Reply With Quote
That's going to be tough to meet, but at least there will be only one standard now.
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.
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 !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.
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.
Yes, the new regulations will make everyone worse drivers.
What are you basing this on? Bull 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.
"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"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090519/...bama_emissions
Far less than the amount you think it'll cost.
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.
Not that it really matters, since these days there aren't any car manufacturers making $600 per car, let alone $1,300. , there aren't even that many fortunate enough to only be losing $600 per car.
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 ty 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.
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.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.Personally I'm all for higher emissions. The companies it will affect are ty 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.
In the article you linked:
Did you change the value yourself? You make it a habit to lie?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...
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
