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.
rb, irrespective of YOUR reasons, calex is correct about the motivations behind this “energy policy”.
No real solutions to providing large quantities of CLEAN POWER.
These antagonists are anti-people, anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, etc.
We will NOT “conserve” our way into prosperity and a clean environment!
Conservation is noble, but I object to the manner in which its being served up.
That is already done with the existing hybrids.
Added to the earlier announcement by Toshiba of a 5 minute charge time.
Appears that the internal combustion engine will be retired within a decade for passenger vehicles.
Wanna bet?
Higher food prices don't cause inflation.
Higher food prices will lead to a demand for higher wages and on and on...
Yes!
Apparently the Smart diesel will not be sold in the U.S.
I saw a review of a Lupo (VW) diesel, that got 58 mpg, but alas, those are not available here either.
Lupo is not produced anymore anyway.
I am holding out for a Rabbit TDI.
NOT FUNNY.
I think my heart stopped beating for at least a three count.
I will forever prize my ‘68 Fastback, and loathe the abominations that are the Mustang IIs.
Have you seen the new Bullitt Mustang? Nice.
Didn’t say they were, but the ‘reliability’ comment you made isn’t accurate anymore. That isn’t a priority, that’s a fact.
Correct, which is why I have said several times I do not favor any coersion for this, just that gloating about driving an SUV that gets worse mileage than a previous vehicle is stupid even from without a conservation point as that just means you are gloating about spending more in gas. I do not find that very intelligent personally.
Again, you people are miss-understanding my point. Go back and re-read what I said. I’m not talking about other people. I’m talking about one person on FR who was gloating about dropping in fuel efficient to ‘stick’ it to congress. The only person that sticks it to is us.
Really?
Where does J.D. Powers rank Kia for reliability?
Want more? googled 2 out of 3 links
this article misses the point. The congress is trying to force the hand of the automakers because we need to get off of our dependence on foreign oil, or at least greatly diminish it. There is new technology that I read about which will get the hydrogen energy out of water in a very efficient way...problem solved! Also, there are patents which have been bought by the oil makers and car makers which vaporize and turn gasoline into basically a propane type fuel for huge increases in mpg’s. A canadian man did it successfully in the 1930’s and it was tested and written about in the media quite a bit. He bacame a very wealthy man after selling the patent rights and of course car makers never made them into their cars. The car and oil companies are financially intertwinned and definetly don’t want to greatly reduce the gas part of their profits. Do some research on high mileage vapor fuel savers and you will see that the oil companies own something like 93 of the patents. Now why on earth would they buy the patents if they were not viable?
“Awesome, bring on the unibody trucks! [/s]”
yeah, there are more Honda Ridgelines for sale on Ebay and Craigslist than almost any other truck. wonder why ?
The cafe and pollution standards have made cars better and forced the automotive companies to pursue improved technology. If we did not have those we still would have points and carburetors.
Todays cars are a 1000 times more dependable than those from 25 years ago due to technology such as fuel injection, electronic ignitions and distriberless ignitions etc-all brought about by gov’t regulations.
Sure it cost the consumer more for the car but now cars easily get 200-250k miles and you don’t have the costly tune ups every 50k miles and your engine is not worn out at 75k miles.
LOL! There is no "hydrogen energy" in water.
Sure there is, just like your car's exhaust contains energy that can be released after you simply convert it back to fuel + oxygen. We are getting very efficient in that process, and as soon as we figure it out, we'll be energy independent. All I need is a government grant. (Insert sarcasm tag as required...)
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.