REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events

Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-19-2009, 04:12 PM   #1
The RS Anchorman
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Comics
Posts: 2,059
Thanked 49 Times in 22 Posts
Failed 21 Times in 8 Posts
Canada to follow Obama on vehicle-emission reductions

Canada's government intends to largely fall in line with the tough automobile-emission standards U.S. President Barack Obama introduced Tuesday, rules that would add $600 U.S. to the cost of producing a U.S. car and improve fuel efficiency by an average five per year starting in 2012.

Implications for the Canadian industry are unclear, but one analyst said it would be "near impossible" for Canada to achieve what Obama has outlined.

Obama said the new national standards mark a "historic agreement" designed to break the U.S. dependence on foreign oil and kick-start the transition to a clean-energy economy.

Automakers in U.S. must meet average efficiency standards of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years sooner than planned under the former Republican administration under George W. Bush. Further, it is expected to generate reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions by 900 million tonnes through 2016, according to White House officials.

Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Ottawa would ensure regulations here closely mimic what Obama proposes.

"We will work together to ensure we have a single, dominant North American standard for carbon emissions and fuel economy," Prentice told reporters in Calgary. "The automotive industry in North America is deeply integrated. Therefore it doesn't profit any of us, either as consumers or manufacturers, to have competing standards."

Prentice said he would adjust current environmental legislation to ensure it is aligned with the new U.S. fuel economy standards. He added that the Canadian standards will be expressed using a different metric — grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer, instead of miles per gallon as in the United States — but will nevertheless be aligned with Washington's rules by amending environmental regulations on an annual basis.

Environmental groups say Canada's stable of cars is already more fuel efficient than in the United States, as Canadian households prefer smaller cars with less horsepower.

Representatives for Canadian-based auto makers said they endorsed Prentice's decision.

"It is a good thing because it provides us with the clarity and precision in terms of making the design changes and investments that we need," said Mark Nantais, president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association.

One unknown is whether all the provinces will sign on to Prentice's plan. Three provinces — Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia — had previously indicated they intend to move with their own fuel-efficiency rules. The environment is a shared jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments.

The head of the Quebec government's climate change policy said the province reserves the right to bring its own regulations should Ottawa not follow through to harmonize rules with Washington.

"I think this is a good step with both federal governments moving to a level we have said we should move toward," Marcel Gaucher said in an interview. "But it is too early to say if we will stop or delay our own set of regulations."

B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner said his province would wait for a "clear signal" from Ottawa on adopting U.S. rules before it drops its pursuit of separate regulations. Meanwhile, Manitoba's energy minister said he welcomed what Washington and Ottawa were saying. "We are happy there is going to be a real standard in real time, and we're happy to be part of a bigger picture," said Jim Rondeau.

Industry observers cautioned that the impact of Tuesday's announcement remains unknown, as a number of details need to be settled.

"The overall cost to the automakers is certain to rise, and the exact implications for consumers have not yet been established," said Aaron Bragman, an analyst with IHS Global Insight.

Dennis DesRosiers, head of DesRosiers Automotive Consultants, said the new standard Obama proposed is "near impossible" to meet, noting it took a quarter-century for Canada's fleet of cars to improve fuel efficiency by one litre per 100 kilometres, even with several technological advancements.
http://www.vancouversun.com/Cars/Can...192/story.html
Advertisement
wahyinghung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2009, 09:39 PM   #2
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
scheng924's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,876
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
i hope they can do it... it'll be nice to not pay so much $$ for gas...
but then.. companies will just raise price on oil...

but then.. it'll be nice that we're nice to the environment
scheng924 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2009, 11:27 PM   #3
I answer every Emotion with an emoticon
 
Nightwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,655
Thanked 443 Times in 188 Posts
Failed 83 Times in 34 Posts
You couldn't believe the outcry and "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING, COMMUNISM" ranting about this on another forum I'm on. Somehow most of them thought it meant ALL cars have to get 35mpg+ as well.

*sigh*
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajinHurricane View Post
who would ban me? lol. Look at my post count.
Nightwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2009, 11:51 PM   #4
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
J____'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 3,564
Thanked 893 Times in 352 Posts
Failed 356 Times in 87 Posts
fuk, it'll be streets filled with ugly ass priuses... noooooo
J____ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2009, 11:51 PM   #5
RS Veteran
 
bcrdukes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: GTA
Posts: 31,326
Thanked 13,089 Times in 5,408 Posts
Failed 511 Times in 339 Posts
I hope it doesn't influence bullshit programs like Aircare to stick around.
bcrdukes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 02:44 AM   #6
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
slammer111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,629
Thanked 273 Times in 90 Posts
Failed 62 Times in 32 Posts
The really stupid thing is that I'm sure they could increase fuel economy by 30% across the board SIMPLY by making a much shorter top gear in cars. Do you REALLY need a constant 3000rpm on the highway? NO.

Let's face it. The bottom 1 or 2 gears of most cars are also pretty much useless unless you're the kind of driver that likes supporting tire companies. Automakers should change their ratios for a) more spread, and b) lower RPMs across the board.

A simple, quick, and EFFECTIVE solution.

Last edited by slammer111; 05-20-2009 at 03:53 AM.
slammer111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 03:38 AM   #7
Marcosexual Fan Club, CEO
 
Marco911's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: US Bush-country
Posts: 7,741
Thanked 823 Times in 284 Posts
Failed 236 Times in 113 Posts
This policy is dead on arrival. Considering the development life cycle of a normal vehicle is 4 - 8 yrs, and breakthrough reductions in fuel efficiency are non-existent right now, it is unrealistic to expect 5 mpg / yr reductions.
__________________
Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another.
Marco911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 03:56 AM   #8
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,415
Thanked 7,481 Times in 1,449 Posts
Failed 2,380 Times in 472 Posts
Quote:
900 million tonnes
900 million tonnes of gas, I wonder how does it look like
asian_XL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 04:28 AM   #9
I answer every Emotion with an emoticon
 
Nightwalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 7,655
Thanked 443 Times in 188 Posts
Failed 83 Times in 34 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by slammer111 View Post
The really stupid thing is that I'm sure they could increase fuel economy by 30% across the board SIMPLY by making a much shorter top gear in cars. Do you REALLY need a constant 3000rpm on the highway? NO.

Let's face it. The bottom 1 or 2 gears of most cars are also pretty much useless unless you're the kind of driver that likes supporting tire companies. Automakers should change their ratios for a) more spread, and b) lower RPMs across the board.

A simple, quick, and EFFECTIVE solution.
Sounds great on paper, but say you take a road trip with a full vehicle plus luggage. Good luck starting on a hill.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajinHurricane View Post
who would ban me? lol. Look at my post count.
Nightwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 10:52 AM   #10
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
scheng924's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,876
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think the automakers can do it...

yea a lot of people thought it meant ALL cars.. not average... whatever.. lol
it shoudln't be that bad for automakers because they're probably already on the urge of doing something...

or toyota... they'll simply make a hybrid of every car available.. lol done...
scheng924 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 03:14 PM   #11
Head Moderator
 
Lomac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1982
Location: Great White Nor
Posts: 22,661
Thanked 6,462 Times in 2,081 Posts
Failed 98 Times in 51 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco911 View Post
This policy is dead on arrival. Considering the development life cycle of a normal vehicle is 4 - 8 yrs, and breakthrough reductions in fuel efficiency are non-existent right now, it is unrealistic to expect 5 mpg / yr reductions.
There are plenty of ways of increasing fuel mileage on existing engines, even without having to fully develop something new. Changing fuel maps, adapting cylinder deactivation, and adjusting gear ratios are all relatively cheap and easy fixes. Compacts and sub-/sub-sub-compacts should have very little problems reaching that goal within a few years. It's the larger vehicles that may have an issue obtaining that sort of average. What I'm curious to know is what sort of changes were outlined for larger vehicles (full sized trucks and SUV's).
Lomac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 03:22 PM   #12
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
 
heleu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Rmd
Posts: 924
Thanked 435 Times in 194 Posts
Failed 16 Times in 13 Posts
The only realistic way to achieve it will be what has been done in Europe: Diesel.

You're going to see 50-60% of cars sold diesel after 2016.
heleu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net