In case you missed it yesterday, President Obama told the EPA that it should reconsider California's request to regulate its own emissions standards. The EPA was also told to finalize federal fuel mileage requirements that will phase in starting in 2016. The decisions were hailed as forward thinking moves that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but there was little talk of how the new standards would be met.
It won't be easy. The Federal standard would require automakers to achieve a fleet wide average of 35mpg just six model years from now instead of 2020. To put that into perspective, Honda has one of the most fuel efficient lineups in the business yet it only averages 31.3mpg according to the most recent NHTSA statistics, and that's without using the new EPA numbers when calculating its truck fleet efficiency. An AOL Autos report claims the number is considerably lower, around 24mpg.
Clearly, getting to 35mpg is going to take some serious changes, so the question is pretty simple: What sacrifices would you be willing to put up with in order to meet the government's stricter standards?
Less power? Higher costs? Fewer features? Smaller size? It's all on the table and whether you like it or not the changes are on the way.
dougtheeng says:
07:28 AM, 01/27/09
"Less power? Higher costs? Fewer features? Smaller size?"
All of the above, except higher costs. Its already hard enough for a lot of us to purchase a new vehicle.
As for power, features and size, I am of the firm belief that 90% of cars on the market have too much of these items.
opfreakx says:
07:38 AM, 01/27/09
is that really correct? or is the 35mpg based on cafe, and the 24mpg based on epa numbers?
otherwise fleets will have to improve almost 50% in the next 6 years? Thats about 1 model cycle, maybe 2.
50% means that truck sales will be killed, and the only cars anyone can drive are honda fits. Welcome to car hell.
subytrojan says:
07:50 AM, 01/27/09
Oh snap! The President is left-handed like us, Ed! :o)
fst1 says:
08:14 AM, 01/27/09
@opfreakx: I revised the text to include some more recent NHTSA stats, but it's hard to compare them as they include a mix of old and new EPA mileage numbers.
Any way you look at it, big changes will be necessary to get to 35mpg. In Honda's case, vehicles like the Pilot and Ridgeline will most likely get killed off, or at the very least straddled with considerably smaller engines.
And keep in mind that Honda has a fairly limited lineup. When you look at full-line manufacturers like Chevrolet and Toyota, the changes will be even more dramatic.
EH
sabastian says:
08:56 AM, 01/27/09
"Obama's Call for More Fuel Efficient Vehicles: What Will You Give Up to Get There?"
Not much. My next car will be a Mini.
kurtamaxxxguy says:
09:10 AM, 01/27/09
"President Obama told the EPA that it should reconsider California's request to regulate its own emissions standards."
Key word: reconsider.
Obama did not say 'accept','adopt', nor 'implement'. He said; reconsider.
The EPA may still reject California's request. Then, another round of discussion will begin to determine what standards are feasible.
Also:
"The EPA was also told to finalize federal fuel mileage requirements that will phase in starting in 2016."
Key word: Finalize.
Given the timetable was moved up, it remains to be seen what the standards will actually be.
shaddai says:
09:19 AM, 01/27/09
Honda is not quite as efficient as people think. My Odyssey averages 13-15 MPG when my wife drives it (mostly in town, pick the kids up from school, etc). Weekend driving we can get 17, maybe 18 average. A tank of all freeway driving CAN reach mid 20's (24,25) - but that's pretty darn rare.
I'd love a diesel minivan for the torque and MPG. Torque is exactly what a heavy vehicle like a minivan full of kids needs. There's no way we could fit in a sedan (four kids plus two adults, plus baby stuff like a stroller, etc). We could theoretically fit in a Mazda 5, but not practically.
Once the economy picks up, we might pick up an X5 diesel (I hate BMW's new naming scheme, xyzDrive3247), but I hate the thought of driving an SUV. At least I wouldn't be driving it that often :)
fst1 says:
09:47 AM, 01/27/09
@kurtmaxxxguy: True, but given EPA nominee Lisa Jackson's testimony at her confirmation hearing, the momentum would seem to be on California's side.
"I will review the waiver decision...very, very aggressively...very soon after confirmation," Jackson told lawmakers.
rick8365 says:
11:05 AM, 01/27/09
Suby, Hopefully that's all you and Ed have in common with B.H.O!
autoboy16 says:
12:32 PM, 01/27/09
I'd give up power with no problem! I think that the family sedans should max out at 230 for the v6. I think I'm fine with the 170 I have and I'm personally thinking of getting a Vw with the 2.sl0w engine. Sure it isn't as fast, but it gets much better mpg than the 14.5 I average in my accord.
Also, some safety features should be cut too. I still see no reason for stabillity control. If you can't drive without it, you need not be driving. Traction control I could understand but stabilliy controll seems pointless. I also think 8 airbags is a good idea however. But then getting into the knee airbags is what kinda makes it moot.
The cars nowadays are great and all but I think that we were fine with 6 airbags. even 8 is pushing it on a small car like a Corolla.
bepperb says:
12:57 PM, 01/27/09
Autoboy, assuming a car already has abs, stability control adds about one gram of electronics. So unless you're cutting it to cut cost, there's really no reason to. And, it's mandatory in 2012 IIRC. Sure, in a perfect society people who couldn't drive without it couldn't drive, but that's not where I live.
What would I give up? I'd give up size first, provided I could still get the quality interior I'm used to. Then I'd be willing to pay 500 to 1000 dollars more for a more efficient drivetrain... like adding direct injection or a more advanced tranny. And honestly, in a 4cyl midsize or compact sedan, that's more than it will take to get to 35mpg.
n_tesla says:
02:36 PM, 01/27/09
In 1983 I bought a new Porsche 944 that went 0-60 in 8.3 seconds. I still own a 68 Corvette with the 327 350HP motor that does 0-60 in the 9's. Back then they seemed like fighter planes on wheels (and still do). But by today's standards these are slow cars.
Do commuters, soccer moms and retirees need family sedans, SUV's, mini vans, and econo cars that do 0-60 in the 7's and 8's?
Dial the HP back on those so they accelerate to 60 in the 10's and 90% of those owners would never notice.
As long as the manufacturer's offer GTI's, Corvettes, Mazdaspeed products and the like those of us that enjoy performance cars will still be happy and we can still reduce emissions and our dependence on foreign oil.
tmanz says:
04:12 PM, 01/27/09
"Not much. My next car will be a Mini."
It won't be much of a jump for them but the Minis don't even hit the 35 average. A standard one averages 32 right now.
tmanz says:
04:18 PM, 01/27/09
CAFE doesn't cover full size trucks and SUV's right?
They are exempt from the gas guzzler tax.
firstwagon says:
04:33 PM, 01/27/09
What if no car company can average 35 mpg? Will the government fine everyone? If so then that's just a tax and likely illegal.
As to the question, you don't have to give up much. Most cars on the road today can average 35 mpg if they had diesel engines and manual gear boxs.
jederino says:
07:08 PM, 01/27/09
I'd give up California trying to tell others how to make cars. Last time I checked, California was in more trouble than the automakers (except for the fact they can raise taxes and grab pork-barrel monies).
cwc1 says:
07:19 PM, 01/27/09
I think you're all missing the point. I don't even accept the premise that the federal government has the constitutional authority to do any of this. We stand to lose more freedoms at a faster rate than ever before with this radical president.
Not much? How about not giving up anything? This is all being forced upon the citizenry because too much of it was clueless last November and apparently still is. Over two centuries ago, this nation fought a war for its independence. And now we're voluntarily giving it up as if it's not worth anything. It's not up to the bureaucrats or anyone else to decide what someone "needs" -- it used to be the individual's choice. When we don't defend freedom, we will surely lose it. And that is what's happening.
Market prices, if allowed to function without meddling, would solve our energy problems.
brn says:
07:09 AM, 01/28/09
I'm with jederino. It's ridiculous that CA gets to effectively mandate what the rest of the country drives.
Having said that, I'm also with n_tesla. A mid-sized family sedan doesn't need 260hp. It needs 150hp. This horsepower race needs to reverse itself.
ksm1 says:
09:32 AM, 01/28/09
I agree with cwc1 and jederino. California can't manage itself let alone fix Detroit or dictate to the rest of the country. Government back off, let the buying public "vote" with their dollars. We can decide what we want on our own. As this administration has to look busy and thinks they know best however, the best I can hope for is n-tesla's position - tone down the hp and size in the appliance category cars.
tmanz says:
12:39 PM, 01/28/09
Want to really hate California? Not only can't they manage themselves but they want more money from the Federal Government (that is money from those of you in other states) to keep their head above water. So your tax dollars are going to the idiots in CA.
But really, they do know how to do things, trust them.