Automakers not panicked over new mileage standards
President Obama announced plans to establish more stringent national auto mileage standards on Tuesday, a move that will accelerate the arrival of energy-efficient technologies such as hybrid cars and diesel engines.
The plan calls for a 5 percent annual increase in car makers' fleet-wide fuel efficiency starting in 2012. The standard, which addresses cars and light trucks, will be 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016, four years sooner than previously planned. (Click for PDF with details.)
The stricter mandate also presses automakers to quickly adopt fuel-savings technologies in an industry reeling from falling car purchases. But auto manufacturers on Tuesday voiced support for the plan and its timeline.
"This new agreement will go a long way toward preserving the widest possible range of consumer choice in new vehicle purchases, (and) allow sufficient lead time for manufacturers to thoroughly engineer and test next-generation technologies before they are launched to the public," said Michael Stanton, the CEO of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. "And (it) provides a sufficient degree of flexibility to mitigate costs in very capital-intensive new vehicle development."
Obama announced the agreement at the White House with members of his cabinet, the presidents and CEOs of 10 automakers, environmental advocates, and the president of the United Auto Workers. He said a series of "major lawsuits" will be dropped in support of the national standard.
The proposal creates a single fuel economy standard for the U.S. and regulates greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Auto manufacturers had complained they faced three different sets of regulations--the national Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard, California's proposed rules, and potential regulations on emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The speeded-up efficiency rules will add about $600 to the price of producing a vehicle compared to the current law, according to reports. But the higher efficiency will mean that consumers will be able to recoup that cost in about three years, Obama said in his speech.
President Obama announcing an agreement on national gas mileage standards.
(Credit: Screen capture by Martin LaMonica/CNET)"Yes, it costs money to develop these vehicles, but even as the price to build these cars and trucks goes up, the cost of driving these vehicles will go down, as drivers save money at the pump," he said.
Some changes, such as low rolling-resistance tires, offer relatively cheap ways to bring fuel efficiency to cars while more advanced technologies such as gasoline direct injection and "stop-start," where a car turns off when not moving, are more expensive, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2953 Analytics, and Automotive News (registration required).
Who can adapt?
Meeting these new standards is doable in part because most global automakers are already selling more efficient models in Europe, said Bilal Zuberi, a venture capitalist at General Catalyst Partners.
Ford, for example, already sells more efficient diesel engine cars in Europe with added emissions control equipment. Company Chairman Bill Ford last month said that the company intends to bring its smaller, fuel-efficient models from Europe to the U.S. General Motors has some hybrids in its fleet and it is developing an extended-range electric drivetrain for the Chevy Volt and other cars.
"GM is fully committed to this new approach," said CEO Fritz Henderson in a statement. "GM and the auto industry benefit by having more consistency and certainty to guide our product plans."
Financially strapped Chrysler, on the other hand, has emphasized its larger cars and Jeep platform, which will make it harder to meet new standards, although a proposed tie-up with Fiat would add small, fuel-efficient cars to its fleet, Zuberi said.
"This (policy) would mean a much faster, and hopefully not too painful, adoption of hybrids," said Zuberi. "Almost every car will have a mild type of hybrid and there will be greater penetration."
He added that the demand for fuel-efficient technologies also creates opportunities for partnerships and potentially acquisitions of electric-car component suppliers and start-ups, such as Fisker Automotive, Bright Automotive, and Tesla Motors, which announced an electric powertrain licensing deal with Daimler on Tuesday.
"With this action and President Obama's pledge to put 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015, we are off to a good start," said Sherry Boschert, co-founder of advocacy group Plug In America.
The policy will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil in the next five years, the equivalent of taking 58 million cars off the road for a year, according to the White House.
"This agreement is the breakthrough the nation needs to cut carbon emissions and help consumers deal with volatile gas prices," said Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicle Program, in a statement. "Automakers have the technology they need to meet and beat these standards while saving consumers billions."
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
A HEAVY national tax on gasoline would FORCE people into higher mileage vehicles due to cost considerations alone, but the Obama Admin doesn't really want to fix the problem, they just want it to LOOK like they have fixed the problem.
So, instead of real CHANGE, we get change Obama-lite style. Its all about the looks, not the substance.
These changes ALSO include emissions standards first proposed by CARB, but was previously rejected by the EPA under George Bush. So an increased gas tax would not have addressed tailpipe emissions.
So, therefore, throw the whole Constitution out of the window? That makes sense.
We must have read a different 2nd amendmnet. It's pretty clear the right exist and shall be protected. What's your version say?
Growing up, we *never* had an American-made car - particularly GMs - that were anything but trouble-prone. *NONE* of our Asian or European cars ever gave us the kinds of problems our GMs did. We weren't alone in this. There's a reason why very few American marques make it into the top tiers of the reliability ratings.
You screw over your buyers with crap quality for long enough and your buyers *will* abandon you. GM is in the state its in, now, because of the schlock they've produced for the past several decades.
When the Japanese car makers first came over, they made cheap crap. However each year they paid attention and upped the quality a bit. Each model year saw improvments in design. The rest is history.
Most of what the greenies want these days have unintended consequences. This will lead to cars no one wants. Let's see how this works out for them in the end. One day, we will be chasing them through the streets with torches and pitch forks. I look forward to that day.
You can't legislate the laws of physics.
Oh yeah, and much of the world already has tougher standards in place. Where are the pitch forks in Japan, China, Canada, Australia and the EU?
Physics. You can't get more energy out of gas than it contains. If a MPG requirment is above that limit it's not realistic. Hybrids recycle energy. It's a work around, but you still have limits.
That said, I wonder how electric cars will be ranked.... as zero emission (which is false) or based on some calculation which averages the pollution and inefficiencies of real-world electric use? Until we get better electric production in place, electric cars are largely 'feel-good' type solutions for environmental wanna-be type people (and that isn't taking to account the pollution of current battery technologies).
I do think it is time to raise the bar... so applaud it in that way... but as for addressing pollution and the problems or rising energy costs, this is a drop in the bucket.
for non-light trucks, so the change isn't particularly noteworthy, another fact not known by many of the media articles written so far (the media gets most stuff wrong). American automakers are already to import a ton of small cars from China, so this requirement means fewer American jobs - American automakers can't even hope to compete against the Chinese cars on the way, and its likely the Japanese are going to take the same route as the Americans - move up to light trucks and SUV's.
No automaker has to build the tiny cars that will meet 41 MPG standrad - most will build the 27 MPG
level vehicles. Smaller cars will mostly come from China, regardless of what nameplate is on the hood. And any chages would take so inordinately long to occur (from 2016 at 14 million cars per year to replace the 240 million out there - that's way, way down the road, making this announcement more of a political statement than anything else). At worst, Americans will simply refuse to trade in - large used cars will acquire a high pricetag and new cars will litter the showrooms. When will the morons in Washington learn that they can't simply pass these simpleminded laws and get results. It's pure BS and pure politics. Nothing more. Nothing to se here, folks. Move along. Nothing to see here.
While LIGHTER cars will surely be a part of the mix, there are a whole host of other options that will be used.
In fact, we already know that the effect will be to produce engines that are able to shut off cylinders when not needed, inclusion of turbo and super-chargers to shrink overall engine sizes, and a move towards diesel for larger vehicles, as well as light-hybrids that will produce the torque needed on towing / heavy capacity trucks, but with a smaller engine as well. All of these technologies already exist and are in use.
Cars getting 41? That is a car that NO ONE will want. Not even the "Smart" Fortwo gets close to that. Try to use that if you have a family. It won't work. These new standards are a pipe dream.
But the next step will be Obama mandating that you MUST scrap your old car and buy a new tiny POS crapmobile that no one wants.
And the whole point of this is to drive technology. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised how manufacturers are able to improve efficiency once they are required to.
The easiest way to a lighter car is to make it smaller.
There is a reason a less displacment is more fuel efficient all other things being the same. Turbo charging is a way to work around the need for raw displacment for the power you need for a short time while accelerating. During that time though your MPG will still suck.
Most car parts already come from China so nothing new there, unless they're ridiculously cheap no person in North America would buy a purely Chinese made car. I doubt we're ready for TA TA autos from India, I hear they're pretty good just darn ugly.
The American auto industry will endure some way -- some how.
So before you make any biased remarks, do your homework please and everyone a favor!
On the plus side, your "smart" ForTwo can also be used after the accident as your casket.
That said.... I'd much rather see us put our effort in alternate energy sources than killing the performance of cars. Like jwissick implied, most people don't want to drive 'gutless wonders' even if it would save the planet (which I don't think is the case anyway). I'd much rather get people to buy a new cool car that runs on alternate energy sources, than try to guilt them into driving boring cars (which seems to be the current trend). The sad thing is that technology is nearly there to do it. We can make TONS of energy from the sun through solar concentrating technologies, if only the grid were in place to move it around. Battery technology has a way to go, but we do have hydrogen... which if energy from the sun were cheap enough could be produced. There are bio solutions just around the corner to make bio-fuels, but also might enable much more efficient hydrogen production.
My biggest fear is that all the hysterics over global warming are going to push technology in stupid directions by being in too big of hurry, rather than working out real long-term solutions. God forbid they actually start monkeying with stuff like seeding the oceans trying to reverse what they believe is happening... yikes!
The Jetta TDI is a great example! When it is time for a new car, that will be VERY high on my list to look at.... and in other than a few situations, FAR safer than the Jeep jwissick is referring to (and that is if the Jeep doesn't roll over before it hits anything).
Anyway, this is good news cause the buying public doesn't buy cars based on cost to own, rather cost to purchase. And fuel costs have little to do with that personal calculus. This is compounded by the fact that ownership is subsidized via the transportation infrastructure, and no direct costs for securing the delivery of gasoline.
While a gas tax would be the best way to solve a lot of this, it's not politically possible, so this is a good step forward.
Not even the tiny so-called Smart ForTwo gets that kind of milage.... The real life Prius milage is not much better. Obama must still be doing drugs.
Therefore, if you think that this has got to do with President Obama alone (when the entire world is looking towards to the United States of America for leadership then perhaps one might tend to get the impression that you may not have been taking your medications lately.
Re: "Obama said the standards, announced at a White House ceremony attended by auto industry and union leaders, would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and give five years of cost certainty to an industry battling to survive..."
http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/world/05/20/obama-takes-aim-at-climate-warming-car-emissions/
So what does, "give five years of cost certainty to an industry battling to survive" mean? I hope we're not going to be subsidizing this move to coax the car makers to do it. (well, any more than the many billions we've already handed them to postpone their demise for a bit... does anyone realize we gave GM alone 1/10 what we spent on the Iraq war?)
As bad as these companies have been run, I think we should have just let them fail and save the money to help people hurt by the fallout. Then let companies eager to actually innovate start making descent cars. If we couple this with good efforts into alternate energies... we could have cars that are both green AND fun!
every human know around the world that configuration of future is our hand, but we must build it step by step. urgently we are dying in one condition. regulation maker who never understand the need of regulation itself. every material in this world caught by us inside our negative construction. if we think that making a new method of our better life is solution to a sensitive case of our problem. that is not true. we need collaboration each other. humans are just humans. we always take this issue to make us the king who can easily make money. we never order our original contribution to make this world better. new technology mean spend money to use that.
just think that we still sit in one place where already has not be built yet, now we are inside there. nothing to do just put our imagination in a hole of nothing.
Remember K cars, my dad and uncles bought some of these "wonderful" machines, needles to say they were simply junk, a reflection of the quality the big three thought they could force feed their customers. People eventually got tired of this abuse and found in Honda and Toyota (and others) a better quality an fuel efficient vehicle.
It was the big three own fault that people even considered other brands. Now they're getting the result of their own actions. I for one think president Obama should have requested a tougher standard sooner than what's proposed now.
You're right, the American car companies were simply stupid back then... and seem to have gotten stupider in recent times. Heck, just about anyone off the street could have run these companies better. I could have told them this was coming like 10 years ago.
I think President Obama shouldn't have given the auto makers bail-out money.
There are ideas and concrete examples of good science that would put the automotive standards to SHAME. As long as the government is tied to oil and it's import taxes America will never be freed from it's black addiction.
- by darkebinary May 21, 2009 11:05 AM PDT
- This isn't as big of an increase as most people think. The CAFE standards like most things that goverment handles are deceptive. The numbers you see on the sticker and that are advertised by car makers are EPA numbers, which aren't close to the same as CAFE numbers. The 39 mpg CAFE mileage requirement for cars corresponds to about 29 EPA mpg. Likewise, the mileage requirement for trucks is much lower than it looks, the new requirements will be just 23 EPA mpg. Automakers aren't panicked because a lot of cars already meet these standards, or are pretty close. The EPA standards are even high for most cars. They should start focuing on getting more accurate numbers before basing regulation of them.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(55 Comments)