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: hpmctorque (Dec 23, 2007 5:16 pm) I agree we have a made very poor choices in selecting cars. Look at the 90's, I know my wife and I didn't need our Explorers. No kids until 1999 yet we had owned 2 in the 90's. I know plenty of people who owed pickups as a third car to pick up mulch or furntiure twice a year. We all need to truly assess what we really need in a car. For the few who truly need a pickup or can afford to drive that Hummer for pleasure, let them have at it. It is America after all. last thing we need is to force folks into vehicles but unless we all make some changes, I may have to squeeze my 6'4" frame inot a Corolla. Thank goodness I have loss weight.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 23, 2007 8:50 am) That may work in a country that has a National sales tax. Every state has their own tax structure. California would not want to give up their 7.5% so the Feds could tax gas at a higher rate. I am sure the average family in CA spends more on taxable items throughout the year than they do on gas. If the Feds tax gas at a higher rate and let us write that tax off on our income what would that gain them? I don't see the price of gas making much difference what and how people drive. Even with $3 gas here in CA not a day goes by that I do not see somebody blast away from a stop light only to be next to me a few blocks down the street at the next light. Gas prices do not seem to affect the way people drive. And all the young guys with modified rice rockets are not conserving just because they have a small car. They race up and down the streets day and night going nowhere. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not knowledgeable about oil refining and the costs associated with it, so I can't comment on your first paragraph. I completely agree with the thoughts you expressed in your second paragraph, particularly when it comes to enjoying the freedom of vehicle choices. For those who use the carrying capacity of their pickups or SUVs only occasionally, renting may be a better choice than buying more vehicle than one needs the great majority of the time. |
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Dec 22, 2007 3:42 pm) In addition, power plants have many pollution standards and a great deal of anti-pollution devices to clean up their emissions. The dirtiest would be the coal fired plants (and they are far cleaner than many understand, due to the technological improvements for the pollution scrubbers, etc.There are other problems with coal such as the mining techniques however, among others). In Utah, we now have the option to have our electricity supplied by Wind Generators (don't get going about killing birds as there are solutions for that as well). The NEV's (neighborhood electric cars) can get 7 times the fuel efficiency equivalent of a 30 MPG car such as the Honda Civic Sedan. There is no special technology needed for that to be possible. A huge amount of the the Grid available electricity is used during the day, yet at night, the rate of usage drops off tremendously. Unfortunately, the power companies can't just readily change the power generation (all sorts of undesired and expensive problems happen all to easily). Millions of electic cars could be charged at night by this excess electrical production...No additional powerplants would be needed (how many people would realistically go to electric cars in the near future?). The NEV's start at about 6000 US Dollars, and up for a 25 mph top speed golf cart that can do 20-30 miles per charge (most drivers would be well served by that, except when they must jump on the freeway). The efficiency would be 3-4 times more efficient than my Geo Metro that always gets 50 MPG. For the difference in fuel costs, I could easily purchase new lead acid batteries for it every 3 years and it would still cost far less for maintenance for it (provided it is well designed and built). We really have some amazing options and knowledge available to us at this time. An amazing car due to come out in 2008 or 2009 can be viewed at www.aptera.com which is an incredible re-invention of the Car as we know it. It's expected to get fuel efficiency in the hundreds of miles per gallon for the plug in hybrid for about $30,000. For excellent information on practical green living and factual education on many useful things, check out Mother Earth News or motherearthliving.com. They actually have experts that walk the walk and talk the talk (unlike the Al Gore's of the world). Mother Earth News actually built a Hybrid Electric Subaru back in the 70's. Can you tell I love this magazine? |
|
|
I'm all for the Aptera, just as I'm all for the GM Volt. But when I hear 'they're just a few years away, and they'll sell for about $30,000,' I get suspicious. That's the claim for both the Aptera and Volt, just as it's the claim for EVERY greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread car. I've been hearing these claims from automotive magazines and at auto shows since the early 1980s. Reminds me of the Moller Flying Car. That thing has been 5 years away for 20 years. BTW, lest you think that I'm another luddite naysayer to oil-alternatives, I own a 2007 Honda Civic Hybrid. So I'm walking, talking, and driving with sufficient credibility to cast doubts. I only bought the HCH because gasoline sells for $3/gal., and only because I drive more than 20,000 miles per year. Those two factors, plus the tax credit made it economically feasible. I paid an extra $3,000 for the hybrid because I got a $2,100 tax credit, and I save $60/month in gas costs. That gives me a one-year payback on the extra expense. So I was willing to pay $21,000 for an $18,000 car. Now look at the GM Volt. Looks like another $18,000 car (Malibu equivalent), but it'll cost $30,000 (if you believe GM, which is never a good plan). But assuming that's true, what would it take to get consumers to pay $30,000 for a car that offers the same comfort and performance of an $18,000 car? Certainly a lot more than a $2,100 tax credit and gas savings of $60/month. $30 K offers a lot of choices in cars. For that much money you can get performance and comfort, along with a little status (entry-level BMW, Lexus, etc.). The Aptera or Volt or Tesla, or whatever car comes out on top MUST offer some economic incentive, or it will be D.O.A. I'm anxious to see the market's response to Honda's latest alt-en car, the hydrogen fuel cell FCX Clarity. It'll be available this summer for lease only -- $600/month. It runs on liquid hydrogen, so zero emissions. It has a 300 mile range on a tank of fuel. Sounds good, but hydrogen costs about $5/gal., and I can't find the FCX's fuel tank capacity, so I can't calculate its mpg, or its cost-equivalent to a gasoline car. So I can only hope it's a good deal. I like the fact that the it's a few months away, not a few YEARS away. And I know that Honda's pretty sharp about these things -- they wouldn't be making it if they didn't think it would succeed. We'll know by this time next year. And I think the FCX's market performance will point the direction for alternative autos in general. .
|
|
|
Replying to: 1stpik (Dec 24, 2007 5:47 am) I think the drawbacks to the Civic FCX are multiple. Fuel sources are scarce even in CA. The last I read the Civic FCX costs Honda $100k each to build. There are a few already on the roads here. Very closely watched by Honda. The NEVs mentioned in the prior post are fine in a retirement village setting. They are not of much value in the real world here in CA. They are limited to 35 MPH zones. That makes them illegal in most of the suburbs as most of the multi lane surface streets are 40-45 MPH posted. As cool as cars like the Aptera & Volt are, I would probably balk at the $25k - $30k price tag. Again like the hybrids. If I had a long commute they would be on my radar for just commuting. |
|
|
A little late on this one...so to the question: "How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive" My 2 cents...I think the answer will be smaller, older cars. Why? Technology to meet the law will push the cost of cars up, trending consumers toward smaller cars. Not necessarily just because of fuel cost. The law doesn't force us to buy higher fuel economy cars, only for the manufacturers to make them. If the government wanted to drive "behavior" they should have raised taxes on fuel to fund development of renewable fuels (ethanol from biomass, hydrogen, etc). |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: 1stpik (Dec 24, 2007 5:47 am) Yes, but every single one, without exception, has pathetic fuel economy. For those that not only want to save some gas money but want to work towards reducing oil imports, none of those $30K cars will do. Can't wait for Mercedes diesels to change that picture... |
|
| I have a '06 Saab 2.0t. I can get 35 mpg on the highway under optimal conditions. I typically get about 26-27 mpg locally. It is a fun and sometimes quirky vehicle. All in all not bad for a relatively heavy (3400 lbs) car with an automatic transmission. | |
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
