Sounds like there were a few compromises made, but overall this sounds pretty good! http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/21/con...y.ap/index.html WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate voted Thursday to increase fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon for cars and SUVs, the first significant boost demanded of automakers in nearly 20 years. The agreement was announced at a news conference and then quickly adopted by the Senate without a roll call vote. It scaled back tougher standards already in the Senate's energy bill but was still considered strong enough to have wide support from environmentalists. "It closes the SUV loophole," declared Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, referring to current requirements that allow much less stringent fuel efficiency standards for SUVs and pickup trucks than for cars. "This is a victory for the American public." ...continued.
Yes, I too agree that it mostly sounds good. They deleted the 4% improvement after 2020 though. And the fact that they had to include ethanol also decreases its positive impact.
I'm severely conflicted about this one. Yes, raising CAFE standards is a great thing. Dropping the alternative energy incentives is not. I've always thought that if electricty is clean and cheap enough, consumers will drive the move to plug-in vehicles. God I sound like a free-market true-believer. Please note that I'm all for taxing the hell out of the oil industry to acomplish this. $5.00 gas anyone?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mad Hatter @ Jun 22 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]466337[/snapback]</div> What type of profit margin do you want to guarantee the oil companies? If you want to tax "windfall profits" are you willing to give them money if they lose money? Who else do you want to tax the hell out of?
Changing the mileage standards is meaningless unless they change the testing procedures. I wish they would revise the basic testing procedures to reflect actual mileage a typical automobile owner would get. The mileage advertised by manufactures rarely reflects reality. Keith
Hi TechGuy, I have to think that there is no such thing as a "typical automobile owner". So, if an attempt to satisfy the perception you have, as well as many others, they screw up the consistancy of the testing, its a step backward. That is what HAS already happened with the recent change in EPA ratings. The Saturn SL2 car I used to have rarely met EPA ratings (the old ratings) - all it took to drop down from 28 mpg in mixed driving, was a few traffic jams. Get a week of those and the thing was at 25 mpg. When the mixed rating for the car was 30 mpg. The 2006 Prius I have now is dead square right at the OLD EPA ratings, getting 55 mpg in mixed, and 60 mpg in medium heavy traffic conditions. Yet now they pulled back the ratings so far, the Prius makes the new ratings totally useless.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tech_Guy @ Jun 22 2007, 10:55 AM) [snapback]466394[/snapback]</div> I disagree. If a car is rated to a certain MPG but it actually gets less than the advertised number, then the testing methods are inaccurate, granted. Nevertheless, if you raise the standards to be 10 MPG higher according to flawed testing, you're still going to see a roughly proportional increase in the real-world numbers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Jun 22 2007, 02:38 PM) [snapback]466494[/snapback]</div> What we really need is for the EPA to do the current tests in a wind tunnel, so the aerodynamic efficiency of the bodystyling (or lack thereof) is reflected in the results, as it is in daily driving. Without that, the tests are incomplete. As it is now, a given powertrain combination will get about the same MPG in whatever car or truck it's placed in, and that's simply not true in the real world. Cars like the Prius should be rewarded for aerodynamic efficiency, and SUV's penalized if their manufacturers have chosen to compromise the shape to make it look more aggressive/truck-like. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kram @ Jun 21 2007, 09:13 PM) [snapback]466156[/snapback]</div> The language which would not allow brush bars/grille guards to be added to the front end of vehicles (in the name of pedestrian safety) was also eliminated from the bill. It's better than nothing, but not exactly the sweeping changes I personally was hoping for.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Winston @ Jun 22 2007, 05:36 PM) [snapback]466606[/snapback]</div> I didn't know that! Do they take the Cd and somehow factor it into the calculations? Do you have any more info on exactly how it's done? Gosh, I'm sorry that I misinformed everyone.
Hi Winston and Pinto Girl, Does the EPA take into account hills? If somebody drives up a hill, and then has to part throttle down it, the standard engine is in an even less efficient zone. While an aerodymic hybrid can turn off the engine, and might even be able to go into regenerate, without slowing down. Does the EPA consider that?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 22 2007, 08:57 AM) [snapback]466350[/snapback]</div> I'm not talking about a one time tax. I'm all for taxing the hell out of the industry, knowing full well that it will be passed on to the consumer. While I appreciate that free market capitalism drives our country, in my personal opinion this particular industry is destroying our climate, and should be made artificially non-competitive. The same goes for any other industry that destroys parts of our eco-system to make money, say like mountaintop removal coal mining. Tax the hell out of them - let the resulting free-market movement away from their products solve our alternative energy gap. Just so you don't think I'm a rabid tree-hugging liberal, I am opposed to gun control and for the death penalty. There - that should get half of the board fired up about one of those opinions or the other.
I certainly wouldn't be willing to bet that the CAFE mpg boost to 35mpg will be signed into law. It still has to make it past the House, not to mention the guy with the veto pen.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Winston @ Jun 22 2007, 03:36 PM) [snapback]466606[/snapback]</div> I too am curious how they figured this out, from what I understand for highway speeds they put a car on rollers bring it up to 45mph, then read the exhaust to determine mileage.. I know it seems a lot less accurate than putting 10.000 gallons into a car, and waiting for it's total weight to drop by 1 gallon worth of gas 7.something pounds? Although I'm not really holding my breath over this one, I seem to recall in California quite a few years ago they passed legislation that something like 15% (or was it 25?) of all cars sold in the state needed to be zero emission vehicles.. now they shot themselves in the foot with the word "electric" but that was something that got pushed back year after year until it was abandoned all because the auto industry said it couldn't be done... meh... I almost anticipate this happening here.
I am for closing the ridiculous tax loopholes for Hummers and humongous trucks that serve no legitimate business needs whatsoever. I am for taxing the hell out of those urban cow boys-and-girls who opt to buy these monstrosity-on-wheels. Make THEM pay for their lifestyle options. To reduce the supply of polluting and fuel-inefficient vehicles, one must reduce the demand for them too. If nobody buys them, automakers won't make them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Jun 22 2007, 02:38 PM) [snapback]466494[/snapback]</div> The EPA numbers have always been pretty close to my numbers over the last several cars I've owned. I usually meet or beat the EPA numbers, up until the Prius. I rarely get 55 mpg (49 mpg lifetime, so far), but it's a little more sensitive to driving conditions, so its numbers can vary more. In general, a moderate driver should be able to reach EPA estimates in an average commute (about 10 miles, speeds between 15-60 mph with several stops, for example). Now they've dumbed down the numbers to account for the fact that most people speed excessively and brake late for lights.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Jun 25 2007, 01:18 AM) [snapback]467502[/snapback]</div> I think the EPA should have actual numbers from an actual test track (consumer reports does this and you know they drive the cars hard to test extreme performance.) And they should post 6 numbers, 60 City, 51 HWY, 55 combined <-- steady speed limit driver 40 City, 48 HWY, 44 combined <-- lead foot speed demon
I have never gotten close to 60 in the city, granted it's san Francisco, but even in other cities with relatively flat areas. IMO it's almost rude to accelerate at that snails pace that's required to only use the electric motor to get up to speed. Who knows maybe my definition of what 'lead foot" is, is radically different than elsewhere.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ Jun 23 2007, 11:23 PM) [snapback]467124[/snapback]</div> You're right about the chassis dyno and the exhaust. And I do believe there are 'hills' programmed into the dyno. But... I'm still waiting for Winston to give me more information about how, exactly, Cd is taken into account. I do recall that the first year Pontiac GTO (Holden Moreno) could not be fitted with a hood scoop that protruded above the suface of the hood, in part 'cause it'd already been tested without it... Still confused, though...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ Jun 25 2007, 08:56 PM) [snapback]467928[/snapback]</div> Depends on your city commute is conducive to mileage. Being flat but having stoplights every couple of blocks isn't going to get 60mpg. A good 20 minute commute at 35-45 mph with stopping every half mile to a mile can easily get 60mpg. If driven carefully that is, jackrabbit starts and slamming on the brakes will lower it. Accelerating with just the electric is not the most effective means of getting good mpg (at least by most if not all of those who give mileage tips). City driving in Lubbock easily gets 60 (got 64 mpg driving around today), but other cities I have been in would be really hard (difficult to anticipate lights and/or lights timed so that one can only go a short distance before stopping).
