Hi all I've been listening to all the news about the dramatic increases in fuel economy standards that are to take place by 2016 and I honestly don't

O

onebigdawg53

Senior Insider
Hi all

I've been listening to all the news about the dramatic increases in fuel economy standards that are to take place by 2016 and I honestly don't understand all of the hype. We already have available, today, a line of vehicles that average 54 miles to the gallon and can be purchased for about usd 7,000.

You can read all about it here -

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_staff/john_phillips/wildfire_wf650_c_column

I understand a NASCAR version is under development as well as a Formula One version to be released in 2012 LOL.

Although I'm posting the above very much tongue in cheek, I'm afraid this is the direction we are heading to with personal vehicles.
 
Fuel economy is both an environmental and a national security issue. When the market will not step up to to protect those interests, the government needs to to.

I note that the auto makers once objected to installing seat belts on all cars. In order to have safe and efficient vehicles, the auto makers need to be pushed.
 
You miss the point. It's about the losses of personal choices. And, I have a major issue with a government dictating to me what I can and can not drive. If that's the kind of government you want, move to Cuba and let the experts of a 50+ year dictatorship dictate your life for you.
 
I've got all kinds of problems with the government telling me what I can and cannot do. Speed limits for example. Nonetheless, living in a democracy I realize that the law does not depend on my own personal views but on the views of the majority.

Moreover, personally, I don't view national security as a matter of my own personal choice, unless there is a constitutional violation.

You and I also will have to disagree on the defintion of dicatorship. Personally, I don't view "raising fuel economy so that our country is not at the mercy of foreign oil" to be dictatorhship. I view secret prisons and being held without charges and without access to attorneys as dicatorship. Fuel economy or health standards? Not diotatorship.
 
If it was only a question of fuel economy!the real question is how many deaths and maimings are going to occur because these small light weight vehicles are going to be crushed in a crash.Seatbelts and airbags aren't going to make a difference.Putting babies in the back seat facing backwards in a government approved baby seat isn't going to make a difference.We never needed to be dependent upon foreign oil, but government 'policy' got in the way.As Rrahm Emanuel famously stated, 'Never let a good crisis go to waste'.hey, why wait for a crisis?The electorate is so stupid you can spoon feed them the 'facts' all day and they'll believe there IS a crisis and believe the government's motives aren't nefarious too!
 
Dave, Then when the loss of gas tax money doesn't produce the income government is looking for, what do you think they will do?
 
I can't believe all you people want bigger cars instead of weaning ourselves from the foreign oil cartel. How soon we forget $4 gas. Boy. People who talk about babies should have one currently. Politics over common sense.
 
here is an idea.....walk!!..ride a bike!!!....did I say walk????.....and of course we need to get out of those stupid monster cars which men buy to feel potent and big and powerful ( obviously there are related overcompensating issues )...its a no briainer!.....they will figure out how to make a small car which is also safe and good on gas...on that you can be assured.....


now excuse me while I WALK to work.....no kidding
 
It's not about wanting bigger cars or smaller cars. It is about choice. $4.00 gas was no biggy for me because my roundtrip commute is 12 miles. And as I see it this could backfire. People who want a choice will keep their cars longer and then what? You have car companies producing more economical cars that no one wants to buy. Remember the 1970's with the Ford Pintos and Chevy Vegas?

BTW I looked into buying a Honda Fit but I didn't quite fir in the Fit lol.
 
wickhamlane said:
If it was only a question of fuel economy!the real question is how many deaths and maimings are going to occur because these small light weight vehicles are going to be crushed in a crash.
Click to expand...

That's where the Detroit engineering is but there's a lot more physics involved than just building heavyweight cars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86M_fV-1yKY

While a Volvo 940 is probably a compact car in the US, it shows what proper engineering can do in a crash. Crash isn't about weight but where the crash energy is put -- in the driver's body or elsewhere.

Laura's parent recently got the VW Passat 1.4 TSI and her father was showing me that he's doing about 6.5l/100 km (36 mpg), mostly city driving. The same car with 2.0 TDI goes below 5.0l/100 km quite easily. Not very far from 54 mpg and those new Passat's are probably safer than average SUV.
 
Still have my 1990 LS400 and I intend to keep my 2006 Volvo XC90.We have a 12 mile round trip commute as well.The air has gotten cleaner in the past 10 years, even with people driving those horrible SUVs.One thing is for certain.You'll never see the US relying on less foreign oil.It's just not going to happen.George is right.Consumers will be staying away from the newest versions of the '70s 'economy' cars in droves.
 
Only one thing will change American car buying habits to more fuel efficient vehicles, and that's higher gas prices. It's a shame that our political system has produced "leaders" without the courage to raise taxes on gas to accomplish the economic, strategic, and environmental objectives on which most all of us agree. These latest mpg standards will produce vehicles that Americans won't buy unless gas gets up to $4.00. That sound you hear is our billions in tax payer bailouts of the auto industry being flushed down the toilet.
 
Petri

I've looked at the Jetta TDI 2.0L available here. It is very economical but you crunch the numbers and unless you drive a lot of miles each year, which I don't, then it makes little sense economically. The ones I've looked at are priced usd 3-4,000 above the gasoline version with the 2.5L 5 cylinder gasoline engine, close to 20% higher price.

Factor in that the newly required clean, low-sulfur diesel fuel in the usa since 2007 has been much more expensive than regular gasoline. Then factor in the few miles I drive each year relative to most people and the difference in fuel economy between the two models.

I calculate the payback time of the diesel vs. gasoline model at 12-15 years.
 
Tim, This is exactly what I see coming down the pike. Gas will still be at the $4 level, or higher -just more of it going to government not the oil barons.
 
amyb said:
Dave, Then when the loss of gas tax money doesn't produce the income government is looking for, what do you think they will do?
Click to expand...

It will be a nice problem to have. If the fuel emissions standards work, we will have less to spend in other area -- less funding for certain health care issues, we will be less dependent on foreign oil and as such will be able to reduce the forces necessary in the Gulf area, etc.
 
Remember late last summer and early fall?The electorate demanded that the ban on offshore drilling be ended.It became so serious that before the election,Congress let the ban expire.Only when they were safely reelected was the ban reinstated.If we keep the pressure on the greedy cowards, and I mean greedy cowards in both parties, we can keep our republic.
 
QUOTE:" The electorate demanded that the ban on offshore drilling "

And just what electorate was that- FoxNews?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Stay At Any One Of These Villas...
Get A FREE Rental Car For The Duration Of Your Stay.


Villa Les Embruns
Flamands, St Barts
2 Bdrm/2Bath, Pool
View Villa
Value Villas on St Barts
Villa Diamond
St Jean, St. Barts
2 Bdrm, 2 Bath Pool
View Villa
Villas With Free Car
Villa C'est Ma Vue
St Jean, St Barts
3 Bdrm/ 3 Ba/ Pool
View Villa
Top