As most here know, NHTSA proposed new rules for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) which, begining with MY2011 cars and light trucks, would gradually raise the nationwide average CAFE in order to eventually achieve 35.7 MPG for MY2015 cars. I finally got a chance to wade through the 417 page document which contains NHTSA's proposed rules at http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE_11-15_NPRM_April_21.pdf. Here is what I found on page 279, which is NHTSA's projection based on future model information supplied by manufacturers (where available) or extrapolation of a manufacturer's existing model data:

http://i32.tinypic.com/3322wpt.jpg

I suspect you're thinking what I did when I first read that table: WTF? Why is Subaru required to have a 40.8 MPG CAFE for its MY2015 cars while Chrysler's MY2015 CAFE for cars is only 33.6 MPG?

The law which mandated that NHTSA raise CAFE also changed the system from one where every manufacturer, regardless of model mix, had the same CAFE, to a model-attribute based system. According to the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), the "Secretary [of the Department of Transportation] shall prescribe by regulation separate average fuel economy standards for passenger and non-passenger automobiles based on 1 or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy and express each standard in the form of a mathematical function." NHTSA had requested this new system because when CAFE standards were originally introduced, manufacturers of large cars scrambled to introduce a slew of small cars in order to comply, which NHTSA believes reduced the overall safety of the fleet. NHTSA decided that this time it would tailor fuel economy targets for each car model based on a calculation involving one or more "vehicle attributes" which would encourage continued production of "safer" models by assigning them a lower target fuel economy and discourage switching production to "less safe" models by assigning them a higher target fuel economy.

It would seem that the vehicle attributes which best predict its safety are the results of frontal- and side-impact tests. However, NHTSA understood exactly what Congress really wanted and decided: the larger the vehicle, the safer it is. So NHTSA did not even consider using crash test measurements and, instead, chose to use vehicle footprint, which it defined as the average of the vehicle's front and rear track widths times the vehicle's wheelbase.

Here's is the general form of the footprint-based calculation, from pages 236-7, which NHTSA developed to assign target fuel economy for each model:

http://i26.tinypic.com/2iig8dw.jpg

Here are the passenger car values for the various parameters in that forumla for each year, from page 277:

http://i26.tinypic.com/5a1jxy.jpg

And here are graphs for passenger cars plotting footprint vs. target fuel economy for each of the five model years, from page 278:

http://i29.tinypic.com/33mlf0i.jpg

I've calculated some Subaru model footprints so that you can see where they fall on that graph:

2008 WRX 5D = 41.9 sq ft
2008 WRX 4D = 42.2 sq ft
2008 Legacy = 42.9 sq ft
2008 Outback = 42.9 sq ft
2009 Forester = 43.1 sq ft
2008 Tribeca = 46.7 sq ft

Actually, Outback and Tribeca are currently classified as light trucks, so here are the relevant data for light trucks, from pages 280-282.

http://i27.tinypic.com/2csf5ut.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/33vkxs0.jpg

http://i26.tinypic.com/2349oy.jpg

Did I mention yet that the fines for missing CAFE requirements will nearly double under the proposed new CAFE rules? The current fine for missing fuel-economy standards is $5.50 for each 0.1 gallon below the rule, multiplied by the sales volume of the automaker. The proposed new CAFE rules allow for raising the fine to $10 per 0.1 gallon.

If these proposed CAFE standards are adopted as is, it looks like Subaru will have to get another model or two reclassified as light trucks by increasing ground clearance and approach/exit angles and any Subaru models which remain classified as cars will have to be diesel-only.

Wow. I'm getting out of america very soon lol

ferraris with 34.9 MPG! :lol::lol::lol:

ferraris with 34.9 MPG! :lol::lol::lol:Porsche is the one getting the royal screw and there's not much Porsche can do except bend over and grab its ankles. Here's an article which ran today at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSDKxhJRIbTo&refer=home: Porsche U.S. Chief Says Fuel-Economy Rules 'Not Fair'

By Greg Bensinger and Mike Ramsey

May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Porsche SE may not be able to meet new U.S. fuel-economy rules, which are "not fair" to makers of performance-oriented autos, the company's U.S. chief said.

The German automaker's cars would have to average 41.3 miles per gallon by 2015 models, under preliminary regulations released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Porsche's average was 26 mpg last year, and it paid $4.6 million in fines for falling short of current federal standards.

"The year 2015 in the car market is like tomorrow morning," Detlev von Platen, chief executive officer of Atlanta- based Porsche Cars North America, told reporters today in New York. "We have to find a compromise, these rules are not fair."

Porsche is working to improve its average fuel economy as regulators push for higher mileage and lower emissions of pollutants, and as U.S. average gasoline prices rise to record highs of almost $4 a gallon. The new U.S. standards may almost double fines for not complying.

By the end of 2010, the Stuttgart, Germany-based automaker will introduce a gasoline-electric hybrid version of its Cayenne sport-utility vehicle that may increase fuel economy 30 percent from current versions, Von Platen said. It's also planning a hybrid model of its Panamera, Porsche's first sedan. The Panamera is slated to go on sale in the U.S. next year.

This year through April, Porsche's U.S. sales fell 14 percent to 9,640 cars and SUVs, as the industrywide total declined 7.7 percent. The U.S. accounts for about 40 percent of the company's global sales.

'Shouldn't Have to Pay'

Von Platen said he hopes Porsche's lobbyist in Washington can help negotiate more favorable terms for the mileage rules.

"If we show we've improved our fuel economy, we shouldn't have to pay the penalties," he said. Porsche will try to meet the standards, "but if we have to change our products, no way."

The new rules, which take into account vehicle size and are based on a company's entire fleet, make it difficult for Porsche because its cars are generally smaller and have powerful engines.

"For manufacturers who are not full-line manufacturers and offer performance vehicles, these standards are challenging," said Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Washington-based trade group that represents companies including Porsche.

The rules set different standards for each automaker based on anticipated product lineup.

For example, General Motors Corp., which sells large and small cars, will have to have to average 34.7 miles per gallon in 2015, while Toyota Motor Corp., which also has a wide range of models, must average 34.6 mpg. Meanwhile, Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.'s Subaru brand must reach an average of 40.8 mpg.

The goal is a national average for all cars sold in the U.S. in 2015 of 35.7 miles per gallon, an increase from 27.5 mpg now. The light-truck standard will rise to 28.6 mpg from 22.5.

Im so sick of this stuff, US is so retarded sometimes.

Anyone else seeing this lead to Toyota buying the rest of Subaru in the near future? Or even worse Suby leaving the US market.

Yeah it makes sense punishing makers of small cars and giving the ovresized suv makers a break. :rolleyes:

Is this how Washington is going to help out the Detroit 3?

How come they don't just impose this rule for the American car companies that started the 10mpg SUV fad? :unamused:

Oh yea because if that was done then it would hurt the American car companies even more... so screw over the already relatively-fuel efficient and safe Japanese ones. Cool.

How come they don't just impose this rule for the American car companies that started the 10mpg SUV fad? :unamused:

Oh yea because if that was done then it would hurt the American car companies even more... so screw over the already relatively-fuel efficient and safe Japanese ones. Cool.goddamn right it is, american auto makers needs some sort of safegaurd.
do you fail to see they employ americans?

The US is so stupid with forcing companies to do this. Since it is an average of all of the cars they produce, every car company should just produce a car that gets 60 mpg which will just even out the average and let them keep doing what they want for the other cars. I suggest that if subaru wants to stay legal, they should use that toyota partnership and produce a front-wheel drive impreza with a prius engine in it and just produce a very low amount of them (basically make them non-existant). This will send they're average mpg way up and the government will have to leave them alone.

If people wanted fuel efficient cars, they'd buy them. They don't need the government to tell them what to buy. The very fact that SUVs exist in the numbers that they do is because on the whole, US drivers don't care about fuel economy.

The new CAFE regulations seem more like punishments. Maybe we could start rewarding companies with something like tax breaks instead of fines. That way the companies actually have time and money to develop their product lines, instead of getting in a positive feedback cycle where lack of cash stifles development which in turn imposes fines and means there's even less cash available for further development.

goddamn right it is, american auto makers needs some sort of safegaurd.
do you fail to see they employ americans?They dug their own hole. If they made products that people wanted to buy, they wouldn't be in this mess. Apparently the US automakers are stuck in a 50 year time lag and are just finally coming around to see that they're competing in a capitalist, globalized market. Besides, plenty of "foreign" carmakers have plants in the US and employ real live US citizens while many of the beloved "domestics" are made in Mexico, Canada, and more recently China (rebranded Chrysler and Chevy cars.)

ferraris with 34.9 MPG! Unlike Porsche, Ferrari might be able to nestle under the FIAT umbrella. The question is will FIAT ever get a real US presence again...

goddamn right it is, american auto makers needs some sort of safegaurd.
do you fail to see they employ americans?Do you fail to see the thousands of Americans employed by Subaru at its manufacturing plant in Indiana? Not to mention the Americans employed by that plant's suppliers.

Coming to a dealer near you, the 80mpg plug-in hybrid 2011 Subaru G4E.

Dodge just discovered the first 20% fuel economy improvement in a pickup truck is free -- even with a 10% horsepower bump. Seriously, the 2009 Hemi Ram gets 20% better highway fuel economy than the 2008 (23 vs 19), costs about the same, and has 10% more horsepower. Yet they've been saying it's impossible/expensive for years...

goddamn right it is, american auto makers needs some sort of safegaurd.
do you fail to see they employ americans?

Don't you mean Mexicans? You're an idiot, did you ever think that the Japanese plants here in the states also employ Americans?

The fact of the matter is, the technology exists to enable MPG values like these. But Money makes the world go round, and oil is money. I don't forsee any automaker not achieving these benchmarks. People won't buy cars that fail to meet the standards when they cost twice as much to buy, drive, and insure. And the current 2k gas guzzler tax? That will more than likely triple.

wow, larger = safer, how does the reasoning behind that work? just stupid.

would diesel models help subaru here?

All Subaru needs to do is make the axles stick out a foot more on each side... keep the weight down & increase the footprint at the same time. Much easier for automakers just to make gigantic vehicles than worry about bumping up average fuel economy.

NHTSA should scrap its crash-testing if it doesn't believe it's an indicator of safety. It'd be a lot cheaper for the car manufacturers if NHTSA just published a list of "safest" cars by listing them in order of footprint instead of requiring all that expensive testing & whatnot.

canada or mexico here i come, haha. The U.S. needs to calm down and take a chill pill once in a while. Stop worrying about all this crap and fix they economy and start fixing our roads and such. I hate pot holes in my rex, haha

And how's this gonna make Americans drive more fuel-efficient vehicles if everyone's gonna circumvent these rules?

Me thinks Subaru might change their minds, bring the Exiga here and classify it as light truck.

What the U.S. automakers need is healthcare reform to lower their costs, not for the foreign automakers to be punished unfairly.

goddamn right it is, american auto makers needs some sort of safegaurd.
do you fail to see they employ americans?

Unlike Porsche, Ferrari might be able to nestle under the FIAT umbrella. The question is will FIAT ever get a real US presence again...

Ferrari will just take the fine and roll it into the cost of the car. It's nothing new for them. It's the "volume" performance car seller Porsche, that is screwed. They could well push their entire lineup into uncharted territory for themselves if they have to wrap the price of the fine into the price of their vehicles.

;22461212']Do you fail to see the thousands of Americans employed by Subaru at its manufacturing plant in Indiana? Not to mention the Americans employed by that plant's suppliers.

The vast majority of those parts are sourced in the US and a large portion within 100 miles of Lafayette.........

But noooooooo save the "American" companies that are supporting Canadian and Mexican workers. Hell, their best cars are made by zee Germans and the Aussies.....

These new cafe standards may be another reason for rumors of a new "re-imagined" Baja model that would be classified as a light truck and based off the larger Exiga or Tribeca platform.

<climbing up on soapbox>
I think the increased cafe standards are a necessary evil. Our culture of car commuting coupled with the energy efficiency of the vehicles Americans drive on a daily basis, is just not sustainable economically or environmentally. No one likes the government or anyone else telling us we have to do this or that but deep down, you know its the direction we have to go. Unless the developed world along with China & India take steps to reduce oil demand, the continued rapidly rising price of oil will cripple our economies to the point that few will be in a position to by a new Subaru.

If people wanted fuel efficient cars, they'd buy them. They don't need the government to tell them what to buy. The very fact that SUVs exist in the numbers that they do is because on the whole, US drivers don't care about fuel economy.

The new CAFE regulations seem more like punishments. Maybe we could start rewarding companies with something like tax breaks instead of fines. That way the companies actually have time and money to develop their product lines, instead of getting in a positive feedback cycle where lack of cash stifles development which in turn imposes fines and means there's even less cash available for further development.

They dug their own hole. If they made products that people wanted to buy, they wouldn't be in this mess. Apparently the US automakers are stuck in a 50 year time lag and are just finally coming around to see that they're competing in a capitalist, globalized market. Besides, plenty of "foreign" carmakers have plants in the US and employ real live US citizens while many of the beloved "domestics" are made in Mexico, Canada, and more recently China (rebranded Chrysler and Chevy cars.)

Unlike Porsche, Ferrari might be able to nestle under the FIAT umbrella. The question is will FIAT ever get a real US presence again...

QFT45

QFT45

Why? He is right you know.

When people get tired of paying $250 a week in gas to fuel their land barges they will buy something better.

This it total mpg, correct? In other words, these companies can make (for example) 5 econoboxes/hybrids, etc that get 45+/gallon and still be able to make a ~20/gal. "performance" model.

Why? He is right you know.

When people get tired of paying $250 a week in gas to fuel their land barges they will buy something better.

QFT = Quoted for truth

wow, larger = safer, how does the reasoning behind that work? just stupid.

The more massive vehicle in a two-vehicle collision would be presumed to be safer since it would undergo less change in velocity during a collision.

That said, I agree it is disingenuous to factor how safe a car is into a fuel efficiency equation.

The more massive vehicle in a two-vehicle collision would be presumed to be safer since it would undergo less change in velocity during a collision.

That said, I agree it is disingenuous to factor how safe a car is into a fuel efficiency equation.

One would think so, but that is simply not the case, a vehicles ability to absorb and transfer that energy around the occupants is what determines a vehicles safety.

^^Yes, but size still matters. Assuming all vehicles use similar safety technology, bigger cars will be both safer and burn more gas. So there is a tradeoff between fuel efficiency and safety. Improving fuel efficiency by making cars smaller results in more injuries and deaths; there's no way around that.

Anyway, if I understand this formula properly, the CAFE formula above is based on adjusting required MPG according to vehicle size. So companies like Subaru and Suzuki that don't make any really big vehicles have to meet a higher standard. That actually makes more sense to me than setting the same standard for everyone (not that I think CAFE makes much sense to begin with ...)

One would think so, but that is simply not the case, a vehicles ability to absorb and transfer that energy around the occupants is what determines a vehicles safety.
Weight is also a very key factor. From IIHS:


Test results can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight. Like full-width crash test results, the results of offset tests cannot be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the frontal test depends on the speed and weight of the test vehicle, and the crash is more severe for heavier vehicles. Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes.

If people wanted fuel efficient cars, they'd buy them. They don't need the government to tell them what to buy. The very fact that SUVs exist in the numbers that they do is because on the whole, US drivers don't care about fuel economy.


The irony is that it's already happening. They set an agressive 2015 target of 35.7mpg to start the transition.

The U.S. Transportation Department today will propose a sweeping increase in fuel economy standards, requiring passenger cars to average 35.7 miles per gallon ...


Those are requirements. The actual CAFE for sold cars in 2007 hit 31.3, from the same article:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1500558

We'll probably hit 32 or 33 mpg average sales this year.
So Consumers are setting the MPG requirement, and any automaker trying to just hit the minimum is going to be in for a bumpy ride. Ain't Supply & Demand great?

All Subaru needs to do is make the axles stick out a foot more on each side... keep the weight down & increase the footprint at the same time.

I second this notion for wider track and naturally wider flared fenders on the entire Subaru line. :D

One would think so, but that is simply not the case, a vehicles ability to absorb and transfer that energy around the occupants is what determines a vehicles safety.

As does the rate of deceleration. F=MA...

Can't avoid it

can i get a legacy turbo diesel sooner? or maybe the cooperative toyota subaru RWD car will have a hybrid version?

This is why I am going to drive my 1971 240Z every damn day with no cats and suck up gas as fast as I can, and spew it out of my tail pipe for all to see. (Actually I have not bought it yet, but next month, I am going to pick it up).

lets hear it for old classics. Free of the stranglehold of the Feds, free of emissions junk. Free from any legislation at all. Sick of the government telling you what you can buy..

buy classics. Their value goes up, vs down. They are immune to all the current legislation, parts are cheap, they are easy to work on, and they look just beautiful.

If you wanted to buy a 45000 dollar 911, why not buy a 1970 911S, for 45000 instead. Its value will only go up, its looks will never get old, its performance is still great (and can be made much better), and you now are a connoisseur, versus just another rich yuppie.

ooops double post..

Red Barchetta. :)

--kC

The more massive vehicle in a two-vehicle collision would be presumed to be safer since it would undergo less change in velocity during a collision.Let's compare the 2008 WRX hatch to the 2008 BMW 5 Series wagon. The WRX received 5 stars for the driver's position in NHTSA's frontal impact test. The BMW received only 3 stars. Which is safer? It's hard to say because the method used for the test doesn't allow direct comparisons when vehicle weight is significantly different (the BMW weighs about 1,000 pounds more than the WRX). I'd be tempted to take my chances in the WRX, though. What about the driver of the other car in a head-on collision? Clearly he would prefer to be hit by the Subaru instead of the BMW. So, arguably, the nation's overall fleet safety would be improved if the Subaru were substitued for the BMW.

Now let's look at what the new CAFE targets would be for these two models in 2015. The WRX's footprint is 41.9 sq ft, which translates to roughly 41.0 MPG. On the other hand, the BMW's footprint is 48.7 sq ft, which translates to roughly 31.9 MPG. Why encourage the production of the BMW by requiring a relatively low target fuel economy and discourage the production of the WRX by requiring a relatively high fuel economy?

going to be real interesting to see how this plays out...

no offense, but Subaru has had terrible gas milage. I'm on my 3rd subie. 85GL, 2002 Forester S and 2005 LGT. I like the footprint idea. Why should a Civic and an Impreza be soo far apart in milage? AWD and it's weight?

Why should a Civic and an Impreza be soo far apart in milage? AWD and it's weight?That's a part of it. Add onto that engine efficiency (Honda ++) and aerodynamics.

--kC

The more massive vehicle in a two-vehicle collision would be presumed to be safer since it would undergo less change in velocity during a collision.

That said, I agree it is disingenuous to factor how safe a car is into a fuel efficiency equation.

interesting logic that only applies if one vehicle is much heavier than the other. Then it's only safe for one side of the collision.

However, if both vehicles are the same weight, be it 1000lbs or 10,000 lbs, the decelleration will be the same.
Might as well mandate all cars to be under 3000lbs and get 40mpg. Then you have "safe" and economical for both people involved in the crash.

91 legacy turbo baby!

;22465039']Let's compare the 2008 WRX hatch to the 2008 BMW 5 Series wagon. The WRX received 5 stars for the driver's position in NHTSA's frontal impact test. The BMW received only 3 stars. Which is safer? It's hard to say because the method used for the test doesn't allow direct comparisons when vehicle weight is significantly different (the BMW weighs about 1,000 pounds more than the WRX). I'd tempted to take my chances in the WRX, though. What about the driver of the other car in a head-on collision? Clearly he would prefer to be hit by the Subaru instead of the BMW. So, arguably, the nation's overall fleet safety would be improved if the Subaru were substitued for the BMW.

Now let's look at what the new CAFE targets would be for these two models in 2015. The WRX's footprint is 41.9 sq ft, which translates to roughly 41.0 MPG. On the other hand, the BMW's footprint is 48.7 sq ft, which translates to roughly 31.9 MPG. Why encourage the production of the BMW by requiring a relatively low target fuel economy and discourage the production of the WRX by requiring a relatively high fuel economy?

I completely agree with your point above. It was not my intention to indicate that I agree with the new CAFE proposal in any way. Rather I was trying to clarify a small link (i.e., why they think bigger = safer) in the misguided chain of logic that produced the new proposal.

Cheers.

lawmakers are generally not the smartest people on earth. Forgive my gross generalization, but some of the most technical subjects in our country are being decided by overpaid english majors. Some of them are not even capable of understanding the details in most of these subjects.

So, other than Subaru.. what will this do to the future of US cars?

My guess:

We'll see less small 'world' cars and more North America specific vehicles like the USDM Accord (wider track and longer wheelbase) with less powerful engines. Essentially, a return to the bloated cars of the 60s and 70s but now with lightweight plastics everywhere. :unamused:

The Govt. should stick to building poorly constructed roads. Not dictating gas mileage and safety numbers to auto manufacturers.

So, other than Subaru.. what will this do to the future of US cars?

My guess:

We'll see less small 'world' cars and more North America specific vehicles like the USDM Accord (wider track and longer wheelbase) with less powerful engines. Essentially, a return to the bloated cars of the 60s and 70s but now with lightweight plastics everywhere. :unamused:

I think that's a good guess.

The more massive vehicle in a two-vehicle collision would be presumed to be safer since it would undergo less change in velocity during a collision.

It's all about crumple-zones, not the size of the vehicle:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/459479/

goddamn right it is, american auto makers needs some sort of safegaurd.
do you fail to see they employ americans?

do they employ americans in the canadian and mexican facilities?

and BMW, Subaru, and others must ship in labor to build their cars on american soil...

Let's just face it, Subaru (and other manufacturers) are going to have to get creative. Use new tech. Create better areodynamics. Direct injection, CVT, disel, etc. Emissions have to be dealt with. Also, gas isn't going to get drastically cheaper anytime soon.
I love my 05 LGT but 18.6mpg sucks for 93 octane. I have a 5EAT so I know it's not as efficient abut still.......

This is why I am going to drive my 1971 240Z every damn day with no cats and suck up gas as fast as I can, and spew it out of my tail pipe for all to see. (Actually I have not bought it yet, but next month, I am going to pick it up).

lets hear it for old classics. Free of the stranglehold of the Feds, free of emissions junk. Free from any legislation at all. Sick of the government telling you what you can buy..

buy classics. Their value goes up, vs down. They are immune to all the current legislation, parts are cheap, they are easy to work on, and they look just beautiful.

If you wanted to buy a 45000 dollar 911, why not buy a 1970 911S, for 45000 instead. Its value will only go up, its looks will never get old, its performance is still great (and can be made much better), and you now are a connoisseur, versus just another rich yuppie.

:rolleyes:
Great, everyone go out and buy old polluting emissions-control and cat free vehicles. They’ll poison themselves every time they back out of their driveway, sucking down extra doses of exhaust hydrocarbons like benzene and formaldehyde, doubling or quadrupling their risk for leukemia, throat and kidney cancer, COPD and all sorts of nasty things.

^^One irony about requiring less emissions and greater fuel economy is that it increases the price of new cars, which encourages people to keep older, more polluting, gas-guzzling ones longer ...

It's all about crumple-zones, not the size of the vehicle:


Its both. The smaller the vehicle, the smaller the crumple zone. Therefore, assuming similar safety design/technology, larger cars are safer than smaller ones. This applies even if all cars are the same size eg if we all drive tiny cars we will not be as safe as if we all drove big cars.

;22460526']...
I finally got a chance to wade through the 417 page document which contains NHTSA's proposed rules...

If ever there was a person more in need of a new hobby... :lol:

... but seriously, thanks for the detailed information.

MMM.... leukemia....tastey. Thanks! I appreciate the love. You of course don't use lawnmowers, or anything gas powered right. Get off your melodramatic soapbox. I will gladly take the chances of quadrupling my risk of throat cancer from 0.0001 to 0.0004% since of course your statistics are all backed up by fact correct. No biased emotional outpouring of nonsensical dribble there, right? You have scientific facts to back all that up I am sure. I mean it makes perfect sense that driving an older car will quadruple my chances of kidney cancer. Of course EXTENSIVE studies have been done on this. Either way, I simply don't care, keep preaching those 'factual' statistics for those who will believe them.

So having said that, you wont mind if I totally ignore you and those like you and drive my classic car as much as weather permits and keep in mind I will be smiling all day long when I do. Especially when I pass ever Prius driver on earth laughing, knowing my 100 miles a month is going to end civilization as we know it. I mean people my just drop dead when they see it. Plants will wither in its wake no doubt. I may as well just pave my yard in rocks as I could not possibly grow anything with an old classic car in my driveway. My children may not make it to college as they will surely be brain damaged due to the gas given off by the 38 year old paint. Why stop at throat cancer... lets keep going!

Please gumball, seriously, please keep doing what you do, as for every green fanatic that saves a gallon of gas, it saves one for me to burn. I am doing my part to rid the world of evil oil one gallon at a time. So in all actuality I am doing you a favor. You should be thanking me.

So from the bottom of my heart, thanks!

I hate CAFE rules. If lawmakers want more fuel efficient cars, raise taxes on gasoline - or in today's environment, just sit back and watch the market work. Truck & SUV sales are down. Small car sales are up. Quit interfering!

irony at its best....i voted for bush back in the day because i thought he would leave the automotive industry alone :lol:

MMM.... leukemia....tastey. Thanks!...

So from the bottom of my heart, thanks!

Wow, you both sound like asshats on the issue. You seem to enjoy the personal freedom of being a complete arse about anything to do with efficiencies and gumball sees us all dying next week.

How about this - you drive whatever the hell you want and pay the corresponding costs in repairs gas (and stop preaching about it) and let government do whatever they want to promote environmental and vehicle efficiencies (and the greens can stop preaching about it). We all get along that way :)

Besides - what does this have to do with the real topic - what can Subaru do about the CAFE standards?

what can Subaru do about the CAFE standards?

*cough* RWD *cough*



:p

Whoops, wrong thread!

Im all for it

This will force evolution of the auto, since gas is still too cheap for manufacturers (US) to actually start evolution themselves .

Maybe this will also stop people from crying that gas is expensive

goddamn right it is, american auto makers needs some sort of safegaurd.
do you fail to see they employ americans?
obviously you dont notice all of the honda plants in the states, ya prat.

obviously you dont notice all of the honda plants in the states, ya prat.

Spoken like a true Ohioan!

Why? He is right you know.

When people get tired of paying $250 a week in gas to fuel their land barges they will buy something better.

That's my point. PEOPLE should decide what they want to buy. Not the goverment.

Does this mean in 2015 I must get ride of my WRX? lol cops pulls me over sir your car does not get 40mpg you must junk your car. LOL

Unelected government bureaucrats dictating what producers must produce? USA or USSA? :confused:

When I look at below article, I think of subaru case.

===
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/06/hyundai-to-get-half-of-mpg-improvement-from-powertrains/
===

So the areas of subaru improvement are:
- import R1 into US
- TurboDiesel(47mpg) especailly for Tribeca and Forester
- Transmission (6-7speed and cvt for lowend, RWD)
- DI/hybrid engine with technology transfer
from Toyota(also take a look at Lexus LFA engine demo).
- electric power steering
- intelligent fwd/awd setting via electonic setting on center diff
- aero: window washer nozzle under hoot, smaller side mirrors, under car
cover/tunnel, electronic height adjustable damper.
- thinner tire for lowend
- LED headlight, ligther seats
- smaller: speakers, spare tire(auto turn off AWD), battery, fuel tank.
- More efficicent/compact cooling for engine weight reduction.

Overall, US subaru's are very behind in term of efficiency and the number
is indeed archievable.

-Kendo.

Wow, you both sound like asshats on the issue. You seem to enjoy the personal freedom of being a complete arse about anything to do with efficiencies and gumball sees us all dying next week.

How about this - you drive whatever the hell you want and pay the corresponding costs in repairs gas (and stop preaching about it) and let government do whatever they want to promote environmental and vehicle efficiencies (and the greens can stop preaching about it). We all get along that way :)

Besides - what does this have to do with the real topic - what can Subaru do about the CAFE standards?

I do enjoy my personal freedom, that is afforded to me by this great country. That included freedom of speech, and if gumball wants to call me a wasteful prick, its HIS right to do so, and I would die to defend it. I do not begrudge him for his beliefs. I just do not agree with them, and thats my right, as it is to say so.

So, no I wont stop being an asshat as you eloquently put it. If I say things as a matter-of-fact, and I am too pointed, then ignore my posts as its just the way I express myself sometimes, and since its a public forum, just ignore me.

I do enjoy my personal freedom, that is afforded to me by this great country. That included freedom of speech, and if gumball wants to call me a wasteful prick, its HIS right to do so, and I would die to defend it. I do not begrudge him for his beliefs. I just do not agree with them, and thats my right, as it is to say so.

So, no I wont stop being an asshat as you eloquently put it. If I say things as a matter-of-fact, and I am too pointed, then ignore my posts as its just the way I express myself sometimes, and since its a public forum, just ignore me.

IGNORED. Just kidding - I said "asshat" because we weren't discussing stuff on topic and getting distracted. Back to our regularly scheduled program...

this isnt going to screw over subaru, they'll just bring over their turbo desiel market which is averaging 40mpg already in europe

not every car has to get 40+mpg, but i think as a whole, the fleet must average 40mpg

maybe do something about the trucks and SUVs first...this is not smart

i must be the only one to think its not a big deal... just give the USA an option of the new Turbo Diesel which has been averaging 47mpg+ and call it a day, that will bump up the Fleet MPG. Than with the gasoline ones, just add the stated above

Subaru would have to sell 18 vehicles making 42MPG just to offset every 20MPG STI sold...

At 0-60 in 13.5 seconds, how many 1.0L Justys (47MPG) can Subaru sell to US drivers?

It'd probably be much easier for Subaru to simply drop plans for current and future STI models in the US than to attempt selling a huge volume of high-MPG vehicles in a market that will be saturated with similar high-MPG offerings from the big manufacturers. Performance vehicles may likely be obtainable only by the wealthy.

OTOH, maybe I could get my G4e soon.

this is so stupid. big cars generally equal heavy cars, which means safer in their eyes. so why not just look at the car's weight instead of its dimensions?

Subaru would have to sell 18 vehicles making 42MPG just to offset every 20MPG STI sold...

Expect Diesel STI's in your future...

Or expect Subaru to just eat the fines and not change a thing.

Or expect Subaru to just eat the fines and not change a thing.

Surely they'd have to pass it along to the customer one way or another. And they couldn't add it into the cost of the small cars that they have to sell a lot of, otherwise they wouldn't remain competitive in that tough market. So I'd expect them to compensate for any fines by bumping up the price of their performance vehicles.

In my opinion either prices of performance cars are going to go up significantly, or they will not be offered in the US market. I think its a damn shame, I sound like a wacko but its the government slowly beginning to control people.

All the new CAFE standards means that Subaru's own FE efforts will come to market a little bit faster. I suspect that Subaru is still working out the kinks in their Parallel Turbo Hybrid system (along with the newer tech Li-Ion development - which is one of the possible bonuses of working with Toyota here) and will drop the bombshell when it's ready. And, while the tech is currently in testing stage (mostly on the Legacy chassis), I suspect that deployment will cover just about the entire Subaru line (so, yes, a WRX/S-GT or STI hybrid performance car would not be out of the question).

Subaru will do as they always have before - meet the challenge and keep going.

Keep in mind BTW that the mpg numbers used in the CAFE rules are not the same as the EPA mpg numbers cars are usually rated on. The CAFE numbers convert to lower EPA numbers, so they are not as bad as they seem.

Keep in mind BTW that the mpg numbers used in the CAFE rules are not the same as the EPA mpg numbers cars are usually rated on. The CAFE numbers convert to lower EPA numbers, so they are not as bad as they seem.That's true. But Subaru's CAFE numbers in recent years haven't strayed too far from the CAFE mandated 27.5 MPG.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Articles/Associated%20Files/Oct_2007_CAFE_Summary.pdf

i must be the only one to think its not a big deal... just give the USA an option of the new Turbo Diesel which has been averaging 47mpg+ and call it a day, that will bump up the Fleet MPG. Than with the gasoline ones, just add the stated aboveYou should be more careful about extrapolating fuel economy figures from the UK, which uses the imperial gallon measure, which is equivalent to about 1.2 US gallons

The more massive vehicle in a two-vehicle collision would be presumed to be safer since it would undergo less change in velocity during a collision.

That said, I agree it is disingenuous to factor how safe a car is into a fuel efficiency equation.

Right, so let me tell you a good way to make your already safe truck even safer.

Always drive around with your bed filled with bricks and steel beams. All that weight will surely protect you in case of a collision.

In my opinion either prices of performance cars are going to go up significantly, or they will not be offered in the US market. I think its a damn shame, I sound like a wacko but its the government slowly beginning to control people.



Well I think you should ask all the stupid americans who voted all the democrats in office. Seeing as Democrats believe in big government.

I disagree and agree with the new CAFE standards... it will give US Automakers a little more time to adjust to the new standards, But the penalties I think are too steep.

With the way supply/demand is working right now, even the US automakers will be making more smaller vehicles and less larger vehicles... which will decrease there overall average vehicle footprint raising they're required CAFE standards which may be what they were thinking besides safety when they made this rule. I think of it as a buffer... may not be fair to all sides but i'll be glad to see what comes of this...I'm tired of america not really offering any good turbo diesels.

so they either go


all diesel lineup

add a hybrid line

make a fwd


some mix of the above



or go out of business.

Well I think you should ask all the stupid american "Morans" who voted for W TWICE????. Seeing as he and Dick Cheney represent Big Oil that are now joyfully vacuuming our wallets clean.

I disagree and agree with the new CAFE standards... it will give US Automakers a little more time to adjust to the new standards, But the penalties I think are too steep.

With the way supply/demand is working right now, even the US automakers will be making more smaller vehicles and less larger vehicles... which will decrease there overall average vehicle footprint raising they're required CAFE standards which may be what they were thinking besides safety when they made this rule. I think of it as a buffer... may not be fair to all sides but i'll be glad to see what comes of this...I'm tired of america not really offering any good turbo diesels.

Fixed

Fixed



So you'd rather america stay in the hole its been in for decades while other countries advance with higher MPG vehicles...barely makes sense but whatever. Granted high gas prices suck and I'd would like them to be under $2 a gallon but I'd rather have america advance seeing as were too stupid to do so unless we're forced to. I.E. high gas prices

Plus I really can't stand all the leftist idiots who bring up G'dub and Cheney when referring to oil. They aren't the ones raising prices you dip ****. We'd have been much worse off with either Gore or Kerry, I'm not referring to OIL. Honestly I think McCain has much more sense than Georgie boy. IMO McCain> if not = to Obama>lots of people>Bush=Clinton>Gore>Kerry


Edit: I'm ranting too much about politics this is a Car forum

It seems like we will likely see a number of performance marques disappear from our shores rather than re-engineer their fleet to meet our standards...

;22479286']You should be more careful about extrapolating fuel economy figures from the UK, which uses the imperial gallon measure, which is equivalent to about 1.2 US gallons

Thats not the UK economy figures, thats the US Rated figures using a US Gallon not Imperial. If you want the UK mpg figures they are 60.5mpg http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553

Oh, and it gets 49.6mpg US
http://www.biodieselnow.com/blogs/biodiesel_vehicles/archive/2008/01/23/subaru-rolls-out-boxer-diesel-in-euro-press-preview.aspx


For a first attempt the new engine's figures are impressive. This comes despite Subaru eschewing technology like piezo injectors, as used in most modern diesel engines. The new engine delivers 148bhp and 258lb ft of torque, compared with 168bhp and 258lb ft from the most powerful variant of the VW group's all pervading 2-litre PD diesel - an impressive achievement for Subaru. Combined fuel consumption is 49.6mpg and the CO2 is 151g/km - again bang on the money. All this translates to a 0-62mph time of 8.5 seconds - a whole second faster than the 2-litre petrol Legacy estate, a car which chucks out 212g/km of CO2 and manages just 31.4mpg.

So no, i wasn't extrapolating any numbers, pal.

So you'd rather america stay in the hole its been in for decades while other countries advance with higher MPG vehicles...barely makes sense but whatever. Granted high gas prices suck and I'd would like them to be under $2 a gallon but I'd rather have america advance seeing as were too stupid to do so unless we're forced to. I.E. high gas prices

Plus I really can't stand all the leftist idiots who bring up G'dub and Cheney when referring to oil. They aren't the ones raising prices you dip ****. We'd have been much worse off with either Gore or Kerry, I'm not referring to OIL. Honestly I think McCain has much more sense than Georgie boy. IMO McCain> if not = to Obama>lots of people>Bush=Clinton>Gore>Kerry

Just wow @ anyone who who says we'd be much worse off with Gore or Kerry in office. There wouldn't be a war in Iraq, and America would have a much better standing in the world than it does now had they been in office.

Back on topic, it seems clear that the automotive makers aren't going to push change/innovation fast enough to increase fuel economy, so someone has to step in to speed things up. Most of the car manufacturer's have put themselves in the position they're in by not investing in new technology, but rather making bigger and bigger SUVs, cars, and trucks. Surely they must have known that one day gas prices would skyrocket and they'll be screwed. They didn't care then because they were raking in the money from their SUV sales. Today's a different story.

Thats not the UK economy figures, thats the US Rated figures using a US Gallon not Imperial. If you want the UK mpg figures they are 60.5mpg http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553

Oh, and it gets 49.6mpg US
http://www.biodieselnow.com/blogs/biodiesel_vehicles/archive/2008/01/23/subaru-rolls-out-boxer-diesel-in-euro-press-preview.aspx




So no, i wasn't extrapolating any numbers, pal.
I can't wait till that mess comes to the US. I'll definitely be up for one once I get a decent job after graduation...

This it total mpg, correct? In other words, these companies can make (for example) 5 econoboxes/hybrids, etc that get 45+/gallon and still be able to make a ~20/gal. "performance" model.

same thing i was thinking

Thats not the UK economy figures, thats the US Rated figures using a US Gallon not Imperial. If you want the UK mpg figures they are 60.5mpg http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553

Oh, and it gets 49.6mpg US
http://www.biodieselnow.com/blogs/biodiesel_vehicles/archive/2008/01/23/subaru-rolls-out-boxer-diesel-in-euro-press-preview.aspx

So no, i wasn't extrapolating any numbers, pal.

The correct UK figure is 49.6mpg Imperial (combined cycle) which is about 40 mpg US. They don't seem to give separate city and highway numbers. I don't know where Edmunds got 60.5.
http://cars.uk.msn.com/Reviews/article.aspx?cp-documentid=7283675
http://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/2008/january/21/14568.asp

maybe si drive could really have a purpose. it would be great to have a hybrid at the turn of a knob.

Thats not the UK economy figures, thats the US Rated figures using a US Gallon not Imperial. If you want the UK mpg figures they are 60.5mpg http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124553

Oh, and it gets 49.6mpg US
http://www.biodieselnow.com/blogs/biodiesel_vehicles/archive/2008/01/23/subaru-rolls-out-boxer-diesel-in-euro-press-preview.aspx




So no, i wasn't extrapolating any numbers, pal.You need to find more-reliable sources.

The image below is from the press kit distributed by FHI.

The combined fuel economy, 5.6 ltr./100 km, is equal to 42 MPG.

http://i25.tinypic.com/6on6rk.jpg

out of curiosity since this is all about footprint, what is a hummer h2's footprint?

Porsche is too getting royally screwed here. But I think all subaru has to do is bring the diesel over, throw it into every car in the line up, and add new available technologies like DI (gas engines)

The correct UK figure is 49.6mpg Imperial (combined cycle) which is about 40 mpg US. They don't seem to give separate city and highway numbers. I don't know where Edmunds got 60.5.
http://cars.uk.msn.com/Reviews/article.aspx?cp-documentid=7283675
http://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/2008/january/21/14568.asp

I wouldn't trust the site you listed above either, it rates thing in ft lbs torque and mph, plus when i looked at other cars it listed the mpg they listed is the same listed by dealer in US.

Joe [In CT] is probably right, with the paper from FHI

^^Jon and I are giving basically the same number: around 40 mpg. I suspect a lot of US sources are just copying the UK mpg number without realizing it needs to be converted to US gallons.

btw I get 49 mpg (US) for "extra-urban" which is similar to our highway rating.

Back on topic, it seems clear that the automotive makers aren't going to push change/innovation fast enough to increase fuel economy, so someone has to step in to speed things up. Most of the car manufacturer's have put themselves in the position they're in by not investing in new technology, but rather making bigger and bigger SUVs, cars, and trucks.

Car manufacturers are in business to satisfy the needs and wants of car customers. If enough customers need or want large SUVs, cars and trucks, then that's what car manufacturers produce and sell. The notion that government (politicians and bureaucrats) should dictate what products manufacturers produce comes from Karl Marx. This was tried in the Soviet Union, Cuba and other socialist states. Can you name a desirable car produced in the Soviet Union?

It is the free market that produces cars we want, need and happily purchase. Yet when power-hungry politicians spout handy catchphrases such as "global cooling" or "global warming" or "setting an example for the world" and then enact legislation to control producers, we no longer have a free market...or desirable cars.

Part of the reason oil is so high is the general skittishness surrounding the Middle East since the war started.

Just wow @ anyone who who says we'd be much worse off with Gore or Kerry in office. There wouldn't be a war in Iraq, and America would have a much better standing in the world than it does now had they been in office.

Back on topic, it seems clear that the automotive makers aren't going to push change/innovation fast enough to increase fuel economy, so someone has to step in to speed things up. Most of the car manufacturer's have put themselves in the position they're in by not investing in new technology, but rather making bigger and bigger SUVs, cars, and trucks. Surely they must have known that one day gas prices would skyrocket and they'll be screwed. They didn't care then because they were raking in the money from their SUV sales. Today's a different story.

[quote=Angelus911;22481661]Just wow @ anyone who who says we'd be much worse off with Gore or Kerry in office. There wouldn't be a war in Iraq, and America would have a much better standing in the world than it does now had they been in office.

A lot off topic I know...but here I go anyways...

If there had been no war in Iraq, al-queda wouldn't have been decimated as they have been, which if you would do some research into the subject rather than repeat the tired leftist rants of the past 5 years, would be abundantly clear to you...

As for our standing in the world, if you would prefer worrying about how people 'think' about us over robustly pursuing Islamic radicals wherever we may find them, I would invite you to blithely continue your naive journey through the dreamland you inhabit where there are no implacable enemies hell-bent on destroying 'infidels' who don't agree with them...

The Govt. should stick to building poorly constructed roads. Not dictating gas mileage and safety numbers to auto manufacturers.

I agree. Let the free market handle this. We can already see the free market dealing with higher gas prices. People are are considering more fuel efficient cars and driving less.

How could these retards come up with such a strange and overly complicated formula? :sadbanana:

this is the only formula they could come up with that won't bankrupt chrysler, gm and ford.

Cars wouldn't have to be as 'safe' and heavy if americans could drive better. I say, screw safety and bring on Natural Selection.

Let's just face it, Subaru (and other manufacturers) are going to have to get creative. Use new tech. Create better areodynamics. Direct injection, CVT, disel, etc.

or just make legacy size of crown vic... :unamused:

This is why I am going to drive my 1971 240Z every damn day with no cats and suck up gas as fast as I can, and spew it out of my tail pipe for all to see. (Actually I have not bought it yet, but next month, I am going to pick it up).

lets hear it for old classics. Free of the stranglehold of the Feds, free of emissions junk. Free from any legislation at all. Sick of the government telling you what you can buy..

buy classics. Their value goes up, vs down. They are immune to all the current legislation, parts are cheap, they are easy to work on, and they look just beautiful.

If you wanted to buy a 45000 dollar 911, why not buy a 1970 911S, for 45000 instead. Its value will only go up, its looks will never get old, its performance is still great (and can be made much better), and you now are a connoisseur, versus just another rich yuppie.
Yeah, but the problem is that oldtimers have obsolete brakes, steering, suspension handling and safety features :sadbanana:

I think Subaru is in a BETTER position to make their numbers DUE to their partnership with Toyota whom has yet another partnership with Toray (Building new facility for large scale automotive carbon fiber parts & fab.)

...should we expect to get brand new subaru cars with factory 0 offset now?

as they have been[/I], which if you would do some research into the subject rather than repeat the tired leftist rants of the past 5 years, would be abundantly clear to you...

As for our standing in the world, if you would prefer worrying about how people 'think' about us over robustly pursuing Islamic radicals wherever we may find them, I would invite you to blithely continue your naive journey through the dreamland you inhabit where there are no implacable enemies hell-bent on destroying 'infidels' who don't agree with them...
yeay, cool dude. But YOU ask yourself: Why the hell do arabs hate us? Just because we have democracy and live decent life??
We should be concerned how they view us around the world and what contributes to these views/hatered that ignites fundamentalist acts against US.
I love how people who think they know what they're talking about show absolutely no knowledge of the subject :devil:

A lot off topic I know...but here I go anyways...

If there had been no war in Iraq, al-queda wouldn't have been decimated as they have been, which if you would do some research into the subject rather than repeat the tired leftist rants of the past 5 years, would be abundantly clear to you...

As for our standing in the world, if you would prefer worrying about how people 'think' about us over robustly pursuing Islamic radicals wherever we may find them, I would invite you to blithely continue your naive journey through the dreamland you inhabit where there are no implacable enemies hell-bent on destroying 'infidels' who don't agree with them...


Hmm... you are so far off base, it isn't even funny. Try to get your facts together, Saddam was very suspicious of Islamic fundamentalists, as he was scared they can destabilize his regime. Al Qaida is a bigger threat in Iraq now than ever before. The reason Al Qaida was reduced was Afghanistan and not Iraq. Now the present government has ignored Afghanistan in favour of Iraq and let bin Laden get away.

Also, you should understand, you live in a global economy, current US economy is sustained by China and Japan to a large extent. I am an immigrant and I can say back in India, people still regard America with lots of suspicion. The moral high ground that this country had after the 2nd world war and first Gulf war is lost, and none of it was a bigger blow than the current Iraq war.

Anyways back on topic, I am surprised how the legislators even came up with this idea of size equals safety. I bet there is strong lobbying involved by the Detroit 3 in this regards. Lets hope that is fixed by the next set of legislatures that review this. Not sure why companies like Toyota, Honda, Subaru and of course Porsche couldn't lobby to get this straightened.

Too bad for Subaru, if they try to improve their mileage using DI, wouldn't that require the use of premium fuel, even for the non turbo models? So kind of defeats the purpose, at least from end users point of view.

Ouch for Porsche.
Regular manufacturers can still introduce crappy economy cars to meet requirements, and people will buy them with all the worry over gas prices.

Yeah, but the problem is that oldtimers have obsolete brakes, steering, suspension handling and safety features :sadbanana:

I would agree with you in some cases, but post 70's era cars are far from obsolete. They are dated, but a well maintained 77 Celica will perform just fine compared to modern cars.

Safety features are only the drivers problem, and is not a concern to the general public. If a newer car collides with my 240Z, I will surely be on the losing end of that collision. My problem, and I accept that. As far as brakes, steering, suspension, they are all as modern as half the cars on the road today.

Now if your referring to cars like old Bel Aires and chop top mercuries, then I have to agree that they are a bit behind the times. However, I do not find them any more dangerous to have on the road if the driver is responsible. After all, far more deaths and accidents are caused by driver error than automobile faults.

Hip Hip Hooray for the Politburo. We didn't want any choices anyway were stupid backwater morons clinging to guns and religion. Why don't you just take the rest of my freedoms while your at it too. After all the politicians are much smarter than us serfs so they should make all of our decisions for us.

How could these retards come up with such a strange and overly complicated formula? :sadbanana:

They do it sometime between waking up and snorting coke/hookers/extra marital affairs.

Ouch for Porsche.
Regular manufacturers can still introduce crappy economy cars to meet requirements, and people will buy them with all the worry over gas prices.

On a side note, Porsche did just purchase a large part of VW. I believe they now own about 20%. Where I work I have to take monthly online test to keep certified through Porsche, the Feb. test was all about the purchase and how they now hold the largest share. I would imagine that if they become a joint company Porsche could group all mileage standards together. All the small displacement VWs would offset the lower volume of sports cars, Cayennes and in the near future, Panamera.
I for one hope they are able to do this. Since January the sales at my dealer have been in the toilet. Also the service work has really been slow.:sadbanana:

yeay, cool dude. But YOU ask yourself: Why the hell do arabs hate us? Just because we have democracy and live decent life??
We should be concerned how they view us around the world and what contributes to these views/hatered that ignites fundamentalist acts against US.
I love how people who think they know what they're talking about show absolutely no knowledge of the subject :devil:

Most of the problems the arabs have are self-inflicted. The arabs never miss an oppurtunity to miss an oppurtunity. It is their fundamentalism which 'ignites' fundamentalist acts. As to my knowledge of the subject, would you care to have a debate about the differences between the Sufi and Wahabi strains of Islam?

I love how people who think they know what they're talking about show absolutely no knowledge of the subject:devil:

should have done a hybrid.











http://demon.carvedangel.net/uploaded_images/nelson_ha_ha-736536.jpg

Hmm... you are so far off base, it isn't even funny. Try to get your facts together, Saddam was very suspicious of Islamic fundamentalists, as he was scared they can destabilize his regime. Al Qaida is a bigger threat in Iraq now than ever before. The reason Al Qaida was reduced was Afghanistan and not Iraq. Now the present government has ignored Afghanistan in favour of Iraq and let bin Laden get away.



It is an indisputable fact that Saddam paid rewards to the families of suicide bombers who blew up Israelis. Al Queda's last bastion in Iraq -- Mosul -- is being cleared as we speak. Not sure how that makes them a bigger threat. Must be the 'new math.' Al Queda has had a (greatly) reduced presence in Afghanistan basically since the bombs were loosed upon them in Oct. '01. Now it is essentially only the Taliban who have become cannon- fodder there. To say that Iraq is not the reason al-queda has been decimated simply shows you are ignorant, blinded by your own rhetoric, or both...

My apologies to all the nasioc members for getting so far off topic, but I simply can't resist saying 'bull*****' when I see it...

Anyone else seeing this lead to Toyota buying the rest of Subaru in the near future? Or even worse Suby leaving the US market.

Yeah it makes sense punishing makers of small cars and giving the ovresized suv makers a break. :rolleyes:

Is this how Washington is going to help out the Detroit 3?

Oh, this is easy.

We understand that Subaru produces much less when compared to other manufacturers.

So what happens is that Subaru's "CAFE basket" is much smaller and therefore it takes more to bring it back into balance.

Whereas with the larger automakers, such as Ford or GM, they have a larger basket and therefore it takes less to bring it into balance.

So in this manner, you can effectively eliminate the smaller competition because the CAFE averaging will force them into a higher compliance zone than a larger competitor and when they can't comply it either costs them in terms of fines or they no longer do business in NA.

So, through some cleverly crafted rules and formulas, you protect the bigger guy that because of their largeness, can survive the formulary rules because the upper limits are lower than that of the smaller guy.

Why not just say, anyone who wants to build a car must meet the same [higher] standards as the next manufacturer, regardless.

GM and Ford produce a great deal many of the polluters but get away with doing so by balancing their CAFE basket through fleet sales.

Take the fleet sales out of the equation and see where they stand and what it would take for them to be at a higher compliance level that the smaller companies have to achieve and see who would survive and who would perish and you might be surprised by the outcome.

Oh yeah, hybrids are a joke. This is another way to effectively shift the pollution from the tailpipe -- the pollutive cost is much higher to produce a hybrid and if they implement plug-in hybrids, then the pollutive shift then goes to the utility producer -- no savings what-so-ever.

Another conspiracy theorist's ramblings...

Big-E, there is a big overall pollution decrease by moving the emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant. Power plant turbines are much, much, much more efficient than an ICE in a vehicle. Constant RPMS, huge size, turbine designs, etc.

Big-E, there is a big overall pollution decrease by moving the emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant. Power plant turbines are much, much, much more efficient than an ICE in a vehicle. Constant RPMS, huge size, turbine designs, etc.

Ever been near a Coal fired plant and know the emissions they produce? Not all powerplants in this country are 'neuclear' or water.

--kC

Why are Ferrari and Maserati so low compared to Porsche?

Why are Ferrari and Maserati so low compared to Porsche?

Long wheelbase, more than likely. Porsche has a fairly short wheelbase.


These new regulations are total idiocy.

Ever been near a Coal fired plant and know the emissions they produce? Not all powerplants in this country are 'neuclear' or water.

--kC

It's 'nucular'. The S is silent.

There are a bunch of sides to THIS coin.

1) It kinda seems like a weird way for the Gov't to attempt to save the american auto makers, by making it more difficult for the small foreign auto-makers to meet the fuel standards.

2) I agree with everyone who says it is horse ***** that they're telling us what kind of cars we can and cannot buy.

3) I will continue to rip my cats off my cars and boost the hell out of them as long as I can get away with it, not because I want to pollute, but because I want to drive a fast, compact car. Something USDM doesn't have!!!

4) I agree with those who say a better approach is to reward those companies who meet a certain standard, not punish those who don't.

5) bring on the high gas prices, yes it sucks, but it will force americans to find/buy cars that get better gas milage.

6) SUV drivers are idiots, buy a truck, or a van, why an SUV??? maybe once again, reward those who opt. to buy small, fuel efficient cars.

7)Did someone actually say that the War in Iraq eliminated Al Qeada? This guy probably drives an SUV!

8)... I forgot what eight was for

9) When we talk about a "safe" car, we're assuming the car got in an accident in the 1st place, stability control, traction control, ABS, and a light controllable car = accident avoidance, which is WAY safer than hitting something in the 1st place...

10) I like lists!:lol:

Coal fired power plants + electrical cars are still more efficient and pollute less than our current drill/transport/refine/transport/combust method.

Plus, the whole dependency on nutjob dictators in the middle east and elsewhere is decreased.

And it's cheaper for the consumers.

And enviro-friendly power generation plants are getting built more and more often.

And residential solar is getting very, very close to being affordable.

But, I guess since it's not 100% perfect we should just continue down our current path...

It is an indisputable fact...

Yeah, that's where I stop reading most posts. :lol:

It is an indisputable fact that Saddam paid rewards to the families of suicide bombers who blew up Israelis. Al Queda's last bastion in Iraq -- Mosul -- is being cleared as we speak. Not sure how that makes them a bigger threat. Must be the 'new math.' Al Queda has had a (greatly) reduced presence in Afghanistan basically since the bombs were loosed upon them in Oct. '01. Now it is essentially only the Taliban who have become cannon- fodder there. To say that Iraq is not the reason al-queda has been decimated simply shows you are ignorant, blinded by your own rhetoric, or both...

My apologies to all the nasioc members for getting so far off topic, but I simply can't resist saying 'bull*****' when I see it...


My last reply off topic, since I do not want to thread crap. Even Bush acknowledged that Saddam had nothing to with the attack, here is the video of him saying it himself:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/

Yes Saddam was a horrible person. But removing him and trying to control Iraq is taking a lot of effort by the US. It also eroded the support and goodwill we got after 9-11.
Al Qaeda entered Iraq after the Saddam was defeated, its good we are able to defeat them now (if you say so). However they werent there to begin with. Currently its suspected that Osama is in North West Frontier Provinces in Pakistan, if we could have diverted the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan we could quite possible have captured Osama and Al Qaeda higher ups before they escaped to Pakistan.

Coming back on topic, I wonder how much extra weight and cost and complexity will a Subaru with rwd drive train and electric motors up front add. That would seem to be an ideal combination for us as Subaru supporters.

Also I wonder if we as consumers can do something to stop this legislation, as its blatantly biased.

Currently its suspected that Osama is in North West Frontier Provinces in Pakistan, if we could have diverted the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan we could quite possible have captured Osama and Al Qaeda higher ups before they escaped to Pakistan.

According to Michael Scheuer, former CIA employee in charge of the Bin Laden unit, Iranian forces helped bin Laden escape Tora Bora mountains into Pakistan in 2002. The Iraq war began in 2003.

Also I wonder if we as consumers can do something to stop this legislation, as its blatantly biased.

Write, email, or call your federal Senate & House of Representatives congressmen and urge them to repeal the new CAFE standards and kill the new global warming cap-and-trade initiatives. Also, write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper explaining how destructive it is when centralized government bureaucrats attempt to control businesses. That model has been tried in the USSR, Communist China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and elsewhere with disastrous results.

Porsche's solution...


The VW 911 turbo.


They'll just have to fold their name and get in on the CAFE standards along with their TDI brothers.

It appears that the MPG charts are incorrect...

The Passenger Car chart states by 2015 the average MPG of all of the manufacturers is 35.7MPG. Based on the numbers provided in the chart the number should actually be 37.26MPG.

Same with the light trucks. It states 28.6MPG when it should really be 30.3MPG

Gay.

It's a stupid way to go about things to go by the footprint, although I can't say I wouldn't mind a bigger track and wheelbase combined with a lower CG. *dreams of a dry sump boxer slammed to the ground*

I don't think subaru is really ****ed, at least not nearly as bad as porsche. They definitely got the shaft though.

All they need to do is work out a nice part time 2/4WD system or offer models in FWD. Combine that with direct injection, fully variable valve and cam timing, and whatever new technology arises in the meantime, and they'll get close or get gobbled up by Toyota.

All they need to do is work out a nice part time 2/4WD system or offer models in FWD.

So all they need to do is toss out the things that have made people buy Subarus for the last decade?

The gov is just trying to shaft all the imports and favor the domestics because the domestics can't compete on quality, reliability, or capability.

They did the same thing in the '80s with the Japanese bikes. Harley Davidson convinced the government that Japan was dumping bikes below cost and undercutting H-D sales, so they convinced the government to impose import tariffs for five years on bikes 750cc and larger, so there was a rash of 700cc bikes that came out from the Japanese makes to get around the tariff.

Harleys are still overpriced for inferior machinery, though they've gotten better. Competition is a wonderful thing, and government meddling just messes things up.

The U.S. government should not dictate the kinds of engines and technology they believe automakers should use to make their cars more fuel efficient unless they're willing to subsidize some of the cost (billions of $$$'s), which we all know isn't going to happen. More than likely car companies will be working more closely together (you'll see Toyota buy Subaru and Porsche eventually acquire VW) to spread some of the cost of development of new innovative technologies. This is the only solution unless these car makes decide to pull out of the U.S. market.

CAFE is completely unnecessary, let the market dictate what kind of cars automakers build, not the government.

I dont mind a good push in the ass by the govt to increase millage standards. But these standards should of been incrementally done through out the last 15 years. Its been known for a while that gas prices were going to going up at a very high rate and the automotive industry has really done **** for R and D towards making cars more efficient. There are a lot ideas out there that could be applied and tried out, electric valve trains, exhaust driven alternators that are fairly simple to impliment. It would be nice to achieve more than around a 20% efficancy standard for cars. The last fifteen years has been enough evidence for me that the automotive industry is lazy and will make due with doing the minimum needed to get by and needs some regulations to make life easier for all of us.

I dont mind a good push in the ass by the govt to increase millage standards. But these standards should of been incrementally done through out the last 15 years. Its been known for a while that gas prices were going to going up at a very high rate and the automotive industry has really done **** for R and D towards making cars more efficient. There are a lot ideas out there that could be applied and tried out, electric valve trains, exhaust driven alternators that are fairly simple to impliment. It would be nice to achieve more than around a 20% efficancy standard for cars. The last fifteen years has been enough evidence for me that the automotive industry is lazy and will make due with doing the minimum needed to get by and needs some regulations to make life easier for all of us.

Jon basically had it right - and no, we don't don't thinks it's fair for Subaru to have to reach a higher MPG than say, BMW just because our wheelbase is shorter. We are making that point right now.

And as for fuel efficiency - talking as an industry as a whole, there was evidence to show that every time carmakers improved MPG, buyers just went out and bought a bigger car, so the average MPG kept the same or worse while cars just got bigger and bigger. There's evidence that that is changing now, so expect all makers to improve MPG further (it is expensive to do while retaining power and keeping cost down) and buyers to trade down for a while until that happens across the board.

Jon basically had it right - and no, we don't don't thinks it's fair for Subaru to have to reach a higher MPG than say, BMW just because our wheelbase is shorter. We are making that point right now.

And as for fuel efficiency - talking as an industry as a whole, there was evidence to show that every time carmakers improved MPG, buyers just went out and bought a bigger car, so the average MPG kept the same or worse while cars just got bigger and bigger. There's evidence that that is changing now, so expect all makers to improve MPG further (it is expensive to do while retaining power and jeeping cost down) and buyers to trade down for a while until that happens across the board.

I agree that how the cafe standards are being dealt differently to different manufactures is bull, especially the way there doing it. But for the last 15+ plus years development in getting some new ideas for MPG increases from the auto industry have been very minimal. And i agree that may have been driven partially by the customers demands, but thats why i think the requirements should have been implemented for the last 15+ years when it became obvious what was going to happen to oil.

Do I think it's BS that Ford, Chevy, and Dodge get a 'lax' fuel economy requirement?

NO. Do you people really think that all of your cars got to the dealer on Semis? Ever seen an F350 towing 4-5 cars? How about utility vehicles. Seen a hydraulic bucket mounted to a Prius?

Subaru either needs to deal with it, or build something viable for the COMMERCIAL U.S. market. And no snub-nosed Isuzu based wannabe wussy trucks. Next time your cable internet or DSL goes out, and you're whining about how your porn won't load, imagine how long it would take to fix if they had an Outback with a ladder rack.

But, I think things need to be put in perspective as footprint goes and the target market. How hard is it for them to actually sit down with the manufacturers and evaluate these things face to face? I think they should give Subaru more of a break, but not much.

E

Do I think it's BS that Ford, Chevy, and Dodge get a 'lax' fuel economy requirement?

NO. Do you people really think that all of your cars got to the dealer on Semis? Ever seen an F350 towing 4-5 cars? How about utility vehicles. Seen a hydraulic bucket mounted to a Prius?

Subaru either needs to deal with it, or build something viable for the COMMERCIAL U.S. market. And no snub-nosed Isuzu based wannabe wussy trucks. Next time your cable internet or DSL goes out, and you're whining about how your porn won't load, imagine how long it would take to fix if they had an Outback with a ladder rack.

But, I think things need to be put in perspective as footprint goes and the target market. How hard is it for them to actually sit down with the manufacturers and evaluate these things face to face? I think they should give Subaru more of a break, but not much.

E

well... that's commercial vehicles.... I don't think we are talking about Commercial vehicles here.


We're not asking for a break... we are asking for the same standards to apply to all manufacturers. Seems fair to me.

What is CAFE going to do with all these fines? It sounds America, like UK is trying to create a TAX for their own benefit. Where is this taxed money going? Is it to invest in green stuff? Or is it going to go to our precious politician's pockets?

Yes, I know, "Necessary Evil" What the F*** ever!
Aren't congress people the ones with the most SUV vehicles?
I think our governments have created the perfect clever way to impose a new tax form to all of us. Believe me, car companies will somehow pass the bill to us... This is out of control.

What about Oil companies? Government taxes the hell out of them, and they happily pass the bill to us.

They are killing the middle class faster than what you think. Greedy mothaf
Just my humble opinion... Cafe my ass

The same standards are being applied. There is a consistent formula. If you make mostly smaller vehicles you need to have an overall higher efficiency than a company that makes mostly larger vehicles. Plus, since your vehicles are smaller, it should be easier to meet that target. The new formula may not be perfect, but it makes more sense than the old one. Every vehicle should be efficient for it's size.

The same standards are being applied. There is a consistent formula. If you make mostly smaller vehicles you need to have an overall higher efficiency than a company that makes mostly larger vehicles. Plus, since your vehicles are smaller, it should be easier to meet that target. The new formula may not be perfect, but it makes more sense than the old one. Every vehicle should be efficient for it's size.
Then they should go off of a weight/total size/drive type based formula.. not a wheelbase/track formula. A Range Rover is a huge vehicle, but the wheelbase is relatively small... should it get low fuel mileage? A Jeep Wrangler has a tiny wheelbase, but is shaped like a brick and needs a giant 4.0L engine and fuel sucking low gears and overbuilt diffs to be a half-decent off-road vehicle.. should it be required to get better fuel mileage than a Mazda3?

All this is going to do is encourage manufacturers to build new cars to meet the standards... rather than the buyer's needs and desires.

The same standards are being applied. There is a consistent formula. If you make mostly smaller vehicles you need to have an overall higher efficiency than a company that makes mostly larger vehicles. Plus, since your vehicles are smaller, it should be easier to meet that target. The new formula may not be perfect, but it makes more sense than the old one. Every vehicle should be efficient for it's size.

The formula is "consistent"... but it's flawed. It means that a vehicle with a one inch longer wheelbase is allowed to get lower MPG than it's 1 inch shorter counterpart. It means that BMW's CAFE is allowed to be lower than Subarus. Why shouldn't all makers have to meet that same target? All we are asking is that the Govt says; "OK, it's 30 (or whatever) for everyone". That's what would be fair.

Subaru will figure something out, i know they are going to bring the turbo diesel overs. Although i dont know if i'd want a diesel anymore since the global demand is increasing while supply isn't (Are we able to produce just diesel out of the oil, and not gasoline? if so im on board!)

I wouldn't mind a hybrid turbo subaru. Alot of my driving and im sure many others is stop and go, under 25mph. Would be wonders to do that on a battery and then just have the car start up when speeds are over 25mph or it needs more power, only thing i think they'd have to figure out is a turbo capable of lasting as long as present day, but will handle turning on/off several dozen times a day.

I'm pretty psyched and interested what the car manufactures will do, i also think its good from the cafe, even though it is somewhat unfair it appears it has to be done.

Why shouldn't all makers have to meet that same target? All we are asking is that the Govt says; "OK, it's 30 (or whatever) for everyone". That's what would be fair.

Scott is right. The targets should be different because each company makes a different mix of sizes of vehicles. Companies like Subaru and Suzuki don't make any full-size vehicles; that's why they have a higher standard.

Screw CAFE, let the consumer decide what they want to buy.

... but it shouldn't be based on footprint. It needs to take into account that all Subarus in the US are AWD. AWD always has an MPG penalty because of the additional driveline drag.

Is it too late for Subaru to come out with a big Tribeca-based truck to shift their overall mileage requirement lower?

Maybe Subaru should just start stretching the wheelbase of all their vehicles.

Scott is right. The targets should be different because each company makes a different mix of sizes of vehicles. Companies like Subaru and Suzuki don't make any full-size vehicles; that's why they have a higher standard.

Wheelbase and vehicle size are not directly related. The whole premise is flawed.

The proper way to do this is to work out a formula based on vehicle weight, drivetrain type, and interior volume. Encourage smaller vehicles, not larger ones. The way these regulations are designed actually encourages larger, less fuel efficient designs, which is the opposite of the intention of CAFE.

My thoughts exactly. They're encouraging larger vehicles instead of smaller. I know that's not what they want, but they didn't think through what the consequences would be.

My thoughts exactly. They're encouraging larger vehicles instead of smaller. I know that's not what they want, but they didn't think through what the consequences would be.

They knew what they were doing - the govt. is giving a deliberate break to the guys who have been making a ton of money on 5 ton, 12mpg trucks for the past 10 years. The defence is: "hey, we can't reach this standard when we sell 5 ton trucks to soccer moms" And so they get a break.

So it's politics. That's sad to see, but to be expected. Such a shame.

^^I hear what you guys are saying. There really is no "fair" CAFE rule because the whole concept is flawed.

Screw CAFE, let the consumer decide what they want to buy.

This is the correct answer. (If you want to discourage consumption of gas, just raise taxes on it.)

Taxes are already too high on gas. They should tax non-essentials more, like alcohol and cigarettes. Because of urban sprawl, gas is essential to get anywhere, so taxes should be low. If they could just prevent the oil companies from gouging us, that would really help. Yeah, I know, it's partially due to the falling dollar, but the oil companies are still profiteering.

^^I hear what you guys are saying. There really is no "fair" CAFE rule because the whole concept is flawed.



This is the correct answer. (If you want to discourage consumption of gas, just raise taxes on it.)

There has to be some corporate responsibility to be developing new technologies, and thats not going to come through consumer demand. Consumers may buy the best car they can for there purpose but that does not mean car companies will develop new technologies for the consumer wants if it involves a risk and high R and D. All car companies would do and have done is produce products with least R and D necessary which does not lead to innovation.

^^ :confused: Every heard of this thing called a Prius?

Taxes are already too high on gas. They should tax non-essentials more, like alcohol and cigarettes. Because of urban sprawl, gas is essential to get anywhere, so taxes should be low. If they could just prevent the oil companies from gouging us, that would really help. Yeah, I know, it's partially due to the falling dollar, but the oil companies are still profiteering.

This is just so wrong I don't know where to start.

My point is that if your goal is to reduce gasoline consumption, it is much easier just to make gas more expensive (eg by raising taxes) than to use a complex regulatory process such as CAFE. The market will do the rest. We are already seeing the effects of high gas prices on consumer behavior: sales of trucks and SUVs are way down and sales of compact cars are up.

Taxes are already too high on gas. They should tax non-essentials more, like alcohol and cigarettes. Because of urban sprawl, gas is essential to get anywhere, so taxes should be low. If they could just prevent the oil companies from gouging us, that would really help. Yeah, I know, it's partially due to the falling dollar, but the oil companies are still profiteering.
Urban sprawl is worse than 1/2 the folks driving trucks/suv's. Raising gas prices should help both problems although the sprawl will take longer.

Ford better bring some of it's euro cars over quick ..........

It is an indisputable fact that Saddam paid rewards to the families of suicide bombers who blew up Israelis. Al Queda's last bastion in Iraq -- Mosul -- is being cleared as we speak. Not sure how that makes them a bigger threat. Must be the 'new math.' Al Queda has had a (greatly) reduced presence in Afghanistan basically since the bombs were loosed upon them in Oct. '01. Now it is essentially only the Taliban who have become cannon- fodder there. To say that Iraq is not the reason al-queda has been decimated simply shows you are ignorant, blinded by your own rhetoric, or both...

My apologies to all the nasioc members for getting so far off topic, but I simply can't resist saying 'bull*****' when I see it...

Geez. Too much Faux-News.

"Read It and Weep-Even Bush's intelligence report says the war in Iraq is making us less safe at home."

http://www.slate.com/id/2170564/

"National Intelligence Estimate: Al Qaeda stronger and a threat to US homeland"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p99s01-duts.html

Rockefeller: Hayden’s ‘Upbeat Assessment’ On Al Qaeda ‘Not Consistent’ With Intel Reports To Capitol Hill
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/31/rockefeller-hayden/

Anyway, I agree with the idea that taxing gas and allowing the market to compensate is a much more effective means of inducing innovation and change. We have already started to see the shift in car buying trends and in the end if profits aren't there with less fuel efficient cars then then companies are forced to innovate to follow the market or die.

During this time of higher fuel costs, Porsche, for instance, will likely see no significant change in sales *just because* of higher fuel prices that is not already a result of people cutting back *in general* with spending on things they see as non-essential (ie GT2's and the like).

I think in the end the biggest reason for CAFE is that allowing the market to do what it needs to do is often a very painful process to the losing companies and when they have a powerful lobby in Washington it is easier to do *something* ie regulate then it is to admit that some companies may just go away forever if nothing is done.

We cry about American jobs being lost with regard to these big car companies but continue to shop at Wal-Mart every day...without realizing that we, the American consumer, are responsible for Wal-Mart taking over the market and causing a lot of small businesses to go away. We want a free market sometimes but not all the time...what a strange beast the American consumer is.

I wonder how long it'll take before subaru comes out with its diesel engines in the US. I'm really interested in seeing what the mpg and cost is going to be.

Subaru is hoping to introduce cars with diesel engines to the US in calendar year 2011.

Right because you expect Chevy to have a 40mpg Corvette.

Right because you expect Chevy to have a 40mpg Corvette.

Chevy can makes all the Corvettes they like , as long as they also make other, less profitable cars that have better MPG.

;22568267']Subaru is hoping to introduce cars with diesel engines to the US in calendar year 2011.

Which means model year 2012, I would assume? I was hoping it would be sooner—as in much sooner than that. It looks like Honda, etc. will beat Subaru in getting diesels to market here. :(

Bob

So let me get this straight. NHTSA initially provided average MPG regulations for all manufactures by 2011. They then realized that because of this regulation, manufactures started to produce smaller vehicles to meet the upcoming MPG requirements, which in turn created vehicles that are not as safe. Therefore, it is safe to assume that NHTSA is very concerned with the safety of vehicles, right? So, if this is all correct, isnt't there a major contradiction here? The contradiction being that if NHTSA is stressing safety, why would NHTSA encourage the production of BMW models (bigger foot print - meeting their new regulations) that are less safe on the road than Subaru models???

This makes NO sense to me. Am I miissing something here??

;22568267']Subaru is hoping to introduce cars with diesel engines to the US in calendar year 2011.

I'm betting it's September 2010 for at least a couple of MY2011 models to be followed in early 2011 by more model/diesel combinations to cover most MY2012 cars and "trucks".

So let me get this straight. NHTSA initially provided average MPG regulations for all manufactures by 2011. They then realized that because of this regulation, manufactures started to produce smaller vehicles to meet the upcoming MPG requirements, which in turn created vehicles that are not as safe. Therefore, it is safe to assume that NHTSA is very concerned with the safety of vehicles, right? So, if this is all correct, isnt't there a major contradiction here? The contradiction being that if NHTSA is stressing safety, why would NHTSA encourage the production of BMW models (bigger foot print - meeting their new regulations) that are less safe on the road than Subaru models???

This makes NO sense to me. Am I miissing something here??

well, that's equating size with safety - and it doesn't always apply. True, as my Grandad used to say (in general) "a good big 'un will beat a good little 'un" but... you can't keep following that argument forever... otherwise we'll all be in Hummers. Small cars are safer than ever and getting safer all the time.

well, that's equating size with safety - and it doesn't always apply. True, as my Grandad used to say (in general) "a good big 'un will beat a good little 'un" but... you can't keep following that argument forever... otherwise we'll all be in Hummers. Small cars are safer than ever and getting safer all the time.

Exactly my point. There are a lot of small cars that are safe and the Subaru line up is an example. All I am saying is that if NHTSA is after the safety of the people, they are completely contradicting themselves when they are passing out this footprint rule because bigger cars (like BMW vs. Subaru) don't necessarily mean safer.

So, A 3 series can be driving down the road while meeting all of the new regulations (fuel consumption and foot print) and the NHTSA is OK with it, but in reality, this car has proven not to be crash reliable like the Subaru, even if the Subaru hasn't met the foot print or the fuel consumption rating.

Exactly my point. There are a lot of small cars that are safe and the Subaru line up is an example. All I am saying is that if NHTSA is after the safety of the people, they are completely contradicting themselves when they are passing out this footprint rule because bigger cars (like BMW vs. Subaru) don't necessarily mean safer.

So, A 3 series can be driving down the road while meeting all of the new regulations (fuel consumption and foot print) and the NHTSA is OK with it, but in reality, this car has proven not to be crash reliab