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 LS2/LS7? 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
Travis Ayres 5:14PM (8/27/2007)
If I buy the damn gas, I should be able to pour it out on the ground and light it on fire, giving me 0mpg. Its MY gas, I'll do what I like with it. Its like penalizing drunks because they drink more than everyone around them - its their choice, we don't stop them, why should we stop people who BUY the gas from USING the gas? I can use 1 gallon, but you're going to stop me from using two? Get bent. This is the kind of shit that made our founding fathers kill British soldiers. Why do we lie down and accept it?
And 4% a year - you can tell how Bush's science education went. Modern engines are INCREDIBLY efficient. Think about a gallon of gas - we're pissed that one gallon of liquid moves us 30 miles, in a 3,300 pound conveyance! Put a modern gas motor into a carriage, I'll bet you'd get wicked MPG. Think about gas that way, then maybe they'd realize how awesome that is.
About emissions: You know that modern PZEV's in a city like, say, Mexico city, emit air from the exhaust thats actually cleaner than the environment air, right? This is just ridiculous. PEOPLE MAKE TRASH. They require carbon to be burned. If we're all smart, and keep our cats on our cars and keep science moving, we'll have an even better solution soon, and then a better one after that. But to say, "Science will give us 4% by next year" - has that EVER worked for science? Or engineering, math? Not the way it goes.
Bureaucrats trying to legislate science and technology. Its like when that one senator referred to the internet as a 'Series of tubes...' - these guys are so clueless. They don't even listen to their own science advisors! They listen to movie stars though. Can you believe this? BONO gets to talk to congress. I have more science education than that tool (how do I know this? Listen to U2's lyrics, he's an idiot). But I don't get to try to convince these old duffies. Oh yeah, many of them don't 'believe' in evolution. Backwards much?
I hate these stupid, uneducated hippies so much. Come on. Its like when people argue for ethanol without understanding the energy content of an alcohol fuel. Everyone, do me a favor: Kick a hippie. They don't fight back anyway.
/Rant. Sorry.
Reply
John Metcalf 5:35PM (8/27/2007)
Dang straight.
Let's dump gas into Boston Harbor and ride our horses to work! Yee haw!
Don't take it so personally Travis. Chill - I know where you're coming from. Just step back and realize that the goal for most of us "hippies" is to make the world better, not your life worse.
Louis Duran 5:39PM (8/27/2007)
You sound like a real prick.
naggs 8:37PM (8/27/2007)
right on travis
political cowardice leads to bad policy, anyone with half a brain can understand that a gas tax is the only way to curb our consumption of fuel.
if advances in technology went like these idiots want to push it, instead of the internet we really would have a series of tubes.
somone explain exactally how a car that uses no gas (volt) would factor in to cafe. if GM sells one car that gets infinte mpg, do they get to ignore cafe then?
the greenpeace types are starting to come around on some issues. neuclear power for example. but they are stuck in the midset that its automakes fault that cars get bad milage.
if there is one organization at fault it is the highway safty board. efficient, nice, safe. pick 2. since safe is mandatory and a car has to be nice to sell... ITS GM's FAULT!!!
if you really want to save the earth, write your congressman and tell him/her that you are willing to sacarifice and want a gas tax. anything less than that is talk talk talk
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