|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
You are accusing someone else of elitism? That's classic. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Emission Control By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:20 PM PT Regulation: The administration announced Tuesday that it wants to increase car mileage standards. That will cause an inevitable increase in carnage on our highways, and could kill a car company or two. Washington began imposing fuel mileage standards on cars sold in this country in the 1970s, and the urge to regulate has not abated. Congress last reset the corporate-average fuel economy standard in 2007, passing a bill — signed by President Bush — requiring automakers to increase their fleetwide average, including minivans, SUVs and pickup trucks, to 35 mpg by 2020. That's not good enough for the White House. It announced Tuesday that it will seek regulatory authority to impose a new standard of 35.5 mpg by 2016 and, for the first time, limits (a 30% reduction) on car greenhouse gas emissions. The cost of this luxury will be steep: • An additional $1,300 per car. This makes a new car unaffordable for a large segment of the population. Many will have no choice but to keep their current poor-mileage, heavy-polluting cars on the road, defeating the purpose of the program. • Human lives. The administration is denying that the industry will have to downsize cars to meet the higher standards, but there's no way around it. Cars will have to be smaller and lighter, making them more vulnerable in crashes. In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences reported that "the downweighting and downsizing that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some of which was due to CAFE standards, probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993." The CAFE standard in 1978 was 18 mpg, roughly half of what the White House wants to require beginning with the 2016 models. How much deadlier will the new cars be? Sadly, we'll soon see. • The existence of at least one U.S. carmaker. Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told us the research-and-development costs for building a fleet that can meet the mileage and emissions requirements will be such a burden that one of the three domestic automakers, which are in failing financial health, might not survive. Supporters of the harsher standards like to point out that the industry would rather have a single federal standard for greenhouse gas emissions than a patchwork of state standards. (California has tried to establish its own greenhouse gas limits.) That might be so. But as Kazman says, all carmakers are doing is asking for one noose around their necks rather than several. With this initiative, Washington is yet again trying to force a solution for problems that don't exist — or wouldn't if government would get out of the way. What's the value of saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the program, as the administration claims the standards will? By simply opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to the drill, we would have more far more than that in the pipeline. A U.S. Geological Survey estimate indicates that ANWR could hold as much as 17 billion barrels of recoverable oil. And what are the benefits of removing 900 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air? This is a useless exercise. Carbon is a naturally occurring element and a weak greenhouse gas. Man contributes less than 4% of the total volume of CO2, which itself makes up just 0.038% of the atmosphere. It's a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction. Americans don't need their government dictating what kind of vehicles they'll drive. Yet Washington is busy taking over automakers and imposing its will on car design. Eventually, every car made in Detroit will have only Reverse and no Drive in its transmission to reflect government's forced direction on the industry. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=327625607353796
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Report Shows Air Quality Improved During Bush Administration A recent report from a Washington think tank shows that levels of numerous gases linked with air pollution, like carbon monoxide, have fallen off since 2001 and air quality in the U.S. has improved significantly over the last decade. By James Osborne Wednesday, May 20, 2009 As the Obama administration considers further steps to fight air pollution, a recent report from a Washington think tank shows that air quality in the United States has improved significantly over the last decade. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research analyzed data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and concluded that levels of numerous gases linked with air pollution have fallen off since 2001. Among the findings: Carbon monoxide decreased by 39 percent, ozone by 6 percent, and sulfur dioxide by 32 percent. "Pick any category you want and pollution levels are generally lower than they were seven years ago," said Steven Hayward, the policy analyst who authored the report, titled "Index of Leading Environmental Indicators," for the conservative think tank. "(Environmental groups) said air pollution was out of control, but this was always more about politics than it was fact," Hayward said. Environmental groups agree that tremendous progress has been made since the 1980s, when cities like Houston and Los Angeles were thick with smog and acid rain devastated lakes and forests across the U.S. But they add that the progress reflects "strong legislation," and they say the nation needs more of it. "The reason we've had success over the last 40 years is because strong laws like the Clean Air Act work on pollution," said John Walke, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "But we have a long way to go. We've learned more. The science is better today than it was in 1980 or 1990. We now know we need stronger definitions of clean air to truly protect Americans. "Over 150 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air," Walke said. "If we can pass effective laws, we can reduce the problem." In an e-mailed statement, the EPA said that it has seen success by a number of measures, but there are still key areas of the country "not meeting EPA's air quality standards." President George W. Bush drew the ire of environmental groups throughout his eight years in the White House, perhaps the loudest in 2003 when he announced that he would end a Clean Air Act program that required older power plants, refineries and industrial sites to install pollution control devices when they expanded their operations. But in looking over the data on air quality from the Bush years, Hayward notes that levels of most air pollutants decreased at a faster rate than they did during the Clinton administration. "Mostly of it's technological change. Quite a bit of it's been forced by regulation, but a lot of it has been the marketplace," Hayward said. "The EPA has models that project an 80 percent decline in auto emissions. Nothing Bush could have done was going to change that." Responding to Hayward's report, the EPA said it did not correlate drops in pollution levels to specific presidential decisions. "Air quality regulations and progress overlap administrations," the agency said in a statement. "For example, ozone reductions that began in the East in 2004 resulted from a rule the agency issued in 1998." Jeff Holmsted, a high-ranking official at the EPA from 2001-2005 and now an attorney with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, acknowledged that the decrease in air pollution over the last eight years owes much to efforts of past administrations. But he called the statistics a vindication of Bush's environmental policy, which he said did away with cumbersome regulations while still protecting the environment. "I think among people who actually understand how the regulatory process works, they, in private, would acknowledge that we accomplished a lot," Holmsted said. Hayward began putting out his annual report in 1994 due to what he called "the lack of unity on environmental responsibility in this country." Every year he combs through EPA data to present what he believes is a more comprehensive portrait of the state of the environment than what the mainstream media have provided following events like the grounding of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker in 1989. "Species extinction or nutrient run off from the Mississippi basin, these are big issues that get very little coverage," Hayward said. "It isn't a big catastrophe like a tanker crashing or a hurricane." Hayward says his biggest gripe is the amount of media coverage given over to global warming. He acknowledges that carbon dioxide levels are increasing in the earth's atmosphere, but he says there are gaps in global warming data, such as a recent trend toward cooler temperatures. "We had temperature increases for two-and-a-half decades, but it suddenly seemed to switch a few years ago," Hayward said. "It might just be noise, but a lot longer and we'll have to think about it." That might rub against the grain of environmentalists like Walke, who say the science behind global warming has improved dramatically over the last five years. But for Hayward, the number of people that believe something is no indication that it's correct. "If you look at survey data, what you find is three quarters of Americans think environmental quality is getting worse, but at the same time they tend to think their neighborhoods are getting better," he said. "People just don't have all the information." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/...administration/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
• An additional $1,300 per car. This makes a new car unaffordable for a large segment of the population. Many will have no choice but to keep their current poor-mileage, heavy-polluting cars on the road, defeating the purpose of the program.
Because $1300 is a lot? When I see quite a few very young people driving Lexuses, Cadillacs, and other not so inexpensive cars. In fact I see very few basic inexpensive stripped down models on the roads.
Quote:
• Human lives. The administration is denying that the industry will have to downsize cars to meet the higher standards, but there's no way around it. Cars will have to be smaller and lighter, making them more vulnerable in crashes.
With all the safety standards and features, I don't think size is all that much of a factor. You get hit by a semi doing 55, it's going to hurt whether your in a Yugo or an SUV.
Quote:
In 2002 the National Academy of Sciences reported that "the downweighting and downsizing that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some of which was due to CAFE standards, probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."
Wouldn't have anything to do with thousands more cars and drivers on the road in that 15 years?
Quote:
The CAFE standard in 1978 was 18 mpg, roughly half of what the White House wants to require beginning with the 2016 models. How much deadlier will the new cars be? Sadly, we'll soon see.
By this thinking, cars in the 1930's were safer than cars in the 70's?
When you consider that a small fraction of car accidents are even fatal, and in many of those even being in a bigger car may not have helped any. Most traffic fatalities are the result of not using the safety devices provided.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
CAFE Obama -- Proposed Mileage Standards Would Kill More Americans than Iraq War Tuesday, May 19, 2009 By Steve Milloy The Obama administration’s proposed mileage standards that will be announced today may kill more Americans at a faster rate than the Iraq War — his signature issue in the 2008 presidential campaign. Obama’s standards will require automakers to meet a 35 miles-per-gallon standard by 2016 — four years earlier than the same standard imposed by the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007. As discussed in my new book “Green Hell,” the only way for carmakers to meet these standards is to make smaller, lighter and deadlier cars. The National Academy of Sciences has linked mileage standards with about 2,000 deaths per year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that every 100-pound reduction in the weight of small cars increases annual traffic fatalities by as much as 715. In contrast in the more than six years since the Iraq war began, there have been 4,296 deaths among American military personnel. And what will be gained by the new mileage standards? The Natural Resources Defense Council said that the 35 MPG standard would save about one million gallons of gas per day. So how does that savings balance against the 2,000 fatalities per year that the National Academy of Sciences says are caused by those same lighter cars? For the sake of being utilitarian, let’s generously assume that the mileage standards reduced the price of gasoline by $1. That would translate to daily savings of $1 million. Is that savings worth killing more than five people per day, plus other non-fatal injuries and property damage? The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – for the purposes of risk assessment – values a single human life at $6.9 million dollars. So under the new mileage standards, it would cost about $35 million per day in human lives (not including non-fatal injuries) to save $1 million in gas. There’s also another lesson hidden in the proposed standards — one that applies to businesses trying to game global warming legislation. Carmakers lobbied hard against overly stringent mileage standards in the 2007 energy bill, finally negotiating with Congress a compromise standard they thought they at least had a chance to meet. President Obama has now pulled the rug out from under the carmakers and their 2007 deal. This ought to serve as a lesson for businesses trying to negotiate a climate deal they think (hope) they can survive. Rest assured that as soon as business groups agree to a climate deal, the greens and the Obama administration will go to work the next day figuring out ways to bulldoze the deal in order to make greenhouse gas limitations more stringent and more expensive. Businesses often operate under the mis-impression that they can cut lasting win-win, compromises with environmental groups on public policy. But such dealing is an impossibility since the greens are ideologically driven and won’t be happy until capitalism is stamped out. The greens are not interested in compromise. Like blood in the water to sharks, compromise by businesses signals its weakness and vulnerability, and, therefore, opportunity for the greens. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48340
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,845
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,845 |
Quote:
As discussed in my new book “Green Hell,” the only way for carmakers to meet these standards is to make smaller, lighter and deadlier cars.
The National Academy of Sciences has linked mileage standards with about 2,000 deaths per year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that every 100-pound reduction in the weight of small cars increases annual traffic fatalities by as much as 715.
Well since we do not know what else the National Academy of Sciences report, lets look at the basic premis of the article which is to make these standards, it will mean lighter and so called deadlier cars. NOW THAT IS JUST FLAT OUT WRONG! The auto industry has made great strides for safer and more fuel efficient cars when pushed into it. Now the US car buyer will usually go for these cars, IF they are styled correctly and are efficient. Other car makers are doing it, why can't we?? As far as the rest of the article, it goes down the anti-green, it will hurt business path so there went 50% of the article right there!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
I love this kind of stuff.... Who am I to criticize IBD for calling a lighter more fuel efficient vehicle a luxury? I guess they are correct in the fact that 3 percent change, which will be recouped in fuel savings is a terrible burden to place on people. And now IBD is concerned about the cost of human lives? where were they when their columns were complaining about the cost of air bags? IBD suggests that 1 of 3 of the car companies might not survive. Right now it is 2 of 3 so using that "logic" we are saving one of the companies. In fact, if you look at the reality of the situation, a new car format is one of the few things that could help the US auto industry by balancing the playing field that were focusing on the market segment that the US automakers gave up on. Perhaps the funniest concept of all. Quote:
With this initiative, Washington is yet again trying to force a solution for problems that don't exist — or wouldn't if government would get out of the way.
IBD clearly stuck its head in the sand on this one. The issue is that the US imports 70 percent of oil. and 35 percent of the oil comes from nations that are politically or culturally unfriendly. Has any discussed the concept of balance of trade recently. A significant portion of the money that we earn is being shipped overseas to buy oil.
We can look at the ANWR statement and the denial of global warming to understand where IBD is coming from.
Drill Baby Drill.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
j/c
I watched some idiot try to maneuver his Hummer through a suburban shopping center parking lot today and get stuck. Caused a giant logjam and everyone spent the next ten minutes trying to wiggle around so this idiot's proof that his penis isn't small could get out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
Quote:
Among the findings: Carbon monoxide decreased by 39 percent, ozone by 6 percent, and sulfur dioxide by 32 percent.
"Pick any category you want and pollution levels are generally lower than they were seven years ago," said Steven Hayward, the policy analyst who authored the report, titled "Index of Leading Environmental Indicators," for the conservative think tank.
"(Environmental groups) said air pollution was out of control, but this was always more about politics than it was fact," Hayward said.
Environmental groups agree that tremendous progress has been made since the 1980s, when cities like Houston and Los Angeles were thick with smog and acid rain devastated lakes and forests across the U.S.
But they add that the progress reflects "strong legislation," and they say the nation needs more of it.
"The reason we've had success over the last 40 years is because strong laws like the Clean Air Act work on pollution," said John Walke, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Most people do not realize that the 2 most singificant pieces of legislation to have been passed since 1970 are the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
This country would not be in the position that it is in today if it was not for this legislation.
I have problems with the NRDC, they are a far left organization. California has unique problems with environmental protection. But the fact is that the US has made significant progress on cleaning up its air and water, and we are all better for the change.
CO reduction is a direct result of improved car engines. SO2 has been reduced by changing diesel fuel and gas stack scrubbers. Ozone, well we know about the change in CFC's.
Cause and effect. It is as simple as that.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
So, if my employees drive an electric car 30 miles to work and have to recharge it during the day, who pays for that? I can tell you who WON'T be paying. 
Not too long ago you were bitching about having to pay your employees minimum wage, I doubt any of them are communting 30 miles to get minimum wage.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
You have no right to complain...I see your sig.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
Not too long ago you were bitching about having to pay your employees minimum wage, I doubt any of them are communting 30 miles to get minimum wage.
Doesn't anyone read around here??  And, no, the one that commutes 30 miles makes more than minimum wage. But thanks for taking the cheap shot. You must be taking lessons from an absent poster.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
Quote:
Not too long ago you were bitching about having to pay your employees minimum wage, I doubt any of them are communting 30 miles to get minimum wage.
Doesn't anyone read around here?? And, no, the one that commutes 30 miles makes more than minimum wage. But thanks for taking the cheap shot. You must be taking lessons from an absent poster.
Well i am not sure who the absent poster is but if they are absent how am I taking lessons from them? I didnt really mean it as a cheap shot but reading it now I can see how it could be taken that way, so I apologize.
I am sure something fair and reasonable could be worked out with the person who commutes 30 miles to work for you. I am sure they would be more than happy to give you a couple bucks for electricity a day compared to the $15 to $20 a day they are spending on gas now.
I have heard that the new plug in hybrids coming out are supposed to get 40 miles before they need to use their gas motors to recharge batteries. I wonder what the charge time on those are supposed to be, and I wonder what the cost would be to recharge those batteries? If electric cars become prevalent I think where people are plugging in could become a major issue. I could see people getting charged for plugging their cars in and basically stealing electricity, sort of like people stealing internet service.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I am sure they would be more than happy to give you a couple bucks for electricity a day compared to the $15 to $20 a day they are spending on gas now.
60 miles round trip at 20 mpg equals 3 gallons at about $2 per gallon equals $6.... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Quote:
Not too long ago you were bitching about having to pay your employees minimum wage, I doubt any of them are communting 30 miles to get minimum wage.
But thanks for taking the cheap shot. You must be taking lessons from an absent poster.
At least he did it to your face for once. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
I am sure they would be more than happy to give you a couple bucks for electricity a day compared to the $15 to $20 a day they are spending on gas now.
Do you only get 2 miles per gallon??  If so, you need a new ride.
Here's what I want to know about these "new" cars...what will we do with all the "old" ones? Will I face a fine because I keep my gasser?
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
Quote:
I am sure they would be more than happy to give you a couple bucks for electricity a day compared to the $15 to $20 a day they are spending on gas now.
60 miles round trip at 20 mpg equals 3 gallons at about $2 per gallon equals $6....
Oh fine pull the math card on me I guess I was thinking of last summer when gas was $4 I had it figured that it was costing me $20 to $24 to drive from here in Rootstown to work in Cleveland everyday when I drove my Grand Cheerokee. Needless to say, I rode my motorcycle to work as much as possible last summer 
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not too long ago you were bitching about having to pay your employees minimum wage, I doubt any of them are communting 30 miles to get minimum wage.
But thanks for taking the cheap shot. You must be taking lessons from an absent poster.
At least he did it to your face for once.
Can you ever gow up and let things go? Or do you just enjoy beating a dead horse? But I am sure you have never said anything about anybody in a PM.
It has been so long ago, and I believe it was on the original board that i dont even really remeber the details. Depite that fact I have apologized for it several times so just get over it. I apologized this time for taking a cheap shot even though I didnt really mean to also. Just let it go Jules.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
Quote:
I am sure they would be more than happy to give you a couple bucks for electricity a day compared to the $15 to $20 a day they are spending on gas now.
Do you only get 2 miles per gallon?? If so, you need a new ride.
Here's what I want to know about these "new" cars...what will we do with all the "old" ones? Will I face a fine because I keep my gasser?
I dont think you will get fined but I think they are going to make it easier and more affordable to get fuel efficient vehicles. I am thinking that the gas guzzlers will go the way of cars that require leaded gasoline. There will still be some out there that have them but after time goes by they will be too bothersome to have except for maybe some racers and collectors.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I dont think you will get fined but I think they are going to make it easier and more affordable to get fuel efficient vehicles. I am thinking that the gas guzzlers will go the way of cars that require leaded gasoline. There will still be some out there that have them but after time goes by they will be too bothersome to have except for maybe some racers and collectors.
I have no doubts that eventually they will change over.. and as long as they are being replaced with something I can live with, I have no problem with that. I think most people understand that at some point, the better option is going to be a hybrid or some alternate fuel vehicle.. I just think most people don't want the government telling them when that time is.
I do fully anticipate that if the change over takes longer than they hope, eventually there will be some kind of surtax to register an non-government sanctioned car...
And oh by the way, I can't wait to watch NASCAR with hybrids.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
And oh by the way, I can't wait to watch NASCAR with hybrids.
"Gentleman,Start You Engines!!" would not quite be the same
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Hope they make something sturdy enough to tow my 8000 pound travel trailer.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
Control of banking system: check
Control of Auto Industry: check
Control of American Business Administration: In Progress
Control of Freedom of Speech: In progress
Total control of American Economic and Financial system: Going to happen.
Way to go Obama, you wanna help the auto industry? Force them to make new models that are way too expensive for most Americans to buy. But hey, we'll just take another $ 3 trillion we don't have and bail out the companies that the government handicapped. And then take another $10 trillion for "government backed auto loans" so everyone, regardless of credit, income, or legality can buy a new car and then not repay any of the loan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Control of banking system: check
Control of Auto Industry: check
Control of American Business Administration: In Progress
Control of Freedom of Speech: In progress
Total control of American Economic and Financial system: Going to happen.
None of this is true...in reality, it's worse than that.
Those industries are in control of themselves...only we're footing the bill.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Hope they make something sturdy enough to tow my 8000 pound travel trailer.
No worries, the below setup will work fine. I'm selling my diesel Excursion so I can pickup a much more fuel efficient small SUV to tow my 24ft enclosed car hauler, as this setup looks very, very safe.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Yeah, I've seen that!  I seriously hope someone was just messing around and that isn't REALLY how they tow the fiver.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
Quote:
lets look at the basic premis of the article which is to make these standards, it will mean lighter and so called deadlier cars. NOW THAT IS JUST FLAT OUT WRONG! The auto industry has made great strides for safer and more fuel efficient cars
It's a simple fact that when passengers in a 5-star 3,000 pound vehicle get into a crash with a 3-star 7,000 pound vehicle it's the lighter car (and passengers) that suffer the most damage.
After you boil everything else down the safest vehicles are the heaviest vehicles. Physics isn't politicly correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
The notion that these smaller lighter cars will be just as safe is based on the premise that EVERYBODY WILL HAVE ONE. If you hit a Prius with a Prius, they are probably right... if you hit a Prius with an Expedition, they are probably not right.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
The notion that these smaller lighter cars will be just as safe is based on the premise that EVERYBODY WILL HAVE ONE. If you hit a Prius with a Prius, they are probably right... if you hit a Prius with an Expedition, they are probably not right.
you don't hit a Prius with an Expedition....you flatten it. think of it as a collapsing speed bump.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Well, the Prius better not scratch my undercarriage.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
I'm torn on this whole thing. On one hand, I don't want to be told what I can and cannot drive. I like my Grand Prix GT and I wasn't kidding in the speed limit thread when I said that I'm slowing down to 80 for anybody... I like to drive the way I like to drive and that is really fast, and I am anything but fuel-efficient in doing so. The flip side is a number of things: - The Gov't has been setting automotive standards for decades, this is no different... they're just finally actually getting serious about fuel economy, something that has always been given lipservice, but never has had anything substantial and binding.
- Oil is at the heart of our National Security, anything that helps reduce foreign oil dependence is a big boost to us
- As long as gasoline is affordable, there is absolutely zero chance that the American markets will shift to smaller, more efficient vehicles without some other form of prodding.
If anything, what REALLY annoys me is the littany of things they talk about in the article that increase efficiency that SHOULD be in every vehicle for the last several decades, but hasn't been... like all of the steering and pumps and stuff being electric instead of tied to and powered directly by the motor. THOSE things should not just now be coming to market, those things should have been in place for a LONG, LONG time already.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
As long as gasoline is affordable, there is absolutely zero chance that the American markets will shift to smaller, more efficient vehicles without some other form of prodding.
Not true. Some segment of the market has already switched.. haven't you looked around while driving? There are a lot of people driving more fuel efficient vehicles...
The problem is that there is still the truck/big SUV/muscle car group that will go kicking and screaming even if gas is $5 a gallon...
Me personally, I'm spoiled. I will switch when they built the car that I want to drive and make it more fuel efficient.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
i think there just trying to save us all a buck, so they can tax us more for gas 
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
The problem is that there is still the truck/big SUV/muscle car group that will go kicking and screaming even if gas is $5 a gallon...
I like my muscle car.
I'd go electric if the kit was affordable. http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/112_news050712_electric_muscle/index.html
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,678
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,678 |
The gas guzzler tax will be increased and the cars it is applied to will be widened.
Pretty soon anything over 4 cyl, will be considered a gas guzzler.
Who made that crappy 3cyl car.....Yougo or was it some Chevy model??
To start hitting the fleet numbers, we will probably see a 2 stroke engine being entered to the market.
I wonder if all the limo's lugging these people around Washington get even 14 MPG??
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Who made that crappy 3cyl car.....Yougo or was it some Chevy model??
Citroen made one in the 50's I think,, but I'm pretty sure that's not what your speaking of..
You may be right about anything over a 4 cylinder would be taxed as a guzzler,, But as of right now, we have the technology to put a 4 banger in a car that will fly... so in the future, I'm guessing that a 4 cylinder high performance engine that can kick butt isn't impossible..
Technology will only take us so far, but it's a hell of a start..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
Quote:
To start hitting the fleet numbers, we will probably see a 2 stroke engine being entered to the market.
Maybe I'm wrong, but don't 2-strokes get worse milage than 4-strokes? I know for sure that in off road bikes and boats that's that case - and by 20-30% or more.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
Quote:
The notion that these smaller lighter cars will be just as safe is based on the premise that EVERYBODY WILL HAVE ONE. If you hit a Prius with a Prius, they are probably right... if you hit a Prius with an Expedition, they are probably not right.
You're absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the reality is that we share the roads with bread trucks, beer trucks, plumbers in big vans, pick ups, and so on. Unless we're creating an entire new highway system for these light weight vehicles the bigs and littles are going to interact - with the littles taking the worst of it.
That doesn't even take into consideration things like deer, dogs, debris, and all the other strange things that periodicly collide with cars.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
To start hitting the fleet numbers, we will probably see a 2 stroke engine being entered to the market.
Do you mean 2 cylinder? 2 stroke motors are being banned in off road vehicles because of their high pollution output. If you have a later model 2 stroke dirt bike the sales prices are going up because they are not manufacturing them anymore so people are trying to buy up the used ones before they are all gone. 4 strokes give you better high end speed and do burn less fuel but they do not have the low end torque that a two stroke does.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
All I know for sure is that this change was a long time coming.. had the American Auto makers set thier sights on this in a more meaningful way back in the 70's, They'd probably be in better shape then they are now and so would our eco system..
Unless of course any of you are like that Texas senator... what's his name,, the one that thinks the entire global warming thing isn't real...
Even then, you have the undeniable issue of us being so Dependent on Oil from the Middle East and South America.
So something like this eventually had to happen.. I want to think of these changes as if it's a step more forward towards the Jetsons rather than a step back towards the Flintstones....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Obama's new rules will transform
US auto fleet
|
|
