Sign In Join 



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 36 of 51
1
...
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
...
51
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#348 of 507
Goodness...... by li_sailor
Nov 09, 2007 (6:55 pm)
Reply
...we finally have a Politics topic!
 
Where's that sign-up sheet.........hey.....where'd everybody go?
#349 of 507
Re: Goodness...... [li_sailor] by steve_ HOST
Nov 09, 2007 (7:17 pm)
Reply

Replying to: li_sailor (Nov 09, 2007 6:55 pm)

Must be something in the air - even saw Highender checking in today bragging on his new biodiesel Jetta TDI. Good to see you too, and I know where to find Jipster as well. It'll be like old home week (complete with the host throwing dishes, lol).
 
Politics
#350 of 507
Re: Hillary Clinton calls for 55 mpg by 2030 [tpe] by volvomax
Nov 10, 2007 (8:51 am)
Reply

Replying to: tpe (Nov 06, 2007 6:53 pm)

First of all, it is not private enterprise's job to set public policy, or collect taxes.
In case you hadn't noticed, most auto companies don't have any "excess" profits.
 
If you truly want to change how people behave, you have to punish/reward them directly.
#351 of 507
CAFE deficient by steve_ HOST
Nov 15, 2007 (11:48 am)
Reply
"A federal appeals court on Thursday threw out planned federal fuel economy standards for many sport-utility vehicles, minivans and pickups.
 
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the standards, which were to go into effect next year, didn't properly assess the risk to the environment and failed to include heavier SUVs and trucks, among several other deficiencies the court found."
 
Court tosses impending federal fuel economy standards (USA Today)
#352 of 507
interesting by nippononly
Nov 15, 2007 (7:03 pm)
Reply
The court basically said the new 24 mpg standard already set previously was a joke. It totally failed to take into account "the threat posed by carbon dioxide emissions". NHTSA is supposed to rewrite them much tougher as quickly as possible, to take effect in the same window as the previous set was.
 
I remember when the Bush administration first touted those new truck CAFE standards as taking environmental protection seriously, while most of the folks I know just laughed and laughed at a stance taken to so blatantly let carmakers off the hook for a few more years...
#353 of 507
Re: interesting [nippononly] by boaz47
Nov 16, 2007 (10:03 am)
Reply

Replying to: nippononly (Nov 15, 2007 7:03 pm)

This is just why CAFE doesn't work. It is too political and always will be. The rest of the world is behind the US in Nox and particulant control but they want us to focus more on CO2. Maybe they have a point but Particulents are a big problem as well. Any success CAFE has is much like showing off the WWF championship belt. The results were predetermined. While CAFE may not be as obtuse as CARB and their old EV or Zero emissions mandate they failed at it is still pretty lame considering the almost negligible effect it has had on increasing the fleet fuel average over the last twenty years. Any private company that took that long to do something would have been out of business long ago.
#355 of 507
High MPG or Increased Safety? by kcram HOST
Dec 19, 2007 (10:04 am)
Reply

Replying to: boaz47 (Nov 16, 2007 10:03 am)

CNNMoney.com - 57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
 
Very interesting article about where we've been in fuel economy in light of today's signing of the energy bill that increases CAFE to 35 mpg by 2020.
 
We have clearly traded fuel economy for everything else... creature comforts, more room (reflecting our increased appetites?), and safety items - all of which increase weight.
 
And that increased weight requires more power to get it moving... coupled with our "need for speed" and the resulting horsepower wars, we now have compact cars with double the horsepower of 20 years ago, and a resulting significant drop in fuel economy.
 
So where do we go from here?
 
Would you relinquish some of the creature comforts and 0-60 times to save at the pump?
 
kcram - Pickups Host
#356 of 507
Re: High MPG or Increased Safety? [kcram] by stovebolter
Dec 19, 2007 (11:34 am)
Reply

Replying to: kcram (Dec 19, 2007 10:04 am)

It really isn't a problem to make a car that can get better economy than the CRX, it's just difficult to sell one. Take the Honda Insight - it weighed only a little more than the CRX, had the same seating and a bit extra storage space, and could get EPA ratings (pre-2008) of 60/66 mpg - but Honda didn't sell enough to continue the model.
 
That said, I find it amazing just how bloated today's cars have become - there are only a few four seaters available that weigh less than 2500 lbs. I would be willing to trade creature comfots, space, and even some safety for better fuel economy, but I'm definitely in the minority.
 
I'm convinced that this new legislation is going to backfire. It will probably reduce the number of small SUVs and pickups on the road, but it's going to increase the number of large SUVs and trucks that are too big to be considered for CAFE.
#357 of 507
I'll only use the air bags and crumple zones once... by bumpy
Dec 19, 2007 (1:11 pm)
Reply
but I can use better mpg every day.

Messages Page 36 of 51
1
...
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
...
51
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

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