* Server response code: 500
We've had a minor breakdown.
We've had a minor breakdown.
The page you were looking for didn't load. Try refreshing the page, or check out our
Your Thoughts Regarding The New 54.5 MPG Mandate
Last post on Nov 05, 2012 at 2:02 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
#139 of 158 Re: taxes, not technology [steve_]
Oct 18, 2012 (12:51 pm)
I sorta like the idea of a price basement for a barrel of oil. That creates a little predictability for alternative sources.
Also, you're only taxed when the product is cheap. When it's expensive everyone automatically gets relief.
Politicians have an incentive to keep oil prices down because they only collect revenues if they do so.
#140 of 158 Re: taxes, not technology [steve_]
Oct 18, 2012 (2:00 pm)
No, and if the "poisonous" part of that equation had anything to do with vehicle exhaust, I would certainly encourage a local tax on automotive fuel. Unfortunately, it is due to structural heating appliances, and the local Neanderthal population will die sucking down their own ignorance before addressing that problem.
#141 of 158 Re: taxes, not technology [xwesx]
by steve_ HOST
Oct 18, 2012 (2:10 pm)
LOL, did I strike a nerve? Hm, 18 and snowy up there per my weather bug. Here's hoping for some wind this winter to keep the skies clear.
Juice, cheap gas would encourage people to drive more and that would mean more tax revenue.
The result I guess would be more pressure on the highway infrastructure, so there'd be a need for the increased tax revenue.
Cue Joni Mitchell again.
#142 of 158 Re: taxes, not technology [steve_]
Oct 18, 2012 (6:36 pm)
Hahahah; yes, a little bit, but only in terms of the ignorant amongst us. We're staring down an EPA "takeover" deadline to address winter air quality issues, and if a local/state plan to address it is not developed quite soon, they'll step in and come up with their own plan. The local populace just voted to hamstring the local government on this issue, so now the "solution" will at best come from the state.
Really, I just hate breathing the residue from folks burning tires and poorly tuned wood heating appliances. If people would internalize their stewardship responsibilities when they live in a community, this topic wouldn't even exist.
#143 of 158 Re: taxes, not technology [steve_]
Oct 18, 2012 (6:41 pm)
My area has plenty of both parking lots and paradise areas, no need for tree museums here. Constant traffic jams as well. Maybe the Joni Mitchell crowd isn't as effective as they think
#144 of 158 Answering the call
by steve_ HOST
Oct 21, 2012 (12:00 pm)
"The U.S. government has set tough fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, and Detroit's automakers couldn't be happier.
What mad world is this? The famously balky industry that once swore people could never afford cars with crazy technology like air bags has taken a leap of faith in its ability to invent and innovate.
"It's not outlandish at all to expect cars rated at 40 to 50 m.p.g. in combined driving 10 years from now."
Industry buys into fuel economy rules (Detroit Free Press)
#145 of 158 This mandate
Oct 21, 2012 (12:38 pm)
is attainable. First the tech is there for automobiles to easily reach 54mpg. Cost and profits is what is holding the industry back. Government needs to slash the cost of doing business so businesses can develop this technology at a fair price to consumers. Who would have thought you would be seeing as high as 35MPG out of a family size sedan? I am all for these mandates, but government has got to release some of its hold on business. These kind of MPG ratings will give the U.S. its freedom from the middle east, cleaner air, cleaner waters ect.. It is a win, win here folks.
#146 of 158 Re: Answering the call [steve_]
Oct 22, 2012 (1:03 pm)
This is the same battle that the car makers fought for years on safety equipment. That all changed once the companies figured out taht safety was a selling item.
Now, as opposed before in the days of "we can't average 25 mpg!" they realize mpg sells.
#147 of 158 Re: This mandate [cannon3]
Oct 22, 2012 (4:07 pm)
Who would have thought you would be seeing as high as 35MPG out of a family size sedan?
Funny enough, my family's 1985 Toyota Camry (a family sedan of the day) routinely returned 35 mpg. It's no wonder that when you add 1000#+ to a car that its fuel economy drops! Imagine where we'd be today if the drivetrain technology we've come up with to get our bloated vehicles around more efficiently was available with the same vehicles at half the weight?
Oh, the possibilities!
#148 of 158 Re: This mandate [xwesx]
Oct 22, 2012 (5:08 pm)
Imagine where we'd be today if the drivetrain technology we've come up with to get our bloated vehicles around more efficiently was available with the same vehicles at half the weight?
I've often wondered that myself. To use a personal example, my recently-purchased 2012 Ram Hemi got about 19.1 mpg recently on a trip up to Carlisle PA and back, which also included some local driving. In old car terms, that's probably akin to taking a 1964 Lincoln Continental and giving it the performance of a '64 GTO, an the fuel economy of a '64 slant six Valiant.
I think the '83-86 Camry is a really impressive car. It was rated as a compact at the time, but I'd consider it to be a good 4-passenger car. It doesn't have the shoulder room of something like a Plymough Caravelle, Ford LTD, or Chevy Celebrity of the era, but it definitely had adult-sized legroom and headroom.
However, my 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Camry. Its MSRP was $14,058. Adjusting for inflation, that's about $30,200 today! And it did 0-60 in 13.4 seconds, and its EPA rating at the time was 27/32, 29 combined. Adjusted to today's ratings, it's down to 23/29, 26 combined.
So, cars really have come a long way, in spite of the added bulk. But, it does make you wonder...if they took a 1985 Camry and gave it all the drivetrain improvements, but kept the bulk to a minimum, just how far advanced the fuel economy and performance would be.