Obama Announces New Fuel Economy Standards

I think they will end up scaling the numbers back for engineering reasons.

It's a good effort though if for no other reason then to piss off the people who think the founding fathers wrote somewhere in the constitution that they have the right to waste as much gas as possible.

Wrong guy....wrong ideas at the wrong time. Another back door money grab to boot.

Is he calling for pizza?

Well the founding fathers also didn't want some charismatic demagogue micro-managing the lives of the citizens. You don't want people wasting gas? Let market forces dictate a price that rationalizes demand with supply. It is as simple as that. Your freedom to choose a car based on your needs and economic circumstances has now been rescinded and handed over to a few environmental nutjobs who can't even decide if the earth is warming up or cooling down, and apparently never heard of the end of the ice age either.

We can't have slaves anymore? What!

You mean they're gonna let women vote now? How dare they!

Yum! Delicious hyperbole!

Everytime something changes its the "stupidest thing ever" and "totally misguided" and then it turns out that its no big deal. Its just different. People acclimate, things change, and life goes on. It will be OK in the end.

The economy is in shambles! American manufacturers are failing and both manufacturing jobs and service jobs are being shipped overseas at the highest rate ever!

What's the government's solution? Increase standards that will make it even more difficult to manufacture and sell your product in American.

Brilliant.

crowb, the flaw in your analogy is that those two examples (ending slavery and expanding suffrage) increased freedom, while this limits freedom. This is more akin to prohibition and is economically flawed.

I must have misread crowb's comments above. You didn't really just compare the rise of fuel economy standards with the emancipation of slaves, did you? I guess you think a lot of this new policy. So if the next administration does away with these inflated standards and reintroduces slavery, which would you suppose would be worse? I'm just hoping that they start to mandate some new jet fuel standards and mileage restrictions on Air Force One.

The only freedoms we seem to protect anymore are the freedoms to be imprudent.

Anyway, keep in mind that CAFE mileage numbers are based on unadjusted pre-2008 EPA estimates. In other words, take the old EPA mileage numbers on stickers and divide by 0.85 (which increases the number), and you get the official CAFE mileage.

In 2006, a 5-speed Honda Civic got 33mpg combined, on the sticker. By new standards that's more like 29mpg. By CAFE, it's almost 39mpg.

Well said, Stovt001.

carlismo,

I'm not sure if your math is correct. Even if it is getting an entire fleet of cars to average the same mileage as a 1.8L civic is no small feat. What about V6s? What about V8s? What about midsize cars? What about any car with more than 130hp? This cannot be done easily or cheaply. It will impact what is available and its generally bad news if you are an enthusiast. It happened in the early 70s and it will happen again- performance and desirability will decrease.

"It happened in the early 70s and it will happen again- performance and desirability will decrease. "

It did happen in the 70's and the end result was far superior cars.

It took a while then because the technology did not exist. It does now though.

If you want to do it cheaply and easily, just bring in diesels. Most cars we have now are available in other countries with diesels already. And most of them will meet or beat the new standards now.

"Well said, Stovt001."

No it wasn't.

Crowb's point was people make too big a deal of changes but stovt001 ignored his point and just picked on his choice of an example.

Perhaps a better example would be to compare it to getting rid of saturated fats in food or lead in paint. There was/is opposition to both of those but in the end it's the right thing to do.

This'll be interesting. :)

Maybe I'll hold onto my car much longer.

Ten years from now, People in 10 year old V6 Camarys will be dusting brand new V6 Camarys at the lights, because, just like in the 70s, things will go downhill before they get better.

-You Write the Caption-

"Uh....uh...Mr. Marx, Sir....uh...I'm in over my head here.

Everyones making a big deal out of nothing. Sure this will challenge the manufacturers however they have almost 7 years to come up with solutions and its not like they didnt know this was coming. Surely by then the economy will be thriving and the auto manufacturers who are now crippled shoud be pretty healthy, leaner and profitable.

If we go back 10 to 15 years and compare fuel economy ratings with todays car its quite different in a positive way as todays cars are MUCH heavier, much larger, much faster and produce much more power with better fuel economy averages.

1487, I may be slightly off, but not by much.

The real kicker is that E85-ready vehicles get a huge boost: http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/how-a-suburban

oh well... the pic got changed.

Sorry, much better link here. 3/4 of the way down the page: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/CAFE/alternativefuels/background.htm

A Suburban that gets 12 mpg (gasoline) and a theoretical/bogus 84 mpg (E85) gets a CAFE score of 21 mpg.

"Ten years from now, People in 10 year old V6 Camarys will be dusting brand new V6 Camarys at the lights, because, just like in the 70s, things will go downhill before they get better."

And you do not have to buy those cars.

Sounds like a fine proposal to me. Since crude oil is likely to run out eventually, why not make an effort to use less while we do use it?

Most people don't change driving habits or buy fuel efficient cars until the price of gas is too high so why not start the process now?

It's inevitable that gas prices will go up again in the near future, but raising the standards for average fuel economy to 39mpg in cars and 30 for trucks by 2016 is insane.

With GM and Chrysler in dire financial trouble I highly doubt they'll have the resources to fund R&D to for such vehicles to meet these goals.

Ford's also in moderate financial trouble so I doubt they'll be able to comply as well...though they do have several cars in Europe that may come close.

stovt001 Wrote:

"You don't want people wasting gas? Let market forces dictate a price that rationalizes demand with supply. It is as simple as that."

In theory you're correct, but it's not quite that simple.

Oh and 10-year-old Camrys outrunning new ones, blueguydotcom, is a long shot. It would mean that the similarly powered 2008 BMW 135i (18/26 mpg) vs. 2005 M3 (with 15/22 mpg) is not possible. Or that the Tesla Roadster cannot handle a 70s roadster at a stoplight...

Obama has single handedly killed the muscle and performance car with this move.

Sad day.

I also find it interesting to read what a masterful job he did of bringing all the various interests together. Various interests? He practically runs the automotive industry so this couldn't have been that difficult. Note the the automotive CEO's lined up like grade school children lining up for their yearbook picture behind the teacher.

I am not at all against more fuel efficient cars, and in fact think more people should drive more efficient cars. You don't need an SUV to commute to work and you don't need 300 hp in your family sedan. However, the option should still exist for people who really are driving enthusiasts to have exciting cars, and the government has no right denying that freedom. It is fine to encourage smarter decisions, but such government interference in business and personal lives goes against everything this country was founded upon.

May this push any more technologies to the fore, such as Variable Compression Ratio engines?

so is this going to be the end of muscle cars =.( that makes me sad cus im 19 and i really want the new camaro z/28 i love cars and i really want that but by the times im ready to get one there not going to sell it =[ i hate obama and his stupid rules

He has the domestic auto industry right where he wants them, so they're too afraid to object. Yes sir, Mr. Obama, sir, whatever you say. Thank you sir! Can I have another?

It's why GM and Chrysler's executives and directors should not have been so stupid and short sighted to go to the government for money. They should have seen this coming. Perhaps they did and didn't care.

The price for freedom is eternal vigilance, and we're not exercising it. In just a few short months, the federal government has nationalized individual banks and auto companies. This is why all should be worried, regardless of whether better fuel mileage or lower fat foods are the "right thing to do". It is not the government's role to micromanage peoples' lives. Things like this set the precedent for more and more. The oft used cliche that the country's founders are rolling over in their graves comes to mind.

Performance and it's pursuit have been part of the automobile culture since the cars invention.
Things will be different but performance will be part of the equation.
These changes should have happened a long time ago. The oil lobby and the auto manufacturer's fought tooth and nail for immediate profits instead of any kind of long range view and the government caved in to their demands and whining it couldn't be done.
BS It can be done and now it is being mandated.
Driver

I did not vote for dictator Obama/Clinton is all I have to say!

Beware of the national 55 mph interstate speed limit to return. Who else thinks its funny Obama drove a Chrysler 300C (huge gas guzzler) before running for election!

^It's looking like retro '70s all over again. So those who missed that decade's floundering economy along with Carter's economic malaise and diminished expectations will get to experience it first hand in the years to come -- isn't getting to repeat history wonderful?

"I did not vote for dictator Obama/Clinton is all I have to say!"

Did you vote for the evil emperor Bush last time?

^Images are created by our biased media, so they're not necessarily based on reality. Hence, these propagandists now suck up to Obama while they vilified Bush - even though he did more domestically to advance the left's agenda of big government which resulted in electoral defeats for his party for the last two cycles. All because of that "new tone" crap where he was trying to "get along" with his opponents by giving them some of what they wanted instead of all of it. And they still sought to destroy him.

If he had been as principled and headstrong about domestic policy as he was on protecting the country from terrorists, we'd not be in quite the mess we're in now.

Keep in mind this is probably 39mpg by CAFE standards. That could mean ~30mpg in actual numbers. Trucks around 22. Again, I'm guessing.

So, apparently the problem with the US auto industry was that it hasn't been building enough of the overpriced fuel efficient cars that no one wants. Good thing Obama is rectifying this!

Seriously though, force automakers to completely change their entire product line in one product cycle while they are struggling to avoid bankruptcy? Brilliant!

Is anyone learning Manderin yet and eating the chicken with chop sticks. We all will soon with the help of our fine folks in Washington DC. Sending us all down the merky river of dispair. Everyone keeps putting the same old folks back in office to represent them. And the don't represent them. They represent their own wants. If Americans want change. Then why vote the same Congressmen in as well as senaters. Americans wanted change at the last election. yet put the same old DUMMIES Back in. Come on Americans Please wake up. read the History of the Mason's and see the real truth. The past history is here again for us to live. Please read it. You will see what I am talking about. They have just about ruined many countries. See for yourself!

"It did happen in the 70's and the end result was far superior cars."

How long did it take for that to happen? Cars were underpowered and slow from the mid 70s until the 1990s. The entire decade of the 80s was filled with sluggish, boring cars. CArs got better over time because technology allowed automakers to develop more power without using less fuel. If you really want to use less fuel you have to make cars smaller and cut engine size. That is the fastest and best way to save fuel. Keep it mind that advanced transmissions, VVT, etc are ALREADY being used today. Its not like this stuff is waiting to be implemented. Today's engines are already very advanced so the best way to drastically increase mileage is to make the engines smaller and less powerful. You are kidding yourself if you think today's levels of power and performance will remain in place by 2016.

Hondaacura:

They do not have 7 years to get this figured out. It takes 3 years to develop a car. Anything coming out in 2016 needs to be underway by 2013 which is 4 years from now. I can't believe you are naive enough to believe that automakers really havent been innovating when it comes to engine technology and ways to increase efficiency. As a Honda fan I am really suprised that you believe auto companies only innovate when forced by the government. Do you think that applies to Honda too?

Another byproduct of this will be higher prices for cars with V6s, cars with V8s and pickups. CAFE scores are sales weighted so it automakers will want to discourage sales of less efficient vehicles to some degree. In the future V6s and V8s will probably be available only on pricey top level trims because every one they sell lowers the CAFE score of the manufacturer. In addition, sales of those vehicles will subsidize the development costs of affordable, efficient cars that will need to sell en masse to help these companies reach CAFE scores. There will always be fast, powerful cars available for magazines to test, but that doesnt mean such cars will be remotely affordable for middle class families.

carlismo:

E85 vehicles are scored differently than gas vehicles, I didnt dispute that. This is why GM makes so many of them- they help the CAFE average. You said that CAFE mileage is .85 x 2007 EPA mileage which is .85 of current EPA mileage. That can't be right because 39mpg CAFE equals 28mpg which would mean cars would barely have to get more efficient to meet the 2016 standards. I believe that city mileage dropped about 12% under the 2008 standards and highway dropped by less than that. The real difference between 2007 and 2008 is closer to 10%, not 15%.

"If we go back 10 to 15 years and compare fuel economy ratings with todays car its quite different in a positive way as todays cars are MUCH heavier, much larger, much faster and produce much more power with better fuel economy averages."

Adding power is much easier than drastically improving mileage without cutting power. All of the major advances we have seen recently except hybrid powertrains add no more than 1-2mpg to the average vehicle. THis applies to 6 speeds, DCTs, eletric power steering, low resistance tires, better aerodynamics, etc. We are talking about a 40% increase in mileage and you dont get that by tweaking a few systems for an extra mpg. Everyone is talking about weight savings- if it was easy and affordable it would've been done. The best way to save weight is to remove features, downsize the vehicle and remove sound deadening. How many customers want cars like that?

firstwagon,

You are correct. I was intentionally outlandish to prove a point.

Stovt001,

I realize that my "examples" are flawed. But I also championed my own ridiculousness with a remark about my use of hyperbole. I was trying to convey that people will take this one move by the administration and blow its impact way out of proportion. They will make wildly outlandish comments about its dire consequences. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. The skies will rain frogs and the streets will be rivers of blood... Oh the horror!

Anyway, I figured slaves and women's suffrage would really stir the pot.

It obviously did. Everyone should not take themselves or new fuel economy rules so seriously.

Crowb:

Regardless of anyone's views on whether or not this is appropriate the bottom line is the policy is a failure. Too many people are discussing this with respect to their views of Obama. I get it that all of the "no big deal" folks support Obama and that is fine. That doesn't make this policy defensible or logical. CAFE has NEVER worked. The easiest and BEST way to do what Obama wants is to raise the gas tax and put the money back into transportation projects and R&D. If we want to worship the European vehicle fleet (as many of you do) we need to look at how they got that kind of fleet. The answer is simple even if Obama and half the posters here want to ignore it- higher gas prices. Last years PROVED that higher gas prices lead to less SUVs on the road and more conservation and yet Obama and Co REFUSE to even mention raising gas taxes. Instead, they chose to take the easy eay out and blame all of this on the automakers. Obama and other naive politicians who have no clue how a car works want to embrace the notion that cars can easily be more efficient if only automakers "tried" or "innovated". According to Obama cars haven't evolved since CAFE was instituted. He basically said as much yesterday. Who knew that nav systems, airbags, stability control, MP3 players, VVT, ECUs, variable displacement systems, direct injection, DCTs, HIDS, 5-8 speed automatics, etc. didn't represent innovation? I surely didn't.

1487, you're right, the numbers didn't change that much from adjusted 2007 EPA numbers to 2008 EPA. Either way, it's silly and misleading that CAFE doesn't use the 2008 EPA figures. I guess there's too much inertia in government, and it's politically easier to make progress within a flawed system.

It's still a pretty big change from current standards, no matter how it's counted.

But for those making it a partisan issue... the big jump in standards was made official by Bush. All Obama is doing is adopting the CA standards, which aren't that big of an addition over what Bush already approved.

carlisimo:

Obama is forcing the rest of the country to conform to California's draconian standards, AND is requiring a 40% increase in fleet fuel economies. That is a big change, and it's a big deal when our automakers are struggling to sell cars, much less high mpg penalty boxes.

All of you people on this forum who wished the US drove the same great cars that Europe does is going to get their wish. Say hello to your new 60hp hatchback for your future family vacations. Plus, the US does not (and cannot afford) the kind of bus and rail infrastructure that Europe and Japan have for alternatives to driving.

Oh, and does anyone else find it funny that these new standards don't go into effect until right when Obama's 8 year (don't kid yourself, this media darling is sure to get reelected) term is up?

Draconian? They're not that different from the standards that Bush signed into law just over a year ago. The differences are that they're emissions based rather than mileage based, and that they have a shorter timeframe.

We will be regulating mileage and emissions. Under Bush mileage had to increase by 2020. Taking advice from California (one of the most car obsessed states) is interesting considering the state of their state. They are looking to the government to help back their finances so they can borrow money at reasonable rates. Some say the government should force changes in how they operate in exchange for billions in financial support and loan guarantees.

And Bush was absolutely wrong and soundly criticized by most of his supporters for signing that energy (or lack thereof) bill in 2007, which raised CAFE standards and outlawed incandescent light bulbs by 2012. What bloody business is it of Washington what kind of light bulbs people choose to use in their private property??

1487, great points made, although raising fuel taxes is also a bad idea. Politicians are very poor managers of money and routinely use funds allocated for one purpose for something totally different, and before we know it, they're asking for more money again. A 10 year old could do better.

I've had enough of politicians raising our taxes so they can use them for growing their power more. Did you know that the federal government "profits" more on motor fuels through taxes than the oil companies do? Yet the government does nothing to earn it and chastises the companies who find and refine the oil, which is no easy task.

Why don't governments ever think they can do with less? They act like it's immoral for them to ever cut spending, and like they have a right to confiscate as much of the output of others as they want, to continue funding their reckless spending.

Let the market take care of fuel prices and buyer's behavior. People will respond accordingly.

Stovt001 said:

"You don't want people wasting gas? Let market forces dictate a price that rationalizes demand with supply. It is as simple as that."

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. Take a look at the current state of the US economy. How well did credit/debt markets manage themselves? Short-term changes in supply and demand can't make a lousy product good, whether it's bad debt or an inefficient car. They regrettably also can't compensate for wrong decision making.

When gas was ~$4/gal, civics, corollas, fits, et al. were selling for over-sticker, while the average american SUV sat unwanted. 7 years from now, when gas could very well be ~$8/gal, expect the 'rational' V6 accords, camrys, etc. to suffer a similar fate. Sadly, American auto companies lacked the acumen to predict changes in 'market forces' - or just preferred to conveniently ignore them - and they are now having to deal with the consequences.

It's call foresight.

Rather than wait for the car market to spin out of control if/when the *finite* supply of oil begins to dry up, the government is at least making an attempt to exercise some prudence. (I won't say anything about the policy itself, as i have no idea exactly how they plan to implement it.)

I'm a huge advocate of (relatively) free-market capitalism, but sometimes intervention is needed to prevent the machine from eating itself.

I like the idea. Because I know the Big 3 have the technology as 1487 have said in another forum here at Edmunds.com US Big 3 have the advance or even more advance than many auto company out there in the world. I believe Obama should make the number even higher to 45 MPG by 2020. It is only the fleet milage. It means more small cars with small engines. The Big 3 still can have the advance technology to have their polluted, gas gizzle big trucks. As long as they do the calculation right with how many small cars they need to build.

cwc1 said:

"1487, great points made, although raising fuel taxes is also a bad idea. Politicians are very poor managers of money and routinely use funds allocated for one purpose for something totally different, and before we know it, they're asking for more money again."

This is true - politicians are notoriously poor spenders. However, your argument is one against government spending, not the taxation of fuel.

Also, don't overlook another effect of taxation: Raising the price of gas, regardless of how the money is spent, is going to discourage consumption, and particularly unnecessary consumption. Jack up the price, and less people will be buying/using/wasting.

canadia:

Very well said.

So if last summer's fuel prices of $4.00 per gallon (or $5.00 for diesel) was a good price for encouraging more efficient use of oil resources, why did so many people complain about it and hate paying that price? Because they don't know what's good for them and the government does, by artificially raising the price higher? I don't buy that. If the price of a good or service is out of balance with what it costs to produce and what people are willing to pay for it, problems result.

A higher tax just diverts reduces people's purchasing power, since they have to divert funds from elsewhere to pay more for fuel. It would raise the cost of nearly anything that depends on transportation, which is nearly everything. It's one thing that contributed to the recession. Prior to that, we were on shaky ground anyway with the mortgage mess, which combined with the 700 billion financial bailout to push our economy over the edge.

Why would people voluntarily advocate paying more than they have to for anything? Why not offer a car dealer the sticker price for a car, or even more? It sure would help them stay in business now. Why not pay more for airfare, instead of searching for the lowest price? Why not send in some extra money to the government when paying your taxes? Nothing is keeping those who want to do so from it. Members of Congress would sure appreciate it, and could praise those individuals for how patriotic they are for providing even more spending money to the black hole of bureaucracy. Because after all, they know what's best for us (not!).

My point is that we naturally want the best value for our money which represents the fruit of our efforts to produce something that is of value to someone else. Any outside meddling tends to cause disruptions to the supply & demand equation.