Raising mileage standards...agree?

[TexasTiger 12,865]

WASHINGTON – The fight over higher automobile fuel efficiency standards shifts to the House this week with big car companies regrouping after a stinging defeat in Senate energy legislation.

“Major changes are still needed to make this bill achievable,” Ford Motor Co. government affairs Vice President.

The Senate measure, the first major rewrite of efficiency goals in 30 years, would require the U.S. vehicle fleet of passenger cars, sport utilities, pickups and vans average 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 10 mpg improvement over today's standards.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/...tos-fuels-.html

[rexbo 104]

Yes, make it 40 mpg and anyone that wants a vehicle that gets less than 30 mpg and a curb weight over 3500 lbs will have to apply to the State to justify it for their profession or serious recreation (meaning you can have one sports car, or show you have a large camper or boat to tow).

[bigsixfive 327]

Land of the free and all...

Why can't the consumers step up? If people didn't act like they were at a drag race at every red light, the average mpg wouldn't be as low. If Tahoes and F350s didn't barrel down the interstate at 95+ mph on a regular basis, mpg wouldn't be as low. If people took better care of their cars, mpg wouldn't be as low.

Why can't the DOT step up? Get the red lights changing in a more sensable fashion that promotes traffic flow rather than the stop and go mess. Think through road design to optimize traffic flow rather than coming to a complete stop any time two roadways come near each other. Do road work at off peak times to lessen odds of a big traffic jam.

There are other answers to address issues that lower mpgs than to issue a governmental mandate on what vehicle I can and can't have.

[otterinbham 0]

It should be a strategic priority of the United States, a temporary stop gap until we can devise a more efficient transportation and distribution network.

[Ranger12 46]

I am all more for better MPG average, but I don't know if government mandates will solve the issue without stepping on freedoms. Then again, if it is for the greater good of the country, then sometimes sacrifices have to be made by all.

However, I think better then government mandates would maybe be extra fees added to any vehicle that gets less then 30 mpg. For instance, if a guy wants to be a big gas guzzling SUV, then that is his right, but he will have to pay an extra $5000-$10000 dollars for that privilege. So, when those SUV and sports cars are not selling as well because of the extra fee, you will probably start seeing a more earnest attempt from them to make more energy efficient engines.

Going back to freedom and rights, there is the debate I hear sometimes on whether owning and driving a vehicle is a right or a privilege? If it is a privilege, then I guess the government can pretty much mandate whatever they want can't they?

Bottom line is something has to be done. Even if you drive a more fuel efficient car, with the price of gas as it is, you still feel it in the pocketbook. We own a 2003 Chevy Cavalier and a 2002 Nissan Sentra, but considered to get good MPG, but it still hurts us in the pocketbook anyway. I recently loaned out the Cavalier to my SIL who just had a baby, because she did not have a family friendly vehicle yet. So we swapped vehicles and she got the Cavalier and I got her 2000 Ford Mustang. Just from the couple of weeks that I have had the Pony, I don't see how people with gas eating vehicles like that can afford it at all. I have limited how much I go out in the Mustang because that sucker eats gas like Rosie O'Donnell eats twinkies.

[Tigermike 3,027]

Check this out. link

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I see no good argument against raising the mileage requirement so long as it's not too drastic a step up in too short a time frame...which this isn't. The problem mentioned in Tigermike's link comes when that happens. When the technology doesn't exist to make regular cars more fuel efficient, they have to cut corners which makes cars less safe. But the technology does exist and it improves almost yearly. But instead of using it to make an existing car get 5 more MPG or so, they up the horsepower so they can put out badass ads showing people driving in ways you could never get away with on real roads.

It won't hurt sales or the auto industry to have to put all that engineering magic toward improving fuel economy rather than making a four-door family "sports" sedan go 0-60 in under 6 seconds or boast of 295hp. And they can do it without even having to do the hybrid thing (though that would make sense as well).

[otterinbham 0]

Heck, if they could come up with an mid-sized electric sedan that could drive the speed limit, have a range of 200 miles, and could recharge in a couple of hours, I would pay through the nose for it.

You engineers have a better feel for the technology involved, but from what I've read, I don't think we're that far away. Comments?

[SupperClub 0]

I believe the market would take care of this eventually without the involvement of the government. If gas prices stay the way they are or continue to rise, car companies will begin to make more and more fuel-efficient vehicles. As people feel the pinch in their wallets, they can make the decision to trade in their big SUV's for more economical vehicles. It's supply and demand.

I have a Tahoe right now, and it costs between $60-$65 for me to fill up every 5 to 7 days. I don't plan on trading in anytime soon. When I do, I'll probably get another gas-guzzling SUV, because that is what I prefer. I would be appalled if I had to file a request with the government to get permission to buy another SUV. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

Bottom line, I don't think the government is the answer to every problem. I believe that people are responsible enough to make decisions for themselves. Apparently I'm in the minority.

[BamaGrad03 0]

So anyone who wants a Corvette is just SOL?

Does no one see a problem with this? What happened to a free market? What happened to capitalism? What happened to me making decisions as to what is best for me instead of the Government?

Guys, the current oil prices have NOTHING to do with lack of oil. They have everything to do with oil speculation on the open markets.

The inventory report has come back the last 3 weeks as higher than expected. Oil drops 15 cents or so...only to go up two dollars on the next "scare".

So we are going to take away all our personal freedoms and the government is going to require everyone to drive a Honda insight...and it won't change the landscape of oil consumption vs price a SINGLE BIT.

I don't WANT to drive a Prius. I live in America. I shouldn't be told what I can and can't drive. If I want to drive an M5 (which is what I would own if I had a family)...then so be it. You guys may say it's over the top for a 4 door sedan to go 0-60 in 6 seconds. But some people want that. Myself included. Why take that freedom away from me?

Sounds a little too "1984" if you ask me.

[DKW 86 7,423]

Be free. But if you want an over sized truck/Hummer/Sportscar then lets all admit that in America, there is probably 1/10 that actually know how to drive those things. I watched a truck flip out on the Beltline because the driver did not know to load the tongue with roffing shingles. As for BMWs and sportscars. 99% of the folks driving them have Zero idea how to actually handle the power or dirve them like they were real sportscars.

If you could build a Corvette with the motor out of the Cadaver (cavalier) 95% of the Corvette buyers would never notice. Worked at a dealer in the past. I know of what I speak. If you put a BMW hood ornament on a Focus, they would pay thru the nose for it and be just as happy.

Americans buy cars for the image, not for the actual performance.

[otterinbham 0]

I believe the market would take care of this eventually without the involvement of the government. If gas prices stay the way they are or continue to rise, car companies will begin to make more and more fuel-efficient vehicles. As people feel the pinch in their wallets, they can make the decision to trade in their big SUV's for more economical vehicles. It's supply and demand.

I have a Tahoe right now, and it costs between $60-$65 for me to fill up every 5 to 7 days. I don't plan on trading in anytime soon. When I do, I'll probably get another gas-guzzling SUV, because that is what I prefer. I would be appalled if I had to file a request with the government to get permission to buy another SUV. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

Bottom line, I don't think the government is the answer to every problem. I believe that people are responsible enough to make decisions for themselves. Apparently I'm in the minority.

I would agree with that. At the same time, government can probably do things less intrusive to spur consumer demand, such as slowly ratchet up gas taxes to make it even less economical.

Personally, my driving is limited to taking kids to school, errands, and the occasional visit to a client office.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Did I miss something? Where are they requiring permission to buy a Corvette? All they are doing from my understanding is making automakers raise the overall mpg of their entire fleet on average a few mpg. And this is achievable without making everyone drive a Geo-sized fuel sipper. You can still have your SUVs and sports cars but instead of constantly using engineering advances in engines and transmissions to allow you to drive 10 mph faster or get to 60MPH in .5 seconds less, they'll have to use that technology to help the car gets a little better gas mileage.

Oh horror.

As long as we're giving apocalyptic scenarios with no basis in reality, let's go to the other extreme. Why not remove all MPG requirements and electronic governors and let people drive NASCAR-style cars that have 750hp and have top speeds of 250mph and go 0-60 in 3 seconds? That would make perfect sense for the average family. Wouldn't want to hinder anyone's freedom to endanger everyone on the road and die in fiery crash or anything.

[SupperClub 0]

Yes, make it 40 mpg and anyone that wants a vehicle that gets less than 30 mpg and a curb weight over 3500 lbs will have to apply to the State to justify it for their profession or serious recreation (meaning you can have one sports car, or show you have a large camper or boat to tow).

I was going off of this quote when I made the statement about having to file a request with the government to buy an SUV. I know it is a purely hypothetical statement, but to me even the idea is absurd.

As long as we're giving apocalyptic scenarios with no basis in reality, let's go to the other extreme. Why not remove all MPG requirements and electronic governors and let people drive NASCAR-style cars that have 750hp and have top speeds of 250mph and go 0-60 in 3 seconds? That would make perfect sense for the average family. Wouldn't want to hinder anyone's freedom to endanger everyone on the road and die in fiery crash or anything.

How many people out there would pay for the gas it would take to fuel a car like that? My guess is not too many. Car companies would only make enough to meet the demand, and the price of said vehicle would be through the roof, making it where your 'average family' wouldn't be able to afford the vehicle, or the gas to put in it. Again, supply and demand.

There are already vehicles out there that meet that description. If I had $500k in expendible cash, I'd probably get one. They are called Lamborghini's, Ferrari's, Aston Martin, etc.

[CCTAU 3,326]

The majority of cars on the road today are sorry 6 cylinder models that get lousy gas mileage. Many of the SUVs of today get up to 18 - 20 MPG. As technology gets better, so does gas mileage. To have the government fine/tax me for being able to afford a bigger vehicle is ridiculous. My F250 diesel gets as good or better than most of your 6 cyls. As we move toward better gas mileage, we need to move toward accepting power other than electric. Diesel is a great alternative, but nobody wants it. Europe has been using it for years and has perfected it. I guess the good life is only good when it's me getting the good. Plenty of other things that you can do to help save the world. Free market will adjust to fuel consumption and size of vehicles. No other country in the world has the number of cars on the road as we do. No other country is a big with this many cars. Americans love their space. I guess now you should require everyone that is not a farmer to live within walking distance of a public transportation facility. I mean why stop there. Have a law that says we must have at least four families on the same piece of ground that now has one. Let's save everything by government mandate.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Did I miss something? Where are they requiring permission to buy a Corvette? All they are doing from my understanding is making automakers raise the overall mpg of their entire fleet on average a few mpg. And this is achievable without making everyone drive a Geo-sized fuel sipper. You can still have your SUVs and sports cars but instead of constantly using engineering advances in engines and transmissions to allow you to drive 10 mph faster or get to 60MPH in .5 seconds less, they'll have to use that technology to help the car gets a little better gas mileage.

Oh horror.

As long as we're giving apocalyptic scenarios with no basis in reality, let's go to the other extreme. Why not remove all MPG requirements and electronic governors and let people drive NASCAR-style cars that have 750hp and have top speeds of 250mph and go 0-60 in 3 seconds? That would make perfect sense for the average family. Wouldn't want to hinder anyone's freedom to endanger everyone on the road and die in fiery crash or anything.

First of all, they would have to raise them like 6-7mpg. Which is a big deal. And again, what if I WANT to have a family sedan that kicks ass? Seriously, that should be my choice. Again, these changes will NOT NOT NOT have an effect on the oil prices. Oil futures speculation and the ability to create scares is what drives the price, not consumption. They set the price on what the market will bear, not what the market should actually be.

I want an M5. When I can afford one, and have a family, that's what I want. But they get like 12 mpg. So what. If I pay for the gas, it should be my choice. Not the government's choice.

The street legaility of a car is determined from safety measures. Max speed has very little to do with fuel efficiency. They put governor's on 4 cylinder cars that get GREAT gas mileage. I don't have a problem with you limiting speeds of automobiles for SAFETY reasons. But to make me buy a smaller car, that is less safe, and less fun to drive...just so congressmen can say they made a difference in the current oil prices...is asinine.

It's just like people who don't want fatty foods to be legal. You know what...if I want greasy unhealthy fries...that's my choice. It's not your place to make that choice for me, just because there are people out there who can't control themselves.

10 years from now everyone will be driving these tiny ass cars, but the oil prices will go nowhere. Because the futures market will react everytime someone farts in Iran.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

First of all, they would have to raise them like 6-7mpg. Which is a big deal.

Actually, it's 10mpg...by 2020. I think we can manage that in the next 13 years without a lot of pain.

And again, what if I WANT to have a family sedan that kicks ass? Seriously, that should be my choice.

And the amazing thing is, you can have a family sedan that kicks ass AND raise the mpg within the next 13 years too! It's not either/or and hasn't been for quite a while. The scales have just been tipped so far over toward more and more horsepower than hardly anyone can realistically use on American streets for so long no one stopped to think that a balance could be achieved.

Again, these changes will NOT NOT NOT have an effect on the oil prices. Oil futures speculation and the ability to create scares is what drives the price, not consumption. They set the price on what the market will bear, not what the market should actually be.

You can't separate the two. They are both (along with other factors) part and parcel to the problem. And if we can combine using less oil with a little more exploration domestically, we could stop buying so much oil from the middle east and essentially funding our own death warrants.

I want an M5. When I can afford one, and have a family, that's what I want. But they get like 12 mpg. So what. If I pay for the gas, it should be my choice. Not the government's choice.

Because the gas you use doesn't come from a vacuum somewhere that doesn't affect the rest of us.

Hell, why don't we do away with any government regulations whatsoever on automobiles? Let the market decide on what safety features matter. If people want to die from shoddily built cars, it's their right. C'mon. You know this isn't a matter of the government dictating to you every detail of what you can drive. But their are some things that are dictated because they benefit us all. This is one of them. And giving them 13 years to get there is more than enough time.

The street legaility of a car is determined from safety measures. Max speed has very little to do with fuel efficiency. They put governor's on 4 cylinder cars that get GREAT gas mileage. I don't have a problem with you limiting speeds of automobiles for SAFETY reasons. But to make me buy a smaller car, that is less safe, and less fun to drive...just so congressmen can say they made a difference in the current oil prices...is asinine.

As stated, this is not the tradeoff no matter what the scarecrow bloggers say about it. Sure, if they said that by the end of this year they have to raise MPG by 10 on all cars, then yeah, you'd have a point. The technology can't handle that kind of jump in that time frame so they'd have to cut corners and make smaller cars.

It's just like people who don't want fatty foods to be legal. You know what...if I want greasy unhealthy fries...that's my choice. It's not your place to make that choice for me, just because there are people out there who can't control themselves.

Your personal heart attack doesn't make my burger and fries more expensive nor does it give more money to help people who want to kill me.

10 years from now everyone will be driving these tiny ass cars, but the oil prices will go nowhere. Because the futures market will react everytime someone farts in Iran.

Why do you assume that with all the advances in engine technology that everything will stay static and they'll just shrink the cars. You know this is bull.

[saniflush 0]

Supperclub's next car.

The added fuel economy of the smaller imports with the continued "feel" of a SUV.

Best of both worls.

[SupperClub 0]

I didn't know you were selling it. I figured you'd hang on to that thing for a few more decades. PM me the details.

[saniflush 0]

It's a SWEET ride.

[CCTAU 3,326]

The scales have just been tipped so far over toward more and more horsepower than hardly anyone can realistically use on American streets for so long no one stopped to think that a balance could be achieved.

You live in monkeytown. Come on over to Atlanta and see how much size and horsepower you need just to keep up with everyone else. Horsepower does not always translate into top-end speed. Try pulling out into traffic quickly when you need to in one of your little gas mizers. Then when you get out of your coma, you too will get a bigger vehicle.

But it's still about choice. The turd is right, oil prices will not drop even if everyone switches to a moped that gets 200 mpg.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

The scales have just been tipped so far over toward more and more horsepower than hardly anyone can realistically use on American streets for so long no one stopped to think that a balance could be achieved.

You live in monkeytown. Come on over to Atlanta and see how much size and horsepower you need just to keep up with everyone else. Horsepower does not always translate into top-end speed. Try pulling out into traffic quickly when you need to in one of your little gas mizers. Then when you get out of your coma, you too will get a bigger vehicle.

But it's still about choice. The turd is right, oil prices will not drop even if everyone switches to a moped that gets 200 mpg.

First of all, I lived in Nashville for 12 years. It's a town of over 600,000 with a metro area of 1.5 million. My sister in law a cousin and an uncle all lived in Atlanta (480,000 and metro of 5 million) and we visited them plenty so I know that too. I've lived back in Montgomery for 3 months. I know plenty about getting into traffic, thank you.

Once again for the hard of hearing, I'm not talking about some Geo Metro gas sipper. I'm talking about existing cars, rather than always giving them more and more horsepower can have that balanced over the next 13 years with using improvements in engine technology to get better gas mileage. And that's just talking about advances to regular old gasoline engines. That doesn't even count advances in hybrid technology.

Just as an example, let's go back 13 years. The 1994 Nissan Maxima had a 190hp 6-cylinder engine that got 21 mpg in town and 26 on the highway. The 2006 model gets 265hp on 6 cylinders and, wait for it...gets 20mpg in town and 28 on the highway. You're telling me that all the engineering advances of the last 13 years couldn't have struck some sort of balance in delivering more acceleration AND getting better gas mileage? I mean, the damn thing regressed on fuel mileage in town. That's ridiculous.

And while I'm not advocating going to mopeds by any stretch, I'll will guarantee you that if the US went to vehicles that got 200mpg in lieu of behemoths and sports cars that get 15mpg, you'd see a difference in gas prices. That is unless the law of supply and demand has been revoked by God or something.

[BamaGrad03 0]

The Maxima is too slow for me.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

The Maxima is too slow for me.

It was just an example of all the advances going to horsepower and none to fuel efficiency, dummy. And by the way, no one is saying your Mustang or Corvette or Hummer has to get 35mpg. It's a fleetwide average. But all of them need to improve.

The bottom line is, we can't drill our way out of dependence on Middle East oil. I do believe we should be able to drill more but that alone won't solve the problem and I for one am sick and tired of sending billions of dollars to people who hate us to help them fund means to kill us. Gas prices would just be a bonus if we can rectify that situation. And part of the solution to that is using less oil.

[BamaGrad03 0]

It was just an example of all the advances going to horsepower and none to fuel efficiency, dummy

It was a joke, goober.