As Harman the R&D has already been spent, which I think is edyvw's point. The fuel and the technology to produce it is already in place in Europe. The car&lube tech to take advantage of it is already on the market today.
US EPA Finalizes Low Sulfur Gasoline
- Thread starter Hyde244
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: hatt
To be fair those people were talking about those when they weren't nearly as good as now. If Henry had started off putting coyotes in Model Ts you wouldn't have heard complaining.
That was my whole point. Fuel injection wasn't perfect from day one. Look how long Audi and others stuck with mechanical fuel injection. Electronic ignition wasn't perfect, either. The point is that a new technology or a new rule or a new guideline comes into place, and people panic with doom and gloom scenarios, none of which ever turn out.
There are two possible morals to the story. Don't cry wolf. Or, better, don't tell the same lie twice.
To be fair those people were talking about those when they weren't nearly as good as now. If Henry had started off putting coyotes in Model Ts you wouldn't have heard complaining.
That was my whole point. Fuel injection wasn't perfect from day one. Look how long Audi and others stuck with mechanical fuel injection. Electronic ignition wasn't perfect, either. The point is that a new technology or a new rule or a new guideline comes into place, and people panic with doom and gloom scenarios, none of which ever turn out.
There are two possible morals to the story. Don't cry wolf. Or, better, don't tell the same lie twice.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: hatt
To be fair those people were talking about those when they weren't nearly as good as now. If Henry had started off putting coyotes in Model Ts you wouldn't have heard complaining.
That was my whole point. Fuel injection wasn't perfect from day one. Look how long Audi and others stuck with mechanical fuel injection. Electronic ignition wasn't perfect, either. The point is that a new technology or a new rule or a new guideline comes into place, and people panic with doom and gloom scenarios, none of which ever turn out.
There are two possible morals to the story. Don't cry wolf. Or, better, don't tell the same lie twice.
Government doesn't make stuff better. Smart people do. Without .gov intervention we'd still have the excellent gas engines we have today, we just wouldn't have had a bunch of the junk manufactures hastily put out to comply with arbitrary .gov demands. Both ways work in the end, at least so far, but which sounds more sensible?
Originally Posted By: hatt
To be fair those people were talking about those when they weren't nearly as good as now. If Henry had started off putting coyotes in Model Ts you wouldn't have heard complaining.
That was my whole point. Fuel injection wasn't perfect from day one. Look how long Audi and others stuck with mechanical fuel injection. Electronic ignition wasn't perfect, either. The point is that a new technology or a new rule or a new guideline comes into place, and people panic with doom and gloom scenarios, none of which ever turn out.
There are two possible morals to the story. Don't cry wolf. Or, better, don't tell the same lie twice.
Government doesn't make stuff better. Smart people do. Without .gov intervention we'd still have the excellent gas engines we have today, we just wouldn't have had a bunch of the junk manufactures hastily put out to comply with arbitrary .gov demands. Both ways work in the end, at least so far, but which sounds more sensible?
^ Smart regulations can also have the power to make stuff better. Need us not forget how fuel economy standards where in the dumper before the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard was created, or the brilliant invention of the catalytic converter that was created to fight the problem of emissions and smog.
It is a give and take between industry and regulation on delivery of quality products in the market place, but never can one side claim full responsibility for innovation.
It is a give and take between industry and regulation on delivery of quality products in the market place, but never can one side claim full responsibility for innovation.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2026
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: edyvw
So the point is?
We are already driving cars that are technologically more advanced then the fuel is.
You really shouldn't say things like this because people will think you don't know how the auto business works. Cars and fuels are designed to work together. The SAE has a Fuels & Lubes Committee where oil company representatives get together with auto manufacturer representatives years before new cars are introduced to make sure the proper fuels are available. This is how unleaded gas became available at the same time that cars with catalytic converters were introduced. This is how ULSD became available at the same time that DPF's were introduced.
When the EPA writes a new regulation, the auto manufacturers and oil companies have to spend BILLIONS of dollars and undertake years of R & D to comply. Then the cost of their products go up, which represents the hidden tax of regulation. So if you're willing to pay more for clean air, that's how it happens. In this case, I don't think that changing sulfur concentration from 30 ppm to 10 ppm is going to make a measurable difference in air quality over and above natural background pollution, but since the increase in fuel cost will only be ~2.5% I'll find something else to get stressed-out about.
Well I am driving car that had to be modified for the U.S. market, and has issues that are not present on EU market, where they use Low sulfur gas for a long time.
I did not refer for F-150, Dodge RAm and similar trucks. What about BMW 335i? New Cadillacs?
Originally Posted By: edyvw
So the point is?
We are already driving cars that are technologically more advanced then the fuel is.
You really shouldn't say things like this because people will think you don't know how the auto business works. Cars and fuels are designed to work together. The SAE has a Fuels & Lubes Committee where oil company representatives get together with auto manufacturer representatives years before new cars are introduced to make sure the proper fuels are available. This is how unleaded gas became available at the same time that cars with catalytic converters were introduced. This is how ULSD became available at the same time that DPF's were introduced.
When the EPA writes a new regulation, the auto manufacturers and oil companies have to spend BILLIONS of dollars and undertake years of R & D to comply. Then the cost of their products go up, which represents the hidden tax of regulation. So if you're willing to pay more for clean air, that's how it happens. In this case, I don't think that changing sulfur concentration from 30 ppm to 10 ppm is going to make a measurable difference in air quality over and above natural background pollution, but since the increase in fuel cost will only be ~2.5% I'll find something else to get stressed-out about.
Well I am driving car that had to be modified for the U.S. market, and has issues that are not present on EU market, where they use Low sulfur gas for a long time.
I did not refer for F-150, Dodge RAm and similar trucks. What about BMW 335i? New Cadillacs?
Originally Posted By: Hyde244
^ Smart regulations can also have the power to make stuff better.
Forget trying to reason with these guys. They're against everything coming out of Washington since 2008. When I see Florida under a username, I pretty much know what to expect.
^ Smart regulations can also have the power to make stuff better.
Forget trying to reason with these guys. They're against everything coming out of Washington since 2008. When I see Florida under a username, I pretty much know what to expect.
It must be tough living in a world where *some* people aren't as smart as you are, that determination being made via political beliefs.
Vile.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Forget trying to reason with these guys. They're against everything coming out of Washington since 2008. When I see Florida under a username, I pretty much know what to expect.
Vile.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Forget trying to reason with these guys. They're against everything coming out of Washington since 2008. When I see Florida under a username, I pretty much know what to expect.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2026
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Hyde244
^ Smart regulations can also have the power to make stuff better.
Forget trying to reason with these guys. They're against everything coming out of Washington since 2008. When I see Florida under a username, I pretty much know what to expect.
Agree!
Originally Posted By: Hyde244
^ Smart regulations can also have the power to make stuff better.
Forget trying to reason with these guys. They're against everything coming out of Washington since 2008. When I see Florida under a username, I pretty much know what to expect.
Agree!
Originally Posted By: Hyde244
^ Smart regulations can also have the power to make stuff better. Need us not forget how fuel economy standards where in the dumper before the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard was created, or the brilliant invention of the catalytic converter that was created to fight the problem of emissions and smog.
It is a give and take between industry and regulation on delivery of quality products in the market place, but never can one side claim full responsibility for innovation.
Fuel economy was always going to improve. Cars that are cheaper to operate didn't magically appear with CAFE. You're probably right about the catalytic converter. No one would have put those on vehicles by their own free will. Government incentives would have probably done just as good a job as the heavy handed tactics however.
^ Smart regulations can also have the power to make stuff better. Need us not forget how fuel economy standards where in the dumper before the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard was created, or the brilliant invention of the catalytic converter that was created to fight the problem of emissions and smog.
It is a give and take between industry and regulation on delivery of quality products in the market place, but never can one side claim full responsibility for innovation.
Fuel economy was always going to improve. Cars that are cheaper to operate didn't magically appear with CAFE. You're probably right about the catalytic converter. No one would have put those on vehicles by their own free will. Government incentives would have probably done just as good a job as the heavy handed tactics however.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Government doesn't make stuff better. Smart people do. Without .gov intervention we'd still have the excellent gas engines we have today, we just wouldn't have had a bunch of the junk manufactures hastily put out to comply with arbitrary .gov demands. Both ways work in the end, at least so far, but which sounds more sensible?
I don't want to get into the politics of this issue, since it is not permissible here. I wouldn't say that government makes much of anything better, but I don't think we'd have seen the emissions improvements without the regulations.
We certainly would have seen some impressive engines based upon performance and fuel economy, regardless of regulation. After all, some people want a vehicle with good fuel economy, and others want vehicles with lots of power, and some want a bit of both. The market can certainly help with those issues.
That doesn't silence the complaining, though. Now that we in North America realize we don't have a divine right to $1.50 per gallon gasoline, fuel economy all of a sudden gets important and we're blaming the oil companies for "gouging."
I said many years ago, back in the $1.50 to $2 per gallon days, when people grumbled about the price - I said wait until one billion Chinese start driving. Then, complain about the price.
Government doesn't make stuff better. Smart people do. Without .gov intervention we'd still have the excellent gas engines we have today, we just wouldn't have had a bunch of the junk manufactures hastily put out to comply with arbitrary .gov demands. Both ways work in the end, at least so far, but which sounds more sensible?
I don't want to get into the politics of this issue, since it is not permissible here. I wouldn't say that government makes much of anything better, but I don't think we'd have seen the emissions improvements without the regulations.
We certainly would have seen some impressive engines based upon performance and fuel economy, regardless of regulation. After all, some people want a vehicle with good fuel economy, and others want vehicles with lots of power, and some want a bit of both. The market can certainly help with those issues.
That doesn't silence the complaining, though. Now that we in North America realize we don't have a divine right to $1.50 per gallon gasoline, fuel economy all of a sudden gets important and we're blaming the oil companies for "gouging."
I said many years ago, back in the $1.50 to $2 per gallon days, when people grumbled about the price - I said wait until one billion Chinese start driving. Then, complain about the price.
^ +1 Spot on Garak!
Originally Posted By: hatt
Fuel economy was always going to improve. Cars that are cheaper to operate didn't magically appear with CAFE. You're probably right about the catalytic converter. No one would have put those on vehicles by their own free will. Government incentives would have probably done just as good a job as the heavy handed tactics however.
The National Academy of Sciences conducted a study on the effectiveness of CAFE in 2002, and determined that without the fuel economy regulations, fuel consumption would be 14% higher than it actually was in 2002.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10172&page=9
While supply and demand would lead one to believe that higher gasoline prices would cause increases in MPG; historical data shows that changes in CAFE standards, not gasoline price, have had the largest impact on US vehicle MPG.
Originally Posted By: hatt
Fuel economy was always going to improve. Cars that are cheaper to operate didn't magically appear with CAFE. You're probably right about the catalytic converter. No one would have put those on vehicles by their own free will. Government incentives would have probably done just as good a job as the heavy handed tactics however.
The National Academy of Sciences conducted a study on the effectiveness of CAFE in 2002, and determined that without the fuel economy regulations, fuel consumption would be 14% higher than it actually was in 2002.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10172&page=9
While supply and demand would lead one to believe that higher gasoline prices would cause increases in MPG; historical data shows that changes in CAFE standards, not gasoline price, have had the largest impact on US vehicle MPG.
By making cars smaller than what the free market would have naturally chosen. That's not really technological advancement.
And what did the mandatory cat converters do to lean burn technology? A proven gas saver that didn't play well with cats. Stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.
And what did the mandatory cat converters do to lean burn technology? A proven gas saver that didn't play well with cats. Stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2026
Originally Posted By: hatt
So you're saying that without CAFE a 2014 Toyota 2.5 engine would get 14% worst fuel economy?
No, he is saying that probably we would not have that engine at all.
If there was no Euro norms in Europe, I would not be driving 2.0TSI engine that can outpace Mustang V6, and still get on HWY 33-37mpg. So regulations can serve as incentive to make better engines or cars (although European cars are efficient also because gas in Europe is expensive). If you think that is bad, just remember, BMW, Mercedes, VW etc. never had bigger profits, regardless that EU regulates much more then the U.S.
So you're saying that without CAFE a 2014 Toyota 2.5 engine would get 14% worst fuel economy?
No, he is saying that probably we would not have that engine at all.
If there was no Euro norms in Europe, I would not be driving 2.0TSI engine that can outpace Mustang V6, and still get on HWY 33-37mpg. So regulations can serve as incentive to make better engines or cars (although European cars are efficient also because gas in Europe is expensive). If you think that is bad, just remember, BMW, Mercedes, VW etc. never had bigger profits, regardless that EU regulates much more then the U.S.
Last edited:
edyvw
$50 site donor 2026
Originally Posted By: hatt
By making cars smaller than what the free market would have naturally chosen. That's not really technological advancement.
And what did the mandatory cat converters do to lean burn technology? A proven gas saver that didn't play well with cats. Stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Here we go again with free market!
I think large cars are still available? You drive F-150 right? Though, when I lived in Alabama, I could not figure out why 90% of drivers of F-150 are needing that truck (this is just observation, not implying gov. should tell you what to drive).
As much as you think that you have a right to drive whatever you choose, diving a car is not a constitutional right! Breathing clean air, meaning, that state has an obligation to provide you decent living conditions, is a constitutional right!
And, there is no such thing as 100% free market. In a supreme court decision Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824, Congress got powers to regulate commerce under commerce clause, and we can go on and on about other cases where it is clear, that free market means: fair! There are stories in the books where people invoked free market argument when T-Rex pushed to dissolved monopolies, limit working hours, and prevent children to be used as cheap labor.
By making cars smaller than what the free market would have naturally chosen. That's not really technological advancement.
And what did the mandatory cat converters do to lean burn technology? A proven gas saver that didn't play well with cats. Stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.
Here we go again with free market!
I think large cars are still available? You drive F-150 right? Though, when I lived in Alabama, I could not figure out why 90% of drivers of F-150 are needing that truck (this is just observation, not implying gov. should tell you what to drive).
As much as you think that you have a right to drive whatever you choose, diving a car is not a constitutional right! Breathing clean air, meaning, that state has an obligation to provide you decent living conditions, is a constitutional right!
And, there is no such thing as 100% free market. In a supreme court decision Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824, Congress got powers to regulate commerce under commerce clause, and we can go on and on about other cases where it is clear, that free market means: fair! There are stories in the books where people invoked free market argument when T-Rex pushed to dissolved monopolies, limit working hours, and prevent children to be used as cheap labor.
Originally Posted By: hatt
By making cars smaller than what the free market would have naturally chosen. That's not really technological advancement.
And what did the mandatory cat converters do to lean burn technology? A proven gas saver that didn't play well with cats. Stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.
hatt, I would encourage you to conduct some more research for your claims.
You wonder what the catalytic converter does to reduce emissions. Wikipedia has a great entry for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
I also do not understand your rationale on the free market somehow being impeded of natural choice. The Ford F-150 has been the most popular vehicle purchased in the U.S. for the last 40 years. It has also been a vehicle that has seen fuel technology advancement, such as direct injection, variable cam timing, etc.
By making cars smaller than what the free market would have naturally chosen. That's not really technological advancement.
And what did the mandatory cat converters do to lean burn technology? A proven gas saver that didn't play well with cats. Stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.
hatt, I would encourage you to conduct some more research for your claims.
You wonder what the catalytic converter does to reduce emissions. Wikipedia has a great entry for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
I also do not understand your rationale on the free market somehow being impeded of natural choice. The Ford F-150 has been the most popular vehicle purchased in the U.S. for the last 40 years. It has also been a vehicle that has seen fuel technology advancement, such as direct injection, variable cam timing, etc.
Originally Posted By: hatt
By making cars smaller than what the free market would have naturally chosen. That's not really technological advancement.
If something wasn't naturally selected by a free market, then it's not a technological advancement? That doesn't follow. Smaller cars may or may not be a technological advancement, but the free market has no bearing on that statement.
By making cars smaller than what the free market would have naturally chosen. That's not really technological advancement.
If something wasn't naturally selected by a free market, then it's not a technological advancement? That doesn't follow. Smaller cars may or may not be a technological advancement, but the free market has no bearing on that statement.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2026
Originally Posted By: hatt
Hard to talk to the .gov knows best and does no wrong. You guys have at it discussing how politicians and bureaucrats are improving our lives, and helping engineers.
Who said that gov. knows the best? I do not think that these recommendations are coming from appointed politicians, but scientists that are working on this for decades.
Sometimes you have EPA administration that is snubbed by the White House, sometimes not. I would rather have scientists making decisions then K Street in Washington DC. You think about free market? 600,000 lobbyists in DC and you are talking about free market? Give me a break man! Less FOX News and more other sources of information would not hurt!
Hard to talk to the .gov knows best and does no wrong. You guys have at it discussing how politicians and bureaucrats are improving our lives, and helping engineers.
Who said that gov. knows the best? I do not think that these recommendations are coming from appointed politicians, but scientists that are working on this for decades.
Sometimes you have EPA administration that is snubbed by the White House, sometimes not. I would rather have scientists making decisions then K Street in Washington DC. You think about free market? 600,000 lobbyists in DC and you are talking about free market? Give me a break man! Less FOX News and more other sources of information would not hurt!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
