No dice, partner.

Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for 2012-16 were upheld this week by a U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., quashing efforts by certain industries and a number of states to overturn the mandate, The Detroit News reports.

The standards, which have been backed by the Obama Administration, require fleetwide fuel economy to reach 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016. The mandate, made in part to address evidence of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions, has been backed by most major automakers, including Ford, General Motors and Chrysler.

The Obama Administration is expected later this year to settle on CAFE standards proposed last year for 2025. That mandate requires a 54.5-miles-per-gallon CAFE standard, which equals about 40 miles per gallon in real-world terms.

Fleetwide new-car averages neared all-time highs of about 23 miles per gallon earlier this year, though they have fallen slightly during the past couple of months as gas prices have dropped.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 66 Comments
      desinerd1
      • 2 Years Ago
      I sometimes wonder about Autoblog's choice of images in their articles. I'm sure Smart is "fun to drive", but it's certainly not fuel efficient. Can you please use a picture of Nissan Altima, or Avalon Hybrid, or Veloster Turbo instead?
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      AngeloD
      • 2 Years Ago
      From the article: "The mandate, made in part to address evidence of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions,..." The CAFE Standard should really be challlenged on Establishment Clause grounds. It really is nothing more than the imposition of the enviro-fundamentalist's faith based belief system upon the rest of society. There's not a shred of credible, hard scientific evidence that the Earth is even in a warming trend, let alone that there is any anthropogenic component, or that release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels plays any role. If the CAFE standards are being promulgated based on the religious mythology of global warming, they are nothing more than modern versions of the "blue laws" pushed by religious groups such as the Baptists, Catholics, etc.
        Rob J
        • 2 Years Ago
        @AngeloD
        Every time I read somebodys words that they think there is little scientific evidence of climate change my brain hurts. Beyond the INCREDIBLE support for the theory (a theory in the same way that gravity and evolution are theories) there is a multitude of other reasons for CAFE standards from reducing dependence on forign oil (and funding fundamentalist dictatorships around the world) to not over consuming a limited resource for future generations and even makin the air we breath a lot cleaner. The best advice I can give to anybody wanting to know more is to read "storms of my grandchildren" by James Hansen (former NASA climate scientist) for an in depth look (with loads of supporting evidence) of the way the climate has changed in the past and is changing now.
          AngeloD
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Rob J
          If there is one thing that typifies the enviro-religion fundie, it the shrill ALL CAPS response to anyone not buying into their faith-based belief system, "...Beyond the INCREDIBLE support for the theory..." A couple of things you won't be able to do now: 1. point out a link to any credible evidence (please spare us the "hockey stick" links, it's a proven fraud and you know it), 2. explain away the explicit admissions by Mann et al., in the climate-gate emails that any such evidence was absent from their own data. Maybe what you enviro-religion fundies need is some kind of Spanish-Inquisition type enforcement against those who aren't buying into your faith-based belief system.
          Rob J
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Rob J
          http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=scientific+papers+on+climate+change&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=HHTrT8n7DsqPrgHA94DlBQ&ved=0CFsQgQMwAA I'm not sure what problem you have with scientific method. Or peer review. Or that the "climate gate" scandal was found to be a bunch of distortions of actual fact. But hey, it's all a big plot for scientists to take in the dough. That's why they fly around in private jets while snorting coke off a hookers ass.
        Jordan
        • 2 Years Ago
        @AngeloD
        Angelo, I'll put you inside a garage with the car running. Lets see if anything happens to you. The Earth is just a big garage. It cant handle pollution forever. CO2 is heavy, its heavier than O2 or N2 and it doesnt space into space. What ever we emit sits low on earth. Burning fossil fuels does pollute the atmosphere and lead to problems.
          AngeloD
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Jordan
          You can't understand the difference between a small, closed system like a garage and a huge planetary ecosystem with abundent mechanisms to absorb and recycle atmospheric CO2? Wow, thanks for demonstrating the typical level of scientific education prevelent amongst the global-warming alarmists. How do you explain Dr. Mann's explicit, profane, frustrated admissions in the climategate emails that his own data failed to show any warming trend, let alone one with an anthropogenic component? ....crickets chirping......
        nsxrules
        • 2 Years Ago
        @AngeloD
        Angelo, you are 100% correct and most credible scientists agree with you. Man made global warming has been proven to be a hoax.
        GasMan
        • 2 Years Ago
        @AngeloD
        On a galactic scale, the earth is certainly a "small closed system". Everything we do has some effect on the earth. The only question is how much.
        delsolo1
        • 2 Years Ago
        @AngeloD
        You are not a fan of science.
      Hazdaz
      • 2 Years Ago
      Good. Bring on even more strict - BUT FAIR - standards after 2016. These standards should be evaluated by experts in their field - and not just what is best for the bottom-line of these companies. The pros and cons should be weighed and not just simply let industry do as they please for 20+ years like they were allowed to do in the 80s and 90s. The domestic carmakers are more competitive than they have EVER been, and I say a large part of that is due to the prodding done by the updated CAFE standards that forced them to get back into the small car segment and into developing efficient powertrains. Because of that, their products are more actually competitive enough to be sold in foreign markets.
      carguy1701
      • 2 Years Ago
      I still say 54.5 mpg is too strict, especially since it will apply to cars AND light trucks. If you honestly think a truck will ever get the same mileage as a 4-cylinder mid-size family sedan, I have land options for the Moon, Mars, and Alpha Centauri that you might be interested in.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @carguy1701
        [blocked]
        k_m94
        • 2 Years Ago
        @carguy1701
        40 real world mpg as an average. So maybe 4 cylinder family cars get all hybridized and manage 50+mpg, then the light trucks can be allowed something more reasonable like 30 mpg.
      Myself
      • 2 Years Ago
      Climate change or not, I'm not sure what's wring with a car that is cheaper to run. Especially when run of the mill family sedans outclass sports cars of yesteryears. I went from a 1998 2.0 liter to a 2007 1.6 liter car. And guess what. Better mileage, same performance numbers. It's also safer, more comfortable and handles better.
        IS-F Hegemony
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Myself
        How much did that car cost in 1998 vs 2007 and how much did the pay go up for someone doing the job you were doing in 1998? I doubt the percentage change is the same and that the relative price of the car increased more than the wage. No reasonable person has a problem with the availability or production of more efficient cars, what we have a problem with is being forced to buy them if we don't want to. I like my 416 HP 5.0 liter V8. More options are always better for consumers than fewer.
          Myself
          • 2 Years Ago
          @IS-F Hegemony
          The 2007 car was cheaper, even with the 1998 price adjusted for inflation. Also, I purchased the 1998 car in 2002. But that's entirely beside the point. I'd like to have IS-F but I'd have no use for it which is why I bought what I did. Nobody was trying to push me to go for a Lex just as you made your own decision. Look, exoticas prospered even in the 1970s oil crisis. There were sports cars of all sorts even when gas prices pushed people towards smaller cars. And again... The engine in your car is much more efficient both in terms of power delivery and economy than a same displacement engine 30 years ago. It's called progress. Options will still be there and I'm sure you'll welcome an IS-F with a 5-liter V8 that could do 50 mpg.
        Myself
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Myself
        I was going for "what's wrong..."
        Rob J
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Myself
        This. I never understood why people want to stay back in the "lovely" period of automotive times as the 80's and 90's. There are some gems in there but overall cars are a much better overall product now adays. Maybe it is just the whole nostalgia factor that everything seems better when you remember it.
      mitytitywhitey
      • 2 Years Ago
      Passenger cars are nowhere near the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emission. The greenies are going to solve the 'car crisis' only to find that the polar bears are still all going to die because of world overpopulation, rainforest deforestation (HUGE greenhouse contributor, as well as saps the earths ability to absorb greenhouse gases) and desertification. Let's face it, so long as humans populate at the rates we have been, the earth is as good as a dead rock. No, the little things don't matter. MIT already predicts by 2025-2050 the population threshold for sustainable resources ( water and food, not oil) will be exceeded, resulting in total global cataclysm.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @mitytitywhitey
        [blocked]
        Rob J
        • 2 Years Ago
        @mitytitywhitey
        Actually MIT does not predict that. That information comes from their "limits to growth" series which provides several possible outcomes for the next 100 years while STRESSING that they are not solid predictions, only estimates base on their World3 model.
      jbm0866
      • 2 Years Ago
      We are living in a golden age of performance and horsepower wars at the moment, but that will all come to an end much sooner than many of us want. Kids born in the late 80's through the present day never had to suffer through the late 70's, 80's when even so called "performance models" would seem wheezy when compared to an average modern sports sedan. Cherish what we have now and for the next few years...it will be gone soon.
        k_m94
        • 2 Years Ago
        @jbm0866
        This is the 60's reincarnated I think. Based on heresay, I am a 90's baby. This is the golden age of relatively unadulterated horsepower, and with societal eco pressure, fuel becoming more expensive and less available, stricter government regulations, and indeed a slowly suffocating planet, it's only a matter of time before we hit another, though likely worldwide, oil crisis. I suggest investing in a good performance car today, and enjoy it until it becomes outlawed.
      Afi Keita James
      • 2 Years Ago
      Screw CAFE & Big government.
      Kevin Kikuraz Gibson
      • 2 Years Ago
      Go FK urself government. U CANT EVEN BALANCE A FKING BUDGET
        Stew
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Kevin Kikuraz Gibson
        Go learn how to spell. Also, seems your keyboard is broken. You should check that.
      Afi Keita James
      • 2 Years Ago
      Screw CAFE & Big government.
      MONTEGOD7SS
      • 2 Years Ago
      So they only need to increase it right around 50% in 3 years. Yeah, that shouldn't be very costly. Give people options and let them decide, but it's not up to the government to dictate what we can drive.
        Robdaemon
        • 2 Years Ago
        @MONTEGOD7SS
        You're not really familiar with how representative government works, are you?
    • Load More Comments