Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive



  • dtownfbdtownfb Posts: 2,918
    We use many fuels right now to heat our homes, and power our cars ... You can't eliminate any unless you have a viable - economic and quick way to do so. It's just theory and dreaming to state otherwise.

    Which is why any energy plan must include drilling oil and more refineries to address short term issues (next 20 years). The alternative solutions will take time to get integrated into our society.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,726
    Except that the negative impact of allowing more drilling and more refineries is that then we say "See? That is what we are spending our money on for the time being, and that is what we are doing to solve the energy crisis" and then we do NOTHING. ELSE. AT ALL.

    When the oil supply jolts of the 70s came along, we did nothing at all to plan for our energy future or protect ourselves from the whims of OPEC etc. Do you really want that to be our only reaction AGAIN this time?

    It is time to diversify, not intensify our production of one fuel, ESPECIALLY not the one that has got us in so much trouble here.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • nortsr1nortsr1 Posts: 1,060
    Well, what you say is true, howver; if we would have started drilling back in the 70's
    (off shore, Artic, etc.) we sure as he-- wouldn't have to be as dependent on all those foreign countries that LOVE us, as much as we are dependent on them now. Let's at least start drilling...even though I read that it wouldn't change the course of are dependency on the LOVE countries for at least ten or more years. We will ALWAYS need oil...why not get and use our own!!!! Let's get the ball rolling. We already missed the boat a long time ago and still haven't learned our lesson!!!!!
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,726
    keeps trumpeting the fact that oil companies already have unused leases on 60 million acres of land. I guess some are saying the oil companies should drill those lands before they are allowed to drill in other places. How come the oil companies aren't doing that already?

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,687
    I would guess that if the oil companies have oil that they aren't extracting, it is because at current prices they can buy it more cheaply elsewhere. We have plenty of oil; it is cheap oil we lack.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Plus there aren't enough rigs around and there haven't been for years. Now there's a shortage of drilling ships.

    Tap existing land leases before drilling offshore (Island Packet)

    Back in the 70's we started the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's just crude - there's not much gas or diesel or heating oil stored in the US.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,726
    it will be cheaper for oil companies to explore new areas underwater at the edge of the continental shelf than to just exploit the on-land leases they already have? I find that a little hard to believe.

    I think it likely that the reality is that both represent very expensive oil, which is no solution to the oil price problem, obviously.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,687
    I suspect you are right about offshore drilling being similarly expensive, but the psychological effect of allowing offshore drilling might scare off some of the silly speculators pushing up the price.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,726
    has announced they are dumping all their big engines in favor of smaller turbos, across the board, to be fully implemented by 2010: newsletter01

    I'm still holding my breath waiting for some automaker, ANY automaker, to announce a major program of weight reduction, to help comply with the new standards...

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • fintailfintail Posts: 41,916
    Does that headline reflect what was really said? I think it means MB will have a turbo in each "class" by then, not to drop all existing non-turbo engines. Still interesting.

    I think we'll see significant car weight reduction about as soon as we see people weight reduction.
  • huntzingerhuntzinger Posts: 356
    I don't specifically know GM's European products, and while I wouldn't be surprised if they have diesels, my point is that merely being a diesel is not enough, due to the USA's incredibly strict standards.

    Thus, the diesel today has to be of the "BluTek" (Urea injection) type for the USA market.

    So the question is: who's already has a Blu-Tek diesel?
    I know Mercedes does, and a few others. But I don't think GM has one.

    If GM doesn't, then their only options are "make or buy".

    "Make" - means doing the Blu-Tek type of development work in-house themselves, and not violate any existing patents or IP. This requires at least a couple of years of engine development, followed by a couple more years to figure out how to integrate those engine changes into a specific production automobile - - I think its safe to say 5-6 years absolute minimum until they get production product out to retail, which equals the 2014-2015 Model Year as their first opportunity for relief through this strategy.

    "Buy" - means that for whatever reason -- ie, GM is bleeding and might not survive to 2014 -- then they have to slash the schedule by buying (licensing) someone else's Intellectual Property (IP). This cuts off the 2-3 year's worth of the engine's half of the development timeline and if they were dead serious, could have a product out by 2011-2012.

    Of course, there's also the option of:

    "Cheat" - get Congress to change the rules. Relaxing the diesel pollution standards would let them bring over their current (Euro) motors immediately. However, due to lack of fleet commonality, there still would be some engineering integration work to be done, so while they could conceivably get a few models by 2010, the 2011-2012 timeframe is more likely. What's "in it for GM" is that they won't have to be licensing someone else's technology - - but the problem for them is that Europe and possibly also Japan already have this engineering work done and can beat GM to market.

  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,726
    Well, I dunno: just how many engines do you think they will make available for each model? I am sure they will be keeping the monster engines they use in AMG models now, but take the E-class or S-class for instance. I doubt they will ADD a turbo to the line-up, I think they will add a turbo and REMOVE one of the other optional engines. There go a couple of V-8s...

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • fintailfintail Posts: 41,916
    In Europe there are many engines per class, where here we usually see no more than 2 or 3, including AMG.

    I could see all smaller engined cars reach a turbo design, and perhaps the upcoming hybrid S-class will work its way down the line, too. But the current performance engines aren't suddenly going away by 2010, too much invested in the 6.2 unit especially. The article is somewhat misleading.
  • wtd44wtd44 Posts: 1,211
    If we get real lucky, we will use natural gas in place of some gasoline, as we move on to a future fuel such as hydrogen. Our natural gas resources are very high, and using them will not compete with food as does corn-based ethanol, although we use natural gas for heating, etc.
  • texasestexases Posts: 7,770
    "I think it likely that the reality is that both represent very expensive oil, which is no solution to the oil price problem, obviously. "

    You are exactly right. The undrilled onshore leases held by oil companies large and small are being explored as fast as the rigs allow, but the basic truth is that the large, easily-produced onshore oil accumulation in the US were found years, well decades, ago. High oil prices allow exploring for high-cost oil, but these aren't the wells that'll produce at high rates.

    edit-I almost forgot - if an oil company actually 'sits on' a lease, they can (and are) sued by the property owner for 'failure to develop', so it's really a myth that there are all these millions of acres of productive land that the oil companies just don't want to drill. Simply untrue.
  • texasestexases Posts: 7,770
    In other words, has the rapid sales switch to higher-mpg vehicles made the government mandate unnecessary? Is there any data on what the current weighted-average mpg is of the cars being bought today?
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    edited October 2010
    It's happening, and the trend is bound to accelerate, as the next increase in mileage regs goes into effect in 2014. It is evident among my neighbors and friends who've traded their cars since the last message was posted on this forum, in July 2008.

    Did the last car you bought have better fuel economy than the one it replaced?
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 25,355
    probably the next car purchase in my family will be something to replace our Odyssey minivan. And I hope to make it be something that gets better MPG, especially around town!

    the Ford C-maxx (or whatever it will be called) or Mazda 5 look perfect. To me at least, not sure about the wife! she probably wants some sort of CUV, and most of those dont get any better MPG than the van, unless you go real small (and I doubt that is happening).

    MPG though will not be the primary consideration, but it will be in the equation.

    2015 Hyundai Sonata 2.4i Limited Tech (mine), 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's) and 2015 Jetta Sport (daughter's)

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,600
    edited August 2011
    Well, we're seeing it already, but the pace will quicken, maybe exponentially as we get to 2020, and then race to even tighter standards to meet 54.5 mpg by 2025. Virtually every major manufacturer is introducing or expanding its offerings of hybrids. Most, such as Nissan/Renault, BMW, and Fiat are developing full electrics. Weight reduction and space efficiency are being given more attention than at any time in the past. Finally, a wide array of technology, such as start/stop (just one of countless examples), are being employed to improve fuel efficiency.

    Among the effects of the sum total of these changes will be significant vehicle price increases. More buyers will be relegated to the used market. Cars will become throw-away items to a greater extent than even today, as the cost of repairing a car that's been in an accident becomes increasingly uneconomical. I'm also thinking that driving and car ownership will probably be less fun.

    And that's just for starters.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,877
    I see it as half full because of this...

    But, I wonder if the moderators should focus the CAFE threads. It seems we have three. Maybe we need just one? Close the other two?? I don't care which one, but it does seem like people here should have one thread in news and views to talk about this important issue...
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Let's pick it up here.
This discussion has been closed.