Making of the new Cafe standards

[Koz]

Interesting writeup about the negotiations during the forming of the new Cafe standards. I, for one, am not the least bit disappointed that foreign competitors apposed the new rule. With the deck stacked against US auto manufacturers the home markets of foreign competitors, and particularly against electrics like the Volt, I have happy to see our government take this responsibility.

http://green.autoblog.com/2012/08/15...ot-harmonious/

[MTN Ranger]

It is interesting that Toyota has made the biggest stink regarding higher CAFE standards. Couldn't Toyota just put HSD in ALL their vehicles? People tend to forget that the Land Cruiser (13/18MPG), Sequoia (14/20MPG), Tundra (16/20MPG), FJ (17/20MPG), etc get terrible gas mileage.

[DonC]

Using credits for cars to offset trucks is a goofy idea. Each category needs to comply with the standards separately. Glad they kicked that to the curb. The idea of diesel getting credits is also goofy. When I last checked diesel comes from the same barrel of oil as gas does, so if the goal is to reduce the use of petroleum, using diesel technology, clean or otherwise, doesn't get you there. (Why do horribly polluting technologies always think putting "clean" in front changes things -- we have "clean coal" and "clean diesel", next we'll have "clean toxic waste"). LOL

[Ladogaboy]

I'm wondering if Toyota isn't upset about these regulations because it forces other manufacturers into a niche market that Toyota has dominated for years now. That or they've just spent oodles of money to set up manufacturing plants in the United States that specialize in making cars that they will no longer be able to sell according to CAFE restrictions.

[MTN Ranger]

I transport a trailer full of cattle and other ranch equipment with my Land Cruiser. If I could use my Volt, I would have to make a separate trip for each cow and spend more on gasoline than using the Land Cruiser.

Of course I'm not comparing the Volt to a truck/SUV. I'm saying that with HSD, wouldn't Toyota's truck/SUVs be getting much better MPG ratings? Since a Land Cruiser is almost $80k, adding HSD wouldn't be that more expensive since those models have high gross margins.

[AySz88]

I was pissed when they put a catalytic converter on it, creating a fire hazard for off road use.

?? You're blaming the catalytic conversion itself as the fire hazard? That seems about as silly as the battery fire meme for the Volt. If it really were causing fires, I think that's more a problem with poor design (allowing debris to get onto hot areas of the car, or whatever the problem is) rather than the catalytic converter itself. If they can prevent fires from being caused by the gasoline engine, I think it's reasonable to expect they should be able to prevent fires from the catalytic converter.

[Ladogaboy]

?? You're blaming the catalytic conversion itself as the fire hazard? That seems about as silly as the battery fire meme for the Volt. If it really were causing fires, I think that's more a problem with poor design (allowing debris to get onto hot areas of the car, or whatever the problem is) rather than the catalytic converter itself. If they can prevent fires from being caused by the gasoline engine, I think it's reasonable to expect they should be able to prevent fires from the catalytic converter.

He is talking specifically about offroad use. Catalytic converters are heat catches, so any flammable debris that finds its way onto the catalytic converter its heat cover has a good chance of catching fire. It would be akin to trying to charge the Volt on 5-amp extension cord that you've run through dry grass.

[AySz88]

He is talking specifically about offroad use. Catalytic converters are heat catches, so any flammable debris that finds its way onto the catalytic converter its heat cover has a good chance of catching fire. It would be akin to trying to charge the Volt on 5-amp extension cord that you've run through dry grass.

That's my point, though - that seems like a design problem (i.e. that off-road use allows debris to get onto the cover), not a problem with the requirement of catalytic conversion itself. There's no inherent reason those areas of the car have to be exposed, is there?

[Ladogaboy]

That's my point, though - that seems like a design problem (i.e. that off-road use allows debris to get onto the cover), not a problem with the requirement of catalytic conversion itself. There's no inherent reason those areas of the car have to be exposed, is there?

In my opinion, catalytic converters are left exposed for several reasons. First, the cheapest, easiest protective covers would just trap even more heat, causing an increased likelihood of a vehicle fire. Second, the more expensive covers that could dissipate while preventing debris fires under the vehicle are more expensive than the auto manufacturers would care to pay for. Third, not enough people actually "off-road" their vehicles anymore for this to actually matter (occasional fires are acceptable and considered user error).

Basically, the auto manufacturers are required to put catalytic converters on all vehicles, so they do so as cheaply as they possibly can.

[C-Kwik]

The heat shields on catalytic converters are by no means complicated. Typically, they are just metal shields. Sometimes, they have an insulating layer between the metal shield and the cat itself. And trapping heat isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Catalytic converters need heat to operate correctly. But even aside from that, less effective insulation may result in a higher heat rate to the outside of the heat shield which may actually increase the risk of fire.

I do agree most manufacturers don't need to worry too much about this issue but many cats are now located closer to the engine to promote faster light off. The Titan I just sold tucked the cat up right behind the exhaust manifold and was pretty well protected from having debris hit it as well. Frankly, this is probably a more ideal arrangement for trucks as well as exposed cats are also more prone to being hacked off and stolen for the precious metals in them.

I would rephrase your last statement to "so they do so as cheaply as they effectively can." They do have to be able to meet specific emissions standards and do so for a number of years (emissions warranties). There is likely some balancing act between the cost of manufacturing and the cost of warranty work.