Troopa-R

Unless I'm misreading something with the new legislation, wouldn't that 25% only be a fleet average improvement? If so, a big diesel push, along with hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles would make this much less of a big deal than most of you are making it out to be. Especially with diesel, it would definitely not be a no-fills, no-thrill car. VW Jetta Sportwagen with the diesel and the manual getting 40/60 is an example of what could help all the automakers hit these numbers.

As for small independent makers, BMW has Mini and has invested in diesel and hydrogen. I'd like to see what the consequences are for not hitting these numbers. I can see exceptions (or just fines) being made for low volume or specialty brands like Ferrari and Porsche.

I'm not trying to justify the Congressional action on this issue because quite honestly, with $4 gas already pretty much here and $5 gas just around the corner (just paid $3.81 for gas as freaking Costco ::bleh:: ), I think the market will be demanding higher fuel economy without the need for government interference.

TheOtherDave™

I am well aware that the testing and engineering requirements would change with the introduction of new materials. I mentioned these potential solutions because they use current technology and could be incorporated into the next clean-sheet redesign.

I am not suggesting that they make a running change to an existing model. Neither is the bill... hence the 2020 deadline.

Talk about pessimism. A 25% improvement across the entire fleet is feasible when hybrid drivetrains become as common as antilock brakes are today. We are already on this path, it's the Big Three that have been dragging their feet.

And again, I'll remind you of the economies of scale. A modular hybrid system like IMA could be scaled to retrofit to virtually any existing Honda motor. It is feasible for the next RL to be an AWD hybrid, with a destroked J35 boosted by IMA.

When you mass produce the EM housings, battery cells and motor controllers, the price comes down along with the pressure to reduce weight in vehicles that are near their feasible weight limit.

BMW is large enough to meet this standard without much difficulty.
They've got a whole range of diesels already in production.
Failing that, they can license hybrid technology from whomever takes the lead in that market.

Ferrari has the Fiat Group and Porsche has their part ownership in VW. The character of the cars may change, they may lobby for an exemption. This bill is not the end of the world.

What then do you suggest we do?

Ignore the issue of petrol consumption entirely?
Pretend that we will never run out?

We will just suffer an even greater shock when we hit the limit of oil recovery and there is no more petrol at all.

The major point is that we are operating in an unsustainable way when it comes to transportation. This bill is an unpleasant but necessary first step.

DakarM

Still doesn't change the fact that there would be excess time/money required to incorporate such changes. Also it's not current technology as it is used today. It's technology that needs to be adapted for new use.

Fuel economy cannot continue to improve at the same rate it has been for the past decade or two. Already companies are using 6/7/even 8 speed transmissions to extract the most out each gallon. I'm not convinced there will be big enough break throughs in the next 13 years to improve fuel economy by that much.

Economies of scale might work if the technology already exists for that company. What about everyone else? They will have to develop the technology and that will cost $$$ and lots of it.

I disagree. BMW doesn't have other divisions like MB or GM or Honda. BMW makes and sells cars. Diesels would be great but there is doubt that diesel cars will sell in the US. BMW is already working on a hybrid technology.. due in 8years or later. Again $$$$$.


This is my whole point. The characters of the cars WILL change. This bill as currently written is the end of the fun to drive performance car world.
[/quote]

I honest don't care. If we run out, we run out. That is my personal belief. I've been told that we will run out in 50 years since 1983, when I first came to the US. When the time comes, I"ll either be dead or there will be alternate form of fueling a motor vehicle.

This bill is not the necessary first step. It is just unpleasant.

TheOtherDave™

Then that's where we will continue to disagree. :hs:

Oil has become such an integral component of modern live that when we run out, there are going to be very serious repercussions.

It's not just fuel for sportscars, it's fertilizers we use to grow food.
It's the plastics we use to build the packaging we ship things in.
It's the diesel for the semi-truck that keeps food in the grocery store.

Alternate technologies are going to be needed for all of these things.
And the longer we continue to ignore the fact that we will one day run out, the worse off we're going to be when that day comes.

Sure, I'm a little pissed that I won't own some titanically overpowered supercar.
I'm still a car guy and I still love driving.

But I'm not willing to spend the reserves we have so capriciously that we stick the next generation with an insurmountable burden.

So IMO, we have to do something now.

bunny

I just cannot understand how that would not be possible. 35mpg isn't that ambitious, after all.

The 2007 Civic automatic (non-hybrid) can get 30mpg city and 40mpg highway, according to honda.com. So, it already qualifies. The I4 Accord automatic is at 24/34. Not terribly far away. Given there is another 13 years, I won't be surprised if I4 Accord can be qualified by then.

What's really important is that the 35mpg is the average number required. Assuming Civic's epa mileage can be improved to 40/50, then for every civic sold, there is a 10mpg quota saved to be given to other models.

Chances are for every one 45mpg Civic sold, there can be one 25mpg CRV for sale. Or, for every two Civic's sold there can be one V-10 15mpg NSX (successor) for sale.

sherwood

Bunny, you have to realize that a 1988 Civic got 33/37 and the hatch got 34/38. That was 20 years ago and things have barely changed. [Not to mention the CRX HF destroys the current crop of hybrids by a good margin]

Without dropping the weight down considerably there is no way to any number which will be able to offset any car putting out less than 35mpg. At least not in a signifigant way or with gasoline.

The only way this is even near feasible is if we switched to diesel. But with all the clean air laws thats going to be a hassle aswell.


I think that this bill needs to wait until diesel is a decent option for automakers, and even then there should be the avalibility to drive whatever you want, for a fee.

ultramantaro

This is where pundits on both sides are weighing in. The big 3 are obviously pressuring the Senate to vote against the bill but at the same time, Congress is also complaining why the government hasn't done anything to keep prices down. Silly politics as usual, but it doesn't take much to figure out the SUVs on the road aren't exactly fuel efficient.