Last post on May 18, 2009 at 6:03 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
Honda, Ford, Toyota
#19 of 22 Re: EPA's different MPG tests and CAFE [gagrice]
May 18, 2009 (4:45 pm)
gagrice: It is convoluted.
I think I'm more worried about global warming and our dependence of oil from the middle east than you are. But that's fine.
But one of my main points is that you won't have to have a gutless truck. The "truck" loophole means that large trucks with powerful V-8s (or large and advanced V-6s that get the power of V-8s) will still be around because of the truck "loophole."
Ditto with large and powerful SUVs, minivans, and the like. They'll still be here in 2016. They'll just have more advanced engines, and some will be hybrids. And, of course, like today there will be some small trucks, SUVs and vans that will exceed the average, which will allow others to get well under the average and still be for sale.
Agree with you about diesels. May have a future...
#20 of 22 Re: EPA's different MPG tests and CAFE [benjaminh]
May 18, 2009 (5:13 pm)
Superior motovation to preserve & drive the performance cars of the 60's.
GW is mentioned, but why give credance to a political myth?
#21 of 22 Re: EPA's different MPG tests and CAFE
May 18, 2009 (5:53 pm)
CAFE must have been modeled after our tax code. Both are needlessly complicated, confusing and full of logic defying loopholes. And, as if that weren't enough, they're inefficient and inequitable. Other than that, they're brilliant.
If the folks who created our federal tax returns swapped jobs with those who designed CAFE, nobody would realize there had been a personnel change.
#22 of 22 Re: EPA's different MPG tests and CAFE [hpmctorque]
May 18, 2009 (6:03 pm)
Funny! Ain't that the truth.
In fact, it's so confusing I made at least one little mistake myself. I can't edit it any more, so I'll just put the corrected (I hope) version of the part with the mistake below:
"Now c. 36 is the number to think about, and no doubt Honda's engineers are thinking about it (or whatever the actual number is) now. Between now and 2016 Honda needs to move the Accord number from this 36 (today's 25 under EPA3) up to 42.
If they make the Accord just a couple of inches smaller (and it has grown to a rather large size, which I have to admit I like) and shave a few hundred pounds, put a slightly smaller but mostly just more efficient engine in it (Honda is apparently has been working for years on its own version of something like BMW's "valvetronic" technology, which increases efficiency) you'll move up to 42 under EPA 1, which is used for calculating CAFE."
The end of the last sentence is where I made the correction.
(originally I wrote EPA3 where I meant to write EPA1.)