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

1stpik

Yeah, I'm 11 years old. I'm just real smart for my age.

So, are you in your 80s, or what?

great grandfather born c. 1860 (before the Civil War)

grandfather born c. 1885

father born c. 1905

you born c. 1925

gagrice

My grandmother was born in 1894 and I am only 64 and my youngest brother is 46. Never knew my great grandfather, they were long gone before I was born. My wife is 63 and her grandfather was born in 1881 so you don't have to be that old to have a great grandfather born during the Civil war.

larsb

Smaller, safer, and more efficient gas cars.

Plethora of diesel and gasoline/electric and diesel/electric sedans by multiple manufacturers, all getting 70 MPG highway.

1stpik

"so you don't have to be that old to have a great grandfather born during the Civil war."

Sure, you don't HAVE to be, but you probably are. Generations historically run 20 years in this country. 15 years in some cities these days, but that's another discussion.

If your g.g.f. was born 150 years ago, the math ain't hard to do.

It's just a damn shame that your grandparents didn't demand electric cars 100 years ago, because we'd ALL be better off today if they did.

.

kdhspyder

Very close..very smart for an 11 y.o.
1850's in Ireland
1880 in America
1924
1949 me
1982 my first
2007 my first g c

kdhspyder

Yep Edison that dope missed the boat entirely. Wasted his time on all that showmanship stuff. Heck he could have been the Henry Ford of the 20th Century except that he got caught up with General Electric and movies and power generation.

gagrice

Except GE is still going great guns and Ford is having a hard time keeping up. Several auto makers did build electric cars. They had the same problems with electric cars today. Not enough battery to go where people want to go.

volvomax

I really hope they sue over this one. What happened to rights being reserved to the states unless specifically reserved to the federal government? California's clean air laws PREDATE the federal ones. That is why California has always had the authority to enforce stricter standards, which has most often been a necessity because of air pollution problems that were worse here than in most other parts of the country.

Regulating interstate commerce,which the manufacture and sale of automobiles falls under IS an enumerated power of the Federal Gov't.
The fact that the Feds have allowed CARB to set their own standards does not mean that the Federal Gov't has surrendered those rights to the states.
Personally, I think that one of the resons the automakers didn't fight this new law more vigorously is that they got assurances that the Feds would slap down CARB.
Carmakers have NEVER liked CARB and have never liked having to make 2 different types of cars for the same country.

andre1969

Gasoline engines are only "inexpensive" because all the automakers started using them before our great grandfathers were born. That economy of scale that developed made the engines affordable, not the other way around.

Actually, once upon a time, the gasoline engine was not the engine of choice. Back in the experimentation stages, companies played around with steam, gasoline, electric, and probably other sources as well. Back in the early days of the automobile, there were plenty of electric cars around. The problem is that then, just like now, the battery technology was just not there yet. Gasoline engines have come a long way in terms of advancement, but with electric motors still have that same achilles heel...the battery.

Battery technology is getting better, but not in leaps and bounds like the internal combustion engine did.

greenmachines

The cost of the lawsuit will be shared by 16 states, and privately EPA attorney's have already noted that they (EPA) will lose. The legal grounds for the EPA decision today was really flimsy and politically motivated as protection for Detroit. The Detroit automakers still don't get it! This is like the moonlaunch guys. Design fuel efficient vehicles or get out of the business--plain and simple. As for the cost of electric versus ICE, obviously ICE is too expensive. My lungs can't afford it. We have in the Silicon Valley car production with battery technology NOW capable of 500 miles on a charge, and a full charge from a 110V outlet in 3 hrs. Except for cross country adventures, this would take care of my needs. These vehicles have few moving parts, most of them in the transmission. ICE engines have hundreds of moving parts. It doesn't take a genius to see that simply getting better gas mileage won't be a long term solution, but apparently the California standard is do able. Detroit just can't make itself green (that's a pun). :surprise:

greenmachines

I forgot to add regarding the current electric engine capability. We aren't talking about golf cars here. We are talking about sports cars that can blow away any ICE engine in terms of performance. It will take awhile for electric to power tractor trailer rigs, but since train locomotives are diesel-electric hybrids, why can't GM and other American truck engine makers follow this model?

stovebolter

"We have in the Silicon Valley car production with battery technology NOW capable of 500 miles on a charge, and a full charge from a 110V outlet in 3 hrs."

I assume you're referring to Tesla. Tesla's upcoming roadster is certainly impressive, but according to their website the peak range is 267 miles and a full charge takes at least 3.5 hours on the home charging system. Still good numbers, but not nearly as impressive as what you mentioned. Add in the fact that it seats only 2 and costs about 6 figures and you get a vehicle that's designed to be more of a toy than a mass market vehicle. Of course, there's nothing wrong with any of that - if I had the means to acquire one, I know I would. Hopefully this is just the start of mass-market EVs and a practical model will come out in the not-too-distant future.

That said, what do we do about people who actually need a heavier-duty vehicle? There are tons of businesses that use 1/2-ton full size trucks for hauling and towing things that a car simply can't do. And with current technology, 35 mpg is not a reasonable expectation - it takes a sturdy chassis and powerful engine to do a lot of everyday tasks.

qbrozen

But of course there is still all that pollution produced and fuels burned while generating the electricity to charge those cars ...

gagrice

The cost of the lawsuit will be shared by 16 states, and privately EPA attorney's have already noted that they (EPA) will lose.

Fat chance that will happen. It is just another way for attorneys to milk this country for all it is worth. In the end the Supreme Court will give the EPA control of GHG regulations.

We have in the Silicon Valley car production with battery technology NOW capable of 500 miles on a charge, and a full charge from a 110V outlet in 3 hrs.

Bring em on. I have wanted an Electric car since the 1960s. It is still just "Pie in the Sky". The Tesla is on its way into the history books with all the wrangling going on in that company. Is there some other prototype that can come close to your very optimistic figures? So far the only vehicle that is on the market TODAY that can legally go faster than a golf cart is the Xebra. And it is hardly worth mentioning.

apparently the California standard is do able. Detroit just can't make itself green (that's a pun).

It is not just Detroit fighting this silly lawsuit. It is also Toyota as they know more what the buyers want than the likes of Jerry Brown and associates. You would think that CA would have learned their lesson after botching up the EV-1 with their ZEV mandate. I guess the attorneys needed a new cow to milk.

Welcome to the Forum, we look forward to any EVs you can send us in Southern CA.

PS
Cows put out more nasty GHG than cars...... So getting rid of cars is first and cows next... :sick:

nippononly

have a problem with the cows...

:-P

I am quite sure the federal EPA has enough resources to fight this lawsuit without asking Toyota GM and Ford to chip in. It will be the plaintiffs that could use some extra help.

A friend of mine is interested in the Xebra. I am intrigued by most of the info I got, but there's a sticking point - is it true it's not freeway-legal?

Was watching the news last night and there was a piece on some major breakthrough they just made in Li-Ion technology which can increase energy density by a factor of 10 while reducing operating temps. I wonder if this was the breakthrough that will finally get a fleet of electric vehicles on the road and get us all some cars and trucks with really decent mileage. Finally.

bumpy

since train locomotives are diesel-electric hybrids, why can't GM and other American truck engine makers follow this model?

That's more or less what the Volt is, though being its timid self GM is building the Volt as a parallel hybrid (which makes it more of a Green Goat).

gagrice

A friend of mine is interested in the Xebra. I am intrigued by most of the info I got, but there's a sticking point - is it true it's not freeway-legal?

I test drove one and it is clearly not designed for anything over 35-40 MPH. I think the very top speed is 41 MPH. I was somewhat tempted by the PU model with the solar panels on the rack over the PU bed. I think they can be had for around $11k. Biggest downside is I would have to trailer it home. It is a city vehicle only.

stommps

Isn't the Volt Serial, tc 3 cylinder -> Generator -> Battery -> Electric Engine.

nippononly

My friend is a public transit commuter who is currently walking to the ferry terminal - approximately a mile through the cold streets at 5:30 AM. He doesn't particularly mind the walk but it can be a drag on wet days. The family vehicle is a minivan (they have only one), and the wife and kids need it during the day. He wouldn't mind having a city runabout like the Xebra for weekend errands, as well as the quick commute in the morning and evening on weekdays. The Xebra might just be the ticket for him.

My commute includes about 4 miles on the freeway, so it wouldn't be for me, then.

gagrice

He should look up the local dealer and test it out. Very basic but functional. If he is not going to have more than one passenger I would get the PU with solar panels on top. It would stay charged while he is at work.

ehaase

I expect to see more hybrids, hopefully more diesels, and lower displacement engines with turbocharging. I also think that both 6 and 8 cylinder engines will be rare in cars and exclusive to high performance and luxury cars. I hope that the number of truck based SUV's and extended cab pickups not used for business purposes will decline dramatically.

bumpy

Yep, looks like they are doing it that way.

dreyfus1

He was the one that ordered the tide to go out. Events will overtake the US Gov't and all its rules and regulations enacted in 2007/2008 will make King Harald look sane. The oil producing countries have pricing power now (Yes Now) by 2020 a vehicle getting only 35 mpg will not find a market. Window dressing will mollify the people for a few years but reality will eventually intrude.

kdhspyder

I'd have to agree - to an extent. One of the strengths of humans is the ability to adapt and innovate. Innovation is one of our best national traits. I too think the oil producers and the Big Oil companies will be trying to milk us dry. But at some point enough is enough.

Already there is a groundswell of resistance from the public, even though we still pay and pay and pay ( but we have little choice). However there are enough iniatives out there in renewables that soon it may achieve a critical mass that begins to make real competition for the Oil Oligarchy. It may still take 15-25 years to decide on a national standard(s) for renewables but I think it will occur.

Oh, there is one other very basic human trait is currently 'in play'. GREED. Whoever can get the best and most reliable renewable to market will be able to make more money than he/she/they know how to spend. But to be realistic no Big Oil company is just going to stand by and allow all its customers to defect to some newer, better mousetrap. Whoever does provide the public with a better and reliable fuel from renewables will suddenly find a check from Mega Internation Oil, Inc on his desk with a stupid number of zero's in front of the decimal.

In the meanwhile we all better be ready to drive something more efficient if we want to maintain our economic strength or even our current lifestyle.

oldfarmer50

"...there is still all that pollution produced....while generating the electricity..."

Yes! Of course. Why is it that you and I seem to be the only people who realize this? There is no free lunch. Energy has to be produced usually by burning something. Either in your engine or in a power plant. Both pollute.

The only exception would be renewables like hydro. Too bad all the fish-rights groups are tearing down the power dams.

hpmctorque

"...GREED..."

You seem to imply that greed is the only human emotion that drives inventiveness. There's also creativity, curiosity, ambition, a desire to explore new frontiers, etc. I doubt that greed was the main motivator for Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, etc. While it may have been one factor in their careers, its not necessarily a negative, in the context of their great contributions. Similarly, I think the major oil companies, while far, far from perfect, have contributed mightily to the standard of living of millions.

gagrice

I think the major oil companies, while far, far from perfect, have contributed mightily to the standard of living of millions.

I think you are right. Many here like to blame all the woes on the oil companies. While some have large reserves, many are buying oil on the open market to refine and sell to US. If we are buying 66% of our oil from other countries, that is not the fault of the oil companies. Most of the oil we buy is state owned and controlled. If you want to bad mouth our oil suppliers we need to say how greedy, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia are.

Then you add all the fickled states like California that have to have designer gasoline that adds a lot in the refining process. Oh, and now they have to add ethanol to keep the folks in the Midwest happy and growing more corn.

The real greed can be traced back to the guy at the pump that thinks we should have gas cheaper than anyone else in the world. That does not endear us to the guy paying $6 per gallon.

I guess if we were to develop more of our known reserves we could take a little bite out of the foreign oil producers. Still just a short term solution.

kdhspyder

I never said it was the only incentive but I do think it's the prime one or very close to the top. BTW your examples were poorly chosen IMO. At least 3, Edison, Ford and Gates are among the most viscious competitors in our history. Visciousness and greed are good traits in our Capitalistic system. It keeps everyone on their toes, moving and improving. I'm all for it.

hpmctorque

Reasonable people can disagree on what motivates brilliant people to accomplish great things. I think the hierarchy of motivating factors and traits vary from brilliant person to brilliant person, Viciousness and greed could be the primary motivating factors for some (although I doubt even that's true for many), but not for others. Whatever moves inventive minds, it'll be required in spades to achieve energy independence.

stever

Whatever moves inventive minds, it'll be required in spades to achieve energy independence.

On the other hand, it doesn't take much effort or brilliance of mind to drive 5 mph slower or turn off a few light bulbs. Conservation must be a dull bullet since many people seem to be relying on a silver one to bail them out of any energy crunches. Even if you go into full-on land on the moon mode, that's still going to eat up a decade. Shoot, it took two decades just to up CAFE a bit.

gagrice

Conservation must be a dull bullet since many people seem to be relying on a silver one to bail them out of any energy crunches.

There are people that believe the silver bullet exists and if you elect the right politician we will have access to it.

Trying to conserve myself I ran into an obstacle. I was going to change out the incandescent light bulbs in my Hampton Bay ceiling lighted fans. I put in 2 new CFL lights and they flickered off and on. So I was stuck using 60 watt incandescent. There has to be millions of those fans installed in American homes.

stever

If you put some CFLs in a switched fixture, and your switch is one that lights up, you'll get flicker too. Lighted switches always send a little current to the fixture in order to provide power to the switch. It's interesting that such a small amount of juice will cause the CFLs to flicker while the incandescents stay dark.

I figure burning night lights (or using lighted switches) is cheaper than breaking a few toes now and then. :sick:

I'm curious to see what the LED craze will have on car lights in general.

hpmctorque

I agree on the need for conservation, but I think that a fuel tax increase, with offsetting sales tax decreases, would be a much more effective and efficient way to achieve conservation than the 35 mpg by 2020 law.

When all is said and done, the 35 mpg law is unlikely to be more effective in achieving its consumption reduction goals than the '75 CAFE law has been. Sure, fuel economy went up, but consumption went up even more. The new law could have a similar unintended effect. How? If the law succeeds in improving fuel economy, which it will (in conjunction, lest we forget, with ~$90/barrel oil), it will put downward pressure on oil prices. And what happens when prices go down? Well, demand increases, of course, and greater demand = greater consumption. Look, I don't presume to know what the net effect of the 35 mpg law will be, but I think we squandered an opportunity to do something better.

dtownfb

Consumption went up in the 70's because the suburbs grew requiring people to drive to work. Also more women began working outside the household thus putting more cars on the road.

One thing I have noticed is evryone is focusing on things that already in place like, diesel, hybrids, smaller cars, etc. One thing that we have lost in the auto industry esp. the domestics is innovation. The fact that the 2008 Ford Focus is by far the most efficient domestic small car at 35 mpg highway is pathetic. I was at a small car museum in VA (associated with one of the cavern tours) and back in 1930, there were cars that achieved over 20 mpg. As far as fuel efficiency, we have not come very far in the past 80 years.

I've been doing some research and there is the technology out there to increase the fuel economy of each car by close to 40%. This is without changing anything in the current car design. The problem is the oil companies are making so much money at our expense, they aren't interested. Hopefully with this new standard, the auto manufacturers begin to become more innovative and Congress realizes that they also have to be a part of the solution. Of course if they stop taking money from the oil companies, it would also help.

hpmctorque

"The problem is the oil companies are making so much money at our expense, they aren't interested."

Who designs the cars we buy? Who selects and buys the cars that are on the market? Why are the oil companies "the" problem? I'm not suggesting the oil companies are saints, but they're not satan, either. Incidentally, I've never been associated with the oil industry. I just fail to see logic of assigning so much of the blame on the oil companies and so little on where a lot of it may belong - ourselves and our choices.

Also, if the oil companies are hugely profitable, we can participate by investing in them, to the extent that their actions will not be at our expense, or even to the extent that it could be to our benefit.

walterquint

The new CAFE standards are a disgrace. Detroit will NEVER meet them. It'll just raise the price of cars, which will have to adopt more exotic materials to lower weight. Even a 4cyl Accord stick doesn't make the cut, nor does a Civic or Sentra for that matter.

dtownfb

There is fuel technology available today that would increase the fuel efficiency by 40%. It would require oil companies to change their refineries, i.e. invest money that they currently don't have to now. But in the long run it would reduce refinery costs. Oil companies are making so much money with the current model and don't have to change anything they do to earn $10B a quarter. Also they are able to manipulate gas prces with the current model. Congress knows this but since the companies like ExxonMobil spend $500 million dollars each year lobbying Congress (contributing to their re-elections fund), no one in Washington will do anything about it. So they come up with ethanol as a solution to appease middle America and make it seem like they are doing something.

I agree we have a made very poor choices in selecting cars. Look at the 90's, I know my wife and I didn't need our Explorers. No kids until 1999 yet we had owned 2 in the 90's. I know plenty of people who owed pickups as a third car to pick up mulch or furntiure twice a year. We all need to truly assess what we really need in a car. For the few who truly need a pickup or can afford to drive that Hummer for pleasure, let them have at it. It is America after all. last thing we need is to force folks into vehicles but unless we all make some changes, I may have to squeeze my 6'4" frame inot a Corolla. Thank goodness I have loss weight.

gagrice

I think that a fuel tax increase, with offsetting sales tax decreases, would be a much more effective and efficient way to achieve conservation than the 35 mpg by 2020 law.

That may work in a country that has a National sales tax. Every state has their own tax structure. California would not want to give up their 7.5% so the Feds could tax gas at a higher rate. I am sure the average family in CA spends more on taxable items throughout the year than they do on gas. If the Feds tax gas at a higher rate and let us write that tax off on our income what would that gain them? I don't see the price of gas making much difference what and how people drive. Even with $3 gas here in CA not a day goes by that I do not see somebody blast away from a stop light only to be next to me a few blocks down the street at the next light. Gas prices do not seem to affect the way people drive. And all the young guys with modified rice rockets are not conserving just because they have a small car. They race up and down the streets day and night going nowhere.

hpmctorque

I'm not knowledgeable about oil refining and the costs associated with it, so I can't comment on your first paragraph.

I completely agree with the thoughts you expressed in your second paragraph, particularly when it comes to enjoying the freedom of vehicle choices. For those who use the carrying capacity of their pickups or SUVs only occasionally, renting may be a better choice than buying more vehicle than one needs the great majority of the time.

plzion

While there is often pollution created by electricity, the fact is; the larger the power plant, the more efficient the power producer (whether an electrical power plant or a car or truck engine). One example would be my 82 VW Jetta Diesel. I usually got about 45 MPG with it. If the engine had the same type of efficiency of a Semi Truck, it would have had alot more than the 48 HP and it would have gone alot further on the same Gallon of fuel.

In addition, power plants have many pollution standards and a great deal of anti-pollution devices to clean up their emissions. The dirtiest would be the coal fired plants (and they are far cleaner than many understand, due to the technological improvements for the pollution scrubbers, etc.There are other problems with coal such as the mining techniques however, among others).

In Utah, we now have the option to have our electricity supplied by Wind Generators (don't get going about killing birds as there are solutions for that as well).

The NEV's (neighborhood electric cars) can get 7 times the fuel efficiency equivalent of a 30 MPG car such as the Honda Civic Sedan. There is no special technology needed for that to be possible.

A huge amount of the the Grid available electricity is used during the day, yet at night, the rate of usage drops off tremendously. Unfortunately, the power companies can't just readily change the power generation (all sorts of undesired and expensive problems happen all to easily).

Millions of electic cars could be charged at night by this excess electrical production...No additional powerplants would be needed (how many people would realistically go to electric cars in the near future?).

The NEV's start at about 6000 US Dollars, and up for a 25 mph top speed golf cart that can do 20-30 miles per charge (most drivers would be well served by that, except when they must jump on the freeway).

The efficiency would be 3-4 times more efficient than my Geo Metro that always gets 50 MPG. For the difference in fuel costs, I could easily purchase new lead acid batteries for it every 3 years and it would still cost far less for maintenance for it (provided it is well designed and built).

We really have some amazing options and knowledge available to us at this time.

An amazing car due to come out in 2008 or 2009 can be viewed at www.aptera.com which is an incredible re-invention of the Car as we know it. It's expected to get fuel efficiency in the hundreds of miles per gallon for the plug in hybrid for about $30,000.

For excellent information on practical green living and factual education on many useful things, check out Mother Earth News or motherearthliving.com.

They actually have experts that walk the walk and talk the talk (unlike the Al Gore's of the world).

Mother Earth News actually built a Hybrid Electric Subaru back in the 70's.

Can you tell I love this magazine?

1stpik

I'm all for the Aptera, just as I'm all for the GM Volt. But when I hear 'they're just a few years away, and they'll sell for about $30,000,' I get suspicious.

That's the claim for both the Aptera and Volt, just as it's the claim for EVERY greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread car. I've been hearing these claims from automotive magazines and at auto shows since the early 1980s.

Reminds me of the Moller Flying Car. That thing has been 5 years away for 20 years.

BTW, lest you think that I'm another luddite naysayer to oil-alternatives, I own a 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid. So I'm walking, talking, and driving with sufficient credibility to cast doubts.

I only bought the HCH because gasoline sells for $3/gal., and only because I drive more than 20,000 miles per year. Those two factors, plus the tax credit made it economically feasible.

I paid an extra $3,000 for the hybrid because I got a $2,100 tax credit, and I save $60/month in gas costs. That gives me a one-year payback on the extra expense. So I was willing to pay $21,000 for an $18,000 car.

Now look at the GM Volt. Looks like another $18,000 car (Malibu equivalent), but it'll cost $30,000 (if you believe GM, which is never a good plan). But assuming that's true, what would it take to get consumers to pay $30,000 for a car that offers the same comfort and performance of an $18,000 car? Certainly a lot more than a $2,100 tax credit and gas savings of $60/month.

$30 K offers a lot of choices in cars. For that much money you can get performance and comfort, along with a little status (entry-level BMW, Lexus, etc.). The Aptera or Volt or Tesla, or whatever car comes out on top MUST offer some economic incentive, or it will be D.O.A.

I'm anxious to see the market's response to Honda's latest alt-en car, the hydrogen fuel cell FCX Clarity. It'll be available this summer for lease only -- $600/month. It runs on liquid hydrogen, so zero emissions. It has a 300 mile range on a tank of fuel.

Sounds good, but hydrogen costs about $5/gal., and I can't find the FCX's fuel tank capacity, so I can't calculate its mpg, or its cost-equivalent to a gasoline car. So I can only hope it's a good deal.

I like the fact that the it's a few months away, not a few YEARS away. And I know that Honda's pretty sharp about these things -- they wouldn't be making it if they didn't think it would succeed.

We'll know by this time next year. And I think the FCX's market performance will point the direction for alternative autos in general.

.

gagrice

You have a very balanced view of the automotive industry. I am not a hybrid fan. I would consider one if I drove 20k miles per year.

I think the drawbacks to the Civic FCX are multiple. Fuel sources are scarce even in CA. The last I read the Civic FCX costs Honda $100k each to build. There are a few already on the roads here. Very closely watched by Honda.

The NEVs mentioned in the prior post are fine in a retirement village setting. They are not of much value in the real world here in CA. They are limited to 35 MPH zones. That makes them illegal in most of the suburbs as most of the multi lane surface streets are 40-45 MPH posted.

As cool as cars like the Aptera & Volt are, I would probably balk at the $25k - $30k price tag. Again like the hybrids. If I had a long commute they would be on my radar for just commuting.

krony

A little late on this one...so to the question: "How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive"

My 2 cents...I think the answer will be smaller, older cars. Why? Technology to meet the law will push the cost of cars up, trending consumers toward smaller cars. Not necessarily just because of fuel cost. The law doesn't force us to buy higher fuel economy cars, only for the manufacturers to make them. If the government wanted to drive "behavior" they should have raised taxes on fuel to fund development of renewable fuels (ethanol from biomass, hydrogen, etc).

nippononly

"$30 K offers a lot of choices in cars. For that much money you can get performance and comfort, along with a little status (entry-level BMW, Lexus, etc.)."

Yes, but every single one, without exception, has pathetic fuel economy. For those that not only want to save some gas money but want to work towards reducing oil imports, none of those $30K cars will do.

Can't wait for Mercedes diesels to change that picture...

jesses1

I have a '06 Saab 2.0t. I can get 35 mpg on the highway under optimal conditions. I typically get about 26-27 mpg locally. It is a fun and sometimes quirky vehicle. All in all not bad for a relatively heavy (3400 lbs) car with an automatic transmission.

jsylvester

I plan on holding onto my big vehicles, because the new laws will require everyone to buy a rolling crackerbox computer on wheels - not only will the purchase price be higher, but wait until you have to pay to get it maintained or fixed. You might use less gasoline, but the cost of ownership certainly won't be any less than owning a gas guzzler.

I figure once enough suckers are forced to buy those vehicles, the demand for gas should drop, and along with that the price, and I'll be golden. Of course, then Big Brother will decide some new way to limit your choices, and give them more control over your life.

As Ronald Reagan used to say about the words that stuck fear into his heart - "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." :shades:

walterquint

I agree, this whole 35 mpg mandate is just another way for government elites to limit our choices and curtail our independence. Do you think Al Gore drives to his lucrative environmental speaking engagements in a Toyota Yaris??
In the old Soviet union, the elites drove cars, everyone else rode donkey carts.
We're getting snowed here.
However, if driving more fuel efficient cars means fewer 19-yr-olds coming home from Iraq on aluminum legs, then go for it.

kdhspyder

Ahhh you have hit the proverbial nail, squarely.

No matter what the rhetoric out of either side of the political spectrum there is really only one reason for CAFE. One single reason that the Conservative Republican Executive branch run by two oilmen, the liberal Democratic Legislative branch and even the auto industry itself are all in full agreeement that CAFE had to be undated.

Conservation. That's it. There are no environmental concerns in this current issue except as ancillary benefits.

This extention and upgradeing of CAFE is only about conservation of existing petroleum supplies in order to preserve our economic way of life and to keep us from being overly dependent on others to maintain this way of life. We today use 25% of the world's output of oil. By the decade of the 20's our population will grow from about 300 million to 400 million and the drivers on the road will grow from about 200 million to almost 300 million. At our current vehicle usage rates we will need an additional 6-8 mm bpd of oil just to keep all of us on the road. That additional supply is not there..at least not inexpensively. Geopolitically any money that we, the world's 2000 lb gorilla in term of petroleum-usage, spend ends up partly in the hands of others who would wish us harm.

If petroleum-based fuel is not conserved now then it won't be available at that time in the future when we need 25% more than today. As a result we may very well have to go begging to those who would wish us to be bankrupt in order to buy additional supplies just to keep our economy running.

If we cannot get the necessary supplies then somebody will have to walk or stay at home or use more mass transit or carpool. These may all be for the national good but given the distances and lack of infrastructure in most areas of NA they are not very useful for many.

This upgrading of CAFE is not about eliminating our usage of petroleum-based fuels. Does one think that the two oilmen in the White House would be the ones whipping and driving this issue forward? It's only about spreading it out over a larger usage base. In the next 20 years our fuel needs will increase dramatically not go down. Renewables are our best hope for eliminating petroleum usage.

kdhspyder

You are so far off that you might want to do some research first. Did you read the article posted elsewhere here on Edmunds? It's amazing what you can learn by choosing a wide variety of reading sources.

In fact neither you nor I know for sure what data the NHTSA uses so there is no way to make a judgement except by extrapolation. Using extrapolation the 5M Civic and Sentra todaydo meet the 2020 standards and the 5M Accord is almost there.....and the new standards don't go fully into effect for 12 more years!!!.

What you will likely see is that in 2020 all fuel will be $7-$10 per gallon. All small vehicles will have the latest IC technology and maybe some updated very inexpensive mild hybrid technology. Midsizers will all be with hybrids or diesels ( right now thePrius, Civic hybrid, Camry hybrid, Altima hybrid and Escape hybrid all exceed the 2020 fuel economy limits ). Large vehicles will either be diesel or hybrids - or both - or will run exclusively on biofuels.

I can see a future ammendment to the CAFE standards that if a larger vehicle runs exclusively on biofuel it is exempt from any CAFE ruling.

kdhspyder

I plan on holding onto my big vehicles, because the new laws will require everyone to buy a rolling crackerbox computer on wheels - not only will the purchase price be higher, but wait until you have to pay to get it maintained or fixed. You might use less gasoline, but the cost of ownership certainly won't be any less than owning a gas guzzler.

This is false but don't allow lack of information to keep you from forming a misconceived opinion. The fact that you don't understand a subject doesn't necessarily make that subject bad. Research is a wonderful thing. It just takes time and effort...and some reading between the lines.

HINT: Why is it that it's the White House that was driving this legislation forward?