Quote:
The new Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard is now official, and it's aggressive. Today, President Obama announced that the CAFE standard would increase from a target of 35.5 mpg in 2016 to 54.5 mpg by 2025. It's official. After a long and contentious battle, the government and automakers have settled on the new 2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations that will begin taking effect in 2017.
At a ceremony today in Washington, D.C., President Obama announced that the new CAFE standards for vehicle fleets will be 54.5 mpg by 2025. The increase piggybacks Obama's 2009 mandate for a CAFE average of 35.5 by 2016 and is the largest mandatory fuel economy increase in history. The standard is just shy of the 56.2 mpg average that the Obama administration was considering just a month ago (though not nearly as ambitious as the 62 mpg target the government floated at one time).
The ambitious new standards have encountered strong opposition from automakers, who suggest that the rules will mean large increases in cars' sticker prices. But, as part of the announcement (where the CEOs of the Detroit big three and several foreign automakers were in attendance), Obama said that consumers would save an average of $8000 per vehicle in reduced fuel costs once the regulations are in full effect in 2025.
Make no mistake about it: The new regulations are hugely important. They will save consumers boatloads of money they would've spent on gas, drastically reduce American's fuel consumption and carbon footprint and change the way cars are made. But, they present a major challenge to automakers, who must determine what technologies or combination of technologies will allow average fleet fuel economy to climb so high. They've got a lot of work to do.
Quote:
President Barack Obama on Friday revealed ambitious plans to raise the corporate average fuel economy standard for cars and light trucks to 54.5 mpg by the 2025 model year, a landmark move that will dramatically remake carmakers' product portfolios and consumers' buying habits.
Unlike the first CAFE standards passed by Congress in 1975, the Detroit automakers now publicly support the high requirements and have begun retooling their fleets to adapt the changes.
“[This] represents the single most important step we've ever taken as a nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” Obama said in a morning press conference.
The UAW has also voiced its support for the new rules after earlier expressing concerns. California legislators, who have pushed for strict fuel-economy standards, also are on board with the new regulations.
The president's plan was finalized after weeks of wrangling that saw the original number--56.2 mpg--slightly softened. The requirements will be phased in, giving automakers time to adapt. The increases would begin taking effect for 2017 trucks and 2018-model-year cars.
With car executives and union officials on hand, Obama lauded the agreement reached, despite considerable anxiety over the costs and future complications the mpg requirements could cause.
“We set an aggressive target, and the companies here are stepping up to the plate,” the president said. “This is an incredible commitment that they've made.”
The move comes as fuel prices remain elevated, with a gallon of unleaded gasoline costing $3.71 on Friday morning, up nearly a dollar from a year ago.
Obama's announcement is timely, as research shows that Americans are looking for more fuel-efficient cars and national guidelines. The Pew Charitable Trusts said 82 percent of people surveyed in early July favor the elevated figure, which was cited as 56.2 mpg at the time of the research.
Obama said that the new requirements would save a typical family $8,000 a year in fuel costs, though he didn't offer specifics.
Carmakers almost universally came out in praise of the new requirements--perhaps not wanting to be on the wrong side of history.
"GM plans to pursue the technical challenge ahead and to lead in delivering new fuel-saving technologies in cars and trucks customers want to buy and can afford," the company said in a statement. "Reducing fuel consumption and lessening the automobile's impact on the environment is important to our business because it's important to our country and our customers."
Toyota concurred:
“Toyota has embarked on the most aggressive expansion of hybrid, electric and hydrogen-fuel-cell cars of any automaker, and we are committed to continuing our demonstrated environmental leadership,” Toyota Motor Sales COO Jim Lentz said in a statement. “We share the administration's goal of achieving major advances in clean, fuel-efficient vehicles. Obviously, there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to how the market will respond and what vehicle technologies consumers will embrace, which is why we are rolling out and testing a range of alternative fuel options.”
Prepping for the new rules
Signs that carmakers are beginning to revamp their lineups are evident. Coincidentally, or not, BMW choose Friday to reveal two concepts--the i3 and the i8--that will form the foundation of its new alternative-propulsion division.
Chevrolet announced plans last week to bring a diesel variant of the Cruze to the U.S. market that would likely get more than 50 mpg.
Ford said earlier this year that it will make the C-Max an all-electric lineup, meaning consumers can choose a hybrid powertrain or the pure EV model, scratching plans for a conventional gasoline version.
Chrysler, meanwhile, has been augmented by Fiat technology, and the 500 is rolling out across the nation to acclaim and impressive fuel-economy ratings. Dodge is also slated to get a high-mileage car, likely about 40 mpg. It would be based on Alfa Romeo underpinnings.
Also Big Rigs will have to comply.
Quote:
Washington -- The White House on Tuesday unveiled the first-ever fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks such as semis, garbage trucks, buses, and ¾-ton pickups.
The standards -- which take effect in the 2014 model year and run through 2018 -- are required under a 2007 energy law and will boost the efficiency of bigger vehicles by up to 20 percent.
They are expected to save the industry $50 billion in fuel costs, or 530 billion barrels of oil, over that time period -- but will cost manufacturers $8.1 billion to build the more efficient vehicles.
Prior to the 2007 law, medium- and heavy-duty trucks faced no regulations -- unlike light-duty vehicles subject to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy mandates.
The program covers most vehicles over 8,500 pounds -- but doesn't cover trailers. They may be regulated in later rulemakings. Under the new program, trucks and buses built from 2014 through 2018 will greenhouse gas pollution by approximately 270 million metric tons.
The joint National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Environmental Protection Agency program will include a range of targets specific to the diverse vehicle types and purposes. Vehicles are divided into three major categories: combination tractors (semi-trucks), heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles (like transit buses and refuse trucks).
Within each of those categories, even more specific targets are laid out based on the design and purpose of the vehicle.
The standards are expected to result in long-term savings for vehicle owners and operators. A semi-truck operator could pay for the technology upgrades within a year and realize a net savings of $73,000 through reduced fuel costs over the truck's useful life.
Certain combination tractors -- commonly known as big-rigs or semi-trucks -- will be required to achieve up to approximately 20 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2018, saving up to 4 gallons of fuel for every 100 miles traveled.
For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, separate standards are required for gasoline-powered and diesel trucks.
These vehicles will be required to achieve up to approximately 15 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2018.
Vocational vehicles -- including delivery trucks, buses, and garbage trucks -- will be required to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissionsby approximately 10 percent by model year 2018.
These trucks could save an average of one gallon of fuel for every 100 miles traveled.
The final regulation -- first proposed last year -- changed slightly.
EPA and NHTSA changed testing requirements and reporting requirements to provide greater regulatory certainty and modified the averaging, banking and trading provisions of the program that will make implementation of this final program more flexible for manufacturers.
Obama cancelled a trip to Springfield, Va., to announce the standards Tuesday morning -- and instead met privately with trucking industry officials at the White House.
Later Tuesday, he is expected to travel to Dover, Del., to meet the remains of 30 U.S. military personnel killed in Afghanistan on Saturday.
Welcome or unwelcome?
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
I believe it is unwelcome imho, especially in the trucking industry.
In order for the vehicles to obtain these new mileages what will the industry spend to get their fleet to meet these standards? Also what costs will be passed down to consumers? These are all questions that have been ignored I believe. The cost of vehicles are going to go up and more than likely wages will not have gone up much either causing more issues so people will not be able to afford said vehicles.
The biggest thing I see, especially in the trucking industry since I work in this field, is that costs are going to go up on the vehicles. The trucks my company bought 6 years ago cost $100,000. Today the same truck costs around $120,00 because of all the new emissions devices installed. Not to mention all diesel engine manufactures, except navistar(international..they are using their emission credits from the powerstroke diesel's and DT444E engines), require the use of DEF. Another added cost.
When the newer emission standards first hit every truck and engine manufacture went to using EGR valves, except CAT they went with compound charging to help I believe. Here is a small example of added costs and repairs. In the fleet I work on we have 10 2005 Volvo VN640 trucks with Volvo VED12 EGR engines. The first 3 years everything was under warranty. Since then I have replaced no less than 2 sets of valves on each truck because of EGR valve failures. There are 2 valves per truck at a cost of $900 per valve not to mention various other parts and fluids so you are looking close to $1000 in parts. Then there is 6 hours of labor involved so another $500+ added to the cost. Now yes we make enough to cover repair costs but that came because of small hikes in freight charges. What my point is that with the added devices of these trucks to meet or exceed the new requirements will mean that trucking companies will have repairs hit their bottom line. Causing what? Added costs to haul the freight. Then guess what, it all gets passed down to us consumers. Once again we have even more inflation. Also more food for thought, The newer emission standards on big trucks added weight and also lost fuel economy.
I feel as if the government needs to take a step back and realize what they are doing. Sure the new standards are a good bit away but its the fact that it impacts everyone. The only people that will be able to afford these new cars are CEO's and politicians.
Sorry for the rant but I am against such radical fuel economy standards. Hybrids of today might meet that target but look at their costs, not just initial costs, but costs to maintain them down the road.
None of it makes a lick of sense to me. Im sure my post would be better in the war forum. lol
i find it funny that the govt claims it is trying so hard increase fuel economy however it bought back all the hydrogen cars sold, and in early 2000's the Honda Insight got a epa rating of 61 city and 70 highway and yet our new amazing hybrids cant hardly clear 50mpg
running rich? turn the boost up
So gas is already at $3.75 average or higher. We make more fuel efficient cars and drive down our consumption of gas, resulting in a slow of gas sales which then the assholes who supply our gas will hike the price even more. So where are we saving money here? We all know that they can save us $xxx amount each year but the reality of it is that companies no longer care for thier employees just the bottom line.So the guy at the top won't take a hit bc he just bought a new $40,000 economy car but us in the middle will be @!#$. It's a viscous cycle that is only getting worse IMHO. I think it's a good thing to increase standards but this just has inflation hikes and payroll raise stand still wrote all over it.
So added cost to produce the vehicle passed on to the consumer, more repairs that are probably costly, more "technology" added (probably extra equipment too that adds weight), and more vehicle upkeep is going to save consumers money??
Im all for increasing economy in cars, but not by government mandating figures that are quite outlandish. I say, let the consumer dictate economy figures.
JLAudioCavalier wrote:neubreed wrote:It's a viscous cycle.
Like the rinse cycle?
Like a third rinse cycle on heavy load.
But for real... somethings gotta give and at least this is more environmentally happy.
As usual, the public has to suffer for it's government's fool-hardy spending habits... How about we attack the gas price GOUGING, rather than the MPG's our cars get at the pump?
To be honest 2025 thats a lot of time. I would hope we would be well past 55 mpg by that time. As for bitching about the gas prices, consider it a mandatory expense and there is nothing you can do about it because the American people allowed for it to get out of hand and no to the point there is nothing they (us) can do about it but pay.
unwelcome , our government is way outta control
ill stick with team ANTI GREEN
Has anyone watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
I'm going to DD my 73..... as much as I possibly can.
(tabs) wrote:z yaaaa wrote:its not much fun trying to argue with a wall.
oh, trust us, we know
So 14 years for the car manufacturers to sit on their asses. I bet they already have a motor that makes that much.
I second team ANTI GREEN. Its a wonderful feeling leaving those nice hybrids in a nice cloud of diesel smoke. LMAO.
My take on it is example my 1985 cavalier with a 2.0ohv tbi (1injector) gets about 22-25 city and a consistent 34 mpg hwy.Now lets jump to today.Are these not close to the same #s we see on alot of 2011 models.You see and this car is 26 years old!Car makers make generally what the consumers want or not,but even my new civic 2011 does well but,better than my old 87 mazda trk 19-22 city and under 30 hwy.The trk was my daily but,had to retire it to semi active use,due to age and mileage and just wanted a new ride.I say let the consumers decide on what they want not the govrmt.And side note class 8 trucks run worse and get lower mpgs with all the BS emissions equipment and I know first hand I drive a trtr trlr for a living and does cost ALOT more to maintain them due to this!My previous truck 1997 international daycab with a cummins m11 averaged 8.5 mpg consistent and yeah comp trk but,drove for 7 yrs and no emissions bs.Try that today hah hah.I drive volvos todays daycabs but sh!!ty fuel mpg.
Ron, early 90's car blow out of the water any car from today on fuel economy. My old Cutlass supreme with 3.4l engine and 284 000 km on the clock was more fuel efficient than my girlfriends brand new Versa. Very disapointing this little burrito.
Back on topic, why bother with 2025...aren't we all dying next year? lol
Safety and convenience are in direct conflict of economy. We try to squeeze every last drop out via technology, be it direct injection, variable valve timing, hybrids and what not when the answer is so much easier than that. Did you ever wonder why your 25 year old, old, old technology 4 cylinder can get the same economy as modern power plants? WEIGHT!! Modern cars are disgusting, greasy, heavy FAT ASSES. I'm talking sweating cheddar cheese from every pore fat! Put an LNF in a 1800-2000lb vehicle and i guarantee you i can get 40+mpg highway and move the @!#$ out when i want to.
Why can't we make the 20 airbags an option? Why can't we really get a stripped model anymore? The government mandates the safety requirements, which add weight, then they turn around and say, well, your car is now about 500-1000lbs heavier than it needs to be to transport you from point a to point b, now we want you to also make it get 55mpg. WTF? Hyundai seems to have the only engineers and designers paying real attention to weight and offering a more stripped down model, but we could be doing so much better - very generally speaking 100 lbs can equate to at least 1mpg, but i bet even more with modern power plants.
On that note, i'm gonna hoard a gas guzzler and burn gas like it's going out of style!! After all, it is...
Question for all of you. If the government does not give the automakers standards to build the cars by, then who is (exactly)?
FU Tuning
Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:Question for all of you. If the government does not give the automakers standards to build the cars by, then who is (exactly)?
no one, and good question btw. i don't think anyone's saying that they shouldn't be giving them standards, it's that their standards are too harsh and too late imo.
the real question imho, is why are we even still making regulations for gasoline powered cars? y not focus more on ethanol? y not find a source of energy or "fuel" that is renewable.
i personally believe that is what we should be bitching about as citizens, not just of the country but of the world.
blucavvy wrote:Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:Question for all of you. If the government does not give the automakers standards to build the cars by, then who is (exactly)?
no one, and good question btw. i don't think anyone's saying that they shouldn't be giving them standards, it's that their standards are too harsh and too late imo.
the real question imho, is why are we even still making regulations for gasoline powered cars? y not focus more on ethanol? y not find a source of energy or "fuel" that is renewable.
i personally believe that is what we should be bitching about as citizens, not just of the country but of the world.
Of all the alternative fuel options, you chose ethanol for your argumentative example in this thread? LMAO. Ethanol gets insanely worse gas mileage than gasoline. This is a fuel consumption regulation thread, ethanol might come up in a thread where people are crying about saving the earth, emissions, or running out of fossil fuels. But ethanol should NOT be brought up in a gas mileage debate. The stuff sucks!
(tabs) wrote:z yaaaa wrote:its not much fun trying to argue with a wall.
oh, trust us, we know
David Alameda (Zspeedcav) wrote:So 14 years for the car manufacturers to sit on their asses. I bet they already have a motor that makes that much.
Thats the point... I have talked with head engineers in quality control, warranty, and powertrain design for the big three and they can build a car that gets 100 mpg and makes 400hp... the problem is noone would be able to afford it.
You design a vehicle within the budgets these companies work with and get anywhere close to the sticker price, performance and fuel economy they do now a days and you would fail miserably... so don't even look at the automakers.
This is rediculous though... Diesel engines won't ever make 150k like they used to. Durability has dropped significantly and maintenance has skyrocketed. A brand new 2011 Ford F250 with the powerstroke after 5k miles drains 15qts of Coal black oil... Why? Because of emissions and emissions only.
Dislike... Agree with consumers deciding economy... not the government.
@!#$ CA, @!#$ CARB, @!#$ CAFE.
Buildin' n' Boostin for 08' - Alex Richards
Some of you all are on the same page as I am.
Personally I welcome it, but with reservations.
Lets look at history and how has C.A.F.E. shaped the automobiles pre and post standards. Before there were nice, fairly quick cars in pre-1970s. CAFE and emission standards came in, and performance dropped like an anvil, but at least the amount of stink fell then what you'll find in the pre 1970s cars. Throughout time companies ever so slowly made progress to make better performance out of their cars, but they did. The difference here today is now you're getting performance while being efficient and cleaner. Today you can start a car, get no plumes of smoke, get 30MPG V8s, get 20mpg 6000lbs trucks. And why do we get this now? The market is a good helper of modernizing, but none of this would happen if government regulations weren't involved. Because lets face it, if it was up to companies we would have 200HP V8s with a 10MPG rating as they will not spend a dime to improve, unless the competition cracks a whip and pushes the envelope. But from 1920-1970, efficiency and technology in a engine was always placed as 2nd or 3rd.
I don't know if any of you have went to countries with relaxed emission standards. But I remember walking around to get something to eat and going back to the hotel room and blowing my nose and I was getting nothing but black soot on my tissue. That's what I breathed in. Today, I can walk anywhere in the US and that will not happen. Sorry to disgust some of you, but it is an observation of how much better we have it because someone put a standard and followed it.
Another reason I welcome it because I like to see progress, evolution and revolution. If we are seeing 40MPG, 160HP, 4 cyls, in a roomy car, (Focus) what can we expect in the future? I like to see money being spent on R&D for a better product and not have a product that just sit on their laurels and while filling up a select few's pocket.
My reservation I have, that they may raise prices as they want to maintain the same level of profit. Like they usually do... if they make $3 billion instead of $4 billion it was a loss of $1 billion, disregarding that they made $3 billion. But I will always say, companies will ALWAYS raise the prices, might as well have more modern technology to just justify their inevitable price hike.
They have the technology, lets bring it to the consumers, what's more 5 companies already welcomes it, GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Hyundai.
Someone brushed on on crashed standards, look at when you let business run the safety all on its own on a modern car, with no standards.
Also the cars of yesterday were more fuel efficient on the sticker, but the way they tested them in the past were different than today, which is why saw high MPG #s back then and lower MPG#s today. Look up a 1987 Honda CRX HF, and with today's rating it is rated at: 37cty/45hwy. And the bottom barrel version fuel misser is at: 42cty/51hwy. Way different from the 62MPG it used to advertise when it was new huh. What's more, how well will it hold up in a crash, or how peppy is compared to today's efficient cars? Any doubts on the figures,
Look here.
Lastly we have to consider national security too, less usage to get a job done from point A to point B, makes the country more secure. I say this, because if the day ever comes that OPEC closes it flow to us, and we need to survive on our oil, (which is very little) we can do lots more work with efficient engines and it will not disrupt us as badly than say with a gas guzzler.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
Buddies Calias pulled mid 30's city and low 40's highway. Not bad for 190 HP from 1980's technology..
Yep that's what you get when the engine is on idle & going down hill; because 17cty & 26hwy (EPA rated) on a 4cyl is not something to brag about.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
