New Auto Gas Mileage Standards: What it Means to Us?

Furthermore, this is true not only for GM, but also for all automakers for the domestic market, even for those who never took the federal bailout money. I am referring to the administration decision to set the new national fuel-efficiency standards that would increase an average national gas-mileage for cars, trucks, and SUVs to 35.5 mpg by 2016. Under the new standards the passenger cars, for example, would need to reach in average 39 mpg, light trucks- 30 mpg.

To see what it means to us, the consumers, let's talk about the practical ways of increasing the cars' fuel efficiency. There are two ways of achieving the required fuel economy within a short six-year time span: reducing vehicles weight and adding electric motors with rechargeable energy storage battery systems [for use in a combination with internal combustion engines].

Reducing the weight can be accomplished by using lighter materials and by making cars smaller and less equipped. Last year Ford run computer simulation on what would happen if Ford Focus was built of lightweight aluminum instead of the steel (see "Why automakers don't sell a car that gets 50mpg" ). The result was: the car would weight 30% less, could run on a one-liter engine, and the mileage would increase from 35mpg to 50mpg. There would be one "little" problem though: the all-aluminum car would cost more then $50,000.

Aside from the cost factor, lighter cars are less safe. In a head-on collision, a lighter car will always have larger change in velocity due to Conservation of Momentum law (see Hyperphysics Concepts). So, no matter what anyone tells you, new fuel economy standards will hurt vehicles safety simply due to the laws of physics. But don't we have national standards for car crash safety? We do of course. The trick is, during the tests the car is being crashed against a still wall. This is equivalent to a head-on collision with another car of the same weight moving with the same speed. Properly designed light-weight cars can perfectly pass these tests and claim five-star safety rating. However, they will have an obvious disadvantage in real conditions if collided with heavier cars.

Mr.Obama said that in average the new cars would cost $1,300 more, but over the life of a vehicle we would save about $2,800 by getting better gas mileage. Well, if that's the case, why should we mandate the fuel efficiency? If it offers us, the consumers, a true cost advantage, the production and sales of more fuel efficient cars should been driven by the market forces. We already have cars that meet the year 2016 standards. When gas prices were at $4/gallon, Toyota Prius with 50mpg was selling like crazy. But when the gas prices dropped to a $2 range, Prius sales dropped accordingly. This is what free market is all about: the right to choose for consumers.

Speaking about the upfront cost. Last year GM's Vice Chairman Lutz estimated that the CA requirements would add on average $4,000 to $5,000 to the cost of the cars. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers' estimate was $3,000. Today's Camry Hybrid with 34 mpg has more then $5700 higher MSRP then a basic Camry with 23 mpg. A hybrid car battery typically costs $3000. So, the $1,300 figure looks like a gross underestimation.

Right now we have hundreds of cars to choose from. You can buy a fuel-efficient hybrid or a high-performance SUV, or anything in between. I am personally driving a Toyota Sienna. It has a powerful 3-liter engine, 7 seats, and roomy cargo. By 1016 this type of minivans will probably become extinct. We would likely be offered only wagon-type minivans, like Mazda5. SUVs would likely either disappear or become cost prohibitive because bringing SUVs up to the standard would be even more costly. Of course, weight reduction and electric hybrid technology are not the only ways of reducing the gas consumption. There are other ways, such as using hydrogen as an energy carrier. However, these developments require more time. With the new auto standards schedule, the vehicles will cost more, will be less safe, and our choices will be limited. Welcome to the emerging world of command economy!

Lazar Rozenblat
http://smps-power.blogspot.com/