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).

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.

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.

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.

.

Unfortunately, I was wrong.

More government BS.

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.

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.

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).

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”.

Wheelbase? Are you kidding me?