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.
And burning the hydrogen moves the car and gives you the power to create more hydrogen? No need for gasoline?
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.
Yeah, those perpetual motion machines are cool.
While reading this thread it becomes clear why we have ethanol being sold to us as a viable alternative. What passes for education in science these days is pretty appalling. Public schooling in action.
what’s appalling is your guy’s lack of knowledge about the new hydrogen technology. You would rather judge me as being dumb than researching the actual truth of what I am saying...http://www.protiumfuelsystems.com/products.html
I bought my father's 60 when he got a newer car, the 53 was a father/son project when I go out of the army, the 65 was a gift to a step son who failed to finish it and gave it up. The 57 is a four door kiddie hauler (retired).
The Maverick is a street rocket and it is yellow, what's your analysis on that?
Over the years I've had three brandy-new cars total themselves on the rear bumper of my fragile little ego. Cost to me ranged from $2.95 to $900.00 at top end and including having to import parts from Arizona.
I've also watched as Nortet's Lexus rolled up into a knot when hit by a Caddie going about 20 and seen her '99 Ford scrapped for a crumpled radiator and deployed air bags. Oh, and then there was the $2000.00 grille replacement on her 2004.
What I've always questioned are the US citizens who for the past 40 or more years have gobbled up German and Japanese cars on the elitist doctrine that they must be better than home grown (back when they were pointedly NOT better & now when it's about a draw). Always seemed to me that Volkswagen and Toyota earned their market share as symbols of assumed sophistication while MB and BMW indicated that the owner was a VIP in his or her own mind.
Note also that
a) most SUVs I see on the freeway are driven by women,
b) 50MPG plus is already available if you're interested in convincing DOT to import the turbo-diesel cracker boxes I saw all over England,
c) the Toyota and Nissans I drove when overseas were crap on wheels,
d) in current terms, a paid for car can burn off $500 a month and still save you money.
The free-lunch crowd jes' don' get it.
Merry Christmas, Toddy!
1929 to follow.
You'd understand, if you weren't hung up on the Laws of Thermodynamics!
Merry Christmas to you too!
Mustang IIs were ugly Pintos. Yes, it was possible to make a car uglier than a Pinto, and the Mustang II was it. FYI I think the ugliest cars ever made were AMCs (Hornet, Matador, Pacer).
Of course I'm not you. I actually took a physics course or two.
You are embarrassing yourself. Time to stop proving you are an idiot.
that’s interesting...protium has many satisfied customers getting 50-100% more mpg’s using their hydrogen supplemental system. You can call me an idiot all you want, that doesn’t change the fact of their wonderful invention. Some of you guys think you know so much but really know very little. And when the facts prove you wrong, you just call names. Quite immature and not very conservative of you.
Like I said: liquidate all the assets you can find and invest in them.
There’s lot of money to be made violating the laws of physics (seriously, if they can pull it off you’ll be infinitely rich).
Conservatives are based in reality. Believing you can violate the laws of physics makes you a liberal.
really, I don’t think you understand what inventors and mavericks are all about. Inventors are already getting much more energy out of splitting water molecules than they put into the process. You are in bad denial about that...I provided you the site where that is happening and they have many happy customers. So I am not quite sure which laws of physics you are thinking of. If they are breaking a law, then it is simply wrong. Why is it so hard for you to get out of your minds box and see that. It’s happening! It’s liberal to deny truth that is right in front of you.
No, they aren't.
You are in bad denial about that...
Yeah, that whole understanding physics and reality keeps me from believing the impossible.
So I am not quite sure which laws of physics you are thinking of.
Because you never took a class.
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed.
Why is it so hard for you to get out of your minds box and see that.
Why? Reality.
It’s happening!
Yeah, that's why GE is selling a perpetual generator. Just fill the tank of water, once and get an unlimited amount of power. No need to add more water or energy, because the hydrogen generates electricity and the electricity generates hydrogen and the hydrogen generates electricity.....just pull the extra electricity out to power the world.
you misconstrue what I am saying...did you even check out the protium website? If I am so dumb, why are they selling alot of units and getting 50-100% more mpg’s using water and their small reactors with a very small amount of current from the generator. Why don’t you call them and tell them that they don’t know what they are talking about...o brother...and who ever said they are creating energy out of nothing? You are so busy trying to be right that you are missing a really neat invention.
You're not saying that you can get more energy out of burning hydrogen than the energy you put into splitting the water?
If I am so dumb, why are they selling alot of units
There are a lot of people who, like you, never took a physics class.
getting 50-100% more mpg’s using water and their small reactors with a very small amount of current from the generator.
If the generator splits water using only current generated by the ICE, they are not getting extra energy for nothing, they are not getting extra MPG. If there is some chemical added to the water that splits the water without using current generated by the ICE, again, they aren't getting extra energy for nothing, you have to take into account the energy used to make the chemical.
...and who ever said they are creating energy out of nothing?
You did. Post #156, " Inventors are already getting much more energy out of splitting water molecules than they put into the process"
You again, Post #136, "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!"
You, Post #105, "I haven’t made any wrong statements and you are simply wrong that it takes more energy to get hydrogen than what we get from it. That is not the case anymore"
You, Post #103, "Obviously the hydrogen energy I spoke of needs to be released by splitting the h20 molecule, but that doen’t deny my statement. The energy is dormant but ready to be released"
You again, Post #90, " So the amount of energy needed to extract the gas is miniscule and the amount of energy gotten is great"
I'm glad we straightened that out.
You are so busy trying to be right that you are missing a really neat invention.
You still think that when you look at all the inputs and all the power released by the burned hydrogen that you're getting more energy out of the water that the energy used? If you took a physics class, you'd already know the answer.
Or you can raise the speed limit on the freeway. My Mercedes sedan gets its best mpg at around 100 mph, (as has been repeatedly tested from Idaho to Seatle.)
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.