MPG milestone?

Could we be close to the first major increase in fuel economy standards in two decades? Looks possible:

Senators reached agreement Thursday on a proposal to increase automobile fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon, the first significant boost demanded of automakers in nearly 20 years. The agreement, expected to be announced at a news conference, would scale back a proposal already in an energy bill but still was considered strong enough to have wide support from environmentalists. The compromise aimed to head off attempts by senators sympathetic to the auto industry from pressing a less stringent proposal. Supporters said they had the 60 votes needed to prevent opponents from blocking it. Earlier Thursday, Senate Democrats fell three votes short of the 60 they needed to advanced a tax package that would have levied $29 billion in new taxes on the oil industry to pay for development of renewable fuels and clean energy programs. (AP)

Comments

[Dandy]

Take GasDandy for a road test!

GasDandy is an easy-to-use tool that tracks a vehicle’s mileage and maintenance information, providing data that can be used for both business and personal purposes. By making these figures readily available, the program also gives the consumer the opportunity to save money and to proactively identify problems that can shorten the life of their vehicle(s). Download a free trial version of GasDandy today at http://www.gasdandy.com

[Phil]

"Across Europe, people drive cars that are far more fuel efficient than here in the US. Road deaths are dramatically higher here."

Not really. The data is complex to evaluate, especially when you break the EU down into its component countries. But on a fatalities per hundred million miles driven, the US is middling among European rankings, with about half of the EU countries a bit higher than us, and about half a bit lower.

It's true that a higher proportion of Europeans drive smaller, more fuel-efficient cars than in the US, but the explosion of dreadnaught German sedans and Euro SUVs during boom years shows their preference isn't so far from ours when they make enough to disregard onerous fuel taxes. Now, they have had more diesel in the mix but nevertheless Americans didn't make Europeans buy 6,000 lb. Range Rovers or sub-20 mpg 4,000+ lbs. Euro sedans.

[Phil]

C. Wyatt makes a point about heavier vehicles being less agile and maneuverable than lighter ones, to refute an earlier comment suggesting that there is an intrinsic conflict between fuel economy and "idiot-proof safety." Theoretically, it is true that agility can outperform mass and material strength as a safety factor, but only in driving skills are equal on both sides. Unfortunately, agility is under-utilized as a safety factor today because most people can only manage to stomp & steer when faced with a looming obstruction or collision. The presence of mind to call upon well-developed maneuvering skills in an emergency isn't uniformly distributed among the driving population, and most people also intrinsically know this. If you're going to hit something -- or be hit by something -- mass and structural strength has its advantages. So that's the idea that's taken hold.

Of course, a carbon monocoque race car with exotic alloy components can provide excellent performance in both lightness and protection, but the gap widens considerably in mass produced, affordable vehicles.

Specific mileage targets are a bad idea. The last time we did this, having a timetable that was divorced from practicality resulted in a dramatic shift to trucks, and of course oil got cheaper and more plentiful anyway. Once cheap and abundant computing power could be applied to engine management, we got on the path to higher power + higher efficiency + cleaner emissions, and the market sorted out what it wanted to buy. Turned out, half the market wanted something powerful, rear-drive, with enough interior headroom to wear a hat. There's a link between the fact that GM used to sell over a million Impalas a year in the '60s and Ford or GMC+Chevy moved about the same in pickups circa 2000.

Today, even a 400 hp V8 SUV is twice as efficient as a similarly powerful large car from 1970, and is more than 99% cleaner-burning. Meanwhile, small engines are in much heavier cars than in the past but deliver more power for their thrift than 15, 20 and 30 years ago, with similar dramatic advances in cleanliness. We might have good economic and geopolitical reasons to want to buy less oil from elsewhere, but we're not running out of it anytime soon. So what's the point of the proposed higher mileage standards?

Carbon. A lot of people are convinced doom is upon us if we don't radically reduce CO2 emissions. Of course, I don't see them tearing down their 10,000 s.f. houses to 1,500 s.f. dimensions. While you contemplate the fact that warming is currently in evidence simultaneously on Earth, Mars and Neptune, and that this is solidly correlated to an increase in solar output and is certainly not caused on Mars and Neptune by your energy habits, please accept that you can bet there will be unintended consequences.

Do we want a complete fleet of hybrid vehicles? Perhaps, but there will also be a large-scale battery disposal problem. Are you hoping for hydrogen? Today, extracting hydrogen from water or compounds is extremely energy-intensive, rendering hydrogen, effectively, a rather inefficient but clean-burning "battery." Point is, for anyone who believes the dubious claim that climate change is man-induced, transportation isn't the place to start. Stationary power plants provide a much nearer-term opportunity to meaningfully mitigate carbon output soon -- if you think that's necessary -- through sequestering. We can also readily convert oil-burning power generation plants to other fuels if reducing oil imports is an objective. We can revive construction of nuclear power generating plants, and we can start work on large-scale solar farms. Here in the US, we're not lacking for space for solar clustering. We can subsidize extensive adoption of supplementary home-solar arrays as well. This mileage regulation is just feel-good politics at the expense of automakers and consumer choice.

Meanwhile, mobility is a key driver for prosperity. Regardless whether/what mileage restrictions are legislated by the regulatory-minded, vehicles will continue to become more efficient in all classes and our carbon savings will be overwhelmed by the industrialization of 2+ billion people in two countries during the rest of this century. If the technology available to reach arbitrary legislated targets in our 16 - 18 million new vehicle market by specific dates precludes making what the wants most, people who might be happy with a car will move to a lower-mileage category, or many will simply hold onto their existing cars and trucks as long as possible, which could delay some further progress on reducing real pollutants. I fully expect to see the average age of the US automotive fleet climb as new mileage objectives kick in. This would be counterproductive.

The automotive emissions problem is already on an excellent reduction vector, and has been for 37 years, continuously. Only deeply-questionable carbon concerns threaten to once again disturb this. It's likely that if CAFE hadn't been set in the past, that most of the people who ended up in 14 mpg trucks over the past 15 years would instead have been happy in 20+ mpg robust, roomy cars, resulting in lower overall fuel consumption, somewhat less real pollution, and even less carbon release.

Expand road capacity in key choke points to keep traffic moving and spewing less. Use rewards and incentives instead of regulation to shift the fleet mix. Let fuel float to its real cost in exchange for policing price manipulation, and let the market do its work. Every manufacturer is already improving combustion efficiency in every powerplant they make and they did so through cheap or expensive fuel cycles. Every manufacturer is developing or adopting lighter, stronger materials. Every manufacturer can build a 35+ mpg car of some type. The problem isn't that GM or Ford or Hyundai or Volkswagen are holding back, it's that customers seek size, power, convenience, automation and affordability all at once, and have proven they will buy that combination in large numbers every chance they get. So makers build to that preference.

Look at the size of a Toyota Camry compared to 1990, or a Honda Accord compared to 1982. Or even a Toyota RAV from 2000 vs. today. Toyota sells a handful of the Prius (lately with incentives on the hood to keep them moving) and you all put a halo on that company, not noticing that they sell a gazillion more fat SUVs, which often get worse mileage than their GM/Ford counterparts, and are trying to crack the full-size pickup market with a thirsty behemoth. Regulating production in this case is the wrong end of the telescope to look through. You have to influence (not coerce) the buyer to or he/she will subvert your regulatory intent.

Phil

[Nick Beard]

The "fuel efficiency versus safety" issue is entirely bogus. Across Europe, people drive cars that are far more fuel efficient than here in the US. Road deaths are dramatically higher here.

[Christopher Neal Wyatt]

This post is in response to Tim K., who wrote "The biggest problem is balancing fuel economy with idiot-proof safety."

I feel that this comment ought to be addressed, becasue 1.) It is a popular misconception and 2.) It was displayed on the L.A. Times homepage, therefore millions of people are apt to have read it alrerady, thus perpetuating further this false notion.

Please allow me to explain:

Added vehicle mass does nothing to increase safety. In fact, a heavier vehicle is always MORE dangerous than a lighter one. Yes, a passenger may FEEL more safe and secure in a larger car, just as the passengers on board the Titanic felt safe being on the world's largest passenger vessel; but in the end, the extra mass of the Titanic made it that much more difficult to change course once the Fatal iceberg was finally spotted.

The same principal applies to an L.A. freeway- the lighter and more agile Your vehicle is, the more chance You have of avoiding an accident which might happen right in front of You.

Yes, it is true that Tractor Trailer drivers have the safest record of any group of drivers, but this is not due to the increased size of thier vehicles, but rather it is due to experience and professionalism, something which is sorely lacking amongst the general driving population today.

For the record, In My Humble Opinion, the quickest and easiest way to increase our Nation's fuel economy would be to prohibit automatic transmissions, and revert all engine technology to disel only.

[Sean B]

As Car and Driver proposed during a gas crunch in the '80s, what America needs is a good 25 MPG speed limit. Drive a small car (or a motorcycle) and you could go 80+. If you drove a SUV, you might be limited to 45MPH.

Alternatively, you could allot each driver 500 gallons of gas per year. If you used more than this amount, the taxes per gallon would rise on a sliding scale, causing heavy users to pay far more.

If you drove a hybrid, you could drive 25,000 miles per year on your 500 gallons. If you drove a SUV, you could travel 7,500 miles before you incurred higher fuel prices. But "free choice" would be preserved.

What's needed are market incentives, and disincentives. The "standard" car (or truck / SUV) sold in the USA is twice the size, and half the efficiency it should be.

Its a mind bugling that those who complain the most about the high GAS
prices, drive those GAS GAZLERS SUVI"s and HUMMERS...What a double
standard and HIPOCRACY....
U.K

[Senescent]

Huh? How do you explain race cars (esp. F-1 series)?

They're impressively speedy, but hardly efficient. F-1 racers average around 4 miles to the gallon, and that's not for lack of effort.

Besides which, race cars are multi-million dollar machines that don't go anywhere without a team of dedicated mechanics and a trailer full of spare parts, driven by people with years of high-intensity driving experience and training. They're not a good model from which to draw on in designing an "idiot-proof" car for the masses.

[Mike]

Tim- The problems in vehicle weight are not due to added safety figures. That is an industry excuse. Crumple zones and airbags don't add as much weight as 10 speaker stereos, multi screen DVD entertainment systems, four zone climate control, full glass roofs, power seats with heating, ventilating & massage and enough sound deadening to silence an airplane. But the leading cause of weight problems is people buying more car than they could ever need. Very few people ever need to move 7 people, but the market for 7 passenger SUVs and crossovers is huge. Until we can convince Americans that it is just transportation, not a place to live, we will have weight issues.

[Fark Lartoon]

RE: Tim K.' s comment -

your sarcastic exaggeration is wrong.
there are plenty of safe autos with good fuel economy - people are just still buying the monstrous gas guzzlers because they're stupid.
as far as crashing into everything: Survival of the Fittest.

[brian kennedy]

We drive too fast. Lower speed limits and equitable enforcement of the law will lower our consumption immediately. Using less gasoline is part of the war on terror. American consumers can do what our government cannot. We can reduce gas prices and put the pressure back on the many unfriendly oil producers.

[brian kennedy]

We drive too fast. Lower speed limits and equitable enforcement of the law will lower our consumption immediately. Using less gasoline is part of the war on terror. American consumers can do what our government cannot. We can reduce gas prices and put the pressure back on the many unfriendly oil producers.

[Jayson]

"The biggest problem is balancing fuel economy with idiot-proof safety.

You can't have a car you can drive into a brick wall that is also light enough to get good gas mileage. If you want efficiency, put yourself on an electric skateboard with a plastic wind foil."

Huh? How do you explain race cars (esp. F-1 series)?

[Greg Kay]

That $29 billion in taxes would be much better spent on electric rail public transit. And to power it:put up some more windmills! Make cleaner coal burning electrical generation facilities! But don't just dump it on some vaguely defined research consortium. I remember the coal shale programs from the 70's.....

If we must pork-barrel, at least a public transit system is a tangible material gain.

[Tim K.]

The biggest problem is balancing fuel economy with idiot-proof safety.

You can't have a car you can drive into a brick wall that is also light enough to get good gas mileage. If you want efficiency, put yourself on an electric skateboard with a plastic wind foil.

We will never get efficient vehicles as long as we have a litigious society that thinks you have a right to crash into objects and not face physical consequences.

[manuel]

Better fuel economy is great. But did any body catch Hal Fishman Comments on channel 5 about if the U.S. continues to explore other fuels OPEC will increase prices.