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 How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive
538 messages, Last post on Jul 31, 2008 at 6:28 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Dec 18, 2007 1:47 pm) Yes, that wouldn't do in California. But systems like Honda's which produce their own urea rather than needing a refillable tank like the Mercedes system would be fine, as long as Honda will certify that they will continue to operate without human help for 100K miles. It is the EPA's intent to follow this guideline from California too, but they are considering granting a temporary waiver to Mercedes and others to sell diesels with the traps for a few years. But last I heard, I thought Mercedes and VW had a 50-state diesel ready? So maybe they have gotten around this obstacle? Edit...my mom, who has extensive recent experience driving in Europe, asked me recently what hybrids they might be able to replace their Explorer with next year, because of gas prices and a desire to "do something for the environment". I explained that the hybrid SUVs don't really do that great for gas mileage despite being hybrids, but what about considering some of the fab new diesels that are about to come on the market. Her response? Oh no way, those diesels stink when you go to the gas station, and they don't run well. Apparently her last rental in Europe a couple of years ago was a diesel, and it sucked. I wish I knew the brand. It stalled out a couple of times, wouldn't start properly in cold weather, etc etc. I dunno how well diesels are going to do the second time around here in the States...
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Dec 18, 2007 3:44 pm) Then her key question. 'Can i get diesel at any station, anywhere, anytime so that I don't have to drive around a dark town looking for a diesel pump with a low fuel light flashing.' When the answer is yes she'll consider a diesel.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Dec 19, 2007 1:33 pm) I think for regular old passenger cars, diesel is going to have a hard uphill struggle, but despite that it will be the sole response of some automakers to the new CAFE standards. I think they will all speed up development for diesels in their trucks and large SUVs though, places where diesels are a lot more acceptable to the public. |
|
|
" the saving grace of the IC is the inexpensiveness of the powerplant AND its fuel. This inexpensive quality has allowed cars to become widespread." Gasoline engines are only "inexpensive" because all the automakers started using them before our great grandfathers were born. That economy of scale that developed made the engines affordable, not the other way around. If, instead, they chose electric power, it would be cheap, efficient and ubiquitous today. And, as I said, we wouldn't have to buy electricity from the Middle East. . |
|
|
Replying to: 1stpik (Dec 19, 2007 2:57 pm) james |
|
|
Replying to: 1stpik (Dec 19, 2007 2:57 pm) If we were using the exact same gas engines as our grandfathers used,you would be correct. However, each new gas engine has its own R&D and manufacturing costs. Electric power simply isn't sufficent for most peoples needs. Even today. Batteries can only store so much energy,and they take time to recharge. Gasoline is easier to obtain and store,and the refuel time is measured in minutes,not hours. |
|
|
|
|
today the EPA refused California its waiver to enforce a strict limit to greenhouse gases from automobiles. This was a law voted in three years ago, and would have reduced automotive CO2 emissions from cars and trucks a lot more than the new CAFE standard, without CAFE's loopholes, and sooner. In 35 years of California enforcing its own emissions standards, this is the first time that I know of when California has been refused the authority to set its own standard more strict than the feds. I really hope they sue over this one. What happened to rights being reserved to the states unless specifically reserved to the federal government? California's clean air laws PREDATE the federal ones. That is why California has always had the authority to enforce stricter standards, which has most often been a necessity because of air pollution problems that were worse here than in most other parts of the country. As of the latest count, SIXTEEN states representing well over 50% of all vehicle sales in the U.S. were set to follow the California standard, yet the EPA chief's explanation of the denial was that he wanted to avoid a patchwork of standards. The California standard would be the majority, hardly a patchwork. I will be encouraging my representatives at the state level to sue the feds over this one, but I don't suppose they will need a lot of encouragement. I hope we prevail.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Dec 19, 2007 7:49 pm) Sounds like a suit is coming (and who calls Jerry Brown "Edmund G. Brown Jr."?), |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Dec 19, 2007 7:49 pm) How can you expect automakers to build cars for a reasonable price if every state in the Union comes up with something they want on them? I could sure get behind a proposal to split California across the middle. If CARB wants to do something about the smog coming into the LA basin, they need to block any ship running on dirty diesel far out to sea. CARB would rather block someone that is trying to use less fuel by owning a diesel car. Two big cheers for the EPA!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 19, 2007 9:08 pm) 1. This was not a CARB "edict". This was a proposition put to popular vote on the November ballot three years ago. 2. This would not have been an attempt to "control the universe", but rather merely what goes on inside California borders. The fact that 16 other states want to follow our example is not our responsibility. 3. 17 states representing more than half of all vehicle sales every year all agreeing to do the SAME thing is hardly "every state...coming up with something they want..." 4. Jerry Brown will be using money from California taxpayers to sue the feds in their name, as those taxpayers are the ones that passed the bill. 5. This was not a bill related IN ANY WAY to smog in the air. 6. While this has nothing to do with what happened today, I will add that several car companies have diesel powertrains ready to go in the next 3-15 months that meet California CARB-imposed standards. You are really crying over something that doesn't exist there. Now ask yourself: even if you voted against this bill, do you really want the federal government to have the ability to negate California popular legislation next time we pass something you DO vote for? The power IS reserved to the states in federal law, you know. Edit: after reading the article in the link steve provided, I feel a little better. Not only does it seem that a lawsuit has strong odds of being decided in California's favor, but fairly powerful, monied folks like the NRDC are getting involved on California's side, which could help quite a bit. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
