backtop


Print 250 comment(s) - last by scrapsma54.. on May 22 at 3:21 AM


  (Source: Alex Wong/Getty)
Bye bye to SUVs and large trucks, say critics

Times may be tough for the automakers, with Chrysler in bankruptcy and GM also in dire straits, but President Obama is not letting them off the hook when it comes to fuel economy standards.  In fact, today he will announce a dramatic emissions reduction plan to be implemented over the next seven years and essentially transform the automotive landscape.

The new rules, according to a White House official briefing reporters, will require vehicles (including trucks and SUVs) to achieve 35.5 MPG on average by 2016.  The average for cars will be 39 MPG, while the average for light trucks will be 30 MPG.  The White House estimates that the new regulations, along with those passed in 2007 by the Bush administration, will raise the price of a car roughly $1,700 USD.

The official stated, "You can continue to buy whatever cars you want.  All cars get cleaner."

The planned reductions are similar to California's emissions plan; in fact, California has agreed to go along with the federal government and not pursue its own fuel economy standard.  The plan aims to cut down on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists believe are a major cause of global warming.  The Obama administration says that the plan will cut emissions by 30 percent by 2016.

Officials say that the move will also protect national security, by reducing the national oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels between 2011 and 2016.  That represents a five percent dip from the current rate of U.S. consumption -- 7.1 billion barrels a year.  Since much of America's oil comes from politically unstable regions such as the Middle East or Venezuela, this is a significant advance in protecting national security interests.

David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center, cheered the move, stating, "Everybody wins.  It's going to cut carbon pollution. The drivers of these cars are going to save money at the pump. It's going to cut our national oil dependence ... [and] if you're going to prosper as a carmaker, when the economy recovers, you have to be making these clean, high-mileage vehicles."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.), a strong proponent of stricter standards, along with Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.) will be on hand as President Barack Obama announces the new standards.

The new emissions are expected to dramatically alter automotive output.  Most manufacturers say they will have to cut down on SUV and large vehicle production to meet the standard.  Where a trip to a car dealership today features a walk through rows of SUVs and trucks, by 2016, these vehicles will likely be replaced by more sedans, hatchbacks, crossovers, and hybrid vehicles.

However, some opposed the new standards, like Myron Ebell, an energy expert with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an oil industry and automotive lobby.  She states, "We think these new mandatory fuel standards are most unfortunate.  They will price people out of larger vehicles and force them into smaller vehicles. Smaller cars may use less fuel, but they don't meet the needs of many people and studies show they are less safe."

Former Bush administration officials, though, largely praise the move.  Says one former EPA official, Jeff Holmstead, "It looks like the Obama administration is agreeing with the Bush administration that there needs to be a national standard and that it doesn't make any sense to have multiple state standards."



Comments     Threshold


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

Torn
By Spivonious on 5/19/2009 9:45:21 AM , Rating: 3
While it's good to have higher fuel economy cars, since this will decrease our oil consumption (I couldn't care less about the global warming myth), is more government really the way to do this?

I'd much rather have seen the car companies be forced to do this by market demand and not government regulation.




RE: Torn
By Armassault on 5/19/2009 10:06:47 AM , Rating: 1
They already tried that, turns out people bought Hummers.

This has nothing to do with "more government", there are already plenty of standards the manufacturers have to uphold, this just brings you closer to the european standards.

Nice job Obama, this should have been done years ago.


RE: Torn
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:09:25 AM , Rating: 3
Newsflash. We're not, and have no desire to be, Europe.


RE: Torn
By Armassault on 5/19/2009 10:24:30 AM , Rating: 4
I never said you did.
But the rest of the world is kinda looking forward to the US exporting something else than pollution, unnecessary wars and financial crisis.
About time too.

See? I can be an uninformed troll too.


RE: Torn
By clovell on 5/19/2009 10:28:46 AM , Rating: 5
Obama is continuing the wars. CO2 is not pollution. Most economists realize the economic crisis was precipitated by volatile banking conditions worldwide.

Happy Tuesday.


RE: Torn
By 9nails on 5/19/2009 10:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
The economic crisis was driven largely by the California mortgage gold rush. Banks flooded the market with bad loans and refinancing that allowed home owners to irresponsibly borrow more than they could realistically afford. That in turn drive home price bubble skyward and perpetuated this melt down.

California alone represent an 8th of the Global economy. And when you have a problem in an economy this big you face the situation that we have today.


RE: Torn
By 67STANG on 5/19/2009 11:14:44 AM , Rating: 4
You're right there... none of the other states had any boom/bust real estate scenarios going on...

What perpetuated this problem was the banks lending money to irresponsible borrowers who were trying to live beyond their means-- in ALL 50 states.


RE: Torn
By teohhanhui on 5/20/2009 1:13:25 PM , Rating: 4
Weren't the banks at fault for lending to those whom they knew wouldn't be able to pay up?


RE: Torn
By unableton on 5/20/2009 2:32:57 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, in a way. Obviously homeowners need to be mindful of their financial situation before they start taking out massive loans, but with the way housing prices were rising in the early/mid 2000s the loans were a good asset for banks even when the borrower did default. They could foreclose the house and sell it for more than the loan was worth. When housing prices began to fall however, this was no longer true and that is how they ended up with toxic assets.

Obviously both homeowners and banks were horrible irresponsible.


RE: Torn
By Chernobyl68 on 5/19/2009 11:21:09 AM , Rating: 5
the state of california doesn't represent "an 8th" of the global economy...its the 8th largest economy (ranking, not fraction). Used to be 6th.

and no, california isn't the only place where homeowners are in trouble from overinflated home values that are sinking.


RE: Torn
By clovell on 5/19/2009 11:55:43 AM , Rating: 4
I meant on a macro-scale; the GLOBAL economic crisis was driven by loose credit on the part of central banks. If there problem were confined to California alone, the situation wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it is.


RE: Torn
By captainpierce on 5/19/2009 1:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most economists realize the economic crisis was precipitated by volatile banking conditions worldwide.


Don't forget the huge spike in the price of oil. Industrialized economies around the world were slowing down prior to the collapse of the US financial system.


RE: Torn
By xmichaelx on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Torn
By WW102 on 5/20/2009 12:58:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah Water does too.


RE: Torn
By austinag on 5/19/2009 10:56:59 AM , Rating: 3
Yes you can. Admitting you have a problem is the first step. :)

The problem with such a broad application of a regulation is that it increases the cost of doing business in America. There are certainly companies that won’t be able to comply with this new regulation. How does the regulation apply to a small volume builder like Saleen, or Ferrari? Make no mistake; this is a big change in a small amount of time. Car companies will have to start spending now to comply by 2016.


RE: Torn
By Armassault on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Torn
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 11:43:25 AM , Rating: 1
That's because they're largely not subject to the emissions standards.


RE: Torn
By Hare on 5/19/2009 11:56:33 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's because they're largely not subject to the emissions standards.


Really? In many parts of Europe cars are taxed on CO2 emissions. The larger the emissions, the larger the tax percentage.


RE: Torn
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 12:10:37 PM , Rating: 4
I'm talking about in the US. Lamborghinis don't sell enough to be subject to emissions standards.


RE: Torn
By Spuke on 5/20/2009 12:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
They are subject to emissions regs and meet them. They do NOT meet CAFE requirements (neither does BMW, Mercedes, etc) but simply add the fines in with the cost of the cars. They will more than likely continue with this practice.


RE: Torn
By walk2k on 5/19/2009 12:29:03 PM , Rating: 5
Most of the companies you mention pay CAFE penalties instead of complying. Porche in particular is trying to team up with VW to avoid penalties (just like FORD does with Mazda).


RE: Torn
By austinag on 5/19/2009 12:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
I hear what your saying, but the last time we tightened emissions standards in the middle of an economic down turn, the American market lost MG, Austin Healey, Fiat, Maserati, Alpha Romeo, and Triumph. So I’d say the point is founded in history.


RE: Torn
By DeepBlue1975 on 5/19/2009 3:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see anything wrong with a government pressing several kinds of manufacturers to enforce tough standards that will give them a real challenge and force more investment and employment generation on R&D departments.

As I see it, automakers have always been lazy bastards when it comes to engine efficiency. At the core, We are still getting the same more than 100 year old internal combustion technology in nowadays cars, and to me, that sucks, as it'd suck if we were stuck using the original Geforce video cards or with the processing power of a 386.

I mean, come on, that an engine can only turn around 30% of the consumed energy into motion while the other 70% goes wasted as heat is just ludicrous.

I, for me, don't care about fuel consumption alone, I'd just like engines that can at least turn into motion as much as the energy they turn into heat, not less than half of that.


RE: Torn
By kkwst2 on 5/19/2009 4:42:57 PM , Rating: 5
The basic problem is that standards alone just don't work very well. There has to be some incentive for the consumer to buy the more efficient cars. In Europe, this happens because of high fuel taxes, making it a significant financial incentive to have an efficient car.

If we taxed gas up to $6 to $8 per gallon, I'll bet you we'd meet those standards without any problem, and in fact wouldn't even need the standards.

Otherwise, if I have to choose between a slow $25,000 hybrid getting 40 mpg and a fast $35,000 sports sedan getting 25 mpg, I'm getting the sports sedan. How do standards keep me from buying the sports sedan? If I'm buying, somebody is going to make it. Now if gas were $8 a gallon, I might think twice about that hybrid.


RE: Torn
By Keeir on 5/19/2009 5:39:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Otherwise, if I have to choose between a slow $25,000 hybrid getting 40 mpg and a fast $35,000 sports sedan getting 25 mpg, I'm getting the sports sedan. How do standards keep me from buying the sports sedan? If I'm buying, somebody is going to make it. Now if gas were $8 a gallon, I might think twice about that hybrid.


But if the car company that makes the sports sedan has to meet the new standards, they may have to significantly raise the price of that sports sedan to compensate for penalties they end up paying... or the discounts they have to provide on the Hybrid to offset your sports sedan purchase....

I think if the goal is to reduce gasoline usuage, you need to make the price of gasoline more expensive. Raising the price (excuse me the efficieny) of new cars will lead to the less purchases of new cars and small reductions in used gasoline. Its better to have someone buy a 25 mpg car, take the bus etc and drive 5,000 miles (200 gallons used) than someone buy a 40 mpg car and drive 15,000 miles (375 gallons used)


RE: Torn
By Zoomer on 5/20/2009 8:33:35 AM , Rating: 3
And so one ends up with large numbers of unpopular small cars unsold/sold to rental agencies, with a loss for each unit sold.

CAFE doesn't specify quality as well, so they could make the cars really crappy and break down in like 5 minutes after the warranty expires.

Sounds familiar?


RE: Torn
By scrapsma54 on 5/22/2009 3:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
Europe laughs at us. I think its about time we kick those butt plugging limeys in the mouth with faster internet, fast electric cars, a market that changes well with demand, and Cool flashy retinal implants that have internet access in them.


RE: Torn
By reader1 on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Torn
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:08:39 AM , Rating: 5
The roads belong to the PEOPLE who ALLOW the government to exist and pay the taxes to build the roads.


RE: Torn
By reader1 on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Torn
By phatboye on 5/19/2009 11:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot to mention that the people voted to give the government the ability to regulate the roads. Thus the government has the right to make rules such as this one.


RE: Torn
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/19/2009 11:42:28 AM , Rating: 4
And thus we should revoke that right whenever their regulations get out of hand.


RE: Torn
By xmichaelx on 5/19/2009 2:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
"And thus we should revoke that right whenever their regulations get out of hand."

Good luck with that. It takes an educated electorate to make that kind of change, and we've gradually been choking off education -- in particular higher education -- in the U.S. for decades (to the cheers of many, including some on this site.)


RE: Torn
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/19/2009 3:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately you are completely right.


RE: Torn
By ebakke on 5/19/2009 4:39:57 PM , Rating: 4
It's important to distinguish why education has suffered so much. In my humble opinion, a lack of accountability and a drastic lowering of expectations is what has plagued our educational system.


RE: Torn
By ebakke on 5/19/2009 11:54:34 AM , Rating: 5
And on the other side of that same coin the same people have the ability to reverse their previous decisions and revoke the governments privilege to make rules such as this one.


RE: Torn
By foolsgambit11 on 5/19/2009 6:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
In principle, absolutely true. However, it would also be true, in principle, to say that YOU, FITCamaro, raised the fuel standards.

In principle, and in practice, the PEOPLE decide who gets to use the roads and under what conditions. The PEOPLE decide this via the government that they ALLOW to exist. Your point is an academic distinction, really - unless you're suggesting a treasonous rebellion to destroy the government?


RE: Torn
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:10:59 AM , Rating: 3
And there are privately owned roads.


RE: Torn
By clovell on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Torn
By Beno on 5/19/2009 4:21:49 PM , Rating: 5
"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting."
Charles Bukowski


RE: Torn
By clovell on 5/20/2009 10:39:31 AM , Rating: 3
I don't see your point or how it relates to mine. I said nothing of a dictatorship or a democracy. I explained that I have a right to be vocal about legislation.


RE: Torn
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:07:52 AM , Rating: 1
You mean like what happened when gas prices were $4/gallon?


RE: Torn
By DrKlahn on 5/19/2009 12:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd much rather have seen the car companies be forced to do this by market demand and not government regulation.


It wouldn't happen. People want comfortable, affordable, and roomy vehicles. Which is completely at odds with this move. Safety regulations continue to make cars heavier and heavier. Gas isn't magically producing more energy. Hybrid powertrains add a substantial upfront cost that doesn't pay for itself with even $5 gas for a very long time. So we will be left with the government mandating tiny cars the average consumer has shown time and again they don't want.

So rather than actually figuring out a real alternative to gasoline, the idiots in Washington will again put out a piece of paper of which proves they are utterly clueless to the realities of how cars work and how we use them. Cut hydrogen funding and mandate unrealistic fuel numbers. Brilliant.


RE: Torn
By BZDTemp on 5/19/2009 12:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Tiny cars" are more fun than big sofas on wheels. Plus 35 mpg is not exactly hard even for big cars. Sure it is fine to have a big car for hauling a big load but those soccer mum "cars" spends almost as much gas as a 18-wheeler while the former usually only transports air and lazy kids.

It is about time something is done. The US spends twice the amount of energy per capita than any other place in the world so clearly there is a big room to change without making it hard.

A light car equals a agile car and that means more driving fun.


RE: Torn
By Danger D on 5/19/2009 1:00:05 PM , Rating: 3
I'm bullish on Yugo stock.


RE: Torn
By DrKlahn on 5/19/2009 1:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
I have a light, agile car and it is more fun to drive than an SUV. It is not, however, practical transportation for 4 adults, nor roomy enough to take a long trip. How many cars out there get 35MPG that aren't using a hybrid powertrain and aren't small? Camry, Malibu, Accord, Fusion? Nope. Not even with their smallest engines. So if safety standards continue to make them heavier, where is this efficiency going to magically come from? They would either need to become smaller or add an expensive hybrid system to hit that.

And I do understand this is an average. Which is why I mention the cars moved in the most volumes. If they can't come close, then how do the larger vehicles such as trucks or SUV's fit into the equation? There will still be some who actually need them.


RE: Torn
By GotDiesel on 5/19/2009 1:12:57 PM , Rating: 1
VW series TDI diesels.. my 2001 ( 200,000 miles from new ) jetta returns 50 mpg fwy and 40 city.. it's comfortable, clean and the diesel "feels' like its bigger than it really is.. i travel at 75+ on fwy and it's fun to drive unlike the faggot battery hybrids that have absolutely NO character.


RE: Torn
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 1:25:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
i travel at 75+ on fwy and it's fun to drive unlike the faggot battery hybrids that have absolutely NO character.

No offense, because I don't really mind the styling of VW Jetta's (I had an Audi A4 at one point, almost same car), but Jetta's are typically known for being driven by metrosexual and homosexual males. They even had an article in the paper about that when I lived in Chicago several years ago.

Hybrids suck, I agree. Just found it humorous to use the word "faggot" against other cars/types when coming out bragging about a Jetta.


RE: Torn
By Spuke on 5/20/2009 12:47:30 PM , Rating: 3
Your gas mileage doesn't count in the CAFE requirements. Not even the EPA rated mileage counts. There is a differing measurement and formula used to determine mileage requirements under CAFE.


RE: Torn
By Armassault on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Torn
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 2:41:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
My japanese made SUV with a 2 liter engine (150bhp) provides all your asking of (plenty of room, torque, it's comfortable and safe etc.), and is just slightly below that new standard.

Then why was it never popular in the US, if it was even brought to the US. Chances are that it wasn't, due to the manufacturer knowing it wouldn't sell.
quote:
So where is that demand for cars with even bigger, but more inefficient engines?

Um, have you even bothered to consider what the top selling automobiles are in the United States year after year? Ford F-150 full size truck and Chevrolet 1500 full size truck. Bigger, inefficient...where?
quote:
Have the american consumers been mislead into thinking they absolutely HAVE to have bigger, yet more inefficient engines?

The American consumer has a mindset that we work our tails off in order to live a lifestyle that we enjoy and with that, enjoy the LUXURIES that we are able to afford. A luxury is cited as anything NOT a need. You don't NEED a car of any kind, nor do you need a computer, nice shoes, a cell phone, television, or anything else. All you NEED is water, food, and shelter. Shelter does not have to be a house or apartment. Food does not need to be a something from the grocery store or restaurant. If we all had the mindset that we needed to do as society demands for us, and we will not have the choice to do with the fruits of our labor as we choose, then what is the motivation for that labor? Ah yes...that is the question which other countries failed to ask themselves as the United States was becoming a global power.


RE: Torn
By Keeir on 5/19/2009 1:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Tiny cars" are more fun than big sofas on wheels. Plus 35 mpg is not exactly hard even for big cars.


You European?

In the US, we use US Gallons. They are significantly smaller than Imperial Gallons.

In the US, the EPA City/Highway are significantly harsher on car mpg ratings that the standard Euro Cycles.

For instance, look at the Toyota Prius that acchieves a 65.69 Euro Average miles/Imp Gal.

The US gallon equivalent is 57.5 Miles/US Gal.

Yet the EPA rates the Toyota Prius at ~49.5 Miles/US Gal.


RE: Torn
By Jaybus on 5/19/2009 3:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
I recently drove a Daihatsu Charade vacationing in The Caicos Islands. It was fun enough and fit my needs on an island no more than 16 km long and speed limits of 30 and 65 km/hr. I really liked the 72 km/gal fuel economy. I just don't know if it's little 1.0 litre engine can handle the 500 km (one way) business trips at 120 km/hr. I think that's why Toyota sells the Yaris in the US and doesn't bother selling the Daihatsu. It's just not designed for the way cars are driven in the US. It comes from the Mira, which was designed for poking around Tokyo. It's comparing apples to oranges.


RE: Torn
By walk2k on 5/19/2009 1:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
Correction, people DID want those kinds of cars until gas hit nearly $5/gallon, suddenly you couldn't GIVE them away and Ford/GM/etc are going out of business...


RE: Torn
By DrKlahn on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Torn
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 1:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
people DID want those kinds of cars until gas hit nearly $5/gallon

Whoa, settle down boy. You're putting the cart before the horse. The price of products does not remove the "want" for those products. It only removes the affordability of currently owning it.

People didn't suddenly drop their keys, decides they no longer like SUV's, hate anything that gets under 35MPG, and run out to purchase their new "wants". People were forced to think about how their financial situations would be if the price of gasoline stayed at its current rate, or got worse, while driving what they were currently driving. Many people felt that it was in their best financial interest to get a different car in order to take money from one bucket and put it into another bucket.

You people really need to starting thinking before you speak. There is a big difference between things that people want to have, and things that people have because they feel its the most affordable decision at that point.


RE: Torn
By ats on 5/19/2009 4:32:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It wouldn't happen. People want comfortable, affordable, and roomy vehicles. Which is completely at odds with this move. Safety regulations continue to make cars heavier and heavier. Gas isn't magically producing more energy. Hybrid powertrains add a substantial upfront cost that doesn't pay for itself with even $5 gas for a very long time. So we will be left with the government mandating tiny cars the average consumer has shown time and again they don't want.


I can already buy big luxury sedans in the EU that meet the new "strict" MPG requirements. Look at something like the eurospec Jaguar XJ. 35.7 MPG combined, 44.5 HWY, 26.5 city.

All from a 5K lb GVW car.


RE: Torn
By DrKlahn on 5/19/2009 5:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can already buy big luxury sedans in the EU that meet the new "strict" MPG requirements. Look at something like the eurospec Jaguar XJ. 35.7 MPG combined, 44.5 HWY, 26.5 city. All from a 5K lb GVW car.


See the post below from Keeir. European MPG is not directly comparable.


RE: Torn
By 4runnerxp on 5/19/2009 11:00:05 PM , Rating: 3
if you are talking about the diesel jaguar xj ...it is not offered in the us....if we didnt have the epa and environmentalists saying diesels are evil we could have the wonderful diesel cars that Europeans are offered.....but no instead we dont allow many diesels into the us because of stupid regulations and hippies


RE: Torn
By Hiawa23 on 5/19/2009 3:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
While it's good to have higher fuel economy cars, since this will decrease our oil consumption (I couldn't care less about the global warming myth), is more government really the way to do this?

I agree. I am not sure, infact, I know I donot believe the whole global warming thing, but this should have been done years ago. I am still wondering why we have not seen advances for gas powered engines that I thought we would have seen with the technology we have. I still ask the question, why don't we see, 45-50 mpgs from gas powered cars, Hybrids, diesel aside. I don't know jack about automobiles other than driving them, but can someone please tell me why, other than pure greed, why gasoline engines have not progressed to the point that I mentioned on a consistant basis, across all autos, I mean from Honda Civics to Ford Fusions? It really angers me when I go by gas stations now, especially when I hear oil company execs say they haven't made much money since prices fell. With this economy in a mess, if gas prices continue to spiral out of control, many families are going to be in even more trouble. what can we do, what can we do....

Someone said they would rather market force companies to do this instead of government. Well, it has happened albeit much slowly, but it's called bankruptcy for GM & Chrysler.


RE: Torn
By Spivonious on 5/19/2009 3:38:38 PM , Rating: 3
Except the government won't let GM and Chrylser go out of business, further screwing up the "Free market" system we have in the U.S.

Why isn't Toyota going bankrupt? Why isn't Honda going bankrupt? Why isn't Ford going bankrupt?

They're facing the same decreased demand as GM/Chrysler; they just made better decisions in the past.

Laissez-faire FTW.


RE: Torn
By rett448 on 5/20/2009 11:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
the limits of the otto cycle and the laws of thermodynamics?


less SUVs and the like?
By alpensiedler on 5/19/2009 9:59:55 AM , Rating: 1
aww it will be a sad day indeed when development-living soccer moms with only-children can no longer drive around in huge SUVs because that's what they "need" to drive.

too bad so sad.
<\sarcasm>




RE: less SUVs and the like?
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:14:02 AM , Rating: 3
So what do you say to the family of 7 who DOES NEED a large SUV or minivan? Are they supposed to put one kid in the rear window and another in the trunk because they can't buy or can't afford an SUV or minivan because it doesn't exist or is too expensive?

But way to try to decide for other people what they need. I'm sure you have plenty of things in your home that you don't need but wanted.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Suomynona on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Motoman on 5/19/2009 10:23:55 AM , Rating: 2
Nice. Flame much?


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:53:38 AM , Rating: 1
Do people like you know how to do anything but insinuate that any male who drives a larger vehicle must be doing it to compensate for something else? Yeah I guess that's what my coworkers who want a truck to haul their boat around are doing it for. So what are women doing it for? Because they're not pretty enough? They want their boobs to be bigger?

And yes they will be going away because there's only so much you can do to improve fuel economy. The main problem is the weight of the vehicle and the aerodynamics (or lack thereof). You can't drastically cut down on the weight while staying the same size without exotic materials like carbon fiber. You can use more aluminum but then its less safe. As far as the aerodynamics you can improve them but then the vehicle won't look as good. Maybe you don't care about that but some of us do.

But you seem to know what's best for us so what does it matter what we think about the vehicle WE have to pay for.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/19/2009 11:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
I belive he was criticising clowncar-vagina syndrome, not penile insufficiency. After all, you did mention a family of 7...


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Suomynona on 5/19/2009 5:36:01 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. I wasn't making a juvenile penis joke, I was making a juvenile get-your-goddamn-tubes-tied-already joke.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Shuri on 5/19/2009 10:47:16 AM , Rating: 5
If you can afford to have 7 kids, then paying a bit more for an SUV should be no problem. If it is... then they should stop having so many kids.

You have the freedom to have as many children as you want, but you are responsible for all the cost associated with having a large family.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:55:23 AM , Rating: 4
True but that doesn't mean the government has the right to artificially inflate the cost of having a large family.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By reader1 on 5/19/2009 11:49:41 AM , Rating: 1
Technology gets cheaper over time.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Verran on 5/19/2009 1:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
Since when?

The government has plenty of regulations that "artificially inflate" the cost of doing things. I'm sure plenty of these are regulations you agree with.

This is a pretty vague argument considering that pretty much everything the government does is done with OUR tax dollars which inhibits us financially and therefore "artificially inflates" our cost of living.

If you don't like what they're doing, just say so. Don't say they don't "have the right" because you know they do. This is just one of thousands of regulations our government has put in place. Again, many of these I'm sure you agree with and you certainly wouldn't argue that they don't have the right to enact them.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Keeir on 5/19/2009 1:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
True but that doesn't mean the government has the right to artificially inflate the cost of having a large family.


No offense, but this really couldn't be further from the truth. Even if these regulations get enforced (I doubt they will since I don't think any car manufacturing really has a chance in hell of meeting them with thier current mixes), the US government does alot to reduce the cost of a large family. From tax credits, All-you-can-eat Education, public services, etc. If the US government can artifically lower the cost to have a large family, and artifically raise the cost of being Single/Married with small family, They can take actions the other direction.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By ats on 5/19/2009 4:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
True but that doesn't mean the government has the right to artificially inflate the cost of having a large family.


Then I'm sure you are running to Washington to petition the removal of the marriage benefit and child benefits in the tax system.... Or running to city hall to demand that people with more kids pay higher property taxes...

People with large families already get a lot of subsidies.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 1:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you can afford to have 7 kids, then paying a bit more for an SUV should be no problem. If it is... then they should stop having so many kids.

First off, reproduction is really the basis of all life. If you have 7 kids, the last thing you need to worry about is paying more money for a car/truck/suv/van because the "greenies" decided it was a good idea to artificially inflate the price of the car and its fuel....not to mention how many taxing ideas they have now including charging you by the number of miles you drive - even though many roads are private, and so is your driveway.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By foolsgambit11 on 5/19/2009 6:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First off, reproduction is really the basis of all life.
That's the best you could do? No appeal to reproductive freedom? (Of course, that smacks of being pro-abortion. Besides, having a freedom doesn't mean you can exercise it free of consequences.)

Personally, I like the idea of people only having a lot of kids if they can afford it. Money is a pretty good indicator of fitness (in a Darwinian sense). These days, things are backwards. We're on the verge of Idiocracy becoming a documentary.
</sarcasm>


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 7:03:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No appeal to reproductive freedom?

I don't believe there should be any reproductive restrictions, with one exception. That all rapists and sexual abusers be chemically castrated.
quote:
Besides, having a freedom doesn't mean you can exercise it free of consequences.)

Yes, you are. However, its you that has to deal with those consequences - which democrats are making it harder and harder. Welfare, social programs, food stamps, etc. Sounds like they aren't living with their consequences, but my consequences of having a good job and raising my kids without anyone else's help is that I have to also raise theirs.
quote:
Personally, I like the idea of people only having a lot of kids if they can afford it

Of course, so do I. But government regulation enforcing your reproductive rights is nothing more than a standard human rights violation in itself.
quote:
Money is a pretty good indicator of fitness

Wrong - but it SHOULD be. If you have money - its taken from you to give to the poor. If you dont have money, you ask the government and they'll give you more in exchange for votes and dependency. Not very darwinish.
quote:
These days, things are backwards. We're on the verge of Idiocracy becoming a documentary.

Isn't that the truth...no sarcasm intended.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By xti on 5/19/2009 11:00:26 AM , Rating: 1
we stick 7 people in a civic. Tell Chance, Hoit, and Lacy to scoot the hell over so mom can put the groceries on a seat.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Murloc on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: less SUVs and the like?
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/19/2009 11:39:02 AM , Rating: 4
While we're on the topic of arrogantly deciding the needs of others, I have determined that you don't need a vehicle at all. The worlds problems are all your fault. Stop driving immediately and walk everywhere from now on.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By andrinoaa on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: less SUVs and the like?
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 1:49:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It means YOU will be paying less at the bowser for gas!

Not really. Economics are really quite simple. First off, according to multiple reports today from the AP, Fox, CNN, etc is that Obama's plan he just put in place will inflate the prices of automobiles by $1300 each. At $2/gal, how much gas can you buy, and how long can you drive for - a pretty good amount. Second, by artificially decreasing the demand for fuel, you are going to artificially increase the price because supply will move down with demand. The countries/companies selling the fuel still have minimum budgets to meet, so they will raise the price to compensate for the efficiency you are saving.

This is really nothing more than a basic analogy with the minimum wage standard. By increasing the minimum wage, all you are doing is forcing all companies to raise their prices to keep the same profit margin and net profits, thus raising the cost of living not only for the minimum wage earner, but also everyone else who buys those companies products.

quote:
. HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND? SHORT TERM THINKING

If anything, you are the one thinking short term. You have not considered the long term economic impacts if you honestly think that the price of gasoline will stay at a lower rate of increase than the increase in mileage standards. If anything, there is a very good chance that with the bundled increase in pricing for the car and gasoline, that you may be paying more per mile in the future than you are now. Sure, you may be using less resources, but that argument has shown to not matter when people see the effects on their wallets.
quote:
You free marketers hate it but are you prepared for more wars for petrol?

First off, we damn better be. Russia and China are already ramping up their military powers for that same reason. However, lets look at the big picture. With the amount of oil we have off our coasts, Alaska, the Arctic, and not to mention the rest in the middle east and Venezuela that aren't tapped yet, we are not going to run out in our lifetimes - anyone who says different is fear mongering for an ulterior motive. Also, why is it that the liberals believe we can muster up all this new technology to power the entire country/earth by "clean" technology that only produces part of the power part of the time (wind, solar)? With that mindset, its ridiculous to think that we couldn't find a better way to break down the absurd amounts of oil shale we have in less of a time frame than your clean energy daydreams. So again, I ask, what is REALLY the point in getting off oil - that you dont want to pay more for it, but are willing to pay more for something else that provides less energy? that you honestly believe global warming is the next major catastrophe even though it hasn't even been proven to exist, much less proven the reasons for its "theoretical" existence? Or that you just roll with the liberals in shouting whatever seems to be "progressive" by the same people who are running the states which have the largest budget deficits and social problems in the country?
quote:
Are you willing to die for petrol?

No, because there is no reason to. We can produce it here for along time with coastal, Alaskan, shale, and soon to be arctic oil. The question is, are you willing to die by standing in societys way of affordable energy that fuels our standard of living. Because when you break it all down - people care more about their standard of living than they do "empathy" when they are forced to choose.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Wierdo on 5/19/2009 11:52:04 AM , Rating: 1
The mother of seven can still buy a large vehicle... but she'll just be driving a more fuel efficient one than those we have now.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By DrKlahn on 5/19/2009 12:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
And where does this efficiency magically come from? The car companies can't magically make physics go away. A larger vehicle will weigh more and require more energy to move. Even going the costly hybrid route will not get a large vehicle anywhere close to the standard. And the cars that will be need to average things out will be both more expensive then what we have today and likely much smaller.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By walk2k on 5/19/2009 1:16:58 PM , Rating: 3
It's called a station wagon. We seemed to do just fine with them in the 70s (though I doubt our V8 Malibu got great mileage) before the explosion of ever larger and larger SUVs (that are mostly single-occupant yuppies commuting to work).


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By wookie1 on 5/19/2009 3:46:26 PM , Rating: 1
Ever wonder what happened to station wagons? They were killed by the EPA mileage standards put in place back then (late '70's or early '80's?). Since the light truck mileage standards were lower, the only way to get a larger station wagon type of vehicle was to get an SUV. So the EPA mileage standards ended up lowering the average fuel economy then because more people wanted the larger vehicles and purchased SUV's, which got worse mileage than the station wagons. Now all of this demonization of SUV drivers and domestic automakers results from this somehow. But the other side effect was that the US automakers were able to survive as foreign automakers were slow to exploit the US's desire for larger cars, leaving some room in the market for domestic manufacturers to charge more given the high union wages and benefits cost.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Athena on 5/20/2009 1:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since the light truck mileage standards were lower, the only way to get a larger station wagon type of vehicle was to get an SUV. So the EPA mileage standards ended up lowering the average fuel economy then because more people wanted the larger vehicles and purchased SUV's, which got worse mileage than the station wagons
That's really the key...light trucks were not included in the standards. It wasn't that it was the "only way" to get higher occupancy passenger cars -- after all Volvo kept making station wagons -- happened to be cheapest way. There wasn't a sudden demand from US consumers to drive trucks, the automakers just exploited a loophole in the EPA standards and made vehicles that were exempt from passenger standards.

Since the new regulations include light trucks, there will be no advantage to the manufacturers to going that route now. If Detroit automakers had kept up development on fuel efficient passenger cars with an eye to the longterm instead of going after the fast and cheap profit, (and if Congress had had the courage to close the loophole) a lot of the current pain would have been avoided.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By GodisanAtheist on 5/19/2009 1:43:37 PM , Rating: 4
Isn't the typical response around here "They should have thought of that before having 5 kids" and "Why is everyone else responsible for their inability to use birth control?" :-)

I have a strong feeling I'm going to be rated down for this one...


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Athena on 5/20/2009 1:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what do you say to the family of 7 who DOES NEED a large SUV or minivan? Are they supposed to put one kid in the rear window and another in the trunk because they can't buy or can't afford an SUV or minivan because it doesn't exist or is too expensive?
I don't get your point here. 25 years ago, the number of families with more than 3 children was much greater than today and yet no one thought that trucks were an especially good idea for families. The notion of an SUV as the only suitable vehicle for a large family was an unforseen consequence of the light truck exemption in fuel standards. Manufacturers and consumers have recast their "needs" and expectations many times in the past and they will do the same now.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By clovell on 5/19/2009 10:35:45 AM , Rating: 3
No, it will be a sad day when my freedom to buy what I want is eroded by smug bastards who think they know my needs better than I do.

Oh, what? It's bloody murder in the effing streets when the religious right tries to tell us what we need. But it's okay now? No thank you.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Shuri on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: less SUVs and the like?
By BadAcid on 5/19/2009 11:52:29 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah, you should be able to predict new government laws by now, saying you shouldn't take a stable delivery/transport job or have a large family you know you can support at the time. Don't you know the "green" lobbyists are in charge, if the end product is cleaner than traditional product, production process be damned (lol ethanol), don't you know it's gonna glide through Congress? Shame on you for thinking Uncle Sam wasn't going take an even bigger piece 6-7 years after you've had all your kids.
PS, if it costs more to run larger vehicles because of government fees, that's a form of price control. But yeah, we have just as much "freedom" to buy whatever we want, kinda like Russians did under Stalin.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By andrinoaa on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: less SUVs and the like?
By arsmitty86 on 5/19/2009 12:07:43 PM , Rating: 5
You really don't seem to get it. They will cease to exist. There is NO technology that is capable of producing enough power to haul the things that trucks need to haul, and pull the weight of the truck at a reasonable speed, and accelerate fast enough, and still be fuel efficient. Basic physics show this. A 4000lb vehicle is 4000lbs in order to meet our wonderful govts safety standards, it could be lighter but as FIT pointed out would be unsafe, so the only thing left to cut is power.
How do we do that? Well we can turbo it and put a smaller V6 in it or an I4 but that destroy's our torque curve making towing more difficult. We can throw batteries/electric motors at it and help the low end torque but drives up the cost. Oh by the way turbos reduce engine life as manufacturers are too cheap to throw the timers on them so most idiots will shut their cars off and it will over heat and die quicker, and hybrids can't have their oil changed at most places other than dealers now for liability reasons.
Bottom line, best solution is to let the market do what it does and someone will innovate.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By andrinoaa on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: less SUVs and the like?
By arsmitty86 on 5/19/2009 12:48:56 PM , Rating: 1
Yes I must be crazy to ask that we do what we're supposed to and let supply and demand run the CAPITALIST economy. </sarcasm>.
It's not just about needs, it's also about wants, thus the DEMAND that created the SUPPLY. Government mandates stifle innovation. If it's not profitable it doesn't sell. I'm not suggesting Laisezz Faire here, simply saying that in this case government interference will only hurt the situation. If you want to be socialist/communist, by all means please do, kindly do it in another country though. kthx.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Armassault on 5/19/2009 1:37:16 PM , Rating: 1
If anything, that laissez faire attitude is exactly what got you into this mess. In the financial market, housing market, also with your auto industry.

If you had demanded higher emission standards sooner, you most likely wouldn't be in the current mess, with noone wanting to buy huge, gas guzzling american cars.
You bet on the wrong horse by continuing to develop bigger and bigger cars/trucks/SUV's, and see where that got your auto industry.
Look at what happened to the Hummer.

So now your competitors are a decade ahead of you in building efficient cars, because you decided NOT to have higher emission standards.
Heck, even Mercedes Benz builds energy efficient diesel engines these days and uses them in their luxury sedans, (look up BlueTec).

Government interference is what you needed, didn't get, and now you're yelling at the government for your economy tanking and your auto industry failing. Yet you're still complaining now your new government is FINALLY doing something about the problem?

Sense doesn't make.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By arsmitty86 on 5/19/2009 1:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
If you actually READ my post I said that I'm not for Laissez fare, and oh by the way.. the retarded emissions standards in place is why our mileage sucked so much for years not because of lack of innovation. Your cars are more efficient because they don't have to meet the same regs that ours do, not the other way around.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Armassault on 5/19/2009 2:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
I read your post. I read that you weren't in favor of a laissez faire attitude.
Then you continued by making the case FOR a laissez faire attitude.

But come on...it's fairly typical for americans to always blame the government, but if it was really government regulations that caused your cars to be gas guzzlers, then you have bigger problems than your auto industry failing.

I simply don't buy it.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 2:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
.it's fairly typical for americans to always blame the government

Choose to believe what you want, that's you're right and I wont tell you not to. However, let me offer you a bit of case to consider. The American government, in terms of its electoral process, committees, and affiliations is anything but on the side of the public. It was recently said by a democratic Senator when his voting district leaned 95% on way on an issue and he voted the opposite way, that he was "voted into office for his beliefs, not to side with the beliefs of his voters". Its all too common for our senate and house to push through legislation based on their majority in political parties in office are for (example the 59 democrats in office right now) rather than what the polls of Americans show to be in favor of.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Armassault on 5/19/2009 2:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't it work that way in every democratic society?

My pet peeve in politics, are demagogues and "populists".
Politicians who always do what their voters say they want, aren't fit to run a country. I respect a politician that listens to the people, but is capable of sometimes making the hard, unpopular decisions.

And that's the case right here, Obama won't get much support for this, but it HAS to be done. It should have been done a long time ago, yet no one had the guts to do it.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 2:59:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Politicians who always do what their voters say they want, aren't fit to run a country.

So the term "representative government" really doesn't have any meaning then. What you're telling me is that the one person sometimes knows better than a massive amount of people in their district on how they should live their lives. Sounds monarchist to me.
quote:
And that's the case right here, Obama won't get much support for this, but it HAS to be done.

This is where we will have to agree to disagree. Nothing HAS to be done. Artificially modifying markets through government intervention has NEVER worked with success. Sure, their initial intentions may be good, but the problem is that there are always other effects that happen because of that legislation.

Trying to get home ownership in the hands of the less successful is a good intention, but just look at the problems it caused on the housing market and banks with foreclosures.

I choose to let the market handle these things on their own. I don't trust bureaucrats making decisions for me, when the adverse effects will not cause them any issues because they have enough money to deal with it.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By clovell on 5/19/2009 3:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, that takes the cake. Bush passed CAFE standards, too. Quit cherry-picking your facts.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 1:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you had demanded higher emission standards sooner, you most likely wouldn't be in the current mess, with noone wanting to buy huge, gas guzzling american cars.

Whats quite awful here is not the economic mess, or the housing values, or even the cost of fuel. The awful thing in society today is people like you who really believe that creating policies and regulations to force people NOT to want things is the right way to move forward in life.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Steele on 5/19/2009 1:23:24 PM , Rating: 3
Wow... Fail.

I used to own a 1964 Chevy 1-ton pickup. It got, on average, 8 mpg, empty, and maybe 4-5 when loaded. Ok? It ran fine, was fun to drive, but was an absolute pig on fuel. Of course, I didn't care, because gas was cheap.

Now, I own a 1996 Ford 1-ton. Loaded, weighing in at 13,000lbs, I get 11.5mpg. Empty, I get 21.3.

Now, up until a few moments ago, I assumed that my newer truck got better fuel mileage because it was newer, and had the benefit of more efficient technology. Apparently, though, that's incorrect. Since they have both approximately the same unladen weight (~5500 lbs), both should get identical fuel mileage. Isn't that what you're telling me?

Incidentally, the Chevy had the largest V-8 offered in a pickup at that time, but the Ford has over twice the HP and torque, in addition to getting better mileage. That it is much faster goes without saying.

So, tell me. How is it possible that this has happened? I mean, since it's obviously not from new technology, what is it? Do magic demons push my new truck along? Do I always drive downhill? Have they increased the size of a gallon? What?

Or, is it more likely that you're a big dumbass who knows nothing about cars and trucks? Automotive tech has been evoloving and growing CONSTANTLY for the last 106+ years. Did you think the Model T had fuel injection? Was it an OHV/OHC engine? Hell no! It even had wooden wheels! Haven't we come a long way from that? Why can't we go further?

New technology may not solve all of our problems, and it will of course do nothing about the awkwardness of our government telling us what to do, but it can and will meet these new higher fuel economy standards.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Steele on 5/19/2009 1:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Note: I oppose most government regulations like this. I'm just saying that they CAN be met.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By arsmitty86 on 5/19/2009 2:01:42 PM , Rating: 3
Ok you took what I said and ran with it completely out of context. I'm simply saying that it cannot be done MORE efficiently with current technology. I'm not arguing that there were not more advances. And by the way, that's not entirley that impressive. I can take a factory F-150 that get's 14MPG city and boost it to 22 with an exhaust swap, intake and tune but that's a far cry from 37. It took 50 years to get from 8MPG to 24, and now he wants another 50% increase by 2016? That's my point. And please don't try to patronize my knowledge of engines because you took my statements and misread them. I already stated that we have made huge advancements and we can make many more, but a lot of the hindrances up to this point have been thanks to regulations and this will only hinder things further.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Steele on 5/19/2009 2:18:50 PM , Rating: 1
No, that is NOT what you said. You said, "there is NO technology... more efficient." You said nothing about "huge advancements" or making more or anything of the sort. You said it couldn't be done. You said the government rules could not be met. I'm telling you that you are wrong, and it can be done. It shouldn't HAVE to be done, but that's another story.

If you honestly believe that the auto industry cannot build a 30mpg truck by 2016, then I have some bridges to sell you.

If you can swap the intake and exhaust, and add a tune, and increase mileage by over 50%, then what's to stop Ford from adding split-shot injectors? 4 (or 6!) valves per cylinder? Chrysler's cylinder shutoff scheme? Aluminum (or, hell, titanium!) rods and cams? Low rolling resistance wheels and tires? A six-speed transmission? Money, nothing more.

You throw all of that onto your 22mpg F-150, and you'll get one heck of a mpg increase. They only need to get it above 30, anyway. Yeah, it can be done.

Incidentally, what do you mean by, "that's not entirley impressive." ? Are you saying my 1-ton's mileage isn't impressive? You're right, it isn't. Guess what? I don't care, except inasmuch as it's somehow, magically, better than my older truck. So, yeah, brag up your 4,000lb 22mpg "truck," and I'll stick to my 13,000lb 11mpg truck.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By arsmitty86 on 5/19/2009 2:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's not what I was saying at all. I wasn't slamming your truck... I don't own an F-150 I was simply using it as an example. I see no point in "bragging" or personally attacking you in the context of a discussion. And yes you could do some of those things (incidentally carbon composite rods don't break and are lighter than aluminum or titanium), and are also prohibitively expensive. And throwing more valves at a problem doesn't make it go away necessarily, (as is obvious as fords 3 valve 4.6l motor is stronger and more efficient than the 4 valves. And no it can't be done since all of those things drive up cost and lower demand thus bankrupting the industry. Ford/Chevy also won't do those things since they make it harder to pass emissions and safety standards and also increase cabin noise (which is a lot of why they do what they do to begin with). The consumer WILL pay if this goes through. The other thing that has yet to be addressed is how much harder these things are getting to service. 30 years ago a good ratchet set and a few (very few, like brake spring tools) specialized tools were needed to work on a car. Now one needs diagnostic equipment and a plethora of proprietary equipment to do the same tasks. As far as the cylinder shut off scheme, it's crap. It works for a very limited power band but loses efficiency based on the fact that less displacement/horsepower is created thus causing more RPM to to the same work essentially burning more gas. That's why it typically works at cruising speeds and nothing lower since the vehicles inertia assists in propelling the vehicle


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Steele on 5/19/2009 3:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
So... what you're really telling me is that trucks can NOT be made to get 30mpg? Like you've said in three posts now.

Sure, they'll cost more. Sure, there will be other obstacles. But they CAN and WILL be made.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By gsellis on 5/20/2009 7:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
You are missing the big picture. Where are the 30mpg average trucks now? They don't exist. Payload, technology, highway speed, and cost are prohibitions for creating one. And do you understand a production cycle? Last time I checked, GM needs 3 years go get a vehicle to the showroom. That means GM now has only 4 years to do the research, test it, and then merge it with a production design. It is inane to expect a ~70% increase in efficiency in 4 years (compare to a Toyota Tacoma 4cyl with a current combined of 22mpg).


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By nycromes on 5/20/2009 10:51:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad you think the sky is the limit. Bottom line is that there are tradeoffs in design for every vehicle in production. With currently available technology, we might be able to push a trucks/SUV MPG ratings higher, but it will be much more expensive.

Bottom line is that I don't know a truck/SUV driver who wouldn't want better MPGs, but not at the expense of the power they bought the vehicle for. Bottom line is that these regulations will kill alot of recreational activity, hurt many people, and take away our freedom. All for a cause that is perhaps worthy, but in my opinion not worth the extra costs. I am all for being efficient, but do so at reasonable levels. We don't all have to save 15+ MPG on our trips to have a positive impact.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Spuke on 5/20/2009 1:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure, they'll cost more. Sure, there will be other obstacles. But they CAN and WILL be made.
I agree. It can be done and trucks won't have to make 30 mpg to meet the average. Maybe for Ford because that's their best selling vehicle but they are introducing a twin-turbo, direct injected V6 into the new F150. I expect mid 20's on the hwy but the EPA rated fuel mileage is not what counts in the CAFE standards. There is a different formula used.

Cars will be much easier to get it done. Expect to see smaller displacement turbo'd and non-turbo'd, DI engines. For an example look at the new 2010 Chevy Equinox. Base engine is a non-turbo 2.4L, DI 182 hp engine getting 30 mpg fwy. The upper trim uses a non-turbo, DI V6 making 264 hp and 26 mpg hwy. The cool thing about DI is you won't have to sacrifice power to get better gas mileage and if you pair it with turbocharging, you'll likely make more power with better gas mileage. Obviously, with an estimated $1300 average cost increase per car, there are some other tricks involved as DI and turbocharging doesn't cost much. Ford says it adds $500 to a car.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Keeir on 5/19/2009 3:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Mmmm... before shooting off your mouth, you might want to do some basic calculations

Work = Force * D

Lets calculate the work required to make your 1996 Ford 1-ton truck travel 1 meter at 26.9224 m/s (Roughly 60mph)

Force= Rolling Friction + Air Resistance

Rolling Friction= Coefficient of Rolling Friction * Mass * gravity

Air Resistance= 1/2 * Coefficient of Drag * Cross sectional area * Density of air * Velocity squared

Coefficient of Rolling Friction=.010 - Nice Tires
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-rolling_resistanc...

Mass=3982 lbs --> 1,805 Kg Empty, Lets go with 1,900 Kg operating
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1996/ford/f350/5917/sp...

Area of Cross Section=5593.2 in2-->3.609 sq meters
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1996/ford/f350/5917/sp...

Density of Air=1.204 kg/meter3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air

Coefficient of Drag=0.45
This one is tricky as I don't have any definate source. Various sources give values between 0.4-0.5 for a variety of trucks. I will use then a reasonable 0.45 given for a 1997 F-150. Shape not size determines this value
http://fordbuyersguide.theautochannel.com/vehicles...

Rolling Friction=1,900 kg * 9.8 m/s/s * .010= 186 N
Air Resistence=0.5 * 0.45 * 1.204 kg/meter3 * 3.609 meter2 * 26.9224 m/s * 26.9224 m/s = 708.6 N --> 710 N

Work= (186 N + 710 N) * 1m~= 900 Joules per meter traveled

To go a bit further, there is 1,609.3 meters to every mile, so a minimum of 1,448.3 kJ per mile.

A gallon of gasoline contains 132,000 kJ of energy
http://science.howstuffworks.com/gasoline1.htm

So your truck could go a maximum of 91.2 miles on one gallon of gasoline if there was 100% conversion of energy.

In reality, the hard limit in energineering terms for about 0.45 efficieny for gasoline engines (Otto Cycle). So a perfect gasoline engine will give 41 mpg and a perfect drivetrain.

Your F-350 (Highway only I assume) is getting around 52% efficieny the very best it could. Things like running lights, radio, heating/air conditioning, pollution controls, vibration, etc are -not- included. The new laws are asking for more than 70% efficieny (30 mpg for "light trucks")... its almost impossible without switching to diesal (Expense), which then requires additional pollution controls (Expense), lightening the frame (expense), and running high high efficieny parasite loads (adding more expense).


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Steele on 5/19/2009 4:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
There are some problems in your math...

My tires aren't nearly that nice. I have no idea, numerically, how they relate. I'm going to WAG here and say .020.

The truck weighs 5,485lbs, wet and empty, with fuel (255lbs) and a driver (180lbs), according to a DOT scale.

Ford changed their style in 1996/1997, so my 1996 is somewhat blockier than a 1997 F-150. Call the coefficient of drag .50 rather than .45.

Using your equations...
Rolling friction: 2,490kg * 9.8 m/s/s * .020 = 488N
Air resistance: 1/2 * .50 * 1.204kg/meter3 * 3.609meter2 * 26.9224meter/s *26.9224meter/s = 788N
Work: (488N + 788N) * 1m = 1,276 Joules/meter
Therefore: 2,053KJ / mile.
Maximum economy, then, of 64.3 mpg. I am getting approx. 21 mpg. My engine is running at ~33% efficiency, assuming all is correct?

I know the weight is correct. I know that 21.3mpg is correct when empty. The truck is in excellent condition, and very well taken care of. I believe my arithmetic is correct. Aren't there too many other factors here to calculate it this simply? For example, the rear axle is geared at 3.51:1. An optional gear was 4.11:1, which would require a 17% increase in RPMs to maintain the same speed, decreasing fuel economy. That isn't factored in anywhere...

I don't see it being impossible to get 30mpg from a more modern vehicle. Expensive? Perhaps. Difficult? Perhaps. Impossible? Not at all.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Steele on 5/19/2009 4:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not your math, sorry. Problems in your assumptions.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Keeir on 5/19/2009 5:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maximum economy, then, of 64.3 mpg. I am getting approx. 21 mpg. My engine is running at ~33% efficiency, assuming all is correct?


Yeap. Your whole truck appears to be turning 33% of the gasoline energy into forward motion.

Thas pretty dang good! As I have mentioned, an Otto Cycle Gasoline Engine maxs out at around 45% efficieny. So to expect a simple number more than 45% from an Otto Cycle Gasoline engine is folly.

quote:
Aren't there too many other factors here to calculate it this simply?


Absolutely. But if the minimum is just too much, then there is -no chance- that the equation that considers all the losses will get there.

quote:
There are some problems in your math...


I saw about the assumptions, but I think your assumptions are a little conservative. .020 is pretty terrible tires for a truck. Usually truck tires are well inflated and when not loaded acchieve 0.010 rolling resistance or better. When loaded, there is significantly more contact with the ground and more rolling resistance.

Blockiness and Cd don't exactly relate as easily as one might imagine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_drag

It may be the more blocky shape actually had slightly better Cd.

But I think your good results (High efficieny for the vehicle type) are because you are taking good care of your truck and driving smart.

quote:
I don't see it being impossible to get 30mpg from a more modern vehicle. Expensive? Perhaps. Difficult? Perhaps. Impossible? Not at all.


I have no problem with this as long as the people pushing to mandate fleet wide minimums are prepared to deal with the consquences.

#1. More expensive cars and trucks. Early estimates put this around 1,200. An early government estimate. My distrust of the government would not be shocked to discovered average prices raises of 2,000 to 3,000 happen on average

#2. More increases in expense the larger the car. Some of the smaller cars may just require a new engine (Turbo/Diesel). The larger cars will require lightening... using more expensive materials. This will probably tack an additional 1,000+ onto the larger models.

#3. More increases in expense of the larger cars to offset CAFE penalities or lower demand for the larger cars/trucks. This will trickle down to even the used market.

#4. High price of new technologies to meet the standards. People complaign already about the 30,000+ Volt. But thats the ONLY (unless there is an XFE aveo?) car currently planned for sale in the US by GM thats meets the proposed standards. Ohter examples, the Prius, the Insight, the Jetta TDI (just barely)... ummm.... nothing else I can think of acchieves more than 35 mpg combined let alone the 39.5 for the car fleet.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Steele on 5/19/2009 6:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough.

A couple points to make: First, I am not advocating increased government standards. Tax credits for efficient vehicles, maybe, but minimum requirements like this I don't like.

Second, the current price for a well-equipped 1-ton truck, new, is in the neighborhood of $40,000. Increasing that by $3,000 isn't going to change much. People who want or need them will still make the purchase, and trucks last longer than cars, so there is a sizable market for used pickups.

Third, there are quite a few Euro-model cars that average over 39mpg. The Opel Astra, for one. I suppose they may not meet safety requirements or emissions standards, but the economy is there.

Finally, I think with increased use of hybrid drivetrains (I'm really interested in diesel-electric hybrids a la trains and ships) will help a lot. Being able to capture braking energy, reducing the amount of idling, and getting the benefits of low-end torque from the electric motor make those quite interesting.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Keeir on 5/19/2009 8:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Second, the current price for a well-equipped 1-ton truck, new, is in the neighborhood of $40,000. Increasing that by $3,000 isn't going to change much. People who want or need them will still make the purchase, and trucks last longer than cars, so there is a sizable market for used pickups.


I am definately pessimistic, but I think for your 1-ton type truck, to meet the 30 mpg combined with today's technology (after all 7 years is not really a great period of time) would cost upwards of 10,000 premium. Adding Diesel and a Hybrid system would be required in addition to lightening the frame. GM has shown the Hybrid systems are typically a 3-5,000 addition on these larger autos. Diesels are another 2-3 on top of that (I assume V-8 type) and then lightening the structure.

quote:
Third, there are quite a few Euro-model cars that average over 39mpg. The Opel Astra, for one. I suppose they may not meet safety requirements or emissions standards, but the economy is there.


Is that Euro numbers? No offense, but Euro numbers use Imperial Gallons and a different driving cycle. A UK prius for example get 65.69 combined mpg compared to 49.5 US EPA

Based on this I assumed the 39mpg is Euro standard for the 1.8 Ecotec 4 cyclinder that got imported as the Saturn Astra

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:NqnRtTJj9b8J:...

EPA cycle for the same car... 23/31 (27 mpg combined, Car needs to get 45% more efficient to meet the average)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_...


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By Spuke on 5/20/2009 2:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am definately pessimistic, but I think for your 1-ton type truck
His truck is more than likely already running a turbodiesel powerplant in order to achieve 21 mpg. Current 1 tons get worse fuel economy (roughly 3-4 mpg less) because of emissions standards. Significant lightening as well as an even smaller displacement engine (Ford currently has a 6.4L V8 turbodiesel) would be the only way to improve mileage but 3/4 and 1 ton trucks are not required to meet emissions standards nor do they count in CAFE requirements. That said, 3/4 and 1 ton pickups STILL meet emissions requirements in all 50 states.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By MrJim on 5/20/2009 5:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
Most big technology leaps have started with funding from the state or at a university, not in a company. That´s one of many myths.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By clovell on 5/20/2009 10:42:14 AM , Rating: 1
> No one is taking away your freedom to buy whatever you want.

I believe I used the term 'eroded'.


RE: less SUVs and the like?
By alpensiedler on 5/19/2009 1:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
i guess my point/opinion from the beginning, as others have pointed out, was that for so long i feel like the tv has been telling us we have a right to have whatever we want. they tell us we can buy huge houses even though we can't afford it, they tell us we can buy huge cars even though we really don't need it. and for some people the idea is that, well if i can get it, then i should take it.

i feel like our culture is evolving into this mindset that, not only do we want things we absolutely don't need, but also we are told that we deserve them. then when gas gets higher, or we can't afford our mortgages we all get upset that the tv lied to us. what's worse is that it seems like individualism has become so implicit in this type of advertising that people don't even get a sense that their actions have an effect on other poeples' lives.

it seems to me that people have ushered in an era of only worrying about themselves, to the point that people act like they are annonymous. think of the moral delimas that can come up, when you feel like no one will notice your actions. it's like the pinnacle of selfishness, and it's simply naïve.

that's just my opinion. i'm not trying to start a war here.


The safety dance
By xprojected on 5/19/2009 10:12:08 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Smaller cars may use less fuel, but they don't meet the needs of many people and studies show they are less safe.


Oh please, not the scare tactics again. Modern compacts are far safer than big cars of 20 years ago. I'm sure studies also show that drivers of smaller cars are also less likely to get in an accident. Big trucks and SUVs don't exactly brake or slalom well..




RE: The safety dance
By Verran on 5/19/2009 11:12:03 AM , Rating: 3
I agree!

Furthermore, people tell me my small cars are unsafe and I should get something bigger, but their big cars are the REASON my small car is "unsafe". Maybe if there weren't so many single-child soccer moms and business men driving H2s and Excursions just to pad their egos then my car wouldn't need to be so big to protect me from them.


RE: The safety dance
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 11:46:16 AM , Rating: 1
Ah so we're supposed to live with our choice with wanting to drive a larger vehicle but you're not supposed to live with your choice of driving a smaller one? We're supposed to be like you to solve your problem.


RE: The safety dance
By andrinoaa on 5/19/2009 12:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
You always sound like a whiner. NOBODY has any good ideas according to you. YOU are the fountain of all knowledge, aren't you FIT. Always exaggerating., take my advice, get a life.


RE: The safety dance
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 12:25:24 PM , Rating: 1
Quite happy with mine. But unlike some people I merely want the freedom to live it as I see fit. Not as others mandate.

I love it how when a conservative is against something like this they're branded as a "whiner" but when an environmentalist protests to close an oil refinery or prevent a power plant from being built, something that could lower energy prices by lowering gasoline imports (not oil) or prevent blackouts or brownouts in energy starved areas like California, they're an "activist".

Plenty of people have good ideas. Just they're largely ignored by the media and current politicians because those ideas don't meet with the ideology that mankind is a plague upon the Earth that must be controlled.

Many of the posts on here in favor of this legislation only speak of the desire to lower our importation of foreign oil. Yet to them there is no other solution than building smaller vehicles to burn less fuel. They buy into the lie that we don't have enough oil domestically. They don't push for alternative fuels such as diesel produced by algae to be considered. Hell if they can make ethanol from switchgrass or yard clippings without it requiring vast amounts of energy, that'd be fine too. It's just straight up environmentalist mantra that we need smaller cars.

I ask some of you. If we had the ability, right now, to produce enough diesel from algae to meet our current demand for gas, would you then be fine with people driving large SUVs and trucks that used diesel instead(obviously it would take a little time to transition to this since most people don't drive diesels now)? I'm going to go on a limb here and say no. Prove me wrong.


RE: The safety dance
By DrKlahn on 5/19/2009 12:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
And a lot of these people are terrified at the thought of nuclear power. Which is safe and cheap. The waste issue is also manageable, look at France.

We could convert our entire grid over to nuclear power and cease using coal altogether. Why don't we? The "activists" you mention are to intent on demonizing nuclear power and refuse to bring up what it would save on emissions. Instead they want us to focus on extremely expensive solutions like solar and wind which still require the grid have a conventional backup for when it's cloudy or calm. We continue to ignore the practical solutions right in front of our faces.

And what could we do with all that coal? There was a plan put together a few years ago to produce most of our oil shortfall by processing coal into oil/gas (I think it was the CEO of Jet Blue who put it together). The cost per barrel was reasonable. The payoff was within 10 years. After that it each plant would generate several hundred million in revenue. But again, we are paralyzed into inaction because part of political system is so beholden to the environmentalist mantra.


RE: The safety dance
By captainpierce on 5/19/2009 1:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many of the posts on here in favor of this legislation only speak of the desire to lower our importation of foreign oil. Yet to them there is no other solution than building smaller vehicles to burn less fuel.


A lot of the posters here also exaggerate the importance of passenger vehicles when it comes to how much oil is used in the United States every day. A lot of crude oil is used to produce fuel for ships, trains, aviation fuel, asphalt, home heating oil, propane, wax, etc. It's in a lot of stuff. To dramatically reduce our dependence on imports would require foregoing more than just SUVs.


RE: The safety dance
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 8:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
Very true. Oil is used for many, mnay other things. However I do think gasoline production is the number one use for oil in America.


RE: The safety dance
By captainpierce on 5/19/2009 9:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
The gasoline and fuel production is mostly required to produce and distribute industrial products. Serious demand destruction will not occur just by having passenger vehicles increase their efficiency. We would still have to import a lot of oil. To totally get rid of oil imports would require us to make monumental changes to the US economy, which is simply unfeasible. Despite what talking heads in the media and politicians tell us, we cannot be completely free of oil imports.


RE: The safety dance
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
If we produced all our oil domestically we could. But in reality even if we produced the same amount of oil we consumed, we'd still technically import oil because the oil we produced would be sold on the open market.


RE: The safety dance
By captainpierce on 5/20/2009 7:43:53 AM , Rating: 2
Whether we're energy independent or rely on 100% on imports, the country would still be susceptible to oil shocks, since it's a commodity traded around the globe and what happens in one country affects another, regardless of how much oil they produce.


RE: The safety dance
By Verran on 5/19/2009 12:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say a single word about what you're supposed to do. Go ahead and drive and SUV. No one said you can't. Heck, drive a cement roller to work everyday for all I care.

My point was that I think it's extraordinarily lame for pro-SUV folk to hide behind BS figures that say that small cars are unsafe when they should know darn well the REASON small cars are unsafe is because that iceberg they drive to work MAKES them unsafe.

You want to drive it? Fine! But take responsibility for it. Acknowledge that your "simply because I can" attitude of excess is the reason the statistics say my small car is "unsafe". Your car is the problem, not mine!

Maybe I should put three foot spikes on the front of my car and then criticize people who don't armor-plate their car for being unsafe...


RE: The safety dance
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 2:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You want to drive it? Fine! But take responsibility for it. Acknowledge that your "simply because I can" attitude of excess is the reason the statistics say my small car is "unsafe". Your car is the problem, not mine!

No, I will not apologize for you problems because of the indirect correlation with my standard of living. What's next, if you live in the ghetto are you going to blame me because there is more of a chance your home will get broken into mine because my home takes up more physical land than mine? Perhaps because its more expensive? Maybe because its bigger? What?

You can complain about SUV's making you more unsafe all you want, but until you get rid of semi's, dump trucks, moving trucks, tow trucks, industrial pickup trucks, etc, you have no right to single out a group of consumers and lay blame on them.

The only person responsible for you is YOU. If you want a small car, then fine, buy and drive one. But don't complain about your safety, or lack there of, because of everyone else. No one made you buy that car.

You crazy lib's never cease to amaze me. You won't stop until YOU feel that everyone is EQUAL on every scale. It doesn't matter if we all live in a puddle of piss, as long as we all do it we're equal.


RE: The safety dance
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 2:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
What's next, if you live in the ghetto are you going to blame me because there is more of a chance your home will get broken into mine because my home takes up more physical land than YOURS ?

Sorry guys, my proofreading skills are quite absent today.


RE: The safety dance
By Verran on 5/19/2009 2:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's next, if you live in the ghetto are you going to blame me because there is more of a chance your home will get broken into...

What a lame example. This is not similar AT ALL because there is no cause and effect. Small cars are only unsafe because larger cars exist. By themselves, small cars are fine and plenty do great on crash tests.

No one asked for an apology, I'm simply asking for people to quit pretending like small cars are unsafe when it's their big cars that really make the situation unsafe.

quote:
You can complain about SUV's making you more unsafe all you want, but until you get rid of semi's, dump trucks, moving trucks, tow trucks, industrial pickup trucks, etc, you have no right to single out a group of consumers and lay blame on them.

Except most of these examples require further training and licensing to drive, thus negating a substantial portion of the risk to myself. An H2 is SO HEAVY it falls outside the classifications for normal vehicles. Why not a tighter restriction on driving qualifications to match? Maybe with a bit of training, idiot soccer moms might not flip over on the highway and kill people (or they might realize they're bad at driving huge vehicles and not buy one in the first place).

quote:
The only person responsible for you is YOU. If you want a small car, then fine, buy and drive one. But don't complain about your safety, or lack there of, because of everyone else. No one made you buy that car.

Again, I'm not complaining about my safety nor am I saying you can't drive ANY VEHICLE YOU WANT. I'm complaining about BS disingenuous statistics being used to justify choices. SUVs are only safer because they protect you from other SUVs.

quote:
You crazy lib's never cease to amaze me.

What the eff does this have to do with being a liberal? Who said I'm a liberal? I'm a liberal because I don't drive a giant SUV? That's new.

Just gotta work something political into every post, dontcha?


RE: The safety dance
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who said I'm a liberal? I'm a liberal because I don't drive a giant SUV? That's new. Just gotta work something political into every post, dontcha?

I can tell you're a liberal because you're preaching the equality and wealth envy speech directed at "soccer mom's" and people with SUV's - however leaving out the rest of the large auto market (semis, dumptrucks, etc) by citing different licensing. If THAT is not a phony statistic, than I don't know what is. Is their extra training somehow curbing them from having accidents and killing anyone else?


RE: The safety dance
By Verran on 5/19/2009 3:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
Of course you assume I don't have an SUV because I can't. That's perfect! Unfortunately, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm a programmer and my wife is a doctor. Rest assured, I can drive any car I want. I choose not to drive an SUV. But naturally people assume that anyone who isn't like them is only so because they lack the ability, and not because they disagree...

And what a lopsided view of this you must have to not understand leaving out specially-licensed vehicles.
quote:
Is their extra training somehow curbing them from having accidents and killing anyone else?

Are you kidding me? Did you really ask this?

Does training reduce risk of hazard? YES!

The problem is that people buy these giant cars as status symbols and not as a means to an end. People who actually use trucks to haul stuff and get work done generally know trucks, and more specifically respect them. They know how to drive them and they know the strengths and more importantly the weaknesses so they're less likely to cause accidents. Soccer moms who buy the biggest vehicle they can find generally don't have a clue how to drive them and try to do so like every other car they've owned, and in doing so they are much more dangerous.


RE: The safety dance
By pequin06 on 5/19/2009 5:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem is that people buy these giant cars as status symbols and not as a means to an end


What if they have a giant car and a tiny car, does it even out then? Is it still about their status symbols?


RE: The safety dance
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 6:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course you assume I don't have an SUV because I can't.

No, I assumed you didn't have an SUV because you've been complaining about people who drive them.
quote:
I'm a programmer and my wife is a doctor.

Well congratulations. I have a dog named Murphy. Oh, you mean that's pointless too?
quote:
naturally people assume that anyone who isn't like them is only so because they lack the ability

Most often times it is. People tend to dislike others because that other person has something that they cannot. Robin Hood, err Barack Obama, said it best: "Spread the wealth around".
quote:
And what a lopsided view of this you must have to not understand leaving out specially-licensed vehicles.

Err, no, not at all. Do you blindly go through your everyday life like this? Just because you have a specialty license does not mean you drive the way you did when you passed your test. If that was the case, accidents of all kinda, whether they be standard issue drivers licenses or specialty licenses, would drop down about 99%.

A reduction is risk is only reasonable when the people driving actually do so the way they are supposed to. Neither truckers or regular drivers do this. Everything from the good driver who rarely uses a turn signal, to someone who plays with the radio too much, to the trucker who is trying to make his delivery early.
quote:
The problem is that people buy these giant cars as status symbols and not as a means to an end.

People do that with homes, clothing, electronics...wait, just about EVERYTHING. Do you drink bottled water or soda? Perhaps have a plastic waste bin in your house? Ahh yes...the wonders of things made with OIL.

Unless you live in a self made mud hut, drink water directly out of a stream, and clothe yourself with dead leaves, you have no room to talk about other peoples luxuries and a means to an end.
quote:
Soccer moms who buy the biggest vehicle they can find generally don't have a clue how to drive them and try to do so like every other car they've owned, and in doing so they are much more dangerous.

Oh sorry Mr. Wizard, you seem to know it all and everyone's driving habits. You know what, why don't you quit your programmer job and go do something about it - like become a driving instructor specializing in teaching women how to drive cars that you don't think they can handle. You sound a bit sexist to me...


RE: The safety dance
By Verran on 5/19/2009 6:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
It would be sexist if I thought men weren't guilty of it too, but I see plenty of tools driving giant cars to work who never haul more than a briefcase. They come in all genders.

As to most of the first portion of your post, well I see you've skirted the part where you were totally wrong. I could easily afford a giant SUV, but I don't want one. Actually my wife bought an SUV before I knew her and now we both can't wait for the lease to end so we can dump it, so it's quite the opposite, really. What dead-wrong assumption do you have about me next?

As for licenses, your logic is ridiculous. So because licensing doesn't solve 100% of our problems it must be worthless then, right? Regular drivers licenses don't prevent 100% of accidents, so let's get rid of those too! Way to totally miss the point.

There's a reason we require operators of large vehicles to get properly licensed, and it's because it reduces risk. It doesn't remove it, but that doesn't make it worthless. And you know this, you're just exaggerating it ridiculously to keep the argument going. This is so far away from anything I was originally saying.

I think your problem is that you think I'm saying no one should drive SUVs and trucks, but that's not it at all. I only have a problem with it when their "god-given right of excess" leads to their inability to control their vehicle and becomes a danger to me. Plenty of people drive these vehicles everyday and have no problem with it at all, and that's cool with me. Not to imply they need or want my blessing, but they've got it!


RE: The safety dance
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 6:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I see plenty of tools driving giant cars to work who never haul more than a briefcase.

That wasn't your argument. Materialism had nothing to do with it. You cited WOMEN (soccer moms) because they cannot handle the vehicle. Now we're straying from bad drivers being a danger to your dislike of materialism.
quote:
could easily afford a giant SUV, but I don't want one.

Again, your social status means nothing to me, as it benefits me in no way, shape, or form, nor does it give you any allowance from your opinions.
quote:
What dead-wrong assumption do you have about me next?

Again, I didn't say you couldn't afford it. I said you didn't drive them because you don't like them and you originally cited them as a danger to you and your small car.
quote:
What dead-wrong assumption do you have about me next?

Nowhere did that come out of my mouth, in fact I think we should have stricter licensing guidelines. My point was that standard issue drivers and special issue drivers most often DO NOT drive the way they were taught and the way they passed their tests. Thus making them all a danger, and showing you that your argument of only suv's, while leaving out all other classifications of larger vehicles is bunk.
quote:
There's a reason we require operators of large vehicles to get properly licensed, and it's because it reduces risk

So does standard driving school. But it does not mean anyone is going to drive by the standards they were taught and tested upon.
quote:
I only have a problem with it when their "god-given right of excess" leads to their inability to control their vehicle and becomes a danger to me.

So which one is it - because you can't have both. You either dislike peoples love of materialism, or you fear bad and dangerous drivers. If its the latter, then I'll whole heartedly agree. I drive a motorcycle for fun in the summer, and the amount of drivers that don't pay attention scare me. However, that doesn't mean that everyone who drives a car is bad, or that everyone who drives an suv is bad. In fact, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that people in sports cars who drive their cars too fast and reckless are more of a danger than soccer moms in suv's. But that doesn't give me the right to classify all sports car drivers and say they are the reason that my car or bike isn't safe. If you worry about something happening to you in a car - then get a car that is better in a crash, and drive more defensively. If that means you get an SUV, then so be it.

But truly, your just as welcome to ride on transit bus, or train, or take a cab, walk...you don't have to drive your own car, your own small car, or anything else for that matter. And to blindly state that you're in danger because of everyone else s materialism is nothing more than wealth envy because you too are living your god-given right of excess.


RE: The safety dance
By Verran on 5/19/2009 8:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
So first you wrongly assume I'm one of those "evil liberals". Then you wrongly tell me I have wealth-envy to explain why you made your inaccurate political affiliation assumption. Now you tell me quite bluntly that my point was not what I said it was, but that instead it was "soccer moms" when it wasn't (merely using them as an example) because apparently you know what my point is more than I do. Now you seem to arbitrarily be deciding which opinions I'm allowed to have and not have, and more specifically forcing me to choose between them for what seems like no reason at all.

So I guess my only question at this point is: What the #$%^ are you talking about?!

My problem is not excess, it is excess for the sake of excess that becomes a problem and a danger for others. All the rest of this nonsense... well I see no point in debating it with you.


RE: The safety dance
By Verran on 5/19/2009 6:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People do that with homes, clothing, electronics...wait, just about EVERYTHING. Do you drink bottled water or soda?

I don't drink soda, but let's say I do for the analogy...

If I felt that I was unable to properly handle my soda such that I would be at an increased risk of flipping over at high velocities on the interstate (oh, and assuming I weighed 4000+ lbs here) and put other innocent (possibly non-excessively drinking) lives at risk... then yeah, I might think about switching to water. :)


RE: The safety dance
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 8:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
So you admit your car is less safe to drive because SUVs exist on the road but maintain that your car isn't any less safe than an SUV to drive. Brilliant.


RE: The safety dance
By Verran on 5/19/2009 9:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
I am saying that my car is less safe BECAUSE of SUVs. I'm saying SUVs make the road less safe by their mere existence, and that that should not be blamed on the people who drive other vehicles.

I didn't say my car wasn't unsafe, I merely explained why it is.


RE: The safety dance
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:19:01 PM , Rating: 1
By your logic, trees and walls existing make your car unsafe because if it hit either, you'd still be dead or severely injured. Maybe we should cut down all trees along roadsides and cover walls in foam.

So don't bitch that its unsafe. You choose to drive it. You take the risk. Everyone else shouldn't have to stop driving SUVs because you choose to drive a coffin on wheels.


RE: The safety dance
By Verran on 5/20/2009 6:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
It's not a "coffin-on-wheels" and by calling it that you prove you have no clue what you're talking about. Many small cars do very well in crash tests and if you figure in rollover-style tests, most are probably safer than SUVs. If we're going to call my small car a "coffin-on-wheels" then we should be calling your SUV a "killing machine".

By YOUR logic, I could equip my car with some sort of death-ray and call your car unsafe because it's not death-ray-proof.


Awesome.
By retrospooty on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome.
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:00:18 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah it's always a great idea to heap billions of dollars in new costs on already struggling automakers(not just domestics). As well as kill off the ability for people buy the kind of car they want and/or need. All to push an agenda for something that is a lie.

Now people with large families will find it extremely difficult to buy a car that meets their needs because the car won't exist or it'll be extremely expensive due to the low sales volumes.

But hey don't let the facts stand in your way of being an idiot.


RE: Awesome.
By Motoman on 5/19/2009 10:15:56 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention large percentages of people who either need a truck for work, or as part and parcel of the Good American Life they work for day in and day out. Whether you're a farmer, construction worker, own a boat or horses, etc. - you need a truck. Not a question of want - NEED, or change professions and/or make wholesale lifestyle changes.

And if anyone is in support of THAT, I invite you to go and $#^& yourself.


RE: Awesome.
By Nutzo on 5/19/2009 11:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention large percentages of people who either need a truck for work, or as part and parcel of the Good American Life they work for day in and day out.

Next time I need to haul 2000 pounds of contruction material, it shoul only take me about 5 trips in a Prisus... instead of one trip in my SUV


RE: Awesome.
By hyvonen on 5/19/2009 12:03:22 PM , Rating: 3
Get a high-efficiency diesel and a trailer, and quit whining.


RE: Awesome.
By retrospooty on 5/19/2009 12:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
You guys act like it's the end of the line for trucks and SUV's - it's not.

No -one is abolishing trucks and SUV's, they are just mandating average mileage across models. This means they need SOME higher mileage cars in their lineups. There will still be cheap cars and still be trucks and SUV's


RE: Awesome.
By arsmitty86 on 5/19/2009 12:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but vastly inferior in power, and capacity. That's the point. If I wanted a car I'd by a car. If I want a truck I'll buy a truck. And don't feed me that bs line of it being the same power either. It's not true. I'm an extreme enthusiast and I am thrilled with the advances in engine technology (400hp i4 WRX... yes please), but for people that need a truck to haul anything other than small stuff the old adage still applies. There is no replacement for displacement.


RE: Awesome.
By Motoman on 5/19/2009 3:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Some twin-turbo V6 E85/hybrid electric powertrain is not ever going to grant the same capability to pull a trailer and/or haul cargo as my 5.9l Cummins turbo diesel. Even if you manage to come up with a stats sheet showing "comparable" output. Doesn't work that way.


RE: Awesome.
By retrospooty on 5/19/2009 3:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
So what?

Then exercise your right to buy the model that suits your needs.

What is so hard to understand here?


RE: Awesome.
By Motoman on 5/19/2009 6:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
The point is whether or not they'll still be offering trucks with conventional powertrains after this.

30MPG for pickup trucks? That's not attainable with any upcoming ICE tech that I know of - not on the powertrain scale required to match my current diesel.


RE: Awesome.
By retrospooty on 5/19/2009 7:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
your being thick... Nothing or no-one said that pickups are required to get 30mpg. It says 42mpg is an average across all models. This includes small cars, hybrids, mid size, large cars, and pickups. Obviously the small, mid and hybrid will be the good mileage and the trucks and SUV's will be on the bottom end.


RE: Awesome.
By gsellis on 5/19/2009 10:18:19 AM , Rating: 2
It also will directly affect the used car market in years to come. These folks do not see how these decisions will restrict the availability of transportation to the lower income brackets. Used cars will have significant maintenance costs in the hybrid market. If they go whole hog and try to quickly eliminate gasoline, there is no alternative fuel pool of used vehicles. Gone will be the $2-8k used vehicle that is reliable transportation for a measurable part of the population. This market will take a hit on regulations that force emission standards to exceed the technology of cars post production.


RE: Awesome.
By retrospooty on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Awesome.
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:35:54 AM , Rating: 1
Don't wear a hat. Don't drive a truck. Don't drink beer. Don't kick shit since it smells up my shoes.

Anything else?


RE: Awesome.
By retrospooty on 5/19/2009 12:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yet you fit it so well... =)

Your economic assumptions on the billions of dollars it will take to get this done and the inafordability of cars for normal people are flawed.

Yes it will take money to get it done, but that also created new jobs and new revenue streams.

Also it is not mandated to every single car produced. It is an average fuel rating per model. This means SOME cars will be better and SOME will not. There will still be affordable cars, and once the tech is used by more and more makers, competitive pricing makes it all cheaper and we all win in the long run. Even with that, GM can still make an SUV and 3 cars and have a high average model range. Even if that SUV sells one million units, and the 3 cars combined sell only 100k units - you still have a high average.

Also, you neglect the gasoline saving. Do you seriously think that gas will still be at $250 a gallon in 2016? How about 2026? ITs going to get more and more expensive and we have to do something. Free market cant and wont react until its too late.

I applaud the descision to do this. Bush's 35mpg by 2020 was good - Obama's 42 by 2016 is better.


RE: Awesome.
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 12:46:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Even if that SUV sells one million units, and the 3 cars combined sell only 100k units - you still have a high average.


http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/Cfc_title49/ACTchap...

Actually it takes production numbers into account.

quote:
Also, you neglect the gasoline saving.


I have no delusions that the cost of gas will go up. But I also don't think that by 2016 we'll have the ability to build an electric car that will go 300-400 miles per charge and recharge in 5-10 minutes to full capacity like a gas tank can be refilled. I'm fine with cars like the Volt, but we should have the option to purchase other cars. And if the price of gas drives fuel inefficient vehicles out of production, than so be it. As long as it is not the government artificially driving the price up.

That is why I support alternative fuels. If we have the ability to produce diesel from plants, why not do it? Diesels can already get better fuel economy than the Prius as it is. And it excels in trucks and SUVs. Plus since to make the fuel the plants have to suck that "awful" CO2 out of the air, its "carbon nuetral". Finally, for the people like me, we still get fun cars that we want to drive. I'd gladly put a turbo diesel V8 into the GTO(it something I'm considering doing in a few years if I still have the car and gas goes up).

Mandating arbitrary dates for something to arrive doesn't make it appear out of thin air. Don't act like I don't want to reduce consumption of foreign oil. But also don't expect me to cut back on my use of said foreign oil(unless I choose to) when your only alternative is to drive smaller cars which I don't want to drive. Especially when we have so much oil here at home we have the ability to tap into but don't.


RE: Awesome.
By retrospooty on 5/19/2009 2:59:38 PM , Rating: 1
"I'm fine with cars like the Volt, but we should have the option to purchase other cars"

You will.

But also don't expect me to cut back on my use of said foreign oil(unless I choose to) when your only alternative is to drive smaller cars which I don't want to drive.

You dont have to.

You're whole argument is poop


RE: Awesome.
By arsmitty86 on 5/19/2009 1:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong again... Your buying into propaganda. Here's an example... I drive a jeep liberty (yes i'm an enthusaist and yes it's unfortunatley a Chrysler product but it fits my NEEDS now.) It get's a whopping 20mpg... If I were to buy the 20k for the insight for example, vs the 16 I paid for my jeep let's do the math...

20,000 miles a year on a car at $4.00 a gallon let's say.

20,000/20=1000 gallons of gas 1000*4= $4000
20,000/50=400 gallons of gas 400*4=$1600 per year

now 20000-16000=$4000 even going from a used car to a brand new one would still take me almost 2 years to recoupe. In the real world the difference is even larger considering the price for a "fuel efficient" version of the vehicle is usually more than 5K more expensive.


RE: Awesome.
By retrospooty on 5/19/2009 2:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
What is your point? For your situation the Chrysler was a better purchase? I agree, based on your scenario of a 2 year plan and your 20k miles per year it was a better buy - congrats.

Now fast forward several years when this is starting to be imnplemented.

A. No-one is forcing anyone to buy a hybrid.
B. After 2 years you didn't recoup your cost, what about after 8 years? You more than recoup it.
C. What if gas were 8$ a gallon by the end of an 8 year car life, it might be even more than that. Hell, it was 4.50 a gallon last summer and there wasnt even a shortage or REAL reason for it. What if it were more than $8 ?



RE: Awesome.
By arsmitty86 on 5/19/2009 2:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
Oops. No I don't regain it in 8 either, since those batteries are only warranted for 150,000 miles I'm out 5k on that too. Back in the hole...


RE: Awesome.
By retrospooty on 5/19/2009 3:15:39 PM , Rating: 2
warranted for 150K miles means they will fix it if it fails within 150K miles.

It doesnt exactly automatically fail at 150k miles you know... duh.


RE: Awesome.
By TSS on 5/19/2009 7:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
he's half right though. if the standards where raised years ago, higher MPG cars could've been bought during the high years, so for little money, while they'd save massively on fuel during the crisis.

however obama is an idiot. he has the right idea's. but a completly screwed up timing. if anything i'd drop the standards now, since people won't drive if they don't have any money, save the enviroment that way, and make life easyer during hard times. you can always raise standards again when you can afford the LUXURY that "gobal warming".


RE: Awesome.
By inperfectdarkness on 5/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Awesome.
By Suomynona on 5/19/2009 10:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
Drama queen much?


By Chris Peredun on 5/19/2009 9:56:25 AM , Rating: 5
The manufacturers will make them, try to get them to meet CAFE standards, fail to meet them, pay the fine, and pass the cost on to the consumer as a flat-rate increase across their model line.




By gsellis on 5/19/2009 10:03:54 AM , Rating: 2
You are correct. For example, the current Honda CR-V with a 4 cylinder gets Hwy 27 (2009 at new EPA site). That is about as small as it gets and that is with a Honda ULEV engine IIRC.


By AssBall on 5/19/2009 12:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Also:

"The drivers of these cars are going to save money at the pump."

They certainly will not! As more efficient cars are sold, gas supply needs go down, so price will increase to compensate and the suckers will be paying just as much or more for gas than they were with their old guzzlers.


By Yawgm0th on 5/19/2009 1:10:51 PM , Rating: 3
Uh... When demand goes up for gas, price goes way up. When demand goes down drastically, the price goes down. The last six months have proven that. It's the basic concept of supply and demand.

Admittedly, with much of our oil supply being cartel-supplied (OPEC), it gets a little more complicated than supply and demand. But no matter what, the price of oil will increase more if demand continues to increase than it would if demand decreases.

Anyhow, the quote is right regardless of the price of gas. Owners of more fuel-efficient cars are going to spend less on gas per mile than owners of less fuel-efficient cars.


By gsellis on 5/19/2009 1:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, price stickiness in the fuel market overrides demand pricing quite often. Pricing has been more dependent on speculation and cartel behavior. Speculation artficially inflated price. The cartel and regulation in supply have limited supply.

Once the speculation fell out of the market around October (the brokerage firms quit trying to make money in oil speculation because of other issues), price went down. Supply was artificially down following that as suppliers withheld delivery hoping for price to come back up.

And now, we are experiencing formulation change costs, supply reductions in hope to increase price, and seasonal demand increases (actually I think it is anticipation of seasonal demand increases - no data yet on summer travel increases.)

Finally, fuel is just one factor in owner ship. Consider that there is a hidden fuel charge in a hybrid. Around 100k miles, you need to replace the battery pack and that cost can potentially exceed any fuel savings.


By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 2:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When demand goes up for gas, price goes way up. When demand goes down drastically, the price goes down.

Actually - when the demand for fuel is ARTIFICIALLY lowered, then the supply will lower, and pricing will increase due to corporate and national budgets.

If you think the rate of increase on fuel prices is going to be slower than the rate of increase in mileage standards, you're living in a fantasy land.


abra cadabra!
By tastyratz on 5/19/2009 11:18:24 AM , Rating: 4
Lets wave our magic gas mileage wand and fix all of our problems. Economy trouble? No worries we can throw money at it!
Emissions? Lets just cut it! How about gas mileage? mandate it - there fixed!

These things are new hot button ideas that are being dumped. How many years could this have been pushed gracefully to the end goal? How many years have engines been developed with much less restriction? They are dumping 20 years of research on a 7 year restriction span.

This isn't going to "help the earth" this is going to just drive automakers as well as consumers further in the hole, way to kick off the recession!

Consumer automotive emissions make up such a small fraction of green house gases today but they are always the biggest target. 30% cut of almost nothing is still almost nothing.

Silly me I think we should look at actual change through targeting productive markets. Industry, factories, large construction equipment as well as big rig trucks. You can literally SEE clouds of pollutants wafting off those things, yet we keep barking up the wrong trees.

Guys I would love to add 2 more inches to my own "magic wand" do you think if its mandated I can make it happen?




RE: abra cadabra!
By tastyratz on 5/19/2009 11:38:02 AM , Rating: 4
hate to be the guy replying to his own post, but I just found this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&si...
according to bloomberg
quote:
About 13,000 facilities that account for as much as 90 percent of greenhouse gas emissions


Right there. So if factories are responsible for up to 90% or so, that sits everything else in the 10% group.
Commercial equipment is far dirtier than new cars, and new cars are significantly cleaner than the older cars which are the majority of whats on the road.

What would the net benefit be of 30% emissions reduction in consumer automobiles? less than 1% actual change compared to current standards? and at what cost to everyone else? We are really at a point where its a marketing ploy becoming blood from a stone...


While we are at it...
By gsellis on 5/19/2009 9:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
Barack should also require all gas/coal fired power plants to switch to fusion by 2030, require a vaccine for the common cold by 2015, and all humans to have zero CO2 emissions by 2018.

You cannot mandate technology. 30MPG trucks? And the payload will be what, 3000 gross? Carbon fiber framing and skinning to get the weight down is going to cost ya. Aluminum honeycomb is not an answer has the strength is direction. Aluminum is expensive technology. Plastic composites, errr wait, plastics are evil.

Net result, vehicle costs are going way up and will have a non-compliance tax on them. Lighter vehicles without serious structural changes that are inconvienant will increase vehicle injuries and deaths (I know the basics to make safer light-weight vehicles, but consumers will not like the cabin or the cost).




RE: While we are at it...
By superflex on 5/19/2009 10:55:09 AM , Rating: 3
Paper mache SUVs and trucks. They'll be good for hauling loads of fiberglass insulation and packing peanuts.


Presidential Motorcade
By superflex on 5/19/2009 11:05:23 AM , Rating: 4
I'll support the switch when the presidential motorcade, Air Force One and Marine One all become 20% more fuel efficient.
Until then, Obama can suck on my 450 hp tailpipes.




Hypocritical Much?
By GWD5318 on 5/19/2009 11:09:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.), a strong proponent of stricter standards...


Was this not the same a-hole who drove the first production Hummer through a plate glass window in New York?

Now he would have us all driving a Prius.




RE: Hypocritical Much?
By Nutzo on 5/19/2009 11:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.), a strong proponent of stricter standards...

He's done such a great job out here in California.. NOT

He went from a moderate to a far left wacko in his first couple years. He should just get it over with and switch parties.


Doesn't go far enough, quickly enough
By Bateluer on 5/19/2009 2:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel economy standards should be well above 35.5mpg today, not 5 years from now. In 2016, we should have average fuel economies pushing 60mpg. The technology already exists, automakers, particularly US automakers, just dragged their feet on it. Foreign automakers dragged their feet too, just not as much.




By rudolphna on 5/19/2009 3:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
Are you out of your mind? 60MPG? Lets get something straight, the toyota fucking prius, barely gets 50mpg. The Jetta TDI diesel, manages 55-60. Those are bare bones, designed for fuel efficiency cars. Ordinary cars ARE NOT going to ever hit 60MPG on gasoline, not ever. It just wont happen. That would be saying bye bye SUVs, Pickup trucks, mini vans, semi trucks, busses, everything. What kind of wacky world are you living in that you think all cars should have 35.5 MPG today? Sorry, get your head out of your own little world, and stick it back into reality. The technology does NOT exist. You cannot get a Ford Edge, Honda CRV to get 40MPG. Learn something about cars before talking about something which you know jack about.


oh yeah?
By Homerboy on 5/19/2009 9:30:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.), a strong proponent of stricter standards, along with Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.) will be on hand as President Barack Obama announces the new standards.


Are they flying in for the ceremony? ...commercial of course.




Small car
By rburnham on 5/19/2009 9:56:45 AM , Rating: 1
Without as many large trucks and SUVs on the road, maybe I'll be able to see when I try to make turns or pull out of parking spots at the store. Amazing.




RE: Small car
By weskurtz0081 on 5/19/2009 10:12:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, because that's what important! Evil big truck drivers!


You can have any car
By michal1980 on 5/19/2009 4:58:38 PM , Rating: 3
as long as its black.

now the goverment says, you can have any car you want.

'as long as its small'

or expensive.




low octane flamers
By Cascaderanger on 5/19/2009 8:38:11 PM , Rating: 3
Wish there was a competency test for forums. Forums were a good idea; then came the trolls.




I want to have freedom of choice!
By Steve73 on 5/19/2009 10:46:27 PM , Rating: 3
What ever happen to the belief that government exist to protect are natural rights: Life, Liberty, and Property? We seem to have lost this perspective in the U.S. Its not anyone’s right to tell one person how to live so why would it be alright for government to do this? If, I wanted to buy a vehicle that gets 5 or 100 mpg, it should be my prerogative (although, I would be broke from paying high gas prices). Just because there’s a group of people who think they know what’s best, does not give them the right to infringe on my natural rights. You will never take my Freedommmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !




Not enough
By crystal clear on 5/19/2009 10:16:46 AM , Rating: 2
Vehicles made by overseas manufacturers, already meet or exceed the standards set to be proposed.

Ford in Europe has the technology & does manufacrure cars in Europe that meet these proposed standards.

The USA instead of catching up with the Japanese & the E.U.should rather focus in beating them by setting even higher standards.




By corduroygt on 5/19/2009 11:10:50 AM , Rating: 2
But of course what else did you expect from this administration? If you really want the US to reduce its oil consumption, which is good because it reduces our dependency on oil and terrorism exporting countries and not because of the GW nonsense, just add a 25% tax to each gallon. Not only you'll push people to buy more efficient cars while others who are ok with paying the extra price of fuel will be free to drive any gas guzzler they want, but you'll also start making headways into paying our national debt, along with liquidating all wall street firms of course.




Effeciency is good
By Simozene on 5/19/2009 11:15:20 AM , Rating: 2
Why is it that people think that just because a vehicle will be more fuel efficient that it won't be as powerful? That might be the case today but not necessarily in the future once the technology exists.

I for one think it is great that technology has gone the route of performance per watt and power efficiency. All home appliances continually become more efficient as well. I just bought a new dishwasher because my 15 year old one broke down. This new one uses less then a third the power and water of the previous one and it cleans the dishes better.

Who says cars won't use less fuel and be more powerful in the future? With all this government focus on fuel efficiency it will hopefully spur the auto industry into developing the new technology they need.




Re:
By Roy2001 on 5/19/2009 11:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
"studies show they(cars) are less safe".

Yeah the more SUVs, the less safe of cars. Everyone gets a SUV, then smaller SUVs are less safe, we can get into a race to reach the goal everyone gets a tank, right?




Yeah, right...
By djcameron on 5/19/2009 2:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
This is just the past repeating itself. We've had past Presidents that have declared high CAFE standards at some time in the future, usually after they are out of office. As we get closer to that date, the gubmint will relax the standards to something more to the liking of the auto industry lobbyists.




used car sales
By Screwballl on 5/19/2009 2:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
Once this starts to take hold, demand for used full size cars, mid to large trucks, almost all SUVs and mid to large vans will skyrocket, with many models being priced the same or higher than brand new models.

OR rather than force a new mileage standard, why not force a new powerplant... such as nuclear or magnetic (as in magnets turning a flywheel to power the car)?




35.5 MPG on average?
By pequin06 on 5/19/2009 4:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
Why not make it 50 MPG or 100 MPG?

Gotta love politics...




Just one big problem
By Saist on 5/19/2009 4:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
There's just one big problem with a lot of Obama's plans. He took office in 2009. At the rate he's pissing off US taxpayers, his congressional powerbase will be completely evaporate in 2011, and everything he's done so far that can be repealed will likely be repealed. If Obama is not impeached, and then frog-marched to jail, in 2011 by the new Congress, he will most certainly be trashed in the 2012 elections... should he be dumb enough to decide to run again.

Many of his plans though, such as this one, have ending dates after 2012. This one is set for 2016.

Does anybody else understand what Obama is doing?

He's putting the responsibility for all of these plans on the subsequent administration. Presuming that the following Administration is Republican based, and probably fronted by Sarah Palin, the failure of these plans suddenly become THEIR fault... and not OBAMA's .

This was one of the major points that the Associated-Media deliberatly skipped over in the 2007 and 2008 election run-ups. Case in point, Obama was touting a 10-year energy plan. Even if he was able to carry both the 2008 and 2012 elections, Obama can only spend 8 years in office . A ten year energy plan means that Obama can sit on his butt in front of a mirror preening for 8 years, leave office, and if the following administration doesn't complete the plan in the 2 years they got left with , the failure of the plan is placed on the following administration... instead of on who it belongs to... in this case, Obama .

It's cheap, it's nasty, and you can bet your last dollar that nobody in CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Associated Press, Reuters, or Microsoft-NBC is gonna call Obama down on this put-off.




Excellent move
By FXi on 5/19/2009 10:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's a painful move, but one of many we sorely need. Like a bunch of kids we need a bit of firm guidance. The waste has to stop. The smog needs to be cleaned up. And we can't wait longer for it to happen.

Nobody likes to do without, but we need to be ready when gas is $10 a gallon, and it will be before 2020.




Not bad
By Frallan on 5/20/2009 10:07:01 AM , Rating: 2
That is one way of doing it - the other would be to tax the gas as in Europe. We pay about 5.7 USD per American Gallon right now. That more or less accomplishes the same thing.

BR
/F




Big Rigs?
By Aeonic on 5/20/2009 2:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
I also dislike this 35.5 mpg minimum. I'm torn. I like innovation, but I don't think much ever gets done without an actual, tangible need. Government controls always seem to result in loopholes and stretching current tech too far rather than developing new tech.

Also, the car is kind of an American institution, a symbol, and I'm uneasy with government attempting to mandate what they see as appropriate for me to drive. My choice in cars is my own, I don't want the choice indirectly limited. And I've seen enough potential models cancelled by CAFE standards (I think that's it) that I know this does actually affect my choices. It's like saying, "You can buy any car you wish, out of the one cars I'm offering you."

That being said, the first $25-30k all electric car that performs as well as a V8 and has a range that doesn't totally suck, and looks sexy, I'm going to buy it and drive it till it falls apart :)




Great!???
By buckeyeman on 5/19/2009 9:33:09 AM , Rating: 1
Just what we do not need: more big government!




It's a start.
By reader1 on 5/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: It's a start.
By retrospooty on 5/19/2009 9:40:12 AM , Rating: 4
To hell with global warming - we should have done it years ago to get us off of the need for so much foreign oil. LEss emissions is just a nice side effect to the much bigger political and economic issues if you ask me.


RE: It's a start.
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 10:02:38 AM , Rating: 3
How about we drill at home to get us off foreign oil. Oh wait we're not allowed to do that either.


RE: It's a start.
By callmeroy on 5/19/2009 10:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
don't be silly FIT, you know its more fun to blame our problems on the rest of the world than to say --- tap the estimated 300 years worth of oil under our own soil....after all owls, trees and polar bears can't be disturbed you know....


RE: It's a start.
By Suomynona on 5/19/2009 10:14:39 AM , Rating: 3
The oil that we have domestically is a drop in the bucket compared to how much we use. Offshore drilling would barely make a dent in our oil imports.


RE: It's a start.
By Nutzo on 5/19/2009 11:32:49 AM , Rating: 3
The oil that we have domestically is a drop in the bucket compared to how much we use. Offshore drilling would barely make a dent in our oil imports.

Actually, just the known oil reserves (Gulf of Mexico, altantic/pacific coasts, Alaska, etc.) where the federal government has restricted the oil companys from drilling, is enough to replace ALL imported oil for over 20 years.

This does not include other areas where they have been restricted from even drilling test wells.


RE: It's a start.
By walk2k on 5/19/2009 12:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
Estimated oil in US offshore fields: 20B barrels

US oil usage: 2M barrels / DAY

You do the math... (that's 100 DAYS worth of oil, less than 4 MONTHS worth).


RE: It's a start.
By walk2k on 5/19/2009 12:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
oops typo, it's 2B barrels, 20M /day
= 100 days.


RE: It's a start.
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2009 1:00:33 PM , Rating: 4
That 20B estimate barely accounts for just the OCS. But anyway.

Oil shale.

quote:
A 2005 estimate set the total world resources of oil shale at 411 gigatons — enough to yield 2.8 to 3.3 trillion barrels (520 km3) of shale oil.[2][3][4][5] This exceeds the world's proven conventional oil reserves, estimated at 1.317 trillion barrels (209.4×10^9 m3), as of 1 January 2007.[22]The largest deposits in the world occur in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; about 70% of this resource lies on federally owned or managed land.[23] Deposits in the United States constitute 62% of world resources;


2.8 trillion barrels (the low estimate) * 60% = 1.68 trillion barrels

1.68 trillion barrels / 20 million barrels a day(actual US daily consumption from EIA) = 230 years before we run out from oil shale alone.

Not to mention the fact that we haven't even really looked at whats off the coast of California or most of of the East coast.


RE: It's a start.
By mdogs444 on 5/19/2009 2:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure where you got your math, but it obviously wasn't from the Mineral Management Service.

quote:
The US OCS is conservatively estimated by Minerals Management Service (MMS) to hold undiscovered technically recoverable resources of over 419 tcf of natural gas and 86 Bbbl of oil. That’s estimated to be enough natural gas to heat 100 million homes for 60 years, and enough oil to drive 85 million cars for 35 years or to replace current Persian Gulf imports for almost 60 years.


quote:
In fact, there may be even more oil and natural gas offshore, because the more industry explores, the more they find. In the parts of the Gulf of Mexico where industry has been allowed to buy leases and explore, it has found about five times as much oil and three times as much natural gas as was once thought to be there.


quote:
In 1987, MMS estimated that the GoM held about 10 Bbbl of oil and 100 tcf of natural gas; yet, earlier this decade the Gulf was estimated to have 45 Bbbl of oil and 230 tcf of gas yet to be discovered, in addition to the 6 Bbbl of oil and 75 tcf of gas already produced since the 1987 estimates.


http://www.offshore-mag.com/display_article/360999...


RE: It's a start.
By GWD5318 on 5/19/2009 9:42:04 AM , Rating: 5