This is my current events and political ranting blog. Enjoy!
The New CAFE Standards
There's a whole lot of chatter about Obama's new decree on CAFE standards today and rightly so. I wonder why the old CAFE standards came from Congress and Obama just gets to decree his? Oh, well, so much for the Constitution.
I'm curious about fuel standards because of simple personal experience. My dad had a 1987 Buick Skylark that we all fit into for normal trips to church and whatnot. It had a 2.5L 4cylinder engine, 4 doors, made about 30 mpg's (but my dad drives really, really slow), and got the job done. Granted, we had a full blown gasoline powered motor home for long trips that made about 10 mpg's downhill in a hurricane, but the point is that if that car did that well in 1987, why do we need the President to tell us to get a little better today? Oh, and by the way, this car was no slouch. I got a speeding ticket in that Skylark doing 94 in a 55. It wasn't a sports car by any stretch, but it sure got the job done.
I remember the Dodge Intrepid I had back in 2000. It had a 2.7L V6 that made 200 horse power and still maintained 27 mpg's on the highway. This car was huge - 5 six footers could ride in it with all their luggage. I had tools and parts packed into the trunk of mine all the time and drove it 80K miles in about 3 years. It was a great car. But today, merely 9 years later, 27 mpg's in a full sized car is rare. What the heck happened there?
I've had a lot of trucks as well. I had a 1995 Chevy 1500 extended cab 2 wheel drive that made 225 horsepower and about 15 mpg's. Today, we have a 2005 Suburban that makes 325 horsepower and 15 in town and 17 on the highway. It seems to me that we could afford to give up some of the hp's if the efficiency could be improved. 30 mpg's, though, I don't think is possible with a Suburban. Maybe with a diesel. I guess we'll see.
The one thing nobody is bringing up with these new efficiency standards is that the cost of fuel is going to skyrocket. When you make less of a product, the cost of that product has to increase. With forecasts of using less fuel, the oil refiners will certainly not be in the market to invest in new infrastructure. This is really unfortunate since new technology would probably make it more efficient to refine gasoline. Also, we need to remember that our roads are paid for using fuel tax and that tax is per gallon. If we have a huge surge in efficiency, then it will starve the feds and states of tax revenue, which they will recoup by increasing the tax on fuel. So, don't think for a minute that this fuel efficiency is going to put one thin dime back into your pocket. You're going to pay more for the car and more for the fuel. This is the reality of our European friends to this day.
A dramatic increase in the cost of fuel is going to make life much more expensive. It will cost more to move goods and services, more to mow your grass, more to have contractors come out to your house, heck, everything in our giant country has transportation costs built in.
Oh well. I guess we need to enjoy today while we can. Take a long drive with your kids on vacation. Go see the mountains or the desert or the woods. It may very well be impossible tomorrow.
I'm curious about fuel standards because of simple personal experience. My dad had a 1987 Buick Skylark that we all fit into for normal trips to church and whatnot. It had a 2.5L 4cylinder engine, 4 doors, made about 30 mpg's (but my dad drives really, really slow), and got the job done. Granted, we had a full blown gasoline powered motor home for long trips that made about 10 mpg's downhill in a hurricane, but the point is that if that car did that well in 1987, why do we need the President to tell us to get a little better today? Oh, and by the way, this car was no slouch. I got a speeding ticket in that Skylark doing 94 in a 55. It wasn't a sports car by any stretch, but it sure got the job done.
I remember the Dodge Intrepid I had back in 2000. It had a 2.7L V6 that made 200 horse power and still maintained 27 mpg's on the highway. This car was huge - 5 six footers could ride in it with all their luggage. I had tools and parts packed into the trunk of mine all the time and drove it 80K miles in about 3 years. It was a great car. But today, merely 9 years later, 27 mpg's in a full sized car is rare. What the heck happened there?
I've had a lot of trucks as well. I had a 1995 Chevy 1500 extended cab 2 wheel drive that made 225 horsepower and about 15 mpg's. Today, we have a 2005 Suburban that makes 325 horsepower and 15 in town and 17 on the highway. It seems to me that we could afford to give up some of the hp's if the efficiency could be improved. 30 mpg's, though, I don't think is possible with a Suburban. Maybe with a diesel. I guess we'll see.
The one thing nobody is bringing up with these new efficiency standards is that the cost of fuel is going to skyrocket. When you make less of a product, the cost of that product has to increase. With forecasts of using less fuel, the oil refiners will certainly not be in the market to invest in new infrastructure. This is really unfortunate since new technology would probably make it more efficient to refine gasoline. Also, we need to remember that our roads are paid for using fuel tax and that tax is per gallon. If we have a huge surge in efficiency, then it will starve the feds and states of tax revenue, which they will recoup by increasing the tax on fuel. So, don't think for a minute that this fuel efficiency is going to put one thin dime back into your pocket. You're going to pay more for the car and more for the fuel. This is the reality of our European friends to this day.
A dramatic increase in the cost of fuel is going to make life much more expensive. It will cost more to move goods and services, more to mow your grass, more to have contractors come out to your house, heck, everything in our giant country has transportation costs built in.
Oh well. I guess we need to enjoy today while we can. Take a long drive with your kids on vacation. Go see the mountains or the desert or the woods. It may very well be impossible tomorrow.
Total Comments 2
Comments
|
When comparing cars of yesteryear to today, you have left out two important factors in your comparison. Weight and efficiency. Weight is a major hurdle to overcome when building cars. Since the older cars you mentioned were designed in the 70s'(skylark), and 80's for the truck and Intrepid, crash standards pertaining to front, rear, and side impact crush zones have changed, as well as rollover protection (roof strength). To make those safety designs built in, it adds weight due to more steel. A higher tensile strength steel is being used in portions of the newest cars, as well as aluminum in less stressed areas. More standard equipment being thrown in the mix, also adds weight and complexity. Being at a shop, I hear people all the time saying "why cant they keep it simple anymore. I used to be able to work on them, but not anymore". With emissions restrictions, it requires all that computer junk to keep everything in check, and even more so, to do it at the level the Feds require. All that extra stuff adds weight. Fortunetly, efficiency is taking up some of the slack by getting more hp out of smaller displacement engines. Using your Intrepid as an example. My 83 Datsun with a 2.8l 6cyl only made 145hp. And back then, that was alot. That engine was based off a 60's Mercedes design. Your 2.7 made 200hp, designed 20yrs later. Fords 4.6lL V8 started out at 220hp in a 95 Mustang. Now its up to 315hp in a 2010 Mustang.
Go back to the weight,crash standard for a moment. The new Camaro and Challenger were both conceived/designed without a b pillar. As a styling standpoint, its cool. But from a safety standpoint, the roof would not pass a rollover crash without it. They were redesigned with them in place. If both front and rear windows are up, it appears as though there is no pillar. Open the door or roll down the window and it becomes obvious. These types of things add weight. The Challenger is the heavier of the two, hitting about 3900lbs in R/T V8 form. In the sports car world, these two cars are pigs because of their weight. My Z weighs in at only 2800 with a full tank of gas. Someone may say, "Well, why cant they do that again?" Thats the point. They cant. A normal car that light wont be able to pass current crash standards. A Corolla, a nice, light, small sedan tips the scales at about 3100 lbs. A far cry from a 70s Corolla by far. As far as gas going up. I agree totally with your last paragraph. But would like to add one twist. Obama has publicly stated, many times, his energy plan will bankrupt some industries. Coal industry to be exact. I believe his ideas to be a bit on the drastic side as far as how/when he wants it done. This notion of all vehicles to get 35mpg by 2020, or whenever is rather outlandish. Like you, I dont belive its possible to get a Tahoe/suburban that high without using some really expensive ideas and designs. Sure, not everyone needs a Suburban. But on the flip side, does anyone want to be forced to drive a GEO Metro without an option for larger vehicles necessary for towing recreational stuff and karting around families. I think his ideas are too much, too soon. |
Posted 05-22-2009 at 01:43 PM by SCCAGT
Updated 05-22-2009 at 01:48 PM by SCCAGT |
|
|
The 87 Skylark was a new model year, with an all electronic dash. Are cars really designed 10 years before they get to market? The Intrepid was a new model year, too, and they still use that 2.7L engine, so I can't believe that car was designed over 10 years before it came out.
I'm sure there is a whole lot going on that I'm not privy to, but it seems like we are going backwards while Obama wants to lurch forwards. I just don't see it happening, except that Hyundai said they will be able to meet the deadline. That will be interesting. |
|
Posted 05-27-2009 at 10:08 PM by Christopher
|
Total Trackbacks 0
Trackbacks
Recent Blog Entries by Christopher
- Chris' Reaction to Professor Gates (07-28-2009)
- Gun Safety (07-26-2009)
- Be on the Lookout for Motorcycles (07-25-2009)
- A Note on Health Care Reform (07-25-2009)
- Lobbying Congress on Health Care (06-12-2009)
