New CAFE standards

[enjenjo]

Any opinions?

My thoughts, declaring fuel economy standards by law is a bad idea. It will in no way make engines more efficient, it will just limit what you can buy.

The last round, thirty years ago, was accomplished by making cars run terrible in the short run, much more expensive in the long run, and worse, made them much less durable. I know that engines last much longer, but everything connected to it was made smaller to save weight, which hurt durability. Also, all the larger rear drive cars were made extinct, because they were too heavy.

Just because the congress passed this law, it will not change the laws of physics, and the best way to reduce energy consumption is by removing weight. I think that the manufacturers are at the limit on fuel economy using technology, so removing weight will be the only alternative. This will mean smaller cars, or lighter larger cars, which means lighter, more exotic materials, that add to the cost.

The place that this will hurt the most is light trucks. People moved to trucks, because they could no longer buy cars that were suitable for towing, or carrying 8 or 9 passengers. Now trucks will no longer be able to do it either. So people will just buy bigger trucks.

I know that hybrids, and fuel cells are on the horizon, but none of them are cost effective at this point, and it doesn't look like they will be for some time. And as far as pollution, they don't relieve it, just move it to a different location.

I see few short term solutions, and no long term solutions Opinions?

[Carnut]

Enjenjo, we are of the same mind, I have nothing to ad to your analysis.

It all just means I'll continue driving what I currently have until I can no longer drive.

My suspicion will be that most folks will wise up and see that the standards are a deadend nonsensical political ploy and will request that they be reduced.

But then again I'm not sure how much common sense remains in the 'electorate'.

[Leon]

Congress isn't limited to the laws of physics, when they don't like a law they ignore it!

[wayne petty]

they are taking advice from lobbists.....

this forces the companys to pay more money out in emission credits... makes the desk pushers more money...

http://www.emissioncreditsexchange.com/

remove the ethanol from the fuel nationwide...  and fuel economy will pickup 10 to 30 percent.. the mtbe was a for profit ripoff scam...that is going to last forever as mtbe cannot be filtered out of water... or even steam distilled out..... the only way to get it out is through electralisis, separating the atoms  then both gasses need to be liquidfied to remove any chance of mtbe getting through... ....


mtbe was put into gasoline to reduce the fuel economy of these higher fuel economy cars......  it got the goverments (state and federal) more money collected per mile driven in fuel taxes.. it gets the  oil companys more profit...   they told the public that it was for cleaner air...

with the advent of fast smart fuel injection systems.. there really is no need for ethaol or other additives to reduce air polution..  since there would be less fuel burned per mile. less fuel less emissions..

oh..  and the point on increasing the fuel economy... the cats need a specific fuel input in the exhaust to properly catilize the exhaust...


too much fuel they get too hot.. to little and they dont burn every thing out of it..

so a new type of cat is nessessary... or something else to heat the cats so it does not have to use liquid fuel suspended in the exhaust stream to create the heat...

i am thinking radio frequency induction heating of the cat ... maybe micorwave heating if the cat bed...   neither of these technologys will draw more power than the flywheel starter generator will put out.. it might just take the same technology that is currently used to heat oxygen sensors..but i dont think that gets hot enough./...


in fact.. either rfi or microwave could be used to super heat the exhaust stream into a plasma style of gas in a few milliseconds.. what that would do to the nox as that temp is above 2600 degrees where nox forms...
in fact that would work to super heat the upstream air and send it right into the cat....

anybody else got any better mouse traps...

[ONE37TUDOR]

While I generally agree that changing the requirements is not an answer in itself I also see that something has to be done to improve the efficency of some new vehicles! I drive an 06 Ford F150 supercrew with the 5.4 and on a very good day it will get 15. My brother has a new Tundra and it is heaver than my 150, has just as much advertised HP and consistantly gets over 20 MPG.
My business purchased 3 - 08 Ford F-350 6.4 crewcab Dulleys and the best any could do in the first 25,000 miles was 9.1 MPG. The powerstrokes they replaced were getting up to 15 MPG. After 4 months they will all be traded in or sold outright.
I have never owned a anything but american (name plate) cars and trucks but if something is not done soon my company will be using Tundras and Titans.

Scott...

[CQQL33]

Slightly off topic but along the same lines.     Back several years ago, I had purchased a 56 Chevy Tudor sedan with a 6 banger engine.   I had a built 327 ready to go in.....     A friend had a problem with a knock in his 57 Ford and left the car in Pittsburgh (I lived in Lorain, Ohio at the time).  The garage in Pitts told him it would cost about 500 dollars to fix his problem and gave him some rediculous extimate to tow the car back home.    I volunteered to tow go get his car and tow it back home for him as I did not care if I hurt the 6 banger or not.    Guess what ?    We towed that car back on the turnpike at speed and averaged 30 miles per gallon.   Honestly, 30 mph towing another car !!!!    No air pollution junk, no modern fuel injection or computer controlled timing, nothing to hurt fuel ecconomy.    Not sure what that Ford weight was but the Chevy was 3200 pounds............    We do not need more laws we need some STATESMEN in office not politicians..............

[wayne petty]

hmmmm........ low miles per gallon... i have bought a solution to the low fuel milage with hired drivers tool...   it plugs into a pc.. and you program it for which 4 sensors you want to watch...  then plug it in.. and let them drive it... you can watch throttle opening and  speed and a bunch of others but only 4 at a time...you too i think 60 hours of on time... .. my honda friend has it right now... i can ask for the name.. i got it at az a year ago...

it wont help the built in lack of fuel economy... but driver induced full  throttle blasts can be reduced... by the tattle tail....

[58 Yeoman]

I bought an '88 Chevy K1500 in '89 that had the 350 auto, and it consistently got 17 mpg.  Now, I own a '99 Ranger w/4.0L V6, and on a good day, I can get 15 to 17 mpg.  Something really wrong here.  I've talked with other owners of both trucks, and they all say the same thing.  Sounds like in the big 3 line of vehicles, GM gets best mpg, followed by Ford then Dodge.

[Uncle Bob]

In general I agree with your remarks Frank.  There are some things to consider about the bill that make it both more and less onorous than is reported, depending on which part you look at.

Bills like this are often filled with window dressing and are publicly accepted because a lot of folks believe in fairy tales and don't think through to the consequences of what they allow to be done to them.  Stuff like "Cleaner Air", "Energy Independence", "Human caused global warming", and so on.  Noble concepts all (well,except the human caused global warming b.s.), but how you get there is the rub.   Bogus ideas float because people think that what's proposed will work, mainly because they ignore the surrounding realities.  If any of you live in an area where some form of new "public transportation" is offered, e.g. light rail, you may have noticed that it always costs way more than originally promised, comes on line much later, and never does live up to the promises of better, faster, and traffic reducing.  The folks who were all hot to vote it in operated under the belief that "the other guy" will/should use it.  They'd like to use it, and would if it weren't so inconvenient......................but they're positive "the other guy" doesn't have the same constrictions in his life.  You know, taking the kids to sports events, all those groceries that need to be picked up on the way home, the stops for grandmas birthday present, and Billy's new shoes.   All that freedom of movement and personal choice stuff that comes with independent travel/vehicle that public transport just doesn't offer.  In the end the folks on the new light rail are the same ones who were on the pre-existing bus routes, they just shifted their vehicle of choice, and no (or little) net reduction of independent vehicle users.

As mentioned, 30+ years ago CAFE standards were imposed.  As a result the per vehicle average rose fairly significantly.  The auto makers were able to achieve this by picking what I would consider "low hanging fruit".  As much as many of us may choose to use a carburetor on our rods, it's pretty hard to make a case for it versus the fuel distribution/control benefits of electronically controlled fuel injection and ignition for the average car on the road.  If one is poorly informed about how an automobile actually works, as the vast majority of the public is, they might (and do) believe that waving that same magic wand again will produce the same results.  As Frank mentioned, it ain't gonna be so easy this time around because of the limits of today's technology.  But even more important is what the "do gooders" almost always ignore.  The results of their efforts.  They focus on the intentions (see the "public transport" example)of what they propose and ignore what has happened before and is often predictable.  When CAFE mileage increased the last time, what was the result?  People changed their driving patterns.................they drove MORE miles per year, per vehicle.  Increase fuel economy effectively lowered the per mile cost of gasoline.  When you lower the price of something, people tend to consume more of it.  If you're the exception please don't argue the point, I'm talking the entire market average per driver.  Which leads to the next point.

People in this country have little to no idea how much fuel we require to operate our modern economy.  They think in terms of their own little world (remember the point about what a good idea it is that "the other guy" use public transport).  The last I read the average fuel fill per passenger vehicle was around 10 gallons per stop at a station.  That's the perspective that most folks base their evaluations on.  Pretty small potatoes.  They don't seem to have the ability to multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of fills that occur each day across the entire country.  As a result it's easy for deceptive forces to toss out seemingly reasonable solutions that in reality are unrealistic.  One of my favorites that many of you car guys have probably seen/heard is the local "mad scientist" who's using french fry fat to fuel his diesel car.  The local paper, or a History Channel story extoles the "genius" of this adventuresome and creative spirit.  With just a "few dollars" investment in equipment and a little misterious "science" this little guy is defeating the forces of the evil oil empire!!!  Just go to his website, frenchfryfuel.joke and for only $29.95 he'll share his secret to getting FREE fuel.  It all sounds wonderful, the restaurants get rid off waste oil for free, and the enterprising driver gets "free" fuel.  Of course if everyone in town tried to do the same thing they'd soon learn how few fryers there are in their immediate area, and that as more people offered to "take away" the used fryer oil, the restaurants would notice the trend and start a bidding war for who will pay the most to get this liquid "gold".  Haven't even mentioned how upset your money grubbing state would get once they realized they weren't getting fuel taxes on this home brew.

So then there's ethanol.  Let's present that proposition differently.  How many people in this country would buy into the increased use of ethanol if it were stated honestly?  "Dear Voters, we're going to improve your life by taking the raw material that's in nearly all your packaged food in one form or another and convert it into fuel for your vehicles so that we can stop sending money to those crazy, desert whackos who are trying to kill us (please don't realize that we don't get that much from them, their biggest buyers are the Europeans and Asians).  If we wanted to get our complete annual fuel requirements (that would be REAL independence) from ethanol we'd have to convert every square inch of farmable soil on our continent to the production of corn, and that probably still won't be enough.  Sorry, there wouldn't be any corn left to feed cattle, hogs and chickens for your usual protein sources.  And we couldn't produce any more corn fructose sweeteners, or corn starch additive, and any of the  uses for corn by-products that makes up so much of your daily meals.  So we'd have to import that all.  Now I don't  imagine those of you who've been paying attention will think this is independence in our food sources.  But what's more important to you?  Food or fuel for your car?  And by the way, we're going to give the huge corn producers like Archer Daniels Midland lots of corporate welfare to help them stay profitable, even though the price of corn has doubled in the last couple years since the last time we mandated just 10% of our fuel need be ethanol.  Come on, trust us, we're smarter than you and we're the government!!!   We're here to help you!!"

Now, these folks have left themselves some wiggle room.  The new CAFE standards don't fully kick in for another dozen years.  And the ethanol mandates are spread out some too.  Afterall, this is election time, and Iowa swings a lot of weight in the candidate selection process.............it's only coincidental that they grow a lot of corn there.  And blaming corporations for all the evils in our country has become a convenient dodge for the political class that, sadly, too many in our country have bought into.  All of the auto companies have vehicles in their fleets that will meet the "new" mileage standards.  And they are usually the cheapest ones on their menus.  If we, the citizens, had fuel economy as our priority we would willing buy these seemingly more "beneficial" offerings.  There wouldn't need to be a federal mandate.  But we don't.  We have different priorities in our lives and make free choices that don't comport with what we're told should be best for us.  Convincing us rationally may not be possible, and of course forcing us directly by saying "You WILL do it the way Washington DC tells you to do it!"doesn't fit the American "freedom" model.  So, doing it indirectly, by putting the mandate on one of those "evil" corporate factions is more practical.  But is the result any different?

And then there's the question that if we're really shooting for energy independence, why wasn't speeding up building of non-polluting neuclear power plants, and opening up drilling sites for domestic crude oil in the bill?  Those are proven technologies that would have the shortest and most cost effective ramp up to production.  Hello politicians and careing citizens................................any answers to that?

[donsrods]

[quote="Uncle Bob"
And then there's the question that if we're really shooting for energy independence, why wasn't speeding up building of non-polluting neuclear power plants, and opening up drilling sites for domestic crude oil in the bill?  Those are proven technologies that would have the shortest and most cost effective ramp up to production.  Hello politicians and careing citizens................................any answers to that? [/quote]


All of these things are contolled by companies that have a vested interest in us NOT going to nuclear power and other sources of energy.  The oil companies have finally gotten the prices somewhat near what they want and are reaping such huge profits they can afford to "buy" votes and influence to keep us dependent on oil and gas.  If anyone thinks this is not the case, I have a couple of bridges down here for sale.

You will never convince me that a country with the technical capablilities of America can't build alternative sources that are affordable and reliable. The problem is, we don't WANT to.

Dons

[papastoyss]

I probably have a different outlook on this situation as I have spent most of my working life servicing import vehicles. Many people want large ""safe"" vehicles ie big hog SUV's . And Detroit has made a lot of $ and kept lots of people working due to this. You don't have to look very hard to see 1  person hauling azz down the highway in a 5000 lb suv . If we as  whole do not change our habits and desires we will forever under the thumb of 3rd world tyrants like Chavez or the camel jockeys with oil.I personally would like to see our gov't attack the energy situation with the same commitment it used to put a man on the moon.

[OldSub]

I had a rather ego-centric response to the new rules.

If you ignore my wife's daily driver my current newest car is an '85 and almost 23 years old.  Those new rules aren't fully in place until 2020.  If I'm still breathing in 2043 (doubtful) I'll be nearly 90 and I doubt I'll really care.

Today my newest is a Corvette.  These new rules mean a 2007 or 2008 Corvette Z06 is going to be a pretty special car, because the 25 mpg supercar is one of the things we'll loose.  I'd love to have one now and maybe if gas gets expensive enough I'll be able to afford one.

My current hot rod project is a '54 GMC 1-ton I'm building as a trailer puller.  With either a Chevy 454 or a Cadillac 500 (I have both on hand) its going to get terrible fuel mileage compared to these standards, but I expect it will pull a loaded car trailer with gusto.

These new rules are another example of government believing it knows best how I should live my life.  I think congress is wrong-headed but most voters will applaud the decision now thinking this is real progress.  Rather than worry about it I'm building my own and don't ever expect to buy new anyway.

These new rules mandate fuel economy and completely ignore the other environment/energy dynamics of transportation.  The more high-tech and synthetic materials used, the more energy required to build the car, and the harder it is to dispose of the worn out remains.  Its just stupid.

[58 Yeoman]

Merry Christmas, everybody.

I'm from the gov'mint, and I'm here to help you!

[enjenjo]

The problem is, we don't WANT to.

Therein lies the problem. When I was commuting 35 miles to work, I drove cars that got good mileage, up to 50 mpg. Those type cars have been around for many years. The problem is, most people don't want to drive that type of car.

Most people "need" a lot more power than is necessary in a daily driver, and it costs them at the pump. Leaving at a stop light seems to be a competition any more. Just track the 0 to 60 times of new cars over the last 40 years, a 60s muscle car would be needed to match the average car today.

Plus, we have two parts of the government working at cross purposes. while one part says we need more fuel economy, the other, EPA, says less pollution. So diesel fuel, and gasoline have both been reformulated to make the air cleaner, which also reduces the BTU content of each gallon. This also adds to the cost on a new vehicle, $5000 on average on a new car, and up to $15,000 on a new truck.

I think what we have here is a classic case of unintended consequences

[Uncle Bob]

[quote="Uncle Bob"
And then there's the question that if we're really shooting for energy independence, why wasn't speeding up building of non-polluting neuclear power plants, and opening up drilling sites for domestic crude oil in the bill?  Those are proven technologies that would have the shortest and most cost effective ramp up to production.  Hello politicians and careing citizens................................any answers to that?

All of these things are contolled by companies that have a vested interest in us NOT going to nuclear power and other sources of energy.  The oil companies have finally gotten the prices somewhat near what they want and are reaping such huge profits they can afford to "buy" votes and influence to keep us dependent on oil and gas.  If anyone thinks this is not the case, I have a couple of bridges down here for sale.

You will never convince me that a country with the technical capablilities of America can't build alternative sources that are affordable and reliable. The problem is, we don't WANT to.

Dons[/quote]

It's a good thing we're friends because I couldn't disagree with you more, and no, since I know you I don't want to buy one of your bridges.

Dr. Einstein is most often attributed the quote; "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result."  I'm not ready or interested in elevating an oil company CEO to sainthood, but I do recognize that we are told on a repetitive basis that oil companies are the bad guy, profits are bad, all corporations are evil, and blah blah blah.  Just based on observation I can conclude that we are most often told this by politicians and various eliteists in media and so called higher education.  As with most propaganda, the more often it is repeated the more it becomes embraced by those who trust those sources for opinion.  The echo chamber then increases the intensity.  I'm not sure how anyone could objectively look at this most recent energy bill and see where there's anything of benefit to a major oil company other than constricting supply which is a short term condition.  The closest you could come is that there were some taxing concessions that were traded in Congress in the crafting of this bill.  But if you realize that corporations merely collect taxes that are passed along in the price of their product to we the consumer, any tax on a corporation is really a tax on we citizens.  It's the same game as the mandate shuffle I pointed out in the first post.  As a former salesman I'm sure you're familiar with the "hey look at this shiney thing over here" method of distraction that some sales folks use when a customer is too close to seeing a weakness in their product/presentation.  Politicians do this all the time, you and I will get more than our fill of it in the next 11 months.  It's government policy that's the demon here, not oil companies.

History can be very instructional.  The last time we had petroleum energy prices at a similar level to today was in 1980.  Figures tossed around show that in inflation adjusted dollars, to match the price of crude in 1980 our current price would need to be around $100 give or take a couple.  While we've gotten close we haven't quite gotten there.  Then the price was artificially propped up by government control of oil pricing rather than the free market.  Today it appears that the free market is responsible because of increased world wide demand and commodity speculation by investors, but what's not talked about, at least in our country, is that the laws of supply and demand are bastardized by government imposed restriction of supply (restrictions on where drilling can be done, burdensome permitting and environmental restrictions that effectively prohibit the construction of new refineries, and a $.54/gal import duty on foreign produced ethanol being the three biggest).  Using history to prove the point that when Government gets out of the way, the "evil" oil guys do what businesses do, we go to 1982 when our Federal Government got out of the crude oil price control mode and prices dropped, steadily for a number of years.  The oil guys responded to the marketplace and produced more oil, competed with price, and we enjoyed historically lower energy costs (again in inflation adjusted terms).  

Let's shift to "wanting" to develope new forms of energy.  Really the words "economically viable" should always be used in front of the word energy to more accurately state what the "problems" are.  That's where as citizens we miss the boat.  All you have to do is listen to those senseless (unless you realize they're manuvering for federal subsidies) BP commercials where they have apparent "man on the street" interviews where folks toss out all manner of fantasy about alternative energy sources.  If you take their statements at face value it sounds like each of them is operating under the belief that finding/producing/implementing any of their notions of viable replacements for petroleum energy is as easy as flipping a light switch.  None of them understand the economics of it...........................well they would if it hit them directly, but the increased costs are usually hidden by channeling it through a distraction like has happened with food prices going up because of over commitment of corn resourse to fuel instead of food.  Just as with the example of the french fry oil, there are all sorts of "neat" ideas out there, but none of them are commercially viable on a large scale.  Somewhere in here some folks come up with the conspiracy theories.  You know, like "Those evil oil companies buy up those technologies and bury them" or some such.  With the internet that's just about as impossible as it gets.  Who hasn't seen the You Tube video about the guy who's invented an engine that will run on salt water.  There, poof!!!, millions of people are aware.  If it works on a grand scale the could become a multi bazillionaire even if he only got a penny royalty on each application.  The problem is what works on a test bench doesn't (or hasn't so far)convert to "the real world".  

Let's go back to the late '70s when the oil prices were above what they are today again.  How many remember the Synfuels Corp started by the Federal Govt to find alternative energy sources.  It operated for a number of years, spent several BILLIONS of our dollars, and came up with nothing, nada, zip.  And if you think that was an anomaly, it wasn't, that was actually the 14th time the Government had launched such a program during the twentieth century.  

It's not a lack of will, or a lack of funding that gets in the way of economically viable energy alternatives, it's that what we're using today is so comparitively cheap, and we have enormously expensive and moderately complex infrastructures in place to distribute it.  The sad thing is that our Government has a propensity to whiz away enormous amounts of money on boondoggles that satisfy the "feel good" but not the functional.  It's that old intentions vs actual outcomes thing again.  And those economic resources being wasted on pie in the sky stuff steals from potentially, though most often politically incorrect, more economically viable and practical solutions.

When there is an economically viable solution to our energy needs it won't come by turning to our government.........................that would be expecting a different outcome from doing the same thing over and over.......