Increase fuel economy or not

[HelioPrime]

Long post: Forgive me for the read! :

Coming to the hill this summer will be legislation to increase the average requirement automakers are expected to reach in all cars and trucks.

Bill supporters say the automakers are dragging their feet, the automotive supporters say the standards are impossible to achieve.

Summary of two possible bills:

Markey Bill (HR1506)

CAFE increases to start for cars in 2009.
In 2012, fuel efficiency increases at 4 percent per year.
In 2018, cars/trucks combined must reach 35 mpg.
After 2018, 4 percent increases per year.

Hill-Terry Bill (HR2927)

— By 2022, cars and trucks must reach 35 mpg.
— Provision keeps cars and trucks separated.
— Sets requirements at "maximum feasible" level.

Fuel economy debate heats up

How should this be decided? Is increasing economy impossible as the US automakers claim? Or is Detroit and others holding on to SUV's and trucks only over profits?


I would support the Market bill mostly due to the language of the second. "Maximum feasible" isn't a good word in congress. Who will determine this and will it is accurate or influenced by money? How do you attain the set level is the feasible levels can't reach it by 2022 and if so how do you punish automakers?

We have the technology, the issue is that tech isn't where the money is. The so-called green champion, the prius wasn't even profitable for Toyota until the recent 2004 generation model.
Prius Facts

One of the best features of most hybrid type cars is the auto-stop, the system that shuts off the engine while at a stop, or during slow acceleration are some cars like the prius. Mercedes has developed an auto-stop to work and is under testing on normal delivery vans in Europe. If all automakers could adopt this on cars it could save 10-15% on gas across the board. The only sacrifice is off the bat performance of sports cars and trucks.

With GM promising a functional Lithium Ion battery to power hybrids by 2010 a future with jumps in Mileage is possible. Apply this platform to SUV's, trucks, and crossovers and meeting requirements should be no problem.
Behold! The battery of the future! Already in your cell phone!

The only holdbacks I see is the oil money in congress as well as the fact US automakers are not doing well. At present their only major category of profitable cars is the SUV and truck market. Force them to change these and we might not have any more US automakers. Is that such a bad thing? :rolleyes:

So thoughts? Pass one of these measures? Or protect our automotive industry and let the raising gas prices force them to change?

[triad]

These goals in the Markey Bill are completely reachable.

The oil companies are probably spending more smokescreen dollars than they are research for cleaner fuel.

Where the automakers are spending billions on research for better fuel efficiency, companies like Exxon Mobil are making record profits. I remember in 2006 oil companies were trying to blame automakers for the lack of fuel efficiency in their vehicles, which is a valid point - but that is part of the smokescreen. Point fingers elsewhere and you'll be left alone long enough to rake the cash in. All I could find regarding that news was this article:


Automakers, Oil companies bicker over who's responsible for high gas prices

Auto makers "have spent billions developing cleaner, more efficient technologies," Mr. Vines wrote. "Big Oil would rather fill the pockets of its executives and shareholders, rather than spend sufficient amounts to reduce the price of fuel, letting consumers, during tough economic times, pick up the tab."

I am thinking we will only get better fuel efficiency while the demand for it is high, and the only time we get high demand for fuel efficiency is when gas prices are inflated. So in a way, the oil companies are creating their own decent profit wise. They are literally forcing the automakers to build better fuel efficient cars and research different fuel sources. Ironic, yet - it is what we need; high fuel prices means pressure on the consumers, while pressure is on the consumers pressure will be on the automakers. It seems it will always be win-win for Oil. I say we throw way more responsibility on these profitable giants. Their record profits can pay for a lot of research into a green fuel source.

While better fuel efficiency will definitely help, it won't eliminate our issues. 35 mpg is still too high, considering the population of drivers will be even more massive by 2018. These goals are almost pitiful.

Governments love oil companies, how do we ask them to penalize them for their success?

[HelioPrime]

You forget oil is not an unlimited resource. It is recreated slowly over time but not fast enough to outpace human consumption.

These goals are easily reached if company's switch to total or partial new sources of power and fuel.

The crutch is the US automakers, they can only sell cars based of size and pulling power, or throwback retro designs.

So lets play the US automaker and forget high gas prices! New hummer model anyone? Bring back old thumper? Lets add another V8 vette!

The question remains do we keep the status quo and just whine over prices, untill the floor falls out from under us? Or try and act now.

[triad]

Quote by: HelioPrime You forget oil is not an unlimited resource. It is recreated slowly over time but not fast enough to outpace human consumption.

Well DUH. That is a given, I did not "forget", I just assumed it was unnecessary to mention.

These goals are easily reached if company's switch to total or partial new sources of power and fuel.

Obviously, but ok, go on...

The crutch is the US automakers, they can only sell cars based of size and pulling power, or throwback retro designs.

Imports anyone?

So lets play the US automaker and forget high gas prices! New hummer model anyone? Bring back old thumper? Lets add another V8 vette!

High gas prices = less people buying high consumption fuel hogs. Of course there will be the extremely wealthy that just don't give a shit and will still buy their V12's; but they probably work for an oil company anyways.

The question remains do we keep the status quo and just whine over prices, untill the floor falls out from under us? Or try and act now.

We will eventually be forced to change. Not by choice - but because

1) Yes, oil is a non-renewable resource, but we still have a LOT left. However, our environment will begin to fight back and we will have no choice but to cut WAY back on fuel consumption.

2) Read 1.


Ultimately I say act now. As in, NOW. We are dragging our feet endlessly and we will pay major consequences for it sooner than later. It isn't hard - better fuel economy, more affordable hybrids, and just common sense.

I'll give you an example:

Tim Horton’s here in Canada is a complete phenomenon; people are addicted to Tim Horton’s coffee. Their drive-thru is constantly packed with 20 vehicles in line at all times, usually obstructing traffic. All those idling vehicles aren't helping our fuel problems; if people got their assess OUT OF THEIR HUMMER, and actually walked to the counter - then they wouldn't be pumping C02 into the air while they wait for their coffee. This is the kind of changes we will make at first, and then more drastic ones will follow.

[5010]

It's missing the point. Why do commuters drive so much? Why do we use less efficient shipping methods instead of trains? More efficient vehicles make it less painful to live where you have to commute, less needful for mass transit, less needful of rail.

It's like laying down concrete to fix traffic and in response the sprawl spreads.

Can the source of all this driving be dealt with? Can people be lured into living closer, driving less, using mass transit, and shipping over rail?

[Chancellor]

The real point seems to be more government intrusion on our lives.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Unless the auto makers of the US change and manufacture the most efficient vehicles they will inevitably lose out to those produced in the rest of the world.

the US love affair with the gas guzzler will become a failure of the economy

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel Unless the auto makers of the US change and manufacture the most efficient vehicles they will inevitably lose out to those produced in the rest of the world. the US love affair with the gas guzzler will become a failure of the economy

As long as there is a market for gas guzzlers, the US automobile manufacturers would still make a profit by producing them.

You people over in the rest of the world really don't understand the cultural significance of the automobile in America.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chancellor As long as there is a market for gas guzzlers, the US automobile manufacturers would still make a profit by producing them. You people over in the rest of the world really don't understand the cultural significance of the automobile in America.

Nod. Unlike much of Europe american has most of the nation built around the automobile. Many of our biggest cities, LA, SF, etc.. were built with no other transport method in mind.

Considered the huge lack of success with amtrack, our public transit isn't very popular or effective to begin with. Like the 150 mpg train from NYC that can only use that speed for 15 minutes of its travel because local towns won't allow a train to pass through any faster due to noise or potential safety concerns.

America loves its cars. Most people just have no option but to drive, there is no other way to get to and fro work. Were left with either abandon the rural towns and suburbs and all live in mega cities, or improve the mileage of cars and trucks.

The issue of government intrusion is part of the problem. Its all dandy to say its your right to choose to drive a hummer and want it to get 8 mpg. But by doing so your harming the nation as a whole, especially when its 150,000 drivers doing the same thing.

This would be an example of the government using its defined powers to say "for your protection, we have to now take charge."

[Thanatos]

The Markey bill is poorly worded. Cars can be made much more efficient, but after a certain time manufacturers will hit a wall beyond which gasoline powered vehicles can't go. Its not clear where that wall is...well beyond 35 mpg, but not infinite.

I also hope this means cars SOLD in the U.S. and not cars MANUFACTURED in the U.S. Chancellor is right about the American love affair with big cars, and not being able to compete with gas-guzzling foreign imports would be bad for our already injured auto industry.

Don't get me wrong; its a good concept but its one of those things that should be worded rather carefully.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: triad I'll give you an example: Tim Horton’s here in Canada is a complete phenomenon; people are addicted to Tim Horton’s coffee. Their drive-thru is constantly packed with 20 vehicles in line at all times, usually obstructing traffic. All those idling vehicles aren't helping our fuel problems; if people got their assess OUT OF THEIR HUMMER, and actually walked to the counter - then they wouldn't be pumping C02 into the air while they wait for their coffee. This is the kind of changes we will make at first, and then more drastic ones will follow.

If those 20 cars were the Toyota hybrids then no gas would be spent

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chancellor The real point seems to be more government intrusion on our lives.

Not our lives. The automakers.

The feds have the legal authority to interfere with global or nation wide buisness. Its a very broad power I'm sure they do abuse at times.

These bills are about setting a legal standard to follow, not restrict the lives of individuals. Its the same as setting restrictions on emissions.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime Not our lives. The automakers. The feds have the legal authority to interfere with global or nation wide buisness. Its a very broad power I'm sure they do abuse at times. These bills are about setting a legal standard to follow, not restrict the lives of individuals. Its the same as setting restrictions on emissions.

There is nothing broad about federal government powers.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chancellor There is nothing broad about federal government powers.

The fed has power to regulate interstate commerce as mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. The supreme court has determined by decisions that the power also extends outside single states and nation wide.

A fuel efficiency bill would fall under federal regulation of commerce, because automakers are an insdustry selling a product to the citizens of every state.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime The fed has power to regulate interstate commerce as mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. The supreme court has determined by decisions that the power also extends outside single states and nation wide.

I'm well aware of Congress' limited power with regard to regulating interstate commerce. Also, Supreme Court decisions are not amendments to the Constitution and they are not legislation.

A fuel efficiency bill would fall under federal regulation of commerce, because automakers are an insdustry selling a product to the citizens of every state.

One might try to stretch it out to result in that conclusion but regulating interstate commerce does not mean regulating how a product is manufactured.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Chancellor I'm well aware of Congress' limited power with regard to regulating interstate commerce. Also, Supreme Court decisions are not amendments to the Constitution and they are not legislation.

Yet when the supreme court sets a ruling it sets the tone for all future cases unless the court later sees reason to bring it to question again.

If one of these bills is passed, the automakers might take it to the courts but there is no reasoning behind a court objection to the bill.

Quote by: Chancellor One might try to stretch it out to result in that conclusion but regulating interstate commerce does not mean regulating how a product is manufactured.

The manufactured product is sold to consumers. As a commerical sale the fed can regulate the critera the product must meet. They already regulate for safety, other standards are fair game.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: HelioPrime The crutch is the US automakers, they can only sell cars based of size and pulling power, or throwback retro designs.

More precisely, they sell what consumers want. That is their business. If consumers only want large cars, or retro cars, or cars with "pulling power", companies will make them or go out of business.

Look at the import manufacturers' scramble over the last 15 years to produce larger, more powerful cars and in particular the recent attempt of Nissan, Toyota, and Honda to make trucks.

So lets play the US automaker and forget high gas prices! New hummer model anyone? Bring back old thumper? Lets add another V8 vette!

Psst... the most gas guzzling vehicles of today get better mileage and emit less harmful byproducts than the most efficient cars of just 20 years ago.

Hummers and V8 vettes are comparably small volume vehicles to the mass of everyday cars.

Quote by: triad Imports anyone?

What gives you the idea that imports are more efficient as far as CAFE standards?

In 2002, 4 companies failed CAFE for cars and 2 for trucks. All foreign makes.

High gas prices = less people buying high consumption fuel hogs.

It hasn't worked so far.
Even at $4 a gallon, the difference, assuming 15,000 miles driven per year (pretty high), between 20mpg and 16mpg is only about $750 per year.
That's one of the reasons why it just doesn't make good economic sense to buy a hybrid - they still cost too much more than their non-hybrid twins to be cost-effective.

Quote by: 5010 It's missing the point. Why do commuters drive so much?

Because they don't want to live in the city.

Why do we use less efficient shipping methods instead of trains?

They are cheaper.

More efficient vehicles make it less painful to live where you have to commute, less needful for mass transit, less needful of rail.

True

Can the source of all this driving be dealt with? Can people be lured into living closer, driving less, using mass transit, and shipping over rail?

Likely answer, no.

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel Unless the auto makers of the US change and manufacture the most efficient vehicles they will inevitably lose out to those produced in the rest of the world.

6 of the top 10-selling vehicles in the United States are from Ford, GM, or Dodge. They're doing just fine.

the US love affair with the gas guzzler will become a failure of the economy

Really? So the design, planning, building, transporting, selling, fueling, servicing, and eventual scrapping/recycling of these cars isn't a large part of the economy?

Quote by: HelioPrime The issue of government intrusion is part of the problem. Its all dandy to say its your right to choose to drive a hummer and want it to get 8 mpg. But by doing so your harming the nation as a whole, especially when its 150,000 drivers doing the same thing.

You can't make a case against someone based upon what a class of people do. In order to prove your argument from a law standpoint you'd need to show that each individual Hummer harms someone specifically.

And I don't see how driving a Hummer is harming the nation as a whole.
China uses far more petroleum than Hummer drivers in the U.S. Should we declare war on them because of how badly they are "harming" us?

This would be an example of the government using its defined powers to say "for your protection, we have to now take charge."

mmmm, kind of thin ice here. What defined power of the government allows it to regulate what vehicle a person can drive?

Quote by: Thanatos I also hope this means cars SOLD in the U.S. and not cars MANUFACTURED in the U.S. Chancellor is right about the American love affair with big cars, and not being able to compete with gas-guzzling foreign imports would be bad for our already injured auto industry.

Yes, CAFE applies to foreign and domestic automakers alike.

Quote by: Chancellor I'm well aware of Congress' limited power with regard to regulating interstate commerce. Also, Supreme Court decisions are not amendments to the Constitution and they are not legislation.

They establish precedent that has the effect of law, hence the phrase "case law"

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: tivodan1116 It hasn't worked so far. Even at $4 a gallon, the difference, assuming 15,000 miles driven per year (pretty high), between 20mpg and 16mpg is only about $750 per year. That's one of the reasons why it just doesn't make good economic sense to buy a hybrid - they still cost too much more than their non-hybrid twins to be cost-effective.

The problem with comparing hybrids to their normal twins is the hybrid is far better equiped that the standard twin the estimates are based off.

The Toyota Camry hybrid comes to about $26,000 with mostly standard options. Add in a $1900+ tax savings in the US.

Then compare it to the normal camry. Add the automatic tranny (the most popular choice) add moonroof, cruise control, and many other options that come standard on the hybrid. Suddenly the price of the "normal" car is close if not even with the hybrid. Add in the tax credit and gas savings and in 5 years or less you've made a better deal.

Same applies to most other hybrids. They come better equiped than the base model. Base models don't make up the largest sale catagory for most auto's. The middle level, like the Camry LE makes up the bulk of sales. These middle lever cars or SUV's are not priced far from their hybrid twin.

Unless you want the bare bones MT car with no options then the hybrid makes the most sense.

My point:
Hybrid Camry - standard with option package 1

Camry LE - LE with option package 3 to match standard features and hybrid options

If every american decided they wanted an M1 tank for a car, fully armed would the government try to regulate and use laws to stop that? Yes, so they can do the same for regulations on products sold to consumers in their country.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: HelioPrime If every american decided they wanted an M1 tank for a car, fully armed would the government try to regulate and use laws to stop that? Yes, so they can do the same for regulations on products sold to consumers in their country.

1) "fully armed" is different. A Hummer or other gas-guzzling person cannot punch holes in armor from miles away. It's an invalid analogy.
2) The government could not stop people from buying unarmed tanks, in fact many collectors do.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: tivodan1116 1) "fully armed" is different. A Hummer or other gas-guzzling person cannot punch holes in armor from miles away. It's an invalid analogy. 2) The government could not stop people from buying unarmed tanks, in fact many collectors do.

If everyone was buying them, and rising fuel prices was affecting the economy then the government would step in and set restrictions.