U.S. to require new cars get 42 mpg.

[blackhole123]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30810514/

 

I can't think of ANY car on the market that gets that many MPG right now. Except maybe hybrids.

 

I'm really concerned about the environment and I'm about as liberal as they get, but is this even possible?

[bascule]

Could this legislation be the answer to life, the universe, and everything?

 

Some context here:

 

This would require that cars (i.e. not trucks, SUVs, etc) get 42 MPG by 2016. That's some 7 years away. If Obama gets elected again this would be at the end of his term.

 

I don't know of any non-hybrids that get 42 MPG. The Toyota Corolla, for example, is rated at 36 MPG.

 

I'm not sure what to think about this. I like stricter emission standards but these might be unrealistic. There comes a point where you get diminishing returns on this sort of thing, and vehicles at the lower end of the mileage spectrum (e.g. SUVs, trucks, Hummers) more than make up for any gains.

 

What I'd really like to see is a mandated minimum MPG for all non-commercial vehicles. Something in the realm of 20 MPG on the highway.

[Phi for All]

So better mileage automatically means fewer emissions? I didn't see any emissions standards other than mileage in this article.

 

I really wish there was a zero emissions target date with this legislation that would move the industry towards electric.

[bascule]

So better mileage automatically means fewer emissions?

 

I think the two are correlated. If you burn less gas you're pretty much guaranteed to emit fewer pollutants.

 

However, I can foresee a hypothetical engine that gets great mileage by first converting gasoline into HorriblePoison and emitting HorriblePoisonVapor, but I guess that's generally not how it works.

[Phi for All]

However, I can foresee a hypothetical engine that gets great mileage by first converting gasoline into HorriblePoison and emitting HorriblePoisonVapor, but I guess that's generally not how it works.

This is my fear, actually. By targeting mileage instead of emissions, the legislation mollifies the consumer but leaves a wide open door to additives and quick-fixes that may improve mileage but still emit previous-level toxins or worse. The market could quickly jump in with products that help fulfill the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law.

[john5746]

I wonder how they will count an all-electric vehicle.

[iNow]

I wonder how they will count an all-electric vehicle.

 

Good question, but it won't much matter if we change the source itself to solar and wind.

[padren]

This is my fear, actually. By targeting mileage instead of emissions, the legislation mollifies the consumer but leaves a wide open door to additives and quick-fixes that may improve mileage but still emit previous-level toxins or worse. The market could quickly jump in with products that help fulfill the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law.

 

I recall some time back catching something on one of them "learn'n" tv channels about a method where the initial exhaust from the cold start of the engine gets caught, and reburned at a higher temperature after it's warmed enough to allow a far more efficient breakdown of pollutants. It apparently did a lot of good in reducing emissions, but would be totally ignored in a pure mileage metric.

 

It could also be one of those things that changes between now and 2016... but has the benefit of pushing the auto industry towards that goal.

[Pangloss]

The news reports I've seen have been saying that it'll be more like 39 for cars. I think the actual announcement is tomorrow, so we'll probably have to wait and see. This follows an earlier move a couple months back to raise it to 35 by 2016. Whatever the details, I think it's a good idea. This will just be a fixed variable and with all engineers working from the same starting point it will be fair to all makers. It's not as if they've never made engines on that basis that before.

 

One article I read said that the average cost increase will be $600 by 2012 and $1200 by 2016. That doesn't seem so bad to me.

[Tsuyoiko]

This seems really odd. There are quite a few cars available in the UK that get way over that:

 

http://www.fuel-economy.co.uk/stats.shtml

 

The best available here gets over 80 mpg, with quite a few diesels getting well over 60 mpg.

 

I did a similar search for US and apparently even a Toyota Prius only gets 45 mpg. A Toyota Prius here gets 65 mpg. Weird.

[Severian]

I am confused by this thread too. My car is a BMW, which I wouldn't expect to be very fuel efficient, but my official fuel consumption is 48mpg (and I would say that is pretty much what I experience).

 

Are American cars really so much less fuel efficient or is this a difference of definition?

[SH3RL0CK]

A couple of items to consider.

 

1) Methods used to determine mileage vary in regards to the mileage obtained. This is one reason the mileage seems to be greater in Europe, even for the same make/model of car. Hopefully, the legislation uses the current epa method for consistency (I haven't had time to look this up) and doesn't switch the methods to give an appearance of progress instead of actual progress.

 

2) What happens if the standards aren't met (again I haven't had time to research this)? Will the epa financially penalize a GM on the brink of bankrupcy should they be unable to comply? Politically, that doesn't seem like it would be appealing to any politician.

[Sisyphus]

Well, for one thing U.S. gallons are smaller than Imperial gallons - about 83% the volume. That accounts for some of the discrepancy, at least. Maybe it's also optimum efficiency vs. average efficiency? Something with "highway" and "city" mileage?

[CharonY]

Actually the report states that 39 mpg is the goal. And actually this is quite realistic. My Toyota Yaris in Germany takes in real life around 6 liters per 100 km (mix between highway and city, if I go around 130 km/h in the former) which translates to roughly 38-39 mpg. If I go on highway on a constant speed I get even slightly more. There may be on average a slightly lower efficiency due to the prevalence of automatic cars in the US.

[bascule]

I am confused by this thread too. My car is a BMW, which I wouldn't expect to be very fuel efficient, but my official fuel consumption is 48mpg (and I would say that is pretty much what I experience).

 

Are American cars really so much less fuel efficient or is this a difference of definition?

 

Is your car a diesel?

 

One of the big problems is auto makers are afraid to market high mileage diesel vehicles in America, e.g.:

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/not_sold_in_the_u_s/2009_volkswagen_scirocco_mini_test_road_test

 

There's a number of reasons for this. Diesel, despite getting you better mileage, is typically much more expensive than gasoline in America. It's used extensively by our trucking industry for long distance shipping.

[john5746]

There's a number of reasons for this. Diesel, despite getting you better mileage, is typically much more expensive than gasoline in America. It's used extensively by our trucking industry for long distance shipping.

 

Not to mention less pumps available as well - unless you goto a truck stop.

[Severian]

Is your car a diesel?

 

No. It is petrol. You can find its specs here.

[bascule]

No. It is petrol. You can find its specs here.

 

Wow, impressive. Yes, for some reason cars like that are rare in America. In fact I do not think that car is even available in the US.

[Phi for All]

Wow, impressive. Yes, for some reason cars like that are rare in America. In fact I do not think that car is even available in the US.

At least not in the area where bascule and I live:

http://www.murraybmwofdenver.com/inventory.aspx?_makef=&_model=&_search=318i+SE&btn_search=Search&_new=true

 

0 results found on a search for BMW 318i SE at our biggest BMW dealership.

[JohnB]

One thought.

 

A major increase in efficiency can be made without new designs or additives.

 

Merely changing the tool heads on the lathes and mills more often gives an improvement.

 

The first engine off the line with all new cutters is a superior engine, it has more power and better fuel economy than later ones, it also lasts longer. As the tool heads wear down the engines become more and more out of line, out of balance and out of true.

 

Blueprinting and balancing allowed me to get 45+ MPG out of an inline 6 cyl 173 cu.in. more than 20 years ago. (The engine was made in 1972.)

 

So development in improving the machining of parts would go a long way towards meeting milage targets.

[The Bear's Key]

The Nano from India gets 50 mph and costs $2,500. Too bad it's not sold here.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17984516

India's Tata Motors has unveiled what is being billed as the world's cheapest car — the $2,500 Nano.

.....

At about 10 feet long and 5 feet wide, the car accommodates four large adults comfortably, automotive reporter Murad Ali Baig told NPR — and it comes in a variety of colors.

 

It meets all safety and environmental requirements, Tata said. And, in these days of escalating gas prices, it gets a respectable 50 mpg and has lower emissions levels than the scooters now produced in India.

 

The Nano has rear-wheel drive and a two-cylinder, 35-horsepower engine, and can reach speeds of 60 mph, Baig said.

 

The basic version of the Nano is spare. There's no radio, no passenger-side mirror and only one windshield wiper. It has seat belts, but no air bags, and the rear-mounted engine means there is little storage space.

The basic version (above) doesn't have much for comfort, but if you really want some extras for it, they have a deluxe edition -- which most people there buy.

 

 

The article linked below suggests for Detroit automakers to make a similar kind of vehicle, as one solution to escape their financial rut.

 

What Detroit can learn from the dirt-cheap Nano car

 

 

By the way, the U.S. already beat 42 mpg...over twenty years ago. The 1986 Chevy Sprint got 44 mpg city and 53 mpg highway.

[Pangloss]

I am confused by this thread too. My car is a BMW, which I wouldn't expect to be very fuel efficient, but my official fuel consumption is 48mpg (and I would say that is pretty much what I experience).

 

Are American cars really so much less fuel efficient or is this a difference of definition?

 

Yah BMW stopped selling the 318 in the US a while back. According to the Wikipedia the smallest engine you can get now is the 3-liter 6 with 215 hp.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_3_Series_(E90)

 

That's part of why we need the new standards. Once a fleet meets the average requirement, there's no need for them to even offer stuff like the above. Pure-market types call that giving people what they want, but it's not as if people write in how much horsepower they want in a textbox. I think if you raise the standard across the board then everyone has to compete with that same variable fixed in place. Cars might get a little slower in general, but fast cars will still be available for people who want them, and those who buy them as status symbols or because that's what came with all the options they wanted will have higher gas mileage instead of horsepower they didn't really need or want.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Pangloss

[The Bear's Key]

News article

 

Stricter mpg rules may help automakers

 

(Different business groups are either in favor of the policy, neutrally wait-and-see, or in complete opposition to it)

[bascule]

The problem that remains is that vehicles like trucks / SUVs more than swallow meager gains in increasing fuel efficiency for cars.

 

We need a minimum fuel efficiency for all non-commercial vehicles.

[Pangloss]

I think this new standard includes SUVs and light trucks. You mean have them all at the same number? I agree with that so long as it is, as you say, for non-commercial purposes. Why do they get a lower requirement anyway? Wanting to haul large/heavy objects around for entertainment purposes (or stir up some mud) is no more noble (and deserving of exception) than wanting to get to 60mph really quickly.

 

It's worth noting that people will still be able to do anything they want even with these new rules in place. Want a fast car? You can still get one. Want a big beefy all-terrain predator with monster lights on the roof? You can still get one. Nothing changes in that department.