Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Approves SUV Fuel Economy Increase
AP ^ | 12/12/02 | H. JOSEF HEBERT

Posted on 12/12/2002 1:07:17 PM PST by finnman69

Bush Approves SUV Fuel Economy Increase

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration approved a modest increase Thursday in fuel economy for sport utility vehicles and small trucks, beginning with the 2005 model year, administration sources said.

The change is the first since 1996, when Congress imposed a freeze on the federal fuel economy requirements on automakers.

The Transportation Department will require fuel economy for SUVs, pickup trucks and minivans to increase by about 1.5 miles per gallon over three years beginning with the model 2005 vehicles that arrive in showrooms in late 2004, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Automakers currently must meet a fleet average fuel economy of 20.7 mpg for the "light truck" category that includes SUVs, minivans and pickups.

The federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, for other passenger vehicles will remain at 27.5 miles per gallon, where it has been since 1990.

The final rule mirrors a proposal sent to the White House for review last month by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration a Transportation Department agency that administers the program.

Spokesmen for the automakers said a 1.5 mpg boost in the fleet average was "a significant increase" and a "daunting" challenge if producers are to continue to provide customers with a wide range of SUVs, including the larger models.

"Achieving this standard depends on consumers buying our fuel-efficient vehicles in large numbers," said Gloria Briquets, a spokeswoman for the Auto Alliance, which represents the major manufacturers.

But environmentalists scoffed at the increase.

"It's a minuscule number compared to what's needed and what's technically achievable," said Daniel Becker, a fuel economy expert at the Sierra Club.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: environment; fueleconomy; mpg; suv
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-212 next last
Hmm, auto makers and Sierra club is unhappy. Sounds like a win for Bush. He makes an increase that is manageble by automakers, and takes the issue away from RATS.
1 posted on 12/12/2002 1:07:17 PM PST by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Too add something. I can't imagine a 1.5 MPG increase is outrageous by any means.
2 posted on 12/12/2002 1:08:05 PM PST by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Gomer W. Bush: "Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!"
3 posted on 12/12/2002 1:10:15 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
So if 1.5 mpg increase is good, why not 5? How about 10?

For that matter, why don't we just legislate that SUVs don't need fuel at all?

Compassionate socialism strikes again.

4 posted on 12/12/2002 1:10:17 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Smart political move, though I disagree in a philosophical sense. GW can point to the increase, environmentalists look ungrateful and whiny, arch conservatives' anger about it make GW look reasonable to wishy-washy 'moderates'.

I like Bush. He's really not out to divide, he's out to unite and move forward reasonably. And thats coming from a
Recovering_Democrat.

5 posted on 12/12/2002 1:12:09 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Too add something. I can't imagine a 1.5 MPG increase is outrageous by any means.

It's harder than you think, and will cost some money. There will be some compromises to be made. Its do-able though.

6 posted on 12/12/2002 1:12:10 PM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
"It's a minuscule number compared to what's needed and what's technically achievable," said Daniel Becker, a fuel economy expert at the Sierra Club."

What's needed and what is technically achievable is the balance that sound environmental policy must strike. The latter is what enviros want and what most don't want to drive.

7 posted on 12/12/2002 1:12:49 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Good analysis.
8 posted on 12/12/2002 1:14:58 PM PST by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Owning an SUV myself, I get around 19-20mpg on average. I must say that it is not the SUV's that are the problem, but the full size pick-up trucks and other heavy duty vehicles. They average around 13-17mpg.
9 posted on 12/12/2002 1:16:55 PM PST by rs79bm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
"Achieving this standard depends on consumers buying our fuel-efficient vehicles in large numbers," said Gloria Briquets, a spokeswoman for the Auto Alliance, which represents the major manufacturers.

This does not seem socialist. Automakers can easily use capitalism to achieve this goal. They just need to design attractive popular models that happen to get higher MPG. The consumer will make the choice to buy the vehicle they want. The automaker will make money buy designing a popular vehicle, and the environmental/energy needs of America will be improved. A WIN-WIN.

10 posted on 12/12/2002 1:18:14 PM PST by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
A small step down the slippery slope, but still headed down.
11 posted on 12/12/2002 1:18:17 PM PST by Slewfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Thats what I said. I can't believe a 1.5MPG increase is outrageous. You yourself said its doable.
12 posted on 12/12/2002 1:19:54 PM PST by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
This is fine. My new SUV doesn't get great gas mileage. It wouldn't hurt to choke that demon a little.
13 posted on 12/12/2002 1:20:01 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
100% Diesel Engines
14 posted on 12/12/2002 1:21:04 PM PST by kaktuskid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
They just need to design attractive popular models that happen to get higher MPG.

As opposed to the current situation, where they spend billions developing ugly high mileage vehicles so that no one will buy them?

15 posted on 12/12/2002 1:24:06 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal

Compassionate socialism strikes again.

So what would you prefer? No enforcement at all? I'm sure Exxon board members would like that, but driving a vehicle that gets 10 gallons to the mile doesn't sound too cool to me.

16 posted on 12/12/2002 1:27:33 PM PST by zingzang
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
ugly high mileage vehicles

Yes, it's a rice burner, but the Subaru Baja instantly came to mind.

17 posted on 12/12/2002 1:28:56 PM PST by niteowl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kaktuskid
100% Diesel Engines.

Nope, but increased use of diesels in the heaver end of the fleet probably make achieving the required increase possible with no pain inflicted on actual SUV's.

Improvements in electronics (engine management) have had a tremendous impact on fuel efficiency in our newer vehicles. This trend alone will contribute to higher average mileage across the board. The auto industry was involved in this decision IMO. George W. does it again (a good job of leading.)

18 posted on 12/12/2002 1:30:04 PM PST by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: edskid
How about a Jeep Liberty? DaimlerChrysler announced late last month that they'll offer a 2.8 direct injection 6 cylinder diesel for next year; this should offer at least low 20s with a manual gear box in the city...

Only downside... this is still a unibody vehicle, it's not really a serious truck.

Cheers!
19 posted on 12/12/2002 1:32:54 PM PST by drachenfels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: zingzang
No enforcement at all?

Like a free country, where no nanny tells you what you can or can't buy.

20 posted on 12/12/2002 1:33:16 PM PST by Slewfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-212 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson