DOT tightening SUV fuel rules
12-13-2002, 04:37 AM
#1
HC Racer H5
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: KCK
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOT tightening SUV fuel rules
this rule is a comprimise bush hopes to get the earth huggers off his back...it is definitely weak and one of the only env pushes from the white house (bush lock cafe votes, bush increased arcinic drinking water standards, bush reneged on the US's participation in the Kyoto Accord to reduce global warming [US is the biggest contributor to such], and bush's unwillingness to meet with the WTO on environmental issues. His focus is a war as was his fathers...one track minded short term political gain at the expense of our economy and the earth
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Manufacturers of gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles, minivans and light trucks will have to increase the fuel efficiency of their products beginning in the 2005 model year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced Friday.
The final rule proposed by NHTSA requires manufacturers to increase the fuel efficiency of light trucks and sports utility vehicles by a total of 1.5 miles per gallon by model year 2007. The reduction is incremental -- manufacturers must increase the fuel efficiency by a half-mile per gallon beginning in 2005.
This is the first change to fuel economy standards since Congress froze NHTSA's rule making ability in 1996. The freeze was lifted in 2001 as part of President Bush's overall national energy policy.
"The Bush administration is committed to improving vehicle fuel economy while protecting passenger safety and American jobs," said Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta.
The phasing-in of the increase in fuel economy will require the new federal CAFE standard (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) to be 21.0 mpg for model year 2005, 21.6 mpg for model year 2006 and 22.2 mpg for model year 2007. The current standard is 20.7 miles per gallon.
"The proposal to establish new fuel economy standards for light trucks is just one component of the administration's comprehensive approach to improving vehicle fuel economy," said NHTSA Administrator Dr. Jeffrey Runge.
NHTSA estimates the increase in the CAFE standard will cost consumers $14 per vehicle in 2005, $28 in 2006 and $47 in 2007. Factoring in benefits such as lower emissions, fuel savings and energy security, the agency estimates benefits per vehicle to equal $29 in 2005, $66 in 2006 and $100 in 2007. The agency also estimates the change will save approximately 2.5 billion gallons of gasoline over the life of the vehicles.
The CAFE standard for other passenger vehicles will not change. It has held steady at 27.5 mpg since 1990.
'Virtually nothing'
The Sierra Club calls the proposed CAFE standards for the light truck class "weak" and says they will do "virtually nothing to improve fuel economy."
"This increase shortchanges American consumers and national security because automakers already have the technology to raise fuel economy much more significantly," said Daniel Becker, director of Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Programs.
The Sierra Club says if automakers were to use existing technology, the manufacturers could achieve a fuel economy of around 34 miles per gallon.
Automakers have urged the government to allow the industry to voluntarily move to improve fuel efficiency, but say they can meet the administration standards. If they do not, they face government fines.
NHTSA considers four factors in setting fuel economy standards: technological ability, economic impact, effects of other federal motor vehicle standards on fuel economy and the need to conserve energy. The agency also takes into account some safety and environmental issues.
The government began setting CAFE standards for the light truck class, which includes pickup trucks, minivans and SUVs, in 1978.
NHTSA will issue a final ruling on the proposal by April 1 next year.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Manufacturers of gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles, minivans and light trucks will have to increase the fuel efficiency of their products beginning in the 2005 model year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced Friday.
The final rule proposed by NHTSA requires manufacturers to increase the fuel efficiency of light trucks and sports utility vehicles by a total of 1.5 miles per gallon by model year 2007. The reduction is incremental -- manufacturers must increase the fuel efficiency by a half-mile per gallon beginning in 2005.
This is the first change to fuel economy standards since Congress froze NHTSA's rule making ability in 1996. The freeze was lifted in 2001 as part of President Bush's overall national energy policy.
"The Bush administration is committed to improving vehicle fuel economy while protecting passenger safety and American jobs," said Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta.
The phasing-in of the increase in fuel economy will require the new federal CAFE standard (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) to be 21.0 mpg for model year 2005, 21.6 mpg for model year 2006 and 22.2 mpg for model year 2007. The current standard is 20.7 miles per gallon.
"The proposal to establish new fuel economy standards for light trucks is just one component of the administration's comprehensive approach to improving vehicle fuel economy," said NHTSA Administrator Dr. Jeffrey Runge.
NHTSA estimates the increase in the CAFE standard will cost consumers $14 per vehicle in 2005, $28 in 2006 and $47 in 2007. Factoring in benefits such as lower emissions, fuel savings and energy security, the agency estimates benefits per vehicle to equal $29 in 2005, $66 in 2006 and $100 in 2007. The agency also estimates the change will save approximately 2.5 billion gallons of gasoline over the life of the vehicles.
The CAFE standard for other passenger vehicles will not change. It has held steady at 27.5 mpg since 1990.
'Virtually nothing'
The Sierra Club calls the proposed CAFE standards for the light truck class "weak" and says they will do "virtually nothing to improve fuel economy."
"This increase shortchanges American consumers and national security because automakers already have the technology to raise fuel economy much more significantly," said Daniel Becker, director of Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Programs.
The Sierra Club says if automakers were to use existing technology, the manufacturers could achieve a fuel economy of around 34 miles per gallon.
Automakers have urged the government to allow the industry to voluntarily move to improve fuel efficiency, but say they can meet the administration standards. If they do not, they face government fines.
NHTSA considers four factors in setting fuel economy standards: technological ability, economic impact, effects of other federal motor vehicle standards on fuel economy and the need to conserve energy. The agency also takes into account some safety and environmental issues.
The government began setting CAFE standards for the light truck class, which includes pickup trucks, minivans and SUVs, in 1978.
NHTSA will issue a final ruling on the proposal by April 1 next year.
12-13-2002, 08:49 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Id be intersted to see if that is really gonna stick or just get pushed to the side and ignored like a lot of other environmental issues. Doesn't seem like this administration wants anything to do with then environment. But hey we only live there right?
12-16-2002, 03:19 AM
#3
HC Racer H5
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: KCK
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New fuel rules are a problem for GM
But the higher mileage should be a reasonable target for Ford, Chrysler
December 16, 2002
BY JUSTIN HYDE
REUTERS
General Motors Corp. might have to spend $678 million to meet new federal fuel economy rules, far more than any other automaker, according to a government analysis.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that GM's truck fleet would fall well short of higher fuel economy standards in model years 2005 through 2007, while Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG would meet or be just below the standard.
A GM spokesman said Friday the company was committed to meeting any federal fuel economy requirement, but warned that it would be "extremely challenging."
"We think it could be difficult to achieve given current and expected demand for large vehicles," said spokesman Mike Morrissey. "Obviously, we've not said we're on a plan to meet this standard as written. We're certainly considering changing product mix or limiting the availability of popular vehicle features."
NHTSA said on Thursday it was proposing an increase in fuel economy standards for average fuel economy of light trucks from 20.7 miles per gallon to 22.2 miles per gallon in model year 2007, rising to 21 m.p.g. in model year 2005 and to 21.6 in 2006. Early 2005 model year vehicles could go on sale in January 2004.
Automakers and other groups have two months to comment and suggest changes before NHTSA issues a final ruling, a period Morrissey said GM hoped was more than a formality.
Several automakers gave NHTSA detailed information about their truck plans over the next decade, along with their expected fuel economy, in part to keep NHTSA from suggesting a standard that was too far out of line with their plans.
NHTSA said GM projected its truck fleet would achieve between 18.7 m.p.g. and 20.0 m.p.g. in model year 2005, rising to a range of 19.1 m.p.g. to 20.8 m.p.g. for 2007. The estimates exclude GM's Hummer brand, whose SUVs are so large they are treated as commercial vehicles and excluded from fuel economy rules.
By comparison, Ford said its fleet, including all domestic and foreign brands, would achieve 20.9 m.p.g. in 2005, 21.6 m.p.g. in 2006 and 22 m.p.g. in 2007. DaimlerChrysler said its fleet would average 21.3 m.p.g. in 2005, rising to 22.3 m.p.g. in 2007. Daimler's estimates include Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Mercedes, and also Mitsubishi.
DaimlerChrysler and Ford warned that their estimates could be high, but NHTSA said their projections appeared reasonable. Federal fuel economy averages are based on vehicles sold, so if consumers reject high-mileage models or demand low-mileage ones, an automaker's average suffers.
The analysis excludes credits automakers get for vehicles that run on alternative fuels like ethanol, and for achieving fuel economy averages higher than the standards. Such credits have been key for automakers to meet current rules.
NHTSA also analyzed how the traditional Big Three were planning to improve fuel economy. Environmentalists have claimed Detroit has been slow to deploy such fuel-saving technology as engines with variable valve timing and more advanced transmissions.
While GM has used such technology in some vehicles, it prefers older, cheaper-to-build engine designs for most of its vehicles, contending many customers don't care how an engine works as long as it works well. GM's cost advantages have allowed it to spend an average of $2,400 in incentives per vehicle sold this year and still turn a profit.
The agency found that if GM's future trucks used technology equal to competitors' and eliminated engines larger than 6 liters it could improve fuel economy by as much as 1.5 m.p.g. in model year 2006. The $678 million cost would be spread out over three years.
December 16, 2002
BY JUSTIN HYDE
REUTERS
General Motors Corp. might have to spend $678 million to meet new federal fuel economy rules, far more than any other automaker, according to a government analysis.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that GM's truck fleet would fall well short of higher fuel economy standards in model years 2005 through 2007, while Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG would meet or be just below the standard.
A GM spokesman said Friday the company was committed to meeting any federal fuel economy requirement, but warned that it would be "extremely challenging."
"We think it could be difficult to achieve given current and expected demand for large vehicles," said spokesman Mike Morrissey. "Obviously, we've not said we're on a plan to meet this standard as written. We're certainly considering changing product mix or limiting the availability of popular vehicle features."
NHTSA said on Thursday it was proposing an increase in fuel economy standards for average fuel economy of light trucks from 20.7 miles per gallon to 22.2 miles per gallon in model year 2007, rising to 21 m.p.g. in model year 2005 and to 21.6 in 2006. Early 2005 model year vehicles could go on sale in January 2004.
Automakers and other groups have two months to comment and suggest changes before NHTSA issues a final ruling, a period Morrissey said GM hoped was more than a formality.
Several automakers gave NHTSA detailed information about their truck plans over the next decade, along with their expected fuel economy, in part to keep NHTSA from suggesting a standard that was too far out of line with their plans.
NHTSA said GM projected its truck fleet would achieve between 18.7 m.p.g. and 20.0 m.p.g. in model year 2005, rising to a range of 19.1 m.p.g. to 20.8 m.p.g. for 2007. The estimates exclude GM's Hummer brand, whose SUVs are so large they are treated as commercial vehicles and excluded from fuel economy rules.
By comparison, Ford said its fleet, including all domestic and foreign brands, would achieve 20.9 m.p.g. in 2005, 21.6 m.p.g. in 2006 and 22 m.p.g. in 2007. DaimlerChrysler said its fleet would average 21.3 m.p.g. in 2005, rising to 22.3 m.p.g. in 2007. Daimler's estimates include Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Mercedes, and also Mitsubishi.
DaimlerChrysler and Ford warned that their estimates could be high, but NHTSA said their projections appeared reasonable. Federal fuel economy averages are based on vehicles sold, so if consumers reject high-mileage models or demand low-mileage ones, an automaker's average suffers.
The analysis excludes credits automakers get for vehicles that run on alternative fuels like ethanol, and for achieving fuel economy averages higher than the standards. Such credits have been key for automakers to meet current rules.
NHTSA also analyzed how the traditional Big Three were planning to improve fuel economy. Environmentalists have claimed Detroit has been slow to deploy such fuel-saving technology as engines with variable valve timing and more advanced transmissions.
While GM has used such technology in some vehicles, it prefers older, cheaper-to-build engine designs for most of its vehicles, contending many customers don't care how an engine works as long as it works well. GM's cost advantages have allowed it to spend an average of $2,400 in incentives per vehicle sold this year and still turn a profit.
The agency found that if GM's future trucks used technology equal to competitors' and eliminated engines larger than 6 liters it could improve fuel economy by as much as 1.5 m.p.g. in model year 2006. The $678 million cost would be spread out over three years.
12-16-2002, 02:20 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 2,523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by qtiger
Boo hoo, the automakers always threaten consumers with 'reduced vehicle choices' and 'limiting features' in order to scare the public opinion away from environmental reform.
Boo hoo, the automakers always threaten consumers with 'reduced vehicle choices' and 'limiting features' in order to scare the public opinion away from environmental reform.
12-16-2002, 02:30 PM
#6
lots and lots of fail
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I heard a brief about this on the news. They talked about how, on average, fuel consumption will need to decrease by 1.5MPG and they quoted a GM spokesman as saying the new standards will be "extremely challenging". I almost fell out of my chair laughing!
12-16-2002, 07:42 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe if some of the domestic automakers looked forward to the future and tried to work on next gen 4wd systems from the getgo, instead of having their headz in their rebate asses, this wouldn't be such a problem it is now....
If u guys read more abt the VTM-4 (the 4wd mechanism employed in the pilot and mdx), the more u'll be impressed by it...Vtm-4 works well on and off road (relatively) and does not add much weight like conventional 4wd/awd systems, which minimizes weight and fuel economy penalties....
If u guys read more abt the VTM-4 (the 4wd mechanism employed in the pilot and mdx), the more u'll be impressed by it...Vtm-4 works well on and off road (relatively) and does not add much weight like conventional 4wd/awd systems, which minimizes weight and fuel economy penalties....
12-16-2002, 07:45 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
also, if gm does have to actually increase their prices on cars inorder to somehow compensate the R&D spent to meet these standards, they will continue to lose customers to the japanese (i.e. pilot, highlander etc.), who have met these standards awhile back, but can now once again undercut the domestics in either price or features....i don't think peeps will be 2 happy 2 drop more coin on a suv or the same amt of coin just to see it has less features than before
12-26-2002, 06:45 AM
#10
VEETEHK
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: S. Carolina
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find all these upcoming regulations to be bull****. The government needs to stop worrying about SUVs and they need to stop handicapping performance cars like the WRX by slapping all sorts of restrictions on them.
All of these new changes will not even reduce overall air polution by 1% (sorry, I don't have a source for this but I heard it on a major news network). To me, it's not worth it...They're looking in the wrong place.
The ever-growing number of commerical vehicles in this country has been the problem for years. Aging buses and big rigs that spew black filth into the air have managed to evade the radar for decades...
:madfawk:
All of these new changes will not even reduce overall air polution by 1% (sorry, I don't have a source for this but I heard it on a major news network). To me, it's not worth it...They're looking in the wrong place.
The ever-growing number of commerical vehicles in this country has been the problem for years. Aging buses and big rigs that spew black filth into the air have managed to evade the radar for decades...
:madfawk: