KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the most successful vehicles manufactured by US auto makers (i.e. SUVs) also the most fuel-inefficient? It's worse than that. From Wikipedia: (Wikipedia) "Historically, it is the sales-weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the United States. This system will change with the introduction of "Footprint" regulations for light trucks binding in 2011. Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards; SUVs and passenger vans are exempt up to 10,000 lbs. In 1999, over half a million vehicles exceeded the GVWR and the CAFE standard did not apply to them.[2] In 2011, the standard will change to include many larger vehicles. " The problem is not necessarily the existing CAFE standards for passenger vehicles per se, but the fact that the least efficient vehicles don't even fall under the standards we have! Also, I've read recently that the powers that be are revisiting how fuel-efficiency for vehicles is measured in the first place. Apparently the existing standards use very, ahem, generous measures of a car's efficiency - not factoring in the realities of modern day driving patterns, for example (think lots of stop-and-go traffic, city-streets not highway, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 From the bus, I've been giving the stink-eye to single-occupancy motorists for some time now, but it doesn't seem to be making a difference. I keep lifting my ass and flashing a shot of my spandex-covered ass-crack and nut-sack at them as I zip ahead on my bike. I'm not sure what effect that is having... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the most successful vehicles manufactured by US auto makers (i.e. SUVs) also the most fuel-inefficient? Not since gas prices skyrocketed. That was then, this is now. The auto makers milked that cow a little too long. From http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4023925: Trucks continued to dominate U.S. vehicle sales in 2006. Another year of auto sales is complete, and while total sales dropped just 2.6 percent, the mix of cars and trucks has changed. Full-size pickups continue to be the most popular vehicles with U.S. buyers; however, truck sales are down 6.7 percent compared to sales in 2005. Total sales show the Ford F-Series and Chevrolet Silverado as the top two sellers in the country, followed by the Dodge Ram in fourth, according to sales information published by Automotive News. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Moreover, the CAFE standards may actually be blamed for the CREATION of SUV's in the first place: (Wikipedia): "SUVs and minivans created due to original mandate The definitions for cars and trucks are not the same for fuel economy and emission standards. For example, a PT Cruiser is defined as a car for emission purposes and a truck for fuel economy purposes. [5] Under the current light truck fuel economy rules, the PT Cruiser will have a higher fuel economy target (28.05 mpg beginning in 2011) than it would if it were classified as a passenger car.[41] CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long station wagon, but Chrysler's Lee Iacocca developed the idea of the minivan, which would fit into the separate truck category and allow automakers to comply with emissions standards. Eventually, this same idea led to the development of the SUV.[42][43]" In other words, meddling social engineering had a negative outcome that resulted from the original meddling. So, you can blame TTK for the SUV's. Everyone, join me and giving him his well-deserved one-finger salute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 There are people with inefficient vehicles that hardly drive them at all, and people with efficient vehicles that drive the `~50,000 miles per year. Who is emitting more C02? Why should the person who wants a large vehicle for short trips pay more for the privilege of owning such a vehicle, much less subsidize drivers of small vehicles with his purchase? Unless a large vehicle emits CO2 when standing still, there's no rational justification for taxing the acquisition of the vehicle instead of the consumption of the fuel. This gets better with every post. While you have a marketplace wet dream why not invoke the spaghetti monster iniative as well. You can always "what if" an individual case that has no application or evidence. Continue herr marketplace miester. I'm just trying to understand why you are so attached to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions with CAFE standards when a fuel tax would actually be fairer, more rational, and more effective, and was actually hoping that you'd make a sincere response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 Full-size pickups continue to be the most popular vehicles with U.S. buyers; however, truck sales are down 6.7 percent compared to sales in 2005. Thanks for the supporting data! FYI: trucks have been the most popular vehicles for decades. Truck sales would even worse if it weren't for the massive tax subsidies businesses receive on the larger models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 Moreover, the CAFE standards may actually be blamed for the CREATION of SUV's in the first place: (Wikipedia): "SUVs and minivans created due to original mandate The definitions for cars and trucks are not the same for fuel economy and emission standards. For example, a PT Cruiser is defined as a car for emission purposes and a truck for fuel economy purposes. [5] Under the current light truck fuel economy rules, the PT Cruiser will have a higher fuel economy target (28.05 mpg beginning in 2011) than it would if it were classified as a passenger car.[41] CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long station wagon, but Chrysler's Lee Iacocca developed the idea of the minivan, which would fit into the separate truck category and allow automakers to comply with emissions standards. Eventually, this same idea led to the development of the SUV.[42][43]" In other words, meddling social engineering had a negative outcome that resulted from the original meddling. So, you can blame TTK for the SUV's. Everyone, join me and giving him his well-deserved one-finger salute. So, in KKK's tiny reptilian brain, a government policy which was written purposefully to be circumvented by industry produced a bad result, so a never enacted government policy designed to actually do what it's supposed to is to blame solely because it goes under the same moniker? What, do you design software for toasters, or would that involve too much logic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 8, 2007 Author Share Posted November 8, 2007 I'm just trying to understand why you are so attached to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions with CAFE standards when a fuel tax would actually be fairer, more rational, and more effective, and was actually hoping that you'd make a sincere response. I've come over to your point of view. I think we should continue to exempt the most gas guzzling half of domestic fleets from any CAFE standards at all, essentially neutering the regulation wholesale. Regulation that actuall worsens the problem (average mpg has gone down since the early 90's). Perfectly fair, perfectly rational, and, above all, sincere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 This discussion is so 5 years ago. I can't presume that any of you would have missed this. Even so, I can imagine the noble free market principles being allowed to do their job only under a government that can truly play hands off, that is to say a government not owned and run by the oil industry--which will only become possible once they no longer have enough money to buy elections. (At which point some other industrial advocates will take over... long live the Corporatocracy!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 and let's not forget that the innovators of the truck-based, CAFE-exempt, SUV-precursor minivans - Chrysler - were propped up by the DEMOCRAT congress and president in 1979 with a loan-guarantee, ensuring Chrysler would survive... Again, thank you meddling US government, and left-wing social engineers. You can only blame yourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 I think the Flintstone Mobile is the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recycled Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 CAFE standards are a goofy way to try to encourage efficiency and are based on a outmoded and failed regulatory model. For the past 25 years or so that I've been buying and using vehicles, I've observed that almost nobody asks "how many MPG" as one of the prime questions when buying a vehicle. It's my first question. Just look at the threads on this board regarding "climbing vehicles." Fuel efficiencies rarely enters the picture. The fact is that the car industry delivers what people want to buy. If you look at Euro cars, many are very efficient (e.g. the VW Lupo gets about 70+mpg) and they sell because that's what people want for their style of driving, parking and fuel expense. As long as fuel is so cheap in the US, not much will change. And yes, $3-4/gal gas is too cheap. If I were king, I would: (1) put revenue neutral infrastructure and carbon taxes on fuel (2) eliminate CAFE entirely; and (3) eliminate the Section 179 depreciation for businesses for vehicles under 10,000 GVW. (they can use the straight mileage deduction instead which would favor more efficient vehicles). That would address the basic perception of what people think they need and car makers would respond accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I'm just trying to understand why you are so attached to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions with CAFE standards when a fuel tax would actually be fairer, more rational, and more effective, and was actually hoping that you'd make a sincere response. Do both. We've had such an ignorant lack of research and development in to fuel efficiency and reasonable standards that we have a steep curve to climb. I don't think I said anything about CAFE standards regarding CO2 emissions - but it is a good way to help lower our dependency on burning dinosaurs until something reasonable comes up. The current administration has a one size fits all anwser. Drill more. That is not insightful and will not help our security, environmental stewardship, or our economy in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Revenue-neutrality is a smart caveat to higher fuel taxes, for both political and economic reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 A booking error is to blame after a mother arranged to send a "gorilla gram" to her son on his 16th birthday, an arrangement she cleared with Nottingham's Arnold Hill School and Technology College. Instead, the agency sent a stripper clad in a policewoman costume, Sky reported. After whipping the teen, the stripper placed a collar around his neck and led him around the classroom with a leash, telling him he had been a "bad boy" for not doing his homework. She then put on a Britney Spears tune and stripped for the shocked class, witnesses told Sky. The police were not called... link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Damn! wrong thread again..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 A booking error is to blame after a mother arranged to send a "gorilla gram" to her son on his 16th birthday, an arrangement she cleared with Nottingham's Arnold Hill School and Technology College. Instead, the agency sent a stripper clad in a policewoman costume, Sky reported. After whipping the teen, the stripper placed a collar around his neck and led him around the classroom with a leash, telling him he had been a "bad boy" for not doing his homework. She then put on a Britney Spears tune and stripped for the shocked class, witnesses told Sky. The police were not called... link I think of all the education that I missed, But then my homework was never quite like this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Tvash wonders why he gets no respect. Here are a few words of wisdom from the cc.com holder of all knowledge himself - all on this one thread! Nice... "As usual, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about." "There are only 2 pea brains on this forum who could have come up a CAFE = Prohibition analogy. Congratulations." "If some rich blowhards want to subsidize my high mileage vehicle, and the environment (and our foreign policy)" "Duh." "Duh." "Duh." "Guess you didn't get the memo. Fuckin' moron." "You fuckers should march on Washington in disgust." "no shit, Sherlock" "Einstein" "Way to go for supporting all this shit, genius." "So, in KKK's tiny reptilian brain" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Tvash wonders why he gets no respect. Here are a few words of wisdom from the cc.com holder of all knowledge himself - all on this one thread! Nice... "As usual, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about." "There are only 2 pea brains on this forum who could have come up a CAFE = Prohibition analogy. Congratulations." "If some rich blowhards want to subsidize my high mileage vehicle, and the environment (and our foreign policy)" "Duh." "Duh." "Duh." "Guess you didn't get the memo. Fuckin' moron." "You fuckers should march on Washington in disgust." "no shit, Sherlock" "Einstein" "Way to go for supporting all this shit, genius." "So, in KKK's tiny reptilian brain" What do expect from a self-aggrandizing blow-hard whose claims to fame are multiple speed-ascents of mailbox peak, and manzier-ready bitch titties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 He seems to post at all hours of the day. Does he have a J-O-B ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 you want unpopular... lowenstein sucks.! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Poor marks on artistic merit *and* technical difficulty today. The backhanded onano-auto-praise via insult instead of the typical declarative statement announcing himself the winner was a novel element in the overall presentation, however. "So far I'm still waiting for an anti-CAFE argument that might just convince a 4 year old...if he were a bit slow." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 SEATTLE — A woman accused of biting off two-thirds of her ex-boyfriend's lower lip as they were kissing in bed was charged Wednesday with second-degree domestic-violence assault. Deputies were called to a house in White Center, an unincorporated suburb south of the city, about 11:30 p.m. Monday and found Thomas J. Brummel, 49, on the front porch, much of his lower lip missing and his face and neck covered in blood, King County sheriff's Detective Scott Tompkins wrote in a probable cause affidavit. Brummel said he and Cutler kissed several times when, without provocation, she bit off his lip and spat it out, deputies said. Doctors at Highline Hospital were unable to reattach the lip and said the man will likely be permanently disfigured. Brummel and Cutler live at the house with two other renters, all of whom are recovering from drug addiction and agreed to share a "clean and sober" home. Tompkins wrote that Cutler was clearly drunk when detectives arrived, and "her rage was evident and uncontrolled." Neither of the other residents witnessed the attack, Tompkins wrote. RelatedStories Woman Jailed for Biting Off Boyfriend's Lip While Kissing in Bed "Had it not been for Brummel's yelling ... 'She's a devil woman!' and running up and down the stairs, none would've known the altercation had taken place," he wrote. Cutler is scheduled to be arraigned Nov. 15 in King County Superior Court. It was not immediately known if she had obtained a lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 I posted a link to that story yesterday, beyotch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 9, 2007 Share Posted November 9, 2007 Hey I've been busy. In fact I need to go find out if Jayb will be buying us drinks in 18 months.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.