http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/22650
Printable View
That's going to be tough to meet, but at least there will be only one standard now.
If I want to use a vehicle that averages, say 5 mpg, what's wrong with that?
There's nothing wrong with it -- you might be hard pressed to buy a new car that averages that, though.
There's a simplistic libertarian argument to be made for that of course. We should all be able to select and pay for the cost of our vehicle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
The problem with this arises when the rest of the country ends up subsidizing those with low millage vehicles through the amount of money we have to pay to support military expenditure in the Persian gulf which is directly tied to our dependence on oil. The problem with low millage vehicles is that their owners do not pay the true cost those vehicles acure because of this. In addition these vehicles also contribute to public health and environmental issues in almost every major city of San Antonio's size through their increased emmisions. This is another situation where the true cost is cast upon the general public as opposed to the individual with the vehicle.
I don't forsee a way to transfer the true cost of these vehicles to their owners, and I do not see much of a downside to this type of limitation.
What drives military action in the Middle East is the way the federal government has chosen to engage nations there diplomatically. As long as the approach is based upon control and/or some kind of exclusive relationship, then we will continue to antagonize ME nations. Part of the cost we bear due to this is having the government impose these fuel economy standards and other measures aimed at mitigating the influence oil supplying nations in the ME can have on us economically.
As for emissions, what keeps that in check is that there are relatively few who can afford to own vehicles with such poor fuel economy. Not to mention that there are more and more individuals who choose to own low emission vehicles because of their concern of the environmental impact.
Of course, increasing the target also results in vehicles which make passengers more vulnerable to serious injury and death in collisions, which definitely results in externalities which are borne by all.
we should start by targeting the old farts in cadillacs and lincolns.
"What drives military action in the Middle East is"
oilco and MIC $$$ buying politicians, esp Repugs and neo-c*nts, to grab the oil for an America that consumes 25% of the world's consumption, with 4% of the population.
iow, the American lifestyle of cheap oil and cheap energy is not sustainable.
I remember I had a 1968 Firebird Ram Air, with a 350 in it. It got 9mg with the Rochester 4-barrel Quadra-Jet carb that was on it. It was very fast and fun to drive, but this was during the gas crisis in Jimmy Carter's administration... gas skyrocketed to around $1.25/gallon for a while.
I had to put a Holly Econo-master 2-barrel carb on it... went up to 16mpg after that. Back then auto repairs were a piece of cake.
hey... I drive a Hyundai !Quote:
we should start by targeting the old farts in cadillacs and lincolns.
my next car will be a hybrid, if the prices come down. Or a Harley.
It's not like the new garbage coming out of detroit will be worthy of my wants.
I'll stick to the older model Trucks/Jeeps/SUVs I have been dreaming of rebuilding since a young lad. If only it weren't for these emissionemos...
My dad sold his Mustang when I was really young, before I had a chance to understand the allure of muscle cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender
1968 Ford Mustang, 427 custom everything, short pistons, bored out, the works.
And two 4 barrel carbs to go with it. i don't know what kind of gas mileage it got, but it set track records around here that held up for a while so I'm not sure if I would have cared.
I'm not sure I can ever forgive him for selling that car. You could easily break the back end loose at 130 mph by romping the throttle.
Well, I heard today that there will be an estimated 800 additional accidents per year because of this new mileage standard once in effect.
Thank-You president Obama for the extra loss of life.
It is mentioned that we line the pockets of nations that do us harm. As true as that is, so do other nations. Oil is a necessary commodity. If we were truly concerned from that perspective, we would produce our own oil. We can do it. We can be energy sufficient.
What was the estimate? $1200, or $1700 more per vehicle with such added technology?
What about maintenance and life. I think this is a policy that will hurt the poor people far more than the middle class. Will they be able to afford to buy a car 20 years from now?
What an obamination.
^^^Hazardous tailpipe emissions.
Either you quadrajet had a problem, or was pooly adjusted. There was a known gasket leak problem with them. Probably had that. They would get great mileage over a standard 4 bbl, and had all the breathing capacity for high power when needed. I had one in a Firebird Esprit with the Olds 350. Great mileage for a 1977 and 160+ MPH! I think I got 24 freeway and 16 city. Long enough ago, I don't remember for certain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender
:lol Yes, the new regulations will make everyone worse drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
What are you basing this on? Bullshit that you found on the floor? What is anyone basing that on? How would higher emission standards cause anyone to be in a car accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
"The plan was praised by automakers and environmentalists but will mean higher price tags for consumers. The new program will add about $600 to the price of producing a vehicle"Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090519/...bama_emissions
Far less than the amount you think it'll cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
Price of poker just went down. It was 3x as much last week.
Um, when I follow your link, the story I get says the cost is $1,300, not $600. Found some other sources saying the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
Quote:
Originally Posted by wall street journal
Not that it really matters, since these days there aren't any car manufacturers making $600 per car, let alone $1,300. Hell, there aren't even that many fortunate enough to only be losing $600 per car.Quote:
Originally Posted by msnbc
I'm all for improved fuel efficiency, but I think this is an idea that Obama should have sat on until we're out of this recession. Jobs are being lost and the auto sector is drowning because they can't sell cars for a profit. Even if the added cost is only $600, that's $600 further underwater that we're pushing these companies. And thanks to our elected leaders, some of these companies We The People are now financially responsible for. Let's let the auto sector get the bar off of their chest before putting more weight on it.
The story must have changed because it did say $600 when I read it earlier. Even yesterday it said the same thing.
Either way $1300 added to the price of a new car is nothing. A 15k car that will now 16.3 what's the difference? Not a whole lot. I'd be concerned if it was 10k but not for such a negligent amount.
Personally I'm all for higher emissions. The companies it will affect are shitty car companies like Chrysler and GM who have not made fuel effeciency their number 1 priority like Honda and Toyota have. There's no American car out there that I would buy nor will there probably ever be one in the future.
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
I'll be willing to bet that consumers whose financial means limit them to shopping for cars in the $15k range don't think that extra $1300 is a negligible amount.Quote:
Either way $1300 added to the price of a new car is nothing. A 15k car that will now 16.3 what's the difference? Not a whole lot. I'd be concerned if it was 10k but not for such a negligent amount.
Instead of emissions standards why can't we just accept the truth that Americans don't want fuel efficient cars when gas is $2.00 per gallon? We just don't. Even when gas was $4.00 per gallon the Prius still had to be heavily incentive-laden, both from Toyota and the taxpayers, for people to buy them. The better way to reduce the amount of gas we consume is to just jack up the gas tax by $1/gallon. That will encourage consumer demand for fuel efficient vehicles, encourage consumers to reduce the number of miles they drive, and generate tax revenue that can be reinvested in things like mass transit and construction projects for congestion relief. Instead, we get the current plan where we tell an industry in dire need of cutting costs that they now have to make cars that we only want when gas is expensive, which the taxpayers will end up having to subsidize in order to generate demand.Quote:
Personally I'm all for higher emissions. The companies it will affect are shitty car companies like Chrysler and GM who have not made fuel effeciency their number 1 priority like Honda and Toyota have. There's no American car out there that I would buy nor will there probably ever be one in the future.
From the same interview I heard the $1300 figure from. I just didn't remember that amount exactly. It had to do with shaving more weight off the vehicles, increasing the deaths per accident. It's based on current statistical knowledge based on vehicle weight. Steady speed has almost no effect on mileage. Accelerating a mass requires more power and energy for more weight. This is a primary factor for city mileage. Wind resistance is the primary factor for freeway mileage, but rolling resistance is also affected by mass. There is no way around it. Vehicle weights must be reduced. That means less structural integrity in a crash. There is still some efficiency we can squeeze out of engines, but not much. To use less energy, the vehicle weights must be reduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
In the article you linked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
Did you change the value yourself? You make it a habit to lie?Quote:
The new program will add about $1,300 to the price of producing a vehicle.
In all fairness, president Obama just asked that the CAFE standard be moved in four years closer. What type of a paradigm shift will he have to maintain safety, and get the new mileage, I haven't a clue. I think it will be impossible. If possible, we now have four years less to achieve it.
Now... I have a prediction. Who ever is president then, will have to lift the new upcoming standard, because it won't be achievable. If they don't, we can thank president Obama for the extra traffic deaths each year. I think he's smarter than that, and if he gets a second term, he will have to reverse his own policy!
That's what happens when you rely on one source... Then I guess, you believe anything you read on the internet...Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff McCartney
I don't see this surviving at all. Domestic auto makers are already drowning in losses and the poor already can't afford even a semi new car, where are they going to get another $1300 from? Nowhere, they get to stick to bicycles and busses. I don't even see why a regular middle class person would support this. $1300 isn't negligible and people living pay check to pay check don't care about the environment.
I agree, and with anthropogenic global warming proving to be a hoax... who will go along with these policies in a few years?Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
Eh, if the cars actually get that kind of mileage, there should be savings in the cost of gas over the life of the car to defray some of the up front cost. Once gas gets near four bucks a gallon again there will be less bitching about this.
Hardcore environmental regulations are fantastic.
Sincerely,
California
Raising CAFE standards is politically preferrable to the option which would really be more effective for what Obama is trying to accomplish: higher gas taxes.
There is a popular myth out there that fuel-efficient vehicles could be readily available with no sacrifices to the consumer if not for some nefarious conspiracy between the automakers and the oil companies. So we indulge the myth by raising CAFE standards to force those evil companies to stop conspiring against us.
Americans, if they can afford it, prefer enormous vehicles. A 300-lb obese man would much rather glide his slippery omentum into the wide seat of a Ford Expedition than try to wedge himself into a Corolla. If the CAFE standard is 36 mpg, but the fat man can still afford an Expedition, he is still going to want one, and one of these companies will find a loophole to get him his land tank. That's how we ended up with the SUV boom in the first place.
Consumer behavior would have to change for Obama's plans to work. Price signals work -- that was proved last year. The President is telling the stupid populace they can have their cake and eat it too. Well, most of us will probably bitch and moan when we find out it doesn't really work that way.
Worthless posts based on internet meme's are my forteQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Sincerely,
Darrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
It's only worthless if you don't understand the point.
By the way, why not have a goal of some MPH per pound of vehicle weight? That makes more sense to me. I know they have different proposed standards per vehicle class (passenger car, light truck, SUV), but there is too much variability in vehicle weight for trucks and SUV's. Makes more sense to me to normalize the CAFE standard.
yay. i've always wanted this car
http://www.tcnj.edu/~pa/news/2009/im...martcarJPG.jpg
:lmao
I don't think there's a conspiracy. I think American automakers became lazy starting in the 1970s, began to make shit cars to make a huge profit margin on them, and never looked back until they realized that they're going out of business, and quickly. They were just too slow and stupid to realize that they had competition, and by the time they did, it was far ahead of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
It's like I said in another thread...people don't wants what's good for them...I'm gonna tell them and force them to do what's good for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
BTW...I'm a consumer looking for an extremely fuel effecient car. I don't have alot of money at all...but changing a car from 15k to 16k is a negligible amount to me.
What about more expensive car insurance? When these cars have a less safe crash test, the insurance will cost more. Likely more than any gas savings.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
When I went from a Mercury Sable to a Z28, my insurance decreased by a couple hundred every six months. When I told the agent I though I would pay more, he showed informed me on how they base part of the cost on crash data. The Z28 has that really long crumple zone!
bingoQuote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
Prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So you had a little more money to finance your midlife crisis in bars and strip clubs.Quote:
When I went from a Mercury Sable to a Z28, my insurance decreased by a couple hundred every six months. When I told the agent I though I would pay more, he showed informed me on how they base part of the cost on crash data. The Z28 has that really long crumple zone!
Kudos.
You're not worth the effort to conduct such a search. You're just a jackass. Ask various insurance agents from various companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
LOL... You don't know what you're talking about. I've always preferred sports cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I had a Firebird that I traveled daily 130+ MPH back and forth from Gärtringen to Vaihingen. I lived in Gärtringen, Patch Barracks is in Vaihingen. When I left Germany, I sold the car and bought a sedan because I was afraid I would drive too fast on the freeway without thinking. After I adjusted to driving in the states again, I went back to a sports car.
You are a never ending jackass. How do you live with yourself? Are you always proud to talk out your ass?
From Google Maps:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...oVaihingen.jpg
So you don't go to bars and strip clubs?
Sometimes, but not regularly. Problem with the area I live is there are only five places within walking distance. Three of them are strip clubs. I don't like the other places.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You have to know Portland. We have more strip clubs per capita than anywhere else in the USA, possible the world.
There you are, a jackass again. This isn't about me. Why are you making it that way?
:lol
Sucker.
Should I remind you that it's your profile pic that's sucking off the invisible man?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Better get on the waiting list for one of these...
http://www.transeum.com/wp-content/u...dapp-janus.gif
Your interpretation of the picture says more about you than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
But, it's still relative...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I'm afraid the word "...more...," in your post, made it so. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I mean, that could be saying his ability to interpret your actions accurately says more about his deductive skills than it does about you liking to suck cock.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You know, says more about him than you...
Relatively speaking, you both have a great interest in guys sucking cocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
It says a lot about you.
Let me know when I can buy a vehicle like the Nike One:
I was merely commenting on your reply. I didn't know you sucked cock...until Wild Cobra pointed it out. Not that there's anything wrong with that, you understand. This is a big tent forum, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
you guys love chump as your master.
Not sure that's gonna meet Obama's 2016 mpg standards, brah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It's an electric vehicle. All four wheels are motors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Besides, it only exists in the game.
Well, I'm sure they'll find something wrong with it. It looks to nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://www.evbeat.com/blog/wp-conten..._roadster2.jpg
I guess it must. I guess you never get it. I see that lip shape on a woman every now and then. Seeing it on you is disgusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Inaccurate, but you seem to be positively salivating at the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
amanda is a woman?
You think that's me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
:lmao
Talk about never getting it....
somebody throw that picture up, again.
An avatar is a representation of you. You decided to pick one that looks like you're ready go give head. Not my fault you picked it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Not my fault you want it to look like a teenage boy ready to give head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
LOL... Where's your mind at? I never thought it to be a boy. It's your pick, it represents you. Are you saying you're not only a cock sucker, but a child also?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
what a dumbass
LOL.... where is your mind at? You are saying you frequently think about teenage boys sucking cock when you look at their pictures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
No. It was you that used the word teenager. Interesting look into your demented mind. Are you on-line from in jail by chance?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Anyone who isn't an idiot knows who is in that pic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Are you an idiot by chance?
I mujst be an idiot by your standards. I don't know who it is. Tell me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
i think it's amanda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
By pretty much any standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You need help with your fantasies -- and I don't mean you need to fulfill them.
Now you're afraid to tell me who you want to be. OK, I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
you get my vote for "most creepy".Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
:lmao
Why would I let you in on the joke now?
I guarantee everyone knows who knows that picture is laughing at you.
they must not carry TBS on their cable systems in Gärtringen
Weakest antenna farm ever.
Think I give a damn? Should have used a better picture. Bet it's you they're laughing at for using that one. Why should I know who it is? Are you really dumb enough to think everyone should know an individual? Must not be as famous as you think. Makes you the dumb ass in my eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You were the one who demanded to know who he is -- so yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Back on track....
Why would it be illogical to accept the fact that a reduction in vehicular weight is a trade-off against safety??... or that most automakers really can't afford to incorporate light-weight alloys into their designs to make up the difference.
Really what's going to end up happenning in the U.S. is that the Gasoline market will go south in favor of the the Ultra-Low-Sulfur Diesel market -- much like what happened in Europe.
Most people don't even realize that some modern Diesel engines can get upwards of 44-50 mpg...
On a side note,
Duff's notion that people must be told what to do by the government (all for their own good)... short of sounding "Communistic" really leaves much to be desired... Remember the ethanol solution??? That government sanctioned initiative was far from being the efficient solution that the energy sector required. And we taxpayers are already paying for that mistake...
i'm glad obama is concerned with global warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
The only thing that makes light cars unsafe is that there are heavier cars out there. In a two-car crash, collision severity is inversely proportional to vehicle weight. In other words, if you crash into a vehicle twice as heavy as yours, the crash you experience will be twice as severe as what the occupant of the heavier vehicle experiences.
Damn that Isaac Newton!
Crumple zones are a huge factor too. The difference between a 3 ft. crumple zone and a 2 ft. crumple zone can be the difference between life and death. Like the video pointed out near the end, the human body does not handle such rapid deceleration very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Lets see. A serious crash that leaves you with a pair of broken legs costs a but for insurance companies to pay out. What about the 1 ft. less crumple zone that may lead to a loss of one or two legs, or being paralyzed instead? Insurance companies do look at that data! When you have even longer crumple zones yet, the driver and passenger can walk away with no injury that may otherwise cause injuries in smaller cars.
One party is in the thrall of old school religious zealots and the other is beholden to old school pagan Earth worshiping zealots. Live your life as you see fit and stop trying to convert me through the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quite true. You can make the cabin of the "smart" car completely rigid (and it is), but that means that a lot of the crash energy will be absorbed by the occupant. Also, the airbag system of that vehicle has to determine if the crash is severe enough to warrant deployment REALLY early in the crash sequence. Not a car I'd want to drive.
Funniest review of a hybrid?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle6294116.ece
Jeremy Clarkson is also one of the co-hosts of the British tV show Top Gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelshor
that's great. i love this comment
My wife had an excellent idea for hybrids. Since their main purpose is to show off the "greenness" of the driver, they should be equipped with a green LED halo around the roof which glows intensely to impress others as to just how wonderful the driver is.
I think I would rather they tax the hell out of gas, and put those procedes into a national public transportation system...
When gas hit that magic $4.00 barrier, people changed their driving habits. Less carbon in the air. People wanting to make more money to pay for higher price of goods and services. The car companies, of their own will, started changing their engineering habbits. I lean pretty left, but I think it was pretty obvious the market did it's job there, and can continue to do so were we to have energy prices as high as that of other countries, at least until methods can be used to tap and store wind,solar,hydro power.
And their mortgage paying habits.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobdrj
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobdrj
I need to create a deprogramming center for the Church of Gore.
Isn't that a form of redistribution of wealth?Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobdrj
If public transportation cannot pay for itself, then screw it.
If the military can't pay for itself, then screw it.
If public schooling can't pay for itself, then screw it.
If the police and fireman can't pay for itself, then screw it.
I'll still be driving a truck/jeep/suv until the day I die.
Fuck your clown cars.
GM has lost my business on new trucks for the next 50 years. LOL UAW.
Just more wasteful regulation.
What if the industry cant get trucks to meet the standard by 2015? What then?
What happens to constuction in this country? Will everyone who needs a truck for work be able to get a waiver? Will they have to pay for one?
Stupid, stupid Obama.
You're right, we are pissing at least half a tril away every year when it could do the job it's supposed to be doing for far less.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Like our schools are doing so well educating the masses. They've become progressively worse, as the federal government has become progressively more involved. Probably not the best example for you to use.Quote:
If public schooling can't pay for itself, then screw it.
I agree. What was even better is that when Obama announced the new standard he talked about how the heads of so many car companies were there and then mentioned the president of the UAW by name.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
He's driving this country directly towards becoming a giant California.
So how much is the UAW Payback Act of 2009 going to cost us?
Well, GM and Chrysler shouldn't have asked for the government to own them, but the events of the past couple of years spooked free marketeers pretty badly.
I saw a Saturn Sky for the first time ever yesterday. That's one bad-ass looking car. Is Saturn part of GM, or a separate company? I don't want no stinkin' GM car.
Just remember, it's not "socialism" when the Congress grants the Executive $700 billion to give to banks for their mistakes.