We need more SUVs on the road! Maybe we can create a tex credit for SUV drivers? Houston spends years working on a smog reduction stratgey, but says nothing about requiring better milage or lower emissions. Houston, says, drive a tank, just drive it slow. Dec. 19, 2000 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- America's love affair with gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles and pickups is keeping national fuel economy at a 20-year low, the government says. With automakers focusing on the bigger, more powerful vehicles, the Environmental Protection Agency found that average gasoline mileage for 2000 model year passenger vehicles was 24 miles per gallon, the same as last year and the lowest since 1980. The figure had climbed to 25.9 mpg in 1987 and 1988. The drop in fuel economy corresponds to a surge in sales of "light trucks," which include vans, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles. Those now account for 46 percent of all U.S. passenger vehicle sales. Light trucks tend to weigh more than cars and get fewer miles to the gallon. The average 2000 car gets 28.1 mpg, while light trucks get 20.5 mpg. "Consumers want cars that have certain performance features," said Gloria Bergquist, spokeswoman of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers that lobbies on behalf of 13 automakers. "We sell cars that get 40 miles per gallon, but fewer than 2 percent of consumers buy them." But Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming program, said Tuesday that automakers spend much of their huge advertising budgets pushing lower-mileage SUVs because they are so profitable. "They have found that the American public will buy a large pile of steel with plush seats and cup holders, despite the fact that they will guzzle gas, pollute the air and roll over and kill people," he said. Better gas mileage would reduce oil consumption, lower fuel costs and lower carbon dioxide emissions, he said. Passenger vehicles discharge about 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. The federal government's Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, adopted in 1975 to boost fuel economy, require each automaker to reach a 27.5 mpg average fuel economy on new passenger cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks. The automakers do not have reach the standard for each vehicle, but their entire fleet must meet the average. Critics say the standards are too low, but since 1996 the auto industry has successfully lobbied Congress to block the Clinton administration from even studying a possible increase. The EPA report, published last week, said new technologies are on the market that could increase fuel economy, but automakers instead have focused on building heavier vehicles and increasing acceleration. Vehicles that are heavier or have higher horsepower need more gas to operate, making it difficult to lower fuel economy even when new technologies emerge. The average fuel economy for 1981 vehicles was 24.1 mpg, slightly higher than model year 2000. But if the 2000 fleet had the same average weight and performance as in 1981 with today's technologies, it could have achieved 25 percent higher fuel economy, according to the report. That would have saved more than 10 billion gallons of gasoline per year, according to EPA officials. The weight of cars and light trucks increased 10 percent and 16 percent, respectively, since 1981. Today's cars can go from 0 to 60 miles per hour in 10.3 seconds, on average, down from 14.4 seconds in 1981. Average 0-to-60 acceleration for light trucks has moved from 14.6 seconds to 11.0 seconds. Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG have been working with the federal government since 1993 to develop higher-mileage vehicles in a program called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. Under that program, the Clinton-Gore administration challenged automakers to develop by 2004 production prototypes of a family size sedan that would get at least 80 miles per gallon. All three automakers have produced concept cars that at least come close to reaching the goal and are using the technology to develop production vehicles with better gas mileage. Ford announced last summer that it would increase the fuel economy of its SUV fleet by 25 percent by the 2005 model year. GM responded by pledging to keep the fuel economy of its light truck fleet better than Ford's. The report said if all the automakers increased their passenger vehicle fleets' gas mileage by 25 percent in five years, average fuel economy would increase to 30 mpg.
In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle... "Soo-prize, soo-prize, soo-prize". ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
Again, another problem that Ralph would of solved if he was elected. ------------------ Ceo of the Walt Williams fan club. Web site coming soon atheistalliance.org
And how exactly, praytell, would he have done that? Said I'm president, and poof, all SUVs would've disappeared? ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com and, http://www.geocities.com/clutch34_2000 for great Rocket insight by some of your fellow BBS posters!
Gotta admit that Nader would probly have done more than GWB will do to increase fuel economy and decrease emissions. GWB wants to drill Alaskan wildlife preserves and mandate SUVs for all drivers. Think how much money the oil companies would make if EVERYONE drove SUVs. It'd be a real bonanza! It is embarrassing that our cars are less fuel-efficient now than they were 20 years ago. Embarrassing, shocking, amazing. I wonder what other countries have less fuel-efficent cars now than 20 years ago?
Our cars are more fuel efficient than they were twenty years ago if we compare apples to apples. The fact that people are buying so many SUVs and trucks makes the average fuel efficiency go up, but the same style vehicle and same style engine is more fueld efficient now than then. It is so horrible to live in a free market where consumers buy the products they want to buy. Those fuel efficient cars are out there, as a matter of fact, there are more of them than ever right now. The fact that people don't want to buy them and prefer big gas-suckers is the problem. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Post the whole article next time! You left out some good parts. "We sell cars that get 40 miles per gallon, but fewer than 2 percent of consumers buy them." Experts are unable to determine an exact cause of the unpopularity of these cars, but most agree that it's caused by one of two things. "Those cars are total pieces of horse****," contends Dr. Marvin Monroe of the lobbying group EconoBlast2000. "What kind of idiot wants to drive a GeoMetro? *******, those things could get crushed by a shopping cart." Dr. Elizabeth Smith disagrees. "While high-mileage cars are certainly worthless pieces of crap, our studies indicate that most men don't want to buy them because they feel driving such a car loudly trumpets to the world, 'Hi, I'm A Big ***'". ******* OK, never mind me. Discuss amongst yourselves. I'm particularly eager to hear how Darth Nader would cure this problem. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited December 20, 2000).]
Nader couldn't have fixed it. The problem is that ALL cars CAN be fuel efficient. The technology to make cars get 70 or 80 miles to the gallon has been around for 20 years. The auto industry just won't implement it because they are in with the oil companies. There are cars that get 40mpg and the reason people don't buy them is because they are tiny little cars that are not marketed as fiercely as the oversized one's. The fact is that most cars (yes, even SUV's) could get 2 or 3 times the gas mileage they get now if the engines were made to be more efficient but they just aren't. I mean, forget about the environment for a moment. How many of us would quicky buy a car that got 2 or 3 times the gas mileage of the car we own now if it was as nice as the car we have now? ------------------ The way to use life is to do nothing through acting, The way to use life is to do everything through being. - Lao-Tzu
The problem is that ALL cars CAN be fuel efficient. The technology to make cars get 70 or 80 miles to the gallon has been around for 20 years. The auto industry just won't implement it because they are in with the oil companies. That sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory to me. Didja hear the one about the magic 200 mpg car? I drive a Geo Metro. HI! I'M A BIG ***! I don't like that word '***'. Its an epithet like kike, cracker, spic, etc. You do have to drive more defensively in a Metro to avoid being crushed.
It's not the oil companies and automobile companies. It's the StoneCutters. I'm really sorry if you drive a GeoMetro. The bass player in my band drives one. He hates it. He's not a Big *** either, so take heart.
I love my 94 Metro. Costs less than $10 to fill up. Never been in the shop after 75k miles. Always easy to find a parking spot. (I love tucking my Metro in between two Explorers). Just gotta keep your eyes open for SUVs. I love driving the cheapest car on the road. That way I can spend all my money on season tickets and bourbon.
Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star? WE DO! WE DO! [This message has been edited by jamcracker (edited December 20, 2000).]
Is this the "make fun of jamcracker's car" thread? Everyone should drive a Canyonero. ------------------ "Thirty-seven?" -Randall, Clerks www.clutchtown.com
People get pissed off at BMWs and SUVs, but it's my opinion that no car makes it easier to antagonize other drivers than the Geo Metro. People hate being passed by them. All you have to do is speed up and get in front of a Corvette, and the Vette driver will decide suddenly he needs to go 85.
No kidding, BK. Nobody lets a Metro pass then. EVER. My father drove a Chevy Sprint for years and he always shouted about that. As soon as I pull alongside a car, they match my speed.
The situation reminds me of diet-conscious menu items at restaurants. When they survey people, there is always a lot of people who say they wish there was a more diet-conscious option on the menu when they go to restaurants. But when the restaurant puts one on, nobody buys it. It seems like people want to have the option available -- so they can decide against it. In that case, you can't say it's because restauranteurs put more effort into marketing fattening crap than healthy stuff. In fact, the profit margin is better on healthy foods. I think it's just that people don't really care about consequences; they just like to say they do. ------------------ RealGM Rockets Draft Obligations Summary http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
JV, it's like that Onion article a few weeks back-- "99 Percent of Americans Favor Mass Transit for Others"... perfectly pointing out how many of us recognize the need for public transportation but are personally unwilling to use it.
