REPORT: CAFE fuel economy standards to rise 8% by 2011
The nation's Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards will swell to 27.3 miles-per-gallon by 2011. That's the word coming out of Washington, where the U.S. Department of Transportation is expected to bump the fleet fuel economy standards for the first time in more than a quarter-century.
The 27.3 mpg figure represents an 8% increase over the current 2010 requirement of 25.3. In specific, cars will need to average 30.2 mpg and light trucks will need to hit 24.1 mpg.
The truck figure is expected to be a tough one for automakers to meet within that timetable (most of the vehicles for 2011 are already well along in development – if not on dealer lots already). However, automakers are actually operating ahead of the 2010 requirements, achieving 2007 model year averages of 31.3 mpg for cars and 23.1 mpg for trucks, so there is some hope that the figures are workable.
Further, General Motors and Chrysler may have some additional federal funds to help them get there – the Obama administration is hinting that it will release more federal aid to the troubled automakers. The two companies have already received $17.4 billion in loans and are seeking a further $21.6 billion to stave off bankruptcy.
This is a separate issue from the decision that President Obama's administration is mulling over whether it should allow California (and the 13 other states that follow its policies) to mandate a 30 percent drop in tailpipe emissions by 2016, essentially a backdoor mandate of 34.5 mpg by 2015.
Federal estimates say the new CAFE figures will save 887 million gallons of fuel and 8.3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
[Source: Detroit News | Image: David McNew/Getty]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Sektor 10:37AM (3/27/2009)
Will GM and Chrysler be around when these standards are put into effect?
Reply
Shamdiddly 10:41AM (3/27/2009)
I certainly hope so, since GM is already there (stricter MPG) on its passenger car side.
Mr.Oak 10:50AM (3/27/2009)
Don't know about Chrysler, but GM is not going anywhere.
inteller 11:32AM (3/27/2009)
so says the bailout overlords....
superman211 11:48AM (3/27/2009)
Probably not.
That's fine with most people, those that don't like it can just buy used Chevrolet's.
Nothing new in them to have to buy the next model.
Jake B 12:52PM (3/27/2009)
If it is legal for states to have their own emissions laws then a certain green drug should be legal in states that don't have any legislation on the issue.
Len_A 8:04PM (3/27/2009)
polo, no company just builds what they want. People in the USA do NOT want small cars, and they won't pay a high premium for them. Customers want room and comfort. That's the reality of the auto business, and HONDA is the best example of how the cars got bigger with zero improvement in MPG:
1990 Honda Civic - 1.5liters 4 cyl Length: 168.8 in, Width: 66.7 in. Curb Weight: 2262 lbs. 29 MPG
2009 Honda Civic - 1.8 to 2.0 liters 4 cyl Length: 177.3 in. Width: 69 in. Curb Weight: 2630 lbs. to 2954 lbs. 24 to 29 MPG
Yes, they make a hybrid - a small, FINITE number of hybrid Civics, that cost $5000 more to get 13 miles per gallon more? Even at $5 a gallon, that a thousand gallons of gas. You have to keep the hybrid 39,000 miles more just to break even.
The rest of the Civic fleet - either zero improvement in nearly 20 years, or it actual went down 17%.
If you can't get your facts straight, then STFU.
Byron Thomas 12:15PM (3/30/2009)
Erick, great comment. You are dead on dude!
"""I don't want the nanny state telling me what to buy by forcing the carmakers to build cars nobody wants. If you want people to use less gas, increase the price of gas.""
Please Please, WE NEED A $1GAL TAX on gas and energy. Then let detroit build any cars they want, and let us drive anything we want, just pay the tax. Of course, it would make sense to build and drive ECONOMICAL fuel-sipping cars.
ashleyvandyke 10:59AM (3/27/2009)
The technology has been there for decades to reduce emissions. We can't let them give the excuse about time being the issue.
We want electric vehicles now!
-Ashley Van Dyke
Reply
Asuka 11:44AM (3/27/2009)
Why would negative star this person's post? The person is simply stating his/her support for better fuel economy and the development of a practical EV. Nothing in the post about current performance or price being satisfactory. You folks come of like a bunch of angry, contrarian, reactionary jerks who got lost on their way to Rush Limbaugh's site. And I'm a conservative.
superman211 11:49AM (3/27/2009)
The technology for walking existed when man was created. So walk it off.
Eric 11:59AM (3/27/2009)
The thing is CAFE isn't about reducing emissions, it is about reducing gas consumption. The only way to create less CO2 is to burn less fuel. While there are certainly technologies that allow us to get 40, 50, or even 60 miles to a gallon on a tank of gas WITHOUT a hybrid system (it's called 'small cars with a small diesel engine), the American public has proven again and again that they really don't want to give up their space, power, and comfort.
I don't want the nanny state telling me what to buy by forcing the carmakers to build cars nobody wants. If you want people to use less gas, increase the price of gas.
jv2k 1:32PM (3/27/2009)
The technology to make a cheese box that makes those figures has existed for some time now, but Americans have proven time and again that they don't want to ride around in a cheese box.
The technology to make a reasonably sized vehicle that gets this kind of mpg is expensive. High mpg vehicles shouldn't be forced on us, the automakers were working on better mpg cars on their own before the government decided to meddle again and in this economy the automakers shouldn't be forced to make every single one of their cars reach an unreasonable standard. GM has plenty of fuel efficient cars, but this idiotic law is going to punish them for offering vehicles like the g8 and the cts.
Like all of our conservation laws are going to matter anyway. China and india are industrializing and once those huge populations get car born it's going to be an environmental nightmare anyway.
polo 4:32PM (3/27/2009)
The tech has long since been around to reduce emissions.
If we make CAFE standards stronger, and allow Cali to set their own standards (as they have for the past 40 years) the automakers WILL keep pace. They won't like it, because it means less profits as they transition to newer models, but they can and will do it. The fact is EVs are the best option for the automakers to meet these standards.
"I don't want the nanny state telling me what to buy by forcing the carmakers to build cars nobody wants."
Typical rethuglican thinking. It is the job of the government to regulate industries (the financial markets is a prime example of what happens when the government fails to do its job). The fact is people DO want cars that are more efficient and emit less pollution, the automakers have been simply ignoring them and shoving out more junk while lying and saying they CAN'T do anything different...and its brought them to the point of collapse.
Ashley Van Dyke 7:10PM (3/27/2009)
Why do electric cars have to be related to a "cheesebox" ???
People are converting Lamborghini and Porsche cars to electric. The Tesla is a great car and they now have a sedan coming out that looks much like a Jag! Very sexy! Why can't the big three come up with relative models? Because they take under the table checks from the oil companies!
There are so many problems with daily drivers, commuters and our transporters burning fossil fuel. First, these toxins hurt the health of humans, animals and the planet. Second, we are giving money to foreign countries and worst, terrorists. Also, we look like fools for not taking advantage of other options to power ourselves when we claim to be the most proud country in the world.
Eric 11:08AM (3/27/2009)
No we don't. Not at their current level of performance and price, anyway.
Reply
ianw33 11:08AM (3/27/2009)
To ashley van dyke:
the technology might have been there, but there is always the factor of cost that a lot of people conveniently leave out of their argument.
Sure a hydrogen powered car would be wonderful, but it costs GM a over $100,000 each to make a hydrogen powered equinox. how is that cost effective vs. a gas powered $25,000 equinox.
i am all for electric cars and high mileage cars, but the technology is expensive and i don't want to spend $30,000 to $40,000 for a compact car that has no driving enjoyment just so hippies can be happy that i am "saving the world"
Reply
John 8:52AM (3/28/2009)
Removing our freedoms and forcing us into electric cars is only the first step in the environmentalist's agenda. Then comes the destruction of coal and nuclear powered energy plants with replacement by giant wind farms and transmission grids that can only recharge your car when the wind blows. Pretty soon all of North America will have economies as poor as California's.
It's time to take off the blinders and really understand where the greenies are trying to force us.
Pete 11:21AM (3/27/2009)
Time to buy your Big V8's before they are gone.
Good thing I've got a new Camaro SS on order.
Anyone else feel like it's the late 60's / early 70's all over again?
At least this time we have the technology to make the changes without huge sacrifices in performance, but I do feel like the "Good old days" of big gas engines are on the way out.
Reply
Julius 1:05PM (3/27/2009)
Of course, there was a rumor they'd put the LNF 2.0L DI turbo into the Camaro too...
If the DI NA v6 gets 300+HP and 29 MPG highway, I'd wonder what the smaller engine @ 260 HP could do. (That, and it'd be probably easier to "tune" for more power, too).