Article writer is at least better at math than the US congress.

pageNumber=1 (new window)

Here's a link to page 1 of the article for those who wondered where the hell it was when they first went to it. Way to go, subby!

Of course, you're going to get that mileage as quoted. As long as you are driving on a treadmill in the testing lab.

In other news, subby thinks articles should start on page 2.

In other news, subby is cherry picking quotes and trying to compare apples to oranges

Wow.

I'm not even sure what the point of saying "less than a 1 MPG increase" was, even if it hadn't been wrong. Let's say that the EPA raised standards from 27.5 to 28.4... that's still over a 3% increase in fuel efficiency, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Does the author feel that the EPA should have mandated eleventy-hundred MPG? Or does he feel that MPG regulation is a waste of time? Either way, his attempt to minimize the new regulation is ridiculous.

From the article:
The modest increase of less than 1 mile per gallon for the fleet over current targets

It appears that subby missed the fact that they are further increasingly an already increasing standard. Subby also chose to only use the numbers for cars, whereas the standard is averaged across the company's entire line.

From the article:

The new standards would save nearly 900 million gallons of fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 8.3 million metric tons over the lifetime of model year 2011 vehicles, the Transportation Department said.

U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption
9,286,000 barrels/day (390 million gallons/day)
From US EIA (new window)

So over the lifetime of the 2011 vehicles the new standards save less than 3 days of fuel consumption in the US.

/Just sayin'

indylaw:
Does the author feel that the EPA should have mandated eleventy-hundred MPG? Or does he feel that MPG regulation is a waste of time? Either way, his attempt to minimize the new regulation is ridiculous.


You have to admit, Eleventy-hundred MPG would be a HUGE improvement

indylaw: Wow.

I'm not even sure what the point of saying "less than a 1 MPG increase" was, even if it hadn't been wrong. Let's say that the EPA raised standards from 27.5 to 28.4... that's still over a 3% increase in fuel efficiency, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Does the author feel that the EPA should have mandated eleventy-hundred MPG? Or does he feel that MPG regulation is a waste of time? Either way, his attempt to minimize the new regulation is ridiculous.

The author of TFA is a douchenozzle. You can just tell by reading.

And also: Detroit's efforts to revamp its fleet include the Ford Fusion hybrid sedan, due in showrooms this spring, that gets 41 mpg/city.

41 CITY??? On a Ford? Holy Crap! Either that was the highway estimate or maybe the Big Three actually DO stand a chance after all.

Congress has required that the U.S. fleet of cars and light trucks average 35 mpg by 2020, a 40 percent increase over today's performance.

why can't they get that mileage now? why are these increases always so gradual? We need those standards like yesterday. By then demand will have increased by at least that amount, so this legislation basically just keeps pace with demand.

Why not just build more Geo metros (mine got 55mpg) or, perhaps, the 1985 Honda Civic, which got 48mpg?

And SUVs have never gotten more than 20mpg. I didn't even think there WERE standards for them...

It's Sunday. There can be no math.

Mongo cut wood: Congress has required that the U.S. fleet of cars and light trucks average 35 mpg by 2020, a 40 percent increase over today's performance.

why can't they get that mileage now? why are these increases always so gradual? We need those standards like yesterday. By then demand will have increased by at least that amount, so this legislation basically just keeps pace with demand.

Why can't you just go buy a car that gets 35 mpg now? Why do you need a change in the laws for that?

indylaw: Wow.

I'm not even sure what the point of saying "less than a 1 MPG increase" was, even if it hadn't been wrong. Let's say that the EPA raised standards from 27.5 to 28.4... that's still over a 3% increase in fuel efficiency, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Does the author feel that the EPA should have mandated eleventy-hundred MPG? Or does he feel that MPG regulation is a waste of time? Either way, his attempt to minimize the new regulation is ridiculous.

Your reading it wrong. It makes perfect sense to me, but I've worked with journalists. I know what is considered a logical thought in their head.

And I think there is a AP style rule on when to use percentages versus comparative numbers.

You're looking for bias where there is none. You just haven't put yourself in "journalist" mode.

Also the submitter fails at reading. The wording is fine, but the didn't state what CAFE targets had been set for 2011 by Bush.

OK, responding to myself. According to Wiki, (pops) "The EPA has now rated the fuel economy for the 2010 Fusion hybrid at 41 mpg city, 36 mpg highway. The Fusion Hybrid qualifies for a hybrid tax credit of $3,400, subject to phase out. This model gets the best fuel economy of any mid-size sedan, placing it ahead of the Toyota Camry Hybrid."

Pretty darn good.

Came for the subby reading-comprehension-failure bashing, leaving satisfied.

/Subby's as good as NPR when it comes to adding a little personal bias to a story

HMS_Blinkin: OK, responding to myself. According to Wiki, (pops) "The EPA has now rated the fuel economy for the 2010 Fusion hybrid at 41 mpg city, 36 mpg highway. The Fusion Hybrid qualifies for a hybrid tax credit of $3,400, subject to phase out. This model gets the best fuel economy of any mid-size sedan, placing it ahead of the Toyota Camry Hybrid."

Pretty darn good.

Still waiting on diesel hybrids. Or just a plain old diesel in a small car. Seems like they are all VW, or produced in terribly limited quantities.

roy_g_biv: Why can't you just go buy a car that gets 35 mpg now? Why do you need a change in the laws for that?
=====================================

This!

Cobalt and Yaris both get mid-30s (Yaris is 37, Cobalt is 33 IIRC) and are both cheap as balls.

Buy it!

Mongo cut wood: why can't they get that mileage now? why are these increases always so gradual? We need those standards like yesterday.

OK.
Give up your stereo/DVD, nav system, airbags, crumple zones, A/C, deep pile carpeting, etc, etc.

All those things weigh. Weight costs MPG.

/oh, and put down that cheeseburger

A hybrid that only gets 41 MPG is a complete waste. There is so much complexity in those cars it's not funny. More stuff to break, more stuff to wear out (eg. batteries). You can get straight gas or diesel vehicles that get at least that much MPG and they will last a lot longer.

Personally I wouldn't even consider an electric vehicle unless it's getting 60+ MPG and even then I would prefer all or mostly electric (eg. plug-in hybrid) instead of the current crappy designs that use a gas drive-train with electric motors.

CAFE's been a joke for decades. Detroit managed to turn it from a regulatory structure into a loop hole big enough to drive millions of light trucks and SUVs through. Had the standard been properly raised and enforced, the fleet average would moving toward 40 mpg instead of 30 mpg by now. Instead we have millions of overweight trucks and SUVs tearing up the roads, using up gas, and posing progressively higher safety risks to the public as they age.

Detroit has spent so much time biatching about regulations instead of mobilizing their enormous financial muscle to get vendors to produce cheaper stability control systems, batteries, and fuel injection systems. It's much easier to take the anti-regulation rhetoric seriously when their business isn't set up for 40 years ago.

I have no idea why they would be slowing down on raising CAFE when now is the perfect time to force the domestics to come back to reality, and plan accordingly.

How hard do you think it would be to explain to them that mileage/guzzle is a curve...?

U.S. mileage standards for cars up for first time

Only if you haven't lived very long.

YouPeopleAreCrazy:
All those things weight. Weight costs MPG in city driving.

FTFY

/~.1 mpg per 100 lbs. @60mph

Joce678: How hard do you think it would be to explain to them that mileage/guzzle is a curve...?

I hope you're joking. It's linear. Your graph only looks like a curve because the units are not scaled the same on both axes.

Consider at 60 MPG you use exactly half the gas you do at 30 MPG.

Joce678: How hard do you think it would be to explain to them that mileage/guzzle is a curve...?

Not much harder than getting the public to go from 800 gallons/year to 400 gallons/year on your handy chart there.

gt4pete: Had the standard been properly raised and enforced, the fleet average would moving toward 40 mpg instead of 30 mpg by now. Instead we have millions of overweight trucks and SUVs tearing up the roads, using up gas, and posing progressively higher safety risks to the public as they age.

Well, then maybe you and those other people shouldn't have bought them.

/You did say "we".

vodka: Joce678: How hard do you think it would be to explain to them that mileage/guzzle is a curve...?

I hope you're joking. It's linear. Your graph only looks like a curve because the units are not scaled the same on both axes.

Consider at 60 MPG you use exactly half the gas you do at 30 MPG.

Indeed, so it is exponential, and therefore a curve. Anyway, a curve does not stretch into a line with equal scale, in fact you have to make the scale logarithmic in order to do so.

gt4pete: Detroit has spent so much time biatching about regulations instead of mobilizing their enormous financial muscle to get vendors to produce cheaper stability control systems, batteries, and fuel injection systems.


You've obviously never worked for an automaker or supplier. Squeezing vendors is a HUGE part of what they do.

Poorly written article.

FTA: "The modest increase of less than 1 mile per gallon for the fleet over current targets... "

I am assuming that the current target for 2011 was between 31.3 and 32.1 MPG.

YouPeopleAreCrazy Quote 2009-03-29 01:15:19 PM
Mongo cut wood: why can't they get that mileage now? why are these increases always so gradual? We need those standards like yesterday.

OK.
Give up your stereo/DVD, nav system, airbags, crumple zones, A/C, deep pile carpeting, etc, etc.

All those things weigh. Weight costs MPG.

/oh, and put down that cheeseburger

Chevy Metro FTW!!!

Roy_G_Biv: gt4pete: Detroit has spent so much time biatching about regulations instead of mobilizing their enormous financial muscle to get vendors to produce cheaper stability control systems, batteries, and fuel injection systems.


You've obviously never worked for an automaker or supplier. Squeezing vendors is a HUGE part of what they do.

It's about priorities. Let's develop 10 different interior layouts for radios, seats, and climate control, but barely consider even 1 stability control system. What they spend time asking their vendors to develop and produce shows they aren't seriously engaged in the future of their industry.

The systems would be cheaper had they made them a priority when other serious automakers did. Instead, they spent time whining about how consumers drive the market, all while dropping millions marketing the garbage they produced.

I'm sure they do squeeze their vendors, but it doesn't take an industry insider to know they've chronically missed the big picture in this area.

Also, I said "we" because I have to share the road with them, and they affect the price of the gas that I also have to buy.

And I don't own a truck or SUV, so perhaps you should spend some time putting words in your own mouth and stay away from mine.

Just keep the small economy car of your choice in good shape and drive that for the majority of your travel. Anything that keeps profit out of oil company hands is a good thing.

bigred06: vodka: Joce678: How hard do you think it would be to explain to them that mileage/guzzle is a curve...?

I hope you're joking. It's linear. Your graph only looks like a curve because the units are not scaled the same on both axes.

Consider at 60 MPG you use exactly half the gas you do at 30 MPG.

Indeed, so it is exponential, and therefore a curve. Anyway, a curve does not stretch into a line with equal scale, in fact you have to make the scale logarithmic in order to do so.

What?

Miles per Gallon, or MPG, is Miles/Gallon. This is a linear relationship.

Riotcow: bigred06: vodka: Joce678: How hard do you think it would be to explain to them that mileage/guzzle is a curve...?

I hope you're joking. It's linear. Your graph only looks like a curve because the units are not scaled the same on both axes.

Consider at 60 MPG you use exactly half the gas you do at 30 MPG.

Indeed, so it is exponential, and therefore a curve. Anyway, a curve does not stretch into a line with equal scale, in fact you have to make the scale logarithmic in order to do so.

What?

Miles per Gallon, or MPG, is Miles/Gallon. This is a linear relationship.

But the graph is not Miles per Gallon, it is Gallons per Miles/Gallon. So if you relate them the same way as Miles per Gallon, you could consider the relationship to be Gallons/(Miles/Gallon), which equals (Gallons^2)/Mile. Exponential. Would you like me to show my work?

gt4pete: YouPeopleAreCrazy:
All those things weight. Weight costs MPG in city driving.

FTFY

/~.1 mpg per 100 lbs. @60mph

I should be more clear about this, your point that saving weight is generally excellent. Multiple studies have found that safety benefits stop at just under 4,000 lbs, although I wonder if that number would be lower if there were fewer 3 ton vehicles being used as passenger cars. The issue is that saving weight doesn't have a dramatic effect on distances other than how it's tied into a crappy drag coefficient. There are also issues of pavement wear though.

The graph is accurate, but it also makes the case that there are still significant gains to be made by having a fleet that averages about 40 mpg. So yes, if CAFE hits 60 mpg, that would be stupid. But let's at least get to the point on the graph where the run even comes close to beating the drop.

HMS_Blinkin: maybe the Big Three actually DO stand a chance after all

Ford and GM maybe; I don't think Chrysler makes it through the year.

/Wouldn't be the first company Bob Nardelli ruined.

CAFE standards are a joke. If you really want to get more efficient cars on the road, raise the gas tax (and lower some other tax so that people still have about the same amount of money.) CAFE standards only encourage car companies to produce a car that squeaks passed the regulation. Gas taxes encourage most people to buy the most efficient cars in the fleet, and encourages car pooling (the fastest way to double passenger miles per gallon). Sure, a few rich brats will still buy gas guzzlers, but they will pay a lot more tax for their choice and since you are using it to offset some other tax, people who can't afford to drive don't pay the tax at all (since publicly run bus companies don't have to pay the tax.)

MPG....WTF!!!

MPH is all I look at when buying a car. Peak Oil is a MYTH...deal with it!

HMS_Blinkin: indylaw: Wow.

I'm not even sure what the point of saying "less than a 1 MPG increase" was, even if it hadn't been wrong. Let's say that the EPA raised standards from 27.5 to 28.4... that's still over a 3% increase in fuel efficiency, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Does the author feel that the EPA should have mandated eleventy-hundred MPG? Or does he feel that MPG regulation is a waste of time? Either way, his attempt to minimize the new regulation is ridiculous.

The author of TFA is a douchenozzle. You can just tell by reading.

And also: Detroit's efforts to revamp its fleet include the Ford Fusion hybrid sedan, due in showrooms this spring, that gets 41 mpg/city.

41 CITY??? On a Ford? Holy Crap! Either that was the highway estimate or maybe the Big Three actually DO stand a chance after all.

41 is the City MPG estimate. The Fusion/Milan Hybrids can run on electricity only up to 47 mph. In prolonged city driving it doesn't need gas.

Better standards is good I guess, but the real problem here is the consumer. Americans on average don't give a rats ass how reliant America is on foreign oil, or how much pollution they produce. I really don't understand why I see so many oversized pick-ups and SUVs everywhere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619142118.htm (new window)

"Inspired by debates they had while carpooling in a hybrid car, management professors Richard Larrick and Jack Soll ran a series of experiments showing that the current standard, miles per gallon or mpg, leads consumers to believe that fuel consumption is reduced at an even rate as efficiency improves. People presented with a series of car choices in which fuel efficiency was defined in miles per gallon were not able to easily identify the choice that would result in the greatest gains in fuel efficiency.

For example, most people ranked an improvement from 34 to 50 mpg as saving more gas over 10,000 miles than an improvement from 18 to 28 mpg, even though the latter saves twice as much gas. (Going from 34 to 50 mpg saves 94 gallons; but from 18 to 28 mpg saves 198 gallons).

These mistaken impressions were corrected, however, when participants were presented with fuel efficiency expressed in gallons used per 100 miles rather than mpg. Viewed this way, 18 mpg becomes 5.5 gallons per 100 miles, and 28 mpg is 3.6 gallons per 100 miles -- an $8 difference today."

Just bring back the 1982 Toyota Starlet, the 1975 Honda Civic and the 1978 VW Rabbit Diesel. All got 40 to 50 mpg without breaking a sweat!!

Roy_G_Biv: gt4pete: Detroit has spent so much time biatching about regulations instead of mobilizing their enormous financial muscle to get vendors to produce cheaper stability control systems, batteries, and fuel injection systems.


You've obviously never worked for an automaker or supplier. Squeezing vendors is a HUGE part of what they do.

Squeeze the vendor until they are almost out of business and then wonder why you are having quality issues.