CAFE: Who Are We Kidding? (Part 3)

There are many more issues with this regulation, but I'll leave you with these:

We were particularly encouraged that Reformed CAFE will confer no compliance advantage if vehicle makers choose to downsize some of their fleet as a CAFE compliance strategy...

Another fallacy. The agency says larger, heavier vehicles are safer vehicles (for passengers). They say lighter vehicles are more efficient. So the fuel economy regulation is now based on vehicle footprint. This is even more of an unnecessary attempt at classifying vehicles (see Part 2).

...requiring improvements in fuel economy necessarily has the effect of requiring reductions in tailpipe emissions of CO2 emissions.

This one line of thinking probably has more to do with why CAFE was initiated in the first place and demonstrates that the whole program is based on a flawed assumption.

They missed the global view, focusing on the proportional relationship between CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. Did it not occur to legislators (the agency shouldn't take all the blame - they're doing what they were directed to do) that improving fuel economy encourages people to drive more thus NOT reducing the amount of fuel used, even if fuel economy was improved?

The answer is yes because the rulemaking goes on to further contradict itself.

... the rebound effect from higher fuel economy will increase emissions of these pollutants. Thus, the net effect of stricter CAFE standards on emissions of each pollutant depends on the relative magnitudes of its reduced emissions in fuel refining and distribution, and increase in its emissions from vehicle use.

In other words, CAFE will work if people don't drive much more. But when fuel cost goes down vehicle miles go up. Hmmm....

The 2002 Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report cited in the rulemaking states:

While raising CAFE standards under the existing structure would reduce fuel consumption, doing so under alternative structures 'could accomplish the same end at lower cost, provide more flexibility to manufacturers, or address inequities arising from the present' structure.

Here is a report written at the behest of Congress and acknowledged by NHTSA that CAFE is not the best way to go about improving fuel economy and efficiency. So what does the government collectively do? More of the same.

What they should do is tax the fuel and cancel this complicated and ineffective program. Stop trying to make a pig fly.

CAFE: Who Are We Kidding? (Part 2)

More thoughts about CAFE:

Limits to five the number of model years for which standards can be established in a single rulemaking.

This virtually guarantees the prevention of long term planning. The agency itself admits that its estimates are based on projected production figures by the manufacturers. Yet future regulations are constantly in the air since each rulemaking is limited to a 5 year horizon.

This is akin to looking 5 feet ahead of the car while driving. You will make constant steering inputs without looking further up the road, resulting in actions that matter little in the long run.

Distinguishing between passenger cars and light trucks is unnecessary. Why classify different types of vehicles that are intended for private use? All this has accomplished is to shift consumers from large cars to larger SUVs.

The agency could not set out the exact level of CAFE that each manufacturer would be required to meet for each model year under the passenger car or light truck standards since the levels would depend on information that would not be available until the end of each of the model years, i.e., the final actual production figures for each of those years. The agency could, however, project what the industry-wide level of average fuel economy would be for passenger and light trucks if each manufacturer produced its expected mix of automobiles and just met its obligations under the proposed "optimized" standards for each model year.

Manufacturers' compliance with the regulations depend on actual production levels and targets.

Compliance with this regulation is entirely dependent on whether a manufacturer can accurately meet its production projections (or buy compliance credits from those that do). But they are at the mercy of market demand. How much faith can we put in these projections when the industry has traditionally been cyclical (see 2009 sales)? These projections are hit or miss.

This also throws into question any cost/benefit estimate on the agency's part.

42 MPG, Not That Hard

Been on vacation for a while. Drove my Mom to upstate New York to visit family friends. We took her '04 Corolla. My Mom has driven Corollas for a long time. She buys one new, drives it into the ground and then repeats the process. It takes a long time.

I drove the whole way and averaged 42.4 mpg, using 18.3 gallons of 87 octane gas over 776 miles. Much of the time the air conditioning was on and the weather was great. Tire pressures were 32 psi, ambient temperature about 75-80 degrees F, humidity fairly low (probably about 30% to 40% max), and cruising speeds in the 60 to 65 mph range.

The car is pretty good for the money. It's a real car that can be found anywhere - not experimental or far fetched in any way. Amazingly, it only cost $1,000 more than the same model my Mom bought 10 years before. Much of this cost containment was achieved by using lower grade materials (interior trim, upholstery, etc). The older model had 4 wheel independent suspension, this one has a rear beam axle. You notice these things.

The ergonomics border on terrible, and the Corolla chief engineer alluded to this when the 2009 model debuted. The steering wheel is too far forward and does not telescope. It does now on the new model. The seat also left my backside numb after an hour or two. There's also a lot of buffeting when behind large vehicles at speed.

It's hard to believe that Toyota could nail it for so many years and then not do such a good job on this one. But overall it is still a good value. The car has been bulletproof as far as reliability.

A Prius is easily $7k more. Unless you drive a lot and fuel prices rise astronomically (to about $9/gallon, assuming 50 mpg for a Prius, 40 mpg for the Corolla, 15k miles/year, and you keep each for 10 years) you will never actually save money.

Automakers could probably gain another 10% in mpg for $1,000 or less. Here's what I would consider:

1. Lower seats and roof to reduce frontal area and aero drag. Everything else constant, a 2 inch height reduction would cut drag about 3% to 4% (likely about 1.5% to 2% mpg improvement).

2. Cooler glass and less of it. AC could then be downsized, and it wouldn't have to work as hard to cool the cabin.

3. More gears. Everyone's already doing this. Four speeds is not sufficient for keeping the engine in its sweet spot over rolling terrain at speed.

4. Predictive cruise control. Cruise control is pretty efficient compared to humans. It would be even more effective if the driver could set a speed band (maybe 5-7 mph) and GPS could let it figure out how to anticipate road grades.

A 10% improvement in fuel economy and $1,000 price premium would result in break-even on savings when fuel is at $2.94/gallon or higher, given the above example with the Prius. It almost makes financial sense at this mpg strata. It would definitely be positive for vehicles in the 25 mpg range.

By the way, this reminds me of my '89 Civic hatchback in college, one of the best handling cars I ever drove. It had a 5 speed manual, enormous trunk space, and it rarely returned LESS than 40 mpg.

The 150 MPG Fallacy

Electric cars are the way of the future. I’m convinced. But one of the biggest concerns I have is that media and proponents of electric hybrids continue to mislead and falsely state inflated fuel economy figures. For example, I saw this CNN clip today about an extreme-hybrid “car of the future”. And it’s inaccurate.

The energy required to move a vehicle is the same as before. It’s a modified Saturn VUE. So the drag and weight aren’t much different from stock. If anything it weighs more due to extra batteries and the electric motor. But for the sake of discussion it’s the same car.

That means it takes the same amount of energy to physically move it from Point A to Point B. Now instead of doing it with gasoline, you’re using electricity for much of the trip.

It should be acknowledged how much net energy is consumed during driving. There needs to be a way to equate total energy consumed for distance traveled. The reason is that a PHEV (Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle) is often recharged by plugging it into an outlet, and the electricity is coming from somewhere. A 150 mpg figure is misleading for PHEVs. It makes for great headlines but it isn’t real.

It’s analogous to saying you got by last week by eating only 2 hamburgers (i.e. gasoline) and neglecting to mention the 20 helpings of spaghetti (i.e. electricity) you also ate to get through the week. If you use energy from sources additional to the gasoline in a car’s tank, it should be included in the fuel economy calculation.

Finally, it is important to recognize that the true significance here is not that the car get’s better mileage or not. It’s the fact that it offers a way to wean ourselves off of oil because electricity can come from many different sources.