New Fuel Economy Regulations... No one can do it (right now)

[texan_idiot25]

Interesting article by Jalopnik. Despite Alan Mulally's "commitment" (I mean, yellow-bellyed liberal-pleasing) statement earlier:
"This national program will allow us to move forward toward final regulations that all stakeholders can support. We salute the cooperative efforts of the Obama Administration, the state of California, environmental groups and others that played a constructive role in this process."



But, here's why the new fuel economy regulations fail:

The just-announced fuel economy policy changes demand 39 MPG for cars and 30 MPG for light trucks. A look at the data shows not a single automaker currently meets the new guidelines proposed today. Update. Using the Model-Year 2009 Fleet Fuel Economy standards provided by the National Highway Safety Transportation Administration (NHTSA), we determined the current ratings for passenger cars and light trucks and compared them to the goal for each of the major automakers selling cars in the U.S. A few automakers, like KIA and Hyundai, report their data separately because of a different ownership arrangement. We also took a look at what barriers exist for them reaching those standards.
UPDATE: The Obama Administration contacted us to tell us the originally reported numbers of 42 MPG for cars and 27 MPG for light trucks were wrong. Instead, they're requiring an average of 39 MPG for cars and 30 MPG for light trucks. We've made the proper adjustments but even with these different numbers no one meets either requirement.




BMW


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 27.5 MPG
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -11.5 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 23.1 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -6.9 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: BMW currently offers no hybrid or electric vehicles and, as a matter of practice, has been increasing displacement not decreasing it. The use of diesel engines is a step in the right direction but they're well behind where they need to be.



Chrysler


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 28.3 MPG
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -10.7 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 23.9 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -6.1 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Chrysler's biggest problem, in general, is the lack of appealing small cars with good fuel economy. Lacking any realistic vehicle on the horizon, the Chrysler-FIAT deal was envisioned to solve this issue. Let's see how that works out for them.



Daimler


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 27.5 MPG
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -11.5 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 20.6 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -9.4 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Mercedes-Benz may have to reconsider its policy of bringing over G-wagens and GL-wagens if it doesn't want to pay a fine, as the light truck numbers are low. The company has hinted at a smaller, possibly electric, model to bring up the average mileage but how many electric smarts do you need to outweigh an AMG G55?



Ford


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 31.1 MPG (excluding foreign import)
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -7.9 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 24.7 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -5.3 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Ford sells a lot of trucks. Despite fluctuations in fuel prices, the F-Series is bread + butter for the company. The addition of EcoBoost should help propel passenger vehicles to a higher overall value, and rumors of similar turbo'ed engines in the pickups should help as well.



GM


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 31.3 MPG (excluding foreign import)
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -7.7 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 22.5 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -7.5 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Barriers? What Barriers? The Volt will save everything... right? GM could be a victim of its own success if it turns out they start selling far more Camaros than hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles.



Honda


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 36.5 MPG
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -2.5 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 26.2 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -3.8 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Honda typically ranks highest among brands, so they're doing pretty well. But maybe now we know why they keep delaying the NSX.



Hyundai


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 33.2 MPG
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -5.8 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 25.7 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -4.3 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Unlike most Asian brands, Hyundai has picked up steam by moving away from greener vehicles. WIll the Genesis sedan and coupe cut into the gains made by their dinky little Korean hatches?



Kia


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 33.7 MPG
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -5.3 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 24.4 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -5.6 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Kia has one big barrier to better fuel economy and it's the Kia Borrego. Since no one seems to want the $40K truck we don't see Kia having a hard time cutting it out of the lineup.



Mazda


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 32.2/31.0 MPG (Import/Domestic)
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -6.8 MPG/8.0 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 26.6 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -3.4 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: The only hybrid vehicle in the Mazda lineup is a rebadged Ford Escape and, so far as we know, diesel hasn't been considered an option. While the Mazda3 gets good mileage it's always placed Zoom-Zoom over glug-glug.



Mitsubishi


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 29.5 MPG
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -9.5 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 26.1 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -3.9 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: The one saving grace for Mitsubishi, as it languishes in the U.S., is the iMiev electric car. But can the company produce enough electrics and hold out long enough to make it economically feasible?



Nissan


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 30.1/34.0 MPG (Import/Domestic)
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -8.9 MPG/ 5.0 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 23.5 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -6.5 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Nissan has built a reputation around their VQ V6 and don't seem intent on taking it out of any of their vehicles. To balance this, they'll try to use the Nissan Cube and other small cars, but they'll have to do better than the also-ran Sentra



Porsche


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 27.0 MPG
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -12.0 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 19.3 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -10.7 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Porsche has historically been more content to pay fees than reform their ways given they're a performance brand. The profitable Cayenne, as well, presents a challenge. They could combine with VW to raise the Porsche average, but at the price of lowering VW's.



Subaru


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 29.0 MPG
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -10.0 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 28.4 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -1.6 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Subaru builds cars disproportionately more fun than you'd expect and the popularity of vehicles like the WRX and the lack of a small, under-powered economy car is a threat to the brand's overall mileage. Could we see the return of the Justy hatchback?



Suzuki


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 32.7 MPG
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -6.3 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 25.7 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -4.3 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: The current Suzuki lineup is so random and confusing it's hard to know where they could go. With the exception of the SX4 and Grand Vitara there aren't any products with much name recognition. Just scrap the whole thing and bring us the Cappuccino.



Toyota


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 38.1/35.9 MPG (Import/Domestic)
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -0.9 MPG/3.1 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 25.8 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -4.2 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Unless Toyota discontinues the Prius and decides to make the Tacoma V8-only, the automaker is moving in the right direction. Let's just hope this doesn't torpedo plans for a new Supra although we fear it might.



VW


2009 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 30.2 MPG
Distance From 2016 Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: -8.8 MPG
2009 Light Truck Fleet Fuel Economy Rating: 23.9 MPG
Distance From 2016 Light Truck Fuel Economy Rating: -6.1 MPG
Barriers To Meeting New Fuel Economy Ratings: Volkswagen's greatest environmental asset is the TDI engine. It's greatest weakness is the high price of diesel fuel and the possibility of Americans turning on their technology. The greatest barrier on the horizon is Porsche, so we can't imagine them combining.



Conclusion


Not a single automaker currently meets 2016 standards for fuel economy. In passenger cars, only Toyota and Honda, who have larger fleets of fuel-efficient cars are less than 10 MPG away from the proposed standards. This means companies will either have to radically alter their lineups, reduce the production of vehicles we actually want to drive, or invest heavily in alternative propulsion systems at a time when their capital is severely constrained. Good luck with that! Appliance vehicles, here we come!

http://jalopnik.com/5261242/no-autom...onomy-standard

As MAXIMUM Bob Lutz put it on Letterman, raising fuel economy standards to fix apparent environmental problems or to battle oil use is like battling obesity by only allowing production of small t-shirts. It just does not work. If Americans really wanted fuel efficient cars, like our overwelming number of Democratic leaders tell us, then why are large car sales and truck sales beginning to reboud in this time of cheap gas?

The only time fuel efficient cars really sold was last summer when gas hit $4 a gallon. Since the drop, small car sales has declidned steadily as mid and large sedans has rebounded. Funny thing, that free-market.

[Lucky7]

I think the problem is not that people don't want the fuel efficient vehicles. The problem is gas and the fact it is a finite resource that someday in the near future will be gone. Going more fuel efficient will extend the time before we have to move to a totally new way of powering cars and trucks.

[texan_idiot25]

That is not the argument fed by anyone but scientists sadly... Politicians, Enviro-hippies, etc only claim the foreign oil dependency, and the global warming arguments. It's constantly said, from the above groups that Americans want more fuel efficient cars, and that automakers can, at-the-flip-of-a-switch, make more fuel efficient cars. This is not true.

Sure, if you want to go back to the 80s with tinny, rust-laden, pathetic little econocars that put economy before safety you can get some gains, but not with out an automaker supplying nothing but boring appliances would we get that far. It is a major attack on all things fast, and "irresponsible". To meet the demands of the CAFE would be to have a fleet of kenmore washers on wheels. Say good bye to the V8s, flat fours, and rotaries.

Again, to curb fuel use and emissions so harshly like the new CAFE regs are, is like battling obesity by producing only small shirts. Automakers are developing fuel efficient cars, but they cannot just ignore the DEMAND side and supply what does not sell well. Nor forcing automakers to rush out products. Example: Tahoe/Yukon/Escalade Hybrid. While yes, a marvel in fuel efficiency (beating most small sedans in City MPG), because it was rushed out before the technology could be made cheaply it's at least a near 20k premium over the normal SUV. And who wants to pay for that? The sales of these wonderful machines show just who...

Biodiesel is the way to go, but nobody tends to think that way... **** Hybrids. But when gas runs out, if the ground work is layed for biodiesel we still have a solid source of power, and keep the good ol' internal combustion engine around.

The problem with petroleum, you see, is that it's so utterly intoxicating, so rapturously explosive, such a giddy kick to the Newtonian groin. A gallon of gasoline represents about 125,000 BTUs of thermo-chemical energy and weighs a mere 6 pounds. To match the energy of a single gallon of gas, our most advanced lithium battery has to weigh between 30 and 40 pounds and be hooked up to a wind turbine for, like, ever.

Gasoline is the light, sweet liquor of the gods, the glowing blood throbbing in Odin's temples.
http://www.latimes.com/classified/au...,7352818.story

And 30 mpg for light trucks? HOLY CRAP! Only a few extreme guys on EcoModder.com have gotten that out of diesel trucks, and this involved some seriously un-consumer-friendly mods. If that's not an attack on truck owners, I don't know what is.

[firebird999]

not as bad as you made it seem. sure it'll hurt, but this is only until we find more oil. on the bright side, if there are major discontinuations, we'll have some re-releases to look forward to at least. but all in all, they're asking for too much in too little time.

[AeroSynch]

I better get a 3.5 V6 Montero before I can't!

This sucks though. Too little time really.

[winner]

i just dont like the fact the government is telling these muti-million dallor companies how to run there companies...

[monsterhunter]

Originally Posted by firebird999

not as bad as you made it seem. sure it'll hurt, but this is only until we find more oil.

theres already other places we can get oil from with in the U.S, BUT the government has said no to drilling, Alaska plenty of oil up there, and theres even oil off the coast of NJ owned by a gas company, but then government said no to drilling there years back also. so theres other places we can get oil from. that doesnt seem like an issues to me...

[texan_idiot25]

Originally Posted by firebird999

not as bad as you made it seem. sure it'll hurt, but this is only until we find more oil. on the bright side, if there are major discontinuations, we'll have some re-releases to look forward to at least. but all in all, they're asking for too much in too little time.

Not as bad as I made it seem? This maybe because you have know knowledge of what goes into making something efficient, but, shoot, it's not like I've done a research paper on the matter with sources cited out the *** hole over it. Or actually know a little about cars, which is all that's needed to understand this..

In order to meed these regulations in a timely manner there are only a few things automakers can easily do. One, make every car boring. Go to the late 70s, and early 80s. Detuning is the 1st route to try and bring current cars in the ball park. Yay! Engines like the Toyota Carolla's 4 cylinder, how exciting!

2nd is weight. There are two ways to go about weight, taking things out or using more exotic materials. Exotic materials would bump the price of the car, which is forwarded onto the consumer. The next is to take weight off by removing items. Like the 70s/80s, modern consumers are not content with less luxury and options such as that. Cars are built with lighter frames, chassis, body panels. Which, in turn, has been proven to reduce safety. Again, go wreck any 80s economy car or 90s economy car. And call me when you get out of the hospital. This is one reason many of the wonderfully fuel efficent european cars can't be imported, since they don't meet our safety regulations. Those 30 mpg Geo's and CRX's from back in the day, got away with that from wonderfully underpowered motors and amazingly chinzy chassis. Even with an array of air bags, you could not make one safe.

And, these extra safety and luxury items people demand now days, does nothing but add weight.

Realize that cars now days weigh as much, and more than the all heavy metal cars of the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Many modern sedans rival the weight of even the gargantuan land barges like the'64 Impala.

So tell me, as a producer of cars, the demand from your customers is to make fast, nicely sized (again, mid and full size sedans are on the rebound), safe, and comfortable cars. They will bite the bullet with fuel prices, and stay content. Now, what are you going to do when the Government steps in and says "no, you cannot build what people want, you are going to build what I THINK people want.". Your options to get these requirements done is very limited in the amount of itme given.

Realize, this affects all manufacturers. Some willing to pay the fines, others cannot. Things like the Corvette (Z06 ZR1), G8-siblings, Camaro, STi, Viper, every Porsche, the new Hundai Genisis, CTS-V, BMWs, Any Mazda rotory, the mustang, all SRT models, and every other dream car you like that's not an appliance on wheels, are at risk of going down the dark roads once again.

I hope you like Camrys.

Oh, and by the way. CAFE won't change a thing towards oil usage. People will still drive as much as they can with in their fuel budget. More MPG means more driving, which in one theory would worsen pollution, oh dear. Of course, to combat that, don't be surprised if fuel taxes rise. Just like Cigarette Taxes, Ammo Taxes, etc.

[bondo]

i don't know why you go out of your way to make firebird look like a tool....
he does that on his own without help.
this would usually be a **** good discussion piece,unfortunately,most of the people that read it here aren't even old enough to drive.
on that note,please only reply to this thread if you drive and pay for gas!
we really don't need your opinion on the matter if it does'nt involve you.....(*cough*firebird999)

anyways,.....
have they mentioned anything about classics/antiques in this new reform?
what about state regs for pre production models?

ya know,technically,we the taxpayers own a good bit more of a few certain companies due to the bailouts(think shareholders),the general public should be able to have a vote in this reform........
oh wait,we gave up all rights when we gave the bailout money to our government.....silly me.

[Sweed]

If my dad's 79' Civic gets 50mpg, if the 80's CRX's where rated for 58mph highway, the 1st gen Insight managed 60mpg, and the Fit pumps out 35mpg, I don't see why Honda can't release the NSX already... Or why other automakers would have trouble..

Gas got expensive though... It is now $27 for me to get to Whorelando and back..

[texan_idiot25]

Originally Posted by bondo

anyways,.....
have they mentioned anything about classics/antiques in this new reform?
what about state regs for pre production models?

ya know,technically,we the taxpayers own a good bit more of a few certain companies due to the bailouts(think shareholders),the general public should be able to have a vote in this reform........
oh wait,we gave up all rights when we gave the bailout money to our government.....silly me.

Unless your in California, and it's surrounding "Me-too" states, classics aren't being eyed right now. And for the right reasons, the percentage of them on the road is minimal compared to the number of late models.

Bailouts were a waste of money, and a sly trick to get the companies to bankrupt the way the Gov't wants them to... Notice how bond holders vs. unions are getting their investments back...

Bailouts just delayed the inevitable, wasted time and our money, and gave the gov't some serious power over GM and Chrysler. Though, thankfully these are loans, not just free cash. Once paid off, they can kick some of the gov't control out the door.

Sweed, Old honda Civic = Little safety/Good MPG. Those are examples of safety, and strength sacrificed for weight and efficiency. Neither car would pass modern safety regs. But nobody these days would buy a car that's optioned like the Classic Civic. Luxery has become standard for everybody...


Gas is "Cheap" here, costs me $30 for a tank, which ain't too bad. I average 10 MPG while on delivery, if I have to make freeway runs. But, gas here is 2.3x per gallon

[meme405]

Hehe, my family single handedly kills GM's rating.

We currently have 4 trucks with the 6.2L, two with the 6.0L, 10+ with the 5.3, and dont even get me started on the retarded diesels...

Dropping GMC might cause them to pass our truck buying needs onto dodge though...

[lupinechaos]

Originally Posted by texan_idiot25

As MAXIMUM Bob Lutz put it on Letterman, raising fuel economy standards to fix apparent environmental problems or to battle oil use is like battling obesity by only allowing production of small t-shirts. It just does not work. If Americans really wanted fuel efficient cars, like our overwelming number of Democratic leaders tell us, then why are large car sales and truck sales beginning to reboud in this time of cheap gas?

well...because some consumers think that the prices will stay steady so for them its time to buy HUMMERS! (oh wait hummer is now a chinese comapny whoops!) well theres going electric if you want to. Anyway it seems that the government cant make its mind up with the fuel economy standards.

[mr.hotrod]

Originally Posted by texan_idiot25

Sweed, Old honda Civic = Little safety/Good MPG. Those are examples of safety, and strength sacrificed for weight and efficiency. Neither car would pass modern safety regs. But nobody these days would buy a car that's optioned like the Classic Civic. Luxery has become standard for everybody...

Exactly
all i know is that those small fuel effiecient cars are what get people killed. i should send my state represenitiave a picture of that Smart car that my brother was trying to salvage parts off of. and then i should send him pictures of the girl that was driving it AFTER she got out of the hospital. All i know is that Tex is right the ONLY way to stay safe is to drive substantial cars. That poor girl cant even walk or eat now

[lupinechaos]

Originally Posted by mr.hotrod

Exactly
all i know is that those small fuel effiecient cars are what get people killed. i should send my state represenitiave a picture of that Smart car that my brother was trying to salvage parts off of. and then i should send him pictures of the girl that was driving it AFTER she got out of the hospital. All i know is that Tex is right the ONLY way to stay safe is to drive substantial cars. That poor girl cant even walk or eat now

well Smart cars arent really smart after all because I read somewhere that they offer weak acceleration and I guess now there not safe; why cant anyone drive smart with the car they have now.

[winner]

Originally Posted by lupinechaos

well Smart cars arent really smart after all because I read somewhere that they offer weak acceleration and I guess now there not safe; why cant anyone drive smart with the car they have now.

be cause smart is boring. think about it. would you like to drive around in a steve urkel car and be laughed at or would u rather drive a lifted hummer and be worshiped?

[KITT222]

steve urkel and be laughed at. i dont care. what others think of you = doesnt matter.

[winner]

Originally Posted by KITT222

steve urkel and be laughed at. i dont care. what others think of you = doesnt matter.

which one would u rather have been in after getting rear ended at 50 mph?

[Donziikid]

...keep it on topic or face the consequences of the colorful flags...

[texan_idiot25]

The Smart FourTwo is not intended to be a freeway machine. It's unsafe at high speeds with high speed impacts, this is true. But the car is meant to live in the city streets where speeds rarely climb above 30-40 mph, the tested speeds in crash tests where the car does rather well. Hence why it is also, slow, gutless, and fairly boring to drive.