Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/../photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg "Congress put us on the road toward more fuel efficient vehicles two years ago when it passed the first increase in fuel economy standards in more than 30 years (to 35 miles per gallon). Now President Obama is dramatically accelerating our progress. (to 42 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051801848.html) miles per gallon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051801848.html))" - Sierra Club President Carl Pope (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051801848.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Toyota_Prius_Window_Sticker.jpgStephen Mufson - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com) - May 18, 2009

This will be all over the media Tuesday. End of full-sized SUVs and pickups for personal use? People living with 0-60 in over 10 seconds? Gearheads screaming about their "right" to guzzle gas? Any loopholes? --Ed.

The Obama administration is set to announce tough standards for tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide from new automobiles, establishing the first ever nationwide regulation for greenhouse gases.

It will also establish high fuel efficiency targets for new vehicles that would set a 35.5 mile per gallon average for new passenger vehicles and light trucks by 2016, four years earlier than required under the 2007 energy bill, sources close to the administration said.

The administration is embracing standards stringent enough to satisfy the state of California which has been fighting for a waiver from federal law so that it could set its own guidelines, sources said. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) will be among a variety of state and industry officials attending an announcement tomorrow, said sources close to the administration....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051801848.html

One Univ of Mich prof thought guzzlers cut GM's sales in half back in 2006. Makes you wonder if this had been done ten years ago to say 35mpg if GM might have avoided bankruptcy.

I'd like to challenge that if something like this was done ten years ago, GM, Ford, Chrysler would have been prompted to make the structural changes they are making now and avoid bankruptcy. It would be government intervention, but nothing like what we are seeing now...it would avoid something else I loath - Detroit mismanagement destroying the domestic autoindustry (with generous help from the UAW, dealerships, stockholders)

I'll wait until Barry cruises around in his armored 42 mpg SUV before I plunk down a wad of money on one of Government Motors (GM) vehicles. With the reduction of dealers, there will no longer be a way to get a good price as the competition will be gone. The dealers will just say this is the price..take it or leave it. For now, I'm leaving it.

I'm just cruising in mmy 31 mpg HHR for now.

Do you know any 42mpg armored vehicles?

McCain would have been riding in it too (voted for him BTW).

The legislation for fuel economy standards will help, but it doesn't address the other half of the equation. People think they have a "right" to stand on the pedal when the light goes green and drive as fast as they think they can get away with. But you can't walk down the street waving a large knife around, as it is an obvious threat to public safety. What is the difference between reckless driving and swinging a knife around? Sooner or later, someone is going to get hurt.

With the "black box" able to record driver input data over various periods of time, they could just as easily tweak it to record the following data -
- WOT events as a percentage of overall acceleration events.
- Brake pressure and speed differentials over time.
- Average maximum speed.

There should be a way to capture the data and correlate the numbers to seek out reckless or abusive driving. If found, either void the vehicle warranty, or send the data to their insurance carrier for a nice review of their driving style. Those who like to hit 60mph by the time they reach the other side of the intersection can pay for the adrenaline rush. Find a way to tax the horsepower, as is done in many other countries.

Cars don't need to be much smaller to meet the regulations. Engines need to be cut in half, though. And the auto-press is just going to have to live with the "anemic" "boring" and "uninspiring" 12 to 14 second sprints to 60mph. Too bad. That was the norm 25 years ago, and millions of people apparently survived in these cars. Why are the folks here managing just fine in traffic with upshifts around 2000 rpm if cars need 300hp at 6500rpm just to be "fun"? For those who want fun at any cost, they can pay the guzzler tax and the extra insurance costs.

Driving can be a lot of fun. Those who enjoy the sharp handling of a well balanced car can do exactly that with 150 horsepower instead of 250.

Couldn't agree more about less powerful engines, MaxxMPG. When I learned to drive in the '80s, most cars couldn't do 0-60 in less than 12 to 14 seconds. 10 seconds was a pretty fast car. Probably the fastest-accelerating vehicle I've owned -- an '87 Acura Integra -- could do it in the low 8s and that was a very fast car for its time. Now that's considered slow. Even most SUVs and pickups are faster now.

As I recall, we all got around just fine in those "slow" cars built after the last fuel crisis. In recent years I've heard people argue that they "need" that speed for "safety" -- apparently because everyone else is driving like a bat out of hell too. It's the same kind of nonsensical arms race on our roads that makes so many people think they need a huge car, because everyone else is driving a huge car. Stop the insanity and jack the heck out of both CAFE and fuel taxes, I say. We'll all be safer as a result too.

Driving can be a lot of fun. Those who enjoy the sharp handling of a well balanced car can do exactly that with 150 horsepower instead of 250.

I remember the Dodge Neon coming out with a "whopping" 132 hp....:eek::p

I remember the Dodge Neon coming out with a "whopping" 132 hp....:eek::pAnd as I recall that 132 or so hp was pretty optimistic. Given its weight the Neon accelerated like it had more like 110-115 hp. Which is still plenty. My Jetta has 115, is much heavier than the Neon and accelerates just fine (10.8s).

And as I recall that 132 or so hp was pretty optimistic. Given its weight the Neon accelerated like it had more like 110-115 hp. Which is still plenty. My Jetta has 115, is much heavier than the Neon and accelerates just fine (10.8s).

The Neon's little multivalve engine woke up near the top of the rev band, so you only got the whole 132 if you decided to swing the tach needle. My wife's first "new car" was an '89 Dodge Daytona ES with the older 2.5L engine. Rated at 100hp, it'd never sell today since it'd be verbally destroyed by the auto press (they already have asthma attacks over the Aveo, Accent and Versa 1.6 having less than 110hp). The old Mopar 2.5 has gobs of torque and will lauch a 2900 pound car very well up to about 40mph. Rev that engine to its redline and it will sound like a DC3 on takeoff but won't give you any more oomph.

So 20 years ago, the Daytona was able to keep up with traffic without sweaty palms, but today that same hp number in subcompacts that weigh roughly the same as the old Daytona is "marginal" or "inadequate". The '89 Daytona with 2.5L 100hp engine and 5MT is rated 21/31 under the '08 EPA. I would imagine that a revised version with more than one fuel injector, modern computer controls, and a lighter body could get really close to that 2014 average. The CAFE numbers are based on the old original EPA numbers and not the realistic '08 numbers, so many of these 100hp oldies that are "compact" or "midsize" by today's standards could hit the 2014 target without much effort.

My old '81 GM diesel had 105hp (205 lb ft torque @ 1600) in a 3700 pound 6 passenger car. I never had a problem keeping up with traffic with that either. Sure, a few ramps needed a rolling start, but if you know how to drive, you can handle the limitations quite easily. In normal driving, you never had to press the pedal more than 1/4".

Based on the new legislation, it appears that the auto industry is finally going to have to rethink the horsepower race.

Hmm, I should keep my 205 hp couch around for a while. Or get a 240 hp variant that still gets 31 mpg highway if I want to scratch my very occasional itch to go fast in a straight line.

I've modded a car for handling once, and it was a ball. That little car cornered on rails with a 1.2" drop, beefier rear sway bar, front strut brace, and lightweight 15" rims with summer-only rubber. Didn't bottom out either, although some entrance ramps were tricky.

I seem to get around just fine in my non-assisted, 67hp, 3cyl, 1L powered Insight. So far, I've never been "forced" to use the assist to get going, and I'm not dead yet. :p

Hi All:

___To add a few pieces to the puzzle of future CAFÉ’ standards, remember that these are CAFÉ standards based on pre-1985 unadjusted EPA 55% city/45% highway combined estimates. An 08 EPA of ~ 27 – 28 mpgUS is 42 mpgUS on the pre-1985 EPA or CAFE.

___Secondly, I can say that both Ford and Toyota fleet averages will beat the 42 mpgUS combined CAFÉ numbers by 2016.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

If this 42mpg equates to 28mpg in the new EPA, then how is the bar raised? :confused:

Hi Chuck:

___Because the current 27.5 CAFE' is actually around 20 mpgUS :( This bill will move us from 20 to 27.5 in 7 years. And we will be just as hooked up to the junkie as ever before :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

The Neon's little multivalve engine woke up near the top of the rev band, so you only got the whole 132 if you decided to swing the tach needle. My wife's first "new car" was an '89 Dodge Daytona ES with the older 2.5L engine. Rated at 100hp, it'd never sell today since it'd be verbally destroyed by the auto press (they already have asthma attacks over the Aveo, Accent and Versa 1.6 having less than 110hp). The old Mopar 2.5 has gobs of torque and will lauch a 2900 pound car very well up to about 40mph. Rev that engine to its redline and it will sound like a DC3 on takeoff but won't give you any more oomph.

So 20 years ago, the Daytona was able to keep up with traffic without sweaty palms, but today that same hp number in subcompacts that weigh roughly the same as the old Daytona is "marginal" or "inadequate". The '89 Daytona with 2.5L 100hp engine and 5MT is rated 21/31 under the '08 EPA. ..........

Based on the new legislation, it appears that the auto industry is finally going to have to rethink the horsepower race.

You pointed out one of the big differences between 80's econoboxes and 2000's econoboxes. The 2000's have more HP because they can rev higher, but may not perform as well in the normal rev band.

To wit: 1990 Omni vs 2007 Aveo
Peak Horsepower
93 @4800 vs 103 @6000

Peak Torque
122 ft-lb @3200 vs 107 ft-lb@3600


Apparently reviewers don't draw those distinctions.

It turns out that in my recollection the lower hp Omni was peppier in normal driving around town. I'm sure I visited 3200 RPM occassionally in my Omni, but 3600 (or God forbid 6000) in the Aveo could only mean I mis-shifted:o.

Boy racers are about the only ones who get a useful comparison out of today's peak horsepower ratings. It's a shame they don't rate cars based on torque/power in the 1500-3000 RPM band where people drive most of the time.

Boy racers are about the only ones who get a useful comparison out of today's peak horsepower ratings. It's a shame they don't rate cars based on torque/power in the 1500-3000 RPM band where people drive most of the time.

My AT Civic has seen 4k easily coming out of a local red light onto a steep hill immediaitely after.

the loop hole is the average for cars and light trucks.
Quad-cab dully 6L turbo engine is NOT light truck..

But i agree that had the standards been raised in the 90 - the auto makers would not be in the mess they are in now - well OK maybe not AS MUCH of a mess as they are not. Government standards cannot stop people from making BAD decisions - only make it clear what the penalities are for those bad decisions.

Hi All:

___To add a few pieces to the puzzle of future CAFÉ’ standards, remember that these are CAFÉ standards based on pre-1985 unadjusted EPA 55% city/45% highway combined estimates. An 08 EPA of ~ 27 – 28 mpgUS is 42 mpgUS on the pre-1985 EPA or CAFE.

___Secondly, I can say that both Ford and Toyota fleet averages will beat the 42 mpgUS combined CAFÉ numbers by 2016.

___Good Luck

___WayneAnd using that scale, here is where the automakers stand today:


Toyota 36.4
Honda 35.1
Hyundai 33.8
Kia 33.4

Nissan 32.2

Ford 30.0

General Motors 29.8

Chrysler 29.5

VW 28.8

BMW 27.4

Mercedes-Benz 26.4
(Source: NHTSA Summary of Fuel Economy Performance)


Toyota and Honda have a relative chip shot compared to Chrysler

And using that scale, here is where the automakers stand today:


Toyota 36.4
Honda 35.1
Hyundai 33.8
Kia 33.4

Nissan 32.2

Ford 30.0

General Motors 29.8

Chrysler 29.5

VW 28.8

BMW 27.4

Mercedes-Benz 26.4
(Source: NHTSA Summary of Fuel Economy Performance)


Toyota and Honda have a relative chip shot compared to Chrysler

Great work on this chart. IMO it shows that the numbers Obama came up with did not go nearly far enough when you consider the time frame for implementation.

I voted the 50 mpg, but think it should have been even higher than that.

The legislation for fuel economy standards will help, but it doesn't address the other half of the equation. People think they have a "right" to stand on the pedal when the light goes green and drive as fast as they think they can get away with. But you can't walk down the street waving a large knife around, as it is an obvious threat to public safety. What is the difference between reckless driving and swinging a knife around? Sooner or later, someone is going to get hurt.

With the "black box" able to record driver input data over various periods of time, they could just as easily tweak it to record the following data -
- WOT events as a percentage of overall acceleration events.
- Brake pressure and speed differentials over time.
- Average maximum speed.

There should be a way to capture the data and correlate the numbers to seek out reckless or abusive driving. If found, either void the vehicle warranty, or send the data to their insurance carrier for a nice review of their driving style. Those who like to hit 60mph by the time they reach the other side of the intersection can pay for the adrenaline rush.
Exactly.

Said another way, we need 42mpg DRIVERS in addition to 42 mpg cars. It's a bit disappointing that FE and safety, "the other half of the equation" as you put it, is not being handled, apparently. I'd prefer to see driver training rather than driver monitoring, but it may come to the latter.

I thought we over all were making headway on over all mpg. I'm quite proud of the efforts made over the last 40 years.

Here we have folks unhappy because it's not enough. Other folks elsewhere saying it's to much with to much gov. involved. Then a poster here wanting big brother in the ECU to tell on a driver.

It's all so sad. :(

Driver monitoring is bad.

Trial balloon: Don't monitor everybody, but do it for those with bad driving records.

In other words, if someone gets pulled over three or more times a year, is blamed for a wreck, etc, they get a monitor. Then they have to behave for 2-3 years to get it removed.

I'd bet reckless driving takes a hit.

Trial balloon: Don't monitor everybody, but do it for those with bad driving records.

In other words, if someone gets pulled over three or more times a year, is blamed for a wreck, etc, they get a monitor. Then they have to behave for 2-3 years to get it removed.

I'd bet reckless driving takes a hit.

In spite of my "gee they ought to do this" rant that spawned the monitoring idea, the reality is that it is bad for many reasons.
1 - There are plenty of drivers that don't need an electro-nanny, and there are huge costs involved in collecting, processing, and managing the data. The last thing we need is more commissioners and enforcers all earning six figure salaries.
2 - I was brought up believing that you don't need to be afraid of "them watching you" (security cameras, red light cameras, black box recorders, police cars, etc) if you aren't doing anything wrong. But the risk involved is that the definition of "wrong" can arbitrarily change without the public's consent. If picking your nose ever becomes illegal, every driver I've ever seen in the next lane would be hauled away in chains.
3 - The last thing the automakers need is another excuse to duck warranty coverage.
4 - The last thing we need is to have collected data available to sweaty shifty-eyed combover-wearin' attorneys - the ones who run late night ads saying "you may be entitled to a large cash settlement" - so they can argue for years (at our expense) over who did what to whom and when and why and how and where.
5 - The last thing we need is to give the insurance companies another reason to raise rates. I've never had to file a claim, and that's over 28 years. With the money paid in insurance premiums over the years, I could have bought a spare house to give away to whoever sues me after a crash. "Go ahead. Sue me. Take the house. It's a spare I bought for just such an occasion."

I was almost hit from behind last night by a BMW who took off from a stop sign with his foot on the floor and was heading for me at WOT while looking for an opening in the next lane. He swerved at the last minute, ran through the red light I was coasting up to, and then headed for the parking lane at the next light - speeding past people waiting at the curb for the public bus - so he could jump in front of everyone at that light. An emergency? Unlikely, as the sunroof was open and the tunes were blasting. After experiencing that, who wouldn't want his insurance agent to explain to him that his driving style will now cost him $10,000 a year to maintain coverage? Even with a 42mpg standard, this idiot will figure out how to get 15mpg out of his car and still not give a damn about safety or fuel prices. :mad:

Don't know if it clarifies, but monitoring is directed at the maniac that weaves and blasts by you at 85mph. And they would pay to have the monitoring device put in. For most of us, we would not have to worry.

Don't know if that helps.

Hi All:

___Instead of monitoring, how about all cars are governed to a max speed of 80 mph, 175 HP, and a WOT burst can only occur for < 1.5-seconds every 30-minutes. The performance guys can do all they want with that 1.5 seconds and brag about how fast they traveled from one red light to the next while the roadways become far safer and more livable.

___Formula One is limiting the amount of assist from a KERS equipped hybrid so why not street legal vehicles?

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Memorial Day is around the corner.

Who was it that said: "Self government without self-democracy won't work?"

I'm for the least amount of government possible AND people behaving as responsible adults. I'm for some regulation to keep greedy or irresponsible people from spoiling it for the rest of us like the AIG exec, and the manic that flew by you like a bat outta hell.

So the question is how to encourage responsibility?

If that can't be done, America won't be leading the world anymore.

Hi All:

___Instead of monitoring, how about all cars are governed to a max speed of 80 mph, 175 HP, and a WOT burst can only occur for < 1.5-seconds every 30-minutes. The performance guys can do all they want with that 1.5 seconds and brag about how fast they traveled from one red light to the next while the roadways become far safer and more livable.

___Formula One is limiting the amount of assist from a KERS equipped hybrid so why not street legal vehicles?

___Good Luck

___WayneSounds reasonable to me for everybody that's not police, ambulance, fire.

___Instead of monitoring, how about all cars are governed to a max speed of 80 mph, 175 HP, and a WOT burst can only occur for < 1.5-seconds every 30-minutes

As long as emergency vehicles can have the governing removed, I am all for this.

You can even leave off the WOT throttle bursts. That would force the manufacturers to lower the CD to get faster acceleration times.

The only real sticking point I can see is vehicles that are actually used for towing and need a bit more oomph. Allow more HP, but lower the allowed speed? Most trailers have a lower "safe speed" than the speed limits.

If you want to make sure no one wants to buy a new car keep scheming.

As it is with new FE standards people will just decide to not sell the cars that they have now because they may not want the newer less powerful vehicles. Shortsighted and selfish? sure but we can predict the results, unless gas is back to $4+ quick older FSP will stay with us longer.

Just waiting for $10/gallon gas. $5 alternative energy fund included.

Currently it seems like $2.50/gallon with $.50 for the terrorist fund.

Eventually the old cars will have to be replaced - it's just a matter of when.

Like Cuba, eventually they will buy new cars.

Like Cuba, eventually they will buy new cars.Doubt it would be that protracted.

Sure, there will be a run on cars like the Shelby Mustang, but it will become an increasingly limited option.

If I had more time, I'd photoshop Obama in Carter's cardigan sweater....same pros and cons over 30 years later.

This is getting to be a very bitter group. People already pay gas guzzler tax for rigs you all hate. removed. Somebody wants gas to be $10 a gallon with a 50% tax.

I look at the HCH II and wonder if the wife and I will be looked at as a nut job hater's cause we try in a near worthless over priced car that is bassiclly crap. If it did not get good mpg and burn clean a person would be insane to buy one. Much less pay MSRP for such a foul auto. and you want to force or dream about more crap and worse than the HCHII.

Life has risk. some poster bitching cause a driver blew his doors and drove radical to him. HELL folks riding mopeds will blow most hypermilers off out of the hole.

I may bitch about how my wifes drives and have my problems. But you folks bitch about stuff to the point I would never want to really know most of you.

removed. I showed this thread to the wife. She was like WTF is wrong with them?

Jeff:
Everyone has a right to an opinion on the issues. Getting personal and calling people "wack-o" and "bitter", in an attempt to make yourself "seem" better than anyone else on this forum pleases you and no one else.

Judging someone's character without any insight is prejudice on more levels than I would bother counting.

I suggest you give that post a second try at sounding somewhat positive. The post above seems extremely parasitic with no real consideration or regard to the topic.

People pay "guzzler taxes" for all the big rigs our members hate? I guess as long as you have the money to do something then that makes it right. :(

At the risk of agreeing with Jeff, I'd describe many of the proposals here as electoral suicide. People probably are more effective advocates when they don't grind such sharp edges on their axes.

From the general point of view of this site I would describe this as a significant political victory and future improvements will likely be made as technological advances make them less costly. From a political perspective it may be wise to pause on additional increases in the FE standard for a little while to allow general public opinion to catch up. I say we should enjoy the victory, but if you like whining I'm OK with that too--after all it's the American way:flag::rolleyes:.

Heck... I'm just shocked that Hyundai and Kia are 3rd and 4th place?? When did that happen? Now, if they'd just bring those "blue" models online a bit faster, I'd be happy.

Jeff, I think you know us better than that and for that matter me better than that.

For the record, I don't support putting nanny-boxes in cars or putting mandatory performance or speed limiters in vehicles, and have said so multiple times in the past. I'd rather offer incentives -- big ones, like stiff gas taxes and jacked-up CAFE standards -- for automakers and drivers to go for fuel economy rather than doing one-size-fits-all, across-the-board mandates.

Hi All:

___Whooa Jeff, I had to remove some of your comments because they got way to personal.

___Blowing someone out of the hole? Who cares? A 600 CC bike will blow your Mazda 3 out of the hole anytime of the day or night yet you still drive the Mazda3? Is your Mazda3 a POS because a 600 cc motorcycle will blow it out of the hole? Racing to the next stop light by most in today’s society makes us laugh because 80% of the time we catch up to them, do so for about 1/4 the cost and know we contributing minimally to the nations downfall in many cases.

___What you seem to forget is that we import over 60% of our daily supply from people that want to kill us. It does not matter if you believe we have enough supply for 200-years, the fact is we are on the cusp and we import all of this oil so people can pretend their truck or car can do 0 - 60 in 7 seconds when they never do. All the while your wife is sitting in a traffic jam in Tulsa with her engine in Autostop not burning anything and laughing all the way to the bank.

___You have looked up the TCO on your Mazda3 vs. the HCH-II right? Your wife is the smart one in the family for better comfort, higher safety and lower $'s over the life of the vehicle hands down. You should be kissing her @$$ for doing the right thing in the HCH-II vs. what the rest are doing while losing their shirts with Mazda3’s and other even more expensive on a TCO basis FSP.

___Now stop the tirades

PS: God bless your wife :)

___Good Luck

___Wayne