Well, I think the voters had as much an influence as the oil companies. People like their SUVs. And I would be against it, I don't want my car to be anymore expensive than it is. (I don't drive an SUV).
We've also turned into a spending economy rather than a saving economy, in my opinion. Instead of saving, consumers pile up debt, and the Fed just prints more money. I think it is funny that people talk about spending more to help the economy during the war. It's not going to work.
Why Not a 40-MPG SUV? Technology exists to double gas guzzlers' fuel efficiency. So what's the holdup? Source: PR Newswire [Oct 18, 2002] To get a sense of the auto industry’s progress in fuel efficiency, look no further than the 2002 Chevy Blazer. The model with automatic transmission, six cylinders, and four-wheel drive gets 18 miles per gallon (mpg), two miles less than a comparably equipped Blazer did in 1985. Indeed, in those 17 years the average fuel economy of the entire fleet of U.S. cars and light trucks declined from 26 mpg to 24 mpg—in part because of the rising proportion of gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles (SUVs). Yet in March, when auto industry lobbyists claimed that building more fuel-efficient cars would be “too difficult,” the U.S. Senate once again killed legislation that would raise the country’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. It was a familiar dance; Congress has not raised the standards even once during those same 17 years. It’s not that automotive technologies haven’t improved; it’s that the improvements have been geared toward delivering power, not efficiency. Since 1981 the auto industry has hiked horsepower 84 percent, allowing vehicles to accelerate faster even though they have gotten heavier, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “That’s what consumers want,” says Fritz Indra, executive director of advanced engineering for General Motors’ Powertrain division. “Each year Americans want a little more space inside, a little more power.” But is it really too difficult to build a reasonably priced SUV that can get 40 mpg and still provide the performance, comfort, and reduced emissions consumers expect? The surprising fact is that an assortment of fuel efficiency technologies exist in industry and university labs. Even more startling is that many of these technologies are based on the conventional internal-combustion engine. They don’t require complex electric-gas hybrid drive trains like those under the hoods of the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight (see Visualize). Nor are they based on anything as exotic as fuel cells. If the automotive industry put some corporate horsepower behind moving these technologies into production—and that’s a big if, given the lack of U.S. regulations and consumer demand—the gas-saving technologies could start hitting showrooms within five years. Indeed, if it chose to, Detroit could manufacture a 40-mpg SUV by the end of the decade. The gains would come largely from emerging technologies such as improved control systems that minimize energy losses in the engine and transmission, as well as efficient electrical components—from water pumps to engine valves—that could replace belt-driven mechanical systems. Existing technologies, such as advanced transmissions and fuel injection systems, could also play key roles if they were adopted more widely. Indeed, if all new cars and light trucks adopted available and emerging gas-saving technologies, the average fuel economy of U.S. cars would surge to 46 mpg, up from today’s 27 mpg. And SUVs could average 40 mpg, up from today’s 21 mpg, according to a recent study prepared in part by John DeCicco, a senior fellow at Environmental Defense, a New York City–based environmental group. (The study was coauthored by Feng An, a modeling expert at Argonne National Laboratory, and Marc H. Ross, a physicist and automotive-policy expert at the University of Michigan.) Two-thirds of the benefit would come from improving the power train, and the rest would come from cutting weight and reducing aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance. And even though retail prices of vehicles would rise some $1,000 to $2,000, depending on the model, consumers would save that much at the gas pump within five years. “The industry doesn’t lack the technology, it lacks the priority,” DeCicco says. Such improvements in gas mileage would have a huge impact on U.S. oil dependence and the environment. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, if the U.S. fleet’s fuel use improved to 40 mpg, the nation would save two million barrels of oil a day—75 percent of all the oil the United States imports from the Middle East. And it could mean a 30 percent decrease in greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide. Automakers—while not debating the essential truth of such numbers—say that reliable, affordable versions of these new components and software controls are harder to implement than it may seem. But the manufacturers, while characteristically tight-lipped about production plans, have created advanced prototypes of these technologies and even installed early units in some vehicles. Because many of these technologies are readily available and based on the internal-combustion engine, they could have tremendous impact in the next several years. “There’s a lot of potential here,” says John Heywood, director of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory at MIT. “It’s our best hope for continuing to reduce emissions and fuel consumption of our ever growing vehicle fleet.”
Well, I think the voters had as much an influence as the oil companies. People like their SUVs. And I would be against it, I don't want my car to be anymore expensive than it is. (I don't drive an SUV). If your car cost $500 more, but you saved $500 a year on gas, you would complain? The technology is there. The only people actively fighting it are the oil companies because they lose business, and car companies because it raises the price of cars. The average person drives 15,000 miles a year. At 15mpg, that's 1000 gallons of gas. Get it up to 25mpg, and that's 600 gallons. At $1.40 per gallon, you're talking savings of $560 PER YEAR. For reference, the average consumer would get nearly two Bush tax rebates every single year as a result of this fuel standards increase. I don't think most consumers have a problem with that. We've also turned into a spending economy rather than a saving economy, in my opinion. Instead of saving, consumers pile up debt, and the Fed just prints more money. I think it is funny that people talk about spending more to help the economy during the war. It's not going to work. I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but printing more money and spending aren't really related. Spending circulates money more without actually creating a need for new money. Printing money is a bit of a separate and unrelated issue. You spend money, it means someone else is making money. They then spend those same dollars, making someone else money, etc. It's the same money -- it just increases how fast that dollar circulates.
I'm not a treehugger, but I do believe in protecting the environment when it's not practical to do so. My uncle is retired and his youngest child left the house over a decade ago. He owns a Lincoln Navigator and he uses it for the same purposes that I use my mazda truck that gets 29mpg. So you have 4 kids and are called upon to be in a carpool system? Buy a minivan, they get better gas mileage and have the same passenger capacity. So you like to go camping? The military are about the only people who go so far out into the woods that they need 4x4s to negotiate the terrain. Most suburban suv owners idea of camping is pulling 30 feet off the road at a public camp ground because SUVs cost way too much to endanger the paint job or dent a fender hitting a tree. America does have more cars then any other country, but we also consume more energy PER CAPITA then any other country in the world. The europeans get by just fine with smaller vehicles. If you're buying a huge truck or suv with the reasoning that you might have to use it to haul something once every couple of months then you're a fool. You could buy a smaller vehicle and rent a truck when you find yourself in need of one. We're so wasteful in this country and the bullheaded ignorance that so many posters in this thread have shown is very disappointing. It seems like you don't even care about this world we live in as long as you're fat, dumb, and happy.
If you're buying a huge truck or suv with the reasoning that you might have to use it to haul something once every couple of months then you're a fool. You could buy a smaller vehicle and rent a truck when you find yourself in need of one. What kind of car do you own?
The M1A2 Abrams tank gets 2 gallons per mile, can obtain speeds of 60 miles per hour, is powered by a turbine diesel engine, and fires depleted uranium discarding sabot armor piercing rounds. I already said I drive a Mazda truck. But fyi it's a 1998 B2500 4 cylinder single cab pickup. I'm just a beer guzzling, wine drinking, recreational drug using, left wing independent former republican. Don't mind me, I know nothing.
I already said I drive a Mazda truck. But fyi it's a 1998 B2500 4 cylinder single cab pickup. That's my point. You're never going to win a battle against consumer preference. It doesn't matter if we NEED something or nice the world might be if we didn't have it, if people want something and can afford it, they're going to buy it. Which means we have three choices: (1) deal with it (2) make said product more expensive (3) make said product more efficient
Well, you are making an huge assumption that the consumer cannot be influenced, and that is silly. They were influenced originally to buy the damn things, right? Advertising can work both ways.
Well, you are making an huge assumption that the consumer cannot be influenced, and that is silly. They were influenced originally to buy the damn things, right? Advertising can work both ways. Advertising, yes. Convincing people to not buy something for the sake of oil, no. The only way you're going to win a consumer preferences fight is creating a better product. Good luck with convincing car companies to do that, given that SUVs are cash cows for them.
Hmmm, I don't know. Don't you think negative advertising has decreased American tolerance for quite a few things? Don't buy baby seal fur, for instance?
As an SUV driver(I can't claim ownership because my parents bought me the vehicle) I would never change. I had my dad's huge Chevy Scottsdale when I first got my license, and I found out very quickly it was not a car for me. I have bad depth perception, and I really did not receive the proper driving education(my dad is a perfectionist so that was a nightmare, and my driver's ed instructor expected me to know how to do most of the stuff the first time we went out practicing). I had a lot of confidence problems and driving mistakes with a long truck, and I told my parents so. Like, NJRocket, my parents didn't want me in a car they felt would be vunerable in a bad collision, and high enough to see the roads better, so we all agreed on an SUV. That year on my birthday, I got a silver 2000 Isuzu Rodeo and it has been with me ever since. It has its share of scratch marks, but inexperience as a driver caused a lot of those. However, I love that car to death, it's stylish, yet drives very smooth, and most importantly I am comfortable in it. I don't agree with the hatred for these vehicles, because they are the most versatile cars around. You can store things in the very back, take a family of 4 around town, and for young drivers such as myself, they give you that "adventure" a lot of young drivers crave, but at a better price and safety quality than smaller speed demon type vehicles(Camaros, Firebirds, etc). I expect to drive my car for a long time and when the time comes to buy a new one, I would want another SUV.
So you folks decided that if your driving inexperience is going to cause an accident, it may as well be the other guy who has to go into traction?
lol zac. 2 things: * you guys are overreacting. the drug commercials are ridiculous. I'm insulted I have to watch them; this is the perfect response to our stupid leader (in a time of war, dumbass, why don't you challenge us) * when did HayesStreet become so intelligent? Hayes are you drunk again and copying posts from democratsaresmarter.com?
