Z28Wilson

Thanks, you just proved my point! The statement is that higher horsepower cars survived and actually thrived during the fuel-conscious 70's. Even though 1978 Z28's were relative jokes compared to the 8-10 year old models, they still sold in massive quantities.....

bossco

IIRC the value of a dollar is just .14 compared to the value of a dollar before we went off the gold standard and the feds started producing the stuff we have now. Sadly as they print the monopoly money they use to cover the debt it decreases the value of the dollar further.

Z28x

Dollars value is just .04 what it was when the Federal Reserve Bank (a private corporation) was formed in 1913. Because we gave away our power to control our own money to this private bank it is now mathematically impossible to ever pay off the national debt based on how the Federal Reserves works

bossco

ouch

TOO Z MAXX

I dont like CAFE and I hope they get rid of it. let the market decide what we drive, not the damn gov.

R377

I think trying to discourage sales was pretty much a last resort for automakers. No automaker wants to turn away customers, especially for high margin top-of-line models.

The way Detroit has met CAFE in the past was to extend model year runs of economical cars (GM did this with Fiero and I think J-cars); to get cars classified as trucks (because trucks have lower mileage standards; almost everyone does this); to buy enough foreign parts for their gas guzzlers that they get averaged into the 'import' average (back when there was import and domestic averages; Ford did this with their Panthers); or to "borrow" credits from expected future CAFE surpluses.

In other words, CAFE has been a joke. No domestic automaker has ever paid a CAFE fine, and I don't think it's really been a significant factor in preventing automakers from building and selling the cars they think their customers want. However I do think that's changing now that some of the loopholes are being closed and the standards are set to get much higher. GM itself said it was rethinking its RWD plans because of fuel economy concerns and I don't doubt it.

guionM

Well Aaron..... to answer the myth you bring up:

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=527728

You aren't gonna compare me with Michael Moore and think you'd walk away, did ya?

67 LS-1 & T-56

I think comparing the present situation to the 1970's inherently has a few flaws. One of the biggest is that the "green" culture is no longer on the fringe of society. Everyday people (myself included) want to make environmentally friendly decisions, some for the right reasons, and others beacuse its the cool thing to do.

We have a mojor hurdle to overcome when it comes to the preception of our hobby. We need to get to work on making people understand that F-bodies have not singlehandedly brought about about an environmental apocolypse.

In a few years GM will really want to start shedding the stigma of being "brown" (for lack of a better term) and move toward being green. If the way our cars are percieved by the public and the media haven't changed, then we will run into some problems. I have a very environmentally conscious cousin who thinks that Corvettes are these horrible gas guzzling smog machines.. and there's nothing I can do to convince her otherwise. That's what we need to worry about IMO.

flowmotion

Fortunately, the wrath of the greens is focused at the millions of SUVs all over the roads, and not the relatively small number of Mustangs (and Camaros).

But I agree there's always a perception issue to fight. In another thread, GuionM mentioned that the original Camaro was a compact, economy car. I think if GM offered a diesel or a turbo-4 that had over 30MPG they could get some of that image back.

The core issue is that GM needs to stop thinking of Fuel Economy in terms of "CAFE" and government regulations and start thinking of it as a positive consumer attribute.

scott9050

I guess we will find out, the 35 mpg standard passed the senate today.

96_Camaro_B4C

Whether or not it kills or hinders muscle cars, CAFE is bad because it is a stupid policy, plain and simple.

People are becoming "greener" and more cognizant of fuel efficiency quite well on their own, without the government forcing the automakers to build stuff that isn't being asked for. It really is amazing...

GM isn't coming out with full two-mode hybrid Tahoes because the government says they have to. The market is asking them to do it. Same with the small block sized diesel that has been discussed lately. In fact, the government has made it HARDER to bring out highly fuel efficient diesels thanks to ever tightening emissions standards... Meanwhile, in supposedly more socially mature and greener Europe, diesels are everywhere...

*sigh*

Z284ever

Amen.

ProudPony

I agree with this 100% - government does not need to be meddling in the "efficiency" equation. IMO, it can backfire and give the automaker's a minimum to shoot for and call it a day. Likewise, when you compound the details of emissions and "clean technology", the rulebook is getting too thick to keep track of.

On the other side of the coin though... if they MUST regulate something, why not regulate the price of gasolne and diesel? Outside of the same old argument we all agree on - "keep Uncle Sam out of my business", why shouldn't the government step in and control the retail price?
Electric utilities are regulated. Insurace rates are regulated. Even lending rates are regulated to a degree.
Power companies and insurance companies are making profits like crazy. (Seen any Geico or Progressive commercials on TV lately?!?!)

For a commodity to be such a linch-pin to our economy, yet not be governed in any way kinda scares me more than the thought of Uncle Sam taking it over.

Personally, I'd much rather see that happen than more elevated CAFE numbers. If diesel were still cheaper than gas here like it was 5 years ago, you'd see a run on diesel cars and trucks like crazy. Using that type of leverage, the government could put pressure on manufacturers to produce vehicles that meet an enegy-based need, without actually giving them an efficiency target to shoot at (and play games with).

Z28x

Make Importing oil from out side of North America illegal and you will solve the CAFE/fuel economy problem and 90% of our national security problems in one shot

guionM

Because it's a non starter idea that's dead on arrival.

The US consumes over 20,730,000 barrels of oil per day.

The US produces over 7,610,000 barrels per day (we're the planet's 3rd largest producer).

Canada produces 3,135,000 barrels per day.
Mexico, 3,420,000.

Even if we took every drop of oil Canada and Mexico produced for ourselves and left none for their own countries, at 14,165,000 barrels per day we'd still have less than 2/3s of what we need.

On top of that, we'd still have astronomical fuel price hikes. Katrina caused a disruption of refining just a few thousand barrels per day, yet resulted in price hikes. Today, there is no real disruption in oil prices, yet we're about paying over $3 per gallon. Even without any new crisis, I'm betting $4 before next year.

It's been researched & studied, and it's been proven many times over. The most efficient way to reduce oil consumption is to jack up the prices. The biggest and easiest target that will react the quickest is vehicle fuel. The most productive way to achieve this is through a increase of the sales tax on gasoline, which at 18.4 cents per gallon hasn't been raised since 1993 (despite that fact that 18.4 cents is now worth 10-12 cents because of inflation).

A gas tax would also have the benefit of closing the federal deficit, the value of the dollar would stop falling, we'd be putting money towards paying our own debt instead of relying on other countries to do so, incuring economic and policy favors towards those countries (ie: China), car makers would have an incentive to create economical cars and trucks because the demand was actually there, and it would be one less thing to threaten the auto industry and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on them.


..... but then again a (say an additional 50 cent per gallon) fuel tax might **** off some people who are afraid that 30-50 cents of that extra $5-7 per week they're sending to the government might be wasted. They feel it's better sending the money to a company that provides them no special service other than free air pumps.


BTW: Even with ail the oil in the Middle East, that oil alone wouldn't supply all the oil we need:
Saudi Arabia: 9,475,000 barrels
Iran: 3,979,000
Kuwait: 2,418,000
UAE: 2,540,000
Qatar: 790,500
...Total: 19,202,000 barrels per day.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...il-consumption
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...oil-production