finally

'bout damn time...

I guess it's never too late, but why does it take 7 years? He's hoping Laura Bush may be running by then? LOL!

It's amusing that the same morons who want to pass laws to add unnecessary weight ("safety" features, which don't really improve safety) are the same ones wanting a 4,000+ lb truck to get over 30 mpg.

30 mpg on a truck isn't going to happen.

It'll never happen has been said about most things at one time or another. "Necessity is the mother of all invention" can certainly be applied here. It may not end up looking like what we now perceive but my bet is that it will indeed eventually happen. It must...

Should be interesting. I guess it is back to the Euro Trash golf carts. I think 6 bucks a gallon will drive consumer demand of soda can Gore Mobiles.

Current Hybrids are the biggest scam yet. The MPG is a joke, over priced, reliability is suspect, performance is a joke, styling blows, and the only people who buy them have this morally superior attitude, like they are 'saving the planet' are you are a worthless POS polluting Luddite. ESAD!

[You can tell I despise Prius' ]

All electric cars, like Tesla rock, but diesel is MPG for the car masses. Might not be cleaner than a hybrid or alt fuels, but if MPG/Performance is the main goal, can't beat it. Kind of fond of the Audi Q7 V12 TDI.

I look forward to the Fisker Karma hybrid.

@SlowandMellow:

Agree completely that Diesels are a proven way for commuters to realistically increase mileage. Plug in hybrids may bridge the gap in the short term (all electric for 20-40miles), but are costly and battery technology need to improve.

This new fuel economy plan means that we have to buy newer cars in order for the plan to work. If people are losing jobs and cant afford their homes now what makes him think that Americans will go out and buy new cars?!?!

Its hard enough with these ridiculous prices-how about taking care of the matter now-not it in full swing by the year 2020.

We're buying the oil from other countries and giving them food--how about no food unless they knock down the prices. Its better then us looking like fools paying these prices and the Bush administration getting richer by the day. What do they care-they don't purchase their own gas to get to work let alone work for a living trying to make ends meet!

You control fuel economy, drive better, maintain better, carry around less crap with you.

If we had cared about fuel economy instead of subwoofers and heated seats for the last 20 years cars would get substantially better fuel economy than they do.

We saw the enemy and the enemy was us.

Wow, thats DEEP brother! hahahahahaha

Man...the word "Bush" and "fuel economy" is one phrase?!?

My God, im having an orgasm!!!!!

did you see the new Ford Mustruck and the new Lincoln Towntruck?

@ laura :
This new fuel economy plan means that we have to buy newer cars in order for the plan to work. If people are losing jobs and cant afford their homes now what makes him think that Americans will go out and buy new cars?!?!

Her brainlessness: how about driving less with the same car. Cycle to the mall, walk to the mailbox

We're buying the oil from other countries and giving them food--how about no food unless they knock down the prices.

Her brainlessness: you dont buy and give food, but you steal and give jackfruits and granade apples.

"We're buying the oil from other countries and giving them food"

hahahaha, great joke. The best in the week.
Such an inocent lady...

Yes! Let them have it my fellow america-obsessed !!!

"bush" and "fuel economy" in a title...its glorious...this is "america-obsessed" heaven !!

So exactly how is an industry that has 4-5 year product life-cycles supposed to make the dramatic adjustments needed to meet this mandate? This administration flat out ignored the auto industry for 7 years and now decides that Bush has to leave office with a feather in his cap showing he is "Greener" than Gore.

Last time I checked 2015 is less than 7 years away. Even if all the car manufacturers cut short every model's product life cycle and soley focused on new powertrains to meet this demand, they will still be hard pressed to accomplish what the Bush administration proposed.

It certainly will not be for the small per unit cost proposed in the above article.

@ Turkle

Typical american response:

"So exactly how is an industry that has 4-5 year product life-cycles supposed to make the dramatic adjustments needed to meet this mandate?"

Denial of own responsability:
'I cant improve because those louzy companies make guzlers....'

Dont ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country' said a famous Irish president.

So look at you dealers lot: all brands have economy cars, they all bring you to work, the mall, the mailbox.
Yes, they cant haul your boat AND your inlaws AND your fat cousins AND your dogs all in once. But, hey that happens once every 3 years. You can take a taxi when that happens.

Worst. Idea. Ever.

We don't need to consume less fuel. We need to build more native refineries and drills so that we can make cheap gas to meet demand. We need to stop using our amazing growing power to grow inefficient bio-fuels so that our livestock feed prices will fall, so that in turn, milk, eggs, butter, and meat also drop in price. We need to shut down coal mines and coal-burning plants and build many, many nuclear power plants to ensure a clean future of energy independence - we'll need more electric energy if we expect to power new generations of electric cars.

Legislation like this doesn't help the environment or the economy. If the President really wanted to help, he would fight to remove the restrictions placed on energy companies so that they can drill and build on American soil. Everyone wins.

I'm glad to see somethig is being done to increase fuel economies in the now. We're going to be a country fueled on gas for a long time to come. There are many problems with all alternative fuels. Bio fuels rise the cost of food, and you need more ethanol than gas to get the same distance. Electric cars sound great, but at this momnet they have real problems with distance, and another hidden problem. Most of America's power come from burning coal. Electric cars would certainly get us off of foreign sources of oil, but they do nothing for the enviroment. Solution: Nuclear Power. Its clean(very little waste for the amount of power produced), cheap and safe when its not run by the Russians. More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than American commercial nuclear power accidents. Look it up.

If you guys notice, Manufacturers have developed a way around these types of mandates. Their solution is simple: create more models.

Instead of raising the efficiency of all the engines in the truck lineup, a manufacturer will simply release a Hybrid version or two of an existing model. The hybrid will increase average fuel economy and help them stay within the mandate. And they can still produce the 8mpg "forest destroyer 9000" SUV that everyone buys. Despite the fact no one will probably buy the hybrid (unless it's a Toyota/Lexus Hybrid, then people will pay whatever price), it still counts towards the average MPG target.

Despite the hope Bush's proposal imparts, greedy corporations will still remain rich and hopeless. This is like Karate Kid Part 2, and Bush is like Daniel-san.... well maybe more like the Hillary Swank version...

This target is easy. The big US car manufacturers have European divisions selling gas cars that exceed these targets already. An example is the Ford Focus, it was released in the US several years after the rest of the world got it. However in the US you can't buy it with the smaller, more fuel efficient engine you can purchase in most other places in the world. Ford could bring that engine. Similar examples exist for almost other manufacturers AND models (not just US ones). The sales growth of the more expensive hybrids shows that there is a huge demand for more fuel efficient cars. The only reason they don't come here is manufacturers greed. I think this legislation will help. However I disagree it will add cost to the cars - models in europe with smaller more fuel efficient engines cost less than the larger engine option.

It is not about the fuel useage anyway. It is about the taxes they can charge if the auto makers do not meet the numbers.

28.6mpg from a truck? Well, I'm almost THERE... my 2003 diesel Ram gets 26mpg on the highway, 65mph running empty with the A/C on. It isn't factory stock. A 'side effect' of the mods are 430hp and 850 ft/lbs torque, no smoke, and quick enough to give my 350Z a run for the money. Maybe the rest of the car industry will catch up with the rest of us hot rodders some day....ooops, looks like they'll have to!

I don't understand why the government doesn't just let capitalism work. If people want cars with higher fuel econemy then car builders will (and are see hybrids, sub subcompacts yaris, etc) recognize this trend and make it a reality. Capitalism works instead of following this governement knows what the people want socailism crap that we are getting more and more of.

The politicians...They are all the sames...

Not impressive. My 1994 VW Golf with an old-school 2.0 gas motor gets 34-36 on the highway easily - and that is technology designed 18 years ago! Cars at 3200 lbs and down today can EASILY get 50+ on the highway with new diesels or low displacement, forced induction gas motors. Here is where we, the people can take action. VW's close to 60mpg diesel is about to hit the market, and Honda is supposedly following suit. I am as American as the next person, but if Detroit does not want to compete on economy, my $$$ will continue to go overseas for a vehicle.

make cars out of plastics....
lighter, cheaper, run faster, save gas.
haha.

that day might never come

1. I second the call for more nuke plants (of course uranium is also a finite resource) and more efficient nuke plants that extract more energy from the waste. instead of dumping it in mountains.

2. "make cars out of plastics.... lighter, cheaper, run faster, save gas. " You do realize that plastics are made from oil.....

3. @capitalism, that doesn't work. People as individuals don't care enough about the environment, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything about it. The capitalism argument is uneducated bull.

4. "We don't need to consume less fuel. We need to build more native refineries and drills so that we can make cheap gas to meet demand." Yes that is the solution. Use up domestic reserves. That will solve the oil shortages and fix global warming.

@ gm0n3y

Capitalism doesn't work? That might be one of the stupidest things I've read on TR. Mother Russia needs you to sacrifice your individuality for the good of the whole. Communism wasn't exactly a model we should emulate, that's what led to the worst pollution disaster in the history of the world. (Chernobyl)

Obviously if people as individuals don't care enough about the environment then why should the government? Shouldn't the govenrment represent the will of the people? Even in communism & socialism the government is supposed to represent the will of the people. That's Neitzsche speaking.

The government spends too much time pandering to special interest groups. The green people being one of them. Lots of people claim to be green, but when it comes time to get out their checkbook they renig. Why should the govenrment take their money and spend it for them on 'green initiatives'?

I think if people had a problem with gas prices they'd drive less. I think people buy what kind of cars they desire and live where they want to live what's wrong with that?

Market forces were already at work, that's why we have hybrids at all.

I want a fun to drive, inexpensive, electric car powered indirectly by nuclear energy. That's my dream, but it doesn't have to be everyone elses.

Bush is where the root of all EVILS. Attack Iraq, Afganistan, weaken economy, worst president ever! Now gas is $$$$$ and hes extremely happy about it...

I think the comedian Christopher Titus said it best.

"Gas is 3 bucks a gallon, Our president is a rich Texas oilman, we're a bunch of retards!"

But it is not the federal governments job to legislate what companies can and cannot produce. If people are willing to buy Trucks and SUV's and pay for the gas to fill them...Let them. If you do not like them..... Don't drive them. But do not tell other people what they should and should not drive. That is not what this country was founded on and it is none of your business. If you don't like it, Leave.

@Cheap Car Lover:

You instantly assume because he said capitalism doesn't work that he'd rather have communism! Your bloody mad you are. Shh, quite, I hear some commies in the trees, LOL!

The problem with the idea that "if people had a problem with gas prices, they'd drive less" is that it just doesn't play out. In America people NEED to drive. How else do people who live in suburbs 80 miles from the city get to work? Public transport doesn't work in that reason in suburbs.*

Thats the reason demand doesn't drop immediately following price hikes like it does for LCD TVs or luxury food (lobster and such). When we say "America is dependent on oil," we don't mean we consciously choose to drive, the very way Americans live dictates that they have to. Thats why as gas prices rise people cut other expenses: they must drive, or they can only sit at home.

People like me who take refuge in cities, not just in their respective metropolitan areas but live down in the proper, can avoid caring at all. Hell, I can go the rest of my life right now never having to buy another gallon of gas. I'll just sell my cars, have friends pick me up when I travel (they'd do it too), and walk around Manhattan and Brooklyn like I usually do during the week. I only drive on the weekends really, leisure trips or to the track and such.

But thats the problem: most Americans do live in the "Metropolitan" area, which means they live out in the suburbs. Its called "urban sprawl," a terrible thing that Europe fortunately missed out on. Thanks to WWII, most Europeans couldn't afford cars during the 50s, or if they could they could only afford small cars, hence even though cities got bigger, they never sprawled out over a hundred square miles like LA or even Kansas City. They just built up and to this day, most people live in apartments or condos. I lived in one once in Germany, and they are actually quite comfortable. The new ones are small, sometimes, but the post WWII era buildings had rather large units built, as they intended to house whole families and families were larger back then.

@Mark: I'm tired of all the "what this country was founded on" business you red-staters give off. This country was also founded using Muskets and horses and slavery, should we go back to that? After all, its what we were founded on!

Even more so, this country was NOT founded on "none of your business." Many colonies had to be convinced to join the revolution, many never fully supported it and lent hardly any help. Some people in the rural Appalachians didn't even know the war was on until it was over (in my family history there exists some cousins that prove the point). It was debated in the streets loudly in crowds, its well recorded in newspapers back then on how "public discourse" was started whenever a guy got the gumption to engage people on the street. Debate was daily and if you were not involved someone made sure you were.

Also, the Boston Tea Party? Not exactly popular with all the locals. Many people just feared it would bring hardship from their British masters, but several brave souls boarded the ship and spoke for everyone, even those who did not want to speak, that night.

You would not be saying a single sentence without a British colloquialism today if it wasn't for a few brave people "interfering with others business."

And whats more, what business do you have to interfere with my right to a clean environment? What right do you have to use an inordinate amount of resources, driving up costs for me? We could go round and round about that, and I bring it up so that we won't start later. I already know what you'd say in response and you know how I would respond to that.

And I already stated: the market doesn't work the way it should here because people HAVE TO drive. People would reduce their gas consumption if there was some form of logical alternative, but Americans are spread out all over the place and MUST drive. Period.

Anyone who says the market would work it out has never took a class in economics. Macro 101: prices come down when either supply increases or alternatives exist. If supply decreases and alternatives do not exist, prices go up.

And in America, for many, there is no alternative to driving.

@ lowest iq

"Denial of own responsability:
'I cant improve because those louzy companies make guzlers....'"

News flash retard, a companies ONLY responsibility is to make money. For a car company, than involves developing and producing cars that MOST people want. What sells more? An SUV/Crossover? Or a small car with no extras, and a motor so small that the car takes 10 seconds to get to 60? Now, if the companies have a 4-5 year life cycle for products, and are currently LOSING money every year, how is it they are supposed to completely redo products in a economical way?

People talk about "typical American car companies, building crap cars that guzzle gas". No the problem is "typical American attitude, we shouldn't have to make smart decisions, and we aren't to blame, it's the car companies. We aren't buying more fuel efficient cars than gas guzzlers, but they should still make more. Maybe even give them away."

The federal government has absolutely zero business legislating fuel economy. If people want better fuel economy, the market will bring it. If people want V8's and SUVs, the market will bring it.

Just because you are too poor to buy gas, doesn't mean that I am.

@Allen

Even though you are completly correct that most people don't make the environement one of their reasons for buying a car people are starting to take the cost of gas into consideration. This is evident by the 36% increase in hyrid sales vs. a 6% decline in auto sales over last year at this time.

I also agree with you that there is no alternative to driving in the US, but that doesn't mean there aren't other options to do this such as driving with hybrids and using lower power, higher mpg vehicles.

I also realize that a car has an approximate 5 year life-cycle for the current owner and any changes will take time. Bush's proposed mpg plan is a 7 year plan and one I feel would be completed by most automakers in that time to begin with.

What my whole rant comes down to is I have a big problem with large all encompassing govenment plans such as this and others which I won't get into. I believe that most automakers would adopt these types of mpg standards based on capitalism and market demand alone. Currently the two of the best automakers (in terms of profit) Toyota and Honda are already very close to these goals. My concern comes to those that are not and shouldn't be expect to. The Porches and perfromance auto makers as well as Chevy and Ford who produce a large amount of work vechicles (trucks and vans.)

For those who think the the capitalism will correct the distorcion.. look at the "food price crises" and you will understand that SOMETIMES it simply doesnt.

And for those criticizing the government for making "green laws". Well i might not like the law, but im sure its their responsability to do it. What I mean is... Most of the people to see out of box enough to realize some changes are important.

Want a good example? Think about this situation, a new technology is developed that make the cars burn gas 50% more cleanly, but it add a cost of at least USD 5k to each car and brings no MPG benefit...
Would people simply start to buy this "new models" on their own? maybe a small part of them... but a dont see any form of mass adoption but a law that makes you do it.

I see your point Rafael. I agree the government should promote enironmental and other changes but not with broad all encompassing ones.

Rafeal:

"Want a good example? Think about this situation, a new technology is developed that make the cars burn gas 50% more cleanly, but it add a cost of at least USD 5k to each car and brings no MPG benefit..."

If this law was applied to all cars how would it affect small sub compacts like the Yaris and Aveo. You just increased the cost of the car by about 50% for base models and probably made these models pointless. Also what if this technology cost USD 10k, or 15k. at what point is it worth it and when do you just make new cars pointless.

I'm all for enviromental improvements but it would be better to scale it. What if instead of the new law being per fleet. They set them per class or target market segment for each vehicle. If the government spent a little more time properly talyoring these laws they would be much more effective.

I was a big fan of the hybrid tax credit of a few years ago. I see credits for higher mpg vehicles as a much better alternative.

@therooster

That is the dumbest statement ever (right up next to the guy that said we need to open up drilling in America and use up ALL the damn oil reserves).

The market won't legislate worth sh!t. The average mpg is instated so that we'll curb emissions and use LESS oil. Have you read "The Tragedy of the Commons"? I suggest you edumacate yourself and do everyone a favor.