[M_Six]

I had this argument with my Limbaugh-clone brother yesterday. Nixon nailed it, this a a fleet standard. And CAFE standards are why we have cars today which get 30mpg. If the auto industry won't voluntarily build and sell cars with decent fuel economy, then they need to be forced to do it. The US auto industry is in turmoil exactly because they are short-sighted. That's why they were building huge SUVs when the price of oil was skyrocketing.

The argument that they will have to build different cars for different states is also bogus. They'll build to meet the toughest standards. In effect, the California standard will become the US standard. Given the time frame allowed, I don't see this as a problem. They'll do it. The Japanese and Koreans certainly will, and the US car makers will have to follow suit to survive.

When I was in Bermuda I saw lots of these cars and wondered why they couldn't be bought in the US. Maybe now they will.

[stickypaws]

Originally Posted by Nixon

This is your lucky day. Because you will get your wish in an around-about way. Because the new laws already contain exemptions for sports cars.

1) This is a FLEET mandate, not a mandate for each and every car. Sports cars will NOT each have to get 43.7mpg. Only the fleet has to average 43.7mpg. So sports cars already have a built-in exemption from getting good fuel economy -- just as long as the average for the whole fleet is 43.7mpg.

2) You might ask "what about Ferrari?" or some other car maker that makes only super cars. The ALREADY have an exemption that allows them to import small numbers of cars that currently fail the current CAFE standard. This will continue under the new standards.

Nobody is banning sports cars.

Exactly. My point was that some people post here with a blanket, knee-jerk response like "just keep govt off my back," etc., instead of entering into a dialogue about how and if it would affect M3s, etc.. Govt, for better or worse, is a necessary component of society.

That mfgs can build less efficient cars and still comply means they also build more efficient cars, too. We saw that with SUV mfg here.

Having much more efficient cars for the 90% of the driving public who may not be motor sports enthusiasts is a good thing, imho.

I'm curious if MB can include Smart cars in their "fleet" since they own Smart (?) Does that help balance out the AMG production? Maybe their diesel models already do that for them.

And another reminder, next time you get the news that there's a recall on that Chinese-made toy your kid is about to chew on, you can thank the govt for mandating lead and import regulations.....

[Seminole]

The fail is strong with this one.

Originally Posted by Nixon

As for the manufactures not having cars in the future that will meet the standard, that simply isn't true. They all build very highly fuel efficient cars RIGHT NOW that would go a long way towards meeting that standard. They just don't sell them in the US market.

Show me one GASOLINE, not diesel powered car, the size of a normal family sedan (i.e. Camry, Accord, etc.) in another country that gets 43.7mpg COMBINED. You can't. They don't exist. Even super fuel efficient cars like a standard Mini Cooper can't pull that off.

Originally Posted by Nixon

Name any major car manufacturer, and most likely they make at least a dozen vehicles that have much lower emissions and get much better gas mileage that they sell elsewhere in the world, than what they currently sell in the US.

Again, sort of no. Yes they have more fuel efficient cars in Europe, but the majority of those cars are diesel. Go over to the European sections on this site and look at how many cars are diesels. They get great gas mileage, the problem is their emissions don't meet California's standards. That is why only this year have we started to see "50 state" diesels that can be sold in all the states to meet California's standards. California wants to lower those standards even more which will once again push diesels out of the equation.

Originally Posted by Nixon

Name any major car manufacturer, and most likely they have a handful of concept vehicles that would beat that standard hands down that could be ready for production by 2015 if they wanted to.

Hahaha. Hahahaha. HAHAHAHA! Do you even know a lot about concepts? Half the companies design wildly ambitious cars that have a zero percent of ever being made just to show the public what the future designs might look like and they throw a fictitious engine in it that can get a bazillion miles per gallon. Take a look at the concepts that are actually realistic and you will see that the actual number of cars is much less, on the order of maybe 1 vehicle or possibly 2 for the larger manufacturers.

Originally Posted by Nixon

I'm sure there will be plenty of electric cars. But you won't be forced to buy one. The pent-up demand right now for electric cars is massive, and there will be plenty of folks that WILLFULLY will purchase them, bringing way down the fleet averages for buyers of gasoline cars. As more electric cars get sold, the less the pressure there will be on the gas cars in the fleet to get good gas mileage.

So go tell your friends how cool electric cars are, and that they should start buying them when they hit the market in the 2010-2012 time-frame.

What electric cars will be on sale in 2010? The Volt, (not even a pure electric) won't be out until 2012 and costs $40,000. The Tesla? That's $100,000. The Fisker Karma? Electric vehicles are NOT the way of the future. No car where you have to stop for an hour or more to recharge is practical solution. The other thing is how to account for an electric cars fuel efficiency. The Government has already said that they won't allow the numbers to be infinite so as to raise up corporate fuel economy averages and give manufactures a cheap way out. Lets not forget the biggest problem of all. So we stop using gas and go all electric. Where does that electricity come from? Coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas power plants. How does that solve the problem when you are just moving the pollution from one place to another. And don't even think about BSing me and saying to use wind and solar power to generate electricity, because right now they make up a very small percentage of our power supply, and that isn't going to change in 7 years. Lets also not forget that as electricity travels over powerlines it loses a large percentage of it's energy. So the net effect of switching to all electric vehicles might actually use MORE energy than gasoline. Plus would our current power grid be able to handle the extra strain from all the vehicles switching to electric?

Originally Posted by Nixon

Or just move into a US state without large population centers that hasn't adopted the California air standard where this issue won't concern you -- and stop complaining about what doesn't concern you.

I don't think you grasp the issue with this though. Let me clarify, I have no problem with stricter standards, but they should be in a reasonable time frame and it should be the same standard across the country.

Moving on, let me give you a little fact to start out with. The US is the largest market for automobiles in the WORLD. If you let individual states start setting their own standards you then go from one market to, theoretically, 50 unique markets. Which means Ford might be able to sell one model of car in 10 states, but not in the other 40. Do you even comprehend what that would do to the auto industry? Especially with how much it costs to design, engineer, and manufacture a car there is no way that a company can afford to do that. As far as moving to another state that doesn't adopt the standards... it affects everyone you idiot, considering that if the largest states which generate the most sales all have unreasonably high standards, then why would companies spend hundred of millions to make a car for a reduced market where they won't even make enough to justify the cost?

Originally Posted by Nixon

This is your lucky day. Because you will get your wish in an around-about way. Because the new laws already contain exemptions for sports cars.

1) This is a FLEET mandate, not a mandate for each and every car. Sports cars will NOT each have to get 43.7mpg. Only the fleet has to average 43.7mpg. So sports cars already have a built-in exemption from getting good fuel economy -- just as long as the average for the whole fleet is 43.7mpg.

2) You might ask "what about Ferrari?" or some other car maker that makes only super cars. The ALREADY have an exemption that allows them to import small numbers of cars that currently fail the current CAFE standard. This will continue under the new standards.

WRONG AGAIN!

There are no "sports car" or "super car" exemptions. Every manufacturer must conform to the same standards. Those that don't have to pay fines. Here is a exert from an article about the top 10 companies who have had to pay fines for violating CAFE standards over the last 22 years:

The top 10 CAFE breakers accounted for 96 percent of the fines collected. Some no longer sell vehicles in the U.S., and Mercedes-Benz paid fines under its own name until 1998 when it was merged with Chrysler into the now-defunct DaimlerChrysler. The amounts they paid over the 22-year period are:

• Mercedes-Benz USA, $226,128,170
• BMW North America, $225,531,779
• Porsche Cars North America, $52,437,258
• Jaguar, $40,069,650
• DaimlerChrysler, $25,432,836
• Rover Group, $23,092,226
• Fiat Motors of North America, $10,791,076
• Ferrari Maserati of North America,. $5,077,248
• Sterling Motor Cars, $4,309,780
• Peugeot Motors of America, $2,855,205

Source: http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradv...ry-brands.html

All those companies produce sports cars. Even our beloved BMW is second on that list. The reason Ferrari just pays the fines is because they sell such a low volume that there is no point in making their cars conform. BMW and such sell so many cars and have so much money that there is no point either. Plus most manufacturers just pass the costs of the fines along to the consumers by raising the prices of the cars, something luxury manufacturers have done in the past.

And yes the number is average for the fleet. Toyota sells 10 different models of cars (including the Prius and Camry Hybrid), GM sells 37 among it's brands (http://www.gm.com/vehicles/results.j...0MPG&fuel=GAS&), Ford sells 15 different sedans, 4 coupes, and 3 convertibles over it's brands. lets use Toyota for example. Say that five of their cars get a combined average of 30mpg. That would mean the remaining five cars need to have an average of 57.4 just to meet the 43.7mpg requirement. That is pretty unrealistic. Also, the fleet average is not based off the cars that sold, but rather the cars that are offered. So it doesn't matter if a company has one car that gets 100mpg and sells 200,000 of them. That has no bearing on the fleet average. So for every sports car that gets say 22mpg combined, there will need to be a car that gets 65.4mpg to offset it.

But realistic numbers aside, you tell me how in the current state the auto industry is in, where it is reported Toyota only has $18B in cash left after starting the year with $90B, GM and Chrylser are on the verge of collapse, and companies all over the world are reeling, that these companies are going to completely redesign their entire fleets 100% (because that is what would need to happen) in only 7 years. It takes that long to design, engineer, test, and build one model. How in the holy hell are they going to do it for fleets of models? And with what money!?

You have zero comprehension of the auto industry, because anyone who knows the way it works would tell you what a bad idea this is, especially right now.

[Seminole]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I had this argument with my Limbaugh-clone brother yesterday. Nixon nailed it, this a a fleet standard. And CAFE standards are why we have cars today which get 30mpg. If the auto industry won't voluntarily build and sell cars with decent fuel economy, then they need to be forced to do it. The US auto industry is in turmoil exactly because they are short-sighted. That's why they were building huge SUVs when the price of oil was skyrocketing.

The argument that they will have to build different cars for different states is also bogus. They'll build to meet the toughest standards. In effect, the California standard will become the US standard. Given the time frame allowed, I don't see this as a problem. They'll do it. The Japanese and Koreans certainly will, and the US car makers will have to follow suit to survive.

When I was in Bermuda I saw lots of these cars and wondered why they couldn't be bought in the US. Maybe now they will.

That car, the 118i, gets 21.98 US MPG in the city. Although it does get 40mpg on the highway for a combined average of 30.95 US MPG. But that was tested on the European cycle, which is different than ours.

The issue is that the only GAS powered cars that get that kind of mileage are small cars. There is no way a gas powered Accord will get that.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by Seminole

Show me one GASOLINE, not diesel powered car, the size of a normal family sedan (i.e. Camry, Accord, etc.) in another country that gets 43.7mpg COMBINED. You can't. They don't exist. Even super fuel efficient cars like a standard Mini Cooper can't pull that off.

Fail #1) There is NO requirement under this regulation for midsize family sedans to get 43.7 MPG. It is a fleet requirement. Individual cars, or groups of cars can get less than 43.7 mpg. Demanding I provide an example is irrelevant.

Fail #2) The requirement is NOT specific to gasoline vehicles. Diesel vehicles that get higher gas mileage will raise the fleet average. Confining it to just gas cars is a false condition that doesn't exist in these regulations.

Fail #3) I CAN name a mid-sized passenger car that burns GASOLINE that has roughly the same interior space as a Camry or Accord and meets this standard. It is the Toyota Prius with a combined EPA cycle of 46 mpg. And it will have been in production for nearly 20 YEARS before this regulation will go into effect.

Originally Posted by Seminole

Again, sort of no. Yes they have more fuel efficient cars in Europe, but the majority of those cars are diesel. Go over to the European sections on this site and look at how many cars are diesels. They get great gas mileage, the problem is their emissions don't meet California's standards. That is why only this year have we started to see "50 state" diesels that can be sold in all the states to meet California's standards. California wants to lower those standards even more which will once again push diesels out of the equation.

Fail #4) All of these European diesels will have to meet the upcoming [CORRECTED: Euro 6] emissions standards at around the same time-frame. [CORRECTED: Euro 6] will be closely comparable to our standards, meaning that car builders with half a brain will be able to make their diesels both "[CORRECTED: Euro 6]" and "50 state" compliant in one single move. If you think there is a problem there, maybe the solution is to TALK to the EU, and make TREATIES that ensure this will happen. We've got a number of years to make that happen.

Fail #5) There are plenty of gas engine vehicles that get great gas mileage too that will help bring up the entire fleet average. Just one example is VW, who makes plenty of peppy, low emissions, gas cars that get much more than 43.7 mpg. If you don't know about them, it's because you haven't been looking.

Originally Posted by Seminole

Hahaha. Hahahaha. HAHAHAHA! Do you even know a lot about concepts? Half the companies design wildly ambitious cars that have a zero percent of ever being made just to show the public what the future designs might look like and they throw a fictitious engine in it that can get a bazillion miles per gallon. Take a look at the concepts that are actually realistic and you will see that the actual number of cars is much less, on the order of maybe 1 vehicle or possibly 2 for the larger manufacturers.

Fail #6) I gave the concept cars the appropriate weight, listing them last. Sure the majority never make it to production, but EVERY SINGLE car on the road right now started as a concept car. One example of a concept car that could easily go to market in time is the Volt. Another is the PHEV Prius. The fact that you laugh off ALL concept cars just because not every single concept car makes it into production shows your lack of vision, not mine. If no concept car ever made it into production, we wouldn't have a single car on the road today.

Originally Posted by Seminole

What electric cars will be on sale in 2010? The Volt, (not even a pure electric) won't be out until 2012 and costs $40,000. The Tesla? That's $100,000. The Fisker Karma? Electric vehicles are NOT the way of the future. No car where you have to stop for an hour or more to recharge is practical solution. The other thing is how to account for an electric cars fuel efficiency. The Government has already said that they won't allow the numbers to be infinite so as to raise up corporate fuel economy averages and give manufactures a cheap way out.

Fail #7) The time-frame I gave was 2010-2012, not just 2010. There are so many electric vehicles that are projected to go to market in this time frame that it isn't even funny. If the only three you know about is the Volt, the Tesla, and the Fisker Karma, you need to get out and do your research so you can join the conversation. Go do your homework.

Fail #8) The EPA is working on standards for measuring E-REV, BEV, and PHEV fuel efficiency standards. So while they will not be allow to count as infinite, they WILL be allowed to claim high MPG numbers that WILL greatly bring down the entire FLEET numbers. The Volt may potentially get rated at 120+ mpg under the proposed standards. That would mean that only 100,000 Volts built in a year (GM's stated production goal by the time this regulation goes into effect) would raise up the fleet average of half a million 30 mpg cars by 15 mpg, putting their collective average of them all above 45 mpg.

Originally Posted by Seminole

Lets not forget the biggest problem of all. So we stop using gas and go all electric. Where does that electricity come from? Coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas power plants. How does that solve the problem when you are just moving the pollution from one place to another. And don't even think about BSing me and saying to use wind and solar power to generate electricity, because right now they make up a very small percentage of our power supply, and that isn't going to change in 7 years.

Fail #9) "just moving the pollution from one place to another" would be worth it alone. Getting the pollution OUT of dense city centers, being released at knee level, and moving it to sparsely populated areas and releasing it out of tall stacks would save lives, improve the general health of millions, and save billions in Health Care resources wasted every year on respiratory diseases.

Fail #10) Wind and solar does indeed make up a very small percentage of generation in the US right now. Europe was the same way a decade ago. But they actually got off their fat asses and did something about it. Now many European countries are fast approaching their self-imposed targets of generating nearly a QUARTER of their electricity from renewable resources. And that doesn't even count the electricity generated from clean Nuke power. But I guess you think the US is too weak and poor to make the same transition that those superior rich Europeans are making. They started about a decade ago, but WE can't possibly do it? Bullshit.

Fail #11) The transition of the US electrical production doesn't all have to have to be done, over, and complete in 7 years for electric cars to still make sense. That is a strawman argument. Electricity production can transition at the same rate as electric cars take market share. And as the electricity production gets cleaner, the cars already on the road will instantly get cleaner. Unlike gas cars, that never get any cleaner once they leave the production line. Gas cars have to be taken off the road after 15-20 years of polluting, and be replaced with a new car in order to get cleaner.

Fail #12) Every electric car that burns US produced electricity keeps the cash in the US, instead of helping fund our enemies overseas by burning oil. This alone makes electric cars make sense, even if everything else about them was somehow WORSE than gas cars (which isn't the case in any way what-so-ever).

Originally Posted by Seminole

I don't think you grasp the issue with this though. Let me clarify, I have no problem with stricter standards, but they should be in a reasonable time frame and it should be the same standard across the country.

Fail #13) If you wanted a longer time line, you should have fought hard to keep the Bush administration from sand-bagging for the last few years. I didn't hear you opposing the Bush administration blocking this. Any manufacturer who thought this was just going to go away, because they believed in Carl Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority, are fools. They should have been working on this, and planning for this reality. Besides, if the car makers make a good faith effort, and still fall short after 7 years, they will be eligible to apply for a short-term waiver if they have a plan for coming in compliance within that term.

Fail #14) There is absolutely nothing wrong with there being two standards for the US market. 1 for California, and all the states that decide to accept California standards, and the second standard for the rest of the US and Canada. There are SO MANY more different emissions standards throughout the world that 1 more standard isn't going to break any global car manufacturer. Back before the EU formed equal standards, car makers had a whole bunch of individual standards across these countries in a much smaller market than just half of the US market. The effect of having 1 extra standard in the US is completely overblown. We've had 2 standards in the North American market for decades. Go cry me a river.

Originally Posted by Seminole

Moving on, let me give you a little fact to start out with. The US is the largest market for automobiles in the WORLD. If you let individual states start setting their own standards you then go from one market to, theoretically, 50 unique markets. Which means Ford might be able to sell one model of car in 10 states, but not in the other 40. Do you even comprehend what that would do to the auto industry? Especially with how much it costs to design, engineer, and manufacture a car there is no way that a company can afford to do that. As far as moving to another state that doesn't adopt the standards... it affects everyone you idiot, considering that if the largest states which generate the most sales all have unreasonably high standards, then why would companies spend hundred of millions to make a car for a reduced market where they won't even make enough to justify the cost?

Fail #15) There ARE NOT 50 unique markets. ONLY ONE STATE (California) has the legal authority to set it's own standards. All other states can choose between 2 standards. They can choose the EPA Federal standard, OR they can adopt California standards. No other state has the authority to create their own standards. As I stated before, global car companies have had to deal with multiple standards for as long as they have been global car companies, with many markets being MUCH SMALLER than half of the US market. And there has been two US standards for decades. Your fear-mongering is without justification in fact.



Ah, you've exceeded your Fail quota. I'm not going to waste my time on a "We-can't-do-it" apologist. Come back when you've corrected your Fail quota, and we'll continue the discussion.

[BForbes]

Originally Posted by Nixon

Fail #1) There is NO requirement under this regulation for midsize family sedans to get 43.7 MPG. It is a fleet requirement. Individual cars, or groups of cars can get less than 43.7 mpg.

Fail #2) The requirement is NOT specific to gasoline vehicles. Diesel vehicles that get higher gas mileage will raise the fleet average.

Fail #3) I CAN name a mid-sized passenger car that burns GASOLINE that has roughly the same interior space as a Camry or Accord and meets this standard. It is the Toyota Prius with a combined EPA cycle of 46 mpg.




Fail #4) All of these European diesels will have to meet the upcoming Euro 5 emissions standards at around the same time-frame. Euro 5 will be closely comparable to our standards, meaning that car builders with half a brain will be able to make their diesels both "Euro 5" and "50 state" compliant in one single move. If you think there is a problem there, maybe the solution is to TALK to the EU, and make TREATIES that ensure this will happen. We've got a number of years to make that happen.

Fail #5) There are plenty of gas engine vehicles that get great gas mileage too that will help bring down the entire fleet average. VW's twin-chargers are peppy, low emissions, and get much more than 43.7 mpg. If you don't know about them, it's because you haven't been looking.




Fail #6) I gave the concept cars the appropriate weight, listing them last. Sure the majority never make it to production, but EVERY SINGLE car on the road right now started as a concept car. One example of a concept car that could easily go to market in time is the Volt. Another is the PHEV Prius. The fact that you laugh off ALL concept cars just because not every single concept car makes it into production shows your lack of vision, not mine. If no concept car ever made it into production, we wouldn't have a single car on the road today.



Fail #7) The time-frame I gave was 2010-2012, not just 2010. There are so many electric vehicles that are projected to go to market in this time frame that it isn't even funny. If the only three you know about is the Volt, the Tesla, and the Fisker Karma, you need to get out and do your research so you can join the conversation. Go do your homework.

Fail #8) The EPA is working on standards for measuring E-REV, BEV, and PHEV fuel efficiency standards. So while they will not be allow to count as infinite, they WILL be allowed to claim high MPG numbers that WILL greatly bring down the entire FLEET numbers. The Volt may potentially get rated at 120+ mpg under the proposed standards. That would mean that only 100,000 Volts built in a year (GM's stated production goal by the time this regulation goes into effect) would raise up the fleet average of half a million 30 mpg cars by 15 mpg, putting the fleet average of them all above 45 mpg.



Fail #9) "just moving the pollution from one place to another" would be worth it alone. Getting the pollution OUT of dense city centers, being released at knee level, and moving it to sparsely populated areas and releasing it out of tall stacks would save lives, improve the general health of millions, and save billions in Health Care resources wasted every year on respiratory diseases.

Fail #10) Wind and solar does indeed make up a very small percentage of generation in the US right now. Europe was the same way a decade ago. But they actually got off their fat asses and did something about it. Now many European countries are fast approaching their self-imposed targets of generating nearly a QUARTER of their electricity from renewable resources. And that doesn't even count the electricity generated from clean Nuke power. But I guess you think the US is too weak and poor to make the same transition that those superior rich Europeans are making. They started about a decade ago, but WE can't possibly do it? Bullshit.

Fail #11) The transition of the US electrical production doesn't all have to have to be done, over, and complete in 7 years for electric cars to still make sense. That is a strawman argument. Electricity production can transition at the same rate as electric cars take market share. And as the electricity production gets cleaner, the cars already on the road will instantly get cleaner. Unlike gas cars, that never get any cleaner once they leave the production line. They have to be taken off the road after 15-20 years of polluting, and be replaced with a new car in order to get cleaner.

Fail #12) Every electric car that burns US produced electricity keeps the cash in the US, instead of helping fund our enemies overseas by burning oil. This alone makes electric cars make sense, even if everything else about them was somehow WORSE than gas cars (which isn't the case in any way what-so-ever).



Fail #13) If you wanted a longer time line, you should have fought hard to keep the Bush administration from sand-bagging for the last few years. I didn't hear you opposing the Bush administration blocking this. Any manufacturer who thought this was just going to go away, because they believed in Carl Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority, are fools. They should have been working on this, and planning for this reality.

Fail #14) There is absolutely nothing wrong with there being two standards for the US market. 1 for California, and all the states that decide to accept that same standard, and the second standard for the rest of the US and Canada. There are SO MANY more different emissions standards throughout the world that 1 more standard isn't going to break any global car manufacturer. Back before the EU formed equal standards, car makers had a whole bunch of individual standards across these countries in a much smaller market than just half of the US market. The effect of having 1 extra standard in the US is completely overblown. We've had 2 standards in the North American market for decades. Go cry me a river.





Fail #15) There ARE NOT 50 unique markets. ONLY ONE STATE (California) has the legal authority to set it's own standards. All other states can choose between 2 standards. They can choose the EPA Federal standard, OR they can adopt California standards. No other state has the authority to create their own standards. As I stated before, global car companies have had to deal with multiple standards for as long as they have been global car companies, with many markets being MUCH SMALLER than half of the US market. And there has been two US standards for decades. Your fear-mongering is without justification in fact.



Ah, you've exceeded your Fail quota. Come back when you've corrected it, and we'll continue the discussion.

Major OWNAGE by Nixon!

I actually look forward to seeing cars from BYD, Aptera, Nissan, etc. in the next coming years. Chevy already has the Cruze that will be here. Ford has said the next focus will in fact be the European version slightly tweaked. The Ford Fiesta has done incredibly well in the reviews. And now Chrysler has said it will be bringing over quite a few small cars from their new Fiat relationship.

If these damn companies but half the effort into designing what they need we'd be in a lot better shape. Preparing for this day has been at the bottom of the list for many companies. If only they hadnt split all the time/money/talent running away from efficiency in favor of ridiculous projects. How much money could've been saved

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by Seminole

Article:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/26/r...-own-emission/

Seminole,

Please go back and look at your source article. They have issued a retraction/correction:

"UPDATE: For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that there will be two emissions standards that states can choose - CA and Federal - not the "potentially fifty" that some worry about. "

I hope this clears up some of your misconceptions about multiple standards. Please correct your original post at the beginning of this thread, and include this retraction/correction. Propagating the retraction/correction is the correct writing guideline when a source quoted in your writing issues a retraction/correction.

[stickypaws]

Originally Posted by Nixon

Fail #1) There is NO requirement under this regulation for midsize family sedans to get 43.7 MPG. It is a fleet requirement. Individual cars, or groups of cars can get less than 43.7 mpg. Demanding I provide an example is irrelevant.

Fail #2) The requirement is NOT specific to gasoline vehicles. Diesel vehicles that get higher gas mileage will raise the fleet average. Confining it to just gas cars is a false condition that doesn't exist in these regulations.

Fail #3) I CAN name a mid-sized passenger car that burns GASOLINE that has roughly the same interior space as a Camry or Accord and meets this standard. It is the Toyota Prius with a combined EPA cycle of 46 mpg. And it will have been in production for nearly 20 YEARS before this regulation will go into effect.

p.s., in the meantime just don't live and work in CA. It's already too crowded here....




Fail #4) All of these European diesels will have to meet the upcoming Euro 5 emissions standards at around the same time-frame. Euro 5 will be closely comparable to our standards, meaning that car builders with half a brain will be able to make their diesels both "Euro 5" and "50 state" compliant in one single move. If you think there is a problem there, maybe the solution is to TALK to the EU, and make TREATIES that ensure this will happen. We've got a number of years to make that happen.

Fail #5) There are plenty of gas engine vehicles that get great gas mileage too that will help bring up the entire fleet average. Just one example is VW, who makes plenty of peppy, low emissions, gas cars that get much more than 43.7 mpg. If you don't know about them, it's because you haven't been looking.




Fail #6) I gave the concept cars the appropriate weight, listing them last. Sure the majority never make it to production, but EVERY SINGLE car on the road right now started as a concept car. One example of a concept car that could easily go to market in time is the Volt. Another is the PHEV Prius. The fact that you laugh off ALL concept cars just because not every single concept car makes it into production shows your lack of vision, not mine. If no concept car ever made it into production, we wouldn't have a single car on the road today.



Fail #7) The time-frame I gave was 2010-2012, not just 2010. There are so many electric vehicles that are projected to go to market in this time frame that it isn't even funny. If the only three you know about is the Volt, the Tesla, and the Fisker Karma, you need to get out and do your research so you can join the conversation. Go do your homework.

Fail #8) The EPA is working on standards for measuring E-REV, BEV, and PHEV fuel efficiency standards. So while they will not be allow to count as infinite, they WILL be allowed to claim high MPG numbers that WILL greatly bring down the entire FLEET numbers. The Volt may potentially get rated at 120+ mpg under the proposed standards. That would mean that only 100,000 Volts built in a year (GM's stated production goal by the time this regulation goes into effect) would raise up the fleet average of half a million 30 mpg cars by 15 mpg, putting their collective average of them all above 45 mpg.



Fail #9) "just moving the pollution from one place to another" would be worth it alone. Getting the pollution OUT of dense city centers, being released at knee level, and moving it to sparsely populated areas and releasing it out of tall stacks would save lives, improve the general health of millions, and save billions in Health Care resources wasted every year on respiratory diseases.

Fail #10) Wind and solar does indeed make up a very small percentage of generation in the US right now. Europe was the same way a decade ago. But they actually got off their fat asses and did something about it. Now many European countries are fast approaching their self-imposed targets of generating nearly a QUARTER of their electricity from renewable resources. And that doesn't even count the electricity generated from clean Nuke power. But I guess you think the US is too weak and poor to make the same transition that those superior rich Europeans are making. They started about a decade ago, but WE can't possibly do it? Bullshit.

Fail #11) The transition of the US electrical production doesn't all have to have to be done, over, and complete in 7 years for electric cars to still make sense. That is a strawman argument. Electricity production can transition at the same rate as electric cars take market share. And as the electricity production gets cleaner, the cars already on the road will instantly get cleaner. Unlike gas cars, that never get any cleaner once they leave the production line. Gas cars have to be taken off the road after 15-20 years of polluting, and be replaced with a new car in order to get cleaner.

Fail #12) Every electric car that burns US produced electricity keeps the cash in the US, instead of helping fund our enemies overseas by burning oil. This alone makes electric cars make sense, even if everything else about them was somehow WORSE than gas cars (which isn't the case in any way what-so-ever).



Fail #13) If you wanted a longer time line, you should have fought hard to keep the Bush administration from sand-bagging for the last few years. I didn't hear you opposing the Bush administration blocking this. Any manufacturer who thought this was just going to go away, because they believed in Carl Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority, are fools. They should have been working on this, and planning for this reality. Besides, if the car makers make a good faith effort, and still fall short after 7 years, they will be eligible to apply for a short-term waiver if they have a plan for coming in compliance within that term.

Fail #14) There is absolutely nothing wrong with there being two standards for the US market. 1 for California, and all the states that decide to accept California standards, and the second standard for the rest of the US and Canada. There are SO MANY more different emissions standards throughout the world that 1 more standard isn't going to break any global car manufacturer. Back before the EU formed equal standards, car makers had a whole bunch of individual standards across these countries in a much smaller market than just half of the US market. The effect of having 1 extra standard in the US is completely overblown. We've had 2 standards in the North American market for decades. Go cry me a river.





Fail #15) There ARE NOT 50 unique markets. ONLY ONE STATE (California) has the legal authority to set it's own standards. All other states can choose between 2 standards. They can choose the EPA Federal standard, OR they can adopt California standards. No other state has the authority to create their own standards. As I stated before, global car companies have had to deal with multiple standards for as long as they have been global car companies, with many markets being MUCH SMALLER than half of the US market. And there has been two US standards for decades. Your fear-mongering is without justification in fact.



Ah, you've exceeded your Fail quota. I'm not going to waste my time on a "We-can't-do-it" apologist. Come back when you've corrected your Fail quota, and we'll continue the discussion.

Good response.

The much broader picture here, cars aside, is that we have to start doing something instead of doing nothing, as we have been doing for so many decades. (Jimmy Carter put up solar panels on the White House and Reagan took them down; there's a docu film about all that now, it's interesting.)

For those of you that say "hands off" I want my "freedom," try to remember that you do not live on an island. We are a community of humans who actually depend on each other, like it or not. Your "freedom" relies on others. And on a sustainable habitat.

Paradigm shifts take time and sometimes require certain sacrifices. We are all in this together and it's probably a good idea to look up from one's belly button once in a while.

This may not be ideal legislation and no doubt things will be changed down the road. We'll just have to see. But it's a step.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by stickypaws

Good response.

...

Paradigm shifts take time and sometimes require certain sacrifices. We are all in this together and it's probably a good idea to look up from one's belly button once in a while.

This may not be ideal legislation and no doubt things will be changed down the road. We'll just have to see. But it's a step.

thanks.

Paradigm shifts do usually take about 40 years, give or take a decade.

The shift from horses to automobiles.
The shift from Steam engine trains to diesel-electric.
The shift from dirt roads to paved roads to interstates.
The shift from whale-oil and paraffin lighting to gas to electric lights.
The shift from coal-heating in homes to heating oil and natural gas.
The creation of the infrastructure for Telephones, Cell Phones, Cable TV, Radio, etc where none existed before.
The shift from boat and train travel to airplane travel.

Can you imaging being the guy trying to explain how any of these could ever become common everyday realities, when any of these Paradigm shifts were in their infancies?

[Seminole]

Originally Posted by Nixon

Seminole,

Please go back and look at your source article. They have issued a retraction/correction:

"UPDATE: For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that there will be two emissions standards that states can choose - CA and Federal - not the "potentially fifty" that some worry about. "

I hope this clears up some of your misconceptions about multiple standards. Please correct your original post at the beginning of this thread, and include this retraction/correction. Propagating the retraction/correction is the correct writing guideline when a source quoted in your writing issues a retraction/correction.

First, I wasn't aware of the update since it was recent and Autoblog has not posted about it on the front of the page and the article is now many pages back.

Second, if that truly is the case, then you can bet it will be declared unconstitutional. If California has the authority to set its own standards, then every state should. That will be one of points that opponents could use to attack it (as backwards of an argument as that is), because like it or not, there will be lawsuits over this.


Thirdly, I like how you pick and pull things out of what I wrote to dispute, but ignore others. But lets have a shot at what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Nixon

Fail #1) There is NO requirement under this regulation for midsize family sedans to get 43.7 MPG. It is a fleet requirement. Individual cars, or groups of cars can get less than 43.7 mpg. Demanding I provide an example is irrelevant.

I never said anything to the contrary, in fact, I said multiple times it was a fleet average. That was a response to you saying there are multiple cars in other countries that can get close to that. The reason I specified gasoline only cars is because we live in the U.S.A. and as such diesel vehicles only make up a paltry 3.2% of our vehicles, not to mention that a gallon of diesel in most areas costs $1 or more than a gallon of regular grade gasoline. So whatever cars manufacturers are going to make in order to comply with these standards are more than likely going to have to be gasoline.

Fail #2) The requirement is NOT specific to gasoline vehicles. Diesel vehicles that get higher gas mileage will raise the fleet average. Confining it to just gas cars is a false condition that doesn't exist in these regulations.

I do not see how I fail here. You are quite correct that it is not specific to gasoline vehicles, but as I mentioned above, one must take into account the reality of the US market and the fact that diesel cars just are not as practical as gasoline cars for the way our market currently is.

Fail #3) I CAN name a mid-sized passenger car that burns GASOLINE that has roughly the same interior space as a Camry or Accord and meets this standard. It is the Toyota Prius with a combined EPA cycle of 46 mpg. And it will have been in production for nearly 20 YEARS before this regulation will go into effect.

Yes, you would be correct. Except what I had meant by that was a non-hybrid. If we hybridized (is that even a word) our entire fleet, then we could probably achieve those numbers. But I am looking at it as trying to keep the same type of performance we have now from cars, and hybrids can not match that. Might the cars of the future have to lose the performance we have now? Sure. But that would be a huge loss in my book.

Fail #4) All of these European diesels will have to meet the upcoming Euro 5 emissions standards at around the same time-frame. Euro 5 will be closely comparable to our standards, meaning that car builders with half a brain will be able to make their diesels both "Euro 5" and "50 state" compliant in one single move. If you think there is a problem there, maybe the solution is to TALK to the EU, and make TREATIES that ensure this will happen. We've got a number of years to make that happen.

If it is so easy then why can't they do it now? FYI Euro 5 takes effect in September, so they have the technology now to be 50 state compliant by your logic. Or at least I hope so if they plan on releasing the compliant cars by September. The reason is the standards are not closely comparable. US standards have always been stricter than European standards because diesels are not our main source of power for our vehicles, so we impose stricter standards on them. I can find the numbers for Euro 5 which takes effect this year and Euro 6 which takes effect in 2014, but I've looked and cannot find anything more than "30% reduction in tailpipe emissions" for the CARB requirements. This is of course still ignoring the fact that diesels only make up 3.2% of the US market.

Fail #5) There are plenty of gas engine vehicles that get great gas mileage too that will help bring up the entire fleet average. Just one example is VW, who makes plenty of peppy, low emissions, gas cars that get much more than 43.7 mpg. If you don't know about them, it's because you haven't been looking.

Show me. The Fox, their smallest car with the most fuel efficient gasoline engine only gets 38.5 US mpg combined. And that isn't even an accurate conversion due the the Euro test cycle being different from the EPA's. The Polo, the next size up, can get 40mpg combined with its most fuel efficient engine. But I already said why this is not a scientific number. Both those engines are also only offered with a manual transmission, and we know the US market would need an auto version that would most certainly hurt the fuel economy.

Fail #6) I gave the concept cars the appropriate weight, listing them last. Sure the majority never make it to production, but EVERY SINGLE car on the road right now started as a concept car. One example of a concept car that could easily go to market in time is the Volt. Another is the PHEV Prius. The fact that you laugh off ALL concept cars just because not every single concept car makes it into production shows your lack of vision, not mine. If no concept car ever made it into production, we wouldn't have a single car on the road today.

I never laughed off all concept cars. The ones that I was referring to are the new forms of propulsion such concepts. You seemed to insinuate that all manufacturers had "handfuls" of concepts that could "beat that standard hands down" that could be ready for production:

Name any major car manufacturer, and most likely they have a handful of concept vehicles that would beat that standard hands down that could be ready for production by 2015 if they wanted to.

I was just stating the truth. Most of the concept cars that are "visions of the future" don't even have running engines, but rather theoretical ones. Sure, they could make a car look like it, but the mechanics wouldn't be the same. The Volt is one of those 1 or two I was talking that are realistic concepts, not just something a kid fresh out of college in a design studio dreamed up.

Fail #7) The time-frame I gave was 2010-2012, not just 2010. There are so many electric vehicles that are projected to go to market in this time frame that it isn't even funny. If the only three you know about is the Volt, the Tesla, and the Fisker Karma, you need to get out and do your research so you can join the conversation. Go do your homework.

Which ones? From what major manufacturers? I don't care about the ones that come from some small startup company, I'm talking the big boys here. Yes I have heard of some, EV versions of current hybrids and such, but other than that, with the exception of concepts which as I already discussed are to show "what we can think of" I don't know of to many. Instead of telling me to do my homework, educate me. Show me. Enlighten me.

Fail #8) The EPA is working on standards for measuring E-REV, BEV, and PHEV fuel efficiency standards. So while they will not be allow to count as infinite, they WILL be allowed to claim high MPG numbers that WILL greatly bring down the entire FLEET numbers. The Volt may potentially get rated at 120+ mpg under the proposed standards.

How do I fail? You just backed up exactly what I said. That the government is looking at ways of limiting the mpg of electric vehicles. Since no one knows what those standards may be, it is premature to make any conclusions. There are many unique difficulties with the Volt though, one being that it can run on batteries alone for a claimed 40 miles, which could yield one rating, but then what to do for when it uses its gasoline engine.

That would mean that only 100,000 Volts built in a year (GM's stated production goal by the time this regulation goes into effect) would raise up the fleet average of half a million 30 mpg cars by 15 mpg, putting their collective average of them all above 45 mpg.

YOU ARE WRONG!

I said this before but you obviously ignored it. CAFE is not the average of the fleet sold! What is so hard to comprehend about that? I was actually wrong myself with what I said above in regards to calculating it. After more research CAFE is actually calculated using a harmonic mean. Which means you take the number of vehicles a manufacturer produces (not total output, but how many models it offers) and divide that by 1/ the fuel economy per vehicle for each vehicle offered added together.

So to give an example. Lets say a fictitious car maker sells 5 cars.

Car A gets 10mpg, B gets 15, C gets 17, D gets 20, and E is a special all electric model rated at 100mpg.

So doing the math:

5/
(1/10)+(1/15)+(1/17)+(1/20)+(1/100)

That equals a CAFE of 17.5 for this fake automaker. GM can sell a million Volts a year, it wouldn't matter in the CAFE calculation. Because of the way CAFE is calculated is why I keep harping on the 43.7 mpg figure. Because for every car that gets a lower mpg rating there needs to be one with an average even higher than 43.7 to counteract it. This is why the cars are going to basically need to be right up against that number.

Fail #9) "just moving the pollution from one place to another" would be worth it alone. Getting the pollution OUT of dense city centers, being released at knee level, and moving it to sparsely populated areas and releasing it out of tall stacks would save lives, improve the general health of millions, and save billions in Health Care resources wasted every year on respiratory diseases.

The main argument about raising fuel economy standards is not health, but global warming. That is what I am getting at by what I said. So fine, everyone can breath, we still are going to crisp the planet.

Fail #10) Wind and solar does indeed make up a very small percentage of generation in the US right now. Europe was the same way a decade ago. But they actually got off their fat asses and did something about it. Now many European countries are fast approaching their self-imposed targets of generating nearly a QUARTER of their electricity from renewable resources. And that doesn't even count the electricity generated from clean Nuke power. But I guess you think the US is too weak and poor to make the same transition that those superior rich Europeans are making. They started about a decade ago, but WE can't possibly do it? Bullshit.

I'm not saying we can't. I for one am in favor of nuclear power if the pansies would pull their heads out of their asses and let us make more plants. But there is a distinct difference between Europe and us. It is easy for a windy country, say like Germany, to convert a lot of its power plants into just wind turbines. In the US we have such a vast difference when it comes to what types of alternatives can be used in what region. Solar may work for the desert, but it won't work in Seattle. Wind might work in the Great Plains but not in other areas. To switch to renewables would require many different systems in many different areas. I'm not saying it can't be done, anything can be done for a price. But whatever is done has to be cost efficient and therein lies the problem.

Fail #12) Every electric car that burns US produced electricity keeps the cash in the US, instead of helping fund our enemies overseas by burning oil.

You are wrong on this as well. Do you know where we get most of our oil? We produce 34% of it here. But the top 5 places we import from are:

Canada 1.8mb
Mexico 1.6mb
Saudi Arabia 1.4mb
Venezuela 1.1mb
Nigeria 1.0mb

All told, in 2006 we 79% of oil imports were from countries outside of the Middle East. But I guess Canada and Mexico are our enemies.

Fail #13) If you wanted a longer time line, you should have fought hard to keep the Bush administration from sand-bagging for the last few years. I didn't hear you opposing the Bush administration blocking this. Any manufacturer who thought this was just going to go away, because they believed in Carl Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority, are fools. They should have been working on this, and planning for this reality. Besides, if the car makers make a good faith effort, and still fall short after 7 years, they will be eligible to apply for a short-term waiver if they have a plan for coming in compliance within that term.

You are right. As a college kid with zero political influence whatsoever I should have called up ole Bush and asked him to stop blocking it. The reason I don't oppose the blocking of CARB standards is because I believe it is more productive for us to have a national standard. Make it as high as you want but as long as it gives the automakers a reasonable amount of time to develop the technology there is nothing wrong with it in my eyes.

Fail #14) There is absolutely nothing wrong with there being two standards for the US market. 1 for California, and all the states that decide to accept California standards, and the second standard for the rest of the US and Canada. There are SO MANY more different emissions standards throughout the world that 1 more standard isn't going to break any global car manufacturer. Back before the EU formed equal standards, car makers had a whole bunch of individual standards across these countries in a much smaller market than just half of the US market. The effect of having 1 extra standard in the US is completely overblown. We've had 2 standards in the North American market for decades. Go cry me a river.

That is your opinion, you are entitled to it, and I am entitled to disagree with it.

Fail #15) There ARE NOT 50 unique markets. ONLY ONE STATE (California) has the legal authority to set it's own standards. All other states can choose between 2 standards. They can choose the EPA Federal standard, OR they can adopt California standards. No other state has the authority to create their own standards. As I stated before, global car companies have had to deal with multiple standards for as long as they have been global car companies, with many markets being MUCH SMALLER than half of the US market. And there has been two US standards for decades. Your fear-mongering is without justification in fact.

Well, what gives the authority to the Government to tell California it can set its own standards but not other states? I discussed this with my law professor and even he said that if another state contested it, the Government would have a serious problem defending why California can but others can't. So although it most likely will not result in 50 different standards, it has the potential to. You cannot compare the fact that countries much smaller than the US have different standards to this either. Most of the small countries have very lax standards, and those that have very high standards only get a few models from each manufacturer. There is a difference when you can sell one model in one country and not in another. It is something entirely different when you can't sell a model in one part of the country and not another. This has the chance of leading to an indirect adoption of the standards by all the states because the manufacturers would only sell cars that meet the more stringent requirements in all the states. And I for one don't like some other state having an influence on what I can and can't buy. The CARB standard is 43.7mpg for cars by 2016, while the current EPA goal is 33mpg for cars by 2020. That is a large difference.

Ah, you've exceeded your Fail quota. I'm not going to waste my time on a "We-can't-do-it" apologist. Come back when you've corrected your Fail quota, and we'll continue the discussion.

I also never said we can't do it. I support it, but within a reasonable amount of time. The auto makers are for profit companies. Many are losing money hand over fist and some are on the verge of bankruptcy. Who knows how long the downturn in the auto market will last, but without money there is no way these companies could comply with those requirements so soon. That isn't an apologist attitude. It's called being realistic.



Now if you excuse me I have to go get drunk and lose my voice screaming "F*** CAROLINA"

[Year's_End]

good god multiquote mania

[BForbes]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Loyalist

good god multiquote mania

Haha...Its like Superman vs Bizzaro.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by Seminole

First, I wasn't aware of the update since it was recent and Autoblog has not posted about it on the front of the page and the article is now many pages back.

Second, if that truly is the case, then you can bet it will be declared unconstitutional. If California has the authority to set its own standards, then every state should. That will be one of points that opponents could use to attack it (as backwards of an argument as that is), because like it or not, there will be lawsuits over this.

Wow. I'm blanking dumbfounded. Why am I debating a topic with somebody who doesn't even understand the legal basis that the entire discussion is based upon?

California has had the DUTY to set it's own automobile emissions standards (through a system of waivers) ever since the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967 was passed.

This was done because people were actually dying of air pollution in California dating back to the 40's, and California was REQUIRED by federal law to take more aggressive actions than any other state in order to comply with federal clear air mandates.

It is NOT unconstitutional. It is settled law. It will not be overthrown. Nobody is suing to overthrow the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967. It has been in effect now for over 40 years, and none of your fist pounding will make it go away.


[note: I went back and made a correction to my earlier post. I had erroneously stated "euro 5" when I meant to say "Euro 6" emissions standards. The rest of my point is still valid.]

[ChrisV]

More fuel for the electric car argument:

http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...841378,00.html

"According to a study by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, off-peak capacity could support the conversion of 73% of the current auto fleet — enough to cut demand for oil in half — without the addition of a single extra plant, provided the cars all charge late at night. "We have a great amount of untapped resources," says Luke Tonachel, vehicle analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We can minimize impact on the grid."

A simple addition to your house would be a smart charger. You plug in when you get home from work, and it automatically sets the charging to happen during off-peak hours. An evening's charge would be good for quite a few miles. My personal commute is 14 miles round trip, the US average is 33 miles. So, in an electric car with a mere 40-60 mile range, a single charge would be good for pretty much a week of commuting for me, and at least a day of commuting for the average commuter, including having extra range for side trips for shopping. Since there's no requirement for this to be an only car, it would be useful for replacing a good portion of the current national flet of vehicles (certainly the potential market would be larger than any one manufacturer could make annually, given that the total number of registered vehicles in the US is around 200+ million cars). Each car would only use about as much electricity as a large screen TV, so the cost of "fuel" to commute would be in the neighborhood of only a couple bucks a week.


As for the "it just transfers pollution from one place to another" argument, it is true to an extent. But it's much easier to regulate and keep clean a single central source of pollution than millions of point sources. As was mentioned, electric cars don't pollute more as they age like ICE cars, and the power plants the energy is sourced from have a history of polluting less as time goes on.

http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml

"EVs have the unique advantage of using electricity generated from a variety of fuels and renewable resources. The overall mix of power plants in the U.S. is 55 percent coal, 9 percent natural gas, and 4 percent oil (9). The other 32 percent include nuclear power and renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal.

Many EVs critics point out that charging thousands of EVs from aging coal plants will increase greenhouse gases such as CO2 significantly. Although half the country uses coal-fired plants, EVs recharging from these facilities are predicted to produce less CO2 than ICE vehicles. According to the World Resources Institute, EVs recharging from coal-fired plants will reduce CO2 emissions in the country from 17 to 22 percent. "

"Although half the electricity generated in the U.S. comes from coal-fired plats, larger regions of the country such as California and the Northeast are turning toward cleaner fuels such as natural gas.

In California, where over half of the state's pollution comes from ICE vehicles, the overall mix of power plants is one of the cleanest in the country. (See Table 2) Power plants burning cleaner fuels, such as natural gas, account for a major share of the state's electricity. In fact, natural gas facilities in California emit 40 times less NOx than existing coal plants in the Northeast (2). Renewable sources such as hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal produce a respectable share of the electricity generated in California."

Because California has a mix of cleaner fuels and renewable sources, several studies have concluded that improvements in air quality can be achieved easily by plugging in to EVs.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that EVs operating in the Los Angeles Basin would produce 98 percent fewer hydrocarbons, 89 percent fewer oxides of nitrogen, and 99 percent less carbon monoxide than ICE vehicles."

Similar comparisons to those in California and Arizona can be found in the northeastern part of the country where the majority of power plants are coal-fired.

A study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs in the Northeast would reduce CO emissions by 99.8 percent, volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 90 percent, NOx by 80 percent, and CO2 by as much as 60 percent.

According to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) study, use of EVs results in significant reductions of carbon monoxide, greenhouse gases, and ground level ozone in the region, with magnitudes cleaner than even the cleanest ULEV.

In the future, EVs in the Northeast will reap the benefits of switching to cleaner fuels such as natural gas. In the next 15 years, aging coal plants will be replaced by modern natural gas fired plants. This improvement alone will reduce power plant emissions significantly."

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by Seminole

YOU ARE WRONG!

I said this before but you obviously ignored it. CAFE is not the average of the fleet sold! What is so hard to comprehend about that? I was actually wrong myself with what I said above in regards to calculating it. After more research CAFE is actually calculated using a harmonic mean. Which means you take the number of vehicles a manufacturer produces (not total output, but how many models it offers) and divide that by 1/ the fuel economy per vehicle for each vehicle offered added together.

So to give an example. Lets say a fictitious car maker sells 5 cars.

Car A gets 10mpg, B gets 15, C gets 17, D gets 20, and E is a special all electric model rated at 100mpg.

So doing the math:

5/
(1/10)+(1/15)+(1/17)+(1/20)+(1/100)

That equals a CAFE of 17.5 for this fake automaker. GM can sell a million Volts a year, it wouldn't matter in the CAFE calculation. Because of the way CAFE is calculated is why I keep harping on the 43.7 mpg figure. Because for every car that gets a lower mpg rating there needs to be one with an average even higher than 43.7 to counteract it. This is why the cars are going to basically need to be right up against that number.

I didn't ignore your claim, you had just hit the Fail limit so hard that I couldn't possibly debunk every single false claim you made in a single post.

The last time the EPA calculated CAFE standards using that formula was in the 1970's, back when folks were saying how proud the were to have Nixon as President. And you still didn't even get THAT formula 100% correct. Where do you get this out-of-date crap?

Here is the current formula for calculating CAFE standards. Note that it DOES take into account the VOLUME of production:


Manufacturer X’s required fuel economy level would be calculated as illustrated below:



I got this directly from the DOT website, so I think they know what they are talking about:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site...wType=standard

If you want to get into the technical description of how it is calculated, here is the actual verbiage of the regulation:

“the number of passenger automobiles manufactured by the manufacturer in a model year; divided by the sum of the fractions obtained by dividing the number of passenger automobiles of each model manufactured by the manufacturer in that model year by the fuel economy measured for that model.”

Listen, I can't spend all day debunking EVERY SINGLE mistake you've made. Especially when you tell me to "educate" you every time you don't know what is going on.


But the craziest question at hand, is WHY am I bothering debating how car makers can get their fleet averages to meet the new CAFE standards, with someone who IS COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT HOW CAFE STANDARDS ARE CALCULATED!


[food for thought:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/report...rtfeb25_08.pdf
]