CAFE stds on the chopping block

Gotta love people who love to hang labels. When they can't rebut an argument, just hang an (what they consider) unpleasant label on you and away they go. :) Hey, works for me. I've got my guns, and like to ride my sport bike with loud pipes really fast, so I suppose that makes me a conservative liberal. :)

It's frustrating because no matter what we do as a nation we are only a very small fraction of the world (despite what many of us think). Until we can get the whole world to make changes it's tough to see the point. I realize that is somewhat short sighted but it's just reality.

I agree the standards off in the future were far too much but it has resulted in some great improvements over the last 10 years with respect to fuel economy. Hell, I can get 15MPG in my 7500# gas HD truck. Typing that on a message board 15 years ago would have been flamed and laughed at.

So, without being pushed would the automakers inherently do this much to improve economy? Perhaps, but my guess is not to the level that they have been.

All the political posturing and taking sides is not for this site. Keep it out and this thread has a chance of being a good discussion.

NJRVer wrote:
40 years ago the auto companies complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 30 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 20 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.


Guess what? They met them and they are still here.

At WHAT COST?

30 yrs ago you could buy a fully loaded top trim level 1 ton pickup truck for a mere $12K! Sure it only got 10 MPG empty but considering today you will pay in excess of $60K for fully loaded 1 Ton pickup truck and it only gets 14 MPG empty!

The Companies were forced to spend BILLIONS of dollars per year to "clean" the air and "improve" economy.. The companies cannot afford to absorb that cost so that cost IS PASSED ONTO THE CUSTOMERS!

I am not against clean air, but there ARE considerable limitations to just how much more "reduction" in pollution and increase in mileage can be had.. There are many inherent losses with Internal combustion engines that cannot be helped or "improved".. There becomes a point in time where the gains are so small compared to what the consumer can bear in costs.

One of the CHEAPEST solutions to improving the "economy" is to REDUCE or REMOVE the alcohol!..

Cutting gas with alcohol easily reduces the mileage by 10% or a bit more.. You end up using more gas overall and the alcohol process burns up a lot of energy in crops and processing..

Tyler0215 wrote:
Like all Government agencies the EPA issues new regulations to justify they're existence, with out regard to common sense or need for more regs.

I believe this is the biggest reason, justify and get more money.

Yes, in the 70's they were needed we had some pretty bad air in several cities. That said there is a point of diminishing returns. that is where the common sense goes out the door.

Fleet average of 54 mpg, could mean a lot of electric or hybrid. While the car produces less emissions, what does it take to produce the car in the first place. The environmental impact of producing the batteries. How is the electricity that powers an all electric car produced. Hydro power is on the hit list, that leaves oil, gas,coal, or nuclear. Just saying there are trade offs.

Many look at diesel PU as bad, but I can move a 7,800# vehicle down the road at 20 mpg to match this a 2,600# car would need to get 60 mpg!

Towing and moving 19,500# I get 12 mpg,the equivalent of a 2,600# car getting 90 mpg.

That's the national trend for NOx which is blamed for the most visible effects of air pollution. That brown sky effect. You can look other pollutants and see basically the same trend for all of them. The same thing for water quality.

We've fought the battle and won, what we need to do is maintain the current levels. We don't need ever more onerous legal standards to improve what doesn't need improving.

The EPA recently has been caught faking ozone numbers to make them look worse.

I will say the scale chosen for that curve is itself deceptive, the bottom number is 13 not zero which would be the honest value.

Hopefully the taxpayer elec vehicle rebates stop soon.

agesilaus wrote:

NJRVer wrote:
40 years ago the auto companies complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 30 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.
Then 20 years ago they complained they couldn't meet standards.


Guess what? They met them and they are still here.

Yes but do you think that auto manufacturers can continue to sell Pickups, especially HD Pickups and other large SUV type vehicles and still achieve a 54 miles per gallon fleet average.

It's not physically possible. They'd have to drop large vehicles from their product list. And how many small vehicles today come remotely close to 54 mpg? I think the diesel Rabbit was up there but did VW do it honestly?

I could probably dig through old news stories and find the same quotes, but they actually managed to meet them.

Have to get in before it get blocked.....

I love all these ideas.... They are all found under run amok in the dictionary...

fj12ryder wrote:
It's about time, just think how much better the smog would be in LA without all these intrusive regulations. Heck, we could probably be better than Mexico City or Beijing. How can you trust air you can't even see?

^^^^ What he said!

Hannibal wrote:
I remember the smog in Tampa Fl back in the 60's. I wouldn't want to go back to that.

LOL, Kind of like LA back in the early 70s with half the population it has now. The good memories bring a tear to my eye. How dare the intrusive government force us to have clean air and water. Where is Love canal when you need it.