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.

39 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, Funny

      The laws of Physics do not apply to politicians.

    2. Re:Air resistance. by Zemplar · · Score: 5, Funny

      While I agree with the intent of your comment, air resistance is certainly not "insurmountable." If it were, cars wouldn't be able to move at all.

    3. Re:Air resistance. by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Funny

      Au contraire....drop them from high enough and they still go *splat*...

      The issue is, we're not dropping enough of them...vote 'em out!

      Say "No" to Robomney

    4. 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.

    5. Re:Air resistance. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually 2 has already happened. Mercedes-Benz invented a big ass SUV with a frame based on the skeletal structure of a box fish, and managed to get some 85mpg out of it combined on plain old petrol. It needs 1/3 as much steel to supply the same amount of structural integrity (safety in a collision); has better aerodynamic drag numbers in practice than a Porsche 911 (so does a box fish--in water); and is ugly as hell, just like any good SUV, although a tad more stylish I suppose. Handling is excellent, too.

    6. Re:Air resistance. by anagama · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's not a single car sold in America that gets 50+ mpg, which does not mean that such cars don't exist or are impossible

      12 years ago I zipped all around Japan for a couple weeks in a Honda Today, got something like 60ish MPG, cruised right along at freeway speeds, power windows, AC -- it was a great car.

      Here's an example of new minicar:
      http://www.honda.co.jp/LIFE/webcatalog/spec/

      The base model gets 22km/l (51.7mpg). The turbo 4wd model gets 18km/l (42.3 mpg).

      This looks like an interesting microvan:
      http://www.honda.co.jp/Nboxplus/

      Efficiency range is 18.8 km/l (bigger engine 4wd) to 21.8 km/l (smaller engine FWD).
      http://www.honda.co.jp/Nboxplus/webcatalog/spec/

      Anyway, the reason we don't have cars with 55 mpg is merely because they aren't sold here. Not because of physics.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    7. Re:Air resistance. by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Funny

      And it's thinking like this that keeps California in such debt. Honestly, people, does the statue have to be any taller than 57 ft?

    8. Re:Air resistance. by ukemike · · Score: 4, Informative

      All of this bickering is irrelevant. The test that the EPA uses to measure mileage does not include any 80mph or 70mph driving. In fact it is based on simulated driving and mostly stop-and-go conditions.
      In fact the tests are done on a dynomometer so wind resistance isn't accounted for. I think it should be but the mileage standard the President is implementing will be based on the EPA test cycle, not you hauling ass down the freeway.

      --
      -- QED
    9. Re:Air resistance. by ukemike · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's not a single car for sale that gets 54mpg on the highway.

      Here is a link listing 15 from 2009. http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/02/report-all-of-europes-15-most-fuel-efficient-cars-get-better-t/ All sold in Europe. So there may be some market impediment to good mileage in cars in the US, but it ain't physics.

      --
      -- QED
    10. 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.

    11. 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"
    12. Re:Air resistance. by Alkonaut · · Score: 5, Informative

      The full size Volvo V70 estate does ....wait for it... 54 miles per gallon.

      Its mind blowing to sit here and watch a discussion where people question whether it is "Physically possible" to build such cars, or whether they will be around in 2025. You can buy (and many do) a full size family station wagon that does 54mpg! You don't have to get a "subcompact" or even a "compact"! http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/v70/first-drives/volvo-v70-1.6d-drive-se

    13. 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..

    1. Re:Got this wrong.. by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Informative

      My insight's only 2000 pounds and gets very close to 90mpg (89.something). The 3000 pound Civic I testdrove using the same techniques scored over 60 mpg. That was the CVT version; the stick shift is probably better yet.
      (Actual EPA ratings are 65 and 47 respectively.)

       

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  3. Re:CAFE Kills by Shatrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hypothetically because smaller cars are less safe. Not that I subscribe to that theory.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  4. 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.

  5. 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.
    1. Re:Overcomplicated solution. by Sparticus789 · · Score: 4, Informative

      $10/gal for gas has really forced European manufacturers to produce 80 MPG cars and reduce the amount they drive. Oh wait....

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
  6. 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.

  7. 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"?
  8. Re:it's an arms race by macbeth66 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Sort of like survival of the unfittest.

  9. 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.

  10. Motorcycles? by Bigbutt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just got back from a trip to GenCon on my motorcycle (Hayabusa). According to the bike (likely off by a little due to the stupid bike things), I averaged at least 50mpg for the entire 2,500 mile trip. Since the mpg indicator doesn't go higher than 50mpg, it could be even higher.

    My wife had a smaller 250cc bike (Ninja) and was getting upwards of 100mpg and 75ish on her 650cc bike (Ninja).

    I'd love to see more folks on bikes. Have motorcycle only lanes just like there are bike only lanes; split a current full sized lane into two dedicated motorcycle lanes :)

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  11. Re:CAFE Kills by jdastrup · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some families are larger than others and need a vehicle that can hold several people. Busses exists. Tractor-trailers exists. Some people need larger vehicles to haul boats and toys, haul work equipment, haul [insert large object here]. You will always have large and small vehicles on the road. It's a fact that most of the increase in fuel economy over the last few yeas is attributed to smaller and lighter cars, thinner sheet metal, plastic parts, etc. Hybrids, electricity, the air-powered cars in India, and other mileage-increasing technologies typically just move the carbon-generating from the vehicle itself to somewhere miles away.

  12. Re:CAFE Kills by SuperQ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yea, I would much rather be driving a Fiat 500 than an F150. The Fiat can get out of the way or stop much faster than an F150. Just being able to avoid an accident beats size way more often.

    The fact that people have given up avoiding accidents is a sad description of the state of driver education in the US.

  13. Mandating = Tyranny...We are peasents and serfs by ilikenwf · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is just an effort to get the greenies to reelect the big O. It's also an unconstitutional mandate of private individuals in what they can purchase, and businesses in what they can produce.

    We're nothing but peasants and serfs, here to serve the government, who apparently can take care of us better than we can ourselves.

  14. Re:CAFE Kills by Enry · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not intended just for you, but for anyone who says "bigger cars are safer".

    Here's what 50 years of automotive engineering has done. The driver of the '59 would have been dead. The '09 driver would have injured their knee.

    A few hundred pounds lighter, almost triple the MPG (13 mpg vs 29 mpg), and is way safer.

    To keep saying "bigger cars are safer, thus don't work on smaller cars" is not really thinking this through.

  15. 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...
  16. 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.

  17. Re:CAFE Kills by jrroche · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Face it, the average pickup truck driver is some suburban cowboy poser who is commuting to his office park.

    Ironically, a lot of pickup/SUV owners aren't necessarily "cowboy posers", but just people who think that if they ever do get in an accident, they'd rather be driving the bigger car when it happens. So smaller cars are more dangerous because there are so many big trucks on the road because so many people are afraid of getting hit by big trucks, thus perpetuating the problem.

  18. 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
  19. Re:it's an arms race by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Informative
    Ah yes, unfettered energy policy and fracking. Here's what those two beasts are doing in my backyard:

    In the town of Dimock, Pennsylvania, 13 water wells were contaminated with methane (one of them blew up). Arsenic, barium, DEHP, glycol compounds, manganese, phenol, and sodium were also found in unacceptable levels in the wells.

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

    When I can't drink my own water because it combusts out of the tap next to a flame, I don't really give a fuck how fracking drives down natural gas prices.

  20. 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
  21. Re:it's an arms race by eth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    I've always said we need to tie liability insurance rates to vehicle mass. Pick a reasonable number for the denominator, like 3000lb or so (mid-size sedan territory), and use the actual vehicle weight as the numerator. Multiply the final insurance rate by the resulting fraction. Want to buy an 8000lb truck because you think it'll keep your precious brand new driver safe? Well, you'll be paying $5k+ a year to insure it.

    Give them small car, and save on gas *and* insurance.

  22. Re:You know what they say... by Richy_T · · Score: 4, Funny

    A horse.

  23. 55 mph is not inherently more efficient ... by perpenso · · Score: 4, Informative

    So they'll just re-introduce the 55 MPH speed limit, which was done to save energy.

    It depends entirely on the design of the car and engine. I get 4 additional miles per gallon (mpg) when cruising at 65 rather than 55. I was surprised and repeated the measurements several times. Verified the onboard computer's reported mpg against the odometer and actually gas consumed (top off at same fuel pump before and after).

    Perhaps 55 was some sort of average efficiency point for vehicles of the 1970s but I expect a higher efficiency point with today's designs.

  24. 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.