Yes.
And if people are concerned about the Horsepower, please look at Supra Concept (FTHS??) or the Tesla roadster.
If you leave it to the market, they like nothing better than the high fuel prices and the low MGP, that way the Oil giants and automotive midgets keep on making money the same old way without investing in much needed R&D.
And the way the engineering ranks have been cut at the little 3, I dont know if such an undertaking is still within their grasp.
The mandate should be at least 50 mpg for passenger cars and 35 mpg for trucks. Also eliminate the loophole calling SUVs trucks. I drive a 14 year old Suzuki Swift which gets 50 mph on the highway. If they could do it 14 years ago, they can do it today.
Hugemoth
I agree.
Well, if you know any millionaires who go out and waste fuel just for the sake of wasting fuel then I say they’ll be poor soon. What about race car drivers, not NASCAR ( though I guess you’d say tat they use fuel extravagantly) but the smaller weekend drivers who “waste” that gas just for fun? Then there’s all those other favorite pass times where people use fuel for fun: go carts, 4 wheelers, motorcycles, even hot air balloons or just that weekend cruise with the family. Of course it seems that the ones you cry the loudest about burning fossil fuels and the tragic impact it might have are usually the worse offenders. Flying around the country in private jets from their multiple mansions around the country to decry those you would dear drive a vehicle that held more than 4 people and got less than 30 mpg.
As for energy efficient vehicles, not just gasoline but the amount of energy spent from construction, through the life of the vehicle and the cost of scrapping it in the end, the LEAST efficient is the hybrid cars because of the energy it takes to make the battery, replace it every 6-9 years, and, after an accident (I don’t think any have been out long enough to die of old age yet), dispose of them. One of the MOST energy efficient is, would you believe, the HUMMER! Since I know you wont even begin to believe anything i say, check it out at http://cnwmr.com/
This must be a very special ash tray that actually does more than tray ashes and really cost a lot more to make otherwise the government, who I assume is the only one buying it, wouldn’t be buying it.
Of course I could simply take your line of thinking and turn it around on you and say “O.K., then where is this miracle ash tray. It probably doesn’t exist and you haven’t got a clue” but I wont be so rude to you as you’ve been to me.
Yes, and I had a Chevy Sprint (same car as the Swift but with the Chevy tag on it) that did well on gas, but in an accident at highway speed, let me tell you from experience, all the money you saved on gas wont begin to pay the medical bills - if you survive at all! Of course my family of 5 would not be able to fit in it anyway. I am really excited though about the clean diesel engines that VW has been coming out with that enable Suzuki Swift style fuel economy in a much larger car/SUV.
What does all of that have to do with the price of tea in China?
I don’t see why in a discussion on fuel economy standards any of those other scenarios are relevant, other than that you are trying to repeatedly change the subject. I don’t want to take away anyone’s freedom to do the things they enjoy. I just want the machines that they do them in to be more fuel efficient than they are now. You have continuously tried to dumbfound me with obfuscation and unrelated streams of thought, but you haven’t convinced me that increased fuel economy standards are bad for anyone. If you can explain your position that increased efficiency will hurt anyone, please do. But please don’t assume that making cars more efficient means making them lighter or any less safe than they are now. Did increasing the number of valves per cylinder make cars less safe? Did making cars that have front wheel drive make them less safe? Are cars with interference engines inherently less safe? These innovations all increased fuel economy without decreasing safety. I am against increased fuel economy standards if they can’t be achieved without sacrificing safety and I believe that American ingenuity is capable of making that continue to happen.
Part of the reason that today’s cars don’t do as well in fuel economy as your 1993 Suzuki Swift is that safety standards have been increased. If you look at the tiny cars from that era, they were not very safe, like the Honda CRX or the Honda Civic Del Sol. However, if you look at the Honda Fit as an example, it has all of the newest safety equipment and gets about 31 miles per gallon. Personally, I think the Fit is a nice balance of fuel economy and safety.
Jeremy,
I’m sorry that I’ve not made my points plain. It is not my intention to mislead or throw you off. My mentioning the things that some people do for fun that consumes fuel is to compare it with the fictional millionaire who found enjoyment in having a fleet of gas guzzlers. To each his own! The CAFE standards will have absolutely no effect on him. But if he is going to pay for gas that way how is it different then my brother who lives across FL from you who spends his time pouring gas into a high performance speed boat. That’s the point I was trying to make.
As for safety and the CAFE standards, reduction of weight is always the first thing that is done to increase fleet fuel economy. Each time the CAFE standards were raised, the weight of the vehicles came down across the board so the average family car of 35 years ago (when CAFE was first instituted) was much larger and heavier than the average family car of today. If, as the years passed, the big car was allowed to evolve with the newer safety features as well as the improvements in the engine which increased performance hence fuel efficiency we’d have bigger and heavier cars on the road than we do today. That heavier car is going to be much more likely to survive a crash than a small car. EXAMPLE: in 1977 I was driving a 1969 Buick down a state highway at around 55 MPH when I hit a sheet of ice, turned sideways,and took down a telephone pole. After the police arrived and made their report I simply backed the car up, put a chunk of the pole in the trunk for extra weight (better snow traction) and drove off. Now if I had instead purchased the 1971 Datsun I was looking at for better mpg and had the same accident the car would have been totaled and I probably injured. That is why I keep harping about weight and safety. The statistics bare it out as well. Look at my earlier statement where I list some of what’s been written about it.
By the way, as I mentioned before about my cars using what you called my “Miracle” additive. I am getting better gas mileage with my full sized 1996 Chrysler Concorde than the EPA estimates for the compacts put out Chevy and Ford right now. Plus, with a family of 5, I need a vehicle large enough to handle them.
I hope this was less exasperating. I truly would like to hear our response.
I just don’t understand how anyone who wishes to see a significant decrease in fuel consumption overlooks the taxing of gas guzzlers on a continueing annual basis. If vehicles with displacements of over 2.5L which consume fuel at rates greater than 1 gallon per 30 miles, could be taxed an additional $1,000 annually until it is scrapped. That would drastically reduce the resale value of these vehicles. Many of the larger vehicles are gas guzzlers but they are outstanding in their reliability and value to buyers of used cars who drive limited miles and favor the larger vehicles comfort and reliability.
My first response is that I am glad we agree on the idea of not raising CAFE standards at the expense of safety. After our long discourse, I am relieved we can find common ground. I think that making cars unsafe to meet CAFE standards was a lazy way to approach the problem. It is like the manufacturers who simply adjusted the carburetors to make engines burn lean and run poorly just to meet CAFE standards. My hope is that the government will prod Detroit’s big three to keep up with the latest safety developments and find technological ways to increase fuel economy. I don’t think the Japanese manufacturers will have a problem with the new standards. The companies that are complaining the loudest about increased CAFE standards are the ones where the culture is largely influenced by the status quo.
The latest accident that you described from your driving history has made me realize that you drive on ice and snow. So of course you consider vehicle weight a safety issue! I, however, live in sunny Florida, where I never drive on snow or ice. So, much of our disagreement is based on our different driving conditions. If I moved up north, I would probably not be so happy with my small light weight car in the winter.
I still believe that how you drive is more important than what you drive, but that assumes that you are driving a vehicle that is appropriate for the conditions. So how would you feel if Congress included an exception for vehicles used in climates where more vehicle weight is needed?
As per previous posts, regulation plus selective taxes will work wonders to drive the move to more economical vehicles and reduce the use of gas guzzlers. Large US cars are still very popular in Saudi Arabia since the gas price is a small fraction of what it is here, and US cars have the best air conditioners!
That might work, but it would also be a regressive tax (just like increasing fuel cost) and it would also punish folks who have an infrequently used gas guzzler just as much as someone who used one everyday. In reality, most of us would just pay a few $1000 in tax and keep driving what we want. In practice, any tax law would have a ton of loopholes anyway, so most of us wouldn’t even have to pay the tax.
I still think that increasing the price of fuel by about $1 per gallon would be simpler and would have a similar effect ($1000 per year for driving 25K miles at 25 mpg). You could drive the fuel cost up with road tax (lots of roads/bridges need fixing and this would create some jobs), or maybe some kind of mandate that requires R&D with the additional funds; It really doesn’t matter where the money goes as long as it ends up back in the economy. Either way, I do think the tax/increase would have to be implemented gradually (over about 5 years) to give folks time to change vehicles and give the auto makers some time to adjust their fleet.
Politically, neither plan would stand a chance of actually happening.
The CAFE standards will have absolutely no effect on him.
Sure it does…Are his driving habits going to change because the vehicle he’s driving is getting better gas mileage??? If the car he’s going to buy gets better gas mileage then the same one 10 years…are you saying he won’t buy it???
EXAMPLE: in 1977 I was driving a 1969 Buick down a state highway at around 55 MPH when I hit a sheet of ice, turned sideways,and took down a telephone pole. After the police arrived and made their report I simply backed the car up, put a chunk of the pole in the trunk for extra weight (better snow traction) and drove off. Now if I had instead purchased the 1971 Datsun I was looking at for better mpg and had the same accident the car would have been totaled and I probably injured.
First off I don’t believe for one minute a 69 Buic hitting a telephone pole at 55 and the car wasn’t TOTALED…I’ve OWNED a couple Buicks of that era…Is this a magical Buick like the Magical gas mileage additives.
Second…You’re comparing a TWO completely DIFFERENT cars and NOT proving anything. Take youre 69 Buick and do the same thing with a modern car of the same size…The newer car that gets 40-50% better gas mileage is AS SAFE or SAFER then that 69 Buick.
Jeremy made a GREAT statment
These innovations all increased fuel economy without decreasing safety. I am against increased fuel economy standards if they can’t be achieved without sacrificing safety and I believe that American ingenuity is capable of making that continue to happen.
I too have far more faith in our American ingenuity then you do. We’ve proven it time and time again. I don’t believe for a minute that we can’t make a car that gets MUCH BETTER gas mileage without sacraficing safety or comfort.
A fuel tax has the best immediate effect. This was proven during 2 past oil crises, when a rapid rise in gas prices boosted small car sales. A progresive gas guzzler tax would be imposed on new vehicles only, so retired people living on fixed income would not be hurt. Businesses who need gas guzzlers (pickups, suburbans) would get a tax write-off. Tom and Ray proposed a $0.50/gallon surtax a while ago, before the gas prices shot up. I agreed with the idea, but thought it was too small. When you look at international cars such as the Camry and Accord in use around the world, the smallest engine and often a stick shift are the norm. Only in the US do V6s outnumber 4 cylinder models in these cars. The reasons for this are gas prices and incomes. Most Chrysler minivans built in Europe have small diesel engines and 5 speed manual transmissions.
I agree completely, but it’s not going to happen.
Business & Gov’t should have a check & balance relationship. Business being driven by short term financial performance (which they are good at) and balanced by a longer term overall best direction point of view which should be by our legislators. This is a leadership issue which I believe is their job, but I don’t think they think so.
guess what kids…I used to drive test vehicles for the FORD Motor Company back in 1994. Our company was required to put 400 miles a day on these cars, a computer in the glove box recorded everything the driver asked of the car. My daily vehicle was a 1994 Lincoln MARK VIII, with an ‘experimental’ engine in it. As a car nut I had to learn more. It was a stock 4.6L DOHC 32valve V8. As anyone who knows these luxury cars, they have a ‘miles per gallon-per second’ read out that allows the driver to see the fuel economy from acceleration, cruising and slowing down. Now here’s the deal: At cruising speed of 60mph, according to the computer, this ‘experimental engine’ was showing 42mpg. Yep, 4.6L DOHC 32valve V8 getting 42 miles per gallon. This car was my daily driver, which I drove 400 miles a day until the day we gave it back to FORD. Yes, the 42mpg fuel economy was confirmed at the pump. Since then I’ve always wanted to purchase a MARK VIII and adjust the vehicles computer fuel air mixture/timing etc. to achieve 42mpg. Sure the car wouldn’t be as fast, but with 280 horsepower to work with, there is room to be frugal and fast.
70 years of GM in my family and I’m p***** off at them for not taking the lead for “our country”, but I am still hopeful.
Do not be deceived by the 30+ mpg ad’s.
GM’s Opel/Vauxhall Division in Europe offers 70mpg Turbo Diesels in the Astra (hmmm, Saturn Astra) and Opel GT (hmmm, Saturn Sky), Corsa, Tigra, Combo and Agila (soon to be Saturn offerings??). The same engine returned 113mpg in the Ecospeedster. “During initial testing the 112 hp concept car reached a maximum speed of more than 155 mph while fuel consumption on the combined cycle was an incredible 113 mpg”. And GM is supposed to be the hero offering 30+ mpg? BS! http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z6147/default.aspx
http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/vauxhall-tigra-1.3cdti-1004613.html
Why is the American public left in the dark about GM’s European offerings, especially diesel engine offerings? For those who haven’t studied vehicles beyond our shores, welcome to a bigger automotive world. You will be as upset as I have been the last 4 years after studying and learning what options and choices millions of others have around the world, who aren’t put in a box and ‘hand-choice fed’ technology as we americans are. Yes I know about emission standards. But that is a deception and a ‘cop-out’ if you compare the number of big-rig trucks out there that don’t even come close to how clean the new ‘clean-diesels’ are in passenger vehicles.
Be ye not deceived!
Here are a couple samples.
http://www.gmpartsworld.com/products.php?category_id=5
http://www.isuzu.co.jp/world/corporate/engine/lineup.html
Toyota Yaris Diesel: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/new_toyota_yari.html
got compressed air? http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/21-08-07_1
Will you fight to get it here, after generation technology improvements?
Does your manufacturing company need a new product? Contact this guy in Ausi and tell him you can manufacture his air engine here in the US.
http://www.engineair.com.au/
Sincerely,
Tarnished Fisher Body offspring
There are few things that government can do better than private enterprise. Deliver mail? Provide airport security? Educate kids? End poverty? Provide quality medical care? Build cars? Please. I know, I know, the loony liberal progressive socialists just HATE kapitalism and the free market system, but for as long as we have it (ending third Tuesday in January 2009), let it work! I heard you guys slip up one time with the typical “Well, the car companies should be giving us more choices.” Please. Enough people demand it and it will be supplied. Instead, you seem to believe that the heavy (and clumsy and inefficient) hand of government (all thumbs) should get involved in ever more aspects of our lives. LEAVE US ALONE ! By the way, Markey is just a sock puppet for Nader, the raving socialist. Between them, they would love nothing better than to bring down the US and bring us socialism. Must be something in the Massachusetts air. I mean, your beloved Ted Kennedy passing judgment on the horror of drowning by water? (You could look it up…he was discussing waterboarding (which, by the way, does not meet the defn of torture found in Genevea Convention). And with a straight face. What a guy. What a leader.