KozmoNaut posted:

quote:

WASHINGTON — The federal government issued final rules establishing the first greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles and light trucks on Thursday, ending a 30-year battle between regulators and automakers.
Enlarge This Image


The U.S. issued new rules that sets emissions and mileage standards for automobiles and light trucks.

The new rules, jointly written by the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, set emissions and mileage standards that will translate to a fleet average of 35.5 miles a gallon by 2016, nearly a 40 percent improvement over today’s fuel economy.

Officials said the program would save the owner of an average 2016 car $3,000 in fuel costs over the life of the vehicle and eliminate emissions of nearly a billion tons of climate-altering gases over the lives of the regulated vehicles.

Reaching the new efficiency level will add about $1,000 to the cost of the average new car by 2016, according to industry and government estimates.

It is the first time that limits have been set on vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. The E.P.A. is writing greenhouse gas standards for stationary sources like power plants and steel mills, but those will not take effect before next year, agency officials have said.

“This is a significant step toward cleaner air and energy efficiency and an important example of how our economic and environmental priorities go hand-in-hand,” said Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator.

The vehicle emissions program traveled a tortuous path through state regulatory agencies, the courts, Congress and the federal government before culminating in a groundbreaking agreement announced last May by President Obama, auto executives, labor leaders and environmental advocates.

The accord produced a single national standard based on a tough auto emissions law enacted by California in 2004. The automakers have complained of the cost of compliance but welcomed a national plan that did not require them to build different vehicles for different markets to comply with varying state laws.

“This as an example of where the federal government has actually done something right,” said Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “A year ago we were facing piecemeal policies set out by E.P.A., D.O.T. and groups of different states. Our auto engineers cannot design vehicles to different standards.”

But Ms. Bergquist said the program announced on Thursday would end in 2016 and there was no map for the road beyond. She noted that California regulators were already working on tough new standards for 2017 vehicles and that auto companies needed to know what fuel economy rules they would be required to meet.

The rule sets different mileage and emissions standards for different sizes of vehicles, and major manufacturers will have to meet increasingly stringent standards over the 2012-16 period. Vehicles that run exclusively on electricity, like the new Nissan Leaf and the forthcoming Chevrolet Volt, will be classed as zero-emissions vehicles, although there is a cap on the number of all-electric vehicles that carmakers can claim credit for.

Small-volume automakers like Porsche, Jaguar, Aston Martin and Lamborghini will not have to meet the new standards immediately, but must purchase credits from other carmakers. By 2017, all car companies will have to come into compliance.

The rule estimates the cost of compliance for the industry at $52 billion over the five years of the program, while it calculates benefits at $240 billion. Those benefits include fuel savings, pollution reduction and reduced oil imports.

Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, has pressed for stricter fuel economy standards for years and was a co-author of global warming legislation that passed the House last June.

“After three decades of stagnant fuel economy policy and rising gas prices,” Mr. Markey said, “these new standards finally put America on the path to making our vehicles more fuel-efficient and reducing our dependence on imported oil.”

bidikyoopi posted:

I hope whoever made that render was either laughing the whole time or just loving around with PS on the can.

Cream_Filling posted:

dissss posted:

I just don't see why you'd buy one over VWs other offerings. If you want a less practical Golf you already have the Scirroco afterall.

eames posted:

New video of a barely disguised 991 around Stuttgart, the best one I’ve seen so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFNRrygIzAA

Front spoiler kind of reminds me of the MP12-4C (best visible at the very end of the video).

extreme_accordion posted:

Rear axels to rust through in under 50,000 miles as a performance feature.

IKillForPie posted:

There is literally nothing more in the world I would like than for this to be true and be available in Canada

Rumor: 2020 Ford Bronco To Get A 7-Speed Manual Transmission

1337JiveTurkey posted:

The US06 supplemental federal test procedure is designed to hit a representative profile of acceleration, deceleration and constant speed driving at a representative profile of speeds for the average highway driver. Anything over 75 mph doesn’t happen enough to justify including it in the test or creating yet another test procedure.

Residency Evil posted:

I'm this close to buying a Golf R but don't drive enough to justify it .

Wheeee posted:

im half considering ditching my truck for new hybrid RAV4

how insane am i

McTinkerson posted:

So uh, the new Benz E53 AMG's are magic....I just test drove an E53 Coupe (zero wagons or even sedans in stock) and I am both more excited and afraid about a new car than I have ever been. Time to start looking into selling the daily to potentially make room.

That new M256 is amazing.

Edit: The new E class wagon generation has an deceptively large cargo area. Two large adult dogs can stand up in the back.

Wheeee posted:

Rear seat airbags are a $450 option on the Audi S3 lol

I like German cars, but German manufacturers can get hosed

Wamsutta posted:

If I take the bus, I'm looking at minimum one hour door to door. The train ride is 10-15 minutes but first I have to get to the station a mile or so away (walkable in nice weather, otherwise I need a ride or I have to pay an insane amount and get on a waiting list to use the parking at the station) and then I'm at the whim of the once an hour train that makes the trip.

Wamsutta posted:

Oh, I can, I'm just 100% not going to when I could drive instead, hope that helps

BraveUlysses posted:

i mean you can measure cargo room in cubic feet but obviously that doesnt account for the shape of that space. can you fit a big dog in the hatch area of a honda fit? most wagons and CUVs can have two medium/large dogs standing up in the back of the cargo area.

Charles posted:

Cargo volume of a 2019 Honda Fit is 16.6 cubic feet versus an E class wagon's 35 cubic feet. You're comparing seat down volume with seat up volume.

Paradoxish posted:

Most people don't, except in the sense of bigger number = more better. Most people, on most days, could get by fine with the amount of space in the average sedan, and that's like that half of that. A lot of the stuff that won't fit in a sedan with the rear seats folded down is stuff that's just a little bit too big or that's super unwieldy to load into a sedan, and that's where anything with a hatch comes in handy.

Like, I've transported a ton of drywall and cement board in my mom's Sentra sedan with no problem at all. I transported enough flooring to cover two large rooms in my old E46 coupe. It would have been much easier if either of those cars had a hatch, but the issue had nothing to do with actual cargo volume.

drgitlin posted:

Mazda’s interiors are getting up there with Audi these days. The inside of the new 3 would look good in a car costing twice as much.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

mazda has probably the best non premium interiors in the business now, so i don't think this is a reasonable comparison