DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet

The formatting sucks for some reason when pasted; easier to read if you follow the link.

Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet

DETROIT (AP) - Some soccer moms will have to give up hulking SUVs. Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more. Nearly everybody else will drive smaller cars, and more of them will run on electricity. The higher mileage and emissions standards set by the Obama administration on Tuesday, which begin to take effect in 2012 and are to be achieved by 2016, will transform the American car and truck fleet.
The new rules would bring new cars and trucks sold in the United States to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon, about 10 mpg more than today's standards. Passenger cars will be required to get 39 mpg, light trucks 30 mpg.
That means cars and trucks on American roads will have to become smaller, lighter and more efficient.
Eric Fedewa, vice president of global powertrain forecasting for the auto consulting firm CSM Worldwide in Northville, Mich., said the changes will make pickup trucks so much more expensive that they will be used almost exclusively for work.
And instead of a minivan or SUV, more parents will haul their families in much smaller vehicles with three rows of seats - something more like the Mazda 5 small van, he said. The Mazda 5 gets about 28 mpg on the highway.
"I think what you'll see is a lot more creativity in interior packaging," Fedewa said. "You'll get more rows of seats where you traditionally had cargo space."
Already on Tuesday, some drivers were skeptical. Dixie Bishop, who runs a plumbing business in San Antonio that uses vans, worries the new requirements will drive up her costs at a time when customers are cutting back on repairs.
"Are they going to take my horsepower down?" she asked. "I have to be able to carry old water heaters and toilets. It's not beneficial for me to haul one water heater at a time. We need the power to pull these heavy items."
The changes will start with smaller cars and trucks, and improvements to the internal combustion engine, Fedewa said. Automakers also already working on new technology, including direct fuel injection and high compression of the air-fuel mixture, that will make cars and trucks more efficient.
Car companies are rewiring vehicles so components such as air conditioners and power steering pumps are powered by electricity rather than by the engine, saving fuel.
And they're developing computer-controlled transmissions with six or more gears, adding efficiency, and rolling out more gas-electric hybrids - among the few cars sold today that meet the 2016 standards.
Of course, developing the technology will cost money - billions of dollars - and automakers will pass that on to their customers.
The Obama administration says the changes mean the average vehicle would cost about $1,300 more, although some private analysts say the increase will be much heftier. The administration says gas savings will make up the difference in about three years.
Automakers have said they need stable, relatively high gasoline prices to create a market for electric vehicles. General Motors fears rolling out its rechargeable Chevrolet Volt next year with gas at $2 per gallon.
American consumers have already shown their car-buying habits can change rapidly depending on gas prices. When fuel cost $4 a gallon last summer, people flocked to smaller cars. Gas is much cheaper now, and sales of hybrids have plummeted.
"The U.S. consumer has consistently chosen performance over fuel economy given the relatively low cost of fuel," David Leiker, senior automotive analyst for Robert W. Baird & Co. in Milwaukee, wrote in a note to investors.
The Volt is designed to run 40 miles on battery power when it is fully charged. After that, a small internal combustion engine kicks in to generate electricity and keep the car going. Other automakers are working on similar systems.
But the Volt is expected to sell for $35,000 to $40,000, and buyers may be unwilling to pay that much for a sedan, even if tax credits help ease the burden, unless gas prices soar.
Rechargeable electric vehicles, which under government calculations could get 100 mpg or more, will help automakers meet the standards and offset sales of larger, less-efficient models.
Under Obama's plan, the sale of of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids could also generate "super credits" that would count as more than one vehicle when an automaker determines its average fuel economy and emissions figures.
The new rules cause manufacturers "to accelerate their technology plans, probably a little more aggressively than they originally thought," said Tony Posawatz, who heads development of the Volt's technology. "For us, we feel comfortable that we've got choices."
Just a few years ago, GM and other auto executives were doubtful they could meet even less stringent standards, but Posawatz said the technology has changed since then, especially with new lithium-ion batteries.
GM also is looking at electric trucks, which may bring them even closer to the goals, he said.
Earlier this year, Toyota said it planned to launch as many as 10 new hybrid models worldwide by early 2010, and it plans to bring a new version of the Prius to the U.S. in the coming weeks. Honda's new Insight hybrid is already on sale in the U.S. Mazda, meanwhile, has said it plans to focus less on hybrid vehicles and more on improvements to its basic internal combustion engine.
---
AP Auto Writers Kimberly S. Johnson and Dan Strumpf in New York, AP Energy Writer John Porretto in Houston, and Associated Press Writer Ken Thomas in Washington contributed to this report.

-----------------------------------------
I really do not like the forcing of things such as this. If I want a small car that gets good mileage, I'll buy one. If not, I'll buy something else. I liked the "re-wiring" comment about AC and power steering to run on electricity. Sounds like Tim Alan, lol. The increased MPG for that type of change is very minimal anyhow.

Well that should kick start the auto industry .... just ignore supply and demand, and tell the companies what to make instead.

No worries though ... if our taxpayer money results in cars just sitting on the shelf, we'll just use tax payer money to get everyone to buy one.

This is idiocy.

You mean not everybody wants to drive a turbo diesel, electric, Aveo hybrid

Lighter materials, hybrid engines, etc. will all help to achieve the standards without changing vehicle design too much.

Doesn't Cadillac already have a full sized hybrid SUV, with a 6.0L hybrid engine getting 20mpg?

Electric motors have more HP and torque than the standard combustion engine anyway, if you can just get the power sustainability worked out, it becomes a more feasible option. I would think you'd need a solid 150-200 miles range per charge for it to accommodate the majority of the pickup/van workfleet.
I don't think electric will ever be feasible for long distance or high mileage transportation though. But then you have propane, hybrid, and eventually hydrogen technologies to look toward.

I just don't see these "forced" changes as meaning we will all be driving around in Toyota Prius sized cars and trucks.

*LOL* .. classic ...

my thought was ...

well at least the air we'll be breathing while riding our 10 speeds everywhere will be clean ...

and a 2nd beni is that it should also help reduce the cost of health care as it will force everyone to get in shape .. *L* ...

well at least u now know why there closing all those dealerships ... *L* ..

Even with the hybrid engines they won't come close to the fuel standards. Light trucks will have to reach 30 miles to the gallon.

If we are going to run the auto companies I would rather them throw all their money into alternative fuels so we don't have to worry about any of this. The government is forcing the auto companies to throw billions into research into gas when the money could be better spent coming up with alternatives.

Quote:

---

Or it increases illegal immigration as people hire illegals to pedal for them.

---

It will be sweet seeing more rickshaws in use in the metropolitan areas. Whenever I am in the city, I just always wished there were more rickshaws.

Watch all new cars come out with a "Large Extend-able Sail" feature on the top of the car, to help them hit the 30mpg threshold.

I've posted this before, but it seems like a good place to post again

The 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition!

I applaud this. I've been calling for this for years.

Small cars only need 150 HP to haul ass on the highway anyway. 200 at the very most...anymore is pure overkill.

I don't like the regulation on trucks though, makes it a bit too expensive. But I've always wanted a small SUV 4x4 (think Jeep Patriot size) that gets great mileage.

This is what we NEED to do to drive down the cost of gas.

Why? 150hp is going to be a supercar after we go down this path. I want choice, and to let the market drive what they build. People are NOT going to drive small cars until gas is $4 per gallon; at the current price levels people generally do not care. Unless the gov't artificially inflates gas to at least $4 per gallon (i.e. taxes) small cars are not necessary.

I like to have my choices - if I need something to tow a trailer, I don't want it to be excessively priced just because the government deems that I don't need it. My daily driver averages 24mpg city and highway combined (AWD Mercury Montego) which to me is great. The car is a touch underpowered (200hp V6) but it gets the job done. I've also got a diesel Excursion, already sacrificed to the MPG police, for towing duties and a couple of V8 sports cars that we will never see again if we go in this direction. This legislation just plain SUCKS

So, if my employees drive an electric car 30 miles to work and have to recharge it during the day, who pays for that? I can tell you who WON'T be paying.

Imagine what a Pickup, SUV, or Semi would do to it ... especially from the rear, or if it got t-boned.

Typical over-reactions to the "we still live in the 70s" crowd!! Every car maker in the world is working on a more efficient internal combustion engine or a way to make electric technology more useful in cars. Within several years, you will see either v-6s or v-8s making more power and using less gas. Hell, you see them now in certain cars.

And these are same, lame comments when the first CARF regulations came into being! With the improvements being made in technology, the auto manufactures will have several cars that will make that. Hell, turbo-diesels could get some of that now!

Typical 70s thinking in a the new age!

WOOHOO give me a turbo diesel, I just love it when the fuel freezes up and you get suck out in the middle of nowhere when it's 10 below zero

But it is not the gov't place to step in. It is their fault, and the fault of the consumer who bought the vehicles. Companies are going to build what people want to buy. I agree $4 per gallon hurt the economy, but it is the ONLY time a large group of people started screaming for more fuel efficient cars. Those voices have quieted since gas dropped. Now the gov't is going to step in at a horrible time to do so.

As long as you remember to in the anti-jelling compound you don't have to worry about it typically. However, I wonder how people would like the thought of plugging in their car every night to make it start easier.

If people really care to be more enviornmentally conscious, they'd develop better public transportation. It's become far too costly to build systems as fluid as New York...but it's the answer no one's looking at.

This 'green' stuff is little more than a money-making venture.

Quote:

---

I don't like the regulation on trucks though, makes it a bit too expensive. But I've always wanted a small SUV 4x4 (think Jeep Patriot size) that gets great mileage.

---

If you don't regulate trucks then we maintain the status quo. Everybody under the sun will run to SVUs if the drive large cars now. I don't know what kinda mileage those small SUVs get but I doubt it is over 30.

BTW...This has been tried before. What is most likely to happen is that people will drive more because it will be affordable. Spend the money on finding a clean alternative instead of Detroit wasting money to get fuel standards marginally better.

Cities is the major problem when it comes to automobiles polluting the enviornment. If most major cities could develop public transport as efficient as New York City, we'd be much better off in regards to the things we're trying to fix. It wouldn't work for rural living, no...but rural living isn't the problem.

But, y'know...you've got to display your 'I don't like cities' elitism, which is a response to perceived New York elitism.

There are a lot of misconceptions out there.

First, Part of the new CAFE standards will add purely electric vehicles into the calculation. So mileage will increase when you get a vehicle that has infinite miles per gallon. Also we will see natural gas and ethanol vehicles as well although they emit CO2, they reduce our dependance on foriegn oil. It will be interesting to see how alternative fuels are calculated into the CAFE standards. I don't see fuel cell vehicles as being a significant part of the CAFE mix by 2016.

Second, this will drive the engine development and hybrid concepts. You need HP (actually torque) for starting, the nice thing about electic is that you get a lot of torque at the low rpm.

Unlike the 70's when the alternative was low HP smog constrained engines, the engine development will result in resonable quick cars. Most of the HP that is in cars today is unused. The HP required to drive 70 is something in the range of 15 to 20 percent of the avialable HP which is typically maximized at 5252 rpm. HP = Torque at that rpm.

We will see lighter cars. Improvements in crumple zone technology will make them safer than the cars of the 70's.

I am all for ethanol buring vehicles, the problem is corn based ethanol is more expensive than sugar based ethanol. But a renewable fuel has to be part of the mix.

Other countries adjust the fuel tax, to level that we would consider outrageous. It is not uncommon for taxes to be 50 percent of the fuel cost in foreign countries.

The US has not increased the fuel tax since 1994. Meanwhile the Highway Transit fund is supplemented by general revenue. I think that will change. We can argue the economic equality of a fuel tax, but change is needed.

Quote:

---

If people really care to be more enviornmentally conscious, they'd develop better public transportation. It's become far too costly to build systems as fluid as New York...but it's the answer no one's looking at.

---

That sounds so nice, but the US is so poorly designed and developed that it would never work. Without a solid urban core, which most American cities lack, you can't develop an efficient system like the one found in New York.

I would love to have a train ride replace the 400 miles a week I drive back and forth to work. The key is a business model that profits and Viper may be right?