A potential problem, even with the low CAFE standards that we have now, is that people's response to mandated better gas mileage has been an increase in vehicle miles driven. Raising CAFE standards without a concomitant increase in gas prices will tend to encourage greater miles driven to keep the total outlay the same.

At least the above is a theory I read recently which seems to make some sense. Of course it didn't help to give special lax standards to SUV and trucks, causing the auto companies to emphasize those types of vehicles.

I agree that just raising the standards is a flawed way of addressing the problem. Ration gasoline or raise the taxes or both and consumers will gravitate towards high MPG vehicles in order to survive economically.

The sad reality, however, is that these Senators are on the leading edge of doing something about oil consumption and global warming. In the U.S. Senate, this is as good as it gets and these Senators are part of the radical fringe. This will not pass, nor will anything else that has a meaningful impact on our consumption.

We'll just have to wait until the oil supply takes a nose dive and/or China adds about 50 million more vehicles whichever comes first.

Oh Wow!! 35MPG by 2017. Is Detroit up to the task [/sarcasm]

Raising mpg does not make people drive more. The only 'more driving higher mpg' that I know goes on when a two car family drives the higher mpg car IN PREFERENCE to the lower mpg car.

Someone who was already going to make a longer commute might switch to a car like the Prius but I dont know of anyhone who DECIDED to take a longer commute because of the Prius.

I think that the 35 mpg is a feasible objective. Some countries have already done and surpassed that benchmark without advanced technologies.

If the US would apply a combination of these options:
-Engine downsizing;
-Common rail turbo diesel;
-Turbo technology applied to gasoline engines;
-Hybridization (gas and diesel).
Fuel consumption would go down dramatically without much penalty to performance or satisfaction.

For example, a 535d BMW achieve 35mpg and can offer 272Hp and 560Nm of torque, the Volkswagen 1.4Litre TSI engine offers 170Hp and 280Nm and similar mileage.

"Oh Wow!! 35MPG by 2017. Is Detroit up to the task [/sarcasm]"

I LOL'ed. :D

I guess that's the way US auto makers woo the customers. They pay relatively more attention to vehicles' horse power. It is usually achieved at the expense of fuel economy.

Maybe someone with a little more knowledge can answer this for me: Is 35mpg the best we can do?

It depends on what you mean. With infinate resources and a dictator, we could (be forced to) do much better. With no regulation in a libertarian society, we'd do much worse.

The idea is to push "just hard enough" -- get improved results without destroying the competitiveness of US companies or driving up the cost of new cars so high that they're no longer affordable to the less affluent. Legislation too extreme would simply be torn up as soon as Congresscritters discovered their chances of reelection hinged on it.

Is it the best we can do? Hard to say. But, in light of the miserable track record Congress and CAFE have had in the past, an increase of 10 MPG without the truck/SUV loophole is a huge advancement from the status quo -- and that's big progress I'm certainly willing to embrace.

It depends on the car realy. A car made for an older person can ONLY be so small and so low to the ground. Mind you we have an oldsmobile that gets 32 miles per gallon yet its massive. Thats because it doesnt have a particularly powerful engine and because it has a very agressive fuel saving overdrive gear. But its horrid for todays stop and go crap roads. It only workes for us because we still dont get too much traffic around here.

This is the Green Car Congress right?
1)No matter what milage they get, can some one explain to me why ALL the gasoline cars being made are not PZEV (SULEV plus ) or the current EPA bin equivilent. bin Laden?
I am talking about pollution per unit miles driven.
2)Why isn't it a requirement to have the Volvo PremAIr catalyst on the radiator?
These are off the shelf "real world" items that work with the current system. No Manhatten project or dictatorship of the masses required.
This is the real indicator the companies do not care and congress has no courage.
Right now with high fuel we are concentrating on milage, but we could lower car pollution significantly if these two items were implimented while waiting for the silver bullets.
For the record, mine is the Serial Plug in highly turboed hybrid running on ethanol, hydrogen or other sustainable fuel.

MPG does not mean anything untill you have a requirement of what you have to be able to do at said mpg.

You can get 35 mpg, make the engine smaller, the vehicle lighter, reduce rolling resistance, reduce drag, reduce the power etc.

That is all fine and good but if the better mpg comes at the cost of performance then ... you haven't really gained anything. If you call it a truck and it gets 35 mpg thats good and all but if it can't do the work that people use a truck for now ... its not really a truck now is it?

The pt cruiser is sold as a light truck ... it is based on the neon chassis.

The honda ridgeline is sold as a full size truck but it has no more towing capacity than my 19 yr old vehicle (and gets no better gas mileage)

There is only so much you can do,
the efficency of the engine is limited by the laws of thermodynamics.
Gasoline has a limited amount of energy per gallon.
You can calculate how much power it takes to move a given mass up a given distance.
There is a lower bound on how much enery it takes to do a given amount of work.

A car from the 70's has more utility than some suv's of today. My parents towed a small camper with our car back in the 80's but today a so called suv rav 4 or crv would not be able to do the same thing.

It is kinda silly
the people that need x capacity will continu driving a vehicle with x capacity. The people that don't will drive whatever. Now there will just be more so called "light trucks" that can not do anything useful and have no more capacity than the cars they are based on but get worse mpg than said cars. How is that a good thing?

1975 people driving vehicles that get 14 mpg
2006 people still driving vehicles that get 14 mpg

Auto manufactures will sell us whatever 1)we will buy, 2) they can make a profit on.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s05001.htm

MPG has been rather flat lately and is down from where it was in the late 80's ... yet people are still buying new cars.

er, in 10.5 years, but I guess they could delay it's start and it'd be 10 years... but still 27.5 -> 35 is not 10

A FAST WAY TO GET STARTED WOULD BE TO FREEZE POWER INCREASES (except for maybe a few specialize models-> corvete, police Impala), AND introduce a) auto AND manual stop light instant engine shutdown and restart b) cut fuel to air ratio at highway cruise (often used on commutes), we need 30-90 hp (traffic& hills, more) at highway cruise not 300-400, but provide the capability to instantly move up to higher power/torque levels when needed. Savings could be in the 5-70% range. Add policy changes in gasoline taxes to full fund the highway system, and add toll HOV lanes+high density automated parking garages (with built in redundacies) to promote mass transit/car pooling. If housing prices are a problem, creative zoning changes in cities and close in burbs to increase living spaces without sacrificing the environment/quality of life/nature of the community.