Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think it's fair to say that the auto industry is against this. What the auto industry is against is random legislation that keeps them ever guessing and changing as to what direction they need to go.
People don't buy SUV's because GM, Ford and Toyota build SUV's. GM, Ford and Toyota build SUV's because people want to buy them. In fact, the entire minivan/SUV craze was simply a reaction to the original CAFE laws that destroyed the ability of car manufacturers to sell the formerly popular station wagon.
The government wants three things, that often compete with themselves:
1. More fuel efficient vehicles.
2. Lower emissions.
3. Increased levels of safety.
They're all great things, but they also work against each other in the car world. Increasing efficiency is most easily done by using less emissions control and making the car light. Pollution controls hurt efficiency through the use of cat's, egr's, etc. Increasing safety standards, means larger, heavy cars, which reduces efficiency and increases pollution.
The industry needs to balance these competing factors while still producing cars that the public wants. People are generally concerned with:
1. Utility, meaning the car meets my needs/purpose.
2. Cost, obviously the average Joe should be able to afford it and it should be reliable.
3. Power, no one wants to drive a lawnmower on the Turnpike or Parkway.
I think, in general, the auto industry knows what their customers want. The trick is giving them what they want while competing with various federal and even state mandates regarding pollution, fuel efficiency and safety.
NHTSA tells them cars must meet newer stricter frontal crash standards. This means adding high strength reinforced steel to the front end of the car. This increases the size and weight of the car. Meanwhile the EPA is telling them that they need to cut emissions despite NHTSA wanting safer cars. Than you can top all that off when the government revises CAFE and decides they want all of that AND the car needs to be more efficient.
There is no better example of government stupidity in energy/transportation than ethanol. There is almost no federal control or oversight for ethanol. The laws surrounding it and acceptable blends are a hodge podge of local and state laws. However, car manufacturers are incentified to build a certain percentage of E85 capable vehicles and make all vehicles E10 compatible. The issue here is that the cars perform worse in terms of MPG and power on the ethanol blended fuel as there is no national standard to allow the companies to actually tune their engines to take advantage of what ethanol can do. So, we end up with a total abortion.
oh i think there has been quite a bit of evidence that auto manufacturers have been against improved efficiency. chicken or the egg i guess, but we're the only country in the world that the people "want" these very profitable-per-unit SUVs and minivans. efficiency does not have to come solely through lighter, and increased safety does not have to come only through increased weight.
the key thing that can be done in cars for the most immediate impact is to stop focusing on power. people simply do not need cars that have the acceleration that they are hawking to us.
look at the new subaru impreza coming out in 2012. it's an awd sedan that is rated for 34mpg on the highway.
the foreign companies get it, the american companies are lagging behind. the technology is there to be used. but we keep using the technology for more power and more luxurious rides (quiter, less bumps, etc).
if i lived in europe, i'd be able to get the utility i want along with the gas mileage i want. yet here, in the U.S.A., companies don't even offer us those products. we'll see over time, because companies have finally started to wake up. but for the past couple decades, we consumers have had crappy options.
A had a crazy thought this morning. Instead of raising taxes to pay for the road work why not spend less on something else and use those savings for the roads.
A had a crazy thought this morning. Instead of raising taxes to pay for the road work why not spend less on something else and use those savings for the roads.
A had a crazy thought this morning. Instead of raising taxes to pay for the road work why not spend less on something else and use those savings for the roads.
Do you mean as in the last paragraph of my earlier post #13?
Yep. We spend way too much on crap we shouldn't be and not enough where we should.
i just think when statements like this are made, concrete examples should be offered as to where cuts should be made. saying "everything" doesn't accomplish anything. why not contact your representative with a concrete example of a spending item you think should be eliminated?
i just think when statements like this are made, concrete examples should be offered as to where cuts should be made. saying "everything" doesn't accomplish anything. why not contact your representative with a concrete example of a spending item you think should be eliminated?
Nothing we say here "accomplishes" anything. Someone saying we should raise the gas tax. Or tax tires more. Should those people also contact their representative and tell them that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
