backtop


Print 245 comment(s) - last by KamiXkaze.. on Jan 27 at 7:05 PM


GM's next generation Chevrolet Impala will remain FWD-based

GM's 4.5 liter V8 Duramax diesel engine

Honda's 2.2-liter i-DETC diesel engine
GM's Northstar to fade away while Chrysler's Hemi may see less service

In late December, President Bush signed into a law a new energy bill which will raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) average to 35 MPG by 2020. Some auto manufacturers balked at the idea while the bill was under construction, but Detroit’s Big Three all committed to complying with the new standard once it passed.

The first victims of the new energy bill are already starting to show up just a month after the new energy bill passed.

General Motors announced that it cancelled plans to build new versions of its Northstar V8 engine. GM's Northstar engine was introduced in the 1990s and has been a staple in the engine bay of high-end Cadillac luxury vehicles.

GM will instead rely on its direct-injection (DI) 3.6 liter V6 engine to power its luxury vehicles. The DI V6 produces 304 HP in the CTS compared to the 320 HP, 4.6 liter Northstar V8 engine used in the larger STS. The V6 engine does, however, have a huge deficit in the area of torque when compared to the current Northstar V8 -- the V6 produces just 273 lb-ft of torque while the V8 delivers 315 lb-ft.

GM claims that the move to the DI V6 will not only improve the fuel economy of its larger vehicles, but will also save weight across the board -- the V6 is anywhere from 150 pounds to 200 pounds lighter than the Northstar V8.

Another big loser in the midst of new CAFE regulations is Chrysler’s Hemi engine. "The Hemi is not the powertrain of the future," said Chrysler co-president Jim Press. "It's the powertrain of today."

The Hemi engine will not be dropped entirely from the Chrysler portfolio, but its role will be greatly diminished. The 5.7 liter V8 Hemi engine was recently upgraded for the 2009 Dodge Ram and now produces 380 HP and 404 lb-ft of torque -- up from 345 HP and 375 lb-ft. Fuel economy was also boosted by 4 percent and emissions were reduced compared to the old Hemi engine.

Despite the upgraded power and improved fuel economy, vehicles like the next generation Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 will likely miss out on Hemi power. Instead, Chrysler is developing new "Phoenix" high-output V6 engine to take the place of the Hemi. The engines will feature dual overhead cams, variable valve timing and cylinder deactivation. Ranging-topping variants are likely to surpass 300 HP, like its competitors, and provide better fuel economy than its Hemi counterpart.

When it comes to actual vehicle platforms, General Motors is already taking steps to comply with the update CAFE. The company originally planned to resurrect the Pontiac GTO -- again -- using the same underpinnings as the upcoming Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac G8. Those plans are now shelved.

"I think (the Monaro/Pontiac GTO) is gone for now," said GM's Bob Lutz. "We’ve got nothing in the product plan right now like that. We’d like to have, but you can’t do everything."

GM was to also build the next generation Chevy Impala using the same RWD platform. Those plans were also shelved and the next generation Impala will continue to ride on a FWD platform.

Despite the killings that were mentioned above, manufacturers are looking to new, more efficient powertrains to power their vehicles into the future. All of the major manufacturers are looking to hybrid, fuel cell and electric vehicles to boost fuel economy. Manufacturers, however, are also looking towards an increased use of turbocharging and diesel technology to boost economy.

Ford recently announced its "EcoBoost" engine line which takes advantage of turbocharging. Its new 2.0 liter turbo four produces an incredible 275 HP and 280 lb-ft of torque. The company's new 3.5 liter V6 produced a whopping 340 HP and 340 lb-ft thanks to turbocharging. Both engines produce the power of a V6 and V8 engine respectively while achieving greater fuel economy.

On the diesel front, General Motors will soon roll out a new 4.5 liter V8 Duramax diesel engine destined for its light-duty pickups and SUVs. Toyota is following suit with a new V8 diesel engine for its Tundra full-size pickup and Sequoia full-size SUV. Honda is also prepared to make a 2.2 liter i-DETC diesel four cylinder engine available in its 2009 Honda Accord and 2009 Acura TSX. A larger 3.5 liter V6 diesel will finds its way into the Honda Pilot, Honda Ridgeline and Acura MDX.

The new CAFE regulations were a big wakeup call to all auto manufacturers who sell vehicles in the U.S. It's great to see that manufacturers are adept enough to evolve and adapt to give customers the power they crave with increased fuel economy at the same time.



Comments     Threshold


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

Sheet
By napalmjack on 1/23/2008 11:45:00 AM , Rating: 4
Well, good going politicians. You neutered the Charger and killed the GTO.

Thanks.




RE: Sheet
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/23/2008 11:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
There's always the Challenger :)

My guess is that the 300C and Charge will stay with HO V6 engines while the upcoming Challenger will continue on with the 5.7 liter and 6.1 liter Hemis... for at least a few years.


RE: Sheet
By theapparition on 1/24/2008 9:57:27 AM , Rating: 4
I find it particuarly amusing when I see the "death of sports cars" headlines.

First, some facts.
High performance cars make up only a fraction of the sales of cars/trucks. When faced with CAFE decisions, the manufacturer's are going to look at the number of vehicules sold by fuel economy. When ever you want the biggest change, you don't go after the smallest items. The end result.......the top25 offenders probably won't be sports cars. They'll be Trucks and SUV's.
The end of the big V8 dead? So far from the truth. There are advantages to forced induction (turbocharing and supercharging) but issues as well. There is an old addage, "there's no replacement for displacement". So true. NA engines will deliver signifigantly more torque than their equal powered turbo'd counterparts. Torque is what gives acceleration response, which consumers have become accustomed to.

Now for those horrible American engines:

For example:

2008 Mitsu Evo X:
2.0L 4cyl Turbo 320hp
16city/22highway

2008 Corvette
6.2L 8cyl 436hp
18city/28highway

And now for that same engine in a much heavier car:
2008 Cadallac CTS-V
6.2L 8cyl 430hp
17city/25highway (2007 models were 15/24)

Which would you rather have? Less power in a small turbo engine, with poorer fuel economy, or more power in a more fuel efficient engine. (I just tried to pick cars that were similar in performance, I don't need lessons on the fact that they appeal to differnt markets). The GM LSx series of engines will also be updated with displacement on demand and VVT. Such enhancements will only add to their fuel economy. Can't do DoD on a 4cyl and the EVO already has VVT.
So for as much as American companies get bemoaned for big fuel-sucking low-tech engines, they seem to be doing all right.

What's really sad, though, is that the Corvette actually props up GM's average fuel economy figures, which hover somewhere around 24mpg. Toyota, recognized as the leader in fuel economy, only manages close to 28mpg, after all those Prius' it sold. Belive me, the Tundra will face the chopping block before most sports cars.

Out of the big 3 American, GM is probably in the best position to meet the new standards. Ford probably a close second. Chrysler billed itself as the big, heavy, punch-you-in-the-face brand, and such will have to do a complete revamp of product line, not only engines, but put their pig-heavy cars on a diet. German brands will also have issues, but have more experience with meeting those requirements in Europe. Still, because you have European experience, that doesn't mean that it will translate to American consumers' tastes.

It was sad that they cancelled the Monaro, though. The Challenger and Camaro will be cool, and I still think you'll see a Pontiac version of the Camaro (whether they call it Firebird or GTO). Performance cars are very much alive, and you won't see them going anywhere soon.

Now....400hp Suburbans, you may want to buy now if you really want one.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 10:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
> "Now for those horrible American engines:"

Err, the Evo X (in addition to being more than 10% heavier than a Corvette) is also an all-wheel-drive model. That alone equals the difference in mileage between the two.

> "Torque is what gives acceleration response, which consumers have become accustomed to"

Consumers buy what they can afford. When CAFE standards force domestic automakers to put big-block models at a price point high enough that they don't impact fleet standards, sales will certainly decline dramatically.


RE: Sheet
By theapparition on 1/24/2008 12:44:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Err, the Evo X (in addition to being more than 10% heavier than a Corvette) is also an all-wheel-drive model. That alone equals the difference in mileage between the two.

Err, you also dismissed the Cadillac, which is also a full 10% heavier than the EVO X is.
All wheel drive models should have very little difference in mileage, since the the other axle is only operable when the computer senses bad conditions or the operator is hard on launch, where 50% of the torque can be delivered to the front wheels.

So let's take a look at another comparable model.

Infinity G35
3.5L V6 306hp
17/24mpg

Infinity G35x (all-wheel drive)
17/23mpg.

Overall.......very comparable cars to the Cadillac, with very similar mileage numbers. Yet the Cadillac gets a full 40% more power. Would you want 40% more power for the same cost of fuel? So which engine is more efficient? You know the answer. Adding some high-tech features to these engines will only make them better.

quote:
Consumers buy what they can afford. When CAFE standards force domestic automakers to put big-block models at a price point high enough that they don't impact fleet standards, sales will certainly decline dramatically.

The problem is, those big-block models we are talking about are already more efficient than most of their sales fleet. Sales won't decline dramatically, since they are already a minor sales item. When Chevy sells 618,257 trucks and over 400k SUV's per year, and only 30k corvettes (that already have higher mpg than corporate average fuel economy) it has a minor impact.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 2:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "Err, you also dismissed the Cadillac, which is also a full 10% heavier than the EVO X is"

According to the Cadillac site, there isn't a 2008 CTS-V. There's an 07...but it uses the 6.0l engine, not the 6.2. The 2009 CTS-V has the 'Vette engine...but its going to be supercharged, which pretty much negates discussing NA engines.

Also, when comparing engines, you can't just pick one outlying example and claim its indicative. Engines are tuned for specific purposes. Take for instance the engine in my very small, light, two-seater, which gets 17/24 mileage. It's tuned for power at all costs, not economy.
The same displacement V6 engine (not the same engine itself) even in a substantially heavier sedan can get 19/28. Add direct injection to that and you can hit 30mpg highway.

But in any case, I'm NOT disagreeing with your primary point, that mpg doesn't correlate inversely to displacement. There are a lot more factors involved.


RE: Sheet
By theapparition on 1/24/2008 4:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
I did put the 2007 Cadillac epa numbers in the original comment. Still a good basis for comparison. Two of my vettes are supercharged and put out over 800hp and over 1000hp. The 800hp one is my daily driver, and can get over 30mpg highway, so I know a little bit about forced induction too. ;)

Your absolutely correct that engines are tuned for distinct purposes. Point is, engines are always tuned (from factory) for:

1. Emissions
2. Safety
3. Performance
4. Fuel Economy

Most engines are pig-rich from the factory, since that makes the engine safer to operate in all enviroments. With a proper aftermarket tune, you can signifigantly increase hp, mpg, and lower emissions.

quote:
Also, when comparing engines, you can't just pick one outlying example and claim its indicative.

True, but if I didn't have any examples, someone would chime in disputing the claims.

In any event, the facts speak for themselves. I tire when I hear that American sports cars with big low-tech engines are gas guzzlers, when in fact, they usually exceed (or are on par) with most other cars on the road.


RE: Sheet
By Samus on 1/24/2008 3:31:41 PM , Rating: 1
I have a Mazdaspeed Protege with over 200 wHP. I consistently get 30MPG highway. I had a Subaru WRX (non STi) that had somewhere in the 250wHP range with 15psi boost, still got 30MPG highway.

I'm tired of people saying performance cars and SUV's get simular mileage. That's simply impossible when you have a 1:2 weight differential. Protege/Subaru are 2500lbs, Tahoe is 5000lbs. The acceleration, top speed, braking and overall fuel milage will be much less than a compact car.


RE: Sheet
By eye smite on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By Christopher1 on 1/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sheet
By TheDoc9 on 1/23/2008 12:08:50 PM , Rating: 5
maybe in 50 years when we're all required to ride segways someone will be saying that to you.


RE: Sheet
By creathir on 1/23/2008 12:16:59 PM , Rating: 1
Muscle cars are my right to drive. Sports cars are my right to drive. Hummers are my right to drive. I pay taxes on those roads just like you do. If you want to drive a freakin' yugo, go right ahead. I'll stick with my Ram 1500 Quad Cab.

- Creathir


RE: Sheet
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 12:28:30 PM , Rating: 1
We don't care what you drive.........do we? You want to spend more on gas, be my guest.


RE: Sheet
By Topweasel on 1/23/2008 12:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
But that is the thing. This new Law prevents companies from selling these options because otherwise people wouldn't purchase the high MPG cars. This law sucks because basically tell the car companies what to sell, no matter what the majority actually want.


RE: Sheet
By ebakke on 1/23/2008 1:00:18 PM , Rating: 4
While I would never buy a muscle car, or really any vehicle that guzzles gas, I completely agree with you. Let the people decide what they want. If we want 4 MPG vehicles, sell us 4 MPG vehicles. At some point, people will get sick of spending $2304911234 a day for gas, and they'll demand higher standards. The difference is that they'll demand it from the manufacturer not the government. Even at $3 per gallon, Americans have shown that they're not willing to change their driving behavior, or their vehicles.

The government needs to get out of deciding what vehicles consumers can/can't buy.


RE: Sheet
By bpurkapi on 1/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 1:26:25 PM , Rating: 3
A law removing overtime wages and requiring people to work 50 hours/week would help the economy. A law requring the death penalty for property-based crimes would help the economy. A law requring anyone past retirement age to be euthanized would help the economy.

There's a little problem with a thing called "freedom", though.


RE: Sheet
By smitty3268 on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By oTAL on 1/24/2008 1:22:21 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, when you look past the surface two of those three things would never help the economy. I have no idea about the death penalty change... maybe it would...

I still think that the best way would be to "integrate" the environment into the economy by taxing fuels higher and waiting for the economy to adjust. Still, this can be a good thing...

I know we disagree on this and other topics masher, but surely you can see the possibility that the pros will outweight the cons in this law change.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By oTAL on 1/25/2008 11:26:31 AM , Rating: 3
That was quite an aggressive and empty post. I've got to admit I expected I little more from you masher...

Surely you know that even disregarding the ethical part of the question, slave labor isn't nearly as productive, by many measures, as adequately compensated workers (depending on the task I'll give you that).

It's a little silly to be condescendent towards fellow dailytech readers when no reason was given. I believe my point is valid. If you disagree please do so in a more courteous way.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2008 11:36:51 AM , Rating: 1
> " believe my point is valid. If you disagree please do so in a more courteous way"

If you felt my statement was directed to you personally, I apologize. It was, however, not, but rather to those few remaining Keynesian economists who still believe in the concept of a free lunch.

As for "slave labor", I suggested no such thing; a mandatory increase in the work week is a far different matter. And, of course, the statement was simply for illustration of the rights issue, and wasn't being seriously advanced.


RE: Sheet
By napalmjack on 1/23/2008 2:15:22 PM , Rating: 4
They're is ALWAYS a political reason for EVERYTHING Bush (or most all of politicians for that matter) does, has done, or will do. Do you really think he gives a damn about the economy, and do you actually believe that the new CAFE standards will lead to lower gas prices? Seriously??


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 3:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're is ALWAYS a political reason for EVERYTHING Bush (or most all of politicians for that matter) does, has done, or will do.

Thats why they are POLITICIANS by trade.
quote:
Do you really think he gives a damn about the economy

Don't be naive, of course he does, as does everyone else. But each side has a different view on what they see as a resolution, and how bad they actually think the problem is.
quote:
and do you actually believe that the new CAFE standards will lead to lower gas prices?

No, who said they will? In 10 years, the global demand will have increased much more than today's levels. So if the oil producing countries are stating that the price is reflective upon the demand, then the price of gasoline will not decrease. The point of the CAFE standards, although its stupid and in my view would work itself out via capitalism & supply/deman, are to acheive more mpg's in 2020, saving some money in your pocket in comparison to 2007 mpg.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 4:09:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
saving some money in your pocket in comparison to 2007 mpg.
Who says that the US will have lower fuel prices in 2020 even compared to 2007? Even if our demand drops because of more fuel efficient cars, why would the oil companies, OPEC, and others charge us less? Especially when India, China and some others will be paying horrendous prices for oil? It's already been shown that gas prices are not directly connected to oil prices or even demand for that matter. It's was calculated that current average gas prices in SoCal should currently be at $2.77/gallon based on demand, refinery capacity and all the taxes and fees yet gas is at $3.40 a gallon. Who says that gas prices will be lower than China and India come 2020? I think that's just wishful thinking.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 5:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
> "why would the oil companies, OPEC, and others charge us less? "

Neither oil companies nor OPEC set the price of oil. Commodity traders do, by estimating the price needed to equate demand with supply.

Furthermore, the price of oil only accounts for about half the price of gasoline. A lot of the recent gas price runup is simply due to a lack of refining capacity, nothing else.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 5:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neither oil companies nor OPEC set the price of oil. Commodity traders do
Ok. Why would commodity traders set the price of oil lower? And, why would the refineries lower the price of gas? Whoever sells the gas from the refineries will still be able to charge high prices because of increased demand and commodity trading to India and China. So it goes back to my original question, why would the price of gas go down because the US's demand goes down?


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 5:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "Ok. Why would commodity traders set the price of oil lower? "

Easy one. Because if they don't do so when demand weakens (or when supply grows faster than demand) they lose their shirt. Traders don't make money from raising prices. They make money by guessing right.

> "And, why would the refineries lower the price of gas? "

Because if they don't, their competitors will. And then no one will buy their gas.

This really isn't open to debate. Look at how far gas prices fell during the 1980s and 1990s. Demand was increasing very slowly (it actually fell a few times) and supply was increasing quickly. So the price fell.

Now we have the opposite situation, and it will probably persist for at least five years. After that, we'll likely see a period of falling prices again, at least briefly.


RE: Sheet
By Manch on 1/27/2008 7:03:26 PM , Rating: 1
I thought it was the rapidly increase in air travel, the expanding markets and population boom in China and India, the lack of refineries in the USA, the multiple standards for gasoline, OPEC and all of those other things like the political instability in the Middle East. I could be wrong. Who woulda thought that those damn hummer guys, err sorry ladies people were responsible!


RE: Sheet
By irev210 on 1/23/2008 1:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more.

Consumers know what they want.

I am all for having low emission standards but increasing fuel economy is something people should decide. Already we see that many consumers enjoy the higher MPG vs low but that doesnt mean everyone does and forever.

Again, I think we need to regulate emissions, not MPG. Higher emission standards actually decreases MPG, most people don't know this. My 1989 Honda CRX got 55MPG but when I take it to California smog station it pollutes about 300-400x more than my newer 2002 Ford F-150 even though both are running in perfect "like new" condition.


RE: Sheet
By Oregonian2 on 1/23/2008 1:48:13 PM , Rating: 3
In other words, when there's a shortage of fuel that could have been delayed with higher MPG's, folk forced to use public transportation and/or sit in long fuel lines for their quota will yell and curse but *without* mentioning the government in terms of blame?

You feel the government has no responsibility in trying to maintain the long term stability of fuel supply (and therefore the country's economy)?


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 2:18:39 PM , Rating: 5
> "You feel the government has no responsibility in trying to maintain the long term stability of fuel supply "

Which it could do much better by allowing and incentivizing additional drilling and refining capacity, as well as increasing the size and scope of the strategic petroleum reserve. Increasing the federal gas tax would do more to control demand alone.

The government is doing what's popular here, not what makes the most sense economically.

In any case, if you're asking us to choose between freedom and unbridled economic growth, I'll take the former, thanks. However, that's a false dilemma. History has shown that government meddling in the free market is nearly always counterproductive. If the government keeps it thumb out of the gears, the market will find a much better solution than the chaps in Washington ever can.


RE: Sheet
By jimbojimbo on 1/23/2008 5:43:17 PM , Rating: 1
"The government is doing what's popular here, not what makes the most sense economically."

What's funny is every suggestion you brought up was something Republicans were fighting for but the Democrats and the enviro-activists shot them all down. I can't wait for the sun to calm down again so they can all shut the hell up about global warming this and global warming that.


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 6:24:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
every suggestion you brought up was something Republicans were fighting for but the Democrats and the enviro-activists shot them all down.

Exactly. Because republicans believe in capitalism and increasing the economic output. Democrats are more based on an increase of spending for social policies and high taxes. When it comes to economics, fiscal policy, and capitalism...you'd be a fool to think the democrats would ever do anything to benefit a person economically - the only thing they are concerned about is redistribution of wealth to make everone "even".


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/23/2008 9:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sun to calm down again? Are you serious? Global warming is not about the sun getting angry and "turning up" and then if we appease it, maybe with a sacrifice, it will "calm down".

Global warming is def. something to be worried about it is not some crazy thing these weird scientists came up with. It has its base in some strong scientific evidence. I cannot say for sure that it will happen but it is a good theory with a lot of support (I dont mean dems or repubs I mean legit support from researchers). People often attempt to discredit it because it is "just" a theory but evolution, relativity and the big bang are also "just" theories.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 10:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "Global warming is not about the sun getting angry and "turning up" ..."

Err, the Sun does have several known cycles which cause it to vary in both intensity and activity, the Maunder Cycle being the best known of these. Several climatologists do in fact believe that changes in solar activity are the primary driver for long-term climate change. See Svensmark's research at the Danish Space Center for one such reference.

> " but evolution, relativity and the big bang are also "just" theories. "

Evolution, relativity, and the Big Bang are all theories with extensively proven predictive abilities. Anthropogenic Global Warming, on the other hand, has so far failed to make a single accurate prediction...and more and more climate researchers are starting to explore other alternatives.


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/23/2008 11:49:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Err, the Sun does have several known cycles which cause it to vary in both intensity and activity, the Maunder Cycle being the best known of these. Several climatologists do in fact believe that changes in solar activity are the primary driver for long-term climate change. See Svensmark's research at the Danish Space Center for one such reference.


Err, just because several climatologists argue with the overwhelming scientific community does not make them right. There is a tenured prof. of molecular biology at the number one ranked molecular biology school, Berkeley, who believes HIV/AIDS is not caused by a virus but is simply an immune deficiency (most of his colleagues disagree). His name is Dr. Peter Duesberg.

Evolution is constantly against about by ppl who believe in intelligent design. Some of them are scientists. (I believe in evolution as well as HIV being caused by a virus.)

"more and more climate researchers are starting to explore alternatives"

This is way too broad of a statement to be verifiable, I doubt anyone went door to door or did a poll asking climate researchers whether they are, in fact, doing this.

quote:
A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[23] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[24] but his attempted refutation is disputed.[25][26][27] Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."


so it may not be unanimous but it is def a majority. that majority is increasing (also from same source listed below).

quote:
The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[17][18][19] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[20] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[21] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[22] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contro...

Now if I had to bet, would I bet on that small group of people who disagree with all the above experts? It would be presumptuous and foolish...and a waste of my money.


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/24/2008 12:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
correction in above::

Evolution is constantly argued against by ppl who believe in intelligent design. Some of them are scientists. (I believe in evolution as well as HIV being caused by a virus.)


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 9:33:56 AM , Rating: 2
> "just because several climatologists argue with the overwhelming scientific community does not make them right"

The "overwhelming majority" is pretty much a media myth.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

http://www.dailytech.com/100+Prominent+Scientists+...

Still worse, even the climatolists who *do* believe in AGW don't support the doomsday scenario theories the media constantly advances.

> "so it may not be unanimous but it is def a majority"

The Oreskes survey includes work as far back as 1993, and nothing at all later than 2003, for a mean publication date of 1999. Climatology has advanced a great deal since then.


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/24/2008 10:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you reference Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte? You know as well as I do that what he does is called junk science and biased reviewing. He is def not respected in the scientific community. The groups that I referenced that endorse global warming are the most respected scientific communities around such as the national academy of science. You respond to that with Dr. Schulte? Are you joking? Here is what the journal to which he submitted his paper (that you referenced) said:

quote:
Schulte's Analysis: Not Published; Not Going to Be
The celebrated research by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still continues over the science behind climate change, is "a bit patchy and nothing new," according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication.

It is "not what was of interest to me" and will not be published, Boehmer Christiansen said (in email correspondence reproduced in full at the end of this post).

(Thus, it turns out that the only way you could justify calling Schulte's work "peer-reviewed" is by pointing out that his biggest fan, Christopher Walter, is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - a British peer.)


btw you know hes not a climatologist right? hes an endocrinologist


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/24/2008 10:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
I just saw that you wrote a whole blog about Schulte. Are you out to misinform? There is a clear consensus about global warming as I stated in my above reference of all the major scientific communities. The numbers you reference and that he used to write his paper are clearly inflated against global warming.

Among the group that he says reject global warming
quote:
Two of the papers conduct no actual scientific research but merely review social aspects of climate science. I'm baffled as to why they would be included other than to "boost the numbers":


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schul...

Basically your endocrinologist (not climatologist) is rejected by the scientific community.

Heres another list of grps that support global warming (some maybe repeated as I didnt check whether they overlap)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere
* The Royal Society of the UK
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Academies of Science from 19 countries

All the leading scientific grps support global warming. Its a clear fact.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 11:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "btw you know hes not a climatologist right?"

The papers he cited were by Climatologists, however. If you prefer more "hefty" names, how about some of the following:

Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists.
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Gerhard Kramm of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Physicist Dr. Laurence I. Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and former Chair of the New England Section of the American Physical Society.
Dr. Freeman Dyson, noted physicist.
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute
Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center.
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC.
Dr. James P. Koermer, a Professor of Meteorology and the director of the Meteorological Institute at Plymouth State University.
Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon
Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, IPCC expert reviewer.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric Science, MIT.
IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D meteorology.
Solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut.
Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona.
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia.
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin.
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA.
B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India
Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists
IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray.
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee
Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant
Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia
Physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre.
Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography.

I could name more than 300 more, all skeptics of the "global warming" consensus.


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/25/2008 3:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
I obviously cant go through the whole list and check who each person is, but one name did catch my eye, MITs Dr. Lindzen. He is def not the most unbiased source you can find.

quote:
Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." According to a PBS Frontline report, " According to PBS, Dr. Lindzen has claimed in Newsweek and elsewhere that his funding comes exclusively from government sources, but he does not seem to include speaking fees and other personal compensation in this statement"


Furthermore you mostly list people. I listed the most elite scientific groups each representing hundreds to thousands of top scientists. Now I know their are some scientists that do not believe in global warming but the majority do. 300 ppl is a small drop in the bucket.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2008 10:27:04 AM , Rating: 2
> "Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen "

And of course, the usual nonsense about a secret "big oil" conspiracy funding all the hundreds of scientists who disagree comes out. Let me ask you this-- how much billions have pro-Global Warming researchers received from environmental causes with an axe to grind?

BTW, Ross Gelbspan is a political activist whose made millions from his global warming books and speaking fees.

> "I listed the most elite scientific groups "

The EPA isn't an "elite scenitific group". The AIP and the AGU are. The AIP, btw, merely adopted the AGU's position statement verbatim...a statement approved by a nine member governing board. The position wasn't voted on by the members at large.

And what WAS that statement? Let me quote from it:
quote:
Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results
In other words-- more research is needed. Sounds like a very sensible position...especially when you represent an organization whose members have received some $40B in climate research funding.

You can read the full statement here, and you won't find ANY hint of a looming catastrophe.

http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By Oregonian2 on 1/23/2008 7:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ah! Supply and Demand. Supply is safe to target, Demand is forbidden to mess with. I get it now... especially interesting when increasing the supply rate only makes things worse (given a fixed limited supply) long term.

I keep forgetting how everything political should be decided for short term reasons -- wise long term policy is forbidden!


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 8:01:22 PM , Rating: 4
Your error is in assuming that continued exploitation of oil is a mistake. Your logic chain is:

"Since oil is a finite resource, we should stop using it as soon as possible"

However, that statement was as true in 1908 as it is today...even more so, in fact, since proven oil reserves then were on the order of 10 years (President Coolidge even convened an emergency council to "solve the problem" of oil which would shortly all be gone).

By your logic, we should have stopped using oil a century ago. But obviously that would have been horribly unwise, and would have denied billions of people the benefits of industrialization.

The smart thing to do is use resources while they're available, then shift to alternatives as supplies dwindle. When do you shift? When market forces tell you too...when the rising price of oil and gas makes those alternatives practical.

But as long as gas is cheaper than grain alchohol, its a more effective resource economically. Failing to use it makes about us much long-term sense as trying to run the country on solar power in 1908.


RE: Sheet
By irev210 on 1/23/2008 10:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly...

We will NEVER EVER EVER run out of oil. It will simply become too expensive to extract.

As masher2 is saying -- as soon as oil becomes economically "expensive", we will simply move to something else "cheaper".

I hate how people think these CAFE rules will help the "Gas guzzlers" stop taking away oil from the "earth savers".

If you are an earth saver, you will let supply/demand and economics hold its course. The higher the oil price goes, the more people will naturally just buy more fuel efficient or vehicles that do not use fossil fuel at all.

Of course those short minded people say "well those options dont exist". That is irrelevant. As soon as oil becomes too expensive another alternative will replace it.

If I was running all of the green orgs I would try to let people use as much oil as possible, driving up the cost of oil allowing alternatives to become financially attractive to companies and individuals.


RE: Sheet
By MaulBall789 on 1/23/2008 3:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense. There will still be a few muscle cars left for the rich enthusiasts. 35mpg is a fleet average. That means one or two high performance - low MPG vehicles in each lineup with the other twenty vehicles (especially for GM and Ford) at around 40 - 50 mpg range. The Vette, GTO and Mustang will still be around. They will just cost $100k+ and be brutal to refuel every couple of days. Those who have the money burning a hole in their pocket will still be free to buy them.

The reality is that when gas costs upwards of $6 - $10 per gallon (probably within the next 5 years if not sooner), consumer demand will force automakers to produce vehicles that get way more than a measly 35mpg. It's only a matter of time and this law will be moot.


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 3:57:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nonsense. There will still be a few muscle cars left for the rich enthusiasts.

Ahh yes. And prior to all the stupid CAFE standards & EPA/Environmental regulations, muscle cars (or almost all cars) were available to the MIDDLE CLASS, not the "rich enthusiasts".


RE: Sheet
By MaulBall789 on 1/23/2008 4:05:39 PM , Rating: 1
Sucks, doesn't it. But this law won't have anything to do with it. If the USdollar keeps falling and our debt starts to get sold off for cheap, well, bad things are going to happen in our backyards and terrorists won't have anything to do with it. Having a mid-priced muscle car will be the least of our concerns.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 4:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone acts like the falling dollar is a new thing. Does anyone read History 101 anymore or are the events of the past irrelevant to today's cultured and highly intellectual society?


RE: Sheet
By MaulBall789 on 1/23/2008 4:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
You are very right it's not a new thing. And I didn't mean to make it seem like it was. But it's certainly a correction that could hurt quite a bit for a good while. We (Americans) have, plain and simple, overspent as a society for too long. But as Americans we have the right to be as financially irresponsible as we want... until the bill comes due. I am as guilty of this as anyone. I still want a bigger HD set. This $145 billion economic stimulus will just make things that much worse, but politicians are trying to stay elected. I'll be saving that rebate check, thank you.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 5:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
Gotcha. I just heard about the rebate checks. Who qualifies for those?


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 6:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
Thats still open to debate, as the bill hasnt been written yet...and won't be for at least another 3 weeks.

However, from following the situation, there is back and forth on who it should go to. One thing is clear is that they will decrease the federal taxes on corporations so they can increase employment. The republicans want to issue the tax rebates back to the people who actually pay taxes, and the democrats want to give rebates to the poor who dont pay taxes and put more money into people who get prolonged unemployment benefits, welfare, and food stamps.


RE: Sheet
By Etsp on 1/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 12:39:17 PM , Rating: 1
> ""Right" to drive...which amendment was that again?"

The 9th, 10th, and 14th, to be precise.


RE: Sheet
By diablofish on 1/23/2008 1:44:17 PM , Rating: 3
9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 14th Amendment refers to not restricting the privileges (not rights) of the people WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. CAFE was passed by elected officials, signed into law by an elected official, and doesn't restrict your ability to buy a car, own a car, or drive the car; using this amendment to say CAFE is unconstitutional is weak, at best. While it restricts the power of the car, the power of the car has little real bearing on the ability of that vehicle to perform it's basic function: safely get the occupants from place to place.

I read, re-read, and re-re-read each of these. I still didn't see where we're guaranteed a right to drive. After all, there were no cars when this these amendments were created and ratified.

At best, one could interpret these to mean that people have the right to move freely about the country. But you don't need a Hemi (or a Honda) to do that. Or perhaps one could say you have the right to attempt to receive the privilege of obtaining a driver's license and car, assuming you obey the laws and can afford it. But there is no where that says driving is a right of the people; it's a privilege.

If it were a "right" to drive, then we'd have to subsidize vehicles for those who couldn't afford it, otherwise we'd be denying those who didn't have the means for a car their basic Constitutional "rights".


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 1:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But there is no where that says driving is a right of the people; it's a privilege.
I believe it is a privilege also but the government is not treating driving as a privilege. If it were, then they would restrict any cars except fuel efficient one's. If we're truly in a crisis then take the drastic measures required of a crisis. The government DOES have this right but they choose not to exercise it. Why?


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 1:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "I still didn't see where we're guaranteed a right to drive."

Technically, the federal government is denied the right to restrict what we can drive. If the Constitution does't specifically grant them that right, they don't have it.

> "After all, there were no cars when this these amendments were created and ratified."

Radio, TV, high-speed printing presses, and the Internet didn't exist then either. Does that mean freedom of speech doesn't apply to them?


RE: Sheet
By Etsp on 1/23/2008 2:11:29 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Technically, the federal government is denied the right to restrict what we can drive.
I was under the impression that the government mandated that vehicles sold must meet certain safety requirements, which as you stated in another post, is effectively the same thing as denying us the right to drive it.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 2:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
> "I was under the impression that the government mandated that vehicles sold must meet certain safety requirements"

Your impression is correct. Now, examine the Constitution and try to find where it's given that power.

Our rights are already infringed in numerous ways. That doesn't mean we should blindly accept additional restrictions.


RE: Sheet
By hemipowered on 1/23/2008 2:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. They already ripped from me the second US muscle car era :( This time it isn't from an oil shortage, go figure...


RE: Sheet
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 3:35:56 PM , Rating: 3
I agree too, they should do away with safety standards and re-label it population control. No safety, more deaths.........yeah, population control.


RE: Sheet
By MaulBall789 on 1/23/2008 3:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
So by that logic all laws not stated directly under the Constitution are illegal. Anarchy Now! Yeah, I don't think so.

I don't think this is blindly accepting anything. Fossil fuel demand growing way faster than supply is one thing but the sinking US dollar is also going to take it's toll. Maybe these factors (among others) will force us to greatly expand local drilling and refining but it only delays the inevitable.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 5:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "So by that logic all laws not stated directly under the Constitution are illegal. "

All laws which grant the US government powers not expressly authorized by the Constitution are illegal, yes.

As for it being "anarchy", if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me.


RE: Sheet
By mcmilljb on 1/23/2008 6:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution gives Congress the right to pass laws. Quoting just a small part of the Constitution (actually a small addition) does not define what Congress can and cannot do! Congress does not need to legislate directly most of the time any way. Quick and easy way is to deny money to states not complying with what they want. Ask someone from Louisiana old enough to remember about why they finally passed the law raising the drinking age in their state to 21. More than likely CAFE punishes automakers with huge monetary penalties. They could ignore it, but people are not going to pay that penalty too.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 6:39:34 PM , Rating: 3
> "The Constitution gives Congress the right to pass laws. "

But not any and all laws regardless. It specifically limits what laws can and cannot do. The 9th and 10th Amenderments **do** exist for very real reasons. That's an important point to remember.


RE: Sheet
By diablofish on 1/23/2008 2:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that has been challenged in the courts many times. And is still being challenged (recent events on MySpace come to mind). The Constitution doesn't protect all speech, this has been made clear through decades (centuries) of legal precedence. And through the legal standard of precedence, laws are written and challenged. And broadcasting isn't a right; it's a privilege. And the government, through LEGAL PROCESSES, does have the right to restrict privileges, and rights, as is stated in the Constitution. Read 14 again. If they couldn't restrict an individual's rights through due process, they couldn't send you to jail for breaking the law. The key here is due process. 14 isn't without exception, just as the courts have ruled.

There's also a little part of the Constitution that grants the government power to make laws and enforce them. If you think this law inhibits your driving "rights", I'd suggest you contact the ACLU.


RE: Sheet
By Verran on 1/23/2008 2:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Technically, the federal government is denied the right to restrict what we can drive. If the Constitution does't specifically grant them that right, they don't have it.

The federal government is not restricting our rights on what we can drive. They're restricting what cars can be made, just like they have been doing for decades now. As I said before in another post: I would seriously hope that you guys aren't blind enough to think this is the first time this has happened.

Let's say these new standards prevent them from making a Mustang V8 next year, or whatever. Then the federal government just removed your right to buy said Mustang, by your logic. But isn't the federal government already "removing your right" to drive a Mustang with factory straight pipes? Or a Mustang without airbags? etc. etc. etc. What about my "right" to drive some of those foreign diesel models that don't meet regulations over here? How is that any different?

These things are mandated on a daily basis. This is nothing new. In fact, this is even less drastic than normal because (if another post in this thread was accurate), BMW is currently choosing not to follow these guidelines, and is still selling the cars they want with a premium attached. GM could do this too, and you could maintain your "right" to choose if you wanted that car.

People are complaining about losing the "right" to drive a car that has not been built. In fact, the "right" is only lost if it ISN'T built. Seems like a bit of a logical paradox.


RE: Sheet
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 3:41:40 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with you, aside from being stubborn, complaining is a strong american trait and we look for violations of our rights when there are none or that right never existed. Why do we let these dolts even post here?.............Oh yeah it's that first ammendment thing again isn't it. Should have a stupidity stipulation in it somewhere


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 3:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BMW is currently choosing not to follow these guidelines
No, they're going to try. They're releasing diesels and hybrids. At their relatively small volumes, even if they miss the target, the fines won't be that great and they can roll them into the cost of the car (they're doing it already) and their market wouldn't notice the price increases.

These are premium cars and their customers expect to pay premium prices. The thing is that regular cars will be approaching the premium prices of the upper end car makers with diesel and hybrid technologies. And it seems the car makers also want to reduce weight while maintaining current and future safety standards too? Ha! Expect to pay at least $10k more for that Camry by 2020. I expect the price increases to start in 2009.

Notice how NO ONE has mentioned actual prices of these new cars?


RE: Sheet
By diablofish on 1/23/2008 4:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
There are other ways auto makers should be judged. For example, the content of their vehicles that use recylced materials instead of "virgin" materials. How energy efficient their plants and assembly processes are. How well they support the local economies of the areas where their plants are. Simply looking at fuel efficiency is only a part of the bigger picture.

For example, do a little research on BMW's Spartanburg, SC plant. You'll find that they have taken steps to make the manufacture of their vehicles more green in addition to looking for ways to make their vehicles more fuel efficient.

The market is shifting to be more demanding of green products. Target, Wal-Mart, and others are all looking at ways to reduce packaging costs (and environmental impact) by changing the way products are packaged. They'll not only save money, but be able to market themselves as being more green - which more and more consumers are demanding. BMW and other car makers are looking at ways to reduce energy costs in their production so they can cut production costs AND market themselves as green.

For example, in the latest issue of Wired magazine, BMW has a multi-page insert promoting their green initiatives.


RE: Sheet
By Malhavoc on 1/23/2008 3:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
You won't find it. If it was truly ones right to drive, you would not require a license. So in essence, you are granted permission to drive. Permission is not equal to right.


RE: Sheet
By Regs on 1/23/2008 4:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're right. The beauty of America and it's constitution is that it has elasticity just enough to bend to how our society grows. They are princibles we base our laws on. Our country changes with the times.

An example of a country that does not is Iran. They believe religion reigns supreme and their laws are based off some nut case with his own interpretation of the Koran.


RE: Sheet
By lumbergeek on 1/23/2008 12:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't remember anything in the Constitution that guarantees the "right" to drive a Hummer. I drive a Ram 3500 Quad cab, but it's certainly not a "right".


RE: Sheet
By Topweasel on 1/23/2008 12:43:04 PM , Rating: 3
No But both us and these companies have the right to a free market where our our purchasing trends determine how the market adapts. We have the right to to have our purchasing decisions not influenced by others. Obviously the majority of the people out there preferred performance over efficiency or the market it would have already moved into that direction. Sorry I don't like the Minority deciding what the majority gets buy whining, crying, and using mass hysteria.


RE: Sheet
By MaulBall789 on 1/23/2008 3:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
Trust me when I say that this was going to happen whether the law was passed or not. When gas prices double and triple in the next 5 - 10 years consumers will DEMAND the vehicles get far more than 35mpg. This law just gives the auto industry a boost in that direction but will be rendered moot sooner or later.


RE: Sheet
By jimbojimbo on 1/23/2008 5:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
No, they'll just complain about how much it costs them to fill up a tank but they won't change their habbits. It's always that way when prices go up. They bitch and bitch and talk about trading in their trucks but they never will.


RE: Sheet
By ChronoReverse on 1/23/2008 12:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, it's definitely your right to drive them. But that doesn't mean they can't stop making new ones.


RE: Sheet
By Oregonian2 on 1/23/2008 1:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
AFAIK they can make and sell them. AFAIK it's only their overall average that needs to make goals. They can make 1-MPG trucks/cars so long as everything else they sell (in mass quantities) are hybrid pinto's.


RE: Sheet
By ChronoReverse on 1/23/2008 2:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
Well, problem solved then, everyone should be happy =D


RE: Sheet
By ajvitaly on 1/23/2008 12:57:44 PM , Rating: 5
And it's my right to breath clean air. So.... dilemma.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 1:09:27 PM , Rating: 4
> "And it's my right to breath clean air. So.... dilemma"

How far you drive affects emissions much more than your choice of vehicle. A person burning 20 gallons/week in a 35mpg car is dirtying your air much more than someone burning 10 gallons/week in a 20 mpg car. If "clean air" really was the goal, a government-alloted quota on gas consumption would accomplish that better and simpler.

Also, remember there's a tradeoff scenario for emissions reductions systems and design parameters. While some do increase fuel effiency, most have the exact opposite effect.

Your average car of today already releases less than 1% of the emissions compared to one from 1970. "Clean air" isn't a problem associated with vehicles throughout 99% of the country now. The largest polluters by far are coal plants...and, by denying us the ability to build reasonable alternatives, environmentalists are working hand over fist to keep those in business.


RE: Sheet
By diablofish on 1/23/2008 2:06:31 PM , Rating: 3
You're right, but as many studies have shown, people are commuting from further and further away and they aren't buying more fuel-efficient cars. So as people drive from further and further to their jobs and are buying cars that aren't any more fuel-efficient, they are contributing more and more to air pollution. And as more and more people drive congestion on the roads up, the actual (not rated) fuel economy drops even further for any vehicle.

And government restrictions on fuel and many other things have occurred in this country in the past. See the history of WWII. Somehow, our parents/grandparents all managed to survive.

If you're talking about 99% on an area basis instead of a population basis, there might be some validity to your claim. But in densely populated areas like Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, and other cities with limited mass transit options, that probably isn't true (unless you're citing a conservative think-tank study as a source). Denver doesn't allow people with old cars to drive on certain days when air quality is poor.

But I agree with your larger point that improving car fuel economy isn't the entire solution: it's only a part of the solution. For example, commercial/industrial buildings in this country account for 40% of the US energy usage (www.usgbc.org). Reducing the energy those buildings use would be another part of the solution. Improving mass transit in metropolitan areas is another solution.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sheet
By diablofish on 1/23/2008 2:41:03 PM , Rating: 4
No, people aren't driving further distances with more efficient vehicles. They are driving greater distances with Hummers, Tahoes, Durangos, Jeeps, and other SUV's. They move but they don't necessarily buy new cars to offset their costs. In fact, they move to the country then use that as a reason to buy an SUV, pick-up, or other large vehicle. So CAFE will help offset this. And if CAFE wasn't changed, it would just be even worse.

Interesting you mentioned Facism since the reason given for those restrictions at the time was to provide the raw materials necessary to the US Armed Forces to fight the Facist regimes of Italy and Germany. And a lot of Germans didn't survive Hitler. But that has no bearing on conserving resources and improving the environment in this country.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By diablofish on 1/25/2008 3:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
That's a little simplistic. You aren't accounting for all the other things that influence the price of gas - for example demand in other countries like China and India play a major role here. Along with having to supply fuel for fighting two wars. To say that the relatively small drop in SUV sales is influencing the price of gas is inaccurate at best when the larger picture is considered. And the free market doesn't always provide the best solution to our problems.

So what if SUV sales are down? Most people, even at the height of SUV ownership, didn't drive SUV's. And nothing says we can't still have SUV's: they just have to get better from a fuel efficiency standpoint. So again, CAFE is a good thing by promoting improvements in our automobiles.

And you apparently ignored latency and the content of my post. I never said CAFE was improving things TODAY. The point of my post was that without making CAFE better, automobile standards wouldn't get better in the future. You free market opinion offers no guarantee that they would. CAFE mandates it which is a better solution in my humble opinion.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 2:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
How about capping the maximum prices for homes in urban areas so people won't have to commute to work? The main reason the suburbs exist is because of cheaper housing. If housing were cheaper, less people would live in the burbs. If I wanted buy the same house and property in metro LA, it would cost me $5 million plus. Even if we downsized and lived in a condo, it would STILL cost me more than $500k and that's for a place less than half the size of my current place (2000 sq ft) and with 2.5 acres less property. I won't even go into the lifestyle changes either.


RE: Sheet
By Ringold on 1/23/2008 4:03:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How about capping the maximum prices for homes in urban areas so people won't have to commute to work?


The unavoidable outcome should be obvious; immediate, pervasive shortages. Next thing that'd occur would simply be a pervasive black market to extract the market value of the residence outside the gaze of government. Black markets can be benign, but it should also be obvious that where there is a black market criminal activity of a less benign sort will soon be on the rise.

One just can't play with the free markets and expect superior outcomes.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 4:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One just can't play with the free markets and expect superior outcomes.
I agree but since we're already on the "short bus" why not cut to the chase? Less people will be able to afford new cars in the next few years because of these standards. That means MORE older cars on the roads that aren't as fuel efficient as the new one's. And for these new standards to really do their job, the older cars new to be swapped out for new one's.


RE: Sheet
By glennerd7 on 1/23/2008 1:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Define clean. Masher beat me too it because I was thinking the same thing. Air today is much "cleaner" than it was when the industrial revolution began. It has also been shown that the more particles in the air, the less there is "global warming". Check it out next time there is a huge volcanic eruption which also spews out way more green house gases than industrialization alone.


RE: Sheet
By napalmjack on 1/23/2008 2:03:27 PM , Rating: 3
Ladies...

The current production Corvette still gets 26mpg on the highway. My Olds Intrigue didn't even get that.

Not that it matters...the key is the amount of pollutants coming out. And car companies have come a REALLY long way.
Put a '69 Corvette next to a '08. Start engines. Observe the tailpipes. Any questions?


RE: Sheet
By ep97 on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 2:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
You need to read the Bill of Rights dude. We DO have rights that can't be taken away or encroached upon.


RE: Sheet
By Malhavoc on 1/23/2008 2:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Is it also your right to beat 'your wife', blow smoke into someone else's face, or shoot your neighbour?

Just because you can, does not mean you should. When someone's actions can affect the health or well-being of another or in this case others, there should be something that stops you.


RE: Sheet
By Cygni on 1/23/2008 4:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you want, and can afford, to tear ass around town in a 4 ton hunk of steel getting 1 mile per gallon doesn't mean that its whats best for everyone else.

These MPG ratings are designed to accomplish two things: A) Improving the air quality and decreasing the environmental impact of cars, and B) forcing technological improvements that will, in the long run, lead to a decreased dependency on oil.

Apparently those two positives, in your mind, are worth sacrificing for the luxury of a gas guzzling useless vehicle... but collectivity, the greater good outweighs that.

If I got off on dumping barrels of toxic waste into public swimming pools and the feds banned it, it certainly would be a curtailment of my freedoms. But it would be one that benefited the whole.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 6:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apparently those two positives, in your mind, are worth sacrificing for the luxury of a gas guzzling useless vehicle... but collectivity, the greater good outweighs that.
A&B have been happening for a few decades now. Technology means better efficiency regardless of governmental mandates. Why wouldn't anyone want more for less? If you let the market dictate the changes then it happens in a more natural flow. In other words, fuel prices go up, people want more fuel efficient cars so fuel efficient tech improves to meet demand and it's done at a rate that most people will be able to stomach (ie. afford). When you shock the body, it tends to flop around for a while before it stops. So mandating fuel efficiency too early will force the car makers to increase costs to remain profitable so they can continue to stay in business but makes their products more expensive so they can recoup their costs.

I hope none of you are under the assumption that these cars will cost the same as their gas counterparts.


RE: Sheet
By Hoser McMoose on 1/23/2008 6:19:49 PM , Rating: 1
I see absolutely no problem with that thinking, but what I *DO* see a problem with is that you end up being subsidized to drive that Dodge Ram through other people's tax dollars.

The cost of gasoline is being heavily subsidized through personal and corporate income tax. Not through any obvious and direct subsidy, but instead through 'hidden' subsidies. Several studies have been done on the 'true' cost of gasoline and they usually figure that we spend between $5 and $15/gallon for it, but only $3/gallon is paid for at the pump, the rest is paid for through income taxes.

Here are some example studies:
http://ndcf.homeip.net/ndcf/energy/NDCF_Hidden_Cos...

http://www.icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=12


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 6:29:18 PM , Rating: 1
And if you read the second article, you will see this passage:
quote:
According to CTA Director Andrew Kimbrell, "The real price of gas has been hidden from the consumer for far too long. Some of these costs including those associated with military actions in the Middle East and global warming could skyrocket in the coming years. Once the public understands how much they are really paying for gas we should see a tremendous increase in political pressure for alternatives."

You can go and thank your beloved Al Gore and Enviro-Nazi's for increasing our price of gas due to "Global Warming".

Also, the "Military Actions in the Middle East" section does not directly refer to the US having troops in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. It refers to all military confrontations - including rebels trying to bomb the Saudi refineries, as well as the pressures of Iran-Israel, just to name a few.


RE: Sheet
By Alexstarfire on 1/23/2008 6:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
You are partially right. The thing you are forgetting is that you driving that 4MPG car is affecting the entire planet, whether you believe it or not. I'm not saying anything about global warming, but we all know that pollution is bad. Also, The bill isn't killing the car, it's killing the engine, that's it. If the car needed a V8 just to move, then that's more of a design problem than anything else.

And by your thinking you'd love to see all the smoking laws removed wouldn't you, [i]because it's your right[/]. Don't even make me laugh.


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 6:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The thing you are forgetting is that you driving that 4MPG car is affecting the entire planet,

The 4MPG car may be affecting the planet - but you cannot prove that it is affecting anymore than yours is. Much has to do with how you drive, how far you drive, and how often you use the car.
quote:
The bill isn't killing the car, it's killing the engine, that's it. If the car needed a V8 just to move, then that's more of a design problem than anything else.

I hope you realize that with increased safety options, also comes an increase in weight. People will not give up the luxuries they require, and the safety options that they like, just to acheive a few more MPG's. By increasing the fuel economy, yes you must make changes to the engine, but you must also reduce weight. The 200lbs of engine weight is not going to acheive a 40% high fuel economy. You are going to HAVE to make the car smaller, and reduce safety features.

quote:
And by your thinking you'd love to see all the smoking laws removed wouldn't you, [i]because it's your right[/]. Don't even make me laugh.

Certain anti-smoking laws are stupid - especially the ones about no smoking in bars. Sure I smoke, and I can understand the part of not smoking in public places, which I agree with. In fact, I work at a hospital, and do not smoke during work hours at all, as well as before work. However, back in college, the city passed a law because the "townies" were complaining about not wanting to go into bars & restaraunts that allowed smoking &/or smoking sections. Well, the city stepped on the toes of the business owners, banned smoking, and now what happens? Half the bars closed down becuase no one went there anymore. So the people who complain about smoking in bars are stupid - because they still will not go to that bar after the law is enforced.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 7:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By increasing the fuel economy, yes you must make changes to the engine, but you must also reduce weight.
You don't have to reduce weight but it helps keep costs down. Trucks and SUV's will remain pretty heavy and they'll be required to increase their fuel efficiency by very large amount. More so than cars. You will probably see trucks and SUV's with better coefficients of drag in the near future. I see future truck and SUV sales diminishing because of expense except in areas where there are rich or well off people. Look at the current cost on a hybrid Tahoe. That should give us an idea of how much car prices in general will increase.


RE: Sheet
By Alexstarfire on 1/24/2008 1:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I wasn't really talking about a specific car, as that's hard to prove anyways. I can safely say that I get more mileage than you, but that's only part of the equation/problem. What I'm saying is simple. A 40 MPG car pollutes less than a 4 MPG car. You can't argue with that.

I feel that while we both understand that people aren't going to give up the luxuries they had, but we seem to have different views of what should be done. Reducing weight is certainly part of the solution. I believe that the big problem though is safety. Making the car safer is certainly great when a true accident occurs, but most vehicle collisions aren't accidents. What we really need to do is make the drivers drive safer. I don't think all the safety features are really needed. That of course is because most accidents are really accidents, they can be prevented.

Anyways, weight isn't the only problem, the other problem is the actual engine. No one is saying you can't have a V8, we're just saying that the engine has to get a certain amount of gas mileage. If it doesn't make the cut, then it's gone. We need more efficient engines. I'm not sure how much room we have left, but there is certainly room for improvement. We aren't even close to using up all the energy a gallon of gas has.

I don't see how bars vary for any other type of food related business. Is it because of the alcohol? The environment? I certainly don't think that law is stupid, though it doesn't even apply to me yet since I'm not 21. I shouldn't have to put up with smoke just because it's a bar and I want a drink. It is slightly stupid though. I mean, I've seen places that have a smoking and non-smoking section, completely separate from each other via a wall. They even have their own ventilation for each section, as well as entrances. Though, they do have a door between the two sections, but it's rarely used. I find that is very acceptable in my book. I was talking more in general though, than specifics.


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/24/2008 12:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I'm saying is simple. A 40 MPG car pollutes less than a 4 MPG car. You can't argue with that.

Well, technically I can argue that. Not trying to come down hard on you, but what you need to realize is that to make that sort of assumption, everyone in the world would need to be driving that same exact 40MPG car. I drive 5 miles to work, and have a new car with a 265HP V-6 motor that gets about 18MPG in the city. Another person at my work drives a car that gets about 35MPG. However, He drives about 55 miles each way to work. So in one day, I am burnging about 1/2 a gallon of gas, all while he is burning about 3 gallons. Could I drive a small car that gets 35MPG? Sure I could, but in all honesty, I dont want one of those little $hitboxes. My choice in car is what is purchased. The point being made is that a simple statistic of MPG does not really reflect how much pollution a car gives - the correct correlation on how much pollution a car gives is how many actual gallons of fuel you burn.
quote:
I don't think all the safety features are really needed. That of course is because most accidents are really accidents, they can be prevented.

Try telling the person who's son or daughter died in a car accident driving their 10yr old car that todays new safety options would not have been a good idea. Also, when in history have people resorted to something that only provides what is "needed". I amount of accidents could highly be due to the increasing amount of vehicles on the road, and increasingly congested traffic patterns. Either way, an increase in fuel economy is not going to decrease the amount of accidents - but it will reduce the amount of possible safety features one could have in the event that they did get into an accident.
quote:
We aren't even close to using up all the energy a gallon of gas has.

Perhaps not, but the technology to do so has not arrived yet either. So i think we agree on this point.


RE: Sheet
By FITCamaro on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By daftrok on 1/23/2008 12:41:35 PM , Rating: 1
I'm all for fast cars but I'm all for fuel economy and I am tired of paying 3 bucks a gallon for fuel.

Few things have to be set in motion before we can get fuel efficiency AND speed:

1) Bluetec. This is crucial because it drastically cuts down smog forming emissions from diesels thus satisfying the air and the EPA. It will finally allow us to move away from petrol engines and towards diesel.

2) Bio diesel. This will allow us to cut down smog forming emissions even further.

3) Carbon fiber. This will allow us to bring down the weight of our vehicles and at the same time the weight of the engine without having to make compromises on performance. You get the efficiency and the speed.

4) Hydraulic hybrid. This is mainly for use in big rigs, buses, etc. This is a much cheaper and effective way of boosting fuel economy up to 50% without having to design an entirely new vehicle. Imagine getting 30 mpg on your F150.

Granted we have the right to drive inefficient vehicles so long as it is not causing harm to others. Now if you don't believe in global warming that's fine, but you cannot condone smog is not good to breathe. There are parts of China and India where the air is so filthy from all the smog (in combination with hygienic conditions) that you have to wear a mask outside to avoid damaging your lungs.

So for the sake of our own health, this bill can help push the lazy car manufacturers into utilizing this technology and in time give us fast driving cars. If the Tesla is possible, anything is.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 12:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "[Bluetec] will finally allow us to move away from petrol engines and towards diesel."

I think its rather more promising to get diesel-level efficiency from a petrol engine. HCCI technology looks to eventually fill that bill.

Long term, I think it'll be a better approach than hanging the massive amount of plumbing on an engine that Bluetec involves.


RE: Sheet
By daftrok on 1/23/2008 12:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/02/09/0367...

You're just adding girth to the exhaust pipe (Giggity) it's not as obtrusive one would think, especially since these are geared towards SUVs and trucks.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 1:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
Bluetec is on cars too not just trucks.


RE: Sheet
By FITCamaro on 1/23/2008 2:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Do you make a few hundred grand a year? Because you'll need to to buy a carbon fiber car. Carbon fiber is extremely expensive. It it will remain expensive even if it was mass produced. It's complicated and time consuming to make.

Hell just a real carbon fiber hood that these ricers put on their Civics is several hundred dollars.


RE: Sheet
By jimbojimbo on 1/23/2008 6:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
Also, if people are so worried about lowering the weight of the car how about we lower the weight of the contents of the car? Two people weighing 250lbs or two people weighing 150? That's 200lbs off!


RE: Sheet
By FITCamaro on 1/23/2008 8:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
Umm...no....

While yes many people are overweight, not everyone can weigh 150 pounds. If I weighed 150 pounds I'd be a twig.


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 8:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
So this is further proof that to you, this ordeal is not really about conserving fuel. Its about getting rid of cars/trucks/suv's that you cannot afford (class warfare), getting everyone to drive what you drive & regulating what people are supposed to look like/weigh (socialism/fascism).

Thanks for clarifying, Nazi.


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/24/2008 12:11:29 AM , Rating: 2
And just an FYI - in case it wasnt noticable, i was trying to be sarcastic towards you, while proving a point to the environazis.

So dont take offense :-)


RE: Sheet
By MightyAA on 1/23/2008 2:25:25 PM , Rating: 5
You are for higher gas mileage because YOU are sick of paying for expensive gas. I can afford to pay for the gas. I can afford to commute in a good gas mileage car and own a fun gas guzzler weekend car/family hauler.

So, I'm probably plunking down a deposit on a CTS-V or M3 very soon instead of their smaller engine brethren. The CAFE standards forced my hand because I too was waffling whether to get something practical or not. But, you won't find cars like this 5 years from now, just like the lull of the '70's and '80's. The '60's hot rods were fun... the mustang II was not and the Chevelle was a joke. I'm not waiting 20 years again for technology to catch up to "feel good" laws so I can have something fun to drive.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 2:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But, you won't find cars like this 5 years from now, just like the lull of the '70's and '80's.
Yes you will, it will just cost more. We have the tech to do this, it'll just cost more money to do it. It's NOT like the 70's when we didn't have the tech and the car makers had to invent it and implement it.

If you remember, Germany and Italy were the only sources for sports cars in the 70's. Not so much anymore. You won't see cheap sports cars for a while but sports cars will still exist.

I think I made an argument in another forum that said that the rich and well off will continue to drive what they want while the common person will be the hardest hit by these new standards but others disagreed with me. The rich and well off will still be able to buy Porsche's and BMW's regardless of cost. It's cars like the Charger and Mustang that are priced where most people can afford them will be hardest hit. Those cars will see drastic changes or will be removed altogether.


RE: Sheet
By KamiXkaze on 1/27/2008 6:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
I too am looking forward to the new Camaro hopefully the CAFE standards wont kill the the new car so soon it to would be bad.

KxK


RE: Sheet
By creathir on 1/23/2008 12:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
Why should I have to do ANYTHING you tell me? Why should I not have the right to buy the vehicle I want?

Environmenatlist/socialists will be the ruin of this great nation. Thank God people will only take so much of this crap before they revolt. You want to see a landslide defeat at the polls, take away the common man's joy.

- Creathir


RE: Sheet
By eye smite on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 2:52:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
mass of society wants they get
The "mass of society" has NOT chosen!! Go look at actual cars sales and you'll see what the "mass of society" has chosen. The F150 tops the list at nearly 900,000 vehicles sold in 2007 and has topped the list for 24 years!!!! Next is the Chevy 1/2 tons followed by the Camry and Accord.

THAT is what the "mass of society" has chosen. Anything other claim is pure BS.


RE: Sheet
By BSMonitor on 1/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sheet
By IGoodwin on 1/23/2008 1:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I'm too cynical; however, the rhetoric I'm hearing has been said before for many perceived reductions in freedom.

How about seat belt laws, if I don't want to where one, that's my choice. if I want to smoke, why can't I smoke anywhere.

I like high performance cars; however, realistically, the traffic already on the roads and speed limit laws have already castrated the legal extremes of these vehicles. If I was going to complain about anything, it would be to have places where I can legally drive on the roads and use the performance a car has, until then our ‘freedom’ is only a perception.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 1:32:07 PM , Rating: 3
> "How about seat belt laws, if I don't want to where one, that's my choice."

Why shouldn't it be?

> "our ‘freedom’ is only a perception."

Perhaps that's something we should work on eh? I fail to see how restricting it further is a positive.


RE: Sheet
By jimbojimbo on 1/23/2008 6:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
"if I want to smoke, why can't I smoke anywhere."

As long as I don't have to smell it you can smoke 24/7 for all I care. If you can smoke anywhere why can't I spray mace anywhere I want?


RE: Sheet
By tdawg on 1/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 2:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "See how stupid your argument is?"

Unfortunately, it is your logic that fails logic. Property theft and "chemicals in drinking water" are clear examples of violating the rights of others.

There is no constitutional right to force your neigbor to buy less of a commodity, so that you can buy it cheaper.

> "Laws are enacted for the greater good society "

This nation was founded on the principle of individual rights and restriction of government control. Allowing police to search you, your homes, cars, and private mail without a warrant would certainly advance "the greater good". So would putting to death anyone unemployed for longer than six months. Shall we implement those measures next?


RE: Sheet
By tdawg on 1/24/2008 2:09:03 AM , Rating: 2
These are used as an example, masher, but you ignored the taxes statement and went only with what you could argue. The big picture of the statement is that the OP that I responded was basically putting his fingers in his ears and chanting, "I'm not gonna" to block out rules and laws set in place by the government.

Speaking of laws for the greater good, there is a point to what is ethical or enactable, which is why we have the Supreme Court. If you're going to use the examples you chose, you have to grant me mine as they are rooted in the same realm of "dramatic effect".


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 9:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
> "you ignored the taxes statement "

Of course. The Constitution expllictly authorizes the power to tax. That makes all the difference in the world. The other examples are ones which the Constitution does not authorize and, as such, are barred by the 10th Amendment.


RE: Sheet
By andrinoaa on 1/25/2008 1:48:04 AM , Rating: 2
Why this compulsion to quote the constitution? It was framed how many years ago, by men who probably approved of slavery and thought witchcraft was real. They had no idea about the proliferation of the gun mentality. No idea about transport beyond a slow boat to china. Sorry masher2, but I think these things need to be delt with in a 21st century way. Lots of people on this site quote loss of rights, but man, your "total freedom" actually effects others.
Example.
Man does not believe in seat belts, its against his rights! He has a crash and is crippled for life because he wasn't wearing the damn belt. A crash that statistically he could have walked out of with bruises. Who pays for his foolishness and selfishness? Are you telling me that society as a whole doesn't pay? Same with smoking, same with drugs and same with TAXES.
There is an obvious trade off, but surely, its not life threatening or big brother controlling you, type of trade off. The list goes on on.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2008 10:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
> "Why this compulsion to quote the constitution?"

It's the supreme law of the land, and the legal basis for all government.

I do wonder that, if any rights YOU felt important were infringed, you'd be so quick to dismiss the Constitution. When your favorite pop band gets banned for "inciting civil disorder", will you consider the First Amendmentment to be an outmoded concept?

> "They had no idea about the proliferation of the gun mentality"

On the contrary, they lived in a period when gun ownership was extremely high. You don't seem to understand the motivation for the Second Amendment. It was designed to ensure the civilian populace was as well-armed as the military, to prevent government tyranny, and the practice, oh-so-common in other parts of the world-- of a popular democratically-elected leader assuming a dictatorial role.

Just such a thing has happened in dozens of countries just in the last 100 years alone. Think it can't ever happen here, just because we're somehow "better"? Think again.

> "Example: Man does not believe in seat belts, its against his rights! He has a crash and is crippled for life because he wasn't wearing the damn belt"

Example: Man enjoys job as a NASCAR driver. He has a crash as a result and is crippled for life. By your logic, we should ban that dangerous activity. How about skydiving? What about pro football? Any idea how many people have gotten crippled playing it? Let's ban it also. Oh, and don't forget cheerleading....statistically, it results in more serious injuries than any other sport. What about those people who drive their families cross-country for vacations? Don't they know that's over 10X as dangerous as flying? Obviously we should ban that also.

Where do you get the idea that other people can tell you how to live your life? And what risks you can and cannot take? Talk about a Big Brother mentality!


RE: Sheet
By FITCamaro on 1/23/2008 2:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
Since when does the fuel efficiency of my car impact the greater good of society? Anyone who says low MPG vehicles are the cause of higher gas prices needs to be hit in the head with a sledge hammer.

Gas prices are higher because there's greater world demand. It's not the 90s anymore. We now have to compete for oil. Constrained supply + higher demand = higher price. Yes oil companies are making billions. But they were when the prices were low too. Not to mention all the day traders out there who have been driving the price up. I'm almost glad for the supposed "economic crisis" that has caused the price of oil to go back down.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 3:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
The refineries also control pricing of gas by not being available.


RE: Sheet
By jimbojimbo on 1/23/2008 6:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
You contradicted yourself there. Lower MPG means higher demand meaning higher price. If the demand was lower it would decrease the world demand, sure only by a little but it would still lower it.


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 6:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lower MPG means higher demand meaning higher price.

No it doesn't, technically. Less "Consumption" means lower demand. The debate has been had numerous times that a person who drives longer distances and gets high MPG can still be consuming more fuel than the person who drives less and achieves fewer MPG. Blaming the demand on fuel economy estimates are only part of the equation.
quote:
If the demand was lower it would decrease the world demand, sure only by a little but it would still lower it.

I take it you are refering to demand in the US being lower, and in turn decreasing the global demand. Unfortunately, thats not true. As other countries such as China & India increase their populations & economies, the offset of greater fuel economy is not going to decrease demand, it will just lessen the global increase - but hardly at all.

You need to remember that crude oil is not only used to gasoline. There are many other things out there that crude oil is used for, which have nothing do to with fuel economy.

Also, the real way to lessen the impact of increasing global demand, and most notably US demand, is to build more refineries and increase output. ANWR would be a fantastic start - unless you are more concerned with a few grizzly bears than the 300+ million peoples lives & dependancies.


RE: Sheet
By KamiXkaze on 1/27/2008 7:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
agreed by creating more refineries will increase supply but as you said those silly grizzly will get in the way ;)

KxK


RE: Sheet
By darkpuppet on 1/23/2008 1:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
No, the Monaro killed the GTO..

The proper way to re-introduce a classic American badge wasn't with a rebadged Aussie.

Holden's are great, but that was a real brand image eff-up.


RE: Sheet
By napalmjack on 1/23/2008 1:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about the NEW GTO, not the previous rebadge.


RE: Sheet
By MFK on 1/23/2008 1:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
I personally loved the Holden Monaro in Need For Speed Hot Pursuit II. But I think GM already killed it when they brought it over to the U.S.
Their little touches to make it 'American' failed to impress me like the Monaro did.

And the fact that they never imported the 2004 revival models to Canada pisses me off even more!


RE: Sheet
By herrdoktor330 on 1/23/2008 2:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't worry about it so much. Based on the article DailyTech hosted about GM's fuel cell Equanox from CES this year, who's to say that GM and Chrysler won't just make a monster 300bhp hydrogen car with so much torque it promises to put your neck in a brace for the rest of your life? I know that the "death" of the combustion engine and all the fuzzy memories car afficianatos have of them is going to be a sad day. But the future has promise.

Just wait about 5 years when you see the new HyHEMI system in the 2013 Dodge Charger; a punchy rear mounted hydrogen engine / rear wheel drive vehicle able to run the quarter mile in 11 seconds stock. I know that's a spoonful of science fiction. But remember that the fiction of today will become the reality of tomorrow.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 4:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
The driving experience isn't about just horsepower numbers. It's the overall package. It's visceral. Besides, a 300hp hydrogen car will be hella expensive.


RE: Sheet
By herrdoktor330 on 1/23/2008 10:36:16 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I guess I can't really say too much about it since I haven't driven a prototype to know what I'm talking about. But I'm sure the "direct from engine to wheels" method will make for a fine driving experience. As far as price goes, given time and development I'm sure prices will drop. Everything gets cheaper with time and development.

And to address the '14 Pinto comment; while quite funny, I'm sure they wouldn't be talking about this technology unless there wasn't a way to make it safe. The Equinox was said to pass impact safety standards with a re-enforced holding area for the hydrogen tanks. So I don't think we have much to worry about as long as those are protected properly. And I'm sure since this isn't the tried and true technology we're used to using, the auto industry is pulling out all stops to make sure that the technology is going to be trustworthy and not cause the chain of explosions that we would think would happen.


RE: Sheet
By darkpuppet on 1/23/2008 4:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
.... and in 2014, Ford re-introduces the Pinto brand with the Pinto Hydrogen... unleashing millions of little hindenburgs upon the world all ready waiting for the 1st innattentive driver to rear-end one.

The aftermath, visible from outterspace would be laughed at by the denizens of Brazil who are still puttering around on their ethanol powered scooters...


Funny
By Murst on 1/23/2008 12:44:03 PM , Rating: 3
Its funny how people go and post "I have a right to drive whatever I want!". Guess what? No one has taken that right away from you. If you want to drive a car that does 5 MPG, go for it. There is absolutely no law preventing you from doing so.

There will always be services that allow you to upgrade an engine. They've been around for a long time, and they're not about to go away.

Also, if there really was a market for these cars, GM and Ford would be going that route anyways. BMW doesn't meet the *current* CAFE standards, and that's why they pay fines every year (its factored into your BMW price already).

If you want to complain about anything, complain that GM and Ford are dropping your cars, or complain that people aren't buying enough of those cars right now from American manufacturers. The CAFE standards aren't really to blame for this. The lack of support (and hence money) does.




RE: Funny
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 12:49:46 PM , Rating: 1
> "If you want to drive a car that does 5 MPG, go for it. There is absolutely no law preventing you from doing so."

There is, however, a law that prevents anyone from selling you such a car. That's pretty much the same thing, now isn't it?

Your logic is equivalent to the government banning all abortion clinics, but claiming abortion is still legal.


RE: Funny
By Murst on 1/23/2008 1:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is, however, a law that prevents anyone from selling you such a car. That's pretty much the same thing, now isn't it?


What law? Are you telling me that BMWs are illegal in the US? Manufactuers can sell cars that don't meet CAFE standards. There just is a fine associated with it. GM and Ford realized that the profit from these cars (after the fine) would not justify the cost, so they dropped them. Its pretty simple economics.

There is a huge benefit of CAFE standards. If the majority of cars in the US are more fuel efficient, this reduces the demand and hence price of gasoline. The standards are designed to help ease the cost of ownership of cars for 99% of the American public. However, that 1% who does demand high-performance engines still has access to them, except that they need to pay slightly more. I just don't see what the problem here is.

You seem to think that manufacturing cars that do not meet CAFE standards is illegal. That's just simply incorrect, and you should stop trying to spread that information.


RE: Funny
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 1:18:43 PM , Rating: 3
> "Manufactuers can sell cars that don't meet CAFE standards. There just is a fine associated with it."

Which means most automakers won't make those cars. Which equates to a de facto ban...just as raising the cost of an abortion to $25K is a ban in all reality.

It's still a law which punishes certain kinds of behavior. The only difference is you pay the fine before you commmit the crime, rather than afterwards.

> " If the majority of cars in the US are more fuel efficient, this reduces the demand and hence price of gasoline"

Where does it stop though? Why not mandate how far people can live from work, to cut total mileage? Or the number of pleasure trips they can take each year? Or the maximum size house they can own if they burn heating oil? Or the number of made-from-oil plastic toys one can buy?

This country ALREADY has a very effective system for regulating the use of all resources. It's called supply and demand. People buy more gasoline, the price rises...they drive less, and buy more fuel-efficient cars.

The government's meddling in that system is not only contrary to freedom, it's ultimately much less effiicient than simply letting the market do it.


RE: Funny
By Murst on 1/23/2008 1:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which means most automakers won't make those cars.

It means some automakers will not make the cars. Others will continue to do so.
quote:
It's still a law which punishes certain kinds of behavior.

Yes, but it is also a very popular law that doesn't actually restric any rights while at the same time improving the quality for nearly everyone in the country.
quote:
Where does it stop though?

Just like any other regulation/law, it should stop before any rights are infringed. No rights were infringed upon here, while your other examples could be seen as violating the right to freedom or property.

Look... I don't really like laws like this either from a philosophical point of view, but from a practical point of view, it is certainly a step in the right direction. This country needs major energy reform, and it is pretty obvious that the business side is not willing nor capable of doing this. Americans need regulations and laws that promote lower energy usage (such as these CAFE standards). We need more nuclear power plants. We need to drill for oil. We need to reduce our dependance on foreign energy. The CAFE limits are a step in this direction. Now the government needs to make more steps to tackle the other energy needs. Businesses will not do it, no matter how much we want them to.


RE: Funny
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 1:51:30 PM , Rating: 3
> "...is also a very popular law that doesn't actually restric any rights"

You missed all the posts carefully explaining just how it does restrict your rights. It equates to a rather large government-imposed fine for buying any car which doesn't meet the standard.

And yes, the law is "popular", because many uneducated people believe that free lunches exist. The laws which prevented the US from expanding pumping and refining capacity were popular also....the result of $3/gallon was very UNpopular, however.

> "Look... I don't really like laws like this either from a philosophical point of view..."

Good! We're in agreement on this.

> "but from a practical point of view, it is certainly a step in the right direction"

Is it? History has shown us that the free market is a more efficienct and powerful force for bringing about change. Without CAFE standards, the price of gasoline will continue to rise. That will enable alternatives to become economic, and eventually replace gasoline entirely.

Also, don't forget the example from the 1980s. More efficient cars simply motivated people to move even further from work, which eventually led to higher consumption patterns.


RE: Funny
By Murst on 1/23/2008 2:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It equates to a rather large government-imposed fine for buying any car which doesn't meet the standard.

It equates to a sin tax, similar to alcohol and cigarettes. As a person who pays these "taxes", I don't mind. A tax like this by government is actually my preferred kind of tax. It is way better than the income taxes we're paying right now. People are still given a choice in that they can buy more fuel efficient cars, or pay a premium for high performance cars. This doesn't seem very illogical to me.

quote:
the result of $3/gallon

That result came about mainly because of other bad decisions. However, at least this is a step that is aimed at lowering the price per gallon.

quote:
History has shown us that the free market is a more efficienct and powerful force for bringing about change

You're right. But it doesn't mean that the government can't steer them in the right direction, especially in times like this where our economy is on the brink of disaster partially because of our energy needs. Free market isn't always the fastest way to change. Exxon will most likely report a $40B *profit* on Thursday. Their investment into alternative energy is next to nothing however... they want to keep the status quo.


RE: Funny
By napalmjack on 1/23/2008 10:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it doesn't mean that the government can't steer them in the right direction


I trust supply and demand far more than I would ever trust the government to steer them in the right direction.


RE: Funny
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 9:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The standards are designed to help ease the cost of ownership of cars for 99% of the American public.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. The tech required to make the majority of cars meet the mandate will cost quite a bit. Look at the current prices of hybrids and diesels. Not to mention in 2020, people are going to want 2020 content in their cars not 2007 content. In other words, we're going to want more fuel efficiency ALONG with more safety features, more leather, high tech navigation, etc etc.

The car makers also want to reduce the weight of future cars so to incorporate more features and safety along with fuel efficiency there IS going to be extra cost. This stuff isn't going to be free. And people will be complaining about the increased cost.


RE: Funny
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 1:16:03 PM , Rating: 1
There's always the option of buying a used car with a big v8 and mod it all you want and enslave yourself more to the gas pump. I don't care about the environment as much as I hate being a slave to the gas pump with no other practical options available. Give me a damn EV1, I'll drive it.


RE: Funny
By Verran on 1/23/2008 1:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your logic is equivalent to the government banning all abortion clinics, but claiming abortion is still legal.

I really liked this analogy because it's actually a VERY strong correlation. Both are very heated debates with strong support on both sides, and both put personal liberties in the hands of government policy.

What I find amusing is that if we were to draw ourselves a nice little Venn diagram, I bet we'd see some serious overlap in the Pro-V8 and Anti-Abortion sections. It's just funny to me that when someone loses a "right" that they valued, it's treated like an unprecedented travesty that calls for revolt. But when a right is removed that they don't personally exercise, they don't want to hear any complaining. It just seems like the same people that seem to love the saying "If you don't like it, get out" are now screaming "OMG, the government can't do that!"

The fact is no rights are being removed here. You will have the same rights a year from now that you do today. The right to buy any car you can find. Used or new, it's up to you. The right that's being modified is the right for the makers to make what they want. And if you think this is the first time this sort of regulation has been mandated by the government onto our "free" (lol) market, you're oblivious.


RE: Funny
By Murst on 1/23/2008 2:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I really liked this analogy because it's actually a VERY strong correlation

Except that CAFE standards don't ban anything, where his example banned clinics.

It would be more like not forcing health insurance companies to pay for the abortion, so it basically costs the patient more. Or wait... we already do that.


RE: Funny
By Verran on 1/23/2008 2:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except that CAFE standards don't ban anything, where his example banned clinics.

Agreed 100%

I liked it in the sense that it allowed me to "put the shoe on the other foot", so to speak. The fact that the other example is worse just makes the point even stronger :)

I just enjoy seeing the tables turn when a different set of "rights" are infringed. Suddenly the cries of "if you don't like it, leave" turn into "revolt!"


RE: Funny
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 2:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "Suddenly the cries of "if you don't like it, leave" turn into "revolt!" "

While I appreciate your insinuation of hypocrisy, you'll never hear a "if you don't like it, leave" response from me, not to anyone concerned with government infringement of personal freedoms.


RE: Funny
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 2:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "Except that CAFE standards don't ban anything, where his example banned clinics"

As has already said, were a state to pass a $25K surcharge on all abortions, or, say, a $5M licensing fee for all clinics, the Supreme Court would judge it a de facto ban on abortion in a heartbeat.

CAFE standards are a ban on affordable, low-mileage vehicles. Some vehicles which don't adhere to the ban will still be produced...but at a substantially higher price point.


RE: Funny
By diablofish on 1/23/2008 3:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, when I attend classic car shows and hot rod shows, there are plenty of people looking to sell their 5 MPG cars. And these sales are perfectly legal.


RE: Funny
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 5:10:18 PM , Rating: 3
Are you seriously standing by this inane argument? The supply of such used cars is finite. Worse, once CAFE standard effectively ban their manufacture, that supply inevitably decreases.

Trying to claim this isn't a ban because someone can always "buy a used car" is incredibly weak.

Cars don't last forever. And even if they did, a government law that effectively keeps people fixing up 1970s-era vehicles forever is surely much worse than producing modern versions of those cars. Do you not realize that many of those cars put out some 1,000X the harmful pollution of modern vehicle?


RE: Funny
By diablofish on 1/23/2008 5:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously ignoring that part of the truth for the betterment of your own position?

Yeah, the supply of those cars is finite. And you know what, the OVERWHLEMING majority of people aren't interested in them at all anyway. My point, Mr. Asher, was that if you REALLY want a 5 MPG car, you can still get one. No law is going to stop you from getting one should you have the means. To say otherwise is simply untrue.

But, despite your posts disagreeing with the position of driving privileges, it's not a right to have one. If it is my "right" to have one, I insist you honor my rights and get me one since I don't have the means to purchase my "right" for myself.

See how ridiculous that sounds?


RE: Funny
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 6:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My point, Mr. Asher, was that if you REALLY want a 5 MPG car, you can still get one. No law is going to stop you from getting one should you have the means.

Ahh you see, but the bill that was passed has changed what the "means" are to be able to get & afford what you want.

Simple business & economics prove that the more of a certain product you produce, the less the overall costs are, and the lower the price. Since the bill forces the automakers to produce less cars that achieve a lower fuel consumption, it is goign to increase the price of the car.

I have no problems with cars increasing in price because of an increase in quality & features, but increasing in price due to a silly act of congress is just plain stupid.


What a farce
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 11:50:44 AM , Rating: 1
They've always been able to make these engines and get even better gas mileage than they're projecting for these new engines. They've never cared to make them because there was no profit in it. What the auto industry is fertilizing with now is just that, fertilizer. I'm betting you all buy into their claimes too. Oh well.




RE: What a farce
By Christopher1 on 1/23/2008 12:04:01 PM , Rating: 1
Not me. I have known for many years, since seeing the man with the water powered engine (made hydrogen) that there was something seriously wrong with our auto industry if they could not even met 30 mile per gallon standards.


RE: What a farce
By FITCamaro on 1/23/2008 12:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a matter of not being able to make the engines. It's a matter of cost.


RE: What a farce
By sweetsauce on 1/23/2008 12:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think they've milked the combustion engine long enough don't you think? Besides, we all know they will get government subsidies to "offset" the cost of making more efficient engines. Expecting 30mph from an engine isn't asking much. Expecting 500hp and 30mpg from an engine is.


RE: What a farce
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 12:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
You're going to wave that flag? That whole statement is as full of shit as a xmas goose. The cost of intially producing any product is always high until it starts selling and the price comes down. OMG like Intel and AMD and holy dog shit batman HDTV's.


RE: What a farce
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 7:16:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The cost of intially producing any product is always high until it starts selling and the price comes down.
Very true but this isn't the usual market driven progression where the car makers are already accounting for the extra costs by streamlining processes or finding materials to make their production more cost effective. This is a forced change and that's going to cost US extra and it will cost US extra for longer than usual. Like I said before, I can afford it but lots of people here (and elsewhere) won't be able to and that will make the transition to mostly fuel efficient cars take longer as the people with lighter wallets will just refrain from buying a new car.


RE: What a farce
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: What a farce
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 7:26:03 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, more sarcasm, you win the kool aid and moon pie award.


RE: What a farce
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 12:15:08 PM , Rating: 5
> "They've always been able to make these engines and get even better gas mileage "

Err, every major automaker *already* makes several cars that exceed the new CAFE standards. Problem is, people don't buy them.


RE: What a farce
By Chris Peredun on 1/23/2008 12:38:20 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Err, every major automaker *already* makes several cars that exceed the new CAFE standards. Problem is, people don't buy them.

Johnny, tell the man what he's won!

If people wanted to buy small cars with low-output engines, they would. The average consumer wants more power, more size, more luxury.

If you can convince people to drive someone smaller - by all means, feel free. Just don't expect to be able to legislate it into their hearts.


RE: What a farce
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 12:54:08 PM , Rating: 1
We as Americans need to change our standards then don't we. You know what I see everyday out of these big trucks and high powered cars and it's only gotten worse and worse over the last 8 yrs or more is everyone doing 70 in 55mph zone. Doing 85 in a 70, cause OMG QQ BBQ we don't have enough time to get everything done that we want to. So lets go faster and break more laws and use less common sense, we have the vehicle to do it in. I hope they mandate an electronic governor on cars like Cali did with thermostats that cuts the throttle at 70mph just to piss people off with no common sense. God knows there's plenty of them out there, that's all I've gotten on the phone doing tech support all these yrs.


RE: What a farce
By Chris Peredun on 1/23/2008 1:08:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
We as Americans need to change our standards then don't we.

Define "We." If you mean "Me, and those who think like me" - well, feel free. You will find that influencing someone else's opinion requires more than legislation.


RE: What a farce
By eye smite on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: What a farce
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 1:30:16 PM , Rating: 3
> "if you want to stay stubborn, close minded, and stuck in the rut of the unchanging individualism..."

This nation was built by stubborn, unchanging individualism. It would be good to remember that.

> "I for one am tired of being literally a slave to the gas pump to live in society"

Why not convince your government to allow us to drill for oil here in the US then? Even without extra oil, a few extra refineries would drop the price of gas dramatically. Since we haven't built a new refinery in the US in over 30 years, we've had to begin importing not just oil, but refined gas from overseas. That's very expensive.


RE: What a farce
By eye smite on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: What a farce
By Chris Peredun on 1/23/2008 1:48:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, I want more than a monopoly of oil and gas no matter where it comes from. I live in the south, give me a car I can plug in and charge and drive where I need to when I need to. I don't drive cross country and my drive to work is just under 25 miles. God what does it take to get it through your heads that we're all slaves to gasoline.

Feel free to buy a lightweight vehicle and convert it to electric then. Your warm climate and short commuting distance makes you a perfect candidate. It's been done with cars as recent as a 2007 Yaris.

The reason we're all "slaves to gasoline" is because there isn't currently a viable alternative.


RE: What a farce
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 3:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think I stated that in a previous post on this article, but thank you Captain Obvious.


RE: What a farce
By Ringold on 1/23/2008 4:20:59 PM , Rating: 1
I like how you completely skipped over the fact America was founded on that idea of individualism, and skipped right to the anti-"monopoly" rant.

quote:
I live in the south


If by South you mean parts of Florida, okay. Otherwise, my apologies, but those with a profound desire for the federal government to engage in massive social engineering aren't allowed south of the Mason-Dixon line. At least, in the good old days (ie, 1860s).

Even today, demographic tends show that Democrats and Republican's tend less and less to mix in the same areas. Statistical curiosity, or rapidly deepening cultural divide?

Luckily for you, Gettysburg and Lee's whole campaign in the North didn't go so well for your neighbors.


RE: What a farce
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 7:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We as Americans need to change our standards then don't we.
The only person you can change is yourself. With others, you can only suggest. Example: one of the differences between a 40 year old woman and a 20 year old woman is that the 40 year old knows she CAN'T change her boyfriend/husband. The 20 year old won't realize that for another 20 years. ;)


RE: What a farce
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 9:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope they mandate an electronic governor on cars like Cali did with thermostats that cuts the throttle at 70mph just to piss people off with no common sense.
The same reason the government won't do that is the same reason they won't mandate fuel efficient cars. There's no votes in it.


RE: What a farce
By jbzx86 on 1/23/2008 12:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
If the consumers would by cars that are small, light-weight and aerodynamic, they would build them. They spend a lot of money determining what people will buy and then design that vehicle.


i doubt it was CAFE standards that did this
By ElFenix on 1/23/2008 11:55:50 AM , Rating: 2
they don't go into place until 2020. that's more than a decade from now, and the standards aren't going to be met by 300 horsepower V6s running on E10. northstar was dropped because spending money on developing that engine is probably better spent on the V6. the V6 is a much higher volume engine and so it's just sensible to put the dollars where they'd be most effective.

despite the lack of torque, consumers all these years have been taught to look at horsepower, so they don't see much benefit in moving to the northstar. further, they've been conned into thinking that V8s are gas guzzling while similarly powerful V6s aren't. so that still comes down to where dollars are better spent.

the proof is in the pudding: infiniti has (basically) two engines. they sell very few V8s and a lot of VQs. for the vast majority of consumers, the difference in driving performance between the FX35 and FX45 (and the M35/M45) just isn't worth the added expense that a low-volume engine entails.




By eye smite on 1/23/2008 11:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
As I said in a previous post it's all a farce, and people will buy right into it.


RE: i doubt it was CAFE standards that did this
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 12:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
> "they don't go into place until 2020. that's more than a decade from now"

So? The automotive industry moves slow. The process of designing and introducing a new engine takes close to a decade. And automakers need to try to meet the standard *before* it takes effect, else they risk being caught short when the time comes.

> "...and the standards aren't going to be met by 300 horsepower V6s running on E10"

You're looking at it the wrong way. Every engine doesn't have to meet the standard. However, since its a fleet average (a harmonic mean, to be precise), improving the efficiency of any engine helps meet the goal...even if that particular engine exceeds it.


RE: i doubt it was CAFE standards that did this
By ElFenix on 1/23/2008 1:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
you just said that the auto industry moves slow to refute my stance that the automakers did not make a quick decision based on the new CAFE standards passed less than a month ago. rather, this was a decision that was likely in the making due to market conditions that they predict will happen over the next couple of years. right. good use of logic there.

and i know how CAFE works, thank you very much.


By Hoser McMoose on 1/23/2008 6:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you on this. Masher is correct, car companies DO move slowly, they don't make knee-jerk decisions on new regulations passed a month ago.

My personal guess is that higher gas prices have more to do with a goal of better fuel economy than new CAFE regulations do. Gas prices have been going up for the past 4 years quite substantially and it IS changing buying patterns of consumers. Buying a vehicle that only gets 15mpg is a much bigger hit on the old pocket book then it used to be!


By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 9:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
It's far from a kneejerk reaction. Do you honestly believe Ford and GM had no advance plans or notice of the upcoming CAFE change? It was passed by the Senate last June, and has been bandied about since gas prices began rising half a decade ago.

Just as the US has discussed raising CAFE years before they actually took action, automakers have for years discussed contingency plans if it in fact occurred.


RE: i doubt it was CAFE standards that did this
By HammerZ on 1/23/2008 2:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
It does not take a decade to redesign an engine. With the CAD tools that we have today, it literally takes 6 months to a year to design an engine and have it ready for full production in about 2 years. I see no technological engine advancements mentioned in this article to warrant such a long design process. Direct Injection is nothing new. Neither is variable valve/timing changes.

This article is trying to sensationalize the 2020 CAFE mandate that just happens to coincide with some project cuts. These types of project changes happen all the time in the industry with a change in the market demand. The reason for the cuts most likely has to do w/ the projected gas price increase in the next few years than it does w/ CAFE. In most instances (with the exception "special" purpose vehicles...aka sports car), gas consumption is proportional to vehicle weight. This article is merely a wishful attempt at creating a story.


By Spuke on 1/23/2008 10:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see no technological engine advancements mentioned in this article to warrant such a long design process. Direct
Never heard of the Volt? You think that will be the only car of its kind? You think the government will just stop creating new CAFE standards? Remember the new standard includes trucks and SUV's too and it will take more than direct injection to get them past 20 mpg COMBINED like the new CAFE requires. There WILL be new technology required like HCCI for example to get that Camry or Accord ABOVE 35 mpg. Remember the pedestrian cars are going to have to go above the mandate to balance out the less efficient trucks and SUV's. And since the only eco car that sells well is the Corolla, the Accords and Camry's are going to be the frontrunner's of fuel efficiency NOT cars like the Focus, Kia's and stuff.

And none of this will be cheap.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 9:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
> "With the CAD tools that we have today, it literally takes 6 months to a year to design an engine "

No. A small design change takes 6 months to a year, then additional time to deploy. An entirely new powertrain takes far longer than that.

Take Ford's 3.5L EcoBoost V6, for example. It began development in 2003. It was first deployed in a concept MKR in 2007, and it won't hit the first commercial vehicle until 2009. Widespread deployment among multiple models will begin in 2010, with the effects seen on fleet mileage perhaps a year after that.


RE: i doubt it was CAFE standards that did this
By napalmjack on 1/23/2008 12:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think that all this was a coincidence?


RE: i doubt it was CAFE standards that did this
By ElFenix on 1/23/2008 2:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
the timing of the announcement might not be, but this has probably been in the works for some time, with marketing doing studies of how well V8s will sell over the next couple of years in the luxury market segments cadillac is looking at.

chrysler, being private, would have the ability to turn on a dime (for a giant company, at least), so their decision could be driven by CAFE.

in short, CAFE standards in 2020 are not a reason to stop selling/developing profitable engines in 2008 (which profit could be used to develop whatever will be necessary to meet the 2020 CAFE standards).


RE: i doubt it was CAFE standards that did this
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 2:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "with marketing doing studies of how well V8s will sell "

The Northstar engine has consistently been one of GM's most popular among consumers.

> "CAFE standards in 2020 are not a reason to stop selling/developing profitable engines in 2008 "

They didn't stop selling the engine. They stopped development on a new version of it. And yes, it was driven entirely by CAFE. Engine R&D is expensive, and takes years of sales to recoup. Why design a new engine that won't be out until 2014 or so, if you have stop selling it in 5 years?


By ElFenix on 1/23/2008 4:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
and yet
quote:
Cadillac spokesman Kevin Smith said, " We've really seen the V-6 become the predominant engine in sales on the (2008) STS because it's so close in power to the V-8."

so, even if the northstar has been one of the most popular in the past (when it was about the only engine caddy had), it doesn't appear to be as popular going forward.

quote:
They didn't stop selling the engine. They stopped development on a new version of it. And yes, it was driven entirely by CAFE. Engine R&D is expensive, and takes years of sales to recoup. Why design a new engine that won't be out until 2014 or so, if you have stop selling it in 5 years?

are you dense? i said development. and i have to imagine the engine was fairly far along because they planned on building it next year. not 2014. and as you said, CAFE doesn't mean they'd have to stop selling it.

after talking about how slow car makers are, i can't see how you think that something announced on january 3rd was due entirely to the CAFE standards passed on december 19. especially when the cadillac spokesperson says the northstar isn't that popular of an engine.


RE: i doubt it was CAFE standards that did this
By napalmjack on 1/23/2008 2:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
Cadillac has been trying to rival BMW's 5- and 7-series. This is going to be quite a blow for them, because they won't be able to win over customers who are used to European V8 luxury sedans with their V6. No matter how good of an engine it is (and it IS good), it still will be 2 cylinders short in the eyes of the potential customer.

As far as the timing goes, Bob Lutz has been trying to get a RWD sedan ever since the success of the 300. This was no coincidence.


By ElFenix on 1/23/2008 4:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
as profitable as the 7 series and S class are, if this was really worth GM's time, they'd be able to take the hit. BMW and merc sure do (they've never been in compliance with CAFE, iirc). a very low volume luxo barge simply isn't worth GM's time or money. it isn't worth nissan's (they dropped the Q45 after years of trying to break into that market) or honda's (they've never competed in that market) time either.

most 5 series are sold with the I6. most E-class, i bet, are sold with a V6. they think that they're not going to be losing enough customers to justify the new northstar engine.


By Mongooose on 1/23/2008 12:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
more torque has a much better chance at getting better mileage than a little less horsepower and a lot less torque.

I currently drive an 04 Ford f150 2wd v-6 and only average 16-17 MPG highway and 14-16 in town. My old 97 Suburban v-8 4x4 average 17.5 - 18.5 highway and 15-17 in town. Now how hard my right foot pressed did make a bigger difference in mileage with v-8, but I usually am a more mild driver. I sure miss the Suburban but at 210,000 miles my wife seemed to think we needed to sell it and get some thing newer, still miss it and see it driving around town occasionally...

Now the old 84 Monte Carlo I rebuilt the 305 some minor work to tune more for torque than horsepower and was able to get 24-26 highway miles without an over drive transmission, no it wasn't the fastest off the line but was still a blast to drive, and still dearly missed to this day. I would love to have had the money to see what fuel injection and an overdrive tranny would have added up to on the mileage.

Moral of the story more torque and numerically lower gears can make the best gas mileage, But yes you have to keep your foot out of the v-8. Why do you think a lot of the manufacturers are looking at diesels more (they are just harder = more expensive, to get cleaner emissions)



By Chris Peredun on 1/23/2008 11:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
The anger over the Ford Probe being the "Next Mustang" would surely seem like a wet Roman Candle compared to the outrage if the next-generation Corvette has any fewer than eight cylinders.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/23/2008 11:49:28 AM , Rating: 3
True, but the turbo'd 3.5 liter Ford V6 has more HP and torque than the V8 in the Mustang GT.

Yeah, it's not a V8, but still...


By Chris Peredun on 1/23/2008 11:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
True, but the turbo'd 3.5 liter Ford V6 has more HP and torque than the V8 in the Mustang GT.


And a ProCharged LS1 makes the both of them look like a Kia Rio by comparison. ;)


By Lonyo on 1/23/2008 1:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
Ford and GM already have a lot of European brands used to making turbo'd and diesel engines, so you'd think it would be quite easy to think of adapting some existing solutions for the US market.


By Chris Peredun on 1/23/2008 1:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ford and GM already have a lot of European brands used to making turbo'd and diesel engines, so you'd think it would be quite easy to think of adapting some existing solutions for the US market.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."


By BVT on 1/23/2008 1:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
I believe you mean the change from a 5.0 to a 4.6 litre engine


By Chris Peredun on 1/23/2008 1:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe you mean the change from a 5.0 to a 4.6 litre engine

No, I mean the incident in the mid-80's where Ford wanted to kill off the Mustang and suggested the Mazda-derived FWD Probe as the replacement. A few hundred thousand angry letters caused Ford to change their mind.


By Spuke on 1/23/2008 10:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
The Corvette will remain a V8. It's production numbers are too low to have a dent in the overall CAFE. It may not be the same V8 they have today but it will be a V8. My guess is a bit smaller displacement with maybe forced induction.

You can bet they're working on it right now.


The reason it has come to this....
By superunknown98 on 1/23/2008 5:45:46 PM , Rating: 1
Is because the average person does not have direct knowledge of what is best for them. When was the last time you personally took some sort of measuring device and calculated the oil reserves on earth? 100 years ago cocaine, heroin, and tobacco were all good for you. Now thanks to the research from groups of people, not everyone has to find out themselves. Most people are either uneducated or just don't care what happens to anyone else. This is why we need government regulation.

As it pertains to oil, most people are uninformed or scared of change and therefore will never (given a choice) buy anything that runs on a different source of energy. People will exclaim "I wish I had a car that never needed it's tank filled." Then give them and electric or nuclear car and watch in amazement as they say "What if the batteries explode or the reactor melts down."

The government isn't taking away your freedoms, they are merely trying to point the masses in a better direction. Ever have to force a child to take medication? Even though it's good for them they don't want to. You have to force them. This is our medication from the money grubbing oil companies. Our government is nice enough to let the public buy products that do not meet requirements, but at a higher price. After all why should everyone have to accept dirty air just because you want a huge engine.

What people should really be asking is why can't companies create engines with more power and better efficiency? we certainly don't accept this in the computing field. Ever wish Microsoft had just kept adding on to windows 3.1? How about 50 voodoo 2's instead of a 8800GTX. I mean why innovate when you can just keep making everything bigger.




RE: The reason it has come to this....
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 6:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is because the average person does not have direct knowledge of what is best for them.

Ahh, but socialism will fix that, won't it?
quote:
When was the last time you personally took some sort of measuring device and calculated the oil reserves on earth?

Seeing as how there is no scientific answer of how much, or how long it will last, no one has. In fact, there are scientists out there who are arguing that oil is not actually a fossil fuel, but something that the earth actually generates on its own and a renewable natural resource. Not saying its correct, but just showing how nothing has been proven.
<