The Truth About Toyota

[Ktulu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.....