They built them, and no one came...

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that this country allows people the freedom to buy whatever it is they like/want. My business brings me to homes worth millions of dollars, taking up big chunks of land, some of them are occupied by only two people. Many have pools and tennis courts they never get used. It costs them a fortune to heat and light, let alone tens of thousands of dollars a year in taxes. It's their money, and they knew what they were getting into when they bought the house. I would think someone buying a land yacht knows how much it will cost to fuel it, and if they don't shame on them. If they didn't realize that gas could spike, shame on them again! How about a $100,000 car? It still has 4 wheels and gets from point A to point B? Just another way of looking at it that's all!

And if their car were magically more efficient they'd blow the money on flat screen tvs with circuit boards full of lead, or maybe vacations with lots of jet fuel burnt. A stagnant or retracting GDP is probably the only good thing for the planet.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Brons2
I agree with doodfdood. While buying smaller cars may not get us all the way to energy independence, buying large ones is getting us farther away.

Energy independence is a false panacea. The last 8 presidents have promised to make us less dependent on foreign oil and yet:

Is there a shortage of oil in this country?

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: eljefino

A stagnant or retracting GDP is probably the only good thing for the planet.

Thanks for the admission.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that this country allows people the freedom to buy whatever it is they like/want. My business brings me to homes worth millions of dollars, taking up big chunks of land, some of them are occupied by only two people. Many have pools and tennis courts they never get used. It costs them a fortune to heat and light, let alone tens of thousands of dollars a year in taxes. It's their money, and they knew what they were getting into when they bought the house. I would think someone buying a land yacht knows how much it will cost to fuel it, and if they don't shame on them. If they didn't realize that gas could spike, shame on them again! How about a $100,000 car? It still has 4 wheels and gets from point A to point B? Just another way of looking at it that's all!

And if their car were magically more efficient they'd blow the money on flat screen tvs with circuit boards full of lead, or maybe vacations with lots of jet fuel burnt. A stagnant or retracting GDP is probably the only good thing for the planet.

You have a good point.

A bit OT. A few years back I worked in a home on the North Shore of Long Island that is probably square foot wise as big as a small school. I recall hearing a mother and her son arguing over what color his Range Rover, HS Graduation gift was going to be. The spoiled rotten kid wanted black, his mother told him to get white because it was easier to keep clean. He told his mother he wouldn't drive it if she got him a white RR. They fought over this. If my parents had the money to give that kind of gift to me, and I called my mother out on it, she'd have lost a shoe up my butt. LOL A lot of people have more money than they know what to do with. For many of us it is hard to comprehend, high gas prices means nothing to them. They are going to drive what they want no matter what.

 

[kelpie]

IMO CAFE regs. protect people from themselves like EPA and safety standards. Of course it can be taken to an extreme. Large trucks come to mind when the regenerating smog filter causes the engine to get 1/2 mpg worse mileage (from around 7 to 6.5). That's a big difference. Also EGRs that are nothing but trouble for every engine manufacturer that puts them in their trucks. There should be some kind of a compromise between mileage and emissions. It seems like the better the mpg, the lower the carbon output, so that should be a good thing.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Consumers are idiots and need to hearded like sheep.

Quote:
IMO CAFE regs. protect people from themselves like EPA and safety standards.


Then the obvious answer is to ban voting and just have the "experts" tell us what we need.

It's amazing what people think of themselves and their neighbors.

 

[Ursae_Majoris]

My Isuzu gets only 15.5 mpg in town, 21-22 on the higway. There are newer mid-size SUVs that get better gas mileage. But it has been paid for for a long time. Last year we put less than 3000K miles on it. It has only 60K on the odometer. At this rate I will keep it for another 12-15 years and pass it on to my kid as his first car.

Why would I want to go into $20K debt to save money on gas????

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Why would I want to go into $20K debt to save money on gas????


+1

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Consumers are idiots and need to hearded like sheep.

Quote:
IMO CAFE regs. protect people from themselves like EPA and safety standards.


Then the obvious answer is to ban voting and just have the "experts" tell us what we need.

It's amazing what people think of themselves and their neighbors.

Half my neighbors have below average intelligence for my area...

Seriously though, many people don't care about anything but themselves, don't have any interest or knowledge in science or math, only plan as far as their next pay check, and don't care about their effect on the shared environment. So IMHO these folks opinion should mean almost zero in the decision process for something like raising CAFE mileage goals.
Also, obviously everyone can't be informed about every issue so having experts in that field guiding government decisions makes far more sense than going with what the mob thinks is correct for that day...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that this country allows people the freedom to buy whatever it is they like/want. My business brings me to homes worth millions of dollars, taking up big chunks of land, some of them are occupied by only two people. Many have pools and tennis courts they never get used. It costs them a fortune to heat and light, let alone tens of thousands of dollars a year in taxes. It's their money, and they knew what they were getting into when they bought the house. I would think someone buying a land yacht knows how much it will cost to fuel it, and if they don't shame on them. If they didn't realize that gas could spike, shame on them again! How about a $100,000 car? It still has 4 wheels and gets from point A to point B? Just another way of looking at it that's all!

And if their car were magically more efficient they'd blow the money on flat screen tvs with circuit boards full of lead, or maybe vacations with lots of jet fuel burnt. A stagnant or retracting GDP is probably the only good thing for the planet.

And like I said in an earlier post, how many people that are blowing money actually have the money to blow, and how many are just borrowing it and/or charging it on plastic?

 

[LS2JSTS]

"NHTSA and EPA are considering annual increases in fuel efficiency ranging from 3-6 percent between 2017 and 2025, which equates to a fleetwide average of 47 and 62 mpg by the period's end. The range of government-estimated costs per vehicle is $770 to $3,500, depending on the stringency of the emissions limits.

Automakers says those estimates are "unrealistic" and pointed to a Center for Automotive Research analysis that said hiking fuel efficiency to 60.1 mpg could boost vehicle prices by 22 percent, cut sales by 25 percent and trim up to 220,000 auto sector jobs."

"A new rule on "ejection mitigation" — keeping drivers and passengers from flying out of a vehicle in a crash — is among the safety proposals at which automakers are balking.

The alliance wants NHTSA to reconsider a final regulation it adopted in January, saying aspects of it are "inappropriate" — especially the phase-in period, which requires full compliance by 2017. The rule, to be phased in starting in 2013, will require automakers to keep unbelted adults from moving more than 4 inches past the side window opening in a crash. The government says it could save 373 lives annually and cost automakers $500 million annually.

"These timing changes impose unreasonable and impractical burdens on vehicle manufacturers and have not been justified by the agency," the automakers said.

Porsche AG says it can't comply without a "major vehicle redesign." Absent a redesign, it said, production of some vehicles could be halted."


.....http://www.detnews.com/article/20110330/AUTO01/103300359/1148/Carmakers-resist-new-fed-fuel-rules

 

[Kestas]

Given enough money, anything can be done.

 

[Kestas]

Originally Posted By: grampi
And like I said in an earlier post, how many people that are blowing money actually have the money to blow, and how many are just borrowing it and/or charging it on plastic?

I'd like to say it's their money and they can do what they want with it, since it doesn't affect me. But given the recent TARP bailouts, I have to say this type of thinking DOES affect me. The last credit crisis cost an average of $10,000 per tax payer, so we have precedence that this type of irresponsible behavior by others does affect financially disciplined people such as myself.

 

[eljefino]

OK this ejection thing is too much. Even side air bags do something to the interior to either block my side view with thick B pillars or make me sit in a not particularly comforable position.

Am I the only one who thinks most drivers would get better if they took away airbags and covered steering wheels with razor wire?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
"These timing changes impose unreasonable and impractical burdens on vehicle manufacturers and have not been justified by the agency," the automakers said.

Doesn't matter. They are (self appointed) experts in that field guiding government decisions so the citizen "mob" should just sit down, shut up, and be happy.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
OK this ejection thing is too much. Even side air bags do something to the interior to either block my side view with thick B pillars or make me sit in a not particularly comforable position.

Am I the only one who thinks most drivers would get better if they took away airbags and covered steering wheels with razor wire?


No, they wouldn't.

They would just have more ways to line the pockets of personal injury lawyers when they had a collision.
"The razor wire mutilated my face because I refused to wear my seatbelt...I got $12,000. and my attorney got $36,000 Thanks Tim Sadler!"

The ejection thing...

meh... I guarantee 100% that I can find a Tahoe or Explorer on the way home today with a toddler standing up in the seat or cargo area. I guarantee it. Just standing there, popsicle stains all over their face, waiting to be ejected because mommy can't be bothered to ensure that her child is properly secured.
"Well, he just undoes his own belt and gets up. I can't stop him..."
Stupid bad mother. Stupid stupid stupid. We all gotta' suffer more unwanted stuff on our cars because you are too stupid to be a responsible parent.
"I drive a big car so he won't get hurt...

Yeah right....sure.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
OK this ejection thing is too much. Even side air bags do something to the interior to either block my side view with thick B pillars or make me sit in a not particularly comforable position.



It irks me that cars have been built in driven for almost a 100 years and they think cars MUST now have silly added feature like TPMS, ejection prevention and it seems to never end. It just makes cars more complicated, expensive and less reliable. That's just what we need.

 

[sciphi]

I know I'm safer in our Fit than the Buick since the objective data showing injury rates and location has the Fit winning hands-down. The Buick "feels" safer since it's a much larger car.

Then again, the yahoos who think that because it's a smaller car they can tailgate and we'll be the "rabbit" to get the speeding ticket scare the daylights out of me when I'm driving the Fit. Strangely they almost never do that kind of behavior when I'm driving the much larger Buick.

Maybe I really am safer in the Buick because folks don't act as moronically around it, thus lessening my chances of getting into an accident with them...

It's an arms race right now with ever-larger vehicles. That may be another reason why smaller cars aren't selling is because they're perceived as "inferior" in a crash, or "my neighbor drives an SUV, so I must drive an SUV to protect myself if I ever crash into him". Even though a modern small car is worlds safer and has safety technology never dreamed of when our larger car was built.

 

[OVERKILL]

While small cars are definitely safer than they used to be, if you get hit by an Excursion, you are still probably going to end up dead.

 

[mechanicx]

It is an example of statistics not telling the whole or true story, and where maybe older drives make the larger car's statistics look worse. You could get rear ended on the freeway by another econobox even and be crushed in your small car whereas you probably wouldn't in something like an Impala. When you see how most of these smaller cars crush and fall apart much worse than the bigger car they collide with you don't believe the "statitics".