hotrodtodd74- I'm not interested in saving you from yourself, only in saving myself (speaking generally) from you. THAT is where much of this legislation comes from.

Absolutely.

For those that think that economy ought to be a consumer-driven change, consider this-
The average consumer has NO FRICKIN' IDEA the TRUE cost of the oil that they're dumping into their gas-guzzling SUV (with remote starter, let run for 15 minutes, then to Starbucks- ALONE- to get coffee that they have in their home ). The Iraq situation is a stunning example of that- if Iraq wasn't smack-dab in the middle of the most oil-rich place on Earth, we wouldn't have gone in there at all. While we may not be interested in directly stealing their oil (or we may be, but that's a conspiracy theory for another time), we are absolutely interested in bringing stability to that entire region, to "protect our interests." "Our interests" in the Middle East are solely about oil- Saudi, Kuwait, Iraq- doesn't matter.

The average gas-guzzler ought to come with a sticker, like cigs do- "Your purchase of this vehicle forces us to exert our influence on untoward governments for the purpose of maintaining a steady fuel supply for you, at great risk to our countrymen. Please be certain that you NEED this vehicle prior to purchase."

On another point, as to why the Big 3 were targeted, and not other carmakers- other carmakers (e.g. Honda) are LEADING the push for lower emissions and fuel economy. Witness the 240hp 3.0l V6 in the Accord, that'll push that car to a high 14 sec quarter, meets ULEV emissions standards, and will get over 30mpg highway at 75mph. My 3600lb, 260hp 3.2l Acura TL-S gets the same mileage. A hybrid V6 Accord with 30+mpg city AND highway is debuting this fall (with 250hp, I might add- no slow econobox). Honda has gone on record to state that hybrid platforms will be available for every model within 3 years. Toyota is following the same path. Nissan- who knows?

The Big 3 have what they need to start down this road. The Ecotec engines are a great starting point for adding hybrid tech. The new V6s from GM (e.g. the CTS) appear to have "the goods" for low emissions output. Heck, even the LS family is a marvel for such "old-school" tech. DC has a direct line to a number of smaller diesel engines that would be perfect for hybrid platforms. The Mercedes engines of Europe seem to be more fuel efficient. I was in Germany last spring on business, rented a 4-door C-Class Benz, with a 1.8l supercharged motor and 6-speed manual. It felt every bit like a 3.0l V6, and I put over 700 miles on the Autobahn on it (driving to different customer sites). I -averaged- about 90-100mph for most of my journey, and still knocked down 41.2mpg (calculated, because I was curious).
So, from my view, it appears they have the goods. Why they are dragging their feet is beyond me.

And, yes, I'm 100% for "coercing" the demand side via whatever means necessary.

Todd

 

I reject the classification of all SUV's as gass guzzlers, and that somehow all other non-SUV's are absolved from any guilt about fuel consumption.

Todd what you are basically saying is lets blame the SUV drivers because they are the only ones consuming oil. I think it is incorrect to generalize the vehicles.

I heard on the radio a while back a minister somewhere was saying SUV's were morally wrong to own and that true Christians would not own SUV. What a CROCK! To say that there aren't some SUV's that get good mileage is absurd, just as saying all passenger cars are great on fuel.

If you guys are hell bent on taxing people that use their "unfair share" of resources then tax anyone who doesn't buy a vehicle that gets at least X mpg regardless of whether it is a truck, car, SUV, gas, diesel or hybrid.

What about people who buy SUV's for businesses? Gonna put some hurting on small businesses that way. I guess you could exempt them. What about government agencies and police departments, gonna exempt them too?

I think all this amounts to is class warfare by another name. As if taxing something makes it right anyway, you know you have to do something with the tax revenue in order to correct the problem, not like you implement a tax then all of us can automaticallly stop feeling guilty about using gas.

Maybe we should outlaw drag strips, because we all know we use more than our fair share of fuel when we are racing. We're all putting cams and heads in our cars, increasing the fuel consumption substantially but all the guilt gets laid at the feet of SUV owners. Its not like regular cars use zero gas.....

...it is all just a matter of degree, and to place a black/white line arbitrarily somewhere in the middle is dishonest IMO.

Its like all you guys think because an SUV gets worse mileage than your Fbodies that you are OK but they are bad. Well, to the real environuts, your 18city/23 highway is morally outrageous to them too, and they'd just as soon burn your cars too like they did to the hummer dealership.

See, your relative guilt or innocence in this consumption debate depends on where you draw your line. So convenient for everyone to place the line past where they presently reside.

 

Nice post, Todd. But don't be so hard on the Big Three. Toyota is good at pushing the image of being green, but they really aren't much better, at least in terms of fuel economy, from what I've seen. Well, their 4 cylinder Corolla is really good, but in the midsize and truck world, I think GM is quite competitive. The media loves them because they have a hybrid Prius, but what about the Tundras, Sequoias, Land Cruisers, 4Runners, etc.? Honda is traditionally more economical; it is kind of in the company's heritage. Of course, that is why they are not currently in the real truck market yet. They don't even make a V8, and the biggest engine they sell here is, what, a 3.5L six? Don't get me wrong, I am an admirer of Honda's engineering prowess, but their CAFE numbers are destined to be high as long as they are the only players not in the body on frame, V8 powered truck market...

As for being in the lead for ULEV, etc, make no mistake about it. That stuff is mandated by CARB/EPA. None of the automakers would be pushing any farther than they are right now if the regs didn't keep getting tighter.

Oh, and in the world of complying with California emissions regulations (OBD II), GM is pretty much the leader. Toyota and Honda are not at GM's level. Of course, much of the OBD stuff is ridiculous, but GM takes it very seriously.

But anyway... @ cig-style warning stickers.

 

And like many things associated with the federal government, we run a high risk of the cure being worse than the disease

My biggest concern with trying to improve fuel consumption at this point is that we divert a lot of resources away from the necessary task of weening this country off fossil fuels.

 

Exactly!!!

I'm always suprised when this topic pops up on this message board..

how many of us bought our cars for MPG ratings?! Our cars aren't very eco friendly either.. How much gas do we burn everytime we go down the track?!

Taxing for cars that don't meet a xxx mpg rating.. Its funny, for a group of people, that adore the Camaro for its affordable performance, you want to raise the cost of having extra lux and performance, while you moan and lament about how there is no affordable performance car in the GM lineup.. lol.. So why do you want to have a tax, that only allows the richer people to afford to buy sports and lux cars again?


Anyways, there's simply not a good alternative to gasoline right now.. We're close, but its all too expensive now.. Besides, unless the current oil companies can control this new energy resource, they'll continue to pull the strings to make sure one way or another we're still reliant on gasoline, even if we use half of what we use today.. they'll just reduce oil production and triple the price... and when we find a new enegery source, guess how much its at least going to cost? as much as we're paying now.. evne if it was free energy from the gods, they'll find a way to charge it.


Imagine if the USA can figure out, say cheap cold fusion with a very effective way to store and transport energy.. Get the whole world reliant on it, and the USA can dominate the world with energy production.. Heh, it can be both a very bright and dark day for the USA, cause we would literally have so much power over the world... all for the sake of saving the environment of course..

 

These posts are priceless. When consumers want to drive more fuel efficient cars, they'll buy them. It is that simple.

If you give the government the right beyond those enumerated in the Const to do things you like, that means they also have the power to do things you don't, and in an unfettered way because it is beyond their enumerated rights--it is like a river overflowing its banks. As Eric said, the cure is often worse than the problem--I'd go a little farther: the cure is ALWAYS worse than the problem. Our bullsh*t enviro, aff action, health, welfare and safety laws have all but priced our labor out of the market and our jobs are scurring overseas as fast as they can go. When will you people learn?

It's all about freedom, and we lose more of it to "friendly" government coercion for "good" causes every day.

 

I'm not for gov't infiltration into a lot of things, but fuel economy/ the environment are classic "Tragedy of the Commons" (when it's everyone's problem, it's no one's problem), and precisely the business they ought to be in. These aren't "individualist" problems (like smoking ought to be, for instance, if the govt would get out of the health care business), but problems for the "collective," as it were.
Simply put, you shouldn't have the right to $hit in the stream, if someone lives downstream of you.

I'm simply saying that the cost of being wasteful is far higher than just the cost of the fuel consumed. What of the fact that we MUST get involved in conflicts in the Persian Gulf to ensure our supply? What of that? Is that not important, since national defense is mandated by the Constitution? What of the untold billions spent on Defense, that could be used elsewhere (or, simply not used/taken from the people, as if)? What of the many right here who are likely all-too-willing to send our servicemen over to keep the oil flowing, but significantly less likely to sacrifice themselves for the cause.

And I wasn't just targeting SUVs, but the fact remains that even LT1/LS1 Camaro combined average is above the combined fleet average right now. Until THAT gets addressed, there's no point in picking on above-average cars.

Also note, this isn't an all-or-nothing argument. If we could reduce total energy consumption in this country by 15% (auto, home, business, etc), we'd be nearly able to kiss off Middle East oil for good.

With China coming online in a big way, oil prices will be going up regardless. The days of cheap gas are behind us. Get used to it.
And, if gas is $3/gal, and I have to pay an extra $150/year to register my old guzzling (18/25mpg) Camaro, I'll do it. A nice hit like that might shake out a lot of the poseurs in this hobby.

Todd

 

Have you ever heard of the "Death of the Commons"? EDIT: Doh! Didn't think that sounded right; Todd's post showed up just before mine, and I meant what he said - Tragedy of the Commons.

I agree with you in general about giving the government more powers (by the way, most of the things discussed in this thread don't give them powers they haven't already taken - taxing fuel, luxuries, enforcing the BS CAFE concept, whatever). But, sometimes you have to make decisions about policy for the way the country is headed. Do we really want to wait until things get real serious before we start to act on the oil issue? Say, for example, we didn't have some of the clean air requirements that we have now. Would people have just stopped buying electricity or stopped driving somewhere in order to clean things up? Smog was getting really bad in cities at one time (and it hasn't stopped being a problem), but would people who don't live there really know or care about the problem, if it doesn't directly affect them (they think)?

I'm not saying the gov't should babysit us. But we need to think long-term, not short term, especially when it comes to energy. Maybe people in their day to day troubles, going to work, raising kids, trying to get ahead and enjoy life a little aren't thinking regularly about the future of energy sources for the world. Would we have catalytic converters right now if the government hadn't mandated them? We may have fuel injection and stuff as automakers look for smoother, more powerful engines and finer control, but you can do all of that and still have dirty exhaust. How many years of more and more pollution would have gone by before consumers started to demand catalytic converters or they weren't going to buy? Who knows?

I dunno. You bring up a good point, and like Eric said, the fix is too often worse than the problem. :blah:

 

I don't think you can just boycott middle east oil though.. Isn't everything in the end, controlled by OPEC? If the middle east decided to not produce anymore oil, the OPEC will take that as an excuse to drive prices up higher, since the worldwide oil production would drop by 15% (or however much they produce)..

Even if there was enough oil to supply us for the next 20,000 years, gas prices would still not go down, because OPEC will simply state oil production will not increase and fix the price of gas to whatever they can get away with.

 

You can't "boycott" oil from anywhere because its all sold on a global market. The price of a barrel is the same anywhere on the planet.

So if we boycott ME oil it will still get bought by others. OPEC only controls a certain percentage of the oil out there, but OPEC is not just mid east nations, Venezuela, for example, is in OPEC as well. Russia exports gobs of oil but they are not in opec.

 

Very well put put Todd

I too am kinda owndering when the 'price of admission' will get too steep

 

In the late 19th century there was a "crisis" when whale oil, the primary fuel for lamp lights, started to get scarce due to over-harvesting of whales.

Did we go in to mass panic and start rationing whale oil and taxing people that used too much of it? No, better sources of energy were found.

Obviously running out of crude oil is a far bigger deal than running out of whale blubber, since we are more dependent on it than just for lighting, but I just can't stand to see it so simplified.

OK, gasoline is not the only use of oil. It goes into the tires, countless plastics, motor oil both dino and synth (synth is just highly refined, homogenized dino oil), home heating oil in the northeast and other places around the world, etc. etc. By many estimates we have 40yrs of known reserves left, key word being KNOWN. As time has progressed the known reserves have actually increased over the decades as technology has enabled us to explore and extract oil from places we could not before. It is still entirely feasible that the unknown reserves are at least equal to the known reserves, just judging by the fact that 2/3 of the world is ocean and we've barely tapped what is available in those regions.

Industrializing nations are only going to continue to increase their own rate of consumption too, which may indeed accelerate the use of the reserves, but I still maintain that alternative technologies are out there already, but are just waiting to be implemented when they become economically viable...i.e. when someone can make money from it.

Here is an excellent article on definition of "proven" oil reserves, etc. http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil...ventional.html

 

If I remember correctly, it isn't only the supply that's driving up the price (it's probably solely responsible for price fluctuations) but the real culprit is refinery capacity.

But, I still think it's time to start looking much more closely at alternative energy sources for alot of reasons.

 

Just a little tidbit from the link above:

• 1980 -- Remaining proven oil reserves put at 648 billion barrels

• 1993 -- Remaining proven oil reserves put at 999 billion barrels

• 2000 -- Remaining proven oil reserves put at 1016 billion barrels.

 

But how many trillions of dollars of infrastructure was set up back then and slowing the change from whale oil to mineral oil? We threw out some lantrens and streetlights, and a few vendors probably had to do some short-term realignment of their marketing.

Nowadays, we're stuck with what we've got for a few decades at least, and every day that goes by without change is another day that we'll have to live with unsustainable energy costs once the sky comes falling down.

So don't get me wrong - I get upset with attempt to play around with CAFE standards not out of an interest in watching us **** away some more resources, but rather because I think we're already past the point where we should have started weening ourselves off oil. Trying to squeeze an extra MPG or two from an SUV is going to simply waste tens or hundreds of billions of dollars and a decade or so of time. In other words, it's too late for CAFE to make much of a difference.

quick states that consumers will make adjustments based on financial concerns and that the market has shown that fuel economy simply is not a big deal. Fair enough - until one realizes that the average car stays on the road for nearly 20 years, and that an increase in fuel price is likely to occur much too fast for most people to react by changing their buying habits.

I don't care how much oil anyone thinks that we've got in this world - it ain't going to be enough as another few billion people bring themselves into the industrial age.