New EPA standards

[audtatious]

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulat ... f10051.htm

"In the TAR, the three agencies evaluated scenarios representing 3%, 4%, 5%, and 6% annual increases in overall average stringency (roughly equivalent to 47 to 62 mpg in 2025, if all improvements were made using fuel economy-improving technology), using a range of illustrative technology pathways. The technology pathways are intended to show the different cost impacts of achieving different levels of stringency, if the industry were to place more or less emphasis on hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles as compared to advanced gasoline technologies and vehicle mass reduction. This initial assessment in the TAR produced projected vehicle cost estimates of approximately $800 to $3,500 and lifetime savings due to reduced fuel costs of about $5,000 to over $7,000, depending on the phase-in stringency scenario and the technology pathway. The more detailed analysis for the upcoming proposal will likely show that the industry average cost will be higher than this initial assessment, while individual manufacturer costs may be higher or lower."

So, EPA requirements of 47-62mpg in 2025. Diesel would work but it seems US citizens don't really buy diesels due to black smoke or perceived pollution?

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Vehicle mass reduction...think you should have a chat with the NHTSA, EPA.

[C-Kwik]

Vehicle mass reduction...think you should have a chat with the NHTSA, EPA.

The title for the article indicates that this a collaborative effort by both agencies. It also states this within the body of text as well...

So, EPA requirements of 47-62mpg in 2025. Diesel would work but it seems US citizens don't really buy diesels due to black smoke or perceived pollution?

While diesels do get better gas mileage than gasoline motors, even if we used nothing but diesel fuel, it would be unlikely we would hit that number. Society requires a broad range of vehicles to suit varied needs. That means we still need large trucks, vans, and SUVs which will get significantly less mileage than the higher efficiency diesel offerings. The average is likely not going to be very close unless there is a huge disparity in numbers between trucks and cars on the road. Not saying it wouldn't help, but the statement in the excerpt you posted implies that the cost and savings estimates are based on electric and plug-in hybrid usage, which will rely heavily on the grid rather than gas. I might see a good argument for a diesel based hybrid, but I don't know if there are any technical challenges with implementation. But at the same time, if the cost/benefit of developing hybrid diesels don't make sense in the bigger picture then why push it in that direction. If diesels became the norm, there may be a need a lot of infrastructure change needed to handle the additional demand. And if electrics and plug-in hybrids are where we are heading then it makes no sense to implement any kind of large scale infrastructure change that might be obsolete relatively quickly. Not to mention diesel still burns hydrocarbons, which is ultimately what we are trying to get away from.