The car of the future

In late July, with much fanfare, the administration, through the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration announced new standards for motor vehicle “fuel efficiency”.  Currently, a manufacturer’s vehicle fleet must average 27.5 miles per gallon, and this has been the standard since 1990.  However, by 2025, the fleet average must be 54.5 miles per gallon.

You are probably wondering why, if fuel efficiency is the goal, the Environmental Protection Agency is considering mandating that all gasoline sold in the United States must contain 15% ethanol, up from today’s 10%?  Doesn’t more ethanol reduce fuel efficiency, you ask?  Yes it does.  I can only assume that the EPA and NHTSA do not communicate with each other.

But, what will the new fuel efficiency standards mean?  Here is a glimpse.

A new study in mid-June by the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. put the tab at about $10,000 extra per vehicle, while admitting that even this estimate might be far too low.

And,

…GM announced that several versions of its compact Chevy Cruze would no longer have spare tires; instead they’ll have vehicle-powered sealant repair kits.

Among the reasons for that decision, some believe that spare tires are no longer necessary because most vehicles have tire pressure monitors.  It is anyone’s guess how a tire pressure monitor will be of value when a piece of road debris shreds your tire, but, to meet the standards, light weight is the only way to go.

However, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety consistently tells us that the laws of physics are still operational. 

SUV’s heavier than 4,500 pounds, for example, have a death rate less than one-third that of cars under 2,500 pounds.

Let’s just stop the charade.  I suggest that we remove the word “safety” from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s name and be done with it.

 

11 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Ethanol is a political boondoggle.? There is no such thing as a free lunch, and ethanol is the proof.
    ?
    The quote from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reminds me of a bumper sticker I would love to put on my “urban assault vehicle”:
    ?
    Your vehicle is my SUV’s crumple zone.
    ?
    It is nice to have physics on your side.

  2. winnie
    winnie says:

    What is that old liberal lament?? “People will have to choose between buying their medication or buying food!”

    The new conservative lament:? “I’m sick of crappy ethanol gas driving up the price of my corn chips and every other food in the grocery store.”? There’s a reason milk costs as much as a gallon of gas…they’re nearly interchangeable.

  3. SeeingRed
    SeeingRed says:

    I like how the the EPA fuel requirement for 2025?is just a doubling of today’s fleet number.?? What technology will drive this new efficiency?? A?capricious wave of a magic wand just won’t get us there, but to a Liberal it’s intent that matters.

  4. Plainvillian
    Plainvillian says:

    Safety and fuel economy are the head fake.? The real goal is to make automobile operation so onerous and expensive that we will be forced to mass public transit.? Exit question:? What size will the politicians’ chauffeur driven limos be and will they meet the economy standards?? (hint – bullet and bomb proof vehicles don’t get great mileage)

  5. JBS
    JBS says:

    The BO regime’s EPA won’t be happy until we are all in Fred Flintstone type cars.? Except ours will Wi-Fi ready, run on some exotic bio-fuel (available only with a government subsidy) and cost as much as a MacMansion.
    And, the One will still be driving around in the “Beast.”

  6. Non Nobis
    Non Nobis says:

    Unfortunately the big government, we know better than you, central-planning busy-bodies will simply outlaw privately owned vehicles weighing more than 2,500 lbs – problem solved. ?Wait, why stop there, simply outlaw all privately owned cars? Mass transit [a.k.a. walking] achieves ?Green?, ?Obama Care?, and ?Redistributionist? objectives all at the same time – a triple play. ?Who needs private property and a productive economy anyway!

    The problem started when citizens allowed the federal government to ?regulate? the market [for our own good]. ?Stop taxing and / or subsidizing goods and services and let the market decide. ?Managing the economy [even for your own good] is not the proper role of government -…

  7. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    I propose we remove the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration from our government. It has done nothing to make our transportation safer, so get rid of it.

Comments are closed.