Automotive trends while Obama was in office

Quote: terapined

There is still a consumer demand for fuel efficiency without the governments interference

Quote: missedhervee

The CAFE standards need to be rolled back. The progressive's desire to end fossil fuel use is arguably well-intentioned but Obama went too fast, as the above post shows. Car makers cannot simply snap their fingers to gain compliance.

Quote: The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks | August 24, 2018

Technology that can improve both fuel economy and/or performance may not be dedicated solely to fuel economy.

As fleet-wide fuel efficiency has improved over time, additional improvements have become both more complicated and more costly.

There are two primary reasons for this phenomenon.

First, as discussed, there is a known pool of technologies for improving fuel economy and reducing CO 2 emissions. Many of these technologies, when actually
implemented on vehicles, can be used to improve other vehicle attributes such as ‘‘zero to 60’’ performance, towing, and hauling, etc., either instead of or in
addition to improving fuel economy and reducing CO 2 emissions.

As one example, a V6 engine can be turbocharged and downsized so that it consumes only as much fuel as an inline 4-cylinder engine, or it can be turbocharged and downsized so that it consumes less fuel than it would originally have consumed (but more than the inline 4-cylinder would) while also providing more low-end torque.

As another example, a vehicle can be lightweighted so that it consumes less fuel than it would originally have consumed, or so that it consumes the same amount of fuel it would originally have consumed but can carry more content, like additional safety or infotainment equipment. Manufacturers employing ‘‘fuel-saving/emissions-reducing’’ technologies in the real world make decisions regarding how to employ that technology such that fewer than 100% of the possible fuel-saving/emissions-reducing benefits result.

They do this because this is what consumers want, and more so than exclusively fuel economy improvements.

This makes actual fuel economy gains more expensive.

Thus, even though the technologies may be largely the same, previous assumptions about how much fuel can be saved or how much emissions can be
reduced by employing various technologies may not have played out as prior analyses suggested, meaning that previous assumptions about how much
it would cost to save that much fuel or reduce that much in emissions fall correspondingly short.

For example, the agencies assumed in the 2010 final rule that dual clutch transmissions would be widely used to improve fuel economy due to expectations of strong effectiveness and very low cost: In practice, dual clutch transmissions had significant customer acceptance issues, and few manufacturers employ them in
the U.S. market today. The agencies included some ‘‘technologies’’ in the 2012 final rule analysis that were defined ambiguously and/or in ways that precluded observation in the known (MYs 2008 and 2010) fleets, likely leading to double counting in cases where the known vehicles already reflected the assumed efficiency improvement. For example, the agencies assumed that transmission ‘‘shift optimizers’’ would be available and fairly widely used in MYs 2017–2025, but involving software controls, a ‘‘technology’’ not defined in a way that would be observed in the fleet (unlike, for example, a dual clutch
transmission).

To be clear, this is no one’s ‘‘fault’’—the CAFE and CO 2 standards do not require manufacturers to use particular technologies in particular ways, and both agencies’ past analyses generally sought to illustrate technology paths to compliance that were assumed to be as cost-effective as possible. If manufacturers choose different paths for reasons not accounted for in regulatory analysis, or choose to use technologies differently from what the agencies previously assumed, it does not necessarily mean that the analyses were unreasonable when performed. It does mean, however, that the fleet ought to be reflected as it stands today, with the technology it has and as that technology has been used, and consider what technology remains on the table at this point, whether and when it can
realistically be available for widespread use in production, and how much it would cost to implement.

Quote: Pacomartin

President Trump immediately began the process of cancelling the Trump proposal.

Quote: odiousgambit

Biden, you mean?

Quote: Pacomartin

Of course!

According to the researchers, as the Earth warms, temperature changes between the poles and equator will decrease, leading to a weakening or split in the jet stream and creating an opening for hurricanes in the mid-latitudes to build and escalate during the summer months.
https://www.indianaenvironmentalreporter.org/posts/climate-change-will-bring-more-hurricanes-to-northeastern-cities-study-finds#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20researchers%2C%20as,escalate%20during%20the%20summer%20months.

Quote: odiousgambit

Interesting. However, I don't think a tidal wave is coming that will knock over the Statue of Liberty as in that movie, which must have gotten people really, really thinking. Then they became Climate Change Skeptics en masse LOL.

Quote: terapined

I doubt it because I have no idea what movie you are talking about.
What movie?