Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Program News

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-27-2006, 08:15 PM
  #1  
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
 
gavriil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Program News

White House moves to change car CAFE - - Harry Stoffer | | Automotive News / April 27, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Reacting to public uproar over gasoline prices, the Bush administration took steps Thursday to change passenger car fuel economy standards for the first time in more than 20 years.

The administration said it wants to make the same kinds of changes in the standards for cars that it made for light trucks in late March. Those changes included for the first time setting different fuel economy targets for vehicles of different sizes and raising the overall fuel-saving requirements for manufacturers by about 10 percent over the 2008-11 model years.

The earliest that the changes for cars could take effect would be the 2009 model year. Cars have been required to average 27.5 mpg since the mid-1980s. Federal law in 1975 established the corporate average fuel economy program, or CAFE, and the industry has wrestled with it ever since.

The unusual administration move was part of a seeming panic among politicians to demonstrate to consumers -- and voters -- that they are doing something about high gasoline prices.

The fuel economy plan for cars was spelled out for reporters in a hastily called telephone news conference late Thursday.

The officials said they could speak only if they were not identified -- apparently so they would not upstage remarks on the subject made earlier by President Bush.

The plan for cars would unfold in a series of steps.

First, Congress would have to enact a law giving the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration authority to set something other than a single standard for cars.

Then the agency would need to gather product information from automakers, publish a notice of rule-making and accept comments on the proposal.

Finally, automakers would have to be given at least 18 months lead time before any changes would take effect.

The officials who spoke Thursday said the administration was trying to take advantage of the surge in congressional interest in energy issues to get the needed legislation enacted.

The point of setting different fuel economy targets for vehicles of different sizes is to discourage automakers from downsizing models to comply, thereby making vehicles less safe. The administration's reforms set tougher targets for smaller vehicles. Size is determined by the area bounded by the four wheels.

Some critics of the new truck standards warn, however, that automakers may decide to make some vehicles larger so that they face easier targets -- thereby negating hoped-for fuel savings.

Light trucks are expected to average about 24 mpg by 2011.

The standard for 2006 is 21.6 mpg.
Old 04-27-2006, 08:17 PM
  #2  
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
 
gavriil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
This sounds in part like 1974 all over again.
Old 04-27-2006, 08:25 PM
  #3  
Race Director
 
biker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 14,344
Received 628 Likes on 506 Posts
Why is the gov't fixing something that people have full control over - you want to buy a car with better economy buy one - plenty available today. Talk about knee jerk reaction.

Get your high HP car now - cause the gov't is about to make them extinct.
Old 04-27-2006, 08:45 PM
  #4  
Safety Car
 
heyitsme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reacting to public uproar over gasoline prices, the Bush administration took steps Thursday to change passenger car fuel economy standards for the first time in more than 20 years.
This just doesn't make much sense to me. Gas prices are going up, so to ease peoples concerns about gas prices, we won't address the gas price increase, we'll raise the mpg standard on 'light' trucks in 5 years to a level that really isn't impressive to begin with.

If gas prices keep going up a dollar every summer over the next 5 years, these gas guzzlers will phase themselves out and the automakers will have no choice but to react.

People complain about the prices going up, but it seems that is the only force in this country that will bring more efficient engine technology here faster than at a trickle rate.
Old 04-27-2006, 08:51 PM
  #5  
Race Director
 
biker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 14,344
Received 628 Likes on 506 Posts
Where's the talk of diesel in all of this - around here diesel now costs less than regular.
Old 04-27-2006, 08:55 PM
  #6  
Senior Moderator
 
Ken1997TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,640
Received 2,329 Likes on 1,309 Posts
Bring me a diesel Accord
Old 04-27-2006, 09:02 PM
  #7  
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
 
CGTSX2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beach Cities, CA
Posts: 24,299
Received 378 Likes on 198 Posts
Originally Posted by Ken1997TL
Bring me a diesel Accord
Or even that diesel powered Civic hatch they have in Europe with the push-button starter.
Old 04-27-2006, 09:06 PM
  #8  
Safety Car
 
heyitsme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If they brought the euro hatch w/ diesel I'd trade in.
Old 04-27-2006, 10:33 PM
  #9  
Suzuka Master
 
Maximized's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by biker
Why is the gov't fixing something that people have full control over - you want to buy a car with better economy buy one - plenty available today. Talk about knee jerk reaction.

Get your high HP car now - cause the gov't is about to make them extinct.
Simple....The technology is out there to increase fuel economy pretty substantially. Manufacturers won't implement this technology unless the government madates it.
Old 04-27-2006, 11:50 PM
  #10  
fap fap fap
 
Infamous425's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kirkland
Age: 43
Posts: 4,239
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
i hope they arent basing those figures off EPA standards
Old 04-27-2006, 11:58 PM
  #11  
The sizzle in the Steak
 
Moog-Type-S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 71,436
Received 1,877 Likes on 1,297 Posts
There are pleny of fuel efficient cars available for purchase today.
Car companies are in the business of making $$$.
If car companies belived that people only wanted econo-cars, then that is what they would make. The fact is that people want gas-guzzlers and they want econo-cars. It's the people's choice...supply and demand. If there were no demand for gas-guzzlers...they woould not be made.
Old 04-28-2006, 12:05 AM
  #12  
Suzuka Master
 
SpeedyV6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lakeway, TX
Posts: 7,516
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Moog-Type-S
There are pleny of fuel efficient cars available for purchase today.
Car companies are in the business of making $$$.
If car companies belived that people only wanted econo-cars, then that is what they would make. The fact is that people want gas-guzzlers and they want econo-cars. It's the people's choice...supply and demand. If there were no demand for gas-guzzlers...they woould not be made.
Old 04-28-2006, 07:11 AM
  #13  
Suzuka Master
 
mrdeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Moog-Type-S
There are pleny of fuel efficient cars available for purchase today.
Car companies are in the business of making $$$.
If car companies belived that people only wanted econo-cars, then that is what they would make. The fact is that people want gas-guzzlers and they want econo-cars. It's the people's choice...supply and demand. If there were no demand for gas-guzzlers...they woould not be made.
And this just goes on to apply to gas and oil.

i hear everyday about gov't planning on going after gas companies for price gouging and anti-competitive practices and windfall profits.

If the price of oil goes up, the gas companies are going to pass the cost onto the consumer...same as almost any other product.

But the fact remains that the oil companies are doing so well because WE...consumers of gas-guzzling cars, SUVs, and trucks, are the ones that are accepting high gas prices by paying for it. then turning around and complaining and saying "crooks! get them!"

If the government wants to reduce gas prices, then reduce the taxes that they require on every gallon and also reduce the HUGE amounts of taxes that they receive from the "profits" from these oil companies with the stipulation that these savings are passed on to consumers.

But personally, I wouldn't even bother.

I drive a premium gas-guzzling sedan. I pay dearly for my gas at either $2, $3, or $7 dollars...and I'll feel the pain in my wallet, but i'm not going to complain about it because NO ONE forced me to buy a gas-guzzling vehicle.

It's like buying a gun and shooting yourself in the foot, then complaining that the manufacturer created a dangerous weapon....stupid consumers
Old 04-28-2006, 09:16 AM
  #14  
Suzuka Master
 
Maximized's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Moog-Type-S
There are pleny of fuel efficient cars available for purchase today.
Car companies are in the business of making $$$.
If car companies belived that people only wanted econo-cars, then that is what they would make. The fact is that people want gas-guzzlers and they want econo-cars. It's the people's choice...supply and demand. If there were no demand for gas-guzzlers...they woould not be made.
Have you watched the news lately? People do want efficient cars. The problem is that the efficient cars are either too small or cost a lot of money. People want efficient cars WITH utility at a reasonable price. Again, you can easily raise the gas mileage of internal combustion engines. The technology is on the shelf, but the manufacturers won't use it until they are needed. The government push is a good thing and will get manufacturers to innovate once again. We need to look long term though and increase funding into hydrogen powered cars. That technology is also out right now, but the infastructure to fuel them isn't and the cost of the technology is high. Economies of scale can drive down the cost though in the future.
Old 04-28-2006, 09:20 AM
  #15  
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
 
gavriil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by biker
Why is the gov't fixing something that people have full control over - you want to buy a car with better economy buy one - plenty available today. Talk about knee jerk reaction.

Get your high HP car now - cause the gov't is about to make them extinct.
I disagree. Gov't mandating something better than currently being law, would increase the number of models with "better" gas consumption. Whatever better means, it certainly means better than today's number of models available.
Old 04-28-2006, 10:02 AM
  #16  
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
 
gavriil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
And this just goes on to apply to gas and oil.

i hear everyday about gov't planning on going after gas companies for price gouging and anti-competitive practices and windfall profits.

If the price of oil goes up, the gas companies are going to pass the cost onto the consumer...same as almost any other product.

But the fact remains that the oil companies are doing so well because WE...consumers of gas-guzzling cars, SUVs, and trucks, are the ones that are accepting high gas prices by paying for it. then turning around and complaining and saying "crooks! get them!"

If the government wants to reduce gas prices, then reduce the taxes that they require on every gallon and also reduce the HUGE amounts of taxes that they receive from the "profits" from these oil companies with the stipulation that these savings are passed on to consumers.

But personally, I wouldn't even bother.

I drive a premium gas-guzzling sedan. I pay dearly for my gas at either $2, $3, or $7 dollars...and I'll feel the pain in my wallet, but i'm not going to complain about it because NO ONE forced me to buy a gas-guzzling vehicle.

It's like buying a gun and shooting yourself in the foot, then complaining that the manufacturer created a dangerous weapon....stupid consumers
The problem we are facing today with high gas prices in this country is not one entity's fault. It's multifaceted:

1. It is consumers' fault no doubt, because they are buying big heavy vehicles
2. It is the government's fault big time, because since 1974 they have done very little to get us be energy independent! AND because they let the industry be comprised of only FIVE players!
3. It is the industry's fault when in a time of war and at a cost of 20 dollars per barrel, they are selling oil for 75 bucks. Also, although there is no evidence of price fixing, they know exactly how to manipulate the market by matching prices of another competitor instead of the opposite. Profitering.

However, most of the blame personally goes to the gov't. When you have a situation like the above, it is the gov't's respobsiblilty to fix the issue by mandating new laws, investing at alternative technologies, etc, etc. In general protecting its citizens' from the industry and even themselves. Stupidity is a given in a society, that's why you have the gov't to protect you from your own foolishnes.
Old 04-28-2006, 11:53 AM
  #17  
Suzuka Master
 
mrdeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by gavriil
Stupidity is a given in a society, that's why you have the gov't to protect you from your own foolishnes.
yeah, but in this day and age, it seems that the the gov't is trying to protect itself from its own past AND current foolishness, and we, the people, just go along for the ride...but that's a WHOLE other topic in itself.

But as things relate to gas prices and apparent lack of more practical fuel efficient models, I "would" blame the gov't more if I had more faith in them, but at this stage I have yet to see policy making that makes sense AND is effective rather than politically motivated policies that try to please all "contributors" as well as voters...and these oil and auto companies are BIG contributors in taxes and otherwise to the gov't.

But ultimately, I still put most of the blame on consumers. the gov't gives us inherent freedoms, and we should be responsible for the choices that are made under this freedom...this ain't N. Korea, so I don't want the gov't holding our hands and telling us what to buy or not to buy. Since it's the CONSUMER's choice, it's the CONSUMER'S responsibility to own up to the fact that they like gas, they need gas, and they willfully overpay for it.

This is America...people here have been brainwashed and now confuse WANTS with NEEDS, and bitch and complain when they don't get what they WANT.

Billions of people in other countries do well WITHOUT gas-guzzling SUV's and trucks...but Americans take it as an assault on their life-style (not an assult on their life, mind you) when they can't fill up their Escalade.

Last edited by mrdeeno; 04-28-2006 at 11:57 AM.
Old 04-28-2006, 12:14 PM
  #18  
Suzuka Master
 
Maximized's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
Billions of people in other countries do well WITHOUT gas-guzzling SUV's and trucks...but Americans take it as an assault on their life-style (not an assult on their life, mind you) when they can't fill up their Escalade.
This relates back to America being a debt driven society. If you bitch about the gas prices of your Escalade, you bought too much car. Buy a car that you can afford.
Old 04-28-2006, 12:31 PM
  #19  
Suzuka Master
 
mrdeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Maximized
This relates back to America being a debt driven society. If you bitch about the gas prices of your Escalade, you bought too much car. Buy a car that you can afford.

don't get me started on this shit...

There's a lady that works for my aunt.

She doesn't get paid that well by my aunt (she does secretarial work), but she is paid under the table, collects welfare for her 4 kids and her husband doesn't work. She drives an Escalade. a couple years back she bought a brand new malibu. She had it for 3 weeks and traded it in for the escalade. there's NO WAY she could outright afford the escalade, not to mention the new malibu, but with the finance incentives and whatever they're giving out nowadays, anyone can buy a $50k+ car and finance it for looongg time at high interest rates.

her kids are all in junior high and go to school about 5 blocks away...she drops them off an picks them up everyday....no hills the entire way either. She bitches and whines about gas prices everytime I see her.

I had to walk 30min each way when i was in middle school up and down hill... WTF?
Old 04-28-2006, 02:54 PM
  #20  
Fahrvergnügen'd
 
charliemike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Maryland
Age: 52
Posts: 13,494
Received 1,568 Likes on 985 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
And this just goes on to apply to gas and oil.

i hear everyday about gov't planning on going after gas companies for price gouging and anti-competitive practices and windfall profits.

If the price of oil goes up, the gas companies are going to pass the cost onto the consumer...same as almost any other product.

But the fact remains that the oil companies are doing so well because WE...consumers of gas-guzzling cars, SUVs, and trucks, are the ones that are accepting high gas prices by paying for it. then turning around and complaining and saying "crooks! get them!"

If the government wants to reduce gas prices, then reduce the taxes that they require on every gallon and also reduce the HUGE amounts of taxes that they receive from the "profits" from these oil companies with the stipulation that these savings are passed on to consumers.

But personally, I wouldn't even bother.

I drive a premium gas-guzzling sedan. I pay dearly for my gas at either $2, $3, or $7 dollars...and I'll feel the pain in my wallet, but i'm not going to complain about it because NO ONE forced me to buy a gas-guzzling vehicle.

It's like buying a gun and shooting yourself in the foot, then complaining that the manufacturer created a dangerous weapon....stupid consumers
A train ride in 1st Class in Italy from Florence to Venice (162 miles) is $50/person ... In the US between DC and NYC the Acela is $233 (215 miles).

This country is not built to NOT use a shitload of gas.

It's not entirely our fault
Old 04-28-2006, 03:24 PM
  #21  
Suzuka Master
 
mrdeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by charliemike
A train ride in 1st Class in Italy from Florence to Venice (162 miles) is $50/person ... In the US between DC and NYC the Acela is $233 (215 miles).

This country is not built to NOT use a shitload of gas.

It's not entirely our fault
yeah, but how many people do you know need to travel between DC and NYC everyday?

I don't have any stats to back up what I'm about to say, but I'm sure most of you will agree: most travel that takes place by car/truck/suv is to/from work, and i'm sure most of that travel is less than 100 miles (roundtrip). And i'm sure there are many sub-100mi commuters (myself included) that are driving cars/trucks/suvs that guzzle gas, and I'm sure most of these commuters (myself included again) HAD the choice to choose a more fuel efficient vehicle. The fact is MOST drivers are driving around MORE car/truck/suv than they need (again, myself included).

Sure there are many cases where people/business/families actually NEED trucks or SUVs, but MOST people in America who are driving a truck or SUV simply DON'T need to.

My car guzzles gas too, but again, I chose my car knowing full well how much gas it uses, so I have no one else to blame if I feel the pain at the pump.

IF drivers weren't willing to pay $3+ per gallon (which is what they are "pretending" to say), then they'd all be driving insights and priuses and civics and elantras. But then this would be an assault on the american way of life, so they'd rather ante up and pay, all the while bitching and complaining for the gov't to bail THEM out for a decision THEY made when they bought that SUV/truck.
Old 04-28-2006, 03:34 PM
  #22  
Suzuka Master
 
mrdeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Oh, and forgot to add that most, if not all of these drivers (myself included again, :sigh: ), who are driving more car/truck/suv than they need and unnecessarily wasting gas, are probably driving at a pace that is limited more by "how fast can I go without getting caught" rather than "how fast should I go to reasonably maximize my mileage". I know I fall into the first category, which again is why i won't complain about gas prices.
Old 04-28-2006, 03:44 PM
  #23  
Safety Car
 
heyitsme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Infamous425
i hope they arent basing those figures off EPA standards
Thats another problem, having regulations based off bs figures to begin with.
Old 04-28-2006, 03:46 PM
  #24  
Suzuka Master
 
mrdeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by heyitsme
Thats another problem, having regulations based off bs figures to begin with.
I guess the U.S. gov't is like my computer...bullshit in, bullshit out.
Old 04-28-2006, 08:03 PM
  #25  
Race Director
 
biker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 14,344
Received 628 Likes on 506 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
Oh, and forgot to add that most, if not all of these drivers (myself included again, :sigh: ), who are driving more car/truck/suv than they need and unnecessarily wasting gas, are probably driving at a pace that is limited more by "how fast can I go without getting caught" rather than "how fast should I go to reasonably maximize my mileage". I know I fall into the first category, which again is why i won't complain about gas prices.
That's the thing about Europeans - in general they buy much smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles but in general drive faster on the highways than in the US and that's with $5+/gal gas.
Old 04-28-2006, 09:17 PM
  #26  
Smitty's Moral Police
 
unlemming's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bossier City, LA
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'd love to have a nice fuel efficient vehicle, the problem is that most fuel efficient vehicles are 'economy' models without many nice features. Maybe I'm the only one, or maybe too many people think "if you can afford a nice car you can afford lots of gas" nonsense. I'll take a nice vehicle with poor mileage over a pos with great mileage.
Old 04-28-2006, 09:19 PM
  #27  
Safety Car
 
heyitsme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
I guess the U.S. gov't is like my computer...bullshit in, bullshit out.
Your Puter isn't the prob, its Microsoft.


Originally Posted by mrdeeno
Oh, and forgot to add that most, if not all of these drivers (myself included again, :sigh: ), who are driving more car/truck/suv than they need and unnecessarily wasting gas, are probably driving at a pace that is limited more by "how fast can I go without getting caught" rather than "how fast should I go to reasonably maximize my mileage". I know I fall into the first category, which again is why i won't complain about gas prices.
That doesn't make a damn worth of sense. Case n point is the real world 06 civic owner on vtec.net. Driving 75mph+even 85mph etc, still have 35mpg as noted.
Old 04-28-2006, 10:50 PM
  #28  
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
 
gavriil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
don't get me started on this shit...

There's a lady that works for my aunt.

She doesn't get paid that well by my aunt (she does secretarial work), but she is paid under the table, collects welfare for her 4 kids and her husband doesn't work. She drives an Escalade. a couple years back she bought a brand new malibu. She had it for 3 weeks and traded it in for the escalade. there's NO WAY she could outright afford the escalade, not to mention the new malibu, but with the finance incentives and whatever they're giving out nowadays, anyone can buy a $50k+ car and finance it for looongg time at high interest rates.

her kids are all in junior high and go to school about 5 blocks away...she drops them off an picks them up everyday....no hills the entire way either. She bitches and whines about gas prices everytime I see her.

I had to walk 30min each way when i was in middle school up and down hill... WTF?
LOL
Old 04-28-2006, 10:55 PM
  #29  
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
 
gavriil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
I think that we all deserve a great car or truck and low gas prices. Vehicles are so affordable these days because there is REAL and HEALTHY competition in the industry. That's not the case for gas. With cartels going around like OPEC and all kinds of limitation imposed by the gov't about setting up a new oil company, it's a joke of an industry. IT's like a communist industry in a capitalistic world, only of national security importance. Deadly combination. That's why I cant believe that the gov't and the environmentalists have burried us in such serious troule for so long. Sick!
Old 04-28-2006, 11:08 PM
  #30  
Suzuka Master
 
mrdeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by heyitsme

That doesn't make a damn worth of sense. Case n point is the real world 06 civic owner on vtec.net. Driving 75mph+even 85mph etc, still have 35mpg as noted.

I agree, it doesn't make sense with a civic or other more fuel efficient car owner, but I'm not talking about civic owners...i'm talking drivers that are driving more car than they need with gas guzzling cars/trucks/suv's. To take the words of my mentor, Cock Neuro Sci: READ MY WORDS...READ MY WORDS CAREFULLY. j/k

i don't even drive an SUV or truck, and i get 17-18mpg on the instantaneous gauge to maintain 85mph, but get about 23-25mpg when i'm trying to maintain 60-65mph. Think of how much better a non-aerodynamic truck/suv would do if they drove at 65mph vs. 75-85mph.

And at the pump, i'm sure THESE are the people complaining the most since their gas tanks are so much bigger also (my tank is 20 gallons, and it's only a car).

Last edited by mrdeeno; 04-28-2006 at 11:11 PM.
Old 04-30-2006, 09:19 AM
  #31  
Fahrvergnügen'd
 
charliemike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Maryland
Age: 52
Posts: 13,494
Received 1,568 Likes on 985 Posts
You can't give people gas for $1 and have them adjust their driving habits and purchasing decisions accordingly and then triple it in 3 years and then chastise them for their decisions ...

People are still driving and buying SUVs because they think gas will go back down ... Additionally, in Europe, countries like France and Italy have unemployment in double digits. Their per capita GDP are $28,700 and $27,100 respectively ... Ours? $40,100 ...

We make a lot more money on average as a worker than they do. We don't have a 17% VAT on everything ... True we have health care expenses they don't but my point is that we have far more discretionary income (on average) than they do ... We can afford a 15mpg Suburban at $3.00/gal because of it.

Based on historical inflation, it should have taken 30 years for gas to go from $1/gal to $3/gal ... Instead it took about 4 years or so. I think people need to be cut a LITTLE slack that they were caught off-guard and are pissed about it.
Old 04-30-2006, 12:34 PM
  #32  
The hair says it all
 
Python2121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Age: 37
Posts: 7,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am in the extreme minority that thinks that we should tax the hell out of gas. I would vote for a 7-10% tax increase annually, and make a tax free alternative fuel industry for 20 years. It's unfortunate that the only people I have found that agree with me are annoying environmentalists, and I hate those people. It would provide enough $$ to balance the budget too. Of course, what's the point of paying for a war with higher oil prices when the entire point was to lower them....
Old 01-25-2009, 08:58 PM
  #33  
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
 
Trackruner228's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlotte(home) /Raleigh (school), NC
Age: 35
Posts: 11,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Obama to Direct Shift in Emissions Regulations

WASHINGTON — President Obama will direct federal regulators on Monday to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict automobile emission and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday evening.

The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and signifies a sharp reversal of Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions would be one of the most emphatic actions Mr. Obama could take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.

Mr. Obama’s presidential memorandum will order the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. While it stops short of flatly ordering the Bush decision reversed, the agency’s regulators are now widely expected to do so after completing a formal review process.

Once they act, automobile manufacturers will quickly have to retool to begin producing and selling cars and trucks that get higher mileage than the national standard, and on a faster phase-in schedule. The auto companies have lobbied hard against the regulations and challenged them in court.

Mr. Obama will use the announcement to bolster the impression of a sharp break from the Bush era on all fronts, following his decisions last week to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; tighten limits on interrogation tactics by Central Intelligence Agency officers; order plans to withdraw combat forces from Iraq; and reverse President George W. Bush’s financing restrictions on groups that promote or provide abortion overseas, administration officials said.

Beyond acting on the California emissions law, officials said, Mr. Obama will direct the Transportation Department to quickly finalize interim nationwide regulations requiring the automobile industry to increase fuel efficiency standards to comply with a 2007 law, rules that the Bush administration decided at the last minute not to issue.

To avoid losing another year, Mr. Obama will order temporary regulations to be completed by March so automakers have enough time to retool for vehicles sold in 2011. Final standards for later years will be determined by a separate process that under Mr. Obama’s order must take into consideration legal, scientific and technological factors.

He will also order federal departments and agencies to find new ways to save energy and be more environmentally friendly. And he will highlight the elements in his $825 billion economic stimulus plan intended to create jobs around renewable energy.

The announcements, to be made in the East Room, will begin a week of efforts to get the stimulus plan through Congress. The White House hopes the Senate will confirm Timothy F. Geithner as Treasury secretary on Monday, and Mr. Obama plans to travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to meet with both Senate and House Republican caucuses and lobby for his stimulus package. Mr. Obama’s aides expect the House to vote on its plan on Wednesday.

But the centerpiece of Monday’s anticipated announcement is Mr. Obama’s directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to begin work immediately on granting California a waiver, under the Clean Air Act, which allows the state, a longtime leader in air quality matters, to set standards for automobile emissions stricter than the national rules.

California has already won numerous waivers for controls on emissions that cause smog, as opposed to global warming.

The Bush administration denied the waiver in late 2007, saying that recently enacted federal mileage rules made the action unnecessary and that allowing California and the 13 other states the right to set their own pollution rules would result in an unenforceable patchwork of environmental law.

The auto companies had advocated a denial, saying a waiver would require them to produce two sets of vehicles, one to meet the strict California standard and another that could be sold in the remaining states.

The Bush administration’s environmental agency director, Stephen L. Johnson, echoed the automakers’ claims in denying California’s application, ignoring the near-unanimous advice of agency lawyers and scientists that the waiver be granted.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican, wrote to Mr. Obama last week asking him to swiftly reconsider Mr. Bush’s decision. The head of California’s Air Resources Board, Mary D. Nichols, also wrote to the new director of the environmental agency, Lisa P. Jackson, asking for a quick reversal of the Bush policy.

Ms. Nichols said Sunday night that she had not been formally notified that Mr. Obama intended to move toward granting the waiver. But she said, “Assuming that it is favorable to our request, we’re delighted that the president is acting so quickly to reverse one of the worst decisions by the Bush administration and to get the E.P.A. back on track.”

Ms. Jackson indicated in her confirmation hearing this month that she would “aggressively” review California’s application. The environmental agency has routinely granted California such waivers dozens of times over the past 40 years.

The California law, which was originally meant to take effect in the 2009 model year, requires automakers to cut emissions by nearly a third by 2016, four years ahead of the federal timetable. The result would be an increase in fuel efficiency in the American car and light truck fleet to roughly 35 miles per gallon from the current average of 27.

The emissions standards are part of an ambitious California plan to reduce emissions of the gases that are blamed for the heating of the atmosphere. Automotive emissions account for more than one-fifth of all such greenhouse gases.

California was joined in its plea by 13 other states, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington. Three other states have indicated they plan to adopt the California standard. Together they account for about half of the American market for cars and light trucks.

Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the car makers would prefer a single national standard and needed time to develop new fuel-sipping models. “Applying California standards to several different states would create a complex, confusing and very difficult situation for manufacturers,” he said last week in anticipation of the Obama administration’s announcement.

Mr. Obama wants to use the Monday event to promote the environmental and energy elements of his economic plan, aides said. According to a report released by the White House this weekend, the plan is intended to double renewable energy generating capacity over three years, which would be enough to power six million American homes.

It would also pay for 3,000 miles of new or modernized transmission lines as part of a new national electric grid as well as 40 million “smart meters,” which provide instant readouts of electricity uses, on American homes. The money would also help refurbish two million homes and 75 percent of federal building space to better guard against the weather and conserve enough energy to save low-income families $350 a year and the federal government $2 billion a year, according to the report.

The White House also said that Mr. Obama wanted to start a “clean energy finance initiative” to leverage $100 million in private sector investments over the next three years through loan guarantees and other financial support.

Environmentalists and California Democrats had pressed hard for the tougher automotive standards. Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress in Washington, plans to attend Monday’s announcement and said he was pleased by the quick action.

“This is a complete reversal of President Bush’s policy of censoring or ignoring global warming science,” Mr. Weiss said. “With the fuel economy measures and clean energy investments in the recovery package, President Obama has done more in one week to reduce oil dependence and global warming than George Bush did in eight years.”

The California rules would not take effect immediately, but would require several months of legal review and public comment. The auto companies could challenge them in court, but they have been unsuccessful in previous lawsuits.

The Clean Air Act allows California to seek a waiver from federal rules if it can demonstrate that its own regulations are more stringent, and needed to address its air pollution problems. California’s trend-setting air resources board has done this successfully more than 50 times. Other states can adhere to either the California or the federal standard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us...ewanted=2&_r=1
Old 01-26-2009, 12:38 AM
  #34  
Race Director
 
biker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 14,344
Received 628 Likes on 506 Posts
Right, like the car companies have all this extra money to comply with these new rules.
Old 01-26-2009, 05:40 AM
  #35  
99 TL, 06 E350
 
Black Tire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Age: 44
Posts: 5,030
Received 164 Likes on 110 Posts
You need more rules. People are not willing to change.
Old 01-26-2009, 09:02 AM
  #36  
Senior Moderator
 
fsttyms1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Appleton WI
Age: 49
Posts: 81,383
Received 3,063 Likes on 2,119 Posts
this is stupid. Come up with better ways than this.

Originally Posted by biker
Right, like the car companies have all this extra money to comply with these new rules.
Well you can kiss the big 3 good by now. Just what they need, more regulations and need to spend more money that they dont have.
Old 01-26-2009, 10:34 AM
  #37  
The sizzle in the Steak
 
Moog-Type-S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 71,436
Received 1,877 Likes on 1,297 Posts
Perfect timing!!!!

Right in the middle of the worst recession of our lives.
Old 01-26-2009, 10:53 AM
  #38  
Three Wheelin'
 
(Cj)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 47
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I see more VCM and IMA in our future. I just hope that Honda comes out with a 6/7 speed auto transmission soon.
Old 01-26-2009, 11:43 AM
  #39  
The sizzle in the Steak
 
Moog-Type-S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 71,436
Received 1,877 Likes on 1,297 Posts
VCM is smoke and mirrors.
Old 01-26-2009, 12:23 PM
  #40  
Not just a smell
 
Fishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by biker
Right, like the car companies have all this extra money to comply with these new rules.
Actually... they do. The Detroit 3 have been spending big money on lobbyists for decades to stop any legislation requiring them to produce more fuel efficient vehicles and less gass guzzlers. The problem is that the guzzlers are more profitable and are the only way they can pay the UAW bastages. The D3 already have very fuel efficient cars, but they suck and are not profitable.

So the "retooling" cost and R&D funding talk is a bunch of steaming bull doo doo. The UAW needs to die a horrible death so more money can be spent on nicer fuel efficient cars, i.e. cars that can sell well and make money.


Quick Reply: Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Program News



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:25 PM.