Bush approves CAFE standard increase.

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Tominator


I can make a distinct correlation to CAFE causing the massive loss of life!

Show me.

The Government mandates CAFE. Car makers make cars with reduced weight to offset larger 'EVIL' Suvs. When they crash, the folks in the little cars die. Can't deny it, it's been all over the news for months. Your answer is more Government Regulation and a rabid campaign to demonize SUVs and those that drive them.

If you want energy independence, CAFE is a very lame excuse. Build some nuclear power plants. Now that would have an impact! The problem is that all those BILLIONS spent on reformulated fuel and the rabid Environmentalists are in bed. One does not want their industry to have competition and the other wants us all to think nuclear is the devil in disguise.

Government Regulation is needed. I've never said different. However it is a never ending cycle. Once you've let them regulate anything, all you will ever see is more regulation. Bush has enacted REASONABLE standards.


MacBaine

You know I meant to say platinum. So far there is no substitute. Platinum is too expensive for general use in Fuel Cells.

charrison and I dish it out back and forth all the time. Argument is the spice of life.

...Besides, someone needs to play Devil's Advocate around here.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Tominator


I can make a distinct correlation to CAFE causing the massive loss of life!

Show me.

The Government mandates CAFE. Car makers make cars with reduced weight to offset larger 'EVIL' Suvs. When they crash, the folks in the little cars die. Can't deny it, it's been all over the news for months.

Your assertions do not constitute proof nor evidence.

 

[Tominator]

Unless you are blind, deaf and dumb the statements regarding the difference in crash survivability between SUVs and cars stand on their own.

I'll also state that as weight decreases in cars and trucks the crash zone engineered in will be more important. Soon a 25mph crash will total a car. Our junk yards will swell. What does it take to build the replacements? OIL! Where does all that plastic come from? OIL! How does it get there? More and more OIL!

Commercial trucks can last millions of miles. If you really want to impact our energy consumption, design a car that will last a million miles! Imagine the savings.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Tominator
Unless you are blind, deaf and dumb the statements regarding the difference in crash survivability between SUVs and cars stand on their own.

I'll also state that as weight decreases in cars and trucks the crash zone engineered in will be more important. Soon a 25mph crash will total a car. Our junk yards will swell. What does it take to build the replacements? OIL! Where does all that plastic come from? OIL! How does it get there? More and more OIL!

Commercial trucks can last millions of miles. If you really want to impact our energy consumption, design a car that will last a million miles! Imagine the savings.

You specfically said,

I can make a distinct correlation to CAFE causing the massive loss of life!

and you have failed to do so.

 

[0roo0roo]

i'd save money if i dumped toxic waste upwind from tominator.

now to find out where he lives so i can be more efficient.

oh wait, big government doesn't let me pollute as i should be free to do.

 

[OS]

At anyrate, you seem to have a hangup on small cars being inherently dangerous. That's actually not totally accurate. I have something for you to see;

The five safest cars of all time:
Buick LeSabre (model year 2000)
Honda Civic (model year 2001)
Lincoln LS (model year 2001)
Volkswagen Passat (model years 2000 and 2001)
Volvo S80 (model year 2001)
The inclusion of the Honda Civic on the list might be an eye-opener. Many people assume it's best to be in the heaviest vehicle available. However, some of the heaviest vehicles currently available, notably SUVs, are prone to rollover accidents.


source

Your flawed ideas are based on the assumption that the only consideration to automotive safety is vehicle mass. That is just flat out wrong. Other considerations include braking distance, accident avoidance/vehicle maneuverability and rollover safety/resistance. Most of which heavier cars and SUVs are generally poor at.

It's pretty clear to me that your single dimensional approach and assumptions are utterly flawed.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Tominator
Oil provides JOBS, INCOME, TAX MONEY! There is an abundance of the stuff.

Are you saying that greener technologies do not? Solar-technology, fuel-cells, wind-mills, hydrogen power etc. etc. generate jobs, income and taxes just like oil does. Only difference is that oil has been around longer and therefore it's bigger. But if you replace oil with renewables, the jobs nor the money would not disappear. Or are you saying that companies involved in renewable energy have no employees ? or that if they by some miracle do have employees those employees don't get any salary nor they pay any taxes?

 

[Tominator]

All tests done against FIXED barriers and we all know that two cars NEVER hit each other....

Oil and it's surrounding infrastructure has take over one hundred years to build. We WILL migrate to other sources of energy when it becomes economically feasable. If we do not let this take place with a minimum of government involvement it will be expensive and most likely exclude other more feasable replacements.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Tominator
All tests done against FIXED barriers and we all know that two cars NEVER hit each other....

You're missing my point. My point is you're wrong.

 

[PsychoAndy]

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.

Ford caught hell from the Sierra Club for making as many Excursions (dubbed the Ford Valdez) as they did with the Triton 6.8 V-10. Average MPG was around 8 in the city. Diesels did get significantly more, but I havent seen any input from Diesel owners.

The MAJOR problem with the Excursion was one thing: MARKETING. Ford DELIBERATELY manufacutred 80% of them with the gas engine just to mass market to the consumers (yuppies). It has been rumored that they made $5-10k on the sale of EACH. If they took a large chunk of the proceeds and put the PSD under every hood, they would eliminate 2 issues: Fuel Economy and they woulndt piss off the Sierra Club and get as much bad press as they did.

IIRC, the Ford Valdez tipped the scales at right around 5 tons for the top of the line model. Thats 10,000 pounds marketed to yuppies. No wonder it died. If you look at the numbers, this thing actually serves fairly well as a commercial vehicle in regard to towing and payload capacity. Chevy and GMC have been marketing the Suburban for YEARS. If my memory serves, the Suburban has been in the GMC lineup since 1935.

The Excursion was Ford's answer to the Suburban. IMHO the concept of greed and excess pushed it too far. They took a truck frame, filled it with crap put a 6.8L V-10 under the hood and got 8 MPG in the city. Chevy does just about the same, does it smaller, with a 5.7, and with 15 MPG in the city.

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

Did the free market kill the Excursion? Or did a better product from the competition? Both, among other things. If Ford took a step into reality and economy, they could have made a very capable truck. I will concur and assess that their excess killed the concept.

-PAB

 

[charrison]

I am going to agree with Tom here, Making quality cars is good for the environment. If every car easily lasted 200,000 miles alot less energy would be consumed making new cars.


But that is where is where the agreement stops. Suvs are safer in collisions with smaller cars, there is no denying that. However weight is not the only factor in a collision. Quality is often a factor that is an important as weight. A well built car is going protect the driver as well. I will scan an article about this written in a recent quality magazine. Also SUVs are much more likely to be involved in single car rollover accident.

I have nothing against SUV or SUV drivers. I often think it would be a good idea to require driver training classes with the purchase of an SUV. I have seen them too often driven like sports cars.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Tominator


I can make a distinct correlation to CAFE causing the massive loss of life!

Show me.

Deaths by the gallon

• Small cars - those no bigger or heavier than Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - comprise 18% of all vehicles on the road, according to an analysis of R.L. Polk registration data. Yet they accounted for 37% of vehicle deaths in 1997 - 12,144 people - according to latest available government figures. That's about twice the death rate in big cars, such as Dodge Intrepid, Chevrolet Impala, Ford Crown Victoria.
  
  "We have a small-car problem. If you want to solve the safety puzzle, get rid of small cars," says Brian O'Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The institute, supported by auto insurers, crash-tests more vehicles, more violently, than all but the federal government.
  
  Little cars have big disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside have to.
  
  And small cars don't have the weight to protect themselves in crashes with other vehicles. When a small car and a larger one collide, the bigger car stops abruptly; that's bad enough. But the little one slams to a stop, then instantly and violently accelerates backward as the heavier car's momentum powers into it. People inside the lighter car experience body-smashing levels of force in two directions, first as their car stops moving forward, then as it reverses. In the heavier car, bodies are subjected to less-destructive deceleration and no "bounce-back."

The Tominator is correct... NEXT!

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Deaths by the gallon

• Small cars - those no bigger or heavier than Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - comprise 18% of all vehicles on the road, according to an analysis of R.L. Polk registration data. Yet they accounted for 37% of vehicle deaths in 1997 - 12,144 people - according to latest available government figures. That's about twice the death rate in big cars, such as Dodge Intrepid, Chevrolet Impala, Ford Crown Victoria.
  
  "We have a small-car problem. If you want to solve the safety puzzle, get rid of small cars," says Brian O'Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The institute, supported by auto insurers, crash-tests more vehicles, more violently, than all but the federal government.

• 
  
  If I'm reading that text correctly, wouldn't it mean that the bigger cars lose their advantage if smaller cars are removed from the traffic? Those big cars wouldnät be hitting a small car, but another big car. When big and small car hit each other, the big car naturally has the advantage. That advantage diminishes if that big car hits another big car.

 

[Ornery]

Read some more. "Little cars have big disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside have to."

Dead Is Dead

• Making every car smaller would not help. Fewer than five percent of small car accident deaths result from collisions with large SUVs; it is car size in general that impacts death rates.

Senate rejects tighter CAFE as new data link program to thousands of deaths

• A Harvard University/Brookings Institution study put the figure at between 2,200 and 3,900 deaths per year, further determining that between 440 and 780 Americans die for every 100 pounds shaved off vehicle weight.

CAFE's Three Strikes - It Should be Out

• Since the laws of physics will not change, requiring all vehicles to be smaller increases everyone's overall risk of death or injury in auto accidents. Insurance data bear this out; occupants of small cars do worse than passengers of larger sedans, minivans or sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in every kind of accident.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Man, CAFE got you-all riled up, maybe you should switch to DECAFE, your blood b=pressure will go down.

Seriously though, current engines are approaching maximum thermodynamic efficiency, my wife's VW diesel (40 mpg thank you) puts out very little heat when idling, so honestly with current technology we pretty much have what we're gonna have.

However

Auto manufacturers are putting research dollars into HP wars, not fuel efficiency in the current generation of autos. If they turned their attention to fuel efficiency rather than HP/Torque ratings (which really sells vehicles in the US market), they can easily meet the higher CAFE standards.

Also, the US market is nuts, Toyota had a real problem even being considered as a full size truck alternative because of their reluctance to pop a V8 into the Tundra, honestly, just a few trucks per hundred need a V8, much less a V10.

Pliablemoose now gets ready to hide behind his 400 cubic inch V8 diesel G20 Chevy Van (I'm not immune either from the HP/torque argument either, but my van gets 19 mpg in mixed driving) so the flames won't reach him...

Ummmmmmmmm,current engines are no where near reaching maximum thermodynamic efficiency. Your standard internal combustion engine would be very very luck to reach a fuel energy effiency of 20% on average. Diesals are a little better but man has yet to build any engine that approaches maximum efficiency.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Man, CAFE got you-all riled up, maybe you should switch to DECAFE, your blood b=pressure will go down.

Seriously though, current engines are approaching maximum thermodynamic efficiency, my wife's VW diesel (40 mpg thank you) puts out very little heat when idling, so honestly with current technology we pretty much have what we're gonna have.

However

Auto manufacturers are putting research dollars into HP wars, not fuel efficiency in the current generation of autos. If they turned their attention to fuel efficiency rather than HP/Torque ratings (which really sells vehicles in the US market), they can easily meet the higher CAFE standards.

Also, the US market is nuts, Toyota had a real problem even being considered as a full size truck alternative because of their reluctance to pop a V8 into the Tundra, honestly, just a few trucks per hundred need a V8, much less a V10.

Pliablemoose now gets ready to hide behind his 400 cubic inch V8 diesel G20 Chevy Van (I'm not immune either from the HP/torque argument either, but my van gets 19 mpg in mixed driving) so the flames won't reach him...

Ummmmmmmmm,current engines are no where near reaching maximum thermodynamic efficiency. Your standard internal combustion engine would be very very luck to reach a fuel energy effiency of 20% on average. Diesals are a little better but man has yet to build any engine that approaches maximum efficiency.

Well anything that combusts is going to have most of the energy lost to heat. Fuel cells running off pure hyrdogen are in the 80-90% effecient range. However, much energy is lost making hydrogen.....

 

[Eli]

I can't believe there are people that are arguing against improving gas milage standards.

 

[Ornery]

I heard 2 cycle engines were pretty damn efficient. Trouble is, they're too dirty to suit the emissions standards. Always that trade off thing!

Speaking of trade offs Eli, the problem with legislating higher mileage involves trade offs too. Either the technology is too expensive, like exotic light alloys, or it gets too dangerous because there is very little car wrapped around you. It still disgusts me that they mandated air bags. Those damn things add about $1,600.00 to the price of each car, and they're freakin' dangerous to boot! Takes an act of Congress to have one disabled! Air Bags: Saving Lives at Any Cost? A Public Health Perspective Every time the government mandates something, it ends up costing more than it's worth!

Ever notice how fragile windows are in cars these days? Now that the thickness has been reduced to save gasoline, the crack more easily. What does the government care if you have to replace a couple windshields in a car during the time you own it? It gets .002 more MPG, and that's what really matters, right?

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77


If I'm reading that text correctly, wouldn't it mean that the bigger cars lose their advantage if smaller cars are removed from the traffic? Those big cars wouldnät be hitting a small car, but another big car. When big and small car hit each other, the big car naturally has the advantage. That advantage diminishes if that big car hits another big car.

Yeah it does, but uber knee jerk reactionaries probably don't think that far ahead.

 

[Lucky]

Did the free market kill the Excursion? Or did a better product from the competition? Both, among other things.

Like CAFE standards? :|

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Read some more. "Little cars have big disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside have to."

Dead Is Dead

• Making every car smaller would not help. Fewer than five percent of small car accident deaths result from collisions with large SUVs; it is car size in general that impacts death rates.

Senate rejects tighter CAFE as new data link program to thousands of deaths

• A Harvard University/Brookings Institution study put the figure at between 2,200 and 3,900 deaths per year, further determining that between 440 and 780 Americans die for every 100 pounds shaved off vehicle weight.

CAFE's Three Strikes - It Should be Out

• Since the laws of physics will not change, requiring all vehicles to be smaller increases everyone's overall risk of death or injury in auto accidents. Insurance data bear this out; occupants of small cars do worse than passengers of larger sedans, minivans or sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in every kind of accident.

ahhh, yes such wonderfully objective and reputable sources like anti-state.com which says, "Welcome to anti-state.com, the center of the market anarchist movement."

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I heard 2 cycle engines were pretty damn efficient. Trouble is, they're too dirty to suit the emissions standards. Always that trade off thing!

Speaking of trade offs Eli, the problem with legislating higher mileage involves trade offs too. Either the technology is too expensive, like exotic light alloys, or it gets too dangerous because there is very little car wrapped around you. It still disgusts me that they mandated air bags. Those damn things add about $1,600.00 to the price of each car, and they're freakin' dangerous to boot! Takes an act of Congress to have one disabled! Air Bags: Saving Lives at Any Cost? A Public Health Perspective Every time the government mandates something, it ends up costing more than it's worth!

Ever notice how fragile windows are in cars these days? Now that the thickness has been reduced to save gasoline, the crack more easily. What does the government care if you have to replace a couple windshields in a car during the time you own it? It gets .002 more MPG, and that's what really matters, right?

So you're saying that carmakers reduce the weight of all their cars by .5% so they can sell a 8mpg SUV? That's not what you're saying because you're too narrow minded to look at the big picture.

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Did the free market kill the Excursion? Or did a better product from the competition? Both, among other things.

Like CAFE standards? :|

That is a negative AFAIK. The Excursion was so heavy that it didnt require certification of gas mileage by the EPA for Light Truck or SUV's. Does that exempt it from CAFE?

If its over 6000 pounds, dosent it qualify for commercial designation?

Hmm.

-PAB

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Ornery
Read some more. "Little cars have big disadvantages in crashes. They have less space to absorb crash forces. The less the car absorbs, the more the people inside have to."

Dead Is Dead

• Making every car smaller would not help. Fewer than five percent of small car accident deaths result from collisions with large SUVs; it is car size in general that impacts death rates.

Senate rejects tighter CAFE as new data link program to thousands of deaths

• A Harvard University/Brookings Institution study put the figure at between 2,200 and 3,900 deaths per year, further determining that between 440 and 780 Americans die for every 100 pounds shaved off vehicle weight.

CAFE's Three Strikes - It Should be Out

• Since the laws of physics will not change, requiring all vehicles to be smaller increases everyone's overall risk of death or injury in auto accidents. Insurance data bear this out; occupants of small cars do worse than passengers of larger sedans, minivans or sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in every kind of accident.

ahhh, yes such wonderfully objective and reputable sources like anti-state.com which says, "Welcome to anti-state.com, the center of the market anarchist movement."

Shut up assh0le. You say show me, you're shown! Ball's in your court now. Show me where that info is wrong! :| What a dick!

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: Ornery
I heard 2 cycle engines were pretty damn efficient. Trouble is, they're too dirty to suit the emissions standards. Always that trade off thing!

Speaking of trade offs Eli, the problem with legislating higher mileage involves trade offs too. Either the technology is too expensive, like exotic light alloys, or it gets too dangerous because there is very little car wrapped around you. It still disgusts me that they mandated air bags. Those damn things add about $1,600.00 to the price of each car, and they're freakin' dangerous to boot! Takes an act of Congress to have one disabled! Air Bags: Saving Lives at Any Cost? A Public Health Perspective Every time the government mandates something, it ends up costing more than it's worth!

Ever notice how fragile windows are in cars these days? Now that the thickness has been reduced to save gasoline, the crack more easily. What does the government care if you have to replace a couple windshields in a car during the time you own it? It gets .002 more MPG, and that's what really matters, right?

So you're saying that carmakers reduce the weight of all their cars by .5% so they can sell a 8mpg SUV? That's not what you're saying because you're too narrow minded to look at the big picture.

WTF does any of that have to do with a agd SUV? God, you clowns are thick as hell! It's about mandated CAFE and the effects it has. Get a clue, tard!