California regulators shooting for 40 mpg by 2020

I herd that you can buy a Ford in Europe that does 50 mpg.

If this is true, why is there no hue & cry for the same service here???

"If this is true, why is there no hue & cry for the same service here???"

There is, but its not loud enough, yet. As long as there are people willing to pony up $50,000 for a 6200lb SUV with a home theater system and and dual a/c units etc, that gets 11 MPG, that is what the manufactures will build. They are in buisiness to sell vehicles and as they say: "money talks and Bull$#!% walks".

Even I am guilty, my Z28 only gets 17/24 cty/hwy.

Enough of this, where is my flying car? Every futuristic movie I saw as a kid promised flying cars. Where are they?

I'm with you on this one Roger!

Why aren't we at least driving around in cars like strakers?

But seriously, I've said it before, but if you guys had to pay $7.90 a gallon for your gas, you wouldn't need legislation, the consumer would be screaming for more economic cars. My wife drives a Fiat Cinqucento, around town it easily gets 45mpg.

...if you guys had to pay $7.90 a gallon for your gas, you wouldn't need legislation, the consumer would be screaming for more economic cars.

I totally agree, as long as the $7.90 price is a result of natural supply and demand. Our history has shown that when gas prices rise due to market conditions, we build and buy more fuel efficient cars. Unfortunately your high price is mainly due to over taxing. This removes the incentive to develop/ buy better cars since a reduction in fuel consumption buy your public, causes an increase in tax per gallon (liter) by your govt. After all, in the end your govt requires the same $ per year from it's subjects.

Regarding the article: California has no right to dictate what cars people in other states buy and drive. They certainly have no right to dictate any rules on a factory in another state. They do have every right to limit C02 emissions from the power plants in their own state, and they have done this. It is ironic that their progressive legislation has regressed them back to an early 1900's lifestyle, causing them to live with routine power black outs, 6 months a year. It seems the power companies chose to turn off the lights, as a way to reduce co2

It is California's large economy that allows them to influence what happens in other areas.

You are right, however in this article they are not allowing the power of their large economy to do it's job. Rather they are looking to the Fed govt for mandates. I say let us see how large their economy/ buying power influence really is. It is the American way. Govt mandates are the European way, and let's face it--- there is no great migration of Americans emigrating to Europe. Successful societies will always attract more citizens than they lose. Unsuccessful societies will lose more citizens than they attract, and oppressed societies will be forced to trap their citizens inside their borders. I have said this before, but look around- Some countries need fences to keep their citizens in while others need fences to keep people out. Which society do you live in?

Actually as I understand it the Fed is asking for mandates and the state of California is resisting.

Your close-read it again- The Feds are asking for 35MPG by 2020 and California wants it to be 40mpg. They are not resisting the mandate, they are trying to over ride the Fed by increasing the standard.

What's the difference? 35 mpg or 40 mpg isn't going to make a difference. Hell, the number of cars on the road increases every year, so all this will do is hold emissions steady at best. Meanwhile those emissions are pouring CO₂ into the atmosphere and changing our climate.

I'm a pragmatist, so I know nothing is going to change until we run out of oil. Things like mpg mandates and ethanol initiatives and wind farms are just placebos to make us believe we are addressing the problem when in fact we're ignoring it.

Well said.

Roger, you are right, they are useless mandates-which is why it is so important that 1 state cannot dictate the standards to all. If Calif had it's way we would be all experiencing black-outs in the name of progress.

I live in a pretty rural area, and like most of America it is free from the congestion of city life, so we do not need the pollution controls, especially those that do not make a difference- as you put it.

Again, who cares? I'm glad you don't think you need pollution controls. Denial is so much better than a placebo.

Pollution control California style = incongruity.

We don't need so called pollution controls that cause a vehicle to use more fuel, put less in get less exhaust.

... put less in get less exhaust.

This is untrue. Simple leaning of the mixture causes a rise in NOx.

The limits on NOx have required catalytic converters, which in turn require a mixture about .05% richer than it might otherwise be (but not enough to notice in fuel economy). In any case, data shows that today's engines are far more efficient than those of even 10 years ago. The problem is not emission controls (the technology that supports ultra low emissions is the same tech that supports high efficiency), but rather heavy cars and high HP engines. My Hondas from 1976 and 2004 are typical: 76 hp and 2000 lbs vs 160 hp and 3500 lbs. With higher hp, during cruise the engine is less heavily loaded, worsening fuel efficiency dramatically. Only because the engine itself is so much more efficient (at comparable percentages of full output) is the fuel economy of my current one very close to the same as my first. This year's Accord is even heavier and bigger (now rated as full size) and it gets slightly better fuel economy than last year's.

The Prius is much bigger and heavier than any previous gasoline-powered car getting anything close to the same MPG.

Your Chevy experience was atypical, with actual fleet average fuel economy figures closely tracing the CAFE requirements. Given the way the manufacturers game the system to sell more gas guzzlers, it's reasonable to assume that without the CAFE standards, fuel efficiency would be even worse than it is now. When CAFE came into existence in the mid 1970's the fleet average for cars was around 18 MPG, and is now 27.5. The huge growth in the truck/suv market has pulled the overall figure (cars and trucks) down to about 20 mpg. Many people of my age somehow forget that the original mid 60's and 70's VW Beetles were advertised at 25 mpg.

When I replace the carburetor on my trike with a closed-loop injection system and catalyst to meet emission requirements, fuel economy will improve 10% from the improved mixture control. Emissions (on an engine now certified for industrial/commercial use -- which makes it like a pre-emission control car engine) will drop by a factor of 50 or so.

... put less in get less exhaust.

Refers to mid 1990's comparison of Arizona / California off the lot new cars of make/model etc.. The AZ car would be expected to get 3 mpg better than the California car. The only difference being the pollution controls were not on the AZ cars.

So when you're burning more fuel per/mile you can't have less impact on the environment.

But California cars had the clean air pump pushing fresh air down the pipe tricking the analyzer.

This is the 'Tom foolery' I was implying...

I recall modifying a 'bath tub porsche' with dual mikuni carb's and taking to a California smog station. Ironically it passed analyzation with flying colors but failed certification because did not have pollution control equipment installed.

Flawed objectivity at best...

Well good for them! We should stop kicking the can and do what we could have done 50 years ago; 50+ mpg.

I remember having a 1964 Chevy Impala with 283 V8 165 hp auto got 33 mpg stock. Today we're driving 4cyl getting 27 mpg, get a firm grip and snap out of it we're getting smoke blown up behinds...

Yabba, dabba dooo.

Ford Canada may have the right idea....

The (12 MPG on gas, 9 MPG on E85) flex-fuel SUVs that GM sells are rated at 40 mpg! Today! What could be better??

Of course it's political smoke and mirrors, but flex fuel vehicles are rated for CAFE purposes as if they are being driven half the time with the "alternative" fuel. "Alternative" fuels (and electricity, no matter what the source) are given a 6.67:1 boost in rated fuel economy for CAFE purposes. Therefore, flex fuel vehicles are rated as being 3.33 times as efficient as gasoline vehicles. Thus, a 12 MPG flex fuel SUV is a 40 MPG vehicle for CAFE purposes. A 15 MPG SUV gets the same mileage as a Prius, according to CAFE rules.

Essentially none of these flex fuel vehicles are ever driven on E85, and with most of today's production techniques, E85 uses more petroleum to produce than you get back in energy, so if they actually were driven on E85, we'd be exacerbating our energy woes -- especially because the flex fuel vehicles are all gas-guzzlers.

It adds about $30 to the cost of a vehicle to make it flex fuel. That is far less than the CAFE fines for a vehicle that is far off the target (20.2 for SUVs and light trucks). The CAFE rules allow GM (and others) to appear to be making efficient vehicles while they continue to churn out gas guzzlers.

Ken...its hammer time, and your hittin the nail on the head. When the BIG-3 learns to purge the "group think" horsepower wars, and make their work culture more efficient...maybe then, they will get a glimpse of the japanese roadrunner dust of small, fuel sipping (fun to drive) powerplants zooming by. If they can't figure out how to make a profit by designing and building small cars, their toast.