http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/23/Auto...nomy/index.htm

 

funny, I just read in my local paper this past weekend that the auto lobby had made the government back off on SUV & light truck mpg requirements. They don't say anything here except, wait for the release. I'm waiting........

 

According to CNN, the rules work by dividing SUV and light trucks into six classes by weight and type. So, the car companies have to improve the fuel economy of an 5 ton SUV, but they could increase its weight to 10 tons and have an easier target The fleet average could actually get worse if SUVs continue to increase in weight.
I've also heard what Kate says, that the fuel economy standards were not imposed; perhaps the very largest SUVs and "light" trucks aren't covered by this.
--Walter
PS I've decided that an occasional commute in an Abrams Tank would get me more respect on the road than my Civic. Especially when you bring the cannon to bear on an giant pickup truck's rear window.

 

Someone needs to invent a little holographic projector that makes your car appear as if it's a tank. That would be really sweet.

 

Schwa said about using an Abrams tank on the road:
Erick, that's brilliant!!! Holographic projection would have no aerodynamic drag.
On the other hand, I wonder if steel treads qualify as low rolling resistance (have to resist the temptation to roll over SUVs, it increases the rolling resistance.
--Walter

 

Here's the one pertinent paragraph from the article:

The rules will break the light truck segment into six different categories based on weight and vehicle type, with the smallest vehicles forced to get better mileage than larger ones. The current rules consider the fuel economy of the entire fleet as a whole.

Congratulations! Now we have the "Fuel Efficient Truck" initiative, to join The "Healthy Forests" initiative, and the "Clear Skies" initiative...

CAFE just got eviscerated again.

Now you've removed all incentive to build anything but the biggest behemoths on the road, and 80% or more that I see are carrying a driver alone, and no cargo. But, hey - "look at me in my new F-you Mobile..."

Schadenfreude...

 

Hi All:

___A lot of individuals here want CAFÉ’ like regulation where I say let the free market run its course. Just let it go and the marketplace will take care of itself. Ford, GM, and Chrysler are losing money hand over fist because they are loaded with gas sucking behemoths which not only include SUV’s but large P/U’s as well. The American public is looking or will be looking in a new direction after a few more months of the $50.00 - $100.00 fill ups. You can already see it happening at the pumps, out on the interstates, and even in various forums around the net. Take a quick look through the Ford Truck Enthusiast Forums - General Automotive Discussion at the following: http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/fo...play.php?f=135

___Did anyone notice the number of threads dealing with FE? The pocket book will change ones future automobile choice, not your or my wishes unfortunately …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

 

I won't disagree on that one....Just returned from a 4-day trip to Colorado. I had no less than five substantial inquiries about hybrids - referred them to www.greenhybrid.com during the conversation.

Want to thank the Colorado Insighter that recently posted about driving from Denver to Vail(?) on I70. Tried that last Saturday and found out my 5-speed Insight can do 65mph, albeit almost red-lining. Extended climbs are just bad for the IMA engines, but my 1988 Honda CRX HF could not even do 50mph.

By the capital building in Denver, was following a utility truck - "xcel energy"

 

In inflation-adjusted terms, the cost of gasoline is no worse than it was in 1980. People complain about the increased cost lately, but it's not a serious hardship for most. What will change people's habits is a shortage of gasoline like in 1973, where no amount of money could buy the gas you needed. Remember the rush to efficient cars then? That would be market forces at work, but that's not the case here. Let gas reach $5-6 a gallon, then the market may force a change.

Problem is, individuals don't directly pay the external costs, or "externalities" of oil consumption, so they have little incentive to change their habits as long as the can personally afford gas. Governments pay these costs (overseas bases, military operations, vulnerability to oil-rich but unsavory countries, etc.). This buffer between the true cost and consumer cost is a market failure, and the government has a duty to step in. A higher CAFE standard is a completely reasonable move to reduce these externalities.

Mike