Obama Administration Likely to Set New Fuel Economy Rules Tuesday

I don't think there is a conversion. They are saying that the average combined cycle EPA estimate must average 35.

If some automakers are behind it what will chicken littles cry about?

Oh and Danny, no there's always a batch of tricks to reach mythical CAFE standards. It's never very straight-forward.

Surprise surprise. Look at how Obama has been bullying GM and Chrysler, of course Ford will be on board. Not as if they have a choice.

The 35 mpg is CAFE, they're talking 42 mpg car / 26.2 light truck.

CAFE is about 15% off, so it's 35.7 mpg car. But I'm not sure whether that's 2007 or 2008 EPA.

So now the manufacturers will have to do better at sculpting the crossovers to be classified as light trucks.

If it's 2007 = CAFE x 0.85%,
Plus it's known that 2008 = 2007 x 0.85%,

Then CAFE 42 mpg car actually means 30.3 mpg 2008 EPA.
That's a decent goal for the entire fleet to average. Just think about your run of the mill Malibu (now 26 mpg) and Camry (now 25 mpg) averaging 30.3 mpg...

I don't know why I put % signs after a decimal.

Remember this is the average mpg, not the minimum.

To make the average and still sell larger vehicles (which there will always be a need for), automakers just have to sell more small cars as well.

There are two ways to do that, sell them dirt cheap to people on a tight budget...OR... start making (or bringing in) really good small cars.

Look at the Mini, it gets great mileage and even in a recession it still sells great.

In the past American car companies almost seemed to go out of their way to make their small cars feel cheap and second rate. I'm guessing it was so they could get you into the fold on a cheap car right out of school and then upsell you something more profitable.

The trouble with that is whole generations have grown up thinking small cars are crap. Look how many people on this board take offense when anyone suggests a small car is a really good car.

What we need are more cars like the Fit, the Soul, the Fiat 500, the Mini, and the Fiesta and less of the Cobalt, Focus and Caliber.

Give people a reason to buy small other then price and mpg and they will.

My rant for today.

Mr General Secretary continues to tighten his grip while the uninformed masses don't even realize that the pot of water is starting to heat up at a more rapid pace. By the time they realize it's close to boiling, it will be too late. We'll all be cooked red hot but some won't even know it then.

cwc1

So which side of the debate are you on?

^I am against a non-Constitutional approach to this issue. And Obama sees the Constitution as an impediment to his goals, so he's running roughshod over it, like many other of our politicians have been doing for decades. He's just going to accelerate it.

Central planning has failed everywhere it's been tried, and only serves to bring down everyone to the lowest common denominator.

Ahh, OK.

It's just I heard the exact same "we're being cooked in a pot and don't know it" speech used by a enviromentist last week to say we slowing being killed by global warming.

He was pushing for much tighter controls. Should get you two together for a debate. :)

As for me, I'm more in the middle. I'm all for reducing pollution and am willing to do my part. However I know endless stricter rules don't always have the desired efect.

Hence my earlier rant about better small cars. Better to offer people something they want that happens to be green then force them to take something they don't want to make them be green.

The local news just ran a story on this, and included the line "These new regulations will make all cars more fuel efficient."

Yup, that's right, this legislation will just magically make all cars more efficient, at no cost or sacrifice. Of course that isn't the case. What this means is one man unconstitutionally decides what cars you're allowed to drive. Yippee. Don't you love our free country?

Lots of whining in here. not a shock. you don't have to give up your cars. nobody is going to pull your yukon out of the garage and replace it with a prius. just as nobody yanked your 67 camaro for a 77 mustang II. drive what you like. nobody is forcing you to do otherwise.

blueguy,

No, but in a round about way the government is making us all pay more for a product that should actually cost less. Every time the government forces a company to "innovate", the company always passes on the buck to the consumer. That's not to blame the company, because any of us would do the same thing. It's natural. However, government intervention is not.

So, yeah. Go buy that Yukon, if you want. We're all gonna be paying more for our vehicles after all this "innovation" is forced on us.

"Lots of whining in here. not a shock. you don't have to give up your cars. nobody is going to pull your yukon out of the garage and replace it with a prius. just as nobody yanked your 67 camaro for a 77 mustang II. drive what you like. nobody is forcing you to do otherwise. "

Incorrect. The regulations will legislate many types of vehicles/engines out of existence. All of this is being done to avoid raising the costs of gas. I know you live in a fantasy world where cars can get 40mpg and make 250hp but thats not reality. This is going to force the US fleet to mirror the European fleet even if US customers are not asking for such vehicles. Prepare for a Civic to be considered a midsize family car and anything larger than a Camry will be all but impossible to find unless you are talking about pricey luxury cars.

" I know you live in a fantasy world where cars can get 40mpg and make 250hp but thats not reality. "

I remember everyone (even experts) saying the same thing in the 70's. They all said with "modern" emmision standards and MPG requirements, there will never be powerful V8s or large cars again. The era of the sports car and muscle car was gone forever.

....and they were wrong too.

"Prepare for a Civic to be considered a midsize family car and anything larger than a Camry will be all but impossible to find unless you are talking about pricey luxury cars."

I can only dream of such a wonderful world, where people drive what they need - not indulge in excess.

"I remember everyone (even experts) saying the same thing in the 70's. They all said with "modern" emmision standards and MPG requirements, there will never be powerful V8s or large cars again. The era of the sports car and muscle car was gone forever. "

Totally different. I've heard that lame comparison before. Computer technology was almost non existent. Engines and controls were from the stone age. Today's car are VERY advanced in terms of emissions controls, transmissions, valve control, etc. We already have enormous amounts of technology in cars just to get the mileage we have today. In addition, the 70s was primarily about reducing emissions and at the time drastically cutting power was the best way to do that. Emissions are very clean now which is why they are focused on CO2 which is the only thing a catalylic converter can't burn off. When they changed things in the 70s what they probably said was "this is the end of muscle cars" and they were right. I cant see how anyone would've said large cars were disappearing.

"I can only dream of such a wonderful world, where people drive what they need - not indulge in excess."

How are you going to measure "excess"? Suppose I have 4 kids but I happen to be alone when oyu spot me in my Sienna. Am I wasteful just because I dont have my kids in the car EVERY time I drive? Give me a break.

"I cant see how anyone would've said large cars were disappearing. "

Back then every new generation of cars were smaller and lighter then the one before it.

As you said, engines are very advanced now.

However mileage is not good enough because every new generation is bigger and heavier then the one before.

Cars ar much bigger now then they were in the 80's but people are not bigger and the average family size is smaller. When I was a kid, 4 kids was quite common. Now it's really rare.

So why do people buy big? Because they equate excess with success. Their ego just won't let them drive a Civic when they can afford an Accord.

It has nothing to do with the occasional family with 4 kids in a minivan and everything to do with the family with one or 2 kids in the Yukon or Navigator.

firstwagon,

When your friends in government open up ANWAR, a swampland not good for anything but bugs;
When they allow drilling the Bakkan Formation in North Dakota, bigger than Saudi Arabia;
When they allow drilling the wasted oil seeping off the coast of California;
When they allow drilling off Florida before Cuba gets the oil;
When they allow drilling more in the Gulf of Mexico;
When they allow producing over 75% of electricity from Nuclear like in France;
When they allow building a new coal electrical plant every month as in China;
When they drill for Natural Gas in the Appalachians;
When they allow drilling on (or sell) all National Forest / Federal Government land not in the National Park System;
When they stop the EPA from having over 30 “boutique blends;”
When they allow new refineries to keep the gasoline supply steady;
When they free up U.S. companies to compete against the world;
Gasoline would be well under $2.00 / gallon and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Good debate here. My bottom line point is that it's not up to the government to dictate what should be produced; it is up to the free market. If consumers want more economical vehicles, they can buy them. And if the demand increases, more would be produced without Washington's intervention. I like the idea of having more choices of premium smaller vehicles, but I don't want it forced upon me at the cost of other vehicle types that I also like.

The government has seized power like this, but doesn't constitutionally have it. Not only have our politicians been bypassing the amendment process, but now Obama is bypassing the legislative process. Part of the Constitution's purpose was to prevent someone like Obama from ever being able to wield this kind of control.

To accept an ever more powerful government without challenge is to surrender more of our liberty - which is what we've been doing for decades. Over-regulation has been a contributing factor (but not the only one) to destroying our auto industry and driving business out of the country. And then we fall for the line that we just need to give more power and more money to government so that they can fix things, after they're the ones that have broken them. They could fix them all by getting out of the way and to stop penalizing success.

snoble

So your solution is to use up every possible source of energy in your lifetime doing as much damage as possible leaving nothing for your kids just so the price of gas goes below $2.00 and you can drive whatever you choose?

That's really sad.

fisrtwagon,

Gee, what's so wrong about using our coal, with over 400 years of supply? How about nuclear, eh? Natural gas trapped in ice formations? We won’t run out of petroleum in the next hundred years, especially with these easy alternatives. And that doesn't count advanced recovery techniques, to get the 2/3's of the oil still in the present fields.

Have you heard about Bussard Fusion? Don't you think we'll have other substitutes in 200 years? Maybe solar cells will become more practical, but they still have limitations.

The problem is that government is messing everything up, forcing all of us into poverty. Yes, poverty. Including your kids.

If you lived through the 1970's like I did, with over 18% inflation and 21% Interest Rates, just wait till your buddies in the present government get done. They are wiping out our savings for our own retirement.

How many patents do you have? How many companies have you helped make multi-million dollar sales? Who can start a company now, with the rules constantly changing?

When you grow up, you will be furious at how stupid it all is. And by the way, my year 2000 car gets over 34 mpg on the highway, and I drive less than most.

"However mileage is not good enough because every new generation is bigger and heavier then the one before.

Cars ar much bigger now then they were in the 80's but people are not bigger and the average family size is smaller. When I was a kid, 4 kids was quite common. Now it's really rare."

You are wrong on many counts.

1. Cars are not bigger than they were in the 80s in general, just Asian cars. Have you seen domestic cars from the 80s? Apparently not.
2. Cars are heavier because they are safer and better equipped than ever. I laugh whenever people like you suggest cars are getting heavier because automakers just love adding weight for fun. They are heavier due to all the safety equipment, sound deadening and electronics present in today's cars. Why do they have those things? People want them. Every automakers is in search of the 5 star crash rating. How do you acheive that? By adding structural members to the car to better absorb crash energy. Cars were lighter in the 80s but they were also pieces of crap compared to today's cars. Do you think any car from the 80s would come close to getting 5 stars all around in crash testing?

"How are you going to measure "excess"? Suppose I have 4 kids but I happen to be alone when you spot me in my Sienna. Am I wasteful just because I dont have my kids in the car EVERY time I drive? Give me a break."

You're hitting a few different items there. Obviously its on a situational basis. If you need a minivan most of the time, driving it alone isn't a big deal. If you drive alone most of the time and only need storage/people carrying capacity once in a while, a minivan would be wasteful.

Its all about accepting what you actually NEED and living with that. Back before the days of minivans and huge SUVs, families did just fine with traditional cars. I came from one of those families. Sure its easier to throw it all in the back of a suburban, but the easy way isn't always the right way. Its easier to just burn coal for energy, but its not right.