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

stever · March 2008

A diesel Caddy wagon for the UK market. The 180 hp unit comes in at 47.9 mpg. The author of the review considers that "decent."

Cadillac BLS Wagon (Crash.net)

wiseoldfart · March 2008

I didn't mention that the latest Consumer Reports issue was my source for actual average gas mileage figures.

I've known for quite a while that the Prius is king around town, but not king of the highway. It's the city gas mileage that puts the Prius on top among vehicles still in production. If I correctly remember the real world figures I saw last year, the Honda Insight, no longer in production, is king of the highway. It isn't very practical, however.

The new VW Bluetec TDI models should get very good actual "oil" mileage. I'm not big on even the latest diesel tech and believe it won't matter what an engine burns in a hybrid vehicle when we reach a point at which the battery pack does most of the work. Since hybrid electric motors can produce a lot of bottom end torque, I don't see an advantage in using a heavier diesel engine to basically recharge a battery pack. Heavy commercial vehicles will benefit more from diesel tech advances.

kernick · March 2008

With the elimination of these heavy, space-hogging items, there's more room for battery packs and their weight can be distributed more evenly.

You should check your ideas. The Tesla which can only seat 2, has about 1,000 Lb of the "better" lithium-ion batteries in it to achieve its decent range. It still needs motors to turn the wheels also, or else it will just sit there!

... 300+ mpg on a recharge and others promising an 80% recharge within 5 minutes, fully electric vehicles may be a common sight before 2020.

In order to move that amount of electricity, what is the calculation for what Voltage and Amperage would be needed to recharge in that time? It sounds impractical. The Tesla takes several hours and I'm sure that's a thick cord.

Where will the additional electricity come from? Solar cells, windmills, and hydrogen fuel cells should be the primary sources.

Since there are technological and political issues with having solar and wind now why do you think this would change so quickly. Why wouldn't the power plants simply burn coal to produce electricity? The increased demand for electricity in this country for residential use, just from normal growth, will not leave any extra for powering a large number of vehicles.

stever · March 2008

Make that 48 mpg in Imperial gallons.

More like 40 mpg in our gallons. Not quite as decent.

(thanks Bumpy)

93gmcdrivermn · March 2008

I for one can not believe how people have lost sight of what made this country in just 200+ short years. The most prosperous and powerfull country on the face of this earth. Our free market economy, build what the people want got us where we are today! Not a chosen few telling us what to think, where to live, what to drive or what this so called global warming is going to do to the planet in 50 years. That i might add is a bunch of liberal hype that will only weaken this country! Empowering our enemys to do more damage to this country then 100' 9/11's. Theres people that want to drive a little eco piece of crap, then build it and let them! Theres people that want to drive a car or truck that gets only 20mpg then let them pay for it! Seems to me our Govmt (congress) needs to worry about the big picture. Stop worrying about Mr.Bonds taking roids or how to tell the enemy when were pulling our troops to surrender. Now that to me is even more assinine then this cafe crap! 'Free Market Economy' build what people want, its worked for over 200 years!

grbeck · March 2008

bpizzuti: You want history, I point you to Preston Tucker, who dared to plan on making a car with seatbelts and other safety features...and was then railroaded by the entire auto industry for fear that the market would force them to do the same thing if they realized such things could be made available to the consumers.

Sometimes business is very afraid of the free market, and works very hard to avoid its effects. The car industry has a history of doing so. Hence they got themselves regulated instead.

If Tucker was railroaded by anyone, it was the federal government, which prosecuted his case.

The roots of the Tucker case began when ship builder Henry J. Kaiser showed his prototype Kaiser vehicle to potential investors. That car had front-wheel-drive and other new features. The production models were completely conventional in their mechanical layout. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was upset, but Henry J. Kaiser was, in some ways, the Lee Iacocca of his day, so he was able to get away with it. But Preston Tucker was not...

The Tucker was an interesting car, but Tucker gave no solid proof that he had any way of making all of the new features in his dream feasible for mass production, let alone at a price most people were willing to pay. The auto industry wasn't "afraid" of Tucker in those years...the established players were too busy trying to build whatever vehicles they could (despite material shortages, inflation and strikes), and then sell them to a public ready to buy almost anything on wheels. Preston Tucker and his car were the least of their worries...

If anything, Henry J. Kaiser was a bigger threat, as he had manufacturing experience (he mass produced Liberty Ships during World War II), he was virtually a household name, and was able to raise sufficient capital to get a start in the business. But even then, he had to build a completely conventional car with an engine sourced from an outside supplier. Which makes one wonder just how feasible Tucker's dream car really was for mass production at competitive prices.

stickguy · March 2008

another article (this one IIRC in Automobile magazine) aobut plants springing up to put cellulose conversion technology (turn your garbage into ethenol!), on a large scale.

Of course, there are infrastructure issues (pipelines, etc.) and conversion issues, but it is a step in the right direction.

Even better will be technology to end up with diesel fuel.

That is why the doom and gloom about running out of oil (and life as we know it) was misleading. There has long been alternate technology for replacing much of the oil we use, it just hasn't been cost effective.

Well, $100/barrell crude is going to get every idea out in th eopen!

kdhspyder · March 2008

For the 4th time in this thread alone... It's not the Dem-Lib Congress that you should be complaining about. It's the Rep-Cons Presidency that made the decision to impose a stiffer CAFE. Congress just did what it was told to do. The President of the USofA wants drivers out of their SUVs, or at least driving more efficient ones.

You might want to read the newspapers.

So ask yourself, 'Why is it that my Conservative Republican President wants me to park my SUV or truck?'

kdhspyder · March 2008

Tourist in Orlando robbed...for gas money.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

http://www.local6.com/news/15470469/detail.html

british_rover · March 2008

blah blabh blabh political bunk babh babh you don't know what you are talking about bah babh ablhb

Please go spew junk in another thread this is not about politics.

gagrice · March 2008

CAFE is about politics. Bad government policy.Total waste of taxpayers money etc etc

Will have little or no affect on the cars we will drive in 2020.

stickguy · March 2008

The govt often takes the hard way with these things. It has been proven that it doesn't work that well telling producers what to make, if it isn't what buyers want. And the Gov't isn't particularly good at design work.

If they really want buyers to purchase more fuel efficient cars, the simply answer is to raise the gas tax (and dedicate the money to infrastructure repair).

Once gas hits a certain point ($4?), and people know that it ain't never coming down, then they will start demanding, and buying, more fuel efficient cars, where possible.

And they seem to be ignoring the other side of the equation. Drive yes, use less gas, no matter what mileage you get. And CAFE isn't going to change anyones driving habits.

But, politicians don't have the spine to make decisions like this, that might be in the best LT interest of the country, since it might cost them some votes in the next election.

And, knowing that gas prices are going to stay up, researchers will push ahead with alternative fuel options. The Gov't can even encourage that if they want (like in Europe with the Diesel being cheaper.)

stever · March 2008

Once gas hits a certain point ($4?), and people know that it ain't never coming down, then they will start demanding, and buying, more fuel efficient cars, where possible.

Already seems to be happening except for Honda's trucks. Ford, GM And Toyota All Sell Fewer Cars In February (CNN)

"Auto makers got hit where it hurts in February, with U.S. sales of their most profitable vehicles  trucks, sport utilities and large sedans  plunging as consumers reacted to high gasoline prices and the possibility of a recession." Globe and Mail

bpizzuti · March 2008

"Which makes one wonder just how feasible Tucker's dream car really was for mass production at competitive prices."

Which completely ignores the fact that he did indeed start to build them (in fact built 50 of them) before a court (heavily pushed for and by Michigan congresscritters) pulled the plug on the whole thing.

You know, business is so afraid of dealing with a free market sometimes that we have to have laws and regulations to ensure that we continue to have one, including anti-monopoly rules. Food for thought there..you'd think if a free market could work in it's ideal state then there wouldn't have to be any regulation, would there? I just find that funny in some ways.

Anyway, there's plenty of other examples, including the breaking up of Ma Bell, and the necessity of hounding Microsoft. Fact is, the government is (theoretically at least) the voice of the people (that would include the consumers). If businesses don't listen to the consumers, then they'll have to listen to the elected representatives of those consumers, won't they? The elected representatives of the consumers have set up these new CAFE regulations because apparently the car companies have not been responsive enough to consumer demands in this area.

However, given the amount of brainpower available in the world, especially the USA, I have no doubt that car companies will be able to meet the expectations...now that they don't have a whole lot of choice in the matter, anyway. Given the choice, they probably would have taken the easier road of investing as little as possible into research.

kdhspyder · March 2008

CAFE is about politics. Bad government policy.Total waste of taxpayers money etc etc

Will have little or no affect on the cars we will drive in 2020.

Sorry that's mathematically impossible. What you said was that in 2020 the national vehicle fleet will be getting 35 mpg according to the new regs but the vehicles we drive will still be getting the same fuel economy as today...

Sequoia 14-18
Camry/Malibu/Accord/Sonata 21-31
Prius 48-45
etc, etc.

That can't happen, it's impossible.

kdhspyder · March 2008

The govt often takes the hard way with these things. It has been proven that it doesn't work that well telling producers what to make, if it isn't what buyers want. And the Gov't isn't particularly good at design work.

If they really want buyers to purchase more fuel efficient cars, the simply answer is to raise the gas tax (and dedicate the money to infrastructure repair).

Once gas hits a certain point ($4?), and people know that it ain't never coming down, then they will start demanding, and buying, more fuel efficient cars, where possible.

And they seem to be ignoring the other side of the equation. Drive yes, use less gas, no matter what mileage you get. And CAFE isn't going to change anyones driving habits.

But, politicians don't have the spine to make decisions like this, that might be in the best LT interest of the country, since it might cost them some votes in the next election.

And, knowing that gas prices are going to stay up, researchers will push ahead with alternative fuel options. The Gov't can even encourage that if they want (like in Europe with the Diesel being cheaper.)

You've missed the whole point of CAFE.

It has nothing to do with changing people's buying patterns. It has nothing to do with any enviromental concept. It only has to do with the vehicles themselves. It is not intended to force you or anyone else into driving anything that you don't want to drive. Aren't you glad that misconception was clarified?

Well, you won't be able to buy an 18 mpg vehicle which uses petro-fuel at that time but other than that you can drive whatever you want. But as you correctly stated the market will push us toward more efficient vehicles anyway. If fuel is $8 or $10 a gallon by that time you may very well be demanding that the vehicle makers give you a 50 mpg sedan as your daily driver.

BTW you don't want a gas tax. Have you considered what the effect of such a tax will be? on you? on the economy? To be effective it has to inflict pain in order to make us change our behavior. How much pain would you like? $2 per gallon? $3? $6 like in Europe? This of course will be on top of $6 or $8 a gallon 'market price' of fuel. Are you eager to pay $10 or $12 or $14 a gallon? Yikes.

So do you really want to pay $12 a gallon for fuel such that it will cost you ( drum roll ) ...$180 per fillup for 15 gal.? Think about what it is you are asking the government to do to you.

gagrice · March 2008

That is not close to what I said. I said that the CAFE regs will have nothing to do with what we are driving. It will be based on what people want and can afford. Vehicles may or may not be getting 35 MPG. The CAFE standard today is 27 MPG and I am driving a brand new vehicle that is lucky to get 15. So now tell me how the CAFE standards have helped. If not for CA and their vendetta against diesel vehicles, my Sequoia would probably be a diesel getting 27MPG. You forget that the states are always doing battle with the Feds on vehicle regulations.

gagrice · March 2008

So do you really want to pay $12 a gallon for fuel such that it will cost you ( drum roll ) ...$180 per fillup for 15 gal.? Think about what it is you are asking the government to do to you.

That would be a bargain compared to the propane bill I just got for one month. $480 per month to heat my home in CA. I spent less than $100 on gas during that month. Lots of things more important than gas for vehicles can and will cost more in the coming months. Are you ready for it?

andre1969 · March 2008

Sequoia 14-18
Camry/Malibu/Accord/Sonata 21-31
Prius 48-45
etc, etc.

That can't happen, it's impossible.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that those aren't the numbers they're using to come up with that 35 mpg average. Those are the dumbed-down for 2008 EPA numbers, which are lower. A car that's rated 21-31 by 2008 standards was probably rated around 24/34 by the 1985-2004 standards, and probably something like 27/42 using the old 1978-84 standards, which would probably have given an average number of around 34-35. They don't just split the city/hghway estimate down the middle and get the average number, though. I think they weight it something like 55% city/45% highway. And the number they use for CAFE ratings is very close to this number.

So, at a combined average of around 34-35 mpg, cars ike the Malibu, Camry, Accord, etc are already there! As for the Prius? Once you un-do all the mathematical formulas they used to get its 2008 EPA ratings down to 48/45, I'd imagine the number they use for CAFE purposes is probably over 60 mpg. And even that thirsty Sequoia, at 14-18 mpg, probably would have gotten around 16/21 under the old 1985-2007 formula, and more like 18/24 with the older numbers. I imagine the mpg they use for CAFE scoring is around 20-21 mpg. Still pretty low when a 35 mpg average is the goal for your entire fleet, but not as dismal as the EPA estimates would lead you to believe.

kernick · March 2008

That would be a bargain compared to the propane bill I just got for one month. $480 per month to heat my home in CA.

As high as you think that is ... that's cheap compared to what many people in the North are paying for heating oil and propane. At $3.50/gal for oil and using about 250 gal/month when the temp. range each day is 0 - 30F, you can go thru a tank (200+ gal) every 3-4 weeks.

You are right that gasoline costs are secondary to heating-costs for most people. People would be better off figuring out how to conserve heat, or go to wood-burning. Most wood stoves will also burn coal. I work with 1 guy who recently decided to mostly use coal to heat his house. The demand for coal is increasing, and now there are several dealers in the area. I remember as a kid, the coal-truck coming to my neighbors' houses. Living in anthracite country of PA, coal was pretty easy to get.

BTW: I'm pulling the trigger on a new vehicle today. Nothing too big, nothing too small; with Ok mpg (at least when I drive it) - a Mazdaspeed 6 (2.3 liter direct injection turbo). I plan on keeping it 10 years or so if it doesn't give me any trouble.

grbeck · March 2008

bpizzuti: Which completely ignores the fact that he did indeed start to build them (in fact built 50 of them) before a court (heavily pushed for and by Michigan congresscritters) pulled the plug on the whole thing.

He built 50 of them sourcing parts from various sources. That does not constitute mass production, and it does not constitute proof that he could have made those features work while in the hands of buyers who would have used and abused the cars. Unless he was planning to go after the ultra-expensive, handbuilt market (which barely existed in the late 1940s), in which case he wouldn't have been a threat to anyone.

Nor does it constitute proof that he would have made money building his car in large quantities at a price that people were willing to pay.

Virtually anyone could make 50 cars in those heady postwar days - research the history of the Davis and Playboy, for example.

Production of 50 cars, in and of itself, means nothing. For that matter, those 50 cars were not really "produced" in the sense of mass production. They were virtually handbuilt.

If Tucker was such a threat, then why didn't those Michigan "congresscritters" try to shut down Henry J. Kaiser, who was well known, had manufacturing experience and was in production with his car by 1947? He was much more of a threat to Detroit than Preston Tucker.

Tucker was investigated because government - led by that well-known right winger, President Harry Truman - was concerned about fly-by-night promoters swindling people out of their money.

Conspiracy theories can be fun, and they make for entertaining movies, but they tend to melt away when exposed to the facts. It's not a good idea to learn "history" from Francis Ford Coppola movies.

bpizzuti: Anyway, there's plenty of other examples, including the breaking up of Ma Bell, and the necessity of hounding Microsoft. Fact is, the government is (theoretically at least) the voice of the people (that would include the consumers).

You are mixing apples and oranges. Increasing CAFE does not address the dominance of market share by any one company. The only way that CAFE affects competition is that it tends to REDUCE it, because only those companies that can afford to meet the regulations will be able to compete.

If you want more competition in the domestic new vehicle market, you would not be advocating increased CAFE standards.

bpizzuti: If businesses don't listen to the consumers, then they'll have to listen to the elected representatives of those consumers, won't they?

The only consumer who matters is the one who buys a new vehicle, and until recently, they wanted more power, room and comfort. There is no proof whatseover that auto makers were not listening to consumers. There is a wider variety of vehicles avialable today than at any time in our history.

People can carp all day about the choices of others, but unless they are making their car payments, they should really mind their own business.

Throughout the 1990s and the early years of the 21st century, fuel economy was not a priority. This has changed since the fall of 2005, and companies are now responding. There is no proof whatsoever that the free market is not working.

bpizzuti: The elected representatives of the consumers have set up these new CAFE regulations because apparently the car companies have not been responsive enough to consumer demands in this area.

Companies have been listening to customers, as I've shown. Customers wanted power, room and comfort, and companies built vehicles that met those desires. Now fuel economy is more of a concern, and companies are scrambling to build those vehicles.

The problem is that some people - apparently including you - don't like their choice of vehicles (see all the whining about SUVs, for example). If some people want to buy less efficient vehicles, that is their business, unless you and other consumers are forking over money to pay for their vehicle.

grbeck · March 2008

First you say this: It has nothing to do with changing people's buying patterns. It has nothing to do with any enviromental concept. It only has to do with the vehicles themselves. It is not intended to force you or anyone else into driving anything that you don't want to drive. Aren't you glad that misconception was clarified?

Then, in the very next paragraph, you contradict yourself by saying this:

Well, you won't be able to buy an 18 mpg vehicle which uses petro-fuel at that time but other than that you can drive whatever you want.

Perhaps a fair number of people will want that type of vehicle, and can afford it. If so, that is nobody else's business. If no one can afford them, then no one will buy them, and thus automakers won't build them, regardless of any increase in CAFE.

kdhspyder: If fuel is $8 or $10 a gallon by that time you may very well be demanding that the vehicle makers give you a 50 mpg sedan as your daily driver.

Which is exactly what we have been saying...so why increase CAFE? This is the free market in action...it does work.

Do you really think that automakers are stupid enough to continue relying on 18-mpg SUVs when gas prices are continually rising? Virtually all of our vehicles were designed and engineered in an era of falling gasoline prices and rising incomes. Those vehicles reflect the consumer desires and priorities that naturally come to the fore in such an era. Now this is changing, and the automakers are scrambling to change their vehicles, all without an increase in CAFE.

gagrice · March 2008

I know my heat is cheap compared to folks in cold country. I was paying over $500 per month in Alaska back in 1990. Wood is equally as expensive to burn here in CA. Wood and coal are also more polluting for those in the area. For those that worry so much about getting the last iota of pollution out of a car then go and light a log on their fireplace. I am surprised the government has never poked their fat nose into what people burn to keep warm in the winter.

93gmcdrivermn · March 2008

I believe the only reason our President made such a law. Was to throw Pelosi and the pukes a bone to shut there pie holes and get something done! He will not be in the white house in 2020 now will he. Also' i do not read nor waist my time on the liberal bias media. So no i guess i dont read the paper of your choice? The real culprit for this law is not really the one who en-acted it, the way i see it. There is no way of knowing if this law will be in effect in its present form or even a law in 5 years? 2020 is a long way off my friend, much can happin in 12 years. This law can also open a pretty big can of worms because it touches a wide range of subjects not just motor vehicles! Everythings fair game in love & war, unless ones a Liberal then correctness and foolish laws apply.

kdhspyder · March 2008

That is not close to what I said. I said that the CAFE regs will have nothing to do with what we are driving. It will be based on what people want and can afford. Vehicles may or may not be getting 35 MPG. The CAFE standard today is 27 MPG and I am driving a brand new vehicle that is lucky to get 15. So now tell me how the CAFE standards have helped. If not for CA and their vendetta against diesel vehicles, my Sequoia would probably be a diesel getting 27MPG. You forget that the states are always doing battle with the Feds on vehicle regulations.

Well today there are actually two CAFE standards, cars are at 27.5 mpg ( NHTSA ) and trucks like your Sequoia are at 22 mpg ( NHTSA ). Your Sequoia falls in the lower range of the trucks at about 19-20 ( NHTSA ) regardless of the real world results. In 12 years your same Sequoia, presuming it isn't exempted by then for using bio-fuel-only, will likely be a diesel getting 28-29 mpg ( NHTSA ); i.e. a 30% improvement.

Today according to NHTSA testing a Sequoia driver like you going 15000 miles annually would use 750 gallons ( 15000/20 ).
12 years from now your new diesel Sequoia getting 28 mpg and going 15000 miles would use 535 gallons ( 15000 / 28 ).

'OK', you say 'that's theory only because the NHTSA tests are bogus and 30 yrs out-od-date, I really only get 15 mpg in my 2007 Sequoia'. I agree. In the real world if you drive 15000 miles annually in 2008 @ 15 mpg you'll buy about 1000 gallons.

In 12 years though your new diesel Sequoia will still be getting 30% better fuel economy than your current gasser so your 'real world' number will be about 21 mpg. That means that for your future vehicle you will only have to buy about 715 gallons to go 15000 miles in 2020.

The math is inviolate. If you drive the same amount with a more efficient vehicle you have to use less fuel.

kdhspyder · March 2008

Your President suddenly began drinking Al Gore's cool-aid and is now trying to make Nancy Pelosi happy. Do you realize how stupid you're making yourself appear?

Since you have no clue as to why the President proposed this law why don't you try to do some research first. Start with the White House website. It's all there.

andre1969 · March 2008

As high as you think that is ... that's cheap compared to what many people in the North are paying for heating oil and propane. At $3.50/gal for oil and using about 250 gal/month when the temp. range each day is 0 - 30F, you can go thru a tank (200+ gal) every 3-4 weeks.

Yep, that price is about right. My oil contract is locked in at market price with a $3.559 per gallon cap. They came out and filled up my tank on January 7, and the price was...you guessed it...$3.559/gallon! Then they tack on other fees and junk, so it's more like $3.71 per gallon.

Luckily, I'm just in Maryland, unlike the true North, where the winters can get pretty brutal. And this seems like it's been a relatively mild winter for us. I usually go through about 500 gallons per year. I did a little insulating and weatherstripping this year to help cut down on drafts as well. So now the house feels more comfortable with the thermostat set on 68 than it used to at 72-73, before I insulated.

Still, it's amazing how fast the prices can shoot up. 4 years ago I was paying $1.19 per gallon, plus the various fees. So it's shot up roughly 3x since then. And where it will go is anybody's guess.

kdhspyder · March 2008

Obviously I knew that there was a contradiction in the two statements that's why I separated them..to make a very specific point

Why would you want to drive an 18 mpg truck for example that uses 55 gal per 1000 miles when in 2020 you will be 'forced' to drive a similar truck that unfortunately gets 26 mpg and uses only 38 gal per 1000 miles. Do you hate money so much that you'd want to drive the less efficient vehicle?

Which is exactly what we have been saying...so why increase CAFE? This is the free market in action...it does work.

I agree wholeheartedly about the market being the driving force in changing our behavior patterns. This is exactly the point I was making, CAFE has nothing to do with changing our buying pattern. But what you're missing is.. what will be our choices when we do change our patterns?

Let's hypothesize that fuel has ratcheded up to $8 per gallon by 2020 and that in the absence of CAFE 35 nothing has changed in the intervening 12 years as regards to fuel economy. Todays 18 mpg gasser trucks are still being offered as 18 mpg gassers. At that time if one is tired of paying $8 x 25 for a fillup on a 12 y.o. truck, without specific pressure on the vehicle makers to meet a new FE standard then IMO ( admittedly ) one's choices will still be 18 mpg gasser trucks.

Wanting to save fuel, that driver would have to move down to an auto or a small 4c truck ( the market for the price of fuel has changed his buying pattern ). But at which autos will he be looking? Without pressure to make more efficient vehicles his choices will be the same in 2020 as they are today as they were in 1998 as they were in 1992; i.e. 30 mpg midsizers and 35 mpg compacts.

Here is the key point: CAFE 35 makes it certain that the 2020 buyer that's reacting to market forces which are changing his buying pattern will have the following new vehicle choices....
..a 28 mpg truck ( to replace his 18 mpg truck )
..a 35 mpg crossover ( iso a 23 mpg vehicle today )
..a 40 mpg midsizer ( iso a 30 mpg vehicle today )
..a 50 mpg compact ( iso a 35 mpg vehicle today )
..a 60+ mpg ultra efficient ( iso a 45 mpg vehicle today )

The whole range of vehicles being offered in 2020 will be significantly better in fuel economy than today's models. The math ensures it. The fact that it's a national regulation doubly ensures it. It's not being left to the good will and generosity of the corporate bean counters and planners.

One option, for which I'd be fully in favor, would be to mandate that all trucks and SUVs that use only US-made bio-fuels are exempt from any CAFE restrictions. If a buyer wants to drive an 18 mpg vehicle and use our national product and spend $8 x 25 for a fillup I have no problem with that personal choice.

kdhspyder · March 2008

Do you really think that automakers are stupid enough to continue relying on 18-mpg SUVs when gas prices are continually rising? Virtually all of our vehicles were designed and engineered in an era of falling gasoline prices and rising incomes. Those vehicles reflect the consumer desires and priorities that naturally come to the fore in such an era. Now this is changing, and the automakers are scrambling to change their vehicles, all without an increase in CAFE.

I don't disagree here except that by past performance the vehicle makers are not paradigms of foresight, good planning and concern for the national welfare. They are primarily concerned with their own ( shortterm ) welfare. Unfortunately.

Now in fairness there are certainly movements all around us to meet the new national interest in fuel economy. I don't think these are terminally ignorant men running Billion$ corporations. But I do still see well-entrenched behaviors that want to keep the status quo and damn the rest. Those have to be crushed and broken down. CAFE 35 will ensure no backsliding.

bumpy · March 2008

Why would you want to drive an 18 mpg truck for example that uses 55 gal per 1000 miles when in 2020 you will be 'forced' to drive a similar truck that unfortunately gets 26 mpg and uses only 38 gal per 1000 miles.

Well, my truck might crack 10 mpg going downhill with a tailwind but I wouldn't trade it for a truck that got 100 mpg. There are some nonmonetary reasons for preferring the old monster over the increasingly useless poofter trucks available today.

gagrice · March 2008

There are some nonmonetary reasons for preferring the old monster over the increasingly useless poofter trucks available today.

The sad part is your old truck will probably still be plugging along when most of the trucks sold today will be crumple zoned into the recycle bin. My neighbor has a beautiful early 1980s Ford 3/4 ton with a diesel. It runs like a charm. He would not trade it for a brand new Ford. I don't blame him. Most of the trucks today are just plain ugly. He can buy a lot of diesel with that payment money each month. And when it breaks it will not cost him a fortune to repair like the newer models.

andre1969 · March 2008

The sad part is your old truck will probably still be plugging along when most of the trucks sold today will be crumple zoned into the recycle bin. My neighbor has a beautiful early 1980s Ford 3/4 ton with a diesel. It runs like a charm. He would not trade it for a brand new Ford. I don't blame him.

I'm the same way with my '85 Silverado. It's just a half-ton truck with a 305, but it's adequate for most of what I've needed it for. Mileage is pretty bad, maybe 10-12 around town, 14-16 on the highway. 18 if I get a good, long highway run and really old-lady it. But still, what kind of economy would a new half-ton truck get, with a base V-8? Maybe 14-16 around town, and 20-22 on the highway? Now that would be a pretty substantial improvement, IF I did a lot of driving. But I don't. I doubt if my truck has gone 4,000 miles in the past year, and I don't see that rate changing anytime soon.

Even if gas went to $4 or $5 per gallon, what I'd save on a monthly payment for a new truck could buy me a lot of fuel!

stickguy · March 2008

I did soem quick calculations to see what the new higher gas prices really mean to me.

My Accord averages ~25mpg, and i do ~10K a year. So, 400 gallons.

If gas goes from $2.50 a gallon to $4 gal (aka "the end of the world as we know it"), I spend an extra $600 a year, or $50/month ($12/week?) You get the idea. I would rather not pay it, but it isn't going to break me.

Of course, if you are driving an H2 at 16mpg and driving 18K a year, your cost differential will be higher!

Which reminds me of the often overlooked point. You get the same effect just driving less as you do getting better mileage but driving the same amount.

avalon02wh · March 2008

"Will have little or no affect on the cars we will drive in 2020."

The 35 MPG law will help change the cars we drive. Already we are seeing announcements like this: "Teijin Ltd. and Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. each plan to begin mass production of carbon fiber automotive parts around 2010 to meet growing demand from automakers hoping to reduce the weight of their vehicles." (Green Car Congress). We should see a lot of carbon fiber in some of the luxury models as car makers try to keep performance up and still improve mpg. A few years later the technology will become more widespread. We probably have 3 full car cycles before 2020 (design/build).

The 2020 date should have been 2015. Gas prices are going to force people into smaller cars sooner rather than later. People are already having trouble at $3 a gallon when you add in all the other prices increases. What happens at $4 or $5 a gallon? The you-know-what is hitting the fan as we speak.

"The entire U.S. auto industry got hammered by a tough economy in February, but Detroit's Big Three automakers bore the brunt of the sales downturn as consumers shunned big trucks and SUVs or avoided showrooms altogether." (The Detroit News) You will note that Honda is doing real well, their higher fleet average mpg is helping them. In a few more years they may move past Chrysler.

kyfdx · March 2008

Our family... 100 gallons per month, more or less.. If it goes up to $4/gallon, that's another $100/mo...

That's on top of the extra $100/mo. we are paying when it went from $2/gal. to $3/gal..

So, if it does hit $4/gal. this year, that's $200/mo. more in just two years.. I can lease a Subaru for that amount of money.. :surprise:

I don't obsess over gas mileage... but, it will sure play a role in whatever car we get next... We both average around 23 MPG... Moving down from that number would be a hard thing to do.. (and.. my wife wants an SUV..).

Test drove a MINI Clubman, last week... 26/34 for the S model, 28/37 for the base model... Not bad..

stickguy · March 2008

I already told the wife that if the Odyssey goes, her next car is going to be a lot smaller, and better mileage. Or at least somewhat smaller, and a little better mileage!

I was think before that the time is right to recreate the original Odyssey. Maybe the smaller JDM model?

Chop a foot+ out of it, make it a couple of inches narrower, drop 800+ pounds (get it down into the 3,500# range) and make it with the Accord 4 cyl. It should be plenty big for most use (interior will be similar to a Pilot), and with the 4, it likely won't be the gas hog the big Ody is. Maybe even make a manual version!

And yes, I know that I pretty much just designed an Accord highboy wagon, but that pretty much was what the original model was.

I could give up a little power (but probably not any performance) if I could get mileage around 21/30 instead of the 15/24 I get now.

Or I could always get a Kia Rhondo!

The Clubman would be fine if we didn't have the kids.

Heck, I could make a Jetta wagon work as the family truckster, as long as it has a roof rack for the racksack, and I can convince my wife to pack lighter!

nippononly · March 2008

the Camry "Venza" that is going on sale later this year - a Camry highboy wagon (more of a hatch though - steeply slanted rear hatch) with the 4-cylinder engine, should rate around 21/30, about the same as the Camry 4-cyl sedan. Should also get better mileage than the 4-cylinder Highlander available in the previous generation. Good thing too.

stickguy · March 2008

I saw a picture of that recently, but didn't realize that it was going to be a 4 cyl.

At this point, a RAV4 FWD would work too.

kdhspyder · March 2008

That's exactly the profile and demographic Toyota described when announcing the Venza for the Fall.

hpmctorque · March 2008

"Test drove a MINI Clubman, last week... 26/34 for the S model, 28/37 for the base model... Not bad"

Not bad, but not great, either,, especially when you consider it requires premium, or premium is recommended (don't know which one, but it might not matter much if using regular results in lower mpg). The base model MINI should have been designed/tuned to run on regular, in my opinion. That said, I think the Clubman, while relatively expensive new, is a neat fashion statement that will age well. I can picture it at a classic car show in 2038 and beyond.

andre1969 · March 2008

I just ran some quick calculations too. My pickup went about 4,000 miles over the past year. Let's be pessimistic and say it averages 12 mpg overall. That's 333 gallons per year. Last time I filled up, I put premium in, at around $3.38 per gallon. It'll get clattery on 87 octane, and sometimes even on 89. Well, if gas shot up another buck a gallon, putting premium at $4.38, it would cost me another $333 per year. Or $27.75 per month. Or $6.40 per week.

Like you, I'd much rather not pay it, but it's not going to put me in the poor house.

Now if I wanted to go really extreme and buy a Prius, let's say I averaged 60 mpg on 87 octane at $4.10 per gallon for those 4,000 miles, versus 12 mpg with my truck on 93 octane at $4.40 per gallon. The fuel bill for the truck would come out to $1465, compared to $271 for the Prius. So the Prius, which I'm sure would set me back an easy $20K+ to purchase, would save me about $100 per month. And then I'd have to go rent or borrow a truck every time I needed one.

gagrice · March 2008

So the Prius, which I'm sure would set me back an easy $20K+ to purchase, would save me about $100 per month.

And if you finance you have a payment of $350 per month giving you a net loss of $250 per month. So when gas gets to $12+ per gallon the Prius would be a logical choice. Of course you still have to have the truck because you are spending many hours per week hauling wood to heat your home as fuel oil for the furnace will also be $12 per gallon.

hpmctorque · March 2008

" So the Prius, which I'm sure would set me back an easy $20K+ to purchase, would save me about $100 per month."

As gagrice pointed out, the opportunity cost of the Prius purchase would be an offset to the $100/month fuel savings. However, if you bought a Prius, you'd probably drive it more than 4,000 miles/year, and drive your other cars less, thereby yielding further fuel savings. I don't know how this would all net out in your case, especially if you swapped the Prius for your Intrepid, but I think the comparison is more multidimensional than a mileage driven comparison.

Incidentally, I wouldn't trade the Intrepid for a Prius, but just used that possibility to make a point.

The Prius, and hybrids in general, don't appeal to me at this time.

bumpy · March 2008

you are spending many hours per week hauling wood to heat your home

When I was a kid, buying a load of wood included delivery in the back of an old dump truck.

wiseoldfart · March 2008

I'm referring to the loss of weight and complexity with the elimination of the engine and components that keep it going. Sure, electric motors and battery packs add weight, but that weight will be distributed better and will be largely offset by the elimination of heavy, old tech stuff.

If you want a taste of things to come, see this article. GE is getting into clean power big time and may have a vision of the future much like mine.

An excerpt from the article: General Electric has officially confirmed its $4 million investment in Norwegian electric carmaker Think Global, a development Green Wombat reported back in December. GE Energy Financial Services (GE) also has invested $20 million in Massachusetts lithium-ion battery maker A123Systems, which will supply batteries to Think. General Electric said its scientists will work with both Think and A123 to improve battery technology for electric cars to enable global electrification of transportation.

And as Green Wombat reported last week, Think, formerly owned by Ford (F), unveiled its next model Wednesday at the Geneva Auto Show, a futuristic five-seater called the Think Ox that will eventually be available as a two-door coupe and possibly a taxi. The sleek five-door vehicle resembles a low-slung crossover SUV but maintains the signature touches of the Think City  an urban runabout now rolling off Thinks production line in Norway  including the roof-to-bump glass rear hatch. The concept car also sports a translucent roof with a solar panel, presumably to power radios and other gadgets.

But Think did not reveal the identity of the Fortune 100 automaker that Think CEO Jan-Olaf Willums told Green Wombat had collaborated on the design and engineering of the Ox.

According to Think, the Ox will have a range of about 125 miles (200 kilometers) on a charge and a top speed of about 85 miles an hour. Future models may include a range extender  a small flex-fuel engine that will charge the battery and let the Ox go 280 miles. (The General Motors (GM) Volt electric hybrid is based on the same concept.) Think also unveiled its connect car technology to make the Think City and Ox a rolling Internet-connected, GPS-enabled computer that will calculate the cheapest and most environmentally beneficial times to recharge as well as give drivers access to the cars systems through their mobile phones.

They're talking about a small engine to extend range, but I believe battery pack technology will advance enough in the near future to allow a good 250 mile range at 70 mph on battery power alone. If a recharge takes less than 15 minutes per 3.5 hours of highway travel, that's very practical, in my book.

Once we reach the above milestone, the added cost, weight, complexity, noise, vibration, and loss of space offered by an optional small engine won't be very attractive to most people.

gagrice · March 2008

For me a range of 125 miles and 85 MPH is adequate, with overnight charging. I do think that these short charge times being thrown around are optimistic at best. When you charge that fast with that much current there will be a lot of potential hazards involved.

avalon02wh · March 2008

We have a 4cyl Highlander (07). Works great. The mpg is about 15% better that the 3.0L V6 Sienna it replaced.

kernick · March 2008

wis: They're talking about a small engine to extend range, but I believe battery pack technology will advance enough in the near future to allow a good 250 mile range at 70 mph on battery power alone.

me: well we could sit here and also say "I believe solar panel efficiency will greatly increase and everyone's energy issue will go away." It is very easy to solve issues with a good imagination or hope.

wis: If a recharge takes less than 15 minutes per 3.5 hours of highway travel, that's very practical, in my book.

me: and again, I'll ask you to provide some engineering to that statement. Find out how many KWh of electricity it would take to go that far. Then calculate would voltage and amperage would be needed. That is fairly straight forward physics, though I'm not going to do it for you. Is 480V sufficient? 50 Amps? If a car takes 3 minutes to fill with gasoline, a 15 minute recharge means gas stations have to be 5 times bigger, with 5 times more hookups?

avalon02wh · March 2008

"It is very easy to solve issues with a good imagination or hope."

Are you sure you meant to say that? The business world is full of failures. About 80% of a new ideas/businesses fail. For an idea to succeed you really need to do a lot of hard work. Good imagination helps and makes a good starting point. As it relates to the 35 mpg rule, the car makers will need to let their engineers use their imagination. It will be up to the management to get the right product to the market.

I am not convinced that battery packs along will work in all situations. For one, they probably will not work in colder climates where temperatures dip below zero. Ever try to defrost a window when the temp is 30 below? The other issue that has been raised recently about using electrons is the additional water needed to run the power plants. Nuclear and coal plants use a lot of water. In some cases water does not get returned to the river. And then there is the question of how much lithium is available.
http://www.evworld.com/library/lithium_shortage.pdf
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lithium/lithimcs07.pdf

kernick · March 2008

ava: Are you sure you meant to say that?

me: I should have put a wink after that. What I meant is that anyone with a good imagination and maybe bending the laws of physics can envision a solution. But no everything is not practical - like perpetual motion. When discussing solutions to an issue, I find it rather a lazy and sometime impractical answer from others that well someone is just going to invent a great battery, solar panel or drill to the center-of-the Earth and get a lot of geothermal energy.
It is just like people told you 50 years ago that we'd be in flying-cars right now, all "they" have to do is make nuclear batteries.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles