Comments on: Automakers and Regulators Scramble for Fuel Efficiency Compromise

By: AP

AP — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:38:09 +0000

ex-EV1 driver,
Evidently no one else gets it either, because no one is making affordable electric cars.

By: ex-EV1 driver

ex-EV1 driver — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:08:32 +0000

Michigan Survivor,
You're right if you assume that a gasoline engine is the only solution to propelling an automobile. They are limited in their abilities. This is why all cars need to have electric drivetrains, either as a pure electric or using some form of hybrid drivetrain.
Detroit just doesn't get it and they are going to die because of it.
Dumbing the car down to reduce emissions and consumption isn't the solution (unless you're in Europe). The pure ICE needs to be replaced with NEW technology that gives the consumer all that he/she wants (a car that is safe, comfortable, has low emissions AND good fuel economy).
Detroit insists on playing the only game they seem to know (ICE) but that isn't the solution.

By: Michigan Survivor

Michigan Survivor — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:25:14 +0000

This would all be a lot easier if they just came out and said this is the mpg you need to get by such and such date. The biggest thing people dont seem to understand is that a gasoline engine needs a minumum amount of fuel to run and we are already there. The only things that can be changed now is the size of the engine, the weight of the vehicle, gearing and number of gears in the transmission, and final drive gears. Now engine size, gearing, and number of gears all revolve around vehicle weight. Another thing people dont seem to understand is that vehicles get heavier the more comforts you offer in them ie. power seat, heated seats, abs, traction control, tire pressure sensors, etc. In a heavier vehicle such as a SUV these things are minor and only reflect a small portion of the vehicles over all weight, but in a small vehicles they add up very quick. The last thing people dont really seem to have a good grasp on is that the auto industry is driven by what the consumer wants. They dont build it and force you to buy it. Its a two way street you cant have it all. The bigger a vehicle gets the more power it has to have behind it to keep up with traffic.

By: veek

veek — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:00:28 +0000

All the confusion, politicking, and “torturing the numbers” clearly show the problems with having so many different standards and regulations.

By: AP

AP — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:02:16 +0000

Ross,

Check out the increase in weight for Japanese cars since the 1980's. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the Civic weighs something like 50% more than it did then (2-3 times the horsepower, too: how wasteful!). Since a Cobalt weighs about the same as a Civic, I guess the Japanese cars weigh 5 times as much as they need to, too.

As far as Detroit's big vehicles, their going big into SUV's was a response to consumer demand, in turn created by ridiculously low gasoline prices (the wholesale price in 1998 was about $.40/gallon, vs. $1.50 now). Blame the SUV's on oil companies for selling cheap gasoline (we blame them when it's expensive, so why not blame them when it's cheap?).

Further, Toyota was going big-time into full-sized SUV's and pickups with their Mississippi plant, to be able to sell 500,000 gas-guzzling trucks/year. Only the rise in gas prices changed their mind.

There seems to be a correlation here: when fuel prices are high, people buy fuel economy. Nothing else makes them do that.

Which is what Detroit has been saying for 25 years: higher taxes reduce consumption, CAFE doesn't.

By: Bryce

Bryce — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:18:50 +0000

Just make a rule already….any rule, so that they can start working on it already!

By: Ross Nicholson

Ross Nicholson — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:42:22 +0000

We should stop doing business with international cartels, so expect high tariffs on opec oil. Higher fuel economy standards are easily attainable since Detroit’s cars are too far from aerodynamic optimum and weigh 5 times as much as technologically feasible for most drivers. I wouldn’t fire all those engineers just yet, if I were you.

By: Need2Change

Need2Change — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:35:01 +0000

Well, Detroit has gotten the message that:

1. we need to reduce pollution, and

2. we need to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Hurray, rather than dragging feet and talking about what they can't do, it appears they're encouraging the development of standards that are attainable.

By: Michael H.

Michael H. — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:32:01 +0000

The Feds wanted to propose 31.8 mpg overall for the fleet. CARB proposes 31.3 overall for the fleet. What is confusing or selective about this fact? It seems central to the main point.

Also, CARB's claim that it provides "superior GHG benefits" was made before the new CAFE standards were proposed. That claim is no longer true, if it ever was true. Plus CARB emissions saving estimates apparently do not account for the fact that its rule exempts about 10% of the state fleets it regulates.

Finally -- "We are concerned if that ability to lead is taken away, what will be left with?” -- ah, a fuel economy standard set by the Obama Administration?

For more info, please refer to www.nada.org/patchwork