Bush approves CAFE standard increase.

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: charrison

Actually if an SUV got 30mpg, I would be buying one. A 30MPG would become a practical vehicle for many.

While it's hardly a scientific study, I believe Dateline NBC did a story last year where they had some researchers propose a "green" Ford Explorer. It would have similar performance and size characteristics to the market-leading SUV, but it was a 30 mpg SUV that you refer to. Obviously there were some tradeoffs to achieve fuel efficiency, namely in materials used for the frame & body IIRC.

According to the story, Ford isn't making that type of vehicle because in general, while Americans moan and groan about gas prices in the summer, they aren't actually motivated to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. So without CAFE standards, there really is little market incentive for the automakers to redesign their gas guzzlers.

Since reducing reliance on foreign oil and cleaning up the local atmosphere are both laudable goals, I feel CAFE standards in general make a lot of good sense. Too bad Congress abandoned the program in recent years. And since SUVs are light trucks, the CAFE average fuel economy for those vehicles is relatively high. The average MPG of all vehicles sold today is higher than it was 20 years ago due to the sales of light trucks.

There is a Ford Exploer hybrid that gets 63 mpg.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: ScottyB
He probably thought he was increasing "coffee" standards but read the memo wrong.

LMAO


I can see where the government can be concerned with national fuel consumption. For instance, WW2 where there was a ration system going on because the military needed the fuel. In times of shortage something must be implemented to control distribution and stabilize prices. Perhaps they know something we don't and this is a reaction to that foreknowledge.

OPEC just had another meeting hoping to limit the world supply of oil because a glut in the market would send prices way down. There is no shortage.

 

[ScottyB]

I was wrong it is 55 mpg: Explorer

Edit: I wasn't wrong it is just 63mpg for city (I can't believe I remembered that form last year)

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: ScottyB
He probably thought he was increasing "coffee" standards but read the memo wrong.

LMAO


I can see where the government can be concerned with national fuel consumption. For instance, WW2 where there was a ration system going on because the military needed the fuel. In times of shortage something must be implemented to control distribution and stabilize prices. Perhaps they know something we don't and this is a reaction to that foreknowledge.

OPEC just had another meeting hoping to limit the world supply of oil because a glut in the market would send prices way down. There is no shortage.

Just because there is currently a surplus is no reason to wrecklessly consume. Efficiency is always an important goal to strive for, stategically and economicly. If the government didn't pressue auto manufacturers, then they would not pour R&D funding into something that is beneficial to everyone in the long run (except maybe their profit margins).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: charrison

Actually if an SUV got 30mpg, I would be buying one. A 30MPG would become a practical vehicle for many.

While it's hardly a scientific study, I believe Dateline NBC did a story last year where they had some researchers propose a "green" Ford Explorer. It would have similar performance and size characteristics to the market-leading SUV, but it was a 30 mpg SUV that you refer to. Obviously there were some tradeoffs to achieve fuel efficiency, namely in materials used for the frame & body IIRC.

According to the story, Ford isn't making that type of vehicle because in general, while Americans moan and groan about gas prices in the summer, they aren't actually motivated to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. So without CAFE standards, there really is little market incentive for the automakers to redesign their gas guzzlers.

Since reducing reliance on foreign oil and cleaning up the local atmosphere are both laudable goals, I feel CAFE standards in general make a lot of good sense. Too bad Congress abandoned the program in recent years. And since SUVs are light trucks, the CAFE average fuel economy for those vehicles is relatively high. The average MPG of all vehicles sold today is higher than it was 20 years ago due to the sales of light trucks.

There is a Ford Exploer hybrid that gets 63 mpg.

Sure make a carbon fiber body and give it an aluminum block and very few could even afford it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I was wrong it is 55 mpg: Explorer

Edit: I wasn't wrong it is just 63mpg for city (I can't believe I remembered that form last year)

i wonder what the range is on that?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I was wrong it is 55 mpg: Explorer

Edit: I wasn't wrong it is just 63mpg for city (I can't believe I remembered that form last year)

i wonder what the range is on that?

The page is real short on details. It is electric, so i doubt it is too far.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Pretty pathetic IMO. Instead of 1.5 over 3 years it should be like 8 over 10

Do you want to completely remove SUV and light trucks from the market? Or do you know how to make light weight alloys at low cost or make engines produce more power on the same gas. 8MPG over 10 years would probably be unreasonable because of the expense.

Well it would probably decrease the number of them, but my personal beliefs aside - I think it can be done - ford is releasing a hyrbid escape soon which will be getting pretty good mileage. If the car manufacturers put some more effort in raising the mileage SIGNIFICANTLY is very very acheivable. I pulled the 8 mpg out of my ass, but I know that something similar could be acheived. Hyrbid technology, though expensive now, is the future (at least the near future until fuel cells and all that).

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I was wrong it is 55 mpg: Explorer

Edit: I wasn't wrong it is just 63mpg for city (I can't believe I remembered that form last year)

i wonder what the range is on that?

The page is real short on details. It is electric, so i doubt it is too far.

If it's a pure electric it wouldn't be gauged on mpg! If it's a MPG it's probably a hybrid so its range would be awesome.

In fact that link is a bit misleading. It says it's an electric, but an electric only car sure doesn't need gasoline, so who knows

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I was wrong it is 55 mpg: Explorer

Edit: I wasn't wrong it is just 63mpg for city (I can't believe I remembered that form last year)

i wonder what the range is on that?

The page is real short on details. It is electric, so i doubt it is too far.

If it's a pure electric it wouldn't be gauged on mpg! If it's a MPG it's probably a hybrid so its range would be awesome.

In fact that link is a bit misleading. It says it's an electric, but an electric only car sure doesn't need gasoline, so who knows

I don't know why he hates the hybrids so much Skoorb, maybe one ran over him before.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Pretty pathetic IMO. Instead of 1.5 over 3 years it should be like 8 over 10

Do you want to completely remove SUV and light trucks from the market? Or do you know how to make light weight alloys at low cost or make engines produce more power on the same gas. 8MPG over 10 years would probably be unreasonable because of the expense.

Well it would probably decrease the number of them, but my personal beliefs aside - I think it can be done - ford is releasing a hyrbid escape soon which will be getting pretty good mileage. If the car manufacturers put some more effort in raising the mileage SIGNIFICANTLY is very very acheivable. I pulled the 8 mpg out of my ass, but I know that something similar could be acheived. Hyrbid technology, though expensive now, is the future (at least the near future until fuel cells and all that).

I think the escape is goig to get around 40mpg. I am still curious to what the long time total cost of ownership of these hybrids are going to be.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: ScottyB
He probably thought he was increasing "coffee" standards but read the memo wrong.

LMAO


I can see where the government can be concerned with national fuel consumption. For instance, WW2 where there was a ration system going on because the military needed the fuel. In times of shortage something must be implemented to control distribution and stabilize prices. Perhaps they know something we don't and this is a reaction to that foreknowledge.

OPEC just had another meeting hoping to limit the world supply of oil because a glut in the market would send prices way down. There is no shortage.

Just because there is currently a surplus is no reason to wrecklessly consume. Efficiency is always an important goal to strive for, stategically and economicly. If the government didn't pressue auto manufacturers, then they would not pour R&D funding into something that is beneficial to everyone in the long run (except maybe their profit margins).

I've still not seen you lend ANY support for CAFE standards! Efficiency is NEVER the result of more government and define 'reckless consumption' while you are at it.

I can make a distinct correlation to CAFE causing the massive loss of life! CAFE is a crock that proves government has run amuck!

Public opinion and realistic change due to market force brought on by consumer demand is efficient! Government cannot be efficient by definition and regulation based on speculation lends not a thing to your argument.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I was wrong it is 55 mpg: Explorer

Edit: I wasn't wrong it is just 63mpg for city (I can't believe I remembered that form last year)

i wonder what the range is on that?

The page is real short on details. It is electric, so i doubt it is too far.

If it's a pure electric it wouldn't be gauged on mpg! If it's a MPG it's probably a hybrid so its range would be awesome.

In fact that link is a bit misleading. It says it's an electric, but an electric only car sure doesn't need gasoline, so who knows

I don't know why he hates the hybrids so much Skoorb, maybe one ran over him before.

who hates hybrids?

 

[ScottyB]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I was wrong it is 55 mpg: Explorer

Edit: I wasn't wrong it is just 63mpg for city (I can't believe I remembered that form last year)

i wonder what the range is on that?

The page is real short on details. It is electric, so i doubt it is too far.

If it's a pure electric it wouldn't be gauged on mpg! If it's a MPG it's probably a hybrid so its range would be awesome.

In fact that link is a bit misleading. It says it's an electric, but an electric only car sure doesn't need gasoline, so who knows

I don't know why he hates the hybrids so much Skoorb, maybe one ran over him before.

who hates hybrids?

You seem to.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: charrison

Actually if an SUV got 30mpg, I would be buying one. A 30MPG would become a practical vehicle for many.

While it's hardly a scientific study, I believe Dateline NBC did a story last year where they had some researchers propose a "green" Ford Explorer. It would have similar performance and size characteristics to the market-leading SUV, but it was a 30 mpg SUV that you refer to. Obviously there were some tradeoffs to achieve fuel efficiency, namely in materials used for the frame & body IIRC.

According to the story, Ford isn't making that type of vehicle because in general, while Americans moan and groan about gas prices in the summer, they aren't actually motivated to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. So without CAFE standards, there really is little market incentive for the automakers to redesign their gas guzzlers.

Since reducing reliance on foreign oil and cleaning up the local atmosphere are both laudable goals, I feel CAFE standards in general make a lot of good sense. Too bad Congress abandoned the program in recent years. And since SUVs are light trucks, the CAFE average fuel economy for those vehicles is relatively high. The average MPG of all vehicles sold today is higher than it was 20 years ago due to the sales of light trucks.

Is'nt Dateline NBC the one who rigged some gas tanks to blow up or somthing?

I think many are forgetting about diesels which are more effiecent and will be employed in many SUV's and light trucks by this deadline. Just for comparison sakes a diesel excursion gets around 20mpg while the V-10 gets around 10.

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: ScottyB
He probably thought he was increasing "coffee" standards but read the memo wrong.

LMAO


I can see where the government can be concerned with national fuel consumption. For instance, WW2 where there was a ration system going on because the military needed the fuel. In times of shortage something must be implemented to control distribution and stabilize prices. Perhaps they know something we don't and this is a reaction to that foreknowledge.

OPEC just had another meeting hoping to limit the world supply of oil because a glut in the market would send prices way down. There is no shortage.

Just because there is currently a surplus is no reason to wrecklessly consume. Efficiency is always an important goal to strive for, stategically and economicly. If the government didn't pressue auto manufacturers, then they would not pour R&D funding into something that is beneficial to everyone in the long run (except maybe their profit margins).

I've still not seen you lend ANY support for CAFE standards! Efficiency is NEVER the result of more government and define 'reckless consumption' while you are at it.

I can make a distinct correlation to CAFE causing the massive loss of life! CAFE is a crock that proves government has run amuck!

Public opinion and realistic change due to market force brought on by consumer demand is efficient! Government cannot be efficient by definition and regulation based on speculation lends not a thing to your argument.

I'm not talking about government efficiency, that is a joke. I'm simply promoting fuel economy. The government doesn't need to be efficient in doing a damn thing in this process, just so long as the auto manufacturers are pressured to keep fuel economy in mind. American consumers are wasteful and demand will not likely bring about more efficient vehicles; most people in this country are happy enough with a vehicle that chokes down more petrol than would be neccesary if the car companies were spending more resources research efficiency technology, as some of the foriegn manufacturers have been doing. The picture isn't always going to be like this, with plenty of gas at an affordable price, and the further technology advances in this area, the more options we will have when that day comes.

Wreckless consumption is a simply idea; consuming more of a resource than is necesary for a given task. It is the American way. Look at how fuel efficiency has progressed thus far! Not so much because of consumer demand, but because of emissions regulations passed in the early 70's. Why do you insist on clasping on to the viewpoint that progress is a BAD thing? Efficiency = good. There is no speculation there.

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: charrison

Actually if an SUV got 30mpg, I would be buying one. A 30MPG would become a practical vehicle for many.

While it's hardly a scientific study, I believe Dateline NBC did a story last year where they had some researchers propose a "green" Ford Explorer. It would have similar performance and size characteristics to the market-leading SUV, but it was a 30 mpg SUV that you refer to. Obviously there were some tradeoffs to achieve fuel efficiency, namely in materials used for the frame & body IIRC.

According to the story, Ford isn't making that type of vehicle because in general, while Americans moan and groan about gas prices in the summer, they aren't actually motivated to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. So without CAFE standards, there really is little market incentive for the automakers to redesign their gas guzzlers.

Since reducing reliance on foreign oil and cleaning up the local atmosphere are both laudable goals, I feel CAFE standards in general make a lot of good sense. Too bad Congress abandoned the program in recent years. And since SUVs are light trucks, the CAFE average fuel economy for those vehicles is relatively high. The average MPG of all vehicles sold today is higher than it was 20 years ago due to the sales of light trucks.

Is'nt Dateline NBC the one who rigged some gas tanks to blow up or somthing?

I think many are forgetting about diesels which are more effiecent and will be employed in many SUV's and light trucks by this deadline. Just for comparison sakes a diesel excursion gets around 20mpg while the V-10 gets around 10.

The Excursion is dead in 2004. That's Tom's consumer demand at work.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

This is the WRONG way to go about it. The RIGHT way is to change emissions requirements so that the emissions required for trucks is proportionately (to fuel economy) identical to that of cars.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: charrison

Actually if an SUV got 30mpg, I would be buying one. A 30MPG would become a practical vehicle for many.

While it's hardly a scientific study, I believe Dateline NBC did a story last year where they had some researchers propose a "green" Ford Explorer. It would have similar performance and size characteristics to the market-leading SUV, but it was a 30 mpg SUV that you refer to. Obviously there were some tradeoffs to achieve fuel efficiency, namely in materials used for the frame & body IIRC.

According to the story, Ford isn't making that type of vehicle because in general, while Americans moan and groan about gas prices in the summer, they aren't actually motivated to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. So without CAFE standards, there really is little market incentive for the automakers to redesign their gas guzzlers.

Since reducing reliance on foreign oil and cleaning up the local atmosphere are both laudable goals, I feel CAFE standards in general make a lot of good sense. Too bad Congress abandoned the program in recent years. And since SUVs are light trucks, the CAFE average fuel economy for those vehicles is relatively high. The average MPG of all vehicles sold today is higher than it was 20 years ago due to the sales of light trucks.

Is'nt Dateline NBC the one who rigged some gas tanks to blow up or somthing?

I think many are forgetting about diesels which are more effiecent and will be employed in many SUV's and light trucks by this deadline. Just for comparison sakes a diesel excursion gets around 20mpg while the V-10 gets around 10.

The Excursion is dead in 2004. That's Tom's consumer demand at work.

Oh well in that case, let's remove all regulations and let Tom's consumer demand magically regulate everything, because it worked in the case of the Excursion (which was overly excessive in any case).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ScottyB

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ScottyB
I was wrong it is 55 mpg: Explorer

Edit: I wasn't wrong it is just 63mpg for city (I can't believe I remembered that form last year)

i wonder what the range is on that?

The page is real short on details. It is electric, so i doubt it is too far.

If it's a pure electric it wouldn't be gauged on mpg! If it's a MPG it's probably a hybrid so its range would be awesome.

In fact that link is a bit misleading. It says it's an electric, but an electric only car sure doesn't need gasoline, so who knows

I don't know why he hates the hybrids so much Skoorb, maybe one ran over him before.

who hates hybrids?

You seem to.

Why do you say that? I have nothing against them all.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: charrison

Actually if an SUV got 30mpg, I would be buying one. A 30MPG would become a practical vehicle for many.

While it's hardly a scientific study, I believe Dateline NBC did a story last year where they had some researchers propose a "green" Ford Explorer. It would have similar performance and size characteristics to the market-leading SUV, but it was a 30 mpg SUV that you refer to. Obviously there were some tradeoffs to achieve fuel efficiency, namely in materials used for the frame & body IIRC.

According to the story, Ford isn't making that type of vehicle because in general, while Americans moan and groan about gas prices in the summer, they aren't actually motivated to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. So without CAFE standards, there really is little market incentive for the automakers to redesign their gas guzzlers.

Since reducing reliance on foreign oil and cleaning up the local atmosphere are both laudable goals, I feel CAFE standards in general make a lot of good sense. Too bad Congress abandoned the program in recent years. And since SUVs are light trucks, the CAFE average fuel economy for those vehicles is relatively high. The average MPG of all vehicles sold today is higher than it was 20 years ago due to the sales of light trucks.

Is'nt Dateline NBC the one who rigged some gas tanks to blow up or somthing?

I think many are forgetting about diesels which are more effiecent and will be employed in many SUV's and light trucks by this deadline. Just for comparison sakes a diesel excursion gets around 20mpg while the V-10 gets around 10.

The Excursion is dead in 2004. That's Tom's consumer demand at work.

Oh well in that case, let's remove all regulations and let Tom's consumer demand magically regulate everything, because it worked in the case of the Excursion (which was overly excessive in any case).

Well, you might want to consider that the suburban was just a more popular vehicle and almost as large.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
Oh well in that case, let's remove all regulations and let Tom's consumer demand magically regulate everything, because it worked in the case of the Excursion (which was overly excessive in any case).

Well, you might want to consider that the suburban was just a more popular vehicle and almost as large.

That's what I was getting at. The only reason the Excursion is going away is that it is EXCEPTIONALLY excessive. Suburban is still excessive and vastly inefficient in 9/10 cases, but you aren't going to see the market change anything unless gasoline prices skyrocket. Joe Schmoe cares about one thing.. his wallet. Not the environment, not US dependency on foreign oil.

 

[Ornery]

"Joe Schmoe cares about one thing.. his wallet. Not the environment, not US dependency on foreign oil."

BINGO, that's exactly why you go-kart lovers buy those toys. Nothing to do with saving the environment. EVERYTHING to do with saving a few bucks in fuel.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"Joe Schmoe cares about one thing.. his wallet. Not the environment, not US dependency on foreign oil."

BINGO, that's exactly why you go-kart lovers buy those toys. Nothing to do with saving the environment. EVERYTHING to do with saving a few bucks in fuel.

Joe Schmoe doesn't buy "go-karts". I drive a car that gets 24mpg combined though, so I don't know if I can talk about fuel efficiency. But my car getting 24mpg puts out less emissions than a car based SUV getting 30mpg. That is where the problem with the regulations is.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: ScottyB
He probably thought he was increasing "coffee" standards but read the memo wrong.

LMAO


I can see where the government can be concerned with national fuel consumption. For instance, WW2 where there was a ration system going on because the military needed the fuel. In times of shortage something must be implemented to control distribution and stabilize prices. Perhaps they know something we don't and this is a reaction to that foreknowledge.

OPEC just had another meeting hoping to limit the world supply of oil because a glut in the market would send prices way down. There is no shortage.

Just because there is currently a surplus is no reason to wrecklessly consume. Efficiency is always an important goal to strive for, stategically and economicly. If the government didn't pressue auto manufacturers, then they would not pour R&D funding into something that is beneficial to everyone in the long run (except maybe their profit margins).

I've still not seen you lend ANY support for CAFE standards! Efficiency is NEVER the result of more government and define 'reckless consumption' while you are at it.

I can make a distinct correlation to CAFE causing the massive loss of life! CAFE is a crock that proves government has run amuck!

Public opinion and realistic change due to market force brought on by consumer demand is efficient! Government cannot be efficient by definition and regulation based on speculation lends not a thing to your argument.

I'm not talking about government efficiency, that is a joke. I'm simply promoting fuel economy. The government doesn't need to be efficient in doing a damn thing in this process, just so long as the auto manufacturers are pressured to keep fuel economy in mind. American consumers are wasteful and demand will not likely bring about more efficient vehicles; most people in this country are happy enough with a vehicle that chokes down more petrol than would be neccesary if the car companies were spending more resources research efficiency technology, as some of the foriegn manufacturers have been doing. The picture isn't always going to be like this, with plenty of gas at an affordable price, and the further technology advances in this area, the more options we will have when that day comes.

Wreckless consumption is a simply idea; consuming more of a resource than is necesary for a given task. It is the American way. Look at how fuel efficiency has progressed thus far! Not so much because of consumer demand, but because of emissions regulations passed in the early 70's. Why do you insist on clasping on to the viewpoint that progress is a BAD thing? Efficiency = good. There is no speculation there.

We have close to TWENTY different formulations of gas costing BILLIONS to manufacture and distribute. This fact alone causes stagnation in your so-called progress! Without government involvement we would probably be way beyond your expectations. Government regs inhibit the competitive process and increase cost. Always have, always will.

In this case, all CAFE does is protect the interest of BIG OIL and BIG AUTO. They have plenty of time because government regs have taken the pressure off. The regs stifle competition and innovation.