DOT and EPA Announce New Gas Mileage Regulations

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Well, ain’t this a kick in the gas? :D The Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency announced on Tuesday a new regulation mandating passenger cars and light trucks will achieve 54.5 mpg by 2025. The fuel savings from the new gas mileage rule will save 12 million barrels of oil and make significant reduction in carbon emissions.

“The fuel efficiency standards the administration finalized today are another example of how we protect the environment and strengthen the economy at the same time,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a press release.
Click to expand...
 
This is such a great rule, because, you know, no one wants sports cars any more.

I feel this is a roundabout(or direct) way of telling me what I can and can't drive.

The US Government needs to stay the hell out of my garage.
 
As much as I hate the government saying what I can and cant drive, its about time, honestly the auto makers have no interest in selling you cars that get decent mileage which is a shame as I would really love a Diesel Focus or Toyota or Diesel Ranger maybe this will force their hand.
 
All you knuckleheads hating on this need to understand its mandates like this that give us modern vehicles that make much more power with better mileage. Compare a modern car with a 1970's vehicle and you have no comparison. If you think car companies are motivated to research into efficiency on their own, you are out of your mind. I for one, like modern computer-controlled fuel injection vehicles, because I remember driving around in gutless pieces of shit getting 10mpg and having to work on it every weekend to keep it running. Also, fuck carburetors and points.
 
dbu8554 said:
As much as I hate the government saying what I can and cant drive, its about time, honestly the auto makers have no interest in selling you cars that get decent mileage which is a shame as I would really love a Diesel Focus or Toyota or Diesel Ranger maybe this will force their hand.
Click to expand...

Why not just an all out ban on any engines over 4 cylinders or any engine that runs on gas? Lets all drive around in boring as Kia Rios.
 
It's less the car companies and more the oil companies. They own a lot of the patents for high-mileage designs.
 
OEM said:
This is such a great rule, because, you know, no one wants sports cars any more.

I feel this is a roundabout(or direct) way of telling me what I can and can't drive.

The US Government needs to stay the hell out of my garage.
Click to expand...

The number is a fleet wide average. Car makers can make sports cars if they like. They just have to offer a high mileage model to offset it.
 
JustinCorrigible said:
It's less the car companies and more the oil companies. They own a lot of the patents for high-mileage designs.
Click to expand...

I hate seeing this nonsense. If the oil companies control the supply prices at the head-end, why wouldn't they want more efficient vehicles? They can just raise the price, and now they're selling you less oil for the same amount of money. This means their profit margins go up, and I'm not sure how they could possibly view that as a bad thing.
 
They should have two modes in these cars because I don't see a truck getting 50 MPG while hauling a camper and a car on a trailer. There should be a performance mode (for when hauling or needing extra HP) and a economy mode (for daily driving and saving gas). I'm not a big fan of how modern cars look anyways so I'll just stick with the 04 dodge diesel and the 86 SAS 22RE 4runner :).
 
Spewn said:
I hate seeing this nonsense. If the oil companies control the supply prices at the head-end, why wouldn't they want more efficient vehicles? They can just raise the price, and now they're selling you less oil for the same amount of money. This means their profit margins go up, and I'm not sure how they could possibly view that as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Because more efficient vehicles (concepts/designs/the future/etc) aren't using gas or oil and their profit margins would go down?

Just throwing it out there...lol
 
Spewn said:
I hate seeing this nonsense. If the oil companies control the supply prices at the head-end, why wouldn't they want more efficient vehicles? They can just raise the price, and now they're selling you less oil for the same amount of money. This means their profit margins go up, and I'm not sure how they could possibly view that as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

They are already selling us less oil for the same amount of money if not more. The world supply isn't as high as one might think.
 
OEM said:
This is such a great rule, because, you know, no one wants sports cars any more.

I feel this is a roundabout(or direct) way of telling me what I can and can't drive.

The US Government needs to stay the hell out of my garage.
Click to expand...

Strange, seems you can still get sport cars

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Lamborghini2012.shtml

2012 Bugatti Veyron

16 cyl, 8.0 L
Automatic (S7)
Premium Gasoline

EPA Fuel Economy Miles per Gallon

Premium Gasoline
10 Combined, 8 City, 15 Highway

Cost to Drive 25 Miles $10.05

Fuel to Drive 25 Miles 2.50 gal

but I guess your saying that'll be outlawed eh?
 
Having lived and driven in the '70's I can say I wouldn't trade my Corolla for my '76 Chevette, or my straight 6, 5.2L Gremlin (15 mpg).

I also wouldn't want to put $3.75/gal gasoline into my 22 mpg Chevette (slower than watching paint dry) either.

My 2005 Corolla, (standard tranny, automatic is for pussies) has better acceleration than the Gremlin with much less than half the engine and better than twice the gas mileage.


Until you've actually been there and done that your just talking out your ass.

Jes' sayin'.
 
BoogerBomb said:
Why not just an all out ban on any engines over 4 cylinders or any engine that runs on gas? Lets all drive around in boring as Kia Rios.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the Porsche 918 and it's 770hp with 78mpg are boring as shit, right?

Go buy a horse and carriage if you want to stay in the stone ages, the rest of us need to move on. The technology is already there to hit these numbers, they just need to refine it and get it cheap enough for mass production, which they should be able to do by 2025 now that they actually have incentive to do so.
 
2025 is a bit late for such a weak measure. Greenland will be melted by then, and we'll all be migrating north lol
 
dbu8554 said:
As much as I hate the government saying what I can and cant drive, its about time, honestly the auto makers have no interest in selling you cars that get decent mileage which is a shame as I would really love a Diesel Focus or Toyota or Diesel Ranger maybe this will force their hand.
Click to expand...

The diesel grand cherokee/wranglers will be here later this year. The chevy cruze and dodge dart are expected to have diesels as well. Its not the automakers either, they would love to sell more diesels. Its the retarded emissions laws regarding diesels that keep them out. Even though modern diesels are just as clean as gas engines they require all this extra expensive equipment and certification that they don't require on gas engines.
 
Great excuse to buy sports cars now. I can feel my M3 appreciating as I type.
 
JustinCorrigible said:
They are already selling us less oil for the same amount of money if not more. The world supply isn't as high as one might think.
Click to expand...

And that's *exactly* my point; The more fuel economy goes up, the more they can raise the price, meaning they get to squeeze more money out of their limited supply. In a world where the big bad oil companies control the price we pay for fuel, they would want the most fuel-efficient cars there could possibly be.
 
FYI: how it actaully works

"The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) are regulations in the United States, first enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1975..."

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

"If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of vehicle production falls below the defined standard, the manufacturer must pay a penalty, currently $5.50 USD per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer's total production for the U.S. domestic market. In addition, a Gas Guzzler Tax is levied on individual passenger car models (but not trucks, vans, minivans, or SUVs) that get less than 22.5 miles per US gallon (10.5 l/100 km).[2]"
 
Some people seem to think that the auto-industry is just "holding out" on them, and that they could have 100mpg if it weren't for some conspiracy.

The fact is, fuel economy and better emissions come with sacrifices. And if you get too ambitious compared to available technology, you end up with a huge regression industry wide.

Look at how long it took all manufacturers to just meet performance levels of vehicles from the 60s after the government mandates? Even supercars like Magnum PI's Ferrari had only a tick above 200hp, whereas relatively cheap cars ten years earlier were putting down realworld 500hp+ (usually underrated for insurance reasons).

So if the cars of tomorrow are cramped, expensive, impractical, and can't get out of their own way on the highway, thank the people you voted into office.
dbu8554 said:
As much as I hate the government saying what I can and cant drive, its about time, honestly the auto makers have no interest in selling you cars that get decent mileage which is a shame as I would really love a Diesel Focus or Toyota or Diesel Ranger maybe this will force their hand.
Click to expand...
This is bogus, consumers drive the market not the other way around.

Ford's most profitable vehicle for, well, ever now is the inefficient Explorer and F-150. People were willing to spend more money for a larger vehicle with more utility. So yes, Ford made the popular Focus and they even sell it with a 1.0 liter engine option in Europe due to consumer demand, but the 2.0 liter engine was already considered weak for American tastes and unlike in Europe the Americans in general see small car as economy car, and they less people will pay a premium for that.

Problem is, some people think that they and their circle of friends that they choose to associate with and are likely more or less cut from the same cookie cutter in the socio-economic bracket represent the entirety of the North American market. And my brother works for Mercedes new vehicle launches, and you can thank big government for it being so very cost prohibitive to import a European model to the US.

Why else do you think that Mexico for example often has greater European vehicle selection than the US? Thank the left wing safety nazi nanny state, that constantly vetoes the proposals to have a unified safety standard between the EU and NA market saving the auto-industry fortunes and benefiting the consumer.
 
AnonymousUser said:
I mean, aren't electric cars with using no gas at all the future?
Click to expand...

I don't know, are they? Let me know when that starts happening. Until it does, the whole "oh the big bad oil men aren't letting us have fuel efficient cars" nonsense is just that; Nonsense. Even then, if suddenly electric cars became worthwhile wouldn't it be in "big oil"'s interest to make oil-powered cars as attractive as possible?
 
Spewn said:
And that's *exactly* my point; The more fuel economy goes up, the more they can raise the price, meaning they get to squeeze more money out of their limited supply. In a world where the big bad oil companies control the price we pay for fuel, they would want the most fuel-efficient cars there could possibly be.
Click to expand...

They've got all their enormous profits going into alternative energies (research and/or purchasing) and have been for some time now. Oil is finite and ending its viable life as a commodity. I don't think they really care that much about more fuel efficient vehicles at this point. When the time is right for them they'll unveil their alternative energy product and continue business as usual.
 
JustinCorrigible said:
They've got all their enormous profits going into alternative energies (research and/or purchasing) and have been for some time now. Oil is finite and ending its viable life as a commodity. I don't think they really care that much about more fuel efficient vehicles at this point. When the time is right for them they'll unveil their alternative energy product and continue business as usual.
Click to expand...

So your answer to why they wouldn't want to sell the same amount of product for more money is "they don't really care that much"? Good to know.
 
OEM said:
This is such a great rule, because, you know, no one wants sports cars any more.

I feel this is a roundabout(or direct) way of telling me what I can and can't drive.

The US Government needs to stay the hell out of my garage.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's a corporate average standard.

They can still sell you a gas guzzling sports car, as long as they sell enough fuel efficient vehicles to make their average high enough.

In the grand scheme of things it's not just a good idea, its a very good idea.

This way we can eventually stop sending the about $1 billion a day to countries who hate us in return for their oil.
 
Spewn said:
I don't know, are they? Let me know when that starts happening. Until it does, the whole "oh the big bad oil men aren't letting us have fuel efficient cars" nonsense is just that; Nonsense. Even then, if suddenly electric cars became worthwhile wouldn't it be in "big oil"'s interest to make oil-powered cars as attractive as possible?
Click to expand...

Seems that way to me at least (prolly right around 2025...lol) that electric cars will start to take over as the norm. Now, I could definitely see them (Big Bad Oil) wanting more fuel efficient gasoline cars when electric cars are way more common as to compete. That makes perfect sense. High prices today though for less product (history as an indicator) seems like it would drive everyone into wanting an all out alternative source which could make the masses go to electric and never come back.

Also, electricity seems to be more abundant compared to gasoline so it would make sense to move to that technology anyway. That said, I'm personally not really sure if oil is regenerated by the Earth or not. I've heard it argued both ways but never heard the definitive answer on it.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039089105 said:
Nope. It's a corporate average standard.

They can still sell you a gas guzzling sports car, as long as they sell enough fuel efficient vehicles to make their average high enough.

In the grand scheme of things it's not just a good idea, its a very good idea.

This way we can eventually stop sending the about $1 billion a day to countries who hate us in return for their oil.
Click to expand...

Or the auto industry calapses again. Oh thats right GM is going under yet again lol. How about we make what the market wants not some feel good BS.
 
Give me a solid diesel hybrid car that can seat 5-6 comfortably for a reasonable price and i'd be all for it

and all the diesel part would do is...charge the battery thus would get upwards of 80-100 MPG equivulent...
 
Zarathustra[H];1039089105 said:
This way we can eventually stop sending the about $1 billion a day to countries who hate us in return for their oil.
Click to expand...

Except don't passenger(read: consumer) vehicles only account for like, 30-40% of oil consumption? So even if you doubled the efficiency of passenger vehicles you'd only cut that $1bn/day down to $800m/day? Where are the laws regulating commercial vehicles that use oil? Transport vehicles, ships, trucks, trains etc? I'm not saying there aren't any, just curious how much of this pressure is being placed on them.
 
Ducman69 said:
This is bogus, consumers drive the market not the other way around.

Ford's most profitable vehicle for, well, ever now is the inefficient Explorer and F-150. People were willing to spend more money for a larger vehicle with more utility. So yes, Ford made the popular Focus and they even sell it with a 1.0 liter engine option in Europe due to consumer demand, but the 2.0 liter engine was already considered weak for American tastes and unlike in Europe the Americans in general see small car as economy car, and they less people will pay a premium for that.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the consumers are many cases irrational.

They will profess their love for gas guzzling sports cars and SUV's in the same breath as they complain about gas prices, the trade deficit and sending our money to countries that hate us and sometimes sponsor terrorists.

You can't have it both ways.
 
Spewn said:
Except don't passenger(read: consumer) vehicles only account for like, 30-40% of oil consumption? So even if you doubled the efficiency of passenger vehicles you'd only cut that $1bn/day down to $800m/day? Where are the laws regulating commercial vehicles that use oil? Transport vehicles, ships, trucks, trains etc? I'm not saying there aren't any, just curious how much of this pressure is being placed on them.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. I - personally - feel that no users of fuel should be exempt from efficiency standards.
 
AnonymousUser said:
Seems that way to me at least (prolly right around 2025...lol) that electric cars will start to take over as the norm. Now, I could definitely see them (Big Bad Oil) wanting more fuel efficient gasoline cars when electric cars are way more common as to compete. That makes perfect sense. High prices today though for less product (history as an indicator) seems like it would drive everyone into wanting an all out alternative source which could make the masses go to electric and never come back.
Click to expand...

Ah but you're missing the point; They raise prices in step with increases in efficiency, so you buy a more efficient car while paying more for gas and thus don't actually spend more money to drive where you want to go. People don't care how much a gallon of gas costs as much as they care how much it costs them to drive to work and back for a week.

Also, electricity seems to be more abundant compared to gasoline so it would make sense to move to that technology anyway. That said, I'm personally not really sure if oil is regenerated by the Earth or not. I've heard it argued both ways but never heard the definitive answer on it.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all saying we *shouldn't* move to this alternative technologies, just pointing out that the idea that the "oil companies" have had some kind of magical fuel-efficiency technology waiting in the wings all this time and they don't want to give it out is stupid. If they had a technology that could double the fuel efficiency of current vehicles they would license it and then charge twice as much for oil and voila, they're making more money for doing less work. If I told you that you could go to work half as much but get paid the same amount, wouldn't you do it?
 
Spewn said:
I'm not at all saying we *shouldn't* move to this alternative technologies, just pointing out that the idea that the "oil companies" have had some kind of magical fuel-efficiency technology waiting in the wings all this time and they don't want to give it out is stupid. If they had a technology that could double the fuel efficiency of current vehicles they would license it and then charge twice as much for oil and voila, they're making more money for doing less work. If I told you that you could go to work half as much but get paid the same amount, wouldn't you do it?
Click to expand...

Agreed. This just provides a little extra incentive to go ahead and develop new and better technologies.
 
Spewn said:
So your answer to why they wouldn't want to sell the same amount of product for more money is "they don't really care that much"? Good to know.
Click to expand...

You are honestly grasping at anything just to argue with me over something to which I'm not even disagreeing. I hope it pleases you that I'm not even going to bother. I never said they were "big bad oil", I never said anything remotely as negative as you took what was said.
 
Glad I already bought my gas guzzler. It's a hybrid, it burns gas and rubber.
 
lenardo said:
Give me a solid diesel hybrid car that can seat 5-6 comfortably for a reasonable price and i'd be all for it

and all the diesel part would do is...charge the battery thus would get upwards of 80-100 MPG equivulent...
Click to expand...

No one ever said living within our means was going to come without sacrifices.

Just like we need to cut the federal budget at some point to reduce deficit spending and the national debt, we also need to reduce some of our luxuries in order to stop sending billions of our money abroad to countries that hate us.

In the long run, no nation can sustain spending substantially more on imports than they earn from exports.

We've been maxing out the credit cards by driving our huge gas guzzling SUV's and fast sports cars. Now it's time to eat some humble pie, realize we made some youthful mistakes, and scale down in order to repay it.
 
Spewn said:
Ah but you're missing the point; They raise prices in step with increases in efficiency, so you buy a more efficient car while paying more for gas and thus don't actually spend more money to drive where you want to go. People don't care how much a gallon of gas costs as much as they care how much it costs them to drive to work and back for a week.
Click to expand...

That's the same thing as inflation (I believe inflation is a scam). I hate inflation. Just because my car uses less gas doesn't mean I should be ripped off by oil companies by paying more for less product. That alone makes me want an electric car. Also, I'm not missing your point, I don't like it...lol (not you, the companies doing it).


I'm not at all saying we *shouldn't* move to this alternative technologies, just pointing out that the idea that the "oil companies" have had some kind of magical fuel-efficiency technology waiting in the wings all this time and they don't want to give it out is stupid. If they had a technology that could double the fuel efficiency of current vehicles they would license it and then charge twice as much for oil and voila, they're making more money for doing less work. If I told you that you could go to work half as much but get paid the same amount, wouldn't you do it?
Click to expand...

That makes sense, as much as I don't like it...lol. However if we could go through their held patents I'm also sure the other guy you were debating with would be right too...lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top