Government by Harry Potter;
Washington’s press corps this afternoon dutifully parroted the White House announcement that by 2025, cars must get 54.5 mpg. And we’ll put humans on Neptune.
The EPA said the new 900-page regulation will require a 5 percent gain in fuel efficiency per year, will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump, and will provide “net societal benefits of $420 billion,” whatever that means. These are carnival-barker numbers. “Drink our serum and you’ll be a foot taller!”
But for harder numbers, how are the automakers doing on the more immediate EPA mandate of 35.5 mpg by 2015? They’re not even close.
will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump
As if they give a fig if consumers save a penny.
What would really save consumers at the pump, immediately, is lowering taxes at the pump and long term savings could be had by just allowing things like more drilling plus the continuing construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
5% efficiency improvement per year for 15 years straight?
Every engineer reading that will be rolling on the floor in a paroxysm of laughter.
And here’s how we’re going to do it:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rFs0uVY_4rE/TKLWgiWC0bI/AAAAAAAAIc8/bf3xaP_bTBs/s400/mr_fusion.jpg
Whoooohoooo….now I can dig out those old plans for my 100 MPG fuel-injection system….which runs on hopey-dopey change and unicorn farts.
If the boy wonder gets in again,I hope I can get some prime US land dirt cheap,before the Chi-coms call in their debts.
MPG is a function of efficiency but they are not equal nor interchangeable.
a 5% increase in MPG is not a 5% gain in efficiency. 1/MPG is better measure of efficiency, with 0gal per mile being 100% and infinity being 0%.
There are competing interests in and outside the car here. Inside you have the EPA vs the HTSA vs the consumer who only has $X to spend. Outside you have consumers who have $X to spend, all levels of government that tax gas consumption (more consumption means more income), levels of taxation on the production and profitability of providing gas and the EPA (and its California counter part) attempting to have us walk everywhere.
Just like the last time this craziness happened, we’ll wind up with cars being built that get ridiculous mileage but no one wants just to meet an average MPG number. I can see car makers leaving the 20MPG SUV in the lineup cuz (gasp) people want to buy it, and then having a 100MPG hybrid with a range of 15 miles just to meet the stupid number.
Is there a single engineer at EPA?
They forgo the laws of physics in climate research so why not in car mileage. My pickup says it gets 14 mpg. Those must be American gallons. I remember one about 30-40 years ago with a smaller engine and bigger Canadian gallons got 20 mpg. I’m nor sure how they’re going to turn 14 mpg into 55 mpg. I guess it will be the same way they will get universal health care – no at all. Perhaps they could pass a law giving me a bigger ……
The trouble when they make cars smaller is that people buy trucks and vans making the problem worse. As there is a real business need for trucks and vans they can’t be shrunk. You don’t see many cars in my oilpatch town as it is.
Are these the same characters that write the “Bob takes Enzite” commercials?
***Cautionary note***
for non-TV people going to Google enzite… it deals with “male enhancement.” Same snake oil, different promise, same results. Like beauty pageant contestants that are hoping for world peace through the EPA or something.
The common theme amongst journ-o-lists and leftist politicians is: Math Is Hard … so why bother with it?!
This is easy. The object is to get the fleet average up to 54.5 mpg,so, start making Volkswagen’s little one-man,one lunger diesel car that they’re selling in China,it gets 200km per litre.
They’d probably give the “smart/stupid car” a run for the money,and would bring the fleet average way up.
I keep hearing that old Disney song,”When You Wish Upon a Star” in my mind.
Just to note, after a quick 2-minute google:
The 2011 base Camry got 26 mpg. The 2012 gets 28 mpg. (Both figures from US gov’t, so presumably testing procedures are consistent) That’s roughly an 8% improvement in one year.
Other interesting tit-bits: among gas powered models, highway EPA ratings are virtually the same, regardless of whether it’s a 4 or 6, or manual or automatic. This suggests to me that at highway speeds, it’s not so much a factor of engine efficiency as it is wind resistance.
And for the Camry Hybrid – the XL model went from 31 mpg in 2011 to 43 mpg CITY, which actually DROPS to 39 mpg highway! On surface, this suggests to me an improvement in battery technology which reduces the need for the gas engine dramatically in city driving; still can’t overcome friction on the highway, though.
So I see it as entirely possible for a generation of gas-only urban drivers to switch to hybrid electric/gas vehicles for their commuting, while rural drivers (and urban contractors, construction workers, etc.) continue to choose pickups, 4×4’s and other vehicles more suited to their needs.
Oh, and BTW: the only people driving minivans in 10 years will be Muslims and Hispanics. Just look at the demographics – the Baby boom “echo” is petering out, and there’s no way the OWS generation is going to have large families. First, they’re too busy exploring their lesbian/gay/transgendered identities to bother with children, second, large families necessarily incur that awful, dirty word: “sacrifice”, and finally, since they don’t have jobs, and Mom’s basement is too small, they can’t afford them.
I recall back in the 60’s, all the hype about gas turbines….Chrysler had a few prototypes touring about…..not really sure what happened but there is a distinct possibility that fuel economy was an issue.
Gas Trubines fuel efficiency is problematic unless they are developing full power….not a great problem with marine applications but varying power settings….The MI Abrams MBT is not noted for fuel economy…but the advantage of small volume/weight makes it work.
The inconvenient truth about gasoline cars is the only progress is the result of smaller cars, lighter cars and smaller engines…..
That is why my personal solution…a motorcycle works so well…except when it is raining, snowing…cold….
The inconvenient truth is that gasoline per pound doesn’t pack all that much energy…compared to diesel fuel…that explains the signifigant successful developement of modern diesels….especially big ones.
Diesels easily displaced gasoline back in the 50’s for farm and road tractors but currently use 1/2 the fuel of the older engines…without that black haze.
Diesel cars, especially smaller european imports, are very miserly on fuel but much of their success is due to their small power compared to gasoline models….and then their poor accelaration, the smell of the fuel, exhaust, noise and hard starting/need to warm up make them unpopular.
No magic required to solve this puzzle. All you do is make up unrealistic MPG mandates and then allow the auto companies to “invest” in public transport instead of paying a massive pollution penalty. How else can governments afford to build such modern marvels as high speed rail (see the California high speed rail fiasco for details)?
BTW, even if automakers could build a 55 MPG car and the people loved it not a dollar would be saved by consumers. Governments, now dependent on gas taxes, cannot afford to lose this revenue. The idea to tax people by the mile traveled using mandatory GPS units installed in cars is the most likely replacement for declining gas taxes.
kevinB:
Before the 2012 model, the last major remodeling of the Camry was in 2007. Thus that 8% efficiency improvement is likely over five years, not one.
Math question. One EPA nitwit, one five foot rope,one tree. How many trees do I need to save $1.7 trillion.
Diesels can achieve higher MPG and the newer technology makes them perform well and clean to boot. Take a VW TDI out for a drive and you’ll see what I mean. It’ll blow the doors off a Prius in performance and looks any day of the week.
they can all do that off a cliff.
like the economy
Honda was selling cars that made over 40 MPG back in the 70’s.
Pretty popular model, called the Civic.
40 years later, we’ve made them bigger, heavier, safer, and given them more computing power than was used to land men on the moon. Not to mention climate control and sound systems that actually do as advertised. All standard.
In other words, in pretty much every area they are better, but more fuel efficient, eh, not so much.
Maybe making that a focus for improvements is not such a bad thing
Yippee when do we get our wands, brooms and flying carpets? Think of mileage a broom gest the EPA will love it
And think of all the money Social Security will save when people end up dying in car crashes of their brand-new tinfoil cars!
Even if some cars get the mileage that the moonbeam set would like to see, the vast majority of vehicles on the road will still be of the older vintage that get maybe half of the mileage.
Perhaps you should consider using your unicorn for short trips … that will save a lot of gas.
The laws of physics are stubborn things. Since the OPEC crisis 38 years ago every car company (with the possible exception of Ferrari) has been devoting billions of dollars to make cars more fuel efficient. Does the EPA think tens of thousands of engineers working in Germany, England, Japan and North America have not really been trying but a new regulation will make them do so now? I have a new Civic and commute 53 highway miles to work. Using every fuel saving technique I know I average 51.2mpg and those are Imperial gallons. The US gallon is four-fifths of an Imperial gallon so that 54.5mpg is 68.1mpg(imp)
The Daihatsu Copen is a typical Japanese Kei Jidoshi class microcar, which are limited to 660cc and typically weigh under 1900lbs, only achieves 47mpg(imp) combined urban and ex-urban as tested by the EU. It’s a two seater.
The only way to even approach the EPA target is to have unicorns tow your car. Call it the Obama buggy instead of the Bennett buggy.
Um, isn’t $1.7 Trillion/@3.45/gallon= 492,753,623,188 gallons of gasoline SAVED?
I don’t think the carnival barker could pull it off.
Okay I already hear the “that’s todays prices” protest. Lets double the /gallon. 246,376,811,594
gallons of gas saved according to the wizards at the EPA. Math is HAAAAARD.
My (enormous) diesel truck gets ~20mpg, bone stock. Add water/methanol injection, it will get ~22mpg. Towing.
Take off half a ton of idiot emission controls like the giant exhaust filter, the exhaust gas recycling system and etc., with a reprogram and a reasonably light foot it will get 25mpg. Easy.
Go for a turbo upgrade, full-up exhaust system upgrade, few other odds and sods and it could probably approach 30mpg. If I felt like dropping $20k
But it is never ever going to see 55mpg. It weighs 3000kg and has the drag coefficient of a 4×8 sheet of plywood.
The Volkswagen Golf/Jetta/Beetle all have the VW TDI diesel, they all get 45 mpg bone stock, and they can see 50mpg with a simple re-program and water injection. With a bit of effort they can be made to get 55mpg. Guys brag their cars on the web all day long, lots of people have done it.
The point as noted above is not to get great mileage. The point is to give the DemocRat party the power to dictate who shall drive what kind of car.
If you want to gas prices go through the roof just force companies to make extremely fuel efficient cars!!
I knew a guy who knew a guy whose UNCLE knew a guy who knew a guy whose brother bought this new car from the dealer that was getting REALLY good gas mileage and…..
Maybe the gov’t should first improve it’s own efficiency, thus neding less tax $$$, which would require less work to pay for tax, which would reduce the amount of energy needed to produce the work need to be done to pay the tax
@GYM
I think about that everyday,how can the govornment tell anyone about increasing efficiency of any kind when it is the most inefficient and robust “fuel” (tax dollar) guzzling vehicle in the world . Hypocrites!!
Wild rose in alberta next year guarentee!!!
It doesn’t matter what any one vehicle achieves, it’s the average across all products a company makes.
GM buys Vespa. Problem solved.
Kate it’s obvious that auto-makers forgot to factor in installing windmills and solar panels into the construction. A car going down hill could spin that windmill at a great rate. The only problem would be the solar panel getting the car up the hill. Oh well,smarter people than us are probably at work on it as we speak.
Phantom, I just sold my 4×4 Dodge Diesel and can attest to the accuracy of your #’s. The truck was a 2003 – last full year before emissions gear began to choke out the engine – and with an economy tune and a steady foot on the highway I would yield 10.0 L/100kms (28 mpg). My yearly average, the last full year I drove it was 11.161 L/100 kms (25 mpg). I can’t touch those #’s with the gas Tacoma I replaced it with, and it has 2/5 the torque and is 3000 lbs lighter.
If I had the money, 30 mpg would have been attainable on that Dodge. The only way I can see getting 30 mpg on my new Tacoma is if I put that old Cummins in it. That and some new springs in the front.
I would recommend building these 56 mpg cars with six sockets, three on each side. That way they can attach the brass rails and that would allow the pall bearers to carry the car with your mangled body inside directly to the grave after an accident. At least your family would save the cost of the casket.
Gas mileage would jump today if they took the corn whiskey out the the gasoline.
Wait, Kate, are you saying I *shouldn’t* reply to all those p*nis enlargement emails?
All I’ve gotten in the mail so far is magnifying glasses.
the last GM I owned got well over 50 mpg
mind you, most of the miles were on the back of a towtruck…..
I owned a 1978 VW Rabbit equipped with a 1.6l four cylinder diesel,which had been developed by Mercedes engineers,I believe.
It was fitted with a four-speed standard and got about 48 mpg on the highway. If they’d used a decent five speed tranny the mileage would have been a lot better as I heard some 5-speed were getting 58 mpg.
I also owned a Nissan King cab with a 2.5 l diesel.It was a reliable truck and I used it for my forestry contracting business,lots of logging road travel, and got about 40 mpg, but it was a rust bucket from day one.
The diesel motors for a good commuter car and small trucks have been around for thirty years or more,the companies have just stopped offering them here.
“The laws of physics are stubborn things. Since the OPEC crisis 38 years ago every car company (with the possible exception of Ferrari) has been devoting billions of dollars to make cars more fuel efficient. Does the EPA think tens of thousands of engineers working in Germany, England, Japan and North America have not really been trying but a new regulation will make them do so now? I have a new Civic and commute 53 highway miles to work. Using every fuel saving technique I know I average 51.2mpg and those are Imperial gallons. The US gallon is four-fifths of an Imperial gallon so that 54.5mpg is 68.1mpg(imp)”
The laws of mathematics are likewise stubborn. The US Gallon being 4/5ths of the Imperial Gallon do not make the milage greater. Rather, it makes it less. Your 68.1 is closer to 43.6mph in US gallons.
Our ’94 civic even today averages 41mpUSg. Our 2005 civic averages closer to 36 mpUSg. Although the latter offers more creature comforts, mileage has gotten worse.
Regards etc,