Buy a new car before 2016?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by dmclone, Apr 2, 2010.

  1. dmclone

    dmclone Well-Known Member

    Oct 20, 2006
    15,693
    393
    83
    50131
    Feds set fuel economy rules to an average 34.1 mpg by 2016 | detnews.com | The Detroit News

    No political talk on this one but here is my opinion.

    Currently there are about 10 cars available that meet this requirement and none of them interest me. I don't feel like there a going to be any huge advancements in technology over the next 5 years. Think about how little we've come in the last 10 years when it comes to fuel mileage.

    I feel like right now we are seeing some of the greatest cars ever being produced. Most vehicles today are fast, quiet, reliable, and safe. I think we're going to continue to have quiet, reliable, and safe cars but I can't imagine that the automakers are going to be able to keep the same amount of power and still average 35mpg.


    The last time we saw this type of thing happen we saw the Corvette in 1975 have less than 200hp and a 0-60 time of 7.7 seconds. Your grandma's Ford Fusion is probably faster. A 1976 Camaro with the V8 option had 165 horsepower.


    I don't know what the car makers are going to have to do to reach these numbers but I doubt in 2016 you'll see basic family cars having 200+ horsepower and sports cars with more than 300. This article makes it sound like this may actually start happening in the next couple of years.

    So with all these things in mind:

    Think about your current car. Would you be fine with the power being cut in half, paying $1,000 more for it, but get 35mpg? BTW, that 10mpg jump will save you about $700/year in fuel savings for the average driver.

    I don't want to get into the political debate whether this is right or wrong. I just want to know if people will be ok with this change? Or am I completely wrong on what is going to happen?
     
  2. herbicide

    herbicide Well-Known Member

    Mar 23, 2006
    8,719
    223
    63
    Ankeny, IA
    It is what it is.

    What do you want to bet they will recant or delay those CAFE standards like they have every other time?
     
  3. Cyclonepride

    Cyclonepride Thought Police
    Staff Member

    Rules were made to be twisted, bent and broken.
     
  4. pulse

    pulse Well-Known Member

    Mar 24, 2006
    5,900
    129
    63
    I think you're wrong with what is going to happen. There has been no incentive for improved efficiency since there's been no demand for it. There is certainly the capability for improvement. Besides, they are talking about average, so there will be different models with varying degrees of MPG to get the average, e.g. if one model gets 44 another could get 24.
     
  5. BryceC

    BryceC Well-Known Member

    Mar 23, 2006
    17,599
    581
    113
    Automakers will release 2 totally electric models by 2016 to get their fleet average up IMO. There will always, always be a thirst for high performance vehicles and the automakers will find a way to provide them.
     
  6. dmclone

    dmclone Well-Known Member

    Oct 20, 2006
    15,693
    393
    83
    50131

    That's not the way I understand the rule. You can't sell 20,000 Accords that get 24mpg and 2,000 cars that get 44mpg and just break even at 34. Small cars don't sell well in America.
     
  7. dmclone

    dmclone Well-Known Member

    Oct 20, 2006
    15,693
    393
    83
    50131
    #7 dmclone, Apr 2, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2010
    Here is where they were at last year

    10 best fuel-economy automakers

    1. MINI — 27.66 average mpg, 12 cars
    2. Honda — 23.81 average mpg, 27 cars
    3. Chevrolet — 23.36 average mpg, 88 cars
    4. Lotus — 22.33 average mpg, 3 cars
    5. VW — 22.21 average mpg, 28 cars
    6. Pontiac — 22.20 average mpg, 24 cars
    7. Saturn — 22.14 average mpg, 21 cars
    8. Kia — 21.80 average mpg, 20 cars
    9. Suzuki — 21.77 average mpg, 18 cars
    10. Toyota — 21.60 average mpg, 55 cars



    This list includes SUV's/trucks. What's scary is that freeking Mini Cooper who makes no SUV's/Trucks and has cars the size of a large animal only manage to get 27.66
     
  8. erikbj

    erikbj Well-Known Member

    Aug 31, 2006
    7,055
    164
    63
    compliance officer
    hiawatha, ia
    Tesla Motors - High performance electric vehicles. Available now.

    If these car companies wanted to make performance fuel efficient cars, they can. They just choose not to. Why??? I will let you figure that out.

    I have not watched this, but I heard it was good.

    Who Killed the Electric Car? NOW | PBS
     
  9. dmclone

    dmclone Well-Known Member

    Oct 20, 2006
    15,693
    393
    83
    50131
    • Like Like x 1
  10. simply1

    simply1 Well-Known Member

    Jun 10, 2009
    5,921
    91
    48
    Portland, OR
    Jeep will be hurting. I think you will see movement sooner to try to meet the goal, and performance will most likely suffer.
     
  11. Cyclone62

    Cyclone62 Well-Known Member

    Feb 1, 2007
    9,207
    213
    63
    Oldpeopleville

    To be honest, I wouldn't have a problem with losing the power of my car as you suggest. For how long I drive a car, the savings vs. price outright would pay for itself. I can see times where the hp is necessary (basically anything tied to needing a truck), but for me, it isn't.
     
  12. ruxCYtable

    ruxCYtable Well-Known Member

    Aug 29, 2007
    5,118
    228
    63
    Male
    In short what this means is more people will die and cars will get less reliable. According to the government's own figures (2003 NHTSA study) CAFE standards resulted in the manufacture of lighter vehicles which caused 39,000 additional deaths between 1996-1999. And the government is putting Toyota through the ringer for 100 deaths.

    Automakers will recommend thinner oils to improve gas mileage (as they did when the standard for new cars went from 5W-30 to 5W-20) at the expense of engine life. New cars will also come with OEM tires with less traction, again to squeeze out a little more fuel mileage (as they did when automakers started putting "B" traction rated tires on new cars, rather than "A"). This will result in poorer performance and less safety.

    It's all a government sham and I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, these are just the facts ma'am.
     
  13. tman24

    tman24 Well-Known Member

    Feb 6, 2008
    4,215
    75
    48
    #13 tman24, Apr 2, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2010
    The roadster version cost that much. They plan to make a model S that will cost around 50k and one around 25k. They have to get enough money from 100k cars before they can start to rolling out the cheaper ones. Plus those things are darn quick. If I was rich I would own one already.

    http://www.teslamotors.com/models/
     
  14. dmclone

    dmclone Well-Known Member

    Oct 20, 2006
    15,693
    393
    83
    50131
    I agree, they are pretty amazing but I'd spend 1/2 as much for a Lotus Elise instead.

    I've heard about the 50K one but not the 25K one.

    I see the Nissan Leaf is going to be $25k after $7K in government discounts. Sounds like it will go about 60 miles between charges, which should satisfy most commuters.
     
  15. simply1

    simply1 Well-Known Member

    Jun 10, 2009
    5,921
    91
    48
    Portland, OR
    Agree, we have an insight and avalanche, the insight was brutal this winter, left it at home when possible.
     
  16. Flag Guy

    Flag Guy Well-Known Member

    Mar 2, 2007
    13,108
    326
    83
    Material Engineer
    Maryland
    I don't see it being that far... a lot of newer cars are starting to hit in the low 30's already
     
  17. isufbcurt

    isufbcurt Well-Known Member

    Apr 21, 2006
    7,982
    276
    83
    Male
    CPA
    Newton
    Looks like I better stock up and buy a couple new Explorers, I love my current one and won't buy anything else.
     
  18. Al_4_State

    Al_4_State Well-Known Member

    Mar 27, 2006
    20,432
    1,301
    113
    Driftless Region
    As someone who wants to reduce dependency on foreign oil, and views automobiles strictly as a necessity, and not a toy, I'm 100% on board with this.

    I derive NO pleasure from my car, it's simply a device to get from point A to point B, thus economy, reliability, and safety are my concerns, in that order.

    I understand that a lot of people get enjoyment from their cars, and see it as a source of pleasure, pride, etc, but this is one of the big reasons OPEC has us on a chain like a bull with a ring in its nose. I'm not trying to criticize those who do enjoy their cars, but I don't want to hear anyone who drives a sports car, or giant SUV ever complain about gas prices, or dependency on oil.
     
  19. 2forISU

    2forISU Well-Known Member

    Oct 8, 2008
    4,200
    60
    48
    I'm sure people that don't have cars that get over 35 mpg will get a fine from the govt....more money.
     
  20. snowcraig2.0

    snowcraig2.0 Well-Known Member

    Nov 2, 2007
    7,640
    374
    83
    Engineer
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    I don't like the government, but don't kid yourself, car companies have had the technology to make cars this efficient while maintaining current power levels for a long, long time.
     

Share This Page