Lets not get political, but what are the hives thoughts on the new fuel efficiency standards that were announced yesterday?
Is this even possible? 55 MPG fleet average is a drastic jump.
How will this effect our hobby? It seems like electric vehicles are already quickly becoming more mainstream, will this make that happen quicker? Will the higher performance ICE variants get dropped, or are they such a small percentage of sales that they are irrelevant?
Thoughts?
I won't be surprised if the target date gets moved once we get closer, or things get adjusted if it's looking unrealistic. But sometimes a longshot goal to give the manufacturers a kick in the pants is just what it takes to encourage progress. Fuel economy of most average cars took a massive leap in a pretty short number of years recently, so this may be encouraging the manufacturers to step up the R&D push for that next big jump (or to push harder on ICE alternatives).
With the number of electrics hitting the market and what they do to the fleet average, I don't see it changing much.
The low-end economy cars will be zero mpg. A fair number of their higher-performance cars will also be electric. That brings the average for the rest of the fleet up. I think you will still see some 700hp fire breathers as long as there is a market for them.
I would think that the development cycles for vehicles are longer than three years, changing standards mid cycle can't be helpful.
The article mentions a cost savings based on the higher mileage standard. Would this be offset by a higher purchase price or would the end user actually see a savings? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
In reply to pimpm3 (Forum Supporter) :
From what I have observed, the continual availability of cheap fuel has conditioned people to not care about fuel economy with their vehicle choices.
I also think 2026 is too soon. That is three years away. OTOH I also don't know what is currently in the pipeline.
This sounds like the plan is either to move the target or use some sort of creative loophole, such as "If the car can run E85, only the 15% gasoline counts!"
why not make it 80mpg? why stop at 55? If you want to create an arbitrary and unachievable number, why not shoot for the moon?!
We're reaching the end of what you're going to get out of a gallon of gas with an ICE. Either make cars smaller (not going to happen), make cars less powerful (not going to happen), or make everything with a battery. Consumers will drive that demand more than government, but its the government's spot to make the paper and then blame everyone else when it doesn't work.
"The new rules will save U.S. drivers between $210 billion and $420 billion in fuel costs through 2050". Thanks government for saving us 420 billion!
In this one graphic the two GMs average out to 68.5 mpg. The two Fords average out to 54 mpg. I call some "shenanigans" in the way e-economy is figured. The companies who will have the hardest time will be those without a EV offering, like a Subaru. But, those outliers only then need to joint venture or badge engineer the selling of someone else's EV model.
Isn't the standard across what the manufacturer offers for sale, not what the manufacture sells or sales volume? Meaning, as an example GM can sell 20 times as many trucks vs the Bolt and still be compliant?
I support this BUT, that 55mpg number is bullE36 M3 and impossible for the average consumer to process. Heck, even in the article it says "That 55 miles a gallon requirement equates to an estimated 40 miles a gallon in real-world stop-and-go driving, the EPA said."
Flex Fuel has a giant impact on those numbers even though its used by nearly nobody.
EVs also have a giant impact on those numbers as MPGe measurements are always very high. This understandably accomplishes the same goal (less fuel used), but still generates confusion in understanding the CAFE number.
The CAFE requirement involves a correction factor based on vehicle footprint which is clear as mud for example (note trucks follow a different chart)
John Welsh said:In this one graphic the two GMs average out to 68.5 mpg. The two Fords average out to 54 mpg. I call some "shenanigans" in the way e-economy is figured. The companies who will have the hardest time will be those without a EV offering, like a Subaru. But, those outliers only then need to joint venture or badge engineer the selling of someone else's EV model.
Isn't the standard across what the manufacturer offers for sale, not what the manufacture sells or sales volume? Meaning, as an example GM can sell 20 times as many trucks vs the Bolt and still be compliant?
No the standard is sales weighted. GM needs to sell a lot more bolts.
I would have to look into it more, but if this is anything like the previous version of this, the rule includes energy savings while making and disposing of vehicles, too. And for that, I do think it's more possible. Lots of work is going into reduced energy AND CO2 (since it's actually a big part of making steel)- which will very much reduce a vehicle's overall impact to CO2.
And the shift to EV's and more hybridization- the number of pure fuel vehicles is going down quite a bit.
Again, not knowing the rule (as we woke to this as opposed to knowing it), I actually think that meeting some timing now is more realistic than the last time I heard this.
At the same time, the Mustang is far from dead. The "nice" thing about our hobby is that is so insignificant that the impact can be spread out over a lot of vehicles. The hobby is also so profitable for OEMs that they will certainly charge more....
For me, it ends up being a good time to retire. I spent most of my career learning emissions and the chemistry/physics behind that. And it's being pretty marginalized, relatively speaking.
We had an ICE car that would do 63 mpg with so-so aero, archaic 1st gen EFI, and zero safety features . I'd like to think in 30+ years , we can do better than the Geo Metro.
I presume the manufacturers will be forced to pay fines if they don't meet the standard, which will be passed on the the customers, so its a nice new tax, maybe.
My '82 Starlet claimed 52mpg.
If people learned that they don't need air conditioning, heated seats or crash protection, I bet we could get even better than that with modern technology.
-edit-
Damn, Appleseed beat me to it.
In reply to pimpm3 (Forum Supporter) :
Thoughts.... don't bring up something done purely for political reasons and tell people to not get political. It's unbecoming of honest open debate. If you don't want honest open debate, don't ask.
For these reasons, I will not comment about it or further on this post.
ShawnG said:If people learned that they don't need air conditioning, heated seats or crash protection, I bet we could get even better than that with modern technology.
2022 model, 58mpg, 0-60 in 4.2sec, 13sec quarter mile, and under $6k NEW:
Appleseed said:We had an ICE car that would do 63 mpg with so-so aero, archaic 1st gen EFI, and zero safety features . I'd like to think in 30+ years , we can do better than the Geo Metro.
ShawnG said:My '82 Starlet claimed 52mpg.
Apples to oranges. The 55mpg target involves new measurement techniques, as well as modifiers for footprint as discussed above.
Conferted to new measurement technique:
The metros footprint isn't even on that chart posted earlier, its so small. So its target is going to be well over the 55mpg fleet average.
Enthusiasts are far more threatened by a lack of interest in enthusiast vehicles than they are rising mpg standards for appliances.
I mean, we have manufacturers moving to making nothing smaller than a crossover SUV...
Smaller lighter vehicles, I don't see too big a drawback. Did the 70s kill sportscars, or did it lead to a lot of innovation after a lull period, with some standouts?
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
If it seems like these numbers aren't achievable with an ICE it's because they're not meant to be - the average is basically just supposed to incentivize enough electrification to meet that average, and it won't take a whole lot.
red_stapler said:Enthusiasts are far more threatened by a lack of interest in enthusiast vehicles than they are rising mpg standards for appliances.
And yet, they won't go into a dealership and help prevent it from happening. 
Selling more EV's will get the car makers closer to that goal but can they really make all those EVs? I read an article, don't remember where; but in it the writer totaled up all the battery manufacturing capacity, current and planned and the numbers didn't add up to amount of the EVs the car makers said they planned to make. In addition there is not enough raw materials
currently being mined to make all those batteries. And mining and refining all those raw materials creates pollution itself. Finally the US is nowhere self sufficient in the production of any of the materials needed to make all those EVs.
jimbbski said:Selling more EV's will get the car makers closer to that goal but can they really make all those EVs? I read an article, don't remember where; but in it the writer totaled up all the battery manufacturing capacity, current and planned and the numbers didn't add up to amount of the EVs the car makers said they planned to make. In addition there is not enough raw materials
currently being mined to make all those batteries. And mining and refining all those raw materials creates pollution itself. Finally the US is nowhere self sufficient in the production of any of the materials needed to make all those EVs.
There's more of a chip shortage than a battery material shortage at the moment, AFAIK there's no real lack of production capacity for lithium-based batteries right now but there was some danger of a potential production shortage 5~10 years ago. The mining and refining of batteries has a miniscule environmental impact compared to the gas/diesel supply chain so nothing to worry about there.
z31maniac said:red_stapler said:Enthusiasts are far more threatened by a lack of interest in enthusiast vehicles than they are rising mpg standards for appliances.
And yet, they won't go into a dealership and help prevent it from happening.
Have you seen what was happening with new car prices, even before the pandemic? New cars are now a luxury for the rich or a deal with the devil for the desperate. People who have enough money to afford a surprise repair bill and backup transportation but not so much that they can drop $40k+ because they feel like it have no business buying new cars. I don't know who's spending this silly money at dealerships, but since they are they might as well buy EVs...
You'll need to log in to post.
