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.