Slashdot Mirror


The End of the Gas Guzzler

Hugh Pickens writes "Michael Grunwald reports that President Obama will announce today a near-doubling of fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, and the Big Three automakers — GM, Ford and Chrysler — will support it in a final deal that will require vehicle fleets to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, which will reduce fuel consumption by 40% and carbon emissions by 50%. Although environmentalists had pushed for 60 mpg and the White House had floated a compromise of 56.2, 54.5 is pretty close, considering that last year's standards were only 28.3. 'I might point out that the same auto industry that ran attack ads about how 56.2 would destroy their businesses and force everyone to drive electric cars has embraced 54.5 as an achievable target,' writes Grunwald. 'It almost makes you wonder if the automakers may have exaggerated the costs of compliance, the way they always do.'"

12 of 897 comments (clear)

  1. Here's an idea by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe you could, you know, let people buy the vehicles they want to buy and then if gas is expensive most won't buy gas guzzlers?

    In this case I'm guessing the auto makers are salivating at the prospect of being 'forced' to load up cars with hybrid crap that will allow them to push up prices and make more profit.

    1. Re:Here's an idea by plopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      except that the change is not quick. If suddenly the price of gas jumps it may be months or years before a person can afford to buy a better car. Not to mention the time it takes for the car companies to tool up to meet demand for fuel efficient cars. Buying a car is not like buying laundry detergent. You just can't switch over to a new car rapidly enough to adapt to rapid changes in the price of fuel.

        Yet another situation where the failures of market economics is laid bare. This is a situation where only government has the ability to do the correct thing for the public good.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  2. Just a game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This doesn't mean that you'll actually see cars that get 50-60mpg sold in the U.S. The automakers get credits on mpg for adding things that have nothing to do with fuel efficiency (like LED headlights and crap). So you might have a vehicle with a bunch of addons that only gets 35mpg, but the automaker gets credit for a vehicle that gets 50mpg (because they get 15mpg worth of fuel efficiency credits). Not to mention it's an average. If the automaker sells one vehicle that gets 20mpg for $25,000 and one vehicle that gets 100mpg for $60,000, they have a fleet average of 60mpg. It doesn't matter that they sell 10,000 of the 20mpg units and only 500 of the 100mpg units. And trucks get completely different (and drastically lower) standards than cars. It's amazing what you can classify as a "truck" these days.

    CAFE is a joke.

  3. Re:Will Consumers Pay? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consumers have been demanding better milage. Just look at how well the Prius did for proof. American car makers however have maintained that good milage was fiscally impossible. That is until they where forced into it via regulation. Now they all proclame how great they are for having gas milage that matches the rest of the world.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  4. CAFE is the gutless choice by s122604 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real way to tackle this problem is with gas taxes. Raise the cost of gas up to 6 dollars a gallon, and the fleet average will go up, from consumer demand.

    1. Re:CAFE is the gutless choice by webheaded · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, that's what everyone needs. We need all the poor people that can't afford a decent car to get raped on gas prices. Let's not pretend that public transit is a good alternative either because in a lot of places (like Phoenix where I live) it's a joke. You cannot function here without a car. I keep seeing everyone present this as a solution and I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the logic here. Not everyone buys that gas guzzler because they don't care about the environment...a LOT of people buy whatever they can afford. I bought my aunt's old SUV because she sold it to me cheap and I could pay her directly without interest. Did I WANT an SUV? Fuck no, but you know what, I needed a car NOW that I knew worked and I didn't have tons of money to do it (my wife and I got jobs on different sides of the city). We don't all have the luxury of choices. Sometimes you don't have the time and money to dance around and get the perfect fit.

      I understand the need to get people away from gas guzzlers...I do...but how is raising taxes to make it prohibitively expensive to drive at all any different from using the government to just mandate better mileage from the auto makers? Honestly, either way the government is forcing someone's hand, so shouldn't it be the car companies rather than all of us? It must be great to preach this from your armchair there, but this kind of sentiment really pisses me off. Take a look around at the real world. Things don't quite work out as neatly as some of you seem to think. Shit sucks sometimes and punishing people for this kind of bullshit isn't doing anyone any favors.

      Yeah, cars might get more expensive, but I think you paying more for a new car is considerably better than being immediately screwed by gas prices doubling. Especially right now...we're in a recession (yes, I know, it's getting old, but it is true). Do you really think raising the price on something you have no choice but to buy is really going to help? If they raised the price to 6 dollars today, you know what I'd do? I'd have to pay 6 dollars a gallon. And you know what's even better about that? It would be even harder for me to save for a new car. Lol. Great plan! Yes, I find this situation distasteful as well, but give me a break. This "solution" is ridiculous.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
  5. Re:Duh. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Uhm, techniques like resin transfer molding using pre-laid or pre-woven fiber structures are scaling well lately - from what I hear out of the business, several German car makers are scaling it for mass production right now. They've been researching the topic like mad in the last couple of years.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  6. Re:How many... by plopez · · Score: 5, Informative

    The "Hydrogen Economy" is a scam. The cheapest way to make hydrogen is via hydrocarbon fractionation. Both green houses gasses will not be affected or reliance on fossil fuels.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  7. Re:And while they're at it - they should... by deadhammer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Clearly you must think that the continent of Europe is a mystical fantasy land that doesn't actually exist. The Europeans manage to regularly sell vehicles with fuel economies in the high 40s/low 50s of MPG. No flying cars or mandatory ponies. Oh wait, Europe is a commie pinko dystopia, so the laws of physics must work differently over there.

    Also notice how GM, Ford and Chrystler are the ones who recommended 54.5 mpg as opposed to the 56.2 that the administration wanted and the 60 that environmentalists wanted. Oh wait, that must mean that GM, Ford and Chrystler are part of the hated Obama administration! Source of all evil! The truth is out there, man!

    --
    I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
  8. Re:Duh. by xaxa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Express it in amount per distance, it's easier to deal with. (It's also easier in daily life. People want to know how much fuel / money it will take to drive a certain distance, rather than how far they can drive with $20 of fuel.)

    I'll use L/100km, as that's the normal measurement in metric countries (and what I'm more familiar with).

    10 (miles per US gallon) = 24 litres per (100 km)
    20 (miles per US gallon) = 12 litres per (100 km)
    30 (miles per US gallon) = 8 litres per (100 km)
    40 (miles per US gallon) = 6 litres per (100 km)

    I think it's now clear. From 20mpg to 40mpg saves 6L, but from 10mpg to 20mpg saved 12L.

  9. Re:America by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I'm willing to pay the price of fuel, let me decide.

    $789,062,132,241.

    Your invoice is in the mail. When can we expect payment?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  10. Re:Duh. by myth24601 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the reason this will fail too.

    EVERY automaker boss is thinking this right now: "54.5 is only the required average. That means I can still make gas guzzlers so long as there's some shitty little cars somewhere in the books that can do 100mpg. "

    No, every automaker boss in thinking, "this is more than 10 years from now, I will be retired with a golden parachute long before we even worry about this."

    --
    No matter where you go, there you are.