for fuel-efficient autos.
As you know I am not a tax and spend kind of person. I do think that the American people would understand a gas tax if it was presented properly with guarantees of the use of that tax. If it was just to line corporate pockets as the hybrid tax credit has done then I would be against it. Any tax credit for buying fuel efficient cars should be regulated at the dealer level. Most buyers did not see much real world savings with the hybrid tax credit. The dealers gouged it all for their greedy selves. In many cases the buyer will not get the credit and ended up paying a premium for the vehicle. I am sure many smart buyers were turned off by the premiums extorted on hybrids. My example: Sales of the Prius are higher than ever. Very little tax credit is offered. Big incentives are being offered to move the inventory. I would imagine Toyota will cut production to keep them at an optimum level.
I certainly can give you an example of how these variables are affecting one of my decisions.
I'm planning on going to 2 auto-races and 1 auto-show, this year. I'm debating whether to go to all 3 based partly on the price of gas. Now if I had a car that got 10mpg better, I wouldn't have any doubt, I'd go to all 3. So yes, the better mpg my car gets the more discretionary driving I'll be doing.
Maybe our "needed" driving is fixed, but beyond that the amount of discretionary driving we do is based on what we're willing to spend our $ on, and that amount of miles is dependent on the mpg of our car.
Comments
CAFE: some espoused putting some "teeth" in CAFE, and others said it doesn't address consumption. I certainly agree with the former (as a way to deal with $4 or $5+ gas) and while technically it doesn't address consumption directly, it certainly does indirectly. When CAFE was first enacted, consumption actually dropped, and then rose again, but at a slower pace. A more efficient fleet will certainly consume less gas than a less efficient fleet, all else being equal.
Folks need to buy big SUVs to handle big families - average family size in the US is 3.14 2000 US census. Average household size is 2.59.
Folks with $60k vehicles daon't care about gas prices - might be true (below $10, at least) but the % of the US car fleet that is near $60k is very small. When you pay $20-25k for a car, you might care when your gas bill goes from $11,500 to $19,200 (over 8 years at 25 mpg, from $3 to $5/gal).
And it gets those green access pass stickers like a Prius. The perfect alternative to really save the planet AND save your wallet. Plus, there's no yuppie wanna-be-image like with the overpriced hybrids.
As for what I'll be doing? I'll finally be able to stop hearing the people over in Europe whine about how low our gas prices are. At least they get those 50mpg+ turbo diesels to compensate.
Why address a problem indirectly when it can be addressed more directly?
A more efficient fleet will certainly consume less gas than a less efficient fleet, all else being equal
As you mentioned the key is "all else being equal". That's unlikely. The miles driven per vehicle will almost certainly rise since that has been a very steady trend over the past 40+ years. How can you address consumption without addressing this? People seem far more concerned with the trend towards heavier more powerful vehicles and have little concern over the fact that we continue to drive more. They have equal importance if the goal is to reduce consumption. Is CAFE an effective tool for encouraging the individual to drive less, more conservatively, more efficiently? The answer is obviously no. So even if CAFE proved to be somewhat successful there's no way it will be as successful as an approach that took into account all aspects of the consumption equation. If we believe that reducing oil consumption is an important national objective why advocate an inferior strategy?
Making the concept more difficult to achieve today are workplace changes over the past couple of decades. I once worked for may years for a company from which I planned to retire and when the company needed for me to move, I did so at Company cost. In that environment, I located as close to work as I could find acceptable and affordable housing. Then the company moved my division to a new facility 20 miles from my home and of course did not pay for employee moves. Since then I have been laid-off 3 times and have commuted to 6 different locations ranging from 15-30 miles in opposite directions from my home, plus one 4 month stint in a location 200miles away.
My point is that for an increasing number of us, it is not practical to relocate with each job change in an ephemeral employment environment and for us, "New Urbanism" will not work. Similarly an EV would be folly, even if one existed, because even if one could fullfill my current 65+ mile /day requirement, it may be inadequate for my commute tomorrow. So, if you can live, work and play in the same sandbox, more power to you. Many of us cannot.
I remember the drivers telling me the the CNG vehicles were a little slower off the line then the gasoline ones and got slightly lower mileage.
I will tell you one thing though the oil coming out of those engines was much, much cleaner then the oil coming out of your average car/truck. They were on a 5,000 mile OCI plan and the oil rarely looked dirty. The engines always looked clean on the inside too.
When the speed demons complain about the price of gas and find they can no longer afford their former excessive speeds their mph will drop faster than Paris Hilton's panties.
ie - you fill the car with the energy of roughly 7 gallons of gasoline, which takes up abut three times that volume. Each unit gets about 30mpg - a bit less in actual driving than the 35mpg of a typical Civic. But the CNG is about $10 to fill up to go 200 miles! In effect, with gas at $3.20 nationwide(avg on the news), the CNG Civic gets:
3.2/1.2=2.667*30mpg=80mpg! As gas prices go higher, it'll get more attractive. Imagine filling your car for $40 a month(800 miles) when with gasoline it would cost $80-$100 with a Prius(let alone a SUV - more like $200-$300). That's a big difference. A CNG SUV could be $150-$200 less per month to run as opposed to gasoline. One year payoff for the home filling device.
At the "pump" - CNG runs about $1.60-1.80. You only downside is that the car has a ~200-240 mile range. But that's 2-3 times what a typical electric vehicle gets. And the car is only about $1000 more to make(would be $1000 less but economy of scale/production isn't a factor yet).
And, it has a greener lifecycle(dust to dust) than most cars as well - especially hybrids and future fuel cell cars.
My only gripe is that they should have reworked it to fit a second tank someplace - preferably two where the gas tank is and maybe raise the trunk a coupe of inches. If course, a reinforced metal cage would go around it to protect it.
That would give it a 400 mile range, which would be ideal.
I have no idea what the conversion costs for the vehicle as it involves too much currency exchange and the labor rates over there are very different.
Since the Range Rover is a much larger vehicle, with a strong boxed steel frame, I know they are putting much larger tanks in them and getting ranges near 400 miles.
Because there is no way to address it directly. No one consumes gasoline directly, but only as a function of vehicle efficiency, distance traveled and a few other factors like vehicle maintenance.
As you mentioned the key is "all else being equal". That's unlikely.
Whether it is or isn't is irrelevant. The point is what the effect of each factor is, and the only way to reasonably assess that is by keeping the others constant.
...miles driven per vehicle will almost certainly rise...
Probably, yes. Would it be better to have more efficient or less efficient vehicles for ANY given total miles. That's a rhetorical question
How can you address consumption without addressing this?
I mentioned the factors, above. Any of them, alone, can impact consumption. Also in combination.
People seem far more concerned with the trend towards heavier more powerful vehicles and have little concern over the fact that we continue to drive more.
As Daysailer mentioned later, a lot of our driving is not discretionary. Some is. Again, why would you want to address one factor and not the other? Not to mention that one must have a method of addressing it.
Is CAFE an effective tool for encouraging the individual to drive less, more conservatively, more efficiently?
Absolutely. Higher MPG vehicles do exactly that.
...as successful as an approach that took into account all aspects of the consumption equation...
And what systemic approach would accomplish that? Do you envision some national limit on miles driven per person?
...why advocate an inferior strategy?
This implies a comparison of strategies. CAFE is one...what is the other?
When gas rises above $4, I'm going to lobby harder for an improved CAFE
That's the most ridiculous statement you've ever made. It's like saying that no one consumes food directly, its a function of their metabolism. Actually it's worse with fuel. Because an individual cannot really choose his body's metabolism/efficiency but he does have that option with a vehicle. In other words, consumption of fuel is purely an individual decision, don't isolate them from the consequences. Don't say it's the auto manufacturers who are really responsible because of their marketing and we are malleable sheep. If that's really true then I must be exceptional because I watch my share of TV ads and have no more desire to drive a truck than I did 30 years ago. Why so many people in this country want to project this "Joe Dirt" hemi powered, stump pulling image is beyond me. Could be the topic for some sociology or psychology thesis.
I doubt there are more than 1 in 4 here that couldn't do their commute by bike, foot, bus, or train (or ferry, even telecommute for those few lucky folks). And I bet for the 3/4 that could commute without using their cars if they chose to, the dollars on an annual basis would work out to less than the per-mile cost of having and running their cars.
As for everything besides the work commute, 99% of it is discretionary. Sure, the things we do with our free time and that of our children is worthwhile stuff most of the time, no question, but it is still discretionary. And certainly where we choose to buy our homes or rent is also discretionary.
Out of ALL THAT discretionary stuff, if everyone could reduce their mileage by just 10% (pick a couple of those weekly trips and don't do them any more) we would have the oil companies over our knees. If we could reduce those miles driven by 20%, we would begin to spank the oil companies HARD (not to mention, the most often cited reason for current high gas prices, tight gasoline inventories, would go away).
But everybody has to pitch in and help, this can't be only your neighbor's responsibility. And then watch those gas prices fall, and watch the monetary savings in the meantime!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Out of curiosity, has a Democrat President ever raised CAFE standards?
Actually I don't think that timetable will be moved up or even met. The reason being is that the only way to actually achieve that is to completely prohibit some of the vehicle types that are currently being sold. Despite the rhetoric coming out of Washington that just isn't going to happen without some gaping looplholes being enacted.
My proposal: Lets invite China, Japan, Russia, Venezuela and a few middle eastern oil producing nations to set up refineries in the USA, and sell gasoline to the public at free market price. For our lifestyle and the state of public transportation, we need the cars as well as the gasoline to power it. The Japanese did make an impact of reducing the shortage of cars - lets use them to solve the gasoline crisis, too.
Anybody got another idea, for how to increase US refining capacity when the oil companies are not interested? To me, that is the only way to stop spiraling gasoline costs. Best wishes and good luck, - MS.
My brother has a Honda Civic that he uses for his work. He goes place to place repairing office equipment. His car is also capable of 40 MPG or so, but he doesn't drive it under those types of conditions most of the time. He told me that he fills up the tank every 2 - 3 days on average.
My oldest sister worked for the Police department at a University. They used big SUV's because they didn't get much worse gas mileage than Neons, because they were mostly idling, and/or driven very slowly.
My car doesn't rate the mileage claims of my sibling's transportation, yet I use less gas than either of them.
The USA is not Europe. I can visit a sibling, a niece or nephew, and travel further than some Europeans travel to visit another country, without leaving my home state.
I am not wise enough to present a formula for long term fuel reduction in this country. I do know that trains, airplanes, semi's and people sometimes need to travel vast distances. Some people need to travel short distances, but public transportation is often out of the question.
America is VAST. Priuses, electric, CNG, plug in hybrid, etc. are not, and can not, be the only answer to America's fuel use problems.
Artificial gas taxes or fees will only hurt the wrong people, and not affect the real "abusers" of America's fossil fuel supplies, in my humble opinion.
I have been wrong before
I’m still not going to drive again until the 27th
the approach has to be multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary, non-competing, non-political...
I agree. The only way we'll ever see a fleet average of 35 mpg is by incorporating diesel and more hybrid/electric technology. It won't happen with a 100% gasoline burning ICE fleet. But where do you go from there? There is a fixed amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline/diesel. No amount of technology will change this. The belief that some people have is that as time goes on cars will continue to go farther on a gallon of gas and this can be legislated.
Anyway that represents around a 30% improvement in efficiency. How many years do you think it will take to replace our fleet? I can tell you that given the current rate of increased consumption that 30% improvement will be negated in less than 15 years. Probably close to the time it took to recycle the fleet. So at best it represents standing still but I doubt it will even accomplish that. So where's the rest of the plan?
Actually there are considerably fewer refineries today than 30 years ago, but that is very misleading. What's more important than number of refineries is refining capacity. The existing refineries have been increasing capacity at a rate that is comparable to adding a new refinery every year. This is by far the simplest, most cost effective approach for them to take. Mainly because they can bypass a large part of the extensive, time consumimg process of getting a new refinery approved.
Absolutely. Higher MPG vehicles do exactly that.
I don't follow this rational. If I drive a 40 mpg vehicle as opposed to a 20 mpg vehicle my fuel cost per mile has been effectively cut in half. Exactly how will this encourage me to drive less? You're describing a reverse elasticity for the fuel market. Do you have any credible sources that will back you on this?
When gas rises above $4, I'm going to lobby harder for an improved CAFE
It will be irrelevant. When gas rises above $4/gallon the fleet efficiency will automatically increase. Then maybe a year or two later higher CAFE will get enacted and someone will point to this increased efficiency as proof that CAFE is effective. That's what happened last time.
The real question may be:
Even with a 40 mpg vehicle, how much will gasoline have to cost to encourage you to drive less ?
Not that Li Sailor, needs one, but I am a "credible source" for his data and back him up.
What makes you a credible source? The fact that you believe having a more fuel efficient vehicle will be an incentive to drive less makes me seriously doubt your credibility. From a purely common sense perspective, why would that be the case? By that rational switching to a less fuel efficient vehicle would be an incentive to drive more.
We are spoiled no doubt. We also have much longer distances to travel visiting friends and relatives than a lot of people in the EU. Unless you are in Russia which is huge. I doubt we will ever see gas as expensive as Europe. Most of your gas price is taxes. You are paying the same amount for crude oil as we are. It is what happens to it when your government gets involved that sets pricing. Some of the highest petrol prices are in EU countries that are oil independent. We vote tax and spend legislators out of office if at all possible.
Suppose gasoline costs $80 a gallon. Will you drive less even with a more fuel efficient vehicle ?
How about $40 a gallon, any change in your driving habits ?
How about $30 a gallon, any change ?
Now do you understand what I meant by:
Even with a 40 mpg vehicle, how much will gasoline have to cost to encourage you to drive less ?
Do you still doubt that I'm a "credible source" ?
Yes I still doubt it. Actually there's not much doubt left.
I don't care whether gas costs $1/gallon or $100/gallon, it's immaterial to the point I am making. Given a certain price for gas, whatever it is, switching to a more fuel efficient vehicle will not create an incentive to drive less. It was stated in a previous post that higher CAFE standards, i.e. more efficient vehicles, will create an incentive to drive less. I am stating that it absolutely does not, which is a major deficiency in this approach.
I also used my truck & trailer to haul topsoil, gravel, mulch, sand etc about every couple weeks. The Prius would not even be able to move with 5000 lbs of sand hooked on the back.
The bottom line is to get the vehicle that will fill your needs. Look at mileage second of third. Gas is still a small part of the overall expense even at $4 per gallon.
Oh, and because my PU only gets 15 MPG around town, I consolidate my trips as much as possible.
Figuring that he's going through at least a carton a week, that's $120 a month he's spending on suicide on the American plan.
So it's all a matter of priorities....
I agree, if gas cost $10 a gallon and cars got 90 mpg, Americans would drive just as much, because the cost per mile is the same as when it was $3.33 a gallon @ 30 mpg.
I'm a pretty sensible buy (YOU back there, keep quiet :mad: ) and I was out car shopping (okay I'm a junkie, I admit it) and you know, the cost per mile thing was definitely on my mind, BENDING my decision away from what I wanted 100% to something I wanted 90%.
So I'm thinkin'....hmmm...car A gets 20 mpg and goes like stink on premium fuel, car B gets 35 mpg and goes pretty good on regular gas, so let's see, per year what's the diff?
Holy moley Gasman, for a guy that does 18,000 miles a year (me) that's $1,540 extra in fuel per year at current pump prices in my neighborhood.
Added to that is a slight bump in insurance for the extra HP, so we have about $1,575 a year more for that occasional burst of exhilirating speed.
To a millionaire, a pittance. To a working stiff, that's a nice week's vacation, a year of golf (or whatever) a really nice bike.
So yeah, this gas thing is really starting to work on me, and like I said, I'm a car junkie.
And if gas goes up more, these numbers get really ugly, because to SPEND $1575 or $2000 a year you need to MAKE an additional 28% or whatever your tax rate is.
And what will the average American do? He has a few choices:
1. Buy the more fuel efficient car and learn to love it
2. Buy the less fuel efficient car and spend less elsewhere
3. Buy the less fuel efficient car and just charge it.
MrShiftright
visiting host
You apparently didn't understand it. That's fine, we can move on.
In other words, consumption of fuel is purely an individual decision...
You're missing the point entirely. I'll repeat the salient point: gas consumption is primarily a function of miles driven and vehicle fuel efficiency. CAFE can address efficency. How do you propose to convince Americans to drive less? Yes, higher gas taxes would accomplish this and Frank Zarb in today's NY Times calls for this, specifially a 50 cent rise per year over the next 4 years, with rebates for low-income taxpayers and then using the money for for tax credits for fuel-efficient autos. If our lawmakers had the guts to pass this (they do not) and the voters wouldn't throw them out if they did (they would), I would say that was the correct answer. But it's simply not politically possible, unfortunately.
Don't say it's the auto manufacturers who are really responsible because of their marketing and we are malleable sheep.
I wasn't going to. But marketing definitely affects demand and many buyers are indeed malleable sheep. But we digress.
Why so many people in this country want to project this "Joe Dirt" hemi powered, stump pulling image is beyond me.
But they do, don't they.
LOL. A lot is proposed, but what is passed is what counts. Something will come of it, but who knows what, at this point. If we weren't spedning so much energy on Iraq, maybe we could get something done, but that's another topic.
There's no question that it could be done, and more than 10%. But one has to be willing to accept the premise that there's a problem and most Americans think the problem is evil oil companies (not that they are not enjoying this) and not demand and politics. America has to come to grips with the challenge, and we are not. Our leaders are not, and the general population is not. Americans think cheap gas/energy is their birthright.
As you know I am not a tax and spend kind of person. I do think that the American people would understand a gas tax if it was presented properly with guarantees of the use of that tax. If it was just to line corporate pockets as the hybrid tax credit has done then I would be against it. Any tax credit for buying fuel efficient cars should be regulated at the dealer level. Most buyers did not see much real world savings with the hybrid tax credit. The dealers gouged it all for their greedy selves. In many cases the buyer will not get the credit and ended up paying a premium for the vehicle. I am sure many smart buyers were turned off by the premiums extorted on hybrids. My example: Sales of the Prius are higher than ever. Very little tax credit is offered. Big incentives are being offered to move the inventory. I would imagine Toyota will cut production to keep them at an optimum level.
I'm planning on going to 2 auto-races and 1 auto-show, this year. I'm debating whether to go to all 3 based partly on the price of gas. Now if I had a car that got 10mpg better, I wouldn't have any doubt, I'd go to all 3. So yes, the better mpg my car gets the more discretionary driving I'll be doing.
Maybe our "needed" driving is fixed, but beyond that the amount of discretionary driving we do is based on what we're willing to spend our $ on, and that amount of miles is dependent on the mpg of our car.