58 MPG by 2032

[WinterDeere]

I don't think NiMH is used, only know of lithium.

Not an expert, I was going off this quote:

"Tire pressure monitoring sensors are usually powered by a 3-volt lithium ion battery. Some TPMS sensors use a 1.250-volt nickel metal hydride battery. The battery is encased in the sensor's molded plastic housing. A battery that is running low on or is depleted requires the replacement of the ENTIRE TPMS sensor assembly."

TPMS Sensor Batteries, Life Expectancy, and Replacement | TPMSDirect

Original equipment manufactured TPMS sensors have an estimated battery life of 5-12 years, with 7 years being the average. Tire pressure sensors are usually powered by 3-volt lithium ion battery or a 1.250-volt nickel metal hydride battery.

www.tpmsdirect.com

 

[Rockbadchild]

How many vehicles get 58 mpg now? Will electric vehicles somehow get factored into that. Between this new standard and all the standards on all the home appliances things will get expensive.

I don't know if you remember a time where most cars where making 60 miles a gallon (in the 80's)... pre exhaust emissions control yes more pollutant but better in gas, the same cars after emission control has a hard time to make 40 mpg

 

[WinterDeere]

I don't know if you remember a time where most cars where making 60 miles a gallon (in the 80's)... pre exhaust emissions control yes more pollutant but better in gas, the same cars after emission control has a hard time to make 40 mpg

I certainly don't, and I owned a lot of 1970's and early 1980's cars. If "most" really were making this sort of mileage, I must have been buying the few odd-balls that were not.

 

[Rockbadchild]

I certainly don't, and I owned a lot of 1970's and early 1980's cars. If "most" really were making this sort of mileage, I must have been buying the few odd-balls that were not.

apology I will reformulate most smaller cars like the civic, chevette, corolla ... but my point is all cars lost fuel millage (these sound like it was around 20mpg) after the emission laws.

 

[WinterDeere]

Yes, cars definitely lost mileage when automakers started glomming emissions equipment onto engines not designed around that goal. But I don't think the hit was nearly as bad as you think, and with the maturity of the technology, we ended up way out ahead of where we'd been.

There's no question that some emissions system components do cost mileage, but still reduce net emissions per mile, even despite some reduction in miles per gallon.

 

[Rockbadchild]

Yes, cars definitely lost mileage when automakers started glomming emissions equipment onto engines not designed around that goal. But I don't think the hit was nearly as bad as you think, and with the maturity of the technology, we ended up way out ahead of where we'd been.

There's no question that some emissions system components do cost mileage, but still reduce net emissions per mile, even despite some reduction in miles per gallon.

I can agree with that .. how much did Volkswagens lost between pre and post emission scandal ? I though it was pretty significant like around 15mpg

But that demonstrate there is room for improvement on that aspect alone definitely some restriction there.

 

[Grumpycat]

It’s still the standard of measuring for sale purpose.

Citation please. Nonexistent.

Only kWh is a billable unit. If you understood the difference between a Watt and having a Watt delivered for an hour then you would understand.

One has a 100W lightbulb, one doesn’t pay for 100 Watts. Leave it in for an hour then one pays for 100 Watt-hours.

 

[Oaktree]

apology I will reformulate most smaller cars like the civic, chevette, corolla ... but my point is all cars lost fuel millage (these sound like it was around 20mpg) after the emission laws.

I don't know anyone who got anything close to 60 mpg back then...low-mid 30s was more like it. The diesel Rabbits might have come close, but no gasoline vehicle I'm aware of. Emissions stuff started to appear in the early 70s, before those nameplates even existed. In '75 when cats were added the amount of pollution crap diminished for a while and gas mileage got better.

 

[Rockbadchild]

I don't know anyone who got anything close to 60 mpg back then...low-mid 30s was more like it. The diesel Rabbits might have come close, but no gasoline vehicle I'm aware of. Emissions stuff started to appear in the early 70s, before those nameplates even existed. In '75 when cats were added the amount of pollution crap diminished for a while and gas mileage got better.

1986 /87 civic where the best years for gas millage ... my uncle was telling me he was making 60mpg with his standard civic coupe (must been the HF) ..now you made me second guess myself I was thinking maybe he was in imperial gallon instead which 60mp US gallon is = to 50mp imperial gallon but after a search the civic cupe HF was making 60mpg according to this site.

Honda Civic Gas Mileage: 1978-2013 - mpgomatic.com

From its launch in the early 1970s, the Honda Civic has earned its reputation as a frugal choice for drivers on a tight budget. The Honda Civic’s gas mileage figures have consistently topped the charts over the years, even as the car has grown in size, weight, and engine displacement. While not...

www.mpgomatic.com

 

[Torvy]

Show me a modern day engine that will go to 300k miles. Lots of 80's, 90's, and even early 00's engines make it well past 200k and with basic care, 300k. Adding complexity of all the crap they have added to increase mpg while maintaining power.

Ok,

Here’s What the Engineers at Toyota Found in the Million Mile Tundra

Can you name something more popular in the truck world than the 2007 Tundra that went one million miles? Okay, we’ll wait. That’s right – you can’t. In fact, not just one, b...

www.powernationtv.com

 

[WinterDeere]

Cars have become more reliable with each passing decade, not less. I think anyone touting the reliability of old cars either has a bad memory, or is too young to have owned these 1980's and 1990's cars when they were newer.

 

[Hay Dude]

Cars have become more reliable with each passing decade, not less. I think anyone touting the reliability of old cars either has a bad memory, or is too young to have owned these 1980's and 1990's cars when they were newer.

And they managed to do that while becoming much more complex, with dozens of computers on board and more efficient in power and better fuel economy.
I have a 2L turbocharged Jeep Rubicon that would beat my previous larger displacement Jeeps, get much better fuel economy, have more features and comfort and better off road.

Now one thing thats not as good is affordability.

 

[fatjay]

Ok,

Here’s What the Engineers at Toyota Found in the Million Mile Tundra

Can you name something more popular in the truck world than the 2007 Tundra that went one million miles? Okay, we’ll wait. That’s right – you can’t. In fact, not just one, b...

www.powernationtv.com

Consistently.

 

[Grumpycat]

I have a 2L turbocharged Jeep Rubicon that would beat my previous larger displacement Jeeps, get much better fuel economy, have more features and comfort and better off road.

I have a 2.7L EcoBoost in my F-150 with 325HP. MPG beats the 2001 GMC Sonoma 2.2L 5spd I once had. Plus the F-150 is 4x4, more comfortable and quieter. I used to wear foam earplugs if I was to drive any distance on interstate in the Sonoma.

Now one thing thats not as good is affordability.

Paid 3x more for the F-150 in 2019 than I paid for the "radio and heater" stripped Sonoma in 2001. Inflation calculator says $12,000 in 2001 requires $17,322.92 in 2019, about half what I paid.

Of great interest: $10,000 in 2019 would buy what $12,009.27 buys today. And the closest new truck to what I have is $50,000.

 

[Williy]

The VW diesel rabbits got in the low 50's in the 80's
Our 75 Chrysler with a 440 cu in engine only got 20 on
the hwyway. My 73 3/4 Dodge only got 18 mpg my 77
1/2 Dodge 318 auto 24 mpg with mods.Wifes duster
low 20's. All the other vehicles that we had never got
over 24 mpg. Our 2018 Chrysler will only get 24 mpg
going 55 or 75 no difference going to town. I have checked
many times and it still says 24! Wanted a Jetta diesel but
no such luck! Only gas and the ones testing them getting
42 - 44 mpg smaller than what I have but its just me now.
It cost over $1500 for all the polution crap probably more
now just so you can burn more gas to cut down on poluction?

willy
0

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

Now the auto workers strike is going to force mfg's to offshore production.
40% pay increase. Who the heck gets that on a broad front?

 

[logixjock]

Now the auto workers strike is going to force mfg's to offshore production.
40% pay increase. Who the heck gets that on a broad front?

I keep seeing people talk about the strike against the "big 3" I wasn't aware that Toyota, Tesla and VW had anything to do with the UAW.

 

[WinterDeere]

Now the auto workers strike is going to force mfg's to offshore production.
40% pay increase. Who the heck gets that on a broad front?

First, let me disclose I'm generally anti-union. But that said, I hate misguidance and half-truths in our media even more than unions, and in this case I believe they've been cited unfairly. I don't know if the news media is just too stupid to actually understand compound growth, or if this is intentional misguidance.

The demand was for a 40% increase over term of contract, which is a 4-year term, as I understand it. That would be equivalent to 8.8% per year, to reach 40% after four consecutive years.

In reality, they demanded 10% in the first year, as they feel they've fallen behind. In this case, the remaining 3 years would need to average 8.4%.

Those are still some large raises, but for the news media to pretend they're asking for a 40% raise on day one is misleading the public.

 

[Eagle1]

First, let me disclose I'm generally anti-union. But that said, I hate misguidance and half-truths in our media even more than unions, and in this case I believe they've been cited unfairly. I don't know if the news media is just too stupid to actually understand compound growth, or if this is intentional misguidance.

The demand was for a 40% increase over term of contract, which is a 4-year term, as I understand it. That would be equivalent to 8.8% per year, to reach 40% after four consecutive years.

In reality, they demanded 10% in the first year, as they feel they've fallen behind. In this case, the remaining 3 years would need to average 8.4%.

Those are still some large raises, but for the news media to pretend they're asking for a 40% raise on day one is misleading the public.

In days of good economy I was getting 10%+ per year. then it tanked and that same job as seen next to no raises since I walked away.
Non Union job...

 

[deezler]

First, let me disclose I'm generally anti-union. But that said, I hate misguidance and half-truths in our media even more than unions, and in this case I believe they've been cited unfairly. I don't know if the news media is just too stupid to actually understand compound growth, or if this is intentional misguidance.

The demand was for a 40% increase over term of contract, which is a 4-year term, as I understand it. That would be equivalent to 8.8% per year, to reach 40% after four consecutive years.

In reality, they demanded 10% in the first year, as they feel they've fallen behind. In this case, the remaining 3 years would need to average 8.4%.

Those are still some large raises, but for the news media to pretend they're asking for a 40% raise on day one is misleading the public.

The UAW demand was actually 20% immediately, and 5% after that for next 4 years. For a 46% total raise in the contract. Oh and working 32 hours instead of 40 to earn this raise. I sympathize with some of the newer, low tier workers making under $20/hr for hard work on the line. But there are other folks sweeping floors for $40/hr who would still get this 46% raise to work 4 days instead of 5? No, that's not happening. And if it does, it will bankrupt the OEMs.

The two sides are too far apart still. And suppliers like my employer are going to start imposing furloughs at our affected manufacturing plants soon if they don't make some headway on negotiations.