This is absurd - 54.5mpg mandate by 2025

[John Milmont]

My only problem with the mandate is that its forced upon us. All of the cars I keep seeing that will meet this mpg rating are micro cars. I have been known to go camping and to take road trips with family and friends. A micro car is just not going to work for those things. I'm sure bigger cars will still be around, but they are going to cost a lot more..

You can also see how this mandate is going to hurt lower income families.

 

[Doug S.]

We can do BETTER if we just will!!

While I am not a fan of enforced limits, I must admit that I am horrified by the auto usage in the Houston area.

It seems to me that about 80% of the traffic is pickups and large SUV's...I might be a bit high on that estimate, but well over 50%, for sure.

I seldom see more than one person in those vehicles in rush hour traffic. Why not? OK, I can imagine that perhaps a few of them NEED a huge F350 or a ton-dually for some sort of enterprise, possibly farming, but, really, how many? Most of them want them for the "prestige" factor...pure Texas bravada, nothing less. My own son is one of those, only one child and yet he wants a ton dually, and he works at a desk designing motel railings with CAD programs.

The rest of the world has demonstrated that we humans can quite realistically manage with smaller cars...perhaps we might have to make some adjustments, but is raging against the machine that important when you look at the alternative, a truly unhealthy world in which the entire human race must survive?

I worry that we might saddle our kids with huge financial debt if we don't reign in spending, but even more I worry that they might not be able to enjoy this world's beauty and opportunities because we will have destroyed our atmosphere and thereby invited overall environmental ruin.

We Americans have demonstrated we don't like to change (remember when they made seat-belt use mandatory? How about motorcycle helmets--in TX they are still optional!!!), but when forced to do so, we can and often once we have made the changes we don't even seem to remember why we didn't want to do so, in the first place.

I have managed to take two other kayakers with me, including all 3 kayaks and two mountain bikes, all in my Honda Accord using only a package tray on the rear and a Yakima rack on top of the car.....we were gone for 7 days to the Ocoee River in Tennessee, had no trouble camping out and survived just fine. It takes planning and careful use of space, but we did it and will be doing it again and again....who needs a Suburban or a F350????

Doug

 

[John Milmont]

But Doug, who really NEEDS a GT40?

It should be noted that this mandate only covers cars and not trucks. I'm not totally educated on the law, but I think trucks and suv's will have different rules.

 

[Doug S.]

But Doug, who really NEEDS a GT40?

Yep...they are a toy, pure and simple! As a specially constructed vehicle, I doubt there would be any MPG requirement, as they would not be part of any corporate vehicle lineup, but your issue was having the requirement FORCED on you...once again, if it is for the overall good of our society, I can understand and accept having our individual rights trampled on a bit. We have had many things forced upon us and we eventually adapt...we can and will adapt to this one, too.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[TrevS]

Is 54.5mpg really that difficult to reach in that time? I don't think it is that unrealistic. Here in Europe we already have a lot of diesel cars that have manufacturer MPG ratings higher than that and more bigger petrol cars are getting close to that kind of number. The Alfa Romeo Guiletta 1.4TB has an combined MPG figure of 54mpg and I would say that is a fairly decent size car.

Alfa turns up the heat with the latest model | Mail Online
It's time for you yanks to follow the Europeans and Japanese and stop developing cars that are the size of small houses and do 10 MPG

 

[Pat]

As Doug suggested earlier, this may not be as bad as it sounds. I read today that CAFE mpg is based on a set of tests — city cycle and highway cycle — that were put in place back years ago when the government began requiring car company fleets to achieve average mileage standards.

But to put things in context, current window sticker fuel economy is based on a series of five more exhaustive (pun intended) tests, including hot weather, cold weather, air conditioning use, and driving at higher speeds.

Window sticker fuel economy has always been lower than the overall CAFE standard. According to Edmunds, the 34.1 mpg CAFE target for 2016 is actually equal to only 26 mpg on a window sticker. And, it says the 2025 standard is probably more like 36 mpg.

If you factor in vehicles like turbo diesels, micro cars, natural gas power and hybrids, The New York Times says the number is probably going to be closer to 40 mpg, assuming Americans buy more of them 13 years from now. That's quite some time away and new standards could get amended or delayed by a future administration conversely, we could have some sort of significant technological breakthrough that prompts even higher standards.

And then there are carbon offsets the companies can apply from other years...

 

[Jim Craik]

Veek,

That's very interesting, those are data points I had not heard before, thanks.

 

[John Milmont]

I wonder how natural gas powered cars will be factored in to the whole CAFE equation. A whole different set a rules will have to apply. I'm not even sure if those cars will require catalytic converters - its not like you have a CAT on your stove top...

I have been a huge supporter of natural gas, and it has been disappointing how slowly we have been moving to use it to power anything.

 

[Doug S.]

I have been a huge supporter of natural gas, and it has been disappointing how slowly we have been moving to use it to power anything.

I grew up in the midwest, where propane is a common fuel for tractors. Many farmers installed smaller tanks in the backs of their pickups and ran those off their propane...a small pump to transfer the fuel from the bulk storage tank to the smaller pickup fuel tank was all that was needed.

I foresee GREAT things for CNG...compressed natural gas! The current state of the art, as of the last time I looked, is a small compressor about the size of a small suitcase that hangs on the wall of the garage. Your household natural gas supply is all that is needed, the compressor takes care of the rest.

I even see a hybrid option...a car equipped with a small CNG tank and also capable of electric operation. One would never need to visit a gas station again, except for refreshments and the occasional potty break. Imagine being able to fly by an Exxon/Mobil station and flag your nose at them for the rest of your life :thumbsup:!!

In my dream world the ultimate is HO technology...in essence, fuel cells that use water as a source of hydrogen to burn cleanly (essentially creating only more water as a byproduct), and, of course, water is not anywhere as expensive as fossil fuels.

So....an electric only car uses NO gasoline....would that car be exempted from the corporate lineup "average" requirement, or would it be factored in at some sort of "equivalent", a figure based on the amount of fossil fuel that would be required to create the electricity it uses, in essence, a MPG figure based on the efficiency of our electrical generation industry?

Cheers!

Doug

 

[TimB]

I think Veek points out an important factor of market. Yes this goal can be met with small diesels etc but who will buy them. As a people Americans like different types of cars than Europeans and just because a politician mandates a certain MPG standard they can not create a market for them no matter how noble the goal

 

[Doug S.]

As a people Americans like different types of cars than Europeans and just because a politician mandates a certain MPG standard they can not create a market for them no matter how noble the goal

"If you build it, they will come"....the legal mandate will require the manufacturers to build more fuel efficient cars in general, the customers will have to come to the manufacturers for their cars....

It's time for you yanks to follow the Europeans and Japanese and stop developing cars that are the size of small houses and do 10 MPG

I could not agree more, Trevor!

We have had many things forced upon us and we eventually adapt...we can and will adapt to this one, too.

Said it before :lol:

...will say it again. We Americans have proven we can adapt...at one point I speculated that leaded gas would always be available b/c of the number of older cars that were manufactured in a manner that required leaded gas...guess what, within 2 years leaded gas disappeared from the mass consumer market. We had to adapt then, we will have to adapt again...and we can do it, we may not like having it forced upon us, but we can, and will, manage.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Jim Craik]

I for one will not miss the massive Exxon Valdez sized SUVs.

 

[Bob Fechter]

I for one will not miss the massive Exxon Valdez sized SUVs.

I for one will not miss the massive, shop worn cliches of a worn out propaganda mill.

 

[TimB]

I for one will not miss the massive Exxon Valdez sized SUVs.

That's just it Jim if you don't like them don't drive them and convince others there are better alternatives. The idea that we should legislate what type of car people are allowed to buy is kind of a slippery slope; let's face it it would be just as easy to legislate an elimination of specialty constructed vehicles due to public safety concerns. I felt the same way regarding the "cash for clunkers" program that required that the vehicles be rendered inoperative; if you want to incentivise trades for a better fuel mileage car fine but to remove those vehicles from the used car market or salvage trade was beyond what was needed and reeked of we know better than you what you should drive.

 

[Jim Craik]

That's just it Jim if you don't like them don't drive them and convince others there are better alternatives. The idea that we should legislate what type of car people are allowed to buy is kind of a slippery slope; let's face it it would be just as easy to legislate an elimination of specialty constructed vehicles due to public safety concerns.

Posted by TimB

Tim, they have been legislating what type of car we can buy for 40+ years. They have insisted that cars become much safer and much cleaner, we have all benifited.

Yes, they have always had the ability to eliminate specialty constructed vehicles, this does not change that.

I find it interesting that many of the same folks who complain bitterly about sending so much money to OPEC countries are the same ones who complain when someone tries to do something about it. Why do you suppose that is?

Tim, wouldn't you like to see less dependance on foreign oil?

 

[TimB]

If we are going just by MPG I would wager your 40 gets less than my wife's SUV so dependence on foreign oil would seem to be a bit of a stretch for the argument. Auto makers do make some high MPG vehicles right now and if and when people get tired of paying high gas bills they will buy more of them and then the automakers will shift production to more of those cars just like they are doing already no need for the administration to require anything. I grew up in SoCal during the gas crisis days when there were lines miles long to get gas and different colored flags letting you know who was allowed to buy gas. I also remember that when that happened people sold their gas guzzlers and people began to buy foreign compacts; the US automakers saw their success and had to play catch up but they made that decision on their own because they knew they needed to to survive. I am less concerned with my dollars going to an OPEC nation to buy a commodity I want than I am about my tax dollars going to more bureaucrats tasked with creating regulations to justify their existence. To answer your specific question regarding foreign oil I believe we need to explore all energy options to lessen our dependence. Call me crazy but I subscribe to the old Reaganism "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."

 

[Jim Craik]

Please explain how making cars safer, getting better milage and sending less dollars to governents that hate us "ruins peoples lives"?

If you lived in LA in the 1970s then you know how bad the air was, have you been back lately?

I am less concerned with my dollars going to an OPEC nation to buy a commodity I want than I am about my tax dollars going to more bureaucrats tasked with creating regulations to justify their existence. To answer your specific question regarding foreign oil I believe we need to explore all energy options to lessen our dependence. Call me crazy but I subscribe to the old Reaganism "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." /QUOTE]Posted by TimB


So you are OK with sending billions to OPEC Nations, but you complain about the taxes you have to pay?

Tim,

You do know that the tax rate we paid under the "Great Ronald Reagan" was much higher than we pay now?

*************************

Some of Ronald Reagan's Environmental Thoughts

As Governor of California

1967 – Signed into law legislation establishing Air Resources Board authorized to set motor vehicle emissions standards in order to reduce air pollution.

There is an "absolute necessity of waging all-out war against the debauching of the environment… The bulldozer mentality of the past is a luxury we can no longer afford. Our roads and other public projects must be planned to prevent the destruction of scenic resources and to avoid needlessly upsetting the ecological balance."

This probably sounds like Al Gore, Barbra Streisand, or Ralph Nader. In fact, these words were uttered by Governor Ronald Reagan. At the time, he was signing into law one of the most aggressive environmental protection statutes ever passed up to that point.

How can this be? Are we talking about the same Ronald Reagan who said trees cause pollution? The same Ronald Reagan who said "If you've seen one redwood you've seen 'em all"? The same Ronald Reagan who appointed a fundamentalist Christian (James Watt) to run the Department of the Interior, who famously said that it didn't matter if we cut down every tree because Christ would then return?

 

[TimB]

Jim you can't draw a comparison with the autos of the 70s and the emissions of modern auto's including SUV's and you misconstrue what I wrote by saying whats wrong with safer more efficient cars. Nothing is wrong with them and the industry as a whole is headed there on their own without Govt mandates THAT is the point. Again I'm not trying to convince you how to live or what to buy nor am I complaining about my tax rate. I merely point out that too many politicians on both sides of the aisle are throwing a lot of my taxes down a rat hole and not facing the very real issues we have with entitlement spending and I find that more concerning than OPEC but that is another discussion altogether.

 

[Jim Craik]

Tim,

Fair enough.

Are you as supprised as I am that it was Ronald Reagan who started the proccess in California that led to all the current clean air standards?

It seems Mr Reagan was the first to force the car makers to do the right thing and it did require force!

If they wanted to sell cars in California, they needed to comply.

Then as now, the auto makers screamed bloody murder!

In the end, then as now, it is/was the right thing to do!

 

[TimB]

not so surprised but then again I lived in CA up until the mid 80's and yes there were many air quality issues that rightly needed to be addressed. I'm not sure I put this mileage mandate in the same class of problem but respect if you do.