Filed under: Government/Legal, Green
EPA proposes its own oil regulations
The U.S. Congress isn't the only ruling body proposing new measures to curb the nation's reliance on foreign oil. The EPA is currently in the process of writing up new rules that it hopes will limit fuel consumption, and is currently gathering 75 regulators to help implement George Bush's '20-in-10' plan, which would see fuel consumption drop 20% in ten years.
Such a move would have the setting of fuel economy standards move from traditional transportation officials to the environmental regulators, and has only come about because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The EPA has been in charge of regulating auto emissions for years, but this would be the first time its policies would have an effect on the levels of fuel consumption.
Under the stipulations of Bush's original 20-in-10 plan, manufacturers would have to improve the mileage of cars by 4% a year between 2010 and 2017 and the same 4% a year for trucks between 2012 and 2017. As expected, automakers consider such a proposal as being too harsh, citing the fact that cars would have to average 32 mpg in just 10 years ,when today's average is just 24mpg.
[Source: Automotive News - Subs. Req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Brad 12:43PM (8/27/2007)
I'm a little perplexed that you chose to use a Corvette (Euro-spec, at that) as your image on a story about our reliance on foreign oil.
Contrary to what most believe, the Corvette gets 18/28 mpg and is not subject to the gas guzzler tax. Even the 505hp Z06 gets 16/26 mpg.
Reply
Barney 5:18PM (8/27/2007)
"It is hard because the average weight of the car has gone up so much. A honda accord 14 years ago ..."
They were also a lot smaller. The demand for small cars to get bigger became the demand, as soon as people got use to the higher gas prices. The average pickup truck to the Corolla have increased considerably in size.
Durk 12:49PM (8/27/2007)
Why would that be so hard for them to do?
Reply
Christobevii3 12:57PM (8/27/2007)
It is hard because the average weight of the car has gone up so much. A honda accord 14 years ago was like 2400lbs, now they are like 3400lbs. Throw in to be competitive you have to have 280hp in a v6, side air bags to meet high safety standards, and have a thick enough roof to handle 5 rolls from a crash; you get a heavy car.
It is hard to have all the added "safety" and meet consumer needs and fuel mileage standards. I bet a large portion of people would rather pay $1500 fuel taxes on a new car than have that 120hp inline 4...
It is funny how most cars would gain that 4% though if people would just drive a stick shift.
The Other Bob 10:58PM (8/27/2007)
"It is funny how most cars would gain that 4% though if people would just drive a stick shift."
Not sure this is true anymore. A stick often gets only 1 mpg better than a typical auto.
why not the LS2LS7? 1:35PM (8/27/2007)
Actually, cars coming out now get better mpg with automatics than with sticks. Automatics finally caught up on the number of ratios provided, and the stick versions typically have lower final drives, increasing RPMs at all speeds.
Sean Flanagan 1:56PM (8/27/2007)
Christobevil,
The argument for manual transmissions has very little merit anymore, as torque converters have gotten much more efficient and gear ratios have become comparable or better than the manual equivalents for fuel consumption. Consider the current-generation Honda Civic: in manual form, it gets 38mpg highway; in automatic, it gets 40mpg.
But you do hit the nail right on the head with weight. If you put a current V6 in a mid-size vehicle from 1992, it would probably achieve 32mpg simply for the weight difference. But all the safety equipment added in the last 15 years has added a crippling amount of weight. The government simply cannot impose more stringent fuel consumption standards on automakers while continually adding safety requirements. I think the answer lies in the article about the US' place in road safety worldwide: countries with better driver education fared better than those with more stringent vehicle safety standards.
Mr. Oak 4:09PM (8/27/2007)
@ Christobevii3:
Have you ever sat at the George Washington Bridge or Lincoln Tunnel in a honest to goodness two hour back-up? I have, after about an hour of riding the clutch, I had the mother of all leg cramps.
Stick shifts are nice/fun, but NYC traffic, can also be very irritating.
John Metcalf 5:58PM (8/27/2007)
Mr. Oak
I found that on my morning commute - when I lived in a city like NYC with train transportation - that my legs never got tired from clutching. I was able to read the morning paper without worrying about drifting into the next lane or slamming into the car ahead. And the exercise I got from walking from the station to the office kept me fit and trim.
Ah, those were the days.
MikeW 6:00PM (8/27/2007)
The Civic automatic-manual is not a good comparison.
The top gear of the stick shift civic is geared to equate to the 4th gear of the automatic.
The gearing of the 5 speed stick is like a 6 speed stick, but without the top gear.
The automatic has very tall gearing, perfect for the 2 liter version of the 1.8
rem83 12:56PM (8/27/2007)
Why not just produce more vehicles with the entry-level powertrain? Automakers could charge a significantly higher premium for the large engine options, and the fuel economy average for that model would go up. Everyone wins (except for people who want to accelerate quickly).
Reply
FrankTheCrank 1:26PM (8/27/2007)
Bush...hehehehe...sorry, couldn't help it.
Reply
hanmojo 1:37PM (8/27/2007)
as Christobevii3 points out, car are getting heavier because of safety features (which we might or might not need, no thanks to IIHS, showing all those crashes to scare people).
The fact is that car are getting bigger. Take the "mid size" Honda accord for example, the latest model is huge. If they would go back to the size of the origianl accord, which equal to today's civic, they would have no problem getting 32MPG.
Reply
Level 1:57PM (8/27/2007)
I don't think its the cure to the problem. currently I use my car less cuz of the amount of gas I spend, If i get more mpg I would use my car more. At the end of the day im still consuming the same amount of gas maybe even more. Plus consumers don't have guns to their heads being forced to buy trucks that get 12 mpg. The consumer will get what he/she wants regardless of the mpg or other factors granted excluding the "tree huggers". I think resources should be devoted on alternate fuels...
Reply
idave101 2:45PM (8/27/2007)
I think we need to take a step back and determine where we are at this current time. Our society (US) is built on the gasoline automobile. What would happen if OPEC decided to not sell crude to the US, just like in 1973? Most of us don't remember, but in 1973, the US was a MAJOR oil producer. On par or even exceeding the top mid-east producer. Now our needs dwarf our domestic production.
Unfortunately business lives in Quarterly cycles and innovation is expensive. I think we all agree something is needed to reduce our consumption of oil. I personally would like to see the market force a change in our behavior, but at the same time I'm very nervous. When world oil production peaks, and it will peak, we are in for a world of hurt. Will Ford/GM/Chrysler -- Toyota be able to produce a vehicle that will meet the need of the time? I would like to see us reduce our oil needs but also invest in new technology areas -- Solar for the grid, batteries for autos come to mind, This is where we really need the government. This is why we need an environmental and business policy that ride hand in hand. Forced CAFE is a step in one direction, but more of an off balanced hop.
Push hard for new standards, grow with technology.
Dave
Reply
Mallory 2:54PM (8/27/2007)
It's not just safety features that's driving up weight. 25 years ago, low end cars had crank windows, manual door locks, manual seats, manual A/C (assuming it had A/C), small wheels and tires, no sunroofs, no sound deadening and small engines.
There are plenty of cars out there today that have similar weight and similar features, the problem is nobody wants to drive one.
Reply
James 3:06PM (8/27/2007)
America continues to get it backwards. You want to reduce oil consumption, you start with curbing demand, not forcing the car companies to build more efficient vehicles. Since a lot of people here seem to want to emulate the European model, that's what they do. They don't have CAFE, they have high gasoline taxes.
Raise the gasoline tax progressively, say, 10-15 cents a gallon annually until it reaches European levels, will encourage drivers to 1) drive less, 2) buy a more efficient car, 3) all of the above. Instead, we opt for the less politically painful route and continually try to shove efficiency onto the automakers when it has been clear that, until recently, buyers just weren't interested in the smallest, most efficient cars.
Suppose the most draconian CAFE standards were enacted (all models must average 34 mpg, including SUVs and trucks), and to achieve such numbers all automakers were forced to use aluminum, magnesium, and carbon fiber to get the weight down, as well as use hybrid or turbodiesel drivetrains -- the bottom line meaning an increase in price from $7,500 and up. This is ON TOP of the current $23-25,000 average cost of a new car.
Even though people want the mpg, they can't make the purchase price, so they keep their old wheels and stick with Plan A (driving less), so that wonderfully high CAFE number instead means fewer sales of more efficient vehicles -- and we continue to consume.
Reply
mike 4:53PM (8/27/2007)
Agreed.
Instead of paying the ExxonMobile Price Gouging Tax and making Gas Company CEO's RICH, we should have a 5 or 10 cent Annual Increase in the Gas Tax to go to making us Energy Independent.
We could pay for: Solar and Wind projects,
Mass transit, to help lighten road congestion, rebuild our roads and bridges. All of these projects would help pay for Working Class Jobs. But, the CEO's would have a harder time Price Gouging us, so, they will fight it to the death. But, currently, with these kind of prices AMERICAN's would actually be better of with higher Gas Taxes.
Louis Duran 5:35PM (8/27/2007)
That is great wishful thinking. Push the tax on the consumer. I am all for it. The political reality is that nearly any legislator that tries to raise the federal gas tax when prices are this high is committing political suicide. The time to have dones something like that was when gas was under $2/gallon. I fully support any legislator that tries to raise the gas tax and hopefully use that to improve our lousy public transportation system. Where I live, it would actually cost me more to pay for a round trip ride on the train to work than it costs to drive.
Guenther 3:56PM (8/27/2007)
Funny enough, the EPA is free to to enact a CO2 limit, if they see fit. Ironically enough, CO2 emissions is the main thing used to calculate fuel consumption. Limit CO2 emissions, and you sort-cut right past fuel economy. Not that this is a good approach, by any means.
Reply