Sign In Join 

You are here: [F] Forums / Automotive News & Views / Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?



Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?

507 messages,  Last post on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:49 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Fuel Efficiency (MPG)


Messages Page 32 of 51
1
...
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
...
51
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#310 of 507
gagrice by nippononly
Oct 13, 2007 (11:49 am)
Reply
I am not assuming it, but I don't believe it can be judged "true" or "false" either. It is strictly a matter of opinion, and mine is that SUVs are a problem. In many ways.
 
But I only used the Explorer as an example because it was such a dramatic one. You could also look to the shift towards smaller cars that has occurred in the last two years as further proof that consumers may now be coming to their senses....
#311 of 507
Re: gagrice [nippononly] by gagrice
Oct 13, 2007 (4:41 pm)
Reply

Replying to: nippononly (Oct 13, 2007 11:49 am)

I don't think it has anything to do with coming to their senses and every thing to do with the price of gas. It is the same knee jerk reaction as back in the 1970s when gas went crazy. People bought diesels and smaller vehicles. As soon as the price of fuel went down the bigger cars emerged with stations wagons diminishing and SUVs flourishing. For myself I would own a small diesel PU or car for running errands. I would have bought a big diesel SUV if I found one I liked. I did not and the Sequoia seemed like the best in the class.
 
You mention the Explorer. I think you will see the larger Expedition outselling the Explorer in the future. Especially when gas prices go back down a bit. I do think that an Explorer with a small diesel engine would yield as high as 35 MPG highway. It would not burn up the street accelerating. It would be fast enough for most people. I think the mindset is we have to have CAFE standards of 35 MPG with 0-60 times under 7 seconds using unleaded gas. I just do not see it happening in a family sized vehicle.
#312 of 507
Re: think back [gagrice] by rockylee
Oct 13, 2007 (11:12 pm)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 13, 2007 7:25 am)

That is part of any President's carbon footprint. Even your beloved Bill Clinton. I am referring to his personal residence in Crawford, TX. Compare that to any Democrat running for President and you will start to see the true picture, and who is and who is not doing their part to save the planet.
 
I applaud Dubya, for being green at home.
 
I do not know how "green" the democrat candidates are as that issue isn't at the top of my priority list.
 
-Rocky
#313 of 507
Re: think back [rockylee] by gagrice
Oct 14, 2007 (5:22 pm)
Reply

Replying to: rockylee (Oct 13, 2007 11:12 pm)

Democrats would like US to believe they are environmentalists. They give Republicans and GW Bush in particular a bad time for blocking certain "Green" legislation. If you study most of the legislation he blocks it has the same thrust. It would cause economic hardships for Americans. I am sure you know that it would not be the wealthy that suffered under any of these new laws. CAFE is just such an example of why Democrats are at odds with Republicans. Makes no difference whether it is GM or Toyota. You can not get energy where it does not exist. What the Democrats would like is to force Americans into small econobox cars with very little Power. Those cars exist and do not sell well. Can you remember the Yugo??????
 
You of all people want a car that is fast from 0-60 MPH. I can tell you that if given the opportunity the Democrats will stop you from having the car of your dreams. Either by direct means with CAFE, or by raising the taxes on gas as they have in the EU. If you are fine with $8 per gallon gas that is what we are headed for.
 
PS
If any president is given credit for making an environmental impact it would have to be Richard Nixon...
#314 of 507
Re: gagrice [gagrice] by kdhspyder
Oct 15, 2007 (11:59 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 13, 2007 4:41 pm)

Especially when gas prices go back down a bit. I do think that an Explorer with a small diesel engine would yield as high as 35 MPG highway
 
Unfortunately I think we've seen the last of $2/ gallon fuel. I sincerely believe that fuel, all fuel, will hit $4/gal before it hits $2/gal. This is just normal market movements since we are now using more than we can bring in. By 2020 I'd be surprised if fuel wasn't $10/gal and at sometime during the next 12 years we aren't subject to some form of rationing.
...even/odd days
...a miles-driven limiter
...a quantity-available-for-purchase limiter
...young and old driver limitations ( 20 min / 75 max )
...some cities barring petrol-powered vehicles within the city limits
...an imposition of 'hybridization' on all vehicles
...$2 /gal excise tax, in addition to $6 or $8 or $10 market prices.
 
The vehicle makers are making the right first step in eliminating a lot of the 'truck-based' commuter vehicles...
..the Explorer is reported to going to a 'crossover' structure, add a hybrid option and it's a 30 mpg vehicle;
..the GM lambda's are already larger and more efficient than either the TrailBlazer or Envoy. They will get the 2-Mode system soon and BLAM ! they're 30+ mpg vehicles.
 
When diesel is finally cleaned up enough to bring into anybody's house ( state ) then it too will be a big part of the solution for the heavier vehicles.
 
I can see by 2020 that
...all midsized utility vehicles are either wagons or crossovers using some form of electro-mechanical booster;
...what few large SUVs remain are diesel powered, possibly with a hybrid boost.
...all trucks are diesels
...small commuter cars are even smaller, lighter than they are now, some with very efficient hybrid systems,e.g. IMA;
...the Corolla, Civic, Cobalt, Focus ( which are now almost the same size as the 90s midsizers ) are the prime vehicles in the market at 35 to 50 mpg with or without a hybrid and/or diesel booster;
...the Camry, Accord, Malibu, Altima, Fusion and the like all are hybrids/diesels getting 35-40 mpg on average.
 
None of these situations are outlandish. Most of the required technologies are here already or could be soon.
#315 of 507
I think it's noteworthy by nippononly
Oct 15, 2007 (12:10 pm)
Reply
that even as we have been chit-chatting here in the last couple of months, gas prices have been creeping UP at exactly the time (post-Labor Day) when they traditionally go down. We are back at $3/gallon in my area. Oil is now at $85/barrel today. There is talk in California of a state gas tax of $0.10/gallon as a start at increasing gas taxes to combat global warming.
 
These are all economic incentives/disincentives (depending on your perspective! ) to reduce gas consumption. All reasons to think that maybe CAFE will be made obsolete by market forces and non-CAFE government regulation?
#316 of 507
Re: think back [gagrice] by kdhspyder
Oct 15, 2007 (12:24 pm)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 14, 2007 5:22 pm)

Democrats would like US to believe they are environmentalists. They give Republicans and GW Bush in particular a bad time for blocking certain "Green" legislation.
 
I believe that both parties, Bush and Pelosi, are playing to their respective constituencies. It is a political issue after all.
 
But underlying the rhetoric I think both have been given the same data and same studies. We don't have enough supply to cover our usage over the next 10-20 years.
 
CAFE is the current solution and many in the auto industry hate it because it puts all the responsibility and all the blame on the manufacturers and allows their customers to do what they want with a clear conscience. 'I can't help myself I just love my [ insert name ] too much.' The manufacturers correctly state that they are only responding to consumer preferences, ( well they also encourage those preferences for profit reasons ).
 
The vehicle manufacturer's reply, such as stated at the Traverse, Mi meetings this summer, is 'Put the responsibility on the consumer. Impose a fuel tax to be painful enough to discourage certain vehicles.' When the consumers hurt enough they will normally switch to more efficient vehicles that don't hurt as much at the pump....then we'll build those vehicles to satisfy that demand. The problem with a massive fuel tax that will hurt us where it hurts most is that it will take nearly $1 Billion per day out of our economy - after tax - and give it to the Federal Govt ( whichever party is in power ) to use as it sees fit. For most normal drivers this equates to about $1500 annually - after tax. Which necessity do you want to do without in order to feed the pump and the Fed Govt?
 
The theorists state that we can't wait for the market to make its decision because the leadtime on vehicle development is too long, normally 5-10 years. If we are hit with a sudden supply shortage in say 2012 and 50% of the population is still driving 16 mpg 'trucks/SUVs' we are all screwed. There is a real risk of unrest in the streets ( I remember gas station killings of line jumpers ) if a buyer is only allowed 15 gal for his 25 gal fillup. In this scenario a lot of people will be scrambling just to get to work. Vacations? Boating? Entire industries may dry up if everyone is required to stay at home due to lack of fuel.
#317 of 507
Re: I think it's noteworthy [nippononly] by kdhspyder
Oct 15, 2007 (12:46 pm)
Reply

Replying to: nippononly (Oct 15, 2007 12:10 pm)

These are all economic incentives/disincentives (depending on your perspective! ) to reduce gas consumption. All reasons to think that maybe CAFE will be made obsolete by market forces and non-CAFE government regulation?
 
The biggest benefit I see to CAFE if imposed soon is that the usage of petrol-based fuels will be reduced in order to allow us to keep driving our 'normal' amount.
 
I don't think in its current structure CAFE is near to being fair since it only penalizes the manufacturers. Some shared responsibility is necessary.
For example a fuel usage ( carbon usage ) carrot and stick based on a 'nominal average':
2012 : 28 mpg and increasing 1 mpg each year.
$200 Fed Purchase Tax - or tax credit - per EPA Combined mpg for each vehicle. Specifically in 2012...
...a truck with an EPA Combined value of 16 mpg would cost the buyer $2400 in tax;
...a crossover with a 25 mpg value would cost that buyer $600 tax;
...a 32 mpg auto would gain the buyer an $800 credit;
...a 45 mpg hybrid would gain that buyer a $3400 credit;
...an upper cap of $10000 credit but no lower cap.
 
The fact that the nominal average is moving upward each year gives the buying public an incentive to encourage the vehicles makers to move with the average. Say one maker does not improve its vehicles fuel efficiency but 3 of its competitors do. In 5 years the 16 mpg truck that hasn't changed will cost those buyers $3400 in taxes but if the competitors can offer 20 mpg trucks - then buyers of those vehicles will only be reponsible for $2600 in taxes.
 
My guess is that in the beginning such a system would generate more revenue than it gave back in credits, that is until fuel hits $5 or $6 a gallon. Soon it would be revenue neutral. In the end as fuel reached $10 a gallon it might cost the Fed Govt a net outflow as the public flocked to fuel sippers.
#318 of 507
Re: think back [kdhspyder] by gagrice
Oct 15, 2007 (2:25 pm)
Reply

Replying to: kdhspyder (Oct 15, 2007 12:24 pm)

We don't have enough supply to cover our usage over the next 10-20 years.
 
I think you would be hard pressed to come up with any scientific data to back up that theory. Maybe we should just limit every family to one gallon of gas or diesel per day. That is about as useful as more taxing to get people to cut back. I say let the market dictate what happens. Too many doomsday scenarios floating around. There is a reason all the automakers including Toyota are fighting the 35 CAFE standard. It is a stupid idea. If the Feds and States need to raise taxes to fix the roads and bridges so be it. Trying to tax people into submission is something the Soviet Union would do.
#319 of 507
Re: think back [gagrice] by kdhspyder
Oct 15, 2007 (2:38 pm)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (Oct 15, 2007 2:25 pm)

Actually there are several studies presented in the last 6 months all indicating the same thing. The last was just last month. Before that the President's Joint Task Force appointed back in 2001 made their recommendations to the Administration back in Aug.
 
It's number one conclusion is that there is plenty of energy sources out there. It's just that they are very very very difficult and expensive to develop. What we have now in production is approaching its peak. In this regard the Chairman of Shell just within the last 4 weeks said that Shell expects us to reach peak oil in 5-10 yrs I believe.
 
Now Canada has maybe the greatest reserves of oil on earth in the tar sands of Alberta but it's very very very expensive to get to market.
 
Citations available upon request. This is the reason that both the conservative Republican Administration and the liberal Democratic Congress are both pushing for some means to reduce fuel usage. Frankly we won't do it on our own. We have to be forced to do it.
 
CAFE is a good idea if it was balanced. I mean how bad can it be if you are 'forced' to drive a 25 mpg Sequoia iso a 16 mpg vehicle; if I 'have' the option of an 85 mpg Volt iso my old 48 mpg Prius. How can that be bad for the country? It's certainly far better than giving the Feds $1 Billion a day extra to use for whatever.

Messages Page 32 of 51
1
...
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
...
51
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

You are here: [F] Forums / Automotive News & Views / Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement