Hmmm, I see. So if they just build vehicles a little BIGGER, all will be OK. Let me work on that logic for a while….

Cool. So if the manufacturers push the tires out to the corners which normally benefits handling then they can circumvent this ridiculous bureaucratic BS.

Sucks to live in the US.

im confused

Also, CAFE standards in Haiti will triple over the next ten years. That’s right, the countries 47 cars will ALL be replaced by 2015. Soon after that—because global warming will have ended—AIDS, famine, and abject poverty will be a thing of the past. Thanks Algore.

That is confusing, and where is the cost benefit analysis? I happen to agree with the IDEA of CAFE, but the actual implementations, like so many other laws in this country, SUCK!

Seriously, are these guys making this sh*t up as they go along? This is what happens when you put people in charge who think they are acting on behalf of the majority, when in reality they’re so far out of touch they might as well be from a different planet. Speaking of which, anyone know if there’s oil on Mars? I’ll bet that if there is, the oil companies would have a pipeline set up faster than the time it would take NASA to do a manned mission even if you gave them the American military budget.

i think the guys/gals makin all this **** up is just bored and need to come up with as much bull**** to make there bosses happy…in fact i think thats how alot of stupid laws come from, a bunch of bored housewives and snobby wooses with too much time on there hands…

So yeah, you can f*** up the environment, but only in giant Ford/GM trucks! Using German supercars is not allowed!
Who thinks this **** up!? Are they on acid or something!?!
Who does more harm, 10000×911s or 2milion Ford F150s?
Why don’t they make fuel economy depend on the number of vehicles produced every year!?! This way, small manufacturers would be given a break!

Why does all environmental regulation seem to punish small cars and help large vehicles?

Wheelbase? Are you kidding me?

That doesn’t make since to me. I thought the CAFE was going to be a fairly unilateral set of numbers.

By 2015 cars were expected to average around 32mpg, a bit less actually. Truck would have to do a little short of 29mpg. Wile most automakers simply do not have the resources to ramp up F/Econ without sacking performance, I though these numbers would work nicely for most companies letting them ease into it.

Meanwhile, I except investors to make a few shiny pennies on backing new start up in the auto industry who will come in on the premise of vastly better F/econ that the major makers can muster, without sacrificing performance.

I would think PORSCHE would put some money on this problem rather than use it as an excuse to jack up prices even higher. They have been so good at making remarkably efficient Sports cars I would think they might look at taking further. A 911 that averages 40MPG would be pretty sweet on a number of levels.

johnnycanuck,

As far as we know, life never developed far enough or enough of it to decay into oil and coal. I know you were joking. But Space development would help use planetside.

Figuring out how to make Hydrogen , transport it, store it, and use it efficiently and safely better fuel cells, because every country and company would want less expensive hardware for Space travel. Better batteries and more of them. Better materials and how to manufacture, shape, and use them at a lower cost.

Face it, ending the space race made the technologies that actually make us go stop growing and evolving.

Maybe some smart, new, companies will have better answers than, “We are working on it”, but more like “It’ll be out next year”.

Really retarded, not even worth trying to figure this one out.

Ahh, no you can’t just make a vehicle bigger. After all a larger vehicle can’t get as good economy as a smaller vehicle (weight and aerodynamics etc. work against you). The new proposal seeks to encourage manufacturers to build the most efficient vehicle possible for a given size, instead of how it works at present which works to level out fuel efficiency so that small vehicles don’t get much or any better fuel economy than a large one. E.g. a small V6 pickup doesn’t get any better fuel economy than the best large V8 models. Under the new proposal, a smaller truck would have to get better economy than a large one. At the same time you can’t skate by selling a few very inefficient gas guzzlers because are more successful selling smaller cars with better than average economy. In future to balance gas guzzlers your small cars would not only have to be better than the required average, but better than the required average for vehicles their size.

The new proposal sets a maximum target fuel economy for the smallest cars (about the size of a late model Echo or smaller), and a minimum target for the largest cars (about the size of a 300C or larger—fwd cars because of their shorter wheelbases must be larger to warrant the minimum target). Anything smaller than an Echo (say a Chevrolet Beat or Fiat 500) doesn’t have any higher a target (current subcompacts such as the Aveo are set a target 0.1 mpg under the maximum). Anything larger than a Charger (say an A8L, Town Car, Maybach or RR), still has to meet the minimum, no matter how large. A target figure is calculated for every individual vehicle a manufacturer sells. These targets are added up and averaged to get the manufacturers CAFE required, one for trucks, one for imported cars, and one for domestic (NAFTA) cars. In addition there is a further minimum standard for cars, roughly equivalent to that required for a midsize family sedan (the target for the new Nissan Maxima for example). The actual CAFE acieved is then compared with this personalized target. In practice a manufacturer is expected to attempt to try and meet the individual target for every model they build. This will mean bigger improvements for smaller cars, which are further behind and have the biggest opportunity for improvement.

The predicted industry-wide CAFE in 2015 is dependent then on what vehicles people buy. The NHTSA is factoring in expected rises in the cost of fuel, and the relatively greater improvement in fuel economy, to drive purchases of smaller cars. The more small cars people buy the better fuel economy manufacturers will have to meet. If state or federal governments implement further incentives to promote purchases of smaller cars (cheaper registration and insurance, cheaper parking, congestion charges, annual CO2 taxes, rebates for purchasing more efficient vehicles etc.), then resulting CAFE requirements will increase accordingly.

They chose footprint (wheelbase x track) because that figure was harder to change over a vehicle’s lifespan—any increase usually requires a full model change and a new platform (something Toyota does usually only every second generation, about 10 years). Year-to-year increases in economy therefore have to be met with real improvements in economy, rather than a midcycle redesign of the front and rear bumpers (a new front and rear clip can easily add 9″ or more in overall length).

We’ve had it too good for too long. I don’t mind paying more for performance. If auto companies don’t find it profitable to make 400hp suv’s for soccer moms then they’ll just have to make due with some 200hp wagon. *GASP*
And while pushing the wheelbase out sounds like better handling, I sure hope they don’t end up making more cars as wide as suv’s so that more idiots cram into parking spaces and ding up other people’s doors. I see people do that without even noticing and it takes all my self restraint not to slash their tires.

Genius spoke.
it is rather strange regulation, however. Why not copy what others are doing? Why not work with international body so cars all over the planet would not pollute? Is this that difficult?

Porsche’s solution is to buy VW.

Let the loop-holes begin. I’m not a fan of extreme CAFE standards but how is this more effective? This is the best example of what can result when our brilliant elected officials –right-wing and left– find common ground to help the American people. Everybody feel warm and fuzzy now that your government has stepped in to save the day? Typical.

I kind of see what they’re going for with this as smaller vehicles should be able to get better gas mileage. Keep in mind that Porsche would be most effected because it has the largest concentration of smaller vehicles as opposed to Chevrolet and/or Toyota which both have a broad range of vehicles. Also keep in mind that Porsche makes the most money off of each vehicle they sell, so one could make an argument that they could afford it the most. The problem comes 1) because we’re enthusiast and like small, fast, and sometimes inefficient vehicles and 2) for companies like Lotus and other boutique manufacturers. If CAFE where to allow exemptions for companies that sell under a certain number of cars though the second point could be avoided for Lotus, Caterham, Bugatti & the likes.

Also keep in mind that GM would be effected by this just as much as Porsche. GM not only owns GMC and Chevrolet but also Saab, a company with just one SUV (9-7x) that will soon be discontinued. Saab & Pontiac could find themselves in the same position as Porsche, Volvo, Subaru, Mazda, and a few other smaller niche brands.

No-one else has a fuel-economy standard. At all. They just have incentives to purchase smaller cars, and penalties for purchasing larger ones. Of course better fuel economy was usually not the intent just a side effect of the failed drive to egalitarianism.

Porsche did seek a waiver, which was denied. There is also no longer a waiver for gross vehicle weight. If it’s a passenger vehicle, it must meet the standard no matter how big or heavy it is. There is an exemption for actual work trucks, but the NHTSA is required to conduct a study on setting fuel economy requirements for commercial vehicles of all weight classes as well, so that exemption is just for these standards.

There is also a very minor and diminishing credit (zero mpg by 2020) for flexfuel vehicles.

So you can just make an even larger car… or pay a fine and get around the standards? How is this supposed to help anything?

More government BS.

I’m ****ing lost. I read and reread the part about the “relative” area between the tires, but the article didn’t specify how that relates to the expected % increase in economy. Then they just blurted out some **** about Porsche being the hardest hit. Why exactly? Garbage

When I read the part about measuring fuel economy by the vehicles wheelbase, I had thought someone had hacked into LLN, and wrote something silly to surprise us all.

.

Unfortunately, I was wrong.

“Makers such as Porsche may opt to pay fines instead of trying to meet such lofty goals, and risking diluting the brand and making it unattractive to customers, not to mention the high costs involved in doing so.” — This is what I’ve been saying all along. Look at who’s getting paid again, our boy uncle sam. Pushing CAFE standard looks good to the public, but the motivation behind it goes a lot further than they’ll admit.

Dear God, how many of you passed high-school physics? A larger vehicle will be heavier, and have a larger frontal area. Therefore it will require more energy to accelerate it, and to keep it moving through the air. Therefore it uses more fuel. You can’t get around the new standard by making a car bigger, and you can’t just increase the wheelbase because you have tough pedestrian and other safety regs which require an extensive soft crush space in front of and above the engine and other hard points. You do get an advantage for moving to rwd (and so can move the engine further behind the front wheels), but some of that will be eaten up by the decreased efficiency and greater mass. A large car might not have to meet as tough a standard as a small car (up to a certain point), but it still has to meet a fairly tough standard, and you can’t balance it out because you sell a lot of small cars, because they have to meet an even tougher standard, as much as 41.7 mpg (combined) in 2015. No more free ride because no one actually buys your largest cars and trucks, or because you don’t even build them—everything has to be bleeding edge fuel efficient.

The fuel economy target curve is shaped like a playground slide. At the top, for the smallest cars it’s flat, and at the bottom for the largest cars it’s also flat. In between the slope gradually gets steeper, and near the bottom flattens out again (the NHTSA calls it a reverse S-curve). At the top and bottom end it pays to make a car smaller, at the top (smallest cars) because your increased fuel efficiency from lower mass and frontal area gives you extra credits without a higher target, and at the bottom (almost any EPA large car), because you don’t get any extra credit to compensate for your increased mass and frontal area. Every year the curve moves upwards, requiring every car and truck to improve its efficiency.

Sports cars in general get hit hard, because being 2- or only occasional 4-seaters they tend to have short wheelbases, but usually larger engines and thus worse fuel-economy than other vehicles of a similar size. If like Lotus, you are all about minimalism—a small engine in a very light car, it may not be so bad. But for Porsche, a big six, in a relatively heavy awd car with a shorter wheelbase than normal for even similar rwd coupes, it gets very bad, very quickly. The heavy and thirsty Cayenne doesn’t help matters. Time to go on a diet and bring back the 4-cylinder 912.

Who cares? Porsche can afford it anyway with their overpriced cars.

I think (not sure) in UK they got it right. Your vehicle is taxed based on carbon emissions it will produce. Drive whatever you like, just pay the piper. If you use your vehicle for business you will pass the cost to your customers. I am all for better mileage (just to piss off our “allies” from Middle East and Russia) and for less government intervention. The latter can happen only when laws are simple.

autonut: ‘when laws are simple’? Well that sure doesn’t seem to be the problem here now does it?

LOL! Good thinking, Porsche’s idea of VW. Yea, they prob need to change their chassis, at least finally there will be some change in the company beginning with extending the wheelbase.

Griffin (#13, #24)

I really have no idea where to start so I’ll just say this much:

CAFE in 2015, you badly overstated the figure. It is 31.7 mpg for cars and just under 29 for trucks and SUVs. I mean, c’mon, how can the CAFE be 41.7mpg when the government has already stated 35mpg and 75mpg by 2050?. Please actually read the news instead of imagining it.

The short term solution is Hybrids. I’m not fan of Parallel Hybrids, but it is the best way to use the technology with existing designs. Serial Hybrids are vastly better in the long run. They offer more options and forgo heavier engines and complex expensive transmissions. Parallel is exactly the opposite.

Large vehicles are easier to make more efficient at speed that smaller cars. Hard to believe but true. More surface area to work with.

Reducing weight will be accomplished by using more advanced lighter weight materials. These usually cast more so going piece by piece is the wisest choice. The CORVETTE is a very good example of this. For what the near future could hold see here:

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid191.php

The technology exists today for the major car makers to make full-sized SUVs that get 50+mpg and cars that can get over 60mpg with much loss in performance. 100+mpg with real performance, maybe not Shelby GT500 Mustang, but much better than a Prius with a tailwind.

The GM Ultralite Concept (1992) was a brilliantly optimized car that had 111hp, got 88mpg, and could go 130+mph… at about a $1M for the prototype. I think they made a total of 100 replicas most of which were in various sci-fi movies and TV shows including “Demolition Man” and “Seaquest DSV”. Online references are thin but are out there. Obviously there is hope.

I would recommend that you research the subject concerning all the points you over or misstated. While I would not lay good odds on DETROIT to make good use of their time. But I think if GM really bite down and just did it, they would have several good options by 2020.

I would look toward new smaller companies for now. They will light the fire under their asses to make those changes faster than and hotter than the Government could.

GEez,

Just trying to get a grip on what this guy was going on about was giving me a headache.

A couple of run-on paragraphs and alarmist schlock.

*For everyone who has ever had to read through my long-winded rants and lectures, I’m sorry. I can’t promise it won’t happen again but I’ll be more mindful of it in the future.

Porsche will just issue a big “**** you” to the US.

Blakkarr, stop imagining the facts and actually try and understand them. There is no single target. The proposal sets a maximum for the smallest cars (41.7 mpg in 2015), and a minimum for the largest cars (31.2 mpg in 2015). When combined with expected buying patterns, and higher fuel prices, this produces the targeted average. If people don’t buy smaller cars as expected, it won’t be met. It will be up to governments to provide financial incentives, and manufacturers to make each car meet it’s required target.

As for examples of actual targets by 2015, a Chevy Aveo in it’s current form would have to get 41.6 mpg (several other current models would have to meet this high a standard as well). Several late model subcompacts (but no current models), some sports cars such as the MX-5 and the smart fortwo would have to make 41.7 mpg. A Volkswagen Passat, 36.2 mpg, a Subaru Legacy 40.1 mpg, a BMW 3-series 37.1 mpg, an M3 35.2 mpg, a C-Class 34.7 mpg, a Lancer 39.4, a Cobalt 40.8, a Corolla 39.9, a Civic 38.5, a Camry 33.4, a Fusion 35.1, a Malibu 33.8, an Accord 32.6 mpg, a Mk Z 35.1,a G8 31.4, Hyundai Genesis 31.5 and a Charger 31.2, a Mk S 31.3, a Lucerne 31.4. The largest car (a Maybach 62) must meet the same standard as a Chrysler 300, even though the footprint is much greater (69.4 sq. ft. v 52.5 sq.ft). A manufacturer must have a passenger car average of no less than 32.9 mpg in 2015, most will have to do better since they’ll be weighted more toward the high end (compacts and subcompacts). Of course the specific targets will change as models are updated (most twice by 2015).

Forget the spin, these are the actual targets in the NHTSA’s proposal, if anyone is willing to take the time to read that far. For anything classed as a truck the 2015 target would vary between 24.8 mpg (only the most humungous lwb pickups and vans, no SUVS) and 34.3 mpg (although I can’t find an example this small sold for on-road use in the US, GM does build them for the Chinese market, and the late swb RAV4 3-door came close).

Despite what LLN says, a Suzuki truck doesn’t have to meet any different standard than a GM truck the same size. Their CAFE will be higher, because they don’t sell many midsize or any large vehicles, but an individual model isn’t penalized any more than a similar model by anyone else. A Suzuki Equator, because it’s wider than a Chevrolet Colorado, actually has a target more than 2 mpg less (27.2 v 29.5 mpg).

I wonder how Jeep is going to get the Wrangler up from 10.5 mpg to 25?

DeansterTJ, Liberty CRD was doing better then that, when it was available. 5,000 of them were sold instantly.

johnny, you are correct. Government here to help us.

okay well its April 5th, 2009, what was ACTUALLY adopted?