whats your take on Obama mandating a 36MPG minimum on cars? VOL. RIP V8, corvette, camaro, chargers

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

...fund enough R & D...and I BET automakers could make this happen WITH good horsepower.

my problem is with mandating it.
Of course they can. They've been getting over on this for the longest. But I agree it could've been brought about without mandating it.

And lol at all of you in here with your me, me, me attitudes. That's one of America's biggest problems.
 
laugh.gif
About this time last year, we were having HIGH GAS PRICESUNAPPERICATION threads popping up ....now cats are complaining about future cars begin boring and run with lawn mower engines.


As for mandating it, i dont see whats wrong with it...american car companies are slow w/ going along with the program ..with obama mandating it, it might givethem a swift kick in the butt to catch up....
 
Why doesn't Obama invest more into something like hydrogen fuel cell research?

If this goes through, we'll be seeing 2.5L 4 cylinder 90hp Camaros again
sick.gif
.
 
Originally Posted by G to tha T

Why doesn't Obama invest more into something like hydrogen fuel cell research?

cuz he doesnt know what the hell he is doing ... hes just listening to idiotic people in his administration ... i wish dude had a $%!%**! backbone at least ...
 
eyes.gif
@ MANDATING!

Someone clue me in how this will help the US Automakers revive? Doesn't this complicate the issue of rescuing and providing billions to these USautomakers? Pick up trucks and SUVs are GM and Chrysler's bread and butter so I guess Obama will be giving these automakers more of our TAX DOLLARS toretool due to these standards.

Big Govt
sick.gif


nationalization.jpg
 
Originally Posted by ninjahood

smart-car-1.jpg


im sorry, but i'll never drive something as dorky lookin as this....
You're so short-sighted.. That's practically a 1st-gen "smart" car.. Things will get better and these designs will improve..They MUST if they wanna keep selling with higher standards enforced..
 
naw sundoobie dont speak on what this "really" does ... people cant look 3 steps ahead, they are always looking 3 steps behind ...
 
a kick in the butt, ahhhh no they are going into bankruptcy as early as next week. so no it will not get them to get back in the program. plus when has he rana business before.
 
Originally Posted by ninjahood

last time i checked, we're in the US....which is a captial run society, i'm a proponent of letting the consumer demand dictate the products being sold on the road.


Yes this is true, but eventually companies become so powerful that we have to use vaseline every time we go to the pump.
You really think the consumer's demand is what dictates policy?
 
hmmm...we currently have bio-diesel/CNG heavy duty trucks around san francisco, plug-in hybrids priuses ..and the airport just bought a bunch of Miles ElectricVehicles which uses 110 volt.

Our mayor just got a new Hybrid tahoe last year which goes 22MPG ...up from 15mpg on a regular Tahoe ...extra 7mpg isn't bad ...so the mandatory 35 MPGshouldn't be that hard and keeping good amount of HP.
 
Lofty goal. I doubt most cars will be able to do it, especially the ones with the big engines and lots of HP. I'd imagine it would vary from person toperson as well since people have different driving habits. I think companies will barely make it there and actual MPG will be less for people.
 
[h1]Ballyhoed New CAFE Standards Riddled With Hummer-Sized Loopholes[/h1]
By Matt Hardigree, 12:00 PM on Fri May 22 2009, 4,906 views (Edit post, Set to draft, Slurp)
Copy this whole post to another site

Slurp cancel

progressIndicator_roller.gif

select site advertising consumerist deadspin defamer fleshbot gay fleshbot gawker gizmodo idolator io9 jalopnik jezebel kotaku lifehacker valleywag artists gawkershop

Jump_through_red_tape.jpg
When Obama unveiled new fuel standards we decried the end of fun cars and pointed out how far most automakers are from meeting new-for-2016 fuel standards. It turns out, thanks to Hummer-sized loopholes like your car's air-conditioning, automakers should be able to meet them with little fear.

At issue is the federal government's twin towers of regulation power - the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). What President Obama announced Tuesday was that the EPA and NHTSA intend to work together to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards at the national level. This avoids different standards being implemented at the state versus federal level, and to avoid unharmonized or inconsistent GHG emission and CAFE standards.

The problem is, as has been widely reported by everyone in the media, ourselves included, NHTSA is not proposing a 35.5 MPG CAFE standard by model year 2016. Rather, as we're now being told by analysts at Credit Suisse, the EPA intends to propose GHG emission standards that, based on its estimates of model year 2016 light vehicle sales at that time, would result in fleet average CO2 emissions (of vehicles sold in that model year) of roughly 250 grams/mile. This creates at least one huge loophole in the system for automakers to take advantage of.

The Air Conditioner Loophole
That level of CO2 emission per mile would equate to about 35.5 MPG in fuel economy parlance. However - here's the big loophole - it's expected by the EPA and NHTSA that most manufacturers would apply air conditioning improvements to reduce GHG emissions. Air conditioning improvements do not enter into the NHTSA's calculation of MPG fuel economy.

Thus, the improvement in MPG that is equivalent to the estimated 250g of CO2/mile will actually fall well short of the 35.5 MPG mark. The gap between what the fleet CAFE will be and the widely reported 35.5, would be made up by air conditioner improvements. So basically, when you buy your supposedly more-fuel-efficient vehicle in 2016, it won't have as high of a fuel economy as it could - thanks to your car's air conditioning.

Automakers Get Lower Standards The More Large SUVs, Trucks They Build
Credit Suisse also points out in a new report released today that another key component of the proposal yesterday is that the EPA and NHTSA both intend to propose separate footprint-based standards. This is consistent with NHTSA's current approach to CAFE standards and, as such, means that there will be no set standard, with respect to either CO2 or fuel economy, for any single manufacturer or in fact for the fleet as a whole. Any standards you hear about for a given manufacturer or for the fleet as a whole are estimates.

This is because the actual MPG or CO2 "standard" for every manufacturer will vary depending on what they build. Footprint-based means the amount of CO2 emitted and the level of fuel economy will vary depending on the vehicles wheelbase multiplied by its track width. Put another way, the area between where the tires touch the road.

This quote from the proposal addresses the implications for automakers: "Under a footprint-based standard, each manufacturer would have a GHG and CAFE standard unique to its fleet, with a separate standard for passenger cars and light-trucks, depending on the footprints of the vehicle models produced by that manufacturer. Generally, manufacturers of larger vehicles (i.e. vehicles with larger footprints) would face less stringent standards (i.e., higher CO2 grams/mile standards and lower CAFE standards) than manufacturers of smaller vehicles." This clearly favors the domestic makers.

Will That Be Cash Or Credit?
The EPA and NHTSA foresee flexibility in compliance with its proposed standards based on certain credits. Credits can be earned for fleet over-compliance in a given year, and applied in future years. Current consideration is to allow credits to be carried forward for at least 5 years.

In addition to credits at the fleet level that could be carried forward, the agencies intend to consider giving manufacturers the ability to transfer credits among its fleet. That is, if an automaker achieves over-compliance on the car side, it can transfer those credits to the truck side, and vice versa.

Air conditioning credits: AC units contribute to GHG emissions in two ways. First, through the leakage of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, and second, by placing additional load on the engine, which causes the engine to produce additional CO2. The EPA is considering an approach that would enable automakers to earn credits by reducing GHG emissions (HFC and CO2) related to AC systems. Under the approach, reductions in HFCs would be converted to a CO2 equivalent reduction on a gram/mile basis that could be used as credits in meeting fleet CO2 standards. The EPA said it believes automakers would reduce HFC and CO2 emission through AC upgrades in order to take advantage of these credits.

Additional credit opportunities are being considered to help promote the commercialization of electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. They are called "super credits", and they would take the form of a multiplier such that the number of hybrid/electric vehicles sold would count as more than one vehicle in the manufacturer's fleet average. Thus helping automakers achieve fleet compliance by offering such vehicles, and applying those credits as needed.

Who Comes Out On Top?
All of this doesn't mean the automakers won't have to make an improvement. There's still much work to be done to bring all the vehicles up to these standards, but as we learn more it becomes clearer why so many auto execs were willing to stand behind President Obama.
 
Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

...fund enough R & D...and I BET automakers could make this happen WITH good horsepower.

my problem is with mandating it.
How else would it get done? These companies have shown us they don't have the integrity to do it themselves.

I see no problem. It doesn't take effect until what? 2016? Who's to say the next President won't rescind this?

The technology exists now so I don't think it's unreasonable to make these American car companies have 7 years to get this done.

Americans are acting like spoiled-cry babies over this. It's for our own benefit yet people are acting like they're being persecuted. Fuel-efficientcars = less money out of your own pocket and less dependence on gas/foreign oil. Which is good for the whole damn economy if we're not shelling out allthese billions to other countries for their oil. This is like a parent forcing a young child to eat his veggies. Yeah it may not be pleasant at first but inthe long run it's what's best for you and sometimes people have to be force fed what they need when their too stupid to eat it themselves.

Y'all need to stop crying and see the bigger picture. Chevy could make a fuel efficient Corvette if they wanted too. Then tax these other foreign carcompanies who don't comply with our emissions standards..which will make them less appealing, and thus people will buy more American cars. Which inturn....is going to make our own economy more productive and strong. I really don't see how that is such a bad thing.
 
as ive stated before ... who says it will benefit us? the people who believe in "global warming" ... ?
 
Originally Posted by LilStarZ07

as ive stated before ... who says it will benefit us? the people who believe in "global warming" ... ?
That tells me everything I need to know. Your opinion is useless.
eyes.gif
 
Originally Posted by LilStarZ07

as ive stated before ... who says it will benefit us? the people who believe in "global warming" ... ?
So let's ignore the evidence that shows greenhouse gases have led to global climate change. If we continue to use/produce gas guzzlers (thatare considered lucky to get 20-25 mpg) we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot once the world's oil production reaches its peak in 2016. We might aswell make the conversion to high fuel economy vehicles before sooner than later.
 
Back
Top Bottom