New CAFE Standards: 42 MPG Cars, 26 MPG Trucks by 2016

[Scotsman]

Ahhhhh, guys gotta look at the bright side! Once all this goes into effect by then car makers will be making cars that are fuel efficient enough to reduce overall domestic demand for imported oil. Thus dropping oil prices should create somewhat of an artificial price ceiling making gas cheaper for everyone. This means the SS guys (which I hope to join the club in the not so distant future) will be able to gas up their cars without nary a worry over breaking the bank or whatever else may be of concern.

On another note I'm pissed we(the govt)aren't investing more in alternative fuels but instead are putting the pressure on automakers to pick up the slack they should not be responsible for. The EV isn't the panacea for the pollutant free automobile. A variety of alternative fuel options is.

[Scotsman]

DETROIT - The Associated Press says President Obama will release new vehicle emission standards Tuesday that effectively move up the 2020 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards of 35 mpg up to the year 2016. The good news is that Obama is expected to call for one national standard, and won't let California plus 13 other states and the District of Columbia set their own, harsher standard.


Obama's new standard comes as Chrysler LLC slogs though the first 30 days of its pre-arranged Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and in preparation for a now-inevitable Chapter 11 for General Motors.

What does this mean to us? Let's take Chrysler. It has a new 300 and Dodge Charger on the boards, scheduled for the 2011 model year. The new, full-size, rear-drive LXes will be available again with Hemi V-8s, but Chrysler probably would emphasize its new, 3.6L V-6, originally called "Phoenix" and developed with Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai, now renamed "Pentastar." The second-generation Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger's lifecycle should end after the 2016 or '17 model year, based on their current lifecycles.

The easy thing for Chrysler to do would be to end 300/Charger production by the 2016 model year, when the new standards are likely to kick in. Of course, Fiat Auto will have a great deal of say on whether Chrysler continues to build anything larger and thirstier than the Italian company's own models.

On the other hand, Chrysler could take the attitude of Hyundai's John Krafcik, and design a third-generation LX, perhaps the Chrysler version only, that would become a low-volume flagship car by design, rather than consumer demand. That's what Hyundai plans for its new rear-drive Genesis sedan and coupe (and possibly, the Equus) while selling high-volume, front-drive small cars to meet the 35-mpg CAFE. And to make a third-gen 300, Chrysler could look to technology like ex-owner Daimler's 2.2L turbodiesel-powered Mercedes E250 Bluetec, with an expected 28/39 mpg EPA rating, or 32.1 mpg average. Close to the 35-mpg average with a large, rear-drive sedan. And the diesel four is said to make nearly as much torque as Mercedes' own turbodiesel V-6.

A 32.1-mpg diesel puts out 0.69 pounds of CO2 per mile, versus 0.60 per mile for a 32.1-mpg gas-powered car. But it's still close enough to the standard that Mercedes could sell some of those as long as it sells a larger number of, say, B-Classes and C-Class hybrids.

And keep in mind that the CAFE standard as written based on the 2007 law uses a "footprint" to determine the standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which wrote the rule, wants all cars and trucks, big and small, to show improved fuel economy by '20, by meeting a complicated formula. Now Obama wants to apply that standard four years early, to meet his goal of reducing greenhouse gases by 30 percent. (The Detroit Bureau reports that the 2016 car standard will be 40-mpg and the truck standard will be 26 mpg. Under the NHTSA standard for 2020, both cars and trucks were to meet a 35 mpg CAFE standard.)

We can complain all we want. Automakers did, and prevented any increases in the 27.5-mpg standard since 1985. Now they'll have to rush to meet a new standard in roughly one model lifecycle. The new rule will make it hard for anyone -- from GM, Ford and Chrysler to Toyota, Nissan, BMW and Volkswagen -- to sell any V-8s in volume and to sell large, high profit-margin cars and trucks. Honda's on-hold V-8 and rear-drive Acura platform undoubtedly will be on hold indefinitely.

Only Hyundai and Mercedes, so far, have indicated they have the foresight and the plans to keep large rear-drive cars in showrooms after 2016.

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6540324/...rly/index.html

[Rodrunner]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Ahhhhh, guys gotta look at the bright side! Once all this goes into effect by then car makers will be making cars that are fuel efficient enough to reduce overall domestic demand for imported oil. Thus dropping oil prices should create somewhat of an artificial price ceiling making gas cheaper for everyone. This means the SS guys (which I hope to join the club in the not so distant future) will be able to gas up their cars without nary a worry over breaking the bank or whatever else may be of concern.

On another note I'm pissed we(the govt)aren't investing more in alternative fuels but instead are putting the pressure on automakers to pick up the slack they should not be responsible for. The EV isn't the panacea for the pollutant free automobile. A variety of alternative fuel options is.

I have little doubt the internal combustion engine can be made that efficient....and still produce good power.

As far as alternative fuels for vehicles beyond electricity, yes, alot of work needs to be done. I'm not sure there are any far enough along in development to be viable in the near future. Hydrogen appears to be far too dangerous, although natural gas/methane may be be a possibility.
One thing I am sure of is that we are up to the challenge....if given the opportunity and put to the task!

[rayhawk]

Originally Posted by FNKNSTN

Mabe these new Federal policies are being modeled after California because of California's high standards?

I don't know about you, but I have to 'smog' my 33 year old truck every year or two, and if it doesn't pass I can't register it and it becomes illegal to drive it on public roads.

So you think that people who live out in the boonies should be able to drive their gross polluters that get 3mpg because their states have a lower poulation?

To the Obama administration, it's a 'global' issue, and California is leading by example.

Are you opposed to driving a car that gets 50mpg? Now it's GM's job to make a high mileage vehicle that people will want to buy, or they can just leave it up to Japan and Korea.

It sucks having to live by all these strict rules in California.... but we do it just fine, so why can't you?

What does California do just fine? Not much but get in the way of technology and innovation, overtax, overspend, and overregulate. California is an embarassment to the United States.

[rayhawk]

Originally Posted by MrIcky

There are some similarities between now and the 70's, but there are some huge technology differences too.

For instance, there are several cars right now that get ~30 highway MPG and will take a 60's-70's muscle car's lunch money. So V8s become a nostalgia argument. Can that sell enough cars to make it worthwhile at $4/gallon? Maybe yes for Vettes and up, maybe no below that mark.

***Politics, GW, Middle East, fill-in-the-blank be damned: if you really think this through, not just for you and your fun factor you have to realize that oil is finite and it does cause polution (even if it's only haze over a city- not GW). So fuel efficiency isn't a bad thing.

***You also have to realize that traditionally only 3 things really change transportation technologies: war, fuel price, and regulation.

It's not hard to see the pattern here- war, fuel price, regulation---pick any 2. Expect taxes on fuel as the economy recovers. Its never been so easy to be a futurist. Expect a small boon to the economy as cities and states get unfunded mandates to provide infrastructure for electric vehicles. Expect battery technology to get intense funding and coverage. Expect 100 mile electric vehicles that can recharge in an hour or 2 by 2016.

Then in 2020 expect to see a seismic shift to electrical power for cars with a full court press from government, the media, school- you name it.

That all sounds very comforting, unless you understand the laws of physics and realize that all those things about electric vehicles make no sense. And when the government spends money, that is not a boon to the economy, every dollar they spend requires 5 people to go out and make a "real" dollar by actually contributing to the economy.

[Scotsman]

Regardless of admin political affiliation the reasoning is all the same: stupidity. The govt cannot and will not be successful in creating artificial demand by imposing higher CAFE on automakers. Cars will simply become more expensive and the more fuel efficient cars people are obviously not buying enough of aren't going to sell any more than they already have. Correcting a problem like this requires a fundamental shift in sourcing from resources not product.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by FNKNSTN

So you think that people who live out in the boonies should be able to drive their gross polluters that get 3mpg because their states have a lower poulation?

15 guys driving old trucks through the woods vs. 150,000 people stuck in traffic...totally different. The trees literally clean the air, which is why the air is fresher in rural states despite the nasty polluters that don't have any emissions standards.

It sucks having to live by all these strict rules in California.... but we do it just fine, so why can't you?

That's the "All of the US should become The People's Republik Of Kalifornia" attitude, and there's 49 states that have a different idea. What's the point of having states if they're all going to be ruled by one? IMO the federal government is too big and powerful already, and we resent having a second federal-like government that's not even supposed to have any power over us.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

On another note I'm pissed we(the govt)aren't investing more in alternative fuels but instead are putting the pressure on automakers to pick up the slack they should not be responsible for. The EV isn't the panacea for the pollutant free automobile. A variety of alternative fuel options is.

The manufacturers are very good at that job, just not always willing. The government is not good at a lot of things, including that job.

Originally Posted by Rodrunner

Hydrogen appears to be far too dangerous, although natural gas/methane may be be a possibility.

The big problem with hydrogen is not the danger, but the fact that it's not an energy source; it's merely an energy storage medium. You can't mine hydrogen, you can't capture it; you have to make it by using more energy than it will deliver. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but if you're going to do that anyway you might as well make something more like the fuels we currently use, without any special handling requirements (now the danger issue comes into play). If you're going to make all the energy some other way and store it in the car fuel you might as well make ethanol and biodiesel from non-food materials.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by FNKNSTN

Mabe these new Federal policies are being modeled after California because of California's high standards?

That have proven to be ineffective at actually reducing pollution. But are great at raising revenue which is negligible due to the extremely high corporate tax that drives business to neighboring states like AZ.

I don't know about you, but I have to 'smog' my 33 year old truck every year or two, and if it doesn't pass I can't register it and it becomes illegal to drive it on public roads.

I have no problem with SMOG laws. But again If I wanted that for my state let me lobby my politicians for it. I understand the risk of not having emissions. But that shouldn't be a federal decision. Let the States decide. Kinda like helmet laws. Not the smartest law ever passed but people accept the risk. And this really isn't the issue. CAFE has nothing to do with emissions. two completely different agendas.

So you think that people who live out in the boonies should be able to drive their gross polluters that get 3mpg because their states have a lower poulation?

I think each state should determine what works best for them. The truth is the percentage of cars 30 years old and older shrinks each year. And there is almost no measurable impact to vehicle pollutants in the boonies because the concentration is so limited. And furthermore, just because you suffer from the Sunshine Tax State by choosing to live there, doesn't mean I have to when I don't live there. I did live there for Nine years and left for a reason. And dammit they found me all the way out here in FL...

To the Obama administration, it's a 'global' issue, and California is leading by example.

I concede that the President pushed this and used CA as the standard. CA has yet to prove that it's MPG standard works. In my opinion CA made a mistake with it's own version of CAFE. Their decision to implement this could have cost their citizens many choices in cars as some manufactures may have had to limit the models to attain the correct MPG numbers. The Current administration just bailed them out from a bad decision making their CAFE numbers the national Standard. I kinda thought of this on the fly. Again, why should the rest of the country have to bail out their bad decision. Just cus it looks good?

Are you opposed to driving a car that gets 50mpg? Now it's GM's job to make a high mileage vehicle that people will want to buy, or they can just leave it up to Japan and Korea.

The truth is GM has the highest average Fleet MPG of any car manufacturer in the world. According to the CAFE standard. So, I'd say the current standard is fine in light of the financial troubles the big three are in. This new standard will be costly to implement. Can they do it? Sure! Is it the right time for new costly restrictions? Not in my opinion.

It sucks having to live by all these strict rules in California.... but we do it just fine, so why can't you?

It does suck, and I left CA to go to another State partially because it sucked. And just because you have to suffer doesn't mean I should too.

You take responsibility for your own choices and I'll do the same for mine. Particularly where you choose to live.

Whats' wrong with that? Or are you better suited to make my decisions for me?

[chevydude26]

damn i have to get the camaro very soon...because well new cars are going to suck horribly...

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by theholycow

The big problem with hydrogen is not the danger, but the fact that it's not an energy source;

Tell that to the Sun!

it's merely an energy storage medium. You can't mine hydrogen, you can't capture it; you have to make it by using more energy than it will deliver.

Sounds like you've just described the model for the battery in an electric car!

But technically we don't "make" hydrogen. We can use chemical reactions or electrolysis to collect it from the earth. An easy way is to pull it out of water molecules. Think of it as mining on a molecular scale. We "mine" a lot of elements out of common molecules this way, including some metals.

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by chevydude26

damn i have to get the camaro very soon...because well new cars are going to suck horribly...

The sky is falling on Camaro5 once again. Episode 5,000,005

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Tell that to the Sun!

Hydrogen is an energy source in the sun. It's abundant and ready to use, kinda like crude oil is here.

Sounds like you've just described the model for the battery in an electric car!

Yes. Hydrogen as a fuel on Earth is very much like a battery.

But technically we don't "make" hydrogen. We can use chemical reactions or electrolysis to collect it from the earth. An easy way is to pull it out of water molecules. Think of it as mining on a molecular scale. We "mine" a lot of elements out of common molecules this way, including some metals.

We "make" hydrogen fuel by electrolysis. Electrolysis is exactly the opposite of burning. Burning is exactly the opposite of electrolysis.

Electrolysis of water into hydrogen: Separating hydrogen from oxygen by forcefully splitting water molecules. This requires at least X amount of energy.
Burning hydrogen: Combining hydrogen with oxygen to form water molecules. This releases at most X amount of energy.

It's not "easy" to "pull it out of water molecules". If it could be done with 100% efficiency (which is impossible), it would take exactly as much energy as you could get from burning it (if you could burn it at 100% efficiency, which is also impossible). If you want, you can replace "burn" in the previous statements with "process in a fuel cell" or any other chemical reaction that recombines hydrogen with oxygen to produce water and energy.

This doesn't mean that hydrogen is a bad fuel for cars, it just means that you still have to figure out where to get the energy. On Earth, hydrogen is a fuel but not an energy source. I'd be happy to drive a hydrogen-fueled car. I imagine that the energy source would be nuclear power, but it could just as easily be tidal, mules turning a mill, geothermal, solar, cow farts, or municipal landfill incinerators.

[Design1stCode2nd]

While I'm sure car makers would like a lower CAFE target I think having a nationwide standard even if it's higher is easier for them to meet. I don't like one state dictaing policy but the facts are that CA and the other what 11, 13 or so states that follow the same guidelines probably make a large portion of the vehicle sales each year in NA. If you have to run a business you have to follow where the money is.

[Captain Awesome]

I believe the process of extracting hydrogen from other molecules is not considered "making" hydrogen. It was already made by the universe and we're just removing some extra junk that got stuck to it along the way.

By the way, most hydrogen is collected by using a steam reforming process on methane gas. It's MUCH more efficient than electrolysis, but (oh no!) the process emits greenhouse gasses like CO2 (a.k.a "Plant Food")