Obama signs bill for new fuel efficiency standards of 35.5mpg by 2016.

[Dano]

This has been all over the news today, I thought it was an april fools joke, but it's not. Either sports cars are going to start dying more than they are, or we'll have an expanded luxury/gas guzzler tax catagory, bleh.

http://www.nola.com/politics/i....html

It says on there that it was a 'goal to be achieved' but all the news channels made it clear that it would be 'enforced.'

We'll have to wait and see where it goes. I'm all for 'going green' but don't take away my fun cars dammit! This is going to directly trickle down to more stringent emissions testing on existing vehicles too.

more

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...rules/

[Alfador]

Looking at the standard in detail, it appears that it's actually based on model mix. If that's correct, as long as the automakers have their fleet within that limit based on the weights they use, niche cars above that limit won't be effective.

[HashiriyaS14]

New Mustang V6 gets 305hp and 31mpg.

That's with no cylinder deactivation, hybrid assist, forced induction, etc.

In 2010. And it's cheap and fun to drive.

While I'm not necessarily for the bill, it's BS to say that it's the "death of sports cars".

By 2016, this will be cake. Also, by then, many major automakers will have zero-fuel vehicles like the Volt and Leaf, which will help the "fleet average" enormously. This will enable them to still produce nasty, thirsty sports cars.

Don't despair ^_^

[Dano]

Ok, I reread that and saw it was within the fleet. I apologize and will take looking like a tard. I didn't read the stuff online, had just watched the news channels for a couple hours this morning and it was never once mentioned (on any of the news channels) that it was within the fleet and was verbatim "per vehicle" in most newscasts I saw. All were by women though...

And the V6 Mustang is not a good example Hash! BLEH!

[breadbox]

Why does they hate us?

Really don't care unless they start putting their meat in my 240sx stew. 24MPG!

*edit *I might get better than that, I've never actually did the math, Its just What I figure it does.

[raremotive]

Turbochargers anyone?

[HashiriyaS14]

And the V6 Mustang is not a good example Hash! BLEH!

The current V6 Stang/Camaro are pretty nice cars. 300hp RWD with manual gearboxes for like $22k. Very unlike previous V6 iterations that were rental fleet losers.

[naladude911]

wait, does this mean that a tax will be put onto cars that are unable to suffice to that limit? Will my QX4 get a tax?

[AZ89two4Tsx]

wait, does this mean that a tax will be put onto cars that are unable to suffice to that limit? Will my QX4 get a tax?

You're a retard. It's only for new cars.

[Dano]

wait, does this mean that a tax will be put onto cars that are unable to suffice to that limit? Will my QX4 get a tax?

For you, yes.

For your car, no.

[jdansmith]

I'm ok with this, the technology is here to get this done and still have fun cars. Too many suv's on the road with only one person in them.....lol

Seriously though, this will not be that hard for most company's.

[Jesda]

Pointless legislation. Market forces can and DO dictate fuel economy needs and technological advancement.

"HEY GUYS I MADE IT A LAW R U PROUD OF ME?"Thanks, politicians, for nothing.

[Razi]

They should butt out of areas they know nothing about.

[Ar878]

They should butt out of areas they know nothing about.

hurr durr gas mileage derp derp derp

[dfddfd2]

Hang on to your tunable cars.

[Razi]

I wonder how they even came up with that number, 35.5 mpg.Just added 10 to the current standards?

"Hey 10mpg more sounds like a good idea, I like that number."

[Gaijin]

They should butt out of areas they know nothing about.

so.......everything?

[MinisterofDOOM]

Pointless legislation. Market forces can and DO dictate fuel economy needs and technological advancement.

"HEY GUYS I MADE IT A LAW R U PROUD OF ME?"Thanks, politicians, for nothing.

Exactly. It's beyond stupid, for numerous reasons.But the thing that really infuriates me is the number of people who actually think that this is a good idea and that it is necessary. This is what happens when you have people making laws to regulate things they don't understand.

American buyers' demands DO NOT MATCH with where the feds want to take the auto industry. Which is why cars like the Volt and Prius are a joke. No one wants them...even GM admits they don't expect the Volt to be profitable. But they're being forced to make that s*** anyway by crap legislation like this. Why not just allow the market to do what it's going to do? And no garbage trying to overtax gas to make people afraid of inefficient cars or any of that bulls*** either. Just let the market BE.

[Zyphar]

Exactly. It's beyond stupid, for numerous reasons.But the thing that really infuriates me is the number of people who actually think that this is a good idea and that it is necessary. This is what happens when you have people making laws to regulate things they don't understand.

American buyers' demands DO NOT MATCH with where the feds want to take the auto industry. Which is why cars like the Volt and Prius are a joke. No one wants them...even GM admits they don't expect the Volt to be profitable. But they're being forced to make that s*** anyway by crap legislation like this. Why not just allow the market to do what it's going to do? And no garbage trying to overtax gas to make people afraid of inefficient cars or any of that bulls*** either. Just let the market BE.

I believe there should be legislation which will force the automotive industry to push their MPGs higher. Why? Because us the consumers are f***ing retarded and will just keep on buying our gas guzzling cars until we realize, "oh f***! Gas is expensive!" and by that time oil will be sky high and scarce. Why not push the industry to develop better technologies instead of just being content with that the consumer wants? On the other hand, how the hell did they come up with 35.5?!

[Jesda]

I believe there should be legislation which will force the automotive industry to push their MPGs higher. Why? Because us the consumers are f***ing retarded and will just keep on buying our gas guzzling cars until we realize, "oh f***! Gas is expensive!" and by that time oil will be sky high and scarce. Why not push the industry to develop better technologies instead of just being content with that the consumer wants? On the other hand, how the hell did they come up with 35.5?!

NOPE. WRONG.

If fuel IS scarce, rising costs (the market's price-driven self-regulation of energy supply) will create market demand for more fuel efficient vehicles, as they have already done. The government's involvement is useless, worthless, and contributes nothing but pats on the back for the pathetic retards we put in office and new levels of bureaucracy. We pay for it through more expensive cars and a lower economic standard of living.

Barry should resign and take his stoner a** back to Hawaii, and he can take Nancy, Harry, the rest of the Dems in congress, and the sellouts in the GOP with him. They can move into a beach condo and we can keep them inside with electrified fences so they can't harm free people ever again.

The government, as usual (and much of the easily frightened and manipulated public) shows an unfortunate inability to understand the vast interactions and mechanisms of open markets that create good for society and drive investment in technology.

[Razi]

NOPE. WRONG.

If fuel IS scarce, rising costs (the market's price-driven self-regulation of energy supply) will create market demand for more fuel efficient vehicles, as they have already done. The government's involvement is useless, worthless, and contributes nothing but pats on the back for the pathetic retards we put in office and new levels of bureaucracy. We pay for it through more expensive cars and a lower economic standard of living.

THISIt's f***ing retarded and pointless.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Because it is not the government's job to tell me what I can buy, either directly or indirectly.

And because it's not the government's job to dictate where progress should be focused. As Jesda said, market conditions already DO dictate this kind of stuff. That's why we have the Fit, and the upcoming Ford Fiesta, Mazda 2, Chevy Aveo, etc. We don't need fuel economy LAWS for that crap. If I want to buy a 12mpg truck, that's my damn right. And if I want to drive a 15mpg performance V8, that's my right. This is not the feds' business, and they need to stay out of it. Like you said, where the hell did 35.5 come from? Is it even feasible? What's this going to do to car prices?

And, perhaps most importantly, FORCING change through legislation on such a short timeframe is likely to result in POOR solutions. Good solutions would NATURALLY arise due to market influence. But now automakers have to rush to meet the standard by the deadline or pay fines, which is bad for EVERYONE.

And, anyway, no matter how bad gas prices get, people will still NEED cars that aren't supermidgetmobiles. People NEED family haulers, NEED work trucks. You can't just legislate away all the evil fuel-guzzlers and expect the world to keep right on happily spinning without a hitch. There are far greater issues in this world than fuel economy.

[HashiriyaS14]

Pointless legislation. Market forces can and DO dictate fuel economy needs and technological advancement.

"HEY GUYS I MADE IT A LAW R U PROUD OF ME?"Thanks, politicians, for nothing.

^^THIS

If someone were to read the whole article, this would be immediately apparent. The law just moves along the same trend line that has already been created by the markets.

It said that fleet averages are already like 31-33mpg, and that they will be 37mpg by 2016, which means they're just mapping the law along the same curve to LOOK like they're doing something, when in fact the private actions are outpacing the legislation.

Like you said, where the hell did 35.5 come from? Is it even feasible? What's this going to do to car prices?

^^Funny you should ask.

Additionally, they mention that by 2016 an additional $950 will be added to the price of the average car to achieve this higher mileage, but that the average owner will save $3,000 over the period of ownership because of the advances, making it an attractive bargain by market standards. This is why the MPG is increasing, it has nothing to do with the government. They're just trying to make it look like they're the ones responsible.

This legislation won't do a thing to car prices outside of what market forces are already doing. Pricing will rise and cost of ownership will fall, at least for awhile, until the economizing technologies become cheaper over time along their own technological s-curve.

[raremotive]

Man, I wish there was a limit on terms for senators and representative members. I think those seats are just too warm.

[Dattebayo]

I wouldn't call it pointless legislation, I would just call it "they are saying it's for one point but it really works toward another".

I don't know if they are really that stupid or if we are being deliberately hoodwinked?

[Jesda]

I wouldn't call it pointless legislation, I would just call it "they are saying it's for one point but it really works toward another".

I don't know if they are really that stupid or if we are being deliberately hoodwinked?

They aren't stupid. Voters are.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Voters are.

YES! This is the fatal flaw of democracy.

[C-Kwik]

NOPE. WRONG.

If fuel IS scarce, rising costs (the market's price-driven self-regulation of energy supply) will create market demand for more fuel efficient vehicles, as they have already done. The government's involvement is useless, worthless, and contributes nothing but pats on the back for the pathetic retards we put in office and new levels of bureaucracy. We pay for it through more expensive cars and a lower economic standard of living.

While that sounds reasonable, the oil market is more sensitive to immediate supply and demand. That is, the supply of gasoline production. The reality is that oil is projected to effectively run out sometime this century. New sources are going to get much harder (more expensive) to find and extract. We can't simply flip a switch to turn-on alternative energy sources. The infrasturcture and process of changing how consumers use energy is going to take time and money to effect. And we are likely to be dependent on fossil fuel for sometime still. Raising fuel efficiency helps to extend our timelines.

Secondly, without trying to turn this into a global warming debate, higher fuel mileage translates very directly to less CO2 produced per mile. All hydrocarbon fuels basically produce CO2 and H2O when oxidized. While the number of carbon atoms vary with different fuels, any decrease in the amount of fuel burned means less CO2 for that given fuel.

There are back end costs that are not considered by such a simple supply/demand model. Such legislation merely helps account for more of it.

If someone were to read the whole article, this would be immediately apparent. The law just moves along the same trend line that has already been created by the markets.

It said that fleet averages are already like 31-33mpg, and that they will be 37mpg by 2016, which means they're just mapping the law along the same curve to LOOK like they're doing something, when in fact the private actions are outpacing the legislation.

Interesting POV. But one would have to wonder if the pace would be what it is without forcing. I'm not sure exactly how they calculate CAFE now, but there appears to be an element of weight involved. But with the old system of classes (passenger cars and light trucks and a set goal for each), there had to be some effect on increasing fuel mileage across the board in order to make sure CAFE numbers were met. While high mileage cars help a lot, there are only so many of those you can sell. The solution isn't so simple as selling more of the higher mileage cars. Reducing fuel consumption across the board would reduce the burden on higher mileage cars. Which means there would likely be some effect from forcing on all the cars.

And, anyway, no matter how bad gas prices get, people will still NEED cars that aren't supermidgetmobiles. People NEED family haulers, NEED work trucks. You can't just legislate away all the evil fuel-guzzlers and expect the world to keep right on happily spinning without a hitch. There are far greater issues in this world than fuel economy.

Noone is saying otherwise. But not everyone buying big trucks and SUVs actually haul more than 5 people on a regular basis or tow or haul stuff regularly. And there are other options for hauling more people. Minivans can haul more than 5 people and typically better gas mileage than SUVs that have 3rd row seating. Sure, 26" bling wheels would not look as cool on it, but if the choice of vehicles is dependent on funtion, then there are other options. The reality is many who buy SUVs don't actually NEED them. But even aside from that, what's wrong with increasing the gas mileage of the SUV's and Trucks that people NEED. Hell, what's wrong with increasing the gas mileage of vehicles that people WANT?

[szh]

YES! This is the fatal flaw of democracy.

Like I have always said, the best form of government is a benign dictatorship.

Z

[Jesda]

Hell, what's wrong with increasing the gas mileage of vehicles that people WANT?

Nothing, but there IS something wrong with using the force of government to impose your will upon others. You're skimming right over the issue because you see nothing morally wrong with exerting an agenda over unwilling members of a society.

The use of government authority in a democracy frequently involves dominance over an unwilling minority, so it ought to be used SPARINGLY. Playing catch-up with existing market-driven fuel economy demands is a very poor use of that potentially destructive power.

The "center" political needle worldwide has moved in a direction (call it left or right, I don't care) that assumes the tyranny of the majority is accepted on all levels of human existence. A decade ago, the question of whether to use legislation and government bureaucracy to achieve a specific agenda was at least discussed and argued at length before moving on to the secondary issue of "will this new program work".

Government can play a role in developing infrastructure for communication, transportation, education, and so on. It ought to do so with concern for the individual choices available in a free and open society.

CAFE approaches the energy problem the way putting a bucket under a bleeding amputee resolves "the blood problem". Its a rather unfortunate cycle -- choke the auto industry then bail it out, then choke it again and bail it out a few years later. [If it moves, tax it. If it stops, subsidize it.]

Technological advancement is far more effective than government could ever be, and if it wants to play a fair role without infringing upon the market it can offer tax incentives for alternative energy development and utilization.