Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive
538 messages, Last post on Jul 31, 2008 at 6:28 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 23, 2007 6:58 am) There are people that believe the silver bullet exists and if you elect the right politician we will have access to it. Trying to conserve myself I ran into an obstacle. I was going to change out the incandescent light bulbs in my Hampton Bay ceiling lighted fans. I put in 2 new CFL lights and they flickered off and on. So I was stuck using 60 watt incandescent. There has to be millions of those fans installed in American homes.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 23, 2007 8:08 am) I figure burning night lights (or using lighted switches) is cheaper than breaking a few toes now and then.  I'm curious to see what the LED craze will have on car lights in general. |
|
|
|
|
I agree on the need for conservation, but I think that a fuel tax increase, with offsetting sales tax decreases, would be a much more effective and efficient way to achieve conservation than the 35 mpg by 2020 law. When all is said and done, the 35 mpg law is unlikely to be more effective in achieving its consumption reduction goals than the '75 CAFE law has been. Sure, fuel economy went up, but consumption went up even more. The new law could have a similar unintended effect. How? If the law succeeds in improving fuel economy, which it will (in conjunction, lest we forget, with ~$90/barrel oil), it will put downward pressure on oil prices. And what happens when prices go down? Well, demand increases, of course, and greater demand = greater consumption. Look, I don't presume to know what the net effect of the 35 mpg law will be, but I think we squandered an opportunity to do something better.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 23, 2007 8:50 am) One thing I have noticed is evryone is focusing on things that already in place like, diesel, hybrids, smaller cars, etc. One thing that we have lost in the auto industry esp. the domestics is innovation. The fact that the 2008 Ford Focus is by far the most efficient domestic small car at 35 mpg highway is pathetic. I was at a small car museum in VA (associated with one of the cavern tours) and back in 1930, there were cars that achieved over 20 mpg. As far as fuel efficiency, we have not come very far in the past 80 years. I've been doing some research and there is the technology out there to increase the fuel economy of each car by close to 40%. This is without changing anything in the current car design. The problem is the oil companies are making so much money at our expense, they aren't interested. Hopefully with this new standard, the auto manufacturers begin to become more innovative and Congress realizes that they also have to be a part of the solution. Of course if they stop taking money from the oil companies, it would also help. |
|
|
|
|
"The problem is the oil companies are making so much money at our expense, they aren't interested." Who designs the cars we buy? Who selects and buys the cars that are on the market? Why are the oil companies "the" problem? I'm not suggesting the oil companies are saints, but they're not satan, either. Incidentally, I've never been associated with the oil industry. I just fail to see logic of assigning so much of the blame on the oil companies and so little on where a lot of it may belong - ourselves and our choices. Also, if the oil companies are hugely profitable, we can participate by investing in them, to the extent that their actions will not be at our expense, or even to the extent that it could be to our benefit.
|
|
|
|
The new CAFE standards are a disgrace. Detroit will NEVER meet them. It'll just raise the price of cars, which will have to adopt more exotic materials to lower weight. Even a 4cyl Accord stick doesn't make the cut, nor does a Civic or Sentra for that matter.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 23, 2007 5:16 pm) I agree we have a made very poor choices in selecting cars. Look at the 90's, I know my wife and I didn't need our Explorers. No kids until 1999 yet we had owned 2 in the 90's. I know plenty of people who owed pickups as a third car to pick up mulch or furntiure twice a year. We all need to truly assess what we really need in a car. For the few who truly need a pickup or can afford to drive that Hummer for pleasure, let them have at it. It is America after all. last thing we need is to force folks into vehicles but unless we all make some changes, I may have to squeeze my 6'4" frame inot a Corolla. Thank goodness I have loss weight.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Dec 23, 2007 8:50 am) That may work in a country that has a National sales tax. Every state has their own tax structure. California would not want to give up their 7.5% so the Feds could tax gas at a higher rate. I am sure the average family in CA spends more on taxable items throughout the year than they do on gas. If the Feds tax gas at a higher rate and let us write that tax off on our income what would that gain them? I don't see the price of gas making much difference what and how people drive. Even with $3 gas here in CA not a day goes by that I do not see somebody blast away from a stop light only to be next to me a few blocks down the street at the next light. Gas prices do not seem to affect the way people drive. And all the young guys with modified rice rockets are not conserving just because they have a small car. They race up and down the streets day and night going nowhere. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not knowledgeable about oil refining and the costs associated with it, so I can't comment on your first paragraph. I completely agree with the thoughts you expressed in your second paragraph, particularly when it comes to enjoying the freedom of vehicle choices. For those who use the carrying capacity of their pickups or SUVs only occasionally, renting may be a better choice than buying more vehicle than one needs the great majority of the time. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive
