Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Oracle of Delphi

Feds demand fast start on higher CAFE

17 posts in this topic

Harry Stoffer

Automotive News

April 22, 2008 - 12:01 am ET

UPDATED: 04/22/08 3:51 p.m. EDT

McLEAN, Va. -- The Bush administration wants automakers to get a running start on a congressionally mandated 40 percent increase in fuel economy standards by 2020.

In proposed rules unveiled today, the administration is asking car companies to achieve a 25 percent improvement during the 2011-15 model years -- in effect, a 4.5 percent compounded annual increase.

The expected result by 2015 would be cars that must average 35.7 mpg and light trucks that must average 28.6 mpg, for a combined 31.6 mpg.

Transportation Secretary Mary Peters called the proposal " an aggressive but achievable standard." She announced the plan during an Earth Day event at a Department of Transportation research center here.

Peters toured a display of vehicles with fuel-saving technology produced by seven automakers: the Detroit 3, Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai.

Automakers say they accept higher standards but may dispute some details of achieving them.

Honda has said it is prepared to meet whatever the government requires. The company considers a 4.5 percent annual increase " quite aggressive," said Ed Cohen, vice president for government and industry relations at Honda North America Inc.

Various fleet averages

Some automakers must meet higher fleet averages than others, depending on their vehicle offerings. Peters confirmed there will be different fuel economy targets for vehicles of different sizes -- measured by vehicle footprint, the area bounded by four wheels.

Such a system will require some improvement in all vehicles. An automaker cannot comply with tougher standards simply by building more small vehicles. As a result, Peters said, safety will not be compromised.

Federal officials said the rules include language aimed at pre-empting state efforts to regulate fuel economy. The rules do not alter the legal definition of light truck, which critics have said invites game-playing by automakers.

A new federal energy law mandates the rise in fuel economy standards to a combined 35 mpg by 2020 for cars and trucks -- about 40 percent higher than today. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, part of the Transportation Department, had to spell out the details with regulations.

Peters said the administration wants to set an aggressive pace in the early years covered by the law, to start saving fuel faster. Compliance will be easier because many automakers -- including the Detroit 3 -- have accumulated credits for exceeding previous standards, particularly with their cars, a top NHTSA official told Automotive News.

The car standard of 27.5 mpg has been unchanged since 1990. The truck standard, at 22.5 mpg, is up slightly more than 10 percent since 1992.

Giving credit

The new energy law allows automakers to carry credits forward for five model years and to trade credits between their car and truck fleets and among companies. There is no indication that any automaker is interested in the latter feature.

Industry executives attribute government's aggressive approach to fuel economy to a convergence of concerns about climate change, fears about oil supplies and anxiety over high gasoline prices.

Last December, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law an energy bill that included the first mandated increase in the corporate average fuel economy program, or CAFE, since it began in 1975.

The rules unveiled today must be made final by next April 1 so that the industry has 18 months of lead time for the official start of the 2011 model year. Peters said her department's goal is to complete the new rules by year end.

Automakers and dealers are lobbying hard to maintain the administration's ban on state-by-state rules governing greenhouse gas emissions. The industry says such rules in effect would create a unique fuel economy standard for each state.

Warning: Steep hill ahead

Year - Car standard - Truck standard - Combined (all in mpgs)

2008 - 27.5 - 22.5 - 24.8

2011 - 31.2 - 25 - 27.8

2012 - 32.8 - 26.4 - 29.2

2013 - 34 - 27.8 - 30.5

2014 - 34.8 - 28.2 - 31

2015 - 35.7 - 28.6 - 31.6

SOURCE: Bush administration proposed fuel economy rule

Link - http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...paign_id=alerts

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fu&kin A.

Trucks will be renderexd useless by this bull$h!.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fu&kin A.

Trucks will be renderexd useless by this bull$h!.

well, outisde of many trades, trucks are useless.

do u think people need escalades, tahoes H2''s, envoys etc???

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truck standard is really ridiculous. Does any vehicle classified as a truck, aside from the HHR or similar, get 28MPG?

Also, I'm too lazy to read... how are the standards calculated? Is it the average of the highway and city MPG for a vehicle to get its total MPG or is there a different method?

The car standard can be met... even high powered cars can get 30MPG on the highway... so I don't see why new fuel-saving technologies can't get small cars to 40MPG, and diesels and hybrids like the Volt will help a lot. Trucks may be able to make it with more diesels and hybrids. I could see small hybrid crossovers achieving those numbers, but not the bigger ones.

What happens to the automakers if no one wants to downsize and everyone keeps buying large vehicles? Pay the fines and move on?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The truck standard is really ridiculous. Does any vehicle classified as a truck, aside from the HHR or similar, get 28MPG?

Also, I'm too lazy to read... how are the standards calculated? Is it the average of the highway and city MPG for a vehicle to get its total MPG or is there a different method?

The car standard can be met... even high powered cars can get 30MPG on the highway... so I don't see why new fuel-saving technologies can't get small cars to 40MPG, and diesels and hybrids like the Volt will help a lot. Trucks may be able to make it with more diesels and hybrids. I could see small hybrid crossovers achieving those numbers, but not the bigger ones.

What happens to the automakers if no one wants to downsize and everyone keeps buying large vehicles? Pay the fines and move on?

Pass the fines onto the customer. Hey..what if all of the automakers put aside their differences and boycotted this bull$h!?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, outisde of many trades, trucks are useless.

do u think people need escalades, tahoes H2''s, envoys etc???

Maybe not, but I'd like to have my truck to pull my camper, classic cars and horses. But god forbid we not all live in the city, not enjoy the outdoors and not drive Civic Hybrids.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The truck standard is really ridiculous. Does any vehicle classified as a truck, aside from the HHR or similar, get 28MPG?

Also, I'm too lazy to read... how are the standards calculated? Is it the average of the highway and city MPG for a vehicle to get its total MPG or is there a different method?

The car standard can be met... even high powered cars can get 30MPG on the highway... so I don't see why new fuel-saving technologies can't get small cars to 40MPG, and diesels and hybrids like the Volt will help a lot. Trucks may be able to make it with more diesels and hybrids. I could see small hybrid crossovers achieving those numbers, but not the bigger ones.

What happens to the automakers if no one wants to downsize and everyone keeps buying large vehicles? Pay the fines and move on?

Well, that was the plan IMO.

Cars didn't need new regs because the asians already own that market. The goal was to kill Detroit's truck business and (hopefully, finally) finish off Detroit.

Either that, or the greenies are just jealous that they can't afford high priced (BIG) vehicles, that requires actually getting a job.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pass the fines onto the customer. Hey..what if all of the automakers put aside their differences and boycotted this bull$h!?

As much as I would LOVE to see that happen, it would be publicity and political suicide.

I'd love to hear Lutz say; "Ah, f*ck 'em. GM is committed to building cars and trucks that the public wants to buy."

Edited by FUTURE_OF_GM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for trucks.... they just be about 2x the size of those small utility pick ups (can't think of the brand,something like 10-12 foot long) powered by the 2.2L and a 6 speed.. or a 1.6L t-diesel and a 4 speed? hehe

again..it going up every year is not a good thing...at least by more than .3mpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my posts under the Earthday thread for the real rules and the effect it will have. Don't panic, it's mostly good (unless you want a two-seat sports car).

In practice the minimum average for light trucks is 24.8 mpg by 2015, but it varies by footprint (wheelbase by track)—smaller trucks will require better fuel economy, even a Yukon XL would need to get 25.4 mpg (under the old, old test, not the recent or current EPA tests). If, on average, each model meets its individual target, then you'll pass. The maximum required for the smallest "trucks" is 34.3 mpg.

For cars, the minimum corporate average is 32.9 mpg by 2015, but targets range from 31.2 mpg for the largest cars (for rwd cars say Charger and up, bigger for shorter-wheelbase fwd cars) to a maximum of 41.7 mpg required from the MX-5, and 41.6 mpg for most subcompacts such as the mini and Aveo. Like trucks cars will be given a target based on the footprint, as long as each model meets its target, and you don't have too many getting less than 32.9 mpg, you're fine. If some models don't meet their targets, whether a small car that doesn't get better than 40 mpg, or a large car that gets less than 31.2 mpg, then you have to have others that do better to balance. But a rwd car can have a better than 1 mpg advantage over a fwd car, right up until the largest models (even a Lucerne must meet a higher standard than a similar rwd sedan).

I've taken the formula given by the NHTSA, and plugged in their target numbers for each year (maximum and minimum mpg figures, plus the correction factors which also change every year), combined with the relevant dimensions of current and past models. The only unknown is what the CAFE fuel economy numbers for the current models are now, and how it compares to the targets. Now, it's clear that vehicles over a certain size (more than a 3.1 m wheelbase) are at a disadvantage, since the size bonus doesn't get any larger (a Maybach 62 and TownCar have to meet the same standard as a Charger), and the smallest vehicles (smaller than the current market offerings, say a Chevy Beat) have an advantage as they don't have a higher standard than a larger, heavier subcompact. It will also mean future sports cars will need to have longer wheelbase and wider track than current models, and that rwd cars may actually be favored because of the inherently longer wheelbase (wheels at the corners instead of behind the engine).

Edited by thegriffon
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey you know, here ius something for all the people who think Toyota is greener than the domestics—based on future product plans given to the NHTSA, the agency estimates that the 2015 CAFE requirement for Toyota will be lower than GM's and Ford's.

The agency's estimates under the new size-weighted proposal:

Manufacturer MY 2011 MY 2012 MY 2013 MY 2014 MY 2015
BMW            33.3    35.0    36.0    36.8    37.7
Chrysler       28.7    29.3    32.2    32.6    33.6
Ferrari        30.4    32.0    33.1    33.9    34.9
Ford           31.0    32.7    33.7    34.5    35.5
Fuji (Subaru)  36.9    38.7    39.6    40.1    40.8
General Motors 30.0    31.7    32.8    33.7    34.7
Honda          32.1    33.8    34.8    35.5    36.4
Hyundai        33.4    35.1    36.0    36.7    37.5
Lotus          38.1    40.0    40.8    41.2    41.7
Maserati       28.9    30.6    31.8    32.8    34.0
Mercedes       31.7    33.3    34.4    35.3    36.2
Mitsubishi     33.0    35.1    35.9    37.0    37.9
Nissan         31.2    33.2    34.2    35.0    35.9
Porsche        37.6    39.4    40.3    40.7    41.3
Suzuki         37.3    39.2    40.1    40.6    41.2
Toyota         30.1    31.5    32.7    33.6    34.6
Volkswagen     35.4    37.2    38.2    38.8    39.5

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is for passenger cars, but for light trucks, Toyota's predicted requirement will still be lower than both Ford and Chrysler.

Manufacturer MY 2011 MY 2012 MY 2013 MY 2014 MY 2015
BMW            28.2    29.9    31.2    31.4    31.7
Chrysler       25.2    26.6    28.0    28.5    29.1
Ford           24.7    26.1    28.0    28.3    28.8
Fuji (Subaru)  30.0    31.7    33.1    33.2    33.4
General Motors 23.9    25.4    26.5    27.0    27.4
Honda          26.1    27.7    28.9    29.2    29.6
Hyundai        27.5    29.1    30.4    30.6    31.0
Mercedes       28.4    30.1    31.4    31.6    31.9
Mitsubishi     29.4    30.8    32.2    32.3    32.6
Nissan         24.9    26.2    27.3    27.7    28.2
Porsche        25.9    27.4    28.7    29.0    29.4
Suzuki         30.3    32.1    33.5    33.5    33.7
Toyota         24.9    26.0    27.2    27.6    28.0
Volkswagen     26.2    27.8    29.0    29.3    29.7

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "backstop", minimum CAFE standard for passenger cars, above the minimum written into the footprint-based formula, applies only to NAFTA vehicles, a fillip to the UAW to ensure cars like the Cobalt and Focus are still built in North America.

More estimates from the NHTSA:

Estimated Technology Penetration Rates in MY2015 for Passanger Cars
.                        Average Among 7 Largest Manufacturers   Maximum Among 7 Largest Manufacturers
Technology               Product Plan  Under Proposed Standard   Product Plan  Under Proposed Standard
Automated Manuals             10%                 39%                 59%                 86%
Direct Injection (SIDI)       22%                 30%                 76%                 82%
Small Turbocharged Engines     5%                 17%                 11%                 51%
Diesel Engine                  0%                  2%                  0%                  5%
Hybrids                        5%                 15%                 14%                 19%



Estimated Technology Penetration Rates in MY2015 for Light Trucks
.                        Average Among 7 Largest Manufacturers   Maximum Among 7 Largest Manufacturers
Technology               Product Plan  Under Proposed Standard   Product Plan  Under Proposed Standard
Automated Manuals             10%                 55%                 41%                 72%
Direct Injection (SIDI)       23%                 40%                 46%                 73%
Small Turbocharged Engines     9%                 31%                 32%                 44%
Diesel Engine                  3%                 10%                  7%                 45%
Hybrids                        2%                 25%                  5%                 32%

Edited by thegriffon
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thegriffon: wouldn't it make more sense if targets were defined in terms of weight rather than footprint? I believe the Japanese system sets average fuel economy targets for different vehicles based on weight with various weight segments and allowance for credits and trading between those segments. Edited by ZL-1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you're thinking of the proposed Chinese system, however unless you're looking at payload weights for large commercial vehicles it's not helpful. Should a Hummer H2 be given a much lower target than a Tahoe with greater passenger and cargo room? It's a bit like prize-fighters—the big guy goes on a diet to drop his weight class. It's too easy to add weight and reduce your targeted fuel economy, without giving the buyer any real benefit beside added gizmos and insulation. Just look at the weight difference between a base and loaded model vehicle. We want better economy, and that means taking out weight. You don't want to penalize manufacturers for doing better than someone else at building an economical vehicle of a certain size. Front and rear overhangs, overall height and therefore interior space, weight, engine size, engine power—all these can be altered easily without improving economy. Footprint is constrained for a long period of time—look at the GMT 900s, the new Sequoia, Expedition and LandCruiser etc.—all have the same wheelbase as the old models. Toyota goes 10 years between major changes in footprint. It's simply too expensive to change every few years, and is constrained by engineering and design practicalities when you do. It's also closely related to functional attributes such as pickup bed size, leg room, shoulder room etc.. Basing targets on footprints allows manufactures to benefit from real improvements in efficiency, whether it be by adding improvements to driveline, or reducing vehicle weight, or improving aerodynamics; without penalizing or rewarding them for the choices made by buyers or their particular specialization. It doesn't require a manufacturer of SUVs or large delivery vans to sell small cars as well, nor does it give a free pass to a specialized manufactuer of small cars such as smart should Mercedes decide to sell it. If it appears buyers do not choose enough smaller vehicles to meet the mandated target, then the NHTSA will raise standards across the board even more in future years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe you're thinking of the proposed Chinese system, however unless you're looking at payload weights for large commercial vehicles it's not helpful. Should a Hummer H2 be given a much lower target than a Tahoe with greater passenger and cargo room? It's a bit like prize-fighters—the big guy goes on a diet to drop his weight class. It's too easy to add weight and reduce your targeted fuel economy, without giving the buyer any real benefit beside added gizmos and insulation. Just look at the weight difference between a base and loaded model vehicle. We want better economy, and that means taking out weight. You don't want to penalize manufacturers for doing better than someone else at building an economical vehicle of a certain size. Front and rear overhangs, overall height and therefore interior space, weight, engine size, engine power—all these can be altered easily without improving economy. Footprint is constrained for a long period of time—look at the GMT 900s, the new Sequoia, Expedition and LandCruiser etc.—all have the same wheelbase as the old models. Toyota goes 10 years between major changes in footprint. It's simply too expensive to change every few years, and is constrained by engineering and design practicalities when you do. It's also closely related to functional attributes such as pickup bed size, leg room, shoulder room etc.. Basing targets on footprints allows manufactures to benefit from real improvements in efficiency, whether it be by adding improvements to driveline, or reducing vehicle weight, or improving aerodynamics; without penalizing or rewarding them for the choices made by buyers or their particular specialization. It doesn't require a manufacturer of SUVs or large delivery vans to sell small cars as well, nor does it give a free pass to a specialized manufactuer of small cars such as smart should Mercedes decide to sell it. If it appears buyers do not choose enough smaller vehicles to meet the mandated target, then the NHTSA will raise standards across the board even more in future years.

So it works as a system where OEMs are rewarded if they introduce new more fuel efficient cars, but also if they continously increase efficiency on current models: an incentive to incremental/evolutionary changes instead of 'reinventing the wheel'?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0