Study: No savings at 62 mpg (New CAFE Standards Adds $10,000 To Price, 260,000 Jobs lost)

CNET ^ | 6/13/11

[Libloather]

Study: No savings at 62 mpg
by Automotive News
June 13, 2011 10:17 AM PDT

Raising federal fuel economy standards to as high as 56 mpg in the 2025 model year would yield fuel savings to consumers that more than offset higher vehicle prices, a new study found.

But lifting corporate average fuel economy to 62 mpg would result in vehicle price increases that exceed fuel savings over a five-year period, according to the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research.

The report highlights room for compromise on the Obama administration's preliminary proposal to raise CAFE to between 47 mpg and 62 mpg from the 2017 to 2025 model years.

Environmental groups have pushed for 62 mpg, while automakers have called for more study.

Current rules require a 35.5 mpg CAFE by the 2016 model year.

The center in Ann Arbor, Mich., is partially financed by the auto industry but this study was internally funded, [Center for Automotive Research] President Jay Baron said.

The June 11 report revises an earlier study in response to criticism by an environmental group, the International Council on Clean Transportation.

Among the latest findings:

•Technology changes would drive up the average cost of a new vehicle by between $3,810 and $11,390, depending on CAFE targets, from 2008 to 2025.
•Fuel savings would range from $5,917 to $8,339, depending on CAFE requirements, over the first five years of a 2025 car.
•Under 47 mpg, 51 mpg and 56 mpg targets, fuel savings would exceed the increased cost of a new vehicle.

[Wuli]

Answer: None.

No surprise.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Gee, we can’t let the market decide these kinds of things, can we?

[Mr. K]

Let me build a car from scrath with my own design and reasonable safety measure (also of my own design) and I could easily design you a 50 MPG car that could move 4 people.

Add in the tons of weight and ant- pollution nonsense and you get what we got now.

[Tomato lover]

We just ordered 48cc gas motors for our bikes. They get between 100-150 MPG. Even with my husband and I both riding at the same time, Lord willing, the family gasoline expense will plummet.

We picked up a couple of pull behind child trailers we will use to carry groceries.

Very anxious to get these into operation. It is an exciting prospect to be riding again, especially as we are both in our late 60’s.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Let me build a car from scrath with my own design and reasonable safety measure (also of my own design) and I could easily design you a 50 MPG car that could move 4 people.” <<

.
The VW Rabbit diesel was doing better than that in 1977.

[anoldafvet]

We are very close to the theoretical efficiency of the Rankine cycle engine. In order to achieve 50mpg, we will indeed have to make car bodies out of rice paper. Reducing weight will be the only way to improve mileage.

It is my understanding that new cars no longer come with spare tires in order to save weight. Idiot politicians!! Why don't they just repeal the laws of physics?

[Fresh Wind]

Some new cars are coming with run-flat tires and no spare.

[saint]

I already get 62 mpg on my thirty year old Kawasaki GPz550, and it still blows away most new cars.

Only problem is my wife answering questions I didn’t ask, like “But if we both rode our bikes we’d only be collectively getting 31 mpg.”

Sheesh!

I just answered that by pretending I didn’t hear her. That’s a trick I learned from her, and often use it on liberals.

[Wuli]

“We picked up a couple of pull behind child trailers we will use to carry groceries.”

I use one (a pull-behind child trailer) with my bicycle for trips to local supermarkets - 2 of them are each just 3 miles one way, and one is only 1.5 miles one way. Since using the bike and knowing the mileage, I’m thinking that my miles-per-gallon for those trips must have been pretty lousy even in my best vehicle. At least now I get plenty of exercise.