backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 255 comment(s) - last by TheGreek.. on May 11 at 10:59 AM

Toyota Camry SE V6

Dodge Charger SRT-8
The auto industry says that a proposed Senate bill has requirement that are unattainable

It seems that while traffic congestion has gotten progressively worse over the past ten years, Americans have had a hankering for going nowhere faster. Fuel economy numbers haven't increased nearly as much as horsepower has in today's vehicles.

Your garden variety family sedans are now considered underpowered if they don't have at least a 250HP engine available on the option sheet. The Toyota Camry, America's best-selling car, is available with a 3.5 liter V6 engine putting out 263HP and can blast 0-60 in the low six second range. The V6-powered Camry is rated at 19/28 (highway/city), under the new 2008 EPA mileage ratings.

Chrysler is no stranger to high horsepower sedans, either. The company's Chrysler 300C and Dodge Charger R/T come equipped with 5.7 liter 340HP Hemi V8 engines (15/23) -- if that isn't enough, the 6.1 liter 300 SRT-8 and Charger SRT-8 pump out 425HP (13/18).

America's thirst for speed and auto manufacturers' propensity to quench that thirst may be coming to an end if a proposed Senate bill introduced by Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) passes. The new bill would require fleetwide CAFE standards for auto manufacturers to increase dramatically over the next 13 years. Fuel economy would have to rise from 27.5MPG for cars to 28.5MPG by 2015. That number would then jump to 35MPG by the year 2020 with 4% annual increases thereafter.

The 27.5MPG standard has held steady for nearly 20 years due to lobbying by auto manufacturers.

Not surprisingly, auto manufacturers aren't too happy with the proposed bill. "Basically, it is unattainable up until 2020 and unattainable afterward," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "We think this is still going to be a big burden on Americans who need work vehicles."

The auto manufacturers, however, aren't the only ones against the new bill. Fellow democratic senator Carl Levin represents Michigan and thinks that the bill is misguided. "More progress can be made in reducing oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions if we focus our resources on leap-ahead technologies instead of forcing companies to make incremental improvements to meet an arbitrary standard," said Levin.

In early April, President Bush called for the United States to reduce its gasoline usage 20 percent by the year 2017. Bush noted that the move would cost the industry roughly $114 billion USD between 2010 and 2017 to comply.

Updated 5/8/2007: The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee today approved the bill.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 5/7/2007 12:56:46 PM , Rating: 4
They only "push" on us what we want to buy. Do you think that all there is to buy in the US are SUV's and pick ups? There are plenty of fuel efficient cars out there but WE won't buy them. So the only thing left is to legislate out the cars the WE want. Do you think GM would make vehicles if it thought it couldn't sell them? Well, in fact, GM lost market share to Toyota based on pick up sales, not pass car sales... so let me eat my words. It has taken GM a few years to ramp up its truck plants.

Anyway, if we all bought fuel efficient cars and demanded fuel efficient cars, then that is what any sane auto maker would deliver. The oil companies can't force GM into making gas hogs. Not when there are more profits to be made selling what your primary market demands. Did anyone take economics? Help me out here.

Buy the right cars, and only the right cars, and that is what they will make. YOU stop buying the pick ups and SUV's.

(For the record, I own a Camry Hybrid [39 mpg], and a Toyota 4Runner [???]. Well, my wife bought that before we were married, but she only commutes 10 miles per day.)




RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By Xenoid on 5/7/2007 1:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Everyone wants their 5.0+L V8 that gets terrible mileage because everyone needs a 1-ton truck to go grocery shopping on the weekend, especially here in Canada it seems.

People buy what they want. If they want a Honda Fit, they will buy it. If they want a V12, they will buy it. Nobody forces you to get the 3.5L Camry. I'm sure there is an econo (2.0L~) version as well, and it sells better.

And no, family sedans are not 'underpowered' if they don't pack at least 250hp, what a joke. A family sedan needs around 150hp, and thats assuming it's going to suffer loss due to an automatic, fwd drivetrain, while carrying 4 adults and suitcases in the trunk. Why? Because it's not a roadster, it's a family sedan! You just need some space, a cheap price tag, good fuel economy, and good safety features.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By OxBow on 5/7/2007 1:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
The choices aren't there for the average car buyer. The typical dealership has mulitple versions of SUV's, trucks, etc. but your choice for economy cars is limited to suck, suckier or suckiest among the Big 3. I live in the country, so a hybrid would give me hardly any savings (all highway driving). If they put as much effort into fuel efficiency as they do into designing the plush interiors of their SUV's and trucks, we wouldn't have nearly as much trouble.

Just give me a four seater that gets 45-50 mpg highway with adequate airbags, ac and antilock brakes (I live in Texas, AC is a must).


By masher2 (blog) on 5/7/2007 1:46:03 PM , Rating: 3
> "The choices aren't there for the average car buyer..."

The choices are there. GM and Ford both make a staggering variety of small economy cars. But by and large, consumers prefer the larger, more powerful vehicles. Toyota recently passed GM for the #1 spot...but that was primarily on strong growth in the SUV/pickup market segment (up 30.5% from a year ago). Their passenger car sales are actually down slightly.


By theapparition on 5/7/2007 2:06:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But by and large, consumers prefer the larger, more powerful vehicles

Completely correct.

That goes for Europe too. Euopeans with money don't drive Mini's. They drive big, heavy, Mercedes and BMW's. If gas was cheaper there, they'd all drive heavier, more powerful cars. Just consumer preference.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By BZDTemp on 5/7/2007 2:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not so. Sure it may be so for some but many people prefer smaller sportier fun cars that sofas on wheels.

Also even the big/fast European cars offer better mileage that the similar US ones. Of course there really isn't any European cars as big as the Escalades and Excursions since they make even Audi Q7's and MB M-class look medium size.


By masher2 (blog) on 5/7/2007 2:56:25 PM , Rating: 3
> "so. Sure it may be so for some but many people prefer smaller sportier fun cars..."

When driven hard, my "smaller, sportier" two-seater ragtop gets worse mileage than my SUV. Of course, thats pretty much the only way I drive it.

> "even the big/fast European cars offer better mileage that the similar US ones."

2007 Mercedes Maybach -- 11 MPG city.
2007 Bentley Continental -- 11 MPG city.
2007 BMW M5 6-speed -- 12 MPG city.
2007 Mercedes GL500 SUV -- 13 MPG city.

I won't even mention that Europe is home to the Bugatti Veyron, a car capable of draining its 25 gallon fuel tank in less than 12 minutes.

Sure, you can point to many European cars that get better mileage. But again, thats because of the market to which they cater.


By FITCamaro on 5/7/2007 4:43:21 PM , Rating: 1
400hp 2007 Chevy Corvette - 19 MPG city/29 highway (many see better on both numbers)
505hp 2007 Chevy Corvette Z06 - 16 MPG city/26 highway
400hp 2006 Pontiac GTO - 18 mpg city/27 highway (many see better on both numbers)
My dads 3800lb 330hp 2002 Trans Am WS6 6-speed - 17 mpg city/27 highway


By theapparition on 5/8/2007 7:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
The GTO is ~3800lbs
The TransAm is ~3450lbs

But your point is spot on. With the TransAm, that inferior 10 year old pushrod V8 technology is getting almost the same economy as a 2007 Camry, with ~90hp more (330 was vastly underrated). People should worry less about technology and more about end results.


By hubajube on 5/7/2007 6:35:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
When driven hard, my "smaller, sportier" two-seater ragtop gets worse mileage than my SUV. Of course, thats pretty much the only way I drive it.
You need to get yourself a direct injection motor. I get 26 mpg when I drive hard and 29-30 when I drive normally (which is occasional periods of foot to the floor). The non-DI motor in this same car gets 25 mpg driven "normally" and under 20 mpg when driven hard.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/7/2007 7:18:17 PM , Rating: 3
If you can afford any of those cars, the last thing on your mind is the MPG!


By AntDX316 on 5/8/2007 2:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
true


By theapparition on 5/8/2007 7:17:04 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
If you can afford any of those cars, the last thing on your mind is the MPG!

But isn't that the point. Gas is cheap in America (very cheap-inflation adjusted) compared to Europe. So Americans don't care that much about fuel economy. They care alot more than 10 years ago, but still not that much. So the preference is to get the nicest car they can afford. If gas were to go to $10/gal, you'd see that purchase decision based more on efficiency.

The same applies to Europe. If gas suddenly dropped to $1/gal there, you'd see a lot more people drop their econo-boxes and get more car. I just don't like the notion that many of our Euopean friends here at Daily Tech claim they are doing it for the enviroment, or for the good of the country. Give 'em the money, and they'll spend it just like us Americans.


By Lonyo on 5/8/2007 7:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
I would disagree. I would stick with a small car, as would a lot of people.
Small roads mean small cars are better, not just for fuel economy, but also things like fitting down narrow lanes, or getting into parking spots :P


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By madoka on 5/8/2007 2:09:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I won't even mention that Europe is home to the Bugatti Veyron, a car capable of draining its 25 gallon fuel tank in less than 12 minutes.


Masher2, are you just retarded or do you just play one on the net?

First off, you're only using some of the rarest/most extreme European cars as your rebuttal. The Maybach, the Bentley, the M5?!?! How many of those are even on the road?

Second, I've had a chance to be in the Veyron. It gets 10MPG on the road. The 12 minutes to drain is if you hypothetically drive it at 253 MPH the entire time. Again, that's so extreme that it is not going to happen/matter in this discussion.


By AntDX316 on 5/8/2007 2:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
but its capable


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By Cygni on 5/8/2007 6:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
any normal DT reader is now laughing at you. Masher2 is about as opposite as retarded as you can get.


By TheGreek on 5/10/2007 4:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
No actually the statement that "Europe is home to the Bugatti Veyron, a car capable of draining its 25 gallon fuel tank in less than 12 minutes." is the laughable and meaningless statement.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By BZDTemp on 5/8/2007 12:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When driven hard, my "smaller, sportier" two-seater ragtop gets worse mileage than my SUV. Of course, thats pretty much the only way I drive it.


Unless you drive your SUV in a similar fashion I can't see how that is a valid point. Also I'm betting than if you trash the SUV around it get's even worse.

Also the four cars you list are not really normal cars but rather super fancy ones not really being representative of the big European cars. It is if did a list of US cars putting the CXT, the Hummmer and similar - except of course the Hummer is actually being sold in not so small numbers :-)

An now that you mention the Bugatti Veyron maybe we should make a note of it being even further away from normal than anything. Firstly it's the worlds most expensive car, by a nice margin, and secondly the 25 gallons you talk about is at full speed meaning it's going something like 250 MPH+ so tell me how this is relevant?

quote:
Sure, you can point to many European cars that get better mileage. But again, thats because of the market to which they cater.


So in fact you're saying the US big 3 could do the same? If so why aren't they? Surely it would be interesting for them to compete over here since they are loosing on the home turf.


By masher2 (blog) on 5/8/2007 2:22:29 PM , Rating: 1
> "Unless you drive your SUV in a similar fashion I can't see how that is a valid point"

Its a valid point because I don't drive my SUV in similar fashion. Driving style is an important factor in mileage...a factor the EPA figures don't take into account. Distance driven is an even more important figure, and again the EPA ratings don't reflect this.

The point is that people can be wasteful, but vehicles cannot. My two seater has higher EPA figures...but due to my driving style, and the fact I take far more pleasure trips in it, is in reality far worse.

> "the four cars you list [are] super fancy ones [not] really being representative of the big European cars"

That's the point. They're made by European automakers, but they're not common. Why not? Because of the price. Few can afford them...but those that can, buy them.

What's an SUV called in England? A Chelsea Tractor. Why? Because in London's affluent district of Chelsea, SUVs clog the roads. In the poorer districts, people can't afford to buy them...and even if could, they can't afford the gasoline for them.

> "So in fact you're saying the US big 3 could do the same?"

The US Big 3 ARE doing the same. They have plenty of small, fuel-efficient cars for sale. Such models sell poorly, though.


By theapparition on 5/8/2007 3:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more.
It seems everyone takes the EPA numbers as fact, and think they will get the same milage. EPA numbers are just a baseline to compare models.
Driving habits, distance, improper maintenance, and stoplight warriors affect that milage tremendously.
Many of those efficient cars get worse gas milage than even their lowest city rating. Take hybrids for example. They had to change the testing because NONE of them lived up to their claims.
I get scoffed at when I tell people I can get over 30mpg in my corvettes. That's if I drive it miserly, which I rarely do ;-)


By TheGreek on 5/10/2007 5:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
I average 3 mpg above the highway rating of my car.


By sdsdv10 on 5/8/2007 6:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US Big 3 ARE doing the same. They have plenty of small, fuel-efficient cars for sale. Such models sell poorly, though.


Not exactly true for Ford. See link for April 2007 sales figures [The same is true for March 2007.]

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_...

The Focus was the 2nd best selling vehicle with 16,626 sold. The only thing that beat it was the overall F-series pick-up sales at 56,692 (this includes F-150, F-250, F-350, F-450, etc). 3rd was the Econoline/Club wagon van at 15,740. (I would suspect many of these are work units, just like the F-series.) 4th was the cute-ute Escape with 14,788. Small fuel efficient vehichles sell quite well for Ford, however they don't have nearly the profit margin of the larger, heavier, gas using SUV and sedans.


By GI2K on 5/10/2007 4:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Why should EPA take into account the driving style? since everyone has a different one how would they

"Few can afford them...but those that can, buy them."
That's not true, most people won't buy those types of cars even if they had the money, simply cause of the troubles to park them or cause of the bad image they give of them.

Besides there's currently a movement to ban them completely from the city, so you can’t be more wrong to think that they are like some kind of status icon... I wouldn’t be too surprised if in a few years they made a law with it.


By crazydrummer4562 on 5/8/2007 5:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
That market is very minuscule, I would imagine it causes a very minimal impact, ESPECIALLY the veyron, i mean, how many are even in existence?


By skarbd on 5/9/2007 4:12:57 AM , Rating: 2
2007 Mercedes Maybach -- 11 MPG city.
2007 Bentley Continental -- 11 MPG city.
2007 BMW M5 6-speed -- 12 MPG city.
2007 Mercedes GL500 SUV -- 13 MPG city.

I hate to be point this out, but these are not even close to being normal cars. Their price tags are all in the $100K + bracket. For instance the Maybach 62 is in the $400 - $500,000 range.


By theapparition on 5/7/2007 3:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure it may be so for most but some people prefer smaller sportier fun cars that sofas on wheels.

Fixed it for you.
I prefer sports cars myself, but the buying public has a different opinion.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By Lord 666 on 5/7/2007 2:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
Does the DT logo mean your an employee now of DT or is it honary?

Welcome back, you've been gone a while.


By masher2 (blog) on 5/7/2007 2:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks.

I believe the logo just identifies contributors, though you'd have to ping Kris for the actual detalis.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/7/2007 7:16:48 PM , Rating: 3
It signifies that he has a blog on DT


By marvdmartian on 5/7/2007 4:06:55 PM , Rating: 4
On the same token, they really have nothing that can match their competition for quality, price, mileage and warranty, can they?

I'm in the "window shopping" mode of looking at buying a new vehicle, to replace a 9 year old Nissan Frontier 4x4 that's currently getting me ~20mpg average mileage (mostly city driving). While I'd love to buy another truck (either the Nissan Frontier again, or the Titan), I really don't utilize a truck often enough to be able to justify getting another one, especially when gas prices seem to have permanently stabilized over $2 a gallon. Definitely, gas mileage will play an important factor in my next vehicle purchase, whether it be new or used.

However, I have been severely underwhelmed with the choices that we have out there! I'm no Honda fan, and don't buy into the whole "best resale value" schtick they've sold so many people on (my thought being that if it cost more to start with, it ought to be worth more down the road, shouldn't it?), and really don't care for Toyotas either. I'm open to most anything else......but really don't consider the choices to be much worth looking at!

Of course, it doesn't help that anything I think I'd like to drive, costs $25K+!! ;)

I realize that new cars don't come out overnight, and that it takes at least a few years to develop them and get them ready to produce. But aren't we already a couple years gone from Katrina, when gas prices really started skyrocketing?? And what have we seen the US automakers do in the past two years? Status quo, that's what. Keep pushing the SUV's and pickup trucks, the big engined vehicles that will pass everything but the gas station!

I believe that the automakers are equally to blame for their problems. Yes, US drivers fell in love with their big vehicles, but that was only after some pretty heavy advertising campaigns by US automakers, to extoll on the advantages of their larger than life vehicles. And it's not as though this problem with high gas prices is something brand new, either. Anyone here old enough to remember the OPEC oil embargo of the early 70's?? I recall gas prices going up so fast during the 70's that gas station owners weren't ready for it when gasoline hit $1/gallon, since their dispensers were only built to go up to ninety-nine cents! They finally had to set the dispensers at 1/2 the cost of gas, then charge people twice what the dispenser read when they were done pumping, until they got new dispenser meters!!!

The US automakers have had 30+ years to come up with higher mileage vehicles, and when they were unwilling to do so on their own, they were legislated to do so......and have only done it by kicking and screaming their way to it! If the EPA didn't mandate higher average gas mileage for vehicles every year, the "Big 3" would happily continue making vehicles that got 6mpg, and STILL would wonder why they were being outsold by every other automaker on the planet!!

Bottom line: is the consumer to blame? Yes, for blindly following along with the advertising scheme of US auto makers, and buying into the whole "bigger is better" idea. Are the US auto makers equally to blame? You betcha! And since no one wants to be the adult in this situation, maybe it is time that someone forces both the auto makers and the consumers to grow up and face reality. It's a bitch, isn't it??


By theapparition on 5/8/2007 7:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bottom line: is the consumer to blame? Yes, for blindly following along with the advertising scheme of US auto makers, and buying into the whole "bigger is better" idea.

Wrong. The notion that consumers are swayed by automobile marketing decisions is just stupid (<-sorry, but it is). Throw out your own decision making process, and try and think for Average Joe/Jane.
Since I have some intimate knowledge of the auto industry, let me try and explain how it works as quick as possible.

Your now an Automobile manufacturer.
You need to design a new vehicule.
You get a focus group together of your target audience. You ask them, the consumer, what they want.
You design around their needs.
You unveil prototypes at auto shows to them.
If their intrest is high enough, you go into production.
If they buy it, it stays in production, if they don't, you stop making it.

See, pretty simple, no force-fed marketing required. Some cars are hits, others fade into obscurity, because people choose to buy them (or not). There are so many factors to consider. That bigger is better mentality is something universal, a competitive spirit that drives us to improve and is not just related to the automobile industry. People want bigger houses than their neighboor, too. They want faster computers (the same type of person complaining about the "car" or "house" people), or bigger televisions. I could go on and on. But the fact remains that for most consumers, they are driven to upgrade.

So, are people to blame. Absoultely, but not because auto makers are forcing them to buy something, rather, they have spoken with their wallets to force the automakers to build what they want.


By Proteusza on 5/8/2007 11:29:38 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wrong. The notion that consumers are swayed by automobile marketing decisions is just stupid


MTV tells people what they want all the time, and they listen.

Its called marketing, and it can work amazing well sometimes. Some products have been utter failures, before they were marketed better. Marketing often makes or breaks products.

An automobile manufacturer could make a car with an idea of the target market the car will fit into. Then they tell the audience why they need this car - it looks good, people will like if you have this car, you can have happy memories in this car - and they gloss over the negatives, such as fuel economy and expense.

Marketing is a really, really powerful tool. Dont underestimate it.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By Kuroyama on 5/8/2007 10:34:15 AM , Rating: 3
Only around a quarter of Toyota's vehicle sales are in the US, and I imagine the 30.5% figure is for US sales, so I rather doubt that SUV / truck sales are the reason why Toyota is #1.


By masher2 (blog) on 5/8/2007 11:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
> "so I rather doubt that SUV / truck sales are the reason why Toyota is #1. "

The figures I quoted were from North American sales only, current as of April 2007. Toyota's domestic car sales were down slightly; their truck sales up sharply.


By Lord 666 on 5/7/2007 2:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
Its called the Mercedes Benz E320 Bluetec or the coming C220 Bluetec.


By primerump on 5/7/2007 2:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
I have such a car.. VW Jetta TDI.. like most Euro diesels, you do get economy and performance.. the American V8 disease is the problem here, promulgated by oil companies and other corporate greed.. Take away greed and replace with common sense.. you will have efficiency


By Lord 666 on 5/7/2007 2:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 2006 Jetta TDI as well.

Love my car, but not sure it has the kind of A/C he needs down in Texas.

Also, when the new VW TDI is released in the US in March of 2008, the 0-60 performance is cut down by about 3 seconds. Until then, its a bit slow for the general public and farm roads in Texas.


By theapparition on 5/7/2007 3:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Take away greed and replace with common sense.. you will have efficiency

Good point. Let's first start with computers. Next year, you will only be able to buy a computer at the same (or higher) price, yet half the power. But it takes less energy, so feel good inside.

If you take away a consumers source for something they have been buying forever and have a passion for, they will just find another source. And nothing stirs more passion in a product than automobiles.


By jrb531 on 5/8/2007 2:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
And "most" people would never tell the difference because all they do is surf the net, pay the bills, play solitaire etc...

much like "most" people do not need 200+ HP vehicles.

Sure "some" people need fast computers and "some" people need large cars/trucks with lots of HP but to a good portion of the country it's nothing more than "keeping up with the jones" - if they have a large SUV with 10000 HP then "I" need the same or better.

-JB


By FITCamaro on 5/7/2007 4:55:50 PM , Rating: 1
I can build a Jetta that gets 10 mpg if I want.

Yes....greed is what's making us buy V8s.....those damn oil companies are forcing us to. No. We WANT to.

I drive a Chevy Cobalt 2.4L SS. I could've gotten the 2.2L. But the 2.4L offered more horsepower and the same mileage. Every one of my cars prior to this, was a V8 Camaro. Did the oil companies come to my house and threaten me to buy one? No. I wanted to. And in a year or two, I plan to be driving a V8 again. I don't drive far every day, so I can afford to drive a 400 hp V8 car that gets 18-19 mpg city and 27-29 mpg highway.

The only reason I bought my Cobalt is because I was driving 750 miles a week for 8 months when I got out of college. Now though, I wish I hadn't as I no longer need a 4 banger and desire a V8 again. No. I can't always go fast. But I love hitting the pedal and getting pushed back in my seat.

You can think your TDI Jetta has performance all you want too. Will it ever match a V8 (without thousands of dollars spent in a turbo, intercooler, boost controller, etc but then your mileage is gone as well)? No.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By walk2k on 5/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By hubajube on 5/7/2007 6:45:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
because Americans are by in large too selfish and ignorant to do the Right Thing.
Nah. He's just exercising his freedom. He can buy want he wants and drive what he wants. The Right Thing is to preserve our freedoms and right to choose. Freedom DOES come at a cost and it's everyone of our rights to choose how much we want to pay. Quite frankly it is your right to call him selfish and ignorant and he might be such. But it is also his right to buy his V8 car pursue his happiness.


By TheGreek on 5/10/2007 4:52:44 PM , Rating: 2
The average American is no more happy today that he was in the 50's. Once I spent an effortless Saturday afternoon on the deck of a bar watching some "I gotta have it" mentality jerk as he tried to put his speedboat into the river. I just laughed at him, but regardless of that he still wasted 50+ gallons of gas in an afternoon, in a vehicle with zero pollution devices, to drive in circles. My energy use was the making of 2 glasses of ice for my drink and the energy to cook a burger. Duh.

The doesn't change the fact he lowers the standard of living for everyone else. Most people who subscribe to the freedom of choice theory are merely looking at it like there is no responsibility involved, that's their version of freedom, and it really doesn't exist.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By Munkles on 5/7/2007 6:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
"....do the right thing" WOW this isnt a case of morals, or even ethics. This is simply about preference. I PREFER a faster, stronger, vehicle to travel with. One that feels secure going over 70mph on the freeway.

I PREFER something that I know is likely to not turn into an accordian if heaven forbid should I ever be in an accident.

Fuel effeciency is all well and good, but ill be damned if someone is going to tell me not only have to buy a fuel effecient car but thats its also a moral/ethical decision.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By yawnbox on 5/8/2007 12:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
Preference invades ethics when your heavier vehicle runs over my lighter vehicle. Your slipery-slope decision is unethical. If everyone had a mini, no one would need a hummer to feel safe.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By Munkles on 5/8/2007 2:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
Except, that there is more to safety than simply the other cars that maybe on the roads. You have to figure out how well they will hold up at varying speeds. Which do YOU think will fare better in a collision with a concrete highway divider; A Charger or a Prius?

You also have to figure in semi's and even if you put two small cars in a head on collision at 70MPH id put my money on the driver of two big cars walking away a lot more often the the drivers of two little cars.

You STILL aren't thinking critically when you say that preference invades ethics when my charger will run over your smart car because "ethics" is the application of morals into your world view, and your every day practices.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT you cannot say that buying a big or little car has ANY ethical standing.

If I buy a big car BECAUSE I want to crash it into little cars, then you'd have a case but the preference of big - to - little has NO ethical or moral position.

Also I don't drive SUV's and I wouldn't want to. I like larger sedans myself with low centers of gravity.


By TheGreek on 5/10/2007 5:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
The question then is if the driver of the Hummer feels safer will he be paying less attention to what he's doing, increasing the odds of having your (or my) face print in his front bumper?


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By irev210 on 5/7/2007 10:02:55 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Idiots like you Mr. "I need a V8 to feel like a man" are exactly the reason we need these kinds of laws - because Americans are by in large too selfish and ignorant to do the Right Thing.


Who are you to decide what I can and cant drive?

Idiots like you Mr. "I need to tell everyone else what to do to feel like a man."

I suggest you stop trying to play other peoples positions. Don't judge people and what you presume they need/dont need.

I also suggest you be an advocate of what you believe in. Show the advantages/disadvantages of each case, explaining your position.

Calling people idiots is no answer to any problem.

People who want excellent fuel economy have the CHOICE to buy a car that allows them to get 40+MPG. They only have to pay >5 cents a mile for fuel.

People who want a larger vehicle have a CHOICE to pay <40 cents a mile.

I personally take the subway and dont even have a car, but I would never have the nerve to say:

quote:
because Americans are by in large too selfish and ignorant to do the Right Thing.


Again, the only ignorant person is yourself. Who are you to say what the right thing is when it comes to vehicle choice? How would you like it if I told you you could only drive 1 car, and one car only because I decided it was best for you, and you hated it? I suggest you reflect on a time where someone ELSE made a CHOICE that they thought was BEST for everyone else, even though you didn't agree with it.

I agree with the fact that we should be spending $ on research on things like hydrogen or other alternative fuels that have the potential to be cheaper and cleaner than current fuels.


By P4blo on 5/8/2007 10:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
Over consumption is often accompanied by under pricing. If something is good fun and much too cheap it will be abused in some way. Americans have discovered this with junk food, the 'eat all you want for $5' era has certainly done its damage to those lacking nutritional self control. Cheaper doesn't always mean better.

Just like any other people on earth Americans will happily buy gas drinking monster SUV penis extensions (Chrysler SUV add make me laugh), if they can run them at a sensible price. Europeans would be the same. The glaring difference is that fuel costs more here, mostly due to heavier direct taxation. That taxation is there for very good reasons. Reasons like trying to influence fuel consumption, the sheer number of cars jamming up our overcrowded roads, and of course cleaning up the environmental damage!

Here it is 'folks' - American leadership inspires me with little or no confidence that the politicians can ever stick to their guns (oops pardon the unfortunate but obvious pun). Combined, the vehicle and oil companies just squeeze political necks until they choke and back down. The same happens with military influence over policy. Too many lies fed to the people, not enough presidents doing the right thing for the right reasons.

A REAL leader would phase in an incremental increase in US fuel taxation forcing vehicle manufacturers to start bringing in sensible models that take this into consideration over the next 10 or so years.

My perception is that American politics only seems to give a hoot about jobs and industry – the key vote winners. It's economic power at all costs, screw the environment.

It's time you elected a leader with the ability to think for him self. With his minimal intelligence, it's pretty obvious from a decision making standpoint that good ol' Bush Jr. was hardly doing anything to actually 'run' the country. So much so I almost feel SORRY for the guy. He couldn't run a Subway outlet. Noooo, he's just a finger puppet that stands on the podium and grins / cracks bad jokes / makes like a Christian for Middle American votes and generally shows us all his total lack of knowledge / intellect.

Summary: Petrol is too cheap. Politicians are too wined and dined / paid off by industry to force change. Corruption rears its ugly head as usual in the land of the free (to take a dump on the planet).

I hope I get flamed, I need a good laugh!

Pablo


By Proteusza on 5/8/2007 11:37:57 AM , Rating: 2
If you hadnt bought american you could have got a car with more power for the same engine configuration and fuel economy.

Take the TVR Cerbera vs the Corvette:

Cerbera: 4.5 Liter V8. Power 420 hp.
Corvette 6 liter V8. Power 400 hp.


By theapparition on 5/8/2007 2:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you hadnt bought american you could have got a car with more power for the same engine configuration and fuel economy.

Take the TVR Cerbera vs the Corvette:

Not made since 2003.
Not available in US
Not Safety qualified for US (US restrictions are higher than Europe)
10/15mpg
Price: 2003 (used) ~$70,000-80,000 USD

Not much of a comparison


By Proteusza on 5/9/2007 4:46:02 AM , Rating: 1
Even so, shows what decent engineers can do. bigger isnt always better.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By mcnabney on 5/7/2007 5:31:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Just give me a four seater that gets 45-50 mpg highway with adequate airbags, ac and antilock brakes


Toyota Corolla: 42MPG highway. Seats five. ABS available. A decently equipped model will cost you $15k.


By Fenixgoon on 5/7/2007 6:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
"seats five" :laugh;

but does it seat 5 comfortably? =D


By marvdmartian on 5/8/2007 9:29:13 AM , Rating: 3
More importantly, does it seat 5 big-assed Americans?? ;)


By TheGreek on 5/10/2007 4:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
As well as 5 big assed "any other county"-ans.

Seriously though, I could drive a smaller car if the average oblivious to everything around him American had just one brain cell that could grasp the simple laws of physics.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By hubajube on 5/7/2007 6:47:30 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Toyota Corolla: 42MPG highway. Seats four and a monkey . ABS available. A decently equipped model will cost you $15k.
Corrected it for you.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By ira176 on 5/8/2007 1:26:58 AM , Rating: 2
A monkey in the trunk that is...


By TheGreek on 5/10/2007 4:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
Better place than the White House.


By Hoser McMoose on 5/8/2007 2:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
etc. but your choice for economy cars is limited to suck, suckier or suckiest among the Big 3

In my mind one of the biggest problems is that for ANY small car from the Big-3 you're limited to 'suck, suckier or suckiest', even if you're willing to pay more than economy car prices.

GM just doesn't make a luxury small or midsized car. If you want luxury features from GM you NEED to buy either a large car or an SUV. The only exception to this rule is the mid-sized 9-3 from their Saab division, though this is still somewhat larger than a BMW 3-series.

GM isn't alone here, the old Chrysler brands are in the same boat (though, to be fair, Mercedes is current filling this role in DaimlerChrysler). Ford is only saved by their Volvo division.

When you look at the Big-3 companies for something to compare to a BMW 3-series, a Lexus IS series, Acura TSX, Audi A4, etc., the American makes are really lacking. This is especially true if you ignore the European makes owned by the Big-3 (ie Saab and Volvo). It's even worse if you want something like a BMW 1-series (not available in North America yet), Audi A3, Acura CSX (only available in Canada), Mercedes B-series, etc.

The American car companies are stuck on this idea that size and market segments must be intrinsically linked. "If it's small it's gotta be crap" seems to be the motto.


By Oregonian2 on 5/7/2007 3:30:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Exactly. Everyone wants their 5.0+L V8 that gets terrible mileage because everyone needs a 1-ton truck to go grocery shopping on the weekend, especially here in Canada it seems.


If one needs a truck sometimes (say, you use it for work but still have to go grocery shopping on weekends), what do you do? Or even if you only need it once in a while to haul one's large kayak to the dock. Buy a Camry and fill the trunk with concrete the few times a year one needs to? Point being that a truck can be used as a car more easily than vice versa. So unless "everybody" can buy multiple vehicles in order to select what they're going to be doing at the moment, the vehicle that is more universal is more practical, and that may have a pickup being used to buy a gallon of milk.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By walk2k on 5/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By Hawkido on 5/7/2007 6:05:35 PM , Rating: 1
Young Man! Get your head outta your butt! Now!

You have no idea how the rest of the country lives. Let me guess you live in surburbia or the concrete jungle...

I live out here in the country, its nice. You can do all sorts of things out here, like run blindfolded for 5 seconds and NOT break your nose on a building! I'm sure from where you sit you can't even imagine why people have trucks. You don't know where the corn on your plate comes from. Question: What kind of tree does milk grow on?

I suggest you give up food for 3 months (except what YOU can grow where you live) before you go talking about passing any laws about trucks. There is not a single thing you eat that didn't spend some of its growth cycle in a pickup truck (seed, feed grain, plants, saplings). You have narrow vision. You see no need for trucks so you want to ban them. I want to ban YOU for making use of any product that a pickup truck was involved in producing.

Think about the full complications of your flimsy "I mean well!" thoughts, before speaking them.

Enviralmentalism is a disease. (No, it's not mispelled)


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By walk2k on 5/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By hubajube on 5/7/2007 6:51:42 PM , Rating: 4
I wish my wife and I could afford to buy a third car so she wouldn't have to drive her truck everyday but another car payment and the associated maintenance costs are not worth it just to save a few bucks in gas.


By TheGreek on 5/10/2007 5:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
IE She could have bought the vehicle she requires, not the dream vehicle, and then the lower payments would allow you to rent a truck whenever you need it. Financially you'd be well ahead.

I'd could buy a Corvette and more today if I wanted, and if it ever reached that point I'd rent one for a week to get it out of my system. To own one is a waste of resources. People want thrills? Go to an amusement park.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By Hawkido on 5/8/2007 9:48:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
why don't you not live in a building for 3 months, jagoff.


4 years military, proudly served and honorably discharged. Only 3 months?

SUV's are needed... the precursor to the SUV was the Ford Bronco and the Older Chevy Blazer, and before that Camper cover tops for pickups. So the automakers didn't have a vehicle that met the wants and needs of the market, so another market was created to modify what the auto industry made (the Pickup) with a camper shell and Viola! The first SUV. I believe the first of these were seen in the 60's.

Okay, you can put your head back in your butt now. I am done with you.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By jrb531 on 5/8/2007 2:10:59 PM , Rating: 1
But does a SUV "need" 300+ HP or could 200 do?

The point is not as much size but HP.

-JB


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By Hawkido on 5/8/2007 3:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
You ever try to pull a trailer with a load through the Ozark Mountains?


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By jrb531 on 5/9/2007 1:15:29 PM , Rating: 1
And if you are pulling a trailer then yes you need more HP.

Having said this... what percentage of the population pulls trailers???

-JB


By Hawkido on 5/9/2007 4:00:04 PM , Rating: 3
Most people in the country have trailers for hauling farm and Rec equipment. Which, if you check, the non-urban areas are where truck and SUV sales are the greatest. Ban them in the city if you want. But if you harm the farmer, You starve first.


By masher2 (blog) on 5/7/2007 7:22:17 PM , Rating: 1
> "You could always RENT a truck and drive a normal car the other 364 days of the year"

One more non-SUV owner who doesn't see a need for SUVs. Imagine that.

Well, its usually a self-correcting problem. Once you get a little older, have your own home and a large family, you'll probably change your mind.


RE: It is US to blame, not the auto manufacturers
By walk2k on 5/7/2007 7:55:25 PM , Rating: 1
Well aren't we smarmy. For your records I'm 37 and own my own home. No kids yet, but that's old enough to remember the times before SUVs even existed, waaay back in the 1970s, when our family got along JUST FINE with 2 adults 2 kids and a DOG in the back of the family STATION WAGON.

There is no need for SUVs. None at all. Just suck it up and admit that you don't NEED a SUV, you simply WANT one.

But, would you want one if it cost $80,000?


By Amiga500 on 5/8/2007 4:22:33 AM , Rating: 3
I hope you lot are aware that SUVs are involved in a disproportionate amount of accidents?

Mostly due to the fact they handle like sh_t!

Elk test anyone?


By TheGreek on 5/11/2007 10:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your family in the 1970s got along just fine without a computer and cable TV too, didn't they? A few decades before that, they got along fine without a telephone or air conditioning as well.


You could learn a lot from a Corona Beer commercial, or perhaps a vacation. Within weeks normal people are fine without those items.


By theapparition on 5/8/2007 7:52:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
No kids yet

Lucky for them!


By MonkeyPaw on 5/8/2007 9:52:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
when our family got along JUST FINE with 2 adults 2 kids and a DOG in the back of the family STATION WAGON.


What kind of gas mileage did that 3 ton wagon get back in the day? When promoting fuel economy, I wouldn't use the 1970s as a reference point. Besides, who's to say what your family would have owned had the minivan and SUV been in existence back then (both were a product of the '80s)? You act like they made a choice when there wasn't one in the first place.


By SmokeRngs on 5/9/2007 3:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
waaay back in the 1970s, when our family got along JUST FINE with 2 adults 2 kids and a DOG in the back of the family STATION WAGON.


You do realize that the station wagon probably had a V8 and got rather lousy gas mileage? If it didn't have a V8 or a strong straight six that car wouldn't go anywhere due to it's size and weight. They also handled terribly.

Are you also aware that the CAFE standards are what killed the station wagon? There was no way to actually make a station wagon productive with the constraints put on it for mileage.

This was one of the reasons for the explosion of the SUV. Vans filled part of the roll of the old station wagon for hauling large numbers of people around. But they did nothing for hauling and pulling requirements. SUVs were able to take the place of the old station wagon. They have the room to seat a lot of people and gear while able to pull a trailer or haul a load.


By Oregonian2 on 5/9/2007 6:38:11 PM , Rating: 1
My first car was a '69 model (GM). A family "boat", not a youngster hot racing car. It had a 472 engine rated 375 HP (just before the clean air stuff ruined performance, a PCV valve was about it for that year). Tank held 26 gallons of premium leaded gas.

Wish my cars and minivan nowadays were anywhere near the power of the family car I drove in the 70's.


By TheGreek on 5/10/2007 5:13:24 PM , Rating: 2
"when our family got along JUST FINE with 2 adults 2 kids and a DOG in the back of the family STATION WAGON."

Yeah, I have a friend who couldn't control his kids so he went from a station wagon to an SUV. It was easier that making his kids settle down for 30 minute drives.

And suddenly that's a need? Yeah right.