Not intended as a political post. But it does seem a significant development for the American automotive industry. Thoughts?
gbergan
Who knows what the future holds. On thing is sure, most cars today are safer than any produced 50 years ago. I get the concept of a strong
car can save lives, but more have been saved by lap and shoulder belts, crush zones, air bags etc. You can argue the fuel efficiency is not that
much better on some vehicles.
In my area I shutter when I see kids with their 4 wheelers zipping down the highway at top speed. No belts, no helmet and no protection
of any kind. No turn signals and most no headlights.
car can save lives, but more have been saved by lap and shoulder belts, crush zones, air bags etc. You can argue the fuel efficiency is not that
much better on some vehicles.
In my area I shutter when I see kids with their 4 wheelers zipping down the highway at top speed. No belts, no helmet and no protection
of any kind. No turn signals and most no headlights.
The federal government can abolish the CAFE standards but that does not prevent states from enacting their own standards. California in particular is the leader in pushing the envelope.
But as an exercise, let's assume the $6000 cost per vehicle is accurate. I don't know if it is or not but it sounds about right
In the 1950's average fuel economy was 14.2 mpg That 14.2 number fluctuated slightly from in the 60's and was 14.3 mpg in 1973. From 1973 until today that number has steadily risen. The 2026 CAFE standard for cars is 55 mpg. Now some cars may only get 30 mpg, some get in the high 50's but those are hybrids. So let's also assume that for the sake of argument that neither of us will ever buy a hybrid.
Gas prices last month averaged $3.15 per gallon nationwide. If you or I were to put 10k miles on a car that gets 14 mpg, the gallons burned per year would be 714 gallons. On a car that gets 30 mpg, the total gallons burned is 333 gallons. The more efficient vehicle burns 381 gallons less per year. If fuel is 3.15 per gallon, that's a $1,200 savings in fuel per year. The break even point occurs after 5 years at 10k miles driven per year, or 1 year if driven 50k per year.
For those that own a hybrid getting 55 mpg, the fuel burn for 10k miles is 181 gallons, which is 533 gallons less than the 14 mpg vehicle being driven 10k miles. The hybrid gets that payback in 3.5 years.
I distinctly remember lamenting with my friends in the late 70's about the death of performance cars. My thinking was that the CAFE regulations, the EPA and catalytic converters were the beginning of the end. After all, a 69 GTO could do the 1/4 mile in the high 13's. The 1981 corvette, on the other hand, could, I think, manage a 17 second 1/4 mile.
The thing is that I was wrong. ECU's better engine controls, turbochargers, fuel injection and the drive for efficiency made for better cars. The car companies also stepped up toe the plate and offered performance with better economy and also made cars far safer.
My point here is this. I do not equate CAFE regulations with performance. Ditto for EPA regulations. And along those same lines, getting 50+ mpg doesn't lower my standard of living, driving a vehicle that gets 20 mpg does. Just my 2 cents worth.
Here's mpg by year:
But as an exercise, let's assume the $6000 cost per vehicle is accurate. I don't know if it is or not but it sounds about right
In the 1950's average fuel economy was 14.2 mpg That 14.2 number fluctuated slightly from in the 60's and was 14.3 mpg in 1973. From 1973 until today that number has steadily risen. The 2026 CAFE standard for cars is 55 mpg. Now some cars may only get 30 mpg, some get in the high 50's but those are hybrids. So let's also assume that for the sake of argument that neither of us will ever buy a hybrid.
Gas prices last month averaged $3.15 per gallon nationwide. If you or I were to put 10k miles on a car that gets 14 mpg, the gallons burned per year would be 714 gallons. On a car that gets 30 mpg, the total gallons burned is 333 gallons. The more efficient vehicle burns 381 gallons less per year. If fuel is 3.15 per gallon, that's a $1,200 savings in fuel per year. The break even point occurs after 5 years at 10k miles driven per year, or 1 year if driven 50k per year.
For those that own a hybrid getting 55 mpg, the fuel burn for 10k miles is 181 gallons, which is 533 gallons less than the 14 mpg vehicle being driven 10k miles. The hybrid gets that payback in 3.5 years.
I distinctly remember lamenting with my friends in the late 70's about the death of performance cars. My thinking was that the CAFE regulations, the EPA and catalytic converters were the beginning of the end. After all, a 69 GTO could do the 1/4 mile in the high 13's. The 1981 corvette, on the other hand, could, I think, manage a 17 second 1/4 mile.
The thing is that I was wrong. ECU's better engine controls, turbochargers, fuel injection and the drive for efficiency made for better cars. The car companies also stepped up toe the plate and offered performance with better economy and also made cars far safer.
My point here is this. I do not equate CAFE regulations with performance. Ditto for EPA regulations. And along those same lines, getting 50+ mpg doesn't lower my standard of living, driving a vehicle that gets 20 mpg does. Just my 2 cents worth.
Here's mpg by year:
I don't see cars becoming less efficient on balance but I can see car companies offering subscription services to unlock certain performance metrics because they can.
I would add that CAFE standards are not only about vehicle efficiency, but about pollution too.
Less gasoline burned = fewer particulates in the air, which equals better air quality for everyone. The dramatic reduction in LA's smog is a prime example of this (along with catalytic converters)
Less gasoline burned = fewer particulates in the air, which equals better air quality for everyone. The dramatic reduction in LA's smog is a prime example of this (along with catalytic converters)
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
