Federal (US) MPG Standards: Corporations Suggest Setting Their Own Standard

[YSSMAN]

The U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has approved a measure that will require automakers to achieve an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The bill will go before the full Senate in June.

In addition to the increase from 27.5 mpg, the bill calls for the fuel standard to increase four percent per year up until 2030. That would push fuel economy requirements to over 50 miles per gallon by that year.

"This is not a perfect bill, but I think we have reached a stage where most parties would say this is fair," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, principal sponsor of the committee.

Last week — in anticipation of the vote — the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said it supports increasing fuel economy, but not to the degree proposed.

"The Alliance opposes legislation that is not technologically feasible, because of the proposed arbitrary CAFE target and/or the proposed arbitrary lead time," the organization said in its statement. "The Alliance also opposes CAFE targets that are not based on a balance of objective criteria."

Last month, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said the automaker might be forced to scrap some its planned large rear-wheel-drive sedans and coupes due to the new requirements.

"We don't know how to get 30 percent better mileage from [rear-wheel-drive cars]," Lutz said. "We'll decide on our rear-drive cars when the government decides on CO(-2) levels and CAFE regulations," Lutz told the Chicago Tribune in April.

The new standard approved by the committee today calls for 40 percent better milage.

"Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of burning gas and directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned. If we legislate CO(-2) from cars, why not legislate we take one less breath per minute since humans release capricious amounts of CO(-2) each time they exhale?" he argued.

Try as they may, I think we'll see a block done on this bill by level-headed Republicans and Democrats. Call it wishful thinking at best, but quite frankly, this bill will do absolutely nothing to improve fuel economy. Why?

Simply put, only the new cars will have the 35 MPG figures, and those of us who aren't wealthy enough to buy them will be stuck driving the standard 25-30 MPG cars that are being sold now.

...Not only will this bill shoot the Detroit companies in the foot, but will also be shooting the Japanese and German companies in the foot as well...

We'll see what happens of course, but I'm guessing that they won't pass it in the Senate, and although the bill would have a better chance in the House, I still doubt it would pass, much less be signed by President Bush. Economically, it just isn't something that can be done now, but indeed I would submit that it is a good idea, but it needs to be thought out better.

I'm up for increasing fuel standards by a reasonable amount, but not this four percent per year BS...

 

[Sakiale]

****ers... Our world is dead.

Edit, this applies to only new cars, right? Not 'if you have a car less than the standard it is no longer street legal'?

 

[Tornado]

50 MPG by 2030? Is there even a car sold in America now that can actually get that? Will there even be oil by 2030?

 

[YSSMAN]

50 MPG by 2030? Is there even a car sold in America now that can actually get that? Will there even be oil by 2030?

Nobody comes close to that right now. Toyota said that the Prius used to, but when they changed the EPA tests for 2007, that was thrown out the window. I think the highest-rated American cars are the small models like the Chevrolet Cobalt and Ford Focus, but the only real hope comes from the new Aura Green Line and the presumed Fusion Hybrid as well.

...So, where do we go? Well, first things first, it has to be passed inside the Senate first, and obviously in the house as well (probably won't happen)...

But should it pass in both houses and be signed by the President (again, probably won't happen), we'll likely see a dramatic shift towards diesel power within the next few years.

But, with the Volt on the way for 2010, and the presumed proliferation of the technology within the halls of GM, that may add up quickly, and thereby not cause GM to have to change too many of their vehicles too quickly...

 

[a6m5]

I'm little bit confused by this 35 mpg average. 35 mpg by the whole brand? Like average of the entire lineup from the Mazda RX-8 to Mazda 3 combined has to be 35 mpg? At least that's what it sounds like to me. And I hope they are talking about 35 highway miles.

Cleaner air is a good thing, but this bill sounds like the government is just punishing the drivers and auto industry. Let me share with you the trend in my State, if I may:

We have a far left government in Oregon, and the tax money that we need for the roads and bridges goes toward trams. Messed up highly congested highway? They just spend more money on the extremely expensive trams that nobody uses. They recently announced something along lines of by 2030, they will limit the fuel consumption in Portland by half. Hello, it's a growing city?

This only confirms something a lot of Oregonians knew all along. They want us to ride the bus, bike, trams, and forfeit our cars(not entirely, obviously). And the rumor on how the City plan on achieving this goal is by taxing the hell out of the drivers with auto/driver related fees, taxes and penalties.

People naturally vote these measures down, but the governemnt do it anyway. Why do they even bother with the voting process, if they are just gonna do what they wanna do. And the idiots(sorry, I'm frustrated) keep on voting these far left hippies into the offices.

 

[bennyrrr]

I hate the government. This will kill the Vipers/Vettes/Shelbys/Veyrons/Ferraris/Lambos/McLarens/AMG's/M's etc. Unless there is a enginnering miracle, any car that has more than 50 HP is screwed. **** it.

 

[Wolfe]

If the EPA went back to its old testing process this wouldn't be as bad.

I'm little bit confused by this 35 mpg average. 35 mpg by the whole brand? Like average of the entire lineup from the Mazda RX-8 to Mazda 3 combined has to be 35 mpg? At least that's what it sounds like to me. And I hope they are talking about 35 highway miles.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's what it is. Theoretically a manufacturer could put out one microcar that gets an insane gas mileage figure and still produce cars that do 20-30mpg. That's part of what makes this so dumb.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's what it is. Theoretically a manufacturer could put out one microcar that gets an insane gas mileage figure and still produce cars that do 20-30mpg. That's part of what makes this so dumb.

My guess is that it is what will happen. Chances are that GM will ride the 150 MPG Volt like its nobody's business, throw some 50+ MPG diesel models of the Astra out there, increase the efficiency of the V6 line by adding more DI and DOD models, make the 6-speed slushbox standard, and go on from there...

All I can say is Diesel, Diesel, Diesel, Diesel. I know GM and Chrysler are up for it, God knows what the hell they're doing at Ford...

...Either way, we can breathe easy for now, it isn't on the floor yet, and the likelyhood of it being passed is still slim-to-none...

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Comparing car emissions to breathing is pointless. One is essential in living, one isn't.

I'm as much of a car lover as anybody on here, but I don't see this as unreasonable at all. There's been talk of improving the emissions and mileage of our cars for years because of oil, and all I've noticed is heavier, more powerful models replacing their predecessors. There's been a couple companies focusing on light weight, but the majority are not. I'm not even saying go that direction for the power/weight ratio; I'm saying go for lighter because you'll have less-stressed components and therefore, lighter. It'll just keep saving you things. On the other hand, I understand it's hard to please everyone by including heavy, improved safety features, so who knows.

Here's a crazy idea; imagine if all the automakers suddenly stopped making SUV's. I'm sure they'd panic because they'd lose sales... but they wouldn't! People would just have to turn to their car-based offerings .

I'm wondering what this means for makers like Ferrari, Lambo, and Aston. Or Bentley/RR? Am I going to see a Maybachified Fortwo? A Dino based on a crazily-modified Punto platform? I'm also wondering how they come to this average. For example, let's say Ford sells 40mpg Fiestas and a 20mpg F150's. That averages to 30mpg with the basic numbers, but the fact that the truck sells a good 10x the number of compacts is probably not going to be taken into account. If production numbers aren't taken into account, I guess the Italians could produce one-off microcars capable of 80mpg and then continue on with their range!

 

[niky]

Well, I'd rather see the big boys produce 80 mpg microcars than have them produce limited-run and prohibitively expensive 100 mpg exotic-hybrids.

There's a question there... average of 35 mpg per what? Per vehicle, or per passenger? A two seater that gets 35 mpg, logically, isn't as good as a seven seater that gets 20... ...of course, the holy grail would be a seven seater that gets 50 mpg, but that's asking a lot.

 

[1X83Z]

You guys need to think outside the box. Can't develop insane amounts of power from gasoline anymore and you guys are ready to pack it in. How about alternative fuel sources? That's the whole point of CAFE. I say bring it on.

 

[Pupik]

If the EPA went back to its old testing process this wouldn't be as bad.

Exactly, my quasi-luxo-boat sips fuel all day long at a constant 48mph with the A/C, headlights, and radio off. I'd like to see better fuel economy, honestly, I figured cars would achieve better figures than now, but with so many cars offering so much more performance compared to a decade ago, consumers decided they want power first.

This bill won't pass, as long as people buy what they want before they buy what they're forced to. If it does, then all the SUVs, sports-cars, and luxury cars will be promptly rounded up, shoved in boxcars, and sent to camps to have their engines ripped out, and their tires and wheels neatly stacked and recorded in a pile.

When the "new" EPA figures are available for every car, then maybe people will start to make different buying habits. But for some of us that drive 2-3 miles to work each day, the switch to a car with twice the horsepower and engine displacement registered only a 1.0-to-1.5 mpg loss, which is offset by the pleasure and pride of owning the car, not to mention the fact it seats two more people much more comfortably.

 

[Famine]

Just adopt the British gallon.

35mpg (UK) = 29.1mpg (US)

Job done.

 

[Jim Prower]

win, Famine, Pure win.

 

[YSSMAN]

Just adopt the British gallon.

35mpg (UK) = 29.1mpg (US)

Job done.

[Mr. Burns] Excellent... [/Mr. Burns]

---

To sort the confusion just a bit, I believe that the 35 MPG figure has to be the average across the board. This however does not include high-weight vehicles like the HD Pickups and large SUVs (Excursion, Escalade ESV, etc), as they are exempt from EPA fuel testing.

This however does concern the entire line, which makes stuff a bit odd. Lets look at Chevrolet for the moment:

- Avalanche: 20
- Aveo: 34
- Cobalt: 32
- Colorado: 22
- Corvette: 27
- Equinox: 26
- HHR: 30
- Impala: 31
- Malibu: 34
- Monte Carlo: 31
- Silverado: 22
- Suburban: 21
- Tahoe: 22
- Trailblazer: 22
- Uplander: 25

Average Economy: 26.6 MPG (give or take just a bit, current standards are set at 27.7 MPG... I didn't include every model with every optional engine)

...So, we can see that the trucks have the worst effect on the average. It may be anyone's guess, but we may start to see some models getting axed (should the bill pass)...

Then again, I'm not certain if they go company-wide (with collections like GM and Ford) or brand-specific (Buick, Chrysler, Mercury, etc...)...

 

[Danoff]

Sorry, I keep forgetting so quickly, tell me again why we need this legislation.

Not because oil will get more scarce - prices will take care of that.
Surely not for the environment - small cars are hardly a major source of pollutants or greenhouse gasses.
Surely not for consumers, as it will only restrict choice.


It's just not coming to me.

 

[YSSMAN]

The thing is, we don't. The Republicans and moderate Democrats in the Senate would likely block the bill on the floor, as the only body of legislature where it has a chance is the House. Either way, I doubt the President would sign-off on it when nearly every automaker has expressed their distaste for the bill. I believe GM was in the camp that said they were open to increasing emissions requirements, but only at a reasonable pace/level.

 

[Tornado]

You guys need to think outside the box. Can't develop insane amounts of power from gasoline anymore and you guys are ready to pack it in. How about alternative fuel sources?

What does that have to do with it? 27 MPG on E85 is still 27 MPG. Furthermore, we aren't even close to realising a potential possible alternative that isn't, at best, a stopgap.

That's the whole point of CAFE. I say bring it on.

No, the point of CAFE is to try to brute force companies into following fuel economy standards and furthermore make them absorb the prices. Its bad for the companies, bad for the consumers when the companies try to pass on the costs and furthermore pointless for the reason YSSMAN covered (there are far more old cars than new cars, and every year it gets more and more separate).

 

[harrytuttle]

I hate the government. This will kill the Vipers/Vettes/Shelbys/Veyrons/Ferraris/Lambos/McLarens/AMG's/M's etc. Unless there is a enginnering miracle, any car that has more than 50 HP is screwed. **** it.

Funny, 40 years ago the idea of running a V8 on anything but leaded fuel was thought of as pure fantasy. So go on, keep thinking with your head in the oil drum, fearing change, fearing ideas that actually improve situations, and act like every other Amercian manufacturer.

Sorry, I keep forgetting so quickly, tell me again why we need this legislation.

Not because oil will get more scarce - prices will take care of that.
Surely not for the environment - small cars are hardly a major source of pollutants or greenhouse gasses.
Surely not for consumers, as it will only restrict choice.

We need the legislation because manufacturers have no real incentive to do it otherwise...and they're too lazy and indifferent to do the right thing.

A society as dependant on oil as ours is will not be stopped by pricing. The 70's alone proved that, and we are even more dependant on it. The $4/gallon spike did absolutely nothing to slow down consumption. Complaints rose, but that's it.

If everyone took the same stance that "*** cars only contribute 0.0001% to greenhouse gases", then nothing will get done. If you add up every segment's claimed statistics, you end up with the entire mechanized world contributing somewhere around 12%. That's planes, motorsports, electrical generation, and public & private transportation. No one wants to take the blame, naturally, but they're all responsible, and they all must do something.

As for choice restriction, that's absurd. The FUD of lack of choice is what caused the disastrous fall of the American auto industry 30 years ago. But that's what it is: FUD, lies, fear, childish whining, just pure idiotic behavior. If the global auto industry were a single person, I would beat it nearly to death with a large spoon.

 

[YSSMAN]

Hey, Toyota is complaining just as much as anybody else, so its not just Americans who are upset about this...

...Please keep in mind as well that GM has already said they are in favor of increasing standards, but they want to do it at a reasonable pace, so technology can keep pace with the changes...

Remember that story where Lutz said that if they could raise their fuel mileage with off-the-shelf parts they'd do it? Did you ever read the story in which the hippies had a meeting with Wagoner and Lutz at GM? As he put it, they had good ideas that in theory would work, but for the $300 price increase per car they were talking about, the hippies were just plain wrong.

Everyone knows that they need to increase their fuel efficency, and everyone is doing it. Its a process, and lets be honest, its not like you can snap your fingers and have everyone doing 50+ MPG with their cars and trucks. No matter how many new cars and trucks Toyota, GM, Ford, or Honda sells, there are still going to be HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of cars out on the road that can only achieve 30+ MPG...

...So unless our decidedly un-socialist government is planning on buying everyone's car and giving them an allowance to buy these new 50+ MPG vehicles, these new laws won't make a lick of difference to anyone...

 

[Gonz013]

I hate the government. This will kill the Vipers/Vettes/Shelbys/Veyrons/Ferraris/Lambos/McLarens/AMG's/M's etc. Unless there is a enginnering miracle, any car that has more than 50 HP is screwed. **** it.

Don't worry. Engineers and car manufacturers are perfectly capable of building alternate fuel cars that better the average Ferrari.

They just won't do it until they have to.

 

[Pupik]

To sort the confusion just a bit, I believe that the 35 MPG figure has to be the average across the board.
.
.
.
Then again, I'm not certain if they go company-wide (with collections like GM
and Ford) or brand-specific (Buick, Chrysler, Mercury, etc...)...

I think the current CAFE standard is for the entire fleet of cars produced or imported for sale in America. If I remember correctly, Ford got around that regulation a decade ago by slapping Ford Aspire badges on the Kia Avella; Ford didn't care if the Aspire made any money, for they only imported about 10,000 of them per year to offset all their SUV sales.

 

[YSSMAN]

I believe you are right. The good news (at least for us) is that if they decide to bring over the small cars they already have (Fiesta and Corsa please!), they should be enough to offset some of the vehicles already in the lineup.

We'll see what happens, should the bill pass of course...

 

[YSSMAN]

This could be a better alternative to the issue:

In the Wild West, the order would have been "Cut them off at the pass!" For carmakers today battling with wildly fluctuating forecasts for mpg, CO2, and CAFE standards, the mission is to cut them off at the Capital. Taking matters upon themselves, some manufacturers are considering a proposal that would require 36 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for light trucks.

That proposal is being offered in an attempt to derail the fuel economy measure being taken up by the Senate in a couple of weeks. That's the one that calls for a CAFE standard of 35 mpg fleetwide by 2020 and a 4% increase every year for ten years, to which the automakers have unanimously replied, 'never gonna happen.' Environmentalists are trying to make that bill even stronger, seeing that is has a provision allowing the government to reduce the standard if it is found to be too technologically or financially difficult for automakers to achieve. Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who's a friend of the industry, is proposing an alternative that mandates 36 mpg for cars by 2022, and a 30 mpg for trucks by 2025. Let's see -- that would give a 33 mpg average for cars and trucks in a maker's fleet by 2025, which is 2 mpg and 5 years shy of the CAFE standard requested in the bill the carmakers don't like. Is it us, or is this really just about timing?

[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]

...I'm up for a new corporate-imposed standard instead of a Federally-imposed one. It works well in Europe going without government mandates over fuel economy, as the public demands efficiency, and thus it becomes a selling point on the cars...

We'll see what happens. I think 34 MPG on cars in the next few years is reasonable, and same with 30 MPG on trucks. Current technologies allow for it, we just need to apply them a bit better so everything works out...

 

[JCE]

50 MPG by 2030? Is there even a car sold in America now that can actually get that? Will there even be oil by 2030?

I don't think there will be oil past 2015. The way the population is increasing and the more countries like China gets more first-time car buyers into the market the more fuel will be consumed...a billion times over. Doesn't the Smart car and Civic hybrid get over 50mpg highway?

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's what it is. Theoretically a manufacturer could put out one microcar that gets an insane gas mileage figure and still produce cars that do 20-30mpg. That's part of what makes this so dumb.

+1 Agreed. I'm all for having my gas guzzlers in the same company as a micro hybrid car--it just needs to be taxed. But...read the reply to M5 below.

You guys need to think outside the box. Can't develop insane amounts of power from gasoline anymore and you guys are ready to pack it in. How about alternative fuel sources? That's the whole point of CAFE. I say bring it on.

+1 Agreed. Seriously, cars could be run on 90% ethanol if converted to. Plus hydrogen cars will be a reality by 2020 I'm sure. And I'd hope by 2030 petrol and diesel will not even be available.

Just adopt the British gallon.

35mpg (UK) = 29.1mpg (US)

Job done.

Hah, perfectly said. 👍 +rep

[Mr. Burns] Excellent... [/Mr. Burns]

---

To sort the confusion just a bit, I believe that the 35 MPG figure has to be the average across the board. This however does not include high-weight vehicles like the HD Pickups and large SUVs (Excursion, Escalade ESV, etc), as they are exempt from EPA fuel testing.

This however does concern the entire line, which makes stuff a bit odd. Lets look at Chevrolet for the moment:

- Avalanche: 20
- Aveo: 34
- Cobalt: 32
- Colorado: 22
- Corvette: 27
- Equinox: 26
- HHR: 30
- Impala: 31
- Malibu: 34
- Monte Carlo: 31
- Silverado: 22
- Suburban: 21
- Tahoe: 22
- Trailblazer: 22
- Uplander: 25

Average Economy: 26.6 MPG (give or take just a bit, current standards are set at 27.7 MPG... I didn't include every model with every optional engine)

I wish we had this kind of list for ALL global manufacturers (using all forms of measurement). It would put it into a complete perspective I think.

 

[Jim Prower]

*sigh of frustration*

Why, oh, why, do I feel this has less to do with clean air, and more to do with keeping cars from being fun to drive, and going over the speed limit?

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, I wouldn't rush to think it is that, but the Democrats are so obsessed with the radical "green" ideas that they really don't care how normal people feel... We should all be driving silver and white Priuses (whats plural for Prius?) in neat little lines all across the United States.

...Right...

Personally, I'd rather have the corporations figure out whats good than the Feds. Keep the government out as much as possible, that is almost always the best course, as people like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have no idea what Americans want...

 

[Wolfe]

(whats plural for Prius?)

I like using Priii. Like Cactii, Fungii, or Lexii.

Personally, I'd rather have the corporations figure out whats good than the Feds. Keep the government out as much as possible, that is almost always the best course, as people like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have no idea what Americans want...

And the government generally has no idea what the industry is capable of.

 

[harrytuttle]

*sigh of frustration*

Why, oh, why, do I feel this has less to do with clean air, and more to do with keeping cars from being fun to drive, and going over the speed limit?

Because you're thinking with the same archaic reasoning from the 70's. It was wrong then, it's wrong now. The Corvette is far cleaner than any version car from the 70's, and really isn't all that more technologically advanced. What stopped GM from making it better 35 years ago? Greed and lethargy. Here we are 35 years later and people are whining again. Does no one believe in learning from history?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Well, I wouldn't rush to think it is that, but the Democrats are so obsessed with the radical "green" ideas that they really don't care how normal people feel... We should all be driving silver and white Priuses (whats plural for Prius?) in neat little lines all across the United States.

...Right...

Personally, I'd rather have the corporations figure out whats good than the Feds. Keep the government out as much as possible, that is almost always the best course, as people like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have no idea what Americans want...

The problem with this is that the corporations are just as in-touch with what the population wants. Which do you think would be top priority, improved environmental performance... or ways to increase profit? I think companies could still hit the proposed levels pretty easily, but for them it means a huge chunk of profit gone. So they'd much rather drag this whole "green" movement out so it's as slow as possible.