Why is it that it's the White House that was driving this legislation forward?
Could it be that Bush is one of the few in DC that actually practice conservation in their lifestyle outside the Beltway?
I agree with Sylvester on keeping your big vehicles. I do not plan to drive on the highways in a over priced econobox like the Civic or Prius. They are just not as safe as a big PU or SUV when driven as designed. I would buy a small car for all the trips to the grocery store etc. An EV with a top speed of 45 MPH would do just fine for those ventures away from home. My Sequoia with a V6 Diesel would be ideal. Unfortunately the government does not consider fuel economy in larger vehicles of any importance.
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.
Pray tell! These claims are made all the time, please provide some evidence.
They can mandate all they want, but the laws of physics veto those of Congress. If you think that we are going to drive around in golf carts (which is what it will take to meet these restrictions), you know little about Americans. We'll be like the Cubans: driving 30 to 40 year old cars and fixing them rather than going for this new technology. The engine rebuilders and transmission shops will be doing booming business for the next 50 years because of this.
Nah, even if you have a fear of new technology or the cost of it, this law shouldn't worry you. Most of the big automakers are not far off meeting this goal now, and CERTAINLY people will not be forced to drive golf carts. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But businesses may actually benefit from this, financially. Don't they get to write off the expense associated with buying a truck, and the subsequent depreciation? So if they have to pay a bit more to buy their trucks, they will get their money back, won't they?
Plus, as I understand it, the bigger they make the truck, the less fuel economy it has to have. So just like they did before to get around CAFE in the 90s (trucks over 8500 pounds GVWR were exempt from regulations), I assume they will just giant-size the new trucks after 2010.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
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.
That's a totally false statement. There is a fixed amount of energy (hydrocarbon molecules) in a barrel of oil. Nothing is going to change that. The refineries have become extremely efficient at extracting the maximum amount possible for useable/saleable products. In fact out of a 42 gallon barrel of oil the result is around 46 gallons of different hydrocarbon products, eg butane, propane, petrochemicals, gasoline, distillates. lubricants, asphalt, etc.. Not sure how that works but it's true. It is not in the refineries best financial interest to waste any portion of a barrel of oil. Certainly not 40%.
This is always your choice if in 2020 you wish to drive around in a 90s vintage vehicle then go for it. But...
The problem with this is if you do keep your 80s or 90s vintage large vehicles which presumably will be getting 16-20 mpg and fuel costs $7-$10 per gallon how satisfied will you paying $150 - $200 on each fill up when others are paying half that amount, driving further with the same power that you have.
My personal opinion is that this 35 mpg mandate will be totally irrelevant long before 2020. Afterall, you can't consume more than the supply and we are getting very close, on a global level, to the demand matching the production capacity. At that point it becomes a bidding war between the consuming nations but there is still only so much to go around. By 2020 this 35 mpg CAFE will be the equivalent of a law being passed in Ethiopia that limits average food consumption to no more that 2,000 calories per day. It's meaningless. People will be driving 35+ mpg vehicles by this time not because they were forced to by these CAFE standards but because they were forced to by financial constraints and limited supplies. Of course the CAFE proponents will see how the fleet efficiency has improved and will congratulate themselves on this effective legislation.
Businesses will love these new improvements. Think man. If a business owner uses a truck now that gets 18 mpg, drives 20000-30000 mi/yr now and costs $4500 per year in fuel think what his fuel bill will be if diesel or gas is $9 / gallon. It's will be $13500 annually.
Now in 2020 if that same sized truck, with improvements, 'only' gets 25 mpg and fuel is $9 /gallon then the cost to drive the same 27000 miles is less than $10,000.
But this is not the main issue. The main issue is that if we don't stretch out the fuel supplies so that each vehicle uses less then it doesn't matter what vehicle the business uses or how efficient it is or isn't. If there is no fuel then that vehicle will just sit and the business owner can't use it. Is this what you'd like to see? Workers show up on the job and have to sit around because the vehicles and machines have no fuel?
Well stated. The price of fuel will force our hand well before any of this goes into effect. In addition since the technology is already in place for even larger vehicles ( not the largest ) to meet the 2020 standards - today - it's not much a of a stretch to see where the path leads us.
For those demanding full-sized vehicles there's two likely scenarios that I can imagine. Some will still be made but they will be small numbers because the public just doesn't want to pay $200 to fill them up. Or these will be mandated to run exclusively on some form of locally produced biofuels, making them exempt from CAFE alltogether.
Or these will be mandated to run exclusively on some form of locally produced biofuels, making them exempt from CAFE alltogether
I'm not sure you could make a vehicle that would only be able to run on a biofuel. If you couldn't then it wouldn't make much sense to give them any kind of CAFE break because it would be just like this E85 flex fuel vehicles boondoggle. The only way most of these see any ethanol in their tanks is if its the oxygenation agent.
In addition to that I think one needs to consider how much oil is involved in producing a gallon of biofuel. If producing 2 gallons of biofuel requires 1 gallon of petroleum then I might be inclined to give this type of vehicle 2x it's mileage rating for CAFE purposes. Again that would require it only being capable of running on biofuel, which I question whether or not that is possible.
The FlexFuel loophole is wide open because there is actually little or no usage of ethanol in these vehicles. Now if it was mandated that no gasoline or diesel from oil could be used in these vehicles then I could see an exemption being possible.
As to ethanol I don't think corn ethanol is the most efficient fuel for the future but for now it's the easiest. Other sources that generate a greater output of BTUs per BTU input hopefully are the 'ethanol of the future'.
Butanol is another option with more energy density.
But my best hope is diesel from algae or similar process. Diesel engines are naturals for heavy vehicles like trucks. If being powered exclusively by biodiesel fuel becomes efficient then I can see an exemption be offered for these vehicles.
It's a patented fuel developed by Talbert fuel (Do a Google search). It has been analyzed and tested by a number of oil companies and refineries. Heck, one oil company tried to steal the formula. You would think there would be buyers lined up. The problem: Oil companies are making too much money under the current conditions. Why invest money when you don't have to?
This alone won't get us to 35 mpg but it will give us a significant boost toward the goal. More importantly, it will truly reduce the amount of foreign oil we use immediately. With this new fuel standards, hopefully you'll hear more about it in 2008. If not, don't be surprised if it ends up somewhere overseas and we end up buying it at a significant markup.
All I found was references to a number of lawsuits and a 1989 NYT article mentioning Talbert and a 10-20 possible percent improvement. The steps mentioned (removal of butanes, pentanes, and decanes and longer molecules) would do nothing to improve mileage and would radically shrink the available feedstocks for gasoline production, creating a shortage. :surprise: :sick:
You would think there would be buyers lined up. The problem: Oil companies are making too much money under the current conditions. Why invest money when you don't have to?
That would be logical if the only potential investors were oil companies. But maybe the unbiased experts that other investors have had look at this, aren't as positive as you? There are all sorts of financial investors that would invest if the science is sound. There can't really be any oil company conspiracy, when the funds could be readily available from investment bankers in Hong Kong or Tokyo, or ...
So let me ask this. Say a company like Ford with a product mix heavily towards trucks and pickups, stays the same as 2020 approaches. Now physics being what it is, they can't quite get to 35mpg for their fleet, while still selling their full and mid-size trucks.
What is to prevent them from putting very small engines in them for the initial sale, have the customer take delivery, drive it home and then bring it back for an "aftermarket" Ford V-8 the next day. The truck would be manufactured with the engine mounts and such would all be ready for the V-8. The small engine would be sold back, and go from the dealer to Ford and then stuck in a Focus.
I just think there would be a lot of loopholes in this law, that will make the aftermarket thrive. I could also see a lot of sports-car being built with smaller engines tuned electronically for economy, and then you bring the car back in, get the supercharger strapped on, and then the ECU reprogrammed for performance.
I think people will still end up driving what they want, and can afford.
The day after the clean air [non-permissible content removed] realize what's going on, they'll get a law passed limiting engine modifications to the original displacement and/or emissions footprint, which is more or less the case in Europe today.
Physics doesn't say that trucks can't get 35 mpg. Physics says that trucks with the aero of a brick, engines with pitiful power-displacement ratios, and the footprint of a handicapped school bus can't get 35 mpg.
(we have asthma inhalers around this household, and I sort of like the idea of keeping the particulates down to a manageable level).
That said, I like the 35mph fleet idea more for the hope that I'll have more buying options that will still save me gas money. I'm too cheap to buy a car that doesn't get at least 20ish around town.
Well if the engineers at any of the auto manufacturers could do that, don't you think their company would want that design? If Chevy could make a truck with 35 mpg that had truck-capabilities don't you think that would give GM the whole market? and GM wouldn't do that?
Maybe you'd like to design that for them? You could probably make a few billion $'s!
I'm sure they could, but before now it wasn't a priority for them.
Anyway, start with a Holden Ute, bring the drag coefficient down to 0.275, install the 6-speed 2-mode hybrid with a 0.5 overdrive, and debore the 2.9 V6 diesel in the Euro CTS down to 2.5L for the mileage bump.
install the 6-speed 2-mode hybrid with a 0.5 overdrive,
The new GM hybrid is not going to be worth much as a towing vehicle. It gives up about 25% of the towing capability of the smaller engined versions. Fine for soccer moms, not so good if you want to tow much of a trailer. I am all for a smaller V6 diesel engine in an SUV. I do not need to have a 0-60 MPH under 7 seconds.
I'm still trying to figure out how they managed to put two electric motors in the transmission and get it to tow less than the regular slushbox. It should be able to tow 25% more with the addition of the motors. The only thing I can figure is some cooling issue with the motor windings during extended use?
Also, the impending release of SAE towing standards is going to knock a lot of the puffery out of the current tow "ratings" anyway.
It is the same with the RX400h and Highlander Hybrid. The motors will probably over heat under heavy loads. Not much good off road in heavy snow or mud either.
Since this is about the best of any car, are you suggesting the truck will have a similar body to a Corvette?
As for the rest, yes you will see more diesels in trucks (and cars), but I don't think that powertrain you're envisioning is going to work well in sub-zero weather, snowplowing, or pulling trailers uphills. You need an adequate engine in trucks, for those times when the hybrid batteries are depleted, or just several years old and not recharging fully (like new).
It's not that difficult. The Mercedes S-class has a drag coefficient of 0.26, the Hyundai Genesis is 0.27, etc. Even the original blocky Lexus LS400 was 0.29.
The 2.5L V6 diesel by itself would be something like 220 hp / 350 ft-lb at a nice, low rpm, plenty for a half-ton.
If Chevy could make a truck with 35 mpg that had truck-capabilities don't you think that would give GM the whole market?
Why would GM's trucks have to get 35 mpg? This 35 mpg is a fleet average. Obviously the larger vehicles wouldn't meet this and the smaller vehicles would exceed it. The Chevy Tahoe with the two-mode hybrid system is rated at 22 mpg. That's EPA, which is not what the new CAFE numbers are based upon. I don't know what agency's ratings they are using but my understanding is that the numbers are at least 20% higher. So this Chevy Tahoe would be 26 mpg for CAFE purposes. I think that GM could sell quite a few of these and still achieve a 35 mpg fleet average.
This Chevy Tahoe can tow 6,000 lbs. I'm guessing that if you look at all Tahoe buyers those that need to tow more than that are a very small subset. 6,000 lbs is a pretty substantial amount.
I always have to laugh when I read these posts. I kinda have to assume that 99% of Americans never get out of the USA. I just got back from Europe, where gas is $10 a gallon in the UK. You'll quickly notice that most of the cars on the highways are little 3 door hatchbacks, and that most of the new vehicles sold in Europe are now diesels. You'll also quickly notice that there aren't any behemoth quad cab hemis rolling around. I took a picture of the typical "truck" in Florence. It's a 3 wheel scooter with a cab in front that holds 2 people, and it had a dump truck on the rear. Businesses over there do most everything with little scooter/trucks, and I'm guessing that saves them lots of moolaa.
It's also hilarious to see the big macho American male talk about how we can't function without behemoths that can "haul" and "tow". If you look at the percentage of trucks that EVER haul or tow anything, it would be like 5% I'm guessing. Manufacturers could keep building the monsters for those 5%, but the rest of us would figure out how to get the job done economically.
It was also interesting to see that Australia and New Zealand have no behemoth trucks either. Most passenger cars have bumper hitches on the rear, and when people need to haul something, they get out their trailers for that once a year haul. Most cars the size of an Accord can easily pull/haul their "caravans" (small RVs).
Face it... Americans have been buying big trucks and SUVs because they're the best value for the money, and there isn't anything else to pick from... not because they need to haul and tow. Even now I could go out and buy 20 full size trucks that cost less than my new Tacoma did, but I already know from experience that the Tacoma will cost me less to own because it gets better mileage and has better resale value.
Actually much of Europe (especially Italy) is functioning with scooters for transportation. It was hilarious to be sitting on a tour bus stuck in traffic, and watch them zip in and out of traffic while we went NOWHERE. And to answer the safety question... when vehicles can't go more than 30 MPH, it's easy for a scooter to get out of their way.
America is just way behind the learning curve. When low sulphur diesel gets here, you're going to see a new wave of smaller vehicles (already available and in use elsewhere in the world) being unloaded at our ports.
As soon as a diesel Tacoma (HILUX) gets here, I'll be first in line.
Whether it's Toyota, Nissan, Ford or GM the first to offer a midsized diesel 4c or 6c will have a line around the block day and night. You might have to fight gagrice for the first one.
I do believe that diesels will make a resurgence in the US. What I wonder about is whether or not they'll get a mileage rating based purely on how far they can go on a gallon of fuel. Burning a gallon of diesel fuel does produce more CO2 than burning a gallon of gasoline. So if these higher CAFE standards are being driven in part by a desire to lower CO2 emissions then that needs to be taken into consideration.
I believe that the new CAFE is being driven solely by supply side considerations nothing else. The ancillary benefit of less pollution is for PR benefit. The new CAFE 35 was afterall driven by the Republican Bush administration for at least a year now. No environmentals they, in general.
The new CAFE 35 was afterall driven by the Republican Bush administration for at least a year now. No environmentals they, in general.
I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. I'll admit that I supported Bush in 2000. I'm a slow learner but 7 years later he's clearly established himself as an idiot. But in terms of CAFE I don't think he can be attacked. The previous, Clinton, administration certainly didn't do anything to increase CAFE despite the fact that this was the heyday of SUVs where the domestics were actually profitable. IMO, when Bush leaves office his administration will rightfully be criticized for it's foreign policy but when it comes to environmental issues I think they can legitimately claim to be no worse than their predecessors.
tpe: Why would GM's trucks have to get 35 mpg? This 35 mpg is a fleet average.
I know that. It was bumpy in Post 126 who was saying that the manufacturers could make trucks that got that. I was simply stating that if a company like Ford which is so heavily reliant on trucks and has a shrinking car base couldn't get to 35mpg. Say they're 80% F-series/Explorers and 20% cars.
If Ford decided to play games with their engines, or sell vehicles without engines, and refer you to a 3rd-party engine shop... There would be a lot of loopholes, just like the tax-code.
3/4 ton and one ton trucks are a whole another animal.
I drive a 1971 model Ford 3/4 ton truck with a 360cid gas V8, 4-speed stick, and a 4.10:1 rear axle. This engine consumes a lot of gas and a little oil. I average 14.3mpg in this truck and it does everything I ask it to. A new 3/4 ton truck with an equivalent powertrain (F250 Super Duty, 5.4/6-speed, 4.10 axle) would get about the same mileage. So there's no sense spending $25K to buy a new one. I'd rather keep mine in tune and do without a giant car payment.
However, a lot of these older truck owners are sick of getting low to mid teens for fuel mileage and some of them have gone out and bought used stepvans with 4-cylinder Cummins diesels in them to swap into their pickups. They can usually buy the old bread/snack vans for about the scrap value of the aluminum body. Then they've got a free engine to put in their truck. Most of these swapped trucks now acheive mid-20s for mileage and one guy with a half ton late 70s Chevy is boasting about 33-34 on the highway, even with a non-overdrive 3-speed automatic. 105hp but well over 200lbs torque, it's enough for a basic truck to get work done and even makes a better commuter than a small sedan with automatic (most are rated high 20s-low 30s).
When my truck's engine decides to use as much oil as gas, it'll come out and get replaced with a small diesel like the Cummins 4-cylinder. I could care less about horsepower and speed, and the torque is more than enough to push the 3900lb beast around the ranch and get me to town and back when I need to. A 5-speed transmission from a 90s Ford 3/4 ton would stretch the fuel money even more. And since I have to change out the fuel tank anyway, I can take the one out of the cab and just put two tanks under the bed, doubling my range and eliminating a fire hazard all in one step.
The most difficult parts of the conversion are splicing up the wiring harness and finding the right bellhousing adapter to whatever transmission you want to use. Most of these bread vans use a GM Turbo 400 automatic, which is great for say, a Suburban. But there are companies out there who can make a bellhousing for darn near any transmission out there. One guy has one of these diesels in an old Studebaker pickup and he got a bellhousing for his 3-speed manual for less than $500, brand new, freshly cast.
I'll shoot for that 35mpg mark when I build a half-ton pickup, but if I can average 25mpg with this setup in my 3/4 ton truck, I'll be plenty happy. If I manage it, my truck will get better mileage than my wife's Taurus!
I have to concur with your assessment. I see an awful lot of 'Let stupid over there pay the bill.' as others quietly leave the restaurant out the back door..
But to his credit and for very valid reasons IMO this new CAFE 35 was a key part of his State of the Union Message this year. After the Senate passed it's version before the summer recess and the House began dragging it's feet so that it appeared that nothing would get done in 2007 the Bush Administration stated that if the House didn't get off their fat butts the Executive would instruct the NHTSA to impose something unilaterally. Legal? eh?
That is good information. Looks like the key is finding a clean rust free truck built before 1975. Then you do not have to deal with the [non-permissible content removed] at the DMV. Another option is to buy an older diesel PU truck. They are also smog exempt. Save that wasted money every two years. I see diesel PU trucks from the early 1990s under $5000 on Craigslist. The 4 cylinder sounds good to me though. I would love to put one in my 99 Ranger when this POC V6 wears out.
Sounds great. Good for you for avoiding the cost of a new vehicle especially a diesel truck, and making a decent vehicle you like.
My only comment is that having owned an '00 ton 1/2 Silverado X-Cab, their curb-wt was 4,800 Lb. I believe most 3/4 ton would be breaking 5,000 Lb. So I just don't see anything less than 3.5 or 4.0 L diesels moving them; unless you have some really good turbo setup on them.
And if you go putting a lot of aluminum and carbon fiber on these trucks to reduce weight, and expensive engines, you'll simply drive the market away from buying new, and as I implied the aftermarket will explode with fixing up older trucks; or doing kit-trucks.
kernick: And this is why I am confident you will hear more about this product in 2008 or in the near future.....
Just to let you know, I'm not trying to sell anything. I'm not affiliated with this product. I just want people to realize there is technology out there to help improve fuel efficiency today so the 35 mpg standard (for the entire fleet) is not as ridiculous as the auto manufacturers make it seem. We need to start looking at all aspects that affect fuel economy and not just engine design and vehicle size.
My only comment is that having owned an '00 ton 1/2 Silverado X-Cab, their curb-wt was 4,800 Lb. I believe most 3/4 ton would be breaking 5,000 Lb.
My '66 3/4-ton GMC clocks in at just over 5,000 with a full tank of gas and a 190 hp/ 300 ft-lb, 900-pound engine. Part of the problem is that a 1/2-ton today is getting pretty close to what a 3/4 ton was back in the old days.
There are more things in the private sector that can help improve gas mileage. Problem is too many companies are making too much money with the status quo.
says to expect plug-in hybrids by 2010 along with two additional hybrid-powered models (new models, that is), and that it will meet the new CAFE standards in 2012 (showing just how weak the new standards are)...
Edit...I just noticed that this particular article does not mention the 2012 date. That must have been in a different article I read on Watanabe's speech.
One of the ways Toyota expects to meet the standards is with a so-called clean diesel engine (meaning 50-state compliant) for its large trucks including Tundra, Sequoia, and probably ultimately Land Cruiser too, I would think. They will offer diesel powertrains for those models within 2 years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'd like to see a diesel Yaris, plus an "A" class diesel car.
I remain an interested skeptic on hybrids; that is, so far I have doubts about their overall benefits, including the manufacturing and disposal phases of the vehicle life cycle. However, I remain open to the possibility that future generations of hybrids will be more competitive, overall.
I think Toyota and GM are putting too much emphasis on a BIG break in battery technology that will make the PHEVs practical. If they had spent the money on clean diesel that they have wasted on hybrids we would not be waiting and waiting for the arrival of diesels that are easily pushed to 35 MPG across the fleet. The rest of the world have driven around in midsized diesel PU trucks getting 40+ MPG for decades. We are still stuck with these same PU trucks lucky to break 20 MPG average. The one consolation is our gas guzzling PU trucks will get us from 0-60 faster than their fuel sipping PU trucks.
PS Latest someone posted here is Toyota is waffling on the Plug in Prius anytime before 2011.
I have a 1979 F150 4x4 with a 400cid and a 4 spd. I get 8 mpg and it is all tuned up. New HEI and new carb. It is a sweet truck none-the-less. The good news I only drive it when I NEED a truck. Not like these wannabees out there driving trucks as commuter cars because they fall short in other areas. :mad:
Yes, no matter how economical the new car or truck, there is always the purchase price or monthly payments that come with it.
It is almost always cheaper to keep an older vehicle on the road, if you don't drive too many miles per month.
I am getting tired of my 1998 Chevrolet K1500 with almost 100k miles but it is still running like new so I''ll keep it until it falls apart, which is unlikely since I maintain it properly.
The only reason it is met with resistance is that WE, the BUYING PUBLIC, have shown the car companies that we would rather pay $2300 for chrome spinner wheels that $1000 for fuel mileage improvements and/or pollution-reducing hardware.
WE, the buyers who refuse to put our money where it should be put, are the problem.
Union of Concerned Scientists re-designed a Ford Explorer and showed it would be easy and relatively cheap to move it from a 21 MPG vehicle to a 37 MPG vehicle. See details here:
What this proves is that if car companies REALLY, REALLY put their engineers to work and REALLY mandated to them that we wanted higher mileage vehicles with similar or better safety and performance, it CAN be done.
Questions remain: How much extra to they charge, and are WE the buying public willing to pay extra for it......................??????????????????
"As a result, the average light truck’s fuel economy was about 30 percent lower than the average car in 2002 (Figure ES-1). This translates into nearly $3,200 more spent on gasoline over the truck’s life, assuming a conservative gas price of $1.40 per gallon"
Whoa! Gas as we know is WELL above $1.40/gallon. At $2.80/gallon, which is still lower than what it actually sells for today (and likely in the future), the average truck/SUV owner will spend $6400 more than the average car owner on gas over the car's life. That's a CHUNK of change....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Comments
Could it be that Bush is one of the few in DC that actually practice conservation in their lifestyle outside the Beltway?
I agree with Sylvester on keeping your big vehicles. I do not plan to drive on the highways in a over priced econobox like the Civic or Prius. They are just not as safe as a big PU or SUV when driven as designed. I would buy a small car for all the trips to the grocery store etc. An EV with a top speed of 45 MPH would do just fine for those ventures away from home. My Sequoia with a V6 Diesel would be ideal. Unfortunately the government does not consider fuel economy in larger vehicles of any importance.
Pray tell! These claims are made all the time, please provide some evidence.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Plus, as I understand it, the bigger they make the truck, the less fuel economy it has to have. So just like they did before to get around CAFE in the 90s (trucks over 8500 pounds GVWR were exempt from regulations), I assume they will just giant-size the new trucks after 2010.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That's a totally false statement. There is a fixed amount of energy (hydrocarbon molecules) in a barrel of oil. Nothing is going to change that. The refineries have become extremely efficient at extracting the maximum amount possible for useable/saleable products. In fact out of a 42 gallon barrel of oil the result is around 46 gallons of different hydrocarbon products, eg butane, propane, petrochemicals, gasoline, distillates. lubricants, asphalt, etc.. Not sure how that works but it's true. It is not in the refineries best financial interest to waste any portion of a barrel of oil. Certainly not 40%.
Not really. It means you pay less taxes on that money. It still behooves a business to get the best deal possible on vehicles.
The problem with this is if you do keep your 80s or 90s vintage large vehicles which presumably will be getting 16-20 mpg and fuel costs $7-$10 per gallon how satisfied will you paying $150 - $200 on each fill up when others are paying half that amount, driving further with the same power that you have.
Businesses will love these new improvements. Think man. If a business owner uses a truck now that gets 18 mpg, drives 20000-30000 mi/yr now and costs $4500 per year in fuel think what his fuel bill will be if diesel or gas is $9 / gallon. It's will be $13500 annually.
Now in 2020 if that same sized truck, with improvements, 'only' gets 25 mpg and fuel is $9 /gallon then the cost to drive the same 27000 miles is less than $10,000.
But this is not the main issue. The main issue is that if we don't stretch out the fuel supplies so that each vehicle uses less then it doesn't matter what vehicle the business uses or how efficient it is or isn't. If there is no fuel then that vehicle will just sit and the business owner can't use it. Is this what you'd like to see? Workers show up on the job and have to sit around because the vehicles and machines have no fuel?
For those demanding full-sized vehicles there's two likely scenarios that I can imagine. Some will still be made but they will be small numbers because the public just doesn't want to pay $200 to fill them up. Or these will be mandated to run exclusively on some form of locally produced biofuels, making them exempt from CAFE alltogether.
I'm not sure you could make a vehicle that would only be able to run on a biofuel. If you couldn't then it wouldn't make much sense to give them any kind of CAFE break because it would be just like this E85 flex fuel vehicles boondoggle. The only way most of these see any ethanol in their tanks is if its the oxygenation agent.
In addition to that I think one needs to consider how much oil is involved in producing a gallon of biofuel. If producing 2 gallons of biofuel requires 1 gallon of petroleum then I might be inclined to give this type of vehicle 2x it's mileage rating for CAFE purposes. Again that would require it only being capable of running on biofuel, which I question whether or not that is possible.
As to ethanol I don't think corn ethanol is the most efficient fuel for the future but for now it's the easiest. Other sources that generate a greater output of BTUs per BTU input hopefully are the 'ethanol of the future'.
Butanol is another option with more energy density.
But my best hope is diesel from algae or similar process. Diesel engines are naturals for heavy vehicles like trucks. If being powered exclusively by biodiesel fuel becomes efficient then I can see an exemption be offered for these vehicles.
This alone won't get us to 35 mpg but it will give us a significant boost toward the goal. More importantly, it will truly reduce the amount of foreign oil we use immediately. With this new fuel standards, hopefully you'll hear more about it in 2008. If not, don't be surprised if it ends up somewhere overseas and we end up buying it at a significant markup.
That would be logical if the only potential investors were oil companies. But maybe the unbiased experts that other investors have had look at this, aren't as positive as you? There are all sorts of financial investors that would invest if the science is sound. There can't really be any oil company conspiracy, when the funds could be readily available from investment bankers in Hong Kong or Tokyo, or ...
What is to prevent them from putting very small engines in them for the initial sale, have the customer take delivery, drive it home and then bring it back for an "aftermarket" Ford V-8 the next day. The truck would be manufactured with the engine mounts and such would all be ready for the V-8. The small engine would be sold back, and go from the dealer to Ford and then stuck in a Focus.
I just think there would be a lot of loopholes in this law, that will make the aftermarket thrive. I could also see a lot of sports-car being built with smaller engines tuned electronically for economy, and then you bring the car back in, get the supercharger strapped on, and then the ECU reprogrammed for performance.
I think people will still end up driving what they want, and can afford.
Physics doesn't say that trucks can't get 35 mpg. Physics says that trucks with the aero of a brick, engines with pitiful power-displacement ratios, and the footprint of a handicapped school bus can't get 35 mpg.
(we have asthma inhalers around this household, and I sort of like the idea of keeping the particulates down to a manageable level).
That said, I like the 35mph fleet idea more for the hope that I'll have more buying options that will still save me gas money. I'm too cheap to buy a car that doesn't get at least 20ish around town.
Well if the engineers at any of the auto manufacturers could do that, don't you think their company would want that design? If Chevy could make a truck with 35 mpg that had truck-capabilities don't you think that would give GM the whole market? and GM wouldn't do that?
Maybe you'd like to design that for them? You could probably make a few billion $'s!
Anyway, start with a Holden Ute, bring the drag coefficient down to 0.275, install the 6-speed 2-mode hybrid with a 0.5 overdrive, and debore the 2.9 V6 diesel in the Euro CTS down to 2.5L for the mileage bump.
The new GM hybrid is not going to be worth much as a towing vehicle. It gives up about 25% of the towing capability of the smaller engined versions. Fine for soccer moms, not so good if you want to tow much of a trailer. I am all for a smaller V6 diesel engine in an SUV. I do not need to have a 0-60 MPH under 7 seconds.
Also, the impending release of SAE towing standards is going to knock a lot of the puffery out of the current tow "ratings" anyway.
Since this is about the best of any car, are you suggesting the truck will have a similar body to a Corvette?
As for the rest, yes you will see more diesels in trucks (and cars), but I don't think that powertrain you're envisioning is going to work well in sub-zero weather, snowplowing, or pulling trailers uphills. You need an adequate engine in trucks, for those times when the hybrid batteries are depleted, or just several years old and not recharging fully (like new).
The 2.5L V6 diesel by itself would be something like 220 hp / 350 ft-lb at a nice, low rpm, plenty for a half-ton.
Why would GM's trucks have to get 35 mpg? This 35 mpg is a fleet average. Obviously the larger vehicles wouldn't meet this and the smaller vehicles would exceed it. The Chevy Tahoe with the two-mode hybrid system is rated at 22 mpg. That's EPA, which is not what the new CAFE numbers are based upon. I don't know what agency's ratings they are using but my understanding is that the numbers are at least 20% higher. So this Chevy Tahoe would be 26 mpg for CAFE purposes. I think that GM could sell quite a few of these and still achieve a 35 mpg fleet average.
This Chevy Tahoe can tow 6,000 lbs. I'm guessing that if you look at all Tahoe buyers those that need to tow more than that are a very small subset. 6,000 lbs is a pretty substantial amount.
It's also hilarious to see the big macho American male talk about how we can't function without behemoths that can "haul" and "tow". If you look at the percentage of trucks that EVER haul or tow anything, it would be like 5% I'm guessing. Manufacturers could keep building the monsters for those 5%, but the rest of us would figure out how to get the job done economically.
It was also interesting to see that Australia and New Zealand have no behemoth trucks either. Most passenger cars have bumper hitches on the rear, and when people need to haul something, they get out their trailers for that once a year haul. Most cars the size of an Accord can easily pull/haul their "caravans" (small RVs).
Face it... Americans have been buying big trucks and SUVs because they're the best value for the money, and there isn't anything else to pick from... not because they need to haul and tow. Even now I could go out and buy 20 full size trucks that cost less than my new Tacoma did, but I already know from experience that the Tacoma will cost me less to own because it gets better mileage and has better resale value.
Actually much of Europe (especially Italy) is functioning with scooters for transportation. It was hilarious to be sitting on a tour bus stuck in traffic, and watch them zip in and out of traffic while we went NOWHERE. And to answer the safety question... when vehicles can't go more than 30 MPH, it's easy for a scooter to get out of their way.
America is just way behind the learning curve. When low sulphur diesel gets here, you're going to see a new wave of smaller vehicles (already available and in use elsewhere in the world) being unloaded at our ports.
As soon as a diesel Tacoma (HILUX) gets here, I'll be first in line.
I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. I'll admit that I supported Bush in 2000. I'm a slow learner but 7 years later he's clearly established himself as an idiot. But in terms of CAFE I don't think he can be attacked. The previous, Clinton, administration certainly didn't do anything to increase CAFE despite the fact that this was the heyday of SUVs where the domestics were actually profitable. IMO, when Bush leaves office his administration will rightfully be criticized for it's foreign policy but when it comes to environmental issues I think they can legitimately claim to be no worse than their predecessors.
I know that. It was bumpy in Post 126 who was saying that the manufacturers could make trucks that got that. I was simply stating that if a company like Ford which is so heavily reliant on trucks and has a shrinking car base couldn't get to 35mpg. Say they're 80% F-series/Explorers and 20% cars.
If Ford decided to play games with their engines, or sell vehicles without engines, and refer you to a 3rd-party engine shop... There would be a lot of loopholes, just like the tax-code.
I drive a 1971 model Ford 3/4 ton truck with a 360cid gas V8, 4-speed stick, and a 4.10:1 rear axle. This engine consumes a lot of gas and a little oil. I average 14.3mpg in this truck and it does everything I ask it to. A new 3/4 ton truck with an equivalent powertrain (F250 Super Duty, 5.4/6-speed, 4.10 axle) would get about the same mileage. So there's no sense spending $25K to buy a new one. I'd rather keep mine in tune and do without a giant car payment.
However, a lot of these older truck owners are sick of getting low to mid teens for fuel mileage and some of them have gone out and bought used stepvans with 4-cylinder Cummins diesels in them to swap into their pickups. They can usually buy the old bread/snack vans for about the scrap value of the aluminum body. Then they've got a free engine to put in their truck. Most of these swapped trucks now acheive mid-20s for mileage and one guy with a half ton late 70s Chevy is boasting about 33-34 on the highway, even with a non-overdrive 3-speed automatic. 105hp but well over 200lbs torque, it's enough for a basic truck to get work done and even makes a better commuter than a small sedan with automatic (most are rated high 20s-low 30s).
When my truck's engine decides to use as much oil as gas, it'll come out and get replaced with a small diesel like the Cummins 4-cylinder. I could care less about horsepower and speed, and the torque is more than enough to push the 3900lb beast around the ranch and get me to town and back when I need to. A 5-speed transmission from a 90s Ford 3/4 ton would stretch the fuel money even more. And since I have to change out the fuel tank anyway, I can take the one out of the cab and just put two tanks under the bed, doubling my range and eliminating a fire hazard all in one step.
The most difficult parts of the conversion are splicing up the wiring harness and finding the right bellhousing adapter to whatever transmission you want to use. Most of these bread vans use a GM Turbo 400 automatic, which is great for say, a Suburban. But there are companies out there who can make a bellhousing for darn near any transmission out there. One guy has one of these diesels in an old Studebaker pickup and he got a bellhousing for his 3-speed manual for less than $500, brand new, freshly cast.
I'll shoot for that 35mpg mark when I build a half-ton pickup, but if I can average 25mpg with this setup in my 3/4 ton truck, I'll be plenty happy. If I manage it, my truck will get better mileage than my wife's Taurus!
But to his credit and for very valid reasons IMO this new CAFE 35 was a key part of his State of the Union Message this year. After the Senate passed it's version before the summer recess and the House began dragging it's feet so that it appeared that nothing would get done in 2007 the Bush Administration stated that if the House didn't get off their fat butts the Executive would instruct the NHTSA to impose something unilaterally. Legal? eh?
But it did light a fire in the House.
My only comment is that having owned an '00 ton 1/2 Silverado X-Cab, their curb-wt was 4,800 Lb. I believe most 3/4 ton would be breaking 5,000 Lb. So I just don't see anything less than 3.5 or 4.0 L diesels moving them; unless you have some really good turbo setup on them.
And if you go putting a lot of aluminum and carbon fiber on these trucks to reduce weight, and expensive engines, you'll simply drive the market away from buying new, and as I implied the aftermarket will explode with fixing up older trucks; or doing kit-trucks.
Just to let you know, I'm not trying to sell anything. I'm not affiliated with this product. I just want people to realize there is technology out there to help improve fuel efficiency today so the 35 mpg standard (for the entire fleet) is not as ridiculous as the auto manufacturers make it seem. We need to start looking at all aspects that affect fuel economy and not just engine design and vehicle size.
My '66 3/4-ton GMC clocks in at just over 5,000 with a full tank of gas and a 190 hp/ 300 ft-lb, 900-pound engine. Part of the problem is that a 1/2-ton today is getting pretty close to what a 3/4 ton was back in the old days.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/01/11/hunter.extreme.hybrid.cnn
-Rocky
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080114/FREE/394386099/1024/- FREE
Edit...I just noticed that this particular article does not mention the 2012 date. That must have been in a different article I read on Watanabe's speech.
One of the ways Toyota expects to meet the standards is with a so-called clean diesel engine (meaning 50-state compliant) for its large trucks including Tundra, Sequoia, and probably ultimately Land Cruiser too, I would think. They will offer diesel powertrains for those models within 2 years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I remain an interested skeptic on hybrids; that is, so far I have doubts about their overall benefits, including the manufacturing and disposal phases of the vehicle life cycle. However, I remain open to the possibility that future generations of hybrids will be more competitive, overall.
Ford's EcoBoost technology sounds promising.
PS
Latest someone posted here is Toyota is waffling on the Plug in Prius anytime before 2011.
It is almost always cheaper to keep an older vehicle on the road, if you don't drive too many miles per month.
I am getting tired of my 1998 Chevrolet K1500 with almost 100k miles but it is still running like new so I''ll keep it until it falls apart, which is unlikely since I maintain it properly.
WE, the buyers who refuse to put our money where it should be put, are the problem.
link title
What this proves is that if car companies REALLY, REALLY put their engineers to work and REALLY mandated to them that we wanted higher mileage vehicles with similar or better safety and performance, it CAN be done.
Questions remain: How much extra to they charge, and are WE the buying public willing to pay extra for it......................??????????????????
"As a result, the average light truck’s fuel economy
was about 30 percent lower than the average
car in 2002 (Figure ES-1). This translates into
nearly $3,200 more spent on gasoline over the
truck’s life, assuming a conservative gas price of
$1.40 per gallon"
Whoa! Gas as we know is WELL above $1.40/gallon. At $2.80/gallon, which is still lower than what it actually sells for today (and likely in the future), the average truck/SUV owner will spend $6400 more than the average car owner on gas over the car's life. That's a CHUNK of change....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)