Welcome back to the 100hp days.

[TJones]

You better buy up the horsepower while you can, Obama is gonna put the Kaibosh on the pony cars and SUVs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_.../us_obama_autos

[Pumapayam]

You better buy up the horsepower while you can, Obama is gonna put the Kaibosh on the pony cars and SUVs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090519/ap_on_.../us_obama_autos

For a commuter traveling, muscle cars are not needed.

I would love to have more options for better quality tiny cars as a second car.

But I don't think Obama will ever kill off the love Americans have for their Challengers/Camaros/Mustangs.

Don't sweat it, it's a company average.

So for everyone heavy hitter, the company needs a feather weight to compliment it to average out.

[cottonmather0]

For a commuter traveling, muscle cars are not needed.

I would love to have more options for better quality tiny cars as a second car.

But I don't think Obama will ever kill off the love Americans have for their Challengers/Camaros/Mustangs.

Don't sweat it, it's a company average.

So for everyone heavy hitter, the company needs a feather weight to compliment it to average out.

It is indeed a company average, but it's based on production and carmakers are not going to produce cars that won't sell. Ergo, they'll eventually have to kill off the larger cars (or raise prices so as to not to produce and sell as many) to push people into the smaller cars and get their fleet average into the compliance zone.

[marmer]

Whatever. I like Obama, and I voted for him, but he's going to have to understand that simply playing with numbers on fuel economy and emissions standards alone aren't going to result in the production of vehicles that meet people's needs. True, you can commute in a tiny car, if that's all you need it for and comfort doesn't matter. But you can't pull a trailer, carry a load, or move very many people with one. And, thanks to the auto industry, we now have improved gasoline and diesel engine efficiency to the highest level they have ever been. Just the plain chemistry and physics of the fuels involved make it clear that all the big gains are past us.

I actually don't have a very optimistic view of the future of transportation. The kinds of torque and horsepower required for large trucks, buses, and most commercial vehicles aren't likely to happen without either diesel-electric systems or some other kind of massive electric motor system. And you're not going to be able to get the kind of juice those need without some kind of significant onboard energy source. In today's world that's a diesel engine. In a post-petroleum world, I don't know. It ain't solar. Maybe mini-nukes? Though the shielding and accident potential are a real problem. And aviation? Without some kind of real anti-gravitics, aviation as we know it will be gone in less than a century.

[ricco67]

Whatever. I like Obama, and I voted for him, but he's going to have to understand that simply playing with numbers on fuel economy and emissions standards alone aren't going to result in the production of vehicles that meet people's needs. True, you can commute in a tiny car, if that's all you need it for and comfort doesn't matter. But you can't pull a trailer, carry a load, or move very many people with one. And, thanks to the auto industry, we now have improved gasoline and diesel engine efficiency to the highest level they have ever been. Just the plain chemistry and physics of the fuels involved make it clear that all the big gains are past us.

I actually don't have a very optimistic view of the future of transportation. The kinds of torque and horsepower required for large trucks, buses, and most commercial vehicles aren't likely to happen without either diesel-electric systems or some other kind of massive electric motor system. And you're not going to be able to get the kind of juice those need without some kind of significant onboard energy source. In today's world that's a diesel engine. In a post-petroleum world, I don't know. It ain't solar. Maybe mini-nukes? Though the shielding and accident potential are a real problem. And aviation? Without some kind of real anti-gravitics, aviation as we know it will be gone in less than a century.

I agree that people need to purchase vehicles that suit them, such as you have described; I just have problems with people that buy an SUV or a giant pickup because they just WANT it.

Didn't Texas, at one point, require a special permit to drive vehicles above a certain size? If so, I think they need to look into it again.

There has been an increase of people buying smaller cars that live within the city for years, and I'm looking to purchase a small or mid-sized car because I don't NEED anything that big. If I need a truck or van for some reason, I could simply just rent one for a weekend or whatever.

[CDeb]

For a commuter traveling, muscle cars are not needed.

I wouldn't call my V6 Camry a "muscle car" by any stretch of the imagination. But on Houston's freeways, the two extra cylinders can be just as important as the brakes, IMO.

And I drive conservatively enough to still average 30.5 mpg, 15% over the EPA rating.

[lockmat]

I agree that people need to purchase vehicles that suit them, such as you have described; I just have problems with people that buy an SUV or a giant pickup because they just WANT it.

Didn't Texas, at one point, require a special permit to drive vehicles above a certain size? If so, I think they need to look into it again.

There has been an increase of people buying smaller cars that live within the city for years, and I'm looking to purchase a small or mid-sized car because I don't NEED anything that big. If I need a truck or van for some reason, I could simply just rent one for a weekend or whatever.

Well, you think the minivan will be really popular then? For the most part, it fills the need of the families who just need the space but like the humongousness of an SUV. They'll just downsize but keep the number of seats and storage space.

[Bombero451]

I just have problems with people that buy an SUV or a giant pickup because they just WANT it.

Why? That's a funny statement.

Why shouldn't people buy things they want? if they can afford the vehicle and the additional fuel costs to operate them, then Detroit, the unions, the economy and the government will be happy for the revenue.

[20thStDad]

Stretching gasoline efficiency to the limit isn't a real change to anything. Until someone figures out a different and better way to push a car, it's pissing in an ocean. So why punish consumers by not supplying what they are clearly demanding?

[Fringe]

Couldn't we just kill off all the Hummer and Escalade owners?

[sevfiv]

^ha!

Ugh, reform in an industry that is torn between utility and vanity (I'd generalize consumers in those two categories) ain't gonna be easy.

[TheNiche]

So why punish consumers by not supplying what they are clearly demanding?

There's a reason that 80% of the attention spent on energy conservation and pollution is oriented at a technology (consumer automobiles) that is only about 20% of the respective problems. It's political maneuvering.

The vast majority of voters do not have any conception of the scale of the processes involved to deliver electricity to where they live or work. Power plants and coal mines are invisible to them. There is no concept of how much physical fuel it takes for them to cool their houses. When they purchase some PVC lawn furniture, they don't see any evidence of the industrial processes or energy consumption that went into it. They don't conceive of the diesel-powered freight logistics that got it to their local Wal-Mart...but they sure as hell know how they're getting it home. And they know what the price of gasoline is. And they know about emissions testing during vehicle inspections.

That's the bottom line. Most voters are devoid of the capacity for abstract thought, so politicians target issues that voters are familiar with on a hands-on day-to-day basis.

[marmer]

Stretching gasoline efficiency to the limit isn't a real change to anything. Until someone figures out a different and better way to push a car, it's pissing in an ocean. So why punish consumers by not supplying what they are clearly demanding?

Yes, exactly. It really bugs me that people are so quick to assume that no one needs a SUV or pickup truck. I'd be willing to bet that most people who bash SUV's haven't really taken a close look at them. They ride like crap, their handling and braking are awful, they are hard to park, they use a lot of gas, and they are expensive to buy. Probably even the most die-hard SUV owner would agree with all of those. So why do people buy these monsters and put up with them? Hint: it's not a status symbol (though the BADGE may be). It's so they can have a higher driving position, so they can drive through flooded streets a little more confidently, so they can feel safer in a collision (whether they really are is a different question), so they can actually move stuff once in a while, and so they can go somewhere with friends and family in one car. And even if you took all the privately-owned SUVs and pickups off the road, you still would have millions of them being used as commercial vehicles, because they are the only vehicles that can do the job.

[marmer]

Didn't Texas, at one point, require a special permit to drive vehicles above a certain size? If so, I think they need to look into it again.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think anything larger than a 24 foot box truck requires a commercial driver's license.

[sevfiv]

What about this?

well, wait - you could probably fit a large family in it - but bumps/dips might not be fun for the kit

[sevfiv]

Oh, and a CDl is needed in these cases (except for farming, military, fire protection, or "personal" recreational vehicles):

CLASS A: Any combination of vehicles with a gross combination

weight rating of 26,001 pounds or more,

provided the gross vehicle weight rating of the

vehicle or vehicles towed exceeds 10,000

pounds;

CLASS B: Any single vehicle with a gross vehicle weight

rating of 26,001 pounds or more, any one of

those vehicles towing a vehicle that does not

exceed 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating,

and any vehicle designed to transport 24

passengers or more, including the driver; and a

Class B license will be restricted to operating

busses under 26,001 pounds GVWR if the skills

test is taken in a bus with a GVWR of less than

26,001 pounds; and

CLASS C: Any single vehicle or combination of vehicles

that is not a Class A or Class B if the vehicle is:

1) designed to transport 16 to 23 passengers

including the driver; or

2) used in the transportation of hazardous materials

that require the vehicle to be placarded

under 49 CFR, Part 172, Subpart F.

[cottonmather0]

It really bugs me that people are so quick to assume that no one needs a SUV or pickup truck.

Take it one step further and don't even bother talking about cars - what business is it of ANYONE, including our benevolent national (at this stage) government, telling you that they alone can decide better than you the dividing line between what you want and what you need and what you actually can have?

[marmer]

There's a reason that 80% of the attention spent on energy conservation and pollution is oriented at a technology (consumer automobiles) that is only about 20% of the respective problems. It's political maneuvering.

(snip additional useful information.)

Thanks, Niche. I have seen numbers lower than 20%, but admittedly in auto-biased publications, so I can live with the 20. But it really bothers me. The auto industry has done what the government and its customers told them they wanted. They have created fuel economy with reduced emissions that would absolutely dazzle the first anti-car commentators of the 1970s. And, in some happy cases, they have created high performance, too. And now privately-owned internal combustion vehicles are somehow the ruination of the planet, and industrial transportation, aviation, power generation, and construction vehicles are rarely if ever mentioned.

[ricco67]

I'm not saying that there is NOT a place for SUVs or larger trucks. Lord knows there are enough contractors out there as proof. There are people that go out camping, tow boats, or have families (and therefore logistic issues) that can easily justify them.

The excuse of "It's so they can have a higher driving position, so they can drive through flooded streets a little more confidently", is bull. If you look to see who gets flooded out the most, you'd see its a high number of SUVs that get flooded out in such situations because people have a false sense of security. In fact, there was a male that was killed because he didn't drive with diligence in a flooded street and wound up being sucked into a culvert.

Let's not forget the number of people that have been killed collisions because they are more likely to be in a rollover accident because the morons were speeding to begin with.

[sevfiv]

logistic issues

I'd say that in the land of conspicuous consumption, this is the exception and not the rule in vehicle purchases (unless you're looking at fleet buys).

But like said above, who's to say what we want, need and can have (aside from regulations we have) no matter how ridiculous it may seem...

[barracuda]

For a commuter traveling, muscle cars are not needed.

I would love to have more options for better quality tiny cars as a second car.

But I don't think Obama will ever kill off the love Americans have for their Challengers/Camaros/Mustangs.

Don't sweat it, it's a company average.

So for everyone heavy hitter, the company needs a feather weight to compliment it to average out.

I think you're right -- there will always be performance and muscle cars available. You may have to pay more for them though.

And I disagree that this rule will take us back to the days of 100hp. There are cars today that achieve the fuel standards today without overly compromising on power (e.g. - the Ford Fusion Hybrid gets 41mpg city/36mpg highway, yet it has a combined 191hp).

Automakers are supportive of this move, maybe because they have no choice, but also perhaps because they now have a real concrete standard to work with. Prior to this, the automakers have dealt with multiple different standards (national and California), and also the uncertainty about where those standards might go in the future.

Like it or not, this will probably end up being good for the industry. Fuel prices are going to go back up, and the amazingly fickle and short-sighted consumers in this country will demand more efficient cars again the very instant that happens.

[marmer]

The excuse of "It's so they can have a higher driving position, so they can drive through flooded streets a little more confidently", is bull. If you look to see who gets flooded out the most, you'd see its a high number of SUVs that get flooded out in such situations because people have a false sense of safety. In fact, there was a male that was killed because they didn't drive with diligence in a flooded street and wound up being sucked into a culvert.

I mostly agree with you, especially about the false sense of security and the idiotic driving. But in my post I intended for the higher driving position and ability to cross flooded streets to be two different things. I've known plenty of people, especially older people, whose knees and hips are more comfortable at the seating height of an SUV. And, all things being equal, some places that are impassable for a Civic are not an issue for an Explorer. If you live in an area where you get water on the roads and you are familiar with them, then sometimes an inch or two of ride height makes a big difference. Obviously you shouldn't drive into deep water in anything. Although silly people do.

[marmer]

I think you're right -- there will always be performance and muscle cars available. You may have to pay more for them though.

As the modern auto market in Europe and Japan demonstrates.

And I disagree that this rule will take us back to the days of 100hp. There are cars today that achieve the fuel standards today without overly compromising on power (e.g. - the Ford Fusion Hybrid gets 41mpg city/36mpg highway, yet it has a combined 191hp).

The Fusion Hybrid is a spectacular car, and may well be a grand slam home run for Ford. I really hope it is. But even it won't be the answer if politicians just keep ratcheting up the standards with no sense of what's practically achievable.

Automakers are supportive of this move, maybe because they have no choice, but also perhaps because they now have a real concrete standard to work with. Prior to this, the automakers have dealt with multiple different standards (national and California), and also the uncertainty about where those standards might go in the future.

Like it or not, this will probably end up being good for the industry. Fuel prices are going to go back up, and the amazingly fickle and short-sighted consumers in this country will demand more efficient cars again the very instant that happens.

I completely agree that uniformity of standards is a good, maybe even necessary thing. I am actually surprised that the states were ever allowed to set their own. I also agree that fuel prices will go up and everyone will want high-mileage cars again right damned now. One thing that looks like it is going to be a little different is that we're starting to see some new "clean" diesels and diesel prices seem a little more reasonable than they have been in past years.

[ricco67]

I mostly agree with you, especially about the false sense of security and the idiotic driving. But in my post I intended for the higher driving position and ability to cross flooded streets to be two different things. I've known plenty of people, especially older people, whose knees and hips are more comfortable at the seating height of an SUV. And, all things being equal, some places that are impassable for a Civic are not an issue for an Explorer. If you live in an area where you get water on the roads and you are familiar with them, then sometimes an inch or two of ride height makes a big difference. Obviously you shouldn't drive into deep water in anything. Although silly people do.

Someone in a civic would be more defensive more aware with what's going on around them, as opposed to someone in an SUV. Just because you have the ability to go into a flooded street, doesn't mean that you have the wherewithal to be ABLE to go down that street safely. Now, if that street was in your own neighborhood that you know floods every time a drop of water hits the pavement, then you should be able to be wise enough to know how to navigate it, but when you're dealing with unfamiliar territory, in less then ideal conditions, the decision to make a crossing like that is just asking for trouble.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

Personally, I was surprised to find out that the required fuel efficiency standards haven't increased since 1985. Did we truly reach our technological limits for gasoline powered engines 25 years ago?

I know the '86 Chevy Cavalier I drove for the longest time got well over 30 mpg. Same with my old '96 Honda Civic. Now, in the late 2000's, it seems you have to buy a hybrid to get those kind of MPG's out of a 4-cylinder engine.

Is it that the car manufacturers can't get better fuel efficiency, or that they won't?

[marmer]

Personally, I was surprised to find out that the required fuel efficiency standards haven't increased since 1985. Did we truly reach our technological limits for gasoline powered engines 25 years ago?

I know the '86 Chevy Cavalier I drove for the longest time got well over 30 mpg. Same with my old '96 Honda Civic. Now, in the late 2000's, it seems you have to buy a hybrid to get those kind of MPG's out of a 4-cylinder engine.

Is it that the car manufacturers can't get better fuel efficiency, or that they won't?

No, in fact auto engines have become way more efficient since then, but it is more apparent in reduced emissions and increased power. Improved mileage is a little more noticeable in modern six and eight cylinder engines. Your Cavalier and Civic are way lighter than modern cars; for better or worse there is an expectation of automatic transmissions, antilock brakes, a brace of air bags, stiffer structure and crumple zones, stability control and all those other safety features you see advertised every day. That adds a lot of weight to small and midsize cars and requires more engine power for the same size car. And, to be fair, there was less market and political interest in fuel economy when gas was so cheap for so long.

[lockmat]

I hope Ed doesn't mind, but at this Detroit Forum, they've got some great observations that we could read and learn from and bring back to the discussion here.

I highly reccommend checking it out...

LINK

[marmer]

Agree with lockmat's recommendation. Lots of opinions, many of which you won't agree with regardless of which side you're on, but also lots of good background info.

[JLWM8609]

When similar rules were enforced in the 1980s, Mercedes-Benz, which had previously sold lots of gas guzzling performance V8s sold a sh!tload of turbo diesel powered cars just for the US market to meet their average. They were peppy for diesels of that era, and got much better fuel mileage than their gas counterparts. Not only did MB meet the average and not pay large fines, but those diesels have outlived their gas counterparts and have formed a large, cult like following today.

Perhaps we'll see more diesel autos again? Both domestic and foreign that is.

[marmer]

Well, enthusiasts have been clamoring for all those great European diesels for years. Their torque makes them lots of fun for city driving. The new BMW 3-series diesel is one of the first to come over here. It's also the first, I think, to meet EPA emissions standards by means of urea injection (carried in a tank and replenished at the dealer every 15,000 miles or so; a urea fill will cost about $50). Emissions and the cost of diesel relative to gasoline have historically been the obstacles to the Euro manufacturers bringing their diesels over. It wasn't cost effective to certify another model for the US market. Now that diesel prices have come down more equal to gasoline, and urea is showing some promise in emissions control, I agree that we will see lots more small diesels. Maybe even diesels used in domestic automobiles, and nearly exclusively in trucks, minivans, and SUVs.

The ill-fated Oldsmobile diesel of the late 70s and its Cadillac sibling were gasoline V8s that were converted to diesel, with fairly severe reliability consequences. I mentioned this in another forum but haven't said it here; one of the reasons for the sudden perceived drop in quality of American cars in the 70s and early 80s was the use of desperately underpowered engines in fairly heavy vehicles. This led to a lot of fairly dramatic and expensive component failures. As engine power has increased, the engines are not working as hard, and we are seeing many fewer engine-related reliability issues, even among the historically least reliable brands like Chrysler.