Senate Approves Fuel Standard of 35 MPG By 2020

[OdieTurbo]

Heard this on the radio on my way in this morning! What'ya all think?

[zpiloto]

Originally Posted by OdieTurbo

Heard this on the radio on my way in this morning! What'ya all think?

The other side of the argument.

[OdieTurbo]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

The other side of the argument.

Hmmm, maybe I should have opted for the 2001 Pontiac Bonneville...

[tulsa_97sr5]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

The other side of the argument.

The Heritage Foundation seem a little biased to me, partially funded by exxon
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=42

I'd love to see higher CAFE standards. The automakers are constantly saying they can't meet whatever new regulation is proposed, but then they do. Look back at how emissions standards have changed. Engines today are light years ahead of the late 60's and it has a lot to do with meeting those very regs they said they couldn't.

[zpiloto]

Here's another bias one.

Exxon


Some more lightreading.
This is very long but worth wading through. You can spool down to the bottom for the conclusions.

The committee heard it said that CAFE may have instigated
the shift from automobiles to light trucks by allowing
manufacturers to evade the stricter standards on automobiles.
It is quite possible that CAFE did play a role in the shift, but
the committee was unable to discover any convincing evidence
that it was a very important role. The less stringent
CAFE standards for trucks did provide incentives for manufacturers
to invest in minivans and SUVs and to promote
them to consumers in place of large cars and station wagons,
but other factors appear at least as important. Domestic
manufacturers also found light-truck production to be very
attractive because there was no foreign competition in the
highest-volume truck categories. By shifting their product
development and investment focus to trucks, they created
more desirable trucks with more carlike features: quiet, luxurious
interiors with leather upholstery. top-of-the-line audio
systems, extra rows of seats, and extra doors. With no Japanese
competition for large pickup trucks and SWs, U.S.
manufacturers were able to price the vehicles at levels that
generated handsome profits. The absence of a gas guzzler
tax on trucks and the exemption from CAFE standards for
trucks over 8,500 Ib also provided incentives

Finding 10. Raising CAFE standards would reduce future
fuel consumption below what it otherwise would be; however,
other policies could accomplish the same end at lower
cost, provide more flexibility to manufacturers, or address
inequities arising from the present system. Possible alternatives
that appear to the committee to be superior to the
current CAFE structure include tradable credits for fuel
economy improvements, feebates,? higher fuel taxes, standards
based on vehicle attributes (for example, vehicle
weight, size, or payload), or some combination of these

[ZugyNA]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

The committee heard it said that CAFE may have instigated
the shift from automobiles to light trucks by allowing
manufacturers to evade the stricter standards on automobiles.
It is quite possible that CAFE did play a role in the shift, but
the committee was unable to discover any convincing evidence
that it was a very important role. The less stringent
CAFE standards for trucks did provide incentives for manufacturers
to invest in minivans and SUVs and to promote
them to consumers in place of large cars and station wagons,
but other factors appear at least as important. Domestic
manufacturers also found light-truck production to be very
attractive because there was no foreign competition in the
highest-volume truck categories. By shifting their product
development and investment focus to trucks, they created
more desirable trucks with more carlike features: quiet, luxurious
interiors with leather upholstery. top-of-the-line audio
systems, extra rows of seats, and extra doors. With no Japanese
competition for large pickup trucks and SWs, U.S.
manufacturers were able to price the vehicles at levels that
generated handsome profits. The absence of a gas guzzler
tax on trucks and the exemption from CAFE standards for
trucks over 8,500 Ib also provided incentives

So due to congresses STUPIDITY (or was it COLLUSION?) the whole pickup truck/SUV craze got started...leading to the the Hummer and the eventual invasion of Iraq? Talk about yer basic conspiracy?

If the new CAFE standards cover EVERYTHING and don't allow this kind of thing to happen again...they might just shutdown the HP wars...giving us some reasonable mpg and reasonable HP levels? Screw the US car companies.

JUST BETTER cover the big rigs TOO cause the dummies will all be driving over the road diesels set up as pickups and SUVS...they already make these.

Of course they have to get His Ignorance to sign it....

[GasSavers_rGS]

One factor that seems to have not been mentioned yet, which I would imagine that we here at GasSavers would have mentioned by now, is the fundamental factor that starting with the 2008 year model, the EPA fuel economy ratings for cars will reflect "more real world" conditions. For example, I found that under the new EPA standards my car earns a lower fuel economy compared to the "old EPA standards" when first manufacturered. Remember, that things like legal compliance is based on "objective" factors such as manufacturer's EPA fuel economy ratings, new or old depending on model year. So the "business logical" decision would be to purchase used cars of model year 2007 and earlier in order to "bump up" the average fuel economy of the fleet. Another possible "business logical" decision is the operation of the vehicle. Since CAFE "protects" the companies because CAFE compliance is probably based on the EPA fuel economy sticker and not actual operation of the vehicle, we as members of GasSavers knows that driving fuel INefficiently can get us an actual average fillup to fillup fuel economy value that may be worse than the City fuel economy rating. But as already mentioned, it's not the "actual average fillup to fillup fuel economy" that is used to determine legal compliance. Imagine the "accounting/administrative nightmare" that the rental car industry would face if they required refueling receipts from their customers in order to calculate their actual average fillup to fillup fuel economy for each of their vehicles in their fleet? What if the renter never got a receipt? What if there's only one receipt and the renter on business needs the fuel receipt for business expense purposes so can't give it to the rental car company? What's the probability of the renter obtaining two copies of the receipt?

Does anyone know if this was signed into law or vetoed by The President yet?

[Bill in Houston]

Originally Posted by ZugyNA

So due to congresses STUPIDITY (or was it COLLUSION?) the whole pickup truck/SUV craze got started...leading to the the Hummer and the eventual invasion of Iraq? Talk about yer basic conspiracy?

Probably just unintended consequences. Who would have dreamed that housewives would want to drive something the size of a Suburban every day? Shoot, in 1974 who would have dreamed that pickup trucks would ALL have carpet inside?

[Silveredwings]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

The other side of the argument.

That all seems like very well funded opinion to me. The only thing is it basically says "getting a higher mpg wastes more gas." I don't care how well spun that iis, it's just 'Nick Nayler' style FUD.

[ILAveo]

QUOTE=zpiloto;60169]The other side of the argument.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to resurrect this piece of, um, work, but it was illogcal enough to make me laugh out loud. A USA Today article's post hoc ergo post propter hoc argument is the basis for his CAFE causes higher MPG which hurts safety arguments. Then he argues that observed MPG improvements would've more or less happened through normal technological progress without CAFE which of course is not consistent with his USA Today fallacious first argument that CAFE made cars less safe. CAFE can't be both relevant and irrelevant. Funny stuff. I guess law school isn't about logic or truth.