The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee voted to increase fuel efficiency standards to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That’s an increase of about 40 percent from the current levels of 25 mpg for cars and trucks. Raising the mileage standards is a good way to help the environment and help reduce demand for foreign oil.
posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- george on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
39 Comments
I think 35 mpg is too conservative. I would like to see a 50 mpg along with the challenge that automakers provide 25 percent of their fleets as hybrid alternative fuel cars.
I would also like to see some sort of act where automobile parts of all kinds were required to be 90-95 recyclable and that recyclable use be mandated. i.e. no more junkers sitting in yards and etc.
Richard Nixon was right about one thing. Back in about 1973, he mandated 55 miles per hour as the national speed limit to save on fuel.
I suspect this would increase the miles per gallon figure by at least 10% and save lives at the same time.
“Richard Nixon was right about one thing. Back in about 1973, he mandated 55 miles per hour as the national speed limit to save on fuel.I suspect this would increase the miles per gallon figure by at least 10% and save lives at the same time.”
Oh please don’t bring that back again. That was horrible.
Are the new limits for cars only like the old ones? Or do they apply to all these gas sucking monster SUVs and trucks on the road? If not, that only means SUVS and trucks will continue to get larger while cars get smaller which is a danger for car owners. They need to apply the same standards to ALL vehicles and get rid of the monster SUVs like the new Hummers that get 5 MPG.
Kev: President Nixon also set a specific date for the Vietnam War to end and if you were there and couldn’t get a grip on that final helicopter rail … too bad for you.
Unfortunately, Mr. Nixon is dead so we can’t bring him back.
Kev: President Nixon also set a specific date for the Vietnam War to end and if you were there and couldn’t get a grip on that final helicopter rail … too bad for you.
Unfortunately, Richard Nixon is deceased now so we can’t bring him back.
Richard Nixon was right about one thing. Back in about 1973, he mandated 55 miles per hour as the national speed limit to save on fuel.
I thought that was carter: Hmm, don’t bother. I’ll look it up myself.
Somebody stole Republican’s password and is posting under his name.
What could be more “nanny state government” than requiring people to buy cars they don’t want and requiring car makers to make cars people don’t want to protect against a non-existent global warming threat?
Don’t start agreeing with liberals, Republican.
It’s too creepy AND we don’t want you even on the few occasions–like a stopped clock–you may be right.
JWink – 55 mph does not save fuel for many properly engineered cars. Also, out on the open road, it is actually LESS safe due to driver fatigue and highway hypnosis.
I did a series of tests long ago in my Mazda and found optimum gas mileage in the 65-70 mph range. I think some of it has to do witht he gear ratios in the highest gear.
Ben, did your car come with or without the lead gas pedal? :)
Might also reduce demand for foreign cars.
With proper gearing, the most efficient operating range of an engine might well be in the range resulting in 65-70 mph speeds. I’m sure body design would also enter into it, given the coefficient of drag.
I remember the days of the 55mph limit, driving home on leave from Indiana. Highway hypnosis, etc., is a problem on a long trip. We would take a few breaks to “shake the cobwebs loose”.
2020 is a long time to wait considering the technology is available now to achieve 35 mpg. In fact we should aim for 40 mpg by 2015. The sooner we raise our standards the sooner we can get off of OPEC oil and not waste billions sending our military there or tolerating theocratic regimes.
With improved aerodynamics, carbon fiber bodies, hybrid engines and tires with less rolling resistance it should be easy to meet the mpg goals.
The big three already have cars that will get 50mpg on standard gas. They have alternative cars with zero carbon foot prints. Big oil – major share holders in all three – is hindering production.
If I had MY say, I would target Big Oil. Find some really cool taxes to throw their way until they were forced to close, or help with alternative energy. Just my two cents.
200 mpg has already been achieved by the big three and others; oil companies are not to blame in totality.The faults are the consumers for not pressuring the industries.The consumers are all too willing to accept whatever is offer to them, but of course the industries control the choices.
“200 mpg has already been achieved by the big three and others . . . ”
Bull$#^@. Let’s see it, in a marketable vehicle. Evidence? Links to evidence?
This thread reminds me of the 100 mpg carbureator that supposedly was suppressed by Big Oil long ago. Next someone will be championing putting magnets around the fuel line to “align the fuel molecules for better burning.” Some suckers out there are actually buying that little gem. One born every minute, you know . . .
200 mpg car, in anything approaching a marketable vehicle, is pure urban legend. Hell, the 100 mpg car is urban legend.
What we forget, as we painfully pull away from the pump, that the only reliable way to encourage efficiency, and develop alternatives to petrolium, is in fact high prices. Economic realities will ultimately trump everything else.
GMC, spot on as usual.
Let’s see, you can buy tires that will increase mileage by 15%, then replace your air filter, increasing it by 10%, then a new exhaust system, another 20%, then new fuel injectors that increase the mileage by 25%, then a aerodynamic kit that increases mileage by 40%, then fuel additives that add another 10%, followed by motor oil that give you a boost of 5%.
After it is all said and done, you have to stop every 50 miles to drain the added gas from your tank.
Volkeswagon has a car that can get 222mpg.
http://jalopnik.com/cars/news/volkswagen-revives-200+mpg-car-project-252734.php
Aptera has one that does 200mpg.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/14/aptera-takes-wraps-off-200-mpg-prototype-car/
Perhaps the government can pass a law that forces the oil companies to release all the fuel efficiency patents they bought up and shelved.
Ya oughta patent that, WS. Course, it’d be bought up just like all those “other” patents – along with the reverse engineered gravity drive from Area 51.
Seriously – marketable is the key word here, Doug. Drivable, at highway speeds, for 300 miles or so on a tank, with decent acceleration so you’re not run down on the on-ramp, room for four with AC, power steering, brakes, stereo, airbags, etc, at a price that makes the fuel savings worth the initial outlay. We’re not remotely close to that, I’m afraid. The current hybrids come close, but they’re too expensive at present to pay for themselves in gas savings over the life of the vehicle.
And the fuel efficiency patents being bought up is more urban myth, I’m afraid. It’s simply so much more satisfying to blame the oil company boogyman than to realize that we have the cars we have from Detroit because that is what the market was demanding, and that was what was profitable. Now the world has changed, and Detroit is scrambling to catch up to the changing demand. It takes no vast conspiracy to understand how we got here; just an understanding of basic economics. I’m still not convinced Americans are willing to give up their beloved SUVs. We’ll see.
We want new technologies and vastly more efficient vehicles, but waving a magic law won’t make it so. Economic realities will get us there faster than anything else.
In the meantime, I’ll just have myself beamed wherever I want to go, via my own Enterprise-salvaged teleporter. All I have to do is put some garbage in the fusion generator and push a button, and . . . . atoms a-flying!!!
GMC, have you a spare salvaged teleporter? If so, send it my way.
Wondering if it would have economic feasibility to limit large vehicles, thinking here semitrailer trucks, SUVs, other trucks to particular roadways, given the safety issue of smaller vehicles involved in collisions with large ones, as well as not permitting the passenger cars on these roads. Probably not.
“The current hybrids come close, but they’re too expensive at present to pay for themselves in gas savings over the life of the vehicle.”
I think that’s right except for perhaps the new Honda Civic Hybrid.
It’s got a super-engineered gas engine that gets 50 on the highway as well as the electric that gives you 50 in the city.
It lists for about 22 whereas the regular Civic is probably about 18.
If you drove a lot (2000 dollars worth of gas a year) you could recoup the extra cost in about six years.
The trouble with Civics though is even with hybridizing them, you get great mileage. So it’s hard to recoup.
Going from a Jeep Liberty or a Ford Explorer to a Hybrid Civic . . . there’s no comparison. The latter is both cheaper AND way more fuel efficient.
GMC70,
“Hell, the 100 mpg car is urban legend.”
The Hypercar gets the eqivalent of 99 mpg gasoline.http://www.hypercar.com/
“What we forget, as we painfully pull away from the pump, that the only reliable way to encourage efficiency, and develop alternatives to petrolium, is in fact high prices. Economic realities will ultimately trump everything else.”
Even the high prices of fuel in Europe have failed to produce the state-of-art vehicles that we can, and need to produce.
Feebates would push automakers to continually improve the mpg of all of their models. Feebates could work better and faster than arbitrary mpg #’s set by Congress.
Other ideas, like “carrots” such as contests, are described at,http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
Repeated comment:”The faults are the consumers for not pressuring the industries.The consumers are all too willing to accept whatever is offer to them, but of course the industries control the choices.”
“Kev: President Nixon also set a specific date for the Vietnam War to end and if you were there and couldn’t get a grip on that final helicopter rail … too bad for you.Unfortunately, Mr. Nixon is dead so we can’t bring him back.”
You mean FORTUNATELY we cannot bring him back. Who wants that criminal back? As for what he did to the people of Veitnam, it was truly disgusting. They are indded very good people to forgive the USA for destroying their country and then abandoning it.
I had a Mustang GT and I did all kinds of mods to it and even when I drove it at 130 MPH, it dod not eat too much gas.
Early this morning, I commented on this blog thread that President Nixon in about 1973 signed a law mandating a national speed limit of 55 miles per hour because of an oil crises at that time.
I see a number of comments later that cars if geared properly might run more efficiently at higher speeds.
I do recall in about 1956, riding with a summer construction crew from Meade to Pratt, a distance of exactly 100 miles on old Highway 54, hills and all, in a new Oldsmobile … IN ONE HOUR. I suspect that car was smoking by the time we arrived in Pratt.
In any case, if this nation is truly interested in lowering dependence on Saudi Arabian petroleum … then it should be worth dropping the current highway speed limit to 50 miles per hour or even 40 miles per hour and gear cars accordingly for energy savings … if it would end our participation earlier in the Iraq and the middle East.
Willie Nelson runs his tour bus on recycled french fry grease. I bet that he pays alot less the the $3.OO+ for diesel fuel
Gearhead stuff – There are many factors that contribute to or limit fuel mileage. Gearing, aerodynamics, tires, tune, road conditions, driving habits, etc. There is no one factor that determines fuel mileage.
In the early Seventies, an automobile that got 20 MPG was unusual. Most autos today can reach that point on the highway easily. In those days, an overdrive transmission was also unusual. Today OD is the norm.
In the Seventies and even the Eighties, fuel injected autos were high tech and expensive. Today, virtually every car or truck on the road is fuel injected.
Beginning in the Seventies, autos began to come equipped with electronic ignition, allowing for more precise combustion, leading to better performance and mileage.
As a result of these improvements and others, overall fuel mileage has increased, despite the increase in size of vehicles like SUV’s and (so-called) mini-vans.
A lot has been done to provide for better mileage, but there is a lot more that could be done if the public had a taste for change.
In Europe, there are over 100 new cars available that get over 40 MPG. In the USA, there are only three.
Most cars sold in Europe are as small or smaller than the cars sold in the US. Most European cars come equipped with manual transmissions (better mileage) whereas most American cars have automatic transmissions.
If Americans are serious about reducing our dependency on foreign oil, we will have to accept smaller, less luxurious automobiles that are more suited to stop and go traffic. SUV’s, pick up trucks and mini vans will have to go the way of the dinosaurs of America is to truly reduce fuel consumption.
Exactly, WS.
But Americans have tended not to buy economical cars, prefering instead larger, more powerful, more luxurious vehicles. We got away with that because oil has been relatively cheap. In fact, adjusted for inflation, gas today is reaching approximately its 1980-81 peak price.
And Detroit accomodated what we wanted. In a sense, we (consumers) created our own problem. Consumers have to “fix” it; demand for more efficient cars will drive production of same. And we will not demand same unless prices remain high. Ultimately, the consumer is king.
The Hypercar, BTW, cosmos, is a fantasy, at least as yet. Even if it could be built, what would it cost? In fact, as best I can tell, “oil end game” site is little more than self promotion. It’s not about energy independence, it’s about selling books.
Hey, maybe it’s time to dust off all those old WWII gasoline ration books @one per family per month, and no scalping. That way a family would know they would have so much reasonably priced gas to make it on, and drive accordingly. Maybe get a bicycle or a scooter for errands on nice days etc. It would turn a lot of SUV’s into very expensive lawn ornaments and cars with good mileage into the preferred vehicle.
Hey, maybe it’s time to dust off all those old WWII gasoline ration books @one per family per month, and no scalping. That way a family would know they would have so much reasonably priced gas to make it on, and drive accordingly. Maybe get a bicycle or a scooter for errands on nice days etc. It would turn a lot of SUV’s into very expensive lawn ornaments and cars with good mileage into the preferred vehicle.
A ration book would be a great idea. I only have to fill up once a month (55+ mpg) so I could sell my extra rations to some sucker who drives a Hummer because he has a small penis.
BTW, for the hater that thinks a fuel efficient car is not drivable there is the modified Prius which gets 180mpg. I seem to have seen a few Prius’ on the road and they appear to be quite drivable as any other fuel efficient car is.
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/04/02/1958251.shtml
” . . . for the hater that thinks a fuel efficient car is not drivable . . . ”
“Hater” Hater???What does that mean? I see that BS out of the self-described “progressive” left a lot, generally to tar brush some idea they don’t like. But just how does fit with this topic?
BTW – a 180 mpg Prius is experimentation and little more, I suspect. Besides, the plug-in electricity has to be generated, usually with fossil fuels. Not quite as “clean” as you might think. But I won’t register at the NYT, so you’ll have to fill me in.
It’s not an experimental technology. The people hacked the system and installed more batteries. It’s not terribly difficult. Some people started their own businesses modifying Prius’. The power to recharge the batteries doesn’t have to come from fossil fuels. Anyone can install their own windmill or solar panels and charge them that way. I don’t know why you insist it has to be fossil fuels.
Why is it the anti-environmentalists are so easy to reject any idea? I don’t see you guys presenting any alternatives other than just keep on using the same old system of mass consumption.
Doug -
Cool. And yes, wind or solar is an option, though I’m skeptical it can provide anything other than marginal energy, other than in unique circumstances.
And I’m not “anti-environmental” at all, Doug. I just live in the real world, where economic realities rule, not pie-in-the-sky wishing it were so. That said, this kind of individual, entrepeneurial experimentation is always good. More power to ‘em.
I’m still not sure where the “hater” thing fits, though.
What does that mean, “where economic realities rule”? The economic reality is increased efficiency lowers costs. Perhaps you’re thinking like the CEOs at Ford and GM where they thought it wasn’t economically feasible to create fuel efficient cars because nobody would buy them. They said that and lost billions of dollars to the Japanese who knew the economic realities that gas prices would eventually go up and people would want something better than 20mpg.
GMC70,
“It’s not about energy independence, it’s about selling books.”
Is that why they’ve given away more than 100,000 free copies, via downloads?
Have YOU read their 300 page report? If not, then you’re not qualified to attack it, or them.
They do accurate, detailed, real-world work, and studies.See also their RMI, Small is Profitable, and Natural Capitalism sites.
YOU HAVE GOT SOME KIND OF CLASS IN THIS SITE. Good to see you up and around!