backtop


Print 135 comment(s) - last by Drewjk.. on Jul 18 at 11:03 AM


U.S. President Barack Obama has had to weigh the noisy cries of automakers and environmentalists. In the end he's tentatively proposed a 56 mpg standard for 2025.  (Source: Getty Images)

The move could hurt sales of light SUVs (like the pictured Jeep Liberty), sportscars, light vans, and light trucks  (Source: Chrysler LLC)

The move could boost hybrid and electric vehicle sales, though (pictured: 2012 Ford Focus Electric).  (Source: Ford Motor Company)
Bargaining continues, but two sides are far from an agreement

On Monday the U.S. White House pulled the curtain on an ambitious proposal to update the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.  Under the plan, automakers would have to bump their average fuel economy from 34.1 mpg by 2016 (currently mandated by law) to 56.2 mpg by 2025 (proposed).

That's an average increase of about 5 percent per year.  The proposal applies to the average fleet economy over automakers car, light van (under 10k lb.), light SUV (under 10k lb.), and light truck lineups.  One thing's for sure -- neither environmentalists nor the automakers seem entirely satisfied with the proposal, for different reasons.

I. What the White House Wants

U.S. President Barack Obama wants to try to toe the line between the agenda of his most ardent environmentalists supporters and his corporate partners in the plan -- international automakers.

The administration brags that while the increases to fleet efficiency won't be free on the vehicle end, that they will save  4.7B barrels of oil and $705B USD in fuel costs by 2030.

The current proposal is not an official one, meaning that it won't go to Congress for approval quite yet.  In unveiling the proposal early, President Obama presumably wants to allow time for negotiations and field any complaints about the plan before it heads to Congress.

White House spokesman Clark Stevens wrote in an email to The Washington Post, "We continue to work closely with a broad range of stakeholders to develop an important standard that will save families money and keep the jobs of the future here. A final decision has not been made, and as we have made clear we plan to propose that standard in September."

The White House already showed its ability to compromise, brokering the previous 2009 mandate (34.1 mpg by 2016).  It will likely follow a similar route this time, trying to find something everyone can live with.

II. What the Auto Industry Wants

If they were honest, many in the auto industry would probably wish there were no CAFE restrictions.  After all, those restrictions inflate the prices of sportscars, SUVs, and vans -- all vehicles consumers want.  Gloria Berquist, the spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry advocacy group, argues that environmentalists significantly overestimate how much consumers want "green" vehicles.

The restrictions also have been shown by some studies to increase the dangers associated with crashes, due to the use of less metal, and other factors.

However, the auto industry has accepted the reality that they must comply with CAFE.  That said, they are proposing a target of between 42.6 and 46.7 mpg by 2025 -- an average annual increase of 2 to 3 percent in the eight years from 2017 to 2025.

Ms. Berquist notes that in 2010 pickup trucks outsold all 30 hybrids combined.  She comments, "[W]e need to preserve affordability, vehicle choice, jobs and safety as we improve fuel economy."

The Center for Automotive research claims a mandate of 62 mpg by 2025 would add $10,000 USD to the cost of new vehicles.  They say such a mandate could kill the recovering industry.

Even David Vieau, chief executive of battery maker A123 Systems (AONE), a party you would expect to support moves designed to boost EVs comments, "Nobody in business wants someone putting a regulation on them. You don’t want someone saying, 'You must do this in a specific period of time and to this point.'"

Ford Motor Company (F) was probably the most cheerful about the proposal, with its spokeswoman Christin Baker writing, "Ford is proud to continue offering our customers the very best fuel economy and supports increasing fuel economy requirements with one national program that is data driven and factors in the impact of this rule-making on jobs, the economy, consumers and safety."

Ford claims to be the only automaker to currently offer four vehicles in the U.S. that get in excess of 40 mpg.

III. What Environmentalists Want

Environmentalists were moderately happy with President Obama's proposal.  However, some complain that it doesn't go far enough.  They were hoping for 62 mpg -- an increase of 6 percent a year.

Famed ultra-wealthy "environmentalist", former Vice President, and Noble Peace Prize winner, Al Gore, recently blasted President Obama on environmental policy, stating, "President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change."

Still, some say the proposed five percent increase represents a decent compromise.  States Roland Hwang, transportation program director for the non-profit environmental advocacy Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), "[We are] cautiously optimistic.  [But] the devil is in the details for us."

Mr. Hwang echoes a sentiment held by many environmentalists -- that the auto industry owes it to the American people to increase efficiency, after how much the government loaned it to keep automakers afloat during the recession.  He points out that the government loaned a total of $86B USD to automakers during this period.

He remarks, "[We are] overwhelmingly disappointed with the automakers for putting such low numbers on the table. That's extraordinary when you consider how much money we’ve provided them to build fuel-efficient cars. And now they say, 'You can’t have them.'"

The NRDC is known as a moderate voice in the environmentalist community.  For example, it voiced support for the recent repeal of corn ethanol subsidies.

Environmentalists and other parties want higher mpg for a variety of reasons.  One, they say it will directly reduce emissions of toxic nitrogen and sulfur gases that are produced in small quantities during the combustion of hydrocarbons.  Secondly, they say it will cut carbon emissions, which some studies argue cause an artificial global warming effect.  Third, they argue that increasing fuel economy will decrease dependence on oil deposits from volatile and/or hostile states such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

IV. What's Next

The White House is happy with this proposal, but no one else really is -- not entirely at least.  It is expected that there will be significant modifications before September rolls around.

Ultimately the proposal should be an interesting test of exactly how strict the Obama administration thinks it can be with the automakers, which some claim are "indebted" to it for saving them with with bailouts.  It also should be an interesting test of how far the Obama administration believes the public to be leaning in the favor of increasing fuel efficiency.

We will keep you updated as more information becomes available in following months.


Comments     Threshold


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

How do they figure out these numbers?
By Insomniator on 6/27/2011 10:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
What if CAFE said they must have 200 mpg by 2025? Would that just add X amount of dollars to each car? I don't think so since its probably not possible to reach 150mpg by then if ever.

I'm not saying 60 mpg is impossible but how do they estimate it would add 10k to each car? By that logic there should be a 10 million dollar passenger car that acts just like an accord in safety speed weight etc but gets 500 mpg.




RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By tastyratz on 6/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By spread on 6/27/2011 11:21:16 AM , Rating: 1
60mpg is VERY feasible. Unfortunately with ICE engines you have a choice between high efficiency and low emissions. You can't have both since all those emission reduction systems constrict the engine and exhaust flow.

You can use super clean fuels to have both, but I don't know how feasible that would be to refine and purify.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Samus on 6/27/2011 2:24:01 PM , Rating: 4
It isn't entirely emissions-related. A catalytic convertor is 95% efficient once warmed up, and keep in mind most engines need some back-pressure to maintain compression (the exception is turbocharged engines that already have back-pressure created by spinning the turbine.)

EGR systems have negligible impact on fuel efficiency, but do create carbon buildup in the intake over time, which is arguably the result of lost fuel efficiency as recently posted, especially in regards to direct injection and common-rail diesel applications, here on DT.

The real problem is the desire for high performance. The 60MPG 1.0 liter engines in Europe simply wont fly here. Americans wont stand for an engine that takes 40 seconds to reach 75mph, nor is it neccessarily safe when you consider most peoples vehicles can reach 75mph in ~15 seconds.

I had an old Mazda Protege with a 1.5l 96hp engine. It the first PZEV recognized by California and the first vehicle to be manufactures meeting all 50 state emissions requirements. It had crumple zones, air bags, ABS, and 5-star front and side impact safety ratings. It had A/C, power everythings, cup holders, a wonderful 5-speed transmission, it had a nice ride, handled exceptionally well as expected of a Mazda and very comfy seats. It was reliable, even the original clutch lasted 150k.

It was not high-tech, yet it saw 45mpg. That was 1996. Although the EPA rated it at 39mpg, they clearly didn't know how to test small engine vehicles (as their testing methodology has been modified TWICE since 2002 to stop favoring large vehicles and hurting small ones.) If you'd beat on it, it'd get around 40mpg, but if you accelerated reasonably and didn't speed, 45mpg was pretty regular fare.

So don't tell me we can't do 56mpg in the next decade when we could do 45 mpg nearly two decades ago with virtually the same safety equipment, vehicle weight, and overall quality.

I just wonder how much gas is going to have to cost until people find the balls to man up and drive something practical.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By MrBungle123 on 6/27/2011 2:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So don't tell me we can't do 56mpg in the next decade when we could do 45 mpg nearly two decades ago with virtually the same safety equipment, vehicle weight, and overall quality.


The issue isn't making one or two models that can hit 56+ MPG, its getting the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards to those levels. It means that the average fuel economy of everything that a company sells needs to be 56 MPG...

This gets to be very difficult when you sell pickup trucks, SUVs, and large Vans which are designed to move large amounts of people/equipment/material... that takes a big engine and heavy duty running gear which will eat into fuel economy. If everyone lived in the inner cities and drove compact cars this wouldn't be such a big deal, but not everyone does, nor can everyone get by with a compact car.



By Mr772 on 6/27/2011 4:10:12 PM , Rating: 1
Bingo we have a winner. Why auto companies continue to avoid hybrid and Diesel tech in more light trucks and vans is a mistery?


By YashBudini on 6/27/2011 10:40:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It means that the average fuel economy of everything that a company sells needs to be 56 MPG...

And how many MPG is the Chevy Volt rated? The Nissan Leaf? Sure the whole fleet can't be those vehicles, but they can play a major portion in the numbers game.

For all anybody knows in 5 years valve may open and close under computer control. Today's variable valve technology is barely worth writing about. Very few engines vary lift or duration.

These babies do an admirable job when nothing else was or is available.
http://www.rhoadslifters.com/Pages/Products.html


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By cjohnson2136 on 6/28/2011 4:13:50 AM , Rating: 3
So really if you get some cars to 70+ mpg and can just get the trucks and vans etc to 30 something they could hit that 56 AVERAGE just fine.


By Samus on 6/29/2011 2:02:51 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The VW Blue Sport gets 57MPG and the Rabbit Diesel-Hybrid gets 70mpg. Honda has a Fit hybrid in Japan that gets 70mpg. Mazda has an ICE for the Mazda 2 that is estimated to get 70mpg once in production: http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26613/

So all companies have to do is sell a handful of these along with their 30mpg trucks (yes, if a 300-horsepower V6 Mustang can get 31mpg, an F150 with the same engine, tweaked fuel computer and some tricked out aero equipment should be able to do the same.)

56mpg in 14 years? We can theoretically do it in 5.


By tastyratz on 6/27/2011 4:31:36 PM , Rating: 4
I did want to clarify a few things:
Modern cars do NOT require "backpressure". That is an old school of thought from the carburetor days. Modern engines require high exhaust velocity for scavenging.In NA form the exhaust flow should produce energy which it then utilizes to backdraft additional flow out of the engine. It has been this way for a long time. The reason bigger is not better in exhaust and intake port diameter is air speed. The faster velocity draws exhaust out and carries energy that causes the intake to force it's way in.

Also the egr system INCREASES gas mileage oddly enough for part throttle operation. While it DOES introduce hot exhaust gas back into the intake this gas is inert. When passing through the engine it neither requires air or energy, it is almost a crude early engineered displacement on demand. If 10% of the charge is replaced with exhaust you then need 10% less air and 10% less fuel to make 10% less power. If you are operating part throttle you do not need maximum air and fuel energy anyways. While the exhaust is hot it also reduces waste heat and causes a cooler charge as no new btu from combustion is created by means of this gas.

Finally you ar right, it's not hard to make a car that gets great gas mileage... it's hard to make them all get it. I would hate to see how much a 100mpg car would cost to compensate for an suv...


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By teldar on 6/28/2011 12:13:17 PM , Rating: 1
How much did it weigh? The newer vehicles are are scale-tipping monsters due to newly required safety features. It used to be that a heavy full size family sedan was 3000 pounds, now a midsize sedan weighs more than that. safety features have added significant weight and that vastly impacts fuel efficiency.

If I see one more post of "My 1500 pound 1985 tin can Civic got 52 MPG, why can't a 6000 pick-up made today?!?!?!!111/!?1!?11/?/1/" I'm going to push for sterilization at birth which has to be reversed, based on intelligence tests, for people to be able to have children.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By teldar on 6/28/2011 12:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
The 1995 protege with a 1.5L engine had a curb weight of about 2375 pounds.
Even the Aveo weighs 200 more pounds. It does get crappy mileage for it's terrible little (1.6L., 108HP) engine at 27/35 and this isn't really reasonable.


By YashBudini on 6/28/2011 11:26:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It used to be that a heavy full size family sedan was 3000 pounds, now a midsize sedan weighs more than that.

Do you have any idea what Caddy's, Buicks, Mercs, or Lincolns weighed in the 60's and 70's before safety features were required?


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Keeir on 6/27/2011 5:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Its not about whether 60 mpg is feasible or not..

Its about a Government which feels like it should dictate to automakers what consumers will purchase. (Thereby taking all the credit, but none of the blame)

I could design a line of Automobiles with off the shelf parts that would be 60 mpg CAFE. Would anyone buy them? Right now the answer appears to be no.

Look for instance at the Ford Fusion. By most people's measure its a fantastic hybrid. Good Power, Great Mileage, Good Feature set. Is it expensive? Yes, but in the long run is 10,000(s) cheaper than the Ford Fusion V6 model.

Yet the Ford Fusion V6 models sells almost 3x as much as the Ford Fusion Hybrid.

Even the last few years with sky fuel prices, and a plethora of options, only ~1/50 cars/trucks sold are a "High" MPG option. If you subtract the Prius its closers to 1/100.

This pales in comparison the the number of performance related extra expenditors and number of utility related extra expenditors. The buying public appears not to care.

IF the buying public ever does appear to care, it will not take any government action to get MPG numbers up. Maybe in 2 or 3 years we will have an answer. If "40 MPG" HWY cars outsell thier sub-40 MPG compeditors, then the MPG wars will really start.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By JediJeb on 6/27/2011 6:10:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Look for instance at the Ford Fusion. By most people's measure its a fantastic hybrid. Good Power, Great Mileage, Good Feature set. Is it expensive? Yes, but in the long run is 10,000(s) cheaper than the Ford Fusion V6 model.


The problem is in the current Economy the savings of $10,000+ in the long run just doesn't make up for the extra cost up front. If I have $10,000 to spend and you tell me I can buy X for $10,000 or I can buy Y for $15,000 yet ten years from now it will save me $10,000 I would still have to buy X because I don't have the money to buy Y then wait to be paid back the difference. For some that extra money up front puts the better option out of their expense range.

Right now myself I couldn't afford to purchase a new car if it cost me more than $100 per month in payments. And since right now I only spend about $150 per month on gasoline, that car would have to get about 60mpg to save me enough money to pay for itself in fuel savings. Show me a car that gets 60mpg that I can buy on a 5 year loan for $100 per month and I will buy it. Plus since I have to get to work year round even when there may be 8 inches of snow on the road which won't get cleared for days or weeks I would still need to at least keep my truck because I am sure a small efficient car would not be able to handle that.

Right now isn't the time to be trying to push more expensive vehicles simply because they have better mileage. The economy just can't handle it.


By Jeffk464 on 6/28/2011 12:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yes but my mom bought a 4cyl honda accord over a 6cyl specifically for mileage. She saved about a $1000 on the purchase and is averaging around 24mpg where my dad's 6cyl accord averages 19mpg. Making simple decisions like this saves gas and saves money. Similarly I think as gas prices continue to go up people will start thinking about getting cars the size of a ford focus rather than a Honda accord. The thing that the focus brings to the market is a well built small car with a more upscale interior. For years the only real high quality small car on the US market was the Honda civic and the interiors on them weren't to impressive.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Keeir on 6/28/2011 3:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
Your missing my point.

Today, out of every 10 Fusions sold, 1 or less is a Hybrid model.

The average transaction price of a Fusion Sedan is within 2,000 of the Hybrid MSRP. More than 2 (like 25%+) Fusions are sold with a V6 engine which starts within 1,000 of the Hybrids MSRP.

The Lincoln MKZ, which has -no- price difference between the V6 model and the Hybrid, sells a~1/3 MKZs as a Hybrid.

Apparently, people are still willing to pay more than 1,000 dollars a year in extra fuel to use a V6 over the I4 Hybrid. (Based on 15,000 miles a year and 4 dollar a gallon gas)

Consumers can apparently justify spending money on performance upgrades, interior upgrades, exterior upgrades, etc... before fuel economy upgrades. -EVEN- when the fuel economy upgrades will significantly lessen TCO over 100,000 miles.

That is the automakers problem. -Consumers- are not wanting to pay extra for more fuel economy.


By YashBudini on 6/28/2011 9:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Today, out of every 10 Fusions sold, 1 or less is a Hybrid model.

This doesn't say much. One I don't know hybrid availability in the Ford lineup, and two, it's the lower priced Ford lineup that sells far more "bread and butter" cars than Lincoln, hybrid sales here could be expectedly lower.

Past experience with slow, noisey, and vibration ridden 4 cylinders may have jaded a significant portion of the US market. Also V8-heads are far less likely to "dumb down" to a 4 cylinder over a 6.

Gearing variations can minimize the mpg differences of the larger engines, especially on the highway. In the case of the Fusion the 3 liter six offers most of the performance benefits of the 3.5 w/o the mpg penalty of the 3.5 liter engine. The 270HP Acura TL picked up 2mpg city and 3 mpg highway with the addition of a 6th gear in the automatic. Also note, the public has zero experience with 40mpg 4 cylinders, and they yet to be live up to their claims for the leadfoot crowd.

Given all that Ford's going to build cars people want and initially it's a guess by marketing. If gas drops more then don't be surprised if Ford announces a 370HP AWD Fusion that outsells the hybrid.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By MrBungle123 on 6/27/2011 6:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
$10,000 financed ~ $170/mo (depending on your credit rating)

A lot of people don't spend 170 a month on gas, so the "savings" is a crap-chute. Better off buying the cheaper one and spending an extra $15 or 20 a month on gas.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Philippine Mango on 6/27/2011 11:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
You've got your numbers all screwy.. we're not financing $10K in hybrid technology to save $15 a month on gas, that's ridiculous.. The Toyota Prius does not cost $10K more than a comparable vehicle yet it easily can meet these CAFE fuel economy requirements. This is not big stuff people, 56mpg is only like 38-40MPG in real world driving since this is the CAFE fuel economy requirements we're talking about here.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By MrBungle123 on 6/27/2011 11:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
From the article:

quote:
The Center for Automotive research claims a mandate of 62 mpg by 2025 would add $10,000 USD to the cost of new vehicles. They say such a mandate could kill the recovering industry.


2011 $20K car = 2025 $30K car => cost to own the 2025 version is $170/mo more than it is now...


By Philippine Mango on 7/15/2011 2:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
The article is either bunk or it's factoring in the cost of redesigning the vehicle which while sort of valid, I don't think shows the entire picture of what the consumer will end up paying for the vehicles.


By dubldwn on 6/27/2011 11:50:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
is 60mpg was feasible it would be common in production cars today.

Well perhaps you know this but keep in mind the CAFE cycle yields wildly higher mpg results than the EPA cycle. 26mpg EPA would yield like 35mpg CAFE, and I read the current Prius gets like 70mpg CAFE.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 12:54:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What planet do these people live on to think adding 10k to production cars is reasonable? Dear government: stop pulling numbers out of your ass, get off your horse, and start figuring out where we can ACTUALLY improve things.


That's just it though. The Obama Administration does not WANT prosperity, cheap cars, or cheap energy. In their minds, if it costs everyone 10 or 20k more for transportation, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. If you can't afford the SUV, luxury car, or sedan you want, that's great. If you can't afford a car at all, so much the better, you can carpool or just not drive. Or maybe one day use that glorious "public transportation" that nobody with a choice actually uses.

This is just another example of why Obama doesn't work as the President of the United States. He's presiding over a country with an economic system that's he's utterly apposed to. It's like oil and water. Instead of being a steward of the country, he's decided to be it's transformer. This kind of heavy handed, almost dismissive treatment of an entire major industry, is another perfect example of the failure of Obamanomics.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By cruisin3style on 6/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By cruisin3style on 6/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 4:51:23 PM , Rating: 1
Are you going to actually add something to this discussion?


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By cruisin3style on 6/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By omnicronx on 6/27/2011 4:09:09 PM , Rating: 1
You seriously need to get a life and get past your Obama hatred.

The man was 14 years old when the original CAFE standards were set in place by a REPUBLICAN president. It was then another 30 years before yet another REPUBLICAN president decided to change them again.. I've never once before seen you whine about it while it was a Republican president making the changes, and amazingly you are right on cue with your anti Obama rhetoric. At this point its hard to separate the BS from the real issues, as it does not really matter what it is with you, it always seems to be the fault of Obama.

Sad part is your disdain for CAFE is definitely warranted (at least these extremes), but this a problem with GOVERNMENT, not merely Obama, and you are kidding yourself if you don't think a republican president whose ideals do line up with the current economic system can not have this kind of change on their agenda. (as has been clearly shown in the recent and distant past)


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By omnicronx on 6/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 5:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not a leftist


Thanks for the laugh. Omni, of course you are. We have been long time opponents here, and EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT, you're on the Left of center. You're a Leftist, plain and simple. It's time to own it.

quote:
I would tend to agree with your post, and my stance on Obama has actually shifted quite dramatically in the recent months.


So what's your beef with me?

quote:
That said, I keep an open mind, and try to remain objective, my mind is not closed for business just because I do not agree with a parties principles as a hole..


Ah yes, the tried and true Liberal conversation closer. I love how being Conservative and having a belief system, values, and a strong conviction automatically means I have a closed mind and I'm not objective.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By omnicronx on 6/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 6:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but you just stated you form your opinions based on these beliefs and values.


Everyone does that. Everyone. The inverse of the point you are trying to make would be to say everyone who claims they're impartial has NO beliefs and values. Obviously a false statement.


By omnicronx on 6/27/2011 6:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone does do it, but it all depends to what degree.

I try to keep an open mind, I will be the first to say that sometimes I will hold firm on my beliefs, but that does not mean that I am correct in the slightest.

The fact remains you cannot say you are objective until you at least attempt to look at things from a different angle.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By omnicronx on 6/27/2011 6:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is many conservatives believe there is only one side of the story to their beliefs/values. Not that this problem does not exist all around, it just that conservatives are far more likely to have the very strong belief system and values as you describe (which by itself is not bad thing either)

The problem comes when you form an opinion based on these ideals as though there are not two sides to the coin.

Even most liberals have this issue, my favorite is child slavery, being against workers abroad workers in terrible conditions etc. This of course is merely one side of the coin, the same children are also supporting their families in an economy that for all intents and purposes would be barren without these kind of low paying jobs.

You can't be objective when your mind is even partially made up coming up.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 7:19:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not that this problem does not exist all around, it just that conservatives are far more likely to have the very strong belief system and values as you describe (which by itself is not bad thing either)


Well of course. We're better and stronger people.

quote:
The problem comes when you form an opinion based on these ideals as though there are not two sides to the coin.


Well we're not talking about a coin here. We're talking about the direction of the country. Liberalism just does NOT work, and it SHOULD be fought, at all costs.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By YashBudini on 6/27/2011 11:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well of course. We're better and stronger people.

AKA we're superior.

Now where have I heard that before? Please don't waste time coming up with 1 historical reference, it's been going on forever. Ironically we're infidels to over a billion people, that includes you. Lower life forms. India with a caste system, South America where one country looks down it's nose at it's neighbor, I'm surprised they don't publish the pecking order of the entire continent.

Mankind is doomed to repeat history again and again. That's mankind's ultimate lack of progressiveness. The rise of extremists make it inevitable.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 11:23:13 PM , Rating: 1
Spare the Hitler speech. The comment was in the CONTEXT of the discussion of ideological beliefs.


By YashBudini on 6/27/2011 11:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
You can't seem to read anything you don't want to accept.

Try again.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By MrBungle123 on 6/28/2011 11:35:05 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure what country you're from but the American Left is opressive. The American Right just wants the government to leave the people and businesses alone.


By YashBudini on 6/28/2011 3:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, the right only hates people welfare but they love corporate welfare. I didn't see much of a work ethic from Ken Lay or Tom Delay. And the growing hatred between the two? Not the most Christian like attitude, unless your version of Christianity peaked during the Crusades.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By TSS on 6/27/2011 4:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. F*ck Obama.

Doesn't George W. Bush have a son we can vote into office?


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 4:29:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Doesn't George W. Bush have a son we can vote into office?


Obama is still blaming the last Bush, years later, for every problem he's had to face to date. I'm sure they would love nothing more than to blame the coming economic collapse resulting from Obama's policies on ANOTHER Bush.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By omnicronx on 6/27/2011 5:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
Politicians blaming the previous ruling party? Whodathunkit?

I'm sure Bush blames Clinton, and Clinton blames Bush, and of course Bush blames Reagan, and that damn Carter was the result of all the Reagans problems too.. and so on and so forth.. all the way back to Washington..

So in essence, its ALL George Washington's fault!


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By MrBungle123 on 6/27/2011 5:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
well if King George over in England hadn't been such a dick Washington and the gang would have never had to wage the revolutionary war would they?!


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Jeffk464 on 6/28/2011 12:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
You know the tea tax was put on the colonies to pay for the French and Indian War. Which as you know was for the benefit of the colonies, so really wasn't unreasonable.


By Bad-Karma on 6/28/2011 11:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't work out so well for England huh....


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 5:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think there's any cure for you man. If you think this childish nonsensical rebuttal actually adds anything to this conversation, or is even witty or relevant, it's sad.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By omnicronx on 6/27/2011 6:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize the irony of your rebuttal do you not?

Telling everyone that a politician is going to blame his/her predecessor is like telling everyone the sky is blue.

Its the argument pretty much every leader makes, which ironically seems to make it all the way down to the common voter. 'Its not my parties fault, all the damage was done when your party held control'.

Its a ring around of a game that everyone likes to play, so truly what is your point?


By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 7:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
/facepalm.

You don't get it. Blaming the other guy isn't leadership, or a plan, and it's all Obama has. Sorry but I can't remember Bush, or any other President, using that tactic nearly to the degree that Obama and Palosi has.

And come election time, we'll be seeing even more of it. It makes perfect sense. After all it's not like he can run a positive campaign on all the GOOD he's done. There's no majority of people who want MORE of this. So he's going to have to go ultra negative.

I wonder what his new slogan will be? Hope and Change sure as hell doesn't fit.


By Jeffk464 on 6/28/2011 12:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
How about getting the government to actually synchronize traffic lights. There is a huge potential for fuel savings right there without making a single change to cars. A car stopping, then idling for 30 seconds and then accelerating back up to 50mph is very inefficient.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By AdrianJudd on 6/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By kattanna on 6/27/2011 11:50:17 AM , Rating: 3
LOL their own numbers dont add up

quote:
The fuel tank holds just 10-litres of diesel, offering a range of around 340 miles


that right there comes out to 129 MPG much lower then their own claim of 319MPG

while still impressive, its also a concept car, and once saddled with the required US safety features, im sure it willnt be all that impressive.


By FishTankX on 6/28/2011 1:49:59 AM , Rating: 2
The actual mileage is closer to 129. What happened with that 300+MPG figure is the same reason the volt got a sky high number initially too, they drove it on the standard test 'cycle' but the battery's internal charge provided a lot of the energy needed to get through the course. Gas was touched last, and at the end of the course fuel consumption was measured by standard methods.

It's not necessarily deceptive, just nonsensical.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By PlasmaBomb on 6/27/2011 11:51:33 AM , Rating: 2
How many Americans would actually want that?

It's a two seater with a tiny 100L boot...


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By AdrianJudd on 6/27/2011 12:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well this Brit doesn't want it either. I want an SUV ...

However, it shows the goal is not impossible.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By PlasmaBomb on 6/27/2011 12:19:29 PM , Rating: 3
As the poster above me pointed out it's not being entirely truthful about it's fuel efficiency...

It will also gain weight due to safety features - side impact bars, beefier front crumple zones etc, which will further hurt it's mpg.

Plus it's useless as a family vehicle. Which means that it would have to be a second or third car. Which means that it's not exactly saving any energy, after you take it production into account.


By JediJeb on 6/27/2011 5:53:50 PM , Rating: 3
Also for people like me it probably would not get me to work when there are 6-8 inches of snow on the road that won't get cleared off for a week.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By BZDTemp on 6/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 1:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many Americans want the price at the pump to go up two-, three or fivefold?


That's going to happen no matter what cars we drive. Supply and demand with a healthy portion of government meddling thrown in will see to that. In fact, if everyone drove super efficient cars the price will just go up further because profits will have to be reclaimed. You'll soon be in a situation where, proportionally, you'll be paying the same as now even with the added efficiency factored in.

quote:
For lots of people a tiny car will do just fine 99% of the time.


That's fine. But it should be their choice! Not because politicians forced them into it like you people. Personally I say you can have your VAT taxes and insane energy taxes, we don't want them here.

quote:
Personally I drive a two-seater sports car


Does this sports car happen to have a name? I'm curious to see just what a hypocrite you are.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Chernobyl68 on 6/27/2011 2:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
if a tiny car will do just fine, why did pickups outsell hybrids? because they're cheaper.


By MrBungle123 on 6/27/2011 2:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
pickups outsell hybrids because when configured properly they have more utility than a hybrid.

your average hybrid can carry 4 or 5 adults and some groceries... an extended/crew cab 4x4 truck can carry 4 or 5 adults, a large amount of cargo, wont get stuck in the snow, offers greater visibility on the road (due to ride height), greater protection in an accident, and can tow a trailer.

The truck of course gets far worse fuel economy but it is cheaper than buying two vehicles, one for work/play and one for commuting/buying groceries. Thats why they sell more trucks.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Nfarce on 6/27/2011 2:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many Americans want the price at the pump to go up two-, three or fivefold?


They've already gone up twofold since Obama got elected. Further, if the enviro-nazis would get the hell out of the way we could take care of ourselves domestically at least from a North American perspective including Canada.

But with foot dragging, others like China will jump in and take oil that we should have had access to. Obama is already killing coal. The Utopian idea of windmilling and solar paneling and meat lab-growing our way into the future is not reality for advancement. At least not in my idea of a quality life where recreation meets day to day challenges and energy needs and wants.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110626/ap_on_bi_ge/cn...


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By cruisin3style on 6/27/2011 5:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
And yet the national average still hasn't hit the peak price under Bush...strange, it is almost like prices dropped due to some worldwide occurrence and have just been returning to normal since


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 5:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
Invading Libya? That dropped the price of gas?

I guess China and India explosively increasing their demand for oil while Bush was in office had absolutely NO impact on prices...

Anything else you wanna try and blame Iraq on?


By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 5:51:34 PM , Rating: 3
Oh and Katrina wrecking most of what little refinery capacity we have in this country? Nope, I'm sure that didn't impact fuel prices AT ALL! Stuff like that happened all the time under Clinton.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Nfarce on 6/27/2011 7:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yet the national average still hasn't hit the peak price under Bush


Not quite, but DAMN close And then they plummeted in weeks. Then after Obama got elected, they creeped up again. (And I'm not blaming Obama like liberals blamed Bush/Cheney, especially after the hurricanes during hit their tenure wiping out refinery capability - which hasn't happened under Obama for some strange occurence). Hit the 6 year button here.

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?tim...

If you think $3.60 is "normal" for gas prices, you must not live in the same America I do (where stubbornly high gas prices continue to kill tourism and consumer spending).


By Nfarce on 6/27/2011 8:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
And the fact you completely ignored my premise of kook environmentalists and typical liberal bed wetting politicians blocking our domestic energy capabilities is duly noted as well.....


By YashBudini on 6/27/2011 11:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many Americans would actually want that?

For some it takes quite a while to grasp how much money they pi$$ away on cars. For others no amount is too much, prehaps because they believe that financial freedom will always be out of reach.

As the standard of living drops there will be a delay and much anger for people to get used to it. The disparity is only just beginning, with many extremsits cheering its success. Much as people hate to admit it, credit is the new slavery.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Jeremy87 on 6/27/2011 11:20:35 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not saying 60 mpg is impossible

I hope not. 60mpg cars since over 5 years ago. Mine does 40mpg (at 75mph), and it's not even a "green" model, or small.
Does the US measure mpg's differently?


By Motoman on 6/27/2011 11:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
From Europe, yes.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Targon on 6/27/2011 1:31:13 PM , Rating: 1
Europe measures miles per Imperial Gallon. 1.2 gallons here in the USA=1 imperial gallon.

Of course, fuel economy would go up if Ethanol were removed from our gas, so all of this push for miles per gallon should encourage the removal of Ethanol.


By Jeremy87 on 6/27/2011 3:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
Europe doesn't measure in gallons at all. I just converted l/100km into US mpg for you.


By Solandri on 6/27/2011 3:17:17 PM , Rating: 3
Europe also uses a different system for measuring fuel economy, which results in higher MPG (lower l/100 km) ratings. Most of the tests they do are lower-speed without as many stop/go cycles, consequently burning less fuel for the same distance covered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_autom...

So you can't simply take a vehicle's EU mileage rating, convert liters to gallons, km to miles, and compare it to EPA mileage ratings. The Golf GDI diesel is rated in the EU at 46 mpg city, 69 highway, 59 combined. Its EPA rating is 30, 42, and 34 respectively. (That said, CAFE uses a different measurement standard, yielding higher average mpg than EPA.)


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By dsx724 on 6/27/2011 11:27:57 AM , Rating: 3
The goal is solve the energy problem depleting this country of its "wealth". There's numerous solutions.

1) Rocket shells to reduce wind resistance
2) Invent technologies not subject to carnot cycle
3) Get out the bike and build showering facilities at work (resolves numerous societal issues facing America eg. having your eyes violated by fatasses,healthcare,energy,the need for cigarettes, caffeine and adderall)


By JediJeb on 6/28/2011 3:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
While #3 is a little funny, I would hate to think of having to ride a bike a couple hours both ways for work each day. But then where I live I would probably end up looking like a large bug on the windshield of a coal truck if I even tried it.


RE: How do they figure out these numbers?
By Autisticgramma on 6/27/2011 4:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
Why do I always seem to see people complaining that something is too expensive, or a cost increase is going to make them homeless, it isn't.

If you live in a big city, these standards will probably make it so you can breathe a little better.

And the complaint is you pay the 10K up front, even tho you use about 30% less gas, on the back end. Just how is this not economical again? If the car lasts through the warranty, then this is worth it. Just for the savings on 5$ gas.

And no, logic says nothing of the sort. Extending a graph indefinitely isn't logic, it's using a ruler.


By MrBungle123 on 6/27/2011 4:57:45 PM , Rating: 3
You need to think about the unintended consequences of this.

you add 10 grand to the cost of a car what does that do?

1. It will price more potential buyers out of the market, which means a drop in overall sales/profits for the auto industry at large, which in turn leads to layoffs due to reduced demand.

2. It restricts consumer choice by mandating that vehicles meet a set of standards that may or may not line up with what they want to buy. IE: big vehicles get bad mileage, but high mileage is required so big vehicles cannot be produced.

3. This further increases the power of unelected bureaucrats and lobbists who will negotiate exceptions to the new rules with backroom political deals.

4. It could in some cases have the opposite effect of the stated intensions of the CAFE standards, it may take multiple trips or mulitple small vehicles to do the job of a single large one. Families may have to take 2 cars on long trips or drive across town 2 or 3 times to complete a task that a large vehicle could have done all at once, wasting more fuel and causing more traffic than what is really necessary.


By Jeffk464 on 6/28/2011 12:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone know what batteries are going to be like in 2025? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?


Bailouts
By torpor on 6/27/2011 10:45:11 AM , Rating: 3
It's funny how the only car company remotely comfortable with the proposal is Ford, who did not take any bailout money.

Coincidence? I think not.

That said, at some point this just gets ridiculous. People are going to have to start driving to Mexico and Canada just to buy a truck.




RE: Bailouts
By RedemptionAD on 6/27/2011 11:02:17 AM , Rating: 3
Government is using the bailout money that has not been paid back as leverage against the other 2. $10k per car figure is based on average development costs associated with tech that has increased fuel economy by a specified amount historically. The point that the government needs to realize is that increasing fuel economy can only go so far until diminishing returns kick in and a new technology is required. EV's and hybrids shift the reliance off of oil and onto rare earth minerals.

It seems we are putting all of our eggs into the basket of China with recent moves(debt,cheap labor,rare earth minerals). It wouldn't surprise me that since we can't pay back the debt to China, the federal government would exchange land for debt and a foreign invasion on US soil, sponsored by our government, would happen.


RE: Bailouts
By drycrust3 on 6/27/2011 11:55:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point that the government needs to realize is that increasing fuel economy can only go so far until diminishing returns kick in and a new technology is required. EV's and hybrids shift the reliance off of oil and onto rare earth minerals.

Everything you have written here is very interesting.
Years ago I heard about "total energy content" on the radio, and how the total energy put into building a nuclear power plant and supplying the fuel and then looking at the total energy gained for the 20 or so life of the fuel meant that after 20 years there was only a slight benefit compared to if that same fuel had just been burnt in a power station.
The point you raise is interesting because the energy content required to get and manufacture the precious metals needed to make an EV / hybrid should be included in the average mileage - life of a car. It might, for example, be that the energy cost of the technologies used reduces a 60 mpg car to being a 40 mpg car.


RE: Bailouts
By RedemptionAD on 6/27/2011 1:12:58 PM , Rating: 3
End user information panels (MPG, Energy star, 80+ Cert) never includes full cycle energy information as it would radically change the views of many technologies. They use it is too complicated for the average consumer as the reason why they don't release the information.

My question is a credit score is a pretty complicated process but the number has a range and people generally know what is good or bad so why not do that kind of scoring system with other types of systems? Maybe an EcoEffect index for different products?

As far as the 2nd paragraph I wrote, I find the actions of politics over the past few decades seem to indicate either a lack of knowledge about basic principles of economics or a long term strategy of not so good intent. The stimulous package was $800B and to make 600k jobs. Shovel ready was not shovel ready and the president had many advisors as well as the house and senate had advisors available to them. Did every advisor on all sides fail to inform the president? The fundamentals of Keynes economic philosophy(which is what Obama stated he was using and is the general Democrat policy) was not followed, even without the "Not so shovel ready" part.


RE: Bailouts
By Targon on 6/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: Bailouts
By MrBungle123 on 6/27/2011 3:02:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
if GM were allowed to go down, the effect on the overall economy on top of the already bad situation would really have tanked the overall economy even worse


GM should have been allowed to go through bankruptcy like every other upside down corp., instead the whole mess was used as a way to pay off unions for their political contributions and the expense of GM's bond/share holders and the tax payers at large. The whole "if GM goes down the entire economy will burn" thing was a crock, nothing more than a vehicle (no pun intended) for the politicians to sensationalize the the plan into law with complicit unquestioning media support.


RE: Bailouts
By Targon on 6/27/2011 3:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
The economy responds to a panic, and the clueless masses associate bankruptcy with going out of business, which would have added to the general feeling of panic that many people were and still are feeling. If you hear that a company has filed for chapter 11, would you be more or less inclined to buy a product that has a 10+ year lifespan(over one or more owners)?

I don't agree with the whole mindset of "if GM goes down the economy goes with it", but if the economy is on its way down already, do you want to slow the descent, or just let it go down further? As I said, by itself, GM going bankrupt wouldn't have bothered most people, but on top of a very bad and panic stricken environment, it would have made people panic even worse.

As it stands now, the biggest thing that is slowing the recovery is the fear that people have that the economy isn't getting better, so people spend less. If people have faith that things are getting better, they will spend with the idea that if they currently have a job right now, it probably won't disappear on them.


RE: Bailouts
By Dr of crap on 6/27/2011 3:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
GM could have went under and it would have had NO effect on me. It probably would have had an effect on Wall st and then the sh$t would have hit the fan.

The morons on the street would have driven the market so low it would have hurt us all. Why, because they have no clue as to the average Joe and his 401k, and that Joe would just let his money ride, while the big boys try and make an extra buck.
Oh, like speculation in oil futures!


RE: Bailouts
By RedemptionAD on 6/27/2011 3:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
This was the 2nd bailout for Chrysler. Even though GM and Chrysler were bailed out, they still went through bankruptcy. The overall difference was the amount of the shrink that they would go through.

A wise person would have let the companies go through bankruptcy and invested stimulous in the form of tax breaks/grants/loans for startup companies with large room to grow. The investment per company would be smaller and a more diversified investment. It would have resulted in a quicker payback and larger potential recoup of investment.

Many smaller companies would fail, but overall, the increase in taxes and revenue would have been larger than the gain from retaining Chrysler or GM jobs via new construction as well as long term employement that would result from new companies.


RE: Bailouts
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: Bailouts
By Gurthang on 6/27/2011 1:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point you raise is interesting because the energy content required to get and manufacture the precious metals needed to make an EV / hybrid should be included in the average mileage - life of a car. It might, for example, be that the energy cost of the technologies used reduces a 60 mpg car to being a 40 mpg car.


That information is included on the sticker of every new car sold. It is called the price. While I have no doubt some precious metals are used in EVs and Hybrids, they are also used in every ICE car which carries a catalytic converter. Where EVs and Hybrids tend to use lots more is with "Rare-earth metals" which are not rare in the common use of the word, they just require some extra effort to refine them so that some of the more dangerous elements they are commonly found with are handled safely (which is the reason for their cost). China has been dumping product in that market for years and likely making a mess in their own country in the process. Now as prices rise other producers will come online to compete.


RE: Bailouts
By RedemptionAD on 6/27/2011 1:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
China provides over 90% of the global production of rare earth minerals. There is about 700g of Lithium in a hybrid and 5.6kg in a Chevy Volt, 8.4kg in a Nissan Leaf (350g/kWh), just in the batteries.

New mines can take years to come online as well as a large capital expenditure. Just about all electronic devices use rare earth minerals, I see a very large problem coming unless we have an alternative lined up and ready to go. The price of materials has already gone up in recently as demand has gone up. It's not an issue yet, but the solution is not to wait until it is too late to fix the problem.


RE: Bailouts
By FishTankX on 6/28/2011 2:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
Not arguing with you, but i'd just like to point out that lithium is not a rare earth metal.

Rare earth metals are used in the motors, not in the batteries.


RE: Bailouts
By RedemptionAD on 6/28/2011 6:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
Lithium, while technically not a rare earth metal, is still a more limited supply element(mineral) which is why I put mineral and the rest of the post still stands.


I have an idea
By MrBungle123 on 6/27/2011 10:51:14 AM , Rating: 3
How about we mandate that the presidential motorcade adhere to the same fuel economy standards that they force on the public.




RE: I have an idea
By dflynchimp on 6/27/2011 11:00:53 AM , Rating: 2
A drop in a bucket, if you will.

The inherent problem with Obama asking for this kind of goal is the same inanity that has plagued every long term (30+ year plan/goal.

Whoever is pressured to change buy the plan, in this case the automakers, will whine and groan about it, stalling as much as possible, until WHAM, current president's term is up, and they can get someone else elected through lobbying that will better suit their tastes.

In ten years, no one will remember off the top of their heads that Obama pushed for this "radical" fuel economy, because chances are it won't have happened, and the entire fiasco will be shoveled under the carpet as whoever is president at that time is hammered by the corporations/banks/people-with-money for whatever new transgression their policies have made.

Upsetting, but the truth.


RE: I have an idea
By dflynchimp on 6/27/2011 11:02:45 AM , Rating: 2
of course technicall this plan is still considered short term (only 10+ years) but by 2025 Obama will no longer be president so he's really just throwing empty promises, just like Bush, just like Clinton, just like every president has inevitably done at some point in time.


RE: I have an idea
By Schrag4 on 6/27/2011 11:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A drop in a bucket, if you will.


If just you and I drove gas guzzlers that would be a drop in the bucket too, right? Or if just you and I had mansions that used 12x as much electricity as our neighbors? (you know who I'm talking about)

No, it's called "leading by example" and it's something those in power seem unwilling to do.


RE: I have an idea
By PlasmaBomb on 6/27/2011 12:15:04 PM , Rating: 3
You couldn't possibly be talking about Al Gore... he invented the internet... and has a Nobel prize for greenness...

Unpossible!


RE: I have an idea
By Nfarce on 6/27/2011 2:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
You took the words right out of my mouth. The ALgore and his many mansions, private jet flying, SUVs/limos, and hundreds of millions made on junk science are all okay so long as he has them (he'll probably be the first billionaire "activist" in global walarmism). Typical of his moonbatic ilk having two sets of rules - one set for himself and one set for everyone else.


RE: I have an idea
By cjohnson2136 on 6/28/2011 7:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
but..but.but..he said it was only because he purchases carbon credits /sarcasm


RE: I have an idea
By IcePickFreak on 6/27/2011 12:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
I want two 747's, 5 helicopters, and 20 cars (including my 10,000lb personal limo) to follow me on all my trips.


RE: I have an idea
By shin0bi272 on 6/28/2011 7:34:15 AM , Rating: 2
how about we just make his kenyan ass run everywhere? Since its always a kenyan that wins the NY or Boston marathon. We can give him a bullet proof vest and a camelpack so he can be secure and have hydration... hey if its good enough for the grunts in the military its good enough for the leader of the military right?


I'll Take 50mpg thank you
By tech329 on 6/27/2011 4:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get this supposed attitude of buyers etc. If I can have my 400HP 8000 lb pickup, which tows my vacation trailer, get 50mpg I'm fine with that.

Now I realize those numbers are crazy but the suggestion that people don't want a vehicle that'll save them money is a load of rubbish. Of course they do. And they don't care if you happen to call it green or pink. Go ahead. Make the pickup I referred to above. And make it affordable. See what happens.




RE: I'll Take 50mpg thank you
By 91TTZ on 6/27/2011 4:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
lol, a 400 HP, 8,000 lb pickup that gets 50 mpg. And you want it to be affordable. lol


RE: I'll Take 50mpg thank you
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 5:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
A 50mpg truck with a 10k higher sticker price isn't actually going to save you money though. Remember, that's also $10k extra worth of financing charges over the life of the loan as well.

quote:
Make the pickup I referred to above.


Not possible.


RE: I'll Take 50mpg thank you
By MrBungle123 on 6/27/2011 5:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
Some people seem to have this idea in their heads that the oil companies are forcing the auto companies to keep their perpetual motion drive systems hidden away in the back room so that they can sell more gallons of gasoline.

Were it possible to get 50MPG out of an 8000lb vehicle with current technology at a price the average person could afford it would be on the market already because that company would crush its competition and see massive increases in profit overnight.


RE: I'll Take 50mpg thank you
By Reclaimer77 on 6/27/2011 8:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
LOL yeah. It's right next to the 1990's electric car GM "killed", the car that ran on water, and the car made in 1955 that could get 90mpg. All bought up and put in storage by the oil companies :P


60mpg? What's the problem?
By CubicleDilbert on 6/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: 60mpg? What's the problem?
By GatoRat on 6/27/2011 12:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
They reach it by doing bullshit testing. MPG testing in Europe basically consists of driving a car a constant 40mph. Pretty damn easy to get really high mileage doing that, but that's now how most people drive.

In truth, if you take any European car and test it by US standards, they end up about where you'd expect.

There is nothing to stop European companies from importing these super cars into the US save a few polution issues. So why don't they? If anyone really had a dino-fuel car that could get 60 mpg, it would sell. They don't.


RE: 60mpg? What's the problem?
By silverblue on 6/27/2011 1:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
An article on ICE 15 and EUDC (the European testing scheme):

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/ece_eudc...

So, by the time the extra-urban test is conducted, the engine is easily warm enough to provide optimum fuel consumption. Moreover, there's no cold weather testing, thus this may boost the figures of the extra-urban test at the expense of the urban test figures.

Importing European cars will be met by resistance on two points:
1) US emissions standards are tougher than EU ones
2) US jobs for US citizens; get our cars coming in and that means thousands of layoffs. It'd be more ideal for US companies to manufacture EU cars to safeguard jobs.


RE: 60mpg? What's the problem?
By MrBungle123 on 6/27/2011 2:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the differences in fuel additives, emissions, and safety standards... all these can have a significant impact on how many MPG you can get out of a production vehicle.


RE: 60mpg? What's the problem?
By liem107 on 6/27/2011 10:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
bull sh*t
By ViroMan on 6/27/2011 10:55:50 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Environmentalists were moderately happy with President Obama's proposal. However, some complain that it doesn't go far enough.
You can't make an environmentalist happy unless your all dead. Even if we stopped using all forms of electricity and went back to rural cities and farms. They would complain about cows, how much farmland we are using, we should stop using fireplaces, and best of all stop having babies.

While some environmentalists are not at extreme as I have stated, its only a matter of time for them. Being and eco wacko is a very slippery slope. Once you start to "seriously care about the planet" you start to degrade in sanity. While I think its ok to moderately care about the environment because I don't want to live in a cesspool or have my children clean up after me, I don't want people telling me that I can't drive a SUV because its gas mileage is too low for there f*cked up sense of the way things should be.

If it truly is bad... fine do something about it... but, vehicle mileage, give me a f*cking break. If gas is soo damn evil do something about it. Stop spending billions on lobbying ass holes to tell us what we should do and spend it on research instead.




RE: bull sh*t
By EJ257 on 6/27/2011 11:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stop spending billions on lobbying ass holes to tell us what we should do and spend it on research instead.


Not a bad idea at all. Especially when you consider money you spend on research will benefit you for years to come. The money you throw at politicians will loose it's value as soon as one of them self destructs by sending half nude photos of themselves to girls online or do other dumb things.


RE: bull sh*t
By Nfarce on 6/27/2011 8:11:40 PM , Rating: 1
I could have written this! You nailed it: enviro-nazis wants us all to either 1) Die, 2) stop pro-creating, 3) go live like we did back in the 1800s [minus cow farting farms], or 4) all the above.

I for one am about fed up with these guilt-laden regressive enviro-nazi radical leftists trying to mandate how WE LIVE. I dare the first POS to tell me I can't grill on my deck. They want a real civil war? Then just let them attempt to tell red-blooded American men they can no longer grill with charcoal and/or propane.


not true
By dgingeri on 6/27/2011 11:20:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In unveiling the proposal early, President Obama presumably wants to allow time for negotiations and field any complaints about the plan before it heads to Congress.


Just like every other stance he's taken, he wants to give the impression he's willing to negotiate, but won't give an inch on any major issue. This is the tactic he and his administration has taken on Health Care reform, budget issues, and taxes. It's why we've been at a standstill ever since the last election.




RE: not true
By mydogfarted on 6/27/2011 1:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
Really? He and the Dems didn't bend over and take it up the tailpipe on their original healthcare plans?


RE: not true
By dgingeri on 6/27/2011 1:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
They also didn't address a single thing that is actually wrong with the health care system. They just threw a bunch of other people's money at it and called it good. This had the effect of making health care more expensive for everyone, except the freeloaders.


I know....
By Motoman on 6/27/2011 11:08:29 AM , Rating: 3
...how about we *not* have any self-righteous morons who know f%ck-all about machines of any kind try to set any regulations on them? How would that be?

Ultimately, this is stupid from the sheer standpoint that the market will dictate what vehicles are purchased anyway - based on the consumers' needs/desires and the price of fuel.

Force regulations all you want to - the market will work the way the market works.




By Beenthere on 6/27/2011 11:34:17 AM , Rating: 2
We know where they come up with the mpg figures. They pull them outta their arse.

I'm not interested in what the White house wants. If they want 62 mpg then let Obama pay for it with HIS personal money. Oh yeah and they can stop using my tax dollars to support EVs and tree huggers, while they are getting their act together.

I want all the criminal politicians on Corruption Hill to work for free as a service to citizens of the U.S. It's suppose to be an honor to represent the citizens. One term and done should do it.




By Targon on 6/27/2011 1:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
You can tell that none of these politicians have ever been in business where a product has to be created, since that is why you have a conflict between the environmental groups and the auto makers on this subject. It takes more than just the snap of your fingers to make a new product, and to come up with a vehicle that gets better fuel economy without reducing functionality.

It takes a LOT of R&D work to come up with a new engine that improves on fuel economy without reducing horsepower while also avoiding shrinking the size and safety of the vehicle. These people also can't understand that China and India are the source of so much more pollution on the global basis right now that forcing the USA to overcompensate is idiotic. The more we improve fuel economy and cut back on manufacturing HERE, the more pollution is generated in other countries, and there is no overall improvement on a global scale when it comes to pollution.

Al Gore needs to go to China and yell at THEIR government, because things are pretty environmentally friendly here compared to there.




Just Curious
By rothiri on 6/27/2011 5:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
Ignoring that the current internal combustion engine is outdated and we should looking other solutions.

What type of mileage and emissions would we have if the market is purely driven by the car makers and the people? (again just curious)




By techhappy on 6/28/2011 12:10:16 AM , Rating: 2
All of these automakers need to get off of their lazy butts and start creating innovations to reach these goals. Hybrid and electric vehicles should be on the forefront of their minds. I think that these demands are more than reasonable.




By michael67 on 6/28/2011 4:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
WTF dose this has to do with the subject that is disused ???

quote:
Famed ultra-wealthy "environmentalist"

Your not a dumb guy but in every article you are not natural on you post, you have to vent your opinion by disrespect and sarcasm!

If it is pro green or WikiLeaks or what ever subject you are posting on and are against, your opinion and sarcasm are dripping of the screen. >_<

Yeah DT is a blog but its also more or less a news site.

Don't mind if you post you own opinion, just do it as a reaction on your own post, and don't try to force your opinion on to all of us.

Just like Charlie from S|A, your post looses credibility from everyone that dose not agree with you.
And instead of of healthy discussion, everyone that dose not agree with you, just tunes out because of it.




By shin0bi272 on 6/28/2011 7:31:11 AM , Rating: 2
The people want power, torque, range and then after all that efficiency. The jackwad white house has been on this agenda since before he was even a federal senator. F*ck you Obama. Take your green jobs and go back to Hawaii and live next to an active volcano and STFU!




I would be upset too
By jfelano on 6/28/2011 12:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
Automakers should be upset. The Govt. should have made mandatory mpg increases starting back in the early 80's. Before the Horsepower race started back up. Then we wouldn't have millions of Hummers, Expeditions, Suburbans, and 320hp Hyundai's on the road.

Now they waited so long and they want auto manufacturers to absorb the cost of re-engineering and re-tooling constantly without raising car prices for the consumer.

Good luck, cars will get so expensive, we will all start driving scooters and electric motorcycles, which isn't necesarily a bad thing.




fall behind much?
By namyzarc on 6/29/2011 10:52:48 AM , Rating: 2
Awesome. So by the time this bill gets passed in 2025, we'll be in the same position fuel-economy-wise as Europe and Japan are today... Gee how wonderful we'll be behind by only 24 years!!!!!




By Toadster on 7/8/2011 2:10:42 AM , Rating: 2
it's always the end-guy that eats this price - what about the big movers? i.e. 18-wheelers, dump trucks, coal trucks, flatbeds, busses, ships, planes?

I'd think that a 747 would consume a bit more than a Lamborghini, or even a Camry?!




They need to start over
By JackNSally on 7/13/2011 10:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
Set emission standards and that's it. Don't mandate what equipment can and can't be used to get there. Set an average for all vehicles made. That way us consumers can choose to buy an 8MPG vehicle or a 60MPG one.




By Drewjk on 7/18/2011 11:03:26 AM , Rating: 2
This is stupid and dosent make any sense. Mr. Hwang and the rest of the environmentalists are crazy to think that automakers "owe it to the American people to increase fuel economy after how much the government loaned it to keep automakers afloat during the recession". Its the governments fault for causing the recession in the first place. Lets not forget that people. All the over spending for pointless things like the $1-billion Obama spent for a trip to watch the "festival of lights". Im glad I can pay for that with my taxes when he didnt even take me along. After the government tanked the economy people had less and less money to spend on goods and services one industry for example, automakers. All these requirements forces automakers to follow suit, in turn driving up the cost for manucacturing and hiking up the price anywhere from $2,000-$8,000 per car on average. Now in the current state of the economy consumers already have a tough time spending the money for a new car let alone more money. This drains the used car market as well because people are holding on to their cars longer due to lack of budget. This will drive costs up all across the board. From a service stand point to the manufacturing level, supply and demand. I dont know about you but the auto industry is how I make a living as well as many others. Making it harder and harder to put food on my families table. I dont inderstand how politicians can punish an entire industry for something the government started. MPG's will increase on its own due to a copmetative market and constant fight for top manufacturer. Force feeding is never the answer, try it on your 2yr old and see what the outcome is. By letting nature take its course, the problem will work its self out, and cost alot less for the American people in the long run. Oil? How about we tap into our own oil? We have more under the U.S. soil than the entire Middle East put together. Im sure that will solve the national debt, and our reliance on forgin oil.




Soddy Jounalism, again
By gamerk2 on 6/27/2011 11:18:30 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
After all, those restrictions inflate the prices of sportscars, SUVs, and vans -- all vehicles consumers want.


A: Debatable
B: Unsourced

You can tell within a paragrpah a Jason Mick article, due to his style of "journalism": Write the article in such a way as to sway the reader to your own viewpoint on a topic.




How about...
By IcePickFreak on 6/27/2011 12:38:26 PM , Rating: 1
...civil engineers working for local, state, & federal governments come up with a better idea than adding stop lights every 50 feet? Especially when it seems you get caught by every single one of them 99% of the time? Oh right, that would put some responsibility on them.

Prices for little shit boxes are already approaching $30k, some even more.




“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














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