backtop


Print 161 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Aug 4 at 1:49 PM

The Ford F-150 will make extensive use of aluminum which could add $1,500 to the cost of the truck

Upcoming fuel standards proposed by the Obama Administration are affecting all auto manufacturers. The regulations would see the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rise every year for manufacturers from 2017 through 2025. By 2025, auto manufacturer will be expected to meet a fleetwide 54.5 mpg CAFE average.
 
The Department of Transportation says that meeting the 54.5 mpg CAFE average will save customers nearly $7,000 in lifetime fuel costs, but that figure will be mostly offset by the increase in costs associated with more advanced powertrains and lightweight materials needed to achieve that goal (the National Automobile Dealers Association claims that "fuel saving technologies" will add $5,000 to the cost of a 2025 model year vehicle).
 
I. Aluminum to the Rescue
 
According to a new report by the Wall Street Journal, Ford is already well on its way to making one of its most popular gas guzzlers more fuel efficient in the coming years. The F-Series has been the best selling truck in America for the past 30 years, so any drastic changes made to Ford's most profitable vehicle line aren't taken lightly. But in this case, "lightly" is exactly what's on Ford's mind -- the next generation F-150 will reportedly make extensive use of aluminum to drastically shed the pounds to boost fuel economy by as much as 25%.
 
The current F-150's hood has been made of aluminum since 2004, but applications of the lightweight metal will spread to include the doors, cargo box, fenders, front suspension/steering components, and portions of the interior structure. When all is said and done, the next generation F-150 will shed roughly 700 pounds of weight thanks to aluminum.
 
"Aluminum is certainly a big opportunity for weight reduction," said Raj Nair, Ford's global chief of product development earlier this year. "We have been public that weight reduction is going to be a big part of our strategy."
 
II. Extra Aluminum Means Added Costs for Customers
 
However, the intensive use of aluminum in the next generation F-150 doesn't come without its downsides. Aluminum is harder to work with than steel when it comes to building vehicles. In addition, aluminum body parts are costlier and harder to repair which in turn leads to higher insurance premiums.
 
And then there's the issue of costs for the buyer when it comes time to sign on the dotted line for new truck. It's estimated that Ford's new aluminum obsession will add roughly $1,500 in material costs to the F-150 (which would most likely be passed on to the customer). This is a risky bet for a vehicle that is a cash cow for Ford.


Ford CEO Alan Mulally stands beside a 2013 Ford F-150 Limited
 
However, some feel that customers will eventually come around to Ford's master plan. "There is going to be a certain percentage of the people that will bitch and complain, but they will ultimately get that vehicle," said Mike Shaw, owner of more than a dozen auto dealerships in the state of Colorado. "They may hold off for a little and keep their old ones longer. Then they will buy a new one."
 
Naturally, a spokesman for Ford is downplaying the Wall Street Journal's article on such a dramatic weight reduction, perhaps not wanting to spoil what it has in store for F-150. "It is premature to discuss specific approaches or solutions that we might use for future products," stated Ford spokesman Said Deep in an interview with Detroit News. "Ford is already a leader in aluminum use in full-sized pickups. We're constantly looking at multiple ways to improve the fuel efficiency and capabilities of our cars and trucks with innovative technologies."
 
III. Gains in Fuel Economy Already Being Made
 
Reducing weight isn’t the only option Ford has on the table for increasing fuel economy on its best-seller. Two years ago, Ford introduced an all-new lineup of V6 and V8 engines to the F-150 to not only increase power, but also increase fuel efficiency across the board. 
 
The 302hp 3.7-liter V6 already helps the current F-150 achieve best-in-class fuel economy of 17/23 (city/highway). Likewise, the EcoBoost V6 has been a popular option with buyers, offering performance superior to the available 5.0-liter V8 while achieving fuel economy ratings of 16/22 (city/highway).


Ford's 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 engine is optional on the current F-150
 
The two V6 options have proved to be powerful and popular enough to account for over 50% of all F-150 sales; numbers that are typically unheard of for a full-size pickup truck.
 
Reduced vehicle weight along with more efficient powertrains could make for some interesting options for truck buyers in the future. It may seem sacrilege to even mention this, but could we possibly even see a four-cylinder EcoBoost F-150 in the future?

Sources: Wall Street Journal, Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

EPA can kiss my....
By Kaldor on 7/27/2012 8:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
Lets keep telling the manufacturers they need to hit some completely unrealistic number for fuel mileage. They maybe can do it, but by the time they hit that number we are going to be looking at $40k+ for a base model car or truck. Another negative side effect is causing sales to drop and they wonder why car manufacturers are in trouble. People simply cannot afford a $40K vehicle today, so they drive their old ones longer, which in turn reduces the amount of used cars available to buy.

Just a bad idea all around.




RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Ytsejamer1 on 7/27/2012 9:21:31 AM , Rating: 1
I agree, let's not do anything to cut energy consumption down. Let's just keep doing what we've been doing and things will get better...somehow. We all know Detroit's car makers are known to be extremely agile and efficient.

I know the EPA gets a bad rap for their new requirements but at some point, someone has to put some pressure on companies and their R&D departments to start thinking outside the box or at the very least, try a bit of forward thinking.

If cars cost more, then so be it. Consumers don't have to keep consuming for the sake of consuming. Maybe people try and take care of their cars, keep them longer, keep the local repair shops a bit busier, maybe even *shock* try doing things themselves.

A little bit of inconvenience will in the long run, be worth the effort. I look forward to seeing what the companies can do.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By bug77 on 7/27/2012 9:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
There was another stupid idea floating around: migrate/improve when new technology is ready. I'm glad we got rid of that.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By twhittet on 7/27/2012 10:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
So - we don't have the technology to make aluminum hoods and doors? Wow, that sux. Thanks for letting us know Mr. Automobile Engineer.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By bug77 on 7/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: EPA can kiss my....
By MozeeToby on 7/27/2012 2:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
The average American landfill has more aluminum per ton than the average aluminum mine. I can't believe there hasn't been a major push to start landfill mining yet, it seems inevitable (there are lots of places that reclaim as stuff goes in, but I've yet to hear anyone digging through the landfills from the 60s and 70s before recycling programs kicked in).


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Ringold on 7/27/2012 4:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
Researchers and recycling companies constantly try to get the technology there, be separating things isn't easy or cheap enough, yet.

Think about whats on a computer motherboard for example. Lots of precious metals, but all in close proximity, all bonded together.

Exporting scrap metal to China for recycling though is huge business.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Totally on 7/27/2012 10:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
So, it's simply a matter melt of melting the aluminum down, which will be done anyway, to deal with rust and remove gases, and refine it to remove contaminants.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By bug77 on 7/28/2012 10:26:44 AM , Rating: 3
Once you've solved all that, you're done. With the first step. Aluminum is much harder to work with than steel. Partly because it's not as strong and it needs additional strengthening. You'd be surprised to know how complicated it is to turn aluminum into a can of soda - and that's a rather simple product. For example, even if it a single piece, the bottom is much tougher than the side walls.
Think about the bigger picture too. If it was worth using aluminum instead of steel, wouldn't at least one car maker have done it already? If they could build a lighter car at a reasonable cost, that would be an incredible advantage over the competition.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By mindless1 on 8/2/2012 8:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
In a production environment aluminum isn't that much harder to work with. We're not talking about uncle Bob hammer parts to shape in his garage then welding them with dragon fire, modern plants make aluminum a relatively easy material to work with.

There is nothing especially complex about bending metal into shapes that have ridges and non-flat areas for strength, primitive people were banging out pots, pans, and shields to achieve this quite a long time ago using sticks and rocks as tools.

Why didn't they already do it? Because the typical customer thinks more about financed purchase price than fuel cost or rust or damage repair costs later in life. Because we live in a throwaway society where cheap up front cost counts most.

The key thing to consider is the idea of "reasonable cost". Yes one change may cost only $1500. Now add on that other change that is $1320, and the $300 cost, and the $2000 cost. Hmm, it seems we've now taken a base model vehicle and raised the price by as much as it is worth halfway through its viable lifespan.

My point is, on a costly vehicle this makes more sense. On an entire line of pickup trucks, a vehicle certainly not purchased with fuel economy in mind?

Ironically enough of all the changes that have been proposed to increase MPG, I am in favor of incorporating more aluminum rather than engine or transmission tweaks. As a civilization we have far more knowledge and demonstrated ability over the past few decades using aluminum.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Solandri on 7/29/2012 3:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
The reason aluminum is expensive is because you need to dump energy into it to separate the elemental aluminum from the other materials it's bonded with to form bauxite (aluminum ore). So any time you need to "refine it to remove contaminants," it's potentially easier/cheaper to just mine raw bauxite.

For landfills in particular, the regulatory agencies would be all over it and insist that the waste by products be handled in an expensive way to prevent additional contamination. It's not like raw ore mining where most of the byproducts have other industrial uses, or can either be dumped back into the round. If you're going to recycle aluminum, it's imperative to extract it before it reaches the landfill.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By mindless1 on 8/2/2012 8:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
There hasn't been a push because it is more expensive to recycle existing aluminum products than to mine it.

Recycling programs already exist but they exclude ridiculous types of things. Even if I had a 100% pure ingot of 6061 aluminum, it would take a special trip to a recycling center that can "handle" that instead of recycling with normal consumer waste. It's ridiculous.

Yes someday we might mine landfills, when it is cost effective. For now, there is no reason to. Aluminum isn't exactly scarce. Yes it "rapes the land" where a mine is, but so does human civilization in general.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By spamreader1 on 7/27/2012 11:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
Devils advocate here. Sure, we have the technology, is it cost effective?

If we went off saying we have the technology for everything we should do it, then there would be no fossil fuel burning power plants by this time already. (Go Nukes Go) Granted that's a bit of a strech due to regulatory issues with the "Tree Hugger anti-nuke" crowd, but you get the point I'm making here.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By mcnabney on 7/27/2012 5:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
The whole CAFE standard is just the wrong way to encourage efficiency. It compels manufacturers to make a lot of little cars to balance out the big ones or produce a ton of SUVs when they were excluded from the calculation.
Since the goal is to reduce petroleum imports and eliminate the reliance on unstable parts of the world what we should have done is just slapped a big fuel tax on gasoline and diesel. That higher cost (which reflects the actual cost in blood and tax dollars in invading/propping up cronies in the Middle East) will make petroleum-powered cars less desirable when they guzzle. The market would encourage high efficiency for some segments, but completely ignore it for vehicles that have to be bought for business or are luxuries and the higher cost of gas doesn't matter when the consumer is loaded. It has worked great in Europe. Still plenty of high-powered vehicles, but the public prefers buying the 'right sized' vehicle now.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 5:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since the goal is to reduce petroleum imports and eliminate the reliance on unstable parts of the world what we should have done is just increase domestic drilling and exploration.


Fixed.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 10:55:04 PM , Rating: 1
doesn't matter how much you increase domestics there isn't enough to go around.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By cruisin3style on 7/30/2012 4:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
The following is from an AP piece i read a few months ago

quote:
Unlike natural gas or electricity, the United States alone does not have the power to change the supply-and-demand equation in the world oil market, said Christopher Knittel, a professor of energy economics at MIT. American oil production is about 11 percent of the world's output, so even if the U.S. were to increase its oil production by 50 percent -- that is more than drilling in the Arctic, increased public-lands and offshore drilling, and the Canadian pipeline would provide -- it would at most cut gas prices by 10 percent. "There are not many markets where the United States can't impose its will on market outcomes," Knittel said. "This is one we can't, and it's hard for the average American to understand that and it's easy for politicians to feed off that."


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: EPA can kiss my....
By cruisin3style on 7/30/2012 6:03:51 PM , Rating: 4
So because the AP has a quote from an energy economics professor at MIT, his expertise is worthless versus if he was quoted by, say, the ever-vigilant-to-stay-unbiased Fox News?

Fox, by the way, managed to get a appellate court win in Florida that says that it is not illegal to falsify the news. Enjoy your unbiased sources ;)


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: EPA can kiss my....
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2012 9:45:34 AM , Rating: 2
My guess is the inconvenience is fine for you because you're not buying an F-150.

The EPA gets a bad rap because of its policies effects on the economy and jobs. Mainly that they ruin both. Hope you're looking forward to your energy bills going up. Thank the EPA. They get a bad rap because they are going around Congress to implement policies (aka laws) that Congress refuses to pass due to their disastrous effect and widespread unpopularity.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By SeeManRun on 7/27/2012 10:38:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The EPA gets a bad rap because of its policies effects on the economy and jobs.


Any actual evidence or studies on this? While the move to be more green results in job losses in some industries, it also created jobs in other industries. I would be interested to see the net effect after a decade or so on jobs where the EPA has made some sweeping rules.

Wasn't the elimination of acid rain because of the EPA?


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 10:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While the move to be more green results in job losses in some industries, it also created jobs in other industries.


Like Solyndra?

The "green industry" is a bubble fueled by Government handouts and subsidies. Those "other industries" that suffer are the ones that actually make this economy work.

quote:
I would be interested to see the net effect after a decade or so on jobs where the EPA has made some sweeping rules.


Right okay, just ask the coal industry how they're doing now. As electricity rates increase for most Americans. There's too many examples of this to even list. Have you looked into it, or do you choose to remain willfully ignorant?

quote:
Wasn't the elimination of acid rain because of the EPA?


Yes but that was their job. Protecting the environment. Fuel mandates are entirely political in nature, not even close to the acid rain situation.

Anyone who thinks these standards are about the "environment" should really take the blinders off.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Paj on 7/27/2012 11:16:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fuel mandates are entirely political in nature, not even close to the acid rain situation.


So your assertion is that burning fossil fuels has no effect on the environment?


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By AssBall on 7/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 11:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
What's funny is by the time these standards are in place, they'll be like 50+ million more cars on the roads. So the idea that we'll be "greener"...yeeeeah.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By nolisi on 7/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Dorkyman on 7/27/2012 1:47:16 PM , Rating: 3
How about we REALLY take the blinders off, shall we?

(1) Yeah, it's a hassle and could be dangerous to depend on an energy source that experiences price volatility. Not only that, but a source that handsomely enriches our potential enemies.

But society has known for many decades how to greatly reduce that dependence (nukes, offshore drilling, ANWR, even Keystone) yet they illogically have chosen to ignore those options. I'd suggest it's time to ramp up those other options.

(2) Yeah, there's a "limit" as to oil extraction. But where is it? I suggest the issue will automatically take care of itself. If/when oil becomes more scarce, prices will naturally rise, and alternatives will come to the fore. No need for artificially force the issue prematurely with EPA mandates, which exist because those currently in power believe they know what's best for all of us, and love being in charge. I'm hoping for a change, though, and very soon.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By nolisi on 7/27/2012 3:53:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I suggest the issue will automatically take care of itself. If/when oil becomes more scarce, prices will naturally rise, and alternatives will come to the fore. No need for artificially force the issue prematurely with EPA mandates, which exist because those currently in power believe they know what's best for all of us, and love being in charge.


We talk about bringing business smarts into government, but part of business smarts is managing infrastructure.

Business doesn't wait for prices to actually rise before they begin transitions. It anticipates limitations and takes steps in advance to safeguard the business.

One strategy employed by successful businesses is managed infrastructure shifts. It requires future investment in new methodologies and infrastructure prior to a full transition... sometimes even when it's not immediately cost effective in order to execute a smooth transition and well before existing procedures/infrastructure has reached their limitations. This preserves stability in the business.

But let's not manage our national economy like that. Let's wait until gas prices are exorbitantly high and quickly building massive new infrastructure to support alternate energy is expensive to begin transitions.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Schrag4 on 7/30/2012 12:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to think oil will dry up overnight. It'll take decades, and that won't start for another century or two. Don't you think we maybe have a little wiggle room to let alternatives mature a wee bit before forcing people to use them? Once they're mature, switching will be a no-brainer, don't you think? (meaning nobody will have to force anyone to use them because they'll want to) Why turn people off to alternatives today when there's no emergency, no reason at all to do so?


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 1:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
This is where the US is going wrong. I don't want our government to "manage" anything, it is a FREE MARKET that needs to be left alone to work as a free market should.

There is a second fundamental confusion among many people. I do not vote to elect people to "lead" me, I don't want a leader. I vote for REPRESENTATIVES, those who do what the people who elected them, want done. There has been no platform by the majority of elected officials that included EPA forcing standards.

It is not the will of the people. If government cannot at least represent the will of the people, all has failed.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2012 2:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
And changing to energy storage materials that are largely in the hands of regimes that dislike us helps with that at all? At least we have our own oil. We just don't utilize it. And we could be growing our own diesel fuel if we wanted to be. But they don't just want energy independence. They want the internal combustion engine gone.

And how is a company looking out for tomorrow socialism? Managing business expansion and resource consumption isn't socialist. It's intelligent. Our leaders aren't doing that though. They're pushing an agenda saying they are, but it has nothing to do with "looking out for tomorrow". Because where they're going is just as unsustainable. Both fiscally and resource wise. There's a heck of a lot more oil out there than there is lithium and other rare earth metals needed for electric vehicles. And when you pair them with a completely unstable and unreliable power grid that is one dominated by solar and wind energy, you really set yourself up for failure.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By knutjb on 7/28/2012 6:08:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Businesses aren't successful in the free market by applying free market principles internally. In fact, most businesses who are very successful properly manage resource consumption and business expansion.
You don't understand the free market.
quote:
but at some point there is a limit to how much oil we can extract
Try looking up how much oil IS available, not to mention coal, and natural gas. Several hundred years. Implying that it won't last very long is ignorant.

I do not propose being wasteful but the EPA has too much bureaucratic power without reasonable checks and balances. The couple trying to build a house near other houses in Priest River Idaho. The EPA appeared on their own volition and declared the site must be returned to its natural state even though the couple followed all applicable laws. The EPA lost at the Supreme court and the EPA still has not heeded the courts ruling and is trying to stop the house from being built. When government does that we do have a serious problem. CAFE standards are purely arbitrary political measures.

Blinders? Yes, take your's off.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/28/2012 12:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
That story is sad, but not surprising. The Federal Government owns 60% of the landmass in this country today. The country that's supposed to belong to "the people". Not surprising the EPA acts the way they do, the Government thinks it owns this country.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By amosbatto on 8/3/2012 6:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like Solyndra? The "green industry" is a bubble fueled by Government handouts and subsidies. Those "other industries" that suffer are the ones that actually make this economy work.

Actually Solyndra failed because the Chinese government decided to massively subsidize its solar industry in order to capture the world solar market. The price of solar panels dramatically drops due to the Chinese dumping, and solar companies like Solyndra simply couldn't compete. Solyndra wasn't the best managed company, but they did have an innovative design which probably would have sold under normal market conditions.

Either the US government should have protected its domestic producers or massively subsidized its own companies. Either way, the US didn't do enough to protect its own companies, and will be at a competitive disadvantage in the future alternative energy market, which eventually will be huge.

Fossil fuels may currently be profitable, but they are a dead-end in the long term and the Chinese and Japanese have the foresight to massively invest in the solar market, because they know that it eventually will be one of the dominant energy sectors. Here in the US we can only think in terms of short term profits.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 1:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
Not really, the cost of solar power is too high relative to other energy sources. While a certain % of potential customers would install such a system, there would be market saturation and the company couldn't sustain itself. This is true even with China dumping panels below cost.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Kurz on 7/27/2012 10:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
There is net inefficiency with Green Jobs.
That alone is enough proof.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By bug77 on 7/27/2012 11:51:33 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
While the move to be more green results in job losses in some industries, it also created jobs in other industries.


Ah, so you were counting chinese rare earths miners, too.
For now, new cars sales have recessed, so I doubt there are more workers hired to build fewer cars.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Paj on 7/27/2012 11:03:22 AM , Rating: 2
Energy bills are going up anyway, due to inflation, supply and infrastructure issues. This is happening all over the world, but there will be benefits - it will spur increases in efficiency and allow new avenues of technology to develop. Ultimately, it will facilitate progress.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By KCjoker on 7/27/2012 6:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
True but they're going up at a much faster rate than they should because of it.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 10:59:04 PM , Rating: 1
We import energy so decreased value of the dollar increases the "cost" of oil. To blame increased energy costs only on green jobs is to have zero understanding of the energy market. Maybe expertise from listening to 15 minutes of Rush Limbaugh.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 10:37:20 AM , Rating: 3
Before the new requirements the car industry was ALREADY making massive gains on their own. Hybrids, hello? Please show me the EPA regulation that forced the car makers to develop hybrid technology. They did it on their own. They responded to market forces, customer demands, and fuel prices.

The market will ALWAYS be a better judge of these things than the Government. When the Government "puts pressure" on industries, bad things always happen.

quote:
If cars cost more, then so be it. Consumers don't have to keep consuming for the sake of consuming. Maybe people try and take care of their cars, keep them longer, keep the local repair shops a bit busier, maybe even *shock* try doing things themselves.


The fuk? Are you hearing yourself? We're in the middle of a sustained economic slump, unemployment and wages is horrible, the Government is doubling down on debt and deficit spending, inflation looming...and you're supporting policies that further harm the American taxpayer and the auto industry. And you justify this with Obama-style "we're just gonna have to tighten our belts, for the greater good" socialist nonsense?

If you don't look around and see that people are already doing these things, keeping cars longer, making every dollar count then you're SO out of touch with what's going on it's a joke.

Your opinions are wrong, your dismissive disregard for the consequences are indefensible. You should step back and evaluate what kind of person you are, cause you aren't a very good one.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By SeeManRun on 7/27/2012 10:40:08 AM , Rating: 1
These new standards don't come into effect for a long time. If the economy is still crap by then, there are other issues besides the EPA.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Kurz on 7/27/2012 10:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Of course there are other issues besides the EPA. And Most of those issues are caused by the government.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Ytsejamer1 on 7/27/2012 3:05:12 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The fuk? Are you hearing yourself? We're in the middle of a sustained economic slump, unemployment and wages is horrible, the Government is doubling down on debt and deficit spending, inflation looming...and you're supporting policies that further harm the American taxpayer and the auto industry. And you justify this with Obama-style "we're just gonna have to tighten our belts, for the greater good" socialist nonsense?

I hear ya...I just don't think certain regulations are the devil and will be the death of the USA. We're talking about a truck that will cost a bit more....at least initially. I look forward to seeing how these companies can do better. Let's see what the engineers can do. It's not like people will have to club seals to death in order to buy a truck with these regulations. I didn't talk about socialism at all. Take a breath and relax.

quote:
If you don't look around and see that people are already doing these things, keeping cars longer, making every dollar count then you're SO out of touch with what's going on it's a joke.

I keep my cars longer, don't buy them just for the sake of buying them, and try to fix things myself when I can. Everyone I know is doing the same...trying to be more efficient as they can with their money. So other than the out of touch thing, I'm in agreement with you.

quote:
Your opinions are wrong, your dismissive disregard for the consequences are indefensible. You should step back and evaluate what kind of person you are, cause you aren't a very good one.

That's a little caustic don't you think? My opinions are not wrong, they're my opinions. I didn't say they are fact. I'm fairly certain that because I support a few regulations and forcing companies to do better, that I'm not hurting anyone. Not sure I follow what that particular opinion has to do with being a good person. Relax my friend.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Spuke on 7/27/2012 3:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hear ya...I just don't think certain regulations are the devil and will be the death of the USA. We're talking about a truck that will cost a bit more....at least initially. I look forward to seeing how these companies can do better. Let's see what the engineers can do. It's not like people will have to club seals to death in order to buy a truck with these regulations. I didn't talk about socialism at all. Take a breath and relax.
Quite frankly, it's hard to take a breath and relax when people are jumping up and down and acting like the sky is falling when it isn't. I agree that $1500 won't keep people from buying F150's but that's no the only car subject to these new regulations. It's ALL cars. THAT can cause massive problems for the auto industry. They're able to do some of these only because they were going that way to begin with. But some of that future stuff is going to cost US. And just how high the does price get before it's just too much? Will the gov just keep going until the auto industry collapses because no one's buying? And how many more people are going to get dropped from the new car market in the next 10 years? Isn't the point to get get cleaner, more fuel efficient cars on the road? If we keep dropping sections of the market off the map, then it won't matter how efficient new cars will be cause the majority STILL won't be.

The only reasons we have EV's to choose from now is because everyone is making enough money on regular cars that releasing some stinkers has no effect on the bottom line. But when that bottom line starts being effected, kiss EV's, sports cars and anything else that isn't making a pile of money goodbye.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 11:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but MPG does stop a lot of people from buying low mileage vehicles. When I was shopping for a truck I first looked at a F150 but then ended up getting a Tacoma instead and the main reason was fuel economy. Over the life of my Tacoma, probably longer than the f150, you are talking about a huge wad of cash.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Solandri on 7/29/2012 4:10:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Before the new requirements the car industry was ALREADY making massive gains on their own. Hybrids, hello? Please show me the EPA regulation that forced the car makers to develop hybrid technology. They did it on their own. They responded to market forces, customer demands, and fuel prices.

While I agree that in general the market comes up with better solutions than governments, hybrids came about due to the California Air Resources Board. They mandated that by 2000 a certain percentage of a manufacturer's cars had to be low emissions, and a certain percentage had to be zero emissions. That was why GM made the original EV-1.

As the deadline approached, GM was pretty much the only one with a functional zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) prototype. The other manufacturers joined together and petitioned CARB saying that hybrids were much more economical and would provide sufficient emissions reduction. CARB agreed and rescinded the ZEV requirement. GM and the environmentalists went nuts. GM killed their EV-1 program and destroyed all the cars (California took away the carrot just before GM was about to eat it). The environmentalists went on a big anti-hybrid campaign. Yes, environmentalists initially hated hybrids, because they still burned gas. Improved fuel efficiency meant nothing to them, they wanted electric cars.

It's interesting to note that Europe, despite its much higher fuel prices, never developed hybrids. It seems strict emissions requirements was a better incentive than lowering fuel consumption (higher fuel taxes / higher efficiency standards). Someone in the government needs to take a closer look at this and figure out exactly why this is before pushing for super-high CAFE standards.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By raddude9 on 7/29/2012 6:11:59 AM , Rating: 2

I don't quite follow your argument. Cars in the US barely improved their fuel efficiency before 1980. Even the great oil shock of 1973 had very little effect. After the 80's you can largely credit the importing of Japanese cars for the improvement in mpg.

quote:
hybrids came about due to the California Air Resources Board


Hybrids were developed in Japan and released there years before California got a look-in. They were developed there because of the large tax that the Japanese government put on fuel.

quote:
The environmentalists went on a big anti-hybrid campaign. Yes, environmentalists initially hated hybrids, because they still burned gas. Improved fuel efficiency meant nothing to them, they wanted electric cars.


Huh, this type of environmentalists has pretty much zero effect on the economy or on the development of engines. Using arguments about these people and Californias brief flirtation with electric vehicles is pointless.

quote:
It's interesting to note that Europe, despite its much higher fuel prices, never developed hybrids.


Sure, but they developed efficient and powerful turbo diesels instead, as their answer to high fuel taxes. A different path to the Japanese, which also resulted in similarly efficient engines. Cleaner, maybe not, but definitely more efficient than gasoline, and pretty much on a par with hybrids.

Check out this graph if you want to get a rough comparison of fuel efficiency per region:

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2006/04/19/fue...

Basically, I think the lessons from Japan and Europe is that if you want more fuel efficient vehicles then you need to tax the fuel.

So:
quote:
Please show me the EPA regulation that forced the car makers to develop hybrid technology.

Look at the Japanese tax on fuel instead.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By amosbatto on 8/3/2012 7:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hybrids were developed in Japan and released there years before California got a look-in. They were developed there because of the large tax that the Japanese government put on fuel.


Yes, Japan did develop their hybrids before the California program in 1997-1999, but the Japanese were responding to initiatives from the US government.

The US government funded the initial research and ponied up a lot of money to develop the hybrid. The Japanese developed their own hybrids out of fear that they would be excluded by the Americans, but then the Americans dropped the mandates and it left the Japanese with a corner on the hybrid market.

In 1991, the Department of Energy invested $90 million in developing a “super” battery to get electric vehicles on the road as soon as possible. That money was used to develop the nickel hydride (NiMH) battery, which can accept three times as many charge cycles as lead-acid, and works better in cold weather.

In 1993, the Clinton Administration announced the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) with the major US automakers to develop cars that get 80 MPG. The US government poured a billion dollars into the PNGV to develop three hybrid prototypes.

When Toyota was excluded from the PNGV initiative, the Toyota CEO created a secret project to develop its own hybrid, which was eventually released to the Japanese market in 1997. Honda in turn developed their hybrids to compete with Toyota.

The interesting part of the story is that Audi produced a hybrid back in 1989, before either the Americans and Japanese got involved, but Audi's car was such a flop that it convinced the Europeans to steer clear of hybrids and focus on diesel fuel efficiency.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Iketh on 7/29/2012 1:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with your post.

However, in this situation, I think the government is simply making the first move before market forces, staying ahead of the curve on the vital subject of oil consumption/pollution.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By arazok on 7/27/2012 1:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
While we’re at it, lets require all homes to be retrofitted with R50 in the attic, and low E windows before they can be sold. Don’t forget geothermal heating. On demand water heaters. Low flow toilets.

While we’re at it, require lawn mowers to have catalytic converters. Require BBQ’s to be insulated. Force everyone to use LED lighting. Let just do it ALL.

If everything costs more, then so be it. Consumers don't have to keep consuming for the sake of consuming. Instead, they can consume for the sake of survival. Like in the good old days when families worked 6 days a week for generations to own a modest house with no running water. At least they didn’t have smog to deal with. Lucky buggers.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By shmmy on 7/27/2012 1:37:08 PM , Rating: 1
Really? Logic for idiots I suppose.

We do not import our electricity, or water, and have vast natural gas reserves. So you point is just for idiots. WE DO HOWEVER IMPORT 100's of millions of dollars in oil each day. The world can only produce so much oil, and China is starting to use a crap load of it. Something has to be done to reduce our consumption. Cry all you want about government but if we do nothing the oil company's will just lobby and things will never change as gas prices go up. By 2025 things will be very different and gas prices could go up drastically if China keeps growing at the rate it has been.

So save the entertainment news slippery slope comments please.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 2:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
WE DO HOWEVER IMPORT 100's of millions of dollars in oil each day.


By choice. By the same government who is now using that as a reason to clamp down on the free market. You were talking about logic?


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Galcobar on 7/27/2012 3:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
The U.S. imports electricity and water -- from Canada. The water's small-scale, admittedly, largely in the form of bottled water, but the electrical grids are intimitely tied together and move vast quantities every day.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By arazok on 7/30/2012 11:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
The US imports energy from Canada all the time. Ontario regularly sells the US electricity and vice versa – our grids are connected.

And what makes Oil so special? Because some talking head on TV says that energy independence is critical?

Oil is no different than any other commodity. They are all globally traded, so no amount of effort will wall off your economy from foreign influences on supply/demand.

The market will respond to increased demand from China with higher prices (already happened), followed by increased supply (in progress). Just like it always has. People are already talking about the US becoming energy independent in the next few years (assuming you count Canada as a part of the local market).

I don’t see these measures accomplishing anything other than forcing consumers to pay thousands more for a truck so they can save hundreds on gasoline.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By ClownPuncher on 7/27/2012 3:59:39 PM , Rating: 1
Cheaper cars will allow more people to buy them, and in turn, allow them to get jobs they wouldn't be able to without them.

Rising fuel costs will pressure car buyers to buy more efficient cars, and in turn, the automakers into making more efficient cars.

This way, the market provides the same results without the government intervening in an area it knows little about.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 11:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
this is already happening, the market has been trending big time to higher mileage cars.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By ClownPuncher on 7/30/2012 5:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, exactly.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By 91TTZ on 7/27/2012 4:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree, let's not do anything to cut energy consumption down. Let's just keep doing what we've been doing and things will get better...somehow. We all know Detroit's car makers are known to be extremely agile and efficient.


Your sarcasm is pointless. Detroit has offered fuel efficient cars for decades for people who really wanted them. You could have bought a 50 mpg Geo Metro 20 years ago. The problem was that fuel was cheap so people didn't want them.

Car companies react to market conditions. In times of cheap fuel people demanded large cars. When fuel prices rose cars became smaller and more efficient. The car makers were able to change as fast as the market demanded.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 10:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of the cost for aluminum is just re-tooling the factories. I know when bike's switched to aluminum it started out in the high end with a big price premium but now you can get a POS aluminum huffy for under $150. If the auto makers go big with aluminum the cost will go way down and performance goes way up. Weight is the enemy of performance.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By lcbrownz on 7/28/2012 9:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
Why does a light duty pickup (F150) need to weigh 7000 lbs and have more compartmental capacity than cargo capacity? The proverbial 1/2 ton pickup now has a capacity of a ton and a half (F250) truck and the height where anyone under 5" 8" cannot put something in the truckbed without assistance. The normal weekend warrior doesn't need a truck that big. In 2015 Ford will start replacing the 3.7 liter V6 engine with 330 hp turbocharged 4 cylinder in their vehicles.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/28/2012 9:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does a light duty pickup (F150) need to weigh 7000 lbs and have more compartmental capacity than cargo capacity?


Because that's what people want? Hey maybe I'm just crazy, but it seems to me that having the top selling vehicle by far year after year, indicates Ford has a good idea of what buyers want in a truck.

Also the F150 is not their light-duty truck, that's the Ranger.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/28/2012 2:19:08 PM , Rating: 1
The massively outdated and inferior ranger was thankfully put out of its misery. Light duty truck category is much better served by toyota.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/29/2012 9:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, rate down people when you cant prove your point Mr 3 year old. Find me one review anywhere that rated the defunct Ford Ranger higher than the current generation Toyota Tacoma. There is a reason the Ford ended its production and don't say its because their isn't a market for smaller trucks because Toyota sells them like crazy.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/2012 7:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
I can't "rate" posts when I've already posted in the thread, wtf? Are you seriously accusing me of doing that?

I owned a Tacoma for 5 years lmao. Hello?


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By 3minence on 7/27/2012 9:24:03 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think your giving the engineers enough credit. They can't defy the laws of physics, but they can come up with some pretty ingenious tricks. These tricks may initially be expensive but then get much cheaper over time. Not to blow some BS patriotic horn, but US companies have been pretty good about taking something and making it better and cheaper.

The trick is making the goals realistic and not forcing too much change at once.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Kaldor on 7/27/2012 11:48:30 AM , Rating: 2
Engineers do deserve the credit. But the constant addition of restrictions from the government is only increasing the price on vehicles.

As far price coming down over time, yeah, not going to happen. When is the last time you heard one of the big 3 say, yeah, we reduced the price of this vehicle 10% this year? They develop the tech, use it at a loss, when it gets cheaper, then they make money. (maybe)


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Spuke on 7/27/2012 4:03:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These tricks may initially be expensive but then get much cheaper over time.
LOL! As the price of cars gets HIGHER every year. $30,000 for a car now on average. In 2000, it was $20,000. I don't know about your math but that looks more expensive to me. I expect 2025 prices to be OVER $40k. I've already stopped buying new and I can afford a new car. I just don't see the point anymore.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By RabidDog on 7/27/2012 9:37:11 AM , Rating: 2
The fuel mileage numbers can't be too unrealistic if the are being met.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By GotThumbs on 7/27/2012 9:41:29 AM , Rating: 3
Sure...to help raise the average MPG....Ford will anounce it's coming out with a moped next year. They may not sell many, but since mopeds get an average of 100mpg. That should help meet the new guidelines. :-)


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By twhittet on 7/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 11:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ford already has the Focus, which is an outstanding high mileage small car.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By msheredy on 7/27/2012 11:44:55 AM , Rating: 2
Precisely why we need less government!!!

As a side note, while aluminum is lightweight and all I'd suggest plastics for the body panels. Aluminum is just too damn soft. You won't see anymore of those truck commercials when their bed gets a load of gravel dumped in from 10ft above LOL!


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 11:12:23 PM , Rating: 1
And how much weight can an aluminum 747 carry? Possibly more than a pickup truck full of gravel. You know the marines have an armored amphibious vehicle made from aluminum, right?


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 1:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
What does that have to do with anything? 747 is far larger, gets lower MPG. The Marine's vehicle also gets far lower MPG.

The point is the amount of aluminum used. Pound per pound aluminum is stronger than steel but their reasons are to cut a lot of weight out, 700 lbs is a substantial reduction.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 1:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Your comment makes no sense. Aluminum is not as soft as most plastics, particularly those with a little flexibility which is needed in a vehicle. If we were talking about carbon fiber instead then I think you're onto something.

Aluminum is not all that soft if it's not super-thin. Consider that it is used to make baseball bats whose sole purpose is to hit something with more force per sq. in. than the typical impact a pickup truck bed would see.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By OdinOrion on 7/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Kaldor on 7/27/2012 12:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
Im generalizing on the cost. In the mid 90's Id say the base cost was around $25k give or take some. The cost keeps going up. Id say that right now most base model vehicles new are running in the $30k+ range right now, probably creeping close to $35 depending on the vehicle. $40k in the next 10 years is not unreasonable.

The fact is, not everyone wants something new, and I feel like Im getting less. My car payment goes up, but for what? Is my car getting that much better gas mileage? No, my 1965 Ford F100 truck got close to 20 MPG with a 302. And the 460 thats going in it this summer that has 550hp will still get about 15MPG on the highway. Is it that much more comfortable? Yeah, AC is nice, and having a decent stock radio is good, but I can live without all the extra crap like computerized this and that that adds alot of cost to the vehicle. Is it getting any easier to work on without having to take it to the dealership where they can overcharge me? Last repair bill at the dealership was $336 to replace a $45 wiring harness that only the dealership can troubleshoot/sell/replace on my 2006 Impala.

The large reason vehicles keep getting more and more expensive is that more and regulations for every little thing keep getting added. This in turn just pushes the cost higher and higher. Yes I like the comfort of the new vehicles, but the cost does not come from the comforts, but from the over engineering involved to reach the BS standards in place by the EPA.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Philippine Mango on 7/27/2012 2:14:38 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry but you're wrong. Big trucks cost more because people will pay for it. There were no regulations, nothing in the 90s that affected cars and trucks yet the price of those vehicles more than doubled in that time period. When the manufacturers saw how popular these vehicles were and what people were willing to pay, the raised the prices. Why do you think SUVs and trucks were a cash cow for Detroit, allowing them to survive despite making garbage cars?


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By OdinOrion on 7/29/2012 4:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
I really think most of the increased costs are associated with safety technology more than anything else. They increase weight, and they increase complexity, and increase costs. Not to mention the ridiculous infotainment systems everybody seems to want. More distraction is a good thing.

There might not be much increase in actual MPG, but the emissions are way better.

Also, horse power wars. There is no need for 300, 400, 500 hp engines in most cars. I would bet that most people can't handle 150hp in the average car. Yet, there it is.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Dr of crap on 7/27/2012 3:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry it's just OdinOrioin again -
Mr I need facts to understand your aguement! I can't just use common sense to get what you mean like everyone else.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By OdinOrion on 7/29/2012 4:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
I have more common sense than you.

You are truly afraid of facts aren't you? Must be nice to stick ones head in the sand. Mr. I don't wanna look because I might see something I don't like.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 1:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you want to be @n@ retentive enough that everyone has to prove every statement they make, then it's time for you to follow suit.

PROVE that anyone sticks their head in the sand. Prove that you have more common sense. Show us the facts.

See? It works both ways. Every little thing you write, someone can come along and expect an essay from you with the lazy attitude that you won't believe unless a ridiculous amount of effort is exerted. That would be utterly ridiculous when our comments don't make the slightest bit of difference, we're just pissing time away commenting on *news*.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By 91TTZ on 7/27/2012 4:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You get far more car for your money these days than at any time in the history of automobiles. Compare a 20K car today to one 10 years ago and another 20 years ago. Which would you rather drive?


This isn't true. They had to stop making cars like the 300ZX, RX-7, Supra, 3000GT, and similar mid-range sports cars because they became too expensive. The Yen became more valuable and it hurt Japanese exports, and you could no longer get the same quality for the same price.

My 300ZXTT was built 22 years ago and it would be crazy expensive now to make a car of the same quality. Which would I rather drive? I'd rather drive the cars made then. Due to economics your dollar purchases less now than it did then.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 11:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Funny you mention the RX7, the last generation was an aluminum chassis. super light chassis because of it combined with the super power to weight of its turbo Rotary engine made a pretty amazing car. And yes I know rotaries aren't fuel efficient but its tough to beat the power to weight.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 11:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
The japanese sure used to make much cooler cars didn't they.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By dcday on 7/27/2012 1:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
You know none of these articles never define lifetime. So I went to the DOT site and they are defining a lifetime as 36 years! So we are going to pay $5000 up front to save $194 a year. Give me a break.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By dcday on 7/27/2012 1:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Philippine Mango on 7/27/2012 2:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The agency defines the maximum lifetime of vehicles as the highest age at which more than 2 percent of those originally produced during a model year remain in service. For recent model years, this age has typically been 25 years for passenger cars and 36 years for light trucks.


They're just doing fuel saving calculations on the maximum lifetime of these vehicles and they know that only applies to 2% of the vehicles that manage to survive.

Ford is allowed to do what ever the hell it feels is necessary to achieve the CAFE fuel requirements, and if that means building the entire vehicle out of carbon fiber or just putting a smaller engine in there, that's up to them. The government fuel economy requirements merely state how good of gas mileage the cars have to get, and not the method they get there with...

Anyway these vehicles will be bringing more aluminum into the market, when they get scrapped, that aluminum will be recycled and could be used to make new vehicles. Get enough aluminum into the market, and then the old aluminum will be used to make new aluminum in vehicles via recycling much like lead acid batteries. I'm surprised Ford hasn't decided to use composite materials for their fenders and doors instead of aluminum.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Philippine Mango on 7/27/2012 2:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's only unrealistic numbers if the manufacturers don't make changes to their vehicles. Make changes, and now it's realistic. Sorry but I don't think making a 30mpg truck is "unrealistic"... Those 50mpg numbers you keep hearing about are only CAFE numbers, not real life fuel economy numbers you see on the Monroney sticker. Those trucks cost $40K because they're premium vehicles and people are dumb enough to pay for them... Back in the 90s, the early SUVs were in the $20K range, by the end of the decade, the same SUVs were selling for $50K and that's not due to inflation but because consumers didn't care and were willing to pay for those additional costs.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 10:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
"It may seem sacrilege to even mention this, but could we possibly even see a four-cylinder EcoBoost F-150 in the future"

Sure make a 3.0L 4 cylinder heavily boosted turbo diesel. With a weight reduced chassis you would have a kick ass workhorse with absolutely fantastic mileage. It would probably get me to switch out my Tacoma for one.


RE: EPA can kiss my....
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 10:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
PS the cost of building a diesel engine might even be offset by the cost saving of building straight four over a V6.


Pays For Itself
By skeansmith on 7/27/2012 9:30:33 AM , Rating: 3
Should pay for itself within 60k of driving and then after that it is money in your pocket. A win win.




RE: Pays For Itself
By KFZ on 7/27/2012 10:10:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Aluminum is harder to work with than steel when it comes to building vehicles. In addition, aluminum body parts are costlier and harder to repair which in turn leads to higher insurance premiums.


Besides, government mandates are never a win, the EPA is forcing a solution to a problem that consumers are not asking for (because they don't care what people want). I'm all for efficiency but not when it comes by heavy-handed bludgeoning of free enterprise.


RE: Pays For Itself
By SeeManRun on 7/27/2012 10:44:39 AM , Rating: 1
Since when is what the people want necessarily the best for society? I doubt a civil rights for African American's would have passed a general election in the 60's, does that mean that they should not have gotten their proper rights?

Society is stupid, that is why we elect people to make decisions for us; those politicians are supposed to research and make the best decision based on all the information they have, for the greater good. If they make mistakes due to lobbying then that is a problem that should be fixed, but listening to society is not necessarily the best way to make policy, and likely a very bad way.


RE: Pays For Itself
By Kurz on 7/27/2012 10:52:05 AM , Rating: 2
Letting people mess up on their own is the best way to run a society. Just make sure they don't go around hurting each other purposely is the best way to Govern.


RE: Pays For Itself
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 11:47:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Society is stupid, that is why we elect people to make decisions for us; those politicians are supposed to research and make the best decision based on all the information they have, for the greater good.


That's pretty much the best description of the Liberal ideology you can get. People are stupid and can't think for themselves. Intellectual bureaucrats know what's best for all of us. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, well, that's just going to have to step aside for the greater good.

quote:
but listening to society is not necessarily the best way to make policy, and likely a very bad way.


Right because it's not like this country was set up as a Democratic Republic or anything. Nope, don't listen to us.


RE: Pays For Itself
By SeeManRun on 7/27/2012 1:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Congress and laws isn't a new thing. When the constitution was written that the right love to quote, there was the same mechanisms for law creation in place as there is now. The difference between then and now is population and the sheer number of laws.

If you could get exactly what you want, which would be no government, why not look at a country that has that situation? I believe Somolia is pretty close to that right now, or maybe Haiti? Do those places seem desirable to live in?


RE: Pays For Itself
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 2:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you could get exactly what you want, which would be no government


Here is where we part ways. We HAD a Government designed to be limited, with appropriate checks and balances on it's power. That's the Government I want back, not having NO government. If you're going to be a troll, I will treat you as such.

In my vision of America the free market, not the Government, decides what vehicles get built and sold. Sorry if that's not "progressive" enough for you. I suspect most Liberals know the Commerce Clause is being raped and pillaged by our law makers to extend federal power far beyond it's intended means, they just don't think that's a big deal.


RE: Pays For Itself
By SeeManRun on 7/27/2012 3:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
Come on man, you've made over 10000 posts on this site; how can you call me a troll.

I agree, Government should be limited, but it also has a responsibility to do what is best for the people, even if those decisions are not popular.

Perhaps you could focus your energy on getting money out of politics so the rules would actually apply to all instead of just those that can't afford to fight it, then maybe your free market would flourish because it would be fair.

But on the other side, if a company like GE gets large, shouldn't they be able to use that advantage to stomp out competition? Do you agree that such a situation would be not overly positive and in the best interests of the people?


RE: Pays For Itself
By KoS on 7/27/2012 3:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Perhaps you could focus your energy on getting money out of politics so the rules would actually apply to all instead of just those that can't afford to fight it, then maybe your free market would flourish because it would be fair.


Instead of placing blame for mans ills on inanimate objects. Place the blame where it lies, on the people who deserve it, not money. Money can't do a thing, it just lays there and does nothing.

Life isn't fair, nor are markets. There are always winners and losers. Surely people still remember what their parents said, life isn't fair!


RE: Pays For Itself
By Ringold on 7/27/2012 4:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree, Government should be limited, but it also has a responsibility to do what is best for the people, even if those decisions are not popular.


That is one philosophy of government, one embraced in Europe for example, yes. It is not, however, what the philosophy behind the United States constitution was. To compare the early US to Somalia absolutely is trolling, or ignorance of immense magnitude, one or the other.


RE: Pays For Itself
By 91TTZ on 7/27/2012 5:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree, Government should be limited, but it also has a responsibility to do what is best for the people, even if those decisions are not popular.


I'm not so sure that is true. If the government makes a really unpopular decision it's probably because most people don't agree with it. Since the people control the government, such unpopular decisions should not be made.

I mean it's probably best for the people if they didn't eat dessert or meat, didn't go out in the sun, didn't play dangerous sports, etc. But should the government really stop us from doing those things, or should we be able to make our own decisions?


RE: Pays For Itself
By SeeManRun on 7/27/2012 8:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
There are all sorts of decisions people can make for themselves and decisions people should not be able to make for themselves. Where to eat, or how to feed your children is quite reasonable to make yourself. Where you choose to work and spend your money is definitely reasonable. Whether to go to college, or drop out of high school, or join the army is very reasonable.

What isn't reasonable are things that impact others. Subjecting others to second hand smoke, drinking while or before driving, dumping oil into storm drains, drugging people, playing really loud music in perfect earshot of neighbours all night... These are all choices you are free to make but are regulated against making and for most there are penalties for doing so.

Should company X be allowed to dump their waste into the river and pollute it, or should the government make them install cleaners or to treat it before dumping, or to not dump at all? You might say the free market will solve this problem and people won't buy their stuff if they pollute, and that is probably true of local people who used to enjoy the river, but what about people in other states that don't care about the river and just enjoy buying the product for a little less than the other company that does not pollute (because being clean is more expensive)?

As you should be able to see if I have illustrated properly, the government regulations are required to keep the river clean as well as to level the playing field between companies who all have to operate cleanly. It may cost some jobs sure, but maybe jobs should not be the be all end all of all new regulations or decisions the government makes.


RE: Pays For Itself
By Reclaimer77 on 7/28/2012 9:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What isn't reasonable are things that impact others. Subjecting others to second hand smoke, drinking while or before driving, dumping oil into storm drains, drugging people, playing really loud music in perfect earshot of neighbours all night... These are all choices you are free to make but are regulated against making and for most there are penalties for doing so.


Every single example you listed, individual States are the ones who have the right and responsibility of deciding what do to about and regulate. Not the Federal Government.

Sorry but you have failed to make a compelling argument for a large, unchecked, Federal Government with unlimited regulatory powers over the people and the States. It's a shame that you can live here and not know a damn thing about this country you live in, and what the people founding it were trying to do.

You're part of the problem, not the solution.


RE: Pays For Itself
By SeeManRun on 7/28/2012 10:39:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry but you have failed to make a compelling argument for a large, unchecked, Federal Government with unlimited regulatory powers over the people and the States.


Who is proposing that? Is that what you think people that don't have a problem with some government regulations are seeking? A government with zero checks and balances and interferes in everything? If that is the case I can see why you would be so adamant against government. However, I don't think that is what people like me want. That would be a terrible system.


RE: Pays For Itself
By Reclaimer77 on 7/28/2012 12:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who is proposing that? Is that what you think people that don't have a problem with some government regulations are seeking? A government with zero checks and balances and interferes in everything?


Yes? There's not many here advocating against that if you'll notice. Obamacare? That's fine, that's not the government having unchecked power at all! CAFE is absolutely the same. If the Government wanted to set the fleet wide average to 300 MPG, who would have stopped them?

These are the dangers of massive Commerce Clause abuse. It bypasses State Sovereignty and grants broad sweeping mandate power over the people. It literally IS unchecked unlimited power. If the Government can force every citizen to purchase a product like Health Care, there is literally NO limit to it's power. And people like you absolutely support this.

I know how it happens, I know how easy it is to rationalize it. Oh it's just car MPG, it's not a big deal. Oh it's just health insurance, everyone should have that anyway, yay Government!

You believe you can have some ideal system where the Government has unlimited power to regulate things you agree with, tax things you don't like, but stay out of other areas. As if these people have a well grounded sense of what and what isn't "going too far". That's NOT the way it works in real life, sadly.


RE: Pays For Itself
By Ringold on 7/28/2012 2:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where to eat, or how to feed your children is quite reasonable to make yourself.


If most liberals said that and followed that example, politics would be much more civil.

But Bloomberg and cities and counties across the country blow a massive hole in that theory. Big-government types think, in their arrogance, they can perfectly arrange all aspects of life, and regulate them, one by one. That's the reality, that's what the framers of the constitution understood and did their best to give us a tightly limited federal government "if you can keep it," as Adams said.


RE: Pays For Itself
By shmmy on 7/27/2012 2:59:29 PM , Rating: 1
It has nothing to do with being liberal... You can label people all you want if it makes you feel better but as a whole the country is kinda stupid. Not only in test scores but in everyday life...

we have to put labels on small objects waring of choking hazards, plastic bags as well. Millions of people are in credit card debt spending money they don't have. How many people did not or do not believe Obama was born in the US? Millions... People crash their cars all the time because they talk, txt, read the newspaper while driving. Look at people shopping during the holidays that pepper spray other shoppers so they can save 25$ on a toaster. Not saying that everybody is stupid but we do have a large rather dim chunk of population. Why? because we never teach people to think for themselves and some states actually are trying to block this in schools...

Have you ever watched COPS? or daytime TV like Jerry Springer, or Maurry? Thats a decent chunk of our population!

We appoint people to make the laws for us but we (society) don't always know whats best for us. Case and point 1/3rd of our population is overweight. The regulating factor used to be if that if an elected person did not do what we liked we get could somebody else. But today most of our people making the laws have been in office for many years and change is rarely done, even though they may be doing a bad job. (another reason why people are stupid is because we don't do whats needed to make the right change. instead we bitch about the president)

If you stick your head in the sand and don't strive to make things better, then all you do is fall behind.


RE: Pays For Itself
By knutjb on 7/28/2012 6:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since when is what the people want necessarily the best for society?

Society is stupid, that is why we elect people to make decisions for us; those politicians are supposed to research and make the best decision based on all the information they have, for the greater good. If they make mistakes due to lobbying then that is a problem that should be fixed, but listening to society is not necessarily the best way to make policy, and likely a very bad way.
Ok Jeremy Bentham try reading the Constitution and related documents again and show me where it says it is government's job to do what is best for society. They are elected to do our biding not the greater good as you misrepresent. You must be confusing Karl Marx's ramblings. It says government is not to trample on individuals rights. Simply, you have the right to be stupid. It look good on you. And no, the "general welfare of the United States" is not applicable to such an argument.


RE: Pays For Itself
By Reclaimer77 on 7/28/2012 8:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
These people have never read any of the Constitution. I mean just look at the wording! The framers recognized that most human abuses were the result of government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil." Because of their distrust, the framers sought to keep the federal government limited in its power. Their distrust of Congress is seen in the language used throughout our Constitution. The Bill of Rights says Congress shall NOT abridge, shall NOT infringe, shall NOT deny and other shall-nots, such as disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would attempt to abuse our natural rights, they would not have provided those protections.

Government's job was never to be our caretakers. His position is indefensible.


RE: Pays For Itself
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 11:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
Never?
common connectors for onboard computers
- helps keep you from getting financially raped by your dealer
- 5mph bumpers - saves you a ton on auto insurance
- air bags - again saves a ton on auto/medical insurance
- 3rd break light saved a ton of lives and money on insurance
- taking the lead out of gas - saved you a ton of brain cells

This list could go on forever you know


RE: Pays For Itself
By knutjb on 7/28/2012 6:44:25 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, the list cannot go on forever. Henry Ford was the first manufacturer to add safety equipment to a vehicle. The Model A had an all steel body, safety glass, a steel rimmed steering wheel, and a number of other improvements. Even in the 50s they offered seat belts, padded dash boards.

His point is that of frustration with heavy-handed, over-regulation by bureaucratic institutions who behave as though they are beholden to no one. I described such behavior elsewhere. Not everything regulated is bad but there is a point where the regulators exceed their authority. Much of the current regulation has gone passed the point.


Ignorance abounds...
By Beenthere on 7/27/2012 9:53:16 AM , Rating: 3
The ignorant folks in government are good at dreaming up impossible goals and making tax payers and consumers pay for it all. It doesn't matter if it's 54 mpg CAFE standards or subsidized EVs, we pay for the ignorance and cronyism of the morons in government - most of whom couldn't hold down a real job or run an actual business.

It's really a pity that most people resemble sheep...and allow this abuse to continue.




RE: Ignorance abounds...
By Shadowmaster625 on 7/27/2012 10:09:32 AM , Rating: 1
Farbeit me to defend govt regulations. But in this case CAFE standards have been far too lax. If left to its own, the market without any standards would leave us a fleet with probably 50% less fuel economy. Which means that when a price shock like 2008 comes along, it knocks 50% more drivers off the road and takes a 50% bigger chunk out of the economy. The better the fuel economy, the greater the robustness against shocks. That may not mean much to you, unless you are one of the millions who fell victim to the shock in 2008.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By Kurz on 7/27/2012 10:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
Then electric cars would be even more attractive if my camry only got 15mpg on the highway.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By gamerk2 on 7/27/2012 10:40:35 AM , Rating: 1
Except that if it weren't for raising CAFE standards, car companies wouldn't even bother researching EV's. Now theres demand for them, so there's finally some decent research going on.

That being said, EV's are dead end tech, due in large part to an aged power grid. They're a stopgap until hydrogen-fuel cells come of age. I mean, they only got us to the moon 40 years ago...


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By Kurz on 7/27/2012 10:50:55 AM , Rating: 2
Hybrid Tech was already being researched before the government said anything. Batteries are always being worked on because of our increasingly mobil lives.

Hydrogen-fuel cells are more of a dead end... It takes so much more energy to make Hydrogen than what we get out of it. Its not efficient.

I am not sure why you are refering to the moon landing...


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 11:08:22 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am not sure why you are refering to the moon landing...


It's Gamer. You can't reason with him, he's an idiot. Don't even try.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By DigitalFreak on 7/27/2012 11:45:56 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
It's Gamer. You can't reason with him, he's an idiot. Don't even try.


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By shmmy on 7/27/2012 1:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
2nd.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By SenilePlatypus on 7/27/2012 5:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
3rd


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 5:23:58 PM , Rating: 1
lol@obvious alternate accounts


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 11:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
4th


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By Kurz on 7/27/2012 12:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing I can think of is the use of Hydrogen as Propellant to get us to the moon... But the only reason we used it was because there are no other viable propellant that functioned in vacuum. Not because it was cheap to make/store which it fails on both counts on land.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By texbrazos on 7/31/2012 6:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
You can make hydrogen with solar panels. Do it all the time. Very easy. I would have to say making gasoline is very energy inefficient. Have you ever really thought about what goes into the production and distribution of gasoline? Not to mention it's inefficent use in the ice engine. Think about the exploration, drilling, pumping, transporting, refining, pumping, transporting, pumping, pumping into car. not to mention you actually use hydrogen to make fuel, it's called hydrocracking. Why not just use the hydrogen? Hydrogen can be made on location.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By danjw1 on 7/27/2012 11:42:05 AM , Rating: 2
While work is being done to bring down the cost to produce hydrogen, it is going to be a at least another decade before we have the infrastructure in place. Do you know what fuel cells produce? They generate electricity (not mechanical energy), which means work on electric vehicles(EV) can be moved directly into a fuel cell vehicles. And that assumes that we can actually get the cost of producing hydrogen down enough to be workable. So EVs are anything but a distraction.

Working on battery technology helps a lot in other areas as well, so that isn't a distraction either. Better battery technology can be used to stabilize our electrical grid. They also can be used in homes with solar panels or wind turbines for night time or low wind times.

The truth is that our dependence on fossil fuels is dragging down our economy and causing climate change. Many of the people that drive these very trucks are farmers and they are being directly effected by the current drought we have. Yet they are often the first to be critical of the EPA. Kind of a paradox, isn't it. :-)


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By knutjb on 7/28/2012 6:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry to burst your bubble, the current administration killed off by political means all but their golden solar panels, EVs and wind. Regardless of what they say "all the above" the actions prove otherwise. Why, because they know what's best for you.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By danjw1 on 7/28/2012 10:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
? Do you know what you are talking about? Recently new licenses have been given for nuclear power plants. It has been a very long time since that happened. A new tidal power plant is going up as well in New England.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By Ringold on 7/28/2012 2:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
He does know. A few token licenses, almost all to add additional reactors to existing sites, is a drop in the bucket. A real renaissance and opening of nuclear power would see 10, 20 new sites approved across the country, using standardized plans and streamlined, 1 or 2 year max approval processes, with guarantees to not let local NIMBY (more often actually eco-terrorists trucked in from across the country to astroturf a "local" resistance movement) hold up the process for a decade or longer.

You also ignore the conspicuous lack of federal lands being opened to unconventional natural gas drilling. The natural gas boom in this country is thanks entirely to private land owners selling their mineral rights.

Oh boy, and a tidal power plant. One tidal power plant. Gee golly, that'll make a big dent! Nice try.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By knutjb on 7/28/2012 2:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
Under Bush there were a number of alternative power programs being promoted. When Obama came in most of them were killed off like hydrogen and a number of others. They focused primarily on solar, wind, and pushing EV/hybrids. Follow the money. The Nuke and Tidal were already years in development when Obama was elected. I am glad he hasn't pulled the plug on those though I am sure there is a wing of his party who are upset about that.

Most major industrial projects can take 7~10years from idea to start of construction.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 10:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
Which is why under those "lax" standard, fuel economy sharply increased. Also under those lax standards, hybrid technology was born and brought to the market by those same automakers that you deride.

The belief that some bureaucrats know better than the entire market and people who make vehicles for a living, is something only a radical Leftist could have.

quote:
If left to its own, the market without any standards would leave us a fleet with probably 50% less fuel economy.


No, that's wrong. This didn't happen and would NEVER happen. Fuel economy INCREASED by nearly 50% since in 1980's without aggressive CAFE regulations.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By shmmy on 7/27/2012 2:30:46 PM , Rating: 1
The market regulating itself gave us the great depression, and people like you who think things will work out on their own made it last 10 years. It also gave us the crap storm we are in today. Please stop talking like the free unregulated market is the end all be all of whats right because its not.

Email me your degree in economics and maybe ill take you serious. Till then you are a nerd troll. (im minoring in economics fyi)

The idea that the people making the cars are going to do whats right for the environment, and the country, and not what makes more profit for their shareholders is only something an idiot on the right would consider. :)

Take SAAB for example. They made very safe cars, safer than most. They were also more expensive to make and it priced them out of competition with other cars so they went under. This company did what was right, not what made the most money and they are gone. Guess thats the market working itself out right? (obviously there were other factors but the loss per vehicle was a big one)

Because we use so much oil and supply is sometimes limited the price of gas goes up and that is what caused cars to get better mileage, not desire from auto makers to use less gas. Cars that got 10mpg were not selling so they improved. Price of gas went down again and MPG went down with the SUV boom of the 90's into 2000. Gas prices then went up again and guess what? Less SUV sales so they make crossovers with better MPG. Problem is once sales pick up they just go back to selling stuff with bad MPG. These regulations are needed so they cant go back to selling stuff with bad MPG once sales pickup or gas prices go down for a bit. If they do they will have to counter it with something with good mileage.

Also in the 80's we had lower emission standards so cars had better gas mileage. If I remember right a 1980's dodge caravan V6 got 30 miles to the gallon highway. I am pretty sure most minivans don't do that today. Why? Emission and safty standards set by the government to keep us safe and not breathing in smog. Government cares (accept some republicans), not car companies. (if they do try to care it is mostly due to a gimmick that they advertise to try to help sales, or if they can somehow save money by it)

Bitch all you want but things need to change or we are going to be in a bad spot by 2025 (besides the healthcare and medicare issues), held hostage by the fluctuating price of oil. The less oil we use the more money we can spend on other crap, or maybe even pay down our debt! :) doubtful though...


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 2:49:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The idea that the people making the cars are going to do whats right for the environment, and the country, and not what makes more profit for their shareholders is only something an idiot on the right would consider. :)


The idea that they SHOULD is idiotic. They should make the cars people want to buy, and make a profit. As a company that's all that is required of them. Right for the country? A car? You sound like an idiot.

quote:
Take SAAB for example. They made very safe cars, safer than most. They were also more expensive to make and it priced them out of competition with other cars so they went under. This company did what was right, not what made the most money and they are gone. Guess thats the market working itself out right? (obviously there were other factors but the loss per vehicle was a big one)


And you're minoring in economics? WOW!!!! A 10 year old could actually use Google and find out why SAAB went under. Hint: It's not because they decided to do the "right" thing and make safer cars. Last time I checked Volvo's were always safer than SAAB anyway, they're still around yes?

Your post is proof why most people view a college education as being nearly worthless. Since you chose to make this personal, you're an ignorant raving idiot. With the language skills of a child, by the way.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By Ringold on 7/27/2012 5:13:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The market regulating itself gave us the great depression, and people like you who think things will work out on their own made it last 10 years.


Actually ever study the economic history of the Great Depression, at all, or is that just what your liberal friends told you?

Had a great deal more to do with central banking policy and monetary policy then anything else. Further, the depression after 1873, what was known as the great depression before the one we know now, was also caused by monetary policy (specifically, the demonetization of silver).

quote:
Email me your degree in economics and maybe ill take you serious.


I could scan and e-mail you mine, and my dong too if you want.

quote:
im minoring in economics fyi


You've done a fantastic job of not absorbing much, or your faculty has entrenched Marxists on staff, which sadly is common in certain parts of the country, especially if the econ department is put in with the liberal arts college and not the business college.

The way you said that also suggests you're not done with that pseudo-degree minor, still a college student. Thanks for admitting you've got little experience past the warm embrace of your mothers womb and government education system.


RE: Ignorance abounds...
By EricMartello on 7/27/2012 5:56:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The market regulating itself gave us the great depression, and people like you who think things will work out on their own made it last 10 years. It also gave us the crap storm we are in today. Please stop talking like the free unregulated market is the end all be all of whats right because its not.


False. The original great depression was a culmination of several things, none of which had to do with the "market regulating itself". The main thing that caused strife for a lot of people was the lack of insurance on bank deposits, so when the banks crashed peoples' deposits got wiped out.

The stock market crash of 1929 set the ball rolling, but it wasn't like it just happened overnight - it happened because of the preceding decade was fueled by a general misconception that the value of stocks would continue rising.

The recent recession was not caused by Bush or Greenspan - it was caused by in large by Clinton's push for home ownership. He wanted to score points with the welfare class and believed it should be "easier" for "any american" to purchase and own a home. This initiated the housing bubble that developed into the house-flipping scheme, vastly over-inflating property values on the believe that they'll always be high.

Just like the stock market has highs and lows, so does real estate...a crash was inevitable. How are you going to regulate stupidity and greed?

There need to be laws that protect both investors and institutions from fraudulent activity and scams...CDOs could be considered fraudulent since they hid the true investment vehicle from the investor. Many people didn't know they were buying volatile mortgage, and many investors were assured that any defaults (on said mortgages) would be covered by credit default swaps, i.e "insurance".

We don't need the government forcing the market in a direction that isn't profitable for investors and businesses alike as is happening with CAFE. What we do need is regulation on disclosure so people who are investing know exactly where their money is going. Banks should not be able to obfuscate investments as they did during the housing bubble.

quote:
Bitch all you want but things need to change or we are going to be in a bad spot by 2025 (besides the healthcare and medicare issues), held hostage by the fluctuating price of oil. The less oil we use the more money we can spend on other crap, or maybe even pay down our debt! :) doubtful though...


No, things don't need to "change". What needs to happen is an improvement, but that's not what's going on here with these idiotic Obama mandates which are mainly his tools of pandering. He signed the new CAFE standards in place:

a) Because he wants to appear good to idiots that will not look past the headline (i.e. your average lefty)

b) It's another underhanded tax hike. Please read the portion of the CAFE mandate that explains how manufacturers have the option to pay a fine if they are unable to meet these unrealistic new FLEET-WIDE regulations.


It would be nice to see...
By GotThumbs on 7/27/2012 9:37:36 AM , Rating: 2
Ford come out with a straight six diesel engine option. There are already sufficient examples of new diesels that have better power and fuel economy than gas versions. Also new diesels do not resemble the old smoke bellowing and slow-poke speeds of the 70's.

Europe has been using more diesel powered vehicles over the years and for some stupid reason....the US fails to recognize the success and possibilities. It reminds me of the old adage....You can lead a horse to water...but you can't make him drink.

I regularly average 25 mpg per tank and have even got up to 26 mpg in my 2003 1 ton dodge ram 3500 quad-cab. Its powered by a straight six Cummings engine and has a five speed trans.

McFly....Hello...McFly....

Best to you and your vehicle selection.




RE: It would be nice to see...
By Alexstarfire on 7/27/2012 10:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
While true, you also have to look at the differences between the US and Europe, namely in fuel prices. From what I keep hearing the price of diesel in Europe is either the same price as unleaded gas or priced below it. The same isn't true for the US. Also, you have to realize that the US has a huge trucking industry that uses up a lot of diesel. Can you image how difficult it would be to power every vehicle in the US just off of diesel? Diesel and gas might both come from crude oil, but they are from different levels of distillation so you can't just make more diesel from the same amount of crude oil, at least to my knowledge. I'm no expert after all.

Long story short, diesels might get better mileage, but if we went all diesel prices would skyrocket which would pretty much defeat the purpose of going diesel. We really need a better alternative than relying on refined crude oil.


RE: It would be nice to see...
By StevoLincolnite on 7/27/2012 11:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
Except you don't have to use crude oil for diesel.

I have a friend who goes around to all the fish and chip shops here and gets all their left over old cooking oil for free and turns it into diesel for his car.

Another option is LPG Gas, which I have on my car.
It's usually about 1/2 to 1/3rd the price of petrol, slightly lower fuel economy and power, but it's also much cleaner.
Mind you, the US pricing may be different due to market conditions, but it could change if people, companies and the government endorsed it as an alternative. - Plus you can add it on to existing petrol engines.


RE: It would be nice to see...
By robertisaar on 7/27/2012 12:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
and what of the other 99% of drivers in the US?

there's only so much used cooking oil to go around.


RE: It would be nice to see...
By SeeManRun on 7/27/2012 10:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't the reason diesel is not popular in the US due to the air quality requirements? Is there a rule that says smaller weight vehicles like an F-150 vs F-250 have to be cleaner?


RE: It would be nice to see...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 12:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Europe has been using more diesel powered vehicles over the years and for some stupid reason....the US fails to recognize the success and possibilities. It reminds me of the old adage....You can lead a horse to water...but you can't make him drink.


*rolls eyes*

WOW I mean, how many times must we suffer through you condescending Euros trying to make this argument? How many times do we have to point out the VAST differences between the US and EU?? Enough already, just stop!

quote:
Ford come out with a straight six diesel engine option.


Why the hell would they do that when Ecoboost is WAY WAY better in every way than diesel engines?


RE: It would be nice to see...
By SeeManRun on 7/27/2012 1:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
How is the eco-boost better than a diesel (other than the cost being much cheaper)?


RE: It would be nice to see...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2012 2:26:11 PM , Rating: 1
I would say cost being cheaper is pretty damn significant. Diesel engines cost more, and in the US diesel fuel is usually 50 cents to a dollar higher per gallon. There's also less maintenance with gas vs diesel.

EcoBoost also gets more power and better economy than diesels all with a smaller displacement engine.

And when it comes to driving...yeah, no contest. A fast revving twin turbo gas engine compared to a plodding diesel? Please.


RE: It would be nice to see...
By SeeManRun on 7/27/2012 3:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
Less maintenance is simply wrong. Diesel is much less complicated and last much much longer than gas engines on average.

Generally a truck is made to do truck things, like haul and tow, and for those a diesel is much better. I own a 2011 F-150 and I paid extra for the Eco-boost. I believe it was $1200 extra. I would have paid another $3800 to get a diesel without hesitation.

Diesel is superior for a truck, and mileage difference makes up for the cost difference in gasoline vs diesel fuel.


RE: It would be nice to see...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: It would be nice to see...
By SeeManRun on 7/27/2012 5:49:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I love that you're arguing with me about Ecoboost, and yet you bought one. You get more ridiculous with every post you make.


This makes no sense. Just because I own something doesn't mean I have to think it is the best. You can only get a diesel in a F250 or equivalent size truck, which is much too big for my needs, therefor not a worthwhile purchase.

I was pretty clear that if they offered a diesel on the F150 I would be willing to pay more to get it over the Ecoboost, just as I was willing to pay more for the Ecoboost over the naturally aspirated 3.7, 5.0 or 6.2.

It was nice chatting, but I need to re-think my motivations for engaging in Internet banter.


RE: It would be nice to see...
By SeeManRun on 7/27/2012 1:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
And have you driven an eco-boost?


Fortunately, not everyone is shortsigthed
By Trascendencia on 7/27/2012 11:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anderson, P. 79: “For instance, in the early 1960s, Fairchild Semiconductor was selling an early transistor, called the 1211, to the military. Each transistor cost $100 to make. Fairchild wanted to sell the transistor to RCA for use in their new UHF television tuner. At the time RCA was using traditional vacuum tubes, which cost only $1.05 each."

“It worked. By getting way ahead of the price decline curve, they made their goal of $1.05 and took 90 percent of the UHF tuner market share. Two years later they were able to cut the price of the 1211 to 50 cents, and still make a profit.”


Fortunately, people in the 60s was not shortsighted, or our computer would be still made of vacuum tubes.




By Ringold on 7/28/2012 2:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
Kinda unrelated. The government then didnt have these Marxist intentions, if they bought any thing like that it was purely to give it every possible edge in developing nuclear weapons and code breaking at any cost over the Soviet Union, not to provide RCA with new technology.


By knutjb on 7/28/2012 6:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
In the case of Ford, they have been working with aluminum for many years. The Ford GT is all aluminum, body and frame. They used new manufacturing methods like stir welding and super plastic molding. Unfortunately aluminum is not a cure all. Some steel can still be made into lighter or stronger parts for a given weight. Steel is still for the most part an easier material to work with.

The same for transistors. Tubes still work better in certain applications, particularly with high voltages.


By kyee7k on 7/27/2012 1:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
How will the new CAFE requirements affect the safety of all vehicles, including the F-150s?




By Philippine Mango on 7/27/2012 2:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
It won't because body panels aren't needed for a vehicle to do well in a crash test aside from the doors. Anyway aluminum is plenty strong, just lighter than steel.


By Jeffk464 on 7/27/2012 11:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
Aluminum is stronger by weight than steal. If you made a similar chassis using the same weight as the steal car with aluminum it would be a tank.


By Exterous on 7/27/2012 9:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
I am guessing that is supposed to be the other way around?




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/27/2012 9:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
Should have been 2017 through 2025. It's been corrected, thanks :)


By mlmiller1 on 7/27/2012 9:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yea! 700 Less pounds would be like an extra 100HP!




Hemp body
By texbrazos on 7/31/2012 6:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
I thought ford was going to make a hemp or hemp plastic car??? It would prob. make too much sense. They could aslo make hybrid trucks etc. How about a one piece hood like they use on their nascars, they make those as aerodynamic and energy efficient as possible, but not for the masses. Why not???????

By the way has anyone else seen the worlds fastest street legal electic vehicle? check it out. The car makers should wake up and hire this dude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=369h-SEBXd8




"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki