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.
If you are selling a product there is two things you are trying to achieve, to have the most desirable product and keep the cost low. You need to balance the two and without government intervention the market would dictate what that balance is.
False.
The "market" dictates it is OK to shorten the lives of millions by polluting more.
The "market" might say we want a 10MPG car when gas is $1 a gallon, but "the market" has absolutely no idea that gas might be $4 a gallon 3 years after you buy.
The "market" doesn't care if 50,000 as opposed to 30,000 die on our roads each year. In fact, that's more money for the "medical market".
The reason we have "rules", even in a meeting of 2 or 3 people is that - without them - people do not act in a sane, civil and reasonable manner.
What is interesting to me is that the very same people - who can see before their eyes how many people were saved by "government interventions" like airbags, crumple zones and seat belts...then act as if these things are "bad". My take is that anyone who has family members who were saved by airbags (tens of millions)....would think different if and when they are educated.
But, if not educated, they would just repeat what sound good at the moment, likely fed to them by some billionaires who benefit from polluting more.
American car companies failed because they listed to "the market" instead of reason, common sense and logic.
The "market" dictates it is OK to shorten the lives of millions by polluting more.
The "market" might say we want a 10MPG car when gas is $1 a gallon, but "the market" has absolutely no idea that gas might be $4 a gallon 3 years after you buy.
The "market" doesn't care if 50,000 as opposed to 30,000 die on our roads each year. In fact, that's more money for the "medical market".
The reason we have "rules", even in a meeting of 2 or 3 people is that - without them - people do not act in a sane, civil and reasonable manner.
What is interesting to me is that the very same people - who can see before their eyes how many people were saved by "government interventions" like airbags, crumple zones and seat belts...then act as if these things are "bad". My take is that anyone who has family members who were saved by airbags (tens of millions)....would think different if and when they are educated.
But, if not educated, they would just repeat what sound good at the moment, likely fed to them by some billionaires who benefit from polluting more.
American car companies failed because they listed to "the market" instead of reason, common sense and logic.
How did this go on to a "safety" rant ? And how are American car companies failing ? Sure sales might be dropping in some segments but others are going fine.
I'm a designer in the automotive industry and have worked for many different OEM's both Asian and Detroit 3, and we work to the same FMVSS standards regardless of OEM. So, while some vehicles might rank higher, while some lower they all pass the required standards set by the Feds.
And what we are seeing GM go thru right now is exactly what you are saying. They are making changes for what the "market" will need in the future, vs what the "market" wants now. They are banking on the future of EV and Autonomous. They are looking at the globe as their customer , not just the US. Do I completely agree with it ? No. Do I understand the reasoning ? Yes.
I can’t stand President Trump, but I agree with him here. The newer cars have transmissions that are geared to stay in a higher gear for fuel efficiency, but that means decreased performance. I’m not a fan of this sort of thing, particularly since I live in a mountainous area.
I’m a big fan of v-8 engines, and these regulations would’ve probably caused many car manufacturers to no longer offer them. You just can’t have good performance without going through fuel. If you want to be more fuel efficient, it’s going to either be really expensive (like making the car lighter using expensive materials) or it is going to come at the cost of decreased performance.
And these new CVT transmissions are trash. I would never buy a car that has one. They seem especially prone to failure.
These regulations would have really hurt the truck and SUV market. You just can’t have great fuel efficiency when a vehicle weights 5,000-7,000 lbs. As someone already mentioned, if you reduce the weight of these vehicles, it is going to really hurt towing ability.
EDIT: You can’t compare European vehicles to American ones. Europeans drive tiny little vehicles that are way too small. I would hate to have to drive one of those little cars. You just can’t fit much cargo in them or people (comfortably). And before someone accuses me of being obese, no I’m not obese nor overweight. I just don’t want to drive something so small.
EDIT: You can’t compare European vehicles to American ones. Europeans drive tiny little vehicles that are way too small. I would hate to have to drive one of those little cars. You just can’t fit much cargo in them or people (comfortably). And before someone accuses me of being obese, no I’m not obese nor overweight. I just don’t want to drive something so small.
The interesting thing is that a "Euro Estate Wagon" like the VW Sportwagon has more accessible room for hauling stuff than many of the "SUVs" that people are buying. Look at the design of most of these new SUV - from an engineering and mechanical point of view.
They are built like bubbles - all the bulk and total sheet metal for most of the car and they get smaller and smaller as you go up.
Result: no room, poor visibility, big vehicle with small space.
Walk by one or drive slowly by them - the headrests for the rest seats are often visible almost right up against the rear window! Not so in our 2008 Subie or in the Golfwagon where you have many feet from the rear hatch to the back seats.
My Avalon Hybrid isn't small. It's isn't weak. And it gets 43 MPG. The wife is looking at the 2019 RAV (new design) Hybrid. 40 MPG, not small and not slow (7.5 seconds).
If one needs a truck then they need a truck. I ran businesses my entire life where I needed trucks and vans - even then, I got diesel in those that I really needed to last and haul in.
But we are talking about passenger cars and Toyota has proven they can deliver - a two ton vehicle with 40 MPG and no compromises.
How did this go on to a "safety" rant ? And how are American car companies failing ? Sure sales might be dropping in some segments but others are going fine.
I'm a designer in the automotive industry and have worked for many different OEM's both Asian and Detroit 3, and we work to the same FMVSS standards regardless of OEM. So, while some vehicles might rank higher, while some lower they all pass the required standards set by the Feds.
Right - maybe you weren't around when the same forces now fighting for lower MPG were fighting against those very safety standards. That's my point. We owe it ourselves and our posterity to be as efficient as possible. One person wasting resources isn't a blip on the screen - but 320 million doing the same is a nightmare.
Washington has no business dictating fuel economy standards, especially given since its military is the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the history of civilization.
Air conditioned tents in the desert anyone?
absolutely right!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Return of the HOTROD!!!!!
the hot rod never went away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
When haven't they? They started that mantra when emissions controls first came into being yet they manage to meet standards every time.
yes they did, but at what cost? and dont forget that the government not only set the standard that the automakers had to meet, but they also told the automakers what equipment they had to use as well. for instance the government mandated catalytic converters, among many other things. and remember congress people are not engineers, they are elected idiots. you want a standard to be met? then set a reasonable one and let the engineers work.
i think the 54mpg standard could be met at some point in the future, for cars, just not when obama said it should have been. trucks i doubt could have met the fuel economy standard ever and still do what the people wanted them to do. and dont forget that safety standards and mandates also need to be factored in, as government safety mandates make the cars heavier, and that reduces fuel economy.
and you have to give the engineers time to work as well. you cant just say you have to meet this standard in this short a period of time, along with everything else you need to meet. perhaps they could do it, but then every car would be at least $100,000 for the econo boxes.
Washington has no business dictating fuel economy standards, especially given since its military is the largest consumer of fossil fuels in the history of civilization.
Air conditioned tents in the desert anyone?
Please don't make uninformed comments about "what is" if you don't know what is going on. The Military has been leading on renewables and efficiencies and alternatives for a LONG time.
Therefore, if we take your point we'd say it PROVES why WE should do it. After all, they are!
i think the 54mpg standard could be met at some point in the future, for cars, just not when obama said it should have been. .
Please explain how the current Camry Hybrid gets 50+ and yet, in seven years we can't get to where we are TODAY??
Also, electric vehicles typically get over 100 MPH equiv.
The worlds largest auto-makers (VW, etc.) are planning to go mostly electric SOON.
The time frame is/was not the problem but at the same time if another year or two was needed they could have done that.
You have to start with this. The government didn't pull those numbers our of their arses. Those numbers were given by the CAR COMPANIES as to what can be realistically achieved. Now you and others are telling us that the top engineers, consultants and designers don't know what they are talking about!
I believe them...and I have dealt with strict EPA efficiency standards in a smaller industry...and we easily met and beat them. Then they made them twice as strict. We beat them again.
Who benefits? The consumer (more energy for their money) and the public and world (less pollution and disease - less resource use).
I call that win-win.
We also have to remember that Trump is not doing this due to his reading and study and knowledge on the subject. He doesn't know anything about energy and he doesn't read. He is doing it just because he wants more pollution and more oil use....he sees that as a good thing.
The interesting thing is that a "Euro Estate Wagon" like the VW Sportwagon has more accessible room for hauling stuff than many of the "SUVs" that people are buying. Look at the design of most of these new SUV - from an engineering and mechanical point of view.
They are built like bubbles - all the bulk and total sheet metal for most of the car and they get smaller and smaller as you go up.
Result: no room, poor visibility, big vehicle with small space.
Walk by one or drive slowly by them - the headrests for the rest seats are often visible almost right up against the rear window! Not so in our 2008 Subie or in the Golfwagon where you have many feet from the rear hatch to the back seats.
My Avalon Hybrid isn't small. It's isn't weak. And it gets 43 MPG. The wife is looking at the 2019 RAV (new design) Hybrid. 40 MPG, not small and not slow (7.5 seconds).
If one needs a truck then they need a truck. I ran businesses my entire life where I needed trucks and vans - even then, I got diesel in those that I really needed to last and haul in.
But we are talking about passenger cars and Toyota has proven they can deliver - a two ton vehicle with 40 MPG and no compromises.
Many SUVs don’t have such little trunk space. My Jeep Grand Cherokee has about 4ft of space between the back seats and the back glass.
My wife had a Mercury Mariner Hybrid (basically a Ford Escape hybrid, just a nicer version) and it had no passing power at highway speeds, especially up hills. It would redline so easily going up a mountain on the interstate. I hated that vehicle so much. Me and my wife will never buy a hybrid again after that terrible experience.
I bet that RAV hybrid doesn’t have much passing power at highway speeds going up hills. I can’t stand that sort of thing. It is actually dangerous. I guess it isn’t as big of a deal if you live in a flat area.
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.
