Obama Administration Poised to Establish Single National CAFE and Emissions Standards

[mkrishnan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/business/19emissions.html?hp

The White House would not divulge details, but environmental advocates and industry officials briefed on the program said that the president would grant California’s longstanding request to implement its tailpipe standards. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have said they intend to apply the same rules. That request had been denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.

Yet Mr. Obama is planning to go further, effectively issuing a single mileage rule for both fuel economy and emissions that matches California’s strictest-in-the-nation standard.

Under that new standard, the national fleet mileage rule for cars would be roughly 42 miles a gallon in 2016. Light trucks would have to meet a fleet average of slightly more than 26.2 miles a gallon by 2016.

“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign, a group that has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards with the goal of curbing the heat-trapping gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.”

Industry officials spoke on condition of anonymity about the program because they said they did not want to comment publicly in advance of the White House announcement.

If this works, it'll be boom-boom great. :) Kudos to the industry for supporting this in return for a single standard and timetable, and kudos to California for accepting the idea of a national standard. This has the potential to really spur market innovation in cars and trucks, leading to more interesting things to buy and keep the car manufacturers in business, and at the same time really helping the environment.

Add a more aggressive, long-term plan to get low efficiency and high emissions cars off the road more quickly, and I would be a very happy camper.

[leekohler]

Definitely a good thing! GObama! :D

[Zombie Acorn]

Im not sure about having to bail out car companies and at the same time imposing tougher regulations on them. The market is slowly moving towards more efficient cars with rising gas prices anyways.

[Ntombi]

Is it better to wait another several years? Nope, do it now. They have to change their business model anyway, may as well make the cars more efficient at the same time.

Me? I'm waiting for more cars like the Tesla. I'm drooling over the Model S.

[Zombie Acorn]

Is it better to wait another several years? Nope, do it now. They have to change their business model anyway, may as well make the cars more efficient at the same time.

Me? I'm waiting for more cars like the Tesla. I'm drooling over the Model S.

It will be if we put them out of business (again) and have to support them. If the government would pick a technology and go forward with incentives the corporations would follow. I believe GM was the company that told the gov. that they could retool one time and that they just needed to pick a direction.

I personally believe that electricity will win out because it can be derived from so many different natural sources hydro, solar, wind. If we could get battery life up with some new tech we will be good.

[mactastic]

Wait, I thought Obama was just like Bush? :confused:

[Zombie Acorn]

Wait, I thought Obama was just like Bush? :confused:

He probably would have been blamed for the failure of the car industry if he would have, not a doubt in my mind. :D

*not a Bush fan, just so we don't get confused here*

[mkrishnan]

I personally believe that electricity will win out because it can be derived from so many different natural sources hydro, solar, wind. If we could get battery life up with some new tech we will be good.

The problem, I think, with this is twofold. First, we've had means and incentive to increase the renewability of our electricity for decades and haven't done it. Even among countries that have both the environmental consciousness and the geographical positioning to make renewable energy sources, there are only a very few, and no really populous countries, that thrive on little non-renewable energy and use mostly renewable resources. I don't think it's realistic to expect the addition of the substantial burden of cars on the electrical grid to have the unforeseen result of radically changing this.

Second, there just isn't international consensus on a single technology. Diesel is at least as promising as electric cars, if not more so, in achieving renewability. Incentivizing US makers to pursue plug-in hybrids and move further in the direction of electricity has the adverse consequence of making them less globally competitive in Europe as well as in many developing countries that need efficient, clean cars but cannot be expected to quickly implement a power grid to support them. That is, I think this idea goes against your very idea of wanting the automakers to be resistant to changes in American politics causing them to tank again. To do that, they need to develop back into globally competitive companies. They can't do that tailoring to a single technology that will be applicable, in the next 30 years, to... what, less than 15% of the population of the world?

[SactoGuy18]

If you're the Ford Motor Company, talk about great timing.

Just in time for the new standards, Ford will be introducing these two models in 2010:

2011 Ford Fiesta (five-door hatchback shown here):

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/news/auto_shows/2008_beijing_auto_show_auto_shows/production_debuts/2009_ford_fiesta_for_china_auto_shows/1332858-1-eng-US/2009_ford_fiesta_for_china_auto_shows_featured_item.jpg

Here's a picture of the new Fiesta four-door sedan, which will arrive about a year after the hatchbacks arrive:

http://www.yosax.com/car_images/ford-fiesta-sedan.jpg

2011 Ford Focus (as previewed by Ford Iosis MAX concept car):

http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif

http://www.stock888.org/Album/Geneva2009/FordIosisMaxConcept/_ford_iosis_max_concept_01.jpg

[Zombie Acorn]

^ ^
I like the two door fiesta better, they should have gotten a better name though. They reviewed it on top gear, I suggest anyone interested watch the episode.

http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/fiesta_rsw.jpg

[Ugg]

The problem, I think, with this is twofold. First, we've had means and incentive to increase the renewability of our electricity for decades and haven't done it. Even among countries that have both the environmental consciousness and the geographical positioning to make renewable energy sources, there are only a very few, and no really populous countries, that thrive on little non-renewable energy and use mostly renewable resources. I don't think it's realistic to expect the addition of the substantial burden of cars on the electrical grid to have the unforeseen result of radically changing this.

Second, there just isn't international consensus on a single technology. Diesel is at least as promising as electric cars, if not more so, in achieving renewability. Incentivizing US makers to pursue plug-in hybrids and move further in the direction of electricity has the adverse consequence of making them less globally competitive in Europe as well as in many developing countries that need efficient, clean cars but cannot be expected to quickly implement a power grid to support them. That is, I think this idea goes against your very idea of wanting the automakers to be resistant to changes in American politics causing them to tank again. To do that, they need to develop back into globally competitive companies. They can't do that tailoring to a single technology that will be applicable, in the next 30 years, to... what, less than 15% of the population of the world?

I have to agree with ZA that the future of the automobile is with electricity. Hydrogen just isn't feasible, diesel is fraught with all the perils that petrol is and there simply aren't any other viable options.

Spain, Portugal, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands are all heavily supporting renewable electricity schemes. I hardly think they're collectively insignificant.

[yg17]

I'm sorry, but those new Fords are fugly. Much like the current Fords.

If there's one thing the American car companies have never been good at, well, besides fuel economy, build quality and reliability, it's design :D

[CalBoy]

I object to CAFE standards on the basis that they don't work. :p

No, seriously, they don't. We have the poorest emissions rates of the developed world despite having some of the most stringent standards. The reason is we've left no reason for the average person to make more environmentally conscience choices when they buy a car (since car companies spread the cost of CAFE conforming across every model, not just those that cost the most to conform to).

Instead we need to tax fuels that pollute more at the point of sale. The consumers will actually weigh their choices in a way that is beneficial to the environment, and they will demand cleaner cars in order to minimize their tax burden. It's worked for every other nation so I see no reason why it shouldn't work here.

As for the future of cars, I think I'm in agreement with Zombie Acorn and Ugg in that the long term solution is electric cars. They will continue to get better and we will be able to generate more and more electricity from clean and renewable sources as time goes on. Plus any sort of engine that requires internal combustion is inherently less efficient since most of the energy is lost to heat, which really only leaves hydrogen, an option that doesn't seem to have gone very far in its development despite the fact that it's been talked about and researched for a respectable amount of time now.

[Zombie Acorn]

Instead we need to tax fuels that pollute more at the point of sale. The consumers will actually weigh their choices in a way that is beneficial to the environment, and they will demand cleaner cars in order to minimize their tax burden. It's worked for every other nation so I see no reason why it shouldn't work here.


Now we just need to find a group of politicians that want to end their careers trying to promote new fuel technology. :D

Although I think your solution would work and is probably the best solution that involves a tax or regulation, it would be political suicide in the US in my opinion. People have already forgotten that gas was 4/gallon+ last year, if it would have stayed like that for a few years I think we could have seen some drastic changes.

I am not in it for environmental issues though, I just do not like our dependence on oil.

[mactastic]

I object to CAFE standards on the basis that they don't work. :p

No, seriously, they don't. We have the poorest emissions rates of the developed world despite having some of the most stringent standards. The reason is we've left no reason for the average person to make more environmentally conscience choices when they buy a car (since car companies spread the cost of CAFE conforming across every model, not just those that cost the most to conform to).
Well, duh! When you exempt light trucks and such from the CAFE standards, is it any surprise they aren't helping much? Carmakers can then say "sure my fleet meets CAFE standards, as long as you don't count my best-selling models!"

Although I agree a fuel consumption tax makes far more sense than a mileage tax. Wanna drive a gas hog? Knock yourself out. But it'll cost ya.

[CalBoy]

it would be political suicide in the US in my opinion.

Indeed it would be. Those nations that have the highest petrol taxes also tend to be the ones with proportionally elected parliaments, where no one is responsible to individual constituents like our Congress is. When your constituency is national and you can still retain your seat even if your party loses votes, it becomes a lot easier to vote for the national interest.

I am not in it for environmental issues though, I just do not like our dependence on oil.

Why aren't you "in it" for the environment? The damage to the planet is far more real than one nation's trade imbalance.

[SactoGuy18]

I'm sorry, but those new Fords are fugly. Much like the current Fords.

If there's one thing the American car companies have never been good at, well, besides fuel economy, build quality and reliability, it's design :D

Interesting you mention that because Ford of Europe just built its 250,000th car just under two months ago in the production run of the current Fiesta, thanks to VERY strong sales in Europe. The 100 Fiesta five-door hatchbacks running around the USA as part of the "Fiesta Movement" promotion has gotten a LOT of very positive press, and as such when the 2011 Fiesta three and five door hatchbacks arrive at US dealers probably around February 2010 they're going to be flying off dealer lots.

[djellison]

It will be if we put them out of business (again) and have to support them. .

A load of crap. Ford produces superb high MPG cars for sale in Europe. The Ka, Fiesta, Focus and Mondeo are all superb cars. GM (via Opel) does the same. Chevvy, via Daewoo, also has cars that can go straight to US market (although I wouldn't want one of those :) ).

The emission regulations in the US are nothing short of educationally subnormal - they're beyond moronic. They let 12 mpg petrol cars run free, yet, so I've been told, render 40-50-60+mpg diesels illegal. They make a 40-50 mpg Prius seem like the second coming of christ, when, in the EU - the Prius is laughed at, given that small diesels can get 50% more mileage.

Either the US Auto industry, or its consumers, are too stupid, ignorant or lazy to change their ways. So they've got to be forced to. It's about time.

[quagmire]

I'm sorry, but those new Fords are fugly. Much like the current Fords.

If there's one thing the American car companies have never been good at, well, besides fuel economy, build quality and reliability, it's design :D

FE really? That is why Ford has the Fusion Hybrid that bests the Camry hybrid and any other mid-size hybrid out there with real world results of 43 MPG? Why GM's Malibu gets 33 MPG which was better then Camry with the 4 banger(2010 Camry is now equal). Why the Cobalt XFE gets 37 MPG? Why out of the trucks and SUV's, the Big 3 tend to have the most fuel efficient trucks?

[iJohnHenry]

I'm sorry, but those new Fords are fugly. Much like the current Fords.

... when the 2011 Fiesta three and five door hatchbacks arrive at US dealers probably around February 2010 they're going to be flying off dealer lots.

Our young friend is hanging-tough with old-school ideas.

It has become too expensive to support this mind-set any longer.

[mkrishnan]

I object to CAFE standards on the basis that they don't work. :p

Saying CAFE doesn't work following years of refusal to properly use it is not reasonable. Of course CAFE hasn't worked -- the government has not appropriately ratcheted up economy standards over time. CAFE would continue to fail if the Administration were to ratchet up the standard to the proposed 42 MPG in 2016 and then never increase it again. CAFE would only possibly work if it were used to gradually, continually improve fleet economy.

Producing incentives for users of vehicles where a greater impact could be felt is fine (e.g. doubling the fuel efficiency of the F150 would make a much larger impact on US fuel consumption than doubling the fuel efficiency of the Prius). Using regulatory mechanisms to keep the price of gas stable and high is fine too -- we were better off in many ways when $4 gas was making us change our habits.

But CAFE is a separate matter, and it has to actually be properly used before one can say it doesn't work.

[yg17]

FE really? That is why Ford has the Fusion Hybrid that bests the Camry hybrid and any other mid-size hybrid out there with real world results of 43 MPG? Why GM's Malibu gets 33 MPG which was better then Camry with the 4 banger(2010 Camry is now equal). Why the Cobalt XFE gets 37 MPG? Why out of the trucks and SUV's, the Big 3 tend to have the most fuel efficient trucks?

Alright, fine, forget I mentioned fuel economy :p Although I still stand by my belief that the G6 rental I was driving around for a few weeks was a freakin joke in terms of FE.

And I still think they're fugly ;)

[Zombie Acorn]

Why aren't you "in it" for the environment? The damage to the planet is far more real than one nation's trade imbalance.

We will naturally head towards more environmental efficiency, its just going to take longer. Right now the instability of the middle east is troubling when we depend on them the way we do.


Either the US Auto industry, or its consumers, are too stupid, ignorant or lazy to change their ways. So they've got to be forced to. It's about time.

The prices usually force change, ie when gas goes up people start looking for fuel mileage. One of my clients is a car dealer and they weren't able to keep fuel efficient cars on the lot when gas was expensive.

The prices in europe are higher and so your companies have already been forced to become more efficient, and ford markets to that sector because its what sells over there. Over here aren't pressured by pricing to become more efficient, and until we do the market won't change unless the government steps in. I would rather see a demand driven market for efficient cars (which would be the result of taxing gas higher) than manufacturers being forced into a restriction.

In the end though it won't be done because politicians want to keep their jobs. I don't think 42 mpg will be too hard to obtain by the time 2016 rolls around anyways though.

[iShater]

Glad something is being required sooner.

[CalBoy]

Saying CAFE doesn't work following years of refusal to properly use it is not reasonable. Of course CAFE hasn't worked -- the government has not appropriately ratcheted up economy standards over time. CAFE would continue to fail if the Administration were to ratchet up the standard to the proposed 42 MPG in 2016 and then never increase it again. CAFE would only possibly work if it were used to gradually, continually improve fleet economy.

Producing incentives for users of vehicles where a greater impact could be felt is fine (e.g. doubling the fuel efficiency of the F150 would make a much larger impact on US fuel consumption than doubling the fuel efficiency of the Prius). Using regulatory mechanisms to keep the price of gas stable and high is fine too -- we were better off in many ways when $4 gas was making us change our habits.

But CAFE is a separate matter, and it has to actually be properly used before one can say it doesn't work.

I thought someone might bring this up, but fear not, I'm prepared! :p

Yes, CAFE has been poorly implemented, but even if it was executed perfectly, it would be a failure.

If every car (including pickups SUVs, etc) had to have increases in fuel efficiency over a given span of time, this cost would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher car prices. The problem is, without a corresponding increase in gasoline taxes, consumers can make the rational decision to simply forgo buying a new car until considerably later in the future. If a new car is going to be 10% more than what they bought their older car for, any given consumer is simply going to make his/her old car last as long as possible since it will save money compared to buying a new car. Hence, while newer cars will keep getting better from an efficiency stand point, the overall population of cars in use will become older and less efficient.

CAFE standards are really only good for those things that can't be easily taxed. Fuel efficiency can be very easily taxed, as can carbon (assess the fuel's relative carbon output and then tax) and most other pollutants that come from the particular fuel being used. The only real trouble with a gasoline tax that would comprise a significant portion of the price is political will. It would incredibly unpopular and any legislator who voted in favor would face an angry electorate. This is one way in which a proportionately elected legislature has an advantage over first-past-the-post districts.

We will naturally head towards more environmental efficiency, its just going to take longer. Right now the instability of the middle east is troubling when we depend on them the way we do.

I wasn't asking for a prediction; I wanted to know why you felt the environment is a lesser concern compared to our sources of fuel given that the environment is in grave peril and has been for quite some time.

As an aside, most of our oil comes from the Americas; the Middle East only supplies a small portion (with Russia and West African nations making up the difference).

[leekohler]

I'm sorry, but those new Fords are fugly. Much like the current Fords.

If there's one thing the American car companies have never been good at, well, besides fuel economy, build quality and reliability, it's design :D

Untrue- Chrysler has beautiful design. You're not going to argue that the Japanese are good at it, are you? Good god, just look at the Prius.

[Zombie Acorn]

I wasn't asking for a prediction; I wanted to know why you felt the environment is a lesser concern compared to our sources of fuel given that the environment is in grave peril and has been for quite some time.

As an aside, most of our oil comes from the Americas; the Middle East only supplies a small portion (with Russia and West African nations making up the difference).

I don't see the grave peril, as we ramp up our fuel efficiency other countries like China are going to take up our demand on foreign oil. Something tells me if they are making a bunch of their kids products with lead they aren't too concerned about the environment their people live in.

I really don't see the human contribution to global warming that everyone else is panicking about. I could understand if you live in the city and your air smells like crap though.

[takao]

In the end though it won't be done because politicians want to keep their jobs. I don't think 42 mpg will be too hard to obtain by the time 2016 rolls around anyways though.

the new E220 has a fuel economy of 53,3 mpg with 400 NM of torque and 170 hp and is available now (same cw value as the prius without looking ugly as sin btw)

the US obsession with having at least a 6 cylinder engine and ignorance about modern diesel engines is still the thorn in reducing fuel economy

[yg17]

Untrue- Chrysler has beautiful design. You're not going to argue that the Japanese are good at it, are you? Good god, just look at the Prius.

No, the Prius is ugly too, but I personally think Chrysler has the worst designs of the big 3.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[mactastic]

The prices in europe are higher and so your companies have already been forced to become more efficient, and ford markets to that sector because its what sells over there. Over here aren't pressured by pricing to become more efficient, and until we do the market won't change unless the government steps in. I would rather see a demand driven market for efficient cars (which would be the result of taxing gas higher) than manufacturers being forced into a restriction.
What difference does it make if the government forces manufacturers to improve fuel economy on the front end, or on the back end? Why does it matter? It's still government messing around with the marketplace, right?

Personally, I'd like to see them do both. Eliminate subsidies and tax breaks to oil production and processing companies; and at the same time mandate higher fuel costs through a gas tax. Use the increased revenue as tax credits to offset the increased purchase cost of higher efficiency cars, as well as adequately maintaining the highway system and related infrastructure.

The problem with letting the marketplace decide these things is that all the momentum we had working towards better fuel economy a year ago is gone now. If the marketplace could make these kinds of decisions, we would have never let off the efficiency push of the late 70's. But gas prices fell again, and stayed low, so what happened? The SUV explosion. If we'd started back then with an increased gas tax, and mandated a 2mpg increase in economy per year, we'd have cars getting 70+mpg right now.

[djellison]

I don't think 42 mpg will be too hard to obtain by the time 2016 rolls around anyways though.

It's obtainable NOW. My colleague has a TDi VW Golf that's got a shed load of power, goes damn fast, get's 45mpg..and he drives it very aggressively.

[CalBoy]

I don't see the grave peril, as we ramp up our fuel efficiency other countries like China are going to take up our demand on foreign oil. Something tells me if they are making a bunch of their kids products with lead they aren't too concerned about the environment their people live in.

We should lead by example. China (and India) will gradually become more environmentally conscious as its population gains the means to handle the problem. For now we can handle the problem but haven't, which makes us pathetic.

I really don't see the human contribution to global warming that everyone else is panicking about.

This really isn't the thread for global warming skepticism, so if you really want to know more about humanity's impact on climate change, consult your neighborhood geologist.


I could understand if you live in the city and your air smells like crap though.

The Bay Area has pretty clean air for the most part (especially compared to LA) so I'm not complaining about that (which is a very different issue from global warming by the way).

[Zombie Acorn]

the new E220 has a fuel economy of 53,3 mpg with 400 NM of torque and 170 hp and is available now (same cw value as the prius without looking ugly as sin btw)

the US obsession with having at least a 6 cylinder engine and ignorance about modern diesel engines is still the thorn in reducing fuel economy

I can't really say much I have a 5.7L v8 in my car. :p When I buy a new one it will definitely be a fuel efficient car, many of them have a decent amout of power/torque without being overkill on MPG (compared to the eco boxes of the 90s).

It's obtainable NOW. My colleague has a TDi VW Golf that's got a shed load of power, goes damn fast, get's 45mpg..and he drives it very aggressively.

They aren't very stylish though. Cars like the bmw m3 still aren't very good on MPG.

[leekohler]

No, the Prius is ugly too, but I personally think Chrysler has the worst designs of the big 3.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm holding out for a Challenger convertible. If they survive to make one, it's mine. Of course, living in the city, I'd rarely drive it. It would most likely sit in a garage most of the time. ;)

[yg17]

It's obtainable NOW. My colleague has a TDi VW Golf that's got a shed load of power, goes damn fast, get's 45mpg..and he drives it very aggressively.

For some reason this country still has an issue with diesel. The new Jetta TDI has been well received here, but I don't think diesels will ever be as common here as they are in Europe. I think part of the problem is that diesels really need a manual transmission to get the most out of them and no one in this country knows how to drive a manual, god forbid you use your right hand for driving instead of putting on makeup and talking on the phone :rolleyes:

They aren't very stylish though. Cars like the bmw m3 still aren't very good on MPG.
The VW Golfs are very stylish, but I'm biased since I have a GTI :D

FWIW, the BMW M3 is a true sports car, meant for performance and never has been marketed as an economy car. No one buys an M3 for fuel economy and I bet everyone who owns an M3 bought it knowing damn well what they were in for in terms of MPG. If you want the looks of the M3 with the MPG and performance of a more "normal" car, then get the 328

[djellison]

They aren't very stylish though.

So what? Form over function for day to day motoring is over. And what on earth does the M3 have to do with this discussion? That's a performance sports car - not a car for day to day motoring for Joe-average.

What amazed me is that twice, I've got rental cars in the US, and twice, they've returned significantly less than 20mpg when doing mainly 55-75 mph freeway driving. I'd expect double what it returned at home....yet my car at home is certainly no slower than the rental cars.

FWIW - I like the look of the VW Golf. I like the new Scirocco even more :)

[takao]

I can't really say much I have a 5.7L v8 in my car. :p When I buy a new one it will definitely be a fuel efficient car, many of them have a decent amout of power/torque without being overkill on MPG (compared to the eco boxes of the 90s)

They aren't very stylish though. Cars like the bmw m3 still aren't very good on MPG.

the m3 is a sports car .. not exactly a fleet car or family car


and what i always bizarre how many americans buy huge normal gasoline v6/v8s in trucks "for pulling a boat" etc. while ignoring diesel
i guess it's called "sound over function" or something like

[MikeTheC]

See, here's the thing...

This is an example of blurring two different issues (at least two, maybe more) and then trying to use the result as a blunt weapon against others. I won't argue this subject (of which I do have strong opinions) on that basis. I suspect a number of others probably also feel this way, but may lack either the courage or the capacity to simply say so.

I don't support Washington's hell-bent-for-leather attitude of dumping tons of valueless currency into the market, thereby diluting it even further.

I don't support Washington's bail-outs and attempts at gaining controlling interests of entities in the public sector (that is, businesses).

While I do support efforts to make cars operate more cleanly, efficiently and economically, I don't support the means and methods that have been ginned up over the past two or three decades (at least) which have brought us to this point.

I don't support this moronic "let's just raise taxes" approach to everything. It's a mentality which completely ignores the damage done by crippling the general public. We can barely afford the load presently placed on our shoulders, and you want to add to it?

As an example of the devastating effects of the above, the council of the city I live in just voted yesterday (Monday, May 18, 2009) to raise utilities prices by 92% over the next five years. This is going to have the effect of severely chilling any kind of future investments by both people and businesses. What will happen is that many of us will simply be forced out of this city, and when that happens, who exactly does the city government think will pick up the tab? I know a number of business owners locally who are already just hanging on to the last shreds of their profitability as it is. Do this to them and they'll just go belly-up, and with them go some considerable number of jobs. This isn't a help, folks.

Given how the automotive industry in this country has functioned for the last 30-40 odd years, they deserve to go belly-up. Bailing them out (which means there's strings attached) and then directly gaining a controlling interest, and then taxing everyone on the resources is nothing more than the Government trying to have it both ways. This also in part is no different than a person, having placed their hand on a hot stove, deciding to just start taking massive doses of pain killers instead of removing their hand.

I don't like the prospect of fewer jobs here in the U.S. any more than anyone else does, but jobs based on false pretenses will hurt us far more in the long term.

[mactastic]

I know a number of business owners locally who are already just hanging on to the last shreds of their profitability as it is. Do this to them and they'll just go belly-up, and with them go some considerable number of jobs.
Perhaps these folks deserve to go belly-up (along with the automotive industry and it's associated considerable number of jobs), to be replaced by more efficient businesses?

[MikeTheC]

Perhaps these folks deserve to go belly-up (along with the automotive industry and it's associated considerable number of jobs), to be replaced by more efficient businesses?
What businesses? Would you start up a business in a city that you knew was about to nearly double its utility costs?

[mactastic]

What businesses? Would you start up a business in a city that you knew was about to nearly double its utility costs?
Sure. I'd make sure my business didn't have a high utility overhead. Thus, more efficient.

[MikeTheC]

Well, I suppose you could just get a recumbent bike and hook a generator to it. :rolleyes:

[fivepoint]

Perhaps these folks deserve to go belly-up (along with the automotive industry and it's associated considerable number of jobs), to be replaced by more efficient businesses?

And this is exactly why the 'Colly-fornia' you so love is 40 billion dollars in the hole and losing businesses hand over fist. Your government-mandated 'green' tech and high taxes sure are working out great for you, aren't they!?!

Enjoy that.

[mactastic]

Well, I suppose you could just get a recumbent bike and hook a generator to it. :rolleyes:
LOL. Pathetic response.:rolleyes:

[mactastic]

And this is exactly why the 'Colly-fornia' you so love is 40 billion dollars in the hole and losing businesses hand over fist. Your government-mandated 'green' tech and high taxes sure are working out great for you, aren't they!?!

Enjoy that.
I do. Every day of my life. And I'll be even happier if you never set foot here in paradise. :)

[takao]

Well, I suppose you could just get a recumbent bike and hook a generator to it. :rolleyes:

tofftopic: it would be interesting how much electricity could be created by just hooking up all home trainers to such generators across a country

[mkrishnan]

Add a more aggressive, long-term plan to get low efficiency and high emissions cars off the road more quickly, and I would be a very happy camper.

Hence, while newer cars will keep getting better from an efficiency stand point, the overall population of cars in use will become older and less efficient.

In my defense, this is something I had already addressed. ;) Wholly aside from the fact that Americans hold onto cars for too long now already....

[mactastic]

tofftopic: it would be interesting how much electricity could be created by just hooking up all home trainers to such generators across a country
Also off topic, google the term "crowd farm" for another interesting take on micro-generation.

[mkrishnan]

Also off topic, google the term "crowd farm" for another interesting take on micro-generation.

tofftopically, I think the idea of micro-generation (of small amounts of clean, renewable energy) is really great, if it can be made practicable.

[diamond.g]

In my defense, this is something I had already addressed. ;) Wholly aside from the fact that Americans hold onto cars for too long now already....

I think it is due to cars being flipping expensive. Once you pay one off and not have a car payment it isn't often you are in a hurry to get back into debt.

[mactastic]

tofftopically, I think the idea of micro-generation (of small amounts of clean, renewable energy) is really great, if it can be made practicable.
Definitely. As a side benefit, with a distributed generation capacity, it would make power production much less of an attractive target for any would-be terrorists.

[fivepoint]

I do. Every day of my life. And I'll be even happier if you never set foot here in paradise. :)

Hey, we at least agree on that much. Although there are many rural parts of northern California I wouldn't mind visiting.

How about responding to the actual meat of my post though? Liberal 'green' policies and outrageous tax rates are destroying your state's economy. You're losing businesses and millionaires hand over fist. Your legislature is talking about selling off prisons to help make it by for a little while longer. You'll probably end up getting bailed out like GM and Chrysler by the responsible states. What are your thoughts on all of this?

[leekohler]

Hey, we at least agree on that much. Although there are many rural parts of northern California I wouldn't mind visiting.

How about responding to the actual meat of my post though? Liberal 'green' policies and outrageous tax rates are destroying your state's economy. You're losing businesses and millionaires hand over fist. Your legislature is talking about selling off prisons to help make it by for a little while longer. You'll probably end up getting bailed out like GM and Chrysler by the responsible states. What are your thoughts on all of this?

If I were mac, I wouldn't bother. Your post was designed to be provocative and insulting. If you wanted to talk seriously about the issue, you could have left all that out. Once again- you just want to poke sticks in people's eyes.

And this is exactly why the 'Colly-fornia' you so love is 40 billion dollars in the hole and losing businesses hand over fist. Your government-mandated 'green' tech and high taxes sure are working out great for you, aren't they!?!

Enjoy that.

[fivepoint]

If I were mac, I wouldn't bother. Your post was designed to be provocative and insulting. If you wanted to talk seriously about the issue, you could have left all that out. Once again- you just want to poke sticks in people's eyes.

Actually Lee, my points were all relevant to the issue since the government is trying to enact California-like standards on the entire nation. Bringing up what standards like these have done to the California economy is incredibly relevant.

On the other hand, mac's insinuation that I should never visit his state was a personal attack.

I'm talking about the issue and avoiding making it personal. He's doing the opposite by confronting me personally... just like you are now.

How is the economic impact of CAFE standards and the like not relevant here?

Here's to hoping this all gets stopped before it becomes reality and all of us end up in the same situation as California with incredible deficits and businesses fleeing at record pace.

[leekohler]

Actually Lee, my points were all relevant to the issue since the government is trying to enact California-like standards on the entire nation. Bringing up what standards like these have done to the California economy is incredibly relevant.

On the other hand, mac's insinuation that I should never visit his state was a personal attack.

I'm talking about the issue and avoiding making it personal. He's doing the opposite by confronting me personally... just like you are now.

How is the economic impact of CAFE standards and the like not relevant here?

Here's to hoping this all gets stopped before it becomes reality and all of us end up in the same situation as California with incredible deficits and businesses fleeing at record pace.

Seriously, if you can't recognize the abrasive tone of your post, this discussion is over. The reason people react to you the way they do isn't because of your views, fivepoint. It's the manner in which you present them. You "personally confronted" mac with your post, so he reacted in kind. You get what you give.

[CalBoy]

In my defense, this is something I had already addressed. ;) Wholly aside from the fact that Americans hold onto cars for too long now already....

Ahh, indeed you had.

However, the best (and quickest) way to get older cars off the road is through the gasoline tax (to a lesser extent you can use registration taxes, but those are on a state-by-state basis and less likely to work from a national perspective, and you get into the muddled issues of what is an "old" car and such).

It will always be true that the most effective way to change consumer habits is to raise the cost of noncompliance. It also makes things easier from a policy longevity perspective, because future administrations might be unwilling to engage in other types of car trade-in programs and the like.

And this is exactly why the 'Colly-fornia' you so love is 40 billion dollars in the hole and losing businesses hand over fist. Your government-mandated 'green' tech and high taxes sure are working out great for you, aren't they!?!

Enjoy that.

This shows a remarkable ignorance of California's budgetary woes considering the level of arrogance you've put into your post. California has long had more stringent environmental policies than the rest of the nation. These policies have been in place through bad economic times and good economic times, and despite their presence, California's economy remains surprisingly diverse and capable. Moreover, despite the higher costs of doing business here (land is more expensive, labor is more expensive, taxes are higher, etc), businesses continue to grow and thrive here.

If you want to know why California's budget is in such a state, first consider the size of the budget shortfall relative to the population of the state. I'd be curious to know the per capita shortfall relative to other states (many of which also have shortfalls this year). I'd also be curious to know how many other states that have no or few budgetary problems are net losers when it comes to Federal taxation. California only gets 80 cents on each dollar it sends to the Federal government, a rather large loss for a state with over 35 million people.

Lastly, look at the referendum process. Find another state with absurdly weak constitutional amendment procedures, and you'll likely find what we have in California: half of the props requiring minimum spending and the other half limiting taxes.

[Desertrat]

I've no problem with higher standards. Good. But how many cars per year will be sold, as a percentage of the existing fleet? And with the same forces in play that have made GM and Chrysler not profitable, who will be making them in significant numbers? Again, "significant" wrt the existing fleet of over 200 million cars.

One big problem is that the econoboxes don't sell as well as the SUVs and PUs.

[SactoGuy18]

They make a 40-50 mpg Prius seem like the second coming of christ, when, in the EU - the Prius is laughed at, given that small diesels can get 50% more mileage.


People in Europe usually laugh at the Prius until they actually bother to sit in one. They they suddenly realize the Prius the interior seating space you normally associate with the Ford Mondeo or Mercedes-Benz E-Class saloon, gets almost as good fuel economy as much smaller diesel-powered B-segment cars, and doesn't have the higher NOx and diesel particulate emission issues, either (Europeans seem to be conveniently ignoring these serious air pollution issues). My brother-in-law owns a second-generation Prius and the first thing you notice is the surprising amount of back seat legroom--it's probably as good as the short-wheelbase Mercedes-Benz S-Class saloon!

[mkrishnan]

It will always be true that the most effective way to change consumer habits is to raise the cost of noncompliance. It also makes things easier from a policy longevity perspective, because future administrations might be unwilling to engage in other types of car trade-in programs and the like.

Yes, that's fine by me (although, one could argue, if one were in an arguing mood, that this approach is largely the one that has been followed systematically with cigarettes and the results have been modest, with far too many 21st Century Americans smoking still).

I still say, do both. Do this, now, when there is a historic and unprecedented opportunity to both simplify the system (the automakers aren't lying, having come from the inside -- this really does reduce their development and manufacturing costs substantially, as well as streamline logistics) and deliver both fuel economy gains and emissions gains that would not readily be sought out by many smaller, less populous states, but still benefit them. Then, also follow up with gas taxation or other measures that disincentivize lots of driving.

Meanwhile, continue to foster reasons to not drive nearly as often, to use public transit, and to perhaps even not own a car.

[CalBoy]

Yes, that's fine by me (although, one could argue, if one were in an arguing mood, that this approach is largely the one that has been followed systematically with cigarettes and the results have been modest, with far too many 21st Century Americans smoking still).

Another person in an arguing mood might say that smoking rates have declined rather remarkably since the middle of the 20th Century, and more importantly, the relative percentage in the population continues to decline every year. This person might also point out that curtailing a personal vice is a tad different from navigating around a tragedy of the commons problem, but then that's just a hypothetical response to such a person in an arguing mood. :p :D


I still say, do both. Do this, now, when there is a historic and unprecedented opportunity to both simplify the system (the automakers aren't lying, having come from the inside -- this really does reduce their development and manufacturing costs substantially, as well as streamline logistics) and deliver both fuel economy gains and emissions gains that would not readily be sought out by many smaller, less populous states, but still benefit them. Then, also follow up with gas taxation or other measures that disincentivize lots of driving.

See, what scares me is complacency. If these new CAFE standards are enacted, what do you suppose the chances are we're going to see a gas tax or any other program that would encourage personal thrift emerge? My bet is that it will take another gas crisis for people to wonder, "why, why, why?" and the moment the crisis ends, we get another booster shot to the CAFE standards and nothing more. Keep in mind how petroleum will be exhausted as a fuel supply in our lifetimes, and you get why I'm so opposed to what I view as a 2nd best solution.

Meanwhile, continue to foster reasons to not drive nearly as often, to use public transit, and to perhaps even not own a car.

Interestingly enough, White Flight and the growth of suburbia may be nearing their end (which also corresponds to more public transit use). Last summer I recall reading an article which pointed out that people were once again returning to cities for a variety of reasons, including the high cost of commuting. The question is, do you think this would continue if gas prices were to drop or not be sustained at a higher rate through taxation?

[djellison]

People in Europe usually laugh at the Prius until they actually bother to sit in one.

I've sat in two. I've driven one. Two close friends of mine in Cali have them. I can see why they have them (they offer good mileage by US standards, and entitle you to use car pool lanes). The facts, however, are not kind to the Prius. Have you researched the total carbon from cradle to grave for a Prius. It's shocking. The Prius is about the best you can get in the US at the moment. It's NOT the best you can get over here.

The point being - people are bleating about the poor US car market which will be crippled by these new MPG requirement. It's utter nonsense - GM, Ford, Chevy - they already have, in their stable, cars that cover all the required bases. They just don't sell them in the US because burning gasoline is the US national sport and not too many people want to stop doing it. It's unsustainable and people don't seem to want to listen to that. So they're going to have to be forced to.

[Ugg]

I've no problem with higher standards. Good. But how many cars per year will be sold, as a percentage of the existing fleet? And with the same forces in play that have made GM and Chrysler not profitable, who will be making them in significant numbers? Again, "significant" wrt the existing fleet of over 200 million cars.

One big problem is that the econoboxes don't sell as well as the SUVs and PUs.

Good question.

By 2016, the price of oil should be starting to rise again, and will probably peak above the most recent highs. $5 a gallon gas will drive a lot of people out of their SUVs.

I think it's a safe bet that we'll also see an increase in fuel taxes. As has been mentioned, that's the only way many people will give up the gas guzzlers.

It's going to be painful one way or another.

[takao]

People in Europe usually laugh at the Prius until they actually bother to sit in one. They they suddenly realize the Prius the interior seating space you normally associate with the Ford Mondeo or Mercedes-Benz E-Class saloon, gets almost as good fuel economy as much smaller diesel-powered B-segment cars, and doesn't have the higher NOx and diesel particulate emission issues, either (Europeans seem to be conveniently ignoring these serious air pollution issues). My brother-in-law owns a second-generation Prius and the first thing you notice is the surprising amount of back seat legroom--it's probably as good as the short-wheelbase Mercedes-Benz S-Class saloon!

how much fuel does it use on the autobahn (at 130km/h it drinks more than a good diesel)
how fast does a prius lose resale value ? (nearly as fast as Lexus.. if you can sell it)
does it have superior interieur space to a roomy french car ? no it doesn't but at a much higher price
how long is the seat on the back row of the prius ?
and let's not forget head space...
also the actual CO2 usage of _producing_ a prius is much higher than a normal car
also the prius is still ugly as sin

the prius costs 26k/28k euro
for 25k you get a Skoda Superb TDI Greenline (more space than short S Mercedes)
for 28k you get a VW Passat TDI BlueMotion (+1k for the superior Variant version)

my father sat in the prius(front though) when looking around for alternatives for a new car and when told the price he left the car laughing
and he called Toyota insane if they expect it to sell

for example the Honda Insight (another Hybrid .. and again ugly) starts _below_ 20k


and americans like to ignore the CO2 emissions with a vengeance .... (you pay extra tax if you buy a car without diesel particle filter in many countries)

[SactoGuy18]

A couple of things:

1) Go sit inside the second-generation Prius and then go sit inside a European B-segment subcompact that should get better fuel economy than the Prius. The first thing you immediately notice inside the Prius is the amazing amount of rear legroom--the type of legroom you usually associate with a MUCH bigger car. The only B-segment hatchback I know of that has anything resembling decent rear legroom is the Honda Fit (or Jazz as it's known in Europe); even in the glowing reviews of the current Ford Fiesta they've noticed rear legroom is a bit disappointing.

2) The Prius is NOT designed for all-out high-speed runs on limited-access motorways--it's better designed for stop-and-go traffic in urban areas. That's why in the EPA 2008 test fuel economy measurements the city and highway ratings are so close for the Prius, while if you measure the fuel economy on a European B-segment hatchback with a turbodiesel engine (e.g., a Ford Fiesta with the Duratorq 1.6-liter engine) with the EPA 2008 test you will see a fairly substantial change between the city test and the highway test on the fuel economy results.

3) In the race to get lower CO2 output with turbodiesel engines everyone in Europe seems to forget diesel exhaust contains two quite nasty pollutants, NOx gases and diesel particulates. It is small wonder why Europeans adopted the Euro 6 standard coming into force by 2013-2014, which has essentially the same emission rules as the EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 certification for auto emissions? That's why companies like Ricardo UK recently unveiled a combination turbocharger/EGR unit to reduce these emissions to the point that we only need a diesel particulate filter and a standard catalytic converter to meet Euro 6 certification.

4) In order to get really high fuel economy on a diesel car, they have to resort to a lot of "tricks" to get there. That means very careful aerodynamic design, especially with the underside of the car, using low-rolling resistance tyres, and putting in higher-than-normal gearing so the engine revs at even lower RPM's at highway speeds. My only concern is that performance will really suffer compared to a more "normal" diesel-powered car, especially merging into a limited-access motorway.

[Desertrat]

Ugg, my bet is that fuel prices will head back up long before 2016.

I keep hollering at folks I know to get a late-model good-used Civic or Escort or suchlike. The 40 mpg stuff. I'm startled at how many people are very strongly against driving econoboxes. Feedback is that they don't like the low seating position with its lessened visibility, and the feeling of "squashability".

[takao]

A couple of things:

1) Go sit inside the second-generation Prius and then go sit inside a European B-segment subcompact that should get better fuel economy than the Prius. The first thing you immediately notice inside the Prius is the amazing amount of rear legroom--the type of legroom you usually associate with a MUCH bigger car. The only B-segment hatchback I know of that has anything resembling decent rear legroom is the Honda Fit (or Jazz as it's known in Europe); even in the glowing reviews of the current Ford Fiesta they've noticed rear legroom is a bit disappointing.

do you even read what i write ? .. the entry Toyota Prius costs 26k euro ... for that price you can get fricking skoda superb with more legroom than the S-Class .. and you go on talking about hatchbacks _half_ the price of a Prius
you know for 13.000 euro you can buy a lot of fuel

go and look with what cars the Prius is competing in terms of price in europe

the VW Passat has a fuel economy of 4.9 liter per 100 km compared to the Prius with 4.3
you know what people rather take the 0.6 liter more and get the far better car
CO2 emissions of the heavier, larger and more powerful Passat: 128 g
CO2 emissions of the Prius: 104 g




2) The Prius is NOT designed for all-out high-speed runs on limited-access motorways--it's better designed for stop-and-go traffic in urban areas. That's why in the EPA 2008 test fuel economy measurements the city and highway ratings are so close for the Prius, while if you measure the fuel economy on a European B-segment hatchback with a turbodiesel engine (e.g., a Ford Fiesta with the Duratorq 1.6-liter engine) with the EPA 2008 test you will see a fairly substantial change between the city test and the highway test on the fuel economy results.


limited acess motorways ? what the ... are you talking about .. germany is the biggest market in europe and in germany you need to be able to drive 130km/h and more on the autobahn otherwise you are either stuck with the trucks on the most right lane or a risk

and for stop and go in the city... go and buy a bike then you have more "go" and less "stop" or wait until the other turbodiesel makers have introduce start stop automatics


as for playing tricks: and when toyota does the same with the prius it's soemhow not playing tricks with thinner wheels etc. ?

and yet you still ignore the emissions made during production of a vehicle which today with a lifetime of 10 years still amount to more than half of all emissions of a car except with hybirds where in production 50% or such the like more emissions are made

[djellison]

4) In order to get really high fuel economy on a diesel car, they have to resort to a lot of "tricks" to get there. That means very careful aerodynamic design, especially with the underside of the car, using low-rolling resistance tyres...

The cheating bastards, using tricks like that to get better fuel economy. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Hey, we at least agree on that much. Although there are many rural parts of northern California I wouldn't mind visiting.

How about responding to the actual meat of my post though? Liberal 'green' policies and outrageous tax rates are destroying your state's economy. You're losing businesses and millionaires hand over fist. Your legislature is talking about selling off prisons to help make it by for a little while longer. You'll probably end up getting bailed out like GM and Chrysler by the responsible states. What are your thoughts on all of this?
If you think "liberal 'green' policies and outrageous tax rates are destroying" the state's economy, you know very little about the state. I suspect you get much of your news about California's budgetary problems from right-wing talk radio.

Actually Lee, my points were all relevant to the issue since the government is trying to enact California-like standards on the entire nation. Bringing up what standards like these have done to the California economy is incredibly relevant.

On the other hand, mac's insinuation that I should never visit his state was a personal attack.

I'm talking about the issue and avoiding making it personal. He's doing the opposite by confronting me personally... just like you are now.

How is the economic impact of CAFE standards and the like not relevant here?

Here's to hoping this all gets stopped before it becomes reality and all of us end up in the same situation as California with incredible deficits and businesses fleeing at record pace.
My goodness. And here I thought conservatives were such tough hombres, and now I come to find out that such a slight is now considered a "personal attack". I'll try to remember in the future that you are such fragile flower...

Although I would submit that you *did* make it personal with your comment "Enjoy that."

But, surprise surprise. Another conservative you can dish out the harsh rhetoric, but can't take it in return. :rolleyes:

Ugg, my bet is that fuel prices will head back up long before 2016.
That's a pretty safe bet 'Rat... considering fuel prices are going up right now. What kind of odds are you getting on that bet? :p

I keep hollering at folks I know to get a late-model good-used Civic or Escort or suchlike. The 40 mpg stuff. I'm startled at how many people are very strongly against driving econoboxes. Feedback is that they don't like the low seating position with its lessened visibility, and the feeling of "squashability".
My wife's '98 Civic HX is still going strong (knock on wood) at 194,000 miles. If it weren't for the lack of an extra set of doors, and a small child, she'd probably never get rid of it. Plenty of zip for a little four-banger, particularly coupled with that smooth manual transmission she loves so much.

[Zombie Acorn]

I think companies like Toyota are eating this up, they are going to have a definite advantage with these new regulations. The prius is already over the standards by a long shot (unfortunately its one of the ugliest cars ever put into production).

[quagmire]

4) In order to get really high fuel economy on a diesel car, they have to resort to a lot of "tricks" to get there. That means very careful aerodynamic design, especially with the underside of the car, using low-rolling resistance tyres, and putting in higher-than-normal gearing so the engine revs at even lower RPM's at highway speeds. My only concern is that performance will really suffer compared to a more "normal" diesel-powered car, especially merging into a limited-access motorway.

And that diesels are more efficient then gasoline engines period. The 335d has the a bit better performance then the 328i( 0-60 in <6 seconds) and got 49 MPG on the highway and got the reviewer from Chicago to NYC on one tank. So while you do take a performance hit from the regular 335i, you gain so much more in fuel economy. And oh, I bet BMW didn't put any low resistance tires on the car( oh and a fact check, the Prius uses those same "tricks" you talk about).

http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=202194

[SactoGuy18]

I just read on autocar.co.uk (Autocar magazine's website) about their review of the Volkswagen Polo 1.2 TDI 75 Bluemotion. While they were very impressed by the fuel economy, they did note you do have to get used to the very wide ratio spacing on the five-speed manual gearbox and the fact you need to follow the shift lights on the dashboard to get the really high fuel economy on this car.

It's this issue with the really wide spacing of gear ratios that could be a turnoff for American drivers used to closer-spaced gear ratios. When the Polo finally arrives in the US market probably by the end of 2010, if VW offers the TDI engine option we'll likely see it with the 7-speed DSG dual-clutch gearbox with more closely spaced gearing to avoid possible "bogging" of the drivetrain. And with seven gears to play with, it also means you can go for really high gearing in the 6th and 7th gear for excellent highway fuel economy.

[chrmjenkins]

See, what scares me is complacency. If these new CAFE standards are enacted, what do you suppose the chances are we're going to see a gas tax or any other program that would encourage personal thrift emerge? My bet is that it will take another gas crisis for people to wonder, "why, why, why?" and the moment the crisis ends, we get another booster shot to the CAFE standards and nothing more. Keep in mind how petroleum will be exhausted as a fuel supply in our lifetimes, and you get why I'm so opposed to what I view as a 2nd best solution.


Raising gas tax or CAFE standards isn't going to change the American ideals of owning a truck, SUV, or car with a big engine. At least CAFE standards reduce the emissions of those who happily pay more for gas just so they can pollute. If they can pay more for gas, they can pay more for more fuel efficient vehicles. I'm not against a bigger gas tax, but I'm adamantly for higher MPG standards.

[iPhoneNYC]

This is a very good thing. Bush had blocked it for eight years. One of the reasons the auto industry is where it is at today is they sold the "light truck is not a car" idea to Bush. This will correct the average fleet mpg nicely but we may not have an auto industry by the time we get there...

[Zombie Acorn]

Raising gas tax or CAFE standards isn't going to change the American ideals of owning a truck, SUV, or car with a big engine. At least CAFE standards reduce the emissions of those who happily pay more for gas just so they can pollute. If they can pay more for gas, they can pay more for more fuel efficient vehicles. I'm not against a bigger gas tax, but I'm adamantly for higher MPG standards.

Thats not the way the market works. If gas stays low and cars are restricted on MPG tightly people will simply keep their old big engine cars, trucks, suvs and demand will plummet, essentially forcing the companies to give the consumers what they want or fail. Theres no reason to have an energy efficient car if you aren't forced to be efficient in fueling it.

When gas prices were up fuel efficient cars were selling and people were dreading having to fill up their SUVs, you create a legitimate demand for smaller efficient cars. Plus as long as you can fly under the radar the people usually blame the middle east and evil oil companies for the prices instead of the government. :D

[CalBoy]

I already addressed all of this earlier in the thread, but I suppose there's no harm in repeating it again.

Raising gas tax or CAFE standards isn't going to change the American ideals of owning a truck, SUV, or car with a big engine.

On the contrary, that's precisely what gas taxes would do. Very few developed nations bother with CAFE standards, and yet they all have more fuel efficient vehicles on the road in their countries (and this includes nations like Australia where driving is as much a part of life as it is here). The bottom line is you make noncompliance very expensive, and in the end, most people simply can't hold out with their gas guzzlers. A small portion may continue to be intransigent, but the market will have fewer vehicles for them, and their additional gas taxes will help us fund better public transit for everyone else.


At least CAFE standards reduce the emissions of those who happily pay more for gas just so they can pollute.

Except of course that for a long time trucks and SUVs have been exempt from CAFE, so they've been able to pollute all they want without consequence. If gas taxes were made gas prohibitively high, a substantial percentage of SUV owners would have thought twice before buying the biggest one in the lot.


If they can pay more for gas, they can pay more for more fuel efficient vehicles. I'm not against a bigger gas tax, but I'm adamantly for higher MPG standards.

If you raise MPG standards without raising gas taxes, the end result is that more people will simply stay in their older, less efficient cars for longer because the new cars are more expensive and they have no monetary incentive to change. But I've already explained this before, so I think we can drop it now.

[mactastic]

Thats not the way the market works. If gas stays low and cars are restricted on MPG tightly people will simply keep their old big engine cars, trucks, suvs and demand will plummet, essentially forcing the companies to give the consumers what they want or fail. Theres no reason to have an energy efficient car if you aren't forced to be efficient in fueling it.
Are you betting that gas prices will stay low? I'm not.

[Zombie Acorn]

Are you betting that gas prices will stay low? I'm not.

Im not saying they will, if CAFE standards happen to coincide with obscenely high gas prices at the time the plan will work fine. Im going to be getting rid of my V8 as soon as I see a sporty looking yet efficient car just for this reason, but I was never into the SUV/big truck stuff, many people are.

[chrmjenkins]

Except of course that for a long time trucks and SUVs have been exempt from CAFE, so they've been able to pollute all they want without consequence. If gas taxes were made gas prohibitively high, a substantial percentage of SUV owners would have thought twice before buying the biggest one in the lot.

That's not the case anymore though, as you acknowledge. Still, hasten the day of electric vehicles and other alternatives. It will help the situation tremendously, as we've all made mention of how a higher gas tax is going to be a bitter pill to swallow for any politician who has constituents to worry about.


If you raise MPG standards without raising gas taxes, the end result is that more people will simply stay in their older, less efficient cars for longer because the new cars are more expensive and they have no monetary incentive to change. But I've already explained this before, so I think we can drop it now.

This is why we see nations like Germany offering an incentive program to buy new cars and get old ones off the road. The US has been considering that (although I'm out of date as to whether anything has happened in regards with it).

That being said, I would hope that with a gas tax we could insulate consumers from fluctuations a little better. The roller coaster ride we went on the past few years destroyed people's budgets who were living on the poverty line. The fact is that the public transportation infrastructure and average commutes for citizens isn't something that can weather the gas tax as well as our EU friends. Those things can't be quickly fixed, so I think it makes sense to have CAFE standards (although some gas tax would be a good part of a comprehensive plan).

[mactastic]

Im not saying they will, if CAFE standards happen to coincide with obscenely high gas prices at the time the plan will work fine. Im going to be getting rid of my V8 as soon as I see a sporty looking yet efficient car just for this reason, but I was never into the SUV/big truck stuff, many people are.
Once the economy starts to pick up again, gas prices will return to something close to their previous levels. If CAFE standards are raised, they will most definitely coincide with high gas prices at some point in the future. It might not be immediate, but it *will* happen.

Unfortunately, conservatives in this country have made it well-nigh impossible to raise the gas tax -- or any other tax for that matter. They'll dig their heels in and fight any kind of tax whatsoever, and have practically made it an act of political suicide to attempt to do so.

[Zombie Acorn]

Unfortunately, conservatives in this country have made it well-nigh impossible to raise the gas tax -- or any other tax for that matter. They'll dig their heels in and fight any kind of tax whatsoever, and have practically made it an act of political suicide to attempt to do so.

I don't believe it is the conservatives at all that are the cause of this, gas is like water to the business community, when it is on the up rise and we are taxing it we are adversely effecting the economy. People don't like that and gas is one of the commodities that they notice changes in every day.

I think theres a big difference between realizing an appropriate approach to heighten fuel efficiency in cars in America and actually having a reason to do it (especially in a slumping economy). If gas is high in 2016 as you pointed out we will be heading towards more fuel efficient cars anyways, and cars are usually bought on expectations, so if people think fuel is just temporarily at this level and will go up they will also be buying more fuel efficiency. In the past gas has been relatively cheap, I am not going to fret over 10 mpg if gas is 1-2 dollars.

Most of America likes the idea of being green, but at a certain cost. Once living green means they have to sacrifice its not going to be pretty.

[mactastic]

I don't believe it is the conservatives at all that are the cause of this, gas is like water to the business community, when it is on the up rise and we are taxing it we are adversely effecting the economy. People don't like that and gas is one of the commodities that they notice changes in every day.
Not sure what you mean by "this", but if you are suggesting that conservatives haven't made it difficult to raise taxes over the last 30 years, you're dead wrong. In fact, they've taken great pride in doing so.

I think theres a big difference between realizing an appropriate approach to heighten fuel efficiency in cars in America and actually having a reason to do it (especially in a slumping economy). If gas is high in 2016 as you pointed out we will be heading towards more fuel efficient cars anyways, and cars are usually bought on expectations, so if people think fuel is just temporarily at this level and will go up they will also be buying more fuel efficiency. In the past gas has been relatively cheap, I am not going to fret over 10 mpg if gas is 1-2 dollars.
Gas will never be $1-$2 again. Not unless the economy gets considerably worse, and even then it would only be for the time in which the economy was in shambles. Anyone making a car purchasing decision that they will have to live with for at least 5 years would be a fool if they didn't assume that gas will mostly be in the $3-$5 a gallon range over that time.

Most of America likes the idea of being green, but at a certain cost. Once living green means they have to sacrifice its not going to be pretty.
Living green has always meant sacrifice -- at least financially -- until recently anyway. That is starting to change though; and higher energy costs will only accelerate that change. Being green is starting to make economic sense in some areas, and that will spread.

[Ugg]

I don't believe it is the conservatives at all that are the cause of this, gas is like water to the business community, when it is on the up rise and we are taxing it we are adversely effecting the economy. People don't like that and gas is one of the commodities that they notice changes in every day.

I think theres a big difference between realizing an appropriate approach to heighten fuel efficiency in cars in America and actually having a reason to do it (especially in a slumping economy). If gas is high in 2016 as you pointed out we will be heading towards more fuel efficient cars anyways, and cars are usually bought on expectations, so if people think fuel is just temporarily at this level and will go up they will also be buying more fuel efficiency. In the past gas has been relatively cheap, I am not going to fret over 10 mpg if gas is 1-2 dollars.

Most of America likes the idea of being green, but at a certain cost. Once living green means they have to sacrifice its not going to be pretty.

I think you meant cheap gas is like a drug to Americans. Even bushie admitted we're addicted to the stuff.

By not taxing it sufficiently, we're putting a huge burden on our economy. We can see that in Europe and in Japan where fuel and energy in general is very expensive, they've been able to increase productivity while exporting valuable energy saving technology.

I really fail to understand how anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of economics and energy consumption fails to understand that by continuing to encourage waste, we're only hastening our doom. We sacrifice now or we sacrifice later but anyone who thinks that we don't have to sacrifice AT ALL, is truly delusional.

[Zombie Acorn]

I think you meant cheap gas is like a drug to Americans. Even bushie admitted we're addicted to the stuff.

By not taxing it sufficiently, we're putting a huge burden on our economy. We can see that in Europe and in Japan where fuel and energy in general is very expensive, they've been able to increase productivity while exporting valuable energy saving technology.

I really fail to understand how anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of economics and energy consumption fails to understand that by continuing to encourage waste, we're only hastening our doom. We sacrifice now or we sacrifice later but anyone who thinks that we don't have to sacrifice AT ALL, is truly delusional.

Private industry is going to be retooling for higher gas prices anyways. Walmart had a goal in 2005 to increase their fleet efficiency by 25% by 2009.

Businesses don't save energy for the environment (maybe for a PR stunt), they are doing it for profits. If its cost adverse to invest in high technology when speculated gas prices were low (in the past) then the very definition of business efficiency would be not to invest in them. Now that gas prices are expected to rise and technology is more available you will see more investment in the area. Funny how everything works out by itself.

[Rodimus Prime]

Private industry is going to be retooling for higher gas prices anyways. Walmart had a goal in 2005 to increase their fleet efficiency by 25% by 2009.

Businesses don't save energy for the environment (maybe for a PR stunt), they are doing it for profits. If its cost adverse to invest in high technology when speculated gas prices were low (in the past) then the very definition of business efficiency would be not to invest in them. Now that gas prices are expected to rise and technology is more available you will see more investment in the area. Funny how everything works out by itself.


That is my line of thought. I am not going to try to save money by buying energy effeminate stuff. If I do not save money in the long run and be enough to be worth the trouble then I will not do it.

For example I use CFL not because they save me money. Hell I use them because I can put brighter bulbs in sockets and I do not have to change them as often. One of my current bulbs is on a 3rd rented place for me and will be moving to a 4th.


Now I choose to drive a car over an SUV because 1) I it is much easier to move around in it. 2) it burns a lot less fuel. When I was bitching about paying $50 to fill up my tank I had co-workers at 100-130 a tank and we where going filling up at each about once a week.

[SactoGuy18]

For example I use CFL not because they save me money. Hell I use them because I can put brighter bulbs in sockets and I do not have to change them as often. One of my current bulbs is on a 3rd rented place for me and will be moving to a 4th.

Now I choose to drive a car over an SUV because 1) I it is much easier to move around in it. 2) it burns a lot less fuel. When I was bitching about paying $50 to fill up my tank I had co-workers at 100-130 a tank and we where going filling up at each about once a week.

I like CFL's because they also don't generate anywhere as much heat as incandescent light bulbs, too. This is especially important during the summer.

Anyway, I don't see the point of driving an SUV or minivan unless you have a big family or a lot of groceries to lug around all the time. A family of four could get by with something as small as this:

2009 Honda Fit Sport (North American market model)

http://www.autospectator.com/cars/files/images/16980-Honda-Fit-Sport.jpg

Or even a vehicle designed for family hauling like this:

2009 Mazda5

http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2009/Mazda/2009.mazda.mazda5.20237583-396x249.jpg

[Rodimus Prime]

I like CFL's because they also don't generate anywhere as much heat as incandescent light bulbs, too. This is especially important during the summer.

Anyway, I don't see the point of driving an SUV or minivan unless you have a big family or a lot of groceries to lug around all the time. A family of four could get by with something as small as this:

2009 Honda Fit Sport (North American market model)

http://www.autospectator.com/cars/files/images/16980-Honda-Fit-Sport.jpg

Or even a vehicle designed for family hauling like this:

2009 Mazda5

http://www.edmunds.com/pictures/VEHICLE/2009/Mazda/2009.mazda.mazda5.20237583-396x249.jpg


A family of 4 could not get buy with something as small as the fit. The fit would be unconfortable for a 5 hour trip with just the driver and 1 passenger much less if you add to kids in the back over the age of 5. Have you ever ridden in the back seat of a car that small for more than 3 hours? Hell m Sentra which is larger than the fit is not comfortable to drive 5 hours much less some of he 10+ hour trips i have taken it on and that for just me the driver. I have had friend in the back for just 3 hour trip and they said it was not very comfortable because it is so small.

I am sorry but a family of 4 a SUV would work just fine for the "family" vehicle. The family vehicle is just the one that the entire family will take on long trip or when they go some where as a family unit. SUV for long distance driving are heads over heals more comfortable than a car and having extra room in the back for kids is a huge plus.

[iShater]

A family of 4 could not get buy with something as small as the fit. The fit would be unconfortable for a 5 hour trip with just the driver and 1 passenger much less if you add to kids in the back over the age of 5. Have you ever ridden in the back seat of a car that small for more than 3 hours? Hell m Sentra which is larger than the fit is not comfortable to drive 5 hours much less some of he 10+ hour trips i have taken it on and that for just me the driver. I have had friend in the back for just 3 hour trip and they said it was not very comfortable because it is so small.

I am sorry but a family of 4 a SUV would work just fine for the "family" vehicle. The family vehicle is just the one that the entire family will take on long trip or when they go some where as a family unit. SUV for long distance driving are heads over heals more comfortable than a car and having extra room in the back for kids is a huge plus.

I find it cheaper and more practical to rent a bigger car for trips. But if you have more than a baby in a car seat, a bigger car becomes more important. Not sure about SUV specifically, but a larger sedan or even a minivan becomes important.

[yg17]

A family of 4 could not get buy with something as small as the fit. The fit would be unconfortable for a 5 hour trip with just the driver and 1 passenger much less if you add to kids in the back over the age of 5.

Maybe it would be uncomfortable for anyone in the backseat, if all you have is a driver and passenger it wouldn't be. I have taken many road trips in small cars before and never found it a problem. My GTI is a very comfortable car even if it is small, and I look forward to getting to take it on a long road trip, which will probably be in September as I plan on going out to DC for a few days and then up to Philadelphia for a couple more days and back.

[Rodimus Prime]

Maybe it would be uncomfortable for anyone in the backseat, if all you have is a driver and passenger it wouldn't be. I have taken many road trips in small cars before and never found it a problem. My GTI is a very comfortable car even if it is small, and I look forward to getting to take it on a long road trip, which will probably be in September as I plan on going out to DC for a few days and then up to Philadelphia for a couple more days and back.

Well add in the fact that I am 6'4" and you start seeing the problem with small cars. My car is great for getting around town. Just at 5 hours in it at one go it gets to me and I can feel how small it is when compared to something like an accord for the same length of time which is like crap compared to driving an SUV or a truck for 5 hour.

[Rodimus Prime]

I find it cheaper and more practical to rent a bigger car for trips. But if you have more than a baby in a car seat, a bigger car becomes more important. Not sure about SUV specifically, but a larger sedan or even a minivan becomes important.

I am not a fan of the minivan and in the end their gas mileage is not that much better than a comparable sized SUV if at all. Plus they can not be used to tow anything.

Now up that family to a size of 5 and SUV are a great thing for the family car or when the family goes anywhere as a group.

[takao]

I am not a fan of the minivan and in the end their gas mileage is not that much better than a comparable sized SUV if at all. Plus they can not be used to tow anything.

Now up that family to a size of 5 and SUV are a great thing for the family car or when the family goes anywhere as a group.

the VW Sharan (which is in dire need of a replacement) TDI Blue Motion has a combined fuel economy of 6.0 liter/100 km

[yg17]

the VW Sharan (which is in dire need of a replacement) TDI Blue Motion has a combined fuel economy of 6.0 liter/100 km

And in case any other Americans are wondering, that's 39 MPG ;)

[Desertrat]

mac said, "Once the economy starts to pick up again, gas prices will return to something close to their previous levels."

FWIW, my own opinion is that gas prices are gonna go up long before the economy starts to pick up. I drove up to Durango last Sunday to do the Durango-Silverton RR thing with a bunch of friends. Got back last night. Gas had jumped some 20¢ during the trip.

I don't think we'll "recover" to our recent consumeritis economy and the era of happy motoring. For now, we have no choice but to rely on the societal lifeblood that is gas/diesel. Even with a sick economy, oil availability is declining toward world levels of demand. Not all countries' usage is in decline--which means ongoing rises in cost per barrel. Back around $60, now. And there's no viable alternative available in quantity--and won't be, for several years.

I dunno. US car makers build numerous critters in the 35 to 40 mpg range. Same for the foreign makers. The public doesn't like them all that much. It's gonna take years to work through any change. Even then, we'll still need the "big stuff" for working folks. Farm/ranch/maintenance/construction folks: They absolutely need full-size pickups--and there's no way a serious work truck can get past 15 to 18 mpg.

FWIW: Some talk-radio guy (disremember which) cited an NHTSA report on car safety: Some 3,900 extra deaths per year from the general move to econoboxes over these recent decades. Hey, we're always gonna have big personal vehicles, as well as semis, out on the roads. (For years, I did the VW bus thing. Guess who's first on the scene in a head-on? Some things you definitely want to avoid.)

'Rat

[takao]

I dunno. US car makers build numerous critters in the 35 to 40 mpg range. Same for the foreign makers. The public doesn't like them all that much. It's gonna take years to work through any change. Even then, we'll still need the "big stuff" for working folks. Farm/ranch/maintenance/construction folks: They absolutely need full-size pickups--and there's no way a serious work truck can get past 15 to 18 mpg.


Mercedes Sprinter is quite popular around here for business around here though not so cheap as peugeots and japanese ones

as "Pritschenwagen"
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mercedes_Sprinter_Pritsche_front_20080215.jpg
and as 316 CDI it gets a combined fuel economy of 8.4 liters (or around 28 MPG)
sure nothing for the farm

US pickups only make it into (construction) business as "boss" vehicle ... you know the shiny ones where are used for show off

[SactoGuy18]

A family of 4 could not get buy with something as small as the fit. The fit would be unconfortable for a 5 hour trip with just the driver and 1 passenger much less if you add to kids in the back over the age of 5. Have you ever ridden in the back seat of a car that small for more than 3 hours?

I suggest you go to a Honda dealership and actually sit in the rear seating area of the 2009 Honda Fit. First thing you notice: it's a LOT roomier than you think for such a "tiny" car, and two average-sized American adults can actually sit in the back comfortably.

[mactastic]

mac said, "Once the economy starts to pick up again, gas prices will return to something close to their previous levels."

FWIW, my own opinion is that gas prices are gonna go up long before the economy starts to pick up. I drove up to Durango last Sunday to do the Durango-Silverton RR thing with a bunch of friends. Got back last night. Gas had jumped some 20¢ during the trip.
Gas prices are a leading indicator. They dropped like a stone last fall right before the wheels really came off the economy, and their current rise tells me that things are getting bad less fast than there were 3 months ago. Well, that and the oil companies are sticking it to us again during the conversion from winter to summer blends. But the point is, something has changed in the economy to drive those prices higher, even if no one has really felt it yet.

The economy will start to pick up long before most of us notice it. However, without increased business activity and increased consumer confidence and increased willingness to spend money on things that require petroleum products, gas prices will not rise on their own. IOW, the economy *has* to start providing demand for petro products before that demand can equate to an increase in price.

Unless you think the oil companies are just gouging consumers in a terrible recession -- which would put them in the "pretty damn evil" category, wouldn't you say?

[Rodimus Prime]

Gas prices are a leading indicator. They dropped like a stone last fall right before the wheels really came off the economy, and their current rise tells me that things are getting bad less fast than there were 3 months ago. Well, that and the oil companies are sticking it to us again during the conversion from winter to summer blends. But the point is, something has changed in the economy to drive those prices higher, even if no one has really felt it yet.

The economy will start to pick up long before most of us notice it. However, without increased business activity and increased consumer confidence and increased willingness to spend money on things that require petroleum products, gas prices will not rise on their own. IOW, the economy *has* to start providing demand for petro products before that demand can equate to an increase in price.

Unless you think the oil companies are just gouging consumers in a terrible recession -- which would put them in the "pretty damn evil" category, wouldn't you say?

It is not so much the oil companies sticking it to us during the switch to a summer blend but the switch requires the reservse to be be drained. The storage tanks much be completely emptied by law before they can switch. It takes some time to do that and normally it means the reservse at the planets are drained to lower levels. Decreased supply and increased demand means prices always jump during the switch.

[mactastic]

It is not so much the oil companies sticking it to us during the switch to a summer blend but the switch requires the reservse to be be drained. The storage tanks much be completely emptied by law before they can switch. It takes some time to do that and normally it means the reservse at the planets are drained to lower levels. Decreased supply and increased demand means prices always jump during the switch.
But of course summer and winter are not unknown unknowns. They could be planned for and mitigated, but IMHO the oil companies are happier getting more for their product as the "drain the reserve".

[Rodimus Prime]

But of course summer and winter are not unknown unknowns. They could be planned for and mitigated, but IMHO the oil companies are happier getting more for their product as the "drain the reserve".

still has to happen over a course of about 1 month. You still have to drain the storage tanks completely.

That mains tanks that are normally kept full must be completely drained and you start taking storage off line to complete it. no matter how you cut it the reserves are going to be reduced during the transition to summer blend.

Going from summer to winter blend is not a problem because there is no requirement to complete drain the tanks during that time. it when they switch back to the summer blend that requirements hits.
It also matter what part of the country you are in as some areas do not ever go over to a winter blend and run the summer blend year round so the switch does not effect them.

It more the points where they fill the tanker trucks to get them to the filling stations that take are effect by this and as I pointed out above you have the requirements per federal law and if you local supply stations are at reduce reserves for a while it going to hurt them.

[DakotaGuy]

One of the biggest issues in meeting this new CAFE standard will how it effects the vehicle fatality rate. New mini and subcompact cars do fairly well when they are crashed into a barrier of their own weight or against another car of equal size, but fair quite poorly against a mid-sized sedan (not to mention CUV's, SUV's, trucks and vans).

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety did a good story on this and you can view their tests in a video that is linked in the upper right hand corner of that page.

The other issue I see with the CAFE rating is that automobile prices will be going up. The manufactures will still be building trucks because there is a market for that. You can't use a Honda Fit to pull a large trailer to a construction site. There are some technologies like Ford's EcoBoost that can be installed into trucks to improve the fuel economy, but unless there is serious de-tuning these sorts of vehicles won't be able to make CAFE.

How does a full line manufacture comply then? Well you build trucks to a certain quota and then you shut the line down. If you get one your lucky if not you wait until the next year. This will cause truck prices to sky rocket. The next issue is most of the manufactures do not make a large profit on compact cars. They use CUV's, SUV's, trucks, vans and luxury cars to make their profit so they can build small cars at a loss. Once this CAFE rule goes into effect small vehicles pricing will no longer be subsidized by larger vehicles. Expect expensive small cars going forward.

I think improved fuel economy and reduced emissions is a good goal so I am not saying that I am completely against this idea. I just want people to realize there will be negatives that go along with this.

[Rodimus Prime]

One of the biggest issues in meeting this new CAFE standard will how it effects the vehicle fatality rate. New mini and subcompact cars do fairly well when they are crashed into a barrier of their own weight or against another car of equal size, but fair quite poorly against a mid-sized sedan (not to mention CUV's, SUV's, trucks and vans).


My problem with that argument always comes back to the fact that as you replace the current cars on the road with the lighter cars that removes the bigger cars from the picture.

With in 5 years a majority of the heavier cars are off the road and no longer an issue. This based on the fact that the average car in the US is only kept about 5 years. Expained that out 10 years and even few of them are left on the road. The SUV will always have a weight advantage over the small cars and have for a long time but has gas prices go up you see SUV decrease in numbers.

Also reducing the numbers of SUV and trucks on the road will reduce our traffic problems. It was shown in a test SUV and trucks no only take longer to get through an intersection on average but the time before the next car enters is also greater. I want to say average time from when an SUV enters the intersection until the following car clears it is on average 4 sec longer than when compared to a car. This due to the combination of the increased following distance and slower time of the SUV crossing. Those 4 sec add up very fast in morning rush hour.

[Ugg]

My problem with that argument always comes back to the fact that as you replace the current cars on the road with the lighter cars that removes the bigger cars from the picture.

With in 5 years a majority of the heavier cars are off the road and no longer an issue. This based on the fact that the average car in the US is only kept about 5 years. Expained that out 10 years and even few of them are left on the road. The SUV will always have a weight advantage over the small cars and have for a long time but has gas prices go up you see SUV decrease in numbers.

Also reducing the numbers of SUV and trucks on the road will reduce our traffic problems. It was shown in a test SUV and trucks no only take longer to get through an intersection on average but the time before the next car enters is also greater. I want to say average time from when an SUV enters the intersection until the following car clears it is on average 4 sec longer than when compared to a car. This due to the combination of the increased following distance and slower time of the SUV crossing. Those 4 sec add up very fast in morning rush hour.

I agree with you. The dynamics of American transportation have been forever changed. I think we'll also see a greater push for owners of monster suvs to have an added endorsement on their drivers license. No more five foot nothing soccer moms driving hummers.

We're also going to see limits on suvs in cities. Once the economy picks up, I'll bet you that NYC institutes some kind of congestion pricing like London but with a ban or at the very least an enormous fee for heavy passenger vehicles.

[Rodimus Prime]

I agree with you. The dynamics of American transportation have been forever changed. I think we'll also see a greater push for owners of monster suvs to have an added endorsement on their drivers license. No more five foot nothing soccer moms driving hummers.

We're also going to see limits on suvs in cities. Once the economy picks up, I'll bet you that NYC institutes some kind of congestion pricing like London but with a ban or at the very least an enormous fee for heavy passenger vehicles.

I will never support SUVS/Trucks requiring a special endorsement on the DL. SUVs and Trucks are to often invaluable tools to the general population (moving, buying large objects, taking loads to the dump ect) and little difference in driving them compared to a car.

My vechicle is a car but I still on a semi regular bases drive a SUV or a truck. That would when I go home and my parents need me to take some larger objects some where I use the truck. That or I am visiting and I want to go biking some where I use the truck because it is a lot easier to put my bike in the bed of the truck than to get it it all set up on the roof of my car. The truck currently is a spare vehicle of my parents and is used mostly for truck duties only (towing, hauling ect.) My brother and I might use it a a vehicle to see friends or go some where locally if we did not bring our cars home with us. But those trips are few and far between.

Still that just example why I think it would be pointless and stupid to require the endorsment when you consider how often that truck is used and how little it is for something other an a duty of a truck. In case you are wondering it is a V-8 95 dogde ram that gets maybe 12 mpg but it is used as a truck. I will be going home in the next month to borrow it for a few weeks while I move so it will have to go on a 600 mile round trip of traveling but it cheaper for me to have the truck while I move than it is to rent one. Plus more convent just to use the truck.

[DakotaGuy]

My problem with that argument always comes back to the fact that as you replace the current cars on the road with the lighter cars that removes the bigger cars from the picture.

With in 5 years a majority of the heavier cars are off the road and no longer an issue. This based on the fact that the average car in the US is only kept about 5 years. Expained that out 10 years and even few of them are left on the road. The SUV will always have a weight advantage over the small cars and have for a long time but has gas prices go up you see SUV decrease in numbers.

Also reducing the numbers of SUV and trucks on the road will reduce our traffic problems. It was shown in a test SUV and trucks no only take longer to get through an intersection on average but the time before the next car enters is also greater. I want to say average time from when an SUV enters the intersection until the following car clears it is on average 4 sec longer than when compared to a car. This due to the combination of the increased following distance and slower time of the SUV crossing. Those 4 sec add up very fast in morning rush hour.

The point I was trying to make is that even against mid-sized cars mini and subcompact cars do not hold up well in a collision. An SUV or truck being a hazard to anything other then a large car is a given.

If you want to drive a small car and live with the risk that larger vehicles pose then that is fine, but I don't think the government should be mandating that everyone must drive a small car. CAFE is a mandate and the only way of meeting it is to force people to drive small cars by limiting production of larger vehicles or to make very expensive larger vehicles that meet the CAFE requirements.

To be honest a higher fuel tax would do more for conservation then an increased CAFE will. Generally when the fuel economy of a vehicle increases people drive more, not less. All this requirement will do is make cars more expensive and out of the price range average people can spend.

[Eraserhead]

The point I was trying to make is that even against mid-sized cars mini and subcompact cars do not hold up well in a collision.

That sounds like total rubbish to me. Take a look at the Euro-NCAP tests (http://www.euroncap.com/latest.aspx), normal cars look to be pretty safe...

I will never support SUVS/Trucks requiring a special endorsement on the DL. SUVs and Trucks are to often invaluable tools to the general population (moving, buying large objects, taking loads to the dump ect) and little difference in driving them compared to a car.

That's an interesting point.

[Ugg]

The point I was trying to make is that even against mid-sized cars mini and subcompact cars do not hold up well in a collision. An SUV or truck being a hazard to anything other then a large car is a given.

If you want to drive a small car and live with the risk that larger vehicles pose then that is fine, but I don't think the government should be mandating that everyone must drive a small car. CAFE is a mandate and the only way of meeting it is to force people to drive small cars by limiting production of larger vehicles or to make very expensive larger vehicles that meet the CAFE requirements.

They are not going to limit production. I don't know where you came up with such a crazy idea.

Few current suv owners need them. They've become popular as status symbols and because of extremely low interest rates and easy credit.
.
Financing will become more difficult and fewer people will be able to afford to shell out $50,000 on a vehicle that for most, will never see anything more challenging than a gravel driveway.

One of the biggest things that came out of last year's sky high gas prices is that people are willing to buy small cars. What they're not willing to do is buy bare bones cars. Detroit has never made any serious attempt to offer high mileage yet comfortable cars. It's obvious from that alone, Germany, Japan and Korea are going to be selling a lot more cars in the US..

Personally, I think the only way Detroit is going to survive is to become a niche manufacturer for commercial vehicles. I see little future for them in the passenger market.

[DakotaGuy]

They are not going to limit production. I don't know where you came up with such a crazy idea.

Few current suv owners need them. They've become popular as status symbols and because of extremely low interest rates and easy credit.
.
Financing will become more difficult and fewer people will be able to afford to shell out $50,000 on a vehicle that for most, will never see anything more challenging than a gravel driveway.

One of the biggest things that came out of last year's sky high gas prices is that people are willing to buy small cars. What they're not willing to do is buy bare bones cars. Detroit has never made any serious attempt to offer high mileage yet comfortable cars. It's obvious from that alone, Germany, Japan and Korea are going to be selling a lot more cars in the US..

Personally, I think the only way Detroit is going to survive is to become a niche manufacturer for commercial vehicles. I see little future for them in the passenger market.

Of course they will limit production of larger vehicles if there is too much demand and it is going to throw off their CAFE numbers for the year. What is the best selling nameplate in the US? Ford F-Series. Are you trying to say that people won't buy the F-Series anymore? Sure you will get rid of the people that only buy them for image, but you would be surprised how many F-Series are sold to people that really need the capability for their business. I can't really see us running our farm at home with only a subcompact car.

Detroit is completely capable of building a high economy, comfortable, and reliable automobile. Here is just one good example.

2010 Ford Fusion and Fusion Hybrid - Highest fuel economy of any mid-sized car in America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZaPvxnuJUk&feature=PlayList&p=DFBCF9F139F91CE0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIAclinwG6Y&feature=related

[Rodimus Prime]

The point I was trying to make is that even against mid-sized cars mini and subcompact cars do not hold up well in a collision. An SUV or truck being a hazard to anything other then a large car is a given.

If you want to drive a small car and live with the risk that larger vehicles pose then that is fine, but I don't think the government should be mandating that everyone must drive a small car. CAFE is a mandate and the only way of meeting it is to force people to drive small cars by limiting production of larger vehicles or to make very expensive larger vehicles that meet the CAFE requirements.

To be honest a higher fuel tax would do more for conservation then an increased CAFE will. Generally when the fuel economy of a vehicle increases people drive more, not less. All this requirement will do is make cars more expensive and out of the price range average people can spend.

And yet we have mid size-full size cars that can already stand up to the cafe standards. Car to look at the accord or the Camry. Both those are are mid to full size cars.

The Civic I do not believe is even considered a compact car any more. It sure as hell is not a sub compact yet it has no problem meeting them. Or you can look to VW jetta that meets them and so on.

[Eraserhead]

I can't really see us running our farm at home with only a subcompact car.

According to the Economist only 2% of the US population works in Agriculture, so that doesn't really apply to a lot of people. Obviously though people who work on farms do need bigger cars and/or tractors.

[DakotaGuy]

According to the Economist only 2% of the US population works in Agriculture, so that doesn't really apply to a lot of people.

So essentially because very few work in this type of business it doesn't matter? If everyone who works in the field of agriculture stopped working tomorrow I promise you would not like the outcome.;)

And yet we have mid size-full size cars that can already stand up to the cafe standards. Car to look at the accord or the Camry. Both those are are mid to full size cars.

Why look at those? The new 2010 Ford Fusion is the same size and gets better mileage. I guess it is politically incorrect to say that something from Detroit can actually beat the fuel economy of something that comes from Japan.

[NT1440]

So essentially because very few work in this type of business it doesn't matter? If everyone who works in the field of agriculture stopped working tomorrow I promise you would not like the outcome.;)

Doe what ever vehicle your using now for it not work? Who is forcing you to buy a subcompact car as a replacement when you do have to replace your vehicle? :rolleyes:

[Eraserhead]

So essentially because very few work in this type of business it doesn't matter? If everyone who works in the field of agriculture stopped working tomorrow I promise you would not like the outcome.;)

If its really an issue for farmers in a few years time when this comes into force and it isn't possible for trucks to be made efficient enough the farmers will get an exemption as it won't hurt the environment significantly for them to be given one.

[DakotaGuy]

Who is forcing you to buy a subcompact car as a replacement when you do have to replace your vehicle? :rolleyes:

The government will be. If you think that this is not going to have a huge effect on new car and truck pricing (and even used) then you are not seeing the big picture. The average person won't be able to afford anything more then a small car and for a lot of small business owners that will be very detrimental.

[NT1440]

The government will be. If you think that this is not going to have a huge effect on new car and truck pricing (and even used) then you are not seeing the big picture. The average person won't be able to afford anything more then a small car and for a lot of small business owners that will be very detrimental.

Where are you pulling this information out of?

I cannot believe there are honestly people against more efficient vehicles.

[Eraserhead]

The average person won't be able to afford anything more then a small car and for a lot of small business owners that will be very detrimental.

a) That cars are more fuel efficient will make them cheaper to run - even if they cost a little more to buy.

b) The average person doesn't need anything more than a small car.

Where are you pulling this information out of?

I cannot believe there are honestly people against more efficient vehicles.

Its worth pointing out that its not just the Europeans who have more efficient cars than the Americans, I believe even the Chinese have stricter emissions controls on cars than the Americans.

[DakotaGuy]

Where are you pulling this information out of?

I cannot believe there are honestly people against more efficient vehicles.

I'm all for more efficient vehicles I just don't like the government mandating everything. If there is a great demand for high economy vehicles (which there will be because fuel prices will go up again) then let the market decide. Through competition you will end up getting more of an effect then through mandates as we saw when fuel prices spiked last year.

There are a few people out that that still love cars and don't want to drive around in a 90 HP tin can. If you view an automobile as an appliance then this doesn't matter to you, but if you view an automobile as either a tool for your business or are an auto enthusiast then you might view it differently.

Good bye Mustang, Corvette, Camaro hello Smart car.

[Eraserhead]

I'm all for more efficient vehicles I just don't like the government mandating everything.

Frankly though the US car manufacturers have had plenty of time to make more efficient vehicles without government pressure.

[NT1440]

Ah yes, "let the market decide" because the market does such a great job at making things right unguided right?

Heres the problem, the American car companies are only interested in the here and now, which is exactly why they overproduced those pos SUVs to the point that no one wants them anymore once gas hits $2+ a gallon.

Face it, now that gas isn't cheap anymore, efficiency IS the future. Its nowhere near impossible to make an efficient, well performing, and just overall nice ca. Just look at volkswagens.

[takao]

Still that just example why I think it would be pointless and stupid to require the endorsment when you consider how often that truck is used and how little it is for something other an a duty of a truck. In case you are wondering it is a V-8 95 dogde ram that gets maybe 12 mpg but it is used as a truck.

a v8 gasoline engine in the same sentence as "truck ?
how is that even going to work ? ;)




that said the new Audi A4 TDIe takes around 4.6 liters/100 km and will be available from mid july (how much US MPG are that ?)

[Eraserhead]

that said the new Audi A4 TDIe takes around 4.6 liters/100 km and will be available from mid july (how much US MPG are that ?)

I think it is equivalent to about 50 miles per US gallon.

[takao]

There are a few people out that that still love cars and don't want to drive around in a 90 HP tin can. If you view an automobile as an appliance then this doesn't matter to you, but if you view an automobile as either a tool for your business or are an auto enthusiast then you might view it differently.

businesses who view automobiles as tools for their business go for more efficient cars/trucks _first_
if they didn't Mercedes wouldn't be taking as much flak from freighters as they did the last years when they fell behind in fuel efficiency compared to Volvo

[DakotaGuy]

Ah yes, "let the market decide" because the market does such a great job at making things right unguided right?

Heres the problem, the American car companies are only interested in the here and now, which is exactly why they overproduced those pos SUVs to the point that no one wants them anymore once gas hits $2+ a gallon.

Face it, now that gas isn't cheap anymore, efficiency IS the future. Its nowhere near impossible to make an efficient, well performing, and just overall nice ca. Just look at volkswagens.

You proved my point. The market will decide just like it did when fuel prices went higher. Today smaller more efficient vehicles are selling better because the market demanded it, not because the government said you must do it.

Here is a question to think about. If you mandate that vehicles get better fuel economy do you really conserve or do people just end up driving more?

[NT1440]

You proved my point. The market will decide just like it did when fuel prices went higher. Today smaller more efficient vehicles are selling better because the market demanded it, not because the government said you must do it.

Here is a question to think about. If you mandate that vehicles get better fuel economy do you really conserve or do people just end up driving more?

Most people use their cars mainly to get from A to B....

And i guess i did prove your point, if you let the market decide instead of looking ahead you wind up with a huge industry on the brink of collapse jeopardizing the futures of thousands of American families, good point.

[DakotaGuy]

Most people use their cars mainly to get from A to B....

And i guess i did prove your point, if you let the market decide instead of looking ahead you wind up with a huge industry on the brink of collapse jeopardizing the futures of thousands of American families, good point.

So government knows all? If government regulation is the answer then we should also regulate how many miles a person is allowed to drive in one year and regulate fuel prices. You might love the idea of the government telling you what to do and how to spend your money, but not everyone wants that.

The government is in the car business now with Chrysler and soon with GM. Hopefully they run those businesses better then they have ran the Post Office and Amtrak.

As far as SUV's causing the decline of the automotive industry that doesn't quite explain why Toyota lost $7.7 billion and Honda lost $1.9 billion last quarter. They only build high mileage vehicles and have been for years.

[Gelfin]

The government is in the car business now with Chrysler and soon with GM. Hopefully they run those businesses better then they have ran the Post Office and Amtrak.

The US Post Office actually runs astoundingly well. This habit of reliably delivering letters across a continent inside four days for 44 cents is an example of government waste and inefficiency to you?

[DakotaGuy]

The US Post Office actually runs astoundingly well. This habit of reliably delivering letters across a continent inside four days for 44 cents is an example of government waste and inefficiency to you?

The Post Office runs at a HUGE loss. They don't even break even. I suppose if the government just wanted to totally take over GM and make it US Government Motors then they also could operate at a loss indefinitely making tiny econoboxes.

If we are so serious about reducing our dependence on oil then where is the program to replace all gas fired heating appliances in all buildings by efficient electric heat pumps? Shouldn't the government outlaw things like gas water heaters, gas cooking stoves, and gas furnaces?

I have converted my own home (out of my pocket) over to a 100% electric home with an efficient Marathon water heater (google if you don't know what they are), an electric range, and a high efficiency electric heat pump.

[NT1440]

So government knows all? If government regulation is the answer then we should also regulate how many miles a person is allowed to drive in one year and regulate fuel prices. You might love the idea of the government telling you what to do and how to spend your money, but not everyone wants that.

The government is in the car business now with Chrysler and soon with GM. Hopefully they run those businesses better then they have ran the Post Office and Amtrak.

As far as SUV's causing the decline of the automotive industry that doesn't quite explain why Toyota lost $7.7 billion and Honda lost $1.9 billion last quarter. They only build high mileage vehicles and have been for years.
Amazing how you jump to me saying the government is all knowing when I've said nothing of the sort. If you can't stick to my points then you have no business debating with me. All Ive been saying is I'm glad that someone is finally forcing the auto industry to do this because they sure as hell aren't in any rush to make efficient cars themselves.

[yg17]

a v8 gasoline engine in the same sentence as "truck ?
how is that even going to work ? ;)




that said the new Audi A4 TDIe takes around 4.6 liters/100 km and will be available from mid july (how much US MPG are that ?)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=4.6l%2F100km%20in%20mpg&btnG=Google+Search

51 MPG. I love Google :D

With regards to the safety of small cars, I drove a little fuel efficient tin can. I was in a front-end collision with a midsized sedan at about 40mph, if not more, and I walked away from the accident without a scratch on me. I didn't even wake up the next morning with back and neck pains like everyone says they do after an accident. That little tin can was the safest damn car I've ever seen, and perhaps the only other vehicle I would've rather been in for that crash was an army tank.

Maybe all the other tin can makers need to ask Volkswagen for help on how to make their tin cans safe, because I found out the hard way that the reputation VWs have for safety is well deserved.

And in Europe, just about everyone drives small cars. Gee, if they were so unsafe, wouldn't every European be dead by now? :rolleyes:

[Gelfin]

The Post Office runs at a HUGE loss. They don't even break even.

This is a fairly recent phenomenon, and not so much related to government mismanagement as to declines in the economy and perhaps the early stages of the obsolescence of physical letter delivery. The majority of postal revenue comes from bulk mailing rates, i.e., junk mail. Increasing fuel costs and decreasing direct mail advertising have hit them hard.

Their 2008 budget shortfall was $2.8 billion. They deliver upwards of 200 billion pieces of mail per year. A two cent increase in postage rates covers the shortfall with money left over, and still leaves us with the cheapest postal rates in the developed world.

[DakotaGuy]

Amazing how you jump to me saying the government is all knowing when I've said nothing of the sort. If you can't stick to my points then you have no business debating with me. All Ive been saying is I'm glad that someone is finally forcing the auto industry to do this because they sure as hell aren't in any rush to make efficient cars themselves.

What good are the efficient cars if no one can afford them? I think you will be amazed to see how this will effect auto prices by 2016. Now it's not a big deal for people that make a lot of money, but for other people it is.

Since you claim they won't do it on their own how do you explain the new hybrid cars that are being released today? The current CAFE does not require those sorts of vehicles. They are releasing them because the consumer wants them (well sort of, last month hybrid sales were down 45.5%). You can buy a very efficient vehicle today? right? There is nothing stopping you.

I have a 2008 Ford Fusion. It gets pretty good fuel economy so it is my main driver. I also own a classic 1978 Ford F-150 4x4 with a 6.6L (400 cubic inch) V8 engine. I bought it from a neighbor with 78,000 original miles on it. Why did I buy it? Because it's fun and because at best I might drive it 2,500 miles a year. What I am trying to say is that I don't view a vehicle as a Point A to Point B appliance. I am all for the automakers offering high mileage vehicles and if that's what the consumer really wants they will buy them, but I'd still like to see some vehicles left for people who actually love cars. Vehicles with soul. If you like a brown paper wrapper, fine, but I don't think the government should mandate that we all have to drive that.

[yg17]

I have a 2008 Ford Fusion. It gets pretty good fuel economy so it is my main driver. I also own a classic 1978 Ford F-150 4x4 with a 6.6L (400 cubic inch) V8 engine. I bought it from a neighbor with 78,000 original miles on it. Why did I buy it? Because it's fun and because at best I might drive it 2,500 miles a year. What I am trying to say is that I don't view a vehicle as a Point A to Point B appliance. I am all for the automakers offering high mileage vehicles and if that's what the consumer really wants they will buy them, but I'd still like to see some vehicles left for people who actually love cars. Vehicles with soul. If you like a brown paper wrapper, fine, but I don't think the government should mandate that we all have to drive that.


The government isn't mandating what you can and can't drive. Auto makers are free to build 5 MPG highway monstrosities and you're free to buy them. They just have to have an average fuel economy of 35.5 MPG by 2016. And considering the fact that several automakers are currently building non-hybrid and non-diesel cars with more than 35 MPG with relative ease now, it should be no problem in 8 years.

[NT1440]

What good are the efficient cars if no one can afford them? I think you will be amazed to see how this will effect auto prices by 2016. Now it's not a big deal for people that make a lot of money, but for other people it is.

Why the hell do you think efficient cars are going to be super expensive? They can build them now, they just dont.

And about the hybrids, they saw how popular toyotas prius is becoming and cant be left in the dust with not having any "green" options in their roster or they face even more bad publicity.

[SactoGuy18]

The government isn't mandating what you can and can't drive. Auto makers are free to build 5 MPG highway monstrosities and you're free to buy them. They just have to have an average fuel economy of 35.5 MPG by 2016. And considering the fact that several automakers are currently building non-hybrid and non-diesel cars with more than 35 MPG with relative ease now, it should be no problem in 8 years.

Remember that supposedly "ugly" 2011 Ford Fiesta coming to the USA in early 2010? That vehicle is expected to be quite safe (thanks the need for higher EuroNCAP crash certification and for NHTSA safety certification) and may get the Duratorq TDCi 1.6-liter turbodiesel engine, which could mean the new Fiesta will just just as safe as the VW GTI and could possibly get the type of fuel economy you normally associate with a Toyota Prius! :D

[mactastic]

So government knows all? If government regulation is the answer then we should also regulate how many miles a person is allowed to drive in one year and regulate fuel prices. You might love the idea of the government telling you what to do and how to spend your money, but not everyone wants that.

Wow... you've really gone down that slippery slope, haven't you? Seriously, you're trying to argue that if we let the government regulate fuel, we're allowing them to dictate how far we drive, and tell us what to do and how to spend our money?

Really? :confused:

[NT1440]

Wow... you've really gone down that slippery slope, haven't you? Seriously, you're trying to argue that if we let the government regulate fuel, we're allowing them to dictate how far we drive, and tell us what to do and how to spend our money?

Really? :confused:

Why stick to reality when you can just jump overboard with baseless assertions eh? :)

[djellison]

There is nothing stopping you..

Actually - there IS something stoping the majority of Americans buying economical cars.

A lack of choice, and wilful ignorance.

[DakotaGuy]

Why stick to reality when you can just jump overboard with baseless assertions eh? :)

Because you know as well as I do once the government starts regulating and gets away with it they will press for more and more regulation. When hasn't this been the case?

Has it occurred to you that maybe everyone doesn't want a small underpowered car? If that is what you enjoy fine. I just don't want the government telling me what I can drive and what I can't drive. The new CAFE is doing this. With that said I drive a car that is more efficient then a lot of cars on the road, but I wasn't forced to buy that car. With the new CAFE requirments, automakers will be forced to push heavily to very small cars to meet the regulation so they can build a few larger vehicles. Guess what? The larger vehicles will become much more expensive. I don't exactly see how you don't understand this. With the new CAFE, to be able to push the average fuel economy that high, the product mix has to be shifted. They have to find a way to force the consumer to only buy small cars.

[mactastic]

Because you know as well as I do once the government starts regulating and gets away with it they will press for more and more regulation. When hasn't this been the case?
Well, by that logic we should never deregulate either, since you know as well as I do that any time industry gets away with deregulation they will press for more and more deregulation. Pretty soon we'll be back to slavery again.

Slippery slopes make great arguments, don't they?

Has it occurred to you that maybe everyone doesn't want a small underpowered car? If that is what you enjoy fine. I just don't want the government telling me what I can drive and what I can't drive. The new CAFE is doing this. With that said I drive a car that is more efficient then a lot of cars on the road, but I wasn't forced to buy that car. With the new CAFE requirments, automakers will be forced to push heavily to very small cars to meet the regulation so they can build a few larger vehicles. Guess what? The larger vehicles will become much more expensive. I don't exactly see how you don't understand this. With the new CAFE, to be able to push the average fuel economy that high, the product mix has to be shifted. They have to find a way to force the consumer to only buy small cars.
Has it occurred to you that CAFE standards don't force anyone to buy anything? I mean, we've had CAFE standards for 30 years now, so by your logic practically every vehicle on the road was forced upon someone -- probably with a jack-booted government thug holding a pistol to the head of every would-be car buyer. I know when I bought my truck 5 years ago, the guy there used a Beretta 9mm to force me to buy it.

What kind of gun did they use on you?

[Ugg]

Because you know as well as I do once the government starts regulating and gets away with it they will press for more and more regulation. When hasn't this been the case?

Has it occurred to you that maybe everyone doesn't want a small underpowered car? If that is what you enjoy fine. I just don't want the government telling me what I can drive and what I can't drive. The new CAFE is doing this. With that said I drive a car that is more efficient then a lot of cars on the road, but I wasn't forced to buy that car. With the new CAFE requirments, automakers will be forced to push heavily to very small cars to meet the regulation so they can build a few larger vehicles. Guess what? The larger vehicles will become much more expensive. I don't exactly see how you don't understand this. With the new CAFE, to be able to push the average fuel economy that high, the product mix has to be shifted. They have to find a way to force the consumer to only buy small cars.

Yep and forcing HVAC manufacturers to make only environmentally friendly air conditioners means that there's now a black market for freon based AC. <sarcasm tag>

Get real! your whining and that of Orrin Hatch and all the other libertarian/conservative/reactionary/etc/etc is getting old. China has the most stringent CAFE standards in the world, Europe has high standards as well, that hasn't meant the demise of the SUV, only that fewer people buy them.

The one thing I really don't understand about this argument is the total and utter lack of a sense of responsibility. Conservatives will rant for days on end about abortion and individual responsibility, but once it comes to guns or monster SUVs, the word responsibility disappears entirely from the discussion.

Rights are only justifiable if responsibilities are a part of the equation.

[NT1440]

Because you know as well as I do once the government starts regulating and gets away with it they will press for more and more regulation. When hasn't this been the case?

Has it occurred to you that maybe everyone doesn't want a small underpowered car?

First off, Slippery Slope arguments are complete and total crap. I really hope you understand why.

Show me any "small underpowered" car sold in the US besides those tiny smartcars. Why exactly do people need 200+ horsepower just to drive here in America? Frankly I don't give a damn if your car can smoke mine on the strip, I can still easily hit 80 MPH in every car I've ever been in. Why is it that the "rice burners" with their tiny engines can go fast as hell and still smoke muscle cars in fuel efficiency?

[DakotaGuy]

First off, Slippery Slope arguments are complete and total crap. I really hope you understand why.

Show me any "small underpowered" car sold in the US besides those tiny smartcars. Why exactly do people need 200+ horsepower just to drive here in America? Frankly I don't give a damn if your car can smoke mine on the strip, I can still easily hit 80 MPH in every car I've ever been in. Why is it that the "rice burners" with their tiny engines can go fast as hell and still smoke muscle cars in fuel efficiency?

Typical liberal argument. It's good enough for me so it is good enough for you. Insert any name you can think of ___________ doesn't need a truck, suv, cuv, mid-sized car, large car, because I don't need one.

I am concerned about the environment. I spent 3 summers working for the local conservation district planting over 5,000 trees in that time. I also have converted my home to a high efficiency electric home to reduce my own use of oil. When it comes to vehicles though, I'd like to be able to afford something that is safe, roomy, powerful with a decent level of economy. The new CAFE standard will end up pricing vehicles like that out of my range.

You don't see it now, but come back in 5 years and take a look at vehicle pricing. It has less to do with the money it takes to build a high efficiency vehicle it has to do with a reduction in the sales of profit makers. Do you honestly believe that Toyota makes a lot of money on the Corolla? Ford on the Focus? Almost all small and sub-compact cars right now are built at a loss. Vehicles like the F-series and Tundra are the profit makers and propping up the smaller vehicles. Once the product mix is forced to change the company's now NEED to make a LARGE profit on those smaller vehicles to survive. To make a good profit on those smaller cars today you would need to increase the MSRP by at least $5,000. Maybe to someone like you that is pocket change, but to me that is a lot of money.

When it comes to larger vehicles demand will outstrip supply and this will also cause a price hike. The vehicle mix and patterns of the consumer have to be changed so a manufacturer can meet the new CAFE. On top of all of that, yes there will be an additional cost for new materials like more aluminum, composites, magnesium because weight needs to be severely reduced to meet the new CAFE on anything larger then a small car. Engines will need to be either de-tuned or made smaller with expensive turbo and direct injection systems. Last, we have the promise of hybrids, but what happens when all of those batteries end up in the scrap yards?

Everyone who doesn't understand cars and trucks just thinks this is going to be easy and cheap to do. It's not going to be. Today you can go out and buy a very economical vehicle at a very good price because it is being propped up by more expensive SUV's, trucks and luxury cars. In the future the vehicle will remain economical, but I can promise it won't be cheap because that small car will need to be making a big profit for the company.

[djellison]

Today you can go out and buy a very economical vehicle at a very good price because it is being propped up by more expensive SUV's, trucks and luxury cars.

Evidence for this please. The vast majority of cars in Europe are small, economical vehicles. Are you attempting to argue that the bulk of the market is being kept aloft by BMW X5's and Range Rovers.

Stop kidding yourself.

[yg17]

First off, Slippery Slope arguments are complete and total crap. I really hope you understand why.

Show me any "small underpowered" car sold in the US besides those tiny smartcars. Why exactly do people need 200+ horsepower just to drive here in America? Frankly I don't give a damn if your car can smoke mine on the strip, I can still easily hit 80 MPH in every car I've ever been in. Why is it that the "rice burners" with their tiny engines can go fast as hell and still smoke muscle cars in fuel efficiency?

According to my trip computer, my GTI got 36 MPG on my way to work this morning. I don't buy the argument that CAFE standards are bad because fun cars won't be sold anymore and we'll just be able to buy small underpowered pieces of junk. The fun muscle cars get crappy MPG because the manufacturers don't try. If a GTI can get 36 MPG, then a more powerful muscle car should be able to get 30 no problem. And if it can't get that sort of gas mileage due to manufacturer incompetence and laziness, then perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to sell it.

I'd like to be able to afford something that is safe, roomy, powerful with a decent level of economy. The new CAFE standard will end up pricing vehicles like that out of my range.

Not to sound like a VW commercial or anything, but my GTI is safe (I found that out the hard way), roomy, powerful and has a decent level of economy. And I find it to be very affordable, but that's one man's opinion. Some people would think a Lamborghini is affordable.

[DakotaGuy]

Evidence for this please. The vast majority of cars in Europe are small, economical vehicles. Are you attempting to argue that the bulk of the market is being kept aloft by BMW X5's and Range Rovers.

Stop kidding yourself.

All of the companies have profit makers. What do you think the purpose of having a luxury car line in your product mix is? Why do you think Toyota has tried so hard to get into the full-sized truck market? Yeah it's because they are making tons of money on that Corolla.

Europe is a different game because over there you will pay big bucks for a premium small car. Premium small cars don't sell well in the US. Just because it is that way in Europe doesn't mean it's that way in the US.

[yg17]

Europe is a different game because over there you will pay big bucks for a premium small car. Premium small cars don't sell well in the US. Just because it is that way in Europe doesn't mean it's that way in the US.

I'm not sure if you've ever actually been to Europe or even looked at the small cars over there, but a majority of the ones on the road aren't what I would call premium. While things like power windows, remote entry, cd/mp3 player, iPod jack, A/C, etc, are all usually standard on even the cheapest cars sold in America, they're typically extra options that must be purchased on the European cars.

[DakotaGuy]

I'm not sure if you've ever actually been to Europe or even looked at the small cars over there, but a majority of the ones on the road aren't what I would call premium. While things like power windows, remote entry, cd/mp3 player, iPod jack, A/C, etc, are all usually standard on even the cheapest cars sold in America, they're typically extra options that must be purchased on the European cars.

I lived in Italy for a summer and spent a year in Iraq and 3 months in Kuwait so yes I have seen what people in other counties drive. We had a couple of rental Fiat Marea's (this was the late 90's). They were small 4 door sedans and had a very tall axle ratio. Basically built for going as fast as possible with a 1.6L engine, but they had terrible acceleration. Now I know that was 10 years ago, so maybe today those little 1.6L's are screamers, but I doubt it.

Take all of that standard equipment out and see if you can sell your car here? Not a chance. If they are going to start to make a big profit on those small cars we better be prepared either to pay a lot of money or deal with de-contenting of the product.

[Ugg]

Everyone who doesn't understand cars and trucks just thinks this is going to be easy and cheap to do. It's not going to be. Today you can go out and buy a very economical vehicle at a very good price because it is being propped up by more expensive SUV's, trucks and luxury cars. In the future the vehicle will remain economical, but I can promise it won't be cheap because that small car will need to be making a big profit for the company.

When oil hits $200 a barrel, all of your arguments become irrelevant.

Yesterday I saw a jacked up Ford F350 4WD being used by a contractor. Unless he spent the bulk of his time pulling backhoes, his vehicle was purely an ego booster. Most people, even contractors, simply don't need monster SUVs.

[DakotaGuy]

When oil hits $200 a barrel, all of your arguments become irrelevant.

Yesterday I saw a jacked up Ford F350 4WD being used by a contractor. Unless he spent the bulk of his time pulling backhoes, his vehicle was purely an ego booster. Most people, even contractors, simply don't need monster SUVs.

Ever tried pulling a skid steer loader on a trailer with a Toyota Corolla? Many contractors and other businesses do need vehicles like an F-350. Some can get by with an F-150 or even a compact Ranger, but a small car is not going to work for their business. I have recreational vehicles (a snowmobile and an ATV) and a small car is not going to work for hauling them. Your view is that since you don't have any use for it, no one else should.

As far as the vehicle being jacked-up, I agree that is a silly modification that not only reduces the fuel economy, but also makes the vehicle unsafe.

If oil goes to $200 a barrel then the market will dictate what people purchase not the government so I don't see how that makes my argument irrelevant.

[NT1440]

Ever tried pulling a skid steer loader on a trailer with a Toyota Corolla? Many contractors and other businesses do need vehicles like an F-350. Some can get by with an F-150 or even a compact Ranger, but a small car is not going to work for their business. I have recreational vehicles (a snowmobile and an ATV) and a small car is not going to work for hauling them. Your view is that since you don't have any use for it, no one else should.

As far as the vehicle being jacked-up, I agree that is a silly modification that not only reduces the fuel economy, but also makes the vehicle unsafe.

If oil goes to $200 a barrel then the market will dictate what people purchase not the government so I don't see how that makes my argument irrelevant.
What is it with you and your ridiculous idea that somehow no one will be allowed to buy a truck?

And to the underlined: Yea, go ahead and start a car company, make only the cars people want here and now, and simply REACT to the market as it changes instead of looking ahead. That would make you a bit like, oh i dunno, GM. There doing swimmingly right now isnt it?

[Ugg]

Ever tried pulling a skid steer loader on a trailer with a Toyota Corolla? Many contractors and other businesses do need vehicles like an F-350. Some can get by with an F-150 or even a compact Ranger, but a small car is not going to work for their business. I have recreational vehicles (a snowmobile and an ATV) and a small car is not going to work for hauling them.

What about that Mercedes transporter that Takao gave a picture of? Does hauling capacity have to equal gas hog?

None of your arguments have come close to addressing the key to this issue. RESPONSIBILITY.

Why is it so hard for the gas guzzlers to understand that?

The vast majority of the money we spend on gas is going overseas, mostly to repressive ME regimes or tin pot dictators. Necessitating in the minds of many, the need for a large and extremely expensive military. When are you going to acknowledge that your NEED for cheap gas is responsible for many of the US' problems?

[DakotaGuy]

What is it with you and your ridiculous idea that somehow no one will be allowed to buy a truck?

It's not that you won't be allowed to buy one, just simply they will be priced out of reach and only the wealthy will be able to afford one. Making a full sized pickup reach these new standards and still have enough horsepower and torque to pull a load is not going to be an easy nor cheap task.

The only other choices are to pay the CAFE penalty which will also be passed onto the consumer or to change your production schedule so that small vehicles account for a much higher percent of your product mix.

I am all for the automakers offering small fuel efficient vehicles. They offer them today and there is nothing stopping you from buying one.

There is no way that you can look at this new requirement and say it is not going to significantly raise auto prices. The only people that benefit from this is the wealthy. Also how much oil will it really save? Not much because over the years as fuel economy has increased so has the average mileage people drive in a year. A higher fuel tax would do more for conservation and motivating people to drive smaller less powerful automobiles then this new CAFE does.

[iShater]

The vast majority of the money we spend on gas is going overseas, mostly to repressive ME regimes or tin pot dictators. Necessitating in the minds of many, the need for a large and extremely expensive military. When are you going to acknowledge that your NEED for cheap gas is responsible for many of the US' problems?

Actually most of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico, sample link (http://www.quoteoil.com/oil-imports.html). And others.

My understanding is that vehicle prices are expected to go up by around $1400 or so per vehicle by 2012 because of the new standards, something that is expected to be offset by savings in gas as price of gas goes up.

I am for the new standards because they force car makers to offer MORE choices, engines that have been available in Europe for a while (diesel) for example. It doesn't mean it will ban trucks, and SUVs, they will be more efficient.

[takao]

It's not that you won't be allowed to buy one, just simply they will be priced out of reach and only the wealthy will be able to afford one. Making a full sized pickup reach these new standards and still have enough horsepower and torque to pull a load is not going to be an easy nor cheap task.

it's gonna be a rather easy task ... in fact most businesses around here can do without V8 gasoline engines

the mercedes i posted earlier has 360 NM of torque compared to the entry f150 of 392 NM ... with half as many cylinders and half the displacement and at 28-30 MPG