Yeah, right, thanks Tom and Ray for being jerks and destroying the fun of cars and motoring, just read this and see if you want to rejoice about small junky cars replacing the great cars of today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22340556
It took almost 20 years for the worst of the CAFE stupidity to be overcome so we could have more wonderful 350+ HP cars than ever before (even more than the fabulous '60s and early '70s), and now it may take genration before this stupidity is overcome.
Don’t worry about it, as always you will be able to buy whatever you want. These standards simply control the fleet averages, just don’t buy the average car. If you want more HP, just write a bigger check (just like it’s always been).
It will be almost a generation before it is even enacted! The standards passed today take effect in 2022.
Let’s see, the original CAFE standards were passed almost 20 years ago and the new ones take effect in 15 years. That means you should only have five years of “the worst of the CAFE stupidity.” Just buy a car in 2021 and make it last at least six years. That won’t be so bad.
Welcome to reality.
I don’t think he understands how averages work. I don’t think he understands that these new standards take effect in 15 years either.
Yes, I do, I have taken many university level stat and probability courses and even taught some and I have been very close to this bill, so don’t act like I am stupid just because I disagree with you. But if you are correct (and I actually hope you are), then I and anyone who treasures driving enjoyment, the open road, and a powerful car have nothing to worry about. But if that is true and this bill will do nothing for decades and even then very little to restrict the cars you can buy, then why are the liberal politicians so excited about it and the auto makers so disappointed?
“…why are the liberal politicians so excited about it and the auto makers so disappointed?”
Auto makers, like any other industry, are against regulation (usually because it makes extra work/cost for them and doesn’t actually accomplish what it’s supposed to do). Politicians like to be able to declare victory, especially when they won’t be around to deal with the consequences. In reality, a fleet average of 35 mpg isn’t very restrictive. The car companies will just need to sell more of their efficient cars to meat this goal. Assuming fuel prices continue to rise, this goal should not be difficult to obtain. If it really bothers you, go buy a restored 60s muscle car instead of a new one.
“…why are the liberal politicians so excited about it and the auto makers so disappointed?”
If the President is a liberal politician, I am a cruise ship!
According to the news articles that I read, Congress got buy-in from all of the major auto manufacturers before the bill even passed. There were those who resisted initially, but somehow they came around. The other reason that your so-called “liberal” politicians are so excited is that they have done something good that shows they are not motivated solely by their own greedy self interest. Like me, they are willing to give up a few horsepower for cleaner air. Maybe they live in L.A. or Houston and want their children to breathe cleaner air. That is why they are so excited.
Oh, and I don’t treat you like you are stupid because we disagree. I treat you like you are stupid because the things you say defy rational thought.
Jeremy, 15 states, representing over 50% of the US population, have already signed on to the California Pavly bill which goes for 35mpg earlier and WITHOUT EXCEPTION!. The current bill just passsd by congress is weak-kneed by comparioson. The politicians and car makers could see the rest of the states going the Pavly route, so it made sense to go for the federal bill. Also, Europe, Japan, and even China already have regulations in place today that are tougher than the new US CAFE bill. So, what’s the big deal?
Guys, it’s an election year. Everyone needed to show a victory and this was a nice token. The “liberals” and the white house both got to look like they were doing something (except calling each other names). The auto makes know this stuff is inevitable, so they just negotiated the best deal they could get. New day, same crap; don’t take any of this too seriously.
True Craig. And since the EPA slapped down the “Calefoorneah” stupidity on setting their own regulations to suit their liberal nut jobs, sanity will prevail. I have nothing against clean air regs (things like SOx, NOx, O3, or Hg) for true toxins that are scientifically proven to hurt people in real time. I do object to Hollywood hyped non-existant issues like CO2, which are not toxic and do not do any damage that is scientifically proven. That is when the regs “defy rational thought”, I don’t.
I’m not going into the whole CO2 debate here (except to say there is a lot more to that issue than just vehicles), but I do agree that it makes no sense to have individual state standards. That does nothing but drive up the cost for everyone. The EPA needs to maintain a single standard (whatever it is) for the entire country and not change their minds with every administration. The closer the U.S. standard is to the rest of the world, the better. That applies to safety standards as well as emission standards (which tend to be in conflict with each other). There’s an old joke about designing for emissions, performance, safety, and cost (pick any 3 out of 4).
The development cycle for vehicles takes several years, you can’t keep changing the rules. I understand that CA thinks they can drive the rest of the country by continuously tightening their standards, but that is not really the best way to accomplish their goals, it’s good that the EPA sent them back to their corner.
Agree Craig; individual states having their own regs is expensive and counterproductive. But it was the feds dragging their feet that resulted in the 15 states adopting the Pavly regs from California. To my knowledge, the role of a federal government is to lead in setting standards. California has traditionally been an exception since the mid 60s by having their own unique problems, and starting with the humble crankcase ventilation system, has led the way in emission controls.
I know what they are trying to do, but that is not an appropriate way to change policy. There are business/trade/economic considerations associated with these standards, it’s not just about emissions and fuel consumption. The state of CA has plenty of influence in DC (how many members of the house?), they don’t need this kind of “grandstanding” to have influence. This is more about local politicians trying to make a name for themselves than environmental concerns.
Also, some of these state standards are actually counterproductive, these states have effectively banned the current generation of small diesels (based on NOX and particulate limits), but if you care about CO2 that probably had an overall negative impact.
If these states were serious, they could impose a significant fuel tax increase within their own state. Let’s see is any of them have the “political will” to do something like that.
Yes, I do, I have taken many university level stat and probability courses and even taught some and I have been very close to this bill, so don’t act like I am stupid just because I disagree with you.
Gee…I too have taken serveral Stat classes and taught several in college while I got my MS in Applied Mathematics…And from my observation…you haven’t a clue…
But if that is true and this bill will do nothing for decades and even then very little to restrict the cars you can buy, then why are the liberal politicians so excited about it and the auto makers so disappointed
What LIBERAL politions…Bush…Liberal??..Chaney…Liberal??? Most poeple in congress and the Senate are for this…which means MANY Conservative replublicaions voted for it.
As for why the autoindustry is against it…They are against ANYTHING that doesn’t yeild them a profit for the next quater…PERIOD…They live and die for Next Quaters profits. Their whole executive bonus system is designed around the NEXT QUATERS profit. BTW…The auto industry was against Catalytic converters…against seatbelts…fought every single measure to decrease polution…Fought against unleaded gas…All for the sake of NEXT QUATERS PROFITS.
It’s kind of funny. Most conservatives cry “states rights” and “local rule” when it comes to other issues. Then when a state asserts its legitimate authority regarding an issue with which you disagree, you change your tune. How typically hypocritical.
I take it back, DoctorMike, not everything you say defies rational thought…just most of it. After all, terms like “liberal nut jobs” are sure to foster civil enlightened discussion.
Califirnia established its EPA before the federal government established its EPA. For being ahead of its time, the California EPA has secured rights not afforded to other states…and rightly so. After all, the Bush Administration had to be taken to task all the way to the Supreme Court just to get the federal EPA to do its job. California’s actions should not come as a suprise to anyone.
It’s kind of funny. Most conservatives cry “states rights” and “local rule” when it comes to other issues. Then when a state asserts its legitimate authority regarding an issue with which you disagree, you change your tune. How typically hypocritical.
Every conservative I’ve ever met does NOT believe in State Rights. They believe that BUSINESS has ALL the rights…and Individual rights don’t exist. Anything that reinforces individual rights is considered Liberal by the Conservatives…So rational isn’t it.
Oil can be recycled while still in the car, in principle with no overhead! The unit could replace the oil filter. The unit is a centrifical seperator which works the same way as a Dysan vacuum cleaner, but works on oil instead of air.
My father, 40 years ago worked in the mining industry where they used large, 20 foot cyntrifical seperators to recover oil. You put dirty oil in one end and clean oil comes out the other. My father asked the company representative why they didn’t mount small ones on cars. The representative said that they actually had done that but it was sitting on a shelf because the oil companies didn’t want it around.
Recycling the oil is not that difficult if only the solids had to be taken out. Unfortubately, modern MOTOR oils are 25% complex additives, which need to be replenished when they are depleted. The oil may also contain acids and other soluble nasties which the centrifuge cannot remove. I used to work for a centrifuge manufacturer, and our equipment was used for “polishing” the oil after many other things had already been done to it. In industry, large machines, like steam turbines have very large oil sumps, and the oil is never changed. It is degassed, centrifuged and filtered, and constantly analyzed for acidity, viscosity, etc. If the machine is not a combustion machine, like an engine, centrifuging works because the oil does not chemically break down.
If you were willing to give up your entire backseat and trunk, you could conceivably put a miniature refinery in your car, and add $4000 to the cost. As you can see, it makes more sense to drain the oil, send it to special re-refineries, and buy it back as re-refined oil with all the right additives put back in. In mining equipment where no combustion takes place, and oil sumps are large, centrifuging a lubricant with few additves makes sense.
So, you think I am stupid about math and can’t understand averages? And you think I am lying about having multiple college degrees and experience? Where is your evidence of that? I try not to personally attack posters who have different opinions to mine, but obviously some have no such values and rules of civil disocurse on the 'net. You need to learn to communicate without personal attacks, I would suggest some college level courses that you must have missed.
Studies have shown that when car owners get higher mileage cars, they tend to drive more miles than before, thus negating any fuel savings. Personally, I would take more recreational trips to the mountains if the gas cost me $30 rather than $60. Now I take fewer trips for that reason alone. The only way to cut down on fuel consumption, unfortunately, is to make it more expensive to buy gasoline.