M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Gasoline mileage for SUV’s was supposed to reach 55 miles per gallon by 2025. Up from 38 mpg now.
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not sure any of that was intended seriously. Might have just been one of those “someday we’ll…” things like “we’ll balance the budget in ten years”.
E
exnihilo
Guest
It’s nuts. The thing is that kind of MPG was obtained a long time ago. The problem is all the safety features the government requires makes cars heavier. Thus they need more safety features to protect yourself from other heavy cars. Thus the need for larger engines to propel the heavy vehicle.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
CNSNews
www.cnsnews.com
excerpt:
Pruitt said the emissions standards for cars and light trucks set by the previous administration were “inappropriate and should be revised.” His agency announced Monday that it planned to revise the standards, but did not specify what specific standards would be set going forward.
“I think the focus in the past has been on making manufacturers in Detroit, making manufacturers in various parts of the country make cars that people aren’t going to buy, and our focus should be on making cars that people purchase actually more efficient,” Pruitt told reporters.
“To have arbitrary percentages of our fleet made up of vehicles that aren’t going to be purchase, that defeats the very purpose of what the CAFE standards are supposed to address,” Pruitt said.
“We should be focused on making those cars more efficient, because if not, then individuals will stay in older vehicles, as Peter indicated, and emissions will go up, so we will get this right going forward this year, but it is very right for us to be here to recognize that what was done in 2011 and 12 as we evaluate it now is not appropriate going forward, and we’re going to get it right as we address it this year,” he said.
Pruitt said revising emissions standards is “another step” in President Donald Trump’s “deregulatory agenda.”
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
I visited the EPA NHTSA sites which are incomprehensible.
However I did find this:
Six months after taking office, the Trump administration began to contemplate easing future Corporate Average Fuel Economy targets. Over the past week, Bloomberg has run a few pieces on what the new CAFE mandates might look like, and how the administration could try to justify them. According to a draft proposal put together by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the most serious climbdown would lower average fleetwide fuel economy to 35.7 miles per gallon for passenger cars (but not light trucks) by 2021, instead of the current target of 46.6 mpg in 2021 set by the previous administration. That represents a 23.3-percent decrease. Note, though, that CAFE numbers don’t represent real-world driving; 50 CAFE mpg equals about 36 real-world mpg.
Per Bloomberg, traffic fatalities could be one rationale the administration could use for reducing targets — namely, that there’ll be fewer road fatalities if we have heavier vehicles, and their lower mpg numbers, on the roads. The NHTSA analysis predicts there would be 1,200 fewer traffic deaths per year from 2036 to 2045 by reducing CAFE targets by 23 percent. The potential for rising fatalities due to lighter, frugal vehicles has long been researched and debated.
Also, a 35.7-mpg standard would mean that instead of needing 61 percent of new vehicle sales to be PHEVs, only 10 percent of new vehicles would need to be plug-in hybrids. That would make cars $1,800 less expensive, but result in drivers buying 77 billion gallons more fuel.
Other scenarios study smaller concessions. Setting the standard at 42.1 mpg instead of 46.6 has been projected to save 675 lives from 2036 to 2045, cut the price of a new vehicle by $1,275, and add 49 billion gallons of gas to the national thirst compared to the current standards.
However I did find this:
Six months after taking office, the Trump administration began to contemplate easing future Corporate Average Fuel Economy targets. Over the past week, Bloomberg has run a few pieces on what the new CAFE mandates might look like, and how the administration could try to justify them. According to a draft proposal put together by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the most serious climbdown would lower average fleetwide fuel economy to 35.7 miles per gallon for passenger cars (but not light trucks) by 2021, instead of the current target of 46.6 mpg in 2021 set by the previous administration. That represents a 23.3-percent decrease. Note, though, that CAFE numbers don’t represent real-world driving; 50 CAFE mpg equals about 36 real-world mpg.
Per Bloomberg, traffic fatalities could be one rationale the administration could use for reducing targets — namely, that there’ll be fewer road fatalities if we have heavier vehicles, and their lower mpg numbers, on the roads. The NHTSA analysis predicts there would be 1,200 fewer traffic deaths per year from 2036 to 2045 by reducing CAFE targets by 23 percent. The potential for rising fatalities due to lighter, frugal vehicles has long been researched and debated.
Also, a 35.7-mpg standard would mean that instead of needing 61 percent of new vehicle sales to be PHEVs, only 10 percent of new vehicles would need to be plug-in hybrids. That would make cars $1,800 less expensive, but result in drivers buying 77 billion gallons more fuel.
Other scenarios study smaller concessions. Setting the standard at 42.1 mpg instead of 46.6 has been projected to save 675 lives from 2036 to 2045, cut the price of a new vehicle by $1,275, and add 49 billion gallons of gas to the national thirst compared to the current standards.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Does any one actually know how the EPA calculates mileage?
I know of some differences between their test and real word driving. (src, pdf) Ex: their gas has no ethanol and hence has a higher energy density, they test on a dynamo and not a real road. Did updates to their calculation method have any impact on the mileage requirements? As far as I can tell real world mileage and EPA mileage are two entirely different metrics.
I know of some differences between their test and real word driving. (src, pdf) Ex: their gas has no ethanol and hence has a higher energy density, they test on a dynamo and not a real road. Did updates to their calculation method have any impact on the mileage requirements? As far as I can tell real world mileage and EPA mileage are two entirely different metrics.
T
Theo520
Guest
These standards were far too aggressive. However, in principle, I agree with gradually increasing standards, which will drive ongoing innovation and development in design. The operative word being ‘gradual’ though, not drastic.
D
DaveBj
Guest
My experience with new (or almost new) vehicles is pretty sparse – three in the last 20 years, but I have found that I can pretty well match the EPA results. Also, I’ve never been able to detect a difference in performance or mileage between straight 87-octane and the E10 blend.
I’ve been waiting to say this in a literal sense – your mileage may vary
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
If Obama is not qualified, what makes anyone think Trumps is qualified to make such decisions?
T
Theo520
Guest
Odd, since it’s that community that has pushed hardest to relax the Obama standards
Obama doubled the efficiency standards in a relatively short period. Regulations thrown out in the final weeks of any administration should always be suspect, likely to be driven by ideology rather than science.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...listic-cite-costs-and-consumers-idUSKBN1CB2UY
I
Inisfallen
Guest
And of course Donald Trump has far more automotive engineering experience than Barack Obama, right?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
CD45 . . .
(I’ll join you in that call. We can together ALSO call to have the Justice Department break up MANY other corporate entities too–not just BIG Oil).
God bless.
Cathoholic
Why not call for them (“gas and oil interests”) to be broken up if they are so powerful?
(I’ll join you in that call. We can together ALSO call to have the Justice Department break up MANY other corporate entities too–not just BIG Oil).
God bless.
Cathoholic
Last edited:
R
Road-Worrier
Guest
What qualifications do these unnamed “member” have? Since they’ve apparently set unmeetable standards, their expertise may be suspect.
Since the car buying public prefers big cars to small cars, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say the EPA represents the interests of the American people, as opposed to a small group of environmental alarmists?
Automakers preferring to make cars that people want over cars that unelected bureaucrats wish they wanted seems like a good business decision.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
CD45 . . .
Oil company “control” has been around as long as I recall (in addition to their OVER size).
This suggests undue influence on politicians . . . virtually ALL politicians.
(This is what happens CD45 with Business that is too big, in the sense of influential over politicians mixed with Government that is ALSO too BIG, controlling and entrenched in the sense that they can go to their oil “lords” and get monies for “re-election after re-election.”
Why not join me in calls for term-limits and down-sizing Government too? (That way it might be tougher for the new politicians to get their palms “oiled”).
So this is not a “Trump phenomenon”.
It has been going on proverbially forever.
And it is time to put a (political) stop to this BIG Business-BIG Government juggernaut folks like you and I would say . . . . right?
Now let’s work together, call for anti-trust laws to be used and ask to have them (and so many other companies) “broken up”.
These options seem logical enough.
Turn them into MANY little-control oil outfits, more jobs, more competition, less “controlling”, etc.
Let’s look to ways we can downsize Government too. REAL downsizing.
Doesn’t this sound reasonable?
OK. They can obtain too much control.
Oil company “control” has been around as long as I recall (in addition to their OVER size).
This suggests undue influence on politicians . . . virtually ALL politicians.
(This is what happens CD45 with Business that is too big, in the sense of influential over politicians mixed with Government that is ALSO too BIG, controlling and entrenched in the sense that they can go to their oil “lords” and get monies for “re-election after re-election.”
Why not join me in calls for term-limits and down-sizing Government too? (That way it might be tougher for the new politicians to get their palms “oiled”).
So this is not a “Trump phenomenon”.
It has been going on proverbially forever.
And it is time to put a (political) stop to this BIG Business-BIG Government juggernaut folks like you and I would say . . . . right?
Now let’s work together, call for anti-trust laws to be used and ask to have them (and so many other companies) “broken up”.
These options seem logical enough.
Turn them into MANY little-control oil outfits, more jobs, more competition, less “controlling”, etc.
Let’s look to ways we can downsize Government too. REAL downsizing.
Doesn’t this sound reasonable?
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Run a life cycle analysis and get back to us.
R
Road-Worrier
Guest
Seems like you’re real problem is that it just chaps your hide that people have different opinions and priorities than you do. Can’t have that.
T
Theo520
Guest
why did you completely ignore my supporting paragraph?
Obama doubled the fuel standards that must be met in a very short time frame. Not really an achievable goal given the time frame and that the easy progress in improving standards has already been implemented. It really wasn’t achievable as a goal. BTW, I’m all for a constant and gradual increase in standards, it drives constant innovation by the car makers.
Obama added this regulation as a parting gift to the next administration, it was left as a turd on the table, it was ideological, not fact based.
R
Road-Worrier
Guest
So, stupid is disagreeing with you? This is how you got Trump, so by all means, keep it up.
T
Theo520
Guest
Well, we’ve got a 7 year wait before we can see what ‘Easter eggs’ Trump hides for his replacement.If, as you say, Mr. Obama “left a turd on the table”, I can’t wait for your characterization of what Mr. Trump will leave behind!
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Or perhaps three, nobody can say that Trump’s re-election will be a slam dunk. He is not universally supported among republicans and it will not be difficult for the democrats to nominate someone more attractive than Hillary.
- Status