Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Car industry warns that Obamafuel regulations will make cars unaffordable and destroy America. Much in the same way that safety glass, seatbelt, airbag, and crumple zone regulations have done in the past   (foxnews.com) divider line 169
    More: Scary, Obamafuel, obama, fuel economy in automobiles, automakers, seat belts, National Automobile Dealers Association, gas guzzlers, franchise  
•       •       •

2088 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Jul 2012 at 2:19 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-30 03:06:45 PM  

wildcardjack: I'd rather modern cars be safe without fanfare.


What does this mean?

palelizard: Possible, but I'm not 100% certain.


I'm not 100% certain, either. But I do think it would be more difficult, especially if it wasn't on the heels of a program like TARP.
 
2012-07-30 03:07:02 PM  
Let's just all work together to pass a bill to force Land Rover to sell the new D90s in the US.

/not sure what this thread is about
 
2012-07-30 03:07:28 PM  

brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?


I understand that the plural of anecdote is not data, but here's mine anyway. In 2007, I went into a mechanic for a sales call. I was shooting the breeze with him, and he mentioned he was working on a test car as part of a fuel efficiency study. With off-the-shelf parts, he was trying to get the Chevy Volt to the highest MPG he possibly could. I had heard about the Volt and (unsubstantiated) claims that it could get 100 mpg, so I was expecting a response of around that. He said he could get it over 200 mpg without any modifications beyond swapping out parts. Obviously, he was using the concept car and not the production vehicle, but still, that is a helluva difference. I would love a 100+ mpg car. I would buy it newish, if I knew over its life, I would spend less than a third of what I currently do on gas.

//Does it run on water?
 
2012-07-30 03:09:13 PM  
I've heard tape of Detroit executives warning back in the late 50's that government threats to require seat belts would destroy the American automobile industry. Pretty sure there was also something along the lines of, "You know where else they require seat belts? In the Soviet Union."
 
2012-07-30 03:09:41 PM  

roc6783: brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?

I understand that the plural of anecdote is not data, but here's mine anyway. In 2007, I went into a mechanic for a sales call. I was shooting the breeze with him, and he mentioned he was working on a test car as part of a fuel efficiency study. With off-the-shelf parts, he was trying to get the Chevy Volt to the highest MPG he possibly could. I had heard about the Volt and (unsubstantiated) claims that it could get 100 mpg, so I was expecting a response of around that. He said he could get it over 200 mpg without any modifications beyond swapping out parts. Obviously, he was using the concept car and not the production vehicle, but still, that is a helluva difference. I would love a 100+ mpg car. I would buy it newish, if I knew over its life, I would spend less than a third of what I currently do on gas.

//Does it run on water?


Why isn't he selling conversions for tons of money? A six- or seven-fold increase in fuel efficiency would be worth a lot of money to people, myself included.
 
2012-07-30 03:13:01 PM  

Elzar: When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?


Unfortunately diesel has a bad reputation here for whatever reason. Probably partly because diesel is priced higher in the US in most places. Math is hard so people don't realize they actually pay less when you factor in the mileage.

My Jetta TDI gets about 37 city and 44 highway. Even though diesel is more expensive I actually save $10 per fill-up opposed to my wife's Honda Accord which gets ok mileage.

(The math on that: I go 500 miles plus on the 14 gallon tank where the Accord manages about 25 city / 33 highway, so about 350 miles plus. With the cost difference in gas I average about $7 more for a full tank (between .30 and .50 more per gallon of diesel) but at $3.30 that 150 miles for gas in the Accord would be about $17)
 
2012-07-30 03:14:51 PM  
Don't forget catalytic converters, subby.
 
2012-07-30 03:15:34 PM  

GameSprocket: I posted a source for my information. Where is yours?


You need a citation for "supply and demand?"

/Derp.
 
2012-07-30 03:15:43 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

Thanks, Mister Preznit!


any cash for clunkers car is 3 years old now. I'm not saying that's old, but it's where the 'good' used car market generally begins. If you want, you can buy my car I bought under cash for clunkers. As it is, the resale value is about what I paid for it with all the cash for clunkers incentives. Seemed to work fine to me.
 
2012-07-30 03:16:22 PM  
I dunno. I think I'd rather pay 3.00 a gallon and get 35 mpg than pay 8 dollars a gallon and get 50 mpg.

What? Where do think the gubment is going to get their tax dollars? At 54 mpg, road and gas tax revenues will nose dive.
 
2012-07-30 03:18:14 PM  

Magorn: GoodyearPimp: HotWingConspiracy: HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

I haven't noticed a lack of options.

Is this really a thing? Or are people just wistfully recalling the halcyon days when used cars were only a nickle? You know, before Brikabrak Hoosegow Oface took over.

I can only go based on anecdotal evidence, but quality used cars have a price premium these days. Any good values are bought quickly, leaving repaired, overmileage, and overpriced heaps. That said, Cash for Clunkers was a failure due to the industry (read: Republicans) getting heir mitts on it and making the qualifications stupid and laughable.

Idea: Get the people driving huge 70-80s gas guzzlers over "the hump" by incentivizing their purchase of a new car. Winners: Everyone who had to look at their old rust bucket, auto manufacturers, consumers, the enviroment.

Reality: People saw free money and traded in perfectly good looking and working cars that were then, by law, permanently disabled. Winners: Greedy ass consumers that were able to trade up into the latest model of their car for cheap.


I can attest to seeing your reality by a co-worker of mine. He is a Boomer, he traded in his old truck for a new truck that got the same mpg. So, the idea of getting a gas guzzler off the road didn't happen. All that happened was he got to buy a new truck cheaper.
 
2012-07-30 03:19:18 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: GameSprocket: I posted a source for my information. Where is yours?

You need a citation for "supply and demand?"

/Derp.


I need a citation for cash for clunkers causing enough of a drain on supply to make a difference. That was the claim, correct?
 
2012-07-30 03:20:16 PM  

GameSprocket: HotIgneous Intruder: GameSprocket: I posted a source for my information. Where is yours?

You need a citation for "supply and demand?"

/Derp.

I need a citation for cash for clunkers causing enough of a drain on supply to make a difference. That was the claim, correct?


DERPTIY, DERP!
 
2012-07-30 03:23:48 PM  
The article conveniently left out why it would cost more to build or sell a fuel efficient vehicle. There is not one single word as to how designing a vehicle with better fuel economy would also make that vehicle cost more. Also, who said it would cost $3000 more? The EPA? Dealers? Manufacturers? FAIL Faux News. What a poorly written article. As far as I'm concerned the $3000 more per vehicle number is hearsay and conjecture, especially given the source.
 
2012-07-30 03:28:00 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: DERPTIY, DERP!


And contained in the first result of that search?

"When the program ran, the volume of vehicles [it took off the road] was large, but in the bigger picture, it wasn't that big," King says. "Yes, it took used vehicles off the market, but we're talking about older, higher mileage vehicles, and a lot of them were near the end of their life anyhow."

Since then, prices have come back down. Today's average wholesale price for a used car is actually $68 less than it was two years ago.

Montgomery Motors' Merriman described inventory shortages as short-lived. "I really haven't felt any of the effect of it," he says. "It slowed down some of our inventory for a month, maybe six weeks."
Link

So go derp yourself, troll.
 
2012-07-30 03:28:26 PM  
Thank FSM that I live in Canukistan. I simply love my TDI Jetta. I regularly get 36-40 mpg city and close to 60 mpg highway. Nothing like driving 1000km on a single tank of diesel. I also love to smugly laugh at American car ads where they tout their cars as being "fuel efficient".
 
2012-07-30 03:28:39 PM  
Modest HP reductions would likely do it. 268hp in a Camry is fairly impressive considering GM was selling 90hp Camaros in 1984.
 
2012-07-30 03:32:52 PM  

brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?


1. Higher weight (more safety features, more standard options)
2. Greater standard horsepower.
3. The old EPA MPG numbers were easily manipulated by manufacturers to create unrealistic MPG claims.
 
2012-07-30 03:36:33 PM  
qorkfiend:
Of course, there haven't been any advances in materials science, giving us lighter materials to offset the tons of weight added by seat belts and airbags.

Not that many advances, no.

Sure, you could make a much lighter car to hit the safety and mileage targets - but it would be made of carbon fiber and exotic composites, and would cost three or four times as much. Instead of a $25,000 Honda Civic weighing 2600 pounds, you'd have a $100,000 Honda Civic weighing 1800 pounds - and getting maybe 30% better mileage.

Modern cars are HEAVY. when compared to the old-school cars they replaced. It's not just a matter of materials - they design in crumple zones, make the doors much thicker, add reinforcement to the floors (to keep the seats from shearing loose), et cetera. They use better materials like high-end aluminum, but that can't make up that much difference. You can only add so much "lightness."

The result? Cars in the same size class, with similar capacities, tend to be 400 to 600 pounds heavier than they were just twenty years ago.

If we made cars like they used to (without the safety and emissions bits), but with modern materials (aluminum and electronics), we could put out a sub-1500 pound midsize car getting 70+ MPG - that would fold in half in any serious crash, wouldn't have air conditioning, and would be too loud to talk inside...

The problem is that most of the advances in old-school engine tech have already been made. We've more than doubled fuel efficiency per horsepower while massively improving emissions. That can't happen again without going to a whole new kind of engine tech. Hybrid is one way, but there are others...
 
2012-07-30 03:38:40 PM  

Mouldy Squid: Thank FSM that I live in Canukistan. I simply love my TDI Jetta. I regularly get 36-40 mpg city and close to 60 mpg highway. Nothing like driving 1000km on a single tank of diesel. I also love to smugly laugh at American car ads where they tout their cars as being "fuel efficient".


Hey, it takes more fuel to haul our giant asses brass balls around. Watch out or I'll drive my Hummer up there and run your ass over. Just let me check my bank account and see if I have enough gas money for the trip.
 
2012-07-30 03:38:46 PM  

Elzar: Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to do just fine with high mileage vehicles...

/ When are we going to get more of that high mpg diesel tech over here?
// The big three have always required government prodding and even then only create mediocre products.
/// fark the National Automobile Dealer's Association - they can take a pay cut like the rest of us


I don't mean this as a personal attack against you - but I'm so sick of hearing about 'the rest of the world' having better fuel efficiency. I'm a US citizen, raised and born in the US. I came to Europe expecting to reap the benefits of these ultra efficient cars. They don't exist.

No seriously.

Let me explain....

The 'MPG' rating you see on stuff - that comes from some regulator body. And they are different depending on what region you live in. The EPA in the United States has *ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONDITIONS* for their fuel tests than the EU does. This actually makes sense because driving conditions are quite a bit different too.

In some cases - a car manufacturer will sell the same car in different markets without making many changes. We're talking about THE SAME CAR and the EU will come up with very different fuel efficiency than the EPA. Here - look at this: (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#United_States )

SAME CAR
European Union (L/100 km) - 'combined' 8.9, 'urban' 12.5, 'extra-urban' 6.9[22]
United States (L/100 km) - 'combined' 9.8, 'city' 11.2, 'highway' 8.1[23]

8.9 L/100km verse 9.8 L/100km. This is the same car - only tested under different conditions. The US conditions are less favourable than the EU test. They drive slower during the test. The result is it takes LESS GAS to go 100km in the EU test. BUT IT'S BULLCRAP! It's the same car.

But that's the rare exception. Most cars aren't sold in the US and in Europe. In Europe - you get the tiny version of the same car. Cars here are significantly smaller. As a result, average fuel efficiency goes up. Not because of better technology.....but because smaller vehicles need less gas. This is not complicated. You can buy a clown car in the US too - but Americans don't want to. And, the vast majority of cars here are manuals - which again - helps the fuel numbers but really don't indicate any difference. Americans prefer their automatics.

You'd think that'd be enough - right? But no - there is more.

When people talk about MPG - miles per gallon - guess what? GALLON is not the same in the UK and the US. No seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon

The 'imperial gallon' is used in the UK - (≈ 4.546 L)
The 'US gallon' is used in the US - (≈ 3.79 L)

To summarize....

EVEN WITH IDENTICAL CARS
The MPG will be higher in 'the rest of the world' because they use different standards in their fuel testing and because their measure of 'gallon' actually includes more gas than the American car.

When Comparing Average Cars
Both of the above are still true *AND* the average American car is significantly larger, heavier, more likely to be an automatic, and more likely to include energy wasting features like power windows.
 
2012-07-30 03:42:42 PM  

Leopold Stotch: These are all significantly better than a Cavalier/Cobolt:
Chevrolet Cruze (26 city, 38 hwy, 30 combined)
Chevrolet Malibu (22 city, 33 hwy, 26 combined)
Chevrolet Sonic (29 cith, 40 hwy, 33 combined)


Sad, I have a 2-ton van (that's 3850 lbs payload) that gets 27 mpg. Yes, it is a diesel and yes, I purchased it in the USA.
 
2012-07-30 03:46:14 PM  

natazha: 27 mpg. Yes, it is a diesel and yes, I purchased it in the USA.


And thus why newer diesels are EPA required to use DEF. We can't have lots of regular folks driving up diesel prices on businesses and military.
 
2012-07-30 03:48:05 PM  

StrikitRich: Don't count on getting a high efficiency diesel in the US. Volkswagen can build them in the US, they just can't sell them. Too much lost fuel tax revenue. Link


Oi, how many times must we go over this?

I'm all about fuel efficiency (I drive a Fiat) and using less oil, but the author -- like most authors of green sites run by people who don't know shiat about cars -- is an idiot. The VW gets 68 mpg on the European cycle. The EPA cycle adjusts the figures downward to take account of real world driving. The European cycle is a fairy tale. In the American cycle, that 68 mpg is less than 50 mpg.

You can get that in a farking Prius now, and it'll probably cost you a hell of a lot less.

Or you could buy a Yaris, Sonic, 500, Fit, or any number of other cars that'll get good enough mileage that you won't be able to justify paying $10k for a moderately more efficient VW fire hazard.
 
2012-07-30 03:58:46 PM  

beta_plus: Obama did destroy the American car industry, but not this way. In conjunction with Bush, he bailed out the UAW.

/funny how GM makes great cars in China and Germany
//guess what those two countries don't have?
///nope, not unions - look at Germany


50 years worth of mathematically faulty Gage R&R studies?

A mindset that they "meet requirements" in lieu of "delivering a desirable product to market"?

A completely unworkable method of statistical process control?

Cause those issues are plaguing US Manufacturing in general, and most of those paradigms originated at GM during world war two, while this guy was overseas being worshiped as a living god and bringing Japan into its own as a manufacturing powerhouse.

We still use Gage R&R studies here in the US that calmly ignore things like the Pythagorean farking Theorem by making statements like "Percentage Contributions to Error will not add up to 100%."
 
2012-07-30 03:59:00 PM  
Never mind the fact that the standards have been raised since Carter was in the White House & we had the 70s gas shortage.

Faux News is Faux.
 
2012-07-30 04:04:16 PM  

M-G: Considering the automakers are fine with the new regs, the dealers can suck it.


Nah, car dealers will adapt. They'll inflate the price, pointing to the long-term gas savings.
 
2012-07-30 04:06:58 PM  
But my motorcycles will still be okay, right?
 
2012-07-30 04:18:49 PM  

qorkfiend: In 2007, I went into a mechanic for a sales call. I was shooting the breeze with him, and he mentioned he was working on a test car as part of a fuel efficiency study. With off-the-shelf parts, he was trying to get the Chevy Volt to the highest MPG he possibly could. I had heard about the Volt and (unsubstantiated) claims that it could get 100 mpg, so I was expecting a response of around that. He said he could get it over 200 mpg without any modifications beyond swapping out parts. Obviously, he was using the concept car and not the production vehicle, but still, that is a helluva difference. I would love a 100+ mpg car. I would buy it newish, if I knew over its life, I would spend less than a third of what I currently do on gas.

//Does it run on water?

Why isn't he selling conversions for tons of money? A six- or seven-fold increase in fuel efficiency would be worth a lot of money to people, myself included.


The "100" isn't "mpg" it's mpge, the "e" stands for equivalent, because the car can get energy either from the gasoline or from being plugged in in your garage. The "100 mpge" (actually somewhere lower, if I remember correctly, but not really important to this point) is using sorta-familiar but imprecise energy terminology, but it means a combination of both electrical and gasoline consumption. So they use "mpge". And the Volt *is* very efficient. How much energy you use depends on how far or often you drive. If you drive less than 40 miles at a time, you might hardly ever need gasoline at all. (infinite miles per gallon of gas! ...ha, not really)

Also: doubling the 'mpge' from 100 to 200 isn't a very big increase, actually. If you're getting 100 mpge, you might spend $10 a month on gas. At 200 mpge, $5 a month. So how much is saving $5 a month worth? ...It should be worth $5 or less. So unless the mechanic is just having a fun experiment for his own purposes, there's little economic gain.

You want to have some really easy fuel economy gains? Improve the fuel economy of a large SUV. A gain from 8 mpg to 10 mpg is huge.
 
2012-07-30 04:24:40 PM  

StopLurkListen: qorkfiend: In 2007, I went into a mechanic for a sales call. I was shooting the breeze with him, and he mentioned he was working on a test car as part of a fuel efficiency study. With off-the-shelf parts, he was trying to get the Chevy Volt to the highest MPG he possibly could. I had heard about the Volt and (unsubstantiated) claims that it could get 100 mpg, so I was expecting a response of around that. He said he could get it over 200 mpg without any modifications beyond swapping out parts. Obviously, he was using the concept car and not the production vehicle, but still, that is a helluva difference. I would love a 100+ mpg car. I would buy it newish, if I knew over its life, I would spend less than a third of what I currently do on gas.

//Does it run on water?

Why isn't he selling conversions for tons of money? A six- or seven-fold increase in fuel efficiency would be worth a lot of money to people, myself included.

The "100" isn't "mpg" it's mpge, the "e" stands for equivalent, because the car can get energy either from the gasoline or from being plugged in in your garage. The "100 mpge" (actually somewhere lower, if I remember correctly, but not really important to this point) is using sorta-familiar but imprecise energy terminology, but it means a combination of both electrical and gasoline consumption. So they use "mpge". And the Volt *is* very efficient. How much energy you use depends on how far or often you drive. If you drive less than 40 miles at a time, you might hardly ever need gasoline at all. (infinite miles per gallon of gas! ...ha, not really)

Also: doubling the 'mpge' from 100 to 200 isn't a very big increase, actually. If you're getting 100 mpge, you might spend $10 a month on gas. At 200 mpge, $5 a month. So how much is saving $5 a month worth? ...It should be worth $5 or less. So unless the mechanic is just having a fun experiment for his own purposes, there's little economic gain.

You want to have some really easy fuel economy g ...


Well, that would explain it. Makes sense.
 
2012-07-30 04:45:49 PM  
I'm waiting on tire tech personally. It hasn't changed much in the last 10+ years, yet prices are ridiculous! We have fancy new materials and equipment, why isn't there a tough LT rated tire that doesn't weight gobs more than the P rated counterpart?
 
2012-07-30 04:47:27 PM  

Leopold Stotch: Chevrolet Malibu (22 city, 33 hwy, 26 combined)


I will say though that the Malibu that both my mother and brother drive (mom got one, he loved it, he bought one) are rather large, roomy cars. Being a bigger guy I fit into it beautifully. It rides nicely and is very comfortable. It's not a pain on long rides, which we do frequently.
 
2012-07-30 05:06:34 PM  

Karac: I just happen to have a link to a great video: A 1959 Bel-Air tailfinned tank in a head to head crash against a 2009 chevy malibu. The malibu does fairly decently for a car oppressed by burdensome government regulations that increase mileage at the cost of driver safety. By which I mean the malibu test dummy bounced off his airbag while the Bel-Air's ended up partially in the trunk.


That video is seriously misleading. The bel-air has no engine in it.
 
2012-07-30 05:16:49 PM  

IrateShadow: Karac: I just happen to have a link to a great video: A 1959 Bel-Air tailfinned tank in a head to head crash against a 2009 chevy malibu. The malibu does fairly decently for a car oppressed by burdensome government regulations that increase mileage at the cost of driver safety. By which I mean the malibu test dummy bounced off his airbag while the Bel-Air's ended up partially in the trunk.

That video is seriously misleading. The bel-air has no engine in it.


That's a conspiracy theory. Link

Of course, the NYT may be in on it too. Wheels within wheels, man. Don't look behind the curtain. The man in the black pajamas.
 
2012-07-30 05:21:49 PM  
Cars should be unaffordable.

All the money we waste on that sh*t could go into a world class transportation system.
 
2012-07-30 05:22:25 PM  
When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.
 
2012-07-30 05:24:23 PM  

Dinki: If approved, the changes are projected to save average American motorists roughly $8,200 at the pump over the life of their vehicles, but would also cost them as much as $3,000 more for a new vehicle.


Hmmm $8200 in savings Vs $3000 more up front? what to do.. what to do????


You're arguing with people who think CFL bulbs are a waste of money.
 
2012-07-30 05:26:23 PM  

IrateShadow: Most of those cars also won't pass regulations here because they aren't sufficiently armored against the landboats that are popular on our highways.


Ahem, it is no longer 1975.
 
2012-07-30 05:26:26 PM  

NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.


That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.
 
2012-07-30 05:32:49 PM  

Karac: A 1959 Bel-Air tailfinned tank in a head to head crash against a 2009 chevy malibu. The malibu does fairly decently for a car oppressed by burdensome government regulations that increase mileage at the cost of driver safety. By which I mean the malibu test dummy bounced off his airbag while the Bel-Air's ended up partially in the trunk.


Hmm, I wonder how it would have went if the 1959 Bel Air hadn't had 50 years of rust and corrosion?
I saw the same clip and the rust flew out from the car in large clouds. I expect the 09 would still win, but
the comparison was flawed.
Still a cool clip though. I'd like to see 1975 Ford LTD vs 2012 Ford Taurus,1968 Chysler Imperial vs 2012 Chrysler Town and Country minivan and 1962 Chevy Nova vs 2012 Cavalier and any Toyota older than 20 years, if you can find one, versus current Camry.
 
2012-07-30 05:33:38 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Ahem, it is no longer 1975.


It used to be sedans, now it's SUVs. Americans love big cars.
 
2012-07-30 05:34:41 PM  

IrateShadow: Kurmudgeon: Ahem, it is no longer 1975.

It used to be sedans, now it's SUVs. Americans love big cars.


Hey, we live in luxury, why not run it into the ground?
 
2012-07-30 05:40:16 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.


Glad we agree; profit margins drove the decision to kill it.

We'll never know for sure, but I'd bet that if the EV1 had been under continuous production and refinement since 96 until now, it'd be a great car *and* a lot more palatable to GM's balance sheet. People *wanted* those cars. They were permanently wait-listed. Lessees sent GM checks with letters begging to keep their cars and promising to be responsible for the maintenance themselves. GM declined and sent the checks back.

The only data that indicated it wouldn't be popular enough to be profitable was a study GM paid for. This isn't tinfoil hattery, it's a matter of public record.
 
2012-07-30 05:41:09 PM  

Hyjamon: Magorn: GoodyearPimp: HotWingConspiracy: HotIgneous Intruder: Yay, Cash for Clunkers.
Now there are no affordable used cars.

I haven't noticed a lack of options.

Is this really a thing? Or are people just wistfully recalling the halcyon days when used cars were only a nickle? You know, before Brikabrak Hoosegow Oface took over.

I can only go based on anecdotal evidence, but quality used cars have a price premium these days. Any good values are bought quickly, leaving repaired, overmileage, and overpriced heaps. That said, Cash for Clunkers was a failure due to the industry (read: Republicans) getting heir mitts on it and making the qualifications stupid and laughable.

Idea: Get the people driving huge 70-80s gas guzzlers over "the hump" by incentivizing their purchase of a new car. Winners: Everyone who had to look at their old rust bucket, auto manufacturers, consumers, the enviroment.

Reality: People saw free money and traded in perfectly good looking and working cars that were then, by law, permanently disabled. Winners: Greedy ass consumers that were able to trade up into the latest model of their car for cheap.


I can attest to seeing your reality by a co-worker of mine. He is a Boomer, he traded in his old truck for a new truck that got the same mpg. So, the idea of getting a gas guzzler off the road didn't happen. All that happened was he got to buy a new truck cheaper.


I thought one of the requirements was that your old car had to get 18mpg or less, and the new car had to get at least 10mpg better?
 
2012-07-30 05:46:07 PM  

NightSteel: Representative of the unwashed masses: That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

Glad we agree; profit margins drove the decision to kill it.

We'll never know for sure, but I'd bet that if the EV1 had been under continuous production and refinement since 96 until now, it'd be a great car *and* a lot more palatable to GM's balance sheet. People *wanted* those cars. They were permanently wait-listed. Lessees sent GM checks with letters begging to keep their cars and promising to be responsible for the maintenance themselves. GM declined and sent the checks back.

The only data that indicated it wouldn't be popular enough to be profitable was a study GM paid for. This isn't tinfoil hattery, it's a matter of public record.


The problem with that was that GM was losing a lot of money on every single one of them. Why sell something that you have to support at a loss after taking a loss of the sale? At no point was the EV-1 going to make GM a dime.
 
2012-07-30 05:48:03 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.

That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.


How many other car models in history have the manufacturers recalled and destroyed all of so that they would not have to continue making spare parts?
 
2012-07-30 05:50:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.

That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.

How many other car models in history have the manufacturers recalled and destroyed all of so that they would not have to continue making spare parts?


None that I can recall which also were, prototype models. Essentially GM outsourced product testing in the case of the EV-1
 
2012-07-30 05:57:15 PM  

brblitz: Funny how when Geo first came out, their vehicles had a 3 cylinder engine that got 50+ mpg. Chevy bought them and put in a 4 and then 6 cylinder engine. I have a 4 cylinder Chevy Tracker that only gets 24 mpg. I used to have a Chevy Cavalier that got 32 mpg. Where have all these high mpg engines gone? Could it be the oil companies pressuring the car manufacturers to pump out all these gas guzzlers?


Not all of it. Much of the push is from Amurricans themselves. They want to somehow break the laws of physics and get 100 mpg from an 8 cylinder engine dragging 5000 pounds of ass down the road.
They want power, because that's what the commercials and their own stupidity tell them they should have, without realizing (or caring) that everything comes at a price. So Amurricans probably started b*tching about the slow 3 cylinder engines, and chevy tested a 4 in it. Those sold better, so they tried a 6, and those sold better. Boom, no more 3 cylinder engines.

Not to say the oil companies might not have had a hand in all this, just that the real culprit is most likely not in Detroit, but in your own neighborhood.
 
2012-07-30 05:59:32 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.

That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.

How many other car models in history have the manufacturers recalled and destroyed all of so that they would not have to continue making spare parts?

None that I can recall which also were, prototype models. Essentially GM outsourced product testing in the case of the EV-1



How many other car models in history have the manufacturers charged private citizens for the right to product test?
 
2012-07-30 06:04:28 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: NightSteel: When CA mandated that ZEV's be manufactured and sold in order for a manufacturer to continue doing business in their state, GM came up with the EV1, which was, by all accounts, a great electric car, beloved by their drivers.

Subsequently, the auto industry lobbied and litigated the mandate out of existence, recalled every single EV1 and crushed them all into scrap, save a few that were rendered undriveable and sent to museums.

America *can* make good, efficient cars. Battery technology has only improved since then. Auto makers just don't *want* to do it, because it cuts into their profit margins.

That sounds so much cooler than the truth that GM wasn't making money on them (leases all of them) and decided to recall and destroy the cars at the end of the leases because even having one on the road meant that they would have to keep parts etc stocked for years at a prohibitively high cost.

/Car companies like making money, the first one to offer a cheap car with as much flexibility as a gas engine on electric, solar, unicorn blood etc. will rule the car market with a firm grip that would make Apple and Facebook envious.

//In short you shouldn't waste tinfoil, even if it is recycled from beer cans.

How many other car models in history have the manufacturers recalled and destroyed all of so that they would not have to continue making spare parts?

None that I can recall which also were, prototype models. Essentially GM outsourced product testing in the case of the EV-1


How many other car models in history have the manufacturers charged private citizens for the right to product test?


In this way basically none. The EV-1 was to collect data and test the economics. Vehicles like say a Prius were intended to make money from the start.

Do you think it's more likely that the management of GM, decided that they would rather not be the car company that got people off gas, forgoing massive profits if they had the market cornered, to grab back the electric car and smash it trying to bury it?

That makes no sense at all. If there was an economic case at the time to keep them on the road supporting them then they would have.

Durr big oil killed the electric car is ridiculous.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report