Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest - View Single Post - Fuel Economy Conspiracy
View Single Post
Old March 22nd, 2012, 09:37 PM   #59
cerial
Senior Member
 
cerial's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-06-08
Location: Caledonia,MI
Posts: 1,753
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
Dude - not gonna happen. The emission regs are getting tighter and CAFE (corporate avg fuel economy) requirements are getting increasingly stupid.

The formatting on this will suck, but here goes:

Table 1. Estimated Average Required Fleet-Wide Fuel Economy (mpg) under Proposed
Footprint-Based CAFE Standards
.
.....................2016
_____________base___2017___2018___2019___2020___20 21___2022___2023___2024___2025
Passenger Cars 37.8___ 40.0__ 41.4___ 43.0___ 44.7___ 46.6 __48.8 ___51.0 ___53.5 ___56.0
Light Trucks __28.8 ___29.4___ 30.0___ 30.6___ 31.2___ 33.3__ 34.9___ 36.6___ 38.5 ___40.3
Combined Cars
& Trucks _____34.1___ 35.3___ 36.4 ___37.5___ 38.8___ 40.9__ 42.9___ 45.0 ___47.3___ 49.6



So, you can see from the info above (hopefully) that the government is also making manufacturers strive for higher fuel economy while also continuing to reduce emissions.
Man I'm glad I live in a state that only has noise restrictions.

Looking at diesel, DEF, the idling restrictions, and the apu's used (which do not have emissions equipment) and the changes over the last 5 years. I shutter to think how the government expects to move goods around the country while retaining a emissions cap like that.

We don't need better mpg we need to stop bending over and go with a different fuel. Natural Gas comes to mind as a low cost/gallon way to reduce emissions that could be put in place (slowly) without nearly as much screwing around with trying to make electric work.
cerial is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.23695 seconds with 20 queries