Do Politicians Know Anything About Cars?

We don’t like to get political, but it appears U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is going to introduce a bill today that would require automakers to raise fuel economy standards by 4% a year. That would bring the average fleet mileage to 35 mpg by 2018. While we like the idea of 35 mpg by 2018, making the 4% annual increase a law seems a bit extreme, and NHTSA itself says it will cost manufacturers more than $100 billion. Currently, the average is 27.5 mpg for cars — 22.5 mpg for trucks — and everyone will probably agree it should be higher, but isn’t the shift away from large SUVs to more efficient vehicles already happening due to economic factors? 

Will carmakers be able to keep up with the annual increase? Will customers cringe when new cars are no longer more powerful than the year before? Will new technology come along that blows past the 35 mpg figure before 2018, making the added costs now an unnecessary hardship?

[Bill Raises Fuel Standards 4% Yearly, The Detroit News]

Comments

c’mon some people need big cars and trucks
(notice that D before Mass)

lol

so many questions dave!

1. yes, the at least know that cars run on gas.
2. manufacturers _can_ build cars to meet the standards. they have to do some work to make the marketable.
3. customers will do what they always do. in the end they will consume. successful companies will offer things customers want.
4. it's unlikely someone is going to whip out the alien technology fix. if companies must produce efficient vehicles to survive, they will invest the money to do so, or fail.

here's the interesting question: is this the right thing to do?

i think it's great we've gotten as far as we have trying new ways to power cars, but i want to see a lot more. you can debate the environmental issues, but why waste all that energy. i want to see innovation in automobiles.

Just as much as I hate this idea, I understand and respect it. There really is no need for big trucks like Ford 150's, they are just a threat to other drivers. Ban them first, and go from there.

Wow, that's nearly a 54% increase over ten years. Whether or not it's a good idea I can't imagine congress passing anything nearly this strict. I think it would hurt US automakers a lot more than foreign ones.

Actually, I think this is a BRILLIANT idea (seriously). No, I'm NOT a democrat, and not a fan of this party either. And yes, I live in Califonria. But California is a perfect example of what this senator is saying: if there was no strict rules on emission in CA back in the 90's, I don't think we'll see these many Hybrids (models/sales) on the streets today, not to mention the conservation of petroleum products and the environments. Ultimately, if the law will pass, it'll probably be taken down after a few years, but at least this is that PUSH the car manufacturers need to produce more environmental friendly vehicles. Furthermore, car prices will be pushed "up," and guess what's gonna happen? More people can't afford the big cars, and have to move to the compact side vehicles, or even public transportation...which are more gas efficient. Think of Europe and Asia nowadays! People over there are very fuel efficient conscious, and have very good public trasnportation system, which is what people here need to change their minds to right now!

DONT NEED F150'S WHARE DO YOU LIVE!!! they are the best trucks and what will farmers and contractors drive!

Matt's response is the EXACT mentality that I was talking 'bou! Notice that US isn't the ONLY country that has farmers and contractors, but yet US seems to be the ONLY...well, including Canada too...the 2 countries that really need the big gas guzzling pick up trucks. In various parts of the world, they have smaller, more fuel efficient (or diesel) pickups/utility vehicles for the same type of jobs, yet their farmer outputs are not any lower than here in N. America. I mean, for Pete's sake, do we really need the 5700cc engine, or even the whatever size V8 engines to do the job? More than 95% of the time, trucks are being used not for their purposes, but for "just 'coz I wanna..."

P.S. Ford's F-150 NOT really the best truck anymore - it has been surpassed long time ago by Nissan Titans, and recently by GM & Toyota too.

Wow Matt, 2 logical fallacies in only about a dozen words.
1) Quit straw-maning. Big cars and trucks will still be completely available, this proposal would not eliminate them. The manufacturers would just be required to raise the FLEET AVERAGE. That means the trucks and large cars would need to get a little more fuel efficient themselves (4% of 18-20mpg is still less than a 1mpg increase per year), they'd have to sell a few additional smaller vehicles, or they'd need to make the other vehicles they sell more efficient.
2) Don't use ad hominem attacks. Rather than attacking the individual making the statement, attack the statement itself, otherwise it makes it look like you can't attack the statement itself because it's rock solid. Or are you trying to say that only democrats care about saving people money at the pump, reducing dependence on foreign oil, and helping preserve the environment?

Please, try to raise the level of discourse on this forum to a more intellegent level, and people might start to take you seriously.

Politicians know how to do two things, 1. Suck money from the taxpayers, 2. Deceive the public. Did you know that over 95% of our Senators are millionaires? Yeah, they know all about the common Joe...

The one thing politicians do know about cars is that they are provided for FREE by taxpayers.

The power thing shouldn't be an issue unless you need the power. For commuting most people can get by with 200 or less HP I always have and with that you can get pretty damn good MPG especially with hybrid tech. Otherwise the only reason for more power would be trucks (for work) and sports cars driven for fun on weekends etc.

OK, a Ford 150 ban was an exaggeration, but I still think they are too big. What's wrong with the ranger, or nissan's frontier? Also like Amuro ray wrote, how can farms in the rest of the world function perfectly without large pick up's? And how many independent farmers remains in the us today?

ok look I’m not trying to be ridicules but i know what I’m taking about a ranger could not carry 6000lbs of cement and you could never get 30mpg out of a big truck with a V8 and of the Nissan better why is the F-150 still the best selling vehicle :-)

see the thing is, no one is buying small trucks anymore. They either need the power and towing of a big one or they go buy something else entirely like a small suv.
The point is we're gonna need heavy duty trucks and full size trucks for the next few decades at least. Besides farmers, construction workers etc you have ranchers, horse folks with trailers, boaters etc etc. They also buy the big diesel engines as well so clean diesel technology should help there with pollution if not gas dependency.

Yes, it is true that farmers, ranchers, contractors, and etc. need large trucks for everyday jobs. However, a good majority of the large trucks sold are NOT used for those purposes, but rather for commuting and everyday light-duty errands (trips to the home improvement store, etc.) The principal of our local middle school drives an F-150 to school.

Although market demand will eventually force automakers to become more fuel-efficient, I think a bill to raise fuel efficiency would be nice.

95% of Senators are millionaires? Where'd you find that?

Will carmakers be able to keep up with the increase? - Definitely, but at cost to their profits (trucks have higher profit margins)

Will customers cringe when new cars are no longer more powerful than the year before? - Of course, but since all cars will be slightly less powerful, and they still need to buy cars, this will probably not affect the market much.

Will new technology come along that blows past the 35 mpg figure before 2018, making the added costs now an unnecessary hardship? - Probably, as technology can improve a lot over 11 years.

JD-Yes it is very true that you don't even need 200 hp for everyday errands and commuting. Even a V6 Camry is overpowered. (I mean, what commuter needs 0-60 in 7 secs?)

Although we do need large trucks, we don't need 2 million/year of them. People need to get the idea that overpowered vehicles are simply a waste of gas. We do need to be more like Europe, where a station wagon is the largest vehicle you are likely to see on any given day.

Maybe we should offer incentives instead of mandates. For example, tax breaks or credits for manufacturers who accomplish a fleet goal of 4%.
Mandating innovation seldom works, but response to incentives could be huge. Then, just maybe, a desirable small car from an American manufacturer could be made. Or we might stop seeing $6,000 rebates on overpowered, overweight trucks.

You need to do just one thing to force manufacturers to produce more efficient cars and consumers to buy them - raise the price of the gasoline. $6 gas anyone?
Seriously, in Europe gas is way more expensive than in the US. As a consequence, you don't see too many big SUVs or trucks (that drink gallons per mile) over there. If efficiency is what you are looking for, leave it to the economic factors. Laws are only made to be broken...

broken like my ass

I'm actually realy excited by Displacement on Demand technology, it's a shame that it's only available on so few vehicles (Honda ONLY offers it on TWO trim levels of the Odessey even though a simmilar engine is in the Accord and Pilot) And GM offers it on V-8 cars and trucks but the engines are so big the savings are very minor.

If anyone's listening, I'd like a 3.6L-4.0L V-8 with cam phasing, DoD, >80hp/liter that can eke out 24mpg on a long flat highway. RWD too!

35 mpg is a pipe dream but my goals are much more realistic.