whats your take on Obama mandating a 36MPG minimum on cars? VOL. RIP V8, corvette, camaro, chargers

[finnns2003]

Originally Posted by NikeMax

Originally Posted by reigndrop

Originally Posted by NikeMax

People not in support of this just shows how unsustainable and short sighted Americans are

Let's requote this:

"People in support of this just shows how unsustainable and short sighted Americans are."

That makes more sense.

How so?

Whether you guys want to admit it or not certain resources (like oil) are finite and steps have to be taken now in order to be proactive about the impeding problem. Our grandparents had to make huge sacrifices for us to be where we are today, so we should be willing to do the same.

And no, it's not the unions fault that more and more people are refusing to buy American cars

Yay, another sheep. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Right now, resource supplies and development of alternate fuels are not the main issue here. It's that our dictatorship... i mean 'government' istelling citizens what they can and cannot have. I remember a politician wanting to do away with cars like Porsches altogether. This is America we'retalking about. This isn't what the founding fathers had in mind, and it's certainly not in accordance with the freedoms we as Americans should have.

 

[ninjahood]

[h2]Obama's CAFE Fuel Economy Standards to Create Fleet of Tiny, Expensive Vehicles - Car News[/h2]
Mandate of 35.5 mpg by 2016 is like fighting obesity by outlawing large clothing.

BY STEVE SILER AND MIKE DUSHANE
May 2009

­­­

That thud you just heard was the "other shoe" dropping in Washington, D.C.: the Obama administration has used the turmoil in the auto industry asan opportunity to nudge-okay, force-the industry into a new, more environmentally sensitive direction, thus making good on its promise to imposestricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and tailpipe emissions standards across the automobile industry.

The proposed mandate raises CAFE standards about five percent annually from today's level of 23 mpg for trucks and 27.5 mpg for cars to 30 mpg fortrucks and 39 mpg for passenger cars by 2016, for an average of 35.5 mpg overall. This is roughly four years earlier than the already aggressive 35-mpggoalpost established by Congress in 2007.

As Goes California, So Goes the Country

These standards more or less embrace the strict fuel-economy/emissions proposals that California and about a dozen other states have been trying toimplement for years, but which have been blocked by industry lawsuits. The mandate should therefore put many of the existing state lawsuits to rest.

Interestingly, many of the same players that have been trying to block the implementation of the California proposals have embraced the Obama mandate.Ostensibly, this is because the new rules create a uniform standard for the country, instead of allowing states to dictate their own emissions and fuel-economystandards.

"We're cool with this," Chrysler spokesman Scott Brown told us in a phone interview. "Most important is that it's clear instead ofpiecemeal-we love that."

Moments later, GM environment and energy spokesman Shad Balch echoed the sentiment, nearly verbatim: "We love it. Now we know what to build," hetold us. "As it was before, it was 14 states doing 14 different things, and we'd have to build products for each." The new regulations, he said,allow for a "harmonized national product program, which allows for more efficient product planning. For a company trying to become leaner and moreefficient, this is a huge step in the right direction."

There's another force at play here, however, as both Chrysler and GM, recipients of massive government bailout loans, are in no position to voicedissent. Whether they think these policies are sound or not is moot; they will toe the Obama party line because he's their de facto boss. Ford knows itwill have to ask for Obama's help if the economy doesn't improve soon, so it is also going along with the hype. Honda and Toyota have been tootingtheir green horns for years, so they can't very well be the voices of dissent on this issue. Put bluntly, the government is ramming this down the throatsof the car companies.

How Do They Do It In Europe?

Senator after senator cites as evidence for the attainability of these standards the vehicles sold in Europe. But car for car, European vehicles aren'tmeaningfully more efficient. Take the Ford Focus sedan, a car that's comparably sized here and in Europe (although not the same vehicle). In the U.S., the base Focus sedan costs $15,000, has 140 hp, and is rated at 28 mpg combined by the EPA. The base Focus sedan available inGermany costs $20,000 (plus 19-percent tax!), has only 79 hp, and would be rated by the EPA at approximately 30 mpg combined if they were to test it. (Ourestimate is based on standard differentials between U.S. and E.U. test numbers.) Paying an extra $5000, Europeans sacrifice 44 percent of their horsepower andgain less than 10 percent in fuel economy.

So why is Europe's fleet so much more efficient overall? The cars people buy there are much smaller. The Focus is one of thetinier mass-market cars sold in the U.S. today, but it's considered a reasonably sized family vehicle in Europe. The average European consumer buys a car afew sizes smaller than a Focus. (This is mainly due to space constraints in cities and smaller roads. If Europeans drove the long distances we do, they likelywould drive Hummers, too.) And about half of Europeans buy diesels, which consume around 30-percent less fuel.

How Will They Do It Here?

Car companies have an extensive menu of options to meet the aggressive targets, but each has a high price tag. Diesel engines fired the efficiencyrevolution in Europe, but tough new particulate emissions laws mean thousands of dollars in extra costs for diesels, which are naturally dirty and requireNASA-level catalytic technology to meet current U.S. standards. Hybrid technology works, but economy increases are closer to 30 percent (not the 35 percentneeded) and the systems cost $4000 to $10,000, depending on the size of the vehicle. GM won't even talk about the cost ofthe extended-range electric powertrain in its Volt, but industry sources quote a $10,000 premium per vehicle-and that's for a small car (costs generallyincrease proportionally with size). Lightweight materials can help a few percent, but they are already in widespread use and further implementation would yielddiminishing returns and massive cost.

Forget radical new technologies for 2016 vehicles. It takes roughly six years to take a proven technology to massproduction because of the engineering, validation, and tooling needed to attain the durability required in a motor vehicle. Any new technologies for 2016vehicles will have to be sewn up by next year to make it to the showroom in any quantity.

All of this means that the anticipated $1300 price increase per vehicle quoted by the Obama administration is absurd. Only if consumers trade down a fewvehicle sizes and pay $1300 can the targets be met.

Wouldn't U.S. Consumers Buy Fuel Misers if They Could?

We hear a lot from regulators about the increased choice these new regulations will bring, but these choicesseem to be answers to questions no consumer is asking. The few vehicles available today that meet these standards don't sell in large quantities because oftheir small size, poor performance, and high prices. Sales of the Toyota Prius and other hybrids briefly shot up when gas cost $4.00 a gallon, but as soon asgas prices started dropping, so did hybrid sales. Prius sales fell so sharply (even in relation to a market inoverall decline) that Toyota last year halted construction of a Prius factory it was building in Mississippi. Today, the best-selling vehicles in the U.S. sofar this year are the Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado pickup trucks. Nobody is stopping buyers of these vehicles from purchasing Priusesinstead.

Will it Work?

The Obama administration claims the new measures will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over seven years. But that claimassumes new-car buying habits continue unabated and that people will want to buy expensive, tiny cars. If peopleinstead elect to purchase bigger, cheaper used vehicles, there will be no reduction in consumption; those used vehicles are the same "guzzlers"we're driving today. The fuel economy gains we might have seen with reasonable mileage targets for new vehicleswon't be realized if fewer new vehicles are sold. Worse, the auto industry will continue to shrink because of the decrease in new-vehicle sales.

Cost cutting at Car and Driver means we no longer have unlimited access to the Psychic Friends Network, so we can't predict the future. Thereare a few ways this can play out. If gas prices go up significantly (naturally or with massive taxes)-or if the Obama administration introduces massive taxcredits for new vehicle purchases-consumers might actually want to buy the vehicles that have been mandated. But if thatdoesn't happen, we'll be able to tell you about some great places to buy bigger, more comfortable, morepowerful, and safer used cars and trucks.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ate_fleet_of_tiny_expensive_vehicles_car_news

 

[reigndrop]

Originally Posted by NikeMax

Originally Posted by reigndrop

Originally Posted by NikeMax

People not in support of this just shows how unsustainable and short sighted Americans are

Let's requote this:

"People in support of this just shows how unsustainable and short sighted Americans are."

That makes more sense.

How so?

Whether you guys want to admit it or not certain resources (like oil) are finite and steps have to be taken now in order to be proactive about the impeding problem. Our grandparents had to make huge sacrifices for us to be where we are today, so we should be willing to do the same.

And no, it's not the unions fault that more and more people are refusing to buy American cars

I'm concerned more with the fact that Obama is mandating things. Mandate something small like this and watch the mandates move to somethinglarger. People are short sighted seeing this as a way to resolve current issues, but nobody is looking down the road a little bit like the politician who hasa bigger agenda he wants to mandate. That's why I edited your comment.

And besides, let the markets work themselves, and to refer to my earlier post, last year when gas prices moved up, people inertly moved to different fuelefficient cars, no need to mandate anything. If these American companies want to compete, they need to make cars that will compete with foreign vehicles, a laChevy Volt (albeit a couple years too late).


BTW, has anybody wondered who is going to sponsor the R&D for these fuel "efficient" cars? Car companies are broke, except for Ford, and nobodyis going to invest in them anymore after senior creditors got hosed during bankruptcy. There management has proven poor and now that government is takingover, I don't expect much to change in that regards. More taxpayer money for the car companies for R&D?? Taxpayers stay getting hosed lol.

 

[ninjahood]

Mandate of 35.5 mpg by 2016 is like fighting obesity by outlawing large clothing.

 

[ericberry14]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Mandate of 35.5 mpg by 2016 is like fighting obesity by outlawing large clothing.

come up with a better solution then

 

[finnns2003]

Originally Posted by ericberry14

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Mandate of 35.5 mpg by 2016 is like fighting obesity by outlawing large clothing.

come up with a better solution then

 

[november33rd]

Obesity doesn't cause pollution or drastically weaken our economy. Nice try though.

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by ericberry14

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Mandate of 35.5 mpg by 2016 is like fighting obesity by outlawing large clothing.

come up with a better solution then

how about let da consumer's decide what they want to drive and let da chips fall where they may.

 

[its stanley]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Mandate of 35.5 mpg by 2016 is like fighting obesity by outlawing large clothing.

I hate when people think analogies are logical ways to debate or argue about a topic, especially a political one like this.

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by November33rd

Obesity doesn't cause pollution or drastically weaken our economy. Nice try though.

we not even gonna go there..thats another topic

obama is pandering to da faaar left with this issue, no question about it.

and speaking about weakening our economy...you think these new "cleaner" cars are gonna come cheap?

let's do a side by side comparison that exist right now according to car and driver magazine.


Take the Ford Focus sedan, a car that's comparably sized here and in Europe (althoughnot the same vehicle). In the U.S., the base Focus sedan costs $15,000, has 140 hp, and is rated at 28 mpg combinedby the EPA. The base Focus sedan available in Germany costs $20,000 (plus 19-percent tax!), has only 79 hp, and would be rated by the EPA at approximately 30mpg combined if they were to test it. (Our estimate is based on standard differentials between U.S. and E.U. test numbers.) Paying an extra $5000, Europeanssacrifice 44 percent of their horsepower and gain less than 10 percent in fuel economy.

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by its stanley

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Mandate of 35.5 mpg by 2016 is like fighting obesity by outlawing large clothing.

I hate when people think analogies are logical ways to debate or argue about a topic, especially a political one like this.

ummm..."lipstick on a pig" ring a bell?

politicians use analogies as much or more then we do.

 

[derek916]

Originally Posted by November33rd

Obesity doesn't cause pollution or drastically weaken our economy. Nice try though.

Losing weight, it turns out, is not only good for you, but good for the environment.

In a study out of London (where else?) researchers were able to state the obvious: "overweight people eat more than thin people," as Reuters put it, and the production of that food comes at a greater environmental cost. Not only does body fat add to one's carbon footprint directly, through the production and transportation of food, but overweight people are more likely to drive rather than walk, leading to another environmental impact, according to the study.

A few extra pounds, then, adds up to a lot: About a ton, in fact. The study estimates that an overweight person is responsible for an extra ton of carbon dioxide emissions, as compared to his thinner neighbor.

Being American already makes our carbon footprint "fat." While the average European Union citizen accounts for about 11 tons, the average American accounts for nearly 23.

But take these diet recommendations with a grain of -- uh, hold the salt. It may not be eating too much food that's making us fat, according to a new study conducted by Dr. Philip J. Landrigan (one of The Daily Green's 2009 Heart of Green Award nominees) in East Harlem and reported in the New York Times: exposure to phthalates may be the real culptrit.

For some tips about how to slim down, and slim down the environmental impact of your diet, see The Daily Green's Earth Day Diet.


http://www.thedailygreen....bal-warming-fat-47042001

 

[isis]

It surprises me that people think mandating mpg is too much. As far as I'm concerned it's just like any other mandated safety standard. Yes it willaffect the auto industry, but as a business they need to accept it and evolve, or go under. No industry can expect to remain static and still succeed.

Even if you're skeptical about the impact of global warming, ocean acidification is no joke.

 

[ericberry14]

Originally Posted by finnns2003

Originally Posted by ericberry14

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Mandate of 35.5 mpg by 2016 is like fighting obesity by outlawing large clothing.

come up with a better solution then

right back at ya

 

[november33rd]

Originally Posted by Derek916

Originally Posted by November33rd

Obesity doesn't cause pollution or drastically weaken our economy. Nice try though.

Losing weight, it turns out, is not only good for you, but good for the environment.

In a study out of London (where else?) researchers were able to state the obvious: "overweight people eat more than thin people," as Reuters put it, and the production of that food comes at a greater environmental cost. Not only does body fat add to one's carbon footprint directly, through the production and transportation of food, but overweight people are more likely to drive rather than walk, leading to another environmental impact, according to the study.

A few extra pounds, then, adds up to a lot: About a ton, in fact. The study estimates that an overweight person is responsible for an extra ton of carbon dioxide emissions, as compared to his thinner neighbor.

Being American already makes our carbon footprint "fat." While the average European Union citizen accounts for about 11 tons, the average American accounts for nearly 23.

But take these diet recommendations with a grain of -- uh, hold the salt. It may not be eating too much food that's making us fat, according to a new study conducted by Dr. Philip J. Landrigan (one of The Daily Green's 2009 Heart of Green Award nominees) in East Harlem and reported in the New York Times: exposure to phthalates may be the real culptrit.

For some tips about how to slim down, and slim down the environmental impact of your diet, see The Daily Green's Earth Day Diet.

http://www.thedailygreen....bal-warming-fat-47042001

Those are indirect effects. Obesity is not a direct cause of pollution like automobiles are.

 

[november33rd]

Originally Posted by finnns2003

Originally Posted by NikeMax

Originally Posted by reigndrop

Originally Posted by NikeMax

People not in support of this just shows how unsustainable and short sighted Americans are

Let's requote this:

"People in support of this just shows how unsustainable and short sighted Americans are."

That makes more sense.

How so?

Whether you guys want to admit it or not certain resources (like oil) are finite and steps have to be taken now in order to be proactive about the impeding problem. Our grandparents had to make huge sacrifices for us to be where we are today, so we should be willing to do the same.

And no, it's not the unions fault that more and more people are refusing to buy American cars

Yay, another sheep. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Right now, resource supplies and development of alternate fuels are not the main issue here. It's that our dictatorship... i mean 'government' is telling citizens what they can and cannot have. I remember a politician wanting to do away with cars like Porsches altogether. This is America we're talking about. This isn't what the founding fathers had in mind, and it's certainly not in accordance with the freedoms we as Americans should have.

What do you think the government is for?


I could have sworn we already have a civil war about this issue. The confederates lost...sorry.

 

[therav4]

To the people that still don't believe in Global Warming (you eventually will because it is very real but I won't get into that) I have a question foryou:

Don't you want to stop depending on foreign oil?

I mean that right there should give you the enthusiasm and initiative to think of alternative answers. This 2016 plan should be praised. These are the types ofmoves and direction of change that we are striving for. A lot of you guys sound like the stereotypical spoiled Americans that the majority of the world thinksof. Make a damn sacrifice; it's just a damn car. There will be plenty of powerful yet efficient vehicles available in the future if you demand it.

 

[Original Playa Records]

For a man who loves a 94 SS Impala, this is horrible.

 

[mangudai954]

Today, the best-selling vehicles in the U.S. so far this year are the Ford F-150 and Chevrolet Silverado pickup trucks. Nobody is stopping buyers of these vehicles from purchasing Priuses instead.




Do you know why? Companies replacing their older fleets receive incentives and special deals to buy new..F-150's and Silverados. Its not regular peoplebuying these that's causing this.


Edit. Reading the article, its not about whether or not gas prices will shoot back up its about when. It'll be interesting to see the percentage of saleson new econoboxes when this happens. I think many people will go used though.

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by TheRav4

. Make a damn sacrifice; it's just a damn car.

 

[finnns2003]

Originally Posted by November33rd

What do you think the government is for?


I could have sworn we already have a civil war about this issue. The confederates lost...sorry.

you've gotta be kidding me. too much gov't is always a bad thing. this has been preached for hundreds of years.

 

[rexanglorum]

TheRav4 wrote:

---

To the people that still don't believe in Global Warming (you eventually will because it is very real but I won't get into that) I have a question for you:

Don't you want to stop depending on foreign oil?

I mean that right there should give you the enthusiasm and initiative to think of alternative answers. This 2016 plan should be praised. These are the types of moves and direction of change that we are striving for. A lot of you guys sound like the stereotypical spoiled Americans that the majority of the world thinks of. Make a damn sacrifice; it's just a damn car. There will be plenty of powerful yet efficient vehicles available in the future if you demand it.

You make sacrifices for for yourself, for charity, for scholarship, for your profession, for your wife, for your kids, for your parents. You should not have tomake sacrifices to your government unless a World War III type of situation.

Also, as I said earlier, what is so evil about buying foreign oil? Trade is good, trade and specialization are what makes it so we do not have to live in smallhuts and do subsistence farming. Yeah I know, it is a matter of national security that we drive smaller cars and have colder and less brightly light homes,according to the Obama fans. If national security is worth becoming significantly poor over, why not spend more on actually military spending?

Also, how many more sacrifices should we have to make. I said earlier that if we have to be forced to drive smaller cars, why not outlaw letting people eatmeat since that takes up a huge amount of energy and creates lots of pollution and by some measures, more carbon emission than driving. Why not sacrifice yourunnecessary food choices. Why do people have to have so much housing, all we "need" is a bed and desk, why not move people into government rundormitories? Housing, especially larger exoburban homes use lots of energy but even people who simply have bedroom to themselves are being greedy and shouldsacrifice.

I just hope that enough people get sick of being told by this administration that they have things to easy and that we should all accept that thisadministration wants to ration or increase the cost of health care, energy, cars, mortgages, credit and whatever else he decides we Americans have enjoyed toomuch of in recent history.


You should be free to have your bad ideas but inflicting them on others is wrong, you guys can go take your vows of poverty if you like but we are not in thistogether and I am not looking to share in sacrificing for some imagined "greater good" which usually is just slavish adherence to some cause that isvogue at the moment.

 

[ericberry14]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

TheRav4 wrote:

---

To the people that still don't believe in Global Warming (you eventually will because it is very real but I won't get into that) I have a question for you:

Don't you want to stop depending on foreign oil?

I mean that right there should give you the enthusiasm and initiative to think of alternative answers. This 2016 plan should be praised. These are the types of moves and direction of change that we are striving for. A lot of you guys sound like the stereotypical spoiled Americans that the majority of the world thinks of. Make a damn sacrifice; it's just a damn car. There will be plenty of powerful yet efficient vehicles available in the future if you demand it.

You make sacrifices for for yourself, for charity, for scholarship, for your profession, for your wife, for your kids, for your parents. You should not have to make sacrifices to your government unless a World War III type of situation.

Also, as I said earlier, what is so evil about buying foreign oil? Trade is good, trade and specialization are what makes it so we do not have to live in small huts and do subsistence farming. Yeah I know, it is a matter of national security that we drive smaller cars and have colder and less brightly light homes, according to the Obama fans. If national security is worth becoming significantly poor over, why not spend more on actually military spending?

Also, how many more sacrifices should we have to make. I said earlier that if we have to be forced to drive smaller cars, why not outlaw letting people eat meat since that takes up a huge amount of energy and creates lots of pollution and by some measures, more carbon emission than driving. Why not sacrifice your unnecessary food choices. Why do people have to have so much housing, all we "need" is a bed and desk, why not move people into government run dormitories? Housing, especially larger exoburban homes use lots of energy but even people who simply have bedroom to themselves are being greedy and should sacrifice.

I just hope that enough people get sick of being told by this administration that they have things to easy and that we should all accept that this administration wants to ration or increase the cost of health care, energy, cars, mortgages, credit and whatever else he decides we Americans have enjoyed too much of in recent history.


You should be free to have your bad ideas but inflicting them on others is wrong, you guys can go take your vows of poverty if you like but we are not in this together and I am not looking to share in sacrificing for some imagined "greater good" which usually is just slavish adherence to some cause that is vogue at the moment.

stop using the slippery slope tactic of countering arguments...

but anywho... we need to have better mpg cars, im not saying get rid of high horsepower cars at all... but there needs to be soemthing done about it, itsridiculous that in this day & age with the technology we have available that we cant have cars with significant horsepower that also get good gasmileage...

IMO that's just unacceptable for auto companies

but since all of you are against this mandate... how would you encourage companies to increase their mpg...

 

[ninjahood]

but since all of you are against this mandate... how would you encourage companies to increase their mpg...

tax incentives on cars with "higher" mpg

other then that, mpg should be a consumer preference issue.

 

[essential1]

does anyone realize this does not kill SUV's, minivans, etc.?