If GM sees a market in Montana...

I'm not concerned about the companies so much as the consumers. Increased emissions and efficiency standards imply new, possibly expensive additions to cars. Those additional costs will be passed on to car buyers by the manufacturers, likely at a markup. Is it a net plus to the country and environment if poorer people can't afford a new, efficient car due to increased costs, and therefore either a) keep using older, pre-California standard cars, or b) lose jobs and opportunities?

If every car company chooses to simplify their manufacturing process and only produce cars to the California standard as you suggest, there's going to be a non-trivial number of people put in exactly that position. The gas guzzler you need to worry about isn't a new Hummer, it's a 1982 diesel BMW or 1979 Ford LTD.

Is it a net plus to the country and environment if poorer people can't afford a new, efficient car due to increased costs, and therefore either a) keep using older, pre-California standard cars, or b) lose jobs and opportunities?

If every car company chooses to simplify their manufacturing process and only produce cars to the California standard as you suggest, there's going to be a non-trivial number of people put in exactly that position. The gas guzzler you need to worry about isn't a new Hummer, it's a 1982 diesel BMW or 1979 Ford LTD.

Do you have any numbers to back this up, or are you just speculating? There's not even any evidence that this law would actually raise prices on low end cars. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that Detroit would have to do little to modify the cheap econo-cars (they already get good gas mileage anyway). The big expense will be driving down emissions for the bigger gas-guzzlers, like SUVs and performance cars - but poor people aren't driving those anyway, so your argument doesn't really hold water.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Do you have any numbers to back this up, or are you just speculating?

I'm speculating, but not on unfounded ground. The primary difference between the EPA and the California legislation is that the EPA has a phased-in emissions reduction (23% within 4 years, up to 30% within 9), while the California law demands all 30% within four.

Now, I confess that I haven't looked deeply into the engineering, but reading between the lines might tell us a few things. First of all, if car manufacturers are agreeing to the EPA standard, it suggests that they have a few emissions projects already in the works, and the most promising ones are likely to meet the lower target in the time necessary. You can decry this as collusion between Big Auto and the Bush-dominated EPA, but the fact is that innovation and engineering both take time. The standard rule is: fast, cheap, safe; pick two. Presuming I'm inferring correctly, that means new cars tracked to meet the CA standard will either be hideously expensive or rolling timebombs, as "cheap" or "safe" gets thrown to the wind in a effort to step up the pace. (And considering California's track record with demanding innovation via government edict -- forest management, grade school curricula, energy crisis/Enron -- the cynic's bet might be "both.")

The car manufacturers could simply sell fewer SUVs, sports cars, and big-block sedans in California. There are several cars available today that meet even the 2016 standards. It doesn't take any changes to auto design or any new technologies.

The car manufacturers could simply sell fewer SUVs, sports cars, and big-block sedans in California. There are several cars available today that meet even the 2016 standards.

Very true, but I'm sure you see the problem with that solution -- any SUVs, et al., not provided to California by manufacturers creates a non-optimal market. Everyone who buys a less efficient car does so for what they believe are good reasons. Some of those may be ameliorated if the culture shifts enough, but many others never will. A Prius will never be the optimal vehicle for hauling camping or construction gear, nor the easiest to extract children from safety seats, nor the flashiest means by which to arrive at a nightclub. Try to force those buyers into choosing what high-efficiency cars are extant and you'll see a local variation of all the classic responses to a suboptimal market -- holding on to older ("classic!") vehicles, importing from out of state or country, resigning oneself to a new car being hated. Of the consumer-driven options, the last is probably the worst, because it would install a permanently unsatisfied user base; imagine the increase in "lemon law" suits when every car available is considered a lemon by the buyers' definition.

And then there's the shareholders. Bad enough to be the CEO who has to write the annual report saying, "yeah, we're choosing to not sell in California and leaving all that money on the table, " but even worse is the potential that one of the other companies might cheat and take that market share away.

No, the only real choice is to develop new solutions which can be brought to bear within the framework of extant reasons for buying big cars in the first place -- which is where we started.

...any SUVs, et al., not provided to California by manufacturers creates a non-optimal market

Since what we're talking about here is 1) a variation of the tragedy of the commons, and, 2) a case where a great deal of external costs are completely hidden from the consumer, please don't blather on about non-optimal markets.

A Prius will never be the optimal vehicle for hauling camping or construction gear, nor the easiest to extract children from safety seats, nor the flashiest means by which to arrive at a nightclub

There is absolutely no reason from an engineering standpoint that "hauling camping or construction gear" can only be done in a vehicle that gets less than 20MPG. Your response to that fact can only be that some people like burning gasoline for the sheer hell of it, i.e., having far, far more horsepower and/or torque than is necessary. I therefore refer you again to the tragedy of the commons justification for California's action.

No, the only real choice is to develop new solutions which can be brought to bear within the framework of extant reasons for buying big cars in the first place -- which is where we started

There are already CAFE standards. What those standards do in the market are to make people who purchase relatively inefficient vehicles subsidize the market for relatively efficient vehicles. The basic market mechanism does not change under California's new system. As for the "framework of extant reasons for buying big cars," I already mentioned above that it's not large vehicles per se that are the problem, it is large, inefficient vehicles. In one of your comments above you mentioned the tradeoff among the choices of "fast, cheap, safe." If one needs fast and cheap, buy a motorcycle. If one needs fast and safe (no one does, you know) then be prepared to pay a hefty premium. All I am saying is that the only autos that need be "fast" will and should be either very expensive or very unsafe. I don't understand why you have a problem with that.

There is absolutely no reason from an engineering standpoint that "hauling camping or construction gear" can only be done in a vehicle that gets less than 20MPG.

I agree, but that won't change the fact that, to date, most of the automobile engineering which has taken place was for designing powerful, inefficient cars. Designing more efficient, less polluting engines will take time and money, and the less time given, the more it will cost. Which will then be lovingly passed on to consumers.

As for the tragedy of the commons concern, color me unimpressed. California still forbids the construction of nuclear power plants, a issue over which -- unlike vehicle emissions -- the state legislature has complete control. It's also a change which -- again, unlike vehicle emissions -- already has developed a safe means to remove 95% (!!!) of CO2 emissions while still completely providing for all market needs. But no, California is choosing to burden consumers and corporations. I'll start to buy the "global crisis" line when people start acting like we're in, you know, a crisis, as opposed to a moralistic crusade.

All I am saying is that the only autos that need be "fast" will and should be either very expensive or very unsafe. I don't understand why you have a problem with that.

I don't, but that's rather at a tangent from the issue at hand. The California vs. EPA tiff doesn't even come close to addressing that.

...to date, most of the automobile engineering which has taken place was for designing powerful, inefficient cars

That is not true, and it's so obviously not true that I can hardly believe you're making that claim as a central part of your argument. Large SUVs are a fairly recent phenomenon, and, though the tradition of large, powerful sedans goes back almost to the first days of the auto industry, they fell out of favor for a long time and have only begun to reappear in the past few years in a big way. More to the point, though, is the fact (that perhaps, being an American, you're unaware of) that much of the world currently uses new, recently-engineered, efficient trucks. It's not at all unusual in Asia, for example, to see a 1 1/2 - ton pickup truck that uses a 2-liter engine. That such vehicles currently exist demolishes your argument that time and money will be needed to engineer new vehicles to meet California's new law.

California still forbids the construction of nuclear power plants...I'll start to buy the "global crisis" line when people start acting like we're in, you know, a crisis, as opposed to a moralistic crusade

California's aversion to nuclear power is a complete red herring. Also, the existence of a "global crisis" has nothing at all to do with anyone's "moral crusade."

I mean, really, are you saying global warming doesn't exist because California forbids nuclear power plants? Do you not see the absurdity of such an idea?

Large SUVs are a fairly recent phenomenon, and, though the tradition of large, powerful sedans goes back almost to the first days of the auto industry,...

Hence, the years of engineering I keep talking about.

... they fell out of favor for a long time and have only begun to reappear in the past few years in a big way.

Unless you consider "1979-1982" to be "a long time," you have a different recollection of recent automotive history than I do. The only time the American public gave a rat's ass about efficiency (prior to the current craze) was in the immediate wake of the 70s gas crisis. As I remember it, the 80s version of the inefficient, omnipresent vehicle was the minivan, and the early 90s saw small trucks everywhere until SUVs started their resurgence in 1993. Sure, there's been a somewhat countervailing efficiency desire, but even there we see the Accord and similar lines have well-selling (and less efficient) "performance" packages.

That such vehicles currently exist demolishes your argument that time and money will be needed to engineer new vehicles to meet California's new law.

Nonsense. Are those trucks Chevys? Fords? Of course not. They are designed by foreign companies for non-American markets, and competing companies are not usually on a "let's share innovation!" friendly basis. So why not have those foreign companies import those cars for sale in the US? Because they can't -- and I mean that in both senses of the phrase. Most of the foreign models with the best fuel efficiency get there by cutting weight down to match the engine's capability, which generally runs afoul of US safety regulations. Those few models which don't get closed out at the gate tend to be unmarketable. The US market like to consider itself rich (even when it isn't), and all the remaining models come without the convenience- and image-related heavy crap we pile on top of the mandatory safety-related heavy crap. There's a reason you don't see many Scion xBs on the road.

I mean, really, are you saying global warming doesn't exist because California forbids nuclear power plants?

Not hardly. I'm saying that global warming advocates are acting as though global warming is an excuse for controlling other peoples' behavior which they don't like, while making only the most token changes to their own. An honest assessment of a crisis must put all options on the table, no matter who's ox gets gored (pun intended). From what I've seen, that's not currently the case. See again, the example of the Scion xBs. Or do a sample of Prius owners to see how many also have an SUV in the household (from what I"ve seen, the answer is "many" or "most").

Or, note as I do that California is choosing to have a drag-out legal brawl with the EPA over legislation with a maximum effect of less than 5% of carbon emissions over 20 years, instead of changing their own ways to enact unencumbered regulations revisions with a maximum effect of about a 35% reduction of emissions over the same span*. What kind of dumbass says "In this crisis, we must studiously ignore the low-lying fruit"? Is the entire California legislature bucking for FEMA jobs in case a Democrat retakes the White House?

* Studies I've seen place power generation responsible for the US at about 35-40% of total carbon emissions, and transportation at about 30%, mostly split evenly between air and ground. Additionally, I presume that the practical phase-in time for new auto standards will be a few decades, as it ultimately relies on individual choice (when to buy a new car), which I take would be similar in span to a streamlined-pro-nuclear-power / gradually-increasing-coal-tax energy policy. My numbers are based off that.

There's a reason you don't see many Scion xBs on the road.

I see plenty of them around here.  Perhaps your town is different.  Toyota still sells a few.

I seen Scions all over the place, all models.

I have an xA, and it's a great little car, surprisingly roomy, and it gets decent mileage.  With efficient driving, I can get around 34mpg with it.  Of course, when my wife drives it, it gets about 5mpg, but that's another story.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Are those trucks Chevys? Fords? Of course not

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you own stock in GM or Ford? If so, you can sell it, if not why would you care?

Most of the foreign models with the best fuel efficiency get there by cutting weight down to match the engine's capability, which generally runs afoul of US safety regulations

Gerry, you're over your head in this discussion. Really, you don't know what you're talking about. Efficient, foreign-built trucks are used in the US and are quite legal, meeting all the safety regulations.

The situation we're discussing here are the market distortions caused by exempting light trucks and SUVs from automobile CAFE standards. Generally speaking, when a business wants a truck to be used as a truck, i.e., for hauling cargo, they are not going to opt for a big-block extended cab pickup or a SUV, which are luxury vehicles, not work vehicles.

I'm saying that global warming advocates are acting as though global warming is an excuse for controlling other peoples' behavior which they don't like, while making only the most token changes to their own

Fine, the global warming folks in California are hypocrites. That says nothing at all about the merits of a law mandating more fuel-efficient vehicles.

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you own stock in GM or Ford?

The contention above is that the EPA cut a deal with American auto companies to phase in a new emissions efficiency standard. I agree with that, citing the time needed to re-engineer up to new standards. You claim that foreign auto manufacturers have solved the efficiency problem; to which I reply: foreign, not American, companies.

What's the problem?

Efficient, foreign-built trucks are used in the US and are quite legal, meeting all the safety regulations.

OK, I'll bite: which motor vehicle models, foreign and/or domestic, have been certified by the California Climate Action Registry to have met the new 30% emission reduction standard? I've searched around the CCAR website, but can't find any mention of which manufacturers have met the mark. (Hell, I can't find any mention of auto manufacturers at all.)

Or coming at it another way: here are lists of all currently-available SUVs and trucks in the US, rated by fuel efficiency. Of the non-hybrid models, to which do you refer? The highest-rated foreign models of both match the domestic models of trucks, at 26 mpg, and barely lose to Jeeps in the SUV list. Unless you want to set 26 mpg as your standard for efficiency, I don't see how foreign manufacturers are covering themselves in green glory.

to which I reply: foreign, not American, companies

Americans are special...as in Special Olympics.

The contention above is that the EPA cut a deal with American auto companies to phase in a new emissions efficiency standard. I agree with that...

That was your contention (comment 13 above), so of course you agree.

You claim that foreign auto manufacturers have solved the efficiency problem; to which I reply: foreign, not American, companies

To which I reply, again, why do you care? In comment 7 above you wrote, "I'm not concerned about the companies so much as the consumers." If you are concerned that consumers will be hit with higher costs because of additional development costs, then that fear should be allayed by the knowledge that there are cars available today that meet the new standards and that significantly increasing the efficiency of new models won't necessarily make them more expensive.

The highest-rated foreign models of both match the domestic models of trucks, at 26 mpg, and barely lose to Jeeps in the SUV list. Unless you want to set 26 mpg as your standard for efficiency, I don't see how foreign manufacturers are covering themselves in green glory

The point is not that the currently available vehicles will all be modified to be 30% more efficient. The California standards refer to fleet reductions, which means, for practical purposes, that there will be a change to the mix of vehicles sold in California and the other states who have adopted the same standard. Fewer people will drive SUVs and more will drive smaller, lighter cars.

California standards refer to fleet reductions, which means, for practical purposes, that there will be a change to the mix of vehicles sold in California and the other states who have adopted the same standard.

Y'know, I think this has been the underlying point of contention. I had been reading the Calfornia legislation as being per model, not fleet standard. So, sorry, zyx.

I agree, but that won't change the fact that, to date, most of the automobile engineering which has taken place was for designing powerful, inefficient cars.

Given your colossal ignorance on all topics, I won't pretend to be surprised by your ignorance of thermodynamics.  Designing a car to be powerful and designing a car to be efficient are the same thing.  The only question for the engineer is how much gas to throw into the thing.  In 1987 we had cars getting 25MPG having 80 horsepower.  In 2007 we have cars getting 25MPG having 350 horsepower.  That is the very definition of efficiency!  All that needs to be done is to rebalance the equations somewhere in between.  Perhaps and engine could get 40MPG and have 100 horsepower.

The pathetic truth is that we had cars exceeding 40MPG in 1985, for example the Honda Civic HF rated for 46MPG in combined city/highway driving.  Today only the Prius, at substantially higher cost, gets comparable mileage.

The original base model 1984 Honda CRX was EPA rated at 51 city and 60 highway.  That's better highway mileage than even any of the hybrids you can buy today, and that doesn't even consider the energy spent getting the metals for the batteries of the hybrids.  Most of the efficiency gains from hybrids come just from going back to the old design of a small, light car with a small engine.  It's really disgraceful that there's no true economy option nowadays.

The gasoline engine is a mature technology.  For an 8x compression ratio gasoline engine, engine efficiency is around 35% (up to 38%) at about 75% engine load and optimum RPMs.  This has chanced very little over recent decades.  Efficiency gets worse at any other load or RPM, resulting in about 20% efficiency in practice.

It's in efficiency away from optimum load and RPM that we've seen modest improvements.  Larger and more valves are widespread now and help specific power and widen the efficiency range a bit.  We've seen specific power go up steadily, as well as engine power/weight ratios, and all else being equal this results in minor efficiency improvements.

If we could have two engines and run only one of them except when necessary, this would substantially widen the efficiency vs power graph.  Several gas guzzling GM vehicles already do this resulting, according to GM, up to 5% fuel savings in trucks and SUVs, and up to 12% fuel savings in sedans.

There are several systems on the market to adjust valve timing based on engine RPM, which also widens the efficiency graph.

A correctly designed supercharger or turbocharger could broaden efficiency graphs as well.

Higher compression gasoline engines are more efficient, but in general require premium gas.  With widespread ethanol use lowering the cost penalty of premium premium gas, it is may now be cost-effective to use more higher compression engines.  There are several methods of getting higher fuel efficiency by injecting something into the cylinder, allowing the use of a higher compression ratio that the fuel would normally allow.

In fixed locations, a gas turbine running of of gasoline (or other fuels) with a steam cycle generator running off the exhaust heat can have an efficiency of 60%, nearly 60% better efficiency than can be achieved with a normal gas engine.

The end result of new gasoline technology has been only minor improvements, and fleet fuel economy has actually dropped steadily since the 80s as light truck sales increased.

The old Civic shows us that the way to really get efficiency increases is to size the engine so that it's closer to 75% of maximum power output while operating at maximum normal cruising speed on the highway, to make the car lighter so that the acceleration penalty due to this low power output is less noticeable and so that less fuel is wasted stopping and starting, and to cut the physical size of the car to lower wind drag.

These light cars were noisy, had awful acceleration, and were blown around by crosswind or gusts from semis.  An early Honda slogan was, "It'll get you where you're going," apparently recognizing that they didn't have much else other positive to say about the cars other than their ownership cost and reliability.  With modern technology, safety would not be a bigger problem than normal in collisions with large stationary objects, but lighter cars are less safe in collisions with bigger vehicles.

But even if everyone drives cars like this old Honda, does it really solve our problem?  We need to cut CO2 emissions by 2/3 just to hold carbon dioxide levels where they are, and this cut gets larger as the oceans saturate.  After the ocean equilibration time, the relaxation time for CO2 to return to normal levels is around 100,000 years.

Holding greenhouse gas levels where they are would still result in about twice the warming we have already seen, as we see warming delayed by the oceans heating gradually appear.  Most experts believe that this is enough to touch off major glacial melting and sea level rises.

But when everyone in China and India is driving cars like this too, instead of most of them not driving like now, aren't we just back where we started?  And aren't we going to run out of oil soon anyhow even if we were to all driving efficient cars like this?

...size the engine so that it's closer to 75% of maximum power output while operating at maximum normal cruising speed on the highway, to make the car lighter so that the acceleration penalty due to this low power output is less noticeable and so that less fuel is wasted stopping and starting, and to cut the physical size of the car to lower wind drag

You forgot stiffer, narrower tires to reduce rolling resistance.

You raise excellent points and indeed, even the tougher emission standards being proposed by California and being obstructed by the EPA are hardly a solution to the problem of greenhouse gases and global warming - although more stringent emission standards are better than nothing.  However, if it were my decision, I would phase out all passenger vehicles powered by internal combustion engines and require new cars to be electric.  Of course, this also requires us to improve our methods of generating electricity, otherwise we merely alter the location of the pollution from the car to the power plant, rather than ceasing to pollute.  But that too can be done, there are certainly better ways to generate electricity than burning fossil fuels.  If we as a species really cared about the planet that we live on, we would be doing this.  As it is, we find it more convenient to wait for things to get drastically worse, which with any luck will become the next generation's problem rather than ours.

If you're going with an all electric vehicle, and you plan to take long trips in it, you need a way to quickly refuel it.  You could always just design the car and the refueling station to swap the batteries easily.

If you move to full electric vehicles quickly, the electric generation capability won't keep up.  You also need a pricing mechanism which moves electric demand around by the hour, as otherwise you get blackouts every day after people get home from work.

Actually, it's better to switch heating over to using heat pumps first before switching vehicles over.  The energy density of hydrocarbons makes them much more valuable for use in transportation.

I would think we would do a lot better to use compressed air as an energy storage medium.  Batteries have a fairly low energy density, and are expensive to make.  A lot of the metals cost for the batteries in these vehicles goes to fuel expenses and generating a lot of pollution.    Compressed air engines are very cheap and powerful, which is why air tools are cheaper and lighter and more powerful than other types of tools.  The energy density is about the same as batteries, refueling is relatively easy and quick, the "battery life" problem basically doesn't exist, your power/weight ratio for a properly designed engine is much better than even for a gasoline engine, and adding another pressure stage gets rid of most of the efficiency problems.  There's one Indian company about to start producing compressed air only cars this year.

It may be that compressed air is a better technical solution than batteries, although I think that all options should be considered at this particular time, and battery technology is improving.  One advantage of an electric car is that it requires no special equipment to recharge it; you can plug it in at home, when your car is parked in your own garage (assuming that you are fortunate enough to have a garage) and electricity is available virtually everywhere.  Whereas air compressing equipment is rarer and more expensive.   I think that there is greater risk of explosion in the case of traffic accidents with a high-energy compressed air tank, than with a battery.  But then, it is true that it is cheaper to build a compressed air engine than an electric engine with its powerful and expensive battery.  It would not be a that helpful to put a car on the market that meets all environmental requirements but which is also so expensive that most people will never buy it.

The automotive industry needs to consider all the factors and to find the best technical solution for a car that meets people's needs and is environmentally friendly.  Whether it's an electric car, a compressed air car, or some other kind, we do need to find and use better designs than the heavily polluting internal combustion engine.

I agree that if we were to undergo any large-scale transition to the use of electric cars, this would require expansion in our electric generating capacity.  But note that the hypothetical air compressing machinery upon which your own favored technology depends would also be run by electricity (or so I would presume; we could also compress air by means of gasoline powered engines, but that would seem to defeat the whole purpose of giving up gasoline powered cars) so we would need the same expansion in electric generating capacity.  No matter what kind of propulsive technology is used, the energy has got to be generated somewhere.

You advocate heat pumps are a more immediately useful technology, although you don't say what they would be used for - I would guess, for heating houses.  I agree that there are many other areas to be improved, aside from cars - although cars are the topic under discussion.  But we as a society do need to comprehensively review everything we do that results in greenhouse gas emission or other forms of pollution that harm our environment.  We are really messing up our world very seriously, and the consequences are already bad, and will only get worse.

One advantage of an electric car is that it requires no special equipment to recharge it; you can plug it in at home, when your car is parked in your own garage (assuming that you are fortunate enough to have a garage) and electricity is available virtually everywhere.  Whereas air compressing equipment is rarer and more expensive.

You still need the AC/DC converter, whether you carry it around with you or not.  It's somewhat cheaper and lighter than the AC driven compressor, but not greatly so.

I actually view a compressed air hybrid as probably the best choice in the short term, but nobody is developing one.

Total efficiency estimates for a coal powered electric plant would be:
Electric car: 0.5 coal->electricity efficiency x 0.9 electric distribution efficiency x 0.8 electric power -> wheel power. = ~.36 vs current efficiency ~.2.  It's actually worse than this because of the energy used to carry around the extra weight of the batteries/air source.  Performance is greatly reduced, as is range.

For a deeply buried coil heat pump (yes, for space heating),  0.5 coal->electricity x 0.9 electric distribution x 4 heat pump electricity->heat = ~1.8 vs current efficiency of ~.9.  No performance/range concerns exist.

The heat pump will generally run a much larger fraction of the time than a car, and last much longer.  I suppose we need to give attention to everything, but we seem to be giving attention to systems to reduce CO2 emissions in reverse order of how easy they are to implement, giving the most attention to vehicles, just a little to electricity generation, and virtually ignoring space heating.

Designing a car to be powerful and designing a car to be efficient are the same thing.

Tone down the ad hominem, please. I presume the difference of opinion we're at here stems from imprecise language. As I'm using it, "efficient" refers to waste -- i.e., producing the fewest emissions. As you use it, "efficient" refers to  performance -- i.e., producing the most power.

From an engineering standpoint, the two definitions are somewhat at odds. One obtains the most power from any quantity of gas by ensuring a consistent, even burn of a set quantity of fuel -- in other words, by producing the most CO2 and water possible. One produces the fewest emissions by limiting the amount of fuel used to do the required work -- in other words, throwing as little gas into the problem as possible. The typical way to square that circle is to minimize the work required by removing weight. If that isn't possible (for safety regulation reasons, say), the only remaining alternative involves limiting the amount of energy wasted in non-work-generating ways, like heat. As one might expect from the phrase "internal combustion engine," that last is an "easier said than done" variety of problem.

When you object to the cost of a less-polluting car, what you are really objecting to is not being able to pass the costs of pollution on to someone else.

The irony of that sort-sighted view is that you are getting the cost of other people's pollution passed onto you, so you aren't really getting away with anything with your cheap car.

Is smaller really better?

Real life example.

When I got married, I owned a '90 Mercury Gran Marquis with a 5.0 liter V8 engine (the same engine as what the Mustang GT had that year).  My wife owed a 2000 Saturn L100 with a 4 banger.  We both had A/C (a must living in Florida) and power steering.  I had electric windows, seats, cruise control and a four speed automatic (overdrive).  She had a 5 speed manual (no overdrive).

It's sad to say, but my larger, more comfortable car consistently got better gas mileage than hers.  It was close to even in the city, but highway driving would mean about 26 MPG.  I don't have a clue as to how this compares to what it was supposed to get according to the sticker.  The Saturn would do good to get 22 MPG.  The biggest issues I would think are the difference between the two is the overdrive and the cruise control.  Even here in flat Florida.  Let alone driving back home to Ohio over the mountains.  

I drive a Hyundai Sonata now (V6, all the whiz bang, 5 speed overdrive) and still get better gas mileage than either the previous two cars.  Especially in the city.  It's still bigger than the Saturn in every way.  It was built in Alabama instead of Detroit or Tennessee.

Many years ago I was a fervent watcher of "The Price is Right"...and I always wondered why after someone won a BRAND NEW CAR that Johnny would go on to say it had a/c, tilt steering wheel and a California Emissions Package.  What's the big deal? It seems that car makers have always made different sets of accessory package.

The gas guzzler you need to worry about isn't a new Hummer, it's a 1982 diesel BMW or 1979 Ford LTD.

Say what?  I see so few diesel BMWs and LTDs that when I do see them it really gets my attention. "Huh...a 30 year old Ford?  And it's still running?"  Whereas I see many many of the big SUVs here abouts.  Maybe it's a local thing, eh?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

It seems that car makers have always made different sets of accessory package.

The accessory in question was a catalytic converter, which by the 80s (when that set of California standards took effect) was a well-understood technology. It also did a hell of a lot less -- mostly, it scrubbed some of the more noxious gas into less toxic forms, i.e. carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide. Catalytic converters were not typically installed for quite a while due to the cost (see what I mean?) of adding a coat of platinum -- the catalyzing agent -- to the filter.

In order to get a major reduction in carbon emmissions, much more will be necessary than a bolt-on fix.

"Huh...a 30 year old Ford?  And it's still running?"

Ok, I was exaggerating a bit for effect, but the lesser version is still true; cars become increasingly detrimental to the environment from an emissions standpoint the longer they remain in use. And for many, a still-running old car you can keep up is the better cost alternative. Adding even more additional costs on to new cars will only make that more true.

Is it a net plus to the country and environment if poorer people can't afford a new, efficient car due to increased costs, and therefore either a) keep using older, pre-California standard cars

Yes, since they won't be putting the load of 1) disposing of the old car and 2) manufacturing the new car on the environment.

they won't be putting the load of 1) disposing of the old car and 2) manufacturing the new car on the environment.

Both of those are one-time charges, as opposed to the ongoing cost of fuel and upkeep. I'd be interested to see the comparison between the environmental costs of building vs. running for different auto models, actually.

I remember seeing ads on TV many, many years ago for a Geo Metro, which got something like 45mpg in the late 1980's.
If it was possible back then to make cars with fuel efficient engines, it must certainly be even more possible today.  

It does not involve any expensive add-ons.  It requires a sensibly-sized engine, gear ratios that maximize engine efficiency, and a structurally sound frame and body that provides safety and durability without too much weight.

More efficient cars are not a technological problem, they are engineering issues, and those issues have been pretty much solved.  The truth is that the margins on SUVs are higher than on cars, and as far as fuel efficiency is concerned, if they are not required to make them more efficient, then they won't make them more efficient.  They would rather spend the money on marketing convincing suburbanites that having 4-wheel drive is a necessity.

SUVs allowed Detroit to buy and completely wreck marques like Saab and Mercedes-Benz, although they resulted in a marginal improvement to Jaguar, although moving it downmarket.  It also forced makers like Porsche to start building trucks ( Ferdinand must be turning over in his grave ), as the status symbol shifted from sleek, agile sports cars and well-appointed European sedans to trucks.

 

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

I remember seeing ads on TV many, many years ago for a Geo Metro, which got something like 45mpg in the late 1980's.

The Geo Metro exemplified exactly the kind of issues I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread. As introduced, the Metro got its fuel efficiency for being tiny and light enough to match its anaemic 3-cylinder, 1.0 liter engine. By "tiny and light enough," I mean it did not meet later safety standards (no airbags, weak frame, extremely poor side impact results), nor did it offer anything like what the US market considers reasonable amenities (no air conditioning, for fuck's sake).

Other trim packages and later models corrected these issues, at the inevitable cost of efficiency -- mileage went down. The Metro remained on the market for years, largely selling to young buyers, who don't have the same mortality concerns as people a few decades older, and who were less likely to care about lifestyle concerns like "how many times am I going to throw out my back getting the baby into his goddammed inaccessable safety seat?"

Like it or not, the US population is wealthy. One of the characteristics of wealth is the ability to make choices, and unsurprisingly, the #1-with-a-bullet choice is for personal comfort and convenience. The Geo Metro exemplified neither.

By "tiny and light enough," I mean it did not meet later safety standards (no airbags, weak frame, extremely poor side impact results),

Is this one of those "tragedy of the commons things"?  I suspect that, at least in frame integrity (airbags ain't heavy), there's no way that a Geo could withstand even a fender bender with a H2.  So, in order to protect people in small cars from impact with with larger vehicles ("honey...what was that we just ran over?") smaller car makers had to lard on the safety gear just to protect their customers from owners of land yachts (often made by the same company)  who put comfort, power, and convenience above the lives of their fellow drivers?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

So, in order to protect people in small cars from impact with with larger vehicles ("honey...what was that we just ran over?") smaller car makers had to lard on the safety gear just to protect their customers from owners of land yachts (often made by the same company)  who put comfort, power, and convenience above the lives of their fellow drivers?

The alternate version of that is that poor people, who can't afford big luxury sedans and SUVs, have just as much a right to life as the rich people, and therefore car companies have been made to include the same safety features on less expensive models. Ain't progressive politics a peach?

The rest of the country still comes under federal CAFE standards.

Back in the 1950s, Charles Wilson -- CEO of GM and a former Defense Secretary said "what was good for GM was good for America, and vice versa."

Now that Toyota looks set to become world's largest automobile maker, I suppose we can say that US lost Charlie Wilson's War.

I believe it's been busted down to Private Motors.

American conservatives only believe in States Rights when they don't control their country's federal government.

If you want to lead the charge to dismantle the EPA, you will have my full support. Until such time as the EPA is dismantled, however, states must defer to it equally -- unless, of course, you're happy to see waivers granted for states which choose to fall below national standards granted with a frequency equal to those states which exceed them.

It seems your Bush Administration has already dismantled EPA for all practical purposes insofar as it was supposed to protect environmental quality. But let's say I tell you I really would be "happy to see waivers granted for states which choose to fall below national standards" at any frequency level you think likely. Surely you realise this wouldn't help Detroit automobile makers in any way. If half of Americans would only be able to buy cars that met higher (California) standards, and perhaps 10% of Americans would be able to buy cars that met no standards at all, no American automobile maker would actually manufacture and sell fleets of cars that got 10 or 20 miles per gallon for that 10%.

But why save oil anyway? You can always fight wars in places like Iraq and Iran to obtain secure supplies indefinitely I suppose, and Saudis would never think of screwing you. US has never lost any wars, surge has produced great results, so fill up your H2 and rock and roll.