I didn't buy my mustang gt because it gets 50 mpg, I bought it because it will run the 1/4 mile in mid 13's and I buy the fuel for it, not the dems on the hill. Better mpg and more small cars is a good thing, but I don't want it to mess with performaance of my mustang to meet some standard.

 

Again. Let's be honest about what you guys want. None of you in favor of increased CAFE standards want tougher standards. What you want is for someone to force the automakers to build a solid, luxurious, tough, durable, heavy car that gets great gas mileage. IE, you want the big SUV or truck you bought now to get 35mpg or better.


Can't be done.

 

I don't, I want my mustang to run very fast and I'm satisfied with 22 mpg that I get. My fusion could get 35 mpg, thats fine, thats what I bought it for, better mpg and comfort. What we want is a choice. If I bought a super duty V-10 4x4 to pull a 10,000 pound camper, I don't expect it to get 20 mpg, but I still need it all the same. If I bought a focus for a work car, then yeah, I would like it to get 35 mpg. What I want is a choice, where I can buy a vehicle to fit a specific need, not a mandated vehicle that suffers everywhere but in the mileage department. In other words, "sure", build some 35 mpg vehicles, but they all don't have to be if it means loosing capabilities or performance. I just heard on the news as I was typing this that the new standards will mean higher sticker prices in the future. So what do we really save? The cars will cost more and so will gas as the oil companies will regain thier lost revenue's from selling less gas. It's a visious cycle and will only be broken when we have an alternitive fuel source so oil will have to compete for your business.

 

I just don't see how they're going to meet these new standards. The way I see it, there are two ways to go: 1) Make most vehicles hybrids 2) Make vehicles lighter and smaller. The problem with option one is that vehicles will cost more, only last ten years or so, and will put a huge burden on the environment when they are scrapped. The problem with option two is, if you use carbon fiber parts, the cost will again go way up, and if you use standard materials, how safe will they be?

 

I'm for it. Normally I'd agree that letting the market decide is a better way to go, but the US manufacturers have an nasty track record of dragging their feet. They won't do squat unless someone pushes their nose in it. And it's not that foreign manufacturers are all *that* different - Japanese makers have better mileage vehicles. Why? Because the Japanese govt has CAFE standards that are more strict than ours. That's part of the reason why US cars don't sell in the rest of the world too well. No one else wants them, except for in the Middle East where they love Hummers 'cause they only pay $1 a gallon for gas.

Hate to say it, but the management of US auto manufacturers seem to be fine with less and less market and fewer and fewer jobs, as long as the execs still make their millions and get those golden parachutes. They've done a good job overall lately on improving quality, but an atrocious job on the mileage thing relative to other countries.

The gov could give them a little help by easing up on the diesel reqs though...

 

Buried in this 1000+ page "energy bill" is a lot different than the hyped, simplistic 35mpg CAFE that you think it is. In order to get the Michigan representatives to "buy in", the formulas are extremely complicated. Trucks have always been separate, but now small cars will be grouped separate from bigger ones or SUV's. The law of unintended consequenses will still rear is ugly head. Back when the original CAFE standards were put in place, imports and domestics were separated in a sop to Detroit and the UAW. It ended up moving more jobs to Mexico, long before NAFTA, opposite of the political intent.

If Washington was really serious about this, the politically unpopular thing to do is add a couple of dollars to the gas tax, open ANWAR to drilling and not allow California and New England states to have separate emissions standards (which block small diesels).

Instead we get more Ethanol and outlaw US-made light bulbs in favor of mercury-containing Chinese made ones.

Jim

 

The american auto companies gave the people what they wanted, big heavy suv's and trucks. It's not a question of them dragging thier feet, it's a question of what the americans want this week. The buying public was all good with suv's at 2.30 a gallon, they just don't like them at 3.30 a gallon. After the shock wears off, they still would be buying suv's truth be known. Thats why ford jumped on this new cross over craz early, still make suv's, but with better mpg like a car. Have you checked the mpg ratings on a toyota land cruiser and some of the larger toyota suv's, there as bad or worse than ours. The only little japanese cars that are good on gas are the little tokoyo clones. Japan has never had it's own oil, so they've allways had to be conservitive with gas. The lated fuel hike just played into japans hands with thier econo boxes they have. When americans couldn't get enough suv's and trucks, it worked out for our big 3. Now we just have to play a little catch up as the flavor of the month has changed. Ford has been building cars for the european market for 80 years, so there no strangers to gas sipping cars, it's just that they sold well over there and not here. It's supply and demand, we demand it and they supply it. Just don't get the wrong idea that ford doesn't know how to build econo boxes, look at a european ford web site. We didn't want them, we wanted trucks and suv's and thats what we got. I still have needs that can only be met with trucks and suv's and will pay the price to do so. However, for short tripping around town and whatever, an econo box is fine, but there not the answer to all of our needs. Thats why I say to give us some of each. Where I live and where I'm from, people are farmers and construction workers, for kicks and giggles, we hunt and fish and some of us even like to race. I tried the fast and the furious route and played around with a 4 cylinder focus st, I'm to old for that crap, I had to get another V-8 mustang. I'm from W,Va and live in the farm lands of Ohio where people use and make a living with thier vehicles, it's not one size fits all in this country. I welcome better mpg from cars, don't get me wrong, but as farmers and construction workers, we still need vehicles that will perform whatever tasks we need them for, not just to squeez a drip of gas. I guess what I'm trying to say, is one size doesn't fit all nor should one size of fuel standard fit all. There are people that need the capabilites of a gas guzzling vehicle to get things done. I believe trucks and towing rigs and vehicles like them should be exempt from some crazy fuel standard thats intended for econo boxes.

 

In principle I don't argue any of that. But the reality is that what we're doing now just isn't working. Detroit has been handed multiple gifts to "help them compete", all they've ever done is pocket the cash and keep doing business as usual. They don't need more gifts, they need a dope slap.

The new CAFE standards are complicated compared to the old ones, but are very similar to the Japanese standards, which seem to be working, at least relative to ours.

As I said, I agree on the diesel issue, but I don't blame CA a bit for continuing to push their own higher standards - Detroit and Washington have both failed them miserably. And it's not just NE states that are using the CA standards, I think it's about 16 states now, with more to follow.

I disagree on ANWR - more domestic supply has never done anything but increase our use, and thus increase our foreign dependence. Agree on the gas tax, but only if those funds are used exclusively to develop alternative energy solutions...

 

10-4 to the "not one size fits all". The Japanese CAFE standards recognize that and have different standards for different classifications. One thing I'd like to see is a graduated fuel tax based on use. The farmers, truckers and construction workers pay less tax, as that's their livelihood. You want to go racing on weekends, sorry - you'll pay more than the guy that needs to burn fuel for his living. There's already a bit of that in place with things like off-road diesel, I'd like to see concept that expanded.

 

I'm pretty sure vehicles over 8500 lbs GVWR are exempt. That is most 3/4 ton and larger trucks.

 

I don't think our problem is people buying vehicles for specific purposes, but rather people using 15-16 mpg vehicles as daily drivers for a 40+ mile commute. If people bought dedicated tow vehicles and another vehicle to get to/from work, this kind of stuff probably wouldn't come about. Yet Expeditions and Suburbans/Yukons are not uncommon sights in the parking deck here at work.

The higher sticker price junk is the common scare tactic Detroit used the last time Congress adjusted CAFE. In the end, it just forces the automakers to start implementing some of the technologies they've had on the back burner for ages and shave 10-15 hp that nobody will ever miss off of some less efficent vehicles to recoup a couple MPG to offset having to build a few smaller but less profitable vehicles. Ditto with oil companies keeping gas prices high. You're confusing gross profit and profit margin. As long as an investor is making whatever return they desire, they don't care if the business is making that 15% from 1 million in sales ($150k) or 1 billion ($150M) in sales. There is a significant difference in gross profit ($$$) but their margin is unchanged. This is because as the demand for gasoline falls, the demand for the underlying commodity, oil, falls as well. The price of a barrel of oil falls, and they can make the same margin or even gross profit by selling gas at a cheaper price. Keeping prices high will just cause people to cut back on discretionary spending (ie., they'll travel less for pleasure, or stay closer to home).

No, it will mean that you'll probably see some more composites used and it will finally be the death knell of some engines (like the 3.0, for example) that don't provide a significant performance advantage over current smaller and almost equally powerful engines. It will mean that some folks are going to have to get over their hang ups about not wanting to own anything less than 6 cylinders. The 4 banger in my commuter car has 160 hp, that's as much as many V6s were making 6-7 years ago, but it gets about an extra 6-7 mpg compared to a similar v6 powered vehicle.

 

i really don't see a problem with making vehicles get better fuel mileage, but do it reasonably. Right now engine technology is just fine to get good mileage. The problem is not in the power train, it is the excessive weight all of the current vehicles. For instance, my 1976 Pontiac grand prix is longer than my 03 f250 superduty, just as wide, weighs 4000 pounds. It still has an all steel chassis, and all steel body and bumpers, yet doesn't weigh much more than many modern cars that are mostly aluminum and plastic.

Basically if they get the weight down, we don't have to sacrifice the motors, as that is not where the problem lies.

 

I think we have an answer to our 50-60 mpg gallon cars and 30mpg suv's, diesel. It seems tho that some people in our government, the same people that are crying about more milage, is doing everything they can to stop that with the new emissions.... if an 80,000 pound truck can get 7mpg, theres no reason why we cant use the same technology to make a 3000 pound car get 50 mpg. VW and the rest of europe has done it for years.

 

Relax! It's no problem. You just build cars out of tinfoil, switch to 0w10 weight oil and drive with the air bags pre-deployed.

 

The "sky is falling' types said the same things in the late 70's when the original cafe standards were proposed.. 20yrs later cars are faster, safer, more efficient and produce almost twice the power form the same sized engines.

my 2002 6speed maxima can average 31mpg has every option conceivable and runs mid 14 second 1/4 mile times. 4 more mpg is hardly going to be a challenge for any automaker willing to try.

If we can put a man on the moon 40yrs ago we can make cars that get 35 mpg.