That's highway mileage, not combined mileage. 2008 GMC 2wd Acadia combined rating is 19 mpg (www.fueleconomy.gov). I know 2008 ratings are not what is used to compute future CAFE numbers, and the DI engine will help, but 19 to 29 mpg is a big leap and, I dare say, impossible for this vehicle without much more dramatic changes. GM is gonna have to give away HHR's by the boatload in order to be "allowed" to sell full-sized trucks.

 

The low volume production manufacturers will most likely opt to just pay the fines.

 

Nah... It's only us 'common people' that must always make the compromises.

Seriously, I'm a Sociology major and there is a whole school of thought on how laws are structured by the wealthy to keep the "little (desperate) people" in line because the wealthy always fear a backlash.

Times are hard right now, so what do the wealthy people do? They begin limting our freedoms to snuff out any potential uprising.

Or so the theory would say (BTW, I beleive a lot of this to be valid)

 

I'd rather see American politicians driving American cars.

 

I can see a couple MPGs being had fairly easily in the short term. I see the Federal mandates creating a market force that pushes manufacturers to translate their improved technology into better fuel efficiency rather than higher HP numbers.

Taking my 2008 G6 as an example, it's a 2.4L I4 with 164 HP and I get about 22mpg combined (i'm talking what i really average in consumption). CAFE rates it at 25 combined. I would GLADLY give up 20 to even 30 HP to get an additional 3 to 4 MPGs. I'm thinking that wouldn't be a gigantic undertaking to achieve. That could just be a cam and tune change. If you go to a 5 speed automatic tranny or play with the gear ratios, the highway MPG could probably be improved even more.

Average daily driver sedans don't need the power they're currently making. Especially with my base model Value Leader G6, the 164 HP is excessive. For some reason, the manufacturers have chosen to push up HP and let the MPG numbers remain stagnant. These new regulations may finally force them to shift their priorities.

 

Just because he "owns" one doesn't mean he drives it.

How much driving do you think he does on his own?

When you rake in $100k per speech, it's no big deal to plunk down $25k on a car that you have registered in your name so you can say you own it.

The Clintons are worth millions and millions of dollars.

 

Wait, so what you are saying is that the market will push people toward more fuel efficient cars, all by itself?

That's what we anti-CAFE loonies have been pushing all along.

Demand, demand, demand. CAFE messes with the supply. Fuel prices affect demand.



I sure as hell hope gas prices don't go up as much as you say, but even at their current too-high levels, they are already impacting vehicle choices. I bought a Colorado instead of a Sierra (averaging 20.3 mpg in mixed driving so far, better than I get in the LT1...). I'm looking to get another motorcycle to replace the one I sold last year. 40 mpg will be nice on the days I ride to work. My wife and I are carpooling once or twice a week when our schedules allow. And, sad as it is, I've contemplated NOT replacing the B4C with another V8 sports car should I finally get off my *** and sell it next year (my Miata is for sale right now). Maybe a newer Miata, or a Sky / Solstice, or...

 

But in reality, the difference isn't that much. The difference between 26 and 30 mpg driven 15,000 miles with $5.00 gas, is less than $400 a year. Personally, I would gladly spend that much to have a car that I enjoy driving more. I would think that anyone contemplating spending ~$35,000 on a new car can find another $400 somewhere.

Personally I won't be buying a new retro Camaro regardless, but I would very much like a G8 GT or GXP. If high gas prices make more people reconsider purchasing a V8 then maybe demand will soften such that I can fund that $400 out of a reduced purchase price .

 

I highly doubt a v-8 camaro would average anywhere near 26mpg. More like 18-20 for "average" commuters.

Time will tell. I still "want" one

 

But most the anti-CAFE people are also anti-fuel tax. They can't have it both ways. If we want the market to drive the demand for fuel efficient cars then we need higher fuel prices. I'd rather start sooner with a revenue neutral tax than later when peak oil tells us we had enough. Europe is so far ahead of us because they chose option #1.

 

We DO have higher fuel prices.

The taxes haven't changed, yet as guionM points out, gas is approaching $4.00/gal and may/will hit $5.00+ in the not too distant future.

No need to jack it up further with additional/higher taxes (which are already part of the price of fuel) when the market is taking care of that all by itself.

But in general, yes, I'd rather see a revenue neutral tax (not that I trust the government to ever actually keep it neutral) than meaningless CAFE numbers that shift the blame, so to speak.

 

Ya I agree, the current price spikes seem to be working, and 30%+ increases year after year will be more than enough to get people to demand change. Revenue neutral taxes are something we should have started in the 80's.

 

Why would you guys want more taxes? Today is the day you all start working for yourselves and you get to keep your money. Up until today you have been working for the Gov and its high taxes.
I think all the car companies should tell the gov FOff and build what the public wants, which by the way things are going will be fuel efficient cars.

 

I'm just waiting for the Oil Market to CRASH, just like the housing market. US consumption is down; new "larger" fields are being found in the gulf... Investors are driving up the price of oil right now imo. It will go down...

Although, I still think more fuel effecient vehicles should be pushed regardless of the price of oil.

 

Revenue neutral taxes is what we want. That means they tax fuel more but tax something else less (lower income tax maybe). At the end of the day the state/gov't has the same amount of money and you paid the same amount. You just pay it a different way than now.

It might dip but it won't crash. OPEC nations are using oil revenue to fund social programs. If Oil prices don't stay high they are screwed and since demand shows no signs of slowing and OPEC can manipulate production I'd say Oil for under $100 is going to become very rare. There is a better chance that the dollar will crash than oil.