Good news: We will elect someone to rip out these "regulations" before they have to take effect.

Well thats something to ponder . Now anyone can achieve total consciousness ,not just those holier than thou Trustafanarians .

My Dodge Ram already gets better than 5.5mpg

Make a Toyota pickup with a straight front axle, a Turbo diesel, and nothing else and I'll buy three.

Will the 55MPG BoringMobile at least come with a free frogurt?

GoodyearPimp: Good news: We will elect someone to rip out these "regulations" before they have to take effect.

THIS.

It'd also help to get rid of the regulations that require the smaller cars. Unlike the rest of the world, the US is built for large, high-cylinder count cars/vans/trucks. Not blingy 4bangers, hippie hybrids, or glorified golfcarts.

Or you could drive a small diesel car.

I have no power windows, heated seats, or DVD. Man up, you sissies.

But if they don't sell a dvd system, heated seats, with onstar, dual climate control and 40 airbags, how will they sell a basic car starting in the mid 25's?

Meh, my 88 Chevy pickup has none of that, hell, I consider the hydraulic clutch a luxury.

my car has none of those luxuries, and it still only gets 10-14mpg.

Will I still be able to drive with my knee, eating a burger and my cell phone wedged between my ear and shoulder? If so, this is all ok with me.

Yoeman: Meh, my 88 Chevy pickup has none of that, hell, I consider the hydraulic clutch a luxury.

youve got power steering in that thing, right? now thats a luxury.

Stoutpants: Or you could drive a small diesel car.

Exactly, though admittedly to get 50mpg you need a manual since the auto usually gets in the 40's. Had a VW TDI Golf for ~180k miles that I converted to run on WVO but switched to a LEAF (still have my diesel Jeep for long hauls). Diesel FTW

few people realize that 20 years ago we had little econo boxes that got 40+mpg

How could this be you ask? The car was literally an engine, 4 wheels, and a seat. Yeah it wasn't as safe as modern cars, but it was also 1000lbs lighter to start with.

Everyone seems so shocked when even with modern metallurgy, carbon fiber, aerodynamics, direct injection, we are still getting slightly above 30 mpg? Your 15 airbags might have something to do with it.

And it's no coincidence that with the increase in overall safety we have an increasing population of retards and dumb people still alive today making life harder for everyone else.

Bullshiat.

The technology is there, fuel efficiency and power. It's being produced on the individual custom shop level, ironically with GM, GE and off the self stuff. Look it up.

The problem is the lack of regulations forcing the manufactures to fund the capital changes needed to get the production lines and engineering up to snuff for mass production. They're cutting cents off costs, which over millions of cars ends up being millions more in profits. You think they're going to want to spend the sort of capital investments needed to change over manufacturing and engineering towards fuel efficiency?

Michigan can't create battleships, tanks and warplanes right now either; but give them a federal mandate and 6 months and you'd be surprised what would be rolling off the lines.


In the end the billions in fuel costs will pay for themselves. Even a redneck will jump on board getting a F350 with the same torque but getting 2X the gas mileage.

aseras: I get 55mpg in my diesel now. With the ac full blast. heated seats too. Nav plays DVDs as well. Its as big as a suv, its a wagon.. So what's the problem?

Me too...WTF? My VW TDi gets 120-mph=mpg fuel economy for all reasonable speeds. It has power everything and AC that freezes the Sahara. Oh, and it's a 2002 model...the new ones are even more economical.

Seriously, Subby...WTF?

I'll take 19/27 and the ability to go more than 55mph for well over 300 miles, in my 3600lbs of Michigan-built metal from General Motors.

I've yet to see alternatively fueled/powered cars be done in anything but glorified golfcart or expensive exotic. When they start making large yet affordable behemoths with alternative fuels, I'll give them a second thought. Until then, the only intent of these regulations is to merely take away choice of larger yet affordable vehicles that GM & Chrysler want to make (and Ford used to make before they went full Euro on their lineup).

Got air con, electrics, sat nav & stereo and get 50 - 70 mpg depending on traffic and how hard I drive.

You don't need to drop the extras, just drive a smaller vehicle. Preferably a turbo diesel. And if you absolutely need a bigger vehicle for your solo commute, I'm sorry to tell you but it won't make your dick any bigger.

a bit off topic, but sort of correlates...

Saudisrmad (new window)

I disagree. The problem is more that people both want- and NEED- space for passengers and cargo, in a certain volume and configuration, sometimes towing capacity, and a reasonably strong frame.

There are very efficient cross-sections like the Aptera design, above.

A problem, for example, is that the Aptera is not only a two-seater, you better not be going fishing or whatever, because you can't carry much. And that configuration is fixed, so if you ever want to go fishing, you may need to buy another car entirely to do that.

Couldn't it be made larger? Sure, it'll increase drag some, but we can attain a 5-seater with a cargo space and an engine capable of towing, and get far better highway mpg. However, the problem here is, IT'LL BE TOO BIG TO PARK. A sedan is designed around a standard rectangular volume commonly allocated as a garage or parking space. The square layout when seen from above is a consequence of that fact, it seeks to fill the box.

A teardrop-shaped outline, when viewed from above, has to be longer and/or wider to attain similar seating and cargo volume, then it won't "fit" into a standard space. Consequently, when corners are swept back, in order to fit into the same parking space, the available volume inside is unavoidably reduced- because the TARDIS is fictional. Then, it's in danger of being a car people don't want because it will no longer fit their needs.

aseras: I get 55mpg in my diesel now. With the ac full blast. heated seats too. Nav plays DVDs as well. Its as big as a suv, its a wagon.. So what's the problem?

If it's about as big as Ford's C-Max(and said vehicle is called a van), that's one of the problems.

To the world, a SUV can mean a 4-banger station wagon with a large roof and a high wheel clearance.
To the US, a SUV means you get an actual truck body and a high-displacement engine.

and that it's a fat chance people are going to give up plugging in their cellphones or running the air conditioner or cranking NPR.

"Cranking NPR" - That's gotta be a George Carlin "the first person in the world to put those words together in that particular order" comment.

So got that goin' for me.

sethstorm: I'll take 19/27 and the ability to go more than 55mph for well over 300 miles, in my 3600lbs of Michigan-built metal from General Motors.

I've yet to see alternatively fueled/powered cars be done in anything but glorified golfcart or expensive exotic. When they start making large yet affordable behemoths with alternative fuels, I'll give them a second thought. Until then, the only intent of these regulations is to merely take away choice of larger yet affordable vehicles that GM & Chrysler want to make (and Ford used to make before they went full Euro on their lineup).

Guess who owns Chrysler. Go ahead, guess.

Meh. I don't need any of those things.

tzzhc4: Stoutpants: Or you could drive a small diesel car.

Exactly, though admittedly to get 50mpg you need a manual since the auto usually gets in the 40's. Had a VW TDI Golf for ~180k miles that I converted to run on WVO but switched to a LEAF (still have my diesel Jeep for long hauls). Diesel FTW

TDIs ARE indeed excellent, but keep in mind that you can't "score" diesel like this. A gallon of diesel has about 20% more mass, it's about 20% more carbon emission (no emission system changes the mass of CO2 released to be any different from that in the original fuel), and 20% more BTUs of thermal energy stored inside it. Often priced 20% more, too (highly variable). So it's essentially a volumetrically 17% smaller "gallon", which doesn't mean anything to environmental or conservation interests, or even your finances.

So 50mpg in diesel is similar efficiency to 41.7mpg on gasoline, in terms of BTU energy used and CO2 released. Which, don't get me wrong, of course 42mpg is pretty darn good!

Ethanol has the converse situation. It's only about 70% the density, in terms of kg/l, BTU/liter, and carbon/liter.

All this confuses the concept of what "miles per gallon" is. Really, it all smooths out nicely if we change this to "miles per lb (of fuel)". Then, suddenly the energy used and CO2 released are basically constant regardless of fuel type. TDI still scores very well, and rightfully so. In general ethanol and gasoline score about the same in "average" engine technology, and diesel only slightly better. But it affords one primary benefit: it gives credit where credit is due to technologies which are TRULY more efficient.

aseras: I get 55mpg in my diesel now. With the ac full blast. heated seats too. Nav plays DVDs as well. Its as big as a suv, its a wagon.. So what's the problem?

I get the same in my TDI Jetta, it is wonderful. Just think what a hybrid diesel could do; 55mpg would be pretty absurdly easy.

If gasoline were simply taxed such that the marginal price of one gallon actually equaled the marginal cost to society of burning one gallon, we wouldn't need to implement these restrictions.

/gasoline = most subsidized crap of all time = allocative inefficiency = societal clusterfark where people drive 13mpg pickups to the corner store

Tell you what. I'll take the crank windows, poor A/C, regular seats, and no entertainment beyond an FM radio to get 55 mpg. But, here's what I want in return: 0-60 in moike's advice and get all that today for $10k.

I don't see why this would be so difficult. I get 37mpg city, in a 1999 Saturn SL1, with all stock parts, no modifications to the engine or anything. Incidentally, that's a four-door that's bigger than most compacts. I have a radio, I use the air conditioning or the heater when necessary. The thing is, I follow the speed limit and don't drive like a jackass. Manual transmission certainly helps.

Seems to be quite a number of individuals (who seem to be, to a man, trying to compensate for something) bragging about how inefficient their own cars are. I wonder how much they'll brag about ten years from now, if gas prices keep going up.

If you want to take my heated seat, you'll have to pry it from my warm toasty butt!

TyrantII: Bullshiat.

The technology is there, fuel efficiency and power. It's being produced on the individual custom shop level, ironically with GM, GE and off the self stuff. Look it up.

The problem is the lack of regulations forcing the manufactures to fund the capital changes needed to get the production lines and engineering up to snuff for mass production. They're cutting cents off costs, which over millions of cars ends up being millions more in profits. You think they're going to want to spend the sort of capital investments needed to change over manufacturing and engineering towards fuel efficiency?

Michigan can't create battleships, tanks and warplanes right now either; but give them a federal mandate and 6 months and you'd be surprised what would be rolling off the lines.


In the end the billions in fuel costs will pay for themselves. Even a redneck will jump on board getting a F350 with the same torque but getting 2X the gas mileage.

Perhaps the reason why the auto companies and unions are much more receptive to the idea is the colossal failure of Detroit's bet on gas guzzlers. Another reason could be that no one of the auto companies in the American market wants to be the only one to take the risks involved in getting raising the fleet average but they will all go down the tubes by 2025 unless they have a good stable of 50 mpg vehicles by then. So, if the plunge must be taken, let all take the plunge.
\

BMW 320d EfficientDynamics edition 163 hp, 265 lb-ft - 57MPG, available right now - except not in the USA. (Because BMW NA doesn't think it'll sell or some other lame reason) I think it points the way we are going. I'm curious to see what kind of economy a gasoline engined version will bring.

/ Still waiting for the F10 535d Touring (Wagon) to come to the USA
// Owns/Has owned 4 5 series tourings
/// One was an M5

This is easier than you might think.

1. Convert to Imperial Gallons (which gives you an extra 32 oz per gallon)
2. Lose the heavy shiat that American cars lug about
3. Profit

Drove a Model A Benz on the Autobahn a few years ago, at over 160Kph, and used bugger all gas.

Now, is that so hard?

moike: When I turn the key to start it, the fuel pump kicking in sounds like a toilet flushing...

So that's where Ram drivers throw their tampons...

I don't really care about trucks in general, but Rams are about the biggest biatch trucks ever. I'm convinced 95% of them never leave the suburbs and the only reason most people own them is because they think it makes up for the minivan their wife made them buy before.

Where's the damn jet pack?! When I was a boy, they promised me a jet pack, not a little econobox.

Big_Fat_Liar: and that it's a fat chance people are going to give up plugging in their cellphones or running the air conditioner or cranking NPR.

"Cranking NPR" - That's gotta be a George Carlin "the first person in the world to put those words together in that particular order" comment.

I love to drive around with all the windows down and All Things Considered cranked up to 11. It really annoys the guys with the rap booming out of their cars with the bass turned all the way up.

sethstorm: GoodyearPimp: Good news: We will elect someone to rip out these "regulations" before they have to take effect.

THIS.

It'd also help to get rid of the regulations that require the smaller cars. Unlike the rest of the world, the US is built for large, high-cylinder count cars/vans/trucks. Not blingy 4bangers, hippie hybrids, or glorified golfcarts.

What crock of crap. I've never even owned a v-8 engine - and I'm 53 years old. Never needed that much to haul my ego. Every 4 cylinder car and truck I've owned went over 100K miles, and lot's of that on highways at and above posted speeds.

You have been convinced by the detroit marketing deparments that you are not a MAN unless you drive a "Manly", i.e. big and huge and burley and overbuilt, overweight, overpowered and fuel sucking ego hauling machine.

What is sad is that you will wave the flag of freedom and individuality right into your collective graves.

I'm sure your grandchildren will be grateful.

I drove a 1983 Honda Accord 5-spd 1.8L manual in college which got pretty darn good mpg. Looking it up now, EPA says 32 city / 45 hwy. And that thing had 5 seats and a decent trunk and I did have it over 90 mph on occasion.

Looking up the new Hondas:

Year Manf. Model Engine Disp. Fuel Trans. City Highway
2011 Honda Accord 2DR Coupe 4 cylinder 2.4 liter R (A5) Auto 22 33
2011 Honda Accord 2DR Coupe 6 cylinder 3.5 liter R (M6) Manual 17 26
2011 Honda Accord 2DR Coupe 4 cylinder 2.4 liter R (M5) Manual 23 32
2011 Honda Accord 2DR Coupe 6 cylinder 3.5 liter R (S5) Auto 19 29
2011 Honda Accord 4DR Sedan 4 cylinder 2.4 liter R (M5) Manual 23 33
2011 Honda Accord 4DR Sedan 6 cylinder 3.5 liter R (A5) Auto 20 30
2011 Honda Accord 4DR Sedan 4 cylinder 2.4 liter R (A5) Auto 23 34
2011 Honda Accord Crosstour 2WD 6 cylinder 3.5 liter R (A5) Auto 18 27
2011 Honda Accord Crosstour 4WD 6 cylinder 3.5 liter R (A5) Auto 18 26

A key note here though... curb weight of the 1983 Accord was 2300 lbs. The curb weight for a base model 2012 Honda Accord Sedan LX-P is 3,287 lbs, so it's gone up nearly 50%!

You can't blame heated seats and power windows for that. I've done projects with power window motors, they weigh like 2lbs. The wire in a seat heater, and the thicker wire throughout the entire vehicle, is NOT significant on this scale. This looks like increased crash-worthiness AFAIK, probably a larger interior space, and higher engine weight. I think primarily just a beefier frame.

Well I never wrecked mine, I drove it to death, sure. I suspect the bottom line is we're trading mpg for crash-worthiness, and I speculate this process will always grow to fill the void. That is, no one can say they're totally safe to crash, right? Obviously not, nor will they ever be. We simply increased the frame weight until the mpg borders on being intolerably low, and stopped there, not because any specific goal was achieved, but because the crash-worthiness was a stronger govt mandate than mpg, and no mfg ever got sued because it got too low of a mpg. But they do get sued for crash injuries at times.

Need a Dispenser Here: Make a Toyota pickup with a straight front axle, a Turbo diesel, and nothing else and I'll buy three.

You don't want tires???