Sulu

"Challenges drive innovation". The government is only telling the automakers that there is a standard to be met. The government does not tell the automakers how to meet the standard; that is up to the individual automakers.

Since it is a fleet average, automakers have a number of options. No one is telling the automakers which, if any of these options to choose; they could do nothing, implement only one or any combination of these (and possibly other) options, limited only by imagination (and remembering that imagination is the mother of innovation).

• They could sell a fleet consisting only of cars that meet the standard. That would likely rule out selling larger, more luxurious (heavier) cars, pickup trucks and large SUVs.
• They could sell a fleet consisting of a range of vehicle sizes (and weights), as long as the entire fleet averages out to the standard.
• They could add lightness across the fleet so that each vehicle type requires an engine of less power (innovation challenge).
• They could design engines that are more efficient -- extract more power from less fuel (innovation challenge).
• They could design power on-demand and/or waste power storage and release strategies, such as superchargers, turbochargers, electric compressors (electric turbochargers), kinetic energy recovery systems (KERS), gas-electric hybrid systems, electric vehicles (each is an innovation challenge).

Anything new is an innovation. If there are no challenges, there may be few if any innovations. Some innovations will work; some may not, perhaps there is no payback. But the automakers will not know what will work and what may not; there has to be some willingness -- or push -- to try.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

you say challenges, i say burdens. i would prefer incentives, like, give car makers a tax break IF they meet those targets. we incent and penalize all kinds of behavior, this should be the same imo, kind of like the gas guzzler tax. but not, environmental zealots want EVERYONE either NOT DRIVING, or driving gutless shoe boxes so their 'carbon footprint' is as small as possible. then you have big shots flying around in their gulfstream jets like leonardi decaprio and al gore telling everyone else to save the planet.
i'm also a big fan of govt sponsored competitions. like give 10 million to the first car maker that produces a car with a 300 mile range, uses no fossil fuel, seats at least 4 and recharges in under 2 hours.

mmarshall

The Chinese Hanergy company, which specializes in solar panels, has some experimental cars with a lithium-ion battery, solar-recharged, that will reportedly run well over 200 miles, though I'm not sure it can reach that magic 300. My guess, though, is that it will not meet American safety standards.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tychode.../#5bac53163bb3

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Interesting article!

MattyG

One thing to remember is that Trump's base is really not concerned about pretty polar bear cubs, melting glaciers or the Great Barrier Reef's corals. If summers are hotter than ever, you just crank up the AC on your F150. What this really does is send a signal to the base and the auto manufacturers that you have about 4 years worth of selling pickup trucks and well after that, it could be different.

I don't think that achieving the 54.4 CAFE was aimed at every vehicle a manufacturer sells, but it sure frightens the red meat base into hysterics doesn't it? Deflection tactics funded by the Koch crowd though, always play well in headlines and panic stricken angst about how celebrities jetting around and spouting flowery environmental speak also play well with the crowds.

Thing to remember is that we would all be driving leaded gasoline behomoths getting 10 mpg if advances and governmental oversight hadn't met at the crucial intersection of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo and events in the ME.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

whats happening now is automakers are designing to govt regs not to what the consumers want. Did consumers suddenly want higher maintenance, less reliable turbo cars? Especially in the sportscar market, these turbo cars are boring, sound horrific, and less engaging. Did consumers really want that? What this whole thing is killing is consumer choice. Govt wants more and more safety features in a car, adding more and more weight, then at the same time it wants a dramatic increase in mpg, and one of the best ways to do that is to lighten the car. Which is it?

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

^^^ great post.

MattyG

I'm not disagreeing that 54.5 mpg is a really high bar to clear and it sounds unreasonable. A case of using a big stick to really address a problem with many solutions.

But turbos only account for 21 percent of the U.S. gasoline fleet. Assuming that the Obama regulations would have stayed in place, these types of power plants were projected to increase to 38 percent in 2021. I agree that in niche luxury/performance car markets the small highly stressed turbo is not the best solution.

And it's easy to assume that somehow seat belts or ABS and rollover crash standards are some mysterious invention of the Market Gods when in fact they are the product of consumer organizations, public interest groups and eventually lobbying to change rules.

mmarshall

There's nothing wrong with safety equipment per se. But, too many times, it becomes a crutch for those who simply don't want to pay proper attention to their driving....too many times, that cell-phone, texter, newspaper, drink, or electric razor just can't wait. And it has, IMO, become too much of an excuse for not teaching proper driving techniques any more before actually giving people their license, and for not taking licenses from those who habitually violate traffic laws. Proper driving usually means far fewer accidents in the first place.

MattyG

Well the North American public has shown that it shuns high driving standards similar to what Germany uses and England had at one time. I think that we would have to go to a wild west automotive Darwinism like Mad Max where only the strong, the careful and highly skilled survive. The driving eco-system would simply eliminate the stupid, dimwitted speeders and texters among us leaving only the high performance drivers and others who would be more skillful at hazard avoidance and risk mitigation.

mmarshall

I don't quite agree with the Mad-Max view. Drivers often have an over-inflated view of themselves, even if, in fact, they are not driving safely. People often try to convince themselves, for instance, clearly in opposition to the laws of physics, that speed doesn't kill. Obviously, no, it won't, if you don't actually HIT something....but a collision can happen at any time. For example, if you are going down a long straight stretch of Western road, and you DO have to make a quick stop or evasive move for any reason (say, some jerk pulls out in front of you, like with James Dean in his Porsche speedster), the faster you are going, the more difficult it will be to do sharp maneuvers, the further it will take you to stop, and the harder and more destructive any impact force will bee if you can't avoid a collision. At triple-digit speeds, that will be MUCH more of a factor than, say, at 55-60 MPH.

Somehow, though, we got off-topic....the MPG standards.

MattyG

Yes we are off track now. But back to topic. If we had let the automotive marketplace and the consumer decide what kind of vehicles we drive, we would still be driving gigantic RWD sedans with an average fuel mileage of 12-15 mpg. In fact the tough CAFE standard of 1975, due to the earlier Arab Oil Embargo triggered changes that raised fuel mileage and downsized the automotive fleet to a certain extent.

And of course we know that the Japanese used this opportunity to bring something that America hadn't seen that often. Smaller, more nimble vehicles that got better mileage. The fact that we are on a Japanese vehicle enthusiast forum should not be lost on people who love irony. There might not have been a Lexus if Honda, Toyota and Datsun had not been able to make inroads into the U.S. car market. And for that matter VW.

dicer

Mainly because it is nothing to worry about, first of all its all being engineered to create those problems to support the agenda of world domination and remove things from us average folks. For people that refuse the thought of an almighty god, that can fix it all. They have to regress to another man made religion of climate change.
So back on topic, if we all had 3 cylinder diesel geo metros that MPG is easy to do. Matter of fact it could be done on a gas one as well with a few modifications as the cars already do close to 50 MPG as it is. And I hope you do your part Matty and drive one.

MattyG

If it's Jalopnik approved, might be worth a try just for 54.4 mpg, lol.

http://jalopnik.com/5533480/the-geo-...ars-ever-built

mmarshall

There are reasons why the Metro XFi got the mileage it did. First, the operative part of the carburetor was abut the size of a walnut. Second, the car was so lightly-built that you could take the non-insulated hood sheet-metal and bend it with a couple of fingers (I embarrassed several Chevy/Geo reps at the D.C. auto shows doing that LOL). Have a major accident and forget it......you're probably gone.