Cafe - Jalopnik

posts about #cafe more →
Obama Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules
Ballyhoed New CAFE Standards Riddled With Hummer-Sized Loopholes
California Plotting Post-2016 Fuel Standards
No Automakers Meet Obama's New Fuel Economy Standard
Obama Kills Fun Cars, Unveils 35.5 MPG Fuel Economy Plan By 2016
Obama To Announce New Fuel Economy, Emissions Standard Tomorrow
CAFE: Fuel Economy Standards To Increase 8% To 27.3 MPG For 2011
Raise The Gas Tax, Not CAFE
Australian Motoring Group Calls For Fuel Consumption Standards, Finally Gets Plot Of Road Warrior
BMW Thinks CAFE Is Unfair, Wants Special Treatment

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

☠Grяrяrяrяrя, portrait of a chickenwolfmoosepig.
09/15/09

In reply to Obama Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules
That's easy. All we have to do is double the size of a gallon.
Reply

FP: Your Volvo is awesome! Anyway promoted this comment

duurtlang
09/15/09

In reply to Obama Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules
35.5? We've almost got that already on this side of the pond. I'm quite sure it's way above 30 at this moment.
Reply

FP: Your Volvo is awesome! Anyway promoted this comment duurtlang was starred duurtlang was unstarred

MushyHeirloom
09/15/09

@duurtlang: You also have mass diesel availability, manual transmissions, and station wagons instead of Chelsea tractors.

Britain gets two things right: car purchases (usually) and traffic lights. I love that yellow-before-green thing.
Reply

Edited by MushyHeirloom at 09/15/09 7:40 PM MushyHeirloom was starred MushyHeirloom was unstarred

Paul Y. don't drive too fast.
09/15/09

In reply to Obama Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules
You know, if we just had safety and emissions standards that matched up with the rest of civilization, this would be a nonissue.
Reply

TTopJohn
09/15/09

In reply to Obama Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules
Here's hoping for some loopholes big enough to drive a Suburban through. Or at least a Camaro SS...
Reply

AmishJohn promoted this comment TTopJohn was starred TTopJohn was unstarred

AmishJohn
09/15/09

@TTopJohn: Nope, they're supposed to close the SUV loophole.
Reply

AmishJohn was starred AmishJohn was unstarred

AmishJohn
09/15/09

In reply to Obama Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Reply

AmishJohn was starred AmishJohn was unstarred

MushyHeirloom
09/15/09

In reply to Obama Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules
40 MPG fleetwide by the time we run out of oil.
Reply

MushyHeirloom was starred MushyHeirloom was unstarred

LoganSix
09/15/09

In reply to Obama Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules
"The administration estimated the requirements would cost up to $1,300 per new vehicle by 2016 - but that it would take just three years to pay off that investment"

Huh? W'ah? Um, I think if people don't feel that $1,300 on top of the price of the car is worth it, they just won't buy new cars and the auto companies won't be paying off that investment.
Reply

engineerd promoted this comment LoganSix was starred LoganSix was unstarred

engineerd
09/15/09

@LoganSix: Exactly why CAFE is a failure. It tries to force the carmakers to build cars that Congress -- not consumers in general -- want. If our government was really serious about this they would raise the gas tax*. However, this is considered political suicide, particularly at this time. Instead, they make the cowardly and politically expedient move of putting the onus on the car companies to ensure their sales meet some arbitrary average fuel economy regardless of what people will actually buy.

*I don't support this, however if reducing fuel usage in this country is the goal, this is the way to do it.
Reply

engineerd was starred engineerd was unstarred

Flathead Smith
09/15/09

In reply to Obama Unveils New Fuel Economy Rules
Why not just round it up to an even 100 mpg.
Reply

Flathead Smith was starred Flathead Smith was unstarred

Novaload
05/22/09

In reply to Ballyhoed New CAFE Standards Riddled With Hummer-Sized Loopholes
Wait--so this is just more bullshit from Washington, meant to sound good but really doing nothing?

Ok, I'm going back to my beer now.
Reply

Novaload was starred Novaload was unstarred

Fine Corinthian Leather Is Mandatory
05/22/09

In reply to Ballyhoed New CAFE Standards Riddled With Hummer-Sized Loopholes
So I can get fun cars even when I get older? That's fucking awesome.
Reply

.357
05/22/09

@911Turbo: When you're older? What are you, 5?
Reply

.357 was starred .357 was unstarred

A strolling player
05/22/09

In reply to Ballyhoed New CAFE Standards Riddled With Hummer-Sized Loopholes
I love the internet.

Everyone bitches about the bill because it creates an "unreasonable standard", but now they're "wasting time and money" since it "doesn't do anything"?

The point of the bill is to reduce emissions, is it not? By curtailing air conditioner emissions, it is doing just that. It is serving its purpose, and it is doing so in a way that would have been completely invisible to you if you hadn't just read this article.

Why not let them clean up the air for reasonable people who can read science, and let them let you have your over-capacity pickups and other things truckish?
Reply

A strolling player was starred

.357
05/22/09

@A stʁolling playeʁ: But complaining and bitching is so much fun!
Reply

.357 was starred .357 was unstarred

Flathead Smith
05/22/09

In reply to Ballyhoed New CAFE Standards Riddled With Hummer-Sized Loopholes
So my proposal goes like this:
Automakers need to make cars with three or four air conditioners in them and then they can sell cars that get about 12 mpg. It's a win for everyone.
Reply

Flathead Smith was starred Flathead Smith was unstarred

Paul Y. don't drive too fast.
05/22/09

@Flathead Smith: That would be sweet-- it would be like driving from inside of a reefer trailer.
Reply

Justin Culmo
05/22/09

In reply to Ballyhoed New CAFE Standards Riddled With Hummer-Sized Loopholes
I don't really getting the A/C one. I'm assuming this means rather than achieving an actual 3X.X MPG standard, they're going to make the engine run cleaner. I guess that's good for the environment, but trust me, in 7 years, people are going to be shopping by the rated MPG.

39/30MPG is a very realistic goal without sacrificing the 'funness' of a car. Finally, we're going to get smaller lighter cars that handle better without the extra bloat. Petrol engines are always getting slightly better. Turbochargers are increasing fuel economy while producing power. A few more Hybrid (or hybrid optional) cars. A few more EVs. A few more Diesel cars. Automakers could clear the bar without trying.

For the record, Let them make trucks/SUVs larger, let the people BUY these large SUVs. I have no sympathy for the person who has to drop 2 or 3 bills to fill his tank in 2016.
Reply

Justin Culmo was starred Justin Culmo was unstarred

HurtsSoGood
05/22/09

@Justin Culmo: The less gas you burn, the fewer GHGs you generate. Therefore fuel economy and GHG reduction go hand in hand. Now, if you do your required GHG reductions by tightening up your AC unit as opposed to increasing MPG, you achieve the GHG goal without achieving the MPG goal.

And you're dead right about MPG != less fun. In the early 80s (stop me if you've heard this before), a typical four-banger made between 70 and 90 HP. You could boost this with turbos, but the better way is through improving the engine itself. 16-valve DOHC engines immediately resulted in big gains in power that were almost free in terms of efficiency.

So now twenty years later, the same size four-banger makes between 130 and 180 HP. This means you could either go, "hmm, we could just put a smaller engine under the hood, which means the frame can be even lighter, which means we need even less displacement and a smaller gas tank, which means less weight," and save a bunch of fuel, or you could go, "yippee! Free horsepower FTW!" like we've been doing.

Myself, I'd like to see tax incentives in favor of the latter. If you had an early 90s Honda Civic-class vehicle with, oh, 950cc displacement (my guestimate would be 85 HP - our 1500cc '91 Civic made just 90), you could get 50 MPG even before resorting to a whole bunch of heroic measures like hybrid engines. Seems kind of silly to want 140 HP in your subcompact shitbox if you're just going to sit in traffic anyway.
Reply

HurtsSoGood was starred HurtsSoGood was unstarred

Ray Wert
05/22/09

In reply to Ballyhoed New CAFE Standards Riddled With Hummer-Sized Loopholes
@RagtagOperation: You should hate on the administration, both past and present, for continuing the madness of CAFE and selling it as a way to decrease fuel consumption when the reality is the best policy is to develop a higher and more progressive gas tax. That way, you increase the cost of owning fuel inefficient cars and increase demand for said vehicles.
Reply

Ray Wert was starred Ray Wert was unstarred

RagtagOperation
05/22/09

@Ray Wert: I'm actually against increased gas taxes as they tend to be a regressive tax that burdens the poor with increasing the cost of basic transportation more than help improve the efficiencies of vehicles. Someone in a lower income level isn't going to have the means to buy the latest hybrid so they can afford their work commute; they're instead going to have to keep filling the tank to their 90's era GM with a 3400 that works on the principle of "more (fuel) for less (power)." In places where public transportation has actually been established (read: NOT the South), this isn't so much a problem.

Also, I like that CAFE actually encourages R&D progress in powertrains. Like HCCI.
Reply

RagtagOperation was starred RagtagOperation was unstarred

DoctorNine's D9 Cat
05/22/09

@Ray Wert: I think you mean DECREASE demand for inefficient vehicles, but yeah. +10 for succinct exposition of the important facts. We are going to need to recoup all these federal stimulus package dollars somewhere. And we need to decrease fossil fuel consumtion. There is really only one way to do both of those responsibly.
Reply

DoctorNine's D9 Cat
05/22/09

@RagtagOperation: The whole 'regressive' thing is such malarky, that it bugs me to keep seeing people write it. All you have to do is give a tax credit based on income and miles to work to get around this. And the advantages to having the tax far far outweigh the negatives.
Reply

RagtagOperation
05/22/09

@DoctorNine: But wouldn't giving a tax credit then eliminate the economic penalty of the higher gas prices in the first place? Even if for only lower income drivers, these are the people who tend to be driving older-generation, less-efficient vehicles. Especially if you do have an increase in the gas tax, where those who don't make the cut for the credit bail out of their gas-guzzling barges and flood the market with these vehicles, which will make it the more appealing choice to those less affluent shoppers when their prices sink due to saturation (who also don't typically consider the total cost of ownership). If all vehicles get more efficient, there's less of a risk of this happening.

I know my position is very unpopular here, but I like being the hole in the echo chamber anyway. Besides, I give credit to clever workarounds. Then again, I can imagine the general public, after paying $4 a gallon for gas, frothing at the mouth at the idea of a gas tax too, as it certainly would be a welcome revenue generator.
Reply

RagtagOperation was starred RagtagOperation was unstarred

Novaload
05/22/09

@DoctorNine: Yeah? So when can I expect that tax credit? Like, never?
Reply

Novaload was starred Novaload was unstarred

Ray Wert
05/22/09

@RagtagOperation: The issue isn't older vehicles. It's actually people who stretch beyond their means and buy SUVs and trucks for no real reason other than they think they want some form of ambiguous added utility.

Many older vehicles, because they're lighter, tend to do OK in fuel economy.
Reply

Ray Wert was starred Ray Wert was unstarred

A strolling player
05/22/09

@Ray Wert: Ooh, don't forget misconceptions of safety!
Reply

A strolling player was starred

John Krewson
05/22/09

In reply to Ballyhoed New CAFE Standards Riddled With Hummer-Sized Loopholes
This is exactly why I never worry about large-scale long-range planning on the part of the government. This proposal is seven years away. Flash back to seven years ago. Where did YOU think you'd be by now? Right.
Reply

John Krewson was starred John Krewson was unstarred

Earlier threads | All threads | Show hidden threads | Show featured threads only | Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Jalopnik

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment