Sign In Join 



Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?

507 messages,  Last post on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:49 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Fuel Efficiency (MPG)


Messages Page 49 of 51
1
...
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#478 of 507
Re: BMW [benjaminh] by ingvar
May 20, 2009 (5:47 am)
Reply

Replying to: benjaminh (May 20, 2009 3:49 am)

I can't really figure out how they would sell a 5 series V-8
Rich people gonna pay gas guzzler fine and enjoy the ride. New retirements will bite middle class, who drives camcord, altima, mustang & etc with v6
#479 of 507
Re: BMW [benjaminh] by kdhspyder
May 20, 2009 (5:53 am)
Reply

Replying to: benjaminh (May 20, 2009 3:49 am)

Yes. I agree that every vehicle above compact size in the near future will be a hybrid of some sort or another. Even some of the compacts may be hybrids like the new Insight II and the recently announced small Toyota.
 
Ford's EcoBoost turbo charged engines will allow it to use smaller engines replacing bigger engines. However even an Ecoboosted V6 will not make the grade.
 
Chrysler is 10 yrs behind the curve although it's lucky that it was given the rights to the GM 2-Mode in its divorce from Daimler.
 
Ford and Toyota are in very sticky situations, especially Ford since it has such a heavy presence in trucks, in that they don't have any hybrid options for trucks. Unless the two have something buried in some deep dark lab someplace and like Frankenstein they're just waiting to throw the switch, then jumping a big V8 from 16 mpg combined to about 22-24 mpg combined is a monumental task in 6 yrs.
 
If they do accomplish it then it begs the question...."Where the hell was this advancement all these last 30 years?'
#480 of 507
Obama will compromis our safety, not emissions. by gagrice
May 20, 2009 (6:12 am)
Reply
The Obama administration's sweeping fuel-economy and emissions initiative announced Tuesday reopens a fierce debate over tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety.
 
The government says no tradeoff exists, because nothing in the new rules would force automakers to sell more small cars, which are more dangerous in crashes than larger ones. But some safety experts think otherwise.
 
"The deadlines are so tight that downsizing will be a tempting compliance strategy" for automakers, says John Graham, the former rulemaking chief in the Office of Management and Budget.

 
No compromise on emissions, just safety.
 
The plan resolves a long-running dispute between the government and California, which sought a waiver from federal law to impose its own tough standards on emissions. That could have led to a patchwork of different state regulations.
 
Obama said a series of lawsuits tied to California's efforts would be dropped. California would save money by avoiding the need for a special state compliance program.
 
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who attended the announcement, told reporters the weekend negotiations on the plan were "very intense."
 
"Then all of a sudden it all clicked and it came together," he said. "It really was a huge battle and the president has brought everyone together and now we're marching forward in the same direction."

 
So we are the victims of the GW myth. Is a revolution just around the corner?
#481 of 507
Re: Obama will compromis our safety, not emissions. [gagrice] by nippononly
May 20, 2009 (7:11 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (May 20, 2009 6:12 am)

Don't worry gagrice, it has been said many times here at Edmunds and it's very true: Americans love their large vehicles, and they will continue to insist on them.
 
I hope we see lots more use of carbon fiber and aluminum, materials that will certainly make cars more expensive but also wondrously lighter. The current fleet is a herd of pigs. VW has just announced plans to reduce the weight of the next-gen Touareg from almost 5100 pounds to about 4500 using only changes in materials to accomplish it. Obviously once they hit that goal they still have a LONG way to go, but ALL the automakers need to get started down this path post haste.
#482 of 507
Re: Obama will compromis our safety, not emissions. [gagrice] by larsb
May 20, 2009 (7:16 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (May 20, 2009 6:12 am)

Gary says, "So we are the victims of the GW myth. Is a revolution just around the corner?"
 
Puh-Leeze, Mr. Dramatic. The warming is not a myth. That polar ice ain't melitin its own self.
 
Who is the victim, here, again?
 
California will be better off not being required to go off on it's own Emissions Crusade. This is a good thing if the guvmint makes it possible for Cali to not have to do it's own thing.
#483 of 507
Re: GM [kdhspyder] by benjaminh
May 20, 2009 (9:51 am)
Reply

Replying to: kdhspyder (May 20, 2009 5:35 am)

Thanks kdhspyder. That's an interesting site.
 
I was just at the Saturn dealer yesterday, wandering around while they did an oil change next door on my Accord. I really liked the look of the Saturn (Opel) Atras, and I thought was a shame that these were leaving the market. But then I read on that site that Buick is likely to get the next generation Astra, which looks even better, soon....
#484 of 507
Re: Obama will compromis our safety, not emissions. [larsb] by gagrice
May 20, 2009 (11:02 am)
Reply

Replying to: larsb (May 20, 2009 7:16 am)

Actually Obama should have made you happy. He is going to use the CA emissions for HIS new standard. I should have said MM GW is a myth as that is far from proven. The ice in the Arctic has melted in the past. There were palm trees up their at one time. So you cannot blame that on my SUV.
#485 of 507
Re: Obama will compromis our safety, not emissions. [gagrice] by zaken1
May 20, 2009 (11:25 am)
Reply

Replying to: gagrice (May 20, 2009 11:02 am)

So you are saying that, because the polar ice melted thousands or millions of years ago from natural causes; it cannot melt today from any other type of cause? Or am I missing something???
#486 of 507
Re: Obama will compromis our safety, not emissions. [zaken1] by larsb
May 20, 2009 (11:35 am)
Reply

Replying to: zaken1 (May 20, 2009 11:25 am)

Oh, SNAP !!!
 
#487 of 507
Re: Obama will compromis our safety, not emissions. [zaken1] by gagrice
May 20, 2009 (11:59 am)
Reply

Replying to: zaken1 (May 20, 2009 11:25 am)

Or am I missing something???
 
I believe you did. I said Man Made Global Warming is NOT proven. It is a political ploy to raise taxes through the backdoor to our wallets. Cap n Trade was behind the idea from the start. They would have pushed it under man made global cooling but the trend reversed to warming and threw the tax and spenders a curve. I hope that explains mine and about half the population's opinion on the subject. Believe what you like it is sort of a free country. Unless you say what you believe to the media.

Messages Page 49 of 51
1
...
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics
Advertisement