U.S. states vow to defend auto fuel efficiency standards

[silvrsvt]

This should be interesting how this plays out

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-autos/u-s-states-vow-to-defend-auto-fuel-efficiency-standards-idUSKCN1HA2DI

 

On one hand you have consumers voting with their pocketbooks and other other side you have some parts of the government trying to dictate what people "should" drive, but yet will ultimately be losing money because people will be using less gas, thus less income from gas taxes.

 

 

[rperez817]

Video from Sierra Club regarding Ford and CAFE standards.

 

[fuzzymoomoo]

Because offering everything with at least a PHEV option doesnt signify a commitment to clean vehicles :rolleyes:

[Sevensecondsuv]

Wasn't it sierra club that got all bent out of shape over the Excursion? I had never been prouder of Ford than that moment.....

[rperez817]

Heritage Foundation says that Obama era CAFE standards have made new cars and light trucks a lot more expensive. https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/fuel-economy-standards-are-costly-mistake

 

 

NADA analysis estimates the MY2017-2025 CAFE rules will increse new car and light truck prices by $1,836 on average. https://www.nada.org/CustomTemplates/LandingLegislativeRegulatory.aspx?id=21474838215

[snooter]

They do need to uncork the diesels..mazda skyactive x engine looks promising...

[jpd80]

Mazda wont bring it because the claim theres not enough interest

[jpd80]

Wasn't it sierra club that got all bent out of shape over the Excursion? I had never been prouder of Ford than that moment.....

Oddly enough, I doubt there’d be the same voracity today

if Ford did another Excursion with maybe 6.7 diesel and 10 speed automatic

[blazerdude20]

Oddly enough, I doubt thered be the same voracity today

if Ford did another Excursion with maybe 6.7 diesel and 10 speed automatic

The new Expedition Max is 5 inches a horter, 4 inches wider, and the same height as the excursion. Max 5,800 Lbs, Excursion 6,650 Lbs. for reference the 2008 Expedition EL was 6,150 Lbs.

 

This is one reason the excursion wont be coming back. Its no longer much of a size increase.

Edited April 4, 2018 by blazerdude20

[jpd80]

The new Expedition Max is 5 inches a horter, 4 inches wider, and the same height as the excursion. Max 5,800 Lbs, Excursion 6,650 Lbs. for reference the 2008 Expedition EL was 6,150 Lbs.

 

This is one reason the excursion wont be coming back. Its no longer much of a size increase.

I see what you mean, last Gen Excursion was same width but weights were massive

Curb weight 7,688 lb (3,487 kg) (Turbodiesel) 7,230 lb (3,280 kg) (Gas)

 

Looks like Ford did an end run around all the Excursion critics, pity they couldn't use the 4.4 V8 diesel.

[akirby]

http://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Achates-Power-Light-Duty-Demonstrator-Truck-Announcement-1.pdf

 

With 37 mpg on petrol and 42 mpg with diesel in a Ford F-150 this will be a gamechanger . Soon. In this year in a driveable truck.

 

http://newsletter.motor.com/2018/20180320/!ID_AchatesEngine.html

 

 

That engine is very interesting but it’s a long way from production.

[Sevensecondsuv]

The expedition comes close, but can't fully replace the excursion. The original advantages of the excursion were extra length, the 3/4 chassis, and the available V10 and turbo diesel, which were more inline with medium duty truck engines than 1/2 ton consumer engines.

 

The modern Expedition EL is pretty much the same size physically but still lacks the 3/4 ton chassis, HD engine options, and is only rated to tow 9300 lbs opposed to the 11,000 lb rating the V10 and turbo diesel Excursions had.

 

So yes, the current Expedition covers a good portion of the previous Excursion market. However, previous Excursion customers that need or want the 3/4 chassis, HD engine options, or tow capacity greater than 9500 lbs would be better served by a crew cab F-250 with an aftermarket cap on the bed. That or keep the old Excursion going. There's a reason they're still bringing well into the five figure $ range despite getting old and high mileage at this point.

[rmc523]

The expedition comes close, but can't fully replace the excursion. The original advantages of the excursion were extra length, the 3/4 chassis, and the available V10 and turbo diesel, which were more inline with medium duty truck engines than 1/2 ton consumer engines.

 

The modern Expedition EL is pretty much the same size physically but still lacks the 3/4 ton chassis, HD engine options, and is only rated to tow 9300 lbs opposed to the 11,000 lb rating the V10 and turbo diesel Excursions had.

 

So yes, the current Expedition covers a good portion of the previous Excursion market. However, previous Excursion customers that need or want the 3/4 chassis, HD engine options, or tow capacity greater than 9500 lbs would be better served by a crew cab F-250 with an aftermarket cap on the bed. That or keep the old Excursion going. There's a reason they're still bringing well into the five figure $ range despite getting old and high mileage at this point.

 

I've seen a few Excursions that have had the previous gen (the one before 2017+) Super Duty front ends grafted onto them. They look good.

[akirby]

Diesel excursions, regular cab Rangers. Why stop there? Crown Vics with bench seats for everybody!

[Sevensecondsuv]

What can I say? Ford got me hooked on the good stuff and then took it away!

[mackinaw]

That engine is very interesting but it’s a long way from production.

 

On the Achates engine, it's worth listening to this (first 30 minutes).

 

http://www.autoline.tv/journal/?p=54120

[Fordowner]

Car companies have said in the past that as long as its an even playing field then CAFE can be met. There are so many environmental, economic and infrastructure reasons to reduce or at least control our consumption of gasoline that are not and realistically cannot be factored into an individual's car purchase decision that it makes sense to set CAFE standards.

 

I'm all for letting people buy whatever vehicle they want and think CAFE is the best way to not dictate car choices while pushing innovation in terms of fuel consumption.

 

As to the pricing, that heritage foundation chart needs to be viewed in relation to the safety and connectivity advancements that have really taken off since 2009. My 2007 Mustang has a fraction of the crash avoidance and stereo connectivity of today's Mustang. Not to mention the move to larger and more luxurious vehicles that has occurred over the past 10 years as gas prices have fallen and lower interest rates with long terms have become more prevalent. Not to mention the economic recovery which began in 2008.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Fordowner

[dave91gt]

In a society today where everybody wants to protest and resist- I'm not surprised.

Personally- an automaker would be foolish in any environment to not offer consumers options around fuel mileage and capability. It is a consumer driven market period.

Innovation will always exist (as it always has) due to competition.

The funny part about the Excursion- we had an 01 4X4 Limited with the 7.3. It got an honest 20 mpg on long trips. It was comfortable, safe, and capable. Yes- I understand that's not the only measure of efficiency and environmental impact but nevertheless it was what it was.

Again- my 0.02- I don't want the government dictating what I drive. I have been overseas and have seen all of the little econoboxes roaming the highways. Didn't see a single one pulling a 40ft fifth wheel.

We have a Japanese coordinator with us for 3 years. I helped him pick his vehicle- he wanted an F150 badly. So got him hooked up with a 2016 Screw 4X4 Sport. He loves it and says he honestly considered trying to ship it back when he goes. But- the cost is too high.

[Fordowner]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/12/07/repealing-fuel-economy-standards-to-cost-american-households-nearly-1000-per-year/#6ea9ce8e77f7

"According to a 2017 study by David L. Greene at the University of Tennessee, the fuel economy improvements to cars and light trucks since 1975 have saved Americans a cumulative 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline, along with an estimated $4 trillion, spread across all income groups."

"The greatest savings are achieved by the lowest-income households, but as the data shows, everyone benefits financially."

"In other words, the costs of the regulation are expected to be just 3% of gross sales, while typical productivity gains of 1% per year easily outstrip that."

"Over this same time period, vehicle choice has increased, with more makes and models of cars and trucks available than ever before. "

 

Bottom line, I have a hard time believing EPA's Scott Pruitt and Trump are really doing the math on this one.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Fordowner

[rperez817]

Car companies have said in the past that as long as its an even playing field then CAFE can be met. There are so many environmental, economic and infrastructure reasons to reduce or at least control our consumption of gasoline that are not and realistically cannot be factored into an individual's car purchase decision that it makes sense to set CAFE standards.

 

I'm all for letting people buy whatever vehicle they want and think CAFE is the best way to not dictate car choices while pushing innovation in terms of fuel consumption.

 

As to the pricing, that heritage foundation chart needs to be viewed in relation to the safety and connectivity advancements that have really taken off since 2009. My 2007 Mustang has a fraction of the crash avoidance and stereo connectivity of today's Mustang. Not to mention the move to larger and more luxurious vehicles that has occurred over the past 10 years as gas prices have fallen and lower interest rates with long terms have become more prevalent. Not to mention the economic recovery which began in 2008.

 

Good points Fordowner sir. Heritage Foundation says they adjusted for quality and feature improvements in cars over the years in that chart. But I'm skeptical that Heritage accounted for all of the advancements in vehicle performance, amenities, safety, and fuel economy from 1999 to 2015. Or more people choosing trucks and SUVs in recent years.

 

Consumer Reports' data shows that fuel economy and performance combined improved substantially after 2008 in cars, SUVs and crossovers, and trucks. Tougher CAFE standards played a role.

 

Toyota Camry

 

Honda CR-V

 

Ford F-150

[Kev-Mo]

Fords are among the cleanest cars/trucks on the road. I have three vehicles in my driveway (two of them belong to my wife), Ford, BMW and an older Lexus - the Ford is by far the cleanest in the emissions test. In Colorado, they hand you a print of the actual output.

I was comparing the printed output of the Colorado emissions test of my Explorer vs my buddies late model 4Runner and it wasn't even a fair fight. My friend was amazed at the fraction of the emissions my Ford was putting out compared to his precious, far superior Toyota. He said he just assumed Fords were very bad and Imports were way better. Burst his balloon. Told him to share that with all his Toyota driving environmental wannabes if he was in the mood to be ridiculed and dis-believed. I presume this assumption is common, and continues to be fueled by ads like the one posted earlier - Sierra Club in post #2

Edited April 4, 2018 by Kev-Mo

[silvrsvt]

 

Good points Fordowner sir. Heritage Foundation says they adjusted for quality and feature improvements in cars over the years in that chart. But I'm skeptical that Heritage accounted for all of the advancements in vehicle performance, amenities, safety, and fuel economy from 1999 to 2015. Or more people choosing trucks and SUVs in recent years.

 

Consumer Reports' data shows that fuel economy and performance combined improved substantially after 2008 in cars, SUVs and crossovers, and trucks. Tougher CAFE standards played a role.

 

Toyota Camry

 

Honda CR-V

 

Ford F-150

 

 

The only problem is that MPG ratings don't keep improving as they get higher

 

For example the Camry would only save you an extra $27 bucks a month or $324 a year

 

Where as the F-150 would be $49 bucks as month or $584 a year...all figured at $2.59 a gallon

 

Thats why CUV's won't see as much as an impact if/when gas prices go back up.

[rperez817]

 

 

The only problem is that MPG ratings don't keep improving as they get higher

 

For example the Camry would only save you an extra $27 bucks a month or $324 a year

 

Where as the F-150 would be $49 bucks as month or $584 a year...all figured at $2.59 a gallon

 

Thats why CUV's won't see as much as an impact if/when gas prices go back up.

 

Correct silvrsvt sir. Miles per gallon is a nonlinear measurement for amount of fuel consumed. USA probably isn't going to metric system soon, but L/100 km is much better than MPG as a fuel economy number for consumers.

 

[Trader 10]

All these studies need to be taken with a grain of salt as the authors are often biased. The lowest income households would be below the poverty level and many cannot afford a car at all. The environmental and safety regulations have brought benefits but the high cost of the regulations have put new car ownership out of the picture for more and more Americans.

[Moosetang]

All these studies need to be taken with a grain of salt as the authors are often biased. The lowest income households would be below the poverty level and many cannot afford a car at all. The environmental and safety regulations have brought benefits but the high cost of the regulations have put new car ownership out of the picture for more and more Americans.

Environmental and safety regulations are not the top drivers of new-car pricing. They certainly play a part, but Nissan's Versa is compliant with mileage and safety regulations and is still available for under $13K. Features, materials, build quality, lower per-vehicle volumes and just plain old market forces do their thing to drive the price up. Meanwhile, wages below the midpoint of the workforce have not kept up with the rising cost of living, which exacerbates the money crunch for anyone interested in buying a new car.