Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums -
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - > Members Area > General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion

Thread Tools
Old 05-27-2009, 07:57 PM   #1
Mattsack789's Avatar
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 217
Thumbs up Great News about CAFE!!!

I just read an article on Jalopnik about massive loopholes in the CAFE and GHG regulations that we were so worried about. It sounds like it's not nearly as bad is we thought. Here's the article, copied off Jalopnik-

When Obama unveiled new fuel standards we decried the end of fun cars and pointed out how far most automakers are from meeting new-for-2016 fuel standards. It turns out, thanks to Hummer-sized loopholes like your car's air-conditioning, automakers should be able to meet them with little fear.

At issue is the federal government's twin towers of regulation power — the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). What President Obama announced Tuesday was that the EPA and NHTSA intend to work together to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards at the national level. This avoids different standards being implemented at the state versus federal level, and to avoid unharmonized or inconsistent GHG emission and CAFE standards.

The problem is, as has been widely reported by everyone in the media, ourselves included, NHTSA is not proposing a 35.5 MPG CAFE standard by model year 2016. Rather, as we're now being told by analysts at Credit Suisse, the EPA intends to propose GHG emission standards that, based on its estimates of model year 2016 light vehicle sales at that time, would result in fleet average CO2 emissions (of vehicles sold in that model year) of roughly 250 grams/mile. This creates at least one huge loophole in the system for automakers to take advantage of.

The Air Conditioner Loophole
That level of CO2 emission per mile would equate to about 35.5 MPG in fuel economy parlance. However — here's the big loophole — it's expected by the EPA and NHTSA that most manufacturers would apply air conditioning improvements to reduce GHG emissions. Air conditioning improvements do not enter into the NHTSA's calculation of MPG fuel economy.

Thus, the improvement in MPG that is equivalent to the estimated 250g of CO2/mile will actually fall well short of the 35.5 MPG mark. The gap between what the fleet CAFE will be and the widely reported 35.5, would be made up by air conditioner improvements. So basically, when you buy your supposedly more-fuel-efficient vehicle in 2016, it won't have as high of a fuel economy as it could — thanks to your car's air conditioning.

Automakers Get Lower Standards The More Large SUVs, Trucks They Build
Credit Suisse also points out in a new report released today that another key component of the proposal yesterday is that the EPA and NHTSA both intend to propose separate footprint-based standards. This is consistent with NHTSA's current approach to CAFE standards and, as such, means that there will be no set standard, with respect to either CO2 or fuel economy, for any single manufacturer or in fact for the fleet as a whole. Any standards you hear about for a given manufacturer or for the fleet as a whole are estimates.

This is because the actual MPG or CO2 "standard" for every manufacturer will vary depending on what they build. Footprint-based means the amount of CO2 emitted and the level of fuel economy will vary depending on the vehicles wheelbase multiplied by its track width. Put another way, the area between where the tires touch the road.

This quote from the proposal addresses the implications for automakers: "Under a footprint-based standard, each manufacturer would have a GHG and CAFE standard unique to its fleet, with a separate standard for passenger cars and light-trucks, depending on the footprints of the vehicle models produced by that manufacturer. Generally, manufacturers of larger vehicles (i.e. vehicles with larger footprints) would face less stringent standards (i.e., higher CO2 grams/mile standards and lower CAFE standards) than manufacturers of smaller vehicles." This clearly favors the domestic makers.

Will That Be Cash Or Credit?
The EPA and NHTSA foresee flexibility in compliance with its proposed standards based on certain credits. Credits can be earned for fleet over-compliance in a given year, and applied in future years. Current consideration is to allow credits to be carried forward for at least 5 years.

In addition to credits at the fleet level that could be carried forward, the agencies intend to consider giving manufacturers the ability to transfer credits among its fleet. That is, if an automaker achieves over-compliance on the car side, it can transfer those credits to the truck side, and vice versa.

Air conditioning credits: AC units contribute to GHG emissions in two ways. First, through the leakage of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, and second, by placing additional load on the engine, which causes the engine to produce additional CO2. The EPA is considering an approach that would enable automakers to earn credits by reducing GHG emissions (HFC and CO2) related to AC systems. Under the approach, reductions in HFCs would be converted to a CO2 equivalent reduction on a gram/mile basis that could be used as credits in meeting fleet CO2 standards. The EPA said it believes automakers would reduce HFC and CO2 emission through AC upgrades in order to take advantage of these credits.

Additional credit opportunities are being considered to help promote the commercialization of electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. They are called "super credits", and they would take the form of a multiplier such that the number of hybrid/electric vehicles sold would count as more than one vehicle in the manufacturer's fleet average. Thus helping automakers achieve fleet compliance by offering such vehicles, and applying those credits as needed.

Who Comes Out On Top?
All of this doesn't mean the automakers won't have to make an improvement. There's still much work to be done to bring all the vehicles up to these standards, but as we learn more it becomes clearer why so many auto execs were willing to stand behind President Obama.
Mattsack789 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:06 PM   #2
Drives: CGM 2LT RS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: newark, de
Posts: 542
and this is why it was so silly for so many people to panic.

no offense, but a lot of people flipped out, and they should have waited till all the details were out.
2LT CGM auto/sunroof/RS

1100: 11-29-08
6000: 6-29-09
cracked windshield: 7-1-09
1000 miles 7-4-09
windshield replaced: 7-9-09
2000 miles 7-10-09 (yep 2000 miles in 11 days)
3000 miles 7-16-09
4000 miles 7-30-09
bob2the2nd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:09 PM   #3
Mindz's Avatar
Drives: you wild...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In the happy padded room wearing a jacket that makes me hug myself...
Posts: 18,388
Pretty good read. I guess I can wait for the convertible then. Glad I didn't freak out, but patiently waited. =)

Thanks for the info!
Blue Rush, 2010 SS [Car of the Week 3/22/2010] Traded in on...ZLZBUBB, 2013 ZL1
Mindz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:23 PM   #4
Account Suspended
Drives: Your new SLP Camaro!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cedarburg, WI
Posts: 6,801
Send a message via Yahoo to CamaroScotty
keep in mind 50% of the offered models need to comply (from what I'm told) and Chevy is oh so close! It doesn't bother me much, especially with the new models coming out soon!
CamaroScotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:27 PM   #5
36.58625, -121.7568
Camaro_Corvette's Avatar
Drives: Team 1LE
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,678
Then why waste our time!

Hey lets make a giant piece of legislation that looks like we are trying, then make massive loopholes so nobody actually has to follow it!

This is stupid!
I am seriously never serious vv V vv Next order of business
Camaro_Corvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 09:01 PM   #6

Drives: .
Join Date: May 2008
Location: .
Posts: 3,053

go GM!
diddiyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 09:08 PM   #7
LVL 50 Troll Stomper
Kyle2k's Avatar
Drives: 2010 Camaro
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,458
Originally Posted by camaro_corvette View Post
Then why waste our time!

Hey lets make a giant piece of legislation that looks like we are trying, then make massive loopholes so nobody actually has to follow it!

This is stupid!
Damned if you do damned if you don't.
Kyle2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 02:48 PM   #8
Mattsack789's Avatar
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 217
Remember, the key word here is Average. Not every car has to meet these standards. The average of all the cars GM makes need to meet this. That means they can keep the Camaro, the Corvette, and other performance vehicles, even though they don't meet the standards for CAFE. As long as the Average of the MPG of all the models is 35, they can keep the Camaro.
Mattsack789 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2009 Camaro production plans officially announced this morning! Full text inside. Tran 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 36 03-02-2013 07:20 PM
Good News for Florida Audrey2010Camaro Camaro Price | Ordering | Tracking | Dealers Discussions 0 05-04-2009 08:49 AM
YES!!! Finally some good news for me! badaSS2010 Camaro Price | Ordering | Tracking | Dealers Discussions 8 05-02-2009 09:42 PM
Detroit News: CAMARO Back at Daytona Race! camaro5 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 13 01-08-2009 04:35 PM
Great discussions at work stovt001 General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 13 12-16-2008 07:41 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.