OBAMA gets TOUGH
 

35.5 miles per gallon by 2016,

that is the biggest JOKE :fury:
i have yet to hear....

if that's getting tough
then he's a G.D. WIMP

a spaghetti Noodle !!

TRY :point: [[[ 50 MPG ]]]
that's getting tough!!!

Considering average gas mileages have only gone from 23.1 in 1980 to 24.7 in 1994, I think 35.5 is a pretty decent goal to set. Automakers spend 2-3 years performing R&D for new models. This gives them about 6 years to develop the technology needed to increase gas mileage by about 50%.

While I was hoping for at least 40MPG, I'm glad Obama at least pulled the trigger on an issue Bush refused to address.

I always think it's funny how every idiot we get in office (both parties) they always make grand plans that should come to fruition after they leave office, knowing full well that the next guy will more than likely not continue it. So they can never be called on it.... if it doesn't happen, it was the next guys fault.....

I think it would be cool to have a plan that you can actually finish during your term. Shoot for 1/2 the difference in 3 to 4 years.

I agree with you Cool Beans. Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama have all put a number of policies in place that won't come to fruition until after they leave. Many of the situations could have been handled within the time frame of their term depending on when the policy was issued (early in the term as opposed to late in their term).

However, I think it would be tough to press the MPG regulations much sooner than 2016 because of the R&D that needs to take place. Let's not forget that the automotive industry is getting raped at the moment. This policy will put additional pressure on the companies to develop new technologies.

My opinion is that more car companies need to move over to diesel engines. Have PR campaigns that dissolve many of the current stigmas about diesel and "how dirty it is", as current diesel engines used in cars are more efficient, more powerful and about as clean as gasoline engines.

Hell, I average 30-31MPG in my car, 35MPG if I make a round-trip drive to Truro. I also go about 75MPH on the highway and accelerate quickly, so I could be doing even better. But my car is Japanese - we'll see if the American companies can pull it off.

so long SUV... nice knowing you.

its not the weight
 

as far as SUV's are concerned

it's what they are made of...
that will make them obsolete... IMHO

since the quality of the steel is total CRAP
not to mention way to heavy :walk:
Just don't lean on your car with your ass because you'll dent it :uhuh:
President
Obama:
i think he needed to go for 50 mpg so that the auto makers
would at least have to achieve :point: 40 mpg
Since............
we all know that many worthwhile inventions for making cars run
even more efficiently have been shelved instead of implemented.

then they wont sell. The challenge is to make a car people want and gets good mileage. A honda civic wont pull my boat.
I had a toyota tercel with 150K miles on it and it got over 35mpg.

There wont be any companies left to build them anyway so it's a moot policy. This should be the last straw for the auto makers. WTF

You'll still be able to get that SUV or truck, it's just going to cost you a premium to pull the boat. It is a luxury item anyway is it not?

-spence

So because someone deems it a luxury item, I have to pay more? Who gets to decide what's a luxury and what's not. To most of us with boats, it's a necessity.

The truck is definitely a necessity.

I think all these cute little Toyota Prias' are luxury items....

not sure if you shop around at all, but dont i already pay a premium? Compare a pathfinder to a sentra, a 4 runner to a camry. tens of thousands more. supply/demand should drive what I pay, not the government. didnt you post you have an audi? sounds like a luxury item to me, a yugo will be just fine for you comrade.

Hasn't that freedom from supply/demand simply drained trillions in wealth from the US to enrich the Gulf States?

Sounds like more efficient cars would be a good thing.

-spence

im not arguing against more efficient cars. My point is that in order to be successful, they need to be the type of cars americans want to drive. I've seen hybrid yukons and other big trucks, so we can do it. Im SURE THE JAPANESE can and will do it. Will the american car compansies continue to produce duds that no one wants to buy. but they'll be fuel efficient? Success will be dtermined by fuel efficinency and market need

Jimmy, the OBOTS will never understand... To make this thing work there needs to be some incentive on the demand side, you just can't heap the responsiblility onto the producers. :wall:

Paying 25% less in fuel costs isn't an incentive?

A tax benefit provided by many states for people buying a hybrid is not an incentive?

Did the large increase in demand for hybrids coincidentally coincide exactly with a massive increase in gas prices, and then demand decrease as prices at the pump decreased?

Let's not forget that while we may not see $4 at the pump this summer, when inflation skyrockets over the next year or two and the price of oil climbs ridiculously again, $5/gallon will become a very real possibility.

Seems like you're the one that doesn't understand.

Johnny, are you saying that the government should try to bully people into buying cars they don't want because of tax incentives? If the car companies made a car I liked in a hybrid, I'd consider it. But at this point, there isn't a hybrid that suits my wants/needs.

exactly! I bought an SUV in the middle of the highest gas prices. Why? I need it! I can't lug all my fishing gear, 4 bikes, cooler, etc in a mini cooper. Sure some bought SUVs becasue the were popular, but many need them for their lifestyle. Lets make fuel efficent powerful vehicles.

now really piss me off by telling me I need to change my lifestyle...........:lasso:

JD, just out of curiousity, what do you mean when you say "when inflation skyrockets". Do you mean a galloping double digit inflation, the likes of the years following Vietnam or do you mean 5% or 6% inflation? Nevertheless, in either case, this is well above target levels of the fed.

Only asking because some are arguing that a dose of inflation may be what this country needs considering the accrued private and public debt of late.

pardon the digression, not trying to turn this into a Michael Vick...eerrr...inflation thread.

Bully people? What planet have you been living on the past 30 years?

Your lifestyle isn't a product of freedom, it's a product of industry marketing.

-spence

The some who are arguing for a dose of inflation never worked or lived during the 70's inflation years, or they would have a different perspective.

Salaries didn't keep up with inflation, loans were as high as 20%.

Never got to the point of Argentina where people moved there money daily to
pick up an extra 1/4%, but with all the spending we have going on now, it could very well happen to us.

correct me if I am wrong but I thought it was an average of all vehicles a company makes. So 35.5 MPG is pretty good if you ask me. If you average trucks that get 20 and cars that get much higher...


oh wait....I get it. No one should be allowed to drive a truck anymore? It will never happen.......Trucks make the world go round. What about the fancy secret service cars.....now way they are getting 35.5 or better!

35.5 is the average but...

"Under the plan, cars would have to get 39 mpg and trucks 30 mpg."

Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...xzz0G5s5rqSN&B

Also, there's a lot of pissing and moaning when this news was released about it putting substantial stress on the automotive companies. Well...

"The White House said it was able to bring industry and consumer groups into agreement on the standard without a lot of wrangling."

Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...xzz0G5sawiU6&B

I'm not saying that at all. First of all, American cars suck. Period. There is nothing on the market right now that suits my needs, is comfortable, has good performance and above average gas mileage - all while still being affordable. I asked my mechanic what type of cars he suggests to people looking to buy new, and he said "Toyota, Nissan or Honda" so people that repair the vehicles see this as well. Thus why I own a Japanese car.

I fail to see how providing a tax incentive to help the consumer more quickly recoup the added costs of a hybrid can be considered "bullying people".

With your logic, the government is bullying people to put solar panels on their homes because there is a tax rebate offered when you install solar power.

The government must also be bullying people to have children, due to the added tax write-offs for each child someone has.

Why are you answering a question with a question? Do you read posts before responding?

That doesn't make any sense at all. Is there going to be a requirement that all new homes use a certain percentage less energy by 2016? And anyways, solar panels wouldn't work on all homes.

Don't worry by the time this goes into effect, with the new gas taxes and all gas will be 10 bucks a gal and it will be a wash.

There's no requirement that you have to buy an America car. What part doesn't make sense? You were saying that a tax incentive for buying a hybrid is the government bullying the consumer into buying a hybrid car they supposedly didn't want.

This thread is about requiring certain MPG's for cars as of 2016. I made no mention of tax incentives.

But, since you brought it up, where does the money for the "tax incentives" for people who buy hybrids come from? Does the government sell cookies or magazines door to door? Or, do they set up a lemonade stand in front of the Capital building? I'd be curious to find out where all the "tax incentive" dough comes from.

If you said nothing about tax incentives, then where does any of this come from?

My whole comment was in reply to a comment about there supposedly not being any incentives for American consumers to purchase the cars that will be coming out with higher MPG and about how if the MPG is increased by 25%, then the consumer incentive will be a savings of 25% at the pump. With regards to hybrids, there are tax benefits to the incentives.

So please explain how anything in my post about incentives implies some outlandish view about the government bullying consumers to buy cars they don't want. It's not like the government is saying "For every non-American car you buy, your income will be taxed at a higher bracket."

How exactly does increasing the mandated MPG to an amount agreed upon with the automotive industry constituted bullying?