# California's Fuel Standard Is a Cancer, Says Former GM Executive



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Most auto people will correctly point out that California's 2016 43 mpg number threatens the existence of the industry. 

More...


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

News Bot said:


> Most auto people will correctly point out that California's 2016 43 mpg number threatens the existence of the industry.
> 
> More...


What?  How is 43mpg a bad thing when gas was only $3.00/gal last year and its projected to be $4.00/gal this summer? If this keeps up, gas will be $5.00 next year, $6.00 the year after that... etc. By 2020, gas should cost about $16.00/gal. Ok, I have a tough time believing that gas will be 416.00/gal by 2020, but you get the idea. I hope I'm wrong on that one.  At any rate, the rapidly escalating price of fuel is an infinitely greater threat to the auto industry than a silly little 43mpg average fuel economy standard. If anything, 43mph by 2016 is not good enough.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I can sort of see his concern. The zero emission mandate was a less extreme piece of legislation that allowed a small segment of the market to act as a test platform for new technology. The problem here is that aggressive activists and vote hunting politicians are running the show instead of common sense. We do need a more balanced approach to emission standards VS duel economy, what they did to diesel engines, for example is just stupid. This situation causes the automakers to fight the laws tooth and nail for their very survival because you can't make a pickup truck that gets 40 MPG unless you abandoned the ICE altogether. Again, not a bad thing, but you can't force change like this, not across the whole market without dangerous consequences.

Where are the moderates in all this? We could sure use some to come up with a more balanced approach, and knock some heads together (or maybe clean off).

The truth is consumer are already starting to make choices based on operating cost of the vehicle. I hate to admit it, but there is a time when good economics must be given a chance to work, instead of trying to shovel water uphill with tax dollars. Situations like this will only lead to more battles played out in courtrooms, and the legislature instead of focusing on the technological solutions that can make our dreams a reality.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

The best ratio for burning gasoline for performance and mileage with not too bad of emissions, I was told, was always 15:1.
Cubic inches or high compression were the best ways to get better mileage.
Cubic inches takes in too much weight for the powerplant and high compression is an emissions nightmare.
Does anyone know if 40 mpg is even a realistic figure?
Especially when you figure in all of the creature comforts we insist on?
Each new line of cars that comes out small "for mileage", then get faster and larger until we are griping about fuel economy again.


----------

