Slashdot Mirror


White House Finalizes 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standard

The Obama Administration announced today it has finalized new fuel efficiency standards that will require new cars and light-duty trucks to have an average efficiency of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. This adds to the requirement that 2016's new cars must average 35.5 miles per gallon. "The final standards were developed by DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA following extensive engagement with automakers, the United Auto Workers, consumer groups, environmental and energy experts, states, and the public. Last year, 13 major automakers, which together account for more than 90 percent of all vehicles sold in the United States, announced their support for the new standards." According to the administration, the standards will reduce dependence on foreign oil, save money at the pump, protect the environment, and everything else that sounds good in an election year.

16 of 1,184 comments (clear)

  1. Air resistance. by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At some point you just have to account for the laws of physics.

    Pushing a vehicle at 80MPH down the highway is going to be hard to do and get 54.5 MPG. No matter how "hybrid" the car is, no matter how good your regenerative breaking.. once you're at highway speeds, air resistance becomes insurmountable.

    1. Re:Air resistance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For fucks sake people. This is completely attainable and not an unrealistic goal. Fucking shill posters out in force early.

      I had a car in the 80s that exceeded the 2035 guidelines. A civic hatchback with an 80hp 4banger. It was cheap, useful, and lasted 20 years before I got rid of it.
      I'd buy one today.. BUT NOBODY MAKES THEM ANY MORE.

      Have you seen cars today? Gigantic, heavy, creature-comfort cocoons that cost an arm and a leg. And that's it. Nobody sells a value care in America.
      Initiatives like this force the industry to re-inject some sanity in to the market. Cheap credit has distorted the auto market. We all drive luxury vehicles.

      And don't give me that fucking bullshit narrative about mandatory safety features the culprit for added weight. Want proof? EVERY FUCKING CAR IN EUROPE SOLD TODAY.

    2. Re:Air resistance. by tgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I fail to see the advantage of some future 70mpg car if I'm burning-up $200 a month recharging it with electricity.

      All you've done is switch the country from pollution by gasoline to pollution by coal or natural gas. Plus you're not saving energy. It's still the same consumption level. I would be more impressed with a non-plugin car that actually squeezes 70 miles out of each gallon (like my insight or a Lupo TDI).

      I spend about $20 on 100% renewable (wind and small hydro) electricity (at about a 25% surcharge for it), and that eliminates about 35 gallons of gas I burn a month. Those are hard numbers -- that $20 translates into about 1400 miles of driving.

      So its much cheaper, and zero pollution for those miles.

      You choose to fail to see the benefit because you choose to ignore facts to try to fit reality to your beliefs.

    3. Re:Air resistance. by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There were cars that got over 50 mpg. The 90's Geo Metro was just such a car.

      Getting to 54 mpg will actually be fairly easy. There's a ton of low hanging fruit auto manufacturers have simply been ignoring. Aerodynamics is a big, big one where it's easy to improve. Smooth the underside. Add skirts to the rear wheels. Change the rear into a "beaver tail" or "boat tail". Add some dimples like they have on golf balls to the trailing edges. Make grill openings smaller.

      That's just aero. There's also plenty to be had in weight savings. Use carbon fiber, it's lighter, cheaper, and stronger than aluminum. Weight savings tends to snowball. If you aren't dragging around as much weight, you can have a smaller engine, saving even more weight. Your structural components can be lighter. Get the weight under 2000 pounds, and you can omit the power steering, for yet more weight savings.

      Another area ripe for improvement is the torque converter on the classic automatic transmission we've been living with for decades. Those torque converters impose a 20% hit to fuel economy! It's disgusting that the industry couldn't be bothered to switch to more efficient designs, and that the public didn't demand it. Even just a lock for the torque converter helps. You don't have to have a manual transmission and clutch pedal to dodge that 20% hit.

      Why don't we already do all this? In the case of rear wheel skirts and smaller grill openings, the reason is pure cosmetics. People think such things look ugly! That we've been willing to burn all this extra gas over such frivolous considerations is a sign of just how much waste, slop, and slack there is.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    4. Re:Air resistance. by onemorechip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not true. See here:

      The energy required to move the rollers can be adjusted to account for wind resistance and the vehicle's weight.

      You can quibble about how accurately drag is accounted for, but you can't say that it isn't.

      --
      But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
  2. Got this wrong.. by 1s44c · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This adds to the requirement that 2016's new cars must average 35.5 miles per gallon.

    I hope they mean AT LEAST 35.5 miles per gallon, or my 60 miles per gallon super-car is doomed..

  3. Re:Yawn by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Force all new cars to use some alternatve fuel, one that doesnt just move the pollution and I will be happier.

    To be fair, they might as well say 'all cars will run on magic moonbeams by 2025', because it's about as likely to happen.

  4. Overcomplicated solution. by characterZer0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should just stop subsidizing the oil and car industries. Stop subsidizing refineries. Stop giving tax brakes to oil companies. Stop subsidizing road development out of regular taxes. Gas will hit $10/gal and the problem will take care of itself.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  5. Re:CAFE Kills by w_dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the truck you're hit by is an 18-wheeler transport truck it won't matter if you're driving a Fiat or an F150. If you only have a standard driver's license then you're nowhere near the biggest thing on the road, and should probably learn how to drive defensively rather than depending on the size of your vehicle to save you in a crash.

  6. The most efficient car is a city by istartedi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He's got the wrong target. The most efficient vehicles are the ones that aren't on the road at all. Further proof that "if you can measure it, you can mismanage it".

    The most efficient "car" I ever drove was a condo in the city. I even went without a car for a while. Driving was OPTIONAL there.

    I have a car now, but still live close to commuter rail and within walking distance of many shops.

    Policy makers should focus on making development more walkable. It wouldn't be bad for the economy either. You would get construction stimulus from building residences in commercial areas, and commercial buildings in areas such as the vast residential tract that I grew up in. With these spaces encouraging people to walk, ride bicycles, and drive less there would be knock-on benefits in health.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  7. Re:CAFE Kills by jpedlow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, I use my dodge ram (with Duallies, thats what we call them) to go grocery shopping, to pull my boat, to pull a horse trailer, to help friends move. But saying that I'm unsafe because I drive a pickup is pretty narrow minded. I'd imagine that I'm less dangerous than 20somethings with sportbikes or a sports cars. Oh or the soccer-moms texting&driving with a minivan full of kids. Jackass.

  8. Re:it's an arms race by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    soccer mom texting in her gas guzzling behemoth, when wrecking with a subcompact, tends to survive better than the poor guy in the subcompact

    Simply not true. The behemoth is safer in a head-on collision, sure, but that's only a tiny percentage of accidents.

    In almost all other types of collisions the SUV will roll over and kill everybody inside.

    (After wrecking everything else in the area with all that kinetic energy...)

    --
    No sig today...
  9. Re:CAFE Kills by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, if you take a big car with no safety features and compare it to a smaller car with safety features, the smaller car is going to be safer. That goes without saying. That said, a modern big car with equivalent safety features would be safer than a modern small car. You have to compare apples to apples.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  10. the fallacy of the immaculate marketplace by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    just admit that you want energy companies deciding US policy rather than the actual american people

    stop with the bullshit nods to the miraculous marketplace, which has no meaning in this conversation. we are just talking about a choice between two different monopolistic modes: energy companies, or the US government. i don't understand people who see so much menace in their own democratic government, and less menace in oligopolistic multinational energy corporations (that corrupt your democratic government). personally, as a resident of a democracy, i'll go with the organization that is entrusted with our willpower, however flawed, than the organization entrusted with making profit by any means necessary

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  11. Re:it's an arms race by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's always the fittest who survive, you're just unhappy about who that turns out to be.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  12. Re:CAFE Kills by boristdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    True, and that ticks me off. I live on a farm and my less than 2-year-old pickup is beat to hell in the bed and covered with scratches because I USE it.

    Seeing lots of pristine, clean pickup trucks driving around is a joke.