U.S. Senate Reaches Fuel Efficiency Compromise

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by Smellhound

.....I would like to see the government ENCOURAGE ethanol production and other alternative fuels too...however to require half their vehicles run on it by 2015 might be risky.......

It doesn't require that they run on it. It requires that they be CAPABLE of running on it.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

It doesn't require that they run on it. It requires that they be CAPABLE of running on it.

Reminds me of those commercials in the 70's for R.I.F. Reading Is Fundamental. Well, actually reading comprehension, but hey, who's paying attention?

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by drew630

....I am going to miss not being able to own a new Suburban/Tahoe/Yukon/Yukon XL/Escalade/EXT/ESV though. I really don't see how vehicles like these can achieve the 35 mpg rating. Hopefully GM can figure out how though in 12 years.

It's not "Every vehicle must achieve 35mpg". It's an average. Some vehicles could make less, provided that the manufacturer sells some that get more to counterbalance them.

[sigma]

Originally Posted by MelvinJ

CAFE does nothing to encourage people to live closer to their work. It does nothing to encourage them to drive at off-peak times to avoid traffic. It does nothing to encourage the building of more efficient roads where people won't spend an hour and a half to drive what should take 35 minutes. It does nothing to encourage car-pooling. It does nothing to encourage people to accelerate gently and drive the speed limit. It doesn't ecourage people to consolidate errand trips. It doesn't encourage people to trade in older vehicles for more efficient new ones if the new ones are compromised. And these are just automotive related consumption issues. That's what, maybe a third of the US energy consumption? We're going to quite possibly cripple the US manufacturers who are the most strapped for R&D funding, so that we can piss in the wind with CAFE regulations?

You see, I've argued in favor of zoning, urban repopulation and redevelopment, mass transit and fuel efficient cars and based on the response I got, you would have thought had I lived 50 years ago Joe McCarthy would have stuck me on that black list.

Your taking away my freedom to do whatever I want whenever I want, they whined. When have you ever had that freedom in the first place?

[sigma]

Originally Posted by windvale

That's the reason that there's no skiing in Europe - because they don't have full-size SUV's over there. Only Americans with our full-size SUV's can actually ski !

Yes I know, and its just a damn shame too because those Alps would be so much fun to ski on.

[dlr]

Originally Posted by KingElvis

The Senate has taken wise action. Enshrining "light trucks" in the '75 rule was a major mistake.

I've been writing and lobbying about the loophole for four years.

This is the best thing that has happened to 'passenger cars' in over thirty years.

This is the letter I sent to Automotive News. The Loophole was an outrage. Thank God it's gone.


I’ve spent several years researching automotive history and have come to a startling conclusion: Before CAFE rules were implemented pickup trucks were no heavier than ‘passenger cars.’ Furthermore, pickup trucks of the 1960’s were not just lighter than full size cars, they were substantially less powerful. The most powerful pickup engines were, in general, about half as powerful as the most powerful passenger car engines. Ford’s 1967 model year F Series offered three engines, only one of which was a V8: a 352cid engine with 200horsepower. This was the top engine even for the F-350 ‘one ton’ pickup, which had a payload in excess of 5000lbs. Ford’s top passenger car engine, a 427cid V8, had over twice the horsepower as the F-Series 352 V8.

Today, the popular crew cab pickups weigh nearly 6000lbs – 50% more than typical full size cars. The ’67 F-100 pickup, with a payload of 1,500lbs, weighed just 3500lbs – hundreds of pounds less, than the ’67 Ford LTD sedan. The 2007 Ford F-150 regular cab long bed weighs 1,200lbs more than its closest ’67 counterpart.

As the passenger carrying part of the pickup has grown, the load carrying part of the pickup has shrunk. Most pickups built today are actually designed for carrying passengers in opulent luxury, not payloads. Increasing cab size to create a back seat actually subtracts from the pickup’s payload capacity. The current Ford F-150 Crew Cab pickup weighs about 1000lbs more than the regular cab, long bed F-150 and has a payload capacity roughly 1000lbs less.

There is no “commercial” reason that light trucks need to weigh more or have more power than ‘passenger cars’ – even with increased economy standards. Fuel thrifty commercial vehicles are not just possible they are already on the roads. Dodge’s Sprinter commercial truck has been tested at 25mpg and can carry a payload well over 5000lbs.

Creating separate ‘easy’ gas mileage standards for light trucks and ‘hard’ standards for cars was not warranted in 1975 when the CAFE regime was created, nor is it warranted in 2007. Any reform of CAFE standards should ensure that ‘light trucks’ are no longer given any special dispensation.

Sincerely,

Robert Harless

Chicago, IL

Robert Harless,

Why do you think trucks have changed so much since the 60’s & 70’s?

You mention that trucks weigh more now. Why do they weigh more? You failed to mention that one of the reasons they weigh more is because of government regulations. The government forced manufacturers to include options, structural changes and other features to be built in every vehicle, to make them safer. Whether the eventual consumer wanted them or not. These extra weight adding components were government mandated.

Another reason why they weigh more is because more trucks are sold now to residential customers. A residential customer wants options like air conditioning, power windows and locks, stereos, carpeting and plush seats, navigations systems, power sunroofs, 20” wheels, tube steps and the list goes on. They also want a quieter ride which means acoustical foam, sound deadening mats, thicker door seals and other features that add weight to make the cabin quieter. I would talk to people that would say why doesn't GM build just a very basic truck. The reason is because no one would buy it. People want their cake and eat it too.

I don’t buy that GM is forcing people to buy trucks and SUV’s. That’s a joke. GM makes cars both small and large that are competitive with fuel economy.

People buy trucks because they like the room, the ride, the power, the performance and the utility that a truck offers.

Maybe trucks became more popular since the CAFÉ standards because it forced the manufacturers to build cars that could not perform like cars did in the 60’s & 70’s or like trucks built today do.

You yourself even stated that crew cabs are popular. They are popular because of the reasons stated above. The load carrying ability of trucks has decreased, and has because customers need for passenger room is more important than the load carrying capability. Trucks built today are designed to carry families while at the same time have enough load carrying ability to hall or tow what that family needs.

Again these changes were as a result of customer demands, not GM forcing people into buying them because they are profitable.

Why is Toyota building a full size truck now? My guess is because there is still a strong market that is profitable. The 2 best selling vehicles in the country are still full size trucks.

I agree with letting the consumer determine what fuel economy standards are acceptable, not the government. If fuel economy was so important to people, they would all buy sub compact cars. Obviously based on current sales national, that is not the case.

[SUPERBADD75]

so once again the government is trying to force not only the industry's hand, but consumers' hands as well. Ford doesn't force hundreds of thousands of people to buy their F-Series trucks, people want to buy them. the same goes for every truck and SUV on the road, the consumers chose those vehicles. why does our government think that they have the right to ipose ridiculous regulations on the auto industry because of what their customers choose to buy? the U.S. government is out of hand, they don't work for us anymore, they are increasingly gaining control over us.

[PhishPhood]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

Raise the price of gas to $5 or $6 a gallon. Problem solved. Gas is still too cheap, for most people anyway, for anyone to take conservation seriously.

When a gallon of gas cost more than a gallon of milk, people won't waste it so much. I mean, the expression isn't "Don't cry over spilled gas..." because moo-juice costs more! How wrong is that? Evian (one liter) costs as much as a gallon of gas. People still (naively) buy it without whining, yet when gas gets close to milk prices, they, uh, have a cow.

It's not cheap gas that's making us wasteful, it's our attitude about cheap gas that's ruined us. We expect it to be cheap, we demand that it be cheap. To heck with using less to lower how much we spend, just keep the price down so we can waste...er, I mean use as much as we need.

Because of the relatively huge distances in our country we need relatively inexpensive fuel. A massive increase on the tax side would have a heavy dampening effect on almost all commerce. It would also be a regressive tax on lower incomes. Such a large jump in the gas tax would necessitate some sort of complex rebate formula for different income levels.

Using the method of increasing the price of vehicles not meeting the new standards still allows those who are capable or need a $50K 6500# vehicle the choice to do so. No one else pays anything extra.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by PhishPhood

Because of the relatively huge distances in our country we need relatively inexpensive fuel.

No, we've come to expect it, we don't need it. Buy products made or grown locally, consolidate trips, buy second hand...we can do a lot of things to lessen the cost of transported goods. Heck, if your climate allows, grow your own veggies in the backyard. This is yet another excuse, not a reason, for cheap fuel. Don't get me wrong, I like it cheap too, but it won't stay that way for ever...then what do we do? Instead of being reactive, we should be proactive. But just like our health, we won't do anything until there's a problem, to hell with being prepared.

[sigma]

Originally Posted by dlr

Robert Harless,

I don’t buy that GM is forcing people to buy trucks and SUV’s. That’s a joke. GM makes cars both small and large that are competitive with fuel economy.

People buy trucks because they like the room, the ride, the power, the performance and the utility that a truck offers.

Maybe trucks became more popular since the CAFÉ standards because it forced the manufacturers to build cars that could not perform like cars did in the 60’s & 70’s or like trucks built today do.

I agree with letting the consumer determine what fuel economy standards are acceptable, not the government. If fuel economy was so important to people, they would all buy sub compact cars. Obviously based on current sales national, that is not the case.

Um... If you went to a domestic dealership in the 90's to buy a car(which my family did twice and left once they were so frustrated) I doubt you could make the arguement with a straight face that at least the dealers, if not the automakers themselves were trying to force people into trucks.

GM didn't stop building the B-Body because it didn't meet the fuel economy standards. GM stopped building them because it wanted to build more trucks which were more profitable.

[windvale]

Originally Posted by drew630

Well its good that we are doing are best to move away from oil automotive wise. I am going to miss not being able to own a new Suburban/Tahoe/Yukon/Yukon XL/Escalade/EXT/ESV though. I really don't see how vehicles like these can achieve the 35 mpg rating. Hopefully GM can figure out how though in 12 years.

"First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."
- John F. Kennedy, May 25, 1961

""Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."
- Neil Armstrong, July 16, 1969

[Bornfromparents]

remember, hydrogen burns no gasoline, GM has only one card to play, because they need there trucks to survive. fuel cell cars will help if they can be made viable by this time.

[MelvinJ]

Originally Posted by Saturn69

Raise the price of gas to $5 or $6 a gallon. Problem solved. Gas is still too cheap, for most people anyway, for anyone to take conservation seriously.

When a gallon of gas cost more than a gallon of milk, people won't waste it so much. I mean, the expression isn't "Don't cry over spilled gas..." because moo-juice costs more! How wrong is that? Evian (one liter) costs as much as a gallon of gas. People still (naively) buy it without whining, yet when gas gets close to milk prices, they, uh, have a cow.

It's not cheap gas that's making us wasteful, it's our attitude about cheap gas that's ruined us. We expect it to be cheap, we demand that it be cheap. To heck with using less to lower how much we spend, just keep the price down so we can waste...er, I mean use as much as we need.

By focusing on CAFE, we've already set our sights pretty low in terms of how much we are actually going to reduce consumption. The median age of vehicles on the road is about 9 years, and the trend is for the median age to go up, not down. The CAFE-required improvements are spread out over the next 12 years. Since we will only be replacing around 10% of our U.S. vehicle fleet every year, and the new cars will only have a small increment of the total CAFE increase, it's pretty obvious that these improvements are only going to provide a very small reduction in consumption every year, at best. And when people do actually get a noticable increase in their gas mileage (like if they traded a truck for a car), they will be more likely to drive more, negating some of the improvements.

If that's all we are going for, you won't need to price gas at $5 or $6 a gallon to get the same effect. $4 (maybe less if sustained) would probably save more fuel more quickly than CAFE will, because most people will be trying to save on all fronts, not just the efficiency of the vehicle they drive. We've seen prices near this already, and while I don't relish all the negative effects it has, it will actually bring about changes in consumption, if that's what we are serious about. If it's taxes that raise the price, plow every penny of that money into research of renewable energy. I can't think of a better place for it.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by Olds88

Only if they were full size (80in+ wide, 116in+ wheelbase this WAS the fullsize wagon before it died in 1996), with a third row, a V8 with RWD/AWD, and body-on-frame. Many SUV buyers, particularly Suburban, want the BOF-style vehicle. I'll bet GM saw a nice surge in big SUV sales when they killed the B-Body. I bought a truck because I couldn't buy a BOF Caprice or Roadmaster wagon. I don't want the government telling me I need to ride in a crappy unitbody vehicle. Some people do tow with their SUVs, I move a fishing boat with mine.

Please. No more "body-on-frame" vehicles. No, they aren't better. They are just heavier. "Frame-integral" vehicles have frames too. But they are tied to the rest of the body structure, which makes it possible to get the same (or greater) strength while using less weight. On a BOF vehicle the "body" part is just dead weight. Larger trucks are only made with separate frames because it makes it possible to cheaply offer them in dozens of different configurations.

Well, actually that's not the ONLY reason. There are a lot of people that have the misperception that a strong chassis requires a separate frame, and hence wouldn't buy the FI type.

[TurboSAAB]

This is GOOD for SAAB!