Make America Guzzle Again!?

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by LittleBlackDuck

What is the use of good fuel economy if nobody can breathe or see where they are going? That's right, we will save more fuel but fill the atmosphere with carcinogenic soot particles and eye-searing oxides of nitrogen. Self interest and no idea about the real big picture.

Simon

Thousands of times more pollution is emitted in the process of drilling and refining fuel than burning fuel.

So although your eyes don't burn, somebody else has Voc, lead,mercury , cadmium and other goodies in their water and air instead.

Perhaps your eyes burning would tell you your doing something wrong and motivate cars/semis off the road altogether in concentrated city center situations.

[Ecky]

I'll just leave these here:

[Xist]

I love my HX just the way she is.

[Frank Lee]

Ecky- those look like Utopia, the almost inevitable result of the relentless pursuit of the Perpetual Growth Philosophy. Yay.

[changzuki]

Originally Posted by LittleBlackDuck

What is the use of good fuel economy if nobody can breathe or see where they are going? That's right, we will save more fuel but fill the atmosphere with carcinogenic soot particles and eye-searing oxides of nitrogen. Self interest and no idea about the real big picture.

Simon

Maybe it doesn't have to be an "either or scenario".
-

-
Maybe.
-
~CrazyJerry~

[gone-ot]

"One step forward, TWO steps backward..."

[LittleBlackDuck]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

"One step forward, TWO steps backward..."

and five sideways!

[Natalya]

EPA was started by Nixon, let's all remember that.

I casually follow the big rig industry, and everything to do with it. Even with cheap diesel we're seeing these days, the #1 cost of operating a truck is still the fuel. I kind-of doubt that even if Trump removes fuel economy requirements or reduction of sulfur emissions, that truck manufacturers will suddenly go back to making the less sophisticated engines of the past. Maybe the sulfur stuff, I could see them dumping SCR if it wasn't required, but every time I open Transport Topics or Heavy Duty Trucking I see lots of discussion of aeromods and gear ratios and transmissions and weight reduction. It looks like fuel efficiency is still important to fleets and owner-operators.

[redpoint5]

Eh, most things trend better over time. Sometimes they improve faster, sometimes slower.

Fleet fuel economy will improve over time, regardless. I'm not saying the U.S. has made a good decision concerning political leadership, but the executive branch only represents 1/3 of the federal power.

Concerning the article, it merely says that the CAFE requirements will be reviewed to see if it poses an undue burden on consumers and auto workers. This is good, since the people who make these rules don't take basic physics into consideration when they pick a target number. Just because a law is passed saying average fuel economy must be 50 MPG doesn't mean there is a technological solution to meeting that requirement. It appears to be entirely arbitrary (I'm hoping someone can cite evidence showing that MPG mandates are based on objective reasons).

Forcing auto manufacturers to meet arbitrary MPG averages is the wrong way to go about achieving the goals of reducing foreign oil consumption and reducing pollution. The right way to reduce consumption of any good is to make it more expensive. That means federal fuel taxes should be higher. It's a fair way to achieve the goal since people will be free to drive inefficient vehicles and pay everyone else for the privilege in the form of more tax paid.

[Fat Charlie]

I wonder how arbitrary it really was. Sure, you can see a bunch of stoners sitting around throwing numbers around, but maybe there's a chance that the numbers are based in reality. If there's a market shift towards cars and away from trucks for personal transportation, the fleet average is going to skyrocket.

Pointing at physics says a Yukon can't get 50 mpg doesn't mean that Bubba can't get 50 mpg on his solo commute.