New Car MPG Politics

[terndude]

Originally Posted by azfan

Use to live in California. Most beautiful place to live. Unfortunately it's taken over by nuts and foreigners. Hopefully they will get their way, pass more insane laws, and the Car Companies will just pull out of there , like all other businesses do.

Oh, I used to live in CA as well and I agree about who's taken over. But back in the 90's CA really helped push technology with their "percent of cars that must be zero emission" law. The EV1 was a pretty slick little car...I rode in one when they had them at the local Saturn dealer. I think a lot of us would have electric cars for commuting and muscle cars for cruising right now if they kept it up...but CA ditched the law and the EV1, and the technology in them, were gone in a heartbeat. I had a Honda Insight for a while and it really kept the miles off my Colorado and Fiero. At least the VOLT will help bring Chevy's mileage average up in the near future, but think how high it would be if they already had three or four electric cars available right now.

Leaving CO2 aside, when you look at how much the air quality in places like LA have improved over the last 30 years, it sure looks like they got something right. Here in Oregon there are all kinds of blue-smoke-blowers, mostly old early-'90s Hondas and Acuras, and you never ever saw that in CA unless the car was 30+ years old (like my stanky 65 Caddy!)

I like's me some rumble, don't get me wrong, but for daily driving I stick with the wife's econo-car...especially when gas tops $4/gal. Personally, I'm looking forward to a Camaro that gets kick-ass mileage. If not for the regulations, trust me, it wouldn't, and it would cost twice as much to feed. If GM can crank out a 304HP 29MPG car as big as the Camaro, just think what's next!!

[SS 376]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

This isn't really "news". The standard of 35 by 2020 was set last year. GM as a whole may be a little bit lower, but I know for a fact that as of last year, CHEVROLET had a average mpg rating of 27.5x...so this isn't too bad...yet.

And so long as the gov't compensates the Industry with the likes of that $25 billion set aside for "green" vehicles. I personally, don't have a problem with it...I agree with the theory...just not the execution, if that makes any sense. :(

We need to stop sending money to countries that send terrorists over here to kill Americans. Only way to do that is to get off dependence on foreign oil.

[Silver Streak]

All this talk about Global warning and the effects of pollution. Honestly I don't know about cars and how much their effect would be or is actually overall, but the electric system I do have alot of knowledge. I am a system operator for the bulk electric system and we have many studies on pollutions created by different types of generation. I can tell you what is spewed out into the atmosphere does have undeniable effects on our atmosphere, coal being the worst of these. Alot of our generated electric throughout the industry is coal plants, and it's something that we need to evolve from. There are many arguments about if the planet is warming or cooling. But there is no denying the ice caps are melting very unexpectedly fast. This is a big problem and if anything we do can help to prevent this, we damn sure should. Sometimes I wonder how anyone can say what we do does not effect this planet. That is denial. Does anyone remember Acid rain. We should do what we can to be good stewarts of our planet. I agree there are things that happen that we have no contirbution to, but if there is a slight chance that we can make a difference with new and improved technologies I think it would be in our best interest to do so, and not fight it. Fossil fuels is old technology. Not to say that we shouldn't have gas combustion engines, in fact I would venture to say that there would be a good chance that if we changed our approach to producing electricity that that alone might be enough, I don't know. I want my V8 too, and I suspect that we will have them for awhile longer, but if they change the whole way of automobile power plants, I would give it a chance, and speed is something that is etched into our DNA, so whatever we do I know we will make it fast! IMO being so stubborn or set in your ways that you only see or hear what you want, you might just miss out on some finer things in life. So let the flaming begin Just remember I love this Camaro and I am purchasing that big ole V8 like alot of you, that being said, my mind will always be open to other ideas.

[Kyle2k]

The Bush administration had proposed new car and truck average of 31.2 mpg and 25 mpg, respectively. Cars will be required to return an average of 30.2 mpg, up from 27.5 mpg, while light-truck standards will increase to 24.1 mpg, an increase of 1 mpg. Automakers are expected to meet the 2011 standard with ease.

The Obama administration's rules aren't as tough as those originally proposed by the Bush administration.

- Insideline

[GTAHVIT]

Posts deleted, Stay on topic please...

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Joe Remi

Um, yeah. Debating warming/cooling theories doesn't change the fact that internal combustion engines produce pollution and consume a finite resource. If we can get it to work while producing and consuming less, why not?

I'm not even going against that because I agree. The only thing I have a problem with is when someone tells me what I can and can't drive and what I can and can't do (within reason, of course ) I'm down for efficiency and low pollution, not at the expense of much else though. More on that below...

Originally Posted by XanthosV6

I'd rather see lower emissions than higher gas mileage any day.

Instead of mandating these higher CAFE standards, how about we mandate more E85 vehicles? And put the money into the industry to get more E85 pumps running?

Personally, I don't run anything other than the 10% ethanol in my car because of the lower emissions.
- Xanthos

That makes sense too, however, in my area, I know of only ONE E85 station. If I had an E85 vehicle, I'd be there all the time. I don't completely know all the sides on the ups-and-downs with making E85 fuel, however, I don't understand why we can make synthetic oils by can't synthesize fuel. Maybe it's too expensive right now because gasoline is pretty cheap I'm, admittedly, ignorant on this kind of thing so I'm always open to listening.

Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N

foreigners?? sounds like some borderline racism there. Who are the true californians??

Hopefully it was a joke, because just about all of us are technically "foreigners".

Originally Posted by terndude

Oh, I used to live in CA as well and I agree about who's taken over. But back in the 90's CA really helped push technology with their "percent of cars that must be zero emission" law. The EV1 was a pretty slick little car...I rode in one when they had them at the local Saturn dealer. I think a lot of us would have electric cars for commuting and muscle cars for cruising right now if they kept it up...but CA ditched the law and the EV1, and the technology in them, were gone in a heartbeat. I had a Honda Insight for a while and it really kept the miles off my Colorado and Fiero. At least the VOLT will help bring Chevy's mileage average up in the near future, but think how high it would be if they already had three or four electric cars available right now.

Leaving CO2 aside, when you look at how much the air quality in places like LA have improved over the last 30 years, it sure looks like they got something right. Here in Oregon there are all kinds of blue-smoke-blowers, mostly old early-'90s Hondas and Acuras, and you never ever saw that in CA unless the car was 30+ years old (like my stanky 65 Caddy!)

I like's me some rumble, don't get me wrong, but for daily driving I stick with the wife's econo-car...especially when gas tops $4/gal. Personally, I'm looking forward to a Camaro that gets kick-ass mileage. If not for the regulations, trust me, it wouldn't, and it would cost twice as much to feed. If GM can crank out a 304HP 29MPG car as big as the Camaro, just think what's next!!

This is where I feel like I make up for my CARB-unfriendly '02. I drive a PZEV car during the week (and my 4Runner occationally) and get good mileage, considering all the stop-and-go. I feel like I could drive my polluting Z28 everyday and love it, but I'll be responsible to the enviornment and individuals with health problems and drive something cleaner. Why can't people who do that kinda' thing get a break or something to where we can enjoy our toys on the weekend once-and-a-while without getting CARB all pizzed? I pay my taxes, registration and insurance on all my cars, so why can't I have a little fun here and there?

Originally Posted by Silver Streak

All this talk about Global warning and the effects of pollution. Honestly I don't know about cars and how much their effect would or is actually overall, but the electric system I do have alot of knowledge. I am a system operator for the bulk electric system and we have many studies on pollutions created by different types of generation. I can tell you what is spewed out into the atmosphere does have undeniable effects on our atmosphere, coal being the worst of these. Alot of our generated electric throughout the industry is coal plants, and it's something that we need to evolve from. There are many arguments about if we are warming or cooling. But there is no denying the ice caps are melting very unexpectedly fast. This is a big problem and if anything we do can help to prevent this, we damn sure should. Sometimes I wonder how anyone can say what we do does not effect this planet. That is denial. Does anyone remember Acid rain. We should do what we can to be good stewarts of our planet. I agree there are things that happen that we have no contirbution to, but if there is a slight chance that we can make a difference with new and improved technologies I think it would be in our best interest to do so, and not fight it. Fossil fuels is old technology. Not to say that we shouldn't have gas combustion engines, in fact I would venture to say that there would be a good chance that if we changed our approach to producing electricity that that alone might be enough, I don't know. I want my V8 too, and I suspect that we will have them for awhile longer, but if they change the whole way of automobile power plants, I would give it a chance, and speed is something that is etched into our DNA, so whatever we do I know we will make it fast! IMO being so stubborn or set in your ways that you only see or hear what you want, you might just miss out on some finer things in life. So let the flaming begin Just remember I love this Camaro and I am purchasing that big ole V8 like alot of you, that being said, my mind will always be open to other ideas.

If we could strike a balance with having these cars and more friendly transportation, I'd be happy. I think most people don't even care about what car they drive - they just want to get from Point A to Point B. If we get those people into more friendly cars, and just let the relatively few enthusiasts do their thing, what's the harm? I don't know about where I fall on who I believe about the enfluence we have on the planet, but know that ice caps have melted and froze many times before. I agree that we should try to be responsible though and do what we can. The Earth is changing all the time. People talk about the sea level rising; I just learned that the crust can actually rebound and even collapse over huge areas; that's one of the reasons why the Great Lakes have developed the way they have. There's, apparently, parts of Ontario that are actually increasing in height, changing the elevation and topagraphy of the land, because the glaciers that covered much of North America several thousands of years ago have receeded and the weight holding the continental crust down is not mostly gone, allowing the crust to come back to it's natural shape. My point is that who's to say the sea level rising isn't also a side effect of the Earth's crust actually changing shape, or something else geologically? I guess I'm just tired of feeling like what's being pushed on me is it's only human influences that are causing these changes to our climate and that there's no chance of an outside possiblities. I'm sure that we do have some influence, but to what degree, I'm not sure.

BTW Silver Streak - the comments above were in no way directed toward you. I meant them only generally, and actually value the experience and input that you've included in your post. My thinking regarding electric cars kinda' seems to fall in line with you comments about coal plants - it takes electricity to charge these cars, so they do, indirectly, emit emissions. Whether or not that electricity produces more emissions than a internal combustion engine/hyrbid, I don't know and haven't read, but goes to my skepticism about these cars benefits. I'd change my mind with some information though.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

The Bush administration had proposed new car and truck average of 31.2 mpg and 25 mpg, respectively. Cars will be required to return an average of 30.2 mpg, up from 27.5 mpg, while light-truck standards will increase to 24.1 mpg, an increase of 1 mpg. Automakers are expected to meet the 2011 standard with ease.

The Obama administration's rules aren't as tough as those originally proposed by the Bush administration.

- Insideline

I don't think pointing fingers at this administration is relavent. Also, please tread lighly regarding pollitical comments. Those discussions will be scrutinized closely.

Respectfully...

[SS 376]

Originally Posted by radz282003

I'm not even going against that because I agree. The only thing I have a problem with is when someone tells me what I can and can't drive and what I can and can't do (within reason, of course )

Would higher gasoline taxes be a better solution than mandating fuel economy standards?

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Can-Am

Would higher gasoline taxes be a better solution than mandating fuel economy standards?

In terms of Public Relations...or actual results?

Originally Posted by radz282003

I don't understand why we can make synthetic oils by can't synthesize fuel. Maybe it's too expensive right now because gasoline is pretty cheap I'm, admittedly, ignorant on this kind of thing so I'm always open to listening.

The term "synthetic" is a misnomer. It's more like genetic engineering...they just manipulate the oil's carbon chains to maximize its lubrication, and longevity. It's still starts as crude....
And if the gov't put more effort into creating an E85-capable infrastructure...this would all be a non-issue....but that makes too much sense.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

In terms of Public Relations...or actual results?

The term "synthetic" is a misnomer. It's more like genetic engineering...they just manipulate the oil's carbon chains to maximize its lubrication, and longevity. It's still starts as crude....
And if the gov't put more effort into creating an E85-capable infrastructure...this would all be a non-issue....but that makes too much sense.

AAAAHHHHHHAAAA!!! Now that you mention it, I remember watching a deal on Horsepower TV where they toured Royal Purple or something and they mentioned starting with crude... My bad

So is there a problem with the production of E85 causing corn and rice prices to increase with any significance? That's the only opposition to E85 that I can think of off the top of my head.

[Silver Streak]

Originally Posted by radz282003

AAAAHHHHHHAAAA!!! Now that you mention it, I remember watching a deal on Horsepower TV where they toured Royal Purple or something and they mentioned starting with crude... My bad

So is there a problem with the production of E85 causing corn and rice prices to increase with any significance? That's the only opposition to E85 that I can think of off the top of my head.

I do believe that another concern with e85 is the coal generators used to produce the E85. Kind of defeats the purpose. Using the same technology to produce a new technology.

[MrIcky]

Originally Posted by Can-Am

Would higher gasoline taxes be a better solution than mandating fuel economy standards?

This is a double edged sword:

Making fuel more expensive will have side effects of increasing research on alternative fuels and decreasing driving.

However, it will also be a huge drag to the economy. The common conversation is that the current mess we're in is due to the housing bubble- however it's often forgotten that what popped that bubble was a spike in fuel prices. All the talking heads said that $4.00/gal gas was just the beginning (personally, I have some black helicopter theories here, but everything before the paranthesis is not theory-it's fact).

Well designed legislation with both carrots and sticks would incentivise private industry to create more fuel efficient solutions. Reworking cafe could actually be a growth industry for the US. The US is actually ahead of the curve on energy research but way behind the curve on implementation. Alot of this is due to poorly designed reactionary regulation.

Also, if we unilateraly increase fuel tax, we only impede what little competitive advantage we have left.

The fact of the matter is that oil is finite. There's debate on how finite, but there is no debate that it is finite. Oil prices will naturally trend up on an ever-sharpening curve as we get closer to that end point. As oil prices go up around the world, the whole world will get involved in alternatives (and Ethanol that uses cropland is not sustainable as a major fuel source either).

Therefore, I suggest minimal artificial means of increasing fuel costs. Strong incentives to increase fuel economy, mainly in terms of providing tax breaks for companies that make goals and investment in research to alternatives. Then let economics take care of itself as new technologies are produced that can provide sufficient fuel in large scales.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by radz282003

So is there a problem with the production of E85 causing corn and rice prices to increase with any significance? That's the only opposition to E85 that I can think of off the top of my head.

There's two sides to that argument. Both are plenty strong, and both have valid points -- so the jury's out. E85 from corn can raise food prices...but maybe not as outrageously high as some project.

Other opposition to corn-based ethanol is that it takes more energy to produce than it releases. This of course, depends on the scale at which the stuff is made, and the procedure, etc...But for the most part, this accusation is false...though only by a small margin. E85 can produce ~1.1 units of energy for every 1 unit spent to make it. Similar to gasoline.

There's a similar argument regarding water. It takes some 3 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol from corn. Quite the waste.

Notice that all these arguments are only valid when talking about ethanol from CORN. That will not be the major source for much longer. Cellulosic Ethanol is catching on in a big way. This is ethanol made from broken-down plant matter, and not directly from the sugars from the corn curnels. The energy yield for this type is 7:1 (7 units are produced for every one used to make it). Some procedures require LESS than ONE gallon to make. And none of it is from food-crops.

The good part is that the ethanol, in the end, is all the same, either from corn, or cellulosic. And within the decade, Algae will become a big player...this alone has the potential to replace the nations entire oil usage...

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Silver Streak

I do believe that another concern with e85 is the coal generators used to produce the E85. Kind of defeats the purpose. Using the same technology to produce a new technology.

Originally Posted by MrIcky

This is a double edged sword:

Making fuel more expensive will have side effects of increasing research on alternative fuels and decreasing driving.

However, it will also be a huge drag to the economy. The common conversation is that the current mess we're in is due to the housing bubble- however it's often forgotten that what popped that bubble was a spike in fuel prices. All the talking heads said that $4.00/gal gas was just the beginning (personally, I have some black helicopter theories here, but everything before the paranthesis is not theory-it's fact).

Well designed legislation with both carrots and sticks would incentivise private industry to create more fuel efficient solutions. Reworking cafe could actually be a growth industry for the US. The US is actually ahead of the curve on energy research but way behind the curve on implementation. Alot of this is due to poorly designed reactionary regulation.

Also, if we unilateraly increase fuel tax, we only impede what little competitive advantage we have left.

The fact of the matter is that oil is finite. There's debate on how finite, but there is no debate that it is finite. Oil prices will naturally trend up on an ever-sharpening curve as we get closer to that end point. As oil prices go up around the world, the whole world will get involved in alternatives (and Ethanol that uses cropland is not sustainable as a major fuel source either).

Therefore, I suggest minimal artificial means of increasing fuel costs. Strong incentives to increase fuel economy, mainly in terms of providing tax breaks for companies that make goals and investment in research to alternatives. Then let economics take care of itself as new technologies are produced that can provide sufficient fuel in large scales.

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

There's two sides to that argument. Both are plenty strong, and both have valid points -- so the jury's out. E85 from corn can raise food prices...but maybe not as outrageously high as some project.

Other opposition to corn-based ethanol is that it takes more energy to produce than it releases. This of course, depends on the scale at which the stuff is made, and the procedure, etc...But for the most part, this accusation is false...though only by a small margin. E85 can produce ~1.1 units of energy for every 1 unit spent to make it. Similar to gasoline.

There's a similar argument regarding water. It takes some 3 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol from corn. Quite the waste.

Notice that all these arguments are only valid when talking about ethanol from CORN. That will not be the major source for much longer. Cellulosic Ethanol is catching on in a big way. This is ethanol made from broken-down plant matter, and not directly from the sugars from the corn curnels. The energy yield for this type is 7:1 (7 units are produced for every one used to make it). Some procedures require LESS than ONE gallon to make. And none of it is from food-crops.

The good part is that the ethanol, in the end, is all the same, either from corn, or cellulosic. And within the decade, Algae will become a big player...this alone has the potential to replace the nations entire oil usage...

HELLO! I need to stop listening to the radio and watching TV! Thanks guys for the information. I keep forgetting about the algea and the plant matter. It sounds like there are more alternatives to produce E85 than just the corn; I don't recall ever knowing/understanding that. In that case - I'm all for E85!