CAFE standards... rolled back

[85_Ranger4x4]

I hear what you're saying but if that was true then they wouldn't need to subsidize ethanol.
The other consequence of burning corn in our gas tanks is that it makes our food more expensive.

WITH the ethanol we are producing now corn prices are not far from where they were in the 70's...

 

[SenorNoob]

So you're saying more corn ethanol could help farmers? Sounds like a win to me. And I HATE ethanol in fuel. It absolutely eats aluminum carbs. Especially the cheap ones I get.

 

[Bill]

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. There is nothing wrong with fuel efficiency or electric vehicles as long as that is what the consumers want. The government making fuel efficiency and EV regulations is absolutely a scam, they have no Constitutional authority to do that. There should be zero government mandate for fuel efficiency.

I agree when it comes to EVs. When it comes to fuel efficiency, assuming feasable standards, I think legislation in this regard is fine. Regarding it being contitutional, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. The court cases you see today regarding these issues is because some of the laws create an unreasonable burden on manufactures. And really, I question people who take issue with increased efficiency. It's like arguing that they want to pay four times the cost of electricity and 25% more for gas. The key here is reasonable. It's reasonable for an older Ranger to get 30 mph. I get that with my 2007 Ranger. Without both emissions and fuel economy legislation, we would never have reach 19 mpg in those trucks. Making an argument that somehow the latter situation is better is just silly, and a lack of critical thinking.

 

[sgtsandman]

Increasing fuel efficiency and mandates to do so, I don't have a problem with as long as the current technology can support it. The problem is that it has gotten to the point that the manufacturers are throwing every little tweak they can at vehicles in an attempt to meet it, some to the detriment of the longevity of the vehicle.

Take start/stop for instance. Engines with that system are having a lot of problems and failures because of the additional wear and tear, fuel in the oil, increased moisture in the oil, and other things.

Todays turbocharged engines, while doing better than the push for smaller tubocharged engines in the 80s did, are having problems. Some of them are significant, depending on the engine and their design generation.

The issue is getting pushed too hard, too fast.

 

[stmitch]

Increasing fuel efficiency and mandates to do so, I don't have a problem with as long as the current technology can support it. The problem is that it has gotten to the point that the manufacturers are throwing every little tweak they can at vehicles in an attempt to meet it, some to the detriment of the longevity of the vehicle.

Take start/stop for instance. Engines with that system are having a lot of problems and failures because of the additional wear and tear, fuel in the oil, increased moisture in the oil, and other things.

Todays turbocharged engines, while doing better than the push for smaller tubocharged engines in the 80s did, are having problems. Some of them are significant, depending on the engine and their design generation.

The issue is getting pushed too hard, too fast.

The regulations are not the issue. They had the tech available when the regs were written. The issue is that the OEMs chose not to invest in developing that tech, and opted instead for inferior, less reliable methods to try and achieve the same thing. This isn't a problem with the government forcing unreasonable things, it's an issue with manufacturers choosing to abandon promising tech prematurely (as they have an extensive track record of doing). It's mismanagement and short term profit chasing instead of leaders taking a long term outlook with patience and resolve.

From way back on Page 3 of this thread:
"They probably could've skipped all of that stuff if they would've just hybridized the trucks ~15 years ago. In 2005 Ford was selling the revolutionary Escape hybrid that outclassed all of it's competition. In 2009 GM had basic V8/hybrid full size trucks and SUVs that got 25% better fuel efficiency than the regular gas versions. They did nothing with the tech, and instead had to resort to all of these other band aids. If they'd taken that hybrid concept and continued to evolve it, while adding modern aero and gearing, you'd be seeing full sized gas trucks and SUVs over 30mpg now.

When the 54 mpg target was originally set (with much input from OEMs) in 2012, they were already using the right tech in some of their vehicles. You could walk right into a showroom and buy a hybrid Tahoe, so the expectation was that they'd continue to develop and evolve the promising tech. I don't think those were unrealistic expectations. The issue is that the OEMs quit developing their formula, stopped selling them all together and fell back on increasingly complex ICE only powertrains for whatever dumb reason. GM still doesn't sell any hybrids (E-Ray doesn't count).

Ford and Ram are now killing off their BEV full size trucks in favor of Plug in hybrids that handle most driving with electric motors/battery with an ICE backup for heavy working situations and long trips. GM (Volt) and Ford (Fusion Energi and CMax Energi) had similar PHEV tech almost 15 years ago in their cars. I own one, and it's great. It's lifetime fuel economy is a legit 72mpg over 130k miles. They've all had the recipe right in front of them for over a decade, they've just chosen to ignore it and do stupid alternatives instead of embracing the obvious choice."

 

[SenorNoob]

There is a reason HEAVY equipment and trains are diesel/electric.

 

[oldgeek]

There is a reason HEAVY equipment and trains are diesel/electric.

What happened to the Chevy that had a gas motor running just a generator powering the electric motors? I thought that was a great idea.

There is a good episode from The History Channel about diesel/electric locomotives. I watched it on Youtube.

 

[SenorNoob]

IDK about a Chevy, but Edison Motors in Canada is working a semi that sounds promising.

 

[pjtoledo]

There is a reason HEAVY equipment and trains are diesel/electric.

that has to do with electric motors being able to produce maximum torque at minimum RPMs.
the diesel is just there to provide portable electricity, unlike other countries that have overhead or track electricity.

can you envision clutch slippage getting a 7000 ton train moving?
or the size of the transmission? coupled to 6 individual axles?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

that has to do with electric motors being able to produce maximum torque at minimum RPMs.
the diesel is just there to provide portable electricity, unlike other countries that have overhead or track electricity.

can you envision clutch slippage getting a 7000 ton train moving?
or the size of the transmission? coupled to 6 individual axles?

Believe it or not (lol) but a lot of russian/soviet trains have gear transmissions. I don't know if they use a torque converter or what.

 

[Bill]

I agree when it comes to EVs. When it comes to fuel efficiency, assuming feasable standards, I think legislation in this regard is fine. Regarding it being contitutional, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. The court cases you see today regarding these issues is because some of the laws create an unreasonable burden on manufactures. And really, I question people who take issue with increased efficiency. It's like arguing that they want to pay four times the cost of electricity and 25% more for gas. The key here is reasonable. It's reasonable for an older Ranger to get 30 mph. I get that with my 2007 Ranger. Without both emissions and fuel economy legislation, we would still be getting 19 mpg in these trucks. Making an argument that somehow the latter situation is better is just silly, and a lack of critical thinking.

 

[19Walt93]

When Obama was pushing the 52mpg mandate the car companies said they could do it but that it would add $9000 to the price of a new car- that was $9000 2014 dollars. I think mandating a modest improvement each year would be a better method. Removing the ethanol from our gas would net at least a 5% improvement, based on my personal experience.
Skinnier tires would reduce rolling resistance, making light weight alloy wheels standard on all but heavier trucks would help. My 25 Escape turns on the headlights every time it's started and keeps them on for at least 30 seconds when it's shut off, anything that uses power causes the alternator to work harder, which puts load on the engine and uses fuel.
An Escort was a lot more basic car than the Focus that replaced it, it too until 2008 before a Focus got the MPG that a 1995 Escort delivered. Everything that adds weight hurts MPG.

 

[pentode]

Everything that adds weight hurts MPG.

I've been biting my tongue for a few days about this because I figure it won't be the most popular opinion, but all this"efficiency theater" stuff the industry has been doing the past couple decades - and I call it theater because I do believe it's mostly for show - hasn't been done as much to save the environment as to give us _bigger cars_.

As others have pointed out, we could get 50 mpg with small cars 40 years ago, and we could get 50 mpg with hybrids 20 years ago, and yet now we get 30 mpg in giant, heavy cars (which I would argue are totally unnecessary 90% of the time). I think I could park my 1980 Corolla in the trunk of a new Corolla . If we applied everything we know and all the tech to smaller cars, I'm certain we could double the fuel efficiency of the American fleet. But do we have an appetite for smaller cars?

 

[sgtsandman]

Vehicles have definitely gotten bloated as time went on compared to the size they were when they originally came out.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

Afaik...
The reason for the bloat is that under a certain size footprint the fuel mileage is mandated to be better. So the companies skirted the law by making everything bigger. Same reason there are very few sedans made, SUV's are classed as a truck and dont have to meet as stringent fuel mileage requirements.