backtop


Print 323 comment(s) - last by jabber.. on Nov 9 at 10:29 PM


"It's not impossible!"

Automakers say they're trying to meet fuel efficiency targets, but Americans like less efficient vehicles better.  (Source: GM Inside News Forum)
Automakers claim drivers don't want fuel efficient vehicles

Current fuel efficiency targets set by the Obama administration demand that average fuel efficiency of light passenger vehicles to increase to 34.1 mpg by 2016 -- an average increase of 40 percent.  Last month the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rolled out a new proposal which called for much bigger improvements by 2025.

While not yet official, the proposal is to increase the fuel efficiency target to anywhere between 47 to 62 mpg by 2025, based on a 3 to 6 percent annual increase in efficiency.

Detroit's "Big Three" -- General Motor Company, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler LLC -- along with Toyota Corp. have filed a series of objections with the U.S. government, calling that plan -- particularly the high end goal of 62 mpg "impossible".  Eight other automakers also added commentary to the objection.

The consortium claims that the federal government is failing to accurately consider how fuel prices impact buyers decisions, is overstating consumer benefits of increased fuel efficiency, and is underestimating the cost of these increases to the industry.  On top of that, they say, Americans' don't seem to be very interested in fuel efficient vehicles.

Writes the group, "The question not addressed by (EPA and NHTSA) is this: If the economics for high fuel economy vehicles is so overwhelming, why do so few consumers choose to buy high fuel economy vehicle?"

The EPA and NHTSA are reportedly reviewing the objections, which they will likely take into account in drafting a finalized set of efficiency targets, enforceable by law.  According to the EPA's numbers the increase in fuel efficiency to 47 and 62 mpg would only cost $770 and $3,500, respectively per vehicle.  Those costs would like be passed on to the consumers, which would pay $12B USD to $50B USD annually for the improvements.  At least part of those increased costs, though, would be recouped over time by less frequent fill-ups.

Automakers claim the actual price of the improvements is 250 percent of the EPA's estimates.  As for the source of these inaccuracies, the industry leaders say that the government is underestimating the cost of electric vehicle batteries and weight reductions.

Further, they warn that there could be safety implications for lighter vehicles -- implications which they argue the federal proposal fails to address.

On the other side of the board are environmental action groups and a coalition of eight states led by New York and California that want a hard target of 60 mpg by 2025.  They believe that the industry is just whining about what can't be done, when they could in fact actually do it if they set their minds to it.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

They have a point
By spamreader1 on 11/3/2010 12:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
Most people would rather pay 10k for a car that gets 30mpg than to pay 30-40k for a car that gets 60mpg.

Or pay 40k for a suv that can haul everything with them on the extremely rare occasion they need that much cargo space than pay 40k for a car that gets run over by said suv's.




RE: They have a point
By stimudent on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By Targon on 11/4/2010 6:27:03 AM , Rating: 3
There is a big difference between highway mpg and average mpg that you can't avoid though, and technology improvements needed for the improvements also take time.

Now, you have to realize that it takes between seven and nine years for a new technology to go from invention to being ready for a consumer-ready product. Unlike computer software, which can be upgraded with fairly little expense, a flaw in a car or truck costs MILLIONS if a recall is required.

It also would take ten years of research and development for an improvement of 2mpg without also reducing the size of the vehicle. Remember, how many years have scientists been working on a cure for AIDS and other diseases, so scientific advances are not an automatic thing. You also need to think that many people really do NEED a vehicle larger than a smart car for their work, family, etc.

And then you get the safety requirements. Airbags, and crumple zones, plus people who drive 40-100 miles each way on their commute to work NEED to be comfortable or they may get cramps that WILL cause more accidents, so telling people to cut back from a normal compact car to a tiny little POS that has 60-100 horsepower just isn't acceptable. If the president wouldn't drive one of these little, underpowered vehicles today, why would the AVERAGE need to be one of those things?

We are at the point where compacts and subcompacts can hit 40 miles per gallon highway(with the new EPA estimates including the use of the air conditioner).

And then you have the problem with hybrids, the battery technology has not advanced all that quickly, so you have a lot of extra weight being added, not to mention the need for rare earth metals in the creation of the batteries and other components, which will make dependance on oil seem like a good thing compared to the shortages of these REMs that would be generated if everyone were required to do it.

No, a more reasonable expectation might be to average 35 miles per gallon highway by 2025, since that would include SUVs and trucks in the average.

Now, if you study really hard, do you think you could become a MD in the next four years? While it is theoretically possible, the reality is that it would take quite a bit longer than that, no matter how motivated you might be.

Ford has been working hard to get cars like the 2011 Fiesta and 2012 Focus to the point of hitting 40 miles per gallon highway. Do you REALLY see anything larger than a Focus hitting 40mpg highway in less than 5-10 years, let alone getting the AVERAGE city/highway to that 40mpg mark? There are physical limitations we are talking about here, and hybrid cars just take the dependance on foreign oil and replace it with a dependance on China for materials. I'd rather use oil/gas than let CHINA get more control than they already have!


RE: They have a point
By CubicleDilbert on 11/9/2010 6:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to have quite a few flaws in your reasoning.

It is without question a main task of a government to set high limits and rules for the industry as an incentive.
In Europe, car makers complained heavily about impossible to reach target on emissions, dust, diesel exhaust and mileage. They complained that they would have to invest heavily in R&D and their cars would be expensive compared to imported cars.

YET: All goals have been achieved. European cars, think Mercedes, BMW etc. are the best in the world and they are very competitive. Just look at the sales this year.

A car with 100hp is anything but a POS, as you say. Most cars in Europe are well below 100hp. But they are highly advanced, light weight and fuel efficient. Why? Because of very high taxes in Europe, based on Horse Power and engine size.

Now take the common US car. With 100hp you hardly move the big, heavy gaz guzzling clunker (and I have driven many of those myself on business trips in the US). Cheap technology, cheap design, cheap everthing. That's what people buy and want. Your government wants something different, however. That's why they make new rules.

And oh, the Ford Focus, Fiesta and most of GM's small cars were designed completely in Germany. Then cheapened (take out electronics and sophisticated steering mechanics) and sold in the US.


RE: They have a point
By jabber on 11/9/2010 7:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
I commute regularly in my car distances of around 80+ miles.

It has power steering, central locking, good comfortable seats, decent stereo and will do 95mph just fine when I want it to. I can join any road or motorway safely at speed.

I'm 6ft tall and its perfectly comfortable.

It has 54hp.

People's reluctance to go for more efficient cars is just old fashioned fear driven by outdated misconceptions.

That or they have issues with their masculinity if truth be told.


RE: They have a point
By cjc1103 on 11/9/2010 2:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
What model car is this, may I ask?


RE: They have a point
By jabber on 11/9/2010 10:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
A simple little Fiat Siecento Sporting.

Nothing special but it costs peanuts to run and is a blast to drive.

My previous car had nearly 200hp but this little car has redefined whats actually possible for me with supposedly so little.


RE: They have a point
By knutjb on 11/5/2010 1:41:18 AM , Rating: 2
You don't have an understanding of what they demand. The light passenger vehicle standard is a fleet standard or average of ALL cars sold. Merely changing the number won't make it so.


RE: They have a point
By kattanna on 11/3/2010 12:16:39 PM , Rating: 5
and some of us only want 1 vehicle so it has to be able to handle a variety of uses.


RE: They have a point
By Flunk on 11/3/2010 12:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
You still don't need a huge gas guzzling SUV to do that. A mid-sized or even compact station wagon can handle 99.9% of any family's needs and if they really need something bigger they can rent a van or pickup for the weekend.

I own a compact car that gets about 33MPG right now. Normally I don't ever do anything where I need something bigger but on the rare occasion that I do it's pretty easy to rent something and not very expensive.

The gas targets are possible, but not if people keep buying Hummers to buy groceries and go to the mall. I'm not really in favour of these regulations, but they are possible if people change they way they live.


RE: They have a point
By Flahrydog on 11/3/2010 12:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
And why should the government be forcing me to change the way I live?
I have a wagon with 2 young kids. Currently this is enough space for us. But what happens when my kids are bigger (I'm 6'4") and can't fit behind my seat (I need the seat pushed fully back). Plus, we can't give anyone a ride if needed. How are we supposed to help with a kids carpool for sports or other activities if we only have 1 extra seat.
We don't really want to, but we have come to the realization that we will be driving a minivan or SUV within the next 5 yrs.


RE: They have a point
By mcnabney on 11/3/2010 12:45:22 PM , Rating: 4
My Mazda 5 holds 4 tall adults (plus two kids) comfortably and gets about 30mpg doing it. There are options. It isn't like you are forced to choose between a Smart Car and a Hummer.


RE: They have a point
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2010 1:29:51 PM , Rating: 1
Comfortable to you is not necessarily comfortable to me.

I wouldn't put more than 4 adults in most mid-size or some full-size for any extended drive. I'm 6'1, 215 lbs and except for large cars, I can't really fit behind either front seat if the seat has to be kept back for a similarly sized person in front of me.


RE: They have a point
By drakore on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2010 1:48:22 PM , Rating: 5
Sounds like your wife and you (unless you're a NFL offensive lineman) need to get out and run behind the car. Could always buy a station wagon from the 80s. You'd fit in those.

Don't mistake me defending people with families typically wanting a car bigger than a Mazda 5 as an argument for people being fat.


RE: They have a point
By mcnabney on 11/3/2010 1:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
The Mazda 5 is a minivan built on a compact car frame. It seats 6 in three rows. There is plenty of head and leg room for the driver, passenger, and the captains chairs in the middle row. The third row bench is best for kids or flipped down for cargo. I'm 6'2" (190lbs) and it feels fine for me. I also have a Sentra, which does feel a lot smaller, but it still works for me.

Also, remember that a car is just transportation. There is no great need to play frisbee in the back seat.


RE: They have a point
By cknobman on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By Ammohunt on 11/3/2010 2:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
How about let people live their lives and mind your own f'n business? Its noones business what i do with my body or what car i buy or drive. Learn some personal responsibility or go jump in a lake.


RE: They have a point
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2010 2:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. In my post I just wasn't defending people being fat.

To me bad life choices are a poor argument for needing larger vehicles. Especially when there are plenty of better arguments.


RE: They have a point
By Ammohunt on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By SeeManRun on 11/3/2010 3:34:11 PM , Rating: 4
The same reason people aren't allowed to throw garbage all over the place. It impacts other people in a negative way. Allowing people to do whatever they want is fine, as long as it isn't a detriment to society as a whole, and polluting more than necessary by driving overly large vehicles affects all citizens.

To get the increase in fuel efficiency the government should just tax oil and the market will take care of itself, and it could help get the country back into the black.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 3:44:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The same reason people aren't allowed to throw garbage all over the place. It impacts other people in a negative way.
Actually, you would be breaking the law which may or may not have anything to do with impacting people in a negative way. The KKK impacts me negatively but, as long as they have a permit, they can march nearly anywhere they want. Free doesn't mean easy or "I agree with you".


RE: They have a point
By Ammohunt on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By Iaiken on 11/3/2010 4:10:38 PM , Rating: 1
Failure to realize that you can tax gasoline and diesel separately? Priceless.

While oil taxes on gasoline would have a detrimental effect to the cost of living in the US. People would adapt like they did during all of the previous oil crises. Comparing similar markets, Canadians mostly drive cars while Americans largely drive trucks. This is partially the result of Canada having double the fuel tax on gasoline, while maintaining a similar tax on diesel.

Ultimately, I really couldn't give a crap because when it comes to feeding the American oil addiction, Canada is it's single largest supplier and I work in the oil & gas industry.

Keep on burnin...


RE: They have a point
By ClownPuncher on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By hyvonen on 11/3/2010 9:11:18 PM , Rating: 1
Right, because increased demand obviously brings the prices down.


RE: They have a point
By ClownPuncher on 11/4/2010 3:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
You read the phrase "logical fallacies" then "Here is one for you:" and weren't able to connect the dots? Your parents must be proud.


RE: They have a point
By Iaiken on 11/3/2010 4:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To get the increase in fuel efficiency the government should just tax oil and the market will take care of itself, and it could help get the country back into the black.


I think you're forgetting the fact that any tactile fuel tax increase would be political suicide for everyone even remotely involved.


RE: They have a point
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/2010 4:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you're forgetting the fact that any tactile fuel tax increase would be political suicide for everyone even remotely involved.


A LOT of things that have passed in the last two years were considered "political suicide" not too long ago.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.


RE: They have a point
By ilkhan on 11/4/2010 1:41:56 AM , Rating: 2
How did those policies work out for the democrats yesterday?


RE: They have a point
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By YashBudini on 11/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By angryplayer on 11/3/2010 6:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
Fat people affect me in a negative way. They take up more than their share of the seat on the subway/bus/plane. They cost twice as much to move as I do, and yet I have to pay the same fare.

Just because I'm boringly average, it doesn't exclude me from being one of those "other people".


RE: They have a point
By RivuxGamma on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2010 8:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'm agreeing with you.


RE: They have a point
By Aloonatic on 11/4/2010 5:01:10 AM , Rating: 2
Whilst I agree in general with what you say, and I doubt that anyone here disagrees with your general sentiment, what you seem to miss is that part of the reasons why we have governments is for them to intervene when the choices made by some people impact on others.

Simply saying that the government should leave me alone to do what I want and have no right to intervene with the choices I make can be used to defend everything and anything that anyone chooses to do. At some point, when your choice impacts negatively on the rest of society, government needs to step in.

Just where that point is is the issue, and when oil is running short (isn't it always though, how long have we been on the brink of peak oil?) then encouraging people to driver more efficient cars is hardly the end of the world. It's not like Obama is saying that everyone has to drive the same, tiny, little, ultra efficient, econo-box car or something.


RE: They have a point
By Keeir on 11/8/2010 1:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
then encouraging people to driver more efficient cars is hardly the end of the world. It's not like Obama is saying that everyone has to drive the same, tiny, little, ultra efficient, econo-box car or something.


To me that's not the issue. To me CAFE is the wrong solution to a potentially non-existant problem. If what we want is to reduce consumption of oil, we should attack oil.

CAFE affects manufactures production of automobiles, not consumers consumption of oil! Futhermore, it shifts blame from the government, to the auto manufacturers! CAFE is a digusting political tool. Especially when the exceptions and special rules are taken into account. (For example, the massive credits of FlexFuel Cars, regardless if Ethanol is ever used in them)


RE: They have a point
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/2010 4:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like Mr. Multiple Accounts is back. Here to pathetically down rate voices he doesn't like all to -1 within a matter of minutes.

He's not even trying to be subtle anymore. What a joke.


RE: They have a point
By mead drinker on 11/5/2010 8:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
Not when I have to give up my side of the armrest on a plane, train, bus, let alone an entire half seat. Your weight has a direct effect on the cost of medical insurance, food, transportation of said food, gas, all items that you consume to "sustain" your fat ass. There are several studies regarding how the overweight population affects the economy as a whole and guess who foots the bill for your indulgences? Not you. Forbes has several articles on the topic. I suggest you read them.


RE: They have a point
By topkill on 11/7/2010 8:07:06 PM , Rating: 3
Great, I'll mind my own business. That sounds great...but why should I have to pay higher health care cost to cover people who sit on their ass and eat till they are extremely obese? All of us pay for that. They are forcing that on me!!! Why should I pay for an airline seat when the person sitting next to me is so fat that they are sitting half in my seat? Make them buy two seats!

Your right to do whatever the hell you want is great, but you should damn well live with the consequences. NOT ME! I don't want my health insurance rates going up because someone else is pathetic and won't take care of themselves.
What right do they have to inflict their stupid choices on me?

As far as I'm concerned, if someone that fat wants insurance, they should pay ten times as much as the rest of us to cover their own cost. If they walk into the emergency room with a heart attack and they don't have insurance because they didn't buy the expensive insurance they deserve...oh well, it was their choice.

The rest of us should be happy to stay out of your life and let you live...and die with your choices.


RE: They have a point
By drakore on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By marsbound2024 on 11/3/2010 2:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
This is why the United States spends almost $900 billion on health care.


RE: They have a point
By Ammohunt on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By Phynaz on 11/3/2010 4:56:41 PM , Rating: 3
No, you actually use a disproportionate amount of health care, driving up costs for everyone else.


RE: They have a point
By marsbound2024 on 11/3/2010 7:48:47 PM , Rating: 1
I do? How?


RE: They have a point
By marsbound2024 on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By snakeInTheGrass on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By MrTeal on 11/3/2010 3:36:22 PM , Rating: 5
Oh my dear God.

You speak of your family's fast food addiction like it's a medical condition. I like candy. It tastes good. I could eat it for dinner every day, but I don't, because it's not really food. You like the Double Down. That's awesome for you, it's full of greasy goodness and understand the appeal. Just don't pretend that refusing to eat healthy food because you'd rather eat a double down is an addiction. It's a lack of control.

Christ... this makes me really sad.


RE: They have a point
By drakore on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By Phynaz on 11/3/2010 5:01:23 PM , Rating: 5
Can't help yourselves?!

A dog can't help itself, you are a person.

Quit making excuses because you are just to lazy to be responsible.


RE: They have a point
By spread on 11/3/2010 6:02:26 PM , Rating: 3
Can't help yourself? It's called self control.

Also, bread doesn't "fill you up". It's full of calories and preservatives. At least the fast food junk you're eating does. Eat some fiber and some vegetables and maybe you won't weigh as much as a small European car. Do you even care about your body? Or the way you feel?

Not only that but family. Look at what you're teaching your kids. They're going to end up as bad if not worse than you.

Father of the year material here folks.

I was being sarcastic. You disgust me and most other people. They're just too polite, but I'm not. Do something about it, if you really do care about something in this life other than stuffing your face with grease.

Ugh.


RE: They have a point
By hyvonen on 11/3/2010 9:14:54 PM , Rating: 4
Your joke is fantastic, and I can't believe people are taking it so seriously.


RE: They have a point
By snakeInTheGrass on 11/3/2010 9:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
I was just going to say the same thing. Dipping the double-down in the gravy was just... gravy! (I'd say icing on the cake, but that stuff is too addictive.) :)


RE: They have a point
By bodar on 11/4/2010 3:25:48 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously. If this guy were trolling any harder, his name would be reader1.


RE: They have a point
By retrospooty on 11/4/2010 8:07:39 AM , Rating: 3
"I could easily eat 3-4 double downs in a single sitting. "

LOL... I really hope you are just baiting people on... Because if the stuff you say about yourself and your family is true, you all need to learn self control.

Seriously, someone should take your car and make you all walk to work. No, it shouldnt be the govt. it should be YOU AND YOUR WIFE that make the choice.


RE: They have a point
By michael67 on 11/4/2010 12:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
Damn is really that hard to find healthy and still good food ?

You could eat every day wok, I eat it almost every day when i am offshore as its almost always on the menu, its easy and quick meal for the chef.

I also eat it a lot when i am home, we buy 5kg bags whit cut ready wok vegetable, use a bag of wok saus, and a chicken breast.
And food is done in 5~10min, and on top of its its damn healthy.

whit 6.5 feet tall and 350lbs you are 100% over weight, damn loose that weight and you would change your hole life for the better.

And dont think its imposable, one of ore crane drivers was the same as you, but got told, lose weight ore loos your job because the new helicopter company had a rule that they could only allow people whit so mouths weight ore they had to pay for 2 seats. (helicopter 12 seats cost $40/min ;-)

But when he got down to the 275lbs target, he was feeling so good, he kept on going and he is now down to -200lbs.

Its real simple you only have to do it, "get of your fat ass" and start taking walks every day for a hour, he also got his TV on a timer as it is one of the worst causes for being FAT.


RE: They have a point
By US56 on 11/4/2010 1:46:35 PM , Rating: 3
If you don't stop it I may die of apoxia while rofl.


RE: They have a point
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/5/2010 7:07:48 AM , Rating: 1
You rack-a disciprine! True disciprine come from within.

Nice joke btw. Lots of trolls biting on this thread.


RE: They have a point
By Siki on 11/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By justjc on 11/5/2010 4:21:54 PM , Rating: 1
Have you ever heard of trolls, because I find it very hard to belive you didn't get trolled... Come on even in America I doubt anyone would claim to have a fastfood addiction and be public about it.


RE: They have a point
By Iaiken on 11/3/2010 3:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I bet you didn't know my wife has an addiction to fast food places.


Seriously, don't cry and play the victim.

I know it's easier and cheaper to stuff yourself full of crap in the US than every other country I have ever been to (30 and counting). However, Colonel Sanders and Ronald McDonald didn't shove that crap in your gullet.

Don't get me wrong, I love my In-n-out 3x3, but for me it's a guilty pleasure that I have maybe twice a year. The lies in fast food becoming your staple.

Believe it or not, food can be filling, nutritious, taste good and easy/fast to prepare all at the same time! How do I know? I was saucier at a four star restaurant for my entire college career. Most of my favorites can be thrown together in 20 minutes flat. We're talking things like chioppino, diavolo, homemade bolognese sauce, gnocci alla vodka. I also grill a mean 2" thick pork chop :D *NOM*

When I switched to making my own lunches instead of eating out every lunch, I budgeted out a savings of $2500 a year. Today I had an 8" Muffaletta Sandwich and a Matzu apple the size of a softball.

Interestingly enough, the old addage that "you can eat to live, or you can live to eat" has been flipped on it's head. It meant that you could eat to survive, or you could enjoy eating. Now it seemingly means that you can eat healthy, or you can eat whatever crosses your plate.

Sad really...


RE: They have a point
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/2010 3:58:40 PM , Rating: 1
Personally I think we're being trolled. I just can't believe his post was serious. It reads like great comedy lol. Did anyone else laugh out loud when they got to the "double down" part? It CAN'T be serious!!! Come on...

It can't...right?

Can it??


RE: They have a point
By Iaiken on 11/3/2010 4:14:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It CAN'T be serious!!!


It could be, but I am gonna side with you on this one and assume it's just someone pulling our legs... and not because the alternative makes my internal organs cry out in pain.


RE: They have a point
By michael67 on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/5/2010 7:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it could be true, as we all have seen these families that you can roll out burger king strait on to KFC ware they would continue eating whit there 100% over weight kids, and i am thinking these parents should have bin sterilized

You mean like the Michelin Kid?
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/lucass/fat_ki...
http://www.bestcarsandtrucking.com/wp-content/uplo...


RE: They have a point
By ImJustSaying on 11/3/2010 5:05:05 PM , Rating: 1
I've never seen anyone readily post their own weight, let alone that of their family, AND THEN submit a later post about atrocious eating habits and citations of food addiction.

I think this guy is clowning you all. This post is borderline comedic, and is hard to take seriously...which is why I'm not taking it seriously.


RE: They have a point
By priusone on 11/3/2010 9:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
My former wife was addicted to bright and shiny things at Wal-Mart. Instead of just saying she was addicted and asking her to buy less, I just cut off any additional money. Sure, I could still be married, broke, and drowning in a house full of junk, or single, better off financially and allowing her to realize that when you have to pay your own bills, it is possible to be more fiscally responsible. Get a picture of a fat person cut open and show them how nasty all that yellow fat looks. Lets see if that double down doesn't make them as sick as salads.


RE: They have a point
By Kiwished on 11/4/2010 1:40:05 AM , Rating: 1
Wow people can be dicks sometimes. Hey man. You are able to loose weight just keep up the salad thing. Positive reinforcement. Just try to avoid the reward with more bad stuff. Just make it a regular thing. For myself I was able to loose 80 from 260. I started with just drinking more water and cutting out soda and at least moving to diet to start with. Then when you get drinking more you feel full faster. Move the meals to more times per day and you will find you fill up faster. Then just hang out outside in the summer. You will end up moving around more and you should see maybe 10-15 pounds come off. Once that happened it was easier to get the forward movement on the rest.

As for the cars, I think the government should not be able to force what cars I can drive. But they are already doing that with safety standards, which have driven car weights up and gas mileage down. So its a no win. If you want the free market to push car sales, the mpg cars will fly when gas prices skyrocket again. Until they make a high mile per gallon truck that can haul my trailer. I don't much other option. Trucks, vans, SUVs were designed because there was a need and a market for them. That need and want will not be going away because the government said so. Companies need to make money or they fail. So until the tech is there to build these same vehicles with higher mpg then the government has to allow some reviewing.

Plus all the talk about fossil fuel prices and supply vs demand is stupid. Because as soon as electricity or similar is the fuel of choice those prices will go up. In the end its going to cost us the same. Its just about a different source of the pollution. Be it batteries, burnt fuel, dams, windfarms, they all how drawback also.


RE: They have a point
By Shatbot on 11/4/2010 3:24:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think the government should not be able to force what cars I can drive. But they are already doing that with safety standards, which have driven car weights up and gas mileage down. So its a no win.


Because mandatory safety requirements are universally negative. Americas obsession with the term "regulation" seems to be more in their hearts than in their minds. Regulation does not have to be ideologically opposed to Freedom, but with the amount of exposure this receives from the political sphere it's not surprising you can't use the R word.

Safety requirements aren't sexy - prevention doesn't have the same appeal as the cure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g&feature...
No-win?


RE: They have a point
By GruntboyX on 11/4/2010 10:30:18 AM , Rating: 1
I mean this kindly. You guys have major issues and should really consider seeing a nutritionist and some professional help. The fact your wife looses her apatite because she eats healthy is something that really needs addressed. I would imagine you probably need some support as well. You sound like you are fighting a battle by yourself.


RE: They have a point
By US56 on 11/4/2010 1:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
Please stop it. Now I'm laughing so hard I'm aspirating saliva on my monitor screen and having difficulty catching my breath.


RE: They have a point
By IcePickFreak on 11/3/2010 1:51:27 PM , Rating: 1
Go on a diet? I'm not the slimest person out there and I'm 6'6" 230lbs - the same weight as your 1 foot shorter wife.

Hate to be rude, but it's a bit dumb to complain you don't have enough room simply because you can't control your eating habits.


RE: They have a point
By MrBlastman on 11/3/2010 2:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
No offense, but, it sounds like ya'll need to lose some weight. :)

I'm perfectly happy with my Subaru WRX Wagon. If I'm running my street wheels, I can get 30 mpg (assuming I keep it under 3500 rpm between shifts), with my racing wheels on I average around 25 highway, 23 street. I can get groceries, drive to work and on the weekends, I take it to the track and have a whole lot of fun. To top things off, because it is a wagon, I can fold the seats down to haul all sorts of things. It is amazing what I've been able to fit in it.

However, I don't think it is the Government's job to decide what we, as Americans, get to drive. It just isn't their position to dictate to us such things which potentially infringe upon our civil liberties. They honestly have much better things to be doing than trying to force us into certain kinds of cars.

There are actually situations that dictate people driving a larger vehicle, though for the most part I see them empty with only one person 80% of the time. My philosophy is simple: I've never seen a point for a large SUV--they're huge, big and have a hard time hauling anything worth a darn. If you want a vehicle that can haul, get a pickup truck and if you want space in side, get an extended cab. SUV's to me are the compromise vehicle that just fail.

This of course, is my opinion. I don't want the Government forcing upon me theirs.


RE: They have a point
By Connoisseur on 11/3/2010 4:41:09 PM , Rating: 1
Dude... go read a driver's manual. Driving is a privilege, not a right. There's no "Right to own a car" next to "Right to bear arms" in the constitution. The government can mandate whatever the hell it wants as far as driving is concerned. If the gov't says "We're now forbidding people from driving cars larger than X" guess what? They can do it. As far as I'm aware there is absolutely no law which says the government can't regulate what a consumer can/cannot do in regards to driving.


RE: They have a point
By Nutzo on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By Iaiken on 11/3/2010 5:35:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In most states, you can drive whatever you want on you own land with no license or restriction.


Including tanks! :D


RE: They have a point
By BSMonitor on 11/3/2010 5:05:30 PM , Rating: 1
You are correct. Because driving said vehicles are almost entirely done on public roads. Anything that is a public matter, related to protecting the rights of citizens from other citizens, is a government matter.

It is not perfect, as culture has a huge part in what is considered a public matter, but for the most part that's the guideline.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 6:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dude... go read a driver's manual. Driving is a privilege, not a right. There's no "Right to own a car" next to "Right to bear arms" in the constitution.
Actually, you do have the right to OWN a car but not the right to drive it unless we sometime decide to make driving a right. Which would throw a big wrench into a lot of things.


RE: They have a point
By FITCamaro on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By US56 on 11/4/2010 1:39:39 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for that. It's the best laugh I've had all day.


RE: They have a point
By Spookster on 11/3/2010 5:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by mcnabney on November 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM

My Mazda 5 holds 4 tall adults (plus two kids) comfortably and gets about 30mpg doing it. There are options. It isn't like you are forced to choose between a Smart Car and a Hummer.


I agree. I fit 2 adults and 2 kids (14yo and 10yo) quite comfortably in my Mazda3 which is even smaller than your Mazda5. Too many Americans have just gotten too spoiled and lazy to be bothered with any negative effects their demand for convenience and comfort may cause everyone else.


RE: They have a point
By Targon on 11/4/2010 6:57:27 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between an SUV and a mid-sized sedan is HUGE when it comes to your average miles per gallon, but picture how small cars would need to be to hit the requirements for 2025! I agree that too many people drive vehicles that are too large, but even to get to 50 miles per gallon AVERAGE(not just highway) with even a normal compact car(not hybrid) will take more than 15 years, and then you would need to force everyone to drive one of these little cars since the government is talking about average across all cars/trucks sold.

This is why the auto industry is saying it is impossible, because it IS impossible. Even if the technology were developed today, it would take 9 years of safety testing and adjustments before the new technology were ready for consumer vehicles. Then put it in every vehicle(and you know larger means lower mpg), it still wouldn't be possible to hit the guidelines.

So, 50 miles per gallon highway(not average, not a hybrid, including air conditioning and/or rolling down the windows) might be possible for SOME cars to hit by 2025, but for a manufacturer to AVERAGE that across all vehicle types would be impossible too.


RE: They have a point
By justjc on 11/5/2010 6:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to think making the cars smaller is the only way of increasing efficiency, which is hardly the case.

- How about increasing the efficiency of the engines?
Case in point: Fiat introduced their Multiair technology in 2009, which was able to give their engines around 10% more HP, around 15% more torque and still use around 10% less fuel. No doubt other motors could make similar improvements with a redesign.

- How about using other materials?
Case in point: Most car manufactures are experimenting with light weight materials, such as carbon fiber, that could make the same size component 75% lighter while still having the same structural strength. Some say that replacing the steel for carbon fiber parts alone would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30% by making the car 40% lighter. http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archive...

- How about making hybrids?
Because the advantage of electric engines are the weakness of the gasoline and the other way around a mix could be a lot more efficient than the current generations prove.
The electric engine is great at producing torque(acceleration), generates energy from braking and doesn't waste energy when it isn't needed. All in all what makes a great city car.
The gasoline engine on the other hand is quite efficient at keeping the car moving at speed, a task that makes the electric engine loose range fast.
My guess is that a hybrid that allows both engines direct access to the wheels, making the gasoline keep you moving and the electric manage the big accelerations, would gain more efficiency than the extra weight costs.

- And then there is all the things I haven't taken into consideration, which is likely to give some boost in efficiency as well.


RE: They have a point
By Alexvrb on 11/3/2010 6:01:28 PM , Rating: 3
Comfort level aside (personally I wouldn't want to ride crammed in there with 3 other adults and two kids, thanks), your mazda 5 is nowhere near the fuel targets. Let's shrink it, build it out of composites, and make it a hybrid. Then we'll talk pricing.


RE: They have a point
By Omega215D on 11/3/2010 12:53:59 PM , Rating: 1
You see, according to Obama's plan... I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice....

Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener". You live up top, you live Obama's way: what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. Your other choice: come down here... and maybe starve to death.


RE: They have a point
By twhittet on 11/3/2010 1:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I want whatever drugs you're on right now. Nice randomized rant.


RE: They have a point
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2010 1:31:32 PM , Rating: 5
It's a quote from Demolition Man.


RE: They have a point
By Omega215D on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By Performance Fanboi on 11/3/2010 1:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
Out of place yes but not random. It's Edgar Friendly's (Denis Leary) rant from Demolition Man.


RE: They have a point
By Omega215D on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/2010 3:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You see, according to Obama's plan... I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice....


Well we just gave his plan a giant middle finger yesterday. Hopefully every single thing he's passed or had a finger in will be repealed, outright killed, or have it's funding cut our from under it. Maybe these industry-killing EPA standards can be rolled back too.

And nice Demolition Man tie-in :) One of my favorite guilty pleasure movies heheh.


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/2010 2:33:02 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And why should the government be forcing me to change the way I live?


I assume you're ok then will people having abortions or entering gay marriages because the government dissallowing it would be forcing those people to live or make decisions a certain. Way.

Waiting for the vote downs on this one.... Sorry, but it really pisses me off when people complain they don't want the government telling them what to do or how to live but then moan that prayer should be a mandated part of the day in public schools.

Either go all one way or the other (and I'm not saying you aren't - since I don't know how you stand on the questions above), but whatever side you or anyone is on better be firmly planted on one side of more vs less government.

For me, big government isn't just taxes and excessive spending, its also mandating how one is to live morally. That's what religion is for. Separation of church and state please.


RE: They have a point
By espaghetti on 11/3/2010 4:38:25 PM , Rating: 1
Bottom line is
It's none of there *@$%ing business what kind of vehicle I drive.
Last time I checked the fed wasn't in the oil business or the car business...wait..scratch the last point.
It's time these yahoo's figure out what their priorities are.
1. National defense- win the frickin' war, bring the boys & girls home and secure the border.
2. After #1 is done, cut the crap spending.
3. Stop imposing the will of the few on the many.
4. Provide a BALANCED environment for businesses and citizens.
5. Let local governments rule themselves.

BASICALLY READ AND FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!


RE: They have a point
By Connoisseur on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By Connoisseur on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By kyleb2112 on 11/3/2010 5:43:46 PM , Rating: 5
Hamilton feared adding a Bill of Rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected. And here we are 200 years later with fools constantly proving him right. Nice recipe for tyranny you've got there.


RE: They have a point
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/2010 5:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On another note. I wish ppl would stop using the constitution like it's this absolutely perfect shield.


The Constitution IS pretty much perfect in the context of achieving the explicit goals the architects of it set out to do. While still allowing it to be perfectly relevant and effective through unforeseen times and adapt to things, as you pointed out, the Founders couldn't have possibly considered.

If you think anything not explicitly in the Constitution is "fair game", then I don't think you know much about said Constitution.

quote:
Driving is not a right. Making and selling unhealthy fast foods is not a right. Using gasoline is not a right.


By this argument almost ANYTHING falls under the direct rule of the Federal Government. Something the Constitution most CERTAINLY set out to directly prevent, in no uncertain terms.

I find your invoking of Thomas Jefferson, and what he would or wouldn't consider, offensive. He would NEVER agree with you, that is a fact. Good luck trying to convince him that what someone eats or drives "affect's society as a whole". Or that the answer is to infringe on consumers right of choice and purchase. Good luck with that.


RE: They have a point
By Fritzr on 11/4/2010 1:24:28 AM , Rating: 2
The Federal Government does an end run around State's Rights by using a simple formula.

The Representatives of the various states meet in the House of Representatives & the Senate.

The Representatives of the various states use the power delegated by the states to declare the wishes of the state they each represent.

Since the representatives meeting in Congress express the wishes of the states, a law passed by Congress has been approved by a majority of the states and therefore is allowed by the Constitution.

Whether you agree with it or not, this legal opinion allows Congress to pass laws that apply equally to all the States, Territories and Possessions of the United States.

Theoretically it should be possible for the State Legislature to pass a bill limiting the actions of that State's representatives in Congress. I'm sure you can imagine the threats of withholding of Federal Funds that would be made should that ever be tried :P


RE: They have a point
By Nutzo on 11/3/2010 4:51:32 PM , Rating: 1
Try reading the 10th amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."

Since the constitution says nothing about the right to drive, the federal government has NO constitutional authority to regulate driving, with the possible exception of where it effects interstate commerce such as trucking.


RE: They have a point
By Connoisseur on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/2010 5:14:17 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, try defending that point of view on a test in law school and see what happens.

..... the constitution says i have the right to drive .... do you have any idea what that implies?

technically repeatedly poking someone with a spoon isn't in the consitution as an illegal act - that doesn't mean its legal.

the thing you need to realize, son, is that law on whichever side of the donkey's ass you sit, is all about the gray area. nothing is black and white - not even for Scalia, and he's quite the firm Constitutionalist.


RE: They have a point
By Nutzo on 11/3/2010 7:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
technically repeatedly poking someone with a spoon isn't in the consitution as an illegal act - that doesn't mean its legal.


That would be a violation of that person rights (i.e. assault and battery) more like driving over someone as compared to just driving.


RE: They have a point
By thebest11778 on 11/4/2010 12:42:43 AM , Rating: 4
Wow this is a long thread. First off I'm going to say I only read about 1/2 of it so please forgive me if someone else already cleared this up.

Under the U.S. Constitution the "Federal" government has no authority to tell you what to do, at all, in anyway shape or form, as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights.

The states may impose those kinds of laws themselves if they want. It was setup that way because if your state started making crazy laws you didn't agree with you could just move to another state, and once that state lost too many people (and the money they have,) they'd change back, or attract others that liked those laws. So everyone would win there.

You have a right to own property (any property.) This means you DO have a right to own a car. Any car you want (yes you can own a tank if you wanted to.) You DON'T have a right to drive that car on public property (roads.) So you have to follow your STATE and LOCAL laws to use public roads (no tanks on public roads.) Now if you bought up land and built your own roads you could make whatever rules you wanted to on YOUR property. You could tax others to drive on it, drive your tank on it, not allow anyone else to use it... whatever you wanted. That's why we have public roads. This allows people easy rules to follow without having some crazy guy change the rules daily.

Now on to the Federal government telling people what cars to make. They have NO right to tell anyone what they can or cannot make. They have no right to tell McDonalds what to sell, and have no right to tell YOU what businesses you're allowed to start or what you can sell. This means if you want to make and sell drugs, the federal government can't stop you... your state can though. If you want to build and sell nuclear weapons the federal government can't stop you... your state can.

It's common sense here people. States have the power you've been brainwashed in to thinking Washington has. Read the Constitution. It's only 17 pages. Washington really has the easiest job of all levels of government when it comes to domestic issues, because they're not in control of most of it. Their job is to coin money (not have the fed do it, nor use cotton as currency [dollars are cotton if you didn't know that not paper,]) defend the country, foreign relations, run the post office, make sure the states don't try to screw eachother over (that's the true purpose of the commerce clause,) defend individual's rights and liberties (not the collective or society's,) and that's about it.


RE: They have a point
By thebest11778 on 11/4/2010 12:59:49 AM , Rating: 4
Oh to follow up on a point I missed. When I said
quote:
Under the U.S. Constitution the "Federal" government has no authority to tell you what to do, at all, in anyway shape or form, as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights.
I know someone's going to say polluting is harming other people and hence violating their rights. 1.) If this were true then you'd hear about people suing other people over this. That's what we do in America if someone harms you. You get to sue them. That doesn't happen. Also the more industrialized we become and the more cars that are out there, we still seem to be living longer. So that argument doesn't fly. Just a side note to that, the more CO2 we produce the quicker and healthier plants grow. Go figure they eat CO2. Which means we can produce more food for people on the planet with more CO2 output. Uh Oh I just pissed Al Gore off.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/4/2010 12:43:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I know someone's going to say polluting is harming other people and hence violating their rights.
There is no violation of rights but there are violations of law against polluting in most states. I have no facts to back this up but I would guess there were lawsuits before the laws.


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/2010 4:57:45 PM , Rating: 1
well i guess we'll have another lame duck situation since your #1 is impossible and has been from the start.

unless you want to nuke the whol middle east. you'll get about 65% of the etremists that way. but lets try that and see if there is amican soil to stand on when thats done.

maybe you forgot, but the reason we won the revolutionary war is because we used guerrilla warfare which is REALLY hard to attack. in fact the attacking party has lost every war in the world since when the defender employed guerrilla warfar.

like wwi, wwii. vietnam.... (the south asians are REALLY good at it). i didn't actually know anyone thought it was still possible to win "wars" in this age.

the only thing we accomplish is making a point. iraq failed. the govt is having a ton of trouble holding on. but at least we made our point.


RE: They have a point
By Nutzo on 11/3/2010 5:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
It's only hard to win a war when you pretend you can fight in a civilized manor.

One of the reasons we won the revolutionary war is that the British where too civilized to fight a guerrilla war.

We are now to civilize (or Politically correct) to do what is needed to win a war. We are to concerned about civilians and what other countries will think. Even if some country used a Nuke on us, I seriously doubt we would respond with enough force to actually win a war.


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/2010 5:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
i agree with that actually, but i'd like to add that we also want to minimize our own losses. not saying at all that i want to see more flags come home on a cargo plane, but had we been worried about casualties in a draft war in 1945, we wouldn't have won that one either.


RE: They have a point
By sweatshopking on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By web2dot0 on 11/3/2010 3:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's easy. The gov't doesn't to force you to do anything. They'll just raise the gas prices.
Simple economics. What the gov't should be doing is regulate the emission of cars. That's their job. Why do you think we took out gas with lead in them? So what, you think gov't should let people do what they want and use gas with lead in them if they wanted to?

Just for your information, North Americans are the only people who have the luxury of buying SUV+ sized cars. The rest of the world is mostly forced into buying smaller cars for practical reasons. Again, it comes down to simple economics. Europeans' gas prices is 2X the prices in USA. You do the math.

I don't think anyone feels sorry for the pain and suffering. The rest of the world is living with it. Deal with it.


RE: They have a point
By dl429 on 11/3/2010 4:36:38 PM , Rating: 1
The govt is asking you to change the way you live because our nations energy independence depends on it. Not only is oil a finite resource but importing it from nations that sponsor terrorism is a security concern. Sending billions of US dollars to Arab countries while OPEC bleeds us for every penny is a problem all Americans should have an interest in ending. Over 5000 American troops have been killed and many more maimed securing our oil interests in Iraq. We can argue the reasons for war on another forum but in the end it's oil, that's why we don't lift a finger to stop genocide in Africa and other places. Maybe you have never lost a child, a parent, or a friend in Iraq but I've personally witnessed friends blown to pieces by IEDs. Please think of their families, children, and widows before your SUV. It's time for us as Americans to put our country and our future ahead of our shelfishness for once.


RE: They have a point
By hyvonen on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By AstroGuardian on 11/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By FaaR on 11/4/2010 7:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
Why? You have to ASK?

BECAUSE the rest of the world won't tolerate you being a stupid ignorant bastard who wastes far more than your legitimate share of the planet's resources out of laziness and idle complacency, that's why.


RE: They have a point
By jabber on 11/9/2010 7:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
I dont get this constant "I cant fit my 6' whatever body" into a such a such car argument from US folks.

I have several friends that are 6'4" plus and they have no issues with most cars no matter what size.

Is it a case that a US foot is say 50% larger than the rest of the world or is the 6'4" measurement for width rather than height?

If not buy a horsebox to sit in.


RE: They have a point
By jabber on 11/9/2010 7:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
I dont get this constant "I cant fit my 6' whatever body" into a such a such car argument from US folks.

I have several friends that are 6'4" plus and they have no issues with most cars no matter what size.

Is it a case that a US foot is say 50% larger than the rest of the world or is the 6'4" measurement for width rather than height?

If not buy a horsebox to sit in.


RE: They have a point
By kattanna on 11/3/2010 12:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You still don't need a huge gas guzzling SUV to do that


thats cute. you deciding for me what i need or dont, without a single clue as to what i really do need. all because YOU dont need it. i got an idea.. why dont you think for YOURSELF and let me have the freedom to do the same pal, hows that work for you?

quote:
it's pretty easy to rent something and not very expensive


still a WHOLE lot more expensive then my paid for vehicle now isnt it?

now i have a V8 durango, love it! I'd like to see you load your little compact with all the diving gear me and the woman have, or our camping gear.. or pull the trailor i will have when i get a boat.

but im glad you KNOW i dont need the vehicle i have.


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2010 1:36:47 PM , Rating: 3
You really don't know anything about cars do you?

Unless we somehow eliminate the laws of physics, nothing bigger than a Jetta is ever going to get 65 mpg. Even if we build cars out of super light, super strong materials, a big SUV still has the problem of friction. Same goes for engines. And people don't want battery powered cars. The best battery powered cars get 150 miles or so. And then they have to be recharged in a few hours. We need a few minutes. And we're no where close to that.

Furthermore, relying on batteries just shifts our dependency from one thing we actually have a lot of but aren't taking advantage of, to many things we don't have any of and our enemy does.

Unless your goal is complete and utter reliance on China as a nation, battery powered cars are a terrible idea.


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/2010 2:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
PS the 2011 touareg weighs 4700 lbs (5k in the tdi trim?). and boasts 420ft-lbs of torque will getting 32 mpg on the highway.

doesnt seem so far fetched as you and others lead on....


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 3:59:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
PS the 2011 touareg weighs 4700 lbs (5k in the tdi trim?).
According to VW, the 2011 Touareg gets 14/20 mpg in gas trim and 18/25 mpg in diesel trim. Also, torque is 406 lb-ft not 420 in diesel trim. And it weighs 5300 lbs in diesel trim and 5100 lbs in gas trim. This info is right on VW's website. Don't know where you got 32 mpg or 4700 lbs from.


RE: They have a point
By cmdrdredd on 11/3/2010 4:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about other people but the Auto Industry has a good point. Most people I know drive not only for transportation, but for recreation. We love to drive. We love to drive cars that offer something fun and different. That's why Mustang GTs and Corvettes sell. They aren't the cheapest by far and are definitely not the most fuel efficient, but they are fun as hell. The point I'm making is that because I and my family and friends don't treat a drive as a hassle we want a car that is fun to drive down the highway or even to a local restaurant. We don't want a Prius or a Honda Insight because they are flat out ugly and boring on the road. We pay a bit more for gas and insurance but we already know that before purchasing the cars we own. It's not necessarily that the numbers are flat out impossible but there is a very high percentage of the population that wants more than a Prius that gets 60mpg. They might actually want that 400+HP V8 sports car that can do 0-60 in 4.6 seconds. We are also willing to spend more on gas to be able to own it as well. Making a car that is as fun to drive as a Corvette that gets 60mpg is probably not going to happen.


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/2010 4:39:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
my family and friends don't treat a drive as a hassle we want a car that is fun to drive down the highway or even to a local restaurant.


i agree completely. thats why i bought the touareg tdi (18/25) and am eyeing the S4 (20/28). which isn't stellar at 5.1 0-60, but its better than most considering the mileage. i'd wait for the RS4 but its apparently not coming possibly ever again - at least not on its current platform anwyay. there's also the 335i which comes in at 4.9 with 20/26. the gtr gets the same mileage or better than the american muscle but kicks the crap out of them off the line and around the corner (with the exception of the viper but now where talking apples and oranges - although viper still needs to address its exhaust overheating issues).

fisker and tesla's models are claiming 0-60 in 4 flat and they use, well, no gas. only downside is the lack of vroom vroom. but hey, just like i noticed toddlers pretend to take pictures holding the camera out in front rather than through a view finder, perhaps the next gen won't notice the different.

the new base mustang is a step in the right direction but only appeals to the "i drive a mustang for the looks" crowd and not the crowd that knows what the hell a mustang is supposed to do (or for tha matter what the hell a shelby or saleen are at all). the big three don't have anything to compete.


RE: They have a point
By cmdrdredd on 11/3/2010 5:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he new base mustang is a step in the right direction but only appeals to the "i drive a mustang for the looks" crowd and not the crowd that knows what the hell a mustang is supposed to do (or for tha matter what the hell a shelby or saleen are at all). the big three don't have anything to compete.


That's why I have a Mustang GT with 4" Borla exhaust, Steeda Cold Air kit, Shelby suspension pkg, Brembo 6 caliper brakes, and a tuned computer. Contemplating a supercharger but then I should have gotten a GT500 then shouldn't have I? lol

In all seriousness, You can step into 412 rated HP, 0-60 in 4.6 and 147Mph top speed (never gonna drive that fast off the track) for under $35k. That's not too bad plus it sounds really nice. The exhaust note is killer for a modern small block V8 IMO. Performance in a turn really only matters if you race because on the average road you won't be doing 80mph into the sweeper and using clutch to keep you in the powerband for exit. While I don't race myself I enjoy the performance and style of the Mustang I have for a fun to drive car. If I raced I'd toss a bunch of options like the Leguna Seca package on it and use it strictly for that. It's an American icon that I am glad still exists these days. Times are tough and few people want a big HP car anymore. However, the market is there still and it should not be ignored.


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/2010 5:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
i take it you're in socal?

few people outside of LA go to the trouble of tuning their computer (or even know to do so).

word of caution: careful with the super, you don't want to blow your gaskets in a stock engine made for natural aspiration, so you'll need to upgrade your block and piston seals as well - but i assume you (or your tuner) know what you're doing if you've mod'd that far.

there are a few japanese cars you can mod to get that output - but they're all V6s so you'll never get the same feel.

but i do agree that the market needs to allow the performance segment. too many people like feeling their car as an extension of themselves, but the current plan mandates a fleet average - which i assume would be based on sales. which would imply a market segment limited

ps if you've upgrade your exhaust already and your intake i'd recommend better headers at least first if not over supercharges - unless you of course included that in your exhaust swap.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 6:33:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
i'd wait for the RS4 but its apparently not coming possibly ever again - at least not on its current platform anwyay.
Any reason for not considering the RS5? Need 4 doors maybe?


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/4/2010 2:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any reason for not considering the RS5? Need 4 doors maybe?


Yeah, i've been forbidden to get anything less than with 4 doors. I don't mind though, its much more entertaining to see the look on people's faces who know nothing about cars see a 4 door destroy them off the line than a coupe ;-)


RE: They have a point
By ats on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/2010 4:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
the 2011 isn't on the VW site yet. it still shows the 2010 model (the one i have) with intermittent displays of the 2011 (went once earlier and saw the 2011, clicked on trim details and got an error. then came back, clicked on details and got the 2010 trim information minus the 4xmotion package (which includes the offroad transfer case and adjustable height) which i have but apparently is no longer an option on the '10s.

i assume they're getting ready in the next few days to roll out the '11, hence the website issues.

those figures you mentioned were last year's trim specs. the 2011 is 4950 for the tdi. but while C/D achieved only 20/27 for the tdi and not 32 - so i looked that up and apparently those are the european cycle and the US one has not yet been advertised. but somehow 27 over 25 is a 20% efficiceny gain (VW claims but the C/D figures would beg to differ).

no matter anyway, without the offroad capability in the US, i have no interest in future models. so i'm left with range rover in the luxury offroader? ew.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 6:37:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
i assume they're getting ready in the next few days to roll out the '11, hence the website issues.
Gotcha. I assumed that was the 2011.

quote:
no matter anyway, without the offroad capability in the US, i have no interest in future models. so i'm left with range rover in the luxury offroader? ew.
LOL! What's wrong with RR?


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/4/2010 2:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
meh, the prissy stigma that surrounds it i guess. they're also less dependable - not that VW doesnt have electronic issues, but i'd rather have electrical failures over mechanical ones.

on both sides though, reliability is increasing so we'll see. maybe i'll change my mind.


RE: They have a point
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2010 9:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
Even if it was 32, thats a far cry from 65.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/4/2010 1:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if it was 32, thats a far cry from 65
IMO, aero is our biggest problem. A 2011 V6 Ford Edge gets the same mpg as my 2007 turbo 4 cyl Solstice sports car (AND I have direct injection too) and my car weighs MUCH less and makes less power. My car has crappy aero (.45 and 21.5 sq ft of frontal area) compared to the Edge's .363 and 25 sq ft. We'll need major improvements there although .363 for a SUV is quite good. BTW, I liked the Edge.


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/4/2010 2:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
yes but as spuke pointed out, thats probably 2005 tech and than are other things to look at.

i'm not saying its absolute that a fleet average of 65 mpg by 2025, but if everyone get their heads together and shared information like they share platforms, they may be able to reach that deadline and still have precious cash left over for their so-deserving executives.

and at the end of the day. if it can happen and nothing else gets worse (like price) who cares if global warming is happening? at least we'll be more efficient at one thing we use a lot. and thats worth bragging about.


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/2010 3:09:52 PM , Rating: 3
are people voting me down because they think the content and argument is off topic or because they don't agree?

if you don't agree, please tell me where my argument fails. otherwise we've learned nothing.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 4:33:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
if you don't agree, please tell me where my argument fails. otherwise we've learned nothing.
Because your "points" are simply pie in the sky. Honestly, huge fuel economy gains are going to take huge investments of money and consequently huge gains in car prices for the consumer. If everyone is cool with huge price increases than let's go for it. But the car companies KNOW we won't pay huge prices for these cars. How do they know? Because they sell us the cars. LOL! I know I will NOT pay $50k for a carbon fiber Fiesta. I'll just buy old cars instead.


RE: They have a point
By guffwd13 on 11/3/2010 4:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
so you don't agree with my analysis and yet provide no proof on your side either. i stand firmly that i think you can sell a 65 mpg fiesta that runs on gas or some other technology for 11k (inflation unadjusted) in 2025.

in other words, if you think engineers don't have the ability to churn out cars that can do this and still charge the same amount, you don't know any of the engineers i went to school with. i saw them do some crazy things and they worked for free (while in school!) just for the fun of it.

of course no one will work for free and will work for whoever pays them the most, but if toyota's only willing to pay them 97k and so is ford, guess what - they want to brag about designing the next generation car, they'll take what they can get.

its just R&D like it always has been. the german manufacturers have been R&Ding extreme tech for years and are in no danger of going under and in fact dominate the european market (i've never seen more german cars in one place as i did in moscow - not in ny, not in la or san fran). in other words, they even there cost a little more, but people pay for them. even the cab companies!

and yep the german govt subsidizes them a bit, but then, oh wait... ours had to bail the big 3 out because they couldn't run a company (branding) and made too many promises with pensions (that even the most conservative among them refuse to back down on!).

they aren't complaining about impossible. they're complaining about being unable to do it and still dish out multi-million dollar bonus packages to their executives. for that year.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 6:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
in other words, if you think engineers don't have the ability to churn out cars that can do this and still charge the same amount, you don't know any of the engineers i went to school with.
I know quite a few very smart engineers myself. And they can only work with what they have. 60 mpg, again, is not impossible but doing without a cost increase is. Look at the technologies we use to get fuel economy, safety and emissions where they are today. Are the costs the same as they were without those techs? Ford says DI costs $300 per car. That is an increase in cost. How much does it cost to do CF in a car? Look at a Ferrari 458 Italia. You don't need exact numbers, just look at around at how much current tech costs and you can take a very good guess at how much future tech costs.

IF we have a breakthrough somewhere in the next 15 years that will allow us to improve fuel economy at little extra cost, THEN we might see what you say but I wouldn't just assume that will happen.

Again, not impossible, it will just cost more money.

PS - Car development starts years before it's released to the public so current tech can't be ignored.


RE: They have a point
By quiksilvr on 11/3/2010 1:24:25 PM , Rating: 1
I see no problem with having that same vehicle with a fuel efficiency of 60 mpg by the year 2025. I mean, that's FIFTEEN years in the future. I'm sure by then they'll develop a V6 with the same abilities as the V8 you have now but taking a lot less power.

Furthermore, I am fully confident that carbon fiber will become economically viable for commercial vehicles, which would seriously cut the weight of the car and send mpg numbers through the roof.

And either way, that 62 is a MAXIMUM. They do that just for covering their bases. I'm sure it probably will 50 by 2025. These companies just have to whine so that the chances of it becoming 62 mpg is 0%.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 1:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Furthermore, I am fully confident that carbon fiber will become economically viable for commercial vehicles, which would seriously cut the weight of the car and send mpg numbers through the roof.
How long has carbon fiber been around? 1958 was when it was developed. It's now 2010 and it's STILL only seen in hyper expensive cars. Remember the 1990 Ferrari F40? CF is expensive. Why? Because it's very difficult to manipulate. What makes you think that it will be Ford Fiesta cheap in 15 more years when it's STILL only showing up in hyper expensive cars after 52 years?


RE: They have a point
By Iketh on 11/3/2010 3:06:20 PM , Rating: 1
because the technology used to "manipulate" CF will improve...

"I'm limited by the techonology of my day..." - guess the quote!!


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 4:35:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
because the technology used to "manipulate" CF will improve...
You totally missed my point. More than likely because you simply skimmed over my post.


RE: They have a point
By Nutzo on 11/3/2010 4:46:17 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe the government can repeal the law of physics.

These mileage numbers they are talking about are not what you might get out of your car on the highway with a tailwind. They are using the EPA numbers for city driving.

Even a Toyota Prius Hybred only gets around 50 in the city, so to meet the current 47 MPG numbers this would have to be the average car sold. You'll never have a midsize or minivan/SUV that will get 47+ city mileage. There is not enough energy in a gallon of gas to physical move the weight a mile.

As for 60+, only if we all switch to tiny 2 seat hybreds that cost $40,000+

Good luck car pooling the kids to school in a 2-seater. Or maybe everyone can drive thier own kids so we can have 4 cars instead one one.
What gets better milage 1 Minivan or 4 tiny hybreds?


RE: They have a point
By snakeInTheGrass on 11/3/2010 9:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, wasn't it the Indiana State Legislature that tried to pass a law making pi = 3.0?

The other problem with 60+ being the average is that half of the cars will have to be doing 120+ mpg since the rest won't. Uh... not sure I'm helping, we just decreased our own MPG by about 5 city/hwy by getting an SUV. 3 kids, parents who come from out of town to visit, road trips - I'm glad someone more responsible will be driving that new 1-seat Prius that uses the power of un-deodorized armpits to make up for it.

Then again, China and India are growing their emissions, so why should we be the chumps?


RE: They have a point
By Flunk on 11/3/2010 1:35:13 PM , Rating: 1
Need and want are different things. You don't actually need a boat (unless for some reason you're a professional diver then I concede).

My argument is that is it fully possible to use more fuel efficient vehicles but that the people do not want to. You clearly don't, along with lots of other people.

And on point 2, no it is not cheaper to use your one large vehicle all the time than to rent one occasionally, on gas usage alone you'd save hundreds of dollars a year.


RE: They have a point
By SoCalBoomer on 11/3/2010 1:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that government should not be in the business of legislating what we WANT vs. what we need. . .

I want the government out of my private life. That includes what I WANT and NEED. I will provide for myself, thank you.


RE: They have a point
By Ammohunt on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By ats on 11/3/2010 4:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
And they aren't. Companies don't have to make the average, they just pay a penalty if they don't. Which they of course pass onto you, the consumer. It is your choice if it is worth it to you.


RE: They have a point
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2010 1:52:05 PM , Rating: 1
Well to be fair it is getting cheaper. The ZR1 makes extensive use of carbon fiber. It's far cheaper than most other exotics that use it.

But you're right, it's not going to be standard on a Malibu anytime soon. Or even 15 years from now. Not unless some breakthrough process for laying it is developed. That's why its expensive. You can't just manufacture it like a sheet of aluminum.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 1:59:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well to be fair it is getting cheaper. The ZR1 makes extensive use of carbon fiber. It's far cheaper than most other exotics that use it.
Still a $100k car.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 1:58:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And on point 2, no it is not cheaper to use your one large vehicle all the time than to rent one occasionally, on gas usage alone you'd save hundreds of dollars a year.
We as individuals will determine our own destiny as the law and the US Constitution allow (can't speak for those outside the US as I don't know your laws or rights). It's just that simple.


RE: They have a point
By ats on 11/3/2010 4:48:31 PM , Rating: 1
You can still determine your own destiny. You'll just have to pay for it.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/4/2010 1:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can still determine your own destiny. You'll just have to pay for it.
I'm not arguing for me. I still have a choice because I have the means to do so. Not everyone does though.


RE: They have a point
By bhieb on 11/3/2010 12:44:57 PM , Rating: 1
As I posted below here is an example of why I personally drive a larger SUV. Do you have 3 young kids? If so until they are 4' 9" (about 3rd grade) I need 3 safety seats. Sit them side by side and the older ones in the boosters have a really hard time buckling (the seats literally bump right up against each other), and the fighting begins.

Now the difference between an 18MPG large SUV and a 30MPG car at 15K miles per year and $3/gal is only $1,000. To me it is well worth it just for this one convenience.

So your statement that a station wagon can handle 99% of a family's needs GREATLY depends on the size and age of said family.

Fact is the fuel cost is just not a HUGE line item on my annual expenses. People like me will ONLY stop buying them when it costs too much.


RE: They have a point
By mcnabney on 11/3/2010 12:48:01 PM , Rating: 1
That is why the Federal government needs to slap a $3/gallon fuel tax on gasoline and non-farm diesel.

The money can help support the ongoing costs of protecting our oil supplies. And don't go all OMFG at $6 gas, europe has dealt with it for decades.


RE: They have a point
By bobcpg on 11/3/2010 1:05:31 PM , Rating: 4
We left Europe for a reason.


RE: They have a point
By Anoxanmore on 11/3/2010 1:16:01 PM , Rating: 3
To escape religious persecution... oh wait... we do that here now yay!


RE: They have a point
By inigoml on 11/3/2010 1:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
Good point (I'm european, of course) ;-)


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 2:22:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
To escape religious persecution... oh wait... we do that here now yay!
Name one place in the US where it is illegal to worship as you choose.


RE: They have a point
By FITCamaro on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By Kurz on 11/3/2010 8:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
So its the government that impedes on our freedom of religion.


RE: They have a point
By Anoxanmore on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 5:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Need I really go on? This country is supposed to be about freedom and here we are doing exactly what Europeans did to us and one of the major reasons we left and fought for our independence.
You still have not posted where religion was made illegal. There are LAWS regarding how and where buildings are built. If the people looking for a building permit are not satisfied with the decisions of their local city council members:
1. Quit voting for the same idiot council members.
2. Sue.


RE: They have a point
By Anoxanmore on 11/3/2010 9:57:06 PM , Rating: 1
Did you miss the part where they were approved and then it was taken away?

Come on Spuke you aren't that naive. This nation was founded upon freedom, and we are slowly turning into another Europe with the persecution that is allowed to happen within our borders.


RE: They have a point
By ekv on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By Anoxanmore on 11/4/2010 6:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
It isn't happening daily, but we are allowing it happen one small step at a time. Oklahoma is proof of that alone. Then we can look at Texas, and Florida. Next is Tennessee, WTF?!

Just makes me sad that one of the main reasons we left Europe is coming home to roost here.


RE: They have a point
By spamreader1 on 11/3/2010 5:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
Mt.Carmel, Texas :)


RE: They have a point
By ebakke on 11/3/2010 1:21:01 PM , Rating: 5
I'm confused. Why again must we stop people from purchasing SUVs, or any other vehicle they wish to buy? Is it because you don't like them or you wouldn't purchase one? Or am I missing some crucial point that you'll make clear in a moment?


RE: They have a point
By mcnabney on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By Ammohunt on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By mcnabney on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By BSMonitor on 11/3/2010 4:49:49 PM , Rating: 1
Nothing like the small mind to see only his own immediate needs and wants. Fortunately for us, we have a government that protects the rest of us from near-sighted fools like you.

Exactly, their isn't a globally owned oil resource. Our federal government in order to maintain our country's stability must allow for all of us to have access to that resource at all times. That is the issue. How do we keep gasoline in the pumps and at a cost that is reasonable for the consumers?? This is not a free market issue alone. We have no direct influence how much oil is produced in the middle east. Our government cannot simply make these countries sell us their oil. And history has shown that these countries will hold oil production over our heads in order to thicken their wallets, influence our way of life, etc. etc..

Ultimately, what happens to the stability of this country when these foreign nations decide to stop selling us oil. There may be other markets to sell to.. China for instance.. How does our government protect us from this scenario?! That is the issue at hand. What can be done?

1) Via war, attack the countries that control the resource. Aka WWI, WWII, Desert Storm II.. All wars for control of resources. May you and your choices lead you to the front lines in our nations armed services.
2) Increase production at home. If we solely provide for our oil needs. Our needs are above and beyond by far all other countries combined, how long would it be before we run out and then are completely dependent on foreign. And at that point, we have no leverage in any negotiation.
3) Improve the machines that consume the resource or alternate to a different resource completely.

The logical choice for any patriotic American is #3. Why would any American choose to be dependent on a foreign country for his way of life?!?

Personally I am disgusted by Americans who tout their freedom to do whatever they want, then by their very actions undermine our country's ability to provide that freedom. People like this(you) are the very reason governments exist in the first place. To protect my rights to those freedoms from idiots like you and your "poor choices".


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 5:11:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Personally I am disgusted by Americans who tout their freedom to do whatever they want, then by their very actions undermine our country's ability to provide that freedom.
List one instance where your Constitutional rights were violated.


RE: They have a point
By Ammohunt on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By bobcpg on 11/3/2010 1:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I own a compact car that gets about 33MPG right now. Normally I don't ever do anything where I need something bigger but on the rare occasion that I do it's pretty easy to rent something and not very expensive.


So everyone should also live in the smallest apartment they need and rent a house on the weekends when needed.


RE: They have a point
By Flunk on 11/3/2010 1:39:04 PM , Rating: 1
You can if you like.

I personally don't subscribe to Reductio ad absurdum.


RE: They have a point
By BSMonitor on 11/3/2010 4:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
Apartments, houses, etc are not dependent on resources from foreign countries... Apples to Oranges


RE: They have a point
By saganhill on 11/3/2010 4:56:08 PM , Rating: 1
No, I dont think so. Im 6'5" and 230lbs. Im not getting a midsized or even a compact car. I will stay with my FULL size Chevy Silverado crewcab 4x4.

Explain to me how I will change the way I live? Get my legs cut off at the knees?

Some people think that small cars are the best way to save gas and thats not true. You can design and build a nice LARGE car or truck that gets those miliage numbers. Going to carbon fiber and other lighter materials will make it happen...


RE: They have a point
By Targon on 11/4/2010 6:40:51 AM , Rating: 2
That 33 miles per gallon is highway, right? How much do you get overall, something like 28-29 miles per gallon? How about running the AC, is that also taken into account?

I agree that far too many people buy an SUV without needing one, but for those who need a truck for work, or need an SUV because they live in an area with many dirt roads, or those who work in construction, an SUV or truck makes sense. And even if people only buy a truck because they really need one, that would drag the AVERAGE mpg down to the point where these requirements for 2025 just are not possible.

I am looking at the 2012 Focus these days, 160 horsepower with 40 miles per gallon, which is pretty good, but if you consider that is closer to 34 miles per gallon average(between highway/city driving), even hitting 45 miles per gallon AVERAGE fuel economy is quite a bit off, and that is for a compact car(C class). Going all electric without getting nuclear power plants online all over the country to supply the electric power needed, plus needing the power distribution grid in shape to allow for mass adoption of all electric vehicles(200 miles on a charge) to actually work. Do you see every gas station out there suddenly getting overhauled in the next 15 years for plugging in an EV?

Theoretically, you might see a tiny vehicle hitting the targets, but expecting people to stop using vehicles for WORK doesn't make sense, and if you expect everyone to suddenly switch to an underpowered vehicle just to hit these targets just makes no sense at all.


RE: They have a point
By teldar on 11/4/2010 8:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have a 100+ pound dog and children? I do. A focus wagon could NOT carry all of us on a vacation trip or even going too see our families. Stop blowing smoke out your a.s.s.


RE: They have a point
By GruntboyX on 11/4/2010 10:22:53 AM , Rating: 2
My objection to your argument is children. When you transport a child especially a young child, you have to have room for a car-seat, stroller, and diaper bag. Add another child and it gets cramped really quickly. Especially in these fuel efficient hatchbacks. There is hardly any trunk space at all. For those families who have 3 or more children or twins. You quickly appreciate the added space a mini-van, large sedan or SUV provides.

Add in locality of the family and it gets more complex. Those who live in the country and cant rely on governmental services such as trash pickup, school buses and general delivery; trucks become very popular. Now I will concede that unless your a farmer or contractor then you probably have very little need for a F350 quad cab Diesel truck that can tow 24,000 gross pounds. However, a F150 is not out of the equation.

Add in any recreational vehicles such as boat, jetski or even a damn riding lawnmower and a car is completely out of the equation.


RE: They have a point
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/4/2010 7:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, I see that every day. Thousands of SUVs driving one guy to work in the city, and then one vacation trip per year. Maybe some bags of mulch once or twice a year. That is worth hauling several hundred pounds of 4WD gear around for the life of the vehicle, too. We just rent an SUV for vacation trips when needed.


RE: They have a point
By HighWing on 11/3/2010 12:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I'm looking for a more fuel efficient car, but price is also a major factor as well. If for 10k-20k less I can get a car that's only a 5-10mpg less than the top of the line, than I'll gladly take the less priced vehicle!


RE: They have a point
By BZDTemp on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By FITCamaro on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: They have a point
By Hiawa23 on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: They have a point
By Sahrin on 11/3/2010 4:59:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We can put a man on the moon


Not anymore we can't:

http://www.universetoday.com/53232/nasa-budget-det...


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 5:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We can put a man on the moon, have computers the size of phones that fit into your hands yet it's impossible to improve fuel effciency in gasoline engined vehicles.
The car companies always complain. IMO, I believe it is a negotiating tactic. The EPA's standards are always revised a few times before they are finalized. If you notice, right before they're finalized, the car companies always come out in favor of the new standards.

It's not that the standards are impossible to meet, it's just that the "royal we" will only pay a X amount for them. So, in effect, the car companies lobby for us to get the standards down to a price that we're willing to pay which in turn means they'll make money off of it.


RE: They have a point
By Penti on 11/3/2010 8:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
Fiat in Europe is already over 44 mpg average! Your low demands on the auto industry is ridiculous. Here in Sweden you can get a Volvo V50 that does 60 mpg, yours do 30 mpg on highway. That 60 mpg is in mixed driving, it's 69 mpg on "landsväg" (highway). The C30 gets over 70 mpg here in highway. You can also get 52/58mpg from a Volvo V70 here. Or 43.5 mpg in city. Your cars costs more because of the larger engines not less.


RE: They have a point
By Spuke on 11/4/2010 1:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fiat in Europe is already over 44 mpg average!
44 mpg in Europe is not 44 mpg in the US. Not only is fuel economy number different (imperial vs US), but the way in which mpg is measured is different (US EPA standards vs EU standards). You would have to bring the car over here and have it tested by the US EPA or bring one our cars over there and have it tested. Then a direct comparison could be made. Until then, it's apples to oranges.


RE: They have a point
By Penti on 11/3/2010 8:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
In Europe we pay 15k for our hatchbacks, and so on that get about 45 mpg +. Here you can get a V70 that gets 52 mpg. In the US the same car instead only has an option of 3.2L engines, only available in the crossover model too, and the XC90 was really practially only available with a V8 engine that's not available here in the country where it's made. Even the V50 (Belgium) isn't available with a small engine in the US. The V50 in the US uses a 237hp engine, here the populare choice is an 109hp diesel that gets 60 mpg in mixed driving. You don't need to pay anything more to get a more simple engine that has twice the fuel efficiency. Actually you have to pay more to have it the way you have it in the states.

If we want a cheaper car then a Volvo we simply buy something like a Skoda or Fiat, or whatever, and they get the same 45-60 mpg. There is no such choice. Why would you even post that crap?


RE: They have a point
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/4/2010 7:21:06 AM , Rating: 2
I paid 30K for a car that gets 55mpg, is a mid-size 4 dr hatch that has tons of cargo space, and hasn't been run over by an SUV. Of course, if no one were driving SUV's, then they wouldn't be a worry. But of course, you can always go with your anxiety and say that since some people have them, then I better have one, and so it goes.

The original SUV anxiety, btw, came after the snow storm in '96. Before that they were oddities. So it wasn't fear of being crushed that got everyone buying them, it was a fear of getting stuck in the snow.


RE: They have a point
By Targon on 11/4/2010 7:25:42 AM , Rating: 2
This argument has a number of holes in it. A $10,000 car would have virtually no features these days, while a $30,000+ car would have many luxury features that would improve the overall experience of driving it. The proper comparison would be that people would prefer to pay $10,000 for a basic car that gets 30mpg than pay $30,000 for the same car with a better fuel efficiency rating.

The reason people go to a more expensive car is because they also get a more comfortable driving experience. This is where you see different classes of vehicle.

You have the subcompact cars, and if you are looking at fuel economy, you might see the Ford Fiesta with 40 miles per gallon highway and a 120 horsepower engine as acceptable for the price. Is it worth it to go to a 2012 Ford Focus, which will have a 160 horsepower engine and still hits that same 40 miles per gallon highway for the extra price($3000-$5000 more)? You bet it would be.

On the flip side, a hybrid or all electric version of the Focus might very well cost an extra $8000-$10000 without adding any features, and most people would not be willing to pay the extra for even an extra 10 miles per gallon highway. If they could hit 70 miles per gallon on the other hand with the same amount of horsepower and without increasing the weight of the car, then yes, people might be willing to do that.

It all comes down to what you get for your money. People won't pay a LOT extra for a slight bump in fuel economy, but they would pay an extra $3000-$5000 if it doubled the fuel economy without any negatives(losing your trunk space and replacing the space with batteries).


Wrong, but Right
By Sahrin on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong, but Right
By Dr of crap on 11/3/2010 12:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you,
but the reason "WE" want/buy big cars/SUV's is because there's money to be made by the cars makers with higher prices, and the price of gas is low enough for low mpg's to be a non-issue.
When the gas hit $4 gallon, the Civics and the like were sold out. Now that we're back to under $3, it's back to SUV's and pickups.
And the money makers are the pickups and SUV's. As stated many times before, the margins on small cars isn't very big.
But given time with $3-$4 gas the second car might switch from a SUV to a Civic or Fiesta.
Forcing cars to high of mpg's isn't going to solve the underlying problems!
And as posted elswhere on here, if gas sales are lowered the price will go up to compensate.


RE: Wrong, but Right
By mcnabney on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong, but Right
By FITCamaro on 11/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong, but Right
By mcnabney on 11/3/2010 2:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
The reason for the Clean Air act is to improve air quality.
Mission accomplished.

The reason for increased fuel economy standards is to decrease the need for oil imports. Oil imports that sap the wealth of the nation. Think of it this way. In 2009 we imported about $400B in petroleum. That is $400B of America's accumulated wealth that has left the country. Or think of it in another way - those dollars could be used to purchase shares of US companies. In 2009 the equivalent of both GE and Apple were given away due to our thirst for oil.


RE: Wrong, but Right
By FITCamaro on 11/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wrong, but Right
By mcnabney on 11/3/2010 4:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
What you brought up is a clear path of failure for the Free Market in relation to the US.

China has been producing Rare Earth elements like gangbusters for the past couple decades. I have read that they control something like 95% of the current global production. But here is the problem. The US actually has quite a bit of recoverable rare earths. We used to mine them, but because China has been selling them so cheap for so long all of those mines are closed. The 'free market' destroyed domestic production (and put a lot of Americans out of work, but that isn't relative here). What is happening now is that China has embargoed rare earths to both Japan and China. The Japanese issue is over fishing rights, but for us the Chinese want our companies to hand over all of the Intellectual Property relating to electric cars. So they have us over a barrel because the free market effectively destroyed our domestic production.
So you understand how letting market forces dictated by individuals seeking the lowest price can errode our competitive advantages and create a security risk to the nation? I am going to guess you weren't alive for the OPEC embargo. The nation has a highly vested interest in reducing the absolute need for foregn imports of strategic resources.

Personally, I think that we should treat the Chinese embargo the same way that the Japanese treated the US embargo in 1941.


RE: Wrong, but Right
By Spuke on 11/3/2010 6:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you understand how letting market forces dictated by individuals seeking the lowest price can errode our competitive advantages and create a security risk to the nation?
Free Market doesn't recognize borders, we do. It's not a failure of the market, it's our failure to realize what freedom is. I suppose that is the natural progression of freedom. To find your own way but the bottom line is choice. If we choose to invest in companies that do business wherever, then we have to live with the possible consequences of those choices. We asked for "cheap" and corporations gave it to us. Only our own fault. We could go communist and have no privately owned property but that fails too. Best to regulate what can't be allowed to flourish freely and let flourish freely what can be allowed to do so. In other words, do what works best instead of running around assigning blame.


RE: Wrong, but Right
By ebakke on 11/4/2010 12:19:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We used to mine them, but because China has been selling them so cheap for so long all of those mines are closed.
Am I the only one who read that and thought, "Ok... so open them up again..."


RE: Wrong, but Right
By Spuke on 11/4/2010 1:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Am I the only one who read that and thought, "Ok... so open them up again..."
I think they are but I heard something like 5 years to get them back up to speed or something like that.


RE: Wrong, but Right
By ebakke on 11/3/2010 3:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason for increased fuel economy standards is to decrease the need for oil imports.
That's almost laughable.

The goal is to "stop global warming" err, "stop climate change". If the goal were to decrease oil imports, expanding domestic oil production/drilling would be on the table, at least as part of the solution. And it's not.


RE: Wrong, but Right
By gixser on 11/3/2010 7:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it California's right to set its own environmental standards? I believe California is the nations largest car market. So what if the car makers simply push CA spec cars out to the rest of the country. Isn't that the free market at work? The people of Calfornia seem to favor their state's emissions standards.

Oh, Los Angelenos are not the only ones to benefit from clean air. I suspect you will find many areas of CA are also a lot healthier now....or is California as a state the "envrionmental bubble" you refer to?

Also, since you mention it, the issue has not passed as is suggested by your "it isn't 25 years ago" cheap shot. Pollution remains an issue partially due to increased miles travelled and an increase in population. Please see http://www.ioe.ucla.edu/research/article.asp?paren...

Furthermore, Since we are on it....what exactly are you complaining about when it comes to where I decide to live? Its my choice to live in an "environmental bubble"...and damm the consequences to you or anyone else. Stop trying to tell me where to live and stop telling my state what it should do vis a vis emissions!


RE: Wrong, but Right
By Spuke on 11/4/2010 2:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Isn't it California's right to set its own environmental standards?
No, don't you remember that they got shot down by the Federal government?


RE: Wrong, but Right
By Sahrin on 11/3/2010 2:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Did you actually read my post, or hear opposition to your political identity and start foaming at the mouth.

As I said at the end, I support MASSIVE increases in efficiency. The problem is that the political movements that are currently trying to make this happen are doing so 1) against the express will of the people 2) against the effective will of the people 3) incompetently.

I want better emissions controls more than I want the feeling of self-righteousness that comes with petulantly stamping your feet and DEMANDING it be done your way, or else.


RE: Wrong, but Right
By MrTeal on 11/3/2010 1:05:52 PM , Rating: 4
There is a big difference between being able to build a 62MPG car, and getting the corporate fleet efficiency up there.

quote:
Last year, the EPA and NHTSA issued a breakthrough set of rules, driving auto makers toward a U.S. a corporate average fuel economy of 34.1 mpg (6.9 L/100 km) by 2016. Each year, CAFE will average an increase of 4%, beginning in 2011 with ’12 vehicles. Together with tailpipe emissions targets, which offer auto makers credits for improving vehicle functions such as air conditioners, the U.S. fleet will reach 35.5 mpg (6.6 L/100 km) by 2016. The notice due from the agencies by Sept. 30 represents the first step in the next round of CAFE rulemaking. The EPA and NHTSA then will seek comments on proposals within the notice before going back behind closed doors to craft a final rule, due as early as 12 months from now. While the notice will not set a firm target for 2025, experts say 60 mpg likely will be among the proposed bogies.


If you're Hyundai, getting to 62 MPG will be tough. If you're Ford and you sell 400,000 F-series pickups, getting 62 MPG for the fleet is a pipe dream. Unless they let companies pad the numbers by saying a all-electric EV uses 0 gallons and therefore they get to average an infinity MPG into their figures, I can't see it happening.


RE: Wrong, but Right
By Sahrin on 11/3/2010 2:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
No, there isn't. That was my (and the automakers') entire point.

If you can build a car that gets 62MPG, you can build 2 million of them. The problem is, consumers don't want that car - but if it's the only one you sell, they'll have no choice (there's the rub).

It's easy to see it happening, but the automakers' point is clear (and supported with data): the American public does not WANT 62MPG cars. The EPA would be dictating choice to them via CAFE (as has already been done, just never so dramatically).


RE: Wrong, but Right
By MrTeal on 11/3/2010 3:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
There are currently different market segments for a reason. Trucks will be sold, they perform functions that a car can't. A van performs a function that a small car can't. Getting those vehicles to reach 62 MPG isn't going to happen. That means even if everyone is onboard with supporting this and you convince every single sedan/coupe buyer to purchase a 62 MPG car, your fleet efficiency will still be lower than 62 MPG. You need to move people into 70+ MPG cars and get light truck based vehicles to be much more efficient to have a chance.


RE: Wrong, but Right
By Sahrin on 11/3/2010 4:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/index.php

Counterexample. Not isolated, just #1 from the search results.

It's possible. I'm not advocating or saying it's likely, I'm saying that's what the EPA is asking for - it exists, which means it's possible, if we all decide to buy the same car; which is asinine (which is the automakers' point).