legislation changes CAFE rules

[100R1]

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements have been changed. there are now 6 categories in stead of 1 for light trucks

 

What this means is that Auto Mfg's can't count on vehicles like the PT Cruiser (with high MPG) to keep their light duty trucks (like the 1500, 2500 etc.) with-in the old CAFE requirements.

 

The old CAFE rules allowed ALL light duty trucks count towards 1 CAFE for that MFG.

Now each category will have to meet new requirements

 

some of the new categories are

 

Minivans

Mid size SUV

Full size trucks.

 

MAnufactures say it could cost them over 5 billion dollars to meet the new requirements for 2007

[dannyukonxl]

i guess the 2500 suburban or avalanche will be out of luck

[asepgrad98]

WASHINGTON - August 23 - Today, the Bush administration announced plans that would weaken the nation's most successful oil-savings law. Instead of making meaningful improvements in the fuel economy of America's pickup trucks, SUVs, and other light trucks, the administration's proposal creates new loopholes that will weaken Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

 

Awesome! Long live the SUV and light Truck!

[OUMike]

Yea...but does more MPG mean smaller power, less performance and less towing?

[SS Crew]

If they tried to get better mileage from trucks by making the trucks anemic in the power catagory and using numericly lower gear ratios - they would kill the utility of pickups and SUVs. You just can't use the ol' family sedan to tow the boat or motorcycle trailer around anymore since just about every family size vehicle is either front wheel drive or is a unibody constuction. I don't of any vehicles that built on a frame anymore other than the larger SUVs.

 

If the manufacturers just put more power in the trucks, you would save gas because you would not need to bury the pedal as far to get the same amount of power. (At least that's what my logic sees).

 

[Hecktorx]

Yea...but does more MPG mean smaller power, less performance and less towing?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

The first step will probably be the continued trend of making trucks lighter and more areodynamic. But lighter could also be a bad thing. The head of Highway safety was quoted in another article I read as saying "With the continued lightening of vehicles, expect to see more deaths on our highways". He was pretty much against the new policy.

[Guest chevydeerhunter]

This is a stinking farce! This is nothing but a bunch of politicians making "feel good" laws in order to make themselves look good. Why does everyone blame the US because of the air quality in the world? It seems we're one of the few countries that make sure vehicles are over 90% fuel efficient whereas numerous third world countries can run vehicles that spew so much crap out of the tailpipes that threaten the ozone layer way more than all the Aqua Net sprayed on hair during the 80's. It's nothing more than total

[DZ71]

The first thing that they proably will do is go with the same thing that they have been working on.This is when your driving down the highway it will drop a few cylinders for better fuel economy which isn`t a bad idea It will save the consumer alot of money in fuel costs

[Guest chevydeerhunter]

The first thing that they proably will do is go with the same thing that they have been working on.This is when your driving down the highway it will drop a few cylinders for better fuel economy  which isn`t a bad idea It will save the consumer alot of money in  fuel costs

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I don't have any problem at all with that. What burns me is that vehicles produced in this country are already over 90% fuel efficient, yet they still want to try to get blood from a turnip.

[2004GMC1500CC]

This is a stinking farce!  This is nothing but a bunch of politicians making "feel good" laws in order to make themselves look good.  Why does everyone blame the US because of the air quality in the world?  It seems we're one of the few countries that make sure vehicles are over 90% fuel efficient whereas numerous third world countries can run vehicles that spew so much crap out of the tailpipes that threaten the ozone layer way more than all the Aqua Net sprayed on hair during the 80's.  It's nothing more than total 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

It has nothing to do with air quality and everything to do with being less dependant in the future on ARAB oil.

[99-2door]

The first thing that they proably will do is go with the same thing that they have been working on.This is when your driving down the highway it will drop a few cylinders for better fuel economy  which isn`t a bad idea It will save the consumer alot of money in  fuel costs

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I don't have any problem at all with that. What burns me is that vehicles produced in this country are already over 90% fuel efficient, yet they still want to try to get blood from a turnip.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

 

Dude, no vehicle is 90% fuel efficient.

 

More like 25% in the most efficient gasoline engines, 40% in diesels and that is just the engine. Add in drivetrain losses and you are looking at much less.