Obama to unveil big increase in required mpg (42 MPG)

[sinkingfeeling]

Source: MSNBC.com

WASHINGTON - New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming, sources said Monday.

A 30 percent increase in mileage for cars would raise the standard to 42 miles per gallon in 2016. The average for trucks would be 26.2 miles per gallon.

Environmentalists praised the move. Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, called it "a triple play: It will help move America off foreign oil, save families money and spur American businesses to take the lead in developing the job-creating, clean-energy technologies of the future."

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30810514/

---

Too bad this wasn't done 10 years ago.

[rcrush]

1. Just curious. Why is it going to take 8 years?

That seems unnecessary. Couldn't they start building fuel efficient cars like next year?

[sinkingfeeling]

3. It will start being improved in the 2011 models. It's in the story.

[LaPera]

7. So the republicans can steal another election & have plenty of time to reverse it, as always!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. I'd imagine that'd put a massive burden on auto companies trying to retool.

But what do I know?

[inwiththenew]

39. Exactly

Considering GM and Chrysler right now are hemorrhaging money, I think making them retool in a year or less would be the nail in the coffin.

[kirby]

104. Now is the perfect time!

They are renegotiating contracts, closing/consolidating factories, changing their dealer network, and getting massive capital infusions from the taxpayers, demand for existing inventory is very low, and they are going to be idleing factories for many months. What better time to change than now?

[One_Life_To_Give]

105. Tools for 2010 are on order or received

I would expect that finalized drawings for all the tooling needed to be completed months ago for the 2010 models. Actually implementing this for 2011 is very agressive. Production of sub-assemblies and tooling starts months before they are actually installed into a vehical.

[KakistocracyHater]

112. 2016 is TOO LATE, there are car parts NOW that would ennable this

the very WORST GUESSES of Kyoto have already been passed by in 2009. This only sounds difficult, but golly, try telling that to the War Bond days of WW2, SOMEHOW, WAY BACK THEN THEY DID IT, & even won the war, but that was not the Me Generation/Boomers, so.......All they need are real leaders who step it up & push real hard & demand the very best from American auto makers.

((((((((((((( IT IS POSSIBLE )))))))))))))))))

[One_Life_To_Give]

117. 2011 is possible

2010 and a half with something like the wartime control of procurement and resources is possible. Having new tooling designed, procured and delivered within the next 4 weeks takes some extrordinary motivation. Perl Harbor provided some extrordinary motivation and a will to drop all non-wartime production.

[Psephos]

62. Absolutely. All they need is that secret technology you have on your hard drive.

So email it to them, please.

[ronnie624]

71. No secret technology would be required,

only a real commitment to preserving the biosphere.

Cars that get over 40 miles per gallon have been in existence for decades. They're just not as big and as powerful as many prefer, so silly excuses are concocted for not producing and driving them.

[NickB79]

76. It's not like they can just dust off the plans to the Geo Metro again

Many of the older cars that used to get 40+ mpg were seriously lacking in many safety features. Some of them wouldn't pass today's stricter emissions tests either. On top of that, you need to retool the plants to build smaller cars, and to do that you have to have OTHER factories cast, shape and build the equipment to install into the auto factories. All the old equipment used to build the Geo Metro, for example, were scrapped and recycled years ago when the model was discontinued.

[ronnie624]

99. The reference was to "secret" technology,

which the Geo Metro is not.

And we certainly wouldn't want to invest any tax revenue into producing cars that get better fuel mileage, or cleaner sources of energy, or serious nationwide public transportation. We might need to invest a couple trillion more in a "bailout" of more "banks" and "investment" firms.

Like I said, preserving our biosphere will require sacrifices and a genuine commitment by all of humanity, and clearly that is not going to happen.

[Psephos]

100. It will be unless everyone is going to be driving little cars

I had a Diesel Rabbit myself in 1980 that got 50 mpg. I've tuned my current car, a Saturn sedan, to get 40 mpg. I've always been a high-mpg kind of guy. But then, I'm single, and I don't even have a dog. I like smaller cars, even if I know they're less safe.

So I agree with you that the technology to achieve high gas mileage has been around. That's not the problem.

We need new technologies that will radically improve the gas mileage of the kinds of cars and trucks that can serve people with families, businesses with equipment and tools, and others with needs that cannot be met by little vehicles. And we need new technologies that will vastly improve the crash-safety of high-mpg small cars.

If you are an engineer, you know that real-world product design involves trade-offs. In the matter of high-mpg vehicles, here are the trade-offs:

1. High gas mileage
2. Low emissions
3. Good performance

To maximize any one of these, the other two must suffer. Those who won't understand that look pretty dumb from an engineering pov.

Further, the larger the mass of the vehicle, the lower the mpg. Those who believe that safety in an accident is priority #1 are going to bristle if told they must drive their kids around in a smaller, less-safe car to avoid putting incrementally more CO2 in the air. They will remember who brought that on them next trip to the voting booth. Frankly, it seems antiprogressive to be stuffing people against their will into cars that are inherently less safe than the cars they want.

We haven't even discussed the fact that US automakers lose money on every small car they make here. Because of their labor, legacy, and fixed-cost structures, they must sell high-profit, upscale cars and trucks to subsidize the money-losers. No magic commands from government can change the economics of the US makers. Labor cost must regress toward the US manufacturing mean, work rules must become economically efficient, and crushing legacy costs must be redistributed, or the manufacture of competitive small cars will simply drive the companies into bankruptcy. I guess we already took care of the dopey executives, at least. But the economic realities remain.

[ronnie624]

101. "...unless everyone is going to be driving little cars"

In other words, too many people do not believe that preserving the only home available to our species, is worth the sacrifices inherent in driving smaller vehicles. I don't disagree with you on that point. I know that people are naturally self-centered, and very few will be willing to give up their convenient, consumerist lifestyle, without being compelled to do so.

And I don't necessarily mean compelled by force. perhaps those who own and/or control global media, and gain the most by our wasteful habits, will come to their senses, and begin to properly inform people of the critical nature of this issue. But I wouldn't count on it. It is far more likely, that people will continue to consume in a wasteful manner, using the earths limited resources as if they will last forever, and polluting the biosphere as if it doesn't really matter. The propaganda campaign that seems to be driving the will to make war over energy, indicates that that is indeed the case.

[Turborama]

115. This comment deserves to be the start of a thread in its own right!

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. The second paragraph in particular says it all in 3 succinct sentences.

This might have been what you were implying, but I'd just add that, of course, there are a lot of multinational corporations (as well as the media) who gain from everyone being in a state of mass delusion about current & impending 'man made'environmental catastrophes. This is achieved via legal corruption, which is also known as lobbying.

[Xithras]

69. Doing so would shut down all of the auto plants in the US

You can't just slap a smaller engine in an existing car to make it more fuel efficient, so this will require the redesign of every car and truck in their portfolio. It takes time (years) to design, test, and make the molds and stamps for a new car model.

Requiring that the regs go into force next year would simply shit down the auto industry once and for all. They couldn't retool in time.

[tridim]

2. It should have happened in the 70's

When we first started talking about it.

Better late then never I guess.

[SOS]

41. It did

But Carter's CAFE standards were gutted by Reagan and the oil companies in 1985.
RFK Jr. points out that if Carter's standards had been left in place, the US would have stopped importing oil in 1991.

[theoldman]

4. Obama surely knows how to piss off the oil companies.

Actually this battle has been fought for over 50 years. A company that makes a lot of money off a product wants to sell more of it. As an example, a company could make windshield wipers that would last for many years. Have you ever seen one that lasted for more than a two or three years?

[Booster]

5. I've always said that about panty hose.

[customerserviceguy]

57. Ha, panty hose!

That's only because the people who buy them will put up with that nonsense. A man would never buy another pair of socks that lasted for less than ten wearings!

[Booster]

86. What's the alternative for a woman? Socks? The first thing a

man would think to himself if he saw a woman in a nice dress and highheels would be: "Ugh. She's not wearing pantyhose". I think even I would think that.

[customerserviceguy]

111. The alternative would be

not buying things that have a shorter lifespan than a can of baking powder.

And I would be looking at her smile, not necessarily her legs.

[Beartracks]

47. Planned obsolescence

As seen at www.thestoryofstuff.com.

[mbperrin]

6. Ummm, okay. My 2007 Town and Country gets 34-38 on the highway now.

My 1974 Triumph Spitfire got 54 mpg on the highway at 80 mph.

Remind me why 42 in a decade is such a big deal....

[amandabeech]

87. Chances are your Spider wouldn't pass safety standards today.

And it was extremely light with a bad, bad electrical system.

Your Town and Country will have to improve its mileage by 2016 in order to be on offer to the public.

Please take the time to read the entire thread--designing and implementing major changes in an entire make of vehicles does take considerable time in design and implementation.

[Old Coot]

8. Are SUVs considered cars or light trucks?

Will SUVs have to meet the 42 miles per gallon standard or just the 26.2?

If the latter then many people wanting larger vehicles will simply opt for SUVs instead of cars.

[wysimdnwyg]

11. SUVs are "light trucks"

However, some "SUVs" are built on a car chassis, and are therefore subject to the higher standard. Notable among this second group is the Subaru Outback. Unfortunately, this counts for a small percentage of SUV sales. So-called "crossover" vehicles are just truck-based SUVs that typically sit closer to the ground than a traditional SUV of the Suburban or Pathfinder variety.

[EOTE]

21. I don't know of many crossover vehicles which are truck based.

In fact, I can't think of a single crossover vehicle that's based upon a truck. In my mind, one of the signature aspects of a crossover SUV is the lack of a ladder frame which is so commonly found in trucks.

[kirby]

103. You are confused...

You are confusing logic/common sense with the application of the classification rules. For CAFE (fuel efficiency standards) SUVs are light trucks. It was, and continues to be, a huge loophole. The original intent was that light trucks were for small business commercial vehicles (a plumber needing a light truck to haul his tools). The auto industry found they could ignore tighter standards by promoting heavier vehicles like SUVs that were classified as light trucks.

I'm pretty sure the classification of 'light truck' has to do with the Gross Vehicle Weight of the vehicle, not anything to do with its frame or lineage.

[EOTE]

107. Not confused at all, thank you.

I never said anything about 'light trucks', I was responding to a comment made regarding 'crossover' vehicles. My point is that 'crossover' vehicles aren't truck based, but almost always car based. And that has everything to do with the frame of the vehicle.

[LeftyMom]

113. Several things can qualify a vehicle as a light truck and thus for the lower standards.

Weight, form and ground clearance can all be used to qualify. A few years back Subaru raised the Outback wagon a few inches higher off the ground in order to qualify it as a truck rather than improving it's fuel economy, for example. It is a station wagon. But as far as the feds are concerned it's a truck.

Even goofier is the PT Cruiser- it's a truck to meet CAFE standards but a compact car for safety testing. :eyes:

Then again, the same goofy standards encouraged manufacturers to make gigantic SUVs so customers could qualify for tax breaks normally used for farm equipment. For that matter, minivans and later SUVs as a class were pretty much created to get around CAFE requirements.

[Captain Hilts]

23. They've got to fix the exemptions for those things. nt

[MrsBrady]

9. you can already get more than that per gallon in Europe

why don't we have what they have...

and why don't we have it NOW?

[WriteDown]

10. Due to our early aversion to diesel fuel...

EPA regulations limited our use of diesel due to particulate emissions.

[HopeHoops]

12. In theory, a diesel can run clean for years with appropriate maintenance.

In practice, a good chunk of them smell horrible and belch black shit everywhere they go because they ARE NOT receiving appropriate maintenance. I don't know how someone can spend all that money on a Mercedes and drive it around with that gross mass of goo and soot running up the back of it.

On top of that, the main selling point for diesel years back was that it was cheaper than gas - for whatever reason, that relationship has been reversed. That's definitely a detraction.

On the plus side, the electric/diesel hybrids are one of the most efficient (and earliest) designs out there.

[tammywammy]

27. Actually the new diesel engines produce almost zero or zero particulate matter

The 2008 VW Jetta was the green car of the year, it's more environmentally friendly than hybrids.

And diesel price went up with the EPA demanded Ultra-Low Sulfur diesel starting in fall 2006, there's more cost to refine diesel down, so the price of diesel went up.

[Fumesucker]

56. Diesel is actually cheaper than unleaded regular in my local stations..

I noticed this a few weeks ago.

[tammywammy]

24. And though diesel engines now are completely clean

The EPA limits the number that foreign manufacturers can bring in compared to the total number of vehicles sold. Volkswagen and Mercedes are limited on the number of diesels we can sell here.

If the EPA wasn't so anti-diesel, then the American manufacturers would sell them here as well.


Proud owner of a VW Beetle TDI, I already get 42 mpg. :)

[roody]

64. Me too, a Golf TDI. Runs on biodiesel.

[tammywammy]

67. I'm thinking of trading in my Beetle next year

It's only a 2006, but the new Golf is sweeeeet! Plus, they're definitely bringing out the Golf TDI this fall. I'm thinking this time next year, I may start looking into getting one. I'd love to upgrade to more cargo room, plus a 4 door...and well, the Golf is sweet. :loveya:

[roody]

98. I want a diesel hybrid.

[Old Coot]

14. Historically, fuel has been cheaper in the US than Europe

resulting in less pressure for fuel efficient vehicles in the US. Lets face it, most Americans like large, powerful vehicles. They like the comfort.

The 42 mpg is, to my understanding, the average cars will have to meet. So, some cars will be lower and some higher. Keep in mind that that 42 mpg is the EPA mpg, which will probably be less than the ACTUAL mpg.

And, many people will opt for SUVs, which will be considered trucks at the lower MPG.

I think that one reason Americans like large vehicles is that many of us are obese and smaller vehicles are just very difficult to ride in (as well as entering and exiting).

[Lorien]

80. I HATE driving an SUV. Big, lumbering, hard to manuver, not easy to

get in and out of, a pain in the ass to park. I never saw the allure. My dad's sports cars were always a much better drive and a lot more comfortable (especially on uneven roads). I think that SOME Americas like SUVs because: 1). the teevee tells them to, 2). they have been cursed with a very small penis, and 3). they buy the idiotic "but they are safer" bullshit. Really? Then how come I see so many lying upside down on the side of I-4? Could it be that those lumbering behemoths just can't get out of the way when they need to? What's with all those rollovers, and why were the dead bodies jettisoned so far from the vehicle? Nah Americans buy SUVs because they've been suckered.

[amandabeech]

89. I used to drive a pick-up and I loved it even though I don't watch much TV.

I liked the visibility--I could actually see the road.

It's different strokes for different folks.

I suggest you invest in some smaller brushes when you go to painting Americans.

[krabigirl]

108. I like my CR-V. It gets the same mileage as my VW New Beetle did.

However, I do agree that it is not as much fun to drive. It is, however, a pretty good car.

[amandabeech]

88. And when everyone is driving a larger vehicle, it makes it a little scarey

to drive a small one in highway traffic.

I used to own small cars when I was young, but now, I just don't have the guts to do the D.C. beltway in one.

I ended up with a mid-size that gets decent mileage.

The more people opt for smaller vehicles and the more rail cuts into the semi traffic, the more interested I'll be in another small car.

[krabigirl]

109. LOL - wait, so people who drive SUVs are obese now?

No, I have my CR-V for my two kids and their massive car seat, and for when we go camping. I don't like the massive SUVs, but I like the crossovers just fine. And sorry to tell you, while I am not stick-skinny after having two kids, I am of average weight.

[Renew Deal]

68. Why don't we have small crappy cars?

Because we don't want them? :shrug:

[Lorien]

79. You mean like Volvos, BMWs, and Mercedes?

Haven't been to Europe in a while, have you?

[kristopher]

13. A word on what the "requirement" means

There seems to be some misunderstanding of what this goal actually is. What it IS NOT is a maximum mileage rating that any particular car might be able to achieve. It IS a requirement based on the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rating of a manufacturer. That's an average, so just because your 1929 Burpelator got better gas mileage than the announced standard isn't really relevant unless you are claiming that the '29 Burpelator is actually somewhere in the middle of the efficiency range of vehicles in 1929 and that it could have done that with the weight of modern safety features and all the modern pollution controls factored in.

This type of policy drives technical innovation and deployment rapidly and effectively. This is a huge move on Obama's part.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm

[sellitman]

15. That's the change I voted for!

Very long time coming but a great step.

[Old Coot]

16. 35 miles per gallon in 2016

Obama plans new fuel limit by 2016

President Barack Obama will announce plans on Tuesday for a national fuel-economy and greenhouse-gas standard for automobiles in an effort to give more certainty to car companies as they struggle for survival, industry and administration sources told POLITICO on Monday.

The national emissions policy for autos, which will ramp up to a new standard of about 35 miles per gallon in 2016, will harmonize the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standard and the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse-gas standard.

That way, officials explain, industry will not have to worry that the administration will regulate those on separate tracks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090518/pl_politico/22650

**************************

I am confused. I don't know if it is 35 mpg or 42 mpg.

[w4rma]

17. Very good! (nt)

[madrchsod]

18. 1951 miles per gallon figures....

ford flathead V-8-26 mpg

studebaker commander-28mpg

studebaker land cruiser-28mpg

lincoln-25mpg

henry j-30 mpg

nash rambler-31mpg

from the july 1951 speed age article---1951 mobilgas economy run. 840.05 miles starting in los angeles ending at the grand canyon. sea level to 279 below sea level to 7005 above sea level.



we have`t made a lot of progress since 1951

[kristopher]

20. In 1974 the AVERAGE MPG fpr passenger cars was 13.75 mpg

"To meet the goal of doubling the 1974 passenger car fuel economy average by 1985 (to 27.5 mpg), Congress set fuel economy standards for some of the intervening years. Passenger car standards were established for MY 1978 (18 mpg); MY 1979 (19 mpg); MY 1980 (20 mpg); and for MY 1985 and thereafter (27.5 mpg). Congress left the level of 1981-84 standards to the Department to establish administratively. Subsequently, standards of 22, 24, 26, and 27 mpg were established. For the post-1985 period, Congress provided for the continued application of the 27.5 mpg standard for passenger cars, but gave the Department the authority to set higher or lower standards. From MY 1986 through 1989, the passenger car standards were lowered. Thereafter, in MY 1990, the passenger car standard was amended to 27.5 mpg, which it has remained at this level."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm

[greenbird]

36. Yeah, but

pollution-reducing devices contributed to lowering the mpg . . .

[uncle ray]

40. mileage results from an economy run are not typical.

every effort was made to get the best possible mileage. real world mileage back then would have been slightly better than half of those numbers. all of the cars you listed were underpowered even for their time, how about numbers for the olds rocket? todays engines make twice the power with half the displacement and less emissions. unfortunately nobody seems to do a similar comparison now days, but even non hybrid economy cars would do better than twice as good as the henry j and nash, the economy cars of the 50s. so yes we have come a ways since then. and we can do better still.

[progressoid]

19. OK, that goes in the "Good for Obama" column.

We need some more of these.

[Captain Hilts]

22. It certainly does. And fix the SUV exemptions for mileage. nt

[endarkenment]

25. Not enough, not fast enough, BUT WAY BETTER THAN BUSH!

Does that satisfy everyone?

[greeneyedboy]

26. My 1991 Chevy Cavalier got 34 mpg--20 years later this is the best we can do? n/t

[grantcart]

28. for an entire fleet - its a big change

[defendandprotect]

29. Good -- but Obama should be demanding electric cars .. . ..

[Old Coot]

31. Just how many MPG would an electric car get?

For figuring the fleet average for a corporation.....


Just wondering.....

[defendandprotect]

43. misplaced

[defendandprotect]

44. See . . ."Who Killed The Electric Car?" . .. probably at your library . . .

but it's not simply a question of mileage* -- more importantly it's about stopping

the pollution of our environment with petroleum - Carbon Dioxide -- saving the planet!

And, of course, considering what the two "wars" have cost us --

not to mention loss of prestige throughout the world -- and bankrupting of our Treasury!!


* As I recall the cars that were on the road for years before they were crushed . . .

very reasonable to run. Costs per mile were very low.

I'll see if I can find something more on it for you.

[Unca Jim]

49. Ummm...

I am a huge electric car dork (I drive a converted 1964 VW Beetle to work), and I wouldn't say "Who Killed the Electric Car" presents a fair account of what happened to the EV-1.

Remember, when the EV-1 was being leased in California (late 1990s-early 2000s) gas was a lot cheaper than Enron's rolling-blackout electricity. It's no surprise a vehicle with a limited range and no off-site recharge provision or gas engine backup seemed like as a bad idea in spread-out California either.

The EV-1 was a great car, and it led to the mega-awesome Volt, which I'm on the waiting list for. It was not, however, the solution to all our problems. Many people could not have used it as it was leased.

[defendandprotect]

53. Right . . . those who leased the cars for years don't know . . .

what they're talking about --

and oil companies had nothing to do with overturning California's requirement

for electric cars?

What difference does it matter what the price of gas was?

This is about the planet -- Carbon dioxide!!

And the cars were being recharged in home garages . . !!!

Soon we have no need for problem solving -- the planet will be gone.

Thanks patriarchy . . thanks organized patriarchal religion . .

thanks capitalism . . . thanks corporatism . . . thanks oil companies!

Thanks campaign fund bribery . . .!!!

[Unca Jim]

65. Well,

I don't disagree that many of the points the movie made are valid.

I also think electric cars are the future for the US.

That said, the price of gas vs. the price of electricity was the main reason the EV-1 was not successful in California.

Of course the leasers of the EV-1 loved it; I love my electric car but I realize it would not work for everyone's lifestyle.

[defendandprotect]

70. The California law was sabotaged and overturned . . .

unless you think that we just haven't had electric cars in America since

they were first produced BECAUSE they just couldn't be made???

No -- there's been an alliance between the oil industry and car manufacturers --

There was a huge waiting list and still is for electric cars -- and especially

for the EV-1. They lied about this and shut down the lists.

[IDemo]

52. Not MPG, but MPGe (Miles Per Gallon equivalent)

The "gallons" used in determining the MPGe of an electric or hybrid vehicle represents the electric energy used by the
vehicle per unit of distance, measured against the amount of gasoline with an equal energy content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPGe

[amandabeech]

90. The measurement would be miles per ton of carbon produced

by the electricity charging the car aside from the hybrid technology, if used in the car.

Obviously, that number would vary by region.

[SpartanDem]

30. K&R

[pam4water]

32. Is this going to be done via the EPA?

[shadowknows69]

33. How about, all electric or hyrdogen cars by 2016 instead?

We went to the moon in 10 freaking years for Gods sake. Isn't there any far reaching ambition left in our leaders? Not to mention the goal this time around isn't to land on a lifeless rock but to prevent our own world from BECOMING A LIFELESS ROCK!!! And just getting better gas mileage isn't going to cut it. We're deluding ourselves as a species if we think otherwise.

[amandabeech]

91. All electric cars would be powered in part by coal, which provides

half the electricity used here today. Nukes are about 20%. That's your power source.

Hydrogen does not exist by itself in nature to any extent. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to separate the hydrogen from its chemical mate. It takes more energy to do this (using any method in existence) than the hydrogen will put out when put through a fuel cell or burned outright. It is not a winning technology despite what the governator says.

[swilton]

35. This is a total cop out

My Prius already gets 48 mpg. By the time US cars get 42 mpg, the Japanese, et. all will have solved the solar powered battery problem in the hybrids. So when the US gets around to 42 mpg, others will have solar powered cars. :wtf:

[peoli]

37. This is a huge deal dude. HUGE.

[defendandprotect]

48. It's a "deal" all right . . . for the oil companies --

[Xithras]

72. Most of the world will NEVER have solar powered cars. Solar density.

It's a fundamental math problem. Maximum solar energy density is 1.4 Kw per square meter, assuming 100% efficiency and a position on the equator at high noon. It goes down from there, and the global average is about 1 Kw m^2. During a Chicago winter, that number is more like .1 Kw m^2. The sun puts a finite amount of energy onto the surface, and we cannot extract more power than it is sending us.

The Toyota Prius has a 57KwH electric motor. To power that car, using only sunlight, would require over 600 square feet of panels, an area larger than the car itself. Again, that's at 100% efficiency at the equator. You can do the math yourself to see what it would take to power it during the winter in Chicago, with modern 10% panels.

[Initech]

38. Needed to have been done sooner but its definitely a start.

[SeeHopeWin]

42. Fabulous! Good to see a lefty in the WH!!!

I am thrilled with this and of course few weeks, it was the stem cells research decision. I am going to learn more french!

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

45. ??? 42 mpg ???? laughable . . .

We had cars in the late 60's early 70's that got 42 and more --

didn't we???

[defendandprotect]

46. Anyone also noticing how gas prices are creeping up again?

Paying $2.18 here for gas in Central NJ!!!

Dems are very quiet . . .

[Unca Jim]

50. Really?

With carburetors? And mechanical fuel pumps and points? Aside from a few British and German microcars, nothing got close.

In the late 70s and early 80s, though, there were a lot of gas sippers.

I drove a Datsun 310 for years and got high 30s.

[defendandprotect]

51. Volkswagen . .. '64 or so got 33 mpg . . .

And my son's Nissan now gets 42 or more . . .

This is laughable!

[struggle4progress]

55. My 1970 four-on-the floor ragtop bug got 50+ mpg hiway tuned

[defendandprotect]

63. We had two volks . . . the first one had better mileage than the later model -- !!!

I thought the first one had something like 40/42 . . .
but my husband thought 33 so that's what I posted.

On the other hand, he was mainly driving it in city traffic ---
so, that might have been the difference in what he's remembering?

[Igel]

81. So?

I want to see Obama, his wife and two kids plus their luggage slip comfortably into one for a drive back to Chicago this July for a vacation.

No air-conditioning, of course. No emission control. And just the two kids and all the things necessary to keep them entertained in that spacious, roomy back seat.

In other words, your anecdote concerning a car doesn't rise to the level of data concerning the fleet average.

[struggle4progress]

82. Smaller lighter car + fewer cylinders = better mpg. I had a mechanic friend back then

who claimed he could do better than that: he was saying he could get 60 mpg or more from some vehicles -- but, of course, his tastes (like those of his customers) ran towards great acceleration and the ability to drive at least 130 mph on Texas highways: he was nuts and wanted to try to stretch towards 200 mph from time to time if he could, on dark lonely roads

Of course, Obama and the kids aren't driving anywhere. Lack of AC didn't bother me: I drove that car around Texas one summer when it hit the one-teens every day for forty-five days in a row. And an improved mpg is actually a way of reducing emissions, if you think about it

The CAFE standards are a different issue: it's a sloppy regulatory scheme, with exemptions carved out for the auto-makers. I'll agree that anecdotes have limited probative value, but if people drove smaller, lighter vehicles with slightly less acceleration, we'd have less NOx and less CO2 from internal combustion engines

[amandabeech]

92. Maybe lightweight two-seater sports cars.

The late 60s and the early 70s were the era of the muscle car and the land yacht by and large.

My friend's Pinto didn't get 42 for sure. Neither did the Maverick or the Vega.

A bit later, you were talking the Omni/Horizon and the Chevette. Neither of those got 42.

Later, none the Tercel, the Datsuns, the early civics (well, maybe the early civic) the Cavaliers nor the Renault AMC Encore got mileage like that.

It was also difficult to put 4 American adults in any of these cars, and back then Americans were not as big as they are now. I drove from Connecticut to Florida in a 1977 Corolla with three other medium-sized students, and it is not an experience that I ever want to repeat.

Forty two on average for cars really will be a change.

[moggie]

116. We did

Until recently, I was driving a 1966 Morris (British car) which I measured at 43 MPG.

[excess_3]

54. when do we see politicians riding in one ? n/t

[tranche]

58. Not good enough! We should have cold fusion personal hovercraft by now!

Just forget it...

[high density]

59. Love the AP's spin on this-- "Obama to tap consumers for emission, mpg standards"

By KEN THOMAS and PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writers Ken Thomas And Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans to propose the first-ever national emission limits for cars and trucks as well as average mileage requirements of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 — all costing consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle. Obama's plan couples for the first time pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016 and would be the environmental equivalent to taking 177 million cars off the road, senior administration officials said Monday night.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_autos

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. I was thinking 17 years ago or even better 31 years ago.

[cambie]

61. Good thing it didn't take that long

to gear up for WW2. Within a year the whole industry had switched over to producing tanks and aircraft. The industry leaders who didn't like it were out of the game.

[Sancho]

66. In the 70's, one of the biggest gas savers was the 55 mph maximum...

don't flame me, it wasn't my idea; but that would be instant savings and reduce wrecks. I doubt would be any more popular today than it was then.

[redqueen]

73. That was Carter too, right?

[amandabeech]

93. Yes. His Presidency keeps looking better and better. n/t

[Psephos]

97. Not true - see post #96 eom

[Psephos]

96. No, it was Nixon

The bill was the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act. States had to agree to the 55mph freeway limit or lose federal funding for highway repair. Nixon signed the Act on January 2, 1974. It went into effect 60 days later.

[redqueen]

102. Thanks...

I've usually heard it was Carter, but I've also heard Nixon. I could have looked it up... :blush:

[Psephos]

110. lol I thought it was Ford

one of those 70s things, I guess

[amandabeech]

106. Thanks for the correction. n/t

[IDFbunny]

74. I CAN'T DRIVE 55 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[IDFbunny]

75. I CAN'T DRIVE 55 !!!!!!!!

[SpartanDem]

78. I with you the 55 limit sucked

I don't care how much oil it saved, I can't go back to driving like my grandmother.

[amandabeech]

94. Fifty five was fine in a Pinto! n/t

[totodeinhere]

77. We need to find other ways to conserve fuel. A 55 MPH limit would discriminate against people who...

live in areas such as Elko County where I live where the nearest city is a 3 1/2 hour drive away. If we could only go 55 that would add more than an hour to that trip and two hours to a round trip. A lot of people make the trip frequently for medical appointments, etc.

[Terry in Austin]

83. All the other ways to conserve fuel suck, too.

Somebody's got to take the hit.

So who gets to be exempt? Those who make extremely car-dependent living arrangements?

[totodeinhere]

95. Most people who live here came because they found a job here.

In this economy you take as job where you can find it. It's not because they purposefully made "extremely car-dependent living arrangements."

[LeftyMom]

114. Nobody'd enforce the speed limit in Elko County.

I used to drive out to visit my Grandmother in Eureka County and people'd pass me on the 80 while I was driving 85. :rofl:

Seriously though, I've never seen a state patrol car more than 20 minutes east of Reno.

[Terry in Austin]

84. The devil is in the arithmetic

Great start on Obama's part, more power to him.

However, these reports conveniently leave out the numbers, or at least what the numbers mean:

Obama said the program would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil "over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years..."

Billions of barrels of oil saved -- that's good, right? That's a lot, right?

Well, yes and no, respectively: we consume about 7.3 billion barrels in one year, so we'd be saving about 3 months' worth.

[Massacure]

85. 1.8 billion barrels isn't bad for the first five years. What about the fives years after that?

1.8 billion barrels of oil averages just under a million barrels of oil a day. It may only be 5% of U.S. consumption, but it is still a hell of a lot of oil.

These rules don't even take effect until 2011 and do not fully ramp up until 2016. How much oil will all the cars produced between 2004 and 2009 consume versus 2016 and 2021?