Spam: a possible CAFE revision

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id &article_id737
Please help me understand what is meant by " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ?
Does it mean that low displacement cars will be forced to achive 30 mpg average while Ferrari trucksters could get away with 14? Or does it mean that 27.6 mpg would have to be achieved by the trucksters vs. current 21?
Not an abstract question considering an already shitty gear ratios and throttle response on my 2005 Impreza. (Thank you Subaru, thank you very much).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Body Roll wrote:

it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which we can drive a fleet of hummers".
the real laugh in that cite is "revise the annual increase if (the NHTSA) concludes that the target cannot be reached with current technology or without compromising safety.", i.e. another fud [fear, uncertainty, doubt] loophole for suv's, just in case the first is questioned.
this "safe" label that's been attached to suv's is one of the most amazing triumphs of shamelessly untruthful marketing propaganda since microsoft convinced tech managers that win95 didn't need dos to boot. there's nothing "safe" about a 4 ton vehicle flipping over due to fundamental instability problems, killing it's occupants as its roof collapses, then either killing the occupants of 3 more cars or killing occupants of a local school as it blasts its way through a classroom wall.

with the amount of detroit lobbying dollars floating about at the moment, particularly given the junk bond status of those companies and their bleating for government [read: "taxpayer"] support, i think you can expect a substantial amount of, er, "slack" to be cut to the interested parties. anything to avoid fuel efficiency or investment in technology. it's the same b.s. as when detroit kicked and screamed over california's clean air legislation - an absolute disgrace, particularly when it turns out to have been a substantial benefit and have provided and impetus for technology that we have then been able to export around the globe.

that's a whole different issue...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That part has been in effect for a long time, possibly since the beginning. The various weight classes establish entire sets of standards, and that is what has given rise to SUVs. The Ford Excursion explicitly took advantage of the 8000 lb GVWR class, and they made no excuses for it.
There is method to the madness, of course. A business or individual that needs to haul large loads should have a vehicle that isn't in the same class as a passenger car. To have a company's CAFE governed by one set of standards would be devastating to Mack or Kenworth.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

it's not method, it's fraud. an suv is not a tractor. and suv's can conform to both emissions and consumption standards - look at toyota's fleet. look at all the commercial vehicles in europe.

don't agree. these guys should have been focused on this stuff 30 years ago. and they should have had an ongoing program of development. all these loopholes are for is to allow automakers to continue to produce gas guzzlers, and to avoid the tiresome task of catching up with their european and japanese competitors. it's unbelievably stupid. there was a time when we were exporting emissions and efficiency technology. but we don't any more, and that's because someone in detroit figured out that money invested in lobbying for loopholes today yielded greater short term returns than investing in technology for tomorrow. well, it's time to fix that mess. invest in technology. lead the world. reduce our economic dependence on a bunch of rag heads. is that unamerican?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what you're saying is that the companies that make Class 8 trucks should comply with the same CAFE standards as the companies that make cars?
Strangely enough, the heavy-truck companies are advancing faster than the car companies on the fuel economy front. A few years ago, Freightliner built trucks that got 6mpg. Now they build trucks that get 8mpg. That's pretty damn impressive--a 33 percent increase in fuel economy. That's like going from 30mpg to 40mpg. And new Freightliners have larger engines than the old ones did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Mowreader wrote:

clearly, you're not going to get the same fuel economy out of a 30 ton big rig as you are a 2000lb car. but, and this is important, there's absolutely no reason not to pursue economy improvements. example: aerodynamics, while not a huge contributor to truck fuel consumption, nevertheless make a difference, especially when you look at fuel consumption on a national basis. peterbilt? joke. freightliner? they're hardly up to the same standards as the european truck fleet, but at least they're making some effort.

q: who owns freightliner? a: daimlerchrysler.
q: where does their improved consumption technology come from? a: the europeans.
q: why? a: because their environmental legislation has created massive incentive to push the technology.
so, what are /we/ doing to get /our/ act together? i'm no tree hugger and i'm definitely no fan of government regulation, but i gotta say, anything that gets our technological ass back into gear, even if it's b.s. from the epa, is a good thing. it's like the faa: completely unnecessary bureaucracy from a business/technology viewpoint, but they unarguably keep the players up to the game and that's a good thing for anyone that doesn't want to be alligator food in a swamp in florida courtesy of companies like valuejet. correspondingly, the epa are a giant pita, but if they save us even one barrel of oil from festering nightmares like the middle east, nigeria, etc., i say bring their b.s. on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:02:26 -0700, "Michael Pardee"

What is needed is to re-classify what are cars and what are trucks and then register and regulate them accordingly. SUVs should be classified as cars and forced to meet car safety standards (e.g. bumper height). There could be an EPA large car standard along the lines of: at least 6 passenger and less than 220 horsepower. Cars fitting this description would have a lower CAFE standard than regular cars. (The 220 horsepower limit would prevent abuse of this standard.)
For trucks: Light trucks (i.e. three-passenger pickups and vans less than 8,000 GVWR) would have to meet milage standards based on load capacity. The standard would be set to ensure that the vehicles perform as trucks, meaning that the hp-limited top speed will probably not exceed 100 mph. Fast truck will be an oxymoron.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Or the less dramatic but far more frequent equivalent; backing over them one at a time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.