US To Require That New Cars Get 42 MPG By 2016

Hugh Pickens writes "New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming. While the 30 percent increase would be an average for both cars and light trucks, the percentage increase in cars would be much greater, rising from the current 27.5 mpg standard to 42 mpg. Environmentalists praised the move. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, called it 'one of the most significant efforts undertaken by any president, ever, to end our addiction to oil and seriously slash our global warming emissions.' Obama's plan also would effectively end litigation between states and automakers that had opposed state-specific rules, arguing that having to meet several state standards would be much more expensive for them than just one federal rule. The Detroit News reported that automakers were on board with the new rule and had worked with the administration on creating a timeline for the transition." There's a case to be made that raising the CAFE won't save oil or reduce greenhouse gases.

Comments

Saving the planet one Hummer at a time.

[burnin1965]

There's a case to be made that raising the CAFE won't save oil or reduce greenhouse gases.

<sarcasm>
I think it was established as a well known fact that driving a Hummer is many times more environmentally friendly than a little Prius. If Obama was truly interested in saving the planet he would mandate that every commuter drives a Hummer and we scrap these pointless high MPG cars.
</sarcasm>

Re:Saving the planet one Hummer at a time.

[burnin1965]

Actually, what that study showed is that if you get 200,000 miles out of a Prius and a Hummer, they'll have similar energy costs.

Actually, what the study showed was that if you wrote a report with complete bullshit absurdities you could convince some people that a gigantic vehicle that gets 14 MPG average would have better or equivalent energy consumption to a small vehicle that gets 46 MPG.

Some people tried to analyse what little information was available about the report and found absurdities such as the Hummer H3 rated at 207,000 miles in its lifetime and the Prius at only 109,000 miles. While still others ran known models that are used to measure life cycle energy consumption and even when using the absurdities from the Dust to Dust report they still could not produce the ridiculous energy consumption numbers from the report.

The fact is that more than 80% of an automobiles life cycle energy is consumed in the operation of the vehicle. That bit of information makes it virtually impossible for a vehicle that consumes more than 3x the operating energy of a smaller car to some how use less or the same amount of energy as the small car over their life cycles.

As far as new versus old, just as its a no brainer that a small fuel efficient car will consume less total energy than a monster SUV its also obvious that buying a new car will not magically reduce total energy consumption. However, since we know autos have a life cycle there will be a need for many new vehicles so it may not be a bad idea to use some of our no brainer knowledge to have a positive impact on our energy consumption.

Re:Saving the planet one Hummer at a time.

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Actually, what that study showed is that if you get 200,000 miles out of a Prius and a Hummer, they'll have similar energy costs.

Wrong. The study made a number of flawed assumptions, as highlighted in the link, such as that the lifetime mileage of a Prius is 109,000 miles, while the Hummer H3 gets 207,000 and the H1 379,000 miles. So yes, if your Prius craps out in 1/3 the time of the H1, you're going to get a worse overall energy cost. On the other hand, Vancouver cab companies have already clocked over 200,000 miles on Priuses without even replacing the batteries, so they don't seem particularly fragile. And there's no particular evidence that any brand of Hummer is going to last that long either. So yes, if you start with biased assumptions, you will find the Prius has similar energy costs.

Re:Mostly just for cars

[RoFLKOPTr]

If manufacturers can get a 3/4 ton pickup or similar to get 26 mpg, I'd be impressed.

Did you really mean 3 or 4 tons rather than three quarters of a ton?

No. "3/4-ton pickup" used to signify a pickup that could haul 1500 lbs without too much strain. Same goes for half-ton and full-ton... 1000lbs and 2000lbs, respectively. I say "used to", though, because trucks can typically haul much more than that, though they still use those same phrases as an easy way to compare the capacity of different trucks.

Re:Wish in one hand, crap in the other...

[Cimexus]

It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Smaller, lighter cars are fine in a crash with other smaller, lighter cars. But in the US the average vehicle is so heavy that the minority of people in the small cars would get squished like a pancake. Plus US drivers seem to spend proportionately more time going at higher (highway) speeds (commutes in most other countries generally involve less highway).

In Europe and Japan and other places where smaller cars are the norm, I don't think they are perceived as unsafe at all. Particularly when they are generally used for city driving at speeds = 60 km/h anyway, you simply aren't likely to have any massively high energy impacts. As the parent said, they are also a lot more agile on the road and stop a lot quicker so can avoid accidents in more cases.

A lot of families I know have two cars. A city car (e.g. a Mazda 121 or other ultra-small vehicle), and a normal sedan. The city car gets used every day. The larger car is used for the weekend roadtrip (since it's undeniable that large vehicles are nicer for long trips, and larger engines are better for highway cruising ... and not that bad efficiency-wise if you put the cruise control on 110 km/h and leave it there).

reduce the weight!

[ProfBooty]

On the otherhand a early 1980's civic got 41mpg city and mid 50's highway, but it weighed roughly 1000lbs less.

I am curious how the fuel economy would be if we put a modern powertrain into an older much lighter body.

Re:Amusing story

[pmarini]

Allow me to translate that:
US gallon = 3.78 liters
UK gallon = 4.54 litres
Therefore it would be 50 mpg in UK... good luck with that!

Re:Amusing story

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to translate that: US gallon = 3.78 liters

And you can stop right there! Since 1 Jan 2000 the gallon is no longer a legal measure in the UK. Get with the program.

Re:Wish in one hand, crap in the other...

[slashqwerty]

To require this will result in extremely UNSAFE cars that no one wants to buy.

The 2006 Honda Civic almost reaches this level. It has the top rating in every IIHS crash test. The manufacturer is routinely rated at or near the top of the industry in reliability. The Civic's price is comparable to a typical American car. The 2009 Civic Hybrid already tops these standards under recently tightened milage measurements. There is no reason a 42mpg car has to be unsafe, unreliable, or overly expensive.

Re:Mostly just for cars

[0100010001010011]

Then you would be impressed with Toyota's Hilux. (PDF).

32 highway, 23 city, 28 combined. Not sure what the '3/4 ton' refers to but, it can both tow and carry that. 1500 lbs = 680. kg, all of which it can handle without a problem.

Re:Well played, Mr. President

[HeronBlademaster]

I bought a Civic Hybrid (we need a back seat for the baby's car seat). It gets pretty good mileage - 37 city, 42 highway, in my experience (not quite what the EPA estimates were, at 40 city, 45 highway, but who expects that?).

Unfortunately, Washington State will not let me register the car (which I purchased in Utah last month before I moved) as a Hybrid. Why? Because, according to the representative I spoke with on the phone, they only consider cars that get 50 mpg city to be hybrids, regardless of whether said car is actually a hybrid.

According to the Toyota website, not even the Prius qualifies under that requirement (getting 48 city, 51 highway), but Washington's DMV lists the Prius and the Honda Insight as eligible hybrids. (Note that the Honda Insight doesn't meet that requirement either, getting 40 city, 43 highway.)

I look forward to when most cars on the road get better gas mileage than me, too; but in the meantime, I would appreciate it if states got their act together.

Don't bother

[beej]

There's a case to be made that raising the CAFE won't save oil or reduce greenhouse gases.

So true. If my car got 8 million miles per gallon, I'd totally drive 8 million times as much.

Re:Mostly just for cars

[Cimexus]

Ah the Hilux. Utterly ubiquitous in my home country of Australia. Seriously, they outnumber every other light utility vehicle on the road put together.

And as Top Gear showed us, virtually indestructible ;)

Re:Gas tax

[DerekLyons]

Pretty much every economist knows that the way to achieve the stated goals is to dramatically increase gasoline taxes. After that, the market will work its magic. People will buy more efficient cars, or seek alternative transportation.

Yeah, and all those people who can't afford to buy new cars or who don't have access to alternate transportation will just have to suck it up and choose between gas and food or rent/mortgage payments.
 
 

When looking at where to live, the cost of commuting will play a bigger role in families' decisions.

Yeah, and all those people who can't afford to move will just have to suck it up and choose between gas and food or rent/mortgage payments. And who'll buy all those properties now too expensive for people live in? (And after selling your house at a loss, if you can sell, you'll be in a wonderful position to compete for houses closer in - houses whose prices are now rising because of demand.)
 
It sucks to be a real person instead of a mathematical abstraction I guess.
 
 

Of course no politician will even hint at endorsing what is clearly the economically rational thing to do.

I find it much more likely that politicians and their advisers are much smarter than you are and understand that real world economics aren't abstractions and that what seems 'rational' in the extremely oversimplified and over abstracted world you live in is in fact a recipe for significant economic disruption in the real world.

Re:2016? Why not 2010?

[QuasiEvil]

I'd like to see a law prohibiting the use of gasoline powered cars by 2016.

Oh brilliant. Throw away an entire working infrastructure with a fuel that makes a great deal of sense. That's not to mention the chaos you'd cause with the economy (a hundred million people or more being forced to buy a new car or stop driving, combined with the retooling of the fueling infrastructure and turning the petrochemical refining industry on its head)

It takes time to meet the engineering and regulatory hurdles needed to bring a new model to market. What you buy today has probably been in development for at least 3-5 years, based on what I know from my friends in auto industry. Plus, they all borrow parts that have been in development or production much longer. There's no way you can slap some miracle car together by 2010, let alone an entire line of them meeting everyone's differing needs while still having the high reliability, safety, and now fuel economy required.

Plus, as a classic car nut, I'd personally devote my life to getting any asshat politician who proposed such a thing thrown out of office and replaced with someone smarter. The government should keep its grubby mitts off my cars and my guns.

Re:Mostly just for cars

[Anaerin]

Easy. Here in Canada we use Diesel at -40 (C or F, they're the same at that point), with no problems. It's a matter of additives, block heaters, and glow plugs. But as that's standard for most automobiles here (gas or diesel), it's pretty much moot point.

Re:Mostly just for cars

[10Ghz]

Yeah, well, just try and deal with diesel fuel at 10 below zero (F).

-10f is about -23c. Sounds pretty typical winter in Finland, and we are managing just fine with diesel. Well, people up in north started having some problems with diesel-cars when temperature dropped to about -35c (that's.... -31f) few years ago.

Re:twnety year old civic gets 57mpg

[ShadowRangerRIT]

It's not just safety. 20 year old Civics aren't even comparable with the modern Civic on size. The old Civics basically ran on go-kart engines and had half the cabin size (yes, hyperbole. The actual engine was 58 HP). This particular model was only a two seater, and small one at that. And as your own link notes, the old 57 MPG was under the old ratings system. Under the new system (which you are using for the new model cars) it would only get 51 MPG. And of course, AC was optional and the top MPG would only be obtained without it.

Re:Collusion

[Capsaicin]

Why is it that everyone thinks that the most fuel efficient is also the least polluting?

All humour aside, bear in mind that 'pollution' in the present context means CO2.

Re:First post!!!!!

[compro01]

For the first, depends on which emissions. For CO2, it beats gasoline hands down, but it loses in terms of NOx emissions.

As for the latter, that's not completely relevant. Gasoline and diesel come from the same barrel of oil. The main part of the refining process is separating the mix of hydrocarbons that make up crude.

Though to answer the question, 1 barrel (42 US gallons) of oil yields about 19 gallons of gasoline, 10 gallons of diesel, and another 13 gallons of other stuff, such as fuel oil, petroleum feedstocks (for plastic and chemical production), propane, coke (the fuel, not the drink), asphalt, lube oil, and other things.

Re:Collusion

[jeric23]

Trees breath CO2 all the time and during their photosynthesis process release O2 into the air. If you think CO2 is a pollutant, go plant more trees.

Re:Collusion

[confused one]

You realize that with every breath you take, you exhale CO2, right? The biological processes in your body generate CO2 as you burn sugar. CO2 blood concentration is used as the signal to control breathing rate. You are aware of this, no?

Re:Collusion

[Capsaicin]

I just find this notion that CO2 is a pollutant quite absurd.

I assure you, that is a problem just a little honest self-education will fix. You could start here: Fourth Assessment Report. It is difficult to find any other area of science where so much authoritative information has been so conveniently assembled. You can read just the executive summary or conveniently delve into the specifics of any area you choose. Really, on this issue ignorance is unforgivable. As is reliance on non-credible sources of pseudo-scientific disinformation.

Because it's not so much as science as it is indoctrination by statist regimes usurping power and control.

Or you can wallow in ignorance, self-delusion based on your particular ideological predilcctions. That's a choice you alone can make. Look, I'm no enemy of freedom or proponent of over-governance, far from it, but the Science here really does speak for itself.

Re:Mostly just for cars

[confused one]

3/4 ton refers to the cargo capacity within the bed box, not the towing capacity.

Re:Amusing story

[Tazor]

42 miles per gallon = 17.8560357 kilometers per liter. According to Google. Sounds very doable. Your average Jap city car these days, already gets that, and more.

My 20 year old VW Golf Diesel goes 22 km/liter (and the motor is pretty worn out), so i really think that new cars should be able to top that. The Mini Cooper Diesel goes 25.6 km/liter in EU mix (thats both urban driving and freeway driving) and it is not slow either.

Re:Collusion

[DigiShaman]

You could start here: Fourth Assessment Report [www.ipcc.ch]. It is difficult to find any other area of science where so much authoritative information has been so conveniently assembled. You can read just the executive summary or conveniently delve into the specifics of any area you choose. Really, on this issue ignorance is unforgivable.

I just visited that website and reviewed all PDFs in their Glossary. Not once does it explicitly define CO2 as a pollutant.

Please point me to a portion of their site that does, because I cannot find it.

Re:Amusing story

[Timmmm]

But those are all diesel cars. They always get better mileage than petrol cars.

Still if you look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_May_2008_UK_fuel_economy_ratings

There are several petrol cars that get over 50 mpg.

Re:Collusion

[RsG]

Well, kids are pollutants too.

*ducks*

I know we're venturing a bit offtopic here. But that conception (if you'll pardon the pun) isn't really accurate.

Most of the developed world is now down at or below replacement fertility. Assuming the rates stay static (they won't), this means the population of those countries will drop when the population inertia slows, right around the time the baby boomers start dying off. This trend is unlikely to reverse itself, and if anything, the rates may drop further.

This is offset by immigration, but you must remember that every immigrant in one place is an emigrant elsewhere. The net population stays the same when somebody moves from a developing country to a developed one.

So, kids aren't the pollutant most people seem to think. People who wish for the voluntary extinction of the species may think otherwise, but I'd class that view as pretty damned extreme.

Re:Mostly just for cars

[qc_dk]

Or you could actually try different cars instead of going directly for the SUV. I'm 6'5'' and 275 pounds. My lower legs are long so they tend to get in trouble with the steering wheel. I can't drive a corvette because my knee gets stuck between the door and the steering wheel. A Hummer is also out of the question there's no room. I've also tried driving an Escalade with hilarious result. However, i fit fine in a smart car(1) or my parents' toyota yaris verso(2).

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Vitz

Re:Collusion

[TheThiefMaster]

If you look up crash tests of the Smart ForTwo on youtube you might be surprised: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-s1sIoLhU

The Smart ForTwo's main advertising point (apart from it's small size and fuel efficiency) is the visible "Tridion" frame around the passenger compartment, showing that you're going to be safe.

Now look up your BMW (I can't, as you didn't give the model).

Re:Collusion

[wagnerrp]

Reading straight off the tech specs on the SmartUSA website, the lowest power fourtwo gets a whopping 33/41 estimated mpg. Add in a 0-60 speed of 12.8s, and its downright unsafe to try to enter the highway uphill or on a short ramp.

Re:Amusing story

[3247]

It would make more sense to translate that into sane, metric units:

1/27.5 mpg = 8.6 L/100 km
1/42 mpg = 5.6 L/100 km

However, to compare it with EU goals you'll also need to calculate the CO2 emissions:

8.6 L/100 km: 206 g/km (petrol)
5.6 L/100 km: 134 g/km (petrol)

8.6 L/100 km: 232 g/km (diesel)
5.6 L/100 km: 151 g/km (diesel)

Re:twnety year old civic gets 57mpg

[teh kurisu]

IIRC they compared driving with the AC on to driving with the windows open.

Driving at in-town speeds, the AC affected MPG to a greater degree than having the windows open, but at out-of-town speeds the AC was more efficient. This makes sense to me, as the energy required by the AC is constant, whereas the additional drag due to the open windows would increase with speed.

Re:First post!!!!!

[Muad'Dave]

The numbers you quote are for current distillation settings that mirror current demand fractions. The refineries can produce more diesel and less gasoline, for instance, if there were demand for it. They have processes to make heavy hydrocarbons into lighter ones, and vice versa.

35 MPG NOT 42 MPG

[oh_my_080980980]

It's 35 not 42. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/05/19/19climatewire-white-house-proposes-new-stricter-national-f-12208.html Helps to do some research.

Re:Automakers

[ndixon]

I know. The ratio is about 5:6.

If you read my post again, carefully, you will notice that I've included both figures (US and UK).

The numbers in bold are the US figures.

Re:Automakers

[ndixon]

For the third time:

Read my post again!

You'll see that I wrote:

42mpg (50mpg Imp.)

and

45-50mpg (55-60 Imp.)

and

60mpg (72mpg Imp.)

So you see, I know about the 20% difference, and I even displayed both figures, so dumb folk don't have to calculate it.

When I write: 45-50mpg, that's in your smaller US 3.785 liter gallons. Okay? (Look, I even spelt litre your way)

I will concede that the official combined MPG figure for an Octavia 2.0 TDI is only 51.4mpg (UK), and that's only just above 42mpg (US).

But that only proves my point: the proposed mileage is achievable now, from normal, big-enough, fast-enough cars available now, and it's been possible for many years already.

The only problem is that the US hasn't caught up with Europe.

Re:Amusing story

[jo_ham]

The Polo is not a supermini.

It's a "compact" or whatever your marketing term is, but it's no smaller than a Prius or the actual revamped Mini.

Re:Automakers

[Rogerborg]

Sigh. If you weren't so busy creaming yourself in your rush to "correct" the GP, you might have noticed that he was very careful to distinguish between US gallons and British ("Imperial") gallons.

42mpg (US gallons) does seem like a reasonable average for the standard mileage in the UK already, with compact and subcompact turbodiesels returning higher values. Gasoline engines now tend to only feature as small (sub 1.4 litre, including some 3 cylinder) units in subcompacts, as 1.6 - 2.0 litre units in the cheapo consumer base models of compacts and above, and as V6 units in 'performance' or luxury cars. Everything else uses highly efficient low pressure turbodiesel engines, that pull - literally - like trains. Big gasoline engines are nearly extinct now, since a modern turbodiesel can wipe the floor with a gasoline engine while returning much better economy with only slightly less refinement.

That's why this mileage target isn't a stretch at all; the big 3 can just start selling the cars they already make. What'll be an issue is getting enough diesel into the pumps and (seriously) what to do with all the gasoline that won't be wanted any more.