Is the Obama administration ever doing cost-benefit analysis for its regulations?: CAFE regulations increasing

Look what Americans can look forward to driving in a few years. Put aside those gas guzzling mini coopers and look at some other cars that fall well short of Obama's proposed MPG rules of 56.2 MPG. Of course, a lot of these excessively large cars don't even make the 2016 mandate of 35.5 MPG average.
The huge/gigantic 2009 Smart FOR TWO PASSION gets 33 MPG city/41 MPG highway, hardly comes close to Obama's proposed 56 MPG and barely gets to the 35.5 MPG required by 2016. The car's 3 Cylinder 1.0L engine would impress some self-propelled lawnmowers. Now it is true that the misnamed "Smart" car has a lot of fat and extra space that could be cut out, but it still isn't clear how they will get its mileage about 20 MPG on average to Obama's 56.2 MPG. A two person car with no crash protection really possible because there is no room for crumple space should really be a one person car, right?

The road domineering 2010 Hyundai ACCENT GLS gets an impressive 27 MPG city/36 MPG highway, but the highway numbers are themselves still 20 MPG short.

The extra large 2010 Honda INSIGHT EX gets an impressive 40 MPG city/43 MPG highway.

The behemoth 2009 Chevrolet COBALT LT's 25 MPG city/35 MPG highway doesn't even come remotely close to the 2016 rules let alone to Obama's proposed mandates.

The Wall Street Journal has this about the new proposed regulations.

The Obama administration may require auto makers to roughly double the average fuel economy of their car and light truck fleets from current levels to 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025. . . .

The new plan, being drafted jointly by the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, would build on the administration's new rules put in place last year that requires new cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to average 35.5 mpg by 2016, up from 27.3 mpg today. . . .

Labels: ,


Blogger Chas said...

Markie Marxist sez: "We certainly can't let the market decide what it wants. That wouldn't be Marxism. And we certainly can't dictate to the market the same thing that the market wants, since that would be shame thing as allowing the market to decide. So, it's 52 mpg, not whether they like it or not, but because they don't! Ha! Ha! All your free market decisions are belong to us! And we're not giving you what you want because you want it!"

6/27/2011 7:04 AM  
Blogger Lazy Bike Commuter said...

I imagine that Governent Motors will just make a few more cars like the Volt and make up some more meaningless MPG figures for it.

I don't know if they'll let other companies get away with that though.

6/27/2011 8:26 AM  
Blogger Suburban said...

Silly wabbit, leftists don't understand cost-benefit analysis. . . or logic. You should know this by now.

6/27/2011 11:51 PM  
Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Hmmmmm, did Obama skip class in Physics 101? Specifically the Laws of Conservation of Mass/Energy/Momentum?

In this case, we are discussing internal combustion reciprocating motors. A 'perfect' conversion to forward motion cannot occur.

As you so pointed out Dr. Lott, if one achieves success by weight reduction, what replaces the safety factor of a crumple zone? Does not Federal Law, Rules and Regs ensure that such saftey features are mandatory on all vehicles sold in the U.S.?

Obviously, common sense is in such short supply, that Obama and his cronies are afraid to use up what little they have...

6/29/2011 10:37 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home