35 mpg CAFE in US by 2016

[imugli]

See here

Loved this bit...

Obama also praised Ford -- the only domestic company that hasn't sought government loans.

"I just want to mention, I think I still have my Ford parked in Chicago. It's a Ford hybrid, it runs great, you guys should take a look," Obama said, quickly sensing the unease of the other nine automakers. "But there are also some outstanding hybrids -- and energy-independent cars represented up here, so I didn't want to just advertise for one."

Now if that isn't the best publicity you can get...

How long before the Pres is back in a Lincoln?

[R-Design]

Originally Posted by imugli

See here

Loved this bit...



Now if that isn't the best publicity you can get...

How long before the Pres is back in a Lincoln?

He & Arnie are already doing Chrysler ad's in Oz so why not?

Great ad's by the way. 'C'mon, you can do it!"

[imugli]

Originally Posted by Boss315

He & Arnie are already doing Chrysler ad's in Oz so why not?

Great ad's by the way. 'C'mon, you can do it!"

Aaaargh! You can do iiiit!

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schwarzenegger

Buy a Chrysler, or I'll rip off your arms, tear off your head and crush it like a coconut, blow up your house, hunt down your family and shoot them with a machine gun, then dance on your grave.

I like the cut of Arnie's jib.

[vztrt]

Australian motor industry concern.

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2575BC000BF7C8

Australian motor industry says voluntary CO2 cuts on track

By IAN PORTER 20 May 2009

THE decision by President Barack Obama to bring forward by four years fuel economy standards laid down in the dying days of the Bush administration has sparked calls for similar action in Australia.

The new US fuel economy target - to be introduced at the same time as a national exhaust emissions regulation - has been hailed by environmental groups in the US and Australia.

However, the Australian car industry was quick to warn politicians against a knee-jerk reaction in Australia, where the regulatory framework is different to those in the US and Europe.

The industry is concerned about a coincidence between the Obama announcement and the fact that two Australian ministerial council meetings are scheduled for Friday – one for transport ministers and one for environment ministers.

Both will be considering fuel efficiency improvement options in a paper generated by a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments.

President Obama’s new plan requires five per cent improvements in fuel efficiency each year between 2012 and 2016, reducing the required average fleet consumption to 35.5 miles per gallon (6.6 litres per 100km).

The Bush administration was aiming to reduce the fleet average to 35mpg (6.7L/100km) by 2020.

With the agreement of California, President Obama has authorised the Environmental Protection Agency to implement one national standard for emissions, eliminating potential problems arising from the intentions of California and 13 other states to implement their own emissions laws.

Unlike two years ago when President Bush introduced his legislation, the Obama proposal was supported by all car-makers that have assembly plants in the US.

The Australian Conservation Foundation and the NRMA in Sydney have greeted the news with a renewed call to adopt the proposed 2012 European emissions standard of 120 grams of CO2 per kilometer for cars sold in Australia.

“Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and now the United States have all introduced mandatory fuel consumption standards for new cars and it’s time for Australia to do the same,” said the ACF’s Monica Richter.

Ms Richter acknowledged the local industry’s voluntary code of practice which has a target of an average of 222g/km for passenger cars, SUVs and light commercial vehicles by 2010.

This is almost double the 120g/km limit to be introduced in Europe in 2012.

“Unless we catch up to the rest of the world, the Australian vehicle industry will be left behind,” Ms Richter said.

The NRMA urged the government to introduce new fuel consumption standards in stages out to 2015.

“Mandating fuel consumption standards is a logical step towards reducing the greenhouse emissions of Australian vehicles as well as reducing the cost to households of having a motor vehicle,” said Wendy Machin, the president of the NRMA’s motoring and services division.

Ms Machin said Japan and the European Union required passenger cars to achieve a fuel efficiency standard of 5.0L/100km (with equivalent emissions of about 140g/km).

Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) chief executive Andrew McKellar said the local car industry – manufacturers and importers alike – understood the need to make a contribution to the abatement of carbon emissions, along with every other sector of the economy.

The industry’s concern was that, if fuel economy or emissions standards were mandated on top of current and proposed regulations, it could end up costing motorists $120 for each tonne of carbon saved, instead of $25 to $30, he said.

“In Australia, the key distinction is that the Government had put forward plans for an emissions trading scheme (ETS), known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), and one of the key features of that new scheme is that it will include the road transport sector.

“In Europe, road transport is excluded from the ETS and, partly as a consequence, the EU more recently has moved to implement new mandatory vehicle emissions targets of 120 grams of CO2 per kilometre.

“In the US, they don’t have an ETS, although the Obama administration has indicated it is inclined to develop one.”

Mr McKellar said the vehicle industry would be picked up by the ETS and that any other measures would only increase the cost to motorists and the economy.

The Obama changes were estimated to add around $US600 ($A770) to the cost of a V6 sedan with a four-speed automatic – essentially a Commodore/Falcon sized car.

“The evidence from Europe suggests that going down the track of mandatory emissions regulation is a second best option,” Mr McKellar said.

“It is likely to result in higher abatement costs for the automotive sector and that, in turn, will end up being passed on to consumers in vehicle prices.

“Why pay $100 or $150 a tonne for CO2 abatement (through engineering changes) when you can achieve the same result for $25 or $30 a tonne (through an ETS)?”

Mr McKellar said he hoped the ministers attending the two Minco meetings this Friday would realise Australia was well placed on fuel efficiency and emissions reduction.

“The Australian approach, through the CPRS and the arrangements under the Green Car Innovation Fund, is actually world leading.

“We would encourage ministers not to come up with a knee-jerk reaction.”

Mr McKellar pointed out that the current voluntary emissions target of 222g/km for passenger cars, SUVs and light commercial vehicles combined, was on track.

“We expect to exceed that target early, by 2010,” he said.

“Our preference would be to continue to develop voluntary targets along those lines rather than have mandatory regulations introduced.”

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by imugli

Now if that isn't the best publicity you can get...

How good is it to have the president endorse your products!!!

On top of that the article re-inforces, Ford the only auto-maker not to take a bailout!

[imugli]

Unlike two years ago when President Bush introduced his legislation, the Obama proposal was supported by all car-makers that have assembly plants in the US.

Is it still called 'support' when you have a big stick held above you in the shape of $20b of loans to Uncle Sam?

[mik]

pretty high standards to aim for Vztrt....... looks almost impossible to reach with a standard medium to large size engine, maybe we should be at changing the type of fuel instead of the engines? or adding water injection or something, .... hybrids :jab:.... down sizeing :jab: no thanks, i saw written somewhere that cars contribute very little c02 in total scheme of things and most comes from coal burning etc.

[Road_Warrior]

Enjoy those V8's and big turbo 6's while you can boys. Looks like they will be legislated out of existence within 10 years unless there is an alternative fuel found.

[JPFS1]

corporate average guys. There's no reason why they should kill off larger displacement engines.

The fact that they (Ford) are investing so heavily in the small capacity ecoboost engines with the aim of them being high volume sales (1.3 million engines by 2013), should see them gain CAFE credits and offsetting any CAFE penalties that might be incurred by the larger displacement engines, which will be of less volume. And all this without even considering the great economy they're getting from their new hybrid powertrains.

We know that Wile. E is coming... we know it's of pretty decent power ;) I don't think Ford are investing in an all new V8 with the intention of it to last for 1 product cycle.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

corporate average guys. There's no reason why they should kill off larger displacement engines.

The fact that they (Ford) are investing so heavily in the small capacity ecoboost engines with the aim of them being high volume sales (1.3 million engines by 2013), should see them gain CAFE credits and offsetting any CAFE penalties that might be incurred by the larger displacement engines, which will be of less volume. And all this without even considering the great economy they're getting from their new hybrid powertrains.

We know that Wile. E is coming... we know it's of pretty decent power ;) I don't think Ford are investing in an all new V8 with the intention of it to last for 1 product cycle.

Yeah i thought if they do it like the US then it'll be the average.

So release a hybrid and should bring the average down.

If they were smart they would let the market kill higher displacement engines then legislate.

[Ohio XB]

The automakers are on board because one of their biggest concerns was alleviated. California and about 13 other States were looking to impose their own emissions regulations which would have been a nightmare for the manufacturers to try to meet. It was even getting down to where some cities were looking to impose their own emissions standards. This battle has been going on in the court systems for over a year now.

With agreeing to move the 2020 deadline up to 2016 the States agreed to go with one national emission standard. Not only does this make it easy on the manufacturers to build for but now it also lets them know what they need to plan and work towards, and how to spend their money. This was a key issue.



On the notion of V8 engines, I just watched a company video message with Barb Samardzich, VP of Powertrain Engineering, and she stated that there will always be a market for a V8 (speaking of the US). She said of course Mustang GT owners are going to want a V8, and they probably want a V8 EcoBoost (jokingly). She also said that a V8 would be a cost effective alternative for someone looking to get into a base F-150. She implied that the V8 would be cheaper than the EcoBoost V6. She assured that they know there is always going to be a demand for the V8 and that is why they sunk money into developing a new one.


Steve

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

The automakers are on board because one of their biggest concerns was alleviated. California and about 13 other States were looking to impose their own emissions regulations which would have been a nightmare for the manufacturers to try to meet. It was even getting down to where some cities were looking to impose their own emissions standards. This battle has been going on in the court systems for over a year now.

With agreeing to move the 2020 deadline up to 2016 the States agreed to go with one national emission standard. Not only does this make it easy on the manufacturers to build for but now it also lets them know what they need to plan and work towards, and how to spend their money. This was a key issue.



On the notion of V8 engines, I just watched a company video message with Barb Samardzich, VP of Powertrain Engineering, and she stated that there will always be a market for a V8 (speaking of the US). She said of course Mustang GT owners are going to want a V8, and they probably want a V8 EcoBoost (jokingly). She also said that a V8 would be a cost effective alternative for someone looking to get into a base F-150. She implied that the V8 would be cheaper than the EcoBoost V6. She assured that they know there is always going to be a demand for the V8 and that is why they sunk money into developing a new one.


Steve

It would be absolutely wonderful if all of the manufacturers got together and said to the Popular Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Kalifornia "ENOUGH" and refuse to make cars that were legal there.

How long would it be before the loonies and hippies backed down as their aging fleets wore out and they found that Priuses et all are really good provided you dont actually want to go anywhere..

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by flappist

It would be absolutely wonderful if all of the manufacturers got together and said to the Popular Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of Kalifornia "ENOUGH" and refuse to make cars that were legal there.

How long would it be before the loonies and hippies backed down as their aging fleets wore out and they found that Priuses et all are really good provided you dont actually want to go anywhere..

I don't know what the new Prius is like, but Top Gear really ripped the current Prius for being a chinsy, cheap car as to it's construction.


I thought it might be interesting to tell some of those States "Sorry, it will make our cars too expensive for your citizens to only build 2,000 cars across 7 different platforms with just your State's emissions controls." It would be the equivalent of the State making it not economically feasible for Ford to do business in their State and they would lose tax dollars, and the citizens would lose choice.


imugli, Barb seems like the kind of person who would love to build a V8 EcoBoost engine! But they are not being built purely for the power, they are being built to replace engines that would traditionally need to be bigger to produce the same amount of power. Basically, I look for most all cars you would expect a V6 in to have the EcoBoost 4 cylinder engine, and 4 cylinder cars will have even smaller 4 cylinder EcoBoost engines. V8 applications will have the V6 EcoBoost engine.

By the way, at some Mustang boards I go to the people were complaining that the EB V6 will not have the roar of the V8 and they would miss that. Well, I saw a video of a test drive of the Taurus SHO with the 365 HP EB V6 and I promise, no one will "miss" the roar of a V8. Ford covered that!!

Ironically, the person that bought the first Fusion Hybrid was a medical student in California!!


Steve

[vztrt]

Another article

http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0520-bfpa.html

Gas guzzlers under the pump

Katharine Murphy and Tom Arup
May 21, 2009

AUSTRALIA'S car makers could face a new mandatory fuel-efficiency standard following a United States decision to declare war on polluting gas guzzlers.

Transport and environment ministers will tomorrow consider options to improve energy-efficiency standards, including a recommendation for a mandatory standard to lower carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.

A mandatory standard would be likely to provoke a backlash from car makers, who have campaigned for years to keep their system of pollution reduction a voluntary scheme.

Last night, the car industry warned the Government to think carefully about imposing a mandatory standard.

"We would be concerned to ensure there is not a knee-jerk response to events in the US," the chief executive of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries Andrew McKellar said.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday backed the US move, saying it was pleasing that America was adopting climate change measures.

Transport Minister Anthony Albanese is open to a mandatory standard to reduce carbon dioxide pollution.

Industry Minister Kim Carr is understood to have concerns about any shift away from Australia's voluntary scheme, and favours an approach of rewarding the manufacturers for lowering emissions rather than penalising them.

Environment Minister Peter Garrett declined to comment other than to say tomorrow's meeting of environment ministers would work through the results of a submission process on fuel-efficiency policies.

The Council of Australian Governments will consider any change in July.

This week's move by the US has given cabinet supporters of mandatory standards a significant boost.

The renewed debate on mandatory fuel standards was sparked by US President Barack Obama raising mandatory fuel-efficiency standards on Tuesday after weeks of negotiations with the US car industry, green groups and automotive unions.

The new US standards will require an overall reduction of 30 per cent in emissions from cars and trucks by 2016, meaning a rise in mandatory fuel efficiency from 10 kilometres a litre to 15.

Australia has a voluntary standard of 10 litres per 100 kilometres and a requirement that every new car sold has a sticker stating the vehicle's fuel efficiency and carbon emissions.

The US changes won strong support yesterday from Australia's largest motoring association, the NRMA, and green groups. NRMA motoring and services president Wendy Machin called for a staged introduction of mandatory standards so that Australia's regime was on par with the rest of the world by 2015.

[imugli]

Thanks Steve.

Interesting that the comment re EcoBoost V8 was made in jest.

TT, DI 5l V8 - Hell Yeah!

[JPFS1]

There are massive gains to come. The manufacturer's have just been holding out maximising their returns from cheap technology.

Now that there is a true shift away from OIL reliance, you will see electric/hybrid technologies helping to unleash the full potential of energy that is currently wasted.

According to research (creators of the hyper car), only 0.3% of the fuel energy is used to move the car 'itself'.

Weight is one of the biggest contributors to inefficiencies. There have been some massive breakthrough's in the manufacturing processes and costs of carbon fibre. It's quite possible that the automotive world will be moving to CF for more conventional applications, which up until now, has not been suitable for many reasons, mainly cost and crash safety.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

.....
According to research (creators of the hyper car), only 0.3% of the fuel energy is used to move the car 'itself'.

Weight is one of the biggest contributors to inefficiencies. There have been some massive breakthrough's in the manufacturing processes and costs of carbon fibre. It's quite possible that the automotive world will be moving to CF for more conventional applications, which up until now, has not been suitable for many reasons, mainly cost and crash safety.

I would separate weight and aerodynamics from energy loss in the engine and powertrain. Eg. People will always require all sorts of vehicle types, sizes and shapes. We can't all drive Smart cars for every purpose.
But I would consider things like piston friction, energy turning in to heat, generating energy to cool the heat it is producing, loss of energy turned to noise from engine, which then has to be muffled and converted to heat? How much energy is used just to push all 8 pistons? Why I think V8s use more fuel than a 6 cyl, when you're not driving fast. The tougher the engine, the heavier the components: connecting rods, crank shaft, torque convertor, gears, tailshaft, differential and axle. When these components are bigger and heavier, they last longer, but takes more energy to push them. The way to make them more efficient, is to have less, AND lighter weight moving parts. The way towards TOTAL EFFICIENCY is towards no moving parts. But that can't be done with an internal combustion engine. H2 Fuel Cell on the other hand..... 1 moving part in the electric motor, and probably no transmission, or have a DSG with about 3 speeds?

[vztrt]

Seems that we may get the same rubbish here

http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0522-bick.html

Car makers face forced pollution limits

Katharine Murphy, Canberra
May 23, 2009

FEDERAL Transport Minister Anthony Albanese says he will take on the car industry in order to cut carbon pollution from cars.

Mr Albanese said after a meeting with his state counterparts yesterday the car industry might have to cop a mandatory fuel-efficiency standard, not the voluntary system that exists now.

"My view is we need to achieve real gains in this area," Mr Albanese said. "The need to achieve change is not optional."

The meeting discussed a recommendation to impose a mandatory carbon dioxide pollution standard for all new light vehicles.

A statement issued after the meeting said the governments would consider the shift if a regulatory effect assessment and a consultation process showed benefits in forcing the industry to cut pollution.

Sources said the car making states, particularly South Australia, were concerned about the shift and did not endorse the recommendations.

Mr Albanese said there were a number of ways to achieve better pollution standards.

Cabinet is divided. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is understood to support tougher standards and Mr Albanese wants progress.

Industry Minister Kim Carr is concerned that a mandatory standard would hurt the cash-strapped manufacturers, and favours giving the producers incentives to boost fuel efficiency.

Progress towards a tougher regime follows a decision by the Obama Administration to toughen fuel efficiency standards for US vehicle makers.

The new US standards impose a 30 per cent reduction on emissions from cars and trucks by 2016, meaning a rise in mandatory fuel efficiency from 10 kilometres a litre to 15.

Australia has a voluntary standard of 10 litres per 100 kilometres and a requirement that every new car sold has a sticker stating the vehicle's fuel efficiency and carbon emissions.

The shift in the US alarmed the local vehicle industry.

Mr Albanese said the decision by the US to clean up its car fleet was positive for the debate around the world and could pave the way for change in Australia.

"Certainly the fact that some of the parent companies (GM and Ford) will be making changes as a result of the Obama reforms will advance this issue globally," he said.

The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries said it would resist tough rules.

"The automotive industry remains opposed to a mandatory efficiency standard," FCAI chief executive Andrew McKellar said.

"It is our view the most effective way to achieve these standards is through an emissions trading scheme."

[vztrt]

Australia getting closer to getting its own CAFE laws.

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2575C2000C6226

Australian fuel efficiency reform takes next step

Transport minister wants ‘real gains’ as mandatory CO2 target moves to COAG

By TERRY MARTIN 26 May 2009

MANDATORY fuel efficiency and emission standards for new vehicles sold in Australia have received a boost after the federal transport minister Anthony Albanese last week supported the move – on the proviso that it demonstrated a “net public benefit”.

Two days after the US government announced far-reaching new fuel economy reform, which in turn prompted calls for similar action in Australia, Mr Albanese met with his state and territory counterparts last Friday (May 22) on the Australian Transport Council (ATC) to consider the final report and recommendations – including mandatory CO2 emission standards for new light vehicles – from the ministerial Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Working Group.

The working group includes members from the ATC and the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC), and follows the release of a public consultation paper in September last year.

While it remains unclear if transport ministers from car-producing states, namely Victoria and South Australia, supported the recommendations, Mr Albanese said after the meeting in Cairns that the ATC had agreed to forward the final report to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) for consideration in July.

“Mandatory emission standards will be considered for introduction if a regulatory impact assessment – involving a rigorous assessment and consultation process – demonstrates a net public benefit of doing so,” the minister said in a statement.

He also told Fairfax Media: “My view is we need to achieve real gains in this area. The need to achieve change is not optional.”

Left: Federal transport minister Anthony Albanese.

The final report was also considered last Friday by the federal environment minister Peter Garrett and his state and territory counterparts at an EPHC meeting in Hobart. It, too, referred to the report to COAG.

In its communiqué, the EPHC said: “Council noted a package of measures that have the potential to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of the Australian road transport sector.”

It specifically referred to the recommendation to consider introducing a mandatory CO2 emissions target for new light vehicles, but, like the ATC, it did not shed light on the degree of support among its members.

Other measures mentioned in the report include differing duties and charges for vehicles based on their fuel efficiency rating, and improving consumer information.

Currently, the car industry has a voluntary CO2 emissions target of 222g/km for passenger cars, SUVs and light-commercial vehicles combined, which, according to the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, should be achieved during 2010.

All new vehicles also carry a sticker with its CO2 emissions and fuel economy ratings.

[vztrt]

Burela is against Australia getting CAFE type laws.

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2575D60027911F

Ford Australia against fuel economy regulation

Mandatory fuel economy and emissions standards won’t work, says Ford boss

By JAMES STANFORD 15 June 2009

FORD Australia president Marin Burela has spoken out against proposals to enforce mandatory average fuel economy and emission standards in Australia.

“We don’t think that mandatory targets work,” he said.

“We believe that industry self-imposed standards are the ones that really make the difference. I firmly believe that it is the industry’s responsibility to lead this change, it can’t just come as a dictate coming from somewhere.”

As reported by GoAuto, public servants are believed to be preparing to recommend to federal and state ministers that there is a case for fuel efficiency and/or emissions standards in Australia that would come on top of any possible emissions trading scheme penalties.

Mr Burela said introducing regulations for new fuel-efficiency standards were not needed as Australian car-makers were moving forward anyway.

“What that does is create a perception that the industry is not genuinely interested in moving the game along in terms of where it needs to be both socially and responsibly,” he said.

“I know what my company and I are doing to move the game along. You guys know what GM is doing and I’m sure you are aware of some of the things that Toyota is doing.”

Mr Burela said the industry would drive fuel efficiency advancements without regulation.

“I think and industry driven change is the one that can work the best, every single time, there is no question about that,” he said.

“I have made our position clear to the FCAI (Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries) and other authorities as we have engaged in this debate over the last few months, but I guess we will just have to wait and see.”

Mr Burela said Ford Australia would prefer to proceed without new fuel and emission standards, but said it would comply with such a regime if introduced.

“Whatever it is it will be,” he said. “We have a plan, we are working on that plan and our plan is working. It is delivering results.”

As previously reported, the FCAI has spoken out against any new fuel economy and emissions standards that might be being developed.

FCAI chief executive Andrew McKellar told GoAuto that separate emissions standards on top of the proposed emissions trading scheme would only increase costs unnecessarily.

“Mandatory emissions standards would overlap with an emissions trading scheme (ETS) and only lead to significantly higher costs across the industry for the same outcome,” he said.

[R-Design]

Burela knows that high standards will see the end to the I6, and possibly the Falcon. Let's hope the Legislators put jobs before some easy election votes.