spinning rims

spinning rims pictures

2004-10-02T13:16:00.000-07:00

spinning rims

spinning rims spinning rims spinning rims

spinning rims pictures

i want my gas mileage

2004-08-21T17:24:00.000-07:00

spinning rims spinning rims spinning rims

LOW!

Drivers irked as mileage fails to add up

Those fuel-economy estimates posted on new cars and trucks are baloney. The government agency in charge of them doesn't mean them to be; in fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency seems unusually scrupulous about its fuel-economy testing.

But it's using 30-year-old tests that assume nobody drives faster than 60 mph, or turns on the air conditioning, or accelerates hard, or drives in cold weather, or runs a mile up the road for milk and bread at the convenience store and doesn't get the engine warmed up.

The result: a groundswell of complaints from people whose mileage isn't as good as they thought it would be.

Spurred by those complaints and a formal petition filed more than two years ago by environmental group Bluewater Network of San Francisco, EPA finally, reluctantly, is considering the first change since 1984 in how it calculates the fuel-economy numbers pasted on new vehicles.

How far off are the numbers? No one knows for sure. When the Energy Information Administration calculates its yearly forecast of national energy consumption, it shaves about 10% off the EPA numbers.

Even Bluewater, the little-known, 8-year-old environmental group whose petition got the government going, says there's no definitive source of real-world fuel-economy data.

If the EPA's study leads to lower fuel-economy estimates, that could cool sales of fuel-thirsty sport-utility vehicles and other trucks these days of high gas prices. It also could prod automakers to speed development of fuel-efficient models, such as gas-electric hybrids and diesel cars, that are less profitable than SUVs and pickups.

Automakers, not surprisingly, think no change is needed.

"Consumers for the most part understand that the numbers listed (on window stickers) vary based on driving habits, based on terrain, based on a number of factors," says Charlie Territo, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

The fuel-economy labels on new cars and trucks say that "actual mileage will vary," and they give a range of fuel-economy estimates for similar vehicles. But that's in fine print. And it hasn't stopped the gripes, heightened by the popularity of hybrid vehicles. While they achieve better fuel economy than gasoline-power vehicles do, hybrids seem to miss their EPA numbers by bigger gaps.

"Sometimes I think, 'Sucker,' " says an unhappy MaryJo Meer, 37, of Chula Vista, Calif. She bought a Honda Civic gas-electric hybrid May 19 expecting close to the 47 mpg EPA rating. Instead, she's getting 34 mpg, even though most of her driving is on the highway, where Honda's type of hybrid does best.

"They're actually charging us more for a car to save the environment and all that crap, and we're not saving anything at all," she says. "If I'd have known that, I'd have kept my SUV."

'People don't drive 60'

Automakers acknowledge quietly that vehicles often fall short of the fuel-economy numbers on the window stickers. Toyota, bolder than most, candidly says its vehicles get 10% to 15% less than the EPA estimates in real-world use.

To consumers, the EPA tests seem absurd. "People don't drive 60. People drive 80 or 85," says Abigail Ferrance, 24, of Columbia, S.C. She wants good mileage because she drives a lot in her job. But her mistrust of the EPA numbers has made a decision difficult. "I understand the limits of technology, but I would like to know an accurate amount. I'd like to know that what I'm being told when I buy a vehicle is accurate," she says.

"The EPA tests are 30 years old, and they are broken," says David Friedman, a research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "People look to the EPA as an authoritative source to give them information on the products they buy, but (the fuel-economy rating) only works if you drive the way they drive." UCS says the EPA numbers are at least 10% too high.

The EPA, in fact, does not test most vehicles. Automakers do, using EPA standards, and tell the government the results. It's not even always necessary to conduct tests, according to federal regulations: "In lieu of submitting actual data from a test vehicle, a manufacturer may provide fuel-economy values derived from an analytical" calculation approved by the feds.

The EPA randomly tests vehicles to keep car companies honest but gets to only 15% of new vehicles each year.

Criticism of the numbers pricks the EPA, which sees itself as helping guide buyers, not misleading them. "We have never represented that this is what people will get when they drive it home," insists Chris Grundler, head of the EPA lab in Ann Arbor, Mich., where testing is conducted. "It's not obvious to me that our (estimates) are wrong." What's wrong, he says, is that people regard the numbers as guarantees instead of guidelines. What's needed, he says, "is a consumer education program, not changes to the federal test procedure."

In 1984, responding to consumer complaints that its numbers didn't match on-the-road experience, EPA cut 22% from its highway fuel-economy number and trimmed the city estimate 10%, starting with 1985 models.

"The Bluewater Network is suggesting that it's still way off," Grundler says. Bluewater says the EPA numbers might be as much as 34% too high, because driving conditions today are so different from when the tests were created.

Typical difference

Bluewater, best known for tackling pollution by jet skis and motorboats, cites dozens of tests and studies by others that suggest the typical difference is 15% to 20%. "We lay out a bunch of studies to show it's not just us; there's a lot of evidence" the estimates are too high, says Elisa Lynch, author of the organization's comments to EPA and director of Bluewater's global warming program.

Grundler's willing to agree with Bluewater on one point: "There's more urban congestion (than in 1984); they're right about that." Urban driving uses the most fuel because it involves a lot of acceleration and a lot of idling at stoplights and in traffic, when the engine's running and the car's not moving.

Bluewater's petition for a change in how EPA calculates the fuel-economy numbers was filed in June 2002 and addressed to both the Department of Transportation and EPA. DOT decided it was most relevant to EPA and referred it there last year for consideration.

The issue is important to Bluewater and other environmental groups because the more fuel that's burned, the more carbon dioxide, or CO

, is emitted in the exhaust. CO

is a so-called greenhouse gas. Environmentalists say it contributes to global warming.

If EPA adjusts its published fuel-economy numbers downward significantly, that could send buyers stampeding away from SUVs and other trucks, a development that environmentalists would welcome.

But cutting the published numbers 15% - a rough midpoint from studies and comments by automakers and others - probably wouldn't start a stampede. It would slice about 2 mpg from the in-town rating of many SUVs and pickups, more from fuel-sippers.

For instance, fuel-economy ratings of the Ford Explorer, the most popular SUV, and Chevrolet Tahoe, the most popular full-size SUV, would drop to 12 or 13 mpg in town. The Honda Pilot, considered a relatively fuel-efficient SUV, would be rated 14 or 15 in the city. Lexus RX 330, the best-selling luxury SUV, would get a rating of 15 or 16.

In-town rating for Honda's Civic hybrid would drop to 41 mpg using a 15% correction factor. Toyota's Prius hybrid would be rated 51 mpg. The most fuel-efficient version of Volkswagen's Jetta diesel, the best-selling diesel car, would get a rating of 32 mpg in town.

EPA late last month finished accepting public comments on Bluewater's petition. That's just the first step in a lengthy process that precedes any changes EPA would propose.

Why did it take a year to even begin the process? "We've been very busy," Grundler says, working on regulations for cleaner fuels and lower emissions that should have more impact on the environment. "Dealing with this petition, on a matter that is not, frankly, going to result in any fuel savings to the country, it has taken us longer to get around to it," he says.

Grundler says it takes an act of Congress, literally, to change the EPA tests. A change to the correction factors would be more likely, he says - if there's any change.

'A fair question'

EPA already conducts realistic tests that generate both pollution and fuel-economy data. Those simulate hilly terrain, air-conditioning use at 95 degrees, aggressive driving with hard acceleration up to 85 mph and cold-weather operation at 20 degrees.

"It's a fair question to ask, 'Why not use those test results?' but the rules don't allow it. They'd have to be changed," says Tom Schrodt at EPA's Laboratory Operations Division.

"The lab test spits out fuel-economy data, no matter what test we run," he says, so the necessary numbers would be readily available. Blending in the results of those tests is one change EPA is considering.

Andrea O'Neill of Richmond, Calif., in one of thousands of fuel-economy comments on file at EPA, offers this summary: "We know our mileage stinks, but if we know just how badly, we may consider buying more fuel-efficient vehicles."

California Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2004-08-16T19:44:00.000-07:00

spinning rims

California Air Quality Board Considers Rules To Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Mike Taugher
Source: Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif.

Californians would pay hundreds of dollars more for new cars, but would save more than that at the gas pump, under proposed rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions released Friday.

The California Air Resources Board could adopt the groundbreaking and hotly contested rules when it meets next month in Los Angeles.

The plan, developed by air board staff, would require automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new car fleets beginning in 2009, and those standards would get increasingly stringent for each model year through 2016.

The auto industry, which won a court fight over similar rules two years ago, maintains the rules would infringe on federal authority to set fuel efficiency standards.

The air board estimates that under its proposed rules, sticker prices would go up less than $100 in the early years, but by 2016 the average passenger car purchased in California would cost $626 more, according to estimates in the report.

Large SUVs would cost nearly $1,000 more in 2016.

But those SUVs would release one-fourth fewer of the gases that contribute to global climate change, while new passenger cars and smaller SUVs would release one-third fewer of those gases by 2016.

The rules don't directly set fuel economy standards, but since the most effective way reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is to burn less gasoline, cars and SUVs would have to become far more efficient to meet those standards. And that will save motorists money at the pump, according to the report.

"This is a situation where you can have your cake and eat it too," said Roland Hwang, a vehicle policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who dismissed objections from automakers.

"Every time a new standard is proposed, the automakers cry economic calamity. In fact, we have cleaner air, a strong economy and the cleanest cars in the country," Hwang said.

The air board thinks the new rules will withstand a court challenge because they don't directly address fuel economy. The final recommendations are similar to an air board proposal floated in June, with the biggest change from the earlier draft being a delay in fully phasing in the plan from 2014 to 2016.

Jerry Martin, an air board spokesman, said the auto industry did not participate in the rule development until this summer.

"The car companies were not talking to us. They were basically stonewalling us," Martin said.

A spokesman for an automotive industry trade group in Sacramento did not respond Friday to a request for comment.

State lawmakers two years ago required the air board to issue rules to reduce greenhouse gases in 2004. The proposed rules have been vigorously opposed by the automotive industry since.

The industry and business groups say the rules are really a backdoor attempt to regulate fuel efficiency, and fuel economy standards -- which have changed relatively little since the 1980s -- are reserved solely to the federal government.

Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the pro-business Competitive Enterprise Institute, said emissions reductions in California's motor vehicle fleet will be negligible compared to global emissions.

But, he added, "It will save on gas consumption, once again leading to the conclusion that this is a fuel economy regulation, which seems to be poaching on federal policy-making territory."

The legislature then will have 2005 to review the rules, before the plan becomes final in January 2006.

"It's an historic opportunity for California to continue to lead the way on air quality and environmental protection," said Mark DeSaulnier, a member of the state air board and a Contra Costa county supervisor. "I think there is something we can do, at least for some of the car companies, that will work for the environment and for their business plans."

California's passenger cars and SUVs account for about 2 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the nation, according to the report. The rules, if implemented, would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by less than 1 percent, nationally.

But supporters of the rule say by putting it in place, other states will follow suit and that could make a significant dent in emissions.

Those supporters point to rules first passed in California, like the requirements for catalytic converters and cleaner-burning gasoline, that have since spread to other states.

"California can't solve the problem alone," said Hwang, of the NRDC. "But without California's leadership, the problem won't be solved."

-----

To see more of the Contra Costa Times, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.bayarea.com.

spinning rims spinning rims spinning rims

Auto RecyclingBoom

2004-08-16T19:14:00.000-07:00

spinning rims spinning rims

law will require car owners

Carmakers have joined in a new price war--not over the price of their vehicles, but over the fees owners will have to pay to have their cars recycled after the Automobile Recycling Law takes effect in January next year.

The law will require car owners to pay for disposal of their vehicles and specified components. In light of this, carmakers have started designing and developing automobiles and parts that are easy to recycle and thus less of a burden on consumers.

Under the law, carmakers and importers are obliged to dispose of three items: crushed and shredded plastic and fabric waste, air bags and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from air conditioners. They receive payment for disposal of those items from owners of the scrapped vehicles and then pass the money to scrappers. Carmakers are also responsible for scrapping air bags and burying plastic and fabric waste in the ground.

The disposal fees will be added to the price of new cars, with manufacturers free to decide the fee for each vehicle. For vehicles purchased by the end of this year, a disposal fee is collected at the time of vehicle inspection or the scrapping of the car. Disposal fees vary even among vehicles manufactured by the same company, depending on the type and model of the vehicle in question, since the larger the car, the more scrap it produces and the more it costs to dispose of.

For example, the disposal fee for the current model of Honda Motor Co.'s Civic is between 10,090 yen and 11,790 yen, while that for a 1994 Civic is between 5,350 yen and 10,650 yen since some of the older models were not fitted with air bags or air conditioners.

Since cars have an average life span of about 10 years, the disposal fee the customer pays is to be kept at Japan Automobile Recycling Promotion Center, a fund management group formed by car manufacturers and other relevant firms.

Car owners also must pay a fee for fund management and computerized management of their vehicles' data to prevent illegal dumping of the cars. The fee is 510 yen for cars to be sold after the law takes effect, and 610 yen for cars sold before that.

Illegal dumping danger

One of the reasons for the enactment of the law is the fact that the slump in the price of scrap iron coincided with a jump in the cost of disposing of scrapped waste.

At that time, scrap cars were traded as a resource, and 75 percent to 80 percent of components were recycled, including iron scrap and reusable parts. The profit from recycling used to be enough to cover the cost of disposing of residual waste. However, the price of iron scrap, which used to be more than 20,000 yen per ton, dropped below 7,000 yen in 2000. By contrast, the disposal cost for scrap plastic and fabric skyrocketed due to a lack of space at landfill dumps. In the Tokyo metropolitan area, the disposal cost soared from 15,000 yen per ton in 1996 to over 30,000 yen per ton today.

With scrapped cars no longer able to yield a profit, there was concern that illegal dumping of old cars could become epidemic. About 5 million cars are scrapped every year. Deduct from that number the about 1 million used autos that are exported, and there are still 4 million cars to be disposed of every year--potentially a serious problem.

Many other countries have also introduced car recycling systems. In October 2000, the European Union asked member countries to require automakers to collect and dispose of scrapped cars, with the bloc's member states now at various stages of implementing the policy.

Problems still to be solved

Carmakers have also started manufacturing vehicles that are easy to recycle, by reducing the number of parts and standardizing the types of resins used. By weight, Nissan Motor Co.'s March is 95 percent recyclable. The company has also increased the number of resin-based parts in order to reduce the vehicle's weight.

The law also requires manufacturers to increase the percentage of shredded plastics and fibers that can be reused, from below 30 percent at present to more than 70 percent in fiscal 2015. To increase reusability, it will also be necessary to improve the quality of such waste materials. Carmakers are working on this problem in two groups--Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda on one side, Nissan and Mazda Motor Corp. on the other.

Major trading companies have also entered the car recycling market, expecting that the market will grow once the law takes effect. Sojitz Corp., for example, opened a car disposal unit in May with a company in Saitama Prefecture as part of its bid to expand recycling-related business.

As demand for new cars has leveled off, and with price competition for new vehicles ever more fierce, automakers will find an efficient recycling system, possibly including a tie-up with a recycling company, a key part of their operations.

----

To see more of The Daily Yomiuri On-Line, go to http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/daily.

spinning rims

2004-06-20T13:57:00.000-07:00

rats spinning rims blog taken