So how much would this UCS minivan cost and how does it compare to the performance and utility of current designs?

If such a design is non-competitive people will just buy used or keep their older cars until there are compelling products.

The next few years will be interesting.

Will CAFE allow a relaxation of emissions in order to allow a more diverse set of technoligies to be used to achieve higher real world mileage figures?

For example, a car getting 30mpg today with a stoichiometric burning engine (needed in order for the 3-way catalyst to work) could get 35-40mpg very conservatively with lean burn. If all the cars on the road used or were converted to lean burn engines... I wonder how many gallons could be saved and thus how much less CO2 would be released into the air.

At what point is it more important for the exhaust to be "clean" at the cost of burning more fuel for every car across the nation. Automakers design cars to meet the most stringent rules so that they can be sold in all states. However what works well in the rush hour traffic of California may not be the best thing for the nation as a whole.

Is NOx a greenhouse gas, or is it just that it can be poisoness at high concentrations before it decomposes to NO and ozone? Since CO2 is supposed to be the greenhose gas responsible for global warming, wouldn't it make sense to free companies to use whatever technology they could to reduce CO2 as much as possible?

Wouldn't it be wiser to let only the federal government to regulate CO2 and NOx emissions with a function... allowing higher NOx emissions as long as the CO2 emissions are proportionally smaller. This would make much more sense than an arbitrary cap of both for certain states. If only certain states use CARB, all the states end up getting cars made to meet CARB weather or not it's good for them and their voters.

Here's an economic analysis of hourly workers over at Autoblog.

The average domestic autoworker makes $141-151k per year when all wages and benefits are taken into account. Compare $96k for Toyota, Honda, and Nissan.

Wonder why the domestics worry about increasing CAFE so much? There's one big reason right there. This is why they make little or no profit on small cars. This is why they have to focus on big, expensive SUVs to make a profit.

The drive for more efficient, cleaner vehicles may not necessarily come from Federal governments in USA and Canada.

Being cross country, the Feds can't risk offending to many auto workers, tar sands workers, farmers, etc.

Cities, States, Provinces may be the appropriate levels to start the ball rolling.

I'll take the word of a bunch of scientists over the words of a factory rat any day ;)

Fortunately, gasoline engines will so undergo major leaps in improving fuel efficiency over the next 5-7 years. I see the following technologies come online:

1) Direct fuel injection, which will allow for lean-burn operation to improve fuel efficiency even more. Sure, the NOx output is higher, but now that EPA mandates low-sulfur gasoline, we can use the latest catalytic converter designs to reduce NOx output at the exhaust tailpipe back to EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 compliance.

2) Improved variable valve timing, which allow for more efficient "breathing" of the engine for better fuel economy. In fact, after 2010 we may see the first engines with NO cams to control the valves, since the valve movement will be all electrically-actuated.

3) Better spark plugs with more complete combustion, which lowers fuel consumption.

4) The arrival of homogeneous charge compression-ignition (HCCI) gasoline engines, which offer the same fuel efficiency as diesel engines but with far lower exhaust emissions.

5) The use of "smart" forced-air induction, which allows engines to be drastically reduced in displacement without losing power; Volkswagen's 1.4-liter TSI TwinCharger engine generates around 165 bhp (SAE 08/04 net), but offers much better fuel efficiency than the equivalent 2.5-liter I-5 engine VW also sells.

6) The use of E85 as a "booster" fuel, which will allow for a smaller turbocharged engine that uses E85 fuel on an as-needed basis to boost power for short periods (most people don't realize that in steady cruise or slower acceleration they use only a tiny fraction of the potential output of a conventional engine, so in many driving situations they don't really need the full power of a big engine).

I'm a little sceptical of the precision of the numbers the UCS quotes. How can you predict job growth for any one state down to the nearest 100?

Also, the European experience is that consumers are prepared to pay extra for more sophisticated technology, but they then hang on to their cars for longer. The net result is higher margins per car but lower production volume. Many European auto manufacturers have long suffered from structural overstaffing, a problem compounded by strong unions and/or politicians focussed on the next election rather than the long-term health of the industry.

The other lesson is that consumers will pay extra for greater fuel economy IFF fuel is expensive relative to disposable income. After several years of rising fuel prices in the US, that may now apply to low-income families there. It does not yet apply to the more affluent strata of society. The difference to Europe is that the US electorate (= consumers) has begun to realize just how staggeringly expensive protecting US hegemony over oil supplies from the Middle East has now become (US$12 bn a month and rising).

The assumption that cars have an average lifespan of 15 years / 170,000 miles seems a bit strained. I recall reading on this site certain postings indiciating that the average service lifetime of a car on the American road is just under 10 years, which would correspond to a mileage of 120,000 to 150,000 at current rates.

Personal note: My car is 14 years old and has 165,000 miles on it. Replacing it would be a needless expense, and I suspect that the resources and energy embodied in it are substantial. Also, it is a Ford product, and based on my experience with its reliability, I tend to discount Detroit bashing, but only a little.

UP for grabs, breaking down economic and social barriers,redeeming God's own land and God's own people from the Demonic economic claws constraining citizens from what the US was meant to stand for; righteousness.
Up UCS.
George
Nigertia

The idea that a full size pickup can get 28 MPG for $1500 cost increase is ludicrous and laughable. I wonder how much Hemp the UCS authors were smoking.

The UCS is simply a left wing, socialist, command and control political organization. “You wealthy Americans make too much money and use too many resources. In addition, we scientists are underpaid and anyone who can afford a 400 HP Escalade and the fuel to go in it is too rich and basically evil.” Global warming is the UCS's stick to beat everyone who has been making too much money and using too many resources back down to their idea of a classless, socialist utopia. Just look at the posts on this board about the good old days of underpowered, lighter, less capable, less safe pickup trucks.

Find the backbone to tax gas or leave the auto and truck industry alone. Raising gas taxes by some set amount per year, say 25 cents/year from 2010 to 2020 will reduce fuel use far more than any moronic CAFE law ever will. The original CAFE law helped created the SUV craze, so “let’s try to improve CAFE, trust us; we'll get it right this time.” If anyone believes the “new and improved” CAFE will really work as advertised, they must have been smoking something similar to the UCS people who believe in a 28 MPG pickup truck for and extra $1500. In fact, I can already think of a potential new CAFE loophole. Make a plug in serial hybrid (I’m thinking the unnecessarily complex parallel hybrid will be gone in 5 to 10 years) that gets 100 MPG, then you can sell 5 low MPG trucks or sports cars against the plug in and still meet your CAFE average. Kind of like Ford loosing money on the Escort for years to meet their CAFE average and still sell larger, profitable vehicles their customers actually wanted to buy.