I'm basically happy about this, but... I was reading a post at theoildrum.com which pointed out that mileage is calculated according to the amount of fossil fuel used. If the EPA increases the amount of ethanol used in fuel that decreases the amount of fossil fuel used so the mileage improves without the car being any more efficient. This will not be the whole story but it may be part of the increase.

The EPA is considering an increase in ethanol from E10 to E15. This would result in a several percent increase in mileage as calculated by the EPA with no change in the efficiency of the vehicle.

I don't know enough about this, but wouldn't the fact that they're regulating both fuel efficiency and emissions, in tandem, get around this problem?

CAFE remains a stupid policy, especially the part about splitting the fleet into cars and light trucks (most of which are used for personal transportation, not for work). But we (Americans) have consistently proven that we want stupid policy, so I guess I should be happy that we actually have a fuel efficiency policy at all.

Hilzoy -

I haven’t read the proposed new regs, but until CO2 emissions are included, probably not. Today we control CO and unburned hydrocarbons, which are related to the efficiency of combustion, and NOX which can regarded as a byproduct of running an internal combustion engine in an atmosphere consisting primarily of nitrogen. In practice, none of these are necessarily highly correlated with fuel consumption (aka mileage). CO2 emissions on the other hand, are.

A simple step everyone understands. Not the final statement or a cure, but low-hanging fruit that should have been picked a long time ago.

J. Frank: yeah; but I think they are. I haven't read the regs either, but the Post writes: "Under the compromise, the federal government would establish two sets of standards, one for mileage and one for tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide."

Oh, Associated Press. Don't ever change:

Obama to tap consumers for emission, mpg standards

Interesting that their story also has by far the highest estimate of how much car prices will go up -- twice what I've seen in other stories. Gosh, you don't think they could be fearmongering again, do you?

from the AP article:

Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700 for mileage standards that had already been approved. The comprehensive Obama plan would add another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said.
...
The extra miles would come at roughly a 5 percent increase each year. By the time the plan takes full effect, at the end of 2016, new vehicles would cost an extra $1,300.

Those figures are from administration officials, off the record. 5% per year for 9 years is a 37% reduction, not 30%; I'm guessing they just rounded to 5% from whatever the true value is.

Personally, I agree with Hilzoy that the progress is worth the cost, but it will be a drain on the economy unless it succeeds in keeping fuel prices down. As with the investments in alternative energies, there is a short-term drag on the economy with a payoff some time in the future.

Meanwhile, turbocharged direct-injection Diesel engine powered cars by BMW, AUDI, and VW (and others, maybe including Ford) already get more than 50 mpg. Turgocharged direct-injection engines running on ethanol and ethanol/gasoline blends may do about as well. The hard part of meeting the fuel standard will be in the pickup trucks. I don't know about nation-wide statistics, but around here those are mostly used for work.

Imagine what the Bush years have cost us on the environment - not just eight years, but decades, because they reset the clock on so many things.

And imagine what would have happened if McCain had won.

Nothing.

I've heard the reports. As someone who lives in California and had to deal with my car coming from another plant because of the state emission regulations, this is Great News.
And yes, it included CO2 because we have a CO2 emission law that is going to be coming into effect Real Soon Now.
Why do we have such strict rules here? Just try breathing in Southern California in the summer. Ugly. And that was the Settler Cooking Fires before we even had cars! The atmosphere there traps everything and then it bakes in the sun. It has Always been like that. Real Ugly.

When looking at that $600 figure it's worth remembering that in the early 60s when Detroit was being pushed to put seatbelts in every car they said that it would cost $250 per car. In current 2009 dollars that's over $1500. The manufacturers' estimates of the cost of improvements should always be taken with a few tons of salt.

According to the article, passenger cars will go from the current 27.5 to 35.5 mpg. Assuming 12,000 miles per year at that mileage that saves just under 100 gallons per car per year. At $2 / gal it's a 6.5 year payback for owners assuming the full $1300 for all CAFE improvements are to be recovered. Obviously it takes half that time at $4 / gal.

I think mandating indicators for instantaneous fuel consumption (in mpg) and per trip consumption - ignition on to now - would do nearly as much as the new CAFE standards. Even the car magazine guys find those indicators as irresistible as a good video game.

Most of the technology is in place in a modern fuel-injected engine. A little more code in the onboard processor is approximately free. Nearly all of the cost is in the dashboard display.

Of course, they aren't mutually exclusive.

The comments on additional consumer cost are laughable. VW already sells a car here in the UK that does pushing on 90mpg (the Polo BlueMotion) and the other manufacturers have similar offerings, the fact that Americans have never been incentivised to buy them because petrol costs less than soda.

When the petrol price spiked last year, I was paying something like 1.3 GBP a litre here - a fraction under 6 GBP a gallon, or around $9 US. And what happened? People got on with their lives but petrol consumption dropped around 8% in a month.

I have as much sympathy for American car companies on this one as I had for the American airlines who insisted for years that cockpit door locks would make flying uneconomical for everyone.

I stand by what I said before - this is just not enough. Nominal mileage bumps are a drop in the bucket.

So the efficiency requirements are higher for cars than for trucks? I am worried that we'll be seeing a lot more trucks on the road as a result of these changes.

Personally, I agree with Hilzoy that the progress is worth the cost

MatthewRMarler, no one gives a damn what a perenially dishonest commenter like you agrees with. Your pretense isn't fooling anyone. Your serial dishonesty is not only well remembered here, but also well documented.

Shame on you.

Gregory what are you some kind of fucking saint. I personally detest most of what Marler says most of the time but if the guy comes around and makes a logical statement why beat him up?

I'm a modest man with humble goals. I don't expect to be widely respected. I know I won't convince everyone or even most people.

I just want to throw sand into the eyes of the dumbest among you.

Now that voters are realizing that the Democratic Party has as many mental midgets as the GOP, how will the Democrats do in the 2010 and 2012 elections?

It's worth watching.

Thanks marler. Why I would defend you in the slightest way is proven by you to be stupid. My apologies gregory.

This would not be a problem for GM considering their 3 cylinder Metro got over 50 miles per gallon and put out less polution than a Prius but sorry, it was discontinued due to low demand. Funny how American's will shell out for a Prius but were too good to drive a Metro.

Of course, what also should be included is an increase in the gas tax. I don't want it to increase, but it must in order to increase the incentives to buy higher mpg vehicles and to repair our crumbling roads and rails.

It has to be done so that when the price of gas starts shooting up again like last year, and it will, we have transportation alternatives and if you have to drive, you can get to where you are going efficently.

"This would not be a problem for GM considering their 3 cylinder Metro got over 50 miles per gallon and put out less polution than a Prius"

Links please. I find it hard to believe that a gas-only 50MPG results in less pollution than a hybrid 50MPG.

"Funny how American's will shell out for a Prius but were too good to drive a Metro."

Funny how you just make up reasons for major purchase decision-making. The main reason for such a lack of demand was a) cheap gas and b) lack of horsepower. Toyota just increased the horsepower in the newest Prius, and ended up with even better gas mileage because drivers weren't constantly taxing the smaller engine at high RPMs when accelerating under normal driving conditions.

And Gandalf, I believe that was MatthewRQuarreler that posted that, not MatthewRMarler.

these people don't seem terribly concerned with the annual increases in the cost of health insurance, but we should get hysterical about paying a little more for a car that saves us money on gas?

the car makers have resisted increasing mileage for 40 years.

if they had stopped being such whiny babies they would have figured out it was in their economic interest to get on board.

ooh, i'm so frightened -- $600! spread over the life of my car!

morans every one of them.

The new fuel economy standards are pathetic.

I drive a 1991 Ford Festiva that gets a solid 35 MPG in worst-case, stop-and-go urban driving, and 48 MPG on the highway -- with 18-YEAR OLD TECHNOLOGY.

That's better gas mileage than the tiny little two-seater Smart Car, which is the most fuel efficient conventional gasoline-fueled car sold in the USA today (33 MPG city, 41 MPG highway), and the Festiva seats four adults plus cargo. Indeed it approaches the fuel economy of today's $25,000 hybrid cars.

And as for fuel efficiency increasing the cost of vehicles, the Festiva cost $5200 when I bought it used at 2 years old -- and that includes all the interest on the three year loan.

So 35 MPG average fuel economy in seven years does not impress me.

What we need is a 50 MPG minimum fuel economy standard.

Sure, these wimpy standards are a "move in the right direction". And if you chain-smoke two packs of cigarettes per day and "cut back" to a pack and a half per day, that is also indisputably a "move in the right direction". And the decrease in your chances of getting lung cancer will be zero.

These standards are about business-as-usual coddling of Detroit, not about reducing oil imports or GHG emissions.

OhNoNotAgain wrote: "I find it hard to believe that a gas-only 50MPG results in less pollution than a hybrid 50MPG."

A gallon of gas burned in an internal combustion engine produces the exact same amount of pollution whether that internal combustion engine is in a conventional car or a hybrid car. The only pollution advantage of a 50 MPG hybrid over a 50 MPG conventional car is if the hybrid can run on only battery power in urban driving, and use the gasoline engine only on the open road. That would help to reduce toxic air pollution and improve air quality in densely populated urban areas. But there is no difference when it comes to CO2 emissions.

I personally detest most of what Marler says most of the time but if the guy comes around and makes a logical statement why beat him up?

Because Marler can't have it both ways. He'd pulled this trick over and over -- he pretends to be an honest commentator to give his handle credibility among casual readers unfamiliar with his long, long history of intellectual dishonesty, and then posts more of his usual GOP bullshit.

Marler could have chosen to be an honest commentator, even as a conservative, but his commitement to the GOP and their sweet, sweet tax cuts forced him to embrace all manner of intelelctual dishonesty. Don't take my word for it -- his comments remain in all their malodorous glory. If that means no one takes him seriously when he wants to discuss honestly something that genuinely interests him, that's just too damn bad.

Since what Marler says most of the time is detestable, who gives a damn if the guy comes around and makes a statement we happen to agree with, with no acknowledgement of, let alone penance for, his long history of intellectual dishonesty? His comments -- including his context-free links to alternative energy information -- aren't worth a bucket of piss.

And if you chain-smoke two packs of cigarettes per day and "cut back" to a pack and a half per day, that is also indisputably a "move in the right direction". And the decrease in your chances of getting lung cancer will be zero.

Actually, since lung cancer risk is correlated with a smoker's number of "pack years," and pack years are determined by the number of packs of cigarettes smoked daily, cutting down does somewhat reduce, although certainly not eliminate, your risk.

But we take your point.

To OhNoNotAgain

This is the current website which shows the 2000 Metro 2 door 1.0 getting better mileage but it's emissions are higher than the Prius. The information I got in 2002 was from an official EPA representative at an auto show and it showed the EFI version putting out less emissions than the Prius.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

I would just add that build quality of cars after model year 2000 is vastly superior to that of 1990 and later, which is vastly superior to that of 1980 and later. Cars, even American made cars, last a lot longer than they used to, especially if they are garaged and taken care of. Adding $600 to the price tag of a car that will easily last ten years is nothing.

This would not be a problem for GM considering their 3 cylinder Metro got over 50 miles per gallon and put out less polution than a Prius but sorry, it was discontinued due to low demand. Funny how American's will shell out for a Prius but were too good to drive a Metro.

I've driven and ridden in several Metros, of different styles (convertible, hatchback, coupe), and even owned the convertible. I now own a 2nd gen Prius. Its true that a Metro gets comparable to slightly better gas mileage than a second gen Prius—its also a subcompact that has trouble fitting large adults even in the front seat except in the two seat convertible, and can only fit small people in the back, and has little cargo room in any version, and it struggles on significant hills. The Prius, OTOH, is a midsize hatchback that can comfortably fit adults in the front and back, has pretty good cargo space for a midsize car, and doesn't have the problems handling significant grades that the Metro had.

On the subject of ethanol, going to 15% will cause tremendous problems for cars with steel fuel lines and fuel rails, not to mention fuel injectors. Ethanol is very corrosive. Only vehicles with all plastic fuel systems will be able to tolerate fuels with greater than 10%.
Why does the ethanol industry need to move past the 10% limit on blending? They have way too much capacity and motorists aren't buying enough gasoline to absorb all the ethanol they are producing. That leaves them with two options: close distilleries or force more ethanol into motorists’ fuel tanks. Guess who wins.

I am glad to see that MatthewRQuarreler (the real one) has returned. Most people enjoy parodies of themselves. I like MatthewRQuarreler so much that I started using the name, but the moderator raised an objection.

Here is another development that should help to attain the proposed standard, another American-made PHEV:

http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Green_Star_Plug_In_Electric_Hybrid_Completes_Preliminary_Track_Trials_999.html

Wind power is increasing in the US, and PHEVs provide one way of storing the surplus electricity that wind farms may generate at night.

Attaining the standard depends on (a)how people drive, and (b)whether they'll buy the fuel-efficient vehicles. (a) People who mostly make frequent, very short trips can get really high MPG with PHEVs. (b) Chevrolet markets a PHE-Silverado pickup truck, but it isn't really popular, so it doesn't help GM meet any CAFE-type standard.

Another development that should help is the turbocharged, direct injection ethanol/ethanol-gasoline blend modified Silverado that the Ricardo company is testing.

SecularAnimist on May 19, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Your points are sound, in my opinion (which Gregory says does not interest him or anybody else.) The standards ARE behind the current state-of-the-technology. But it is still worthwhile to have them written into law, I think. Much current progress is driven by fuel price increases; if the increased production of alternative energy and the reduced consumption of petroleum help to keep fuel prices low, then the written standards will remind everyone that the problems have not yet been permanently solved, and that it is a bad idea to go back to being gas-guzzlers.

Your points are sound, in my opinion (which Gregory says does not interest him or anybody else.)

Now, now, Marler, we all know that part of your schtick is that you never acknowledge, let alone address, the vast amount of criticism your intellectual dishonesty draws.

Though, of course, you still aren't addressing it, you dishonest hack.

It's obvious that green technology interests you, Marler, but as I said, you can't have it both ways. I know it's impossible to honestly defend the GOP that gives you those sweet, sweet tax cuts, but no one forced you to be a dishonest GOP shill. You chose to destroy your credibility in these forums, and for a mess o'pottage at that. It's far too late for a pretense of an honest commentator, or to pretend no one remembers your hackery.

Most people enjoy parodies of themselves.

You are a parody of yourself, and no one enjoys -- or is fooled by -- your bullshit.

Shame on you.

"When looking at that $600 figure it's worth remembering that in the early 60s when Detroit was being pushed to put seatbelts in every car they said that it would cost $250 per car. In current 2009 dollars that's over $1500. The manufacturers' estimates of the cost of improvements should always be taken with a few tons of salt."

Exactly what I came here to point out. By the Auto industry's prognosticative powers, the average car must cost about $137,000 now just to pay for all that expensive safety equipment!

Obviously higher fuel standards will require the auto industry to (continue to) invest in R&D;, and obviously there is a cost associated with that. But, $600 (or $1300, by the other estimate floating around) factored down into the reality (closer to $60-130 per vehicle, as they are generally "off" by at least a factor of 10) isn't all that much of a premium, especially given the fuel savings you then would enjoy over the lifetime of the vehicle.

Why are they so far off? Because they can't bank on innovation and cost reductions. It would cost $600 more per vehicle using todays technologies with a nationwide deployment and six years to ramp up, but without taking into account the massive effort which will be underway to reduce that cost towards $0.

"This is the equivelent to taking 177 million cars off the road"

WTF? there are around 300 million people in this country. are you telling me that more then one in two of them have cars? smells like a b.s. statistic to me.

I am glad to see that MatthewRQuarreler (the real one) has returned. Most people enjoy parodies of themselves.

That's probably why you hid for six weeks after MRQ's first appearances. You didn't know WTF to do. Enjoying it you weren't.