Topic: Feds get tough on auto emissions, announce joint Canada-US rules

[Mitlov]

The last time CAFE was bumped up, people across America were screaming that the sky was falling.  We'd all have to drive Yarises, and cars like the Mustang would disappear forever.

Well, it's 2011, and the Mustang is still here, more powerful and more fuel-efficient than ever before.  The sky still didn't fall.

I'm not losing sleep over this one.  And if an American doesn't, Canadians shouldn't, because you guys already get the same overall selection that we do but you tend to buy more of the compacts and subcompacts than we do.

[tpl]

Diesel cars fall under the same rules which is a pity 'cos it means we will probably NOT get all those economical low CO2 diesels from the rest of the world.   If Canada had synchronized with the ECE diesel rules now or back in 2007 we probably would have had some by now. 

[tpl]

I skimmed through the enormous EPA document defining these rules and I saw a bizarre ( to me ) thing.

The allowable grams of co2/km are different depending on the footprint of the car.  Put another way, the bigger the width * length of the car the more emissions it can produce.   I may be being over cynical here but it looks like an sneaky way  for the Detroit 3 to be able to carry on making big cars and SUVs.  It isn't quite clear tho' that the same footprint thing was not in the CAFE.


The whole thing is in here:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm

[safristi]

...ya can't  squeeze blood out of a stoned legislator...............but they sure can try with the rest of us...............anyone see that Congressman LIVINGSTONE concerned aboot GUAM tipping ov'r....................Priceless...........and it's Mitlov's taxes at work...doubly so,..... ..when these brainiacs sneeze us Canuks get a COLD SHOULDER fro Madame CLINTON too....

[saint_satan]

Sir Osis:

Wow! What an eye opener with your Ford sedan chart.  A 2010 Taurus weighs that much more than the boats from the 50's and 60's?!  Therein lies a big chunk of the fuel economy issue, me thinks.

I'm looking to replace my aging Jeep Cherokee and found the same thing.  The curb weight of the '01 Cherokee is ~3,000 lbs.  The first generation Liberty got a "modern, efficient engine" and added 1,000 lbs.  Someone said it was too "cramped" so the new, second generation Liberty is a bit roomier - and tips the scales at 4,300+ lbs (another 300lbs.).  The permormance is starting to suffer - I guess it's time for a bigger engine... On it goes - It doesn't look like progress to me.

[Rupert]

If these regs end up cutting power to weight figures then maybe this will be a good thing. As noted here some of todays engines are rediculous for ordinary use and in prior years we did exactly what we do today with far lsss. Even when legitimate highway speeds were higher.
A modest increase in posted highway speed would be of far more value to most drivers than 'gross hp'.
Cars have been reducing in size for going on 50 years now; it's not a new phenomina.

The Liberty has a large tunnel in between the seats, for some reason, which reduces space quite a bit. Americans seemingly do not buy small cars much...the little Fiat 500 looks a bit small even in this class of car. Could be a problem if it does not come as a hatchback varient.

[Erik]

If you want to see where all the weight has come from, take  look at some crash test videos from the early to mid 90's, compared to cars today. The 97 F-150 is a favorite of mine...