Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2007 » No car or truck left behind: 35 MPG by 2020 « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 835
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 5:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No car or truck left behind: 35 MPG by 2020
Posted Today 10:27 AM by Todd Lassa
Filed under: Government, Motor City Blogman

Kiss your V-8 goodbye. A Senate committee approved by voice vote a new Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard of 35 mpg for cars and trucks, by 2020. That number assumes a 4-percent per year increase starting now, but gives automakers 13 years to catch up with the new standard.

Whatever you think of CAFE, the 35-mpg average is not draconian. What's draconian is that the bill would require the standard to rise 4 percent per year after that. Typical of Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, it assumes that automakers can update engines and re-engineer cars every model year, the way the Big Three updated sheetmetal (thanks to body-on-frame structures) in the planned obsolescence of the 1950s and '60s. If the major automakers continue their work on hybrids, plug-in hybrids, clean diesels and fuel cell vehicles, there might be enough of those to counter a few thirsty V-8s (which would be high-priced niche vehicles by the '20s) to allow the major makers to reach 35 mpg. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry trade group that counts General Motors, Toyota Motor, Ford Motor and DaimlerChrysler (for now) says, "it's unattainable, period."

Do the simple math. If CAFE is 35 mpg by 2020, and must rise 4 percent annually, CAFE would be 42.5 mpg by the time of the next product cycle, 2025. And this average applies to cars and trucks. Speaker Nancy Pelosi proudly says the bill would end the loophole that allows automakers to sell big SUVs that get lower fuel mileage. Before you excoriate Pelosi and the Dems, though, remember that it was President Bush who first proposed a 4-percent per year increase in his State of the Union speech. EPA standards ramped up CAFE similarly in the '70s, but that was from no standard, when an American car that got 15 mpg was considered "fuel-efficient."

Bush's proposal for a yearly increase sounds too much like his "No Child Left Behind" "education" program. Federal funding for schools is predicated on constant testing, and schools must show annual test score increases, even if students already are averaging B+.

If the annual increases make it into law, automakers will have to plan for cars and trucks in the '20s that average well into the 40-mpg range. That means no V-8s, no big cars (but no lightweight cars, either, as crash standards also rise). Automakers will have to phase out Corvettes and Mustangs and Chargers, anything that gets much less than 35 mpg, by the early '20s. As usual, automakers get screwed, while Big Oil makes record profits.

http://blogs.motortrend.com/62 09211/government/no-car-or-tru ck-left-behind-35-mpg-by-2020/ index.html

I dont understand much about CAFE, but I hate it already for this simple fact that it will force us all to drive some 2 liter go kart in the future, instead of a real car. V-8's and up are endangered species. This can't be good for the Big 2.5.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 1634
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 6:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mayor: Your idea of a "real car" is rapidly becoming a museum piece.

This is only transportation we're talking about, and the bulk of new auto production should be fuel efficient. Memories of vrooming V-8s are tied to emotional nostalgia and should be discarded.

I applaud the coming ramp-up in CAFE standards. The automakers have had decades to work on this issue (since the first Arab oil embargo, when gas prices nearly doubled overnight); now they'll have to get their butts in gear. This is great news.

We fondly recall horse-drawn buggies now; in 30 years, people will view Chargers and Mustangs and Tahoes the same way.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936

Post Number: 1426
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 6:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fury, you can drive a Neon all you like. I need my Explorer for hauling and for cross-country driving. V-6 and it still gets 19-20 MPG in town. (When I drive to MI from here, I sleep in the back end and save motel bills. Hate to pay 100 bucks just to get forty winks.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Bulletmagnet
Member
Username: Bulletmagnet

Post Number: 433
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 7:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And we need a 35 MPG CAFE, why?
Top of pageBottom of page

Spitcoff
Member
Username: Spitcoff

Post Number: 101
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 7:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

good say good buy to big ass suvs on the road
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 9117
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 7:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What ever to letting the market dictate this. Seems our government is not as capitalist as people would like to believe.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 830
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 8:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

And we need a 35 MPG CAFE, why?



Because Congress feels obliged to "do something" and they haven't got the stomach to legislate a "multi-dollar gas tax", which is the only way to reduce individual fuel consumption.

Higher CAFE results in us driving ever-lighter and ever-more fuel efficient car/trucks, which enables us to drive more miles per year, since we can easily do that within our household budget. It does nothing to change personal behavior. The only way to reduce the amount of fuel we consume is to make it more expensive than the market price by adding a $1 or $2 federal tax to each gallon of gas. This would be the most efficient and quickest way to get the desired results, but is would be suicidal for the re-election hopes of incumbents.

Instead, we will all be driving much smaller vehicles in the future that carry a hidden tax in the purchase price for the cost of the indirectly mandated technology that was used to reach the CAFE requirements.

Also, to meet these higher CAFE requirements, the entire fleet will have to get smaller and lighter, not just the "big ass suvs". Therefore, you small car enthusiasts will also be impacted and you will still see relatively larger "utility" vehicle for sale that you can rant and rail against.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81

Post Number: 1423
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 8:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm with Jt1 on this.

This essentially makes performance cars, trucks, SUV's etc DEAD. F THAT! I understand the need to save fuel. With that said, the market should drive this.

Raise the damn fuel tax! Hell, I welcome it. What this does is allow the automakers to produce whatever they want to, based on actual consumer demand. What it also means is that I will be able to go buy a sports car or SUV or truck IF I CAN AFFORD TO PAY FOR THE GAS. It is up to me how to spend my money. Most people will buy high mpg cars because they want to. But there are lot of people out there who love to drive (me) and if I have enough money, why shouldn't I be able to drive the big cars?

35 MPG CAFE will mean they won't produce much that will suck that mileage down. Which means they probably won't produce it at all.

The politicians behind this are morons. And they're too scared to start taxing the fuel on their voters. I'm all for it. Tax us on fuel and give us a cut elsewhere. Or tax us on fuel and put the money into road maintenance (think German quality roads :-) ) and/or a real, legit, top-notch, extensive mass transit system for all the medium to large cities in America.

I'm all over that. CAFE takes away our ability to drive and buy what we want and can afford, and it forces the automakers to swallow ALL of the trouble and expense of higher MPG while all of us get to keep driving as much, as far, and with as cheap a fuel as we always have.

I generally consider myself a liberal-leaning person. I don't know if it is my age or what, but I swear we are moving to a serious nanny state where the government tells us what we can't buy, what we can't drive, and essentially what we can or can't spend our money on. Maybe living in CA for the last several years makes it worse too.... I don't know. Guess I'm just viewing this as preventing Americans from spending their own money as they see fit and preventing Automakers from making business decisions based on actual consumer demand. Both are just wrong in my mind.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81

Post Number: 1424
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 8:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'll follow up and say Mikeg has a great point too.

Higher fuel prices have resulted in bigger changes in our country MPG in 2 years than 25 years of CAFE.

And if you look at total fuel consumption, it keeps getting worse. Because we keep living further and further away from work, just like Mikeg says, because it fits within our budgets.

A 35mpg CAFE level means it will still cost us roughly the same to drive as much as we always have. So we will keep doing what we've been doing: living far from work, living in large houses in sprawled urban areas, not taking public transit (if it is even available), and driving everywhere.

CAFE is just so absurd I don't know how people could think it is a good idea. The only reason if ever got anywhere is because the politicians aren't willing to sacrifice themselves and raise the gas tax. But you know what? After the initial complaining, we'd adjust like we always do. Raising gas taxes doesn't necessarily mean you're not going to get re-elected. Especially if you make it, say, a $.10/year increase.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox

Post Number: 186
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 8:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And if you, say, accompany the tax increase with the higher octanes available at European pumps, better-maintained roads, and mass transit. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou

Post Number: 837
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 8:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good points all, except for those who prefer to drive Neons over "real cars"

This is also bad news because this likely kills the many promising concepts GM had on their Zeta rear wheel drive platform, especially the flagship Cadillac and its V-12. It is like they want the US automakers to lose.

Goddamn spineless Democrats and that idiot Bush.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath

Post Number: 71
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 8:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why do they need to "do something"? Its called reality.

Here is some data to chew on ( I got this privately from an email from an investment analyst friend at a large Wall Street firm): American use of crude oil is 25 barrels per person per year (that's about 1,100 gallons). In China, that figure is 1.5 barrel per capita annually and in India it's 1 barrel. Those economies grow 10% per year or better while ours grows about 1.5% (in terms of petroleum use). Total worldwide oil demand is 85 million barrels per day. If a person in China used as much oil as an American, Chinese demand alone would be 180 million barrels per day. (we have not even talked about India whose population now exceeds 1 billion) What would the price of oil have to go to in order to induce oil companies/OPEC to develop enough to supply that? (Hint: a lot, and it is not really even possible, or sustainable in the long term) Last year China alone increased its oil consumption a whooping 20%! They are now the second largest oil consuming nation.

Folks, I am not worried about $4 a gallon gas, I am worried about $8 a gallon gas by 2012, which is very realistic. So let me again ask those that "Love their big V-8's" how much would you love it if it cost you $160 to fill it up? I doubt few Americans want to spend $640 per month for gas for 1 vehicle. How about $1280 for two similar cars?

And E-85 is probably the worst possible solution on so many levels. (That is another subject all together).

So for all the nay sayers- just think If during the Clinton years, they would have pushed increased CAFE standards in the early '90's, American cars would have gotten better mileage, and probably sold more vehicles, we would have decreased our fuel demand, and therefore fuel cost would certainly be lower than what we are paying now. While you might make the case the CAFE is bad for detroit, I would say the opposite is true. Not having higher CAFE standards has put our whole region's economy in the shitter. The number of foreclosures,unemployment, and plant closures alone, seem to indicate this reality. If you think things are bad now, do nothing about mileage, and wait three years. The "Market" will correct itself by putting us all in the poor house. Once again the Japanese saw this coming, and Detroit yet again got caught with its pants down. Although they too are getting their asses burned in truck and SUV sales. (Sales for Nissan, and Toyota gas guzzlers have also tanked) . Just wait 'till the May figures come out! It won't be pretty, as this will be the first month to reflect $3 a gallon prices. We have nothing to loose, and everything to gain by higher CAFE standards, and a real push for alternative fuel sources. Economics 101: you pay now, or dearly more later. We in Michigan have in the last five years, already paid dearly, for putting this off.

As well, I don't get the brainless mentality that the government will hold a gun to your head, and we'll all be forced to drive econo-boxes. Do nothing, and that will be all you can afford to drive. With forcing higher CAFE standards, believe me- Ingenuity will find away for people to drive large vehicles AND get good mileage. It is possible. But if an organization is not forced to change; it won't, or it will until it is too late. History has proven this too many times.

As I did study economics, and understand full well that the government, and to a lesser extent corporations, know that politicians and executives don't have the balls to make tough policy decisions that will be unpopular in a timely manor, or leave the problem for the incoming administration, I decided to hedge my bet, and invest in Canadian oil-stocks that are immune to hurricanes and are not connected to Middle-Eastern countries that hate us, to offset what I pay at the pump. Boy am I glad I did, as the returns have been nothing short of fantastic! Guess what my investment analyst friend at a large Wall Street firm did? He followed his own advice, and is living large too! So I tip my hat to all the Hummer drivers out there- See ya at the pump-CHUMP! And please- Fill'er up!



(Message edited by Cinderpath on May 09, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Sknutson
Member
Username: Sknutson

Post Number: 875
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 9:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

And we need a 35 MPG CAFE, why?



I dunno. Maybe so we don't have to go to war for oil.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mercman
Member
Username: Mercman

Post Number: 21
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 9:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm really sick of this. Reading that the Big FOUR can't come up with cars that do at least 35 MPG. I think it's all B/S.

We can put a man on the moon in the 1960's but we can't make a V-8 do 35 MPG from the factory. B/S! Big time! I've seen old, OLD engines from the 50's hooked to modern trannies and low geared rear-ends that make better than 35 MPG on the highway. It's not the technology at fault, it's what it costs the corporations to make it happen! They don't want to do it!

They (the big four) have been holding back for years because they are in bed with big oil/the government. We are the sheep that follow along, bitch about oil prices, and keep paying the higher bills. As long as the oil companies think we will keep paying, they will keep rising prices. Wake up people!

Get 'our' Government out of manufacturing and convince people they are being duped out of their money by big oil. There's a start.

I like when I see fuel efficient technology being bought by the big companies and the patents squandered like they never existed. B/S!

What ever happened to that old guy in Troy, MI that developed battery technology that could run a car 200+ miles...he sold out to Exxon or some other big oil company...his patent never to see the light of day again. Stupid move. Big bucks for him, I'm sure.

We have the technology folks, to create very fuel friendly cars that will get 85% of the population to where they need to be everyday- WORK. The problem is, big corporations keep the technology from us saying things like "reliable fuel cell cars do not provide the mileage requirements of consumers." B/S AGAIN. Most consumers commute less than 35 miles to work each way. Even 50. That fits the bill perfectly for a low-emission, fuel cell vehicle.

With all our advances in modern technology in EVERYWHERE ELSE BUT CARS AND FUEL ECONOMY, doesn't anyone else feel like we are being held back, technically speaking...in what we are forced to drive?

The people that were the test drivers to GM's EV-1 cars were VERY disappointed when they were told they had to turn their cars in so they could be scrapped...despite the owners being more than happy with them.

I recommend this for those that care and have a mind of their own:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Kill ed-Electric-Martin-Sheen/dp/B0 00I5Y8FU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4 524154-0659258?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&q id=1178760342&sr=8-1

I'm sick of this topic. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of restoring old cars, high performance, speed, and big engines...but for everyday use, We're all being royally duped. Take that for what you want.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ordinary
Member
Username: Ordinary

Post Number: 208
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 9:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MikeG and Jerome81 make a lot of sense. Better mileage does not equate to fuel savings. It equates to more miles driven and the same amount of fuel being used.
Top of pageBottom of page

Kathinozarks
Member
Username: Kathinozarks

Post Number: 448
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 10:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I also agree with MikeG, Jerome81, and Ordinary. The oil companies don't want to bring down the price of gasoline.

Do not believe for a minute that Big Oil can't get gas prices down.

And who is a Big Oil Man? Why G.W. Bush! Don't trust him.

MAY 15, 2007 IS GAS FREE DAY. DO NOT BUY FUEL ON MAY 15TH. SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR LOWER GAS PRICES.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath

Post Number: 72
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 11:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Do not believe for a minute that Big Oil can't get gas prices down.

-Why should they, they know you don't have a choice. What are YOU going to do? take the bus or train? Yeah, right! Besides, if we don't want to pay this price, the Chinese gladly will, with their billions of dollars, thanks to Wal Mart shoppers.

And who is a Big Oil Man? Why G.W. Bush! Don't trust him.

MAY 15, 2007 IS GAS FREE DAY. DO NOT BUY FUEL ON MAY 15TH. SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR LOWER GAS PRICES.

-Yes please give the oil companies a vacation day, they need the extra day off, after the tiring job of counting their billions in extra profits.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bulletmagnet
Member
Username: Bulletmagnet

Post Number: 435
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2007 - 11:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ok, now that this has been so thoughtfully explained to me, tell me this: what replaces a F-150? A horse with wagon?
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 1282
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:04 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bulletmagnet--to add to your comment, how is this miracle of physics going to help the people who really need and use trucks (3/4, 1 ton) pickups for their WORK (=income) i.e., construction, landscaping, service, etc. These people's business is based on the truck being able to pull the load, which up until now usually means low mileage, unless they take the hit for a Diesel. These trucks aren't lifestyle vehicles, they are the tool to do work and earn money.
This won't sway anyone, the whole country is being run and educated by people who have never worked with their hands, look down on those who do and are trying to convert the whole nation into computer-clacking cubicle dwellers.


Oh, and by the way, horses pollute (in solid form) far worse than cars, look back at the sanitation problems in NYC at the turn of the last century.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 4963
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:56 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Horseshit!!
Next you'll be telling us gutters were filled with urine.



:-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Bulletmagnet
Member
Username: Bulletmagnet

Post Number: 437
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 6:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Right on 56packman! Man you stole my thunder, but thanks! This is just the case for me: truck=work. I gotta go chill now, grrrrrrrrrr... BTW,Jams, the gutters are filled with urine, MINE!
Top of pageBottom of page

Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath

Post Number: 73
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 8:20 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"What replaces a F-150? A horse with wagon? "

Dude, what part of $8 a gallon gas do you not get? Do you realize that filling an F-150 at this price would be $200? The above data about oil consumption, sure sent a chill through my spine. I too have a business, and need a truck, BUT we do need to think beyond the present, that is what got us into this situation in the first place. And this is only the beginning.

As for what will replace and F-150, how about a a diesel pick-up, burning Bio-Diesel? (and not diesel fuel from our "Friends" in Saudi Arabia, where 17 of the 19 9/11 terrorist came from) I used one in Europe last summer, and got 28 mpg, (Bio Diesel) with today's technology. For those with an interest in history, ironically the diesel motor was not originally designed to run on petroleum based fuel, it was designed to run on vegetable oil, not that much different than bio-diesel.

Besides, I can't believe anyone who calls themselves patriotic, then goes and buys woefully fuel inefficient vehicle, and makes countries like Saudi Arabia (where Osama Bin Laden) or Chavez in Venezuela richer. The war on terror start at the gas pump my friend. Too bad they get that idea in Washington.
Top of pageBottom of page

1953
Member
Username: 1953

Post Number: 1378
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 8:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It occurred to me today, as I was driving past the smokestacks on I-75 south of the city, that, as a people, we can do better. We can build cleaner, more sustainable communities, if we put our minds to it.

That said, 35 mpg is certainly attainable. Think about the famous challenge that pushed man to the moon or the one that pushed microprocessor speeds higher and higher in smaller spaces. Challenges are what we respond to as humans. Its in our nature. Let's put our minds to this and build a 100 mpg vehicle!
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 1285
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 8:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We're not going to see wholesale switch over to Diesel until the Diesel engine option comes down in price to the point where it is economically viable. On some pickups (we're talking WORK trucks, not toy/small penis compensation vehicles) the Diesel option is $4-6K up front. You can go with the stock gas V-8 and pay on the installment plan. It's all dollars out the door/year for your business for the use of that truck.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 833
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 9:34 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

That said, 35 mpg is certainly attainable.



That's certainly easy for you to say.

You don't have to:
  • generate and engineer the multiple powertrain solutions that will provide greater fuel efficiencies
  • make the design trade-offs at the vehicle level that minimize mass and aero drag while meeting ever-tightening passenger safety requirements
  • analyze and re-engineer the proposals to minimize cost and mass while improving reliability
  • validate, design and release the designs
  • keep the vehicle purchase price competitive in a marketplace that is dominated by manufacturers with few legacy costs and lower overall structural costs
  • repeat the process for every product that you sell untill your entire fleet average meets the CAFE standard
Top of pageBottom of page

Bumble
Member
Username: Bumble

Post Number: 83
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 9:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Let's burn every last drop of oil and figure out what to do at that time.
Top of pageBottom of page

_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_

Post Number: 1819
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 10:26 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is same old BS that we hear every time something has to change for the better of humanity. Woe is us and all the jobs and the money, blah blah blah. We have been hearing for forty years how you can't change.

We can't clean the air it will cost too much, we can't clean the water it will cost too much, we can't ban smoking it will put too many people out of work.

And now the best of them all. I need my Explorer, Expedition, Durango, Denali, etc.

Bullshit, just sack up and do it, instead of whining about it.

Of course if employee costs did not prohibit the Big Three from making profitable cars then they wouldn't be in this mess.
Top of pageBottom of page

Supersport
Member
Username: Supersport

Post Number: 11562
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 10:38 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There is a name for people like Fury13 whom try and force their agendas upon everybody else, they're called communists!
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 834
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 10:45 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I didn't say it can't be done, I am just pointing out what it takes to all of you who have absolutely no clue as to what it takes to accomplish the task, especially when their engineering resources are already taxed to the max with the challenge of pulling their company out of a market share death spiral.

And especially when we all know how much more effective and quicker would it be to just raise the Federal gas tax by $2 a gallon.

If we want to reduce the amount of petroleum-based fuel used to power passenger cars and light trucks, raising the CAFE is the least-efficient way of achieving that result. It would be better to raise the retail price of gasoline with a tax and force consumers to modify their driving AND vehicle purchasing behaviors. But we all know that Congress wants to avoid being held directly accountable for a direct tax when an inefficient approach like CAFE gives them the appearance of having done something about the problem.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001

Post Number: 2633
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:02 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Two observations on the thread so far.

Can anyone tell me how many engineers we have serving in Congress?

There are plenty of lawyers and even a few doctors, but I've yet to find someone serving in Congress who holds an engineering degree, and should be a point man on what can and cannot be done fuel economy-wise.

Secondly, with all of the conspiracy-minded people here who are claiming that it's easy to produce a high fuel economy engine and that the auto companies are suppressing it, I have just one question for you: What are your ideas?

It's too easy to point a finger at a car company and say that fuel-economy is easy to achieve, yet say nothing to back up that claim.

Now's the time to make a stand, either put up or shut up.

Bring out all of these "suppressed" technologies for the public to see or finally claim that you don't know what you're talking about, and end the discussion there.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 9123
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:03 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

We can't clean the air it will cost too much, we can't clean the water it will cost too much, we can't ban smoking it will put too many people out of work.



How can 'we' really clean anything when the economies in China and INdian (you know over 35% of the world population) are booming and will increase the amount of pollution with little or no regard to the environment.

Doing our part is noble indeed but in the long run anything we do will be trumped by the billions elsewhere. So why are we putting restrictions in place that are hurting jobs and the manufacturing sector here?
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 1635
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"There is a name for people like Fury13 whom try and force their agendas upon everybody else, they're called communists!"

Well, I resent that, but I guess you're entitled to call me a communist if I'm entitled to call you wrongheaded, anachronistic, and in denial.

Look at it this way: in the 1960s, no way were the major industrial polluters going to stop going down their path, a path that was clearly bad for society, until legislation like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were passed. The government forced those businesses to stop fouling our natural resources.

The same goes for fuel economy and the need to free ourselves from costs and dependence on fossil fuels (mostly imported). The automakers won't do it until they're forced to do it, so it's gotta be done.

Hell, you'll still have a choice. They'll still make a few muscle cars, work trucks, and SUVs that get mediocre mileage. They'll be niche vehicles, produced in limited quantities, and priced in line with the budgets of the people who can afford to run them when gas reaches $6, $7, $8 per gallon.

But the bulk of the auto production will necessarily shift to fuel-efficient vehicles to drive the CAFE figures up. Most Americans will be buying those vehicles simply out of necessity to save money on gas, and as hybrid and other new technologies mature, purchase costs for those vehicles will decrease. I predict that you'll see a variety of hybrid vehicles that offer versatility and plenty of interior room -- priced well below $20,000 -- within just a few years. We have always had the intelligence within the automotive field to increase MPG; the automakers just needed the motivation. Now they will have that too.
Top of pageBottom of page

Supersport
Member
Username: Supersport

Post Number: 11563
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well thanks for clearing that up...commie! :-) When you gonna make it out on another Thursday so we can talk White Sox?
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1237
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:26 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Increasing fuel economy is only a small piece of the puzzle. It is the easiest thing for Congress to enact. Jt1 is correct in his assertion that there are now huge players competing with us for oil. What we need are federal and UN policies that would reduce demand at a worldwide scale.

- Speed policies, bringing the speed limit back down to a reasonable level and enforcing it would reduce consumption by quite a bit.

- Promote location efficient mortgages where folks are given breaks for living on transit lines or within walking distance to work.

- Promote transit use, as well as the improvements in your personal quality of life by living by where you work.

- Provide marked safe bicycle routes that connect surrounding areas with destinations.

- Continue to look for improvements in technology that reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mcp001
Member
Username: Mcp001

Post Number: 2635
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:31 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Slight problem with the above suggestions, not everyone lives with a city.

What would you do with those who live is less-populated/rural areas?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 836
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

DP forgot to add "mass relocations" and the prohibition of over-the-road freight between cities. They still need to figure out how a totally urban-based society will be able to feed itself (and grow crops for ethanol), but I'm sure someone at the UN is working on those issues as we speak.

Seriously, given current trends, I think the point in time where we run out of oil is beyond the point when the population growth rate collapses in the industrialized countries, causing the demand for oil (and goods from developing nations) to follow.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath

Post Number: 74
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:50 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I didn't say it can't be done, I am just pointing out what it takes to all of you who have absolutely no clue as to what it takes to accomplish the task, especially when their engineering resources are already taxed to the max with the challenge of pulling their company out of a market share death spiral. "

- I do have an absolute clue about what it takes to achieve these standards, but lets look at the big picture here.

"If we want to reduce the amount of petroleum-based fuel used to power passenger cars and light trucks, raising the CAFE is the least-efficient way of achieving that result. It would be better to raise the retail price of gasoline with a tax and force consumers to modify their driving AND vehicle purchasing behaviors. But we all know that Congress wants to avoid being held directly accountable for a direct tax when an inefficient approach like CAFE gives them the appearance of having done something about the problem."

I don't necessarily believe companies will take it on their own to really push for greater fuel economy or alternative fuels, unless they are forced by the government, or some other entity. This is human nature we are talking about here. They could just continue to plod along, and keep offering lower prices on these inefficient products, and when the price of gas really gets super expensive, we will just have to suck it up. Over time, they will loose market share and go under. How would that be any benefit to us here in michigan? That would be a plan for a disaster, and is where we are currently headed. The big three, have been fighting higher CAFE standards for years now, and I am not seeing the prosperity fighting regulations has brought. If anything, the opposite has happened, and it it has cost us lots of jobs.

The same goes for "Voluntarily" complying with environmental or safety regulations. No company will "voluntarily" comply with anything, if they are not forced to. Ever. Because all it takes is one company to not comply, and they now have an economic advantage, and are not playing by the same rules.

Why do you think we have a huge trade imbalance with countries that do not have good labor, environmental, laws or are democracies? Again because they are not playing by the same rules, and are not forced to do so. A short-sighted way to deal with this would be to scale back our own labor or environmental laws, (which is happening) in an effort to compete, and in the process degrade our standard of living, and quality of life. The so-called "race to the bottom". Or the opposite approach would be to not trade with countries that play by the same rules. Eventually they will comply, again, if forced to do so. The problem here, is that short-term greed (people loving to buy their cheap stuff at Wal-Mart) will triumph over long-term economic self-interest. The is the end-result of people living paycheck to paycheck. (Ironically it was the the short term greed that put them there in the first place.) They only care about the here and now, and who can blame them. If we are smart as a society (debatable) we should not even get ourselves into that situation. We are there now though.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 1637
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sport, see the FSC thread...
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1238
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MikeG, I hope there is some sarcasm there. Over the road freight does have a role to play. Folks ship this way because it is the best cost for getting the product to market.

Note that rail and ship modes are both experiencing increases even though they are operating with less infrastructure than ever. Both Shipyards and rail lines are being lost at an alarming rate to greenways or rail trails. There are less rails to get you to or through towns than ever before, but quality of life is greatly enhanced too.

I hope what I've read is wrong, but I don't think there is much hope for growing lots of ethanol crops (corn, sugar cane, beets); keeping habitats for rare species (i.e., managed jack pines for Kirtland's Warblers); and feeding the human population. Energy will need to come from more than just ethanol - hydrogen, solar, wind, and hydro need to be maximized. The problems with nuclear plants also need to be addressed so they are safer, and that waste is reduced and contained better.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg

Post Number: 837
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 12:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, there was a touch of sarcasm in there, which was why I added "Seriously,".

I think that ethanol can at best be only a small part of the solution and that the answer is a variety of alternative energy sources, especially hydrogen and nuclear.

This whole argument boils down to which is the least-costly and most effective way to reduce consumption of petroleum-based fuels in the near-term so that we can migrate to alternative energy sources without massive disruptions to our economy and lifestyles.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 1639
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 1:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry, but "massive disruption" to people's comfort zones is the most effective way to ensure a change in the public's paradigm regarding fuel consumption.

I would bet that such a "massive disruption" is on its way, and that the effects will be as severe and lasting on our society as the Great Depression was in the '30s.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 1288
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 1:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fury 13 states

"I would bet that such a "massive disruption" is on its way, and that the effects will be as severe and lasting on our society as the Great Depression was in the '30s."

but as long as it dosen't affect your meal ticket
Top of pageBottom of page

_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_

Post Number: 1823
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 1:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

How can 'we' really clean anything when the economies in China and INdian (you know over 35% of the world population) are booming and will increase the amount of pollution with little or no regard to the environment.



Who cares about them. Worry about cleaning up our own mess first.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81

Post Number: 1425
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 1:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't think anyone here is saying that reducing consumption is not important. I think we just disagree that CAFE is the best way to make a real differece. I don't believe it is.

Maybe this talk about 35mpg is possible (it is) should be followed by "but at what price"?

You can make a car out of aluminum or titanium and carbon fiber using an insanely expensive hybrid or diesel drivetrain.

Hell yeah 35mpg is possible. But is has not been supressed becasuse the auto companies are in bed or any other conspiracy theory.

They haven't made 35mpg vehicles because THE PUBLIC WOULDN'T BUY THEM! If that 35mpg vehicle was the size of a Mini Cooper but cost $40,000 because of all the advanced technology, how many people in America would buy such a car?

Just cause you can build em, don't mean people are gonna buy them. Hell, even if the govt makes this a mandate, how many people you think will buy them? Most people will just drive their old cars, or buy used, and continue using the cheap gas to drive just as much as they always have.

Raise the damn tax. It will be quick (2 years of high prices did more to reduce consumption than 25 of CAFE). It opens up funds for better roads, better transit, research into alternative fuels, etc. Incentivize living choices by giving tax breaks or reduced mortgage rates when you live within an "urban boundary" or within a public transit network. Provide a tax break incentive for taking public transit. That increased fuel tax can go a lot of different ways to help support/subsidize things that can and will actually make a difference in consumption and people's lifestyle choices.

CAFE is a cop-out. It won't do jack except make cars far more expensive, kill new car sales, keep fuel cheap, and allow the continuation of sprawl, large houses, and lots of driving. Oh, and it allows spineless politicans to not have to make their voters make real, actual sacrifices.

And if fuel prices are high enough, you won't need CAFE to make cars get 35mpg. The public will demand it, and the automakers will oblige based on that. That is solid business practice. Just cause the gov't mandates 35mpg and the automakers meet it doesn't mean a lot of people are going to buy it (can't afford it, so just drive old cars with cheap gas). Then you'll really see the auto industry go into the shitter.....

(Message edited by Jerome81 on May 10, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1239
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 1:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

_sj_, we compete against 'them' in the market for energy. It is far better to work with 'them' to keep the costs low through conservation through fair enforceable rules than it would be to fight 'them'.

We have been cleaning up our mess. Brownfield development, superfund remediation, air quality and water quality have all made impressive strides since I was a boy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia

Post Number: 898
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 2:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Screw Congress... and their little dogs too!
Top of pageBottom of page

Gtat44
Member
Username: Gtat44

Post Number: 132
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 3:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We don't have to worry. According to the Mayan calendar and a majority of the George Noory listening audience the world will end in 2012:-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath

Post Number: 75
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 3:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Maybe this talk about 35mpg is possible (it is) should be followed by "but at what price"?

You can make a car out of aluminum or titanium and carbon fiber using an insanely expensive hybrid or diesel drivetrain.

Hell yeah 35mpg is possible. But is has not been supressed becasuse the auto companies are in bed or any other conspiracy theory.

They haven't made 35mpg vehicles because THE PUBLIC WOULDN'T BUY THEM! If that 35mpg vehicle was the size of a Mini Cooper but cost $40,000 because of all the advanced technology, how many people in America would buy such a car?

Just cause you can build em, don't mean people are gonna buy them. Hell, even if the govt makes this a mandate, how many people you think will buy them? Most people will just drive their old cars, or buy used, and continue using the cheap gas to drive just as much as they always have. "

-This just in:

Toyota’s US Sales of Prius and Camry Hybrids Soared in March
3 April 2007

Although March is shaping up as a good month for hybrid sales with a record 31,652 units sold just by Toyota and Honda (data from Ford and Nissan still pending, and GM not reporting), it was the best month ever for Toyota and its hybrid sedans. (Even with the incomplete tally of 31,652, hybrids broke the 2% threshold for marketshare of new vehicles sales.)

-so Toyota now has 2% of market share with Hybrids?

March also marked a significant milestone for Toyota, with aggregate US sales of Toyota and Lexus hybrids topping the half-million mark.

Toyota posted sales of 28,453 hybrid vehicles in March, up 137% over the same period last year. The bulk of that came from the Prius, with a record-breaking 19,156 units sold, up 133.2% from the prior year.

Toyota’s calendar-year-to-date hybrid sales in the US totaled 61,635 units, an increase of 68% over the same period last year.

-Nobody will buy 'em eh? Guess Toyota will take that comment to the bank. I guess mileage does matter.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81

Post Number: 1426
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 9:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

2% were toyota hybrids.
lets say maybe Honda and Ford get another 1%

That is 97% of the people NOT buying hybrids.

Even if you subtract out sales of the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Honda Civic, Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla, Chevy Cobalt, and Saturn ION, I bet you're still looking at 75%+ that are NOT buying "high mileage" cars.

I'm not saying there isn't a market. I'm just saying its ridiculously small. And you know WHY those sales increased? The higher price of gas. Not some CAFE BS. Add to it Toyota is offering a $2000 package savings on the Prius probably also helped.

I'm just saying, 3/4 plus of all new car sales last month were probably cars that get under 35 mpg, with a good half of those at least (trucks/suvs) getting about 20mpg.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jerome81
Member
Username: Jerome81

Post Number: 1427
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 9:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I actually would like to do an analysis on this when I get home from work.

I'm willing to be that that number of cars currently available for sale that have a combined EPA rating of at least 35 mpg is in the single digits. I'm guessing even Corollas and Civics don't make the cut. How is an entire fleet going to make it?
Top of pageBottom of page

Bulletmagnet
Member
Username: Bulletmagnet

Post Number: 442
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 10:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cinderpath, how nice that you can afford to spend time in Europe. My entire family of four will vacation this year at a state campground in a tent for one week. The only part of 8 dollar a gallon fuel I don’t get is why it would ever need to cost that much bin the first place. We have all the oil we could ever use right under our own sea and soil. Bio fuel? Its ALL bio pal, right from good old Mother Earth, made from plants and animals. What else is oil for? Also, if I could have afforded the diesel engine, I would have bought one. But I work for a living so I can't. Got to support Mother Government you know. I’m so glad that all we have to do to get 35 MPH is get rid of the pesky free market and let Mom do our choosing for us.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath

Post Number: 76
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 11:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The only part of 8 dollar a gallon fuel I don’t get is why it would ever need to cost that much bin the first place"

No offense, but you contradict yourself here: "I’m so glad that all we have to do to get 35 MPH is get rid of the pesky free market and let Mom do our choosing for us."

The reason it has to cost $8 is simply "The Free Market".
Supply and demand, supply of oil is not increasing near enough to offset increased demand. It is even doubtful if it will, (see my original post about Chinese consumption data. In 10-15 years to cover China and India would require production output to double. It ain't going to happen). Why would an oil company sell it for $3 a gallon, when people will pay$8 a gallon in a few years? Would you work for a living for $20 an hour or would you rather work for $80 an hour? In a true "Free Market" if you charged $80 an hour, for work that should be $20, you'd be replaced with an alternative. Try quickly replacing oil. The oil companies due to "The Free Market", created a neat situation where they are currently in a position, where they can easily withhold supply, and still make even more money. There are very few markets where such conditions, and it is in fact very bad for capitalism. Remember capitalism, and free markets only function properly with lots of options and alternatives. We don't have that now. There is historic precedence, when the such monopolies have caused damage the greater economy as a whole, that governments have either busted up companies, or subsidized an alternative, to the benefit of the greater economy. The next issue that needs to be fixed is unrealistic health care cost.


While many people on here like the idea of true capitalism, if they ever traveled to some of the places I have been in other countries, where it has ran rampant, which has led to corruption, and extreme hardship on a level people here would not believe, I think they would quickly appreciate our system here in the USA, that is a mixture of capitalism. Personally I would choose not to expose my family to extremes of an absolute free market correction, anyone that would willfully engage in such practice is an idiot, when it is not necessary. The last time that happened here was the depression. This is why we need to fix the oil problem now, and letting the market alone to "Fix it', will not be pleasant for anyone.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fishtoes2000
Member
Username: Fishtoes2000

Post Number: 202
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 12:28 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have a '99 VW Golf diesel. I bought it new off the lot for $17K. It's a fun car to drive (plenty of torque), is very safe, hauls as much as a Jeep, gets around 42.5 MPG in city/highway driving, and can run on biodiesel blends.

I guess it's 26 years ahead of it's time (minus a particle trap, of course.) :-)
Top of pageBottom of page

John_galt
Member
Username: John_galt

Post Number: 1
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 8:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm
Top of pageBottom of page

Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13

Post Number: 1641
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 11:11 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That was great, John_galt. Very quaint. I need to see "Reefer Madness" again too.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitsuperfly
Member
Username: Detroitsuperfly

Post Number: 21
Registered: 07-2005
Posted on Friday, May 11, 2007 - 3:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LMFAO! Galt! That is just blind hysterics. To equate increasing CAFE standards with communism is babbling nonsense. But VERY funny!

Its obvious that you dont know what communism means. Your namesake would even roll his eyes (were he a real person)

(Message edited by detroitsuperfly on May 11, 2007)

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.