Obama to unveil big increase in required mpg

[charrison]

Originally posted by: retrospooty


What I was saying is that the big 3 are the ones that have stopped any smaller upstarts in the USA for the past 30-40 years. They stifle them outr before they have a chance. It's not the govt or the unions. W

There have been some 500+ auto companies in the US, with the big 3 landing at the top. Those 500 plus companies over the past 100 have turned into the big 3. THe biggest barrier to market entry is not anti-competitive tactics, but competing with companies in a entrenched market.

But please do read up on how it requires cars to be built. And read up on how UAW has help make the big 3uncompetitive in their markets.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Read again, I said technology LIKE that, and further iterations of that, and or other similar improvements. That particular model gave V8 power from a V6, and improved efficiency 10-20% over standard engines. take that a few steps further, put it in a 4 and 6 cyl models and we are there. Car companies have been sitting on their asses, and I am glad for the requirement. .

I agree. Ford has ecoboost 4 banger planned that will produce v6 power. But you are not getting to 42 without being a hybrid or significantly reducing vehicle size and weight.

 

[Sacrilege]

First of all, its 35.5 MPG, not 42 MPG. This was already mandated for 2020, Obama is accelerating it by four years. I've gotta say, all this consternation on the part of right wingers is entertaining. I look forward to years to come of them whining about environmental standards, peace, gays, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks, etc.

 

[NeoV]

the anti-gw crowd is now the anti-good gas mileage crowd

I suppose the answer to all of this is drill baby drill?

Pathetic.

This type of mandate should have taken place in the mid-70's, but better late than never.

Some of you need to realize that just because a stance is taken by one political party - that may not be your party of choice - it doesn't mean that idea or stance is a bad one. Some of you literally can't get past this basic point.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Read again, I said technology LIKE that, and further iterations of that, and or other similar improvements. That particular model gave V8 power from a V6, and improved efficiency 10-20% over standard engines. take that a few steps further, put it in a 4 and 6 cyl models and we are there. Car companies have been sitting on their asses, and I am glad for the requirement. .

I agree. Ford has ecoboost 4 banger planned that will produce v6 power. But you are not getting to 42 without being a hybrid or significantly reducing vehicle size and weight.

Today, yes dealing with currently used tech. Tomorrow, no , we will be much better. We dont do much innovating until our backs are to the wall. Last summer's $4 gallon gas will return as the economy improves and the drive will exist to innovate.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: NeoV
the anti-gw crowd is now the anti-good gas mileage crowd

I suppose the answer to all of this is drill baby drill?

Pathetic.

This type of mandate should have taken place in the mid-70's, but better late than never.

Some of you need to realize that just because a stance is taken by one political party - that may not be your party of choice - it doesn't mean that idea or stance is a bad one. Some of you literally can't get past this basic point.

CAFE is a failed regulation. If you want higher mpg vehicles, just tax gas and automakers and public will make change. However lawmakers play games with cafe so that costs are passed on the consumer as hidden as possible.

The high gas prices of the last couple of years put more fuel economy tech in cars than decades of cafe regulation and games.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Read again, I said technology LIKE that, and further iterations of that, and or other similar improvements. That particular model gave V8 power from a V6, and improved efficiency 10-20% over standard engines. take that a few steps further, put it in a 4 and 6 cyl models and we are there. Car companies have been sitting on their asses, and I am glad for the requirement. .

I agree. Ford has ecoboost 4 banger planned that will produce v6 power. But you are not getting to 42 without being a hybrid or significantly reducing vehicle size and weight.

Today, yes dealing with currently used tech. Tomorrow, no , we will be much better. We dont do much innovating until our backs are to the wall. Last summer's $4 gallon gas will return as the economy improves and the drive will exist to innovate.

ANd if gas returns to $4 gallon there will be no need for this legislation. ANd if gas stays cheap this will only be another tax passed onto the consumer(cars will be more expensive/less capable for no reason).

 

[Sacrilege]

Innovation is an un-American trait. Maybe in our past we were innovators, but that time has gone. The prevailing view among many Americans is that science is for atheists, homosexuals, and foreign grad students in universities. Universities, for that matter, are havens for atheist, baby killing, moral relativist liberals.

There are no issues with the environment. Most Americans aren't affected by pollution, global warming, or their carbon footprint. If pollution occurs somewhere in the US, we have plenty of space within our vast nation to relocate to. If sea levels rise, it will flood the liberal Left Coast and Jew York City (the financial center which has recently wrought havoc on America). And anyway, people on the coasts can just relocate. God will protect us and take care of the Earth as He always has. The people who will die from rising sea levels are Southeast Asians who we would have killed in Vietnam anyway had the liberals not made us pull out.

The future of innovation belongs to China. They may be Commie Copy Cats, but there are a lot of them and somehow they are good at math. If they want to make plastic, rice burning, 42 MPG, eco-friendly, low carbon footprint, pussy accelerating, sub-compact death traps, be my guest. It is an improvement over the bikes they all used to ride anyway.

All Americans need are: guns, God, and gays at the end of a 10 ft pole. And by at the end of a 10 ft pole I mean far away, not whatever sick perverted things you may have been thinking about. And another G: a gas guzzling SUV.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
No. Waiting for "The Market" is a policy of Fail. It is too Short-Sighted to be of any value.

You think the government has better long-term vision than individuals or companies? The mess that GM et al. are in now is nothing compared to the hole the government has dug for itself and us.

A goal has been set. A Goal that the Industry had no intention of setting. They'll achieve it, because they have to.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege
First of all, its 35.5 MPG, not 42 MPG. This was already mandated for 2020, Obama is accelerating it by four years. I've gotta say, all this consternation on the part of right wingers is entertaining. I look forward to years to come of them whining about environmental standards, peace, gays, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks, etc.

You're an idiot. What CAFE standards did is it caused more Americans to buy vans and suvs instead of sedans to get the kind of vehicle they wanted, at the expense of gas mileage.

What happens is you have the energy lobbyists demanding higher gas mileage. Then you have the consumer advocates demanding greater safety. Then you have the hippies demanding lower emissions. Then you have the ethanol industry demanding higher percentages. Yeah, as if ethanol wasn't a big enough failure they're looking at getting regulations for mandatory 15% blends. :roll: Ethanol is a failure. It would not exist if the government kept it's nose out from where it doesn't belong.

Unions demand high wages. Consumers demand low prices. Government demands high return for taxpayers.

They all work against each other :roll:

This isn't about the political spectrum. It's about facing reality.



There are already super-high gas mileage vehicles out there. They are ultra-light weight and don't have the cleanest of emissions. Why don't they exist in America? Because they don't meet safety and environmental standards.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: abaez
42 mpg? I thought it was going to be 35mpg? 42 seems high.

audacity of hope...

i wonder if they're going to put up numbers for tanks and ships and militaty vehicles... and it looks like the pleasure boating industry will probably be abolished...

and you will be using a push mower and a broom, too...

Push mower? Think again. Reel mower for you, friend.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Read again, I said technology LIKE that, and further iterations of that, and or other similar improvements. That particular model gave V8 power from a V6, and improved efficiency 10-20% over standard engines. take that a few steps further, put it in a 4 and 6 cyl models and we are there. Car companies have been sitting on their asses, and I am glad for the requirement. .

I agree. Ford has ecoboost 4 banger planned that will produce v6 power. But you are not getting to 42 without being a hybrid or significantly reducing vehicle size and weight.

Today, yes dealing with currently used tech. Tomorrow, no , we will be much better. We dont do much innovating until our backs are to the wall. Last summer's $4 gallon gas will return as the economy improves and the drive will exist to innovate.

ANd if gas returns to $4 gallon there will be no need for this legislation. ANd if gas stays cheap this will only be another tax passed onto the consumer(cars will be more expensive/less capable for no reason).

Right, because Oil is infinite and will last forever.

We arent going to see eye to eye on this... I am glad... overly glad Obama is putting this a a goal. We should have done it decades ago.

So many people here think that we cant do it with our current technology. bullshit, we could have done it in the 80's with 80's tech. The designs and people are bought up and bought off by the auto and oil industries to save thier own profits. just like tires that last several hundred thousand miles arent on the road because BF goodrich bought all the rights to it. Same crap./

 

[LTC8K6]

Not even a TDI complies.

Of course by 2020 things will be different and this rule will be long gone.

 

[LTC8K6]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama wants drivers to go farther on a gallon of gas and cause less damage to the environment - and be willing to pick up the tab.

Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for cars and trucks, as well as require a 35.5 miles per gallon standard. Consumers should expect to pay an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016, officials said.

The administration officials spoke on the condition of anonymity ahead of the formal announcement by Obama.

The plan also would effectively end a feud between automakers and statehouses over emission standards - with the states coming out on top but the automakers getting the single national standard they've been seeking and more time to make the changes.

...

 

[frostedflakes]

35.5 seems much more reasonable. As another poster mentioned CAFE standards would have eventually required this MPG, Obama is simply moving the deadline up four years from 2020 to 2016.

 

[Red Dawn]

If America was able to go to the moon in just ten years from when Kennedy said we would with the technology of the 60's this shouldn't be that tough of a task given todays technology and the technology of the near future.

I'm surprised that so many of you have so little faith in our engineers and sciemtists.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If America was able to go to the moon in just ten years from when Kennedy said we would with the technology of the 60's this shouldn't be that tough of a task given todays technology and the technology of the near future.

I'm surprised that so many of you have so little faith in our engineers and sciemtists.

That's not it. Nor are the other arguments for this presented here.

We've seen a figure of it costing consumers an additional $1300 per car. It may be a well intentioned number. It may be the best case scenario number. But based on my time on this earth the figure is low - way low. I can argue the reasons why I feel this way, I can present reasons fabricated out of thin air or I can express conspiracy theories. (These are all the points made so far in it's favor.) But I'll stick to one for now. One that can't be argued if you follow history. That figure is in 2009 dollars. We're on the brink of an inflationary spiral. A spiral of the take your breath away variety. That figure will balloon to 3 or possibly 4 times that figure.

My problem with this is the timing.
Unemployment is sky high and going higher with no end in sight.
People are getting their hours cut.
People are getting their pay cut.
People are getting their benefits cut.
Two wage earner families are becoming one wage earner families.
There's an enormous deficit that has to be paid for.
Oh, and our engineers and scientists are not working, they're drawing unemployment.

The average Joe can't afford to go out and buy a hybrid vehicle right now. He couldn't afford to buy a conventional automobile before. He did, because there was always a lender willing to put him deeper into debt. I'm hoping I don't have to explain how that's changed.

Domestic auto companies are failing. Foreign auto companies are on the ropes. Consumers are broke. We've resurrected failed policies and not even tried to put a modern day spin on them, just chugged them out once again. Our country is broke.

But the timing is perfect for this? Sounds like another nail in the coffin to me.

If I haven't lost you yet, read on. Do I think mileage standards need to be raised - yes. Do we need to end our dependence on foreign oil - yes. Is the environment important - yes. Is the timing right - no. Will the timing ever be right - I just don't know.

These are my concerns. How many balls can this administration keep in the air and at what cost? Thinking the rich, or big business is going to cover the cost of all that this administration is taking on is naive. It's all ultimately going to have to be paid for by you and me.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
Right, because Oil is infinite and will last forever.

Actually it probably will. There will still plenty of it left in the ground when we stop using it.
WHen it becomes excessivly expensive, we will stop using it.

We arent going to see eye to eye on this... I am glad... overly glad Obama is putting this a a goal. We should have done it decades ago.

This would would not have been possible decades ago. It possible now, but I amd quite unsure if it is practical because of cost.

So many people here think that we cant do it with our current technology. bullshit, we could have done it in the 80's with 80's tech. The designs and people are bought up and bought off by the auto and oil industries to save thier own profits. just like tires that last several hundred thousand miles arent on the road because BF goodrich bought all the rights to it. Same crap./

80's tech.

Variable displacement, that was a faulure in the 80s.
battery life and weight a failure in 80s.
steel is lighter than in the 80s

Tires that last several hundred thousand miles must be sitting next that toe v8 carb that gets 100mpg.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If America was able to go to the moon in just ten years from when Kennedy said we would with the technology of the 60's this shouldn't be that tough of a task given todays technology and the technology of the near future.

I'm surprised that so many of you have so little faith in our engineers and sciemtists.

And that was done at great cost. It is a task that is doable, but will it be affordable or will it makes cars so expensive that older cars actually stay on the road longer, making it a counter productive law.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If America was able to go to the moon in just ten years from when Kennedy said we would with the technology of the 60's this shouldn't be that tough of a task given todays technology and the technology of the near future.

I'm surprised that so many of you have so little faith in our engineers and sciemtists.

Well, in the 60's we actually did have our own engineers and scientists. Not so much anymore.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If America was able to go to the moon in just ten years from when Kennedy said we would with the technology of the 60's this shouldn't be that tough of a task given todays technology and the technology of the near future.

I'm surprised that so many of you have so little faith in our engineers and scientists.

And that was done at great cost.

And the returns from that cost were even greater.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If America was able to go to the moon in just ten years from when Kennedy said we would with the technology of the 60's this shouldn't be that tough of a task given todays technology and the technology of the near future.

I'm surprised that so many of you have so little faith in our engineers and scientists.

And that was done at great cost.

And the returns from that cost were even greater.

Yes but i doubt such returns are waiting for us here.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If America was able to go to the moon in just ten years from when Kennedy said we would with the technology of the 60's this shouldn't be that tough of a task given todays technology and the technology of the near future.

I'm surprised that so many of you have so little faith in our engineers and scientists.

And that was done at great cost.

And the returns from that cost were even greater.

Yes but i doubt such returns are waiting for us here.

Wyy, don't you believe the technology regarding hybrids will have advanced enough in 7 years where they will be cheaper to manufacture and have greater fuel economy? It's been done plenty of times with other technologies.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If America was able to go to the moon in just ten years from when Kennedy said we would with the technology of the 60's this shouldn't be that tough of a task given todays technology and the technology of the near future.

I'm surprised that so many of you have so little faith in our engineers and scientists.

And that was done at great cost.

And the returns from that cost were even greater.

Yes but i doubt such returns are waiting for us here.

Wyy, don't you believe the technology regarding hybrids will have advanced enough in 7 years where they will be cheaper to manufacture and have greater fuel economy? It's been done plenty of times with other technologies.

It is a short amount of time to ramp up the required battery production. We are talking hybrids going from 3% market share to a majoriy in market share. All while keeping cars affordable.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Why, don't you believe the technology regarding hybrids will have advanced enough in 7 years where they will be cheaper to manufacture and have greater fuel economy? It's been done plenty of times with other technologies.

It is a short amount of time to ramp up the required battery production. We are talking hybrids going from 3% market share to a majoriy in market share. All while keeping cars affordable.

Yeah you're right, we're not up to the challenge, why even bother trying.:roll: