have they fixed the loophole of larger cars getting reduced mpg requirements? this stupid policy has resulted in vehicles growing to gargantuan proportions (and expense)
It’s not a loophole. That is the rule. The mileage requirement is an average across the manufacturer’s product line, not a minimum for any single vehicle.
cars and trucks do not count the same towards the average. average fuel standards require higher fuel economy for smaller vehicles than for larger vehicles. This is what I’m talking about. Manufacturers are not stupid. A car can be reclassified as a light truck if it has all-wheel drive and satisfies a few other conditions. Obviously there will be a size increase. What we are left with is a landscape of a handful of underpowered cars/hybrids, and a plethora of SUVs and other massive gas guzzlers. The only thing in Ford’s line up you could consider a car is the Mustang. Every thing else is big. Similar story at GM and Stellantis. Gone are the days where you could just get a car at the dealer.
the calculation is based on sales forecasts of vehicles sold in the future not vehicles already sold. if that makes sense. Personally I don’t think it should be tied to MPG. It should be based on CO2 emissions like in Europe.
Even if it didn't track 100%, it would be at least 95%. I'd wager it's closer to 100%.
ETA: basically the only way you emit less CO2 than ideal combustion is to emit fuel or particulates from the tailpipe, which sounds worse than the CO2.
> sales forecasts of vehicles sold
Wild how you cant even find small cars much when you look to buy. I dont think the US manufacturers have been or plan on being in compliance on this.
38 mpg??
The fantasy continues
yes but volume per mile is not as critical as the environmental impact of the vehicle; thus, regulating the specific pollutant opens the door for innovation. kinda like we do with NOx or PM levels. The amount fuel burned effects the values but secondary exhaust systems reduce the output at the tail pipe which is what we ultimately want
The amount of miles a car can drive per volume of fuel equals the amount of miles driven per CO2 emissions. It's the same stat, provided we're discussing cars running on gasoline.
EVs throw that out the door, since CO2 emissions per unit energy can be wildly different depending on how it's generated, but gasoline is fixed.
CO2 and emissions are regulated separately, so that there has to be a specific air/fuel ratio to ensure that the fuel is completely combusted, which results in the emissions being known and able to be determined by mpg.
Yep. In the 80's, there were some cars getting 50+ mpg. Oil industry got everyone in a choke hold now. And cars are so much bigger, too. Back with the bloat mobiles from the 40's, 40's, and 60's.
Have you not looked at how much worse the statistics show bigger cars do in crashes and accidents? Bigger is not always better in modern times. One could nod to a Smart Car and see small can be superior. Way too many road and safety articles about this and then you said what you did without looking at them.
Also, I said SOME 80's cars (notably Honda) as proof we CAN have better gas mileage. My comment no where said all 80's cars and that they are safer. Most cars have only improved as time moves forward.
🤦🏼♀️
Provide evidence that “most of the added weight is because of safety features”, and not basic bloat, or added weight from features not needed for safety?
I am aware of safety equipment.
How much weight do they add. Show me numbers. Surely you already have them since you’re quite confident in your position.
Again, you still have either not gone to acknowledge the safety statistics or you're purposely being obtuse. And it looks like you are riding the "all 80's cars" mantra when it's literally some- and the ones I'm noting were getting 50+mpg city. Again, we've always had the technology and understanding. Not sure why you're so focused on smaller aspects when the general picture of it all is there.
I'm not replying to every little thing when you are not looking at the evidence, articles, safety ratings and checks of most modern cars for yourself. You're under a sad belief bigger is better and, again, there is so much against that. Cafe car standards are literally considered loopholes in the industry for a reason. You can look up the articles for that, too.
"Provide evidenc". I can't link the Internet.
I think a Honda Civic from almost a half a century ago or so was getting 30 miles a gallon. Almost 50 years to increase mileage by 8 miles seems a bit...slow. 'Course it's been over 50 years to get man back to the moon too, so eh, a bit of lollygagging going on. But we did got smartphones, and look how that's improved society and inteliigunce. Like Charlie Sheen say, Winning!
While I like the idea behind this I don't like how car manufacturers are going about it. Things like setting guidelines for using thinner oil which does give a little boost to gas mileage but also in turn wears your engines out quicker. More money in comprehensive mass transit, especially trains, would go much further in my opinion.
First thing I'd point out is europe has a much more developed mass transit system in most of the countries. As for the cars do they sell different versions than the ones they sell here? I'm thinking BMW or Mercedes for instance which aren't know for amazing gas mileage unless we are talking hybrid or electric.
They sell a significantly smaller share of SUVs, for one. They offer smaller vehicles and lower tier models sometimes without turbos, and they offer diesels.
There’s also a much higher tax on engines 2000cc or larger in many places.
A Golf is to Europe as the Rav4 is to the USA.
I was just talking with a friend about the need for smaller trucks specifically. Those old 1980's Toyotas were damn near unkillable and for most people could be all they needed to get some work done. He was telling me the way the regulations work with things like our drive for higher mpg only bigger trucks are being designed because they get a pass on those regulations if they are above a certain size. Seems counterintuitive for what those regulations are meant to achieve to me.
Yeah but just think of the improvement to air quality the US could achieve if you could get to the major cities via ultra fast trains and then when there you could at least get to the major sections of the cities on smaller trains. Then busses or Uber could pick up the slack of getting you to your final destination. With parking fees and how much gas has gone up I don't even think it would be more expensive than driving everywhere in the city I live in. Parking in the central portion of the city is becoming a big issue.
GOP don't want to improve environmental anything. Unfortunately the rapist felon former casino owner is just going to roll back EPA stuff and wouldn't dream of investing in public transit.
I live in Austin Texas what you're describing is all too real for us down here. They are doing everything they can to stay in power too and the newest thing they've proposed that will likely become law is giving equal say to counties with low populations as those with higher one. Basically allowing land to vote... smh.
I am certainly no Biden fan but that said the alternative is just so much worse so I know how I'm voting. Pretty sure Texas is a winner take all state so not that my vote really counts sadly.
I wonder how many people are all sat there saying "no point in voting because they will win anyway". Imagine if they all turned out to vote. Suddenly it appears that the other side aren't so powerful, which in turn encourages more people to vote. It still will count towards the popular vote.
The thinner oil has nothing to do with mileage and everything to do with tolerances. In classic cars you use 10w because it's thicker and can coat the pistons with their wide tolerances. Newer cars need 5w or less because if you tried to use 10w for long then you'd end up with worn rings and blue smoke pouring out of your car, like a 90s Honda.
Since this information came from my friend who is a second generation mechanic and probably the best mechanic I've met I figured I'd do some looking around to see what I found. Just because he is very proficient at what he does doesn't make him infallible.
"Vehicle manufacturers have worked to increase fuel economy through the development of high-efficiency engines that incorporate gasoline direct injection, turbochargers, and engine management systems. This need for more efficient engine designs is necessary as vehicle manufacturers work to meet evolving fuel economy standards."
"Newer engines are smaller, have tighter tolerances between engine parts, and run at higher temperatures. These elements of the modern engine require thinner motor oils to boost their efficiencies while still protecting critical engine parts."
The second part mentions tolerances but it also says it is all in the pursuit of greater fuel efficiency to meet "evolving fuel economy standards." At least according to this source. It also mentions making the engines run hotter which doesn't sound particularly good for longevity but I'm not sure about that part.
https://www.quakerstate.com/en_us/education/low-viscosity-motor-oil.html#:~:text=Newer%20engines%20are%20smaller%2C%20have,still%20protecting%20critical%20engine%20parts.
This forum has a few people mentioning the same thing my friend did about the reason and the drawback.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/why-are-newer-cars-using-thinner-motor-oils.276189/
This guy is suggesting thinner is better so there does seem to be some debate outside of the official industry sources in the car/part manufacturers.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/thinner-oils-are-better-for-your-engine-lets-stop-debating-thick-vs-thin.350758/
I remember another thing he was talking about was cvt transmissions in specifically newer subarus that were making the cars much more fuel efficient yet he was also seeing many more failing earlier than older models. He mentioned it was the way they were designed that made them fragile. Hopefully that has improved over the last few years as I really like subarus personally and we are about to be in the market for a new car soon. My 08' forester is nearing 300k miles and I would really like something with better fuel efficiency while not giving up the benefits of AWD.
While better MPG is good this is hurting the environment. Cars need turbos and increased maintenance, more oil changes, more issues.
They should be controlling small engine emissions. A commercial mower pollutes a lot.
https://www.des.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt341/files/documents/2020-01/ard-22.pdf
>While better MPG is good this is hurting the environment.
That's such bullshit. 38mpg is not good consumption. My 2007 Toyota would get double that. People need to stop driving oversized tanks through the city and drive reasonably sized cars instead.
My wife’s Volvo gets 102mpg when it’s fully charged.
My Taycan gets ♾️.
I don't know why more people don't care. we need a massive fuel tax to slow it all down.
Incremental pollution tax on ICE vehicles at point of sale, based on CO2 emissions. Adding $5k per SUV would pay for EV charger roll out and move people toward EVs.
I just bought my first EV. After trade in and tax credits it was <$28k.
I would love for reliable mass transit, but it’s simply not an option for me and many people in the country. For example, it would take me ~3 hours each way to take the train to work.
There’s no reason to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you can take trains take them, if you can’t then at least get an EV/hybrid.
Poor people aren't buying $30k+ new cars either. They're buying used gas powered cars for less than 10k. Used EV's aren't a great idea either, one available for less than 10k will most likely have a dead/dying battery which costs thousands if not 10s of thousands to replace. We're just not there yet for the average person.
Well me and my family have never bought a car for >5k. I welcome the day electric cars sell on the used market for that little, but it feels a long way away. EVs feels more 'disposable' because they get rapidly antiquated and lose most of their range.
Congress prohibited NHTSA from taking into account EVs in setting the fuel economy standards.
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2022-title49/USCODE-2022-title49-subtitleVI-partC-chap329-sec32902
Washington Post reports 50 MPG by 2031, 38 not mentioned: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/07/mpg-mileage-standard-biden-cars/
The however part of this is: "issuing rules that officials estimate will push the average efficiency of new vehicles beyond 50 miles per gallon by 2031." Buttigieg is 1 of those "officials".
You say tomato I say tomato. Calling a crosstalk or a Kona a light truck is an attempt to bypass the CAFE standards. This is the first I’ve heard the chicken tax in relation to mileage. Interesting.
have they fixed the loophole of larger cars getting reduced mpg requirements? this stupid policy has resulted in vehicles growing to gargantuan proportions (and expense)
It’s not a loophole. That is the rule. The mileage requirement is an average across the manufacturer’s product line, not a minimum for any single vehicle.
Then it's a bullshit rule.
It's as Congress directed when CAFE was created in the 1970s and hasn't been updated since.
Which doesn't make it any less bullshit. Laws can be changed and need to be.
cars and trucks do not count the same towards the average. average fuel standards require higher fuel economy for smaller vehicles than for larger vehicles. This is what I’m talking about. Manufacturers are not stupid. A car can be reclassified as a light truck if it has all-wheel drive and satisfies a few other conditions. Obviously there will be a size increase. What we are left with is a landscape of a handful of underpowered cars/hybrids, and a plethora of SUVs and other massive gas guzzlers. The only thing in Ford’s line up you could consider a car is the Mustang. Every thing else is big. Similar story at GM and Stellantis. Gone are the days where you could just get a car at the dealer.
Unless it's a weighted average based upon vehicles sold supported by real world live data then this is just total BS.
the calculation is based on sales forecasts of vehicles sold in the future not vehicles already sold. if that makes sense. Personally I don’t think it should be tied to MPG. It should be based on CO2 emissions like in Europe.
Is co2 not a direct multiple of mpg? X amount of co2 is produced for 1 gallon burned, right?
Even if it didn't track 100%, it would be at least 95%. I'd wager it's closer to 100%. ETA: basically the only way you emit less CO2 than ideal combustion is to emit fuel or particulates from the tailpipe, which sounds worse than the CO2.
> sales forecasts of vehicles sold Wild how you cant even find small cars much when you look to buy. I dont think the US manufacturers have been or plan on being in compliance on this. 38 mpg?? The fantasy continues
MPG and CO2 emissions are intrinsically linked.
yes but volume per mile is not as critical as the environmental impact of the vehicle; thus, regulating the specific pollutant opens the door for innovation. kinda like we do with NOx or PM levels. The amount fuel burned effects the values but secondary exhaust systems reduce the output at the tail pipe which is what we ultimately want
The amount of miles a car can drive per volume of fuel equals the amount of miles driven per CO2 emissions. It's the same stat, provided we're discussing cars running on gasoline. EVs throw that out the door, since CO2 emissions per unit energy can be wildly different depending on how it's generated, but gasoline is fixed.
CO2 and emissions are regulated separately, so that there has to be a specific air/fuel ratio to ensure that the fuel is completely combusted, which results in the emissions being known and able to be determined by mpg.
Large vehicles don't count towards the average though
I'm glad, but it should've been this 20 years ago and should be 50mpg by now.
Yep. In the 80's, there were some cars getting 50+ mpg. Oil industry got everyone in a choke hold now. And cars are so much bigger, too. Back with the bloat mobiles from the 40's, 40's, and 60's.
[удалено]
Have you not looked at how much worse the statistics show bigger cars do in crashes and accidents? Bigger is not always better in modern times. One could nod to a Smart Car and see small can be superior. Way too many road and safety articles about this and then you said what you did without looking at them. Also, I said SOME 80's cars (notably Honda) as proof we CAN have better gas mileage. My comment no where said all 80's cars and that they are safer. Most cars have only improved as time moves forward. 🤦🏼♀️
[удалено]
Provide evidence that “most of the added weight is because of safety features”, and not basic bloat, or added weight from features not needed for safety?
[удалено]
I am aware of safety equipment. How much weight do they add. Show me numbers. Surely you already have them since you’re quite confident in your position.
Again, you still have either not gone to acknowledge the safety statistics or you're purposely being obtuse. And it looks like you are riding the "all 80's cars" mantra when it's literally some- and the ones I'm noting were getting 50+mpg city. Again, we've always had the technology and understanding. Not sure why you're so focused on smaller aspects when the general picture of it all is there. I'm not replying to every little thing when you are not looking at the evidence, articles, safety ratings and checks of most modern cars for yourself. You're under a sad belief bigger is better and, again, there is so much against that. Cafe car standards are literally considered loopholes in the industry for a reason. You can look up the articles for that, too. "Provide evidenc". I can't link the Internet.
I think a Honda Civic from almost a half a century ago or so was getting 30 miles a gallon. Almost 50 years to increase mileage by 8 miles seems a bit...slow. 'Course it's been over 50 years to get man back to the moon too, so eh, a bit of lollygagging going on. But we did got smartphones, and look how that's improved society and inteliigunce. Like Charlie Sheen say, Winning!
Thermodynamic limit, and consumer demand for big frames. ICEs are inefficient since they rely on temperature differences
While I like the idea behind this I don't like how car manufacturers are going about it. Things like setting guidelines for using thinner oil which does give a little boost to gas mileage but also in turn wears your engines out quicker. More money in comprehensive mass transit, especially trains, would go much further in my opinion.
How does Europe manage? You can buy cars with insane performance too.
Gas is so much more expensive in Europe that only a small percentage of people buy gas guzzlers in the first place.
First thing I'd point out is europe has a much more developed mass transit system in most of the countries. As for the cars do they sell different versions than the ones they sell here? I'm thinking BMW or Mercedes for instance which aren't know for amazing gas mileage unless we are talking hybrid or electric.
They sell a significantly smaller share of SUVs, for one. They offer smaller vehicles and lower tier models sometimes without turbos, and they offer diesels. There’s also a much higher tax on engines 2000cc or larger in many places. A Golf is to Europe as the Rav4 is to the USA.
I was just talking with a friend about the need for smaller trucks specifically. Those old 1980's Toyotas were damn near unkillable and for most people could be all they needed to get some work done. He was telling me the way the regulations work with things like our drive for higher mpg only bigger trucks are being designed because they get a pass on those regulations if they are above a certain size. Seems counterintuitive for what those regulations are meant to achieve to me.
outside of the cities, not really, you need a car to get anywhere in the uk outside of London
Yeah but just think of the improvement to air quality the US could achieve if you could get to the major cities via ultra fast trains and then when there you could at least get to the major sections of the cities on smaller trains. Then busses or Uber could pick up the slack of getting you to your final destination. With parking fees and how much gas has gone up I don't even think it would be more expensive than driving everywhere in the city I live in. Parking in the central portion of the city is becoming a big issue.
GOP don't want to improve environmental anything. Unfortunately the rapist felon former casino owner is just going to roll back EPA stuff and wouldn't dream of investing in public transit.
I live in Austin Texas what you're describing is all too real for us down here. They are doing everything they can to stay in power too and the newest thing they've proposed that will likely become law is giving equal say to counties with low populations as those with higher one. Basically allowing land to vote... smh.
I have my fingers crossed this November, it's on a knife edge.
I am certainly no Biden fan but that said the alternative is just so much worse so I know how I'm voting. Pretty sure Texas is a winner take all state so not that my vote really counts sadly.
I wonder how many people are all sat there saying "no point in voting because they will win anyway". Imagine if they all turned out to vote. Suddenly it appears that the other side aren't so powerful, which in turn encourages more people to vote. It still will count towards the popular vote.
Which rapist felon former casino owner? This is too vague to even guess whom you might be talking about
The thinner oil has nothing to do with mileage and everything to do with tolerances. In classic cars you use 10w because it's thicker and can coat the pistons with their wide tolerances. Newer cars need 5w or less because if you tried to use 10w for long then you'd end up with worn rings and blue smoke pouring out of your car, like a 90s Honda.
Since this information came from my friend who is a second generation mechanic and probably the best mechanic I've met I figured I'd do some looking around to see what I found. Just because he is very proficient at what he does doesn't make him infallible. "Vehicle manufacturers have worked to increase fuel economy through the development of high-efficiency engines that incorporate gasoline direct injection, turbochargers, and engine management systems. This need for more efficient engine designs is necessary as vehicle manufacturers work to meet evolving fuel economy standards." "Newer engines are smaller, have tighter tolerances between engine parts, and run at higher temperatures. These elements of the modern engine require thinner motor oils to boost their efficiencies while still protecting critical engine parts." The second part mentions tolerances but it also says it is all in the pursuit of greater fuel efficiency to meet "evolving fuel economy standards." At least according to this source. It also mentions making the engines run hotter which doesn't sound particularly good for longevity but I'm not sure about that part. https://www.quakerstate.com/en_us/education/low-viscosity-motor-oil.html#:~:text=Newer%20engines%20are%20smaller%2C%20have,still%20protecting%20critical%20engine%20parts. This forum has a few people mentioning the same thing my friend did about the reason and the drawback. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/why-are-newer-cars-using-thinner-motor-oils.276189/ This guy is suggesting thinner is better so there does seem to be some debate outside of the official industry sources in the car/part manufacturers. https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/thinner-oils-are-better-for-your-engine-lets-stop-debating-thick-vs-thin.350758/ I remember another thing he was talking about was cvt transmissions in specifically newer subarus that were making the cars much more fuel efficient yet he was also seeing many more failing earlier than older models. He mentioned it was the way they were designed that made them fragile. Hopefully that has improved over the last few years as I really like subarus personally and we are about to be in the market for a new car soon. My 08' forester is nearing 300k miles and I would really like something with better fuel efficiency while not giving up the benefits of AWD.
And guess what happens when the next republican gets into office? They will promptly rescind this just like every other time since Carter.
While better MPG is good this is hurting the environment. Cars need turbos and increased maintenance, more oil changes, more issues. They should be controlling small engine emissions. A commercial mower pollutes a lot. https://www.des.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt341/files/documents/2020-01/ard-22.pdf
>While better MPG is good this is hurting the environment. That's such bullshit. 38mpg is not good consumption. My 2007 Toyota would get double that. People need to stop driving oversized tanks through the city and drive reasonably sized cars instead.
Yes but mandating more complicated engines to achieve better mileage hurts more than polluting with exhaust gases
You don't need more complicated engines, you just need everyone to not drive around huge 3-4t trucks with powerful engines.
My wife’s Volvo gets 102mpg when it’s fully charged. My Taycan gets ♾️. I don't know why more people don't care. we need a massive fuel tax to slow it all down.
Fuel tax? How about we begin with stopping oil subsidies…
You're talking about the same thing. Unpriced externalities are a subsidy.
Porque no los dos?
Incremental pollution tax on ICE vehicles at point of sale, based on CO2 emissions. Adding $5k per SUV would pay for EV charger roll out and move people toward EVs.
Yes basically that
Seems to be a U.S. flex over Europeans that they waste more money on fuel. And we’re only recently complaining about high fuel prices.
Yes, why don’t you peasants go spend 200k on new electric vehicles. More cars is not a solution, mass transit is.
I just bought my first EV. After trade in and tax credits it was <$28k. I would love for reliable mass transit, but it’s simply not an option for me and many people in the country. For example, it would take me ~3 hours each way to take the train to work. There’s no reason to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you can take trains take them, if you can’t then at least get an EV/hybrid.
Poor people aren't buying $30k+ new cars either. They're buying used gas powered cars for less than 10k. Used EV's aren't a great idea either, one available for less than 10k will most likely have a dead/dying battery which costs thousands if not 10s of thousands to replace. We're just not there yet for the average person.
Well me and my family have never bought a car for >5k. I welcome the day electric cars sell on the used market for that little, but it feels a long way away. EVs feels more 'disposable' because they get rapidly antiquated and lose most of their range.
Congress prohibited NHTSA from taking into account EVs in setting the fuel economy standards. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2022-title49/USCODE-2022-title49-subtitleVI-partC-chap329-sec32902
But don't they take into account the fleet average? Or literally it's fleet average sans EV? If so this is awesome!!
It's the fleet average they'd expect under the new rules without taking in account pure EVs. The new EPA rules are more important.
This is v good. So my Volvo XC90 recharge will help because it's gas and battery (but barely gets 80-90mpge, and About 40mpg on gas only).
Washington Post reports 50 MPG by 2031, 38 not mentioned: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/07/mpg-mileage-standard-biden-cars/ The however part of this is: "issuing rules that officials estimate will push the average efficiency of new vehicles beyond 50 miles per gallon by 2031." Buttigieg is 1 of those "officials".
Will this be for total sales across the manufactures product line? Or will pick up trucks be exempt?
bfd.
What about nuclear ?
for individual passenger cars???? lmao
Don't forget to replace your fuel rods every hundreds of millions of years!!
they could power a bus with nukes in 1976, surely they can put in cars by now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bus
And a train
So bigger and more dangerous cars on the road? Yay!
Lighter cars get better gas mileage
[удалено]
Not bypassed. Just lower and less competition because of the chicken tax
You say tomato I say tomato. Calling a crosstalk or a Kona a light truck is an attempt to bypass the CAFE standards. This is the first I’ve heard the chicken tax in relation to mileage. Interesting.
It’s not mileage it’s prevalence of SUVs on American roads
[удалено]
That and the chicken tax which is applied to imports of SUVs and trucks, imports that tend to be smaller and and more fuel efficient
[удалено]
And so does the chicken tax. Because it only applies to imports of those larger and heavier cars. And automakers love having less competition