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.
Sheesh, it’s 1973 all over again.
LOL! Is that yours? I wanna meet the guy who autocrosses a Yugo...and still shows his face in public!
Liberals put everything else before people. Flat little cars for the folks, jets for them.
My pickup turned antique 9 years ago. Paid the one time $120 tax and it now has "forever plates". It sucks spending $$ for gas, but it gets 17/18 mpg, and never breaks. The cheap cost of repair offsets the mileage by a long way, and it's got plenty of go-fast compared to my last "new" truck.
She's a keeper. I will upgrade it to a 1 ton (4x4), and a coat of paint next year, and I will keep it till I die.
Be aware that the new starters will be an integral part of the flywheel — no starter motor with a little gear that engages the gear teeth on the outside of the flywheel.
So starts will be silent.
Once the engine is running the starter becomes the alternator.
The electrical system will be 48 volts, which allows more power for a pound of machinery including wiring.
I think mileage improvement will be simple: go to diesel and make the engines less powerful. No rocket science. The vehicles might even become cheaper to make.
Will consumers accept less power? Depends on cost of fuel and cost of cars that can deliver the required mileage and still have the power.
nope...
But I used to drag in the same class as a guy with an opel wagon — with a 429 cobrajet mounted midships — I was running a 350/400 Don Yenko nova (1971 vintage)
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’m not a fan of government meddling, but at least this is OUR government. All the idiots who insist on “high performance” (read: 0-60mph in a few seconds, like anybody actually needs that) and giant vehicles to compensate for their fragile little egos, are filling the coffers of the Arabs with all that extra oil they’re guzzling. And we know that a big chunk of money that ends up in Arab hands ends up in the hands of terrorism-sympathizing and outright terrorism-sponsoring Islamofascist states. It would nice if free American citizens would pinch the Arabs’ cash flow without a nanny government forcing them to.
IMHO, this may in fact be the only thing which will save the American auto industry - being pestered into changing.
Without any outside nudging, Detroit would continue to turn out virtually unchanged, oversized, too-heavy low performance boats, as they continue to lose market share and eventually just go out of business.
People increasingly WANT small efficient cars. I want a couple. One single-occupant super efficient rechargable hybrid something, perhaps along the lines of the Venture One tilting three-wheel motorcycle-handling “car”, which flies into curves just like a bike.
Something then, bigger for actual trips. Still energy efficient, but capable of carrying gear, and standing up to some weather and some dirt. I’m happy to have noticed recently, Jeep seems to have gotten the message, and has a couple smaller new 4x4’s in their lineup.
Saturn has a new small car, but the other manufacturers, are still stuck in the past.
American car companies are doing NOTHING to tap any of these markets - and I’m certainly not the only person out here, looking for something new from Detroit. Frustrated at their blindness and lack of initiative.
They continue to, year after year, make each model slightly bigger (dumb), heavier (dumb) and have even tried to create market hype for a re-launch of that 60’s guzzling Camaro.
Come on Detroit.
You are lost. Sleeping, and every foreign car company is eating your lunch.
This is needed. Next, let’s pester Detroit into moving at least one design studio each from deep-midwest Detroit, to Southern California - so they get at least some idea of what the competition is doing. And what people are actually ... BUYING.
EVERYTIME the government GETS INVOLVED....they screw it up! To wit....social security, medicare, DMV, IRS, Post Office, etc....WHEN WILL WE LEARN????
It works wonderfully in the Prius. It also makes the Prius very quiet. It feels more like my parent’s Lexus because it is so quiet inside the car.
It doesn’t change the performance at all. It’s seemless to the driver. The Prius also has very good acceleration because it uses a computer to change transmission.
All of this foward thinking is brought to you by the same institution that brought you the toilet that doesn’t flush with one flush. To get the load down the toilet takes at least three flushes to compensate for the congressional requirements.
My question to the Freepers, is how do I compensate for the congressional technology this time. Flush three times? Press on the accelerator three times to pass?
I’ve heard that E85 has less BTU’s and gives poorer MPG’s than gas in the same vehicle? Is this true and will it figure into the CAFE standards or be given an exemption? My ‘07 Chevy Silverado is E85 capable, but I’ve never burned any.
If the “hardpoints” are designed correctly, a unibody truck will have no problem towing trailers, etc. Don’t believe me?
Take a look at a carrier based aircraft, like the F-18. The carrier’s catapult accelerates the 25+ ton F-18 from 0 to over 150 mph in 2.5 seconds. All of these acceleration loads are taken up by the nose gear.
When it comes time to land, the tailhook snags an arresting cable and stops an aircraft flying at 150 mph in about 2 seconds. All done with a unibody.
I’m expecting the gov’t mandated car of the future to be a combination of the Chevy Vega and a golf cart.
It's a fact of chemistry and cannot be altered by any technology. Ethanol is about two-thirds as energy-dense as gasoline; in other words, if you can get a given amount of energy out of a gallon of gasoline, you would need to burn about 1.5 gallons of ethanol to release the same amount of energy. And if ethanol were unsubsidized, it would be somewhere around 10% - 30% more expensive per gallon (not per amount of energy) than gasoline, even at current prices.
Arr arr arr. </Tim Allen>
Too bad the Dems in Congress would rather our cars be represented by limp-wristed lisps than by manly grunts.
Sounds like a really bad idea for those of us who have lengthy stop and go commutes.
It sounds even worse to those of us who live in an area where being stuck in snow can get you killed if you cannot keep the heater going. That 'waste heat' from the engine is (literally) a lifesaver up here.
Lighter, smaller, lower, less powerful vehicles with engines which automatically shut off might be a warm-weather utopian's wet dream, but here, it will kill people.
I am afraid no one has calcualted the pollution impact of shorter engine lifespans, (how much pollution is generated manufacturing an engine, or for that matter, a car?), nor have they factored in the pollution generated by the manufacture and disposal/recycling of batteries.
There is a fixation on the tailpipe when it comes to pollution, which does not surprise me, considering the group we are talking about (Congress).
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.