Anthony Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/14/news/economy/automakers-fuel-economy-trump/index.html President Trump is expected to announce a new review of federal auto fuel economy and emissions rules Wednesday at an event in Michigan, according to a source close to the administration. ...Automakers have said that they might not be able to meet current long-term fuel economy goals because of cheap gas. People tend to buy gas guzzlers when fuel is cheap, so low gas prices make it hard for automakers to sell as many of the efficient vehicles as they need to in order to meet the regulations.That was why a group of 18 automakers, from giants like General Motors (GM) and Ford (F) to tiny Aston Martin, sent a letter to the Trump administration late last month asking for a review of the requirements.The plan, as originally announced by the Obama administration in 2012, would have required automakers to achieve Corporate Average Fuel Economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025. (In reality, cars would average about 42 mpg. So-called CAFE mileage is calculated differently from expected real-world fuel economy.) Tons of info and stuff at the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 This need to happen. It was a classic case of the govt dictating that the manufactures sell something that people do not want to buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 (edited) Ya know, if gas prices were going to climb like some people were expecting, then none of this would have been a problem. I take it that low to medium gas prices will be with us for quite a while as manufacturers intend building as nmany large trucks and Utilities as the market and buyers will take... All of this smacks of the government is getting in the way of car makers' profits and their desired customers vehicles... Edited March 15, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Can't wait to read the occupy Democrats article on this.... "Trump wants to destroy environment with gas guzzlers" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Ya know, if gas prices were going to climb like some people were expecting, then none of this would have been a problem. I take it that low to medium gas prices will be with us for quite a while as manufacturers intend building as nmany large trucks and Utilities as the market and buyers will take... All of this smacks of the government is getting in the way of car makers' profits and their desired customers vehicles... There is so much available oil in the world now; Oil can't hold above $50 a barrel. Almost every country that has it has staked a good portion of their economy and revenue on it. Add to the fact the US can export oil now, I just hope that the bio fuel/ethanol rule gets dumped as well which is being discussed. You'd get about a 3% gain in fuel economy, only issue with that is the Farm lobby and early voting states are going to have a major problem with that. Will be interesting when millennials start to hit the market in force and if they really want to pay the premium for the electric car of they deciding that the cheaper gas one is the best option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blksn8k2 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 I still contend that the gas/electric hybrid that does not rely on charging stations makes the most sense for the foreseeable future. The technology is proven and requires no drastic changes to existing infrastructure. Range is essentially only limited by the size of the fuel tank but that is no worse than what we have been driving for the last century. As future oil supplies decrease the internal combustion engine used in the hybrid can be adapted to burn other fuels such as natural gas. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 There is so much available oil in the world now; Oil can't hold above $50 a barrel. Almost every country that has it has staked a good portion of their economy and revenue on it. Add to the fact the US can export oil now, I just hope that the bio fuel/ethanol rule gets dumped as well which is being discussed. You'd get about a 3% gain in fuel economy, only issue with that is the Farm lobby and early voting states are going to have a major problem with that. Will be interesting when millennials start to hit the market in force and if they really want to pay the premium for the electric car of they deciding that the cheaper gas one is the best option. can you imagine if they traded in the corn for hemp and Marijuana? Driving down the street in my H4, lighting up a joint and turning up the sub... What a life that would be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stray Kat Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 So I wonder if Ford's strategy of leadership with small displacement turbocharged engines is now going to come back to bite them. Wouldn't a relaxing of fuel economy regulations automatically make the Gm and Mopar V8's more attractive again? If that happens this will be an epic problem for Ford IMO. I dig the Ecoboost line and I firmly believe Ford is decades ahead in engines. This I fear could put the Stone Age V8's back in vogue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 can you imagine if they traded in the corn for hemp and Marijuana? Driving down the street in my H4, lighting up a joint and turning up the sub... What a life that would be . Driving while intoxicated is still driving while intoxicated, whether you drink it, shoot it, snort it, or smoke it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 So I wonder if Ford's strategy of leadership with small displacement turbocharged engines is now going to come back to bite them. Wouldn't a relaxing of fuel economy regulations automatically make the Gm and Mopar V8's more attractive again? Not necessarily. Trump may be able to relax national fuel economy regulations but California can go its own way and take about a dozen states with it. Then you have to pay to meet two different standards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazerdude20 Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Not necessarily. Trump may be able to relax national fuel economy regulations but California can go its own way and take about a dozen states with it. Then you have to pay to meet two different standards. He also has not legal effect on standards in china or the EU, although the EU is quickly shifting to the far right and may undo the regulations anyhow. Emissions are more important than mileage anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 So I wonder if Ford's strategy of leadership with small displacement turbocharged engines is now going to come back to bite them. Wouldn't a relaxing of fuel economy regulations automatically make the Gm and Mopar V8's more attractive again? If that happens this will be an epic problem for Ford IMO. I dig the Ecoboost line and I firmly believe Ford is decades ahead in engines. This I fear could put the Stone Age V8's back in vogue. They're not going to relax current regs. They're going to relax the schedule. And I don't think they're going to touch emissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 As I see it, the increases proposed for larger vehicles are quite mild in comparison to those proposed for small vehicles. It's like the government and EPA were betting on cars being the dominant vehicles in a climate of higher gas prices. Interesting that in a low gas price environment, buyers generally up size vehicles and increase discretional mileage, I wonder how the EPA resolves tis emissions objecitves versus raging against consumer preference for big vehicles.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Not necessarily. Trump may be able to relax national fuel economy regulations but California can go its own way and take about a dozen states with it. Then you have to pay to meet two different standards. That would be emissions and not MPG's...yes they are tied together to a point. The curious thing would be this...back in the day they used to charge more for Cali emission standards...today they really don't since there are other states that use their standards...how would that work say buying a car that is in a non-CARB state and registering and using it in a CARB state....for example Ford would only sell a 1.3L Ecoboost Engine in a CARB state vs the 2L NA I4 in a non-CARB state. I forget how that worked years ago... Only thing I see happening is the 54 MPG fleet standard is going to get pushed out. In all practicality any improvements after 30 MPG much smaller then going from 15 to 30 MPG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 (edited) Didn't the feds do a deal with California and the aligned states to keep emissions pretty much aligned but the trade off was to ramp up the corporate Fleet Average by 2025? I remember something like that was done to stop the California and aligned states form diverging further away from a more unified front. With the government now permitting a review of the 2025 Timetable and ending of DOE loans to manufacturers, I'm wondering if we'll a;so see some winding back of Electrification credits. If that were to happen, I think that Tesla and others developing BEV tech might be in a big financial hole.... Edited March 17, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 . Driving while intoxicated is still driving while intoxicated, whether you drink it, shoot it, snort it, or smoke it. Who says he is intoxicated:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 . Driving while intoxicated is still driving while intoxicated, whether you drink it, shoot it, snort it, or smoke it. Oh my bad, I must have missed every single "stoned driving accident" Ever... since I'm yet to see a single news story of such an incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Didn't the feds do a deal with California and the aligned states to keep emissions pretty much aligned but the trade off was to ramp up the corporate Fleet Average by 2025? I remember something like that was done to stop the California and aligned states form diverging further away from a more unified front. With the government now permitting a review of the 2025 Timetable and ending of DOE loans to manufacturers, I'm wondering if we'll a;so see some winding back of Electrification credits. If that were to happen, I think that Tesla and others developing BEV tech might be in a big financial hole.... Doesn't Tesla build thwir Cars here in America? Trump might be willing to deal with them if that's the case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 As I see it, the increases proposed for larger vehicles are quite mild in comparison to those proposed for small vehicles. It's like the government and EPA were betting on cars being the dominant vehicles in a climate of higher gas prices. Interesting that in a low gas price environment, buyers generally up size vehicles and increase discretional mileage, I wonder how the EPA resolves tis emissions objecitves versus raging against consumer preference for big vehicles.. Denial, self-righteousness and good intention Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Oh my bad, I must have missed every single "stoned driving accident" Ever... since I'm yet to see a single news story of such an incident. You do realize the people smoke crack and other drugs, not just weed, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted March 18, 2017 Author Share Posted March 18, 2017 Trump budget plan would scrap energy grants, auto loan program Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-vehicles-idUSKBN16N2RM The Trump administration on Thursday proposed eliminating Energy Department loan programs and some research funding for energy- efficient technology and electric vehicle development at three carmakers as the industry shifts more of its focus to electric and self-driving vehicles. The White House budget blueprint proposes ending the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-e, program, which gives $300 million a year in grants for research in technologies aimed at reducing fossil-fuel consumption and improving energy efficiency. The program, created in 2007 under President George W. Bush, has supported research into micro-organisms that produce replacements for petroleum, battery storage systems, improving window-pane efficiency and technology that allows vehicles to communicate to avoid crashes. The Trump budget proposes scrapping the ARPA-e program, along with two energy loan programs because the "private sector is better positioned to finance disruptive energy research and development and to commercialize innovative technologies." The White House would also eliminate a U.S. Energy Department clean vehicle loan program that boosted Tesla Inc , Nissan Motor Co and Ford Motor Co during the last industry downturn, but has not funded a new project in six years. The program was first funded in 2008 and used to help provide critical liquidity to some automakers. The $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program made low-cost loans to Ford ($5.9 billion in 2009), Nissan ($1.45 billion in 2010) and Tesla ($465 million in 2010). It last completed a loan in March 2011. ...More at link... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 The White House would also eliminate a U.S. Energy Department clean vehicle loan program that boosted Tesla Inc , Nissan Motor Co and Ford Motor Co during the last industry downturn, but has not funded a new project in six years. Sounds like another gov't program that has outlived its usefulness and become just another boondoggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Oh my bad, I must have missed every single "stoned driving accident" Ever... since I'm yet to see a single news story of such an incident. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/12/22/gloucester-man-facing-charges-after-rear-ending-school-bus/ty2SC2JwotEbeghiJVv0oL/story.html Of course you realize that it there is no easy method of determining whether a person is under the influence of marijuana at the time of an accident due, seeing that there is no acceptable legal threshold for marijuana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/12/22/gloucester-man-facing-charges-after-rear-ending-school-bus/ty2SC2JwotEbeghiJVv0oL/story.html Of course you realize that it there is no easy method of determining whether a person is under the influence of marijuana at the time of an accident due, seeing that there is no acceptable legal threshold for marijuana. And TCH can hang around in someone's body for weeks after smoking weed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/12/22/gloucester-man-facing-charges-after-rear-ending-school-bus/ty2SC2JwotEbeghiJVv0oL/story.html Of course you realize that it there is no easy method of determining whether a person is under the influence of marijuana at the time of an accident due, seeing that there is no acceptable legal threshold for marijuana. Well I'll be damned, there it is. Impressive too, how he missed all the flashing lights and stop signs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.