Posted on 12/19/2007 5:42:22 PM PST by BenLurkin
If you're like me, the bluster and grandstanding associated with big congressional actions make you want to roll up the windows, crank up the radio, and tune out the whole circus. But the mammoth energy bill finally passed by Congress and signed by President Bush is something consumers should pay attention to. Among other things, the new law will directly affect the kinds of cars on the market in a few years--and what buyers pay for them. Some of the big changes that automakers and consumers will both have to contend with:
Surprisingly tough gas mileage standards. The requirement to raise corporate average fuel economy (the quaint-sounding "CAFE," in Beltway-speak) is an aggressive target that will force adjustments by automakers and consumers alike. Getting to a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, from the current standard of 27.5 mpg, will require annual fuel-efficiency increases of about 3.3 percent. New technology and market competition always drive some gains in efficiency, but over the past couple of decades in the United States, it's amounted to less than 1.5 percent per year. Even in Europe and Japan, where gas costs more and cars get better mileage, annual gains have been 2 percent or less. Environmentalists are disheartened by other aspects of the energy law, such as its lack of support for renewable energy, but on gas mileage it has teeth. Our overall fuel economy numbers will still be lower than elsewhere, but the improvements will be dramatic.
More technology, sooner. One way to get better mileage is to build smaller engines--but in a market where buyers are used to performance, that's not going to win any new customers. So automakers will accelerate development of under-the-hood technologies that make engines more efficient and help improve mileage without a trade-off in performance. "This will unleash torrents of engineers all over the world," predicts one auto executive. Expect to see more hybrids, diesels, turbochargers, and other advanced gizmos that squeeze 1 or 2 additional horsepower from a gallon of gas. And get used to new automotive initials like CVT (continuously variable transmission), VVT (variable valve timing), and DOD (displacement on demand). One feature likely to become commonplace: The automatic start-stop technology--or "golf cart" effect--that's standard on hybrids. Shutting down the engine during stops and running accessories off a battery instead of the gas engine can boost mileage by 10 to 30 percent.
Bigger window stickers. Expect to pay more for that technology, too. People on all sides agree that meeting the new standards will make cars more expensive. But by how much? Estimates range from less than $1,000 per car (diehard environmentalists) to a catastrophic $6,000 or more (General Motors). Internally, many automakers anticipate price increases in the range of $2,000 to $2,500 per car by 2020, in today's dollars. Costs will be phased in gradually, beginning with model year 2011 cars (mostly introduced in 2010), so that will mitigate the sticker shock somewhat. And better gas mileage will offset the costs further. But the typical new-car buyer who purchases a fresh model every three to five years will still feel a pinch. If prices rise too much, one perverse outcome could be fewer new-car sales, with drivers holding on to older, less efficient cars longer.
More potential problems. Automakers prefer to roll out new technology gradually, by introducing it on one or two models, gauging consumer acceptance, making sure it works, and marketing it more broadly if it succeeds. But with greater pressure to improve gas mileage, manufacturers are likely to hurry technology onto the market with less real-world testing. That could cause unforeseen problems. Air bags were a genuine safety breakthrough in the '80s and '90s, for instance, but it took several years of real-world crash data for researchers to figure out that they could also be harmful to kids and small adults, and make modifications. Lab testing and computer simulations can help pinpoint many problems, but the broader and faster the rollout of unproven technology, the bigger the risk of unintended consequences.
An end to horsepower wars. A Hemi V-8 won't seem quite as appealing to mainstream buyers if it comes with a hefty price premium, which is probably what will happen. Automakers will effectively be penalized for building cars that get poor mileage (Jeep Grand Cherokee with 5.7-liter V-8 Hemi: 13 mpg/city), so they'll either have to charge a lot more to offset the added cost or they'll make fewer gas guzzlers. So expect fewer mass-market cars with a standard or optional V-8 and more four-cylinder engines in place of a V-6. Muscle cars won't go away, however, as long as there are enthusiasts willing to pay extra for them. And assuredly there will be, given that orders for the 425-horsepower Dodge Charger SRT8, which doesn't even arrive till next spring, have already driven the asking price from an MSRP of just under $40,000 up to nearly $60,000.
Fewer big SUVs, plenty of everything else. One scare tactic in the CAFE battle has been the automaker claim that Americans would all end up driving flimsy little econoboxes. Unlikely. One change that will probably happen is that GM, Ford, and Chrysler will build fewer big SUVs based on pickup truck frames, which are good for towing but heavy and inefficient. That's been happening anyway, as carlike crossovers such as the Toyota Highlander and GMC Acadia have become far more popular. But no other types of cars seem to be endangered, partly because automakers will each be assigned their own overall mileage target based on the mix of vehicles they already build: Manufacturers with a "heavy" mix, like the Detroit 3, will have to meet a lower standard, and those with a "lighter" mix, such as Honda, Volkswagen, and Nissan, will have to meet a higher standard. In other words, there will be incentives for automakers to keep building the kinds of cars they already produce--but to make them more efficient. Still, specific targets for each automaker and type of car won't be set until the spring of 2009, which means the circus isn't leaving town just yet. Turn up the volume.
A properly designed system that stops the motor when ever you are stopped would save a ton of gas for people with stop and go commutes. It might be hard on the engine and require bigger batteries, but it would be one effective way to reduce gas comsumption and pollution.”
Keeping traffic moving would be far more effective. If the car must be stopped, and then it doesn’t restart- you plug up all the traffic behind you.
Not a good idea. If you have ever had the bad luck to have this happen to you, you do not want to increase the instances of it happening 10,000 fold every day.
For people who can use the tiny and tinny cars that get great mileage, so be it. I have to move a horse trailer in my business. Not going to happen with a YUGO. I don’t bitch about the mileage, but the price of gas per gallon is preventing me from promoting my business more aggressively, which hurts my lifestyle and causes a little hiccup in the economy.
Ed Begley can drive whatever he wants since he really only commutes about 2 miles to where he works. I have to go at least 6 miles to get to anything commercial, including the Post Office, which is getting totally out of control with the cost of their services- another topic for another day—.
“We could have (for those that want them) tiny cars that get excellent MPG. But the safety standards would be unattainable.”
Exactly!
Say..weren’t those safety standards mandated by Congress?
Someone ought to try to teach our Congress some physics.
Can’t have it both ways; safe AND efficient.”
I keep hearing over and over again in my memory:
Clinton: “Stroke of the pen! Neat”
These fools are over the top with their feelings of power. Too bad it isn’t backed up with some common sense. Congress is populated with people I wouldn’t let walk my dogs, and they don’t need leashes- they respond to a whistle.
I wonder how the California MTBE experiment worked out?
The most destructive force on the planet is government.
When we went through this three decades ago the muscle cars disappeared for a long time. Then you could get a muscle car for $4000. Now you need $40,000. Santayan said, those who don’t remember history are the new generation.
The same applies to carbon based fuels - once again the conservation of energy.
Of course you also have to factor in efficiency considerations. There are efficiency losses in any process.
I know, that's why I said, "How much usable power do you get when you recombine the hydrogen with oxygen?
Twice the money for half the car.”
Just like Congress:
Twice the problems for half the good.
Fuel cells are quite efficient (much better than ICEs which waste a lot of their energy as heat). The one thing which could head off a hydrogen economy would be the development of inexpensive, quick charging, high energy density batteries. This would also be a positive development. Either batteries or hydrogen (or possibly another as yet unknown alternative) will eventually replace petroleum as a fuel - and that will be a good thing.
I know. The "inventor" and the Freeper I'm laughing at are generating H2 to burn in an ICE.
The one thing which could head off a hydrogen economy would be the development of inexpensive, quick charging, high energy density batteries.
Common sense would also head off a hydrogen economy.
Either batteries or hydrogen (or possibly another as yet unknown alternative) will eventually replace petroleum as a fuel -
How will the hydrogen be generated?
and that will be a good thing.
Why?
We won't be buying hydrogen or electricity from the Middle East. That's a very good thing - unless you are an oil sheik.
The logical thing - logical (therefore opposed by most Democrats) - would be to produce it domestically.
When I began investigating the career of industrial designer my senior year in college, I was dissuaded from going after car design because you had to live in Detroit, unless you were real lucky and got hired into an Italian firm. Almost literally my senior year in college Toyota founded Calty and all the others followed suit. As usual, this aspect of my life turned out to be a classic case of bad timing.
With what?
were you aware of a company called protium which has developed a hydrogen on demand system for our present cars which you can add on in a couple of hours. Mpg increases of up to 100% are being had now. They will be selling a protium injector which will allow there system to fit on any fuel injection system to go full hydrogen. Their patented device uses about as much electricy from the car as it takes to use the auto door locks. Guess what, much more energy on output than input! I know you will find that hard to believe, but if you give them a call you will see that it is true. And it’s only about $750. The full hyrogen with the injector will be a little more, I am sure. Their number is 405.604.0033. I hope you are open minded enough to unlearn some of your cloesely held teachings.
LOL!
I hope you are open minded enough to unlearn some of your cloesely held teachings.
Yeah, those pesky Laws of Thermodynamics.
ok, go ahead and miss out on amazing new technology...all because you want to believe the set rules not realizing that some of the laws discovered could be inncorrect. Many very learned people believed that the world was flat for sometime. In your arrogance you implied that I was dumb and yet you won’t even check out a product that does effeiciently make hydrogen out of water for pennies. Who is the dumb one? Hope you at least check out Protium company.
Yeah, the Laws of Thermodynamics are incorrect. LOL! So, you never took a Physics class, right?
In your arrogance you implied that I was dumb
I think that's been proven.
and yet you won’t even check out a product that does effeiciently make hydrogen out of water for pennies
You never did tell me how much energy it takes to produce the hydrogen, how much energy is released. Try again?
Who is the dumb one?
Still you.
From my link that you couldn't understand. "Converting water to hydrogen is done through electrolysis. Scientist David Pimentel has established that it takes 1.3 billion kWh (Kilowatt hours) of electricity to produce the equivalent of 1 billion kWh of hydrogen. (BioScience, Vol. 44, No. 8, September 1994.)"
That's why water is not a source of energy.
wrong again...much has been invented since that article from 1994. Ok, you sound like a broken record not willing to change your view. That’s fine, you are only hurting yourself. Change is coming and you will probably be the recipient of it even though you doubt it now. And at protium company, the amount of electricity is about what needed to operate the door locks...to make the hydrogen from water to run a car. Why don’t you check it out if you don’t believe me. Google them. You honestly don’t know what you are talking about and you don’t realize how silly you are sounding just content that I am wrong without even checking the new inventions out.
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.