Well we actually agree...I know the Ave. Gas mileaga was better in the 80's... "Until the SUV craze, we had seen a DRAMATIC impact..."

I also do think higher taxes on gas would help tremendously...but I think if people need to be enlightened as to how bad things really are just by raising taxes, then we have a problem. Public awareness isn't near what it should be, but with my tree hugging hippie babble out of the way. That is probably the best thing to do. Auto manufacturers are pushing for it, many political figures are pushing for it...The only bad thing is that the cost of living will increase dramatically too...all because the majority of people DON'T CARE about their individual small parts of the overall problem. I think couple higher taxes on gas with much more strict CAFE will work wonders. Our cost of living won't be impacted too much other than a few more grand per vehicle we buy for the technology it will take to make these cars a little more fuel efficient. I'd much rather have that though than pay $5/gallon of milk or $2 for a tiny bag of M&Ms.

CAFE does work, but your right, there is a bigger picture...but CAFE is a good part of that picture. CAFE helped very much in the 70's and 80s...if it weren't for the SUV craze we would be well ahead of where we are now. With the decline in demand for SUVs and the lower costs of implementing mild hybrid systems into vehicles, maybe CAFE will start to show its worthfulness again.

The voters care 100x more about their taxes than they do CAFE...so if somebody comes into office and rises gas taxes by 100%, guess whos probably not going to be there too much longer? So eventually, the politicians who support the CAFE will just be elected and the public will spend a few more bucks on the vehicle they buy.

You couldn't be more wrong. The customer has proven time and time again that it does not want good gas milage (muscle car era, SUV era...returning of higher power vehicles) The only real time the customer has shown interest in higher gas milage vehicles was in the oil crisis and with the new Prius (on a relatively very LOW LOWWWW level). The customer can't be trusted alone on saving the environment, you jsut said so yourself. "The majority don't give a rats *** about the environment." So the gov't has to impose itself onto the public to correct the publics mistakes. You know where we'd be right now if CAFE never existed? Certainly not as far as we are now...and not making the progress that we are. I don't see where any of your arguments have any actual real world validity

 

Have you heard the term "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." ??

Im just wondering why we all have to keep dealing with an outdated system that obviously doesnt work terribly well, that was installed thirty years ago to make a very small but vocal group of environmentalists happy. This is kinda the point... If you were to tell an average Joe on the street that if he were to repeal CAFE, cars and trucks would become cheaper, and the OEMs would produce them in greater variety, how many do you think would go out and vote for it? (Or actually for the congressman who would vote for it)

I mean, there was a time and place for measures like this. Even my argument that they dont work now ignores the fact that they did force manufacturers to at least sit up and include fuel mileage in thier design plans, and as such, were successful. However, I think that it is an outmoded protocol based on flawed economic thinking, and I truely believe that for once, the government should leave things well enough alone and get their paws out of things.

 

I just can't buy the gas tax being raised. I really don't think anyone here is looking at the really big picture, which includes more than just cars. If you raise the price of gas, you raise the price of everything. Everyone needs gas. If they have to pay more for it, they're going to demand a raise at work. If employees start demanding raises at work, then the company has to charge more for it's goods and services, etc...

If, and only if, you could just raise the gas tax by itself, this might work. My answer is even more simple. Just hold the SUV's to the exact same standard they use for passenger cars. Double the gas guzzler tax. This hits the people that truly can afford this.

And as to the debate over having fuel efficient cars. They're out there, no one wants them. Every "economical" car out there is percieved as cheap. Think about it, the Cavalier before now, the Cobalt will surely get some of this stigma, and let's not even start with the Aveo (just to use some GM models). We can go on and on about Neons and those newer "trendy" Scions, but what it comes down to is they are perceived as cheap. Ask anyone here if they would buy any of these and they'll say "not in a million years".

This really flies in the face of the supply and demand argument. Why can't the automakers make a stylish hybrid with leather interior, climate control, nice wheels? They don't want/need to. If you were to bring the SUV and luxury models (Caddy, BMW, Merc) in line with this by attaching more and more taxes, I think you'd see a dramatic change. At the same time, give a little bit more care to the so-called "bottom feeder" cars that usually get the best gas mileage.

We need to start asking ourselves why it is that only the cheapo entry-level cars get good gas mileage.

Again, anyone who thinks GM or any other automaker builds cars as to demand, is seriously out of touch or living about 30 years behind the times. GM builds what it does mainly for fleet value. They're not busting down your door asking you what you want in a car (see Camaro). Raising gas taxes and thereby getting customers to demand fuel efficient vehicles will fall not on just deaf ears, but non-existent ears.

 

Meccadeth, I agree that we need to encourage better fuel efficiency. I'm saying CAFE is NOT the way to do it. It puts the onus on the automakers, NOT on the public directly, which is good for politicians. They get to claim to be doing something for the environment, without directly demanding anything from the voters. We'll just dump responsibility on the automakers, 'cause they are an easy target.

If the public is as green as they like to think they (we) are, they (we) need to put our money where our mouth is and start to demand/purchase the vehicles that get better fuel economy. That is slowly happening in the hybrid world, and even in normal vehicles, trust me, small changes that net 0.5 mpg improvements are chased all the time, because fuel economy is a good thing from the automaker's view (for CAFE and as a marketing tool).

But it is stupid that GM has to peddle/give away 4 cylinder S10s and Cavaliers to meet standards, but at least they are offering the vehicles. I am not saying that we should return to the '60s by any means. I am saying that the public needs to take responsibility by buying the vehicles with better economy. They should not just let the government keep raising CAFE and let the "other people" (i.e. other consumers and the automakers themselves) buy the smaller cars while they keep driving their huge pickups/suvs/luxury cars, if fuel efficiency is really important to them. It most certainly does have to do with supply and demand. CAFE forces the automakers to supply smaller cars and such, while the public keeps demanding bigger/badder/more powerful/faster.

It is the method I have a problem with, not the goal. BTW, it ought to say something about how concerned with fuel economy the government is when BMW can keep paying the fines as a cost of doing business, rather than striving to meet the standards like everyone else does. If it were really about saving fuel, they would allow the fines for a year or two once in a while when product changes or demand changes cause a fleet to go under the required average for a while. But then they'd have to actually DO something about it. Instead, they are allowed to sell all the guzzlers they want. The government gets the guzzler tax money, and it gets all that fine money.

The guzzler tax, BTW, is the area where it does impact the driver directly...

It does seem, at least sometimes (and going by the amount of press that hybrids get and the greenies get wrt fuel economy), that public sentiment MAY be starting to shift a bit. On the other hand, with the power war that is going on (in the luxury ranks, the truck and SUV ranks, and to an extent, in the normal car ranks), the sentiment seems to be shifting more toward the '60s. Except that now we can have that power and still have almost 0 emissions, and still get better fuel economy than back in the day. The public wants to have its cake AND ice cream sitting in the freezer, and still be able to eat them both.

I, for one, look forward to the low-sulfur diesel fuel and the emergence of 40 to 50 mpg diesel family sedans. In Europe, people predominantly drive small diesel engines with manual transmissions. Because the government forced them to be available? Or because the government taxed the fuel so that the these vehicles became attractive, and a demand is created?

 

More Fuel tax is the WORST IDEA EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That will do nothing more than hurt the economy. (notice went fuel/energy prices rise, the stock markets go down) What about those that can't afford a brand new Hybrid SUV/Car?

Cars and trucks are more fuel effecent now than EVER!! It is just that the truck/SUV to car ratio is up. The SUV thing is just a fade, as more cool stylish cars like the 300, Magnum, CTS, STS, and '05 Mustang come out people will shift away from SUVs. Once everyone has an SUV they stop being cool and people will look for something else.

The production of DoD engines, 6 speed autos, and Hybrid systems needs to be increased ASAP.

 

good points raised by everybody...I'm kind of torn on the issue myself (huge environmentalist, that grew up with a love of fast cars)

 

Yeah, but because the customers want them, not because the government forced it on the automakers.

BTW, any increased tax, IMO, would have to be a "zero-revenue" or "revenue neutral" tax. We've talked about this before in this forum at one point...

But CAFE is not a good system.

 

The consumers do want to save gas, but what options do they have? One of the reason I bought a Colorado was because it had the best fuel economy in its segment. 18/22mpg is the best that you can get in a 4x4 truck that seats 4+. Hybrid sales are red hot but they don't build enough, or like the Silverado Hybrid, they aren't sold in every state. If 6 speed auto was a choice, I would have selected that, same goes for DoD. No one likes paying for gas, but until someone builds a 4x4 pickup that gets 35mpg, consumers can only buy ones that get low 20's at best.

 

Right, and as more customers buy hybrids, you'll see manufacturers move to make more of them (and diesels, which offer similar fuel economy without the high cost and complexity, which is currently being eaten by the auto companies - really think Toyota can build a low volume, high tech Prius and sell it for less than a Camry?). DOD and a six speed auto will buy a few mpg here and there, but it isn't going to cause a 20 mpg vehicle to become a 35 mpg vehicle.

This is beside the point that when the customers demand it AND are willing to pay for it, the automakers will supply at a price that will allow them to break even or make a profit. Having the government arbitrarily decide to force trucks to have to reach 30 mpg will cause the automakers to have to sell some really slow trucks (customers want power) or some really fancy technology that isn't widespread yet (and that customers may not be willing to pay for)...

Again, I most certainly am in favor of improved fuel efficiency. I am seriously considering a 2wd, 5 speed Colorado/Canyon with the 4 or 5. Best pickup fuel economy around.

But as long as people keep buying 4500 - 6500 lb pickups and suvs and using them like family cars, they are going to see fuel economy that goes with vehicles of that size...

 

why should we tax those that arent directly responsible for the problem? thats like a grade school teacher making the entire class miss recess because one kid was talking out loud when he wasnt supposed to. i own a 91 trans am (worst gas mileage for fuel injected car evar) and an 04 colorado sport. its the 3.5 and auto with 3.73 gears. i bought it mainly for looks, price, the extremely nice deal i got for it, performance, and because it got better gas mileage than my old blazer and my trans am combined. i drive the trans am once a week at most and the colorado every day. i feel my damn near 17-20 mpg in the city is doing pretty good. atleast compared to the 5-10 that most SUVs would get doing the same driving. why should i be penalized for what they are doing? why should i be penalized for buying something that i needed for utility instead of a hybrid?

THATS why the CAFE system works. it shifts the punishment to those that SHOULD be punished. obviously someone is going to say "well we can ALL drive 70mpg hybrids everyday or find an alternative means of transportation", yes while thats true, some us of actually NEED the cars we have for other reasons.

something needs to be done tho. the system now is pretty flawed but so far all the answers ive seen here have also had lots of flaws in them.

 

How does CAFE shift it to whomever "causes" the problem? Besides, we ALL cause the problem, by using gasoline at all. The taxes would hit those who burn the most fuel the hardest because, ah, they burn - and therefore buy and pay taxes on - the most fuel. It is basically a consumption tax.

CAFE punishes the automakers, not the consumers. The consumers are the ones who decide to buy guzzlers. CAFE might "work" to some extent (vs. having no encouragement to improve fuel efficiency), but it is not the right way or the best way to get the job done. Ultimately, we as consumers are responsible for the environment in which we live.

 

Who SHOULD be punished - THE POOR??? People making $50,000+ a year are NOT buying little fuel efficient cars en masse. But hey, don't feel bad for them, they get to have their safety compromised in an accident with larger, heavier vehicles, too.

BTW, how does CAFE work if "Cars today are the most fuel efficent ever!" and yet we buy 50% trucks?

Also, I'm not sure I agree that more expensive fuel is death to the economy. If it is gradually increased, and people see it coming, they will adapt - i.e. if I know gas will go up 20% over a several year period, then I can plan for it, and purchase my next car so that it is 20% more efficient. If we all keep putting our head in the ground and ignoring the future, then we are all going to be fuxored when there is another fuel spike and we're all driving 15mpg SUVs and commuting 60 miles a day. Everything else will also become more expensive, but quickly, and without time to plan in advance.

 

Great argument all the way around. Thats what I was saying too...raise gas price too much and EVERYTHING will explode in price. Toyota is coming out with the new R400h which is luxurious, fast, "big" and gets great freak'n gas milage, and look how much of a success that is so far! and its still months away from production.
Holy crap I'm not alone!
I think thats one of the flaws he was speaking of...and I agree, the system needs to be tweaked in certain areas.

 

What are you communist? If the government ever tells me what i can and cant drive will be the day i riot nacked in the streets and start kidnappen my senators.

So what if people like suv's? I really dont have a problem with it. Up here in the NE its one of the most sensible vehicles to have since winter is a b!tch. I have to go to work in all types of weather, snow days are not allowed in my job description since i have to relieve someone and if i dont show they dont go home. So guess what folks..i am getting a gas guzzlen suv! Because i cant afford to get stuck, in the snow, rain, mud, flood etc. Go to your local PD/fd and ask them what they drive? 90% of them here drive tucks and suv's.

We really cant talk about gas guzzlers since guess what our hobby isnt exactly the most economical or earth friendly. The day they make a v8 that gets 30mpg city will be the day i take these comments back.

Auto makers will not end the suv craze if people keep buying them. They are the "cool" mini vans now. Automakers should be trying to raise mpg anyway this just pushes them in that direction. Also if you think full size cars are going to break 20mpg city your nuts. Look at the impy SS. Your lucky if you get 16. Same goes for the crown vic etc.


There are a ton of hyporcites on this board. They all **** and moan about emissions but when it comes to mpg and suv's good lord watch out. And what suv costs 50k other then a friggen caddy? Most go for mid 20's low 30's. They are sensible cars to have if you live in bad climate. Plus some people just like big cars...you know the american way? So what if i have a truck for haulen crap to the dump for? Just because i dont use it for construction work i shouldnt be allowed to use it? or have it? Your friggen nuts and some of you need to grow up.

By what your all saying is that according to the guzzler tax then by all means V8 sports cars should be taxed to death and be made so expensive that no one can afford to drive it. Great argument guys..really. Lets raise the price of gas so we all cant afford to drive our cars. How many of you with serious mods get over 15 mph city? Not too many! How many of you guys get 18-20 city stock? Not many that way either unless you granny shift. I tell you what my maro is my daily right now until i get my blazer...and guess what if gas goes too much higher it will make it difficult to say the least. Yeah sure i could get a 30mpg civic but do i really want a car that has styleing that doenst appeal to me? a car i am just going to hate? No!

So tell you what lets all stop bitchen cause the "suv craze" isnt going away anytime soon.

 

so what do you suggest should be done??? nothing??