One factor that seems to have not been mentioned yet, which I would imagine that we here at GasSavers would have mentioned by now, is the fundamental factor that starting with the 2008 year model, the EPA fuel economy ratings for cars will reflect "more real world" conditions. For example, I found that under the new EPA standards my car earns a lower fuel economy compared to the "old EPA standards" when first manufacturered. Remember, that things like legal compliance is based on "objective" factors such as manufacturer's EPA fuel economy ratings, new or old depending on model year. So the "business logical" decision would be to purchase used cars of model year 2007 and earlier in order to "bump up" the average fuel economy of the fleet. Another possible "business logical" decision is the operation of the vehicle. Since CAFE "protects" the companies because CAFE compliance is probably based on the EPA fuel economy sticker and not actual operation of the vehicle, we as members of GasSavers knows that driving fuel INefficiently can get us an actual average fillup to fillup fuel economy value that may be worse than the City fuel economy rating. But as already mentioned, it's not the "actual average fillup to fillup fuel economy" that is used to determine legal compliance. Imagine the "accounting/administrative nightmare" that the rental car industry would face if they required refueling receipts from their customers in order to calculate their actual average fillup to fillup fuel economy for each of their vehicles in their fleet? What if the renter never got a receipt? What if there's only one receipt and the renter on business needs the fuel receipt for business expense purposes so can't give it to the rental car company? What's the probability of the renter obtaining two copies of the receipt?

Does anyone know if this was signed into law or vetoed by The President yet?

The new EPA does not get those figures from CAFE

QUOTE=zpiloto;60169]The other side of the argument.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to resurrect this piece of, um, work, but it was illogcal enough to make me laugh out loud. A USA Today article's post hoc ergo post propter hoc argument is the basis for his CAFE causes higher MPG which hurts safety arguments. Then he argues that observed MPG improvements would've more or less happened through normal technological progress without CAFE which of course is not consistent with his USA Today fallacious first argument that CAFE made cars less safe. CAFE can't be both relevant and irrelevant. Funny stuff. I guess law school isn't about logic or truth.

Don't know about the USA today article but those groups against CAFE standards are just regurgitating the information that the National Reasearch board found when they looked into it. YMMV:)

Welcome to the site.

Probably just unintended consequences. Who would have dreamed that housewives would want to drive something the size of a Suburban every day? Shoot, in 1974 who would have dreamed that pickup trucks would ALL have carpet inside?

WE CAN'T MAKE CARS THAT GET MORE MILEAGE (without spending money to improve the product.)

CAFE REQUIRING HIGHER MILEAGE ONLY CAUSED EVERYONE TO DRIVE MORE (not that a larger population being forced to live further from work had anything to do with it.)

MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED NOW THAN BEFORE CAFE WAS ENACTED (not that more people are on the road, people are doing everything but drive, and are not nearly as considerate as they once were has anything to do with it.)

Man I can't wait until retirement, I plan on driving so little I'll need to keep a little battery conditioner going on my car. Either that or be growing my own fuel. Looking forward to the coming influx of turbodiesel cars.