Obama: 54.5 Miles per Gallon by 2025

[MikeC]

This will cost automakers to implement, but with government assistance, this requirement is a great way to lessen our dependence on oil and gas, which currently has a limited supply.

By decree of the Obama Administration, passenger cars and trucks in the U.S. will require a fuel economy equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The new fuel-efficiency standard will affect cars starting in 2017, meaning automakers will need to start making incremental increases in fuel efficiency to hit a combined average of 34.1 MPG within five years. By 2025, the goal is to approximately double the efficiency of today's vehicles, and the new requirement has the support of 13 major car manufacturers, which account for 90 percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/08...=Google+Reader

[sillyeagle]

It's a good thing, but I hope we don't get stuck with whimpy cars in the future. I like to have about 300lb-ft of torque, just for driveability. lol

[vampireuk]

That is beyond stupidity. We already have cars in the UK capable of reaching that mpg figure but surely it should be consumer choice if they wish to purchase such a vehicle and not for the government to force such a thing upon you. How on earth are you going to make a truck that is capable of performing a heavy duty workload when it cannot go below 54mpg.

[sillyeagle]

I think the 54mph is a fleet wide average, so they can still balance in a few more powerful choices. I'm guessing turbo/superchargers will be common since they allow V6 power from a small 4 cyl for exmaple. Engines are strong enough these days to told hold up to plenty of boost. Supercharged V6 trucks will become more common I'm sure. That would give V6 economy with V8 power.

[vampireuk]

At 54 mpg you are not balancing power with economy, look at the current range of vehicles in europe that offer these figures, they are hardly the most powerful of vehicles. This is why we have a range of vehicles with a range of different consumption figures, it gives the consumer the choice of if they wish to buy a small economical car or if they require a large van or truck to haul things around. I'm endlessly amazed that in a nation where people seem to talk about their freedom they are more than happy to let the government dictate their lives to them.

[Europianist]

Not a good idea, especially if we wind up only with cars that accelerate as slowly as a Prius. It's a possibility that it will turn out okay though.

[vampireuk]

The 1.9 diesel van I have at work gets nowhere near 54mpg and it struggles when it comes to long steep hills. Whereas my L200 pickup will glady sit with a full load in the back and go anywhere, which also gets not even half of the requirement.

[rhink]

Originally Posted by MikeC

This will cost automakers to implement, but with government assistance, this requirement is a great way to lessen our dependence on oil and gas, which currently has a limited supply.



http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/08...=Google+Reader

It's a horrible idea. The market has already been doing an impressive job of improving fuel economy on its own as gas prices climb. That's what the free market does best- it's the most efficient way we know to allocate resources, when resources are constrained.

But in order for it to work we have to stop interfering with oil & gas, too. We have plenty of the stuff right here n the US. But we do everything we can to frustrate drillers- we won't open up offshore areas. We won't open up anwar. We harass people in the bakken with frivilous lawsuits, and refuse to build the pipelines we need to get oil from canada and the bakken to the market.

So we artificially constrain supply then try to compensate by raising the fleet AVERAGE to above the current best fuel economy vehicles on the market. What if I don't want the $35,000 shoebox on wheels this is going to mandate?

edit: here's a summary of what we can do if we unleash oil exploration in the US:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/3...dence-by-2020/

Oil supply is limited only due to bad policy. We don't need expensive, arbitrary mileage standards.

[jcrox]

The problem with drill baby drill is the theory relies on private, for profit, oil companies injecting more product into the market to bring the price as a whole down.

If they merely replace existing product, i.e. inject 500,000 barrels a day from the U.S. but the Saudi's cut back 500,000 barrels a day, it's a zero net sum and nothing changes.

So, we have to believe that...

1. All the new exploration will result in MORE product in the market, not replacement product
2. Private for profit oil companies are willing to self-inflict lower profits by over producing in a market which proves everyday it will bear the current costs.

I'm not buying #2 for a single second.

Until consumption drops to a point that oil company's profits are harmed the price of fuel isn't going anywhere no matter how many permits we hand out.

[Cream]

I think it's a case of they have to do something, Consumers clearly arn't willing to do it, So they will have to force manufacturers to implement it.
I'm sure it won't all be bad news, Electric cars while not having the performance at the moment will soon give a good performace boost while increasing the fuel efficiency of a car.
Why hydrogen isn't being looked into more I'm not sure, That stuff is everywhere :-)


BTW I'm not a eco warrior, Currently drive a Subaru impreza WRX 265bhp and 348Nm torque.

[rhink]

Originally Posted by jcrox

The problem with drill baby drill is the theory relies on private, for profit, oil companies injecting more product into the market to bring the price as a whole down.

If they merely replace existing product, i.e. inject 500,000 barrels a day from the U.S. but the Saudi's cut back 500,000 barrels a day, it's a zero net sum and nothing changes.

So, we have to believe that...

1. All the new exploration will result in MORE product in the market, not replacement product
2. Private for profit oil companies are willing to self-inflict lower profits by over producing in a market which proves everyday it will bear the current costs.

I'm not buying #2 for a single second.

Until consumption drops to a point that oil company's profits are harmed the price of fuel isn't going anywhere no matter how many permits we hand out.

How can you say that when it's easy to see oil prices fluctuate all over the map over the course of a year or two? If I remember correctly prices were down under $60/barrel ~4 yrs ago, now they're hovering around $100. The market isn't bearing the current costs- demand is declining, and current oil prices are part of the reason it's tough to break out of this recession.

You're right that oil is a fungible commodity and if another country drops production enough, prices stay stable. The problem with that is, once the US and Canada produce enough of it, the power of OPEC is broken. Free market forces start to come back into play, and the cartel can no longer control prices effectively. If north america produces 5,000,000 barrels/day and Saudi Arabia cuts back 5,000,000 barrels a day..... well, they just won't do that, because that's half their production and they'd be screwing themselves.

[rhink]

Originally Posted by Cream

I think it's a case of they have to do something, Consumers clearly arn't willing to do it, So they will have to force manufacturers to implement it.
I'm sure it won't all be bad news, Electric cars while not having the performance at the moment will soon give a good performace boost while increasing the fuel efficiency of a car.
Why hydrogen isn't being looked into more I'm not sure, That stuff is everywhere :-)


BTW I'm not a eco warrior, Currently drive a Subaru impreza WRX 265bhp and 348Nm torque.

WHY do they have to do something? If oil is cheap, burn the crap out of it! Again- let the market decide. There's not a lot of downside to the stuff, assuming we can get a pretty hefty stable supply of it in the US and/or friendly/stable countries.

Hydrogen is everywhere, but it's expensive to use. Because it's so reactive most of it is chemically bound up in some stable molecule- like water- which means it takes a lot of energy to produce the stuff. It's also tough to store, and it's even tougher to store in a way that's as energy dense as gasoline.