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  
•       •       •

2089 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 06:12:18 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: 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 ...


I think that when you are looking at an instance which you admit was unique in multiple ways, "It was business as usual" is not a very compelling argument.
 
2012-07-30 06:12:27 PM  

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


Every commercial product, ever, is 'tested' in the consumer market, at all times. Things fail, things are improved on. Tastes change.

Unless you take a time machine and visit the Soviet Bloc or something, where for 50 years things came off the assembly line in more or less the exact way it was pencilled up by an engineer and then incompetently manufactured and assembled by drunks.
 
2012-07-30 06:12:58 PM  

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

Thanks, Mister Preznit!


But but but...Cash for clunkers was a bust!
 
2012-07-30 06:15:45 PM  

whidbey: Cars should be unaffordable.

All the money we waste on that sh*t could go into a world class transportation system.


Wake Up! You're daydreaming.
 
2012-07-30 06:19:44 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I think that when you are looking at an instance which you admit was unique in multiple ways, "It was business as usual" is not a very compelling argument.


NASA can test something and not expect to make a profit. A car company can't. The fact that they leased all these cars, without ever selling one means that at the end of the product lifespan GM wanted them all back.

Imagine the lawsuits if one of those batteries caught fire killing a passenger after GM sold it to a customer at the end of the program, not offering recall repairs, or because a spare part wasn't available.

If there was a VIABLE business in the EV-1 they would have had them in every showroom in North America. There wasn't and that's what led to the chain of events resulting in scrapping of the cars themselves.

/What possible reason could there be otherwise that GM would wipe all traces off the face of the earth?
 
2012-07-30 06:21:55 PM  

StrikitRich: whidbey: Cars should be unaffordable.

All the money we waste on that sh*t could go into a world class transportation system.

Wake Up! You're daydreaming.


Actually, it's more likely to become a reality if we stop electing Republicans to office. And the Obama administration already has light rail and bullet train plans in the works.
 
2012-07-30 06:25:39 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: I think that when you are looking at an instance which you admit was unique in multiple ways, "It was business as usual" is not a very compelling argument.

NASA can test something and not expect to make a profit. A car company can't. The fact that they leased all these cars, without ever selling one means that at the end of the product lifespan GM wanted them all back.

Imagine the lawsuits if one of those batteries caught fire killing a passenger after GM sold it to a customer at the end of the program, not offering recall repairs, or because a spare part wasn't available.

If there was a VIABLE business in the EV-1 they would have had them in every showroom in North America. There wasn't and that's what led to the chain of events resulting in scrapping of the cars themselves.

/What possible reason could there be otherwise that GM would wipe all traces off the face of the earth?


GM makes a profit on all the cars they test? How do they make a profit on the cars they test that they don't lease to the general public?

Does GM have massive liability if a 1962 Chevy bursts into flame?
 
2012-07-30 06:26:02 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: I think that when you are looking at an instance which you admit was unique in multiple ways, "It was business as usual" is not a very compelling argument.

NASA can test something and not expect to make a profit. A car company can't. The fact that they leased all these cars, without ever selling one means that at the end of the product lifespan GM wanted them all back.

Imagine the lawsuits if one of those batteries caught fire killing a passenger after GM sold it to a customer at the end of the program, not offering recall repairs, or because a spare part wasn't available.

If there was a VIABLE business in the EV-1 they would have had them in every showroom in North America. There wasn't and that's what led to the chain of events resulting in scrapping of the cars themselves.

/What possible reason could there be otherwise that GM would wipe all traces off the face of the earth?


trcs.wikispaces.com

Because you can't run them battery cars on erl...
 
2012-07-30 06:26:56 PM  

roc6783: 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?


I'm sure that this mechanic could do this, and so could the engineering departments at many universities and even the auto shops at some high schools.
There's one problem with all this. The moron public.
See, under ideal conditions in a lab or on the track with a half dozen people monitoring everything on the car that type of mileage is attainable. But out here in the real world people are stupid, and they do stupid things to cars.

The car still has to work every time, regardless of what brand of fuel is in it, whether it's driven in 6 inches of snow or 110 degree heat, with properly filled tires or tires that haven't seen an air pump since they were put on the car, or if it sees an oil/filter change only once every three years. It's like the difference between the scales used to measure gold at Fort Knox compared to the basket scale at your local supermarket in the produce section. Also, the car must be engineered to be easily assembled in less than a couple of hours on a moving factory line. Can't make them one at a time like a Rolls or a fine watch.

Then there's the possible lawsuits from people poking around without knowledge of what's really under the hood. Systems must be made as idiot-proof as possible, and this sometimes means sacrifices must be made.
 
2012-07-30 06:29:13 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Durr big oil killed the electric car is ridiculous.


Distilling the indisputable facts about the EV1 down to 'durr big oil killed the electric car' and instead relying on 'facts' with no source other than GM is disingenuous.

Representative of the unwashed masses: 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.


We have only GM's word and a study they paid for to back that up. They never revealed how many people put themselves on the waiting list for the EV1. They refused all requests and offers to try to keep the EV1 on the road. Then they forbade anyone from using the donated EV1s. A few universities rebuilt them anyway, and GM went after them, saying that they were 'marring GM's image' by doing so. I'm pretty sure Government Motors' image didn't need anyone's help to be marred.

It's impossible to say GM couldn't have turned a profit off the EV1 without the benefit of knowing what continued development and the economy of scale would have done for it.
 
2012-07-30 06:31:27 PM  

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

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.

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.


I disagree, that driver of the Bel Air would be DEAD~!
 
2012-07-30 06:42:32 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Representative of the unwashed masses: Philip Francis Queeg: I think that when you are looking at an instance which you admit was unique in multiple ways, "It was business as usual" is not a very compelling argument.

NASA can test something and not expect to make a profit. A car company can't. The fact that they leased all these cars, without ever selling one means that at the end of the product lifespan GM wanted them all back.

Imagine the lawsuits if one of those batteries caught fire killing a passenger after GM sold it to a customer at the end of the program, not offering recall repairs, or because a spare part wasn't available.

If there was a VIABLE business in the EV-1 they would have had them in every showroom in North America. There wasn't and that's what led to the chain of events resulting in scrapping of the cars themselves.

/What possible reason could there be otherwise that GM would wipe all traces off the face of the earth?

GM makes a profit on all the cars they test? How do they make a profit on the cars they test that they don't lease to the general public?

Does GM have massive liability if a 1962 Chevy bursts into flame?


If I remember correctly they do for a period of 10 years, that's a long time to keep a specialty line up and running for a car that needs specialty parts, these aren't water pumps and spark plugs here.

Most cars are sold with the intent of making money, the EV-1 was marketed to test consumer acceptance and evaluate technology, big difference between that and an Avalanche. The aim of the vehicle was completely different.

NightSteel: Representative of the unwashed masses: Durr big oil killed the electric car is ridiculous.

Distilling the indisputable facts about the EV1 down to 'durr big oil killed the electric car' and instead relying on 'facts' with no source other than GM is disingenuous.

Representative of the unwashed masses: 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.

We have only GM's word and a study they paid for to back that up. They never revealed how many people put themselves on the waiting list for the EV1. They refused all requests and offers to try to keep the EV1 on the road. Then they forbade anyone from using the donated EV1s. A few universities rebuilt them anyway, and GM went after them, saying that they were 'marring GM's image' by doing so. I'm pretty sure Government Motors' image didn't need anyone's help to be marred.

It's impossible to say GM couldn't have turned a profit off the EV1 without the benefit of knowing what continued development and the economy of scale would have done for it.


Since they had the results of the testing and whatever pieces they wanted for their records allowing other cars to be available to the competition to reverse engineer their ideas would seem to be stupid from a business point of view would it not? Hell in that case let's send the plans for the F-18 to Iran, After all it's an old airframe, there are newer ones around surely they could have no use for it!

Also this was decades before "Government Motors". That monicker makes your argument look all the less inteligent.
 
2012-07-30 06:57:28 PM  
Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG
 
2012-07-30 07:14:59 PM  
the car industry has been watching too much Faux News.
 
2012-07-30 07:19:27 PM  
Every regulation imposed by the Government upon industry drives up production costs. Since business is a for profit entity they will pass the additional costs to the consumer.
 
2012-07-30 07:19:41 PM  

o5iiawah: Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG


You're welcome.

/Stay in Florida, please.
 
2012-07-30 07:19:53 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Since they had the results of the testing and whatever pieces they wanted for their records allowing other cars to be available to the competition to reverse engineer their ideas would seem to be stupid from a business point of view would it not? Hell in that case let's send the plans for the F-18 to Iran, After all it's an old airframe, there are newer ones around surely they could have no use for it!


I said nothing about reverse engineering. By destroying the donated cars' drivetrains, they pretty much made that impossible, anyway. But if GM was so convinced that they couldn't make the electric car work, what was the point in sitting on the technology? Why not allow it to live on? They could even have spun off the EV1 brand with all of its liabilities.

Besides, by now there may well no longer be anything in the EV1's original technology *worth* reverse engineering. Development of technology useful in electric cars has continued, of course. But not with the resources and manufacturing capacity that could have been brought to bear by GM, nor with the design expertise that produced such a well-regarded vehicle. EVs were set back by years with the death of the EV1.

Your analogy re: the F-18 is spectacularly bad, in that an F-18's primary purpose is to kill people and break things. Only an idiot would advocate giving the tools to do these things to a rogue state. However, I will note that the US does in fact sell airframes to some other countries, and allow those other countries to develop their own internal systems for those airframes. GM could well have done something similar; the EV1's ridiculously low drag coefficient was a factor in its success.

Also this was decades before "Government Motors". That monicker makes your argument look all the less inteligent.

I'll give you this one. My wording there was pretty bad. I should've said "Now that we have Government Motors, it's easy to see that GM's image didn't need anybody's help to be marred."

One last thing. If you don't want people to think you're trolling, you should really make sure you spell at least the word 'intelligent' correctly when you're trying to call someone else out for a supposed lack of it.

/some punctuation couldn't hurt, either
 
2012-07-30 07:22:25 PM  
...HTML fail! Perfect timing, too. Please italicize the relevant two sentences in your head.
 
2012-07-30 07:24:49 PM  

o5iiawah: Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG


You scrolled by Fark_Guy_Rob's post too quickly. Not to worry, I'll repost the summary for you:


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 07:57:19 PM  
Fuel economy is not a safety feature and the private market had far more to do with those things becoming standard than the government, which is not to say that government didn't play a role.

The Volt is an 15,000 dollar car with 25,000 dollars of technology in it.

You can get a BMW 3 series for less than a Volt.

Or a Lexus. A variety of sports cars from your choice of car maker.
 
2012-07-30 07:59:43 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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!


Good comeback.
 
2012-07-30 08:39:49 PM  

Eshman: o5iiawah: Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG

You're welcome.

/Stay in Florida, please.


LOL
 
2012-07-30 08:43:28 PM  

cirby: Not that many advances, no.


Actually yes. You're right about the added weights taking away some of the engine efficiency advances, but the cars today are still quicker. I would guess you could save a good bit of fuel by reducing the horsepower to 1980's speed times.

1983 Camry 0-60 12.4 Quarter Mile 18.6
2012 Camry 2.5 L 0-60 8.7 Quarter Mile 16.0 (other versions including hybrid and V6 are even faster)

1984 Corolla 0-60 13.0 Quarter Mile 18.9
2009 Corolla 1.8L 0-60 8.4 Quarter Mile 16.8

1996 RAV 4 0-60 10.4 Quarter Mile 17.3
2008 RAV 4 0-60 8.7 Quarter MIle 16.7

More here http://www.zeroto60times.com/Toyota-0-60-mph-Times.html
 
2012-07-30 08:45:37 PM  
We're liking our new airbag equipped, low emission, built-in-the-USA Toyota Hybrid.

Beats this result :

Clicky please

cache.jalopnik.com
 
2012-07-30 08:47:54 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.


yes, GM hated the EV1 so much that it bought Super Bowl ads for it.

GM gets crapped on an awful lot for bringing a car to market that the greenies wanted. Toyota had wait lists for the RAV4 EV, but didn't bother bringing the car to market at all. Yet the killing of the EV was all GM's doing.

the initial watering down of the ZEV law opened the door to hybirds, which the greenies prompty embraced with open arms instead of demanding pure electrics.

its always good to reward industry for bad behavior.
 
2012-07-30 08:49:46 PM  

qorkfiend: Explodo: Those old Geo cars didn't weigh much at all. With all of the mandated safety improvements, vehicle weight has gone up significantly. More weight = less mileage. The push for safety and the push for fuel efficiency are at odds with each other.

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.


More exotic, lightweight materials cost money. You buy a Geo Metro because it's cheap. It's not unreasonable to say safety regulations would increase the car's weight when a driving design factor is keeping costs down.

Of course, another cause of weight increases have been due to changes in consumer demand. When the first Geo's came out, automatic transmission, automatic locks, automatic windows, cruise control, air conditioning and anything above an AM/FM stereo would be an option. You would have to special order a car from the dealership these days to get a car without any of these. Sure none of the items I mentioned are singularly large in weight, but together there is an impact.

Additionally, changes in the clean air requirements for exhaust have correspondingly lowered fuel efficiency, although anyone who is against these either hasn't traveled to a country without strict air quality controls or doesn't remember a few decades ago when smog/acid rain was a much larger concern in the States. Still, it should be acknowledged...
 
2012-07-30 08:56:42 PM  

whidbey: Eshman: o5iiawah: Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG

You're welcome.

/Stay in Florida, please.

LOL


I live in PA but thanks. Dont you have a neighborhood out there called cancer alley? I drive 40,000 miles per year for work and have to carry a crap ton of tools. I'd prefer to do it in a clean diesel but meh.
 
2012-07-30 08:58:03 PM  

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

Thanks, Mister Preznit!

Total number of Cars turned in under cash for clunkers: 677,081

Total number of registered passenger vehicles in the US currently: 254,400,000

Number of years ago Cash for Clunkers ended: 3

Therefore, doing the math, we come to the conclusion that you're an idiot


Working in the car biz, I can tell you that the whole cash for clunkers thing is still causing problems. Most of the cars turned in were actually in really good shape. As a car guy and a mechanic, i felt really bad when it came time to kill some of them. The only thing really wrong with them was the trade in value was lower than $4500. These folks may not have traded right then, but they would have soon. So a good budget vehicle was pulled from service and ruined. The thing with cash for clunkers was you still had to be able to finance a new car. so the real turds remained on the road, and then we went and pulled the next generation of turds from service early.

The 4.0L jeeps were the hardest motors to kill. very sad. used car prices are just plain silly still. they have gotten better. Probably another year, maybe two. A 100k mile 02 Dodge stratus shouldnt go for $5k. Hell, a 100k mile anything shouldnt go for 5 grand. But they do today.

As far as the matter at hand, I laughed at the headline. That is a lot of weight weve added to cars, and we'd be miles ahead in MPG with out it. All the safety shiat in the world wont really help a crappy distracted driver. Compared to most of the rest of the world, its easy to get a license in the US. They also pay more for gas in Europe, which forces the consumer to take that into account. Working in a dealership, its super funny to watch people trade off a big gas guzzler when the price goes up, then when the price is down 3 months later, they trade the sipper in on another guzzler.

Anyway. Please keep insisting on all the high tech goodies and toys. Its job security. The simpler your car is, the less I work on it.
 
2012-07-30 08:58:06 PM  

Kurmudgeon: 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.


"Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn't rust. "Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can't get it," he said."
 
2012-07-30 09:00:10 PM  

NightSteel: Representative of the unwashed masses: Durr big oil killed the electric car is ridiculous.

Distilling the indisputable facts about the EV1 down to 'durr big oil killed the electric car' and instead relying on 'facts' with no source other than GM is disingenuous.

Representative of the unwashed masses: 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.

We have only GM's word and a study they GM & Toyota paid for to back that up. They never revealed how many people put themselves on the waiting list for the EV1. They refused all requests and offers to try to keep the EV1 on the road. Then they forbade anyone from using the donated EV1s. A few universities rebuilt them anyway, and GM went after them, saying that they were 'marring GM's image' by doing so. I'm pretty sure Government Motors' image didn't need anyone's help to be marred.

It's impossible to say GM couldn't have turned a profit off the EV1 without the benefit of knowing what continued development and the economy of scale would have done for it.


FTFY

as for product liability concerns, they are very geniune. The ending of the EV1 program happened around the time of the Ford-Firestone mess, where Ford was held liable for cars it sold over 10 years before.
 
2012-07-30 09:00:38 PM  

edmo: We're liking our new airbag equipped, low emission, built-in-the-USA Toyota Hybrid.

Beats this result :

Clicky please

[cache.jalopnik.com image 480x360]


Yeah, the driver of the newer car really isn't helping dispel any stereotypes:

cache.jalopnik.com
 
2012-07-30 09:04:21 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Eshman: o5iiawah: Lets just all take a moment to thank California for their asinine Diesel emissions requirements for not allowing us to have Diesel Mini Coopers, Subarus and volvos that get about 65+ MPG

You're welcome.

/Stay in Florida, please.

LOL

I live in PA but thanks. Dont you have a neighborhood out there called cancer alley? I drive 40,000 miles per year for work and have to carry a crap ton of tools. I'd prefer to do it in a clean diesel but meh.


Your profile says Floriduh.
And no, I live where it's still OK to pollute everything. The locals get mad at "Seattle Environmentalists" when they harsh our halcyon bucolic lifestyles. :)
 
2012-07-30 09:09:23 PM  
and another one for the Greenies:

the automotive industry WANTS gasoline taxes to go up. Bill Ford, Alan Mullaly, Bob Lutz, Sergio Marchionne, Charles Ghosn have all called for gas tax increases in the US in order to get consumers into high MPG vehicles.

as long as cheap gas exists, consumers will buy guzzlers.
 
2012-07-30 09:37:58 PM  

dumbobruni: and another one for the Greenies:

the automotive industry WANTS gasoline taxes to go up. Bill Ford, Alan Mullaly, Bob Lutz, Sergio Marchionne, Charles [Carlos. close though] Ghosn have all called for gas tax increases in the US in order to get consumers into high MPG vehicles.

as long as cheap gas exists, consumers will buy guzzlers.


Yeah, the CAFE standards are just a way for Washington to reduce fuel consumption without the political risk of voting for raising gas taxes. It's not as "efficient" a motivator as increasing gas taxes, it distorts other things (increase price & complexity), and puts the onus on manufacturers instead of the consumer.

Plus, there's the efficiency paradox -- as a thing becomes more efficient (cheaper), consumers often respond by using more of the thing. With cars, a decrease in the price of gas often is accompanied by an increase of vehicle-miles-travelled.
 
2012-07-30 09:39:24 PM  
Concerning the 1959/2009 Chevrolet Crash Test:

The New York Times chases down inaccurate rumors about "no engine," "rusty car," and so on:

Link
 
2012-07-30 09:40:13 PM  

Mechanic81: The thing with cash for clunkers was you still had to be able to finance a new car.


And that's it in a nutshell.
Cash for Clunkers was a giveaway to the money lenders.
 
2012-07-30 09:49:49 PM  

Representative of the unwashed masses: Hell in that case let's send the plans for the F-18 to Iran, After all it's an old airframe, there are newer ones around surely they could have no use for it!


The Iranians have no capacity to manufacture the F-18, as its main bulkhead is formed out of forged titanium. They don't have a forge that can drop that job.
 
2012-07-30 09:53:09 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Representative of the unwashed masses: Hell in that case let's send the plans for the F-18 to Iran, After all it's an old airframe, there are newer ones around surely they could have no use for it!

The Iranians have no capacity to manufacture the F-18, as its main bulkhead is formed out of forged titanium. They don't have a forge that can drop that job.


Ha, funny fact: Iran has the only F-14s left in the world. Probably all unflyable, we destroyed all of ours to prevent spare parts from finding their way to Iran...
 
2012-07-30 10:11:55 PM  
12349876:
Actually yes. You're right about the added weights taking away some of the engine efficiency advances, but the cars today are still quicker. I would guess you could save a good bit of fuel by reducing the horsepower to 1980's speed times.

1983 Camry 0-60 12.4 Quarter Mile 18.6
2012 Camry 2.5 L 0-60 8.7 Quarter Mile 16.0 (other versions including hybrid and V6 are even faster)


...and their engines are much larger, and get MUCH lower gas mileage. Those two, for example. The slower 1983 Camry with the less powerful engine (a 1.8 liter versus a 2.5 liter)? It got 32 city, 43 highway. The new one? 22/33.

Yeah, you could save a bit of fuel. Probably 10 MPG or so... which means that, with those wonderful engine advances, they pretty much just managed to break even on a power/weight/MPG basis. Which is what I was saying...
 
2012-07-30 10:13:49 PM  
Cars ARE unaffordable. Seriously $50,000???

I'd love a Tesla S but I can not afford it. As it is I ONLY buy used.
 
2012-07-30 10:14:56 PM  

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.


CSB warning.

My mother's last ex-husband wanted a motorcycle.

He didn't give a damn about things like fuel efficiency, since every vehicle he ever owned was some gargantuan land-yacht (no, he wouldn't pay for the fuel if he could possibly avoid it--he'd still borrow my mother's Ford Escort every time he wanted to go somewhere because "he was short and didn't have the money for a fillup"). He tried to justify the cost of the motorcycle after he trashed mom's car by claiming that the motorcycle was far, far safer than a car, since it would fling the driver safely away from the crash site, whereas a person in a crash was likely to be trapped in a prison of crushed metal and incinerated when the car inevitably exploded. He maintained that you were actually safer being thrown into a bridge abutment headfirst than you were in the car.

He also cut the seat belts out of every vehicle he owned, since he was convinced he was at far greater risk from the belt breaking his neck than he was from being slammed through the windshield at 70 miles an hour.

There are people who refuse to live in the same reality the rest of us live in, no matter how much you try to prod them out. Why yes, he *was* an Alex Jones/Glenn Beck fan, why do you ask?

/Also claimed he was taken prisoner in Grenada during the US invasion
 
2012-07-30 10:31:48 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Mechanic81: The thing with cash for clunkers was you still had to be able to finance a new car.

And that's it in a nutshell.
Cash for Clunkers was a giveaway to the money lenders.


yeah, that too. Oh, and the lender is probably the company that made the car. We barely have car companies anymore. We have banks who happen to make cars on the side.

Also, Im in favor of higher fuel prices. CAFE is pretty much a failed program. It doesnt get refreshed often enough (something like 15 years between the last 2 changes), and the fines are so weak that some companies just pay them. Like Benz and BMW. not to mention the 'classify a car as a light truck' dodge. HHR, PT cruiser, cube, and all of the car based SUVs. You want to do this right, base it on something better. i have ideas (actual passenger average use vs capacity, engine size like Japan, doors vs seats) but I dont feel like going into detail. Point is, we could do better, but putting fuel costs back where they belong is just so much simpler.
 
2012-07-30 10:58:42 PM  
"Dealers support fuel economy increases," Bailey Wood, a National Automobile Dealers Association spokesman told FoxNews.com Saturday. "But if dealers cannot put vehicles on the road, we cannot reduce greenhouse gases or our dependence of foreign oil."

I would say that if vehicles aren't on the road in general, then they are definitely reducing greenhouse gasses and dependence on foreign oil.
 
2012-07-30 11:07:29 PM  

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

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.


It's more about the frequency of high-speed use than about relative mass. Commuting in the US almost always involves some highway travel, commuting in most of Europe usually doesn't exceed 50 km/h (about 30 mph) for the entire length of the route. Hitting 70 miles an hour once a year when you're taking the kids to see grandma across the country and hitting 70 miles an hour twice a day for the entire time you own the vehicle is a different degree of danger entirely, and it's an infrastructure issue rather than a vehicle design issue, really.

You can ask Isaac Newton what the difference is if you're unsure, heh.
 
2012-07-30 11:34:48 PM  

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


I dont know of may cars that get 55MPG unless they are tiny little shiats that cant carry anything except people, making this fleetwide is stupid since that includes even work related vehicles some of which carry a lot of cargo.

People laugh but the US has the highest emissions controls for cars, its why they wont allow high efficiency diesel in the states because its deemed a dirty burning fuel, even though thats been proven wrong.

Americans used to lead the world, now we mainly just close the barn doors once all the cows are out.

Jim_Callahan: It's more about the frequency of high-speed use than about relative mass. Commuting in the US almost always involves some highway travel, commuting in most of Europe usually doesn't exceed 50 km/h (about 30 mph) for the entire length of the route. Hitting 70 miles an hour once a year when you're taking the kids to see grandma across the country and hitting 70 miles an hour twice a day for the entire time you own the vehicle is a different degree of danger entirely, and it's an infrastructure issue rather than a vehicle design issue, really.


I cant figure out what you are arguing, but you do realize that even at higher speeds you get better MPG if you maintain your speeds, right? Cars burn the most fuel/energy at standing starts, which is why a lot of electric cars utilize small gas engines to help push them away and vice-versa.

Just rip up the highways and install cog railways for cars, traffic would flow smoother for sure stress levels would fall if we could guarantee a commute time instead of cussing at the douchbag in front of you who slowed down 15MPH because his phone rang or he wants to read an email while driving.
 
2012-07-30 11:44:15 PM  
Their argument is stupid though, if you can get a loan for $25K then you can afford a loan for $28K, I think dealers are pissed they wont be able to steal as much money from consumers any longer........

CSB time,

I had a buddy who had to buy a new car, I told him not to buy one the same day he walked into the dealer but he got suckered in and bought a farking toyota tercel the same day and paid almost $14K for it(this was in 98-99) thinking he got a good deal, he got pissed at me when I ended up with my 35th anniversary mustang gt for less than he paid.

Dealers are the scum of the earth and the salesmen are lower than scum....

/you need this truecoat
 
x23
2012-07-30 11:54:01 PM  
rewind2846: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.

huh? which specific Geo model was sold with an I3 / I4 / V6?

of the 5 Geo models sold only the Tracker ever was available with a V6. and it was never sold with an I3.
 
2012-07-30 11:58:19 PM  
Republicans' Strategy
-----
1. Let Democrats come up with a bill about Xyz that will benefit a lot of people.
2. Call the bill ObamaXyz and mock it.
3. Watch it pass, and deliver the benefits.
4. ???
5. Win elections?
 
2012-07-31 12:02:33 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: 1. Let Democrats come up with a bill about Xyz that will benefit a lot of people.


What have they passed that has benefited a lot of people? My job, which I never worried about since I had numerous other companies who would hire me is now scaring me since half the companies that would hire me are now shadows of their former selves or gone, it seems we are rats scrounging for crumbs and they are happy with that while letting the people complain about one side is bad and the other is worser for the people.

The sooner you realize both sides are farking us over the better off you will be.
 
2012-07-31 12:13:01 AM  

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

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.

It's more about the frequency of high-speed use than about relative mass. Commuting in the US almost always involves some highway travel, commuting in most of Europe usually doesn't exceed 50 km/h (about 30 mph) for the entire length of the route. Hitting 70 miles an hour once a year when you're taking the kids to see grandma across the country and hitting 70 miles an hour twice a day for the entire time you own the vehicle is a different degree of danger entirely, and it's an infrastructure issue rather than a vehicle design issue, really.

You can ask Isaac Newton what the difference is if you're unsure, heh.


Germany says hi.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
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