MANDATED!!! AMC was able to make an electric car in the early 70’s GMC bought the patend and shelved it. Where do you realy thing we would be if nothing motivated the auto industry.
Right on, guys! Thanks for taking a stand!
And on that day, Detroit will come out with a car the size of a bus that gets 25 MpG while towing two horse trailers and can do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds-- and the American new car buyer will buy it over the wussy car you have described.
There have been many, many advances in automotive technology since the last round of fuel mileage regulations came out, but they have been used to increase speed and size instead of economy. The singular reason for this is that compared with the premium people pay to own a new car, fuel costs are relatively insignificant-- by the time “the market” gets fuel prices up to a point that new car buyers take note, you will already have effectively immobilized the working poor in this country and we will have a major economic if not humanitarian crisis. Same general idea with a gas tax, which is good in theory but in this country ends up being very regressive. European countries can, as a matter of public policy, charge more for fuel because driving is not the necessity of living there that it is here.
Yes, I recognize that the government cannot legislate technologies into existance, but technology isn’t the only way to make a fuel efficient vehicle. Remember economy cars from the 70’s and 80’s? They were able to get better mileage than practically anything you can buy today because they were willing to compromise accelleration for economy. There’s cars sold in Europe that, at the track, probably perform about as well as a Pinto or a Vega did, but get 80+ MPG. Those aren’t safe for US-style highway driving, but even the “economy” cars sold here are overkill for basic transportation. Something along the lines of a VW Polo would be perfectly safe on an Interstate highway and would get 60-70 Mpg.
And I say, if you need a Suburban-type vehicle (as some people do), you should be able to tolerate one with a smaller engine that may not be as fast as they are now, but will get acceptable mileage. This would also have the effect of dissuading people who don’t need an SUV. If you need to tow, get a diesel one-- the large displacement gasoline engine has been obsolete for years. Even most sedans these days are pretty overpowered-- a modern 4-cylinder engine can produce enough power to give a mid-sized car enough power to safely merge onto a freeway. It’s just that there’s an “arms race” amongst car manufacturers-- nobody wants their model to be slower than the competition! Government regulation would be a good way to break this deadlock.
Remember, to get where we are today in fuel economy and low emmissions your new car costs have skyrocketed.
Really…show me…Factoring in inflation, cars are the same price or cheaper then they were 40 years ago.
Having said all this, the free market will ALWAYS dictate.
You obviously know nothing about how the market works.The automobile market hasn’t been a free market since the 50’s or 60’s.
One other thing to consider…Unless there is a MAJOR SUDDEN advancement in technology you’ll NEVER see TRUE FREE MARKET competition in the automotive industry. Advancements in fuel economy polution control come SLOWLY small increments. The cost to R&D these small increments won’t be rewarded in increased sales, so they are very reluctent to do the R&D.
Hybrids and toy size cars are available today with the best mileage.
That doesn’t mean that the larger cars don’t get good gas mileage. My wifes Lexus is bigger, heavier roomier then MOST mid-size vehicles of the 60’s and 70’s. Yet has FAR BETTER performance and MUCH BETTER gas mileage and polutes 1000% less. And NON of that was driven by the market.
Mileage has absolutely nothing to do with the supply and demand for oil and gasoline.
You’re right…Mileage has ONLY improved because it’s been mandated by government regulations.
If this were important, why is there still no national energy policy?
You’re kidding right??? Do you have any idea how powerfull the Oil Lobby is??? The oil companies spend BILLIONS…yes BILLIONS in their Lobbiest every year. They’ve been able to squash ANY new competition that has come along in the past 20 years. Ask Conservative Republican Pat Robertson. He tried to open a oil refinery, but the oil companies dried up the funding.
There is an entire world of discovery to be made in diesel technology and should be advanced much greater than currently available.
You’re right…Why isn’t it??? Market Driven??? I don’t think so.
The comment is true but I would not put much stock in the Top Gear review. Everyone is entitled to their objective opinion but suggesting kids in the street will be run over because the Prius is quiet is just stupid. Then saying, not really, the kid will go through puberty before you can hit them and citing a 13+ second 0-60 is wrong. It was accurate for the 2001-2003 model, but the current design is just over 10 seconds (the amount of time traffic usually takes to get to 35 MPH). He also claims a top speed of 99 MPH, splitting hairs, but it is 104 and Al Gore’s son proved it by getting a ticket in California a few months back. Given the max legal speed in any state in the U.S. is 75 MPH, I don’t think a 104 MPH limit is a problem.
But to top it off, he compared it to a VW Lupo because it got much better mileage. True, it would, as do all the very small diesels popular in Europe. I think it will be quite some time before the American car buying public will shift from BIG AND/OR FAST to small and frugal.
The hybrid Accord failed because it was a lot of money for little gain. The V-6 Variable Cylinder Management engine has more than enough power (and is standard on 2008 V-6 Accords). The intent of Honda’s hybrid design is to give the gas engine help when needed. Only it never would be needed. I suspect it would have sold if they put a small 4 in it instead. I don’t know if the Hybrid Camry is a failure or not, but I can’t figure out why it gets 10 MPG less than a Prius given they are about the same size. I think Toyota would do well to put different body styles on the Prius frame. They could easily have a 2 door sedan, 4 door sedan, and wagon to go with the current hatch back, all getting 46 MPG (2008 EPA). If I didn’t live where it got cold (Vermont) my Prius’s average lifetime MPG would be 52 or better (my summer averages) instead of 47.
And I argue with the claim that a lot of (American) people can not make do with a smaller car than the big SUVS and trucks they now own. Sure, you have a 6 person family, you need a 6 person car. But they don’t need the weight of a truck based chassis to accomodate 6 people. Most mid-size SUVs only hold 5 anyway. A little thought when packing can get a LOT in a smaller space, add a car top carrier for the occasions you need more space. Why drag around the extra weight ALL the time? Sure, some businesses need to haul around some heavy equipment, but most of the pickups I see are way over sized in both towing and cargo weight capacity. Of course the auto companies don’t make small pick-ups any more so the consumer has NO choice. Even the smallest (Ford Ranger has a 5,500# tow capacity and 1,500# payload) & (Dodge Dakota 3000# & 1,600#). Maybe you see a lot of those wherever you live but I see few. For non commercial use, most of the trucks I see are F150 size and bigger, used as commuter vehicles, never tow anything and carry nothing larger than I can fit INSIDE my Prius. But they are manly men, because they drive big trucks.
You express a common misconception. The question isn’t if governement can do something better than the marketplace, the question is if government can and should influence the marketplace. It happens all the time (seat belt and emissions laws are examples), and it should happen in this case. There are serious national security concerns related to our dependence on foreign oil, and it is not the marketplace’s problem to solve. It is however an appropriate role for the government to attempt to address this issue, and this needs to be done through influencing vehicle efficiency.
We may now get 25 to 30 MPG but the vehicle also costs a LOT more
Umm, not necessarily. Does my Prius cost more than a Honda FIT? Yes, about 50% more. But they are not comparable vehicles. While nicely fitted out, the base FIT for $14,000 doesn’t have the same features. My Prius is also bigger (5" of rear leg room will matter but only if you have rear passengers over 4’ tall) and I get 50% better mileage and pollute less. But if the smaller car fits (sorry) your needs, it looks like a good buy.
has many more very specific maintenance requirements.
Um, like WHAT?? Prius maintenance schedule is oil and filter every 5,000 miles. Engine and cabin air filters at 15K to 30K depending on how dirty your air is 
Various “inspect” items every 15K, no different than any other car, inspect valve clearance at 60K. When you get to 120K you replace the spark plugs. I have nearly 55K on my '04 Prius, the front brake pads are at 75%, the rear at 80%.
Can there be a 40MPG car in two years that’s bigger than a lawn mower? Probably, but at what cost initially and then through the next five years of operation.
Based on my guesstimated average for my '95 Odyssey of 20 winter, 22 summer, In 3 years I have saved nearly 1500 gallons of gas (good for the planet) and about $4,000 in gas cost (good for me!) alone. The maintenance costs on the Odyssey were much higher, both routine, and the “rear disks are pitted again” replacements - 3 times by 60K miles.
I hope they read and give proper consideration to your letter. I am SO sick of hearing “it can’t be done”. “It will cost jobs”. etc. If they spent as much money designing and advertising smaller vehicles and better mileage in all vehicles as they spend in lawyers to fight CAFE, they would have had their 35 MPG average years ago. Instead they continue with Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. GMC’s “We build them Professional Grade because we don’t know what you are going to do with it” is especially telling. WHY DON’T YOU ASK. They are overbuilt for most buyers. I’ll bet a small truck built on a car frame would serve 80% of the market.
Now they are fighting the states rights to require lower emissions. One argument is really bizarre - “it will cost a lot to have different engines for different states”. BULL. They already do it now. If they made ONE engine (of whatever specific size) for ALL states meeting the emission requirements of the more strict states, it would SAVE them money. Fewer parts to source and store, easier assembly line work, etc.
GM talks big about their “flex-fuel” vehicles but (assuming you can find it now) E85 will drop your mileage by 25% to 30%. Which means your fuel usage goes UP by 25% to 30%. What we need is less energy usage, not more usage with a different fuel whether ‘renewable’ or not.
If the US had as much oil as Saudi Arabia and Global Warming was not an issue, there might be some rational for having your head in the sand. I just spent some time in Europe where clean, powerful diesels power compact and space-efficient vehicles,and get terrific fuel mileage. If US carmakers don’t want to make fuel-efficient cars, the Japanes, Koreans, Europeans, and yes, the Chinese will do it for us. This will relegate our car companies to the “also ran”" category. I not only support congress and wish they will have the spine to stare down the corporate bull, but like California, use legislation to move the technology along to carbon neutral transportation. In France, a V8 Impala has an annual licese fee of $1850 just to keep the plates on and $7.50/gallon gas to fill the tank. There are not many V8s on the road in France. By the way these extra taxes in France go towards providing one of the world’s best health care systems and a superior transportation infrastructure. England and Germany have similar taxes, as does Japan If you own a business, however, these fuel taxes are, of course deductible, allowing farmers and small business owners to carry on as usual.
Cogress, get with it and act on behalf of those who elected you!!!
irlandes, here are some examples of when the government has done something better than the marketplace:
*Polio vaccinations. Government has virtually wiped out Polio in the civilized world.
*Defeating Nazi Germany and liberating Jews from concentration camps in WWII. Do you really think private industry could have accomplished that?
*Reduction of the deficit during the Clinton years.
*Anti-Trust law enforcement that began with Teddy Roosevelt. If you let private industry govern itself you only get more Enrons.
*Foster care for orphans. Private industry could never be trusted with something this important.
*The Civil War. Private industry would have continued slavery if it had been up to them.
*The Civil Rights Act. It speaks for itself.
*Public Education. It may not be perfect but I prefer it to the alternative. It is a social necessity.
*Regulation of nursing homes. This is yet another industry that can’t be trusted to regulate itself.
*The American Revolution. Without it we would not be free.
*Fire fighting. Firefighters do a great job and they are government run and government funded.
*The Tennessee Valley Authority. This is an example of a marvelous accomplishment that can be credited to our federal government. The hydeoelectric power generated by this project greatly contributed to wartime production during WWII.
Sometimes our leaders need to lead. I know that is a lot to expect from leaders, but we have chosen to trust the people to select them. Therefore, why not let them do their jobs?
You are either too young, or have too short a memory. The free market certainly affected car fuel mileage in the late 70s and early 80s. The price of gas went up and people started buying smaller, more fuel efficient cars. The fuel crisis of the 70s pretty much put Honda and Toyota on the map in the US. Part of the reason GM and Ford are having trouble right now is due to recent fuel price increases killing the sales of big SUVs. The market does have an effect on MPG ratings. Not so much on pollution, perhaps.
If the price of fuel started going up rapidly enough, the same thing would happen again. Right now, although in actual dollars fuel is higher priced than in the 1970s and 80s, in inflation adjusted terms it’s not that bad. I suspect in the next couple of years small and fuel efficient will get a lot more popular demand.
There’s cars sold in Europe that, at the track, probably perform about as well as a Pinto or a Vega did, but get 80+ MPG
My wifes Lexus ES350 is BIGGER, FASTER, HEAVIER…bigger engine (v6)…and fuel economy is 50% BETTER then the Vega or Pingo…and polutes 1000% less.
There have been many, many advances in automotive technology since the last round of fuel mileage regulations came out, but they have been used to increase speed and size instead of economy.
That’s right because they want to INCREASE profits. Larger cars = HIGHER profits. But without the Cafe’ numbers they’d be selling these same size cars with MUCH WORSE gas mileage and polute a LOT more.
Well, that’s why I said “practically”, although now that I think about it, I was forgetting how crappy the Vega and Pinto truly were. But say something like some of the older VW’s or Hondas were decent, slow little cars that got decent mileage.
I also forgot that the only time you saw Vegas and Pintos at the track was when they were getting run over by monster trucks.
Thanks Tom and Ray. I believe it will be good for everyone to make better use of our resources. Nobody likes to change habbits. But why then is lite beer so popular? I am for the change as it betters life for everyone and helps us regain competitiveness.
I came across an interesting piece of research about average fleet mpg (or rather ltr/km). I wanted to know what automakers around the world are capable of achieving. Among them are Ford (Europe) and Opel (GM) with 32.5 and 33.3 mpg respectively! It’s a Swiss paper written in German, but it has nice graphs for many makes that don’t need interpretation…Here is the link: http://www.strasseschweiz.ch/dcs/users/2/TCS_Flottenverbrauch.pdf
Probably the marketplace and a combination of regs, however I like big American V8,S and can’t help myself. When the price goes high enough to stop my desire, I guess I will change. I sure hope it is not today.
Well, that’s why I said “practically”, although now that I think about it, I was forgetting how crappy the Vega and Pinto truly were.
I’ll NEVER forget…I owned two Vega’s and my brother owned a Pinto. Both were about as unreliable a vehicle as you could buy.
Yes, the best results come from a combination of fuel mileage standards, additional taxes (refunded in the form of lower income tax), and a progressive user fee structure. All these are used by most European countries. Originally they were used by countries that have neither oil nor a car industry, such as Denmark. The car (more addictive than any drug!) can bankrupt a country with no oil or a car industry, unless it is heavily taxed. The US historically had both a car industry and lots of oil, hence US cars are subject to no net taxation, other than road tax to keep the infrastructure in good shape. With both an oil deficit and an automotive trade deficit today(almost $30 billion with Canada alone)the time has come to tax and regulate the car so as not to cause massive economic damage. On top of that, we now have Global Warming and air pollution standards to address. The market place will still function with all these regulations, since it will stimulate companies to produce the right product for the customer. US manufacturers seem to want to have it completely their way; it’s no longer 1963, the last year relatively free from regs.
T&R have their headlights up their tailpipes. Forced higher mileage, assuming it manifests itself as less oil consumption (and that part is arguable), will be offset by petroleum producers lowering production levels to drive the cost per barrel up and maintain thair revenue stream. Their revenues will stay up, their cost of production and distribution will drop, we’ll suffer, and the sheiks will order more gold plated palaces built.
The argument on weather it will force less consumption involves issues like the emerging Chinese market, the demand for petroleum for plastics, industrial demand, the trucking industry demand, home heating oil demand, and a few other assorted huge components of the market for oil that just happen to be totally unaffected by the CAFE requirements. We, the typical car drivers, especially commuters, always “take it in the nose” while other huge demand segments continue on unabated. It’s time to look elsewhere for demand reductions.
All areas of society will be asked to make changes to reduce the level of energy consumption and move to more renewable types. Buildings, appliances, process and manufacturing industries all have to make these changes. Al Gore’s presentation “An Inconvenient Truth” was a bit scare mongering, but he confirmed that all segments of society need to make these changes. Our familily, since 2004 have upgraded the house and appliances , as well as changed car sizes. We still have 2 cars, 4 bedrooms, 2 refrigerators, a freezer, 3 computers, 3 TVs, and a lot of other things. But everything is now more energy-efficient, resulting in a Greenhouse Gas reduction of 45% and an energy consumption reduction of 42% from the 1990 level. This is in excess of what the Kyoto Agreement, signed by Bill Clinton, but not passed by Congress, asked for (only 8% reduction), and Al Gore wants us to achieve. I’m prepared to do my bit, but other countries, such as China and India need to get on the bandwagon as well.
The US can not influence the price of oil; any excess on the world market will be bought by China, India and other rapidly growing economies. The replacement value of oil (what substitutes would cost) is estimated to be $240 per barrel, so oil at $94/bbl is still a bargain. The Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid has a great future if the battery price can be lowered. We cannot wean ourselves off oil completely, but we can minimize its use.