-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Trump Administration Freezing Fuel Efficiency Requirements
- Thread starter Cruxist
- Start date
That would be unheard of even today, as the most efficient version of the CRV gets 32mpg on the highway, and that's only if you have the 2WD version. The 4WD version is 31mpg on the highway. But yes, things are improving, slowly.
Cars are still far more efficient though, and yet they're not nearly as popular as the bigger, less efficient vehicles, at least in America. Everyone convinces themselves they need big vehicles.
The new Accord gets 38mpg on the highway. The standard Civic 42.
If you had bought the 4 cyclinder version of that car you'd be getting far higher mpg. So what you said is not accurate at all. Cars are definitely more efficient than SUVs, and way more efficient than trucks.
Why would you want to encourage the production of worse cars. The only legitimate argument would be for export to countries that have cheap fuel but no money for better quality cars. That market is nowhere to be found when better substitutes are already available (in the form of smaller, more practical European and Japanese cars).
So all I can think of is lowering costs for manufacturers but the result is not only pollution and waste but the spread of worse quality vehicles in your country in general.
It does not make any sense for society or the federal government. You'd think they'd push for smaller and efficient cars, lowering fuel consumption and thus the pressure on the budget because of less money wasted on fuel subsidies.
So all I can think of is lowering costs for manufacturers but the result is not only pollution and waste but the spread of worse quality vehicles in your country in general.
It does not make any sense for society or the federal government. You'd think they'd push for smaller and efficient cars, lowering fuel consumption and thus the pressure on the budget because of less money wasted on fuel subsidies.
Being ignorant of climate change doesn't mean we simply get to continue down the current path. People need to switch to more efficient vehicles. If they're not going to do it themselves, then making then more expensive will. We are already seeing the negative effects of climate change. Blindly letting folks have their trucks and SUVs needs to come to an end.
I wouldn't mind paying more for my truck. Owning a home and having several kids you just need more capacity than a small car provides. And I do not want a minivan!
No doubt, but I bought it used and my Dad actually picked it out. Keep in mind that this was before I knew much about cars. Still, even though it is a V6, I'm still amazed at the improvements in fuel economy for vehicles significantly larger than mine in only about a span of 10 years.
Ahhh one of many auto manufacturers that should no longer be in business due to poor decisions.
Thankfully they got bailed out. Capitalism is awesome.
If the car has good solid fuel-wasting AC and heating, then you can enjoy your car regardless of the climate change it caused
They were fleet averages, meaning the entire collection of vehicles a company produced had to average 52mpg by 2025. That means you can have some really inefficient vehicles, as long as they are offset by very efficient vehicles.
It was an aggressive target, and an adjustment being made wouldn't have been crazy, but completely throwing them away is.
Hybrids get that easy, as do modern Diesel engines. Also, in addition to what New Fang said, the policy was set up so the target value could be changed year to year if it needed to.
side effect of all this shit i dont know if anyone has really realized yet.
with trump's basic policy of "undo everything the dems did", why should companies, countries, anyone....ever intend to follow any sort of timed regulations or deals. Ever?
everyone can just wait out the current admin and put someone in who will just repeal it all. why ever trust the US again?
with trump's basic policy of "undo everything the dems did", why should companies, countries, anyone....ever intend to follow any sort of timed regulations or deals. Ever?
everyone can just wait out the current admin and put someone in who will just repeal it all. why ever trust the US again?
Hybrids barely get 50+ MPG. The 2018 Prius is 58 highway/53 city.
To average 52MPG across a fleet you'd have to be making almost nothing but hybrids and electrics, because anything else would tank the average significantly. The average might make sense if hybrids were doing 70-80MPG, but with efficiency where it currently is you'd have to kill a ton of types/brands in the fleet just to hit targets.
Yeah, I think this is a lot of the subtler, bigger picture that a lot of people have a hard time seeing and appreciating. Trump and his administration and their actions, such as this one, are no doubt terrible. But the really bad thing? There's a large voting bloc contingent in the United States that are all about this kind of idiocy. Stupid, ignorant, spiteful, evil people that more and more seem to be impossible to reason with, and this reflects against the country as a whole.
Hopefully, with shifting demographics and the removal of bullshit like horrendous gerrymandering, the ship will course correct and adjust. We just have to outlast and outnumber these people consistently and continually, because otherwise, yeah, why would anyone have any level of faith or confidence in the United States?
It's in 7 more years also. An electric in your lineup fixes it as well. It would have been aggressive, but not crazy. Mazda's been able to make big changes to the engine, a few diesel models, etc
I don't think many people say that, but there are plenty of folks out there that buy vehicles for reasons that don't take fuel efficiency into consideration. In some regards, purely looking at those statistics when making an auto purchase distills the whole thing down into what is essentially an "appliance" purchase. In an ideal world, fuel efficiency would always be a significant factor in the decision making process for everyone who buys a vehicle, but car culture often kicks that towards the back of the list.
https://www.hybridcars.com/mazda-fuel-efficient-automaker/
That's according to the Light Duty Fuel Economy Trends Report, released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report lists Mazda as having the highest overall Manufacturer Adjusted Fuel Economy for the 2016 model year at 29.6 mpg, improving 0.4 mpg over the previous year.
Mazda currently at 29.6 MPG across its cars. Improving by half a gallon in a year. It seems that even they would have a long way to go to get to 50+MPG.
I recently switched to a Chevy Cruise, and I estimate I'm saving a good $40 a month on gas compared to my my prior vehicle (Chrysler Intrepid). That's nothing to sneeze at, that's nearly one less fill-up a month.
I do have to say that fucking hate "Auto-Stop", especially considering GM decided to not provide the user a button to turn it off. It's great when you are waiting at a long red light, but fucking sucks when you're in stop-and-go traffic.
I do have to say that fucking hate "Auto-Stop", especially considering GM decided to not provide the user a button to turn it off. It's great when you are waiting at a long red light, but fucking sucks when you're in stop-and-go traffic.
Gotta imagine they'll still keep one foot in the door. Maybe they won't maintain the same course of fuel efficiency across their entire fleet but they'll still serve up fuel efficient models and keep researching fuel efficiency tech for when the pendulum inevitably swings back.
This is like if you were to freeze CPU efficency standards, no company building gas guzzlers is going to be in business much longer, the writing has been in the wall. Gas is rapidly becoming a poor tax.
I'm a photographer for a Ford dealership and 90% of the customers just buy lifted F-#50s.
I'd imagine they wouldn't roll back even half. The Democrats are probably thrilled that somebody is doing the dirt work for them, and they'll just go with the old "sorry, nothing we can do about it" excuse, like always
The CAFE fuel standards, as mentioned, are fleet combined averages, and the measurements aren't the same as those used for EPA figures (what you see in car ads and on window stickers). While that 52 mpg figure may still be a bit ambitious, it's incentive for manufacturers to bring up the fuel economy of their least-efficient models, and increase efficiency across the board.
They said on the radio yesterday that one of the admin's arguments were that higher fuel standards were less safe because people would be able to drive longer.
This could backfire pretty hard on the auto manufacturers. It will be held up in courts for years, and they'll have to prepare for the possibility of losing.
I also think one of Obama's biggest failings in hindsight was the belief that companies would negotiate in good faith with him. The car companies helped set these standards then immediately lobbied to have them removed once he was gone.
I also think one of Obama's biggest failings in hindsight was the belief that companies would negotiate in good faith with him. The car companies helped set these standards then immediately lobbied to have them removed once he was gone.
Considering Mazda doesn't have any hybrids or electric cars at all, that shows that just adding those would easily allow them to reach the goal. And in fact, Mazda has said that by 2035, most of their cars will be electric or hybrid, so they are working on it.
Question: What MPG does an electric car count as? Because I'd imagine infinite would make it pretty easy to hit Obama's goals.
Car makers already make US exclusive cars, and have made many in the past. And not just American car makers either, many Japanese and European brands have done it as well. Though Canada is also usually lumped in there as the same market.
Probably the same people that still do this.
Destroying the planet to own the libs.
So after I posted it, they had an ex-EPA guy on who talked about it some more. The argument is that if fuel standards go up, gas effectively becomes cheaper (true), and that people drive more the cheaper gas is (also mostly true; for example, we saw driving decrease some and an increase in public transportation/biking/etc the last time gas stayed at over $4/gallon), and that the more people drive, the more likely it'll be that they're in a wreck (also true). So the Trump admin's argument is that: better fuel efficiency leads to cheaper gas, causing people to drive more, putting more cars on the road and increasing their likelihood of being injured.
That seems to make sense if you stop there and never think about it any deeper, but what they are really arguing is that being in a car is generally unsafe (true) and that they need to make gas more expensive to discourage driving (this is prescriptive so I can't say it's true necessarily, but I agree with it). The problem is that you are supposed to make gas more expensive through higher excise taxes, not by making cars less efficient and burn all the gas.
You need to offset the inefficient cars by smaller hybrids like the Yaris, not the larger like the Prius.
Unfortunately people are not willing to sacrifice horsepower for the environment, but luckily many can only afford the smaller ones.
Sadly I feel the same way. I have a shitty feeling he will for himself into more than 2 terms.
I was wrong it's 27/33 mpg for 2018 AWD 1.5 liter . Best rated non-hybrid SUV fuel efficiency
