# Obama Sets New Auto Emissions Standards **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2009, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038 "2009-05-20T03:12:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/41 "2009-05-20T21:33:06Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > Perhaps I’m letting my anger in the “It’s about safety” argument get in the way of making my point. > > Person A says he wants a safe car, so he gets a Ford Large Protective Cage. Person B is now surrounded by Ford LPCs, so he gets a Toyota Hulking Behemoth, which is 10% larger and therefore safer. Person C is now surrounded by Behemoths, so he gets an Abrams Tank. > > Short of the Abrams, none of them are going to do a bit of good against a semi. > > Meanwhile, if all of them were driving a Camry, they’d all be reasonably safe. What’s your point. It’s called freedom of choice. Some people choose smart cars due to their fuel efficiency. Others choose Hummers because they feel more safe. So what? This is not some safety “war” resulting in ever increasing size. Your solution is to force everyone to drive the same car so we are equally at risk. I say the government has no business dictating what we drive. And, thanks to the arbitrary increase in CAFE standards, car manufacturers will be forced to use lighter materials to produce cars. Of course, those who still have their Toyota Hulking Behemoth will eventually run into some driving the new golf carts. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/42 "2009-05-20T21:43:27Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > This isn’t actually how it works, though. > > “Historically, it is the sales-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the United States.” > > It doesn’t mean they will necessarily have to manufacture _fewer_ gas guzzlers, it just means they may have to manufacture more high-efficiency cars at a loss in order to allow them to sell more gas guzzlers. Or they could focus on creating a very high fuel efficiency vehicle (say 50mpg +) and selling it at a big loss. > > Something else to keep in mind is the NHTSA has serious concerns about the increased risk of fatalities in small cars. How do we weigh that against environmentalism and dependence on foreign oil? I thought I understood this point but I see the “manufactured for sale” part. I guess this means they can make the fuel efficient cars and park them on a lot while they still count toward the sales-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/43 "2009-05-20T22:49:58Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > What’s your point. It’s called freedom of choice. Some people choose smart cars due to their fuel efficiency. Others choose Hummers because they feel more safe. So what? This is not some safety “war” resulting in ever increasing size. Of course it is. Who looks at a roadfull of VW bugs and says, “Wow, those are going to roll right over me if I get a VW Bug. Better get a giant truck instead, for the safety.” > [@yorick73](#): > > Your solution is to force everyone to drive the same car so we are equally at risk. I say the government has no business dictating what we drive. And, thanks to the arbitrary increase in CAFE standards, car manufacturers will be forced to use lighter materials to produce cars. Of course, those who still have their Toyota Hulking Behemoth will eventually run into some driving the new golf carts. So…you’re arguing that it’s a _good_ thing that Behemoth fans will be crunching the golf carts? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/44 "2009-05-20T23:46:32Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Of course it is. Who looks at a roadfull of VW bugs and says, “Wow, those are going to roll right over me if I get a VW Bug. Better get a giant truck instead, for the safety.” This is nonsense. If this were even remotely true you would not see people driving VW bugs or smart cars. Unless you are arguing that these people are thinking “fuck safety…I want 35 MPG”. So…you’re arguing that it’s a _good_ thing that Behemoth fans will be crunching the golf carts? [/QUOTE] Did you even read my post? ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/45 "2009-05-20T23:46:53Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > I have one of those as well. The fan is not the compressor. A/C compressors are actually less likely to run 100% of the time with an automatic climate control, because it only runs when it actually has to cool the system. The a/c in your house has a similar setup, it just doesn’t run the fan 100% of the time like your car does, unless you have the fan set to “on” in your house. > > In older auto systems the a/c compressor only ran 100% of the time when you had the a/c set on MAX. The rest of the time, it would cycle on and off. Unless you are running around in heat that requires the compressor to run 100% of the time (this does not happen every month, even in central TX) you’d be freezing in your car when it wasn’t that hot, or it would be insufficient to keep you cool when it was. Again it depends on the system in the car. If the system is a cycling clutch orifice tube (CCOT) system then yes the compressor runs less than 100% of the time. If on the other hand the system is a expansion valve system (like my car and lots of others) the compressor is set to run 100% of the time, and only shuts off if the driver selects it, the evaporator is in danger of freezing, or the system goes into overpressure. The fan inside the passenger compartment however does run all the time, unlike the fan in a home AC system. Also unlike a home AC system the fan runs at many variable speeds, where a home system only has one fan speed. Home AC and car AC systems are not exactly the same. I stand by my comments. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/46 "2009-05-21T00:03:27Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > This is nonsense. If this were even remotely true you would not see people driving VW bugs or smart cars. Unless you are arguing that these people are thinking “fuck safety…I want 35 MPG”. It’s more like “The odds of getting in an accident are pretty low, but the odds that I’ll burn gas when driving are, well, rather high. (Add in dozens of other factors as well.) …Hmm, all that considered, I’ll take my chances.” But basically yes, I am arguing that that’s what those people are thinking. > [@yorick73](#): > > Did you even read my post? Yes. What I didn’t find in it was a rational argument, except perhaps “We should all be glad that people are able to choose to crunch those idiots who foolishly didn’t say ‘fuck 25 MPG…I want safety’.” ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/47 "2009-05-21T00:39:14Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > This is nonsense. If this were even remotely true you would not see people driving VW bugs or smart cars. Unless you are arguing that these people are thinking “fuck safety…I want 35 MPG”. Aren’t they? Lots of people drive convertibles and motorcycles, which are far less safe than fully enclosed cars. Sometimes they do it for even worse gas mileage. I drive a motorcycle, and I’ve at least considered “Fuck safety… I want to have fun!” Absolute safety is not the only priority, but it is part of the decision process. The discussion of the safety of different sizes of cars seems to have boiled down to thinking that small cars are only less safe _because_ large cars are on the road. But that’s not the case. If every car on the road were small, small cars would still be safe, because small cars will still do worse in all the crashes that don’t involve other cars. It’s nice that you won’t be run over by a hummer, but the brick walls are still just as unforgiving. As far as CAFE standards go, I’m moderately in favor of an increase. I believe that we’d be much better off with a gas tax than a mandate, but given the political realities involved, I think this is better than nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/48 "2009-05-21T00:44:54Z")
Here’s the thing, **yorick73** : A big vehicle may, in some cases, be a little safer _for the person in the vehicle_ (and even that is debated, but we’ll grant it for the sake of argument), but it’s a lot more dangerous _for everyone else_. By driving a larger vehicle, then, you’re improving things for yourself, but on net, you’re making things worse for society as a whole. This means that, without any regulation, things get worse than they should be. This is exactly the sort of situation where government intervention is a good thing: If government steps in and forces everyone to do the thing that’s best for society, then **everyone is better off**. Yes, in the world where everyone drives Beetles, everyone has the same amount of safety, **and that amount of safety is higher than your safety in the world where you and a bunch of other people drive Hummers**. So if your concern is increasing your own personal safety, then you should be asking the government to require small cars for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/49 "2009-05-21T00:54:10Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > Again it depends on the system in the car. If the system is a cycling clutch orifice tube (CCOT) system then yes the compressor runs less than 100% of the time. If on the other hand the system is a expansion valve system (like my car and lots of others) the compressor is set to run 100% of the time, and only shuts off if the driver selects it, the evaporator is in danger of freezing, or the system goes into overpressure. > The fan inside the passenger compartment however does run all the time, unlike the fan in a home AC system. Also unlike a home AC system the fan runs at many variable speeds, where a home system only has one fan speed. > Home AC and car AC systems are not exactly the same. > I stand by my comments. Thank ya, was not aware of that type of system. Even then, the compressor is not run at a constant 100% output, does not need the engine to be turning it with all of its effort, and the pulley is exhibiting some parasitic loss. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/50 "2009-05-21T00:58:43Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > Home AC and car AC systems are not exactly the same. > I stand by my comments. Right as usual Rick. And many/most/all systems turn on the compressor to remove moisture whe defog is on. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/51 "2009-05-21T01:02:04Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > Thank ya, was not aware of that type of system. Even then, the compressor is not run at a constant 100% output, does not need the engine to be turning it with all of its effort, and the pulley is exhibiting some parasitic loss. OTOH. What about the parasitic weight of an electric motor that would run it compared to a pully and belt? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/52 "2009-05-21T02:24:57Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > True last month, not true at the moment. Diesel has been 4-5 cents cheaper than regular unleaded locally. I attribute this partially to our currently soft economy, since trucks, ships and trains all largely run on diesel (planes pretty much do too). In the few years that I have owned diesels, the price usually seems to lag behind gasoline in both its rise and fall, but usually is within 15-20 cents per gallon of regular unleaded. Since diesels usually get about 25% better fuel mileage than a comparable gasoline engine, the price really has to get to 25% more than gasoline for the economics to even out between them. Biodiesel can help keep the price down, but the problems of making fuel from a foodstuff kind of bother me. A non-foodstuff source of it would solve that problem, though. Unlike gasoline made from corn, Bio-diesel does not require farm crops or farm land. It can be made from algae. At the present technological stage, we don’t have a problem growing enough algae, it’s the conversion that is cost prohibitive. The advantage of growing bio-diesel from algae is that co2 can be stripped from coal electric plants for nourishment and cars that run on it burn less fuel. It would take money going to unfriendly nations and return it directly to our own economy. It would also revive the auto industry and put people back to work. It’s a win/win from every standpoint. supposedly, the new Honda Accord diesel gets 62.8 mpg on the highway which is a vehicle that could tow a trailer (something a hybrid cannot). > [@scabpicker](#): > > And I would just like to take this time out to say: Yay turbochargers! You (volumetrically) get a small engine when you need a small engine, and a big engine when you need a big engine. I am on my 4th turbocharged vehicle in a row with no problems. 2 of them already meet the 2016 standards for fuel efficiency. 1 only does that on the freeway, with your foot out of it. The 4th got 30% better mileage than the normally aspirated version, and had more torque. Which was important, since it was a 3/4 ton truck. The technology is already quite available to the car makers. My next car will be a turbo-diesel. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/53 "2009-05-21T05:33:14Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I’m not making an argument in favor of “lax fuel efficiency standards” I’m simply saying I do not think Ford, GM, or Chrysler will be able to move European-style cars in the United States unless prices at the pump are high enough to motivate Americans to buy these sort of cars. The automakers here in America have engaged in a 60+ year marketing campaign that focuses on the idea of an “American car”, how do you reverse that in 7 years time? You can’t undo the concepts people grew up with, that generations of people grew up with. Not in 7 years time. This, IMHO, is outdated thinking. The tide is already turning away from the big, gas-guzzling “(ideal) American car” to more fuel-efficient sedans. Further, American auto manufacturers are finally beginning to compete with the Japanese with some success. Granted they still have a long way to go, but Japanese and European CAFE standards indicate much better fuel efficiency is achievable. Since American automakers must meet foreign CAFE standards when selling their vehicles overseas, it’s safe to assume that they can design and manufacture vehicle that meet higher standards in the US, especially when our newly adopted standards continue to lag behind those of the Europe. > [@](#): > > Maybe, maybe not. The issue isn’t whether we are at the end of cheap oil but whether we reach a point where gas prices change consumers car purchasing habits in the next few years or if that is a _decades_ down the road. If the market naturally leads us to having consistent gas prices above say, $4/gal then I think the Detroit automakers will do quite well at selling small, fuel efficient cars here in the United States. But if that _isn’t_ the situation they will not do well at selling these cars and to get them on the road we’ll have to manipulate consumer behavior by artificially raising price at the pump or we’ll have to subsidize the automakers for the big losses they take. I couldn’t disagree with you more. There has already occurred a paradigm shift in American attitude towards fuel efficiency and that is reflected in the list of best- and worst-selling autos year after year. Last year, according to [Forbes](http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/03/2008-car-sales-forbeslife-cx_jm_1203cars.html), seven of the top ten best-selling autos were sedans that averaged 26 MPG; admittedly, the other three, including the top two best-selling autos were trucks averaging 16 MPG and together represented 35% of those sales. Nine of those were also [best-sellers in 2007](http://www.autospies.com/news/Forbes-com-10-Best-Selling-Vehicles-of-2007-23985/) (the new entry being the Ford Focus at #10); nor was it much different in 2006, same three trucks and virtually all of the same sedans. Taking a look at 2008’s worst-selling autos, we see nine SUVs and one minivan (including two Hummers, the most pilloried of the lot). It’s clear America’s love affair with the gas-guzzling SUV is over. Now, if the Big 3 can wrap their minds around that, they jettison the SUV fleet in favor of even more efficient models to offset the inefficiency, but true utility, of the pickup truck. Lose the Suburban, GM, and make the upcoming Cruze more fuel efficient than the Cobalt (2006 best-seller). Seriously, America is coming around, it’s the manufacturers that need to get a clue. It’s hard to understand why Detroit hasn’t been able to match the design mindset of the Japanese, considering how long they’ve dominated the market by so many benchmarks (i.e., safety, reliability, fuel efficiency, sales, etc.). IMHO, it’s a big part of why they were failing to begin with: outmoded thinking. > [@](#): > > I bring it up because of this. The government can do all sorts of things, it can proclaim it wants certain mpg average. But if the private companies simply cannot remain solvent and meet these standards then the government has to step in to help them, period. The automakers aren’t like the Federal government, they can’t just spend billions of dollars that doesn’t exist, in a relatively short period of time this leads to bankruptcy and collapse of the corporation. The government’s already helping. Admittedly, I’m one of those that think they deserved to fail and should have been left out to dry, because they were not able to innovate with same success that the Japanese did in the late 70s and early 80s. They thought they understood the American car-buying public, but they didn’t. They remained steadfast in their misjudgment year after year while being blown out of the water by the Hondas and Toyotas of the industry. One would hope that this little humility lesson in FAILURE (all caps) makes a lasting impression on them. If the auto industry head honchos weren’t sitting at Obama’s press conference with their tails shamefully tucked between their legs in utter capitulation, they are seriously in for a bumpy ride. > [@](#): > > Here’s the thing, Detroit sells small fuel efficient cars **at a loss** right now, to meet CAFE standards. They make money on the less fuel efficient cars and we’re essentially forcing them to sell the highly efficient cars at a loss (because there has not been enough consumer demand to move them otherwise), the current standards are something like 27 mpg. Cite? By the Forbes list, the best selling sedans average 26 combined mpg. If these are their most fuel efficient cars, they really do have a problem. Well, for Toyota and Honda, they most certainly aren’t if you take their hybrids into consideration. Where’s Ford’s hybrid? Oh yeah, the [Escape Hybrid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Escape). An SUV. :smack: Remind me again how much we Americans love our SUVs? Where is GM’s hybrid? Oh yeah, the Chevy Malibu Hybrid with a combined mpg of 31. Isn’t fuel efficiency why you buy a hybrid? They don’t even come close to the efficiency of the top-selling Toyota Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid. > [@](#): > > At 35.5 mpg in 2016 Detroit will have to do two things: > > 1. Work to make their less fuel efficient vehicles more fuel efficient. This is a good thing, we can all agree. > > 2. Sell an even larger portion of their sales at a loss in order to meet CAFE standards. 1. I think they are trying to do that already with pickup trucks, which is smart because Americans want pickups as they represent way more utility than SUVs. But they need to learn how to make hybrids that actually have the fuel efficiency hybrids are obviously capable of achieving. And then they need to get ahead of the game and do even better than that. If Ford and GM can meet European CAFE standards, they can find a way to meet the new US CAFE standards. 2. Bullshit. Stop selling fuel inefficient cars that nobody wants. You get those stupid SUVs out of your fleet and reduce the horsepower in your muscle cars and you will most certainly improve your fleet’s mpg. Further, start selling fuel efficient hybrids that can compete with those of Toyota and Honda and a) you’ll start dominating the market and b) your new fleet fuel efficiency will continue to meet CAFE standards. > [@](#): > > I think we all want to see Detroit selling more fuel efficient cars, but without the _demand_ for these vehicles at a certain point, then Detroit **has** to sell them at a loss, they have to cut price below what is sustainable to move the vehicle. The demand is there. In 2000, Honda sold the first hybrid in the US. The following year, the Prius debuted and subsequently became the best-selling hybrid. As of 2009, there are 27 different hybrid vehicles available to the American public. None are as efficient as they could be and should be, but auto manufacturers realize that demand for hybrids is steadily increasing. What they need to really understand is that a hybrid that gets barely five mpg over the non-hybrid version is not efficient enough to move vehicles. To the average American, the added cost of the hybrid and uncertainty of the relatively new technology is not worth a savings of only five mpg. Step it up, Detroit, and start making hybrids that aren’t a joke. Oh, and when you do figure it out, [don’t list it at $40,000](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Price) if your goal is to actually sell a significant number. Good luck with that, GM. > [@](#): > > Can Detroit profit from selling these cars? Sure, and they will, when they can charge a high price because people are willing to pay a _premium_ for fuel efficiency, but people will only pay a premium for fuel efficiency if the price at the pump is high. Or, people will pay a bit more for a lot more efficiency, not the few mpg Detroit has been willing to give them. > [@](#): > > Toyota made a killing with its hybrids during the high gas prices we saw a few years ago, Detroit was still trying to sell SUVs and got slammed for it. You got that right, but Detroit was trying to sell hybrids, too. They just couldn’t compete with Toyota because the Prius is actually an efficient hybrid. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately for the Detroit automakers interest in fuel efficiency has gone down just as they have started reacting to the high gas prices several years ago. Did they ever really have an interest or were they just going through the motions? Now that their necks are on the chopping block, they just might be inclined to get with the program, I think. > [@](#): > > We are in complete agreement that gas prices will have to rise by some means other than the market, though–that is in fact my point. Rising gas prices certainly puts more pressure on Detroit and the government to start making some real headway towards significantly reducing our oil dependence, but it seems pretty obvious that Detroit is going to drag their feet as long as they possibly can without the government’s kick in the backside. It’s truly a shame they weren’t as forward thinking as foreign automakers and governments. We are so behind as a nation, as a result. > [@](#): > > 1. Making companies less profitable means that in a few years the government will be faced with the same situation it faced recently: let the big automakers fail or bail them out. History suggests we will not let them fail, so while you are correct that we are not statutorily committing to future bailouts, if we create a climate in which we reduce the profitability of U.S. automakers then we are obviously creating a situation that will lead to future bailouts. It seems that GM did a pretty good job on their own of making themselves less profitable. If they can’t rise to the challenge now, they truly didn’t deserve the bailout. Like all businesses in trouble, they need to suck it the hell up. It’s not rocket science, for Pete’s sake. Are they that starved for innovators? They manufacture two of the top-selling vehicles of 2008, what is it about running a business do they not understand? > [@](#): > > 1. Correct, we are not statutorily committing to higher fuel taxes. However, again, if we actually want Detroit to sell these cars at a profit, we have to raise fuel taxes. We can certainly force Detroit to sell more fuel efficient cars, that is exactly what CAFE does. What we cannot do solely through CAFE regulations is change what the public is willing to pay for small, fuel efficient cars. The trend so far has been that Detroit must sell these cars at a loss in order to meet CAFE standards, while they sell less fuel efficient vehicles at a greater profit–ideally enough that they remain profitable across the board. Are you solely referring to their hybrids? If so, they are not that fuel efficient by industry standards, hence the likely reason they are taking a bath on them. Still hoping for a cite on this. Again, if they are relying on poorly selling inefficient hybrids to meet CAFE standards, they need seriously need to reevaluate their SUV sales. > [@](#): > > My simple question is this: What do we do if Americans don’t want to buy smaller, fuel efficient cars at a price which is profitable for the automakers? We get out of the auto industry because we obviously are too stupid to do it right. > [@](#): > > 1. Say that is the problem of the automakers. They will respond by of course lowering the price of these fuel efficient cars into unprofitability, with the aim of selling enough of the cars that people ARE willing to pay a nice price for so that they still make profit as a company. I find it doubtful that given their current situation any of these companies will be able to do this. > > 2. Say “we need to help the automakers out” which means subsidizing them so they can afford to sell the product at a loss. > > 3. Say “we need to change the minds of the public” which means raising the price of gasoline through artificial manipulations. 1. It is. If they do that, they absolutely should fail because it makes no sense to simply adjust prices downward without innovating to make a better (read: more efficient) product while simultaneously determining that the market will no longer support your least efficient vehicles. 2. If they would run their businesses more like successful companies, they wouldn’t require subsidizing. Yes, innovation is key along with recognizing what they market truly wants. They haven’t been able to do this with a measure of success that would have kept them profitable in addition to poorly anticipating the market trend towards greater fuel efficiency. 3. That may certainly help change a few people’s minds, but I do believe that you underestimate the trend already in progress. Again, look at the Forbes lists of [best- and worst-selling vehicles](http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rhe42RjYa2ncHmDGNEAIEHg). > [@](#): > > I’m not actually _opposed_ to such a gas tax, to be honest. I’m all for higher taxes when it makes sense. Neither am I, but only from the standpoint that it pays for the innovation and productivity that allows us to not only match European CAFE standards, but to exceed them. Further, to the extent that it completely eliminates the auto industry’s dependence on oil and creates a vehicle industry that is ecologically sustainable, that would be money very well spent. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/54 "2009-05-21T06:32:26Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Where’s Ford’s hybrid? Oh yeah, the [Escape Hybrid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Escape). An SUV. :smack: Remind me again how much we Americans love our SUVs? Call it a nitpick but the acronym SUV is getting morphed into meaning “anything large”. It stand for Sport Utility Vehicle. The Escape Hybrid is a just that, a Hybrid. It uses the same Atkinson-cycle engine and battery supplemented electric motor found in other hybrids. For Parents who need something larger than a Prius Ford has provided a vehicle that meets that need. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/55 "2009-05-21T06:51:13Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > OTOH. What about the parasitic weight of an electric motor that would run it compared to a pully and belt? Well, that is weight you are carrying around, but it is at least not directly impeding the rotating force of the engine. If I carry the same pulley and wheel in the back seat, not attached to the belts, the loss is less than if it were being spun by the crankshaft, and losing more energy through friction. Removing accessories from the engine mounting also allows for more flexibility in the design of the vehicle. You still have the same general size of the components, but you can move them around more freely, allowing you to change the shape of the packaging, theoretically allowing for aerodynamic gains. You could also build the devices themselves to operate more efficiently. With an electric drive, you can design it to be efficient at a specific rpm, and run it at that rate. The current accessories need to be able to handle between 1000-9000 rpm on a modern Honda high performance engine (reduced by the pulley ratio, of course), and do some version of work correctly in that entire range. **Magiver** , thank you for the information on algae produced biodiesel, It actually makes me have some hope for that solution. 3 of my last 4 vehicles have been turbo diesels. They’re great. Nothing beats a flat torque curve for day-to-day driving. If I had known that they were bringing across the 335di, I would have taken the financial hit, and it would have been 4 of 4. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/56 "2009-05-21T12:17:14Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Call it a nitpick but the acronym SUV is getting morphed into meaning “anything large”. It stand for Sport Utility Vehicle. The Escape Hybrid is a just that, a Hybrid. It uses the same Atkinson-cycle engine and battery supplemented electric motor found in other hybrids. For Parents who need something larger than a Prius Ford has provided a vehicle that meets that need. The Ford Escape Hybrid is classed as a compact SUV. It is an SUV. Regardless of the fact that it’s built with the same fuel-economizing technologies as the Prius, it gets a combined 32 mpg for its FWD model and 28 mpg for its 4WD model; compared to 46 mpg for the Prius, it’s a marginal effort at best. Yes, it is 75% more efficient than its non-hybrid counterpart, but the point is that Ford is missing the boat on better fuel economy by neglecting to produce a hybrid sedan. Why don’t they offer one that is capable of competing with the Prius? Sales for the Escape Hybrid are flat and very low by comparison to the Prius (yes, I realize sales were down last year) and Civic, which is not surprising considering it follows the pattern as nearly every other SUV on the market. I understand Ford is about release a new hybrid sedan…finally. The Ford Fusion is a mid-size sedan with a combined 38 mpg (only 6 mpg more than the SUV?) and base MSRP of $27,270 (comparable to it’s competitors’ hybrid products). While it beats the Camry, Altima, and Chevy Malibu in fuel economy, it’s still not as efficient as the Prius. It is, however, a step in the right direction. My guess is that, barring any mechanical/design problems, sales for it will be a lot better than the Escape Hybrid. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/57 "2009-05-21T12:49:15Z")
Wow. Ford builds a vehicle that is 75% more efficient than its non hybrid counterpart and that is a marginal effort? Tough room. You do realize that the Escape is larger, heavier, and less aerodynamic than a Prius and those factors alone probably accounts for most if not all of the fuel mileage difference. Same with the Fusion hybrid, which BTW gets 41 city and 36 highway. [Cite](http://www.ford.com/vehicles/vehicle-showroom#/hybrids/ford-fusion-hybrid-2010) In a 4 way comparison test of midsized hybrid sedans the Fusion kicked the other three cars ass. It was the best by far according to Car and Driver Magazine. IIRC the other cars competing were the Toyota Camry, the Honda Accord and the Chevy Malibu. I supposed if you are going to slam car makers for producing hybrids that don’t get Prius like MPG numbers you should include Toyota in your bashing. The Camry hybrid (a direct competitor to the Fusion) gets 33/34 MPG, and the Highlander hybrid gets 27/25. Are those both also marginal efforts? ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/58 "2009-05-21T13:06:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It was already nationalized. California chose to raise levels above the national level. Well, the CAA specifically allows states to apply for a waiver for a standard higher than the EPA if there is a “compelling reason.” ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/59 "2009-05-21T13:42:23Z")
I think it is time that the USA had a national energy policy. That said, I don’t see the need to set MPG standards for vehicles. It would make much more sense to simply tax vehicles based upon engine size/displacement (as is done in France). Then you can build any size vehicle you want-it will jsut be underpowered. anyway, as fuel prices rise, people wil buy smaller-engined cars. The market will sort the whole thing out. Detroit got snookered because of the cheap gasoline we had from 1995-2004. This was an abnormal condition, caused by the Saudis and the Russians overproducing like crazy. Because gas was cheap, Detroit made SUVs-which yielded enormous profits. When gasoline prices rose, nobody bought SUVs-the market functioned perfectly. Screwing around with markets is unlikely to yield good results. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038/60 "2009-05-21T13:55:17Z")
> [@MichaelQReilly](#): > > Well, the CAA specifically allows states to apply for a waiver for a standard higher than the EPA if there is a “compelling reason.” No, just CA, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-sets-new-auto-emissions-standards/497038.md?page=4)