Auto Mileage Standards Raised to 35 mpg

Ponca City, We Love You writes "The Senate just passed a bill that will increase auto mileage standards for the first time in three decades. The auto industry's fleet of new cars, sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and vans will have to average 35 mpg by 2020, a significant increase over the 2008 requirement of 27.5 mpg average. For consumers, the legislation will mean that over the next dozen years auto companies will likely build more diesel-powered SUVs and gas-electric hybrid cars as well as vehicles that can run on 85 percent ethanol. Automakers had vehemently opposed legislation in June that contained the same mileage requirements and Fortune magazine reported that American automakers were starting the miles-per-gallon race far behind Japan and that the new standards could doom US automakers. At the time, Chrysler officially put the cost of meeting the proposed rules at $6,700 per vehicle. The White House announced the President will sign the bill if it comes to his desk."

Comments

Finally.

[MostAwesomeDude]

I own a Ford Escort from the turn of the century. It may not be very pretty, or very fast, but gets roughly 40 MPG. I can't understand how people are content with their goddamn SUVs getting 25 or less miles to the gallon. Oh well.

Re:Finally.

[vidarh]

I come from Norway. We drive normal cars, including lots of Japanese compacts, even when the snow is meter high, because we've actually heard of things like ploughs, and winter-tyres, combined with chains for the wheels if things get extreme. Somehow it's never a problem, so that's a pitiful excuse.

Re:Finally.

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Quebec, CANADA.

As you may know, we aren't as rich as the US and cars/SUV/Trucks are more costly than the US. If you come here, you'll see that the compact cars are very popular. Trucks and SUV is something you don't see often, except in construction. For the same truck, we can see a difference of 15 000$ US, some time more, between you and us, even if our dollar is near or at parity with the US dollar since two years.

Honda Civic, Pontiac Sunfire, Chevrolet Cavalier are best-selling cars right here, especially Civic. For your, the USA, those kind of car are sh*t. I went to the USA and it's very rare that I see those cars...

That being said, our winter is same or even worse than in the North of the US, and still, we manage to drive in the roads even in the big snow storm with the small car. You don't need a SUV if you know how to drive in that kind of conditions. For sure, it helps a lot, but did you know that among the accidents that happens because of the snow, it's the SUV that are often out of the roads, upside down. I'm not exaggerating, it's in the statistics of the Surete du Quebec (Our "state police").

The main reason (this is my own opinion) is that the driver is feeling too confident because he have a SUV. It's big, it has four wheel drives and the driver think he is better than the small cars, you know, those small sh*t that are having a hard time in the storm.

If you know how to drive with your car in all conditions, you won't have any issue even in severe snow storm, car or SUV or Truck, no matter what. Been there, done that. I sometime drive in those conditions, it's not easy (you know, that kind of server snow storm in the night that you cannot see more than 1 feed ahead of you with almost 10 inch of snow on the roads) but if you adapt your driving ability in all conditions, you will go everywhere with your car. Of course, I did it because I didn't have choice, otherwise I would stayed home.

We never put chains on our wheels, it's forbidden by the Law because it breaks the roads.

It's all the driver, not the vehicle.

Ugh

[DavidShor]

Why exactly is Corn Ethanol a good thing? Haven't we caused enough food riots and inflation worldwide with this policy?

And I'm not really thrilled with the other provisions of the bill, namely requiring 15% of every utility's power from every state to come from non-renewable sources. This is going to draw a lot of capital away from Nuclear energy, and in the states without wind or clear skies, will likely prompt a lot of wasteful programs(Apparently, burning Forests for energy counts as renewable energy).

And the CAFE standards? I don't care enough to fight about it(mainly since it seems the market is heading that way anyway), but I would prefer more specific mandates that don't smack of populism. CO2 emissions are pretty poorly tied to gasoline consumption, and regulation on tail-pipe CO2 emission would make a lot more environmental sense(And cost a lot less money), at least until a carbon credit scheme is implemented.

The funny thing, is that nobody is even considering implementing CAFE standards for the military and other government agencies. The Government's massive purchase of fuel inefficient cars, since agencies have very little incentive to save on gas costs, has a surprisingly discretionary effect on the production decisions of American Car Makers. We've all seen police drive around in SUVs.

Instead of saddling American consumers with extra costs, why don't we mandate that all agencies that receive money from Congress must not use cars with a MPG below 35? This includes charities, police departments, the Military, and even foreign governments.

destroy the US automakers ?

[savuporo]

I dont think US automakers like Tesla Motors or Phoenix Motorcars will cry much about this. They are aiming for complete zero emissions vehicles anyway.
Look, the crying from automakers is silly, like the DaimlerChrysler announcement that "we cant make it". Well, tough luck. Innovate or die. Its a market and competition, you dont have any birthright to sit there and dictate things.
Auto industry is long overdue for some serious shakeup, and the ones that get with the future sooner will likely survive.

Confusing units...

[bdraschk]

At least for me as a German reader, i had to read TFA to get an idea what "mpg" means in the first place, than had to use google and xcalc to compute the unit we use to measure how much cars spend. 35 mpg is about 6.7l/100km, which does sound pretty good to me.

But still do not know under which circumstances these 6.7l shall be attained. City traffic, highway, or total mix? I have trouble keeping my moderately motorized car on 7l/100km in city traffic, it can do much better on the autobahn (if i don't push it too hard).

Re:Why aren't they doing this /anyway/?

[fprintf]

Your SUV argument is bullshit. Really. I live in the Northeast, and have in various states around here for the 25+ years I have been driving. *Even* if you live in Vermont, NH, Maine or upstate NY there is very little need for an SUV. There is maybe once per year, if that, that an Audi Quattro, Subaru AWD or anything else could not navigate with ease. All have ground clearance of 6+ inches, and you'd really need a dumping of 8+ inches *and* very poor planning in order not to make it home. In fact, most of these cars handle the snow better than SUVs due to their lighter weight and lower center of gravity. Take a look around hill country and you will see people managing quite well with used AWD cars - particularly the Subarus as they are cheap and seem to last forever.

I have lived in the lower Northeast, Mass and CT, for a long time now, where the snow levels are lower than hill country. I used to drive a Miata for 7 years and never, ever got stuck. Now I drive a Mini Cooper S and have yet to get stuck. I will say that for the first time, this year, I installed some snow tires I was given (versus the previous 15+ winters without them) and am quite happy with the results. As long as the difference in height between the ruts and the snow level doesn't reach 6 inches I can navigate just fine - if it does get that high, then the front airdam will act like a snowplow. But this has not happened locally for many years, and yet still the suburban environment here is packed with SUVs. My opinion is that the snow argument is not a rational one, but has been a very strong part of the sales pitch for these vehicles nonetheless.

So I think we will survive just fine without the SUVs. As for the water crossings in the midwest and southeast, I'd bet that is potentially part of 1/1,000,000 people's lives. Most people I know there are smart enough not to try to ford a stream that has flooded the road as the current can quickly surprise and take vehicle and/or life with it.

Still quite lax

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

European regulation requires car manufacturers to average 100 kilometers on 5 liters, which is roughly 47 mpg. This is in 2012, not 2020!

Stop Blaming Detroit!

[Detritus]

Stop blaming Detroit for the poor choices of you and your neighbors. There is no conspiracy to prevent people from buying efficient cars. They just don't sell that well in America. I can walk out into any parking lot and see large numbers of SUVs and trucks owned by people who will never use them for their intended purpose. For many of them, it's a fashion statement. People like driving over-powered land yachts.

If we were really serious about cutting gasoline consumption, we would take a serious look at land use and zoning, so that people didn't have to drive such long distances to get to work or shop.

Re:Why aren't they doing this /anyway/?

[Pharmboy]

They already make cars that get this kind of mileage. I drive a 1998 Cadillac Deville that gets 31 MPG on the highway on the interstate, mainly at 70-75MPH. I drive 110 miles per day to and from work. It is a 4.6L FWD V8 that has 275HP and will flat out 'shit and git'. I bought it used because I wanted something comfy to drive 2 hours each day in. I also wanted good gas mileage, and this beats the average import.

If I can get 31MPG in a car with heated, leather seats and tons of room for 6 people, and enough power to tow a boat, I'm pretty sure they can make a mid sized car with a V6, plenty of power and comfort, that can squeeze out an extra 4 miles per gallon. What they fear is that people won't want them.

The recent sales of SUV's boil down to two factors: Soccer moms wanting to feel safe, soccer dads wanting more horsepower. Even the Hummer is EXCLUDED from the CAFE standards because its GVWR is "too high", same as the 2500HD Chevy truck I also own (this also means excluded from pollution testing, which is stupid). I couldn't get published ratings for my 2500HD for gas mileage anywhere: they don't have to publish it and they won't, and it doesn't count toward CAFE standards either since it is a "work truck". (it gets 13MPG, no matter how I drive it or where, 6.0L, etc.)

All you have to do is LOOK at what Detroit is putting out to see they are chicken shit and not willing to take any risks, be it in design or for mileage. They have been so far behind the pack for so many years, and I don't expect them to catch up anytime soon. Fortunately for them, they are good at importing Japanese technology (1980s Nova was really a Toyota) or just ripping it off eventually. Detroit has not made it easy to "buy American" over the years, that is for damn sure.

Re:Here is what is going to happen

[cayenne8]

Yeah, but, mileage, pollution (and insurance) is what killed 'fun' cars in the early 70's too.

*Sigh*.

Guess it is time to buy another Corvette in the near future...while they still MAKE a fun, high powered sports car.

Why doesn't the govt. try a different route, rather than dictating what car companies have to do....why not give them tax breaks and incentive, to build more efficient and alternative fuel cars? Then, let the market sort things out.

I mean, with gas prices now....people, at least the poorer ones, are gonna start shedding those SUV's pretty soon anyway. This is another area we don't need the govt. involved in. By the way, what constitutional power enumerates the govt. regulating private businesses like this? I forget.....