Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars

President Bush told a crowd of auto workers on the outskirts of Kansas
City Tuesday that the hybrid vehicles they make are fitting examples
of the fuel-efficient vehicles he hopes to see filling roads in the
future.
Read More
http://9updates.blogspot.com/2007/03/missouri-auto-workers-support-bushs_21.html

 

Meanwhile, he is pushing for revisions of the CAFE regulations which
will allow manufacturers to build more monster SUVs without penalty.

Hey George, if you want to do something about fuel efficiency, why
don't you propose incentives for consumers and manufacturers to
purchase and build fuel efficient cars instead of monster trucks.

 

People who want them can buy them now. If you don't want that
shitbox there are other choices such as honda civic hybrid
and (a used) insight for you. You have a choice to work for a company
that partially pays for such a shitbox.
You want MORE from the government and the corporate?

I don't want a Toyolet prius thank you very much.
I hope that whoever tightens CAFE standards for cars
any further will fall the victim of the next Timothy James McVeigh
that he creates in that process.
Could not care less about the trucks. Why won't they screw
up the requirement for trucks?

The car drivers are already screwed
with the previous CAFE version and other regulations that apply
to cars but not the trucks.

As if it was not enough there is more regulatory shit in the
form of the mandatory stability control coming my way.

The useless fucks in DOT and NHTSA have too much time on their
hands and their tiny reptilian brains are just uncapable of
processing the corner cases correctly.
What a pitiful bunch.

 

Encouraging people to drive hybrids is meaningless as long as we are
also encouraging others to drive monster SUVs.

Yes, what's wrong with wanting more?

So we shouldn't regulate vehicles because some right-wing nut will
blow up buildings? Anyway, I wouldn't tighten the regs on cars, so
much as modify them to make larger cars viable alternatives to SUVs.

CAFE does apply to trucks, but it is a separate calculation with lower
mileage standards. The problem is that the car companies got a very
flexible definition of "truck" which allows them to play games with
the numbers. The reasons why CAFE is so screwed up: 1. car companies
were allowed too much influence to manipulate the rules, and 2. There
has been insufficient political will to modify the rules to close the
loopholes exploited by car companies.

Still, there may be better solutions than CAFE. How about an extra $3
tax on motor vehicle fuels and a $3000 tax credit (claimable even if
it exceeds income tax liability) and a rebate for legitimate business
use of trucks. I bet that if gas went up to $6, we wouldn't need CAFE
to encourage conservation. If family a family drives 24,000 miles per
year in cars that gets 24 mpg, the tax credit would exactly offset the
additional fuel cost. If they want to drive a Hummer, they can pay an
extra $3000 for the privilege. OTOH, if they buy a hybrid and/or
reduce driving they can pocket the savings.

What's a corner case?

You apparently don't even have a clue what these agencies do.

 

Who is encouraging them to buy trucks????

BECAUSE people with stick shift cars would get even
more screwed up gearing.

I hope he'll do a bit of a research and target a DOT or NHTSA think
tank next time instead of blowing a random federal building.

so

CAFE average for the truck category is about 6mpg lower than it
is for cars for example.

Maybe that's why there are still some cars that a driveable
and fun on the market today. I gotta thank the lawmarkers
at least for that.

You can move overseas to satisfy your thirst for $6/gallon gas.
UK for one and Japan for another are pretty close to that I think.
You'd get to pay exorbitant prices for the cars, insurance,
registration, etc too. On the flip side those countries
haven't imported as many ugly bastards as US yet. Or so I think.

It is? Does your job have anything to do with the actual
product development or you are one of the marketing types
that come up with assorted set of disjoint and otherwise
fucked up specifications?

Cars with manual transmissions and short gearing.
Once the displacement goes up the gearing gets taller
to accomodate for the averages they have to meet.

They set a bunch of regulations that feed the
overblown legal departments at all automakers.
Did I miss anything important here?
Hmm, I don't think I did.

 

Well, everyone else is putting in their two cents, so here goes...

Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at
all? If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV, I want to be able to
whether the government agrees with it or not. As long as I can afford
the gas, that's all that should matter. I don't see why the government
should have a say in any of that.

 

Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at

Amen ! I drive a 5.4L Ford Expedition and my wife drives a 5 spd
Honda Civic EX. Each to his own even if she does gripe at me
that my Expy uses 2X as much gas as her civic. She sure does
like to travel in the Expy though with the dog, etc...

Lynn

 

I'm with you on that. They should stay out of everything except the
basics for safety and function and by that I mean nothing more mandatory
than seat belts and a functioning exhaust to keep you from being
overcome by fumes.

Let the market place and prowess of the consumer dictate what direction
car design takes.

JT

 

I drive an ancient Honda Civic daily but if it absolutely becomes push
to shove, I'll drive the Studebaker T-Cab and the last word in
dependability and ability to carry a *real* load...

JT

(A slave to nothing!)

 

You know, that wouldn't be a bad idea if the price at the pump
reflected the true cost of the product including:

Past, present and future costs of pollution which invariably result
from the consumption of this product. This includes, but is not
limited to, injury and death of humans from air pollution, damage to
streams and lakes from runoff, general damage to the environment, and
now the prospect of climate catastrophe growing ever more likely to
cost untold trillions of dollars over the next century.

Future costs of squandering our finite resources which will inevitably
drive up the cost faster and sooner than would otherwise be the case.

Past, present and future costs associated with our involvement in the
Middle East and potentially other regions driven by our demand for
oil.

These costs are hard to calculate but they are massive. And they are
not reflected in the price you pay at the pump beyond a few pennies in
tax. (If paid for by a gas tax, Iraq would be about a dollar a
gallon.)

 

You mean besides the multi-billion dollar ad campaign? How about the
government allowing the car companies to classify passenger vehicles
as trucks and thereby avoid car regulation? How about the insurance
companies that charge the same flat fee for liability insurance
whether you drive a Civic or a Suburban?

You are really hitting the wacky pills tonight.

So when you say, "screw up" you mean "increase" ? Not an unreasonable
thing to do but it could be meaningless unless they change the
fundamental regs. For instance, there is no CAFE regulation of
Suburbans and Expeditions, they are too big to be covered by CAFE. At
the other extreme, there would be nothing to stop Toyota from
classifying a slightly modified Prius as a truck. Sell one Prius SUV
and you can sell six Sequoias. Car companies already do this - the PT
Cruiser is a Neon classified as a truck.

The loopholes do not help fun cars. The loopholes help trucks. The
truth is that you are being denied a lot of interesting cars because
the manufacturer would rather that you buy a truck because it makes
his CAFE numbers work a lot better.

$6 might come closer to reflecting the true cost. Crusades don't come
cheap. But if you don't want a gas tax, there is CAFE.

Well, not until you go there.

 

http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578
I should really consider to author a page on wiki
"10 cars of the 21st century with the most fucked up
gearing" and have pictures of subaru impreza and
mazdaspeed 3 as two fine examples.

Really? Muscle cars are not my cup of tea but here you
go again
http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578
Enjoy

The

? I would not buy a truck with the current CAFE standards.
But if EPA would keep pressing the automakers and make my life more
miserable I'd consider buying
a Hummer H2 and painting it green just to please people like you.

 

Right, it doesn't matter if we burn all the oil in the world and mess
up the planet beyond repair. Who really cares about that? Only green
idiots. Tough nuggies on our grandchildren, we were here first.

 

dgk wrote:
"Right, it doesn't matter if we burn all the oil in the world and
mess
up the planet beyond repair. Who really cares about that? Only green
idiots. Tough nuggies on our grandchildren, we were here first."

I am in no way an environmentalist (I drive a V8 Police Interceptor
Mercury Grand Marquis every day, usually short trips too) but I do
agree that it's not a bad idea to conserve oil or preserve nature for
our grandchildren. However, I don't think that the government needs to
play nanny and regulate car manufactures -- it should be up to the
people what vehicle they drive, as long as they are aware of the
consequences. I would go so far as to say that I should be able to
drive a car that failed crash-safety tests, if I chose to -- as long
as I was made aware that it failed. People are made aware of the gas
mileage estimates, it's posted right on the window sticker when you
purchase a new car. If we want to save the planet, we should be able
to. If we want to ruin the planet, we should also have just as much
leeway in that respect. Our great country was founded on the basis of
FREEDOM...plain freedom, not regulated "freedom."

 

I could not find anything like this on the site so I still have no
idea what you are saying and I can only respond generally. 1. If you
have a point to make, make it. Don't make some cryptic reference to
something you read on a blog. 2. Blog credibility is no higher than
the average usenet poster, which is to say it is a lot higher than
yours at this point. So I can understand why you might want to quote
from this source, but then just go ahead and quote enough that we
actually have a clue what you are talking about.

Are you referring to the headline: GM Pauses RWD Car Development?
I don't see how this would demonstrate that loopholes help fun cars.
If you are referring to something else on this web site, see above.

Frankly, you don't make any sense. How do the CAFE standards
influence your decision not to buy a truck?

At $6 a gallon, A fill-up will cost you about $150. Bon appetit.

 

I don't care if you drive a car that failed passenger safety crash
tests. You can even carry passengers as long as they are adults
giving informed consent. In these circumstances everyone is knowingly
assuming a personal risk. I personally own and drive a go-kart that
goes ridiculous speeds and has no seat belt. I and everyone else on
the track know the risks and have signed the waiver.

But do I have the right to drive an 18 ton truck with bad brakes and
bald tires on public roads as long as I am aware of the defects? Most
people would say 'no.' While I may accept the risks, other motorists,
pedestrians and property owners may not. But what right do they have
to interfere with my plain, unregulated FREEDOM? Answer: They have
the constitutional right to elect representatives who can pass laws to
set standards for the safety and welfare of the community. And they
have done so.

If you don't like regulations, run for office as an anarchist. If you
get enough anarchists elected, you can repeal all those nasty health
and safety regulations. In the case of energy policy, that is pretty
much what has happened over the last 25 years anyway. So now we have
people commuting in monster trucks, lousy mass transit, $3 gas (and
that's just the start) and our dick in a vice in Iraq.

If you want to get indignant about laws interfering with personal
freedom, why not start with the laws prohibiting behaviors which
affect only consenting adults? I suggest:

http://tinyurl.com/37gydc

You can pick up a used copy for $1.27 plus shipping and I guarantee it
will be worth it just for the hundreds of quotes - one per page.

 

How's that again?

 

It was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment but why not? At my college
a slate of candidates ran for the student government on a platform
that, if elected, they would immediately disband the student
government. They were and they did.

The point is that the previous poster implied that the government was
not entitled to regulate his "freedom." That is essentially an
argument for anarchy.

 

Believe it or not, I actually own that book you linked to. And I agree
with everything written in it. As long as I am not harming another
person or another person's property, I should be allowed to do what I
want. Personally, I would not partake in any of McWilliams' major
themes (drugs, sex, gambling, alcohol) because it goes against my
beliefs as a Southern Baptist. However, I do not have a problem with
other people participating in those other activities as long as they
are not harming others or others' property.

No, I do not support anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government --
if we had no government, how would we be able to defend our country?
How would we be able to communicate with other nations? We would need
a leader, who would then transform into a dictator (i.e. Hitler's rise
to power), and then we'd be much worse off than we are now with our
democracy. What I do support is a limited government -- a government
that concentrates on REAL issues like national defense and homeland
security -- not nanny issues like CAFE regulations and seat belt laws.

To respond to your question about the 18 ton truck with bad brakes and
bald tires, no, that is not acceptable if you harm another person or
another person's property -- because that is jeopardizing another
person's freedom of life and, in terms of their property, their
freedom for the pursuit of happiness. No one has the freedom to put
others in harm's way without their consent. But if I can safely drive
while talking on my cell phone, I should be allowed to talk on my cell
phone and drive. If I can safely drive without a seat belt, I should
be allowed to drive without my seat belt. If I can afford to drive a
truck that gets 4MPG to work every day, I should be allowed to drive
that truck.

 

Ok. Now understand that every gallon of gas that gets burned releases
a set amount of CO2 as well as other pollutants. That has nothing to
do with the efficiency of the vehicle, it is chemistry. Those
substances hurt other people, and apparently our planet as a whole,
therefore harming future people. This leaves out the matter of
acquiring the gas in the first place, which also tends to harm other
people.

A more efficient vehicle burns less gas, therefore causing less damage
to other people. But it is tough for me to buy a more efficient
vehicle, because in collisions with less efficient vehicles (read
heavier), more damage is done to me even if I did not cause the
collision. So yes, I want to force you out of SUVs so that I can buy a
more efficient car and not risk my life.

Other countries do not buy American vehicles because our cars cannot
meet the standards of MPG of those countries. That is because they buy
sensible vehicles while we do not. If we switched over to more
sensible vehicles, we would need less wars for oil, therefore bringing
less harm to others and our planet.

And so on, for most of your arguments. Very little that individuals do
has no impact on others once you think about it.

I do admire your position on drug use by other folks. I can't
understand why we care if adults want to do drugs, as long as they
meet their obligations as citizens such as working and paying their
bills. I choose not to, but that was not always the case. I say, tax
it.

And you can't drive safely without a seat belt and I'm glad we have
that law. If you get killed in an accident, I have to pay to keep your
kids eating. Besides, I would of had to do work instead of writing
this. And I'd best get back to work.