Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
If 62 MPG Becomes Law...
hpmctorque
Member Posts: 4,600
Negotiations are going on in Washington that could radically change the design of cars and trucks over the next 13 years.
As you probably know, new federal fuel economy and emissions rules took effect Jan. 1, requiring automakers to hit 35.5 mpg corporate average fuel economy by the 2016 model year.
That might only be for starters. Automakers and regulators from the EPA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the California Air Resources Board are now haggling over a tougher proposal initiated by President Obama. That plan calls for a CAFE range of 47 mpg to 62 mpg by the 2025 model year.
Industry spokespeople say the 62 mpg CAFE, supported by environmentalists, would be too costly and may not be feasible.
One industry estimate says hitting 62 mpg would require widespread vehicle electrification, and add almost $10,000 to the price of a new vehicle. Federal agencies say the cost would be $3,500 per vehicle, at most, and would be offset by fuel-pump savings.
Barring an unexpected technological breakthrough, I think that a 62 mpg mandate, by 2025, would force the auto industry to produce vehicles that motorists wouldn't want to own. For sake of discussion, though, let's assume that 62 mpg is the goal. In that case, as unpopular as raising the gas tax is, I'd prefer going this route over increasing average fuel economy through CAFE standards. What are your thoughts on this?
As you probably know, new federal fuel economy and emissions rules took effect Jan. 1, requiring automakers to hit 35.5 mpg corporate average fuel economy by the 2016 model year.
That might only be for starters. Automakers and regulators from the EPA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the California Air Resources Board are now haggling over a tougher proposal initiated by President Obama. That plan calls for a CAFE range of 47 mpg to 62 mpg by the 2025 model year.
Industry spokespeople say the 62 mpg CAFE, supported by environmentalists, would be too costly and may not be feasible.
One industry estimate says hitting 62 mpg would require widespread vehicle electrification, and add almost $10,000 to the price of a new vehicle. Federal agencies say the cost would be $3,500 per vehicle, at most, and would be offset by fuel-pump savings.
Barring an unexpected technological breakthrough, I think that a 62 mpg mandate, by 2025, would force the auto industry to produce vehicles that motorists wouldn't want to own. For sake of discussion, though, let's assume that 62 mpg is the goal. In that case, as unpopular as raising the gas tax is, I'd prefer going this route over increasing average fuel economy through CAFE standards. What are your thoughts on this?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
100km/h - it's the law.
3500 per vehicle? I'd like to see the public sector sucks quantify that one.
I am very interested in that too. I have heard estimates all over the map, including opinion that the rates will actually go down. The argument is that generating capacity will not need to increase because recharging will be done at night when other demand is low. Therefore, the fixed costs will not increase and will be spread out over a larger number of kilowatts delivered. However, this depends on just how many vehicles are charging at night and on the effects of running the power plants at higher output 24 hours a day so I am dubious.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
It won't be hard to get to 62 mpg for cars, I don't think. The problem is for automakers to get their fleet average to 62 if they also sell trucks, SUVs and large crossovers. But if they could sell 100K 75-mpg compacts per year for instance, they could sell lots of those big guzzler vehicles even if they made only high-40s (which would equate to a rating in the low 30s on the Monroney sticker).
This isn't as extreme as it sounds, and it is certainly a much needed step. But I'm sure the automakers will succeed in diluting it for the sake of their profit margins, so I'm just hoping the feds do instigate at least the much weaker 47 mpg standard.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ask yourself what gasoline will cost in 2025 and the question answers itself With gas at $7-$8/gallon we'll want 75 or even 100mpg. Mileage standards have saved the bacon of the Detroit makers more than once in our lifetimes.
That said a gas tax is a better way to make our fleet more efficient.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I agree, and it's also simpler.
So I'd say don't waste your time hoping for that one. But I agree it would help.
I believe in CAFE and I think it has already helped bring about a revolution in internal combustion engines since 1975.
56mpg is really more like 42 by the way the mpg is measured today. A few cars are already reaching or exceeding that standard 12 years before 2025. Another decade of progress on ICEs should make it work for cars. Trucks, SUVs, and Vans are tougher, but I think they can be done too with smart engineering.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
I'm buying a 2015 Mustang GT and by 2025 I'll own the fastest car in America.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
There will still be room for some sports cars. And very fast ones. I'd bet on it.
The SUVs, however, are likely to get a smaller and less powerful. That too is a good thing, imho.
Saw a bumper sticker the other day: "Support OPEC! Buy an SUV!"
There will still be SUVs after all this is said and done. They'll just get 35+ mpg.
So, with c. 42 the real target, by sales weighted average some can be below that, even substantially below, as long as they are balanced by vehicles above that.
If Ford, for instance, pops out hundreds of thousands of Fiestas a year with advanced 3 cylinder ecoboost ICE engines that get 60 mpg by the 1975 measure, that would allow them to sell a few 6 cylinder ecoboost (turbo) Mustang's that will probably equal in performance any mass production Mustang built and still let Ford meet CAFE in 2025.
The bottom line is that the cost of fuel is a bigger determinant of how much performance you can have than CAFE Standards. How far are you gonna go in a 30MPG Mustang if gas is $8.00/gal?
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
But I think we will have performance. A Ford 2.0 ecoboost turbo has about as much power as a 5.0 V8 from the 80s. And yet it's dramatically more efficient. Pop that puppy in a mustang and you're done. Don't even need to worry about making it a hybrid. You'll still have to sell some 1.0 liter ecoboost fiestas, but that can and will be done...
Yes, and a Mitsu EVO 2.0L turbo is a rocket but it costs $45,000. I just don't see getting today's performance out of a gas sipping engine without it costing a fortune.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to save money at the pump but I don't trust people with a different agenda to give me the performance I might want at a price point I can afford.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Bottom line is that 50 mpg CAFE is going to happen whether people like it (me) or not (you). But I think there's hope for people who like performance and economy--which is both of us and and millions of others out there.
I just looked up the stats for the pretty much top of the line Mustang from 25 years ago in 1986 (argh, time flies, I'm getting old!). The 302 was actually heavily revised for that year:
"In 1986, Ford released the first multiport fuel-injected 302 cu in (4.9 L) V8, rated at 200 hp (150 kW). With high swirl E6SE heads, the early production High Output EFI engine intake possessed higher compression and dual exhausts."
Now here's what you can get in a 2.0 Ford Ecoboost:
2.0-LITER ECOBOOST GIVES FORD FOCUS ST OWNERS TURBOCHARGED, DIRECT-INJECTED THRILL RIDE
2.0-liter EcoBoostâ„¢ in Ford Focus ST will deliver up to 247 horsepower and 250 lb.-ft. of torque using high-tech tools like turbocharging and direct gasoline injection
Twin independent variable camshaft timing (Ti-VCT) working with turbocharging and fuel injection maximizes horsepower, torque and fuel economy at all engine speeds, helping eliminate lag and flat spots in power delivery
Focus ST powerplant marks another milestone in Ford goal to offer 90 percent of its North American lineup with EcoBoost by 2013
If they are putting this in a high end Focus, it is not an engine that is impossible for people to afford. It's probably only a bit more than an old tech V8. And yet it gets more power. Great work Ford!
Here are the full stats direct from Ford:
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=33575
Which I think Ford is working it's way to slowly. The V6 Ecoboost has a good take rate in the F150. As people get over the need for a V8 and they find the V6 to work just fine, then the 4 will be the next step.
Personally, I'd have reservations about an engine that small in something that heavy. I'd think it would constantly be working its little butt off, and would wear out.
But, who knows? It might work out just fine. I'm sure back in the late 60's and early 70's, people would have thought the idea of something as small as a 3.8 V-6 in a nearly 4,000 lb car getting 30 mpg on the highway, being able to do 0-60 in around 7.5 seconds, AND being fairly reliable to the stuff of pure science fiction.
But, I just described my 11 year old Park Avenue Ultra. And, since then, cars have only improved for the most part. So, I'm sure that the auto makers will be able to get more hp and fuel economy out of ever smaller engines as time goes by.
People who truly need heavy duty trucks with huge towing capacity will still be able to get an ecoboost 6 or 8 cylinder, but my guess is that in a dozen years a large 4 might become standard....Just a guess.
62 mpg would only benefit the oil companies, who hardly need benefitting, (people tend to drive more with higher mpg cars) and probably winnow down automakers into the Big Two, (Chrysler won't cut it) which of course decreases competition.
The real problem is not being addressed. The price of gasoline does not reflect the environmental damage being done, and the oil companies therefore don't have to bear it.
I'd also consider *exploring* the possibility, in the interests of national security, of nationalizing the oil industry. Of all the world's major producers, only the US and Canada don't do this.
Why exactly is the oil under our feet not the property of us all, as a country? How does the USA compete without energy for the future?
Right now, if YOU don't buy the gas, the oil companies will just sell it to anyone willing to pay for it.
I'm not sure I'm for this, but sometimes it makes more sense than burdening everyone EXCEPT the oil companies with taxes, regulations, etc.
Given that we've got CAFE at 54 for 2025 instead, what are your thoughts on that?
To put things in perspective:
If the entire population of the United States of America decided to get into *all* their cars and light trucks at the same time---there would be no one in the back seats of any car on the road.
This suggests to me two things:
1. The extra space in large vehicles is probably used but a small fraction of the vehicle's total use.
2. Many people who own large SUVs and trucks probably NEVER use the extra space.