Slashdot Mirror


How We'll Get To 54.5 Mpg By 2025

concealment writes "At the end of August this year, the US Department of Transport's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new standards to significantly improve the fuel economy of cars and light trucks by 2025. Last week, we took a look at a range of recent engine technologies that car companies have been deploying in aid of better fuel efficiency today. But what about the cars of tomorrow, or next week? What do Detroit, or Stuttgart, or Tokyo have waiting in the wings that will get to the Obama administration's target of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025?"

10 of 717 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I'm no car expert.. by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, and if people stopped eating meat we'd need a lot less grain. And if people started keeping their thermostats at 55F, we'd need a lot less gas/electric/oil. If people would top watching TV, that would also save a lot of energy.

    But people like to eat meat, they like to stay warm, they like to watch TV... and wait for it... they like fast cars.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Not anti American by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm a Brit. I understand the tradition, and history of US cars, and that this holds a place for many American people. But your business and political angles don't work well for you here. Most of the US car makers already make fuel efficient engines and models for other parts of the world. I don't know if its parts of the US car industry and some political levels that are messing around - but they should stop.

    At some stage the US will face a fuel hit. It would be much better to have the things lined up than be caught out. Your citizens should not face that having mistakenly bought high fuel consumption models after being decieved or lied to by car makers or political fools. The car is central to life in the US. The fuel munching car has no real future in this.

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
    1. Re:Not anti American by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing.

      After they've exhausted all other possibilities.

      - W. Churchill

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. 2000 Honda Insight, Metros/Swifts, Honda CRX HFs.. by Bananatree3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The 2000 Honda Insight came out 12 years ago and drivers regularly beat this standard. Geo Metros, Suzuki Swifts, Honda CRX HFs, VW Diesel Rabits, VW TDIs.... the list goes on and on.

    The issue isn't making a fuel efficient car, it's making a Ford F150 get 54.5MPG

  4. Re:nothing new at all needed by locopuyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A poorly designed merge section from one highway to another is what convinced me I needed a quick car.
    It isn't safe merging into 60+ MPH traffic at 30 MPH. Top speed typically isn't a problem but acceleration on cars with wimpy engines is.

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

    I drive 40+ miles to work each day. I am about to drive 250+ miles to meet with a customer. America is not as densely populated as Europe. Cars are how we travel. This is why we won't buy the small cars that are popular in Europe.

    This is rubbish, the average commute is rather short and comparable on both sides of the pond, and I regularly drive straight through France and Germany. We too drive a lot.

    The real reason why large cars don't sell and small cars do sell in Europe is because of the insane gas prices. When you pay $10/gallon you will change your driving habits or your type of car.

    I just got myself a new car which is quite large for European standards, it goes 40mpg which is decent. But more and more commuters are going for efficient smaller cars (50-60mpg) because of increasing fuel costs, the difference means that the car pays for itself within a few years.

    If fuel costs were the same I'd bet every family here would want an SUV too.

    --
    This sig is intentionally left blank
  6. Re:nothing new at all needed by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And acceleration despite a relatively wimpy engine is on major problem that hybrids are designed to tackle. The electric motor isn't enough to drive you very far or very fast on its own, but combining the power of the relatively wimpy internal combustion engine with the power of a relatively wimpy electric motor gives you enough power to merge onto a freeway or go up a steep hill with some confidence. When you don't need that extra power, the relatively wimpy engine is well chosen to give you good fuel economy at highway cruising speed.

    --

    There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  7. Re:nothing new at all needed by harrkev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Part of what you say is true, but that is not the whole story.... Some people don't just WANT large inefficient cars, they NEED large gas-guzzling vehicles.

    Take, for example, me. I have five kids (three are adopted, so no preaching about overpopulating the Earth). Add the wife, and I need a vehicle to carry at least seven people. Good luck finding a 50 MPG car that can do that. If the whole world drove tiny 50 MPG cars, I would need TWO of them to get anywhere on the weekend -- making an effective 25 MPG.

    Look at it this way: on the weekend, I typically have 7 or 8 people in my average 18.8 MPG van. Not great gas mileage, but that works out to be 150 miles/gallon/PERSON. To match that, you would have to cram four people in a Prius.

    Don't get me wrong. I would love to have better fuel efficienty. If my wife and I did not have any kids, I would likely get a smart car or some other little econo-box. But that simply will not work for my family. I live in a rural area. It is pretty common to see a pickup pulling a trailer with a couple of tons of hay for horses/cattle. How many trips woult that take in a Volt with the back seat crammed full of hay? Sometimes, bugger IS better.

    I am worried about the day when fuel efficiency is mandated such that larger vehicles are essentially no longer produced.

    --
    "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  8. Re:nothing new at all needed by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The number who actually need less efficient cars are far fewer than those that actually have them. So, yes there are exceptions, but honestly, there are very few people who actually have five kids these days.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  9. Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine by coyote_oww · · Score: 4, Insightful

    227hp awd in the snow is indeed fun. and not unreasonable, IMHO. Wanting a V8 was her generation's "I want a car that isn't klunky". That it doesn't have to be a V8 anymore is her ignorance of the changes in engine technology. But, for the young whipersnappers out there, keep in mind that in the early 80s, Mustangs with "sport tuned" engines had V8s that made 140hp. Seriously. The old lady probably experienced a 4-banger of that era, which were uniformly pathetic. As an ex-Pinto owner, I understand her feeling.

    As a car salesman, you need to put her into a 16valve 4cyl turbo to help her understand that cylinders alone does not measure power very well. :-) And it would be funny...