California already working on emission regulations for beyond 2016

[TomServo92]

I don't hate California. I just rather resent that something they pass into law can somehow become law in my state when I didn't vote for any members of California's government.

 

+1 !!!!!!!!!

[Deanh]

I don't hate California. I just rather resent that something they pass into law can somehow become law in my state when I didn't vote for any members of California's government.

when are you guys going to realize that its NOT just California that is lobbying for this? THEY don't pass it into law, SOMEONE has to oversea it and theres SEVERAL groups involved in the outcome...and I can GUARANTEE 90% of those that live in California were born in OTHER states....so are they californian...LOL! And hey, I actually APPLAUD the decision...FINALLY its becoming carte blanche across the NATION, NOT just 1 set of rules here, another here etc etc...sure going to make car manufacturers process's easier....hopefully with similar emissions there will be no wait til 7500 miles before you can register....

[NickF1011]

when are you guys going to realize that its NOT just California that is lobbying for this? THEY don't pass it into law, SOMEONE has to oversea it and theres SEVERAL groups involved in the outcome...and I can GUARANTEE 90% of those that live in California were born in OTHER states....so are they californian...LOL! And hey, I actually APPLAUD the decision...FINALLY its becoming carte blanche across the NATION, NOT just 1 set of rules here, another here etc etc...sure going to make car manufacturers process's easier....hopefully with similar emissions there will be no wait til 7500 miles before you can register....

 

Yeah, it's nice that there will finally be one universal standard...until CA decides that the universal standard is no longer stringent enough for their tastes. Then we start this all over again.

 

(I'm going to go out on a limb and say your 90% statistic is horribly incorrect also. Not that I see what that has to do with anything. I wasn't born in Maryland. I'm still a Marylander.)

Edited May 22, 2009 by NickF1011

[Deanh]

Yeah, it's nice that there will finally be one universal standard...until CA decides that the universal standard is no longer stringent enough for their tastes. Then we start this all over again.

 

(I'm going to go out on a limb and say your 90% statistic is horribly incorrect also. Not that I see what that has to do with anything. I wasn't born in Maryland. I'm still a Marylander.)

I landed a mary once.....I was exagerating with the 90%, although I would guess a majority were NOT born here....just ( irrespective of population overkill and political claptrap ) nic eplace to live......weather rocks.....and remember there are 13 other states involved in the mediation....but lets get this straight....California does NOT sign off on laws for the country....they are agreed on by NUMEROUS factions...its just everyone likes to point the finger...or raise it in some cases....something THIS big HAS to go through congress....are they all californians....

[NickF1011]

I landed a mary once.....I was exagerating with the 90%, although I would guess a majority were NOT born here....just ( irrespective of population overkill and political claptrap ) nic eplace to live......weather rocks.....and remember there are 13 other states involved in the mediation....but lets get this straight....California does NOT sign off on laws for the country....they are agreed on by NUMEROUS factions...its just everyone likes to point the finger...or raise it in some cases....something THIS big HAS to go through congress....are they all californians....

 

Yes, it goes through Congress, and they pass it, because they realize having two different sets of statutes is ridiculous so they just give in to the standard CA (and yes, the other 13 states that agreed with what CA did) instead starting a fight and trying to force CA to back off.

 

Can you say with a straight face that if CA didn't impose its own set of regulations that the federal CAFE regulations being passed now would look exactly the same? You can't.

[92merc]

when are you guys going to realize that its NOT just California that is lobbying for this? THEY don't pass it into law, SOMEONE has to oversea it and theres SEVERAL groups involved in the outcome...and I can GUARANTEE 90% of those that live in California were born in OTHER states....so are they californian...LOL! And hey, I actually APPLAUD the decision...FINALLY its becoming carte blanche across the NATION, NOT just 1 set of rules here, another here etc etc...sure going to make car manufacturers process's easier....hopefully with similar emissions there will be no wait til 7500 miles before you can register....

And since Hitler was voted into office, you're saying he was a valid dictator. Just because a bunch of morons are pooled together and make a decision, it doesn't mean it's the right one. Even if it is the right one, only right for the socialist republic of California.

 

Like the previous post said, it'll be fine until California decides it isn't fine. I think we should get together and sue California. Show them what the change will cost the the rest of the countrymen. Then make it a class action suit. Not that we'll get any money since California is beyond broke. But just do it to make them pay for lawyers, court, etc...

[Deanh]

Yes, it goes through Congress, and they pass it, because they realize having two different sets of statutes is ridiculous so they just give in to the standard CA (and yes, the other 13 states that agreed with what CA did) instead starting a fight and trying to force CA to back off.

 

Can you say with a straight face that if CA didn't impose its own set of regulations that the federal CAFE regulations being passed now would look exactly the same? You can't.

has to be voted on nick...they CAN say no....but Obam-man IS pushing a green agenda for sure....not really a bad thing in my mind....just wish he would target other areas more detrimental like lawnmowers, leaf blowers etc etc.....

[Deanh]

And since Hitler was voted into office, you're saying he was a valid dictator. Just because a bunch of morons are pooled together and make a decision, it doesn't mean it's the right one. Even if it is the right one, only right for the socialist republic of California.

 

Like the previous post said, it'll be fine until California decides it isn't fine. I think we should get together and sue California. Show them what the change will cost the the rest of the countrymen. Then make it a class action suit. Not that we'll get any money since California is beyond broke. But just do it to make them pay for lawyers, court, etc...

so obviously you think adressing oil dependence, cleaner air etc is a bad thing....ok. Everyones entitled to their opinion I guess....so what are your thoughts on Bloomberg and our New York brothers....he pretty much toots to the same horn...

[Noah Harbinger]

I don't hate California. I just rather resent that something they pass into law can somehow become law in my state when I didn't vote for any members of California's government.

 

Again, all the rest of the country had to do if they didn't want the standard was to NOT ADOPT IT! You voted for your representatives in congress who will have to be part of the debate and vote about whether to nationalize our standards.

 

We didn't tell the rest of the country to follow, we didn't ASK the rest of the country to follow - we just did it, and y'all just followed.

[Deanh]

Again, all the rest of the country had to do if they didn't want the standard was to NOT ADOPT IT! You voted for your representatives in congress who will have to be part of the debate and vote about whether to nationalize our standards.

 

We didn't tell the rest of the country to follow, we didn't ASK the rest of the country to follow - we just did it, and y'all just followed.

California angst Noah....and ALWAYS seems to come from people that don't live here...jealousy?

[Deanh]

Again, all the rest of the country had to do if they didn't want the standard was to NOT ADOPT IT! You voted for your representatives in congress who will have to be part of the debate and vote about whether to nationalize our standards.

 

We didn't tell the rest of the country to follow, we didn't ASK the rest of the country to follow - we just did it, and y'all just followed.

or...should I say...COME UP WITH A BETTER ALTERNATIVE....

[jpd80]

Isn't the point really that people wanting certain size vehicles and performance are afraid that

the new fuel economy targets will mean the end of those vehicles?

 

What if manufacturers could supply altered vehicles that comply to the targets and keep buyers happy?

That's the challenge ahead of manufacturers, it's 1975 again folks.

[NickF1011]

Again, all the rest of the country had to do if they didn't want the standard was to NOT ADOPT IT! You voted for your representatives in congress who will have to be part of the debate and vote about whether to nationalize our standards.

 

We didn't tell the rest of the country to follow, we didn't ASK the rest of the country to follow - we just did it, and y'all just followed.

 

We had no choice left but to follow. The two different standards thing simply couldn't last forever. And well, if it was really up to me who got elected, I'd throw out every member of congress my state has put into office in the past 20 years.

[Harley Lover]

Here's my alternative from earlier in the thread:

Personally, I'd like to see the government place a "special" gas tax on California related to its more stringent regs, if they choose to enact them after 2016. Raise the price of gas to, say $8.00/gallon, and I don't think any of the manufacturers will have a problem selling the type of product mix the politicians seem to want. Of course, the politicians will never grow a set large enough to actually confront their constituency with the reality of things - that's why California is in such a mess today.

[NickF1011]

Here's my alternative from earlier in the thread:

 

Unfortunately, the federal government wouldn't be allowed to levy such a tax against a single state. Of course, the government could always grow a pair and dangle the fruit if "federal highway funding" over their heads if they disagree with federal mandates going forward. But that would be far too unpopular. :rolleyes:

Edited May 22, 2009 by NickF1011

[Deanh]

Isn't the point really that people wanting certain size vehicles and performance are afraid that

the new fuel economy targets will mean the end of those vehicles?

 

What if manufacturers could supply altered vehicles that comply to the targets and keep buyers happy?

That's the challenge ahead of manufacturers, it's 1975 again folks.

I don't think so...people griped about V8's dwindling...now we have 3.5 ecos, so with the new suggested laws ( and something tells me they may be a tad TOO brutal and may be loosened if manufacturers cannot adress the chalange quick enough ) we may witness interesting alternatives and drivetrain advancements...personally i'm excited....there will always be a need for certain vehicles, bigger families need BIGGER vehicles, so how will manufacturers adress such issues...should be facinating to say the least...my ONLY gripe is at what cost?....it really is tough enough now....but we are an adaptable species for sure.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Deanh

[ford4v429]

did some searching/reading/ran some numbers:

 

numbers from Wikipedia/internet source

 

semis average 125,000 miles per year, at average 6 mpg in newer trucks...so 20,833 gallons per year, or 437,493 pounds of co2 per year...218 tons per semi, and exemp from emissions controls.

218 times 10 million estimated trucks, thats over 2 billion tons of CO2 from trucks annually.

 

 

cars average 15,000 miles per year, at average 37 mpg in new mandate...so 405 gallons per year, or 7864 pounds of co2 per year...3.9 tons per new car per year, with extremely strict emissions controls.

3.9 times 250 million registered cars, thats almost 1 billion tons of CO2 from all the cars annually.

 

old CAFE standard of 27 mpg shifts above numbers to 555 gallons/year, or under 11,000 pounds/year, 5.5 tons/year, times 250 million cars equals over 1.3 billion tons annually... so the stricter standards might save up to 11% of our annual CO2 output- but much bigger room for improvement exists with trucking where an equal percentage could be achieved if just over 1 MPG improvement could be reached- or better yet, a better logistics system to prevent empty trailer return runs- they try to always run loaded, but still get stuck heading home empty occasionally.

 

low tire pressure wastes fuel- cars now have TPMS, trucks do not...something as simple as TPMS might save more than redesigning all the car fleet...how many car tire carcasses have you seen layning along side the road, vs how many semi tires? if a semi blows a tire they dont replace all of them on that axle- but if you dont the slight diameter difference causes a differential action that drags one tire of the pair slightly, but constantly- with many tons on it, it equals a heck of a drag compared to a matched set...TPMS on semis could prevent blowouts in the first place, saving a lot of mpg, and a lot of wasted energy producing tires...or better yet, mandate shifting to the 'supersingle' wheels so tires arent paired anymore- its a weight savings AND a MPG improver- win/win(except ya gotta stop if you lose a tire rather than drag it along spewing cord/rubber for miles).

 

offroad equipment spews more pollution than about any car- except for raw CO2. How much carbon dioxide is put into the air when the annual wildfires eat a million acres or so? maybe adding firebreaks BEFORE the fire, might save more CO2 than all the prius they can build in a decade? not to mention homes/lives...

 

gotta go...babys cryin...cali rules are nuts IMO

[NickF1011]

did some searching/reading/ran some numbers:

 

numbers from Wikipedia/internet source

 

semis average 125,000 miles per year, at average 6 mpg in newer trucks...so 20,833 gallons per year, or 437,493 pounds of co2 per year...218 tons per semi, and exemp from emissions controls.

218 times 10 million estimated trucks, thats over 2 billion tons of CO2 from trucks annually.

 

 

cars average 15,000 miles per year, at average 37 mpg in new mandate...so 405 gallons per year, or 7864 pounds of co2 per year...3.9 tons per new car per year, with extremely strict emissions controls.

3.9 times 250 million registered cars, thats almost 1 billion tons of CO2 from all the cars annually.

 

old CAFE standard of 27 mpg shifts above numbers to 555 gallons/year, or under 11,000 pounds/year, 5.5 tons/year, times 250 million cars equals over 1.3 billion tons annually... so the stricter standards might save up to 11% of our annual CO2 output- but much bigger room for improvement exists with trucking where an equal percentage could be achieved if just over 1 MPG improvement could be reached- or better yet, a better logistics system to prevent empty trailer return runs- they try to always run loaded, but still get stuck heading home empty occasionally.

 

low tire pressure wastes fuel- cars now have TPMS, trucks do not...something as simple as TPMS might save more than redesigning all the car fleet...how many car tire carcasses have you seen layning along side the road, vs how many semi tires? if a semi blows a tire they dont replace all of them on that axle- but if you dont the slight diameter difference causes a differential action that drags one tire of the pair slightly, but constantly- with many tons on it, it equals a heck of a drag compared to a matched set...TPMS on semis could prevent blowouts in the first place, saving a lot of mpg, and a lot of wasted energy producing tires...or better yet, mandate shifting to the 'supersingle' wheels so tires arent paired anymore- its a weight savings AND a MPG improver- win/win(except ya gotta stop if you lose a tire rather than drag it along spewing cord/rubber for miles).

 

offroad equipment spews more pollution than about any car- except for raw CO2. How much carbon dioxide is put into the air when the annual wildfires eat a million acres or so? maybe adding firebreaks BEFORE the fire, might save more CO2 than all the prius they can build in a decade? not to mention homes/lives...

 

gotta go...babys cryin...cali rules are nuts IMO

 

 

It all comes down to visibility. People see and drive cars every day. Therefore they feel all warm and fuzzy cuz the government is doing something about a tangible item they see and feel all the time. Forget trucks and offroad equipment. They aren't visible enough.

[jpd80]

semis average 125,000 miles per year, at average 6 mpg in newer trucks...so 20,833 gallons per year, or 437,493 pounds of co2 per year...218 tons per semi, and exemp from emissions controls.

218 times 10 million estimated trucks, thats over 2 billion tons of CO2 from trucks annually.

Semis are usually hauling up to 35 tons of freight, roughly the weight of 12 F Trucks.

At average 6 mpg, shifting that load makes each semi equivalent to 12 F Trucks getting 72 mpg.

Heavy transport is far more efficient at its job than light vehicles. Locomotives and ships are even better.

Edited May 22, 2009 by jpd80

[NickF1011]

Semis are usually hauling up to 35 tons of freight, roughly the weight of 12 F Trucks.

At average 6 mpg, shifting that load makes each semi equivalent to 12 F Trucks getting 72 mpg.

 

So do we then base fuel economy standards on a vehicle's payload? If so, those Lamborghinis should probably be getting about 600 mpg.

[Critic]

So do we then base fuel economy standards on a vehicle's payload? If so, those Lamborghinis should probably be getting about 600 mpg.

 

The Freight Trains that the gov. made sure got everything they ever desired do that. They tell me that on the TV commercials they run all the time.

 

So Ford had better get that Super Chief to market FAST!

[jpd80]

So do we then base fuel economy standards on a vehicle's payload? If so, those Lamborghinis should probably be getting about 600 mpg.

Of course not Nick, I'm merely pointing out that heavy transport is efficient at fuel used to move weight.

We need to differentiate between work vehicles and lifestyle play things.

[TomServo92]

Of course not Nick, I'm merely pointing out that heavy transport is efficient at fuel used to move weight.

We need to differentiate between work vehicles and lifestyle play things.

 

That's exactly why you can't compare a Corvette's gas mileage to a Flex.

[Deanh]

So do we then base fuel economy standards on a vehicle's payload? If so, those Lamborghinis should probably be getting about 600 mpg.

not if driven by the emancipated lindsay Lohan...

[jpd80]

It's the way we look at the problem, sure our current vehicles will find it difficult to meet the new

standards but the same was true in 1975 when manufacturers had 6 an 7 liter V8 as standard in

vehicles and a fleet average of 13 mpg. I'm sure those folks though 27.5 mpg average was impossible

except with econo boxes. We see the same arguments today, the rules are too hard.

manufacturers are forced to think outside the box, new materials, more efficient power trains.

Edited May 22, 2009 by jpd80