PDA

View Full Version : The Truth About Toyota


Ktulu
10-11-2007, 07:05 PM
http://www.truthabouttoyota.com/

Discuss.

Zenmervolt
10-11-2007, 07:21 PM
Damn hippies.

ZV

Pliablemoose
10-11-2007, 07:51 PM
I'm not a Toyota fan, but that site takes liberties with the facts & figures.

I suspect Toyota is not supporting the higher CAFE standards for several reasons and one of them is that while they could meet the suggested standards, it would kill other automakers and everyone would point at Toyota & scream monopoly.

They (the website) also confuses the fact that while Toyota does make relatively environmentally friendly cars, they make a lot of them, so they claim the total of pollution created by ALL of the Toyotas manufactured makes Toyota a bad corporation. They're also comparing the small cars Toyota used to make with the full range of vehicles they make today (CAFE scores going down)

:confused:

jagec
10-11-2007, 07:53 PM
So their only beef (in many guises) is that Toyota's opposing legislation to increase fuel economy standards.

Like, you know, every other auto maker.

SparkyJJO
10-11-2007, 08:39 PM
I don't want this forcing all cars to be averaging 35mpg. If someone wants a car that gets that fine, up to them (and I'll agree that it is nicer on the pocketbook). But I prefer a car that actually has a real engine with some power behind it. The side effect is lower mpg but that is a choice the owner of the car makes when he buys it.

gorobei
10-11-2007, 08:56 PM
their facts page is curiously devoid of numbers.

they like the whole fleetwide term a lot. so yeah moose is right about them lumping in the new classes of trucks and other heavy load vehicles TM has been introducing over the last few years.

the beef with hybrids not getting better mileage is kind of a red herring. hybrid technology isn't some magically MPG increase over ICE. It isn't automatically higher than ICE. Anyone can improve mpg by lowering weight and improving aerodynamics at top speed. The problem is a lot of people dont ever reach top speed to get the miles that go with the gallons. Urban traffic allows hybrid cars to waste less gas than ICE. So even if both only get 35mpg at freeway speeds, the hybrid will do better at total distance traveled per tank than ICE.

Tab
10-11-2007, 09:04 PM
Et Tu, Toyota... (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html?hp)

It's unfortunate too see Toyota going this route but lets hope that this group and others will change that :)

jagec
10-11-2007, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I don't want this forcing all cars to be averaging 35mpg. If someone wants a car that gets that fine, up to them (and I'll agree that it is nicer on the pocketbook). But I prefer a car that actually has a real engine with some power behind it. The side effect is lower mpg but that is a choice the owner of the car makes when he buys it.

Well, that's the funny thing about it...there are already rules on the books "forcing" the average mileage to be above a certain number. Yet you are still free to go to any dealership in the country and buy the most gas-guzzling car you like.

People are sheep. They don't know what they want. The only reason why they're trying to stall this issue (and the only reason that the avg economy isn't already 35) is that they make more money when the salespeople try to push a $60k 400hp luxury SUV on someone who just needs a small econobox to get to and from work. The enthusiast who knows what they want isn't going to listen to the salesman anyway.

I'd love it if the average car was small, light, and got good mileage. It would make having a sports car that much more prestigious, it would vastly improve visibility on the road, it would make the streets safer for pedestrians, small cars, and motorcycles, it would help the parking situation in big cities, and it would help gas prices, oil supplies, and pollution. Why does the horsepower rating of a base-model economy car seem to go up every year, but the mileage stay the same? Sure, they're getting a little heavier, but they're also getting bigger for no good reason, and they're trying to one-up the power of the competitors. Your average person probably wouldn't know the difference between 130 and 140hp, but they'll see the bigger number and want THAT one. They certainly don't need it.

With higher CAFE standards, the people who know what they want can get what they want, and the people who don't know what they want will get what they need. Not hundreds of hp and thousands of pounds MORE than they need.

Budmantom
10-12-2007, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I don't want this forcing all cars to be averaging 35mpg. If someone wants a car that gets that fine, up to them (and I'll agree that it is nicer on the pocketbook). But I prefer a car that actually has a real engine with some power behind it. The side effect is lower mpg but that is a choice the owner of the car makes when he buys it.

Well, that's the funny thing about it...there are already rules on the books "forcing" the average mileage to be above a certain number. Yet you are still free to go to any dealership in the country and buy the most gas-guzzling car you like.

People are sheep. They don't know what they want. The only reason why they're trying to stall this issue (and the only reason that the avg economy isn't already 35) is that they make more money when the salespeople try to push a $60k 400hp luxury SUV on someone who just needs a small econobox to get to and from work. The enthusiast who knows what they want isn't going to listen to the salesman anyway.

I'd love it if the average car was small, light, and got good mileage. It would make having a sports car that much more prestigious, it would vastly improve visibility on the road, it would make the streets safer for pedestrians, small cars, and motorcycles, it would help the parking situation in big cities, and it would help gas prices, oil supplies, and pollution. Why does the horsepower rating of a base-model economy car seem to go up every year, but the mileage stay the same? Sure, they're getting a little heavier, but they're also getting bigger for no good reason, and they're trying to one-up the power of the competitors. Your average person probably wouldn't know the difference between 130 and 140hp, but they'll see the bigger number and want THAT one. They certainly don't need it.

With higher CAFE standards, the people who know what they want can get what they want, and the people who don't know what they want will get what they need. Not hundreds of hp and thousands of pounds MORE than they need.

You sound like a Democrat.

The last thing we need is more government regulations.

jagec
10-12-2007, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by: Budmantom


You sound like a Democrat.

The last thing we need is more government regulations.



This government regulation is already in place.:confused:

Not to mention that the people, the government, and businesses all manipulate themselves and each other in thousands of different ways, whether it be taxes, benefits, shopping patterns/boycotts, advertising, governmental programs of all types, the media, voting, industrial regulations, grants, and tons of other examples. CAFE is very very minor by comparison.

And what exactly is wrong with what I posted?

Budmantom
10-12-2007, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Budmantom


You sound like a Democrat.

The last thing we need is more government regulations.



This government regulation is already in place.:confused:

Not to mention that the people, the government, and businesses all manipulate themselves and each other in thousands of different ways, whether it be taxes, benefits, shopping patterns/boycotts, advertising, governmental programs of all types, the media, voting, industrial regulations, grants, and tons of other examples. CAFE is very very minor by comparison.

And what exactly is wrong with what I posted?

The new standards aren't in place yet.

The cars we have now with any kind of power will be neutered.

jagec
10-12-2007, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by: Budmantom

The new standards aren't in place yet.

The cars we have now with any kind of power will be neutered.



Oh come on.

You are a major car company. You sell 2 million econoboxes that get 29 mpg, 200,000 pickup trucks that get 20 mpg, and 10,000 sports cars that get 15 mpg.

Now the government tells you that you need to average 30 mpg across the fleet.

Are you more likely to (a)knock 5 hp and 20 lbs off of the econoboxes to net a couple extra MPG, possibly winning MORE customers and complying with regulations, (b)Make a smaller engine be the stock option in the pickup truck, since most people aren't using them to haul anything anyway, or (c)Piss off some of your highest-profit customers by neutering your low-volume sports cars that are barely affecting your average, and end up having to screw around with the econoboxes anyway to make regs?

So the 140 hp Honda Civic of today becomes the 130 hp Civic of tomorrow, and suddenly Joseph Stalin has risen to power and Viper drivers are being sent to Siberia?

iamwiz82
10-12-2007, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Budmantom

The new standards aren't in place yet.

The cars we have now with any kind of power will be neutered.



Oh come on.

You are a major car company. You sell 2 million econoboxes that get 29 mpg, 200,000 pickup trucks that get 20 mpg, and 10,000 sports cars that get 15 mpg.

Now the government tells you that you need to average 30 mpg across the fleet.

Are you more likely to (a)knock 5 hp and 20 lbs off of the econoboxes to net a couple extra MPG, possibly winning MORE customers and complying with regulations, (b)Make a smaller engine be the stock option in the pickup truck, since most people aren't using them to haul anything anyway, or (c)Piss off some of your highest-profit customers by neutering your low-volume sports cars that are barely affecting your average, and end up having to screw around with the econoboxes anyway to make regs?

So the 140 hp Honda Civic of today becomes the 130 hp Civic of tomorrow, and suddenly Joseph Stalin has risen to power and Viper drivers are being sent to Siberia?

Or you let demand dictact the average MPG of cars. Why make another regulation when consumers will do it on their own?

Capt Caveman
10-12-2007, 08:16 AM
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

JulesMaximus
10-12-2007, 10:04 AM
I'd like to see legislation mandating improved fuel economy in cars and especially in trucks and SUVs.

JulesMaximus
10-12-2007, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I don't want this forcing all cars to be averaging 35mpg. If someone wants a car that gets that fine, up to them (and I'll agree that it is nicer on the pocketbook). But I prefer a car that actually has a real engine with some power behind it. The side effect is lower mpg but that is a choice the owner of the car makes when he buys it.

Well, that's the funny thing about it...there are already rules on the books "forcing" the average mileage to be above a certain number. Yet you are still free to go to any dealership in the country and buy the most gas-guzzling car you like.

People are sheep. They don't know what they want. The only reason why they're trying to stall this issue (and the only reason that the avg economy isn't already 35) is that they make more money when the salespeople try to push a $60k 400hp luxury SUV on someone who just needs a small econobox to get to and from work. The enthusiast who knows what they want isn't going to listen to the salesman anyway.

I'd love it if the average car was small, light, and got good mileage. It would make having a sports car that much more prestigious, it would vastly improve visibility on the road, it would make the streets safer for pedestrians, small cars, and motorcycles, it would help the parking situation in big cities, and it would help gas prices, oil supplies, and pollution. Why does the horsepower rating of a base-model economy car seem to go up every year, but the mileage stay the same? Sure, they're getting a little heavier, but they're also getting bigger for no good reason, and they're trying to one-up the power of the competitors. Your average person probably wouldn't know the difference between 130 and 140hp, but they'll see the bigger number and want THAT one. They certainly don't need it.

With higher CAFE standards, the people who know what they want can get what they want, and the people who don't know what they want will get what they need. Not hundreds of hp and thousands of pounds MORE than they need.

You sound like a Democrat.

The last thing we need is more government regulations.



Because republicans have been so good about giving us smaller government and fewer regulations? :roll:

Aharami
10-12-2007, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I don't want this forcing all cars to be averaging 35mpg. If someone wants a car that gets that fine, up to them (and I'll agree that it is nicer on the pocketbook). But I prefer a car that actually has a real engine with some power behind it. The side effect is lower mpg but that is a choice the owner of the car makes when he buys it.

Well, that's the funny thing about it...there are already rules on the books "forcing" the average mileage to be above a certain number. Yet you are still free to go to any dealership in the country and buy the most gas-guzzling car you like.

People are sheep. They don't know what they want. The only reason why they're trying to stall this issue (and the only reason that the avg economy isn't already 35) is that they make more money when the salespeople try to push a $60k 400hp luxury SUV on someone who just needs a small econobox to get to and from work. The enthusiast who knows what they want isn't going to listen to the salesman anyway.

I'd love it if the average car was small, light, and got good mileage. It would make having a sports car that much more prestigious, it would vastly improve visibility on the road, it would make the streets safer for pedestrians, small cars, and motorcycles, it would help the parking situation in big cities, and it would help gas prices, oil supplies, and pollution. Why does the horsepower rating of a base-model economy car seem to go up every year, but the mileage stay the same? Sure, they're getting a little heavier, but they're also getting bigger for no good reason, and they're trying to one-up the power of the competitors. Your average person probably wouldn't know the difference between 130 and 140hp, but they'll see the bigger number and want THAT one. They certainly don't need it.

With higher CAFE standards, the people who know what they want can get what they want, and the people who don't know what they want will get what they need. Not hundreds of hp and thousands of pounds MORE than they need.

You sound like a Democrat.

The last thing we need is more government regulations.



OMG a Democrat! Stone him to death :roll:

govt. legislation is needed when auto-makers wont change (for the better) by themselves. It's sad that foreign automakers could raise their avg mpg w/o any legislation but US automakers couldnt

Ktulu
10-12-2007, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by: Aharami
govt. legislation is needed when auto-makers wont change (for the better) by themselves. It's sad that foreign automakers could raise their avg mpg w/o any legislation but US automakers couldnt

Do you have a link to the automakers avg mpg figures for the past 10 years?

Edit:

Actually I just found a really good link to an EPA study over the past 30 years.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r07008.pdf

Demon-Xanth
10-12-2007, 12:11 PM
I'd love to have smaller cars with the same sized engines of today's cars. But legislation isn't going to make it happen.

The problem is that the MARKET wants living rooms on wheels to cart around their 2 kids to school. They want the huge ass vehicles because they "feel" safer. Until the market changes to see smaller cars as better cars, nothing will change.

R Nilla
10-12-2007, 12:18 PM
I don't think mandating higher MPG ratings will lessen our use of oil or gasoline. It will just allow people to get more mileage out of their truck or SUV. Raised CAFE standards are not going to "save million[s] of barrels of oil per day."

Aikouka
10-12-2007, 12:30 PM
I don't see why the government should be mandating something like this. It's really not their place, but the nanny state will only get worse. I see it as... rather than helping inform people about choices in cars so maybe they'll make a "smart decision" on their own, they're trying to force better mileage in cars.

Also, from that Et Tu, Toyota? article.

The people of Japan thank you as well.

They do have American plants that assist in American automobiles. Although they obviously have more of a market than just in the USA, considering that lowering employment at a GM plant because of less demand and more demand for a Toyota can make one assume that the Toyota plant(s) would have to hire more to make up for it. Sure, it's more money for the Japanese company, but Americans are still being paid either way.

Also, as to why Toyota is against the bill... I think it's to stop the squashing of innovation. Sure, innovation includes "greener" cars, but who's to say that you can't have innovation in power (hp/torque) as well? It's also because there's really (as I mentioned) no need for the government to stick their nose into it.

More and more lately, I seem to be getting more fed up with government regulation on things that don't necessarily need regulation.

ElFenix
10-12-2007, 12:55 PM
The truth is: Toyota says it has cut polluting emissions from its autos. What the company fails to say is that its fleet-wide global warming pollution is higher today than it was 20 years ago20 years ago toyota didn't make a V8 for use in the US. twenty years ago the camry was a tiny boxy little car. it weighed somewhere between 2700 and 3000 lbs, was 182 inches long. it now weighs between 3300 and 3500 lbs, and has grown 7 inches in length, 5 inches in width, and 4 inches in height. the only safety feature 20 years ago were those stupid automatic seat belts. the current 4 cylinder puts out slightly more horsepower and torque with slightly less displacement than the old V6.





anyway, get rid of all the standards and regulation, and just make people internalize the externality through an appropriate fee, earmarked for cleaning up the pollution.

woodie1
10-12-2007, 12:58 PM
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.

Zenmervolt
10-12-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
I'd love to have smaller cars with the same sized engines of today's cars. But legislation isn't going to make it happen.

The problem is that the MARKET wants living rooms on wheels to cart around their 2 kids to school. They want the huge ass vehicles because they "feel" safer. Until the market changes to see smaller cars as better cars, nothing will change.

Many of the mandatory safety features are killing MPG too. Cars today are much heavier than cars used to be. A 1965 Mustang, with all of the chrome and thick sheet metal, weighed 2,556 pounds. Or, to put that another way, the same weight as a brand new Honda Fit. Yes, the tiny little econobox, smaller than a Civic, Fit.

Fuel economy has stagnated because cars have become absurdly overweight. From both mandatory safety features (airbags, crumple zones, energy-absorbing bumpers) and luxury items (power windows, locks, A/C, etc).

ZV

RagingBITCH
10-12-2007, 02:07 PM
What that site doesn't mention is, what's good for Toyota is also good for Honda, Nissan, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. I don't think Toyota is the only one lobbying for the same crap. Stupid slanted bs sites like this make me sick...and I don't even like Toyota.

Ktulu
10-12-2007, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
What that site doesn't mention is, what's good for Toyota is also good for Honda, Nissan, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. I don't think Toyota is the only one lobbying for the same crap. Stupid slanted bs sites like this make me sick...and I don't even like Toyota.

I think the outrage at Toyota is that it has become the hippies automaker of choice. All the other automakers you mentioned, with the exception of Honda, don't have that status. So it's gonna piss the hippies when their saviors go against what they want.

Demon-Xanth
10-12-2007, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Many of the mandatory safety features are killing MPG too. Cars today are much heavier than cars used to be. A 1965 Mustang, with all of the chrome and thick sheet metal, weighed 2,556 pounds. Or, to put that another way, the same weight as a brand new Honda Fit. Yes, the tiny little econobox, smaller than a Civic, Fit.

Fuel economy has stagnated because cars have become absurdly overweight. From both mandatory safety features (airbags, crumple zones, energy-absorbing bumpers) and luxury items (power windows, locks, A/C, etc).

ZV

True, but a brand new Civic and a 15 year Accord are about the same size. And remember when regular cab trucks DIDN'T look odd?

iamwiz82
10-12-2007, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
What that site doesn't mention is, what's good for Toyota is also good for Honda, Nissan, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. I don't think Toyota is the only one lobbying for the same crap. Stupid slanted bs sites like this make me sick...and I don't even like Toyota.

Toyota foresaw this months ago when they started overtaking GM. They knew that they would be the target of all of the negative press now.

exdeath
10-12-2007, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by: Aharami
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I don't want this forcing all cars to be averaging 35mpg. If someone wants a car that gets that fine, up to them (and I'll agree that it is nicer on the pocketbook). But I prefer a car that actually has a real engine with some power behind it. The side effect is lower mpg but that is a choice the owner of the car makes when he buys it.

Well, that's the funny thing about it...there are already rules on the books "forcing" the average mileage to be above a certain number. Yet you are still free to go to any dealership in the country and buy the most gas-guzzling car you like.

People are sheep. They don't know what they want. The only reason why they're trying to stall this issue (and the only reason that the avg economy isn't already 35) is that they make more money when the salespeople try to push a $60k 400hp luxury SUV on someone who just needs a small econobox to get to and from work. The enthusiast who knows what they want isn't going to listen to the salesman anyway.

I'd love it if the average car was small, light, and got good mileage. It would make having a sports car that much more prestigious, it would vastly improve visibility on the road, it would make the streets safer for pedestrians, small cars, and motorcycles, it would help the parking situation in big cities, and it would help gas prices, oil supplies, and pollution. Why does the horsepower rating of a base-model economy car seem to go up every year, but the mileage stay th:roll:e same? Sure, they're getting a little heavier, but they're also getting bigger for no good reason, and they're trying to one-up the power of the competitors. Your average person probably wouldn't know the difference between 130 and 140hp, but they'll see the bigger number and want THAT one. They certainly don't need it.

With higher CAFE standards, the people who know what they want can get what they want, and the people who don't know what they want will get what they need. Not hundreds of hp and thousands of pounds MORE than they need.

You sound like a Democrat.

The last thing we need is more government regulations.



OMG a Democrat! Stone him to death :roll:

govt. legislation is needed when auto-makers wont change (for the better) by themselves. It's sad that foreign automakers could raise their avg mpg w/o any legislation but US automakers couldnt

How typical... "If people don't do what we want them to do while being free to make their own choices, we force them and restrict and limit the choices only to the ones WE think should be allowed because we know better, and punish with threat of law (ie: force) those who won't comply and carry out our desires"

democrats = the new communist party.

exdeath
10-12-2007, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by: woodie1
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.

Bullshit. By trying to punish those you are jealous of and taxing them because you don't like the vehicles they like, you are trying to force them into buying what YOU want them to buy, not whatever he WANTS to buy.

Die communist.

exdeath
10-12-2007, 02:43 PM
Why does "make cars with more MPG" always mean "and stop making powerful cars" instead of simply "make cars with more MPG"??

How about we just require a auto maker to have X number of vehicles that get Y MPG, without restricting anything else concurrently?

All this "average across the fleet" thing is, is a progressive attempt at a pseudo ban. You know you can't outright ban high performance cars so you use progressive tactics to regulate them into submission slowly until they ARE effectively banned without a formal ban because you are pinned between 100 regulations. You think if you require an average that the ones you don't like will drop off the lineup without having to face the opposition over an outright ban. Take your progressive bulls**t and shove it up your a**.

More choices, no restrictions. That way you couldn't complain that GM doesn't have 15 cars that get 50 mpg, but people who still want a Hummer or Vette can get them without you telling them they can't. If people don't buy them, they don't want them, and it's their money to waste. Who are you to force them to buy what YOU want THEM to buy, but a communist?

That might not be acceptable though, because you won't get your little power trip self pat on the back for dictating what other people do and own. Do us a favor a stop voting in the USA and move to Cuba if you like leveraging politics to micromanage peoples lives. Or you may one day see the business end of my rifle when you are the one to blame for government going door to door to take away my car that gets less than 20 mpg because you voted to have them banned, etc.

You don't see me going around on a crusade to ban economy cars and bicycles, so return the favor and leave my shit alone!

JackBurton
10-12-2007, 03:32 PM
Ok, let's see...

Toyota = nice looking (Toyota/Lexus) most reliable cars with pretty good gas mileage as it is.

Yep, that's all I need to know.

jagec
10-12-2007, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by: exdeath
How typical... "If people don't do what we want them to do while being free to make their own choices, we force them and restrict and limit the choices only to the ones WE think should be allowed because we know better, and punish with threat of law (ie: force) those who won't comply and carry out our desires"

democrats = the new communist party.


The Republicans do exactly the same thing, so why are you singling out the Democrats?

That's right, you're trolling

BTW, the current Corvette is MUCH faster than the muscle-car-era Corvette, despite there currently being many more restrictions on emissions. In fact, this is true for most of the sports cars on the market today. So much for efficiency regulations being an "effective ban" of high-performance cars.

OS
10-12-2007, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Or you let demand dictact the average MPG of cars. Why make another regulation when consumers will do it on their own?

i'm cool with that as soon as we have a "security tax" reflecting the true cost of policing the middle east, thus the real cost of oil.

InflatableBuddha
10-12-2007, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Many of the mandatory safety features are killing MPG too. Cars today are much heavier than cars used to be. A 1965 Mustang, with all of the chrome and thick sheet metal, weighed 2,556 pounds. Or, to put that another way, the same weight as a brand new Honda Fit. Yes, the tiny little econobox, smaller than a Civic, Fit.

Fuel economy has stagnated because cars have become absurdly overweight. From both mandatory safety features (airbags, crumple zones, energy-absorbing bumpers) and luxury items (power windows, locks, A/C, etc).

ZV

True, but a brand new Civic and a 15 year Accord are about the same size. And remember when regular cab trucks DIDN'T look odd?

I have a 15 year old Accord (135HP 1-4). It gets the same mileage as a 2008 Accord V6 with almost double the horsepower. And about 30% less than a new Civic with about the same horsepower.

Also, my Accord does 0-60 in 9.8 seconds; a 2008 Accord takes 6.5 seconds. Why does anyone need that kind of acceleration in a commuter car? Hell, some Ferraris from 20-25 years ago weren't that fast.

Thus I conclude that despite all the new luxury and safety equipment (the latter is definitely a good thing), new cars are still far more powerful and less efficient than they need to be.

Arkaign
10-12-2007, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: woodie1
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.

Bullshit. By trying to punish those you are jealous of and taxing them because you don't like the vehicles they like, you are trying to force them into buying what YOU want them to buy, not whatever he WANTS to buy.

Die communist.

Keep your political crap in the P&N, we don't want this kind of hostile flames lighting up in the Garage. Thanks. I mean this for both sides of the argument. If you can talk like a calm, rational adult about the auto industry or cars specifically, fine. But this talk of republicans and democrats is polluting our normally benevolent forum here.

Ktulu
10-12-2007, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: woodie1
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.

Bullshit. By trying to punish those you are jealous of and taxing them because you don't like the vehicles they like, you are trying to force them into buying what YOU want them to buy, not whatever he WANTS to buy.

Die communist.

Keep your political crap in the P&N, we don't want this kind of hostile flames lighting up in the Garage. Thanks. I mean this for both sides of the argument. If you can talk like a calm, rational adult about the auto industry or cars specifically, fine. But this talk of republicans and democrats is polluting our normally benevolent forum here.

Here Here!

InflatableBuddha
10-12-2007, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by: woodie1
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.

Good point. In Europe, you can still buy Mercedes, BMW, Land Rovers, etc. - you just pay through the teeth for gas. At the same time, Europeans have the choice to buy any number of compact cars that get 40mpg. Few models available in NA come anywhere close to that level of efficiency.

High gas prices also have positive effects through spurring better public transportation, less road congestion and lowered pollution, but that's another debate.

Zenmervolt
10-12-2007, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Many of the mandatory safety features are killing MPG too. Cars today are much heavier than cars used to be. A 1965 Mustang, with all of the chrome and thick sheet metal, weighed 2,556 pounds. Or, to put that another way, the same weight as a brand new Honda Fit. Yes, the tiny little econobox, smaller than a Civic, Fit.

Fuel economy has stagnated because cars have become absurdly overweight. From both mandatory safety features (airbags, crumple zones, energy-absorbing bumpers) and luxury items (power windows, locks, A/C, etc).

ZV

True, but a brand new Civic and a 15 year Accord are about the same size. And remember when regular cab trucks DIDN'T look odd?

I have a 15 year old Accord (135HP 1-4). It gets the same mileage as a 2008 Accord V6 with almost double the horsepower. And about 30% less than a new Civic with about the same horsepower.

Also, my Accord does 0-60 in 9.8 seconds; a 2008 Accord takes 6.5 seconds. Why does anyone need that kind of acceleration in a commuter car? Hell, some Ferraris from 20-25 years ago weren't that fast.

Thus I conclude that despite all the new luxury and safety equipment (the latter is definitely a good thing), new cars are still far more powerful and less efficient than they need to be.


The new Accords with the V6 get ~34 mpg on the freeway? Or did I just have a great example of my old '88 Accord that happened to do better than most?

Looking at the EPA site I must have had a good one, but my old '88 Accord, fully-optioned with a 4-speed automatic, used to get about 34 mpg on the highway and would average 28 mpg in mixed driving.

I agree though, most of the efficiency gains have come from keeping mileage stagnant and increasing power. Think of what the efficiency would be with a modern engine with only 120-ish horsepower in a car that was as light as those older cars were. But no, instead we use the efficiency to make more HP.

ZV

exdeath
10-12-2007, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Many of the mandatory safety features are killing MPG too. Cars today are much heavier than cars used to be. A 1965 Mustang, with all of the chrome and thick sheet metal, weighed 2,556 pounds. Or, to put that another way, the same weight as a brand new Honda Fit. Yes, the tiny little econobox, smaller than a Civic, Fit.

Fuel economy has stagnated because cars have become absurdly overweight. From both mandatory safety features (airbags, crumple zones, energy-absorbing bumpers) and luxury items (power windows, locks, A/C, etc).

ZV

True, but a brand new Civic and a 15 year Accord are about the same size. And remember when regular cab trucks DIDN'T look odd?

I have a 15 year old Accord (135HP 1-4). It gets the same mileage as a 2008 Accord V6 with almost double the horsepower. And about 30% less than a new Civic with about the same horsepower.

Also, my Accord does 0-60 in 9.8 seconds; a 2008 Accord takes 6.5 seconds. Why does anyone need that kind of acceleration in a commuter car? Hell, some Ferraris from 20-25 years ago weren't that fast.

Thus I conclude that despite all the new luxury and safety equipment (the latter is definitely a good thing), new cars are still far more powerful and less efficient than they need to be.


Yes why does anyone neeeeeeed anything more than a tree to sleep under and a piece of fur over their crotch, hmm?

I'm so sick of these arguments about what people think other people neeeeeed or dont neeeeed.

If you don't think you need it fine, but nobody has any obligation to you to prove their needs and you have no right to impede their choices. Not everyone enjoys the same cars you do and vice versa.

exdeath
10-12-2007, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: woodie1
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.

Bullshit. By trying to punish those you are jealous of and taxing them because you don't like the vehicles they like, you are trying to force them into buying what YOU want them to buy, not whatever he WANTS to buy.

Die communist.

Keep your political crap in the P&N, we don't want this kind of hostile flames lighting up in the Garage. Thanks. I mean this for both sides of the argument. If you can talk like a calm, rational adult about the auto industry or cars specifically, fine. But this talk of republicans and democrats is polluting our normally benevolent forum here.

As soon as the "why does anyone need x" trolls that would threaten the hobbies expressed in the automotive forums cease ...

jagec
10-12-2007, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by: exdeath
I'm so sick of these arguments about what people think other people neeeeeed or dont neeeeed.


And yet you are drawn to these discussions like a moth to a flame. Are you a masochist or something?

The only reason people think they want the high-hp cars is because that's what's on the market. Same with computers...do you really think Grandma wants a Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of RAM to send her Christmas e-mails? Do you think she can even tell the difference? Nope, but since no one sells an extremely cheap Athlon computer with full support anymore, that's what she buys. If your average consumer were to be given a ~120 hp commuter that didn't have the "unsafe" perception, they'd probably like the increased mileage over the extra power of the 160.

Again, these regulations do NOT force ANYONE to buy a car they don't want. They just shift the average. Anyone who feels strongly about their cars is going to buy exactly the same thing, and those other, indifferent consumers are going to save money on gas. This way we don't have to tax gasoline euro-style, so the sports car drivers can still enjoy cheap fuel, even as the average MPG rating across the fleet is rising.

What alternative would you prefer? Raising the tax on gas and letting efficiency take care of itself? Now THAT penalizes the enthusiasts. Fight wars in the middle east to ensure a larger future oil supply? Yeah, that's going well. This is a sensible method that does the least amount of damage and costs the least compared to the other alternatives.

it's good for the consumer, it's good for the driver, it's good for reducing our demand for foreign oil, and it's good for the environment. The only thing it isn't good for is the car companies, which make more money when they push people into buying the more expensive, more powerful cars.

Arkaign
10-12-2007, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: woodie1
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.

Bullshit. By trying to punish those you are jealous of and taxing them because you don't like the vehicles they like, you are trying to force them into buying what YOU want them to buy, not whatever he WANTS to buy.

Die communist.

Keep your political crap in the P&N, we don't want this kind of hostile flames lighting up in the Garage. Thanks. I mean this for both sides of the argument. If you can talk like a calm, rational adult about the auto industry or cars specifically, fine. But this talk of republicans and democrats is polluting our normally benevolent forum here.

As soon as the "why does anyone need x" trolls that would threaten the hobbies expressed in the automotive forums cease ...

Did you notice what I said about 'both sides of the argument'. Regardless of my personal views (I think we're the most wasteful nation on earth, but should be free to buy what we want with minimal interference), I don't think descending our Garage forum into a pissing contest between political ideologies is a good idea.

Budmantom
10-12-2007, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by: Aharami
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I don't want this forcing all cars to be averaging 35mpg. If someone wants a car that gets that fine, up to them (and I'll agree that it is nicer on the pocketbook). But I prefer a car that actually has a real engine with some power behind it. The side effect is lower mpg but that is a choice the owner of the car makes when he buys it.

Well, that's the funny thing about it...there are already rules on the books "forcing" the average mileage to be above a certain number. Yet you are still free to go to any dealership in the country and buy the most gas-guzzling car you like.

People are sheep. They don't know what they want. The only reason why they're trying to stall this issue (and the only reason that the avg economy isn't already 35) is that they make more money when the salespeople try to push a $60k 400hp luxury SUV on someone who just needs a small econobox to get to and from work. The enthusiast who knows what they want isn't going to listen to the salesman anyway.

I'd love it if the average car was small, light, and got good mileage. It would make having a sports car that much more prestigious, it would vastly improve visibility on the road, it would make the streets safer for pedestrians, small cars, and motorcycles, it would help the parking situation in big cities, and it would help gas prices, oil supplies, and pollution. Why does the horsepower rating of a base-model economy car seem to go up every year, but the mileage stay the same? Sure, they're getting a little heavier, but they're also getting bigger for no good reason, and they're trying to one-up the power of the competitors. Your average person probably wouldn't know the difference between 130 and 140hp, but they'll see the bigger number and want THAT one. They certainly don't need it.

With higher CAFE standards, the people who know what they want can get what they want, and the people who don't know what they want will get what they need. Not hundreds of hp and thousands of pounds MORE than they need.

You sound like a Democrat.

The last thing we need is more government regulations.



OMG a Democrat! Stone him to death :roll:

govt. legislation is needed when auto-makers wont change (for the better) by themselves. It's sad that foreign automakers could raise their avg mpg w/o any legislation but US automakers couldnt

Hand me a stone.

Government legislation didn't lead Toyota into building a Prius(it's market forces), knock yourself out and drive that fugly car all you want.

InflatableBuddha
10-12-2007, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Many of the mandatory safety features are killing MPG too. Cars today are much heavier than cars used to be. A 1965 Mustang, with all of the chrome and thick sheet metal, weighed 2,556 pounds. Or, to put that another way, the same weight as a brand new Honda Fit. Yes, the tiny little econobox, smaller than a Civic, Fit.

Fuel economy has stagnated because cars have become absurdly overweight. From both mandatory safety features (airbags, crumple zones, energy-absorbing bumpers) and luxury items (power windows, locks, A/C, etc).

ZV

True, but a brand new Civic and a 15 year Accord are about the same size. And remember when regular cab trucks DIDN'T look odd?

I have a 15 year old Accord (135HP 1-4). It gets the same mileage as a 2008 Accord V6 with almost double the horsepower. And about 30% less than a new Civic with about the same horsepower.

Also, my Accord does 0-60 in 9.8 seconds; a 2008 Accord takes 6.5 seconds. Why does anyone need that kind of acceleration in a commuter car? Hell, some Ferraris from 20-25 years ago weren't that fast.

Thus I conclude that despite all the new luxury and safety equipment (the latter is definitely a good thing), new cars are still far more powerful and less efficient than they need to be.


Yes why does anyone neeeeeeed anything more than a tree to sleep under and a piece of fur over their crotch, hmm?

I'm so sick of these arguments about what people think other people neeeeeed or dont neeeeed.

If you don't think you need it fine, but nobody has any obligation to you to prove their needs and you have no right to impede their choices. Not everyone enjoys the same cars you do and vice versa.


In case you missed it the first time around, I specifically stated "commuter car". When you're crawling along in rush-hour traffic or driving at city speeds, 130 HP gets the job done. You can drive a 400 HP sports car or a 300 HP SUV in rush hour traffic if you choose, but it won't get you to your destination any faster - there is no disputing that. The extra horsepower is purely an extraneous want.

I'm not saying that high performance sports cars need to be banned, just that high horsepower only belongs on the track. It should stay out of passenger cars. Sports cars are a hobby, a privilege, a luxury. I have no problems if you want to indulge in them.

Large SUVs are superfluous. If you need to haul a bunch of stuff, get a truck. Even then, you don't need to drive it all the time.

See my other post. Tax gas according to its true cost and the market will adjust. People will have the choices they want, but they will rightly pay the true costs.

Budmantom
10-12-2007, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by: woodie1
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.


Why should we increase Taxes? let the market decide what is a fair prie for gas....

Arkaign
10-12-2007, 06:45 PM
I vote to move this to P&N, as it has become about Politics, Taxes, Parties, and Corporations. I see nothing that makes this a thread worthy of our forum.

Budmantom
10-12-2007, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: exdeath
I'm so sick of these arguments about what people think other people neeeeeed or dont neeeeed.


And yet you are drawn to these discussions like a moth to a flame. Are you a masochist or something?

The only reason people think they want the high-hp cars is because that's what's on the market. Same with computers...do you really think Grandma wants a Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of RAM to send her Christmas e-mails? Do you think she can even tell the difference? Nope, but since no one sells an extremely cheap Athlon computer with full support anymore, that's what she buys. If your average consumer were to be given a ~120 hp commuter that didn't have the "unsafe" perception, they'd probably like the increased mileage over the extra power of the 160.

Again, these regulations do NOT force ANYONE to buy a car they don't want. They just shift the average. Anyone who feels strongly about their cars is going to buy exactly the same thing, and those other, indifferent consumers are going to save money on gas. This way we don't have to tax gasoline euro-style, so the sports car drivers can still enjoy cheap fuel, even as the average MPG rating across the fleet is rising.

What alternative would you prefer? Raising the tax on gas and letting efficiency take care of itself? Now THAT penalizes the enthusiasts. Fight wars in the middle east to ensure a larger future oil supply? Yeah, that's going well. This is a sensible method that does the least amount of damage and costs the least compared to the other alternatives.

it's good for the consumer, it's good for the driver, it's good for reducing our demand for foreign oil, and it's good for the environment. The only thing it isn't good for is the car companies, which make more money when they push people into buying the more expensive, more powerful cars.

Thanks Big Brother!!

Why not let the consumer decide?

Budmantom
10-12-2007, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Many of the mandatory safety features are killing MPG too. Cars today are much heavier than cars used to be. A 1965 Mustang, with all of the chrome and thick sheet metal, weighed 2,556 pounds. Or, to put that another way, the same weight as a brand new Honda Fit. Yes, the tiny little econobox, smaller than a Civic, Fit.

Fuel economy has stagnated because cars have become absurdly overweight. From both mandatory safety features (airbags, crumple zones, energy-absorbing bumpers) and luxury items (power windows, locks, A/C, etc).

ZV

True, but a brand new Civic and a 15 year Accord are about the same size. And remember when regular cab trucks DIDN'T look odd?

I have a 15 year old Accord (135HP 1-4). It gets the same mileage as a 2008 Accord V6 with almost double the horsepower. And about 30% less than a new Civic with about the same horsepower.

Also, my Accord does 0-60 in 9.8 seconds; a 2008 Accord takes 6.5 seconds. Why does anyone need that kind of acceleration in a commuter car? Hell, some Ferraris from 20-25 years ago weren't that fast.

Thus I conclude that despite all the new luxury and safety equipment (the latter is definitely a good thing), new cars are still far more powerful and less efficient than they need to be.


Yes why does anyone neeeeeeed anything more than a tree to sleep under and a piece of fur over their crotch, hmm?

I'm so sick of these arguments about what people think other people neeeeeed or dont neeeeed.

If you don't think you need it fine, but nobody has any obligation to you to prove their needs and you have no right to impede their choices. Not everyone enjoys the same cars you do and vice versa.


In case you missed it the first time around, I specifically stated "commuter car". When you're crawling along in rush-hour traffic or driving at city speeds, 130 HP gets the job done. You can drive a 400 HP sports car or a 300 HP SUV in rush hour traffic if you choose, but it won't get you to your destination any faster - there is no disputing that. The extra horsepower is purely an extraneous want.

I'm not saying that high performance sports cars need to be banned, just that high horsepower only belongs on the track. It should stay out of passenger cars. Sports cars are a hobby, a privilege, a luxury. I have no problems if you want to indulge in them.

Large SUVs are superfluous. If you need to haul a bunch of stuff, get a truck. Even then, you don't need to drive it all the time.

See my other post. Tax gas according to its true cost and the market will adjust. People will have the choices they want, but they will rightly pay the true costs.



And who are you to make that judgement? No one is saying that your Prius can only be used to the grocery store and back.

Budmantom
10-12-2007, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I vote to move this to P&N, as it has become about Politics, Taxes, Parties, and Corporations. I see nothing that makes this a thread worthy of our forum.


I demand a re-count.




This always happens in Florida.....

SparkyJJO
10-12-2007, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
In case you missed it the first time around, I specifically stated "commuter car". When you're crawling along in rush-hour traffic or driving at city speeds, 130 HP gets the job done. You can drive a 400 HP sports car or a 300 HP SUV in rush hour traffic if you choose, but it won't get you to your destination any faster - there is no disputing that. The extra horsepower is purely an extraneous want.
This is true. However, you aren't always crawling in rush hour traffic, thus the higher horsepower can be used at other times ;)

I'm not saying that high performance sports cars need to be banned, just that high horsepower only belongs on the track. It should stay out of passenger cars. Sports cars are a hobby, a privilege, a luxury. I have no problems if you want to indulge in them.
I don't know about you but I don't like having to downshift a few times and loose a bunch of speed every time I hit a hill. Or taking much longer than normal to get up to speed when I put more than just a couple people in the car.

Large SUVs are superfluous. If you need to haul a bunch of stuff, get a truck. Even then, you don't need to drive it all the time.
SUVs can be used to haul stuff, and some stuff you haul you don't want bouncing around in an open truck bed. Also, SUVs have more room inside than a little car (duh) which can be much more comfortable for the passengers, and they can fit more people too than small cars. And some people can't afford more than one vehicle you know, so if it is the only car they have then well guess what they are going to drive it all the time.

See my other post. Tax gas according to its true cost and the market will adjust. People will have the choices they want, but they will rightly pay the true costs.
But you are attempting to forcefully limit what they want by doing so. Someone will have the choice to buy the vehicle he really wants, but thanks to stupid high gas taxes he can't afford to drive it. Gas is taxed plenty enough as it is already.

Let me ask this - do YOU really want to pay more at the pump? My guess is no. But taxing gas more will make you do that, as well as everybody else, and taxing gas more will also then cause everyone to have a thinner wallet. And higher gas taxes could make the poorer in this country even more poor because they can't afford the newer more efficient cars to begin with, now you just jacked up their cost to even getting to work. Good job.....

jagec
10-12-2007, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: exdeath
I'm so sick of these arguments about what people think other people neeeeeed or dont neeeeed.


And yet you are drawn to these discussions like a moth to a flame. Are you a masochist or something?

The only reason people think they want the high-hp cars is because that's what's on the market. Same with computers...do you really think Grandma wants a Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of RAM to send her Christmas e-mails? Do you think she can even tell the difference? Nope, but since no one sells an extremely cheap Athlon computer with full support anymore, that's what she buys. If your average consumer were to be given a ~120 hp commuter that didn't have the "unsafe" perception, they'd probably like the increased mileage over the extra power of the 160.

Again, these regulations do NOT force ANYONE to buy a car they don't want. They just shift the average. Anyone who feels strongly about their cars is going to buy exactly the same thing, and those other, indifferent consumers are going to save money on gas. This way we don't have to tax gasoline euro-style, so the sports car drivers can still enjoy cheap fuel, even as the average MPG rating across the fleet is rising.

What alternative would you prefer? Raising the tax on gas and letting efficiency take care of itself? Now THAT penalizes the enthusiasts. Fight wars in the middle east to ensure a larger future oil supply? Yeah, that's going well. This is a sensible method that does the least amount of damage and costs the least compared to the other alternatives.

it's good for the consumer, it's good for the driver, it's good for reducing our demand for foreign oil, and it's good for the environment. The only thing it isn't good for is the car companies, which make more money when they push people into buying the more expensive, more powerful cars.

Thanks Big Brother!!

Why not let the consumer decide?



Are you illiterate, or do you just read one snippet of each post and comment based on that?

Oh, and in "1984", they chose the "war with a foreign power" option.

OK, no more P & N for me, I've said my piece and no one has bothered to read it.

Budmantom
10-12-2007, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: exdeath
I'm so sick of these arguments about what people think other people neeeeeed or dont neeeeed.


And yet you are drawn to these discussions like a moth to a flame. Are you a masochist or something?

The only reason people think they want the high-hp cars is because that's what's on the market. Same with computers...do you really think Grandma wants a Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of RAM to send her Christmas e-mails? Do you think she can even tell the difference? Nope, but since no one sells an extremely cheap Athlon computer with full support anymore, that's what she buys. If your average consumer were to be given a ~120 hp commuter that didn't have the "unsafe" perception, they'd probably like the increased mileage over the extra power of the 160.

Again, these regulations do NOT force ANYONE to buy a car they don't want. They just shift the average. Anyone who feels strongly about their cars is going to buy exactly the same thing, and those other, indifferent consumers are going to save money on gas. This way we don't have to tax gasoline euro-style, so the sports car drivers can still enjoy cheap fuel, even as the average MPG rating across the fleet is rising.

What alternative would you prefer? Raising the tax on gas and letting efficiency take care of itself? Now THAT penalizes the enthusiasts. Fight wars in the middle east to ensure a larger future oil supply? Yeah, that's going well. This is a sensible method that does the least amount of damage and costs the least compared to the other alternatives.

it's good for the consumer, it's good for the driver, it's good for reducing our demand for foreign oil, and it's good for the environment. The only thing it isn't good for is the car companies, which make more money when they push people into buying the more expensive, more powerful cars.

Thanks Big Brother!!

Why not let the consumer decide?



Are you illiterate, or do you just read one snippet of each post and comment based on that?

Oh, and in "1984", they chose the "war with a foreign power" option.

OK, no more P & N for me, I've said my piece and no one has bothered to read it.

There might be a reason for people not reading your garbage.

Your geeky analogy leaves something to be desired.

JC86
10-13-2007, 12:17 AM
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything but isn't it funny how GM, Ford and Daimler Chrysler all opposed that same legislation but these groups are singling out Toyota? You know what those other car companies have in common? That's right, they're domestic.

The most profitable market segment right now is the Trucks SUVs. Like it or not, selling hybrids, while profitable, pale in comparison to trucks and SUVs. If that legislation passed, all Toyota would be able to sell are econocars like the corolla, yaris, camry and prius. even their luxury hybrids would not qualify.

Ktulu
10-13-2007, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by: JC86
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything but isn't it funny how GM, Ford and Daimler Chrysler all opposed that same legislation but these groups are singling out Toyota? You know what those other car companies have in common? That's right, they're domestic.

The most profitable market segment right now is the Trucks SUVs. Like it or not, selling hybrids, while profitable, pale in comparison to trucks and SUVs. If that legislation passed, all Toyota would be able to sell are econocars like the corolla, yaris, camry and prius. even their luxury hybrids would not qualify.



1. When you become the worlds largest automaker you now become the media's target and the target for any other whack job group out there.

2. Like I said before Toyota portrayed themselves as the most eco-friendly, Earth loving, environment saving car company. GM didn't, Ford or Dodge didn't either. Toyota wrapped itself in green and the hippies loved them. This move goes against what they've claimed to be all about.

Why don't the domestics get scrutinized for this? Because everyone expected them to be against it. DUH! Big deal.

3. THERE'S NO CONSPIRACY!!!!!.

JC86
10-13-2007, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by: Ktulu
Originally posted by: JC86
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything but isn't it funny how GM, Ford and Daimler Chrysler all opposed that same legislation but these groups are singling out Toyota? You know what those other car companies have in common? That's right, they're domestic.

The most profitable market segment right now is the Trucks SUVs. Like it or not, selling hybrids, while profitable, pale in comparison to trucks and SUVs. If that legislation passed, all Toyota would be able to sell are econocars like the corolla, yaris, camry and prius. even their luxury hybrids would not qualify.



1. When you become the worlds largest automaker you now become the media's target and the target for any other whack job group out there.

2. Like I said before Toyota portrayed themselves as the most eco-friendly, Earth loving, environment saving car company. GM didn't, Ford or Dodge didn't either. Toyota wrapped itself in green and the hippies loved them. This move goes against what they've claimed to be all about.

Why don't the domestics get scrutinized for this? Because everyone expected them to be against it. DUH! Big deal.

3. THERE'S NO CONSPIRACY!!!!!.

Have you not seen the Chevy commercials where the guy is talking about how their Tahoe Hybrids, which in itself is an oxymoron imo, and how their chevy is going from gas friendly to gas free. Or the Mercury Mariner hybrids and Ford Focus commercials claiming their mpg statistics and how their not just more mph but more fun per gallon. It's not as if Toyota is the only one advertising their supposed eco-friendliness, everyone's jumping on the green bandwagon.

I for one do not believe that setting a hard limit on all vehicles to meet a certain mpg limit solves the problem. There are different cars for different purposes and setting a limit does nothing but force car manufacturers to either completely overhaul their lineups or throw billions into R&D that may or may not work. The end result is those costs will be passed on to us as consumers.

I do believe we are on the right track as of right now. Passing legislature that promotes hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles to make it more mainstream. Carpoool lane access, tax rebates, free public parking are/were all perks that drove hybrid sales. Our countries gas addiction is problem that takes an evolutionary approach and not a radical revolutionary one.

In regards to the conspiracy issue, i'm simply putting two and two together. The Big Three in Detroit would like nothing more than to see Toyota knocked off its perch as the green manufacturer. This website's information, from my quick glance, is aimed SOLELY at Toyota and did not even mention the fact that the Big Three were also against it.

ElFenix
10-13-2007, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: woodie1
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.

Bullshit. By trying to punish those you are jealous of and taxing them because you don't like the vehicles they like, you are trying to force them into buying what YOU want them to buy, not whatever he WANTS to buy.

Die communist.

the tax isn't punishment. the tax serves to keep the rest of society from subsidizing the user by bearing the responsibility for the various negative externalities that gas causes. it actually makes the market work better.

Budmantom
10-13-2007, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: woodie1
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.

Bullshit. By trying to punish those you are jealous of and taxing them because you don't like the vehicles they like, you are trying to force them into buying what YOU want them to buy, not whatever he WANTS to buy.

Die communist.

the tax isn't punishment. the tax serves to keep the rest of society from subsidizing the user by bearing the responsibility for the various negative externalities that gas causes. it actually makes the market work better.

You have my attention, please explain.

ElFenix
10-13-2007, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I agree though, most of the efficiency gains have come from keeping mileage stagnant and increasing power. Think of what the efficiency would be with a modern engine with only 120-ish horsepower in a car that was as light as those older cars were. But no, instead we use the efficiency to make more HP.

ZV
2006 scion xA; 1.5L; 103 hp; 2,300 lbs; 31/38
1991 tercel; 1.5L; 82 hp; 2,000 lbs; 29/35


1990 accord; 2.2L; 130 hp; 2,900 lbs; 24/30
2008 accord; 2.4L; 177 hp; 3,300 lbs; 22/31


no, i can't say from that data that we use the efficiency gains to make power alone.

exdeath
10-15-2007, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: exdeath
I'm so sick of these arguments about what people think other people neeeeeed or dont neeeeed.


And yet you are drawn to these discussions like a moth to a flame. Are you a masochist or something?

The only reason people think they want the high-hp cars is because that's what's on the market. Same with computers...do you really think Grandma wants a Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of RAM to send her Christmas e-mails? Do you think she can even tell the difference? Nope, but since no one sells an extremely cheap Athlon computer with full support anymore, that's what she buys. If your average consumer were to be given a ~120 hp commuter that didn't have the "unsafe" perception, they'd probably like the increased mileage over the extra power of the 160.

Again, these regulations do NOT force ANYONE to buy a car they don't want. They just shift the average. Anyone who feels strongly about their cars is going to buy exactly the same thing, and those other, indifferent consumers are going to save money on gas. This way we don't have to tax gasoline euro-style, so the sports car drivers can still enjoy cheap fuel, even as the average MPG rating across the fleet is rising.

What alternative would you prefer? Raising the tax on gas and letting efficiency take care of itself? Now THAT penalizes the enthusiasts. Fight wars in the middle east to ensure a larger future oil supply? Yeah, that's going well. This is a sensible method that does the least amount of damage and costs the least compared to the other alternatives.

it's good for the consumer, it's good for the driver, it's good for reducing our demand for foreign oil, and it's good for the environment. The only thing it isn't good for is the car companies, which make more money when they push people into buying the more expensive, more powerful cars.

Except for when car makers are unable to produce a car that some people might want because of regulations that forbid that car, or rather so many constraints that even though it's not forbidden it's all but impossible to actually produce and sell to a willing consumer.

Look at the ban on machine guns. Machine guns aren't actually banned or illegal, they are quite legal to own, if you didn't know. Rather there is simply enough regulation in place that it is effectively banned for most people.

These effective bans by way of constant regulation is what I worry about because people are willing to accept regulations as a comprimise, and then the slippery slope comes into play over the long term. And that is the gripe I have with so many people in here. Those who are quick to point out "oh but I don't think we should completely ban" who also say "but we need to regulate" or 'do something'. Keep "doing something" and keep regulating it and it will be effectively banned, and auto makers will no longer be able to produce those cars even though there are still people willing and able to buy them. Just like machine guns. They won't be banned, but they will be all but impossible to produce within regulations, thus ensuring a virtual ban. And some of you, think that is actually a good thing, those of you who like to enforce your views onto others because you are not satisfied with your own lives.

Then people like me become angry that your ignorance in politics has had an impact on my personal life and my free market choices, and you have far bigger problems on your hands than cars that get 5 more horsepower than you personally feel they neeeeeed.

That is why I do not comprimise. Compromise in politics merely means "take what you can for now and come back for the rest later when they've swallowed and forgotten about the last part"

fbrdphreak
10-15-2007, 02:25 PM
I'm not getting in the middle of this bitch fest, but both GM and Toyota directly responded to the NY Times article calling them out:

http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2007/10...ideas_of_friedman.html (http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2007/10/beware_the_ideas_of_friedman.html)

http://blog.toyota.com/2007/10/post.html

InflatableBuddha
10-15-2007, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
In case you missed it the first time around, I specifically stated "commuter car". When you're crawling along in rush-hour traffic or driving at city speeds, 130 HP gets the job done. You can drive a 400 HP sports car or a 300 HP SUV in rush hour traffic if you choose, but it won't get you to your destination any faster - there is no disputing that. The extra horsepower is purely an extraneous want.
This is true. However, you aren't always crawling in rush hour traffic, thus the higher horsepower can be used at other times ;)

Such as on a drag strip. Look, if you're using all 400HP on a public street, you're accelerating way too fast or driving too fast for the conditions. If you're in the city, you risk hitting other cars or pedestrians. On the highway, you risk hitting deer or moose. Not smart.

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

I'm not saying that high performance sports cars need to be banned, just that high horsepower only belongs on the track. It should stay out of passenger cars. Sports cars are a hobby, a privilege, a luxury. I have no problems if you want to indulge in them.

I don't know about you but I don't like having to downshift a few times and loose a bunch of speed every time I hit a hill. Or taking much longer than normal to get up to speed when I put more than just a couple people in the car.

Sure, things slow down a bit when you have more people or luggage in the car, or on hills. But you don't need a huge amount of horsepower to overcome that. A 180-200HP mid-sized sedan has no problems with hills or added weight, unless you're trying to hold 160 km/h on a steep grade.

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Large SUVs are superfluous. If you need to haul a bunch of stuff, get a truck. Even then, you don't need to drive it all the time.
SUVs can be used to haul stuff, and some stuff you haul you don't want bouncing around in an open truck bed. Also, SUVs have more room inside than a little car (duh) which can be much more comfortable for the passengers, and they can fit more people too than small cars. And some people can't afford more than one vehicle you know, so if it is the only car they have then well guess what they are going to drive it all the time.

Small SUVs (Rav4/CR-V), crossovers, minivans or small trucks can handle most of these needs. If you really need extra space, rent a cargo van or pickup for a day. On a day-to-day basis, you're just pissing away money on extra gas and insurance. How often do you need to haul 8 passengers plus a crapload of lumber, that would necessitate driving a Suburban? Almost never. And if you do, rent it for the day, like I said.

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

See my other post. Tax gas according to its true cost and the market will adjust. People will have the choices they want, but they will rightly pay the true costs.
But you are attempting to forcefully limit what they want by doing so. Someone will have the choice to buy the vehicle he really wants, but thanks to stupid high gas taxes he can't afford to drive it. Gas is taxed plenty enough as it is already.

Let me ask this - do YOU really want to pay more at the pump? My guess is no. But taxing gas more will make you do that, as well as everybody else, and taxing gas more will also then cause everyone to have a thinner wallet. And higher gas taxes could make the poorer in this country even more poor because they can't afford the newer more efficient cars to begin with, now you just jacked up their cost to even getting to work. Good job.....

Gas in North America costs nowhere near what its "true cost" is. Indirectly, we all pay through poorer health, congestion, injuries and deaths, because of the proliferation of cheap gas. Google "Todd Litman" or VTPI for an idea of what I'm talking about.

Gas will only become more expensive as time goes on. We can either adapt to that reality or continue as usual and wonder WTF happened when it costs $300 to fill up. I drive pretty sparingly, but I do enjoy it to a degree. As long as the alternatives are effective...

I expect to be flamed badly for this, but I personally think gas should be less of a necessity; somewhat akin to what it costs in Europe. Over there, transit is more efficient, there are fewer external costs (health, congestion, etc. as I listed above) and yet people can still enjoy driving as a privilege. Look at the country roads in England or the Autobahn in Germany.