Detroit's 2020 35 mpg Challenge

[jcp123]

All those are good suggestions but let me play devils advocate for a moment.

DA1. Consumers have become used to many of the features and attributes that we would have to strip out to get weight down. We would have to pull back on safety, or NVH controls or accessories that people have come to expect in cars. Consumers are willing to pay extra for most of these ideas. How would we now convince them to forgo those same items?

DA2. Diesels are good but they have issues beyond just the EPA. Currently there aren’t many diesel stations off the highway. That’s kind of a pain to have to figure out where all the diesel stations are. Sure, it’s not like I’m trying to find E85 but still, I can’t just assume the nearest station will have it. Also, diesel fuel smells and is oily if you step in it or get any on your car/clothes etc. Finally, around here diesel costs about 15% more. Between having to pay a lot more for a diesel motor and more for the fuel it doesn’t seem like that great a plan.

DA3. Lean burn is hard to do without NOx issues. However, unlike the above two points it is good because the consumer doesn’t have to know anything changed aside from paying a bit more for the motor. If the emissions issues can be solved this is hard to argue against. Then again the emissions part isn’t trivial.

DA4. Again, a great way to improve mileage but how do you convince someone to do it? Sure I hate to pay a lot for gas but I may be OK getting say 25mpg average because I don’t drive that much or I really just don’t care about the extra cost that much. How are you going to convince me it’s in my best interest to go smaller?

OK, DA mode off. Your suggestions are good but the hard thing from a marketing point of view is how do you get consumers to buy into what you think needs to be done?

Quite true. Consumers are expecting all these luxo items...which is really too bad, but there is a market for lower-priced cars. Some, like me, WANT to have an el-strippo (have talked to many others who echo the sentiment), others would buy them because they can't afford anything more - just look at how well the Kia Rio sells.

Diesel is a strange beast in the US. In California, obviously, it's nearly impossible to get, while here in Texas, 8/10 stations have it available, and about 2/3 of the VW's I see here are diesel-equipped. In other states it tends to vary, but it does seem to be reasonably well available from what I've sene in Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa as well. Perhaps if diesel motors become more popular, so too will the availability of the fuel increase. The economics of it are valid points, but see my last post as to why I reserve judgment on that - it could tip either way.

For point three on the lean burn...this is another one that pains me to say, but Honda's done it for a long time on Civic HX's and the like, and with good effect. I presume if they could do it, most anybody could. And there's no reason DFCO couldn't be on every manual-tranny equipped car made.

And as for smaller, lower-weight cars? That's the biggest hurdle, I agree. The beauty of America is that we have the choice. However, it's already happened once in the 70's that automakers switched to smaller cars, and they were well-received back then. GM, for instance, downsized its full-size automobiles by 700-900lbs for IIRC the 1977 model year, and the public loved them. It's possible that this could be repeated, but like you, I'll hold my breath on the success of something like that.

[Ferrer]

These days I think a diesel gets what about 30% better real world mileage than a gasoline motor of similar power? But the fuel costs about 15% more (not an exact number). The engine also costs a lot more initially. So I do save money on fuel but it takes a long time and in the mean time I have spent more and have a motor that in most ways is at best just equal to the gas motor. That’s not a compelling argument.

My personal experience is this.

The Mini (a Cooper S, 170bhp supercharged petrol) got on average 12l/100km (~20mpg). The BMW (a 118d, 143bhp turbo diesel) gets on average 6,5l/100km (~36mpg). That's about 46% less. I know the cars are a little bit different, the BMW is less powerful but it's also heavier, so I guess that kind of levels it out.

About the price had they had the same equipment the Mini would have been cheaper, but not by a large amount. I'd predict 2.000-3.000€ (or about 10%) at most. And we have to take into account that they belong to different classes.

The interesting is, (at least here) equivalent 1-Series petrol and diesel cost (almost) exactly the same. Which means that for the average consumer diesels make sense actually from the start.

[culver]

The numbers I used are only guestimates and the relative magnitude of the argument does change as the numbers change. However, I think the take away is simply that as things stand today, a diesel car is a far more compelling case in Europe than in the US.

The hybrid argument in context of expected pay back is true. However, something like the Prius is a hard one to completely analyze. Did the buyer get it because of the hybrid system or regardless of the hybrid system. Consider that most of the hybrids have a non-hybrid sibling. Look at the sales of the hybrid vs non Civic, Escape, Camry etc. The sales haven’t been stellar from what I understand.

The Prius has a few things other than just mileage going for it. It has image, cargo practicality (we have regrettably few hatches in the US), in many states it also allows you to use the HOV lanes in traffic.

One other difference between a hybrid and diesel is that hybrids don’t have the issues with finding diesel vs gasoline and no smell associated with fueling the vehicle.

[NSXType-R]

Step 1: get the stripped down models back. That would be the easiest way to shed weight. Lose power windows, mirrors, and seats, carpeting, some sound deadening, and a/c for base models and you can even get existing compact chassis back down under 2500lbs. The bonus is that the cars are cheaper and more reliable, too.
Step 2: more diesels. That requires wrestling the EPA and CARB...which is why I think it won't get done.
Step 3: Utilize more lean-burn engines as well as other techniques such as DFCO (decelerative fuel cutoff...you know, when the engine cuts the injectors while coasting in gear on manuals)
Step 4: I hate, hate, hate to say it...but downsizing vehicles will probably become necessary too.

Very true. Following a KISS method would be nice- Keep It Simple Stupid.

As CAFE works on the number of cars sold, clearly all a manufacturer has to do is to introduce a very VERY cheap high mpg rated car to offset the current consumption.

So .... look forward to a Tata Nano being sold for $1 with every SUV in the coming years.
CAFE doesn't say the owner has to DRIVE the better fuel consumption only BUY it.

I fully expect the big US manufacturers to exploit that kind of loophole the same way they did with the SUV market

Wait. let me get this straight- averaging all the vehicles produced, they need to reach 35 MPG. But, whether the consumer buys the more efficient car or not is up to the consumer, right?

Assuming that it's true, what's the point of CAFE? It obviously won't work because the mindset isn't there.

Congestion pricing might work. Increasing fuel would work, but that would put a huge strain on everyone. My father feels it especially- he commutes to work about 20 miles, on all highway, but there's a lot of traffic.

[Matra et Alpine]

Wait. let me get this straight- averaging all the vehicles produced, they need to reach 35 MPG. But, whether the consumer buys the more efficient car or not is up to the consumer, right?

Assuming that it's true, what's the point of CAFE? It obviously won't work because the mindset isn't there.

Well it's a closed loop system.
So ... if consumers keep buying the large gas-guzzlers then the manufacturer is fined for failling to meet CAFE> So the manufacturer has to do 1 of 2 things

1 ... Actually produce cars with better fuel consumption
( the hoped for solution )

or

2 ... Drop prices of best consumption cars in current range to increase sales
( of course then factories don't make profits )

and of course, there is always the "find the loophole" solution and thus was born the SUV market

Hence why I suggested selling the Tata Nano thing woudl work out. The buyer spends $15,000 on a Cadillac what's-it-called and for another $1 gets a Nano. They make $5,000 on the Cadi, lose $1000 on the Nano and so come out $4000 up .... BUT the Nano makes 60mpg, the Cadi 10mpg and so by selling one for one they actually meet the CAFE standard. The fact that the Nano is NEVER driven and the REAL consumption by the consumer in his Cadi is 15 mpg. Thus trying to control consumer policy fails again ..the ONLY way to control consumer purchasing is to legislate or tax it directly .... a solution NEVER acceptable in the US

[NSXType-R]

Well it's a closed loop system.
So ... if consumers keep buying the large gas-guzzlers then the manufacturer is fined for failling to meet CAFE> So the manufacturer has to do 1 of 2 things

1 ... Actually produce cars with better fuel consumption
( the hoped for solution )

or

2 ... Drop prices of best consumption cars in current range to increase sales
( of course then factories don't make profits )

and of course, there is always the "find the loophole" solution and thus was born the SUV market

Hence why I suggested selling the Tata Nano thing woudl work out. The buyer spends $15,000 on a Cadillac what's-it-called and for another $1 gets a Nano. They make $5,000 on the Cadi, lose $1000 on the Nano and so come out $4000 up .... BUT the Nano makes 60mpg, the Cadi 10mpg and so by selling one for one they actually meet the CAFE standard. The fact that the Nano is NEVER driven and the REAL consumption by the consumer in his Cadi is 15 mpg. Thus trying to control consumer policy fails again ..the ONLY way to control consumer purchasing is to legislate or tax it directly .... a solution NEVER acceptable in the US

I don't understand what you're proposing.......?

They'd never use the Tata Nano. It'd be a lawn ornament. So why give it out in the first place?

Besides, unless they took out all the SUVs on the streets right now, I'd never drive a Tata Nano. I'd be scared to drive up next to a Honda Accord.

To think that a moped probably could make more power than you do.

Imagine being next to a tractor trailer? *shudders*

[Matra et Alpine]

That's the ludicrous point being made.
By selling the Tata which NOBODY woudl drive it makes the CAFE numbers good.
Remember I suggested you get the Tata for $1 at the same time as your new cadi/suv/
So everyone still drives aroudn in a 15mpg SUV and manufacturers meet their CAFE limits

[culver]

The Tata Nano example is a great illustration of one of the CAFE system flaws. Buy an F150, get a free Nano. Now the average mileage of the F-1-Nano is say 35mpg (not really but work with me). Well the F-150 actually gets driven and still consumes 14mpg. The Nano, well who cares, it doesn't get driven. Even though the average mileage went up, the total fuel consumed stayed the same.

CAFE is also bad because it doesn't factor in usage. A truck (or even a Ferrari) might get lousy mileage but if it's only driven a short distance or for the truck only driven loaded what's the issue? How is that worse than someone who drives a Civic 25,000 miles/year. Even worse, someone who drives a Miata to the mountains just to have fun!

Fundamentally CAFE assumes all cares are driven the same way each year. It goes after a theoretical potential to consume rather than actual consumption by the consumers.

[Quiggs]

The Tata Nano example is a great illustration of one of the CAFE system flaws. Buy an F150, get a free Nano. Now the average mileage of the F-1-Nano is say 35mpg (not really but work with me). Well the F-150 actually gets driven and still consumes 14mpg. The Nano, well who cares, it doesn't get driven. Even though the average mileage went up, the total fuel consumed stayed the same.

CAFE is also bad because it doesn't factor in usage. A truck (or even a Ferrari) might get lousy mileage but if it's only driven a short distance or for the truck only driven loaded what's the issue? How is that worse than someone who drives a Civic 25,000 miles/year. Even worse, someone who drives a Miata to the mountains just to have fun!

Fundamentally CAFE assumes all cares are driven the same way each year. It goes after a theoretical potential to consume rather than actual consumption by the consumers.

Bingo. My dad spends less on fuel than I do a year and he drives a 7000 pound ****-you-mobile with a 5.7 V8. Why? Cause he doesn't go anywhere but to work and the beer store.

[culver]

Well the auto geniuses at CNN didn't seem to like it much. Really, CNN is the world leader on what CNN thinks is important so they must be right... right?

Saturn Astra: Lost in translation - With love, from Belgium (1) - CNNMoney.com