Posted on 08/04/2018 8:36:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)on Thursday proposed that the nation’s costly and counterproductive fuel-economy standards remain at 2020 levels through 2026, abandoning President Barack Obama’s plans to raise them each year. Eliminating the standards altogether would be ideal, but this move is a reasonable response to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) trying to set standards for the whole country.
CARB and its sister “blue” anti-Trump states constitute 35 percent of the nation’s auto buyers, and they are threatening to go their own way and impose the Obama-era standards if EPA ultimately enacts this proposal to relax the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) mandate. There is absolutely no reason, however, for Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to abandon the leverage he enjoys in this important debate.
In a March 30 article for Automotive News, Eric Kulisch argued against the Trump administration’s move to roll back CAFE standards, suggesting auto companies will have to “set up production lines to create two versions of vehicles.” This makes no sense. Automakers will be a lot better off if they aren’t forced to sell so many underpowered, less safe, undersized vehicles, many of which nobody wants to buy. (On the adverse safety impacts of the standards, see Sam Kazman, “Fuel Economy Standards Threaten Vehicle Safety,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, September 7, 2017)
Nowadays, every auto manufacturer competes in a worldwide automotive market, selling literally tens of thousands of different equipment packages based off a handful of production platforms. The watchword for auto assembly is “flexibility”—the ability to quickly and efficiently switch from one vehicle configuration to another and then back again on a moment’s notice.
Consider a recent flier from the Ford Motor Company that states “its global flexible manufacturing [can] produce on average four different models at each plant around the world to allow for greater adaptability based on varying customer demand. … virtually all Ford vehicles will be built off nine core platforms, boosting manufacturing efficiency, while giving customers the features, fuel efficiency and technology they want anywhere in the world.”
For instance, the compact Ford Focus car and Escape SUV are built using the same core platform and with the same cost to build out. This is also true for other full-line vehicle manufacturers.
The United States’ fuel-economy standard is an average formulated based on two regions defined by the national government. This means that when CARB’s fuel-economy standards rise above the national average, fuel-economy requirements in the 37 states not affected directly by CARB—accounting for 65 percent of America’s automotive sales—necessarily fall below the new average.
If EPA and NHTSA were to roll back the projected 39.36 mpg national standard for model year 2025 to, say, the 27.52 mpg standard for model year 2016—and should CARB be permitted to keep its requirements at the 39.36 mpg standard—it would lower the effective standard to 23.7 mpg for the 37 states not regulated by CARB.
What if CARB were to react by raising its standard to 50 mpg, up from the current 39.36 mpg for California and the nation? That would drive down the requirement now in place in the other 37 states to 22.2 mpg, which is more than 5 mpg below the 2016 standard.
Similarly, at 119 mpg—EPA’s rating for the Chevrolet Bolt and presumably CARB’s ultimate objective—the standard for other states would fall to 19.5 mpg, effectively repealing their standard and freeing them to get the performance, size, and safety consumers in those states want and are willing to pay for. Many more jobs would likely be generated as a result, as the factories in those states would be freed to meet the ensuing expansion in demand.
Although some might say lowering fuel-economy standards would cause environmental harm, the truth is it would likely reduce harm. Higher fuel economy standards translate into more miles driven and thus more criteria pollutants (gases that cause photo chemical smog) emitted. Economists call this the “rebound effect.” Costly fuel-economy equipment requirements also lead to fewer new vehicle sales and thus the retention of older, less safe, and higher-polluting vehicles via the “clunker effect.”
Some argue fuel-economy laws are necessary to fight global warming, but they do nearly nothing to address the alleged dangers of climate change. Carbon dioxide is a plant nutrient, and temperate climate zones such as ours would benefit from longer growing seasons (assuming increased auto emissions result in warming, which would be very modest under all but the most extreme climate projections, and thus a benefit to the environment).
Hold firm, Acting Administrator Wheeler! You are on the side of the angels!
POTUS should have Wheeler emphasize SAFETY FIRST!
Lively discussion from yesterday here on the same subject and SAFETY:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3676103/posts
Also- Moving the fuel inlets back to the driver’s side of the car would have the person pumping the gas closer to the driver’s door & would be a deterrent to anyone trying to highjack the car when you refueling.
A m/t is “too hard” to drive.””
I hve a 1976 Chevy 1 ton dually truck that I have driven over 250,000 miles. It has a Granny 4 speed & don’t have any problem driving it.
Had a rebuilt swapped in it over 15 years go, and it cost me a total of $600. Try that with an automatic!!!
My F-150 has a 10 speed automatic. The torque converter can lock I. Just about every forward gear. Third gear up for certain - I haven’t paid attention close enough to see if it does so in first or second.
I think that we would see a more realistic overall improvement I fuel economy by coordinating traffic lights and setting up roads to minimize stop-and-go driving. If I drive my trick at a steady 45-50 mph, I’m seeing around 26-28 mpg. Highway driving at 75 mph brings it down to about 22,and stop/go city driving drops to 17.5-19.5 depending on conditions.
This is with a full sized pickup truck.
I think the technology in modern powertrains has gotten so advanced, they actually operate better than humans.
The Insurance Institute tracks vehicle fatalities. Their report last year had 11 vehicles with ZERO “driver deaths per million registered vehicle years”.
Vehicles like Jeep Cherokee 4WD, Toyota Tacoma Double Cab long bed 4WD, and the lowly Volkswagen Tiguan 2WD are among the safest vehicles ever made. Nothing from the ‘60s can touch them for safety.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/52/3/1
It’s all about the gearing and the rpms that the car achieves in high gear.
Most cars with manual transmissions these days are targeted at performance, not fuel economy and get gear and axle selections based on that.
There is nothing more efficient than locking the input shaft to the output shaft.
Axle ratios to achieve that in high gear are now rare.
I just bought a new m/t car with a 31 mpg highway sticker.
On a pleasure drive up into the "mountains" (hills actually, but with an emphasis on "up" (and then back down)) and back the trip computer claimed that I had achieved an average 42.5 mpg.
(note that my Turbo Diesel m/t cars rated at 47 Highway get ~44 at 80 mph). YMMV.
‘Banning Automatic Transmissions would go a long way to improving Fuel Economy.”
That is an absurd statement! The automatic transmission, when coupled into the vehicle’s PCM, provides better economy that a manual transmission.
As someone whom is actively researching for a newish car I have round that many current cars with CVT (automatic transmissions) get better fuel economy than manuals.
You missed the point. Mechanically and electrically, there is no question that vehicles are safer.
What is UNSAFE are the electronic computer controls that emerged out of fuel and emission mandates.
When you look at the TOTAL system and break it down into system components, you should notice that most components are evolved over many, many decades EXCEPT for the computer controls imposed by EPA mandates.
So focus on this aspect of safety and go back and scan through the thread I linked to. You should then get the point.
And please stay on topic and focus on the subject matter.
Electronic Engine Control is YUGELY better than carburetors and mechanical ignition systems.
Safer too. (be careful about pulling out in front of a fast moving semi with a just started carburetor equipped automobile...)
Wrong.
Easy to say, difficult to back up.
(Lotsa peeps have trouble finding reverse on a m/t)
Pretty much everything in a new or recent vehicle is ‘better’ and ‘safer’ until they get worn.
The issue is NOT what you described. The issue is what causes the more serious problems when degradation and failure set in.
You are probably familiar with dead or failing batteries, starters, alternators, water pumps, thermostats, etc.
But do you know what can happen when a sensor, ECM go out?
I don’t think you know. Study up and then come back.
Lastly, note that ECMs and all their sensors may fail long before other subsystems. Lots of cars have a lot of life in them except their electronic control system can fail early and the failure can happen in traffic under very dangerous conditions.
I’ll just note that I recently rented a chainsaw that had electronic control of its carburetor to account for altitude, temperature and air filter plugging.
Once it got a chance (less than a minute) to accommodate to the altitude I was using it at, it ran GREAT!
I think it was a HUSS kah vaaarnaaaah. (insert your favorite Scandinavian joke here)
CVTs are theoretically able to get better fuel economy in the city and likely do if programmed to do so. Stop/Start engine control features are a much bigger effect.
CVTs have a poor history for durability.
A m/t out on the open road is at least as efficient as a CVT, given proper axle ratio and m/t gear ratios.
Classical Physics in everyday experience is still The Law.
Most trucking companies turned to automatic trans because the new “drivers” being turned out by the driving schools were ripping clutches out of trucks at an incredible rate.
Most had never driven a manual transmission before they decided to be truck drivers.
US Express was one of the first companies to go all automatic because 90% of their hirees were driving school grads who couldn’t shift a manual.
Trying to teach them to float gears was pure hell.
As for fatigue, having to be aware of speed, rpms and gear kept me sharper.
Driving an automatic was BORING and led to being less aware.
Of course I may be a bit prejudiced, I learned to drive in a 1948 Studebaker M16. :)
I am not against automatic transmissions since I drive a 7 speed, C7 Z51 Corvette Stingray. However cars with 9 speed slush boxes get better fuel economy since engine revs are lower.
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.