58 MPG by 2032

[Deleted member 371759]

Simply... no. I think you're missing the point already argued several times in the preceding 27 pages. These are Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements, and there will still be many vehicles made way under 58 mpg (if that's the new standard), just like there are many vehicles made today that are way below today's CAFE standards. In 2016, when I bought my 12 mpg SRT 392 (6.4L sedan), the CAFE standard was 34.0 MPG. No problem, if FCA made enough Fiat 500's and Dodge Darts to compensate the fleet average, for my gas hog.

If the CAFE standard goes to 58 MPG in 2032, which remains to be seen, they will still be making some vehicles that probably average under 20 mpg in real-world conditions. EV's, which use 0 gallons of fuel for each mile, will offset the fleet average to permit this.

The irony is that those of us wanting to continue driving big-displacement V8-powered vehicles should be praising and promoting EV's as much as possible, as more EV's in the hands of the masses is the only way automakers will be able to meet higher fleet averages (whatever the numbers may be), while continuing to make powerful gasser sports cars and trucks for those desiring them. Put other words, more moms driving EV's to the grocery store and school drop-off, saves more gas fleet margin for the rest of us!

I agree with you but for different reasons. I am 100% for urban/suburban residents voluntarily reducing their means of practical long distance travel.

 

[NoTrespassing]

I agree with you but for different reasons. I am 100% for urban/suburban residents voluntarily reducing their means of practical long distance travel.

Now that's pretty funny...

 

[Deleted member 371759]

Now that's pretty funny...

I'll be here all week;

 

[Gator6x4]

Westinghouse was building modern modular nuclear reactors in China 15 years ago.

How Does a Gen III Nuclear Plant Differ From a Gen II?

With over 440 commercial nuclear power facilities worldwide, nuclear power remains one of the most reliable carbon-free energy sources. Nuclear power plants are generally classified by the generation (I, II, III, III+ and IV) of their reactors. Every next generation is more advanced in terms of safe

www.azocleantech.com

 

[gsganzer]

Simply... no. I think you're missing the point already argued several times in the preceding 27 pages. These are Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements, and there will still be many vehicles made way under 58 mpg (if that's the new standard), just like there are many vehicles made today that are way below today's CAFE standards. In 2016, when I bought my 12 mpg SRT 392 (6.4L sedan), the CAFE standard was 34.0 MPG. No problem, if FCA made enough Fiat 500's and Dodge Darts to compensate the fleet average, for my gas hog.

If the CAFE standard goes to 58 MPG in 2032, which remains to be seen, they will still be making some vehicles that probably average under 20 mpg in real-world conditions. EV's, which use 0 gallons of fuel for each mile, will offset the fleet average to permit this.

The irony is that those of us wanting to continue driving big-displacement V8-powered vehicles should be praising and promoting EV's as much as possible, as more EV's in the hands of the masses is the only way automakers will be able to meet higher fleet averages (whatever the numbers may be), while continuing to make powerful gasser sports cars and trucks for those desiring them. Put other words, more moms driving EV's to the grocery store and school drop-off, saves more gas fleet margin for the rest of us!

I understand the CAFE standards and the fleet average. But I truly believe this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Couple the CAFE standards, with proposals being considered by the EPA for tightening tailpipe emissions, and there's no doubt what the future of ICE looks like.

And maybe at some point, all-electric becomes a reliable, cost effective and strategically defensible as an energy policy. I don't see it in the time frame being pushed and I think we're prematurely abandoning infrastructure (wasting money) that still has a serviceable life.

A balanced energy policy requires 3 legs on the stool. Cost, reliability and sustainability. None of the energy sources provide all three, but diversity does.

 

[dodge man]

Let’s clear one thing up, the slower you go the better mpg you get. I don’t have cold hard facts but most vehicles will probably get the best fuel mileage at about 45 to 50 mph. It’s just physics. At highway speeds almost all your fuel is going to overcome wind resistance. Weight isn’t much of a factor once you get it moving. Wind resistance is roughly based on the square of your speed so you double your speed the wind resistance is 4 times greater.

Im not advocating slower speed limits. 5030 said this earlier.

 

[Oaktree]

The irony is that those of us wanting to continue driving big-displacement V8-powered vehicles should be praising and promoting EV's as much as possible, as more EV's in the hands of the masses is the only way automakers will be able to meet higher fleet averages (whatever the numbers may be), while continuing to make powerful gasser sports cars and trucks for those desiring them.

Regardless of whether or not EVs catch on, the writing is on the wall for big-displacement V8s, and has been for some time, especially now where a much smaller engine can put out the same or greater HP than a V8 did not all that many years ago.

That having been said, I hope ICE vehicles will continue to be readily available for many years. Not an EV hater, but really don't see any upside to them at least for my needs.

Westinghouse was building modern modular nuclear reactors in China 15 years ago.

Nuclear's problems in the U.S. are strictly political, not technical. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry's arrogance and laxity towards security and safety has pretty much poisoned the well here. The Chinese government just does as it pleases without regard to what the citizenry feels.

 

[Torvy]

Let’s clear one thing up, the slower you go the better mpg you get.

This is only true to a point as it is only addressing drag (wind resistance).

Engine efficiency and gear ratios (along with a bunch of other variables) will make a curve of efficiency. The easiest way to understand this is that if you go as slow as possible (barely above idle) you will get very poor mileage. Ergo, slower isn't always better. Each vehicle as well as the weather and topographical conditions will yield different curves. This is the fundamental problem with mandates. They try to fit everything into one simplistic box.

 

[Torvy]

Even a government website shows improvement with speed for some classes of cars. Of course, it is ridiculous because not all cars in a class are powered or geared the same.

Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data - Fuel Economy at Various Driving Speeds

 

[Torvy]

Nuclear's problems in the U.S. are strictly political, not technical. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry's arrogance and laxity towards security and safety has pretty much poisoned the well here. The Chinese government just does as it pleases without regard to what the citizenry feels.

I agree with the initial point, but it wasn't the industry, but the media and politics that led to high barriers to entry that allowed Europe and Asia to vastly outpace the US in nuclear energy production.

Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident Wasn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be

Early this morning 40 years ago, America experienced its first major accident at a nuclear power plant—Three Mile Island in central Pennsylvania. Many Americans by then had already seen Jane Fonda’s “The China Syndrome,” a nuclear disaster film that debuted three weeks earlier. Time magazine...

www.heritage.org