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
|
|
|---|---|
|
"The technology already exists to meet 35 MPG standard in larger vehicles. Big Mercedes and BMW diesels do it all the time in Europe..." The '08 Mercedes E320 diesel gets 23 mpg city/32 highway. While they probably sell smaller Mercedes and BMW diesels in Europe, it's unlikely that they get 35 mpg in mixed driving. I think we're a long way off from what the proposed new law requires. It's a case of so close, yet so far, as it gets increasingly difficult to increase average fuel economy after you've done what's already been done, without big reductions in size and weight, or expensive technology, that will make cars significantly less affordable for the average motorist. The '08 Toyota Yaris, with manual transmission is rated at 34 mpg city/40 highway, while the Prius is 48/45.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 15, 2007 9:05 pm) For instance, a 1984 Accord with a 5-speed manual got 30/42 in the lab tests, and they gave it a combined number (I think 55% city/45%highway) of 34. Once they started adjusting those numbers downward for 1985, to reflect more realistic driving conditions, it came out to 27/33, with a combined number of 29. And now that they've adjusted those numbers downward again for 2008, it's only rated at 23/30 with a combined number of 26. Using the old, unadjusted numbers, even a big car like a 1984 Caprice with a 305/overdrive automatic scored pretty well, 17/28 with a combined number of 21. Using the 1985 numbers (or rather, a 1985 Caprice) equipped that way, the figures drop to 17/24, with a combined number of 19. With the 2008 numbers, it's down to 15/22, with a combined number of 18. A 2007 Camry with the 4-cyl/automatic is EPA-rated at 24/34, with a combined number of 28, using that 1985-2007 style of rating. With the new 2008 ratings, it drops to 21/31 with a combined figure of 25. Those combined numbers really aren't that far off from the figures that the 1984-85 Accord posted. So I imagine that the combined raw number for Camry could be something like 28/44, with a combined figure of 33. So when you figure that something like a 2007 Camry is basically the stereotype of a mass market car today, that 35 figure might not be too hard to meet, if it's that raw, unadjusted average number they're using. At least, with passenger cars. Where we're really going to get screwed is with trucks.
|
|
|
|
Your overriding point, as I interpret it, that we need to know more details before we can discuss this topic intelligently, is very true. I presume the newest method of calculation (the 2008) will be used, but I'm not certain, and am basing my argument that achieving 35 mpg is likely to be challenging and expensive. Help, anyone?
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 16, 2007 7:23 am) Here's an excerpt from it... "EPA is responsible for calculating the average fuel economy for each manufacturer. CAFE certification is done either one of two ways: 1) The manufacturer provides its own fuel economy test data, or 2) the EPA will obtain a vehicle and test it in its Office of Transportation & Air Quality facility in Ann Arbor, MI. EPA will do actual tests on typically about 30% of the existing vehicle lines, using the same laboratory test that they use to measure exhaust emissions. The entire certification test procedure, including the vehicle test preparation, the actual running of the test on the dynamometer, the recording of the data, etc., is specified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations." "Three different sets of fuel economy values- NHTSA’s CAFE values, EPA’s unadjusted dynamometer values, and EPA’s adjusted on-road values exist. NHTSA’s CAFE values are used to determine manufacturers’ compliance with the applicable average fuel economy standards and to develop its annual report, the Automotive Fuel Economy Program Annual Update. The EPA’s unadjusted dynamometer values are calculated from the emissions generated during the testing using a carbon balance equation. EPA knows the amount of carbon in the fuel, so by measuring the carbon compounds expelled in the exhaust they can calculate the fuel economy. EPA’s adjusted on-road values are those values listed in the Fuel Economy Guide and on new vehicle labels, adjusted to account for the in-use shortfall of EPA dynamometer test values. " I find it a little confusing, but it sounds to me like the number they use for CAFE averaging is probably similar to the EPA's raw,unadjusted laboratory numbers. I also found this blurb from a Wikipedia article on CAFE: "The EPA laboratory measurements of MPG have consistently overestimated fuel economy. This results in a shortfall of about 15% in actual vs. measured CAFE goals. Starting with vehicles in model year 2008, the EPA is improving their estimates of MPG. This change does not affect CAFE ratings, only Consumer Guide values will change to reflect more realistic fuel efficiencies." So it sounds like these down-rated EPA ratings they're putting on the Monroney stickers on cars have no bearing whatsoever on the CAFE standards.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 16, 2007 8:09 am) That is how I would read that also. It seems that GM was given a 31.5 MPG rating on their PU trucks that are able to burn E85. Manufacturers can earn CAFE “credits” to offset deficiencies in their CAFE performances. Specifically, when the average fuel economy of either the passenger car or light truck fleet for a particular model year exceeds the established standard, the manufacturer earns credits. It makes it profitable for Toyota to sell lots of Prius to offset the Tundra and Sequoia gas guzzlers. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for these clarifications. Your quotes and interpretations make these new standards seem less daunting than what I had feared, but still rather difficult to achieve without significant changes in vehicle designs and product mix. For example, GM recently indicated that it will probably introduce a "B" class Chevy (Trax?) in the U.S. This is one size smaller than the Aveo, which, from what I've read, will grow a little in a future redesign (the generation after the newest one, which is already on the road in Korea and Europe, arrives here as the '09 model). In the absence of a major technological breakthrough, GM and others will have to sell a significant number of B class cars to compensate for continued sale of traditionally profitable SUVs, pickups, large sedans and powerful sportscars. Ford will introduce the smaller-than-Focus Verve, and Chrysler will pump out Hornets and Demons, or similar size vehicles. More diesels and hybrids (traditional and plug-ins), plus refinements on existing technologies will help, of course, but will also add to costs. If my interpretation of what will be required to meet the higher standards is more than what you perceive it will take, it's because each incremental mph is more difficult to achieve than the preceding one. One could conclude that going from, say, 27.5 mpg to 35 is only 27%, so it's not such a big deal, but I think it'll require more changes than the numbers suggest. Now, it's true that the tighter standards will be phased in, beginning in 2011, and that a lot can happen in terms of technological breakthroughs in the next several years, so I'm more interested in seeing how this all plays out than I am concerned about it. Continued high fuel costs, in the form of a trend of higher highs and higher lows, would continue to put upward pressure on the demand side of the equation for higher mileage vehicles. It'll all be interesting to watch. Andre, are you ready for a somewhat downsized 3,300 lb. '11 Intrepid II, featuring a 190 hp/230 lbs. ft. direct injection four cylinder turbodiesel hybrid powerplant, for $29,995?
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 16, 2007 10:29 am) Yeah, on the surface, a 27% increase doesn't seem like too big of a deal. After all, the original CAFE requirements called for a 100% increase in just 10 years! Starting in 1978, when the CAFE requirement was 18 mpg, they wanted to get up to 27.5 mpg by 1985, which was about double what the average fuel economy was in 1974-75. But that first time around, there was a lot of fat to trim. Many cars could easily lose 600-800 pounds or more, with little to no sacrifice in interior room. And in many cases, simply upgrading from a 3-speed automatic to a 4-speed ovedriver automatic would see a pretty big boost. For instance, the 1978 Caprice, with a 305-2bbl and 3-speed automatic was rated at 16/22. And that's the raw, unadjusted numbers! The 1984, with a 305-4bbl and 4-speed automatic, was up to 17/28 with the raw numbers. Switching from carburetors to fuel injection, and getting the bugs worked out of the computer systems helped alot, too. By 1996, the Caprice with the LT-1 350 V-8, actually scored something like 19/32, using the raw numbers! The window sticker said 17/26 though, using the adjusted numbers, and accounting for the 2008 adjustment, is probably something like 15/23. Oh, as for where I'm pulling these numbers, the EPA has a bunch of old files listed here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml. I have a feeling though, that it's going to be hard to make the cars get much more enonomical than they already are. Or at least, it's going to be much harder to realize than the gains that were made in the 70's and 80's. For instance, when we made the leap from the 3-speed to the 4-speed automatic, it helped alot, but then jumping to the 5-speed, 6-speed, or CVT isn't going to help as much. You can only make a car rev so slow on the highway before it downshifts to get more power, so you're pretty much limited by how slow you can make it rev. Similarly, how much weight can you trim out of a car and still make it safe AND affordable to build? A lot of those 70's cars had weight to spare, but some of the cars got downsized TOO far, and were little more than rolling deathtraps. Similarly, cars tended to be over-built in many ways before downsizing set in. But how many midsized cars really need to be beefed up for a 1500+ pound spread between GVWR and curb weight, or be able to tow 4000-5000 pounds? Believe it or not, many compact cars back in the 70's had a bigger spread between payload and GVWR than full-sized cars do today! I've seen slant six Darts and Valiants that probably weighed around 3000-3200 pounds with a GVWR sticker stating 4800 pounds. Yet today, you're lucky if there's a 1000 pound spread there anymore. Still, the computers and electronics and such keep on getting more and more sophisticated. So while I don't think it's going to be easy to keep pushing these fuel economy ratings higher and higher, it won't be impossible. Just as long as the electronics don't get so sophisticated that they develop their own intelligence and try to revolt against mankind! 
|
|
|
|
|
That's mostly what the new legislation is, although I still hope they pass it because any step in the right direction is better than none at all. Specifically: 1. The CAFE rating will still be based on the old measurement system, which isn't even the numbers that appeared on LAST YEAR'S Monroney stickers, but an even higher number based on lab tests. 2. E85 vehicles will be rated much higher than the mileage they make burning gas, which as we know is all that 99.999% of those E85 cars will ever burn. 3. Certain trucks will continue to be exempted from the regs, while others will have to meet lesser standards depending on how big their footprint is. So, make the truck even bigger, and it doesn't have to make as high a fuel economy rating. That one ought to be good for highway safety. And I for one will not get on the "the fleet has no weight to lose" bandwagon. The fleet has hundreds, in some cases THOUSANDS, of pounds to lose. The latest crop of midsizers is pushing and often exceeding 3500 pounds. Please! They buff these cars up with hundreds of pounds of extra metal to resist torsional and bending forces so they can drive like race cars. Then they add bigger rims and tires to account for the extra anticipated speed. Then they add extra sound-proofing to soften the added noise of the low-profile tires they've just installed. Then they plunk a bigger heavier engine in there to compensate for all the weight they just added. All this, for what? To sit in the almost-gridlock that is the reality for 50% of all these cars' daily use? To hot-foot it from one stoplight to the next, sometimes almost hitting the lofty speed of 45 mph, in those suburbs? I would hope the automakers would treat this new law, finally, as a wake-up call, but I doubt they will. The domestics will pump out hundreds of thousands of additional E85 cars and trucks (GM sells almost half that way already, including some of the most popular models like the Impala and the pick-ups) so they can continue to offer exactly what they have been offering, while Toyota will lay on the rebates to sell Priuses like they are going out of style - every single one is a 60/51-rated (remember, old rating system for the new CAFE  ) credit against 16/20-rated trucks and SUVs (and those are the smaller ones - the new Land Cruiser is rated like 13/17) that go for big profits. I AM a little curious to see how Nissan will tackle the problem. Honda is already not far off the 35-mpg standard as it is. With a few more hybrids and small cars in the next decade, models it was already planning, it should find its way there without much trouble. Business as usual is going on in Washington and will be in Detroit and Japan too, despite what blowhards like Lutz whine to reporters about.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Dec 16, 2007 3:22 pm) Oh, it's worse than that. Remember, even last year's rating, of 60/51 is down-rated from the raw laboratory numbers. The EPA used to publish the raw and adjusted numbers, but the most recent raw numbers I could find were for 1996. The raw laboratory numbers are what used to get printed on the window stickers from 1978-84. From 1985-2007, they used numbers that were adjusted downward. But for 2008, they've adjusted the numbers down ever further. I'd imagine that 60/51, by the 1985-2007 standard, could very well be something stratospheric like 70/60 using the raw numbers! As for weight, I agree that cars could give up a little. But I can't think of a car out there that could lose 1000 pounds. Unless we go through a wave of downsizing again. For instance, when downsizing started back in the late 70's, one reason the cars got lighter was simply that they got smaller. A 1977 Caprice V-8 4-door, which was pretty much the poster child for the family car back then, came in at 3701 pounds according to my old car book. In contrast, the mastodon-class 1976 Caprice V-8 4-door weighed 4,285. Now these are base weights...I've heard that a/c alone in those days could add 100-150 pounds worth of weight. Just for comparison, a 1977 Malibu Classic V-8 4-door, which is about the same size as the downsized Caprice, had a base weight of 3,824 pounds. So on one hand, a new full-sized car that weighed almost 600 pounds less than its predecessor yet had virtually the same amount of room almost sounds miraculous. But then, when you figure that it still weighs about as much as existing cars that are its same physical size, not such a big deal. Now a Caprice was a roomier car than a Malibu, despite being the same size, but there was no real magic there...they simply made the car taller and boxier! Nowadays though, I doubt if you're going to be able to just lop 600 pounds and a foot off of a 4-cyl Camry, and end up with a car that's just as roomy. What you're going to end up with is a Corolla. And the Camry is already a fairly upright, tall car, so it wouldn't be practical to make it taller and boxier, as GM did with the '77 Caprice. As for Nissan, aren't they already pretty fuel-efficient? I know that the Altima, with the 2007 redesign, got a boost in the EPA figures. The Sentra did as well. Plus, now they have the Versa to help boost their average. On the upper end, the Maxima really isn't that much of a guzzler. Their trucks aren't that fuel-efficient, but the big'uns like the Titan and Armada don't sell in very big numbers, anyway. Their smaller trucks are pretty guzzly too. For example, my roommate's '06 Xterra is rated at 16/22. However, their trucks are also sort of over-powered. The Xterra's 4.0 puts out something like 265 hp and gets it from 0-60 in something like 7-7.5 seconds. I'm sure if things got rough, Nissan could figure a way to put a de-tuned 4.0 in that truck, or even a smaller-displacement V-6, to get better economy. Guess they could also start churning out more 4-cyl Frontiers and then loading them up with hefty rebates, to help boost their figures. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Dec 16, 2007 3:22 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive
