CAFE stds on the chopping block

That 54 mpg was just politics anyway. No matter who is in office it would have been rolled back eventually.

FishOnOne wrote:
The only problem I can think of by moving the goal post closer is the companies who've invested substantial money to be in line the new standard are ultimately penalized where as the companies who did very little will benefit the most.

This is certainly true in the near term but I bet the manufacturers hedge their bets. Who knows who'll be president in four years and a possible democratic administration will ratchet back up the standards.

The only problem I can think of by moving the goal post closer is the companies who've invested substantial money to be in line the new standard are ultimately penalized where as the companies who did very little will benefit the most.

thomasmnile wrote:
FWIW, the proposal on CAFE is only to roll back the compliance requirement for 54 mpg average by 2025. Not a wholesale repeal of the the standards.

Quite right I didn't mean to imply otherwise

FWIW, the proposal on CAFE is only to roll back the compliance requirement for 54 mpg average by 2025. Not a wholesale repeal of the the standards.

blt2ski wrote:
IMHO, the electric TRUCK ie class 2HD and above 8400gvw will come down from MDT applications. There are a few manufactures playing with electric, and electric hybrid drive trains. To my mind, it would be cheaper to make smaller vs making something from a smaller application. BUT,I could be wrong on that too.

Marty

I agree that the next step for Pickups will probably be electric hybrid drive trains. They make for complicated vehicles though. Lots and lots of moving parts.

IMHO, the electric TRUCK ie class 2HD and above 8400gvw will come down from MDT applications. There are a few manufactures playing with electric, and electric hybrid drive trains. To my mind, it would be cheaper to make smaller vs making something from a smaller application. BUT,I could be wrong on that too.

Marty

rhagfo wrote:

John & Angela wrote:

wilber1 wrote:
US automakers are global players and the rest of the world isn't going to stop moving forward because of something a US president signs. They will continue to develop these vehicles or become uncompetitive in wold markets.

I tend to agree. Right now 1 out of every 2 people walking into a showroom in Norway are going into buy a BEV or PHEV. Since the new year 51 percent of all registrations have been electric vehicles. Although Norway is on the cutting edge of this wave, EV sales are doubling every year in most developed countries in the world. People who have driven electric vehicles like the experience and are buying them. Government incentives have helped to give them a boost but prices are almost competitive with ice vehicles. In 5 years they will be cheaper. In 10 years they will be much cheaper than ice vehicles and of course maintenance is a fraction of the cost.

Americans should be able to buy whatever they want. Americans companies should be able to build whatever they want. However, if they want to be able to sell anything to any first world nation in ten years they might want to try and keep up. They will find markets in developing countries or third world countries that don't have 1st world environmental standards but the market will get smaller for ice vehicles. Trucks and SUV's too but it will take longer. Putting trade barriers up to foreign EV's coming in will help for awhile and assuming TESLA is not run out of the US there will be an excellent domestic source of EV's but Americans will want variety and that will come from foreign manufacturers.

Both of our vehicles are electric. Contrary to what every one seems to think we (EV drivers) are not all liberals nor are we environmental nuts. However, like many, we find the driving experience superior to any ICE vehicle. Maintenance is low, fuel is cheap, they are fast, nimble, very stable (low centre of gravity) dead quiet, very reliable and convenient. They are not for everyone's needs yet and pickups and SUV's have their place in North American markets and society. But in my opinion, if North American manufacturing stops R and D in the EV market simply because they don't have to because of the lack if government smog regulations they would be making a mistake.

All just my humble opinion.

John

Maybe due to fuel prices, Norway is about $6.72 a gallon!! VAT tax and road taxes.

I was in Ireland in December and paid eruo 1.20 per liter. that was about US $4.88 a gallon, during that trip the Dollar was about euro .95, one of the best rates inn years.

Yep. Could be. And in fifteen years I think the price of fuel in North America will still be cheaper than Europe so it will probably be still harder to justify the purchasing of an Electric vehicle in North America from the fuel cost point of view. But an Electric vehicle has 18 moving parts compared to the more than 2000 in an ICE vehicle. Those advantages will play out in the longer term. Again, people should be able to buy what they want. But it will be interesting to see if people want to buy a complicated gas powered car that needs regular oil changes and regular gas fill ups when there is much simpler electric vehicle that needs the washer fluid filled once a year available at the same or cheaper cost. Time will tell.

After two years I'm getting close to needing a new jug of washer fluid for our electric vehicles so here comes another bill for 1.89.

Obviously EV's are not a replacement for today's pickups...but the technology will be there in ten years to do exactly that. I suppose If North American manufacturers don't develop it they can always buy it from overseas companies.

John & Angela wrote:

wilber1 wrote:
US automakers are global players and the rest of the world isn't going to stop moving forward because of something a US president signs. They will continue to develop these vehicles or become uncompetitive in wold markets.

I tend to agree. Right now 1 out of every 2 people walking into a showroom in Norway are going into buy a BEV or PHEV. Since the new year 51 percent of all registrations have been electric vehicles. Although Norway is on the cutting edge of this wave, EV sales are doubling every year in most developed countries in the world. People who have driven electric vehicles like the experience and are buying them. Government incentives have helped to give them a boost but prices are almost competitive with ice vehicles. In 5 years they will be cheaper. In 10 years they will be much cheaper than ice vehicles and of course maintenance is a fraction of the cost.

Americans should be able to buy whatever they want. Americans companies should be able to build whatever they want. However, if they want to be able to sell anything to any first world nation in ten years they might want to try and keep up. They will find markets in developing countries or third world countries that don't have 1st world environmental standards but the market will get smaller for ice vehicles. Trucks and SUV's too but it will take longer. Putting trade barriers up to foreign EV's coming in will help for awhile and assuming TESLA is not run out of the US there will be an excellent domestic source of EV's but Americans will want variety and that will come from foreign manufacturers.

Both of our vehicles are electric. Contrary to what every one seems to think we (EV drivers) are not all liberals nor are we environmental nuts. However, like many, we find the driving experience superior to any ICE vehicle. Maintenance is low, fuel is cheap, they are fast, nimble, very stable (low centre of gravity) dead quiet, very reliable and convenient. They are not for everyone's needs yet and pickups and SUV's have their place in North American markets and society. But in my opinion, if North American manufacturing stops R and D in the EV market simply because they don't have to because of the lack if government smog regulations they would be making a mistake.

All just my humble opinion.

John

Maybe due to fuel prices, Norway is about $6.72 a gallon!! VAT tax and road taxes.

I was in Ireland in December and paid eruo 1.20 per liter. that was about US $4.88 a gallon, during that trip the Dollar was about euro .95, one of the best rates inn years.

agesilaus wrote:
The DEF and catalyst system is a bit of a different thing. There is a body of environmental research that points to CO2 as a greenhouse gas but it's not a totally concluded argument. Is it really the demon we make it out to be? Only time will truly answer that question.
===================================================================

CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas. That is easily shown to be the case. But it is a very weak greenhouse gas compared to many others. The greenhouse gas with the largest total affect is water vapor. Methane is another that is stronger.

The CO2 effect is best described by this analogy: imagine you have a room with a big window. You apply a coat of paint to it to block the light. But the one coat of paint doesn't block it all so you apply another. By the time you give that window the 4 or 5th coat all the light (aka infrared radiation for CO2 in certain bands) is absorbed and adding more coats of paint accomplishes little. CO2 works like that, as the concentration grows the effect gets smaller and smaller.

CO2 concentration has been going up for the last 15 years but temperatures have not.

Now that were are on this issue I predict the thread will quickly spiral out control and will be blocked by the moderator.[red/]

There are days I should have deleted this whole thing. Deleted a few post(s) that got into a more political "us vs them" along with the ones quoting said post(s). So far since. What I will at the moment say reasonable disCUSSion on a political topic. I see more why,why not, how too.......

Keep it calm cool and collective.....we can be in good shape. if not......well, that option has been guessed.

Marty