Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: New CAFE standard

  1. #1 New CAFE standard 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    This important step does not seem to have received much news coverage. There must be something else going on in Washington.

    WASHINGTON (July 29, 2011) –The Obama administration today unveiled an agreement with major automakers and the state of California on a framework to strengthen the nation’s fuel efficiency and auto pollution standards for new cars and light trucks. This proposal, which will apply to vehicles sold in model years 2017 to 2025, will set a global warming pollution standard of 163 grams per mile by 2025, the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if met exclusively with fuel efficiency improvements, or a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard of 48-49 mpg assuming full use of air conditioning improvements. That would translate to a 2030 window sticker of about 36 mpg, up from 21 mpg today.
    This will spur technology development, and help wean us off Saudi Arabian oil and should also help the US car industry compete more strongly with foreign manufacturers.

    Exactly how the CAFÉ standard translates to a much lower sticker MPG I don’t know - presumably some formula combining highway and city mileage. I suppose I can google it, but maybe someone on here knows.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Oddly I couldn't find what explained the difference either, other than some broad statements EPA mpg included lab conditions to mimic actual driving. I can see some mpg being loss as a test mimics time spent sitting in traffic etc.

    --
    I've got mixed feelings about mixing light trucks and cars. Trucks are used to haul stuff, pull trailers; even the smallest of them require more horse power and beefier suspensions to do so. Many of them also require 4 wheel drive. On the other hand the aerodynamics of current light trucks are horrible.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I compromised and bought a Subaru Outback that can haul small stuff, has all wheel drive and gets decent mileage if you drive with a light foot. I'm getting 33 mpg(US) combined city and highway, while the sticker says 19 city/27 highway. How you drive makes a huge difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    This important step does not seem to have received much news coverage. There must be something else going on in Washington.

    WASHINGTON (July 29, 2011) –The Obama administration today unveiled an agreement with major automakers and the state of California on a framework to strengthen the nation’s fuel efficiency and auto pollution standards for new cars and light trucks. This proposal, which will apply to vehicles sold in model years 2017 to 2025, will set a global warming pollution standard of 163 grams per mile by 2025, the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if met exclusively with fuel efficiency improvements, or a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard of 48-49 mpg assuming full use of air conditioning improvements. That would translate to a 2030 window sticker of about 36 mpg, up from 21 mpg today.
    This will spur technology development, and help wean us off Saudi Arabian oil and should also help the US car industry compete more strongly with foreign manufacturers.

    Exactly how the CAFÉ standard translates to a much lower sticker MPG I don’t know - presumably some formula combining highway and city mileage. I suppose I can google it, but maybe someone on here knows.
    I must have done the math wrong. I get 28.28 MPG.

    I used a density of 0.72722 for gasoline.

    I figured carbon in gasoline being 87.71% of the weight.

    I figured this carbon, turned into CO2, as 314.29% of the weight.

    What did I do wrong?

    I like to check other people figures. Someone else double check me please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    180
    "This will spur technology development, and help wean us off Saudi Arabian oil and should also help the US car industry compete more strongly with foreign manufacturers."

    This is propaganda. It will increase substantially the price of new cars, will not signficantly affect the need for foreign oil as long asuse of domestic supplies remain and CAFE standards have never driven a competitive advantage for US car makers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907 View Post
    "This will spur technology development, and help wean us off Saudi Arabian oil and should also help the US car industry compete more strongly with foreign manufacturers."

    This is propaganda. It will increase substantially the price of new cars, will not signficantly affect the need for foreign oil as long asuse of domestic supplies remain and CAFE standards have never driven a competitive advantage for US car makers.
    I agree. For a party that claims to be in favor of the working poor, who can afford a used car anymore and keep it registered? Most cities I think these days require emission testing before you can renew your vehicle registration. Any running car used to be acceptable for some. Get one for $50 or $100 bux. Now a days, you have to pay a couple thousand, at least!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    That the working poor are being priced out of car ownership, with the big hits being insurance mandates designed to protect the wealthy (and driven by the horrible inefficiencies of the US corporate medical care setup), gas prices carefully arranged with political advantage to suck as much money as possible from those who have the least, and various tweakings of pollution response etc designed to benefit GM at the expense of everyone else (catalytic converters, corrupt mileage measuring systems, etc) has been a fact of US economic life for many years now.

    The flip side, taht they are being forced into car ownership by the degradation of public transportation, is also by now a long familiar circumstance.

    My wife's '92 Toyota Corolla gets 42 mpg over the road, meets all ordinary driving performance needs easily, seats four in reasonable comfort, starts in the coldest weather, and comes with air conditioning and cruise control and electric windows and all that stuff. That's twenty year old tech. What's the problem?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge1907 View Post
    "This will spur technology development, and help wean us off Saudi Arabian oil and should also help the US car industry compete more strongly with foreign manufacturers."

    This is propaganda. It will increase substantially the price of new cars, will not signficantly affect the need for foreign oil as long asuse of domestic supplies remain and CAFE standards have never driven a competitive advantage for US car makers.
    Nobody seems to consult ENGINEERS about this sort of crap. Waiting for the day 100% efficiency is mandated, wait, it is coming. Plus most foreign oil comes from to USA from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela- Saudi Arabia, not so much.

    Oh, yeah, something going on in Washington, DC all right- people trying to cope with financial meltdown without facing tar and feather treatment.
    Last edited by The Finger Prince; August 8th, 2011 at 02:47 AM.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •