# Obama finalizes auto mileage mandate



## ScienceRocks (Aug 28, 2012)

*Obama finalizes auto mileage mandate*
The Hill ^ | August 28, 2012 | Ben Geman & Keith Laing 
Obama finalizes auto mileage mandate - The Hill's E2-Wire



> The Obama administration issued final rules Tuesday that require a major boost in vehicle mileage standards, highlighting a clash with Mitt Romney as the GOP convention gets under way.
> 
> &#8232;&#8232;*The Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency announced joint mileage and carbon emissions rules for model years 2017 through 2025 that will eventually force automakers to meet a standard equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon.&#8232;&#8232; *
> 
> ...


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 28, 2012)

It will end up like the biofuel mess where companies have to pay fines for not using fuel that doesn't yet exist.


----------



## driveby (Aug 28, 2012)

Great, a clown that doesn't know jack shit about cars or fuel is setting standards.....


----------



## AmyNation (Aug 28, 2012)

driveby said:


> Great, a clown that doesn't know jack shit about cars or fuel is setting standards.....



Im going to go out on a limb, and say he most likely consulted with experts.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Aug 28, 2012)

> *&#8220;These fuel standards represent the single most important step we&#8217;ve ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,&#8221;* President Obama said in a statement Tuesday, noting that by 2025 cars will get almost twice the mileage they provide today.



-- And that right there is how amateurish he is..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 28, 2012)

We need to cut Obama loose in November....so tired of Amateur hour


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 28, 2012)

Enjoy riding around in your little aluminum cans and thank your dictator dear leader


----------



## driveby (Aug 28, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Great, a clown that doesn't know jack shit about cars or fuel is setting standards.....
> ...



I'm going to go out on a limb and say Obama thinks he's smarter than said experts......


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 28, 2012)

People, vote out this tin pot administation

WE CAN'T AFFORD THEM


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Aug 28, 2012)

..


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 28, 2012)

driveby said:


> Great, a clown that doesn't know jack shit about cars or fuel is setting standards.....



But he owns GM! 

Lol!


----------



## Wolfmoon (Aug 28, 2012)

iamwhatiseem said:


> ..


 
While we're riding around in the blue bubble car a billion Chinese will be driving gas hogs.


----------



## Rozman (Aug 28, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Great, a clown that doesn't know jack shit about cars or fuel is setting standards.....
> ...



Probably Al Gore...


----------



## hjmick (Aug 28, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Great, a clown that doesn't know jack shit about cars or fuel is setting standards.....
> ...



We own GM...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 28, 2012)

We already have an SUV that gets 47/47.

2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid Overview

For 2014 they are talking of it being a plugin with an ev range of 20 mi. That would probably pass the 54.5 mpg mandate easily. Use a bigger battery, or one with a higher energy density, and get that ev range to 40 miles, and you will be way over the 54.5 mandate, in an SUV, yet.

That mandate is completely doable, and, in fact, very easy to exceed.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 28, 2012)

I'm for high mileage standards, but am a bit leery as to how they'll be attained.


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 28, 2012)

I hope we don't sacrifice safety for mileage.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 28, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> I hope we don't sacrifice safety for mileage.



That's unlikely to happen. Unless there's a breakthrough in materials tech that makes carbon fiber and the like incredibly cheap. 

Besides, the focus is now taken away from these lighter expensive materials, aerodynamics, and engine efficiency performance and puts it squarely in the lap of electric or hydrogen vehicles. 

And this is exactly where Obama wants it. No more hydrocarbons.


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 28, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > I hope we don't sacrifice safety for mileage.
> ...



Is it worth the extra loss of life or greater risk of severe injuries?


----------



## AmyNation (Aug 28, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



Why do you assume better mileage cars will be more dangerous?


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 28, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Because they will need to use lighter parts to get better mileage. Less weight, better mileage.


----------



## AmyNation (Aug 28, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



That's true, but it's been my experience that newer lighter cars have far more safty features than older cars.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Aug 28, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Great, a clown that doesn't know jack shit about cars or fuel is setting standards.....
> ...



Yeah, he's consulted a lot of experts over the past four years. 
The problem is he rarely listens to them. 
Ask all his former economic advisers.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 28, 2012)

Matthew said:


> *Obama finalizes auto mileage mandate*
> The Hill ^ | August 28, 2012 | Ben Geman & Keith Laing
> Obama finalizes auto mileage mandate - The Hill's E2-Wire
> 
> ...



I wonder why you didn't mention that GM is idling the Volt plant, again. This is the second time this year.

Obama Raises CAFE Standards; GM Suspends Volt Production - Hit &amp; Run : Reason.com


----------



## gallantwarrior (Aug 28, 2012)

iamwhatiseem said:


> ..



I was gonna ask where they put the groceries, but if O'bozo is reelected, we won't be able to afford groceries, so no need to put them some place.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 29, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



I just explained that the sacrifice will not be safety, it will be hydrocarbons. 

The auto industry has tweaked just about every ounce of weight and every erg of aerodynamic resistance out of vehicles. 

Sure, power plants could be more efficient, but at the expense of horsepower. 
Regarding safety, that's pretty much a standard and will remain so. 

No- the last bastion of mileage efficiency rests with the abandonment of hydrocarbons.

And, like I also mentioned- this is Obama's goal.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 29, 2012)

Well, Obama's goal as well as Old Rocks'.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



Yes, it is Obama's goal. The problem is that, since this is actually impossible, they will be forced to compromise safety, and the government will pretend they aren't. 



> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]A number of studies have documented the lethal consequences of requiring carmakers to improve fuel standards.[/SIZE][/FONT]​ [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*      According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100  pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for  light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier  cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks.   Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into  additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for  heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks._12_[/SIZE][/FONT]​ [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*      A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining  automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the  1970s and early 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600  traffic fatalities in 1993."_13_
> 
> *     An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data  found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in  crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger,  heavier vehicles.  This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash  data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per  gallon gained in fuel economy standards._14_[/SIZE][/FONT]​ [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*      The USA Today report also said smaller cars - such as the Chevrolet  Cavalier or Dodge Neon - accounted for 12,144 fatalities or 37 percent  of vehicle deaths in 1997, though such cars comprised only 18 percent of  all vehicles._15_[/SIZE][/FONT]​ [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*      A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for  2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car]  model years' use."  Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000  and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as  a result of CAFE._16_[/SIZE][/FONT]​ [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*      The same Harvard-Brookings study found CAFE had resulted in a 500-pound  weight reduction of the average car.  As a result, occupants were put  at a 14 to 27 percent greater risk of traffic death._17_ [/SIZE][/FONT]​           [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]*      Passengers in small cars die at a much higher rate when involved in  traffic accidents with large cars.  Traffic safety expert Dr. Leonard  Evans estimates that drivers in lighter cars may be 12 times as likely  to be killed in a crash when the other vehicle is twice as heavy as the  lighter car._18_[/SIZE][/FONT]



CAFE Standards Kill: Congress' Regulatory Solution to Foreign Oil Dependence Comes at a Steep Price


----------



## Jroc (Aug 29, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> I'm for high mileage standards, but am a bit leery as to how they'll be attained.



 No way we get a 58 MPG! By 2025, that&#8217;s crazy talk. If Obama and the libs get their way we'll be riding around on motor scooters and taking mass transit like good little sheep. $4.00 a gallon gas, just were the libs want it


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 29, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...




Safety features have improved. However the laws of physics over rule your experience. 

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html

The size and weight of a vehicle matters, it matters a lot.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 29, 2012)

Diesel vehicles, albeit rather compact, already get 58 mpg. Trouble is diesel has not been accepted or adopted en masse by U.S. automakers. 

These CAFE standards are average fleet numbers. 

Considering that the EIA has for decades consistently forcast hydrocarbons to be the dominant world source of energy to 2030, the only solution for manufacturers is to make a quantum jump to electric vehicles and/or hydrogen powered vehicles. 

This will happen if Obama is re-elected, and the succeeding Presidents are also left wing Marxist Socialist anti-market enviro-cock jobs. 

Ya never know.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> Diesel vehicles, albeit rather compact, already get 58 mpg. Trouble is diesel has not been accepted or adopted en masse by U.S. automakers.
> 
> These CAFE standards are average fleet numbers.
> 
> ...



There is exactly one car on sale in the US that meets the 58 MPG standard. The reason European cars are able to produce the wonderful gas mileage you are talking about is that they have less stringent safety standards. Stop pretending you understand the issues and admit that the only way to get high mileage cars is to kill more people.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Diesel vehicles, albeit rather compact, already get 58 mpg. Trouble is diesel has not been accepted or adopted en masse by U.S. automakers.
> ...



Are you serious? 
I don't think you know what you are talking about.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Diesel vehicles, albeit rather compact, already get 58 mpg. Trouble is diesel has not been accepted or adopted en masse by U.S. automakers.
> ...



I would like you to show me where more people per capita are dying in say United Kingdom and Germany from automobile accidents. Oh! Wait, you can't. 
They might have different safety standards, but they aren't killing more people.


----------



## Politico (Aug 29, 2012)

This mandate is the same pablum bullshit as all the others that evreyone laps up. They are all strung out over some ridiculous timeframe and based on an overall average. It gives the car companies and out and politicians a chance to look good.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 29, 2012)

Well, I'll be darned... check it  out. 

Obama Fuel-Economy Rule Gives Sweeteners to Honda, Tesla - Yahoo! Finance

_Honda Motor Co. (7267), which last year complained that a proposed fuel-economy rule was unfair to non- U.S. automakers, got a boost *when the final version added extra credits for sellers of natural gas-powered vehicles*.

Honda, based in Tokyo, is the only automaker selling compressed natural gas-powered cars to U.S. drivers and will be able to use the credits to meet the fuel-economy standards._

I heartily endorse this natural gas credit.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Diesel vehicles, albeit rather compact, already get 58 mpg. Trouble is diesel has not been accepted or adopted en masse by U.S. automakers.
> ...



My bad. For the past 3 years I assumed we've all been pretending to understands the issues.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> Diesel vehicles, albeit rather compact, already get 58 mpg. Trouble is diesel has not been accepted or adopted en masse by U.S. automakers.
> 
> These CAFE standards are average fleet numbers.
> 
> ...



Still don't understand why they are not using diesel engines in the hybrids. That would really put the mileage up there.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 29, 2012)

That car is not an SUV.  It's a small car the size of a Prius.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



What part do you think I don't know what I am talking about? The safety standards? Europe does not require the same side impact testing, rear impact testing, and they only require the full on frontal impact testing, not the newer 25% frontal standards we have in the US.  Additionally, they do not require cars to protect people who do not where seat belts, have lower roll over standards, and have different rules for the placement, and protection, of crash test dummies. The US just started testing using dummies that are specifically designed to simulate the average adult female in the driver seat. All of this adds weight to the car, and thus reduces gas mileage.

This site is uglier than fuck, but it shows the differences.

Everything Crash - Crash Testing Safety Standards for Europe & the USA


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I am talking about your last statement. 
You know the part about killing more people. Show me where more people are killed in automobile accidents in Germany in the United Kingdom where they have different safety standards. 
I will give you a clue you can't. They actually have less deaths per capita. 
And you might want to look into the safety records of BMW and VW.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



That would be because a smaller percentage of people in those countries drive, not because the cars are safer. This chart gives you a better idea of the differences in auto safety standards.



> Country Killed per 1 Billion Veh·km (Motorways in 2003) Killed per 1 Billion Veh·km (Non-Motorways in 2003) Motorway AADT Road Travel by Motorway km/h (mph) Motorway 2003 Speed Limit
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Road traffic safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that, once you get off the autobahn, Germany actually has a higher fatality rate per mile than the US.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Diesel vehicles, albeit rather compact, already get 58 mpg. Trouble is diesel has not been accepted or adopted en masse by U.S. automakers.
> ...



Because the EPA standards in the US make it impossible to build a small diesel engine.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yeah, that's it. Lol
Have you seen what traffic is like in Europe? 
Oh! You crack me up. 
Its like stating few people drive in New York City, but neglecting to mention how bad traffic congestion can be.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Go read all the links I posted earlier, every one of them spells out how lighter cars kill people. They come from great sources too.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



You thought I couldn't prove I knew what I am talking about, and when I did you blame it on the way they drive? Tell me something, why is the fatality rate on the autobahn so much lower than on US highways? Is it because they all suddenly drive better, or is it because no one with a small car gets on that road?


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It actually has nothing to do with that, but you can go with that If you want. It has more to do with limited access, high safety rating for German vehicles. 
Look up the difference in safety ratings for the autobahn and motoways.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So you think that by 2025 these U.S. testing standards will be waived in order to accomodate higher mileage vehicles? 
Not likely to happen. 

These higher CAFE numbers are merely a piece on Obama's chess board. Move away from hydrocarbons.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2012)

Why is it that foreign cars made for the US lead the way in gas mileage?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Why is the fatality rate off the autobahn and in cities higher than in the US?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Mr. H. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Remember the 5 mph bumper that used to be required on all cars sold in the US? I do. I won't tell you I told you so when they loosen the safety standards, but you will remember how you tried to argue they wouldn't change.

I get to say I told you so in a few


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Why is it that foreign cars made for the US lead the way in gas mileage?



Because they don't.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that foreign cars made for the US lead the way in gas mileage?
> ...



They don't? That is news to me, and anyone who knows what they are talking about. 
Companies like BMW, VW, Toyota, and Honda have always led the way in gas mileage.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



BMW does not build cars that get good gas mileage. The highest rated gas mileage car in the world is built in the US.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So? More foreign cars are made with higher gas mileage.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And BMW doesn't make cars that get good gas mileage? 
Well there is another thing you don't know what you are talking about. Lol
You might want to check into the new Eco friendly BMW. You might learn a few things.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I don't think safety standards WILL be relaxed, for whatever reason. This will put even more pressure on auto makers to move away from hydrocarbons. They're being forced into a corner and the only way out is an electric or hybrid or hydrogen vehicle. 
It's part of Obama's utopian carbon-free society.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



You made a claim, you were wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



24 city and 34 highway is only good if you compare it to their regular cars. It isn't even close to the current CAFE standards, never mind the projected ones.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You obviously didn't do that much research. I will give you a clue they have a new BMW that runs on diesel that compares with the gas mileage of a Prius. BMW also has a few other models that can 30 to 40 mpg. 

Weird thing is, I was watching Top Gear Uk today and they had an a sedan Audi, you know one with high safety ratings that was averaging 39 miles to the gallon. It ended up going 800 miles on one tank. 
Maybe you should watch Top Gear and you will learn a few things about European high gas mileage cars.


----------



## RoadVirus (Aug 29, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Great, a clown that doesn't know jack shit about cars or fuel is setting standards.....
> ...



No doubt the same "experts" who suggested he shut down coal-operated power plants despite it causing more stress on an already overtaxed grid and jacking up electric bills.


----------



## alan1 (Aug 29, 2012)

Is it just me, or does anybody else find it odd that the government thinks they can just set some standard for an industry and demand that the industry meet that standard?

54 mpg mandate for vehicles today.

Now, lets apply this same type of government logic mandate to other industry/business.

Restaurants can't serve a meal with more than 900 calories.
Bed linens must have a thread count of 250 or higher.
Cell phones must have a full qwerty keyboard.
Desktop computers must have a 2.8 gig processor or better.
Beer cannot exceed 3.5% alcohol content.
Gasoline must contain 20% or higher ethanol content.

Those are a bunch of ridiculous mandates, yet somehow, some people accept that it is ok for the government to just arbitrarily mandate gas mileage standards for auto manufacturers.


----------



## AmyNation (Aug 29, 2012)

alan1 said:


> Is it just me, or does anybody else find it odd that the government thinks they can just set some standard for an industry and demand that the industry meet that standard?
> 
> 54 mpg mandate for vehicles today.
> 
> ...



Google 1975 Cafe Standards


Also like to note, most car manufactures are actually for this mandate


----------



## alan1 (Aug 29, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it just me, or does anybody else find it odd that the government thinks they can just set some standard for an industry and demand that the industry meet that standard?
> ...



Missed the point, didn't you?


----------



## AmyNation (Aug 29, 2012)

alan1 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



You ranted about why does the government sets fuel standards, I gave you the key words to look it up as to why.


----------



## alan1 (Aug 29, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



I didn't know that showing analogies to foolish government mandates was considered a rant.


----------



## AmyNation (Aug 29, 2012)

alan1 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



And now you do, learn something new every day


----------



## alan1 (Aug 29, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



So, aside from just proclaiming my post a rant, what do you think about the government randomly mandating things on business?  Do you think a mandate on auto mpg regardless of scientific engineering and regardless of what people want to purchase is a viable and valid thing?


----------



## AmyNation (Aug 29, 2012)

Goverment has a stake in fuel efficiency, and theyve been legislating it for 35 years. They aren't mandating things willy nilly.


----------



## alan1 (Aug 29, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Goverment has a stake in fuel efficiency, and theyve been legislating it for 35 years. They aren't mandating things willy nilly.


Indeed.  They are mandating them cautiously and calculated, just a little bit at a time.  It's much easier to encroach on personal liberty in baby steps than it is to do so in one fell swoop.


----------



## AmyNation (Aug 29, 2012)

Serious question, are you upset that Obama mandated this? Or about the mandate in general? Because making America energy independent has been a goal of our federal goverment for 30+ years.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 29, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Serious question, are you upset that Obama mandated this? Or about the mandate in general? Because making America energy independent has been a goal of our federal goverment for 30+ years.



Like I said, I'm glad to see it but leery of an ulterior motive i.e. the forced move away from hydrocarbon powered vehicles.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I keep posting links, and you keep posting fantasies. 

According to the US government BMW's best mileage is 24 mpg combined.

Gas Mileage of 2013 Vehicles by BMW


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 29, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it just me, or does anybody else find it odd that the government thinks they can just set some standard for an industry and demand that the industry meet that standard?
> ...



Most car manufacturers simply pay the penalty for not meeting the CAFE standards and pass the cost on to their customers.


----------



## AmyNation (Aug 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



*shrug* some of them do, depends on the type of car theyre selling.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No I didn't.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Look up BMW 520d, I will give you a hint turbo diesel and you can't buy them in the US. 
Of course BMW isn't going to sell their high gas mileage cars in the US, because they don't have to.


----------



## tjvh (Aug 30, 2012)

driveby said:


> Great, a clown that doesn't know jack shit about cars or fuel is setting standards.....



Doesn't *that* do wonders for job creation.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Oh! And here is this... It isn't released yet, but it should be in late 2013. Of course it is sports car and comes with a high price tag... But I thought you said they didn't make high gas mileage cars? 

http://www.hybridcars.com/news/2014-bmw-i8-plug-hybrid-will-cost-over-100000-euros-47098.html

The car has been seen testing in near production ready form, and once released, promises a look-at-me elite sports car experience from a balanced and adroit machine along with econocar levels of efficiency of 75 mpg combined, and CO2 emissions of just 99 g/km.



Dude, you really you should look things up before you post something you believe to be true.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 30, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



You think 26 mpg is good gas mileage? I used to drive a Honda CVCC that got better mileage than that, and I had a heavy foot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 30, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Talk about fantasies, I don't have $120,000 to spend on a car.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Dude, do you actually know how to google? If they are saying the 520d turbo diesel can get as good gas mileage as a Prius don't you think they have a model that gets better than 26 mpg?


----------



## Luissa (Aug 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



But I thought you said BMW does not make high gas mileage cars?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 30, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



The Prius gets 18% better mileage in Europe than it does here, do you know why?

As for diesels, the US government tacks an extra tax on diesel engines. Even without that they are more expensive, and less powerful, than a regular gas engine. Then we have EPA regulations, which make diesel engines more expensive, and less efficient. Then we have the fact that diesel fuel actually cost more here than it does in Europe, exactly the opposite of gasoline. All of this combines to make diesels a fantasy in the US.

By the way, I can get Prius comparable gas mileage from a Ford Ranger.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 30, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Do you understand the difference between a car that will come out in 2 years and one that is made today?

Hint, it is the fact that one is made now, and one might be made in the future.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 30, 2012)

For my entire life, the auto industry has kicked and screamed about every mileage and pollution mandate, swearing it would mean DOOM for the industry.

And oddly, that DOOM has never happened. Instead, we got better cars.

Does the ODS crowd learn from such history? Of course not. If they could learn from the real world, they wouldn't be conservatives. Their political cult has ordered them to sputter out some faux-outrage here, and so they're obeying. And thus, they continue their unbroken string of being completely wrong on every single topic.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I already gave you told you about the 520d that has gas mileage comparable with the Prius. Plus their is one of their Passat models. 
Plus having a car in production, means they are making it. 
You were wrong, just admit it.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So you were wrong, is that what I am guessing? You stated BMW doesn't make high gas mileage cars, which was a false statement. 
And if your Ford Ranger gets comparable gas mileage to a Prius, wouldn't that mean it gets high gas mileage. 

I think the person who stated that you shrug off any fact that doesn't support your opinion as a straw argument was correct. Your opinion about BMW was wrong, your opinion about foreign cars leading the way on gas mileage was wrong, and your opinion that you have to kill more people to have higher gas mileage cars was wrong. 
You should really do research before posting wrong opinions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 30, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



In Europe. You still haven't explained why the Prius gets 18% better gas mileage in Europe, do they drive downhill all the time? Lower gravity? Different laws of physics?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 30, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Considering that every competitor offers a car in the same class that gets better gas mileage, including every American automaker, I will stand by what I said,


----------



## Luissa (Aug 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Probably has to do with more traffic congestion, Prius's regain more energy when they brake, if have to stop a lot... Well you get the picture.


----------



## Luissa (Aug 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You said BMW's does not make high gas mileage cars. That was false.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 30, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



They don't, they make high performance cars that get good gas mileage. If they focused on gas mileage we would have cars that get 100+ mpg by now.


----------



## Nova78 (Aug 31, 2012)

Obama finalizes auto mileage mandate 

*Obama's a fool*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 1, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



No, it has to do with the fact that American safety regulations make cars less efficient. Now we want better mpg, which will kill people.

Period.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



LOL.  Funny ass. The cars of the 50's and 60's were gas hogs and would drive the steering post right through you in a headon. Today's far more efficient and better handling cars are far safer than the lead sleds I grew up with.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Sep 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



In some ways you are right, the roll under engines and other features make them safer, however, by sheer weight, the older cars in a collision with newer cars, the old cars are safer. Even a hundred pounds makes the heavier car better. As they lightened the weight the mileage went up, safety features were added but the laws of physics can't be broken.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> For my entire life, the auto industry has kicked and screamed about every mileage and pollution mandate, swearing it would mean DOOM for the industry.
> 
> And oddly, that DOOM has never happened. Instead, we got better cars.
> 
> Does the ODS crowd learn from such history? Of course not. If they could learn from the real world, they wouldn't be conservatives. Their political cult has ordered them to sputter out some faux-outrage here, and so they're obeying. And thus, they continue their unbroken string of being completely wrong on every single topic.



What was the massive bailout? I think doom did happen, government was just to stupid to let it happen.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Heavy hardly equals safe when the car itself is a danger to you in an accident. A great many people are surviving accidents today with shoulder harnesses and air bags that would have been certainly fatal in a '57 Buick.


----------



## alan1 (Sep 2, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> Serious question, are you upset that Obama mandated this? Or about the mandate in general? Because making America energy independent has been a goal of our federal goverment for 30+ years.



About the mandate in general.
30+ years of the DOE trying to make the USA energy independent has resulted in what?  Are we less energy independent?  When was the last time a new nuclear power plant was built in the USA?  When was the last time an easily accessible oil field was opened (think ANWR)?


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You are correct to a point but the size and weight of vehicles have smaller and lighter. However all things being even, a heavier SUV will have a higher survival rate than the mini Cooper in a head on collision.


----------



## AmyNation (Sep 2, 2012)

alan1 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Serious question, are you upset that Obama mandated this? Or about the mandate in general? Because making America energy independent has been a goal of our federal goverment for 30+ years.
> ...



We are far more energy independent today then in the last 30 years. I don't see an oil embargo like in the 70's happening again. I think today's issue is good energy vs bad. You can call for more oil fields(although the last 10 years has been a massive boost in new oil fields) however there are plenty of Americans who disagree with drilling and its environmental effects. I don't really feel like debating the topic, mostly because I think we would end up on the same side and there wouldnt be much debate at all  besides ... I think that's a bit too much off topic.


----------



## alan1 (Sep 2, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



Really?
I find that hard to believe since US oil production peaked in the 1970's, perhaps you can provide a link (but I doubt it).
Mandating fuel efficiency in automobiles is almost as ridiculous as mandating reduced calories in restaurant food.  Let the free market decide what it wants.


----------



## AmyNation (Sep 2, 2012)

alan1 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



Energy independence is about more than just oil.No, we don't surpass the oil boom of previous years but we do produce more oil today than we have in 14 years.

Big mystery: U.S. oil production hits 14-year high, gas prices not at 14-year low | Grist


Yes, mandating fuel efficiency is a way the goverment regulates national oil consumption, and it works. But that's not the only reason, it's also an environmental issue. 

However, I get that you think setting car standards is stupid. I don't think anything I could type would sway you, *shrug* I think we might as well agree to disagree.


----------



## alan1 (Sep 2, 2012)

AmyNation said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



Yeah, I also don't think it is the governments responsibility to mandate how many calories are in a soda either.
We've already established that you think it's ok for government to set mileage standards for vehicles you may purchase.
Where is your limit on government intrusion?


----------



## Trajan (Sep 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> We already have an SUV that gets 47/47.
> 
> 2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid Overview
> 
> ...



doable...you don't give a crap if its doable and neither does the gasbag in the WH, so please save that.

CAFE standards was one of the several reasons GM et al suffered a meltdown and will suffer further. 

we have a SELF inflicted energy shortage driven by the new religion that keeps prices high and a belief in some wonder technology that is decades off that will miraculously put us in a vehicle we _want to drive _and satisfy the likes of you. never happen. a) you and the likes of you will NEVER EVER be satisfied, b) see a. c) and if it is not  marketable you don't give a crap either, you'll pay people to drive them using tax payer money.


----------

