Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views 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
|
|
|---|---|
|
hehehe, yeah, and DOZENS AND DOZENS of other nations are forging ahead with what is admittedly a small first step that must be followed after 2010 by much more drastic action. Diesels sound nice until you consider other pollutants. We need to reduce use, etc etc. The Supremes only have about what, two months until their yearly break? So this should be decided by then. As you and I BOTH say, this is merely a political exercise, but I hope it helps out California's latest legislation and litigatory battle.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jun 27, 2006 9:52 pm) You know as well as I do asking people to try reducing use is futile. Even with gas over 3 bucks a gallon I see no decrease in traffic or the way people drive. It is crazy out on the roads. |
|
|
|
|
everything you say is true. And yet, somehow, we have to get Americans to start conserving in every aspect of their lives sometime soon. How to do it, how to do it? Hybrids: GHG emissions go down even as smog-forming emissions go down. Shocking! In fact, there is no strictly linear inverse relationship between emissions and GHG generation as you imply, even for gas-powered cars. PZEV vehicles are popping up everywhere, and their EPA ratings aren't plummeting at the same time. Usually they stay the same or go up. Hopefully, alt fuels aren't too far down the road, so we can take the next step and further this goal. Hybrids will be good for a 10-20-year timeframe though, as an interim step. |
|
|
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=wwi A MUST READ, some might like it Walt has to say on CAFE standards.  Thanx Rocky |
|
|
|
|
why exactly that is a must-read. The guy is one of the "usual crowd" not fond of government regulation in any form (hence the wonderful discussion of privatizing social security). He mentions that fuel economy was increasing before the implementation of CAFE, leaving it to the reader to assume, I guess, that it would have kept increasing on its own if the mean ol' government had not stepped in. Of course, that ignores the fact that even with the regulations in place, fuel economy fleetwide has fallen since 1980. And of course he hauls out the old safety argument (as they always do) that SUV proponents love SO much, which totally fails to take into account all the other factors involved in safety. We could have saved the 1300 to 2600 lives he mentions if only we had had uniform bumper height regulations in place from the beginning - instead we have had almost two decades in which SUVs can get so monstrously large that they can roll right over the top of the Toyota Corollas they hit, thereby increasing the mortality rate of accidents. What about the design of the roads and highways? What about the non-existent standards for driver ability to get a license? What about, what about..... There are so many factors involved all of which the government either took the wrong direction on or did nothing about, that to hold up the supposed lesser safety of smaller cars is almost to produce a red herring. Besides, nobody said cars had to be smaller and lighter to produce better gas mileage. This is just what the auto industry wants you to think, so you don't notice the fact that they have made no major innovations in powertrain efficiency since the early 80s (the widespread adoption of fuel injection), except for hybrids, which are not widespread yet.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jul 20, 2006 7:05 am)  Rocky |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jul 20, 2006 7:05 am) I agree with you overall. I am still not convinced small cars are safe enough to be allowed on the Interstate Highways and Freeways. Cheap and tinny has extended its ugly head even to my favorite form of transportation the PU truck. I am not at all pleased with the thin sheet metal used in my 2005 GMC PU truck. And as was said in the article when the automakers build lighter tinnier cars the fatality rate goes up. In spite of the much over hyped crumple zones. We live in a society that likes big SUVs and PU trucks. This latest gas price will only slow big vehicle sales for a bit. As soon as people realize they can afford higher gas prices they will buy what they want, bigger vehicles. Those that opt for small to conserve are at a disadvantage on the highways of America. I don't see it changing for at least 20 more years. Now with CAFE giving the domestics a real prize with the Flex Fuel mileage advantage, I look for truck sales to jump. One poster on the E85 thread tried to buy a Flex Fuel car. The Chevy dealer said the Impala FFV is not available to the general public only the fullsize FF PU trucks. So if you are so inclined to be part of the ethanol government debacle you have to buy a truck. You will help out GM & Ford by giving them a 33 MPG CAFE gift.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 21, 2006 5:28 am) Well, let's not forget there are many people for whom it's not all just about the money. For them (me too, can you tell?  ) conservation is its own reward, a good goal to have in its own right. But putting them/us aside, it is in the interests of the federal government to reduce gasoline use in the automobile fleet, for two reasons, the security one (Ooohhh, importing more than 1/3 of our oil from the bad bad terrorist Middle East) and the economic one (RECORD, HISTORIC, EPIC trade deficits we have had for many years now). But CAFE in and of itself is clearly never going to get us anywhere. Time to get more creative and flexible with our approach to the problem.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jul 21, 2006 9:12 am) I agree. My motivation to conserve is my cheapness. Nothing ever came easy and I don't want to waste it. It seems to me these entities that are set up by our wonderful Congress rarely succeed in what they were meant to accomplish. EPA made a big splash with removing lead from our gas. They knew that sulfur in gas and diesel was also harmful. Yet they only did what they thought would appeal to the masses. The return on what they have accomplished since their inception is not earth shaking. Then CAFE standards are set and most of the automakers spend their money trying to circumvent the standard. Little if any gain in 30 years. There are ways to save fuel and have clean air. The government is not willing to put forth the effort. Plus they don't want to lose any tax revenue caused by innovative conservation. Conserving is a mindset. America does not like the idea. Only a few are willing to conserve. No one likes to sit in the house at 85 degrees as I am right now. We are too tight to turn on the AC for more than an hour or two a day. My wife is cheaper than I am. When they had the rolling black outs here in CA. She would read by candle light to conserve. Most people will not give up the modern high energy using conveniences. That includes the vehicles they drive.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 21, 2006 4:07 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?
