Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
1 gallon of COLD FUSION=40 gallons of gasoline.
-Rocky
saying all CAFE has to do is raise the standards may be true. But in thirty years they have pretty much done zip and all of that they have done with the help of congress not the president. It doesn't matter which animal you support.
Points of agreement - the government isn't serious about reducing the amount of gas we use. They certainly are interested in looking like they are.
Indeed the CAFE numbers got stalled by Reagan. You have to realize that it is almost 20 years since Reagan has been president. Through 8 Democratic years and 10 Republican ones nothing has happened.
I do think that raising the standards would be helpful. Sure the folks that make the biggest cars will complain the loudest but better they know about predictable requirements than to have a sudden market disaster, such as the Saudi government falling, decide for you.
I would love to see serious tax breaks for individuals and families who do something concrete to reduce energy use. Years ago there were heavy tax credits for installing things like solar hot water. More recently you had the hybrid car credit, though it declined as individual manufacturers filled their quotas. I'd like to see more of this.
Are you seriously suggesting that we give up on the notion of R&D? What private firm do you have in mind to do this? Halliburton?
Look at what NASA did with the Apollo program. And despite the problems that the Shuttle has had, it's a technological triumph.
The problem is not technical execution but of leadership. If America can agree that this is important enough, we can do almost anything.
Government is lousy at coming up with solutions to problems.
And private enterprise is lousy at anything but lining the pockets at the top. This is nihilism at its worst.
Government can accomplish things, the question is what things and how. It comes down to leadership.
We would have diesel cars...
Diesel is fossil fuel and there's no long term future in that.
CAFE didn't create itself. And if you think its goal and settings are insufficient, you can change them. It's not the mechanism, it's the setting.
...Gore was part of the process.
LOL, cheap shot. Gore was a traditional VP, he 'let' Bill run the country, what a concept. Things have changed, but that's another topic.
Red bunting or Blue bunting...
We were talking about CAFE and whether it works and/or can work.
But in thirty years they have pretty much done zip...
If doing "zip" is the problem, then what would be the answer? Who are you arguing with?
I will admit to the fact that CAFE probably gave us the first generation of FWD disasters like the Citation but we learned from it and the descendants of those cars are far better and get much better mileage.
And after the 1992 election, President Clinton appointed the Secretary of Transportation. And there was a Congress controlled completely by Democrats (which lasted until the fall 1994 elections).
For the first two years of his term, President Clinton had the momentum of his electoral victory behind him. The Secretary of Transportation was his appointee. He had a Democratic Congress.
Still no CAFE increase...
Oh really? Here is an except from an April 24, 2007 article in The Detroit News:
Feinstein's bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by 16 senators, raises the fleet-wide average fuel economy for passenger cars and light trucks from 25 miles per gallon to 35 mpg by 2018. It will face amendments at the May 8 hearing.
The proposal is similar to what President Bush called for in January, when he said he wanted to reduce gasoline usage by 8.5 billion gallons, or 5 percent, a year by increasing fuel economy by an average of 4 percent annually beginning in September 2009 for passenger cars. The Bush proposal would result in a fleet-wide average of about 34 mpg, experts say. (emphasis added)
The key difference is Bush would leave it to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set the actual increases through a rulemaking process.
If the Bush proposal would result in a fleet-wide average of "about 34 mpg," and the current standard is set at 27.5 mpg, that sounds like he is supporting an increase to me.
If you have another interpretation that will prove incorrect that fact, please share it with us.
This is not about parties. It's about what we should do and what's possible under the current leadership.
Still no CAFE increase...
So, you think there should be one?
What fact, that he said something?
He also said he was a uniter, not a divider, that he didn;t believe in nation building and that the mission was accomplished.
Now, I have no intention of turning this topic into a political debate, but pretending that words and actions are synonomous bears rebuttal.
beginning in September 2009
I think Dubya will be focusing on golf by then, pretty easy to make claims about it.
The fact is that he has done virtually nothing to match those words, and plenty to bely them.
Now, getting back to the topic, to make CAFE "work" beyond its present terms would take some political will. I don't see any at the present. There will be some opportunity for change next year, we'll see.
Sorry, but when you (inaccurately) criticize the current administration of being against an increase in CAFE, and say that "elections" will solve the problem, most people would reasonably conclude that the suggestion is that one party is better than the other in this regard, given that most elections involve a choice between the two major parties (discounting Libertarians, Greens, etc.).
li_sailor: So, you think there should be one?
No, because higher gas prices are already driving people toward more fuel-efficient vehicles. SUV sales have been in the dumps since last year (check out the collapse in Explorer sales, despite a much-improved model; even Honda has had to offer incentives to move the Pilot).
A few months back, Car & Driver's Csaba Csere traced the history of the new vehicle fleet's fuel efficiency since CAFE was instituted, and noted that when gas prices rose, the fleet's efficiency gains outpaced those required by CAFE.
Given that it is highly unlikely that we will see drops in fuel prices, with increasing demand in India and China, we will see consumer demand moving in that direction without a CAFE increase.
But since both Bush and Congress appear to favor a CAFE increase, we will probably get one.
No, that he went on the record with a policy proposal.
li_sailor: He also said he was a uniter, not a divider, that he didn;t believe in nation building and that the mission was accomplished.
There is a considerable difference between campaign rhetoric and a policy proposal.
li_sailor: Now, I have no intention of turning this topic into a political debate, but pretending that words and actions are synonomous bears rebuttal.
And saying that the Administration is against a CAFE increase, and stating that it is "a fact," also bears an invitation to provide a rebuttal. Which I did.
Instead of dodging and weaving, what you need to say is, "At this point, it looks as though I am wrong" and, as they say, "move on."
Like grbeck I am doubtful about gas prices coming down but I still think that the manufacturers will not think beyond a one week drop and get their act together without being pushed.
If you think this administration is not against a significant increase in CAFE at the present time (not in 2009, when they will not be around), you're in fantasy land.
And I never said that elections would solve the problems, only that it was an opportunity. This discussion is not about politics.
No, because higher gas prices are already driving people toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.
But the overall efficiency of the fleet is not increasing, so what's the goal here? Some people are going there, others are going the other way.
...noted that when gas prices rose, the fleet's efficiency gains outpaced those required by CAFE.
I don't know of anyone that doesn't recognize that higher prices reduce consumption. Higher gas prices are certainly a possible alternative to CAFE, but there are disadvantages, many of which have been discussed here. And so far, over the long haul, it's not effective enough to increase overall efficiency.
...we will see consumer demand moving in that direction without a CAFE increase.
"moving in that direction" by what measure? Overall efficiency is not improving.
But since both Bush and Congress appear to favor a CAFE increase...
Did you notice that bridge for sale?
What did he accomplish all those years in Congress besides getting wealthy? Gore is a poor excuse as an example with his use of natural resources. Basically he is a demagogue that would like to control the country. If he cared about the environment he would be driving a hybrid bus around the country instead of a jet. A bus run on biodiesel would get him a lot more credibility than jetting across the country and living like a king with all the burning of fossil fuel to maintain his opulent lifestyle. He is a joke even to most in his own party.
You want a list??? I don't think that's on topic.
If he cared about the environment he would be driving a hybrid bus around the country instead of a jet.
Ah yes, time is overrated
A bus run on biodiesel would get him a lot more credibility...
Well, it depends on one's POV. If one is more interested in the merits of a particular set of proposals than in thepersonal details of the messenger, then the answer might be different.
I have news for you. Anyone in a position of high leadership in this country is going to have a vastly larger carbon footprint than the rest of us. It's unavoidable. Get over it.
He is a joke even to most in his own party.
Actually, surprisingly, not.
Not in my opinion. Why would you think that you are inferior to Al Gore or anyone else? Leaders should lead by example. He sets a horrible example. I am light years ahead of Al Gore in my environmental approach to living. As much as I disagree with Ralph Nader I would consider him a good example. Do you think Egore has ever been in a car that met the CAFE standard? It is pretty easy for me to live a life that is an environmentally sound example to my children. My whole family are far better citizens of the planet than the likes of Egore. Even Bush on his ranch probably does not live as wastefully as Mr. Gore. Your belief in an elite leadership is what is wrong in this country. No different than corporate leaders that are bringing this country down. In fact they pretty much look alike.
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
100 HP in a compact car can be very adequate, but add 3 more people, (probably fat people if they are related to me...) you will be driving with your right foot close to or on the floor just to keep up.
What I am saying is that maybe a smaller engine is useful most of the time, but having computer controlled enhancements would give the extra umph when needed.
This kind of thinking might not negate our need for fuel, or cafe regs, but maybe lighten the burden until a solution is found.
Just an idea.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Kind of the opposite of displacement on demand currently used.
Isn't the VW engine a diesel?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-Rocky
The twincharged engine appears this year in the States, but I forget which models. In Europe there is a twincharged GTI, but I think here they are going to keep the current turbo as the base engine. I bet there will be a twin-charged Rabbit eventually, as well as this new Scirocco and subcompact, if they bring those models over next year.
I just heard on the radio that the national average price of gas has just crested $3/gallon again, to remain high throughout spring and summer I imagine. I do think with or without a gas tax, and no matter what they do with CAFE, consumer pressure to have more fuel-efficient vehicle choices will do the job that the government and automakers won't. These gas prices are going to keep spiking year after year, and here in California, many expect the $4 gas to arrive in the next month or so.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So the 140 hp engine is the twincharger. I remember reading about it in a car mag. Looks like a good engine for small cars. I'd like to see something like it in a Malibu. I hope diesels get popular here as I think bio-diesel cars would be cool. Audi, still makes my all-time favorite diesel engine the 4.2 Twin Turbo V8. The diesel version is quicker than the gas and get's 35 mpg :surprise:
-Rocky
The twincharger gas makes 170 hp.
The new diesel makes 140 hp, and more than 200 lb-ft of torque.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-Rocky
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070505/AUTO01/705050363/1148- /rss25
These idiots are nuts thinking we all should drive AVEO's. :mad: :sick:
-Rocky
-Rocky
No CAFE increase will be immediate. It will take a few years to implement. If you don't know that, then you are either living in Fantasy Land, or are completely ignorant of how government works.
You also may want to check your calendar - 2009 is less than two calender years away, and the automakers can roll out 2010 models (which will be the first ones directly affect by the proposed increase) in less than two years. (New models can be introduced for the next model year in January.)
The simple fact is that you specifically said that the Bush Administration is opposed to increasing CAFE, I proved you incorrect by citing an article from a reputable source, and now you are trying to weasel out of your error by saying that because it the increase will not be "immediate," it doesn't count.
li_sailor: And I never said that elections would solve the problems, only that it was an opportunity. This discussion is not about politics.
A distinction without a difference. And if it's not about politics, then I'd suggest that you stop bashing Bush and the, indirectly, the Republicans.
li_sailor: But the overall efficiency of the fleet is not increasing, so what's the goal here? Some people are going there, others are going the other way.
But, if people shun gas guzzlers, and move toward more fuel efficient vehicles, the fuel efficiency of vehicles actually purchased does improve, as has been documented by Casba Csere of Car & Driver. And it improves faster than the the increases demanded by CAFE.
If you have research that contradicts his findings, please share it with us.
li_sailor: I don't know of anyone that doesn't recognize that higher prices reduce consumption. Higher gas prices are certainly a possible alternative to CAFE, but there are disadvantages, many of which have been discussed here.
Higher prices are coming, with their disadvantages, whether we like it or not, so consumption will be reduced, or at least moderated.
li_sailor: Did you notice that bridge for sale?
And did you notice the final paragraph an article, titled "Compromise Expected on Fuel Economy Bill," in the May 4, 2007 edition of The Detroit News? Here it is:
Requiring all automakers to average 35 mpg "would put one American auto company out of business," Levin said -- and he would mount a filibuster to stop it. He noted that Chrysler Group, with 70 percent of its sales in light trucks, "couldn't make it," under that standard.
The Bush Administration endorsed raising fuel economy standards by an average of 4 percent annually beginning in September 2009 for passenger cars and September 2011 for light trucks in order to reduce gasoline usage by 5 percent annually in 2017, or 8.5 billion gallons annually. (emphasis added)
You may find that reading The Detroit News on a regular basis would make you better informed on this subject, and help you to avoid errors of this sort in the future.
I guess some things really DON'T change. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ok, who said it, and then guess where it was said. (quote is from today's WSJ btw).
More CAFE news today - US Senate panel sets 35 mpg auto standard by 2020 (Reuters)
Trouble is that it looks like LTVs are the only vehicles US automakers can actually make that stuff from....oh, what's it called again??? Oh, yeah, a profit.
Sounds like CAFE could be around for another 20 years easily.
Who told you that one - the same person who said it's a fact that the Bush Administration is opposed to any increase in CAFE?
May I suggest that you find a new source of information?
If you think that this is merely a marketing problem, and CAFE will cure it, you really don't have a clue as to how this business works.
li_sailor: After all, how do you suppose CAFE actually works? The automakers have to change their marketing to match it.
Sure...if GM just changes its advertising and marketing programs, it will sell 400,000 Impalas with almost no rebates to retail customers, and Buicks will start selling to hip 40-somethings, and people will swap their Civics and Mazda3s for Cobalts.
And I guess the failure of the Aztek was all in the marketing. A few clever ads, and all of the trendy people would have snapped them up like hotcakes.
Poor GM - it didn't realize that the difference between failure and success is so easy!
Since it's that easy, I wonder why you don't journey to Detroit and share this wisdom with GM and Ford management.
li_sailor: See "SUV Ads and the Market They Created".
See, "People who don't understand how the auto market really works."
I think you misunderstood what I said, but I can't really tell. No, I don't think our problem of low vehicle efficiency is 'merely a marketing problem'. However, I believe that the marketing of SUVs has exacerbated it. And that's what I said. Hard to imagine that it didn't.
Since it's that easy...
I have no idea what you imagine is easy, or what relation that has to anything I said. Creating effective marketing is not easy, that's why those folks make big bucks.
My understanding is these new CAFE rules will be based on a vehicles weight/size. So while larger vehicles will have to improve their efficiency they will be allowed to get worse mileage than smaller vehicles, which will also have to improve their efficiency. This is just a horrible idea that could only be hatched in DC. It is highly likely that this approach will simply push people into larger vehicles. Pretty much defeating the purpose. Of course it still has all the problems of the current CAFE in that it doesn't encourage people to drive less, drive more conservatively, keep their cars maintained, etc.. I'm sure it will be very popular. I'm even more sure it will be 100% ineffective.
Well, that's certainly true, but of course, larger vehicles will (all else being equal) get worse mpg. That's a fact of life, which is what weight-based CAFE is recognizing.
It is highly likely that this approach will simply push people into larger vehicles.
Well, if they are driven by mpg, then the opposite will be true.
...it still has all the problems of the current CAFE in that it doesn't encourage people to drive less, drive more conservatively, keep their cars maintained...
That can't be a 'problem of CAFE' since it was never designed to do any of those things. It was designed to produce a more efficient fleet, which it has done.
I'm sure it will be very popular. I'm even more sure it will be 100% ineffective.
The devil is in the details, which we do not know and until then, it's pretty hard to evaluate.
I disagree. The purpose of CAFE was to reduce fuel/oil consumption. Improving the efficiency of the fleet was the simply the method for achieving this goal. If total consumption doesn't decrease then the method was ineffective. Anyone who acknowledges that consumption continued to increase but defend CAFE by saying it would be worse w/o it have set the bar pretty low in terms of what they consider a successful policy.
Well, if they are driven by mpg, then the opposite will be true.
The consumer is only going to be concerned with mpg if they are concerned with the price of gas. I think that the consumer who is currently satisfied with an Accord or Camry that gets 30 mpg might not feel the same when this car is mandated to get 33 mpg. I guess it all depends on how this increased efficiency is achieved. If the manufacturers really have this secret technology that they are witholding then maybe these increases can be achieved without the consumer making sacrifices. If not then these cars will become less appealing. If nothing else people will just choose to hold onto their existing vehicles longer.
No, actually, then, you agree because what I said is consistent with that. CAFE is, in fact, a method, not a goal.
total consumption doesn't decrease then the method was ineffective.
Nope. Method effective, goal not achieved. Consumption is out of the scope of CAFE. It has no mechanism for controlling miles driven, for example.
The consumer is only going to be concerned with mpg if they are concerned with the price of gas.
My turn to disagree. It depends on the consumer. Many consumers (the 'green' ones, to simplify) are interested in mpg for many reasons that are not economic. I am one of them, although economic reasons are also compelling.
I think that the consumer who is currently satisfied with an Accord or Camry that gets 30 mpg might not feel the same when this car is mandated to get 33 mpg.
I really don't know what this means. Somehow, the fact that a previously desired mpg was 'mandated' will make that mpg undesireable?
If the manufacturers really have this secret technology...
I don't think there's any secret about it. It's rather a question of motivation to employ it.