![Gran Turismo 5 demo coming to PSN on Dec 17, GT Academy returns [w/VIDEO]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/12/370z-gt-academy_143x85.jpg)
New fuel economy standards set 35 mpg limit by 2020
The word yesterday was that new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were on their way down from Capitol Hill, and late last night House leaders finally agreed to a deal that would increase fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020 – a 40-percent increase over the current decades-old legislation. By leaders, we mean a compromise was reached between Democratic top dog and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.). Despite playing for the same team, Dingell also has an obligation to protect the interests of his home state.The new requirements are similar to measures proposed in the Senate energy bill passed in June, but the House rules keep standards for cars and trucks separate, something preferred by the automakers. It also assures that credits will be extended to automakers that produce E85-capable vehicles, something that was fought for hard by politicians and auto manufacturers alike despite the limited impact this alternative fuel has on either the environment or reducing this country's dependancy on foreign oil.
A House vote will take place on Wednesday to enact the 1,000-page bill.
[Sources: Detroit News, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
xamnotrub 6:12PM (12/01/2007)
strange sense I thought that E85 impacted your fuel economy negatively.
Reply
dave 8:36PM (12/01/2007)
Yes.
But it allegedly decreases our dependence on foreign oil.
(Which was the original purpose of CAFE.)
zamafir 9:00PM (12/01/2007)
@ Dave... by using foreign oil to produce it? 70% more energy is needed to produce every unit of ethanol, then the energy it provides, ethanol provides 34% less fuel economy on average then gas. So it takes more energy (foreign oil) to produce ethanol, which in turn requires 34% more consumption? There's really no way to substantiate the assertion that ethanol reduces foreign dependancy, except stubbornly assert it while ignoring the numbers associated with its production.
Dave 9:04PM (12/01/2007)
Zamafir-
Did you miss the fact that I said "allegedly"?
I think Ethanol is BS too. Its a scam by Bob Dole's (and did you watch the youtube republican debate? - theyre still kissing farmers' butts) friends at Archer Daniels Midland.
zamafir 9:53PM (12/01/2007)
Sorry about that dave, sarcasm's a bit tougher online.
far jr 1:44PM (12/02/2007)
Zamafir must be using the study from the 1980s when ethanol production was not capable of producing more energy than it took to produce. That's the same information most anti-ethanol individuals use. More modern studies show that ethanol has a POSITIVE energy gain of 77%. Another study shows that using 35k BTUs of energy can produce ethanol which will release 77k BTUs of energy.
I also see that Zamafir assumes that the input energy could only come from oil... foreign oil to be more specific. I guess we can't use natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, or even some of the ethanol.
Sorry to rain on the anti- ethanol parade but most of the discussions just do not contain good facts.
zamafir 3:03PM (12/02/2007)
@far_jr.
No, I'm referencing the Cornell/Berkeley study from 2005, not 1980:
"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment. Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S. deficits."
So if you'd like to counter with a more recent study in the last two years citing some miraculous improvement from an accredited study containing two of the top ten Universities in the country, that'd be great.
Paul P. 8:20AM (12/01/2007)
Sounds like everything will be a hybrid or a diesel by 2020. 35mpg average is possible I'm sure, but I don't think it will be easy for any manufacturer. Things might start looking like the late 70's all over again.
I think I'll hang onto my mustang cobra for a long time, just in case.
Reply
Gary Lowe 8:37AM (12/01/2007)
A thousand page bill written by lobbyists and lawyers and read by nobody before the final vote. Legislation used as a tool by the RNC and DNC to extort campaign contributions.
Where's the news value?
Reply
jimmy 8:54AM (12/01/2007)
glad I got my S4 early
Reply
Angelo 4:15PM (12/01/2007)
"...despite the limited impact this alternative fuel has on either the environment or reducing this country's dependancy on foreign oil."
I love how the author had to get in his own short-sighted, anti-ethanol views at the end.
Reply
Tim 9:06AM (12/01/2007)
The house could pass a bill with a clause requiring 10% of the new cars sold to be amphibious. Doesn't mean that happens.
Now the committees have to hash out the differences in the House and Senate bills, so the final product may look nothing like the precursor bills. They like to make a big deal about all of the things their bill has, but in the end, it's just for show. The proof is in the pudding.
And all of this assumes Shrub will sign it into law.
Reply
Heydn 9:24AM (12/01/2007)
I can't understand how something so simple could be 1,000 freaking pages.
Reply
Dave 9:27AM (12/01/2007)
Its an "Energy bill" not a CAFE bill.
Autoblog is only concerned with a fraction of it.
Heydn 9:39AM (12/01/2007)
Ah, thanks Dave! That makes more sense.
SteveS 9:38AM (12/01/2007)
About god-damned time. This country has sat on it ass for 15 years on fuel efficiency, this move is way over due in my view.
I so don't feel sorry for the manufacturers who have been peddling gargantuan SUVs and lousy econo boxes. Maybe this will push the manufacturers to actually make some decent smaller cars.
Still, I bet Bush vetoes this. It might hurt his buddies in big oil
Reply
far jr 4:33PM (12/01/2007)
Goodbye BMW, Mercedes Benz, Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Rolls Royce, etc as you know them as well.
Funny how many individuals only see shades of HUMMER when fuel economy is discussed.
Socialist legislation is not beneficial to a country who espouses its "FREEDOM" to the rest of the world. Let gas hit $10 per gallon and the market will sort itself out. Next we will all be legislated to eat peas and carrots every day because it reduces health problems!
zamafir 6:37PM (12/01/2007)
@far jr
I'm not sure if you read autoblog frequently but most of the manufactures you mentioned already have a healthy stock of cars which meet said mpg standards or are working to improve towards that standard. BMW, Mercedes and Audi all already have diesel and forthcoming hybrid models of most of their lineups.
Ferrari is already looking to return to a blown v8 which should help carbon and mpg, adding lightness also never was an issue for ferrari.
Porsche owns VAG and will have zero issues dipping into their parts and technology bin to help meet these requirements at all.
Actually, the really entertaining thing about your response is that all the car makers you've indicated don't count the US as their largest market, by a long shot. All of them could still stand to make a healthy profit without the US even if they didn't have a tremendous amount of alternative options headed state side (BMW, Audi, Merc here). it's entertaining, really, this idea that increased average mpg is the harbinger of doom. Doesn't anyone realize we already lived through the eighties? or that great mpg doesn't mean a car that's not bland? Audi S5? BMW 330whateverD? The VX220? Give me a break. It's not the well off automakers who make huge profits who are going to be put out by this, it's those struggling to (read the big 2.5).
far jr 1:16PM (12/02/2007)
zamafir perhaps some reading comprehension would help you understand my post. By all means let me break it down to help you chew.
First of all, my statement was not that the brands I listed would fail, go bankrupt, or cease to sell cars in the United States. My statement clearly says that said brands will be gone as we know them in the USA. The same will happen to Domestics as well as Honda and Toyota. They will be forced to offer cars that do not appeal to all members of the buying public and may need to remove nice cars from thier portfolios to meet the standards. I lived through the eighties and can tell you that I don't want zero to sixty of 10 seconds on a performance sedan because it has artificially high fuel economy guidelines to meet.
Lamborghini Mucielago 8/13 EPA
Lamborghini Gallardo 10/15 EPA
Ferrari 599 11/15 EPA
Ferrari F430 11/16 EPA
MB SL55AMG 12/17 EPA
MB SL600 11/18
Porsche 911 15/22 EPA
Aston Martin DB9 10/16 EPA
BMW M6 11/17 EPA
Bently Azure 9/15 EPA
Rolls Phantom 11/18 EPA
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/feg2000.htm
In fact I do not see a car offered by any manufacturer I listed that currently gets 35 MPG by the 2008 EPA guidelines. Although as other posters have mentioned, CAFE works slightly differently, I see almost every manufacturer having issues with these new guidelines with 35MPG as the AVERAGE. Not everyone wants to own a small underperforming sedan like a Yaris, Civic Hybrid, Corolla, or Prius. And no the Mini Cooper, Fit, and Camry hybrid can't even break 35MPG by the 2008 EPA guidelines. Oh what exciting cars we will have in 2020!
I just sold my 40MPG car to get something bigger, faster, safer, more exciting and fun because I can afford to do so. Now you and other like minded individuals want to take that option away from me. Why should I be happy and content with that?
Charles S 4:59PM (12/03/2007)
Again, with the "social engineering" garbage again.
If we want to focus on "social engineering" aspect of our society, how about economic incentives that our gov't provide for home-buyers (thus discriminating the renters). What about tax breaks for people who have kids? Why should people with NO kids have to pay taxes to support schooling for other people's kids? If one wants to cry about "social engineering" in cars, then let's pick on issues that REALLY affects our society.
The POINT is that gov't has ALWAYS use either sticks or carrots to steer the nation toward one direction for another.
If we are too dependent on importation of fuel, then it's a national issue that is too important to leave it to "market forces" to sort out. At $10 a gallon, it won't only affect people's purchasing decisions, but will affect many aspects of our lives. Seriously, you do not want to gamble with that!