Kerry Is Sticking With Plan to Raise Auto Fuel Efficiency

The New York Times ^ | March 26, 2004 | By DANNY HAKIM

[commonsenseaintsocommon]

DETROIT, March 25 - In the face of rising gasoline prices and stagnating fuel efficiency, Senator John Kerry is sticking with a plan he backed in the Senate to increase the nation's fuel economy standards 50 percent by 2015. That would be the largest increase, by far, since automotive fuel economy standards were first imposed after the oil shocks of the 1970's.

Few think even Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, could actually make good on such a plan if he were elected president, because there is too much opposition from Congressional Republicans and Midwestern Democrats. When Senator Kerry and Senator John McCain pushed such a proposal two years ago, it failed in the Senate on a 62-to-38 vote.

But Mr. Kerry's emergence as the likely Democratic nominee has reinvigorated debate in Detroit and Washington about the nation's plummeting fuel economy.

Environmental groups say they believe that bolstering fuel regulations would be Topic A, or close to it, in a Kerry presidency. The Bush campaign says the Kerry plan would have a devastating effect on a region already hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs. Automakers say they do not have the technology to meet his numbers.

And a who's who of top Democrats in Michigan, considered a battleground state, have been pressing Mr. Kerry to scale back.

"We've all talked to the Kerry camp individually, and together," said Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a Democrat whose husband is one of two state campaign chairmen for Mr. Kerry.

"We've had meetings with their people, there's been a series of discussions on this," she said, adding, "he is not wedded to a particular miles per gallon and wants to work with the auto manufacturers and do this in a cooperative fashion."

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, also said in an interview that Mr. Kerry was "not locked into any particular approach or any particular number."

But the Kerry campaign Web site says "we should increase our fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015," and the senator's campaign staff said he was sticking to that number, which is similar to his Senate proposal.

Cars and trucks, combined, are now required to average about 24 miles a gallon when they are tested in a lab by the Environmental Protection Agency. Out of the lab and on streets and highways, however, cars and trucks averaged 20.4 miles a gallon in the 2002 model year, the lowest point since 1980. And that figure excludes the largest and least-fuel-efficient vehicles, like Hummers, which are exempted from the regulatory system altogether.

Any current discussion of fuel economy is colored by the conflict in the Middle East, rising gas prices and surging global demand for oil, particularly in China. But amending corporate average fuel economy rules - known as CAFE standards - is also fraught with questions about jobs and safety.

Jobs, because the traditional Big Three - General Motors, the Ford Motor Company and the Chrysler Group division of DaimlerChrysler - argue that raising standards would benefit foreign-based rivals, particularly an automaker like Honda that does not sell the largest vehicles. Safety, because one way to improve fuel economy is to make lighter vehicles, which tend to fare worse in crashes with heavier ones.

[Asclepius]

But the Kerry campaign Web site says "we should increase our fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015," and the senator's campaign staff said he was sticking to that number, which is similar to his Senate proposal.

What a bold move, Senator. And why not mandate that our life spans increase by five years or ease the laws of gravity for our obese brothers and sisters?

[Paleo Conservative]

The auto industry had no problem meeting those requirements when prices were high in the late '70s and early '80s. Once prices declined, consumers wanted higher performance and more capacity for passengers or cargo. Due to the CAFE, manufacturers stopped making station wagons. To fill the demand for larger vehicles, some manufacturers started making minivans and SUVs that were classified as light trucks rather than passenger vehicles. They therefore did not count against passeger vehicle milage requirements. If prices were to rise again, I'm sure there would be more demand for vehicles that use less fuel.

[TexasTransplant]

And all of these things are in the Presidents Job Description?
What am I missing?

[Falcon4.0]

Balsa Wood and rubber bands, next to 18 wheel semi- trailers. I can't wait.

[grellis]

"We've all talked to the Kerry camp individually, and together," said Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a Democrat whose husband is one of two state campaign chairmen for Mr. Kerry.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, also said in an interview that Mr. Kerry was "not locked into any particular approach or any particular number."

Granhom and Lenin (Oops! I mean Levin) would back the demoncrap nominee even if he were to insist that cars must be manufactured to run on kitty cat waste without any concern for how many jobs might be lost in the mitten. Ditto Stabenow.

They must go, Michigan FReepers! They all must go!

[CedarDave]

Few think even Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, could actually make good on such a plan if he were elected president, because there is too much opposition from Congressional Republicans and Midwestern Democrats.

Ah, Mr. Hakim, something called engineering might be an obstacle to meeting that goal. With current engines and car safety requirements, we likely have squeezed about as much out of our designs as possible. Much more and you will have to tie your mother-in-law on the roof and have your dog run behind the car.

[CMailBag]

That settles it..We should all drive what Kerry's wife drives.

[CedarDave]

Does it come with a chauffeur??

[I still care]

I was watching Chris Matthews on hardball interviewing the demo gov of Michigan, the one born in Canada (I forget her name). She was talking about tax cuts she said Kerry would put through.

But Chris, who just occasionally gets it, suddenly switched and asked about the oil supply, and energy. She replied that we need to turn to alternative energy, such as windmills. (I nearly fell off my chair here, because we were all shouting "windmills" at the TV - they are so predictable)

Even Chris looked incredulous. He said, but cars eat oil. And she said, well we can find hybrids, we can figure out something - poor Chris looked like he could barely keep a straight face. He basically said, I don't know if that will help Kerry carry Michigan.

[nightdriver]

"Few think even Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, could actually make good on such a plan if he were elected president, because there is too much opposition from Congressional Republicans and Midwestern Democrats."

Acutally "Congressional Republicans and Midwestern Democrats" have very little to do with the laws of thermodynamics.

Isn't this a prime example of arrogant non-think by a feather-headed liberal?

[I still care]

Thanks for reminding me. It was Granholm.

By the way, my sister is a world class environmentalist. (She won't even use oven cleaner in her home). She just had another baby, and bought a Honda CRV, and told me so.

I said (innocent chuckle) Isn't that an SUV?

She (sounding abashed) well not really a REAL SUV, it's sort of a small one...

[supercat]

Out of curiosity, what approaches to automotive improvement seem the most promising? One approach I was thinking of awhile ago would be to harvest energy at an engine's most-wasteful point: the throttle.

The purpose of a throttle in a gasoline engine is to waste energy. A volume of air goes in one side at one pressure and goes out the other side at reduced pressure. The volume of air, times the pressure differential, implies work, but engines currently do nothing to harvest this energy.

Some back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that at normal cruising speeds a gasoline engine will waste a few horsepower in the throttle alone (anyone know what cruising vacuum typically is?). While a few hp might not sound like much compared with the hundreds of horsepower an engine can put out, that power is wasted when a car is cruising at constant speed, at which time engines are putting out much less power.

Adding a turbine generator or other such device to the throttle linkage and varying the load electronically would allow effective throttle control of an engine while providing a few hp of "free" energy. The "free" energy would not be available during times of maximum accelleration, but would be available at most other times. Actually, I'd think that the energy would be slightly better than free since (compared with a conventional throttle) every joule of energy recovered via the alternator would be one joule less of heat on the engine's intake air. Since engine efficiency comes from the relative differential in absolute temperature, pre-cooling the intake air would improve engine efficiency and power (to be sure, the level of cooling provided here would be pretty minor, but if it's free why not take it?)

Anyone know if anyone's doing anything like that?

[Dan from Michigan]

Shows, along with his NAFTA/GATT votes, where he stands on manufacturing jobs.

Bush sucks on trade issues too, but at least he's honest about them.

[Robert_Paulson2]

He's trying to persuade "nader democrats" to stay with the pack.

[Robert_Paulson2]

12-16 inches of mercury... vacuum.

[rintense]

And Detroit thought Gore would be bad??? Sheesh! Kerry will cause the auto industry more grief than Al could ever hope to. And yet the UAW supports this guy because Dickie boy from Missouri asked them to? Good grief.

[John Lenin]

Let this fool pander to the enviro-whackos, he will lose more votes than he gains soccer moms love their SUV's.

[supercat]

12-16 inches of mercury... vacuum

Really? At cruising speeds? For a 3.0L engine at 3,000RPM, that's 6hp of energy wasted in the throttle. Seems to be that harvesting even 50% of that would allow for noticeable and significant fuel-efficiency gains, especially on larger engines (which I'd expect to be drawing significantly more air at slightly deper vacuum than smaller ones).

[Robert_Paulson2]

at about 120 cfm.. of air. or less is my guess.
most carbs and throtte bodies I used to know about, flow a maximum of 500 cfm on higher performance 4-6 bangers at W.O.T. Wide Open Throttle.

Cruising Air Intake should very likely be Cu. Ft. engine displacement, times rpm, times the dyno tested volumetric efficiency of a given configuration. At 3500 rpms, a 110 cu in engine, would use 160 cu ft of air at 100 vo. ef., at 80 percent... 128.