Posted on 05/30/2007 6:47:18 AM PDT by PissAndVinegar
Beginning this Memorial Day weekend, members of the auto industry are rolling out a comprehensive campaign to convince Americans to oppose proposed increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and to pressure their elected officials to vote down such proposals.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) has launched a website (www.drivecongress.com) that encourages citizens to compose messages of protest against “unrealistic fuel economy increases” to be hand-delivered to elected officials. AAM represents BMW, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen.
The website allows users to insert statements provided by the AAM, such as “I value fuel economy, but I also want many other attributes in my automobile like safety, passenger and cargo room, performance, towing, hauling capacity and more” or “Rather than setting a harmful mandates [sic] like the one being proposed, the government should encourage the use of alternative fuels like ethanol, and provide incentives for consumers, like me, to purchase alternative fuel autos.”
The Detroit News reports that the campaign will also include at least a million dollars of radio ads in ten states that have a high percentage of truck and SUV owners.
The AAM’s efforts are bolstered by parallel campaigns from DaimlerChrysler and General Motors, each of which has brought a dedicated website online to help with the campaign.
According to GM’s website (drivingamericasfuture.com), CAFE standards “deter innovation”; “have no near term effect on oil consumption”; “foster competitive disparities that discriminate against US automakers”; and are “a 1970’s solution to a 21st Century problem.”
The website cites the steady rise in US oil consumption as an indicator that CAFE standards have failed, but does not calculate the level of consumption that might exist if such standards had not been enacted.
DaimlerChrysler’s password-protected website (www.grabdemocracybythehorns.com) is described as a “grassroots advocacy website, a legislative activation tool that provides employees, retirees, dealers and suppliers with a means to conveniently contact elected officials about the issues that concern you, your family and our company.”
CAFE standards were enacted in 1975, when Congress ordered automakers to more than double the fuel economy for passenger cars from 13 miles per gallon to 27.5 miles per gallon within a decade, which the industry achieved. Since then, Congress has regularly considered increasing CAFE standards, but has not approved a fuel economy increase for passenger cars. Last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) increased fuel economy standards for SUVs by 2 percent per year, rising from 21.6 miles per gallon to 24 miles per gallon by 2012.
Hmmm. Sounds like your referring to my 96' Plymouth Voyager (seats 8 and gets around 24mgp). My voyager now has 350,000 miles+ and still gets around 24mpg.
well they did always smoke, and if you got an injector problem that would definately affect MPG.
And I am with you, is fun to watch folks react to an old smoking diesel.
Market forces are driving them the other way? have you seen how well Detroit is performing lately?
But does it actually “work”? I mean, does it require materials that are extremely expensive? Can it be built to have a reasonable lifespan? Does it require an excessively large number of parts machined to extremely fine tolerances? There’s no lack of interesting ideas out there, most of which have had some major stumbling block. 20 years after Orbital’s patents on the subject and there still aren’t any direct-injection 2-stroke engined vehicles on the street. The devil’s in the details.
Interesting - I’ll be curious if it ever gets out of the test stage. I think BMW was working some sort of heat recapture scheme that used steam, but nothing has come of it so far http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=293
I believe the Voyager is referred to as a Mini-van.
Keep in mind that when the gasoline consumption falls the states lose revenue and start trying to introduce the mileage tax. Thus negating the need for high-mileage vehicles.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=32957
The only things I’ll complain about are the government taxes and the regulations that prevent oil companies from expanding refinery capacity. However, in the meantime, the extra cost in fuel is more than worth the extra protection that truck affords my 2 1/2 year old daughter.
Mini-van/car - the distinction isn’t important. It’s a vehicle that transports up to 8 and gets decent fuel economy.
I had some warranty work done on my Sebring which took overnight, so they provided me with a rental car. It was a PT Cruiser. I’d never driven one before. Cute car, but I felt like a roller skate on a raceway. I imagine someone who was used to driving an SUV would feel like they were on foot. Heh.
I disagree. There is no way any ICE can drive the wheels directly where highly variable power is required and be as efficient as one running at a constant rate.
That is the promise of hybrid vehicles. Not the “mild-hybrids” we have now, but vehicles with electric drivetrains that can completely power the vehicle and have a small ICE generator that can efficiently provide for the AVERAGE power requirements of the vehicle.
PML Flightlink showed a 3000 lb electric hybrid vehicle last year with 650bhp peak power, but got 80mpg fuel efficiency.
Kelly,
You can doubt all you want, its true. Diesels with TDI meet or beat EVERY hybrid out there in passenger vehicle segment in terms of gas mileage, and in terms of being Green.
They are cheaper to produce, less parts, no batteries that must be dealt with end of life, or toxic chemicals that must be mined or manufactured to be put into them in the first place.
Why are diesels more efficent than gas electric hybrids? Simple... The most efficient gasoline engines around only get about 38% efficiency... 62% of the BTU in gasoline is wasted... Diesels get around 50% efficiency.
VW TDI models consistenly meet or beat hybrids in real world driving, have a much lower overall cost of ownership and are far more Green.
I have a friend that owns both a Prius and a VW TDI, and drives them both. Gas mileage is the same, he regrets paying the premium for the hybrid, and says he won’t do that again.
The most efficient in terms of MPG would likely be a diesel electric hybrid, but no hybrid built in the US passenger cars uses a diesel engine.
Now if you sat in traffic for an hour and didn’t move, yes, the hybrid would probably have better gas mileage over that hour where you didn’t move, but for most real world application the hybrid does not beat TDI.
Speaking of high-performance vehicles, perhaps some engineers out there can help me understand this.
In the latest issue of Car & Driver magazine, there's an article titled "20 cars worth waiting for", or something like that. Among the cars listed were the new/retro versions of the Dodge Challenger and Chevy Camaro (both of which are slated for a modern V-6, as well as a V-8 engine option). The description of each not-yet-introduced vehicle had a "What could go wrong" comment, where production had or may have hit a snag.
For both of the above vehicles, as well as the new rear-wheel-drive Chevy Impala, there was a comment that the new proposed new CAFE standards had either put that vehicle "on hold" (the Impala) or was raising concern with regard to rear-wheel-drive vehicles in general (Challenger and Camaro).
It appears that GM has been trying to finally wriggle free of the "four versions of the same FWD car" strategy, but the new CAFE regs are likely to kill their efforts to re-shape the model line-up.
Assuming similar aerodynamics, gearing, engine displacement and tuning, and identical final-drive ratios... why should a rear-wheel-drive car be less fuel-efficient than its FWD counterpart?
I sure wish I could buy a RWD or AWD hot-rod like Ford of Europe's 1990's-era Escort Cosworth. That would be a small car that might entice me to give up my V-8. I drove a "taildragger" once; never again.
Yes I agree,but I believe the Voyager beats the Cafe standards by calling itself a truck or van.
“Assuming similar aerodynamics, gearing, engine displacement and tuning, and identical final-drive ratios... why should a rear-wheel-drive car be less fuel-efficient than its FWD counterpart?”
If nothing else, a RWD car will involve at least one 90 degree change in direction of power flow which is not necessary for a FWD car with a tranversely-mounted engine. That’ll cost you a couple-few percent power lost in the drivetrain. It’s probably also heavier to build an equivalent RWD car compared to a FWD one where the engine, tranny and differential are unitized.
Since few people really want solid-axle RWD cars anymore (yes, I know that some people don’t mind, but most would prefer a more modern independent suspension setup), I suspect that an independent suspension RWD setup is also more expensive to manufacture than a transverse-FWD setup.
You’re probably correct. A rose by any other name . . .!
It's not as though this is exotic hardware. The U.S. automakers offer very different vehicles in other markets, such as the U.K. and Australia. Often those cars are RWD near-copies of cars that are FWD in North America (example: Ford Taurus / Aussie Ford Falcon). The choice of powertrain (RWD vs. FWD) must have more to do with the related costs to assemble the car than with anything else.
When attempts to bring in those vehicles from other markets have been made, it's U.S. government regulations (example: mandatory passive restraint systems) that usually get in the way of success.
Do you have source for that number? Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.