Poll: CAFE standards

[Ron Wenrich]

There's talk on Capitol Hill about raising the CAFE standards for cars and light trucks.  This is the fuel economy for a fleet of cars and trucks that are produced by a manufacturer.

Poll ends July 1, 2008

[thurlow]

I'm all for a market-driven.........................anything/everything.  When did the folks on Capitol Hill make anything better?  Doesn't it just warm your heart  when you hear, "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help".

[OneWithWood]

I am all for market driven to.  Of course the market forces have shown that Detroit is extremely short sited.  The higher mileage cars out of Japan are kicking Detroit butt.  Now the US auto makers want government help to keep themfrom their own missteps.  Mandated CAFE standards are cheaper in the long run for everyone because the US auto makers continue to stumble on figuring out what consumers want.  They produce for the high margin versus high voume and it has once again caught up to them.

[WDH]

There should absolutely be a standard or bar that has to be met.  Motivated 99% by profit, big companies do what is easy and move very slow, even if they are trying to do the right thing.  The technology exists to produce better vehicles, and it is proven that it can be done.  I don't see why we should depend on the pace they choose to make this improvement.

With something as important as energy policy, there needs to be a clear vision of where we have to go.  Not to delve into politics here, but sometimes laws are needed to establish expectations.  Like clean water or air.  Like safe food.  Like efficient use of energy in this case.

I want to see the bar raised, and as a consumer, I want better choices than I have today on buying a fuel efficient vehicle.  How long will that take to happen by corporate osmosis?  Too long, in my opinion.  In the meantime, the $3 gas bleeds the wallet.  There has to be a better way.   

[Gary_C]

In the meantime, the $3 gas bleeds the wallet.  There has to be a better way.   

It may be painful, but $3 gas is the best way. This country promotes our free markets to others around the world, and we need to keep those market forces at home free of government intervention.

Besides, every attempt to regulate market forces either fails miserably or is rendered ineffective in some way. Our congress knows very well that controls do not work, so when they do pass them they are just pandering for votes at the next election. Sometimes I think that all congress does is correct their past mistakes.

I say no to more regulation.

[WDH]

Setting a minimum standard for fuel efficiency has little to do with market forces.  Once the standard is set, market forces will then come into play and operate against the standard.

[Ron Wenrich]

Market forces are a cat and mouse game.  The cat just sits there, waiting for the mouse to get hungry, then nabs it.

The market force does demand better fuel efficiency.  But, when you need to get a new car, you are limited by what the companies want to sell, not by what you want to buy.

For a number of years, I bought S10 pickups.  And every successive pickup got worse gas mileage.  Did I ask for worse gas mileage?  No, the producers dictated what the standards are going to be, not the market forces. 

Markets work in a free environment where there is ample competition.  When supply is controlled by a few producers, the market is no longer a free market.  Its regulated by business instead of government.  Which is better?

[Fla._Deadheader]

I don't believe you will ever see great mileage US cars. Too many folks want to blast away from the green light and be doing 60 before they slam on the brakes at the next light  : :

  Goes for Diesels, too. TV shows demonstrate the "Computer Chips" that double or triple the HP of Diesels.

  Ya GOTTA burn more fuel to get the Horses to go.  : : ???

[tcsmpsi]

Just one's own personal observations. 

It has become that "government" is big business.  And, vice versa.

With all the clamor of the People for better fuel mileage/cheaper fuel, if prices were not a mandate by big business filtered through the "government", politicians would long ago have capitalized on the issue.

There is a given standard by which ruling corporate value (principally, the oil jackals) determines the flow of the world.  It is no longer a 'national' matter.  The 'big picture' is drawn through a worldwide profit.

Unfortunately, the United States is becoming, progressively, a less significant "Gross World Product".

There is always talk on Capitol Hill.  It is the nature of the beast.

The bottom line, is that less consumption of the oil product does not correlate to higher profits.  All those who pull the real strings, are attached to oil.  And, vice versa.

If the "government" were to regulate/mandate more fuel effeciency, it would only be a trade-off and facade to come from the east side with a (probably even less desireable) yet higher profit endeavor.

[Mooseherder]

I think there could be alot more emphasis on the gearing.
There needs to be another Overdrive on top of the current that knocks the RPMs to 1000 while on the highway.

[Gary_C]

Minimum standards certainly sounds like a good idea, but the devil is in the details. For example you could not have one standard for all classes of vehicles or your work pickup would have to meet the same standards as a compact commuter car. Also just who is going to determine the classes and standards? I sure do not want to have our congressmen and staff make those determinations as they are notoriously bad engineers plus they have short attention spans so they will not easily correct their mistakes.

We all know the fuel economy standards that are on window stickers are not believable. So who is going to establish a test to fairly determine if the manufacturers are complying with the new standards. I am sure congress could hand out enough money to set standards and tests to monitor performance, but would they be accurate and reliable? And would all this be cost effective?

No thank you, I'll take the pain at the pump and the economic suffering the car makers are now enduring to set minimum standards. It has worked for the Europeans and will work here too.

Also consider there are already highly efficient diesel cars in European markets already that cannot be sold in the US because of our emission standards. Are we going to sacrifice our clean air standards (not necessarily our clean air) for more efficient engines?   ??? ???

[Modat22]

I think our innovation needs a kick in the pants. Though I agree that a market driven economy should still work. Its starting to work now with current gas prices, folks aren't buying as many large trucks and are opting for smaller cars, trucks and hybrids.

Eventually its gonna be tough for work truck users as the cost of fuel goes up to make up for low MPG vehicles on the roads. You don't think fuel will go down as more fuel efficient vehicles hit the road do you? Nah, there will be more refinery shortages to keep that profit margin heading upward.

[thurlow]

Went out to eat last night; parking lot pretty much empty on a Monday night.  Fellow getting into vehicle to leave as we were parking.  New Hummer H2........lots of chrome, as pretty a black paint job as you've ever seen.  My wife commented on his gas mileage/why anyone would buy "that" with gasoline at $3.00 per.  I'm no economist and don't know how stupid the folks are at GM, but I accept one thing as an absolute;  when people quit buying 'em and they have to carry the new ones back and melt 'em down; they'll quit making 'em.  When the demand dries up, so will the supply................

[sawguy21]

I think there could be alot more emphasis on the gearing.
There needs to be another Overdrive on top of the current that knocks the RPMs to 1000 while on the highway.

I had a pickup with over sized tires that got better mileage at 75 mph than it did at 60. It was running too slow to be efficient. My current one has a 5 speed auto that is constantly shifting on the mountain roads.
I agree with thurlow. The full size pickup market was the most profitable for the auto makers a few years ago but that is changing. My concern is that in a few years, those one tons you are pulling your log trailers with now won't be available.

[flip]

I voted "NO" here's why.  For a company like Toyota, who's main production is small to midsize cars it is easy to tout fuel economy.  Look at the foreign auto market in a whole, they produce almost no trucks.  Trucks, mainly work trucks, are what trash a company's CAFE. 

If you want higher fuel economy standards keep your foot off the accelerator and buy good gas.

I laughed a few months ago when Bill Oriley poked around about poor fuel economy.  It is easy to fix, put 4 cylinder engines in all cars.  Not realistic for those that like luxury cars and want all the bells and whistles, eh Bill?  People think that car companies have some secret device hidden that can make cars get 50mpg, that is simply not true.  Fuel economy tests are done in near ideal and theoretical conditions, most of the time not even on the open road.  We are responsible for what we get out of a tank, not what the sticker says on the window.  Once you introduce the human element into the eqation all testing, technology and research is out the window

Look at diesels, anything over 8500GVW is exempt from fuel economy ratings.  Starting this year, diesels have a mandatory emission standards which includes big diesels also.  To meet the standards fuel has changed as well as how it is burned.  Did you know, our engineers are telling us that in 3 years the air going out of our diesels will be CLEANER than what is going in? 

If we must raise CAFE we will see a rise in car prices and costs to service them and maybe even fuel.  New diesel trucks rose an average of $3,000 because of emmission requirements.  I can assure you if CAFE is raised the manufacturers will pass the cost to the consumer and offset the averages by flooding the market with cars.

We already have 2012 emission standards met for all new cars and trucks, we cleaned up the tail pipe and people whined about car prices.  Imagine what they say when their new car or truck comes with a brick UNDER the accelerator.

[IL Bull]

Let the market decide!! :P

[rebocardo]

I consider CAFE almost a national security issue, I want increased MPG standards. I wish we had more diesel options for smaller vehicles. If I could buy a mini-van with a diesel it would be a no brainer for me as a great purchase.

I took my GPS along with me for a day of driving the kids to and from school, post office, etc. I thought I was at least 50% highway (45 mph or faster) and almost all driving. You know the GPS said? 75% non travel time out of the whole trip. Those 3 minutes at a stop light add up and diesels are far superior to gas engines at idle at not using fuel.

[Don_Papenburg]

I had a 4cylinder 2wd 5spd S10 that had a very hard time getting 20 mpg , My buddy has a S10 blazer 4x4 auto with a v6 getting 24mpg and he drove it hard. 
  We do need the small diesel vehicle option But guess who decided that they "polute" to much.  Never mind that they used half the fuel of some small gas burners.  The idea was that they had some solid particulates and slightly higher sulfer emmisions or something like that .   IMO if you are useing half the fuel but emmitting 1/4 more pollution per gallon  you are still polluting less and saving fuel.
Kind of like putting a air pump on the exhaust to bring down ppm of pollutants? but the pump made the car use more gas. but never you mind it had less PPM pollutants BECAUSE you WERE PUMPING MORE air into the ehaust pipe.  But you used more gas to do it ????????????????????????????????? So did you realy cut pollution? I don't see how.

[OneWithWood]

I am patiently wainting for the no-brainer diesel electric hybrid to appear.  :

[Tom]

I'm waiting for the horse trail to be built beside the bike path that is built beside the county road that is built beside the super high-way and wonder, "how do you attach a tag to horse"?

[OneWithWood]

very gently

[Fla._Deadheader]

This ought to tell y'all in a nutshell  : :Cafe

[Modat22]

If all cars where made to shut off at stop and restart when needed I think we'd meet the 25 to 35 mpg for suvs, if the offtimes where averaged into the total trip time.

I'm getting 58 to 62 mpg now in my hybred over my 150 mile a day commute driving from 55 to 70 mph. Automakers could also gain MPG if they added an easy way to freespool the transmission (coast without engine breaking). Sure a person could switch the transmission into neutral while coasting but who would?

My car has an option for freecoasting or engine breaking moded with the flick of a switch.

[sawguy21]

Rover had the freewheel option in the 50 s but it would lead to very short brake life. The fuel savings would not be worth the safety issue IMHO.

[Tom]

Most automatic transmission, over-drives that I've driven seem to freewheel when you take your foot off of the excelerator.  To get the advantages of braking on steep hills, I usually have to run in a lower gear.  Can't be my imagination, can it?

[Dave Shepard]

I am undecided. I do agree that the automakers aren't going to do anything unless they are forced to. I watch the pickup diesels, and a few years ago you wouldn't have believed someone if they said they where going to do what they have done regarding emissions and horsepower. I would have thought that they would have had to derate the engines to meet the standards, but diesel pickups are at an all time high as far as power. And as far as I know, they are maintaining the same MPG standards as well, or least the Dodges are.

OWW, Dodge offers a Cummins/electric hybrid truck for fleet use. It can also be used for a serious genset as well. I haven't heard anything abou them lately, as they are not mainstream.

FDH, the computer chips in the diesel pickups can actually be a good thing, if they are used wisely. My truck got better mileage with the computer, and better towing as well. I attribute this to more boost, earlier in the rpm range. In stock form the engine wouldn't start building much boost until about 1200 rpms, so there was lag and soot etc. Now with the computer it makes more power from less fuel (less waste). That isn't to say that you can't tank your economy as well, I can turn my computer up to "Soft Coal" and stop traffic behind me, but used wisely, I think they are valuable.


Dave

[Fla._Deadheader]

  I fully agree about the chips, Dave. I think a LOT of people are just interested in dusting others off at the light ???

  Dodge 3500 I had, was a bear off the line. Once ya get to 35 MPH, better have a hole to go through if ya nailed it.  8)

  Diesels are now dusting gassers at the Drag Strips. Just thought y'all might wanna know.  : : ;D :D

[Dave Shepard]

In my opinion, the best diesel for a car would be under 2.0L, four cylinder, twin-turbo. This would be an efficient light weight engine, that could easily meet any reasonable horsepower needs. Todays diesels don't use a small fraction of their potential. Why have an engine that will last 1,000,000 miles, when the truck it is in won't? At least not in northern climates. A tiny engine using more of it's potential, with a reasonable life expectancy of 250k would make more sense to me. A friend of mine has done some driving in Europe, and he said that the cars he drives are set up just this way. They have more than enough power with unheard of (to the U.S.) fuel economy. I know we are fighting a big corporate machine, but I think we can do much better than we are right now.

I have done my fair share of stoplight racing, and making sports cars look foolish. ;)

I also have a pile of transmission parts to show for it. :


Dave

[PineNut]

I agree with Tom about automatic transmissions freewheeling when going down hill. When on cruise control and going downhill, note the tachometer decreasing significantly while the speed increases.

[PawNature]

I don't like government messing with anything. 95% of the time whatever the government tries to fix, gets worse.

[rebocardo]

> 95% of the time whatever the government tries to fix, gets worse.

Like the tax code and the IRS    food2

> > "how do you attach a tag to horse"?

From the front with a sugar cube. The biggest question is what to put on the horse to lower tail pipe emissions. 
smiley_horserider

[Modat22]

The human animal will get away with whatever it can and mess up the whole planet for everyone. The problem isn't the government, the problem is human nature.

[Bill]

Being the cheapskate that I am I sure do envy those foreigners over in Europe - had low sulfur since the early nineties with lower diesel emissions and from what I'm reading they can buy station wagons that get 70 mpg or smartcars and vw's that get 75-95 mpg on the highway. I 'd buy one if I could as the cars are pretty much what is certified here - cepting for the diesel motors . And all this baloney about lowering the use of foreign oil - US of A grown biodiesel is OK with me ( algae or soy beans don't matter to me ) and there's that governor out west ( Wyoming or Dakota(s) that would give us all the low polluting diesel we want from coal. Doesn't take any high-fallutin new technology - the coal stuff has been around since WWII - next thing you know they'll all be acomplaining about how they're gonna make and where they're gonna put all the old batteries. Course that's too easy - better to build a whole bunch of new power plants ( or hydrogen plants ? )  so we can plug our cars in to drive a few miles . . .   Almost seems like the people writing the rules forgot who they work for - spend more time bickering over whose turn it is to talk then what's good for us .

Sure doesn't make sense that they can do it in Europe but we don't know how to - are they that much smarter than us ?

[BBTom]

Maybe it is just me, but I think the goverment should go back to the constitution, and repeal 99% of the laws they have passed in the last 60 years.  I believe the goverment is supposed to provide for the military and police to protect rights and not much else.  Now they are bent on taking away all our rights for the betterment of a few.

It is long past time for goverment to downsize. 

If that means that we have to pay $5 a gallon for gas, then we will probably get smart and buy fuel efficient vehicles.  If we all buy fuel effiecent vehicles, then the manufacturers will make them.

Sorry for the rant, just tired of being taxed to help raise generations of idiots that won't take care of themselves.

[thurlow]

 smiley_clapping smiley_contract_point smiley_clapping smiley_contract

[rebocardo]

>  I believe the goverment is supposed to provide for the military and
> police to protect rights and not much else.

I think that way many times and then think about all the things I would not have if it had not been federally mandated.

Such as having ingredients listed on food packages, seatbelts and airbags in cars, dual circuit brake systems, gas tanks not in the passenger compartment of vehicles especially buses, parts available for new cars for 15 years after date of manufacture. All things that the public wanted, but, companes refused to supply until the law forced it on them.

Then I think about the things I hate such as the roadless int. and monuments passed by Clinton.

Then I think about the things I hate seeing money go to. Such as the NEA.

It is so confusing for me to determine when less is more and more is less  smiley_huh

[BBTom]

I do believe that most of the things you mentioned would have come to pass, had the government not stifled progress with mandates.  What we will never know, is what fantastic new things we could be using right now, if laws had not mandated what had to be used.  Sure, some of the new things would have flopped or caused bodily harm, but once in a while something that revolutionizes the way we think comes along.  I am willing to use my brain to figure out what I should use and what i should not.  I may be wrong once in a while, but at least i tried.

The law of supply and demand works, but it works only when not interfered with.

Sorry, I guess I jumped back on my soap box.  I will get down for good now.