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.
what...hydrogen gas is not made from splitting the water molecules? You need to know some basics before you make a dope of yourself.
Have you seen the new Bullitt Mustang? Nice.
Yep, the Fastback is one sweet bit of automotive sculpture. I have a '65 Mustang Fastback in which I recently swapped the tired 289-4V and Toploader 4-speed for a 5.0 crate engine and T-5 tranny. That overdrive gear sure makes highway cruising nice. I highly recommend it.
I'm hoping that Ford does like it did a few years ago and follows the Bullitt model with a Mach 1 package. Hope they don't wait too long, though...
Wow, it sounds so simple!
You need to know some basics before you make a dope of yourself.
The basics? When was the last time (if ever?) that you took a physics or a chemistry class? Really, I'd like to know.
wait a minute...one minute you are saying that there is no hydrogen energy in water when obviously we are able to get hydrogen gas out of water. And then you ask me when is the last time I took a physics course. What’s up with you? Wow...
Please explain how we "get hydrogen gas out of water".
And then you ask me when is the last time I took a physics course.
Yes, because it must have been a long time. So, how long ago was it?
please look at this article which is very real...hydrogen gas has been gotten out of water for sometime now. The problem has been the amount of energy it has taken to do that. Now, that problem has been solved by this company and inventor. http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm
LOL! Yes, I know that you can get hydrogen gas out of water.
The problem has been the amount of energy it has taken to do that.
Wait, it takes energy to get the hydrogen? Why? I thought you said there was hydrogen energy in the water?
So, if you put energy into the water to get out the hydrogen, how much energy do you get back out of the hydrogen when you burn it?
At the rate things are going, we may actually be seeing gas at $7.00 per gallon before too long.
It will hit $4.50 by next summer. Probably over $6 by 2010.
I wouldn't be surprised to see $7.00 per gallon - at least in California - within five more years.
Just predictions, and I hope they're wrong. But the Pubbies through their tenure from 1994 to 2006 did next to nothing to increase the supply of fuel to the market or improve the vectors to those markets. The 'rats will do less, and jump at the thought of making driving more expensive.
Better ask that guy to hold onto his Yugo. Though by then, he may not want to let it go! :)
- John
>Liberals put everything else before people. Flat little cars for the folks, jets for them.<
Remember, it was a stone commie (Pete Seeger) who recorded these words:
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same,
There’s a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they’re all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
And the people in the houses
All went to the university
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same
And there’s doctors and lawyers
And business executives
And they’re all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
And they all play on the golf course
And drink their martinis dry
And they all have pretty children
And the children go to school,
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university
Where they are put in boxes
And they come out all the same.
And the boys go into business
And marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same,
There’s a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they’re all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
well, if you would spend the time to read that article about the inventor...the problem has been solved using an inexpensive alloy. So the amount of energy needed to extract the gas is miniscule and the amount of energy gotten is great. As you probably know, hydrogen is more effiecient and powerful than gasoline. They use it on the space shuttle and other rockets. Whay are you trying to trip me up with how I present my point when obviously I am on to something great here. Are you jaded by the lack of past success with hydrogen fuel and it’s answer to our oil problems?
Which brings me back to the question, when was the last time, if ever, that you took a physics class?
You don’t know much about the car business, do you? Every major automotive manufacturer, foreign and domestic, has a design studio in California and has for years.
Toyota was the first, to my knowledge, with their Calty facility in Newport Beach. Nissan has theirs in La Jolla. Mercedes, Mazda and Hyundai/Kia have studios in Irvine. Honda R&D Americas is in Pasadena, Mitsubishi’s is in Cypress, BMW owns Designworks in Newberry Park, while VW/Audi’s is in Santa Monica.
Ford has a center in Irvine, Chrysler has one in Carlsbad, and GM’s is in North Hollywood.
rather than asking me a pointless question which has zero bearing on the topic, why don’t you refute what I am saying? You are playing some kind of game when you know well what I am saying. There is inherant energy inside the h20 molecule and this company has found a way to extract that energy, hydrogen, very cheaply. Do you even care about that?
“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.”
Almost ALL of the foreign brands have design studios in SoCal—Toyota since the 70s (Calty).
Most companies are now designing “world cars”—Ford uses the same chassis for Fords, Volvos and Mazdas. (Derived mainly from Volvo designs).
GM is reaching to Europe and Australia for more and more chassis designs. Holden, Opel, Saab, etc. The recent successful Cadillacs were heavily influenced by European testing during development.
The Chrysler 300 (one of their few successes) was derived from Mercedes basics.
It appears Detroit effectively gave up on designing passenger cars in the US.
The simplest way to increase fuel economy is turbo-diesel. Comes close to or even beats hybrids. About 50 percent of new vehicles sales in Europe today are turbo-diesels.
And guess what? Mercedes, BMW, Audi-VW market such vehicles now, and will be introducing 50 state versions in the next year.
GM is coming out with Tahoe-Yukons with hybrid, giving up no performance in this light truck based SUV, compared to last year’s gas only versions. About 25 percent increase in fuel economy.
After all the complaining by vehicle makers passes, they can and will do it.
As for size, weight and safety: A BMW designer in SoCal recently told me that crush zones matter as much or more than weight. Mercedes, BMW, Auudi, Volvo and Saab were doing safety before the US imposed requirements. So again, they are out in front with this.
Japan: They too are out in front. Toyota and Honda have a big head start on hybrids; Toyota with its 3rd generation now.
If the US Big Three are falling behind in sales and technology, it is due to the US corporate tendency to think short term profits, over long term market leadership. It has been what stock markets expected.
Toyota’s corporate philosophy and culture take a very long view, and will likely reap long term rewards.
I guess I’ll buy another suburban when the mileage on this one hits 200K or so, and maybe by the time that one gives out I won’t need such a big vehicle.
A friend had an exchange teacher live with them for a year or so and they had to make her take baths. She said it was a waste of water and electricity to heat the water. They said, "You Stink!" We have a well.
It is becoming more dangerous than ever to elect Democrats. We will lose our country all together if we don't stop the madness.
that’s wrong...the company that I sent the link to has been able to use a cheap alloy to split the water molecules and make hydrogen gas...extrememly cheaply. Take a look at it. Trully amazing. I need to find out how far they have gotten in marketing it or if it has been swallowed up by the huge oil interests.http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm
Excellent! Too bad it takes more (probably a lot more) energy to create the hydrogen than you get out when you burn it.
I need to find out how far they have gotten in marketing it or if it has been swallowed up by the huge oil
If only Big Oil would stop buying up all the perpetual motion machines, we'd all have one of those flying cars from the Jetsons by now.
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.