New Obama rules will transform US auto fleet
Photo 
In this June 2, 2008 file photo, electric hybrid cars are plugged-in to charge during a demonstration of the vehicles in Seattle. AFS Trinity says it has the only working plug-in hybrid vehicles with a 40-mile "all-electric" range. President Barack Obama outlined Tuesday, May 19, 2009, the nation's first comprehensive effort to curb vehicle emissions while cutting dependence on imported oil, calling the plan an historic turning point toward a "clean-energy economy."
DETROIT — Some soccer moms will have to give up hulking SUVs. Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more. Nearly everybody else will drive smaller cars, and more of them will run on electricity.
The higher mileage and emissions standards set by the Obama administration on Tuesday, which begin to take effect in 2012 and are to be achieved by 2016, will transform the American car and truck fleet.
The new rules would bring new cars and trucks sold in the United States to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon, about 10 mpg more than today's standards. Passenger cars will be required to get 39 mpg, light trucks 30 mpg.
That means cars and trucks on American roads will have to become smaller, lighter and more efficient.
Eric Fedewa, vice president of global powertrain forecasting for the auto consulting firm CSM Worldwide in Northville, Mich., said the changes will make pickup trucks so much more expensive that they will be used almost exclusively for work.
And instead of a minivan or SUV, more parents will haul their families in much smaller vehicles with three rows of seats — something more like the Mazda 5 small van, he said. The Mazda 5 gets about 28 mpg on the highway.
"I think what you'll see is a lot more creativity in interior packaging," Fedewa said. "You'll get more rows of seats where you traditionally had cargo space."
Already on Tuesday, some drivers were skeptical. Dixie Bishop, who runs a plumbing business in San Antonio that uses vans, worries the new requirements will drive up her costs at a time when customers are cutting back on repairs.
"Are they going to take my horsepower down?" she asked. "I have to be able to carry old water heaters and toilets. It's not beneficial for me to haul one water heater at a time. We need the power to pull these heavy items."
The changes will start with smaller cars and trucks, and improvements to the internal combustion engine, Fedewa said. Automakers also already working on new technology, including direct fuel injection and high compression of the air-fuel mixture, that will make cars and trucks more efficient.
Car companies are rewiring vehicles so components such as air conditioners and power steering pumps are powered by electricity rather than by the engine, saving fuel.
And they're developing computer-controlled transmissions with six or more gears, adding efficiency, and rolling out more gas-electric hybrids — among the few cars sold today that meet the 2016 standards.
Of course, developing the technology will cost money — billions of dollars — and automakers will pass that on to their customers.
The Obama administration says the changes mean the average vehicle would cost about $1,300 more, although some private analysts say the increase will be much heftier. The administration says gas savings will make up the difference in about three years.
Automakers have said they need stable, relatively high gasoline prices to create a market for electric vehicles. General Motors fears rolling out its rechargeable Chevrolet Volt next year with gas at $2 per gallon.
American consumers have already shown their car-buying habits can change rapidly depending on gas prices. When fuel cost $4 a gallon last summer, people flocked to smaller cars. Gas is much cheaper now, and sales of hybrids have plummeted.
"The U.S. consumer has consistently chosen performance over fuel economy given the relatively low cost of fuel," David Leiker, senior automotive analyst for Robert W. Baird & Co. in Milwaukee, wrote in a note to investors.
The Volt is designed to run 40 miles on battery power when it is fully charged. After that, a small internal combustion engine kicks in to generate electricity and keep the car going. Other automakers are working on similar systems.
But the Volt is expected to sell for $35,000 to $40,000, and buyers may be unwilling to pay that much for a sedan, even if tax credits help ease the burden, unless gas prices soar.
Rechargeable electric vehicles, which under government calculations could get 100 mpg or more, will help automakers meet the standards and offset sales of larger, less-efficient models.
Under Obama's plan, the sale of of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids could also generate "super credits" that would count as more than one vehicle when an automaker determines its average fuel economy and emissions figures.
The new rules cause manufacturers "to accelerate their technology plans, probably a little more aggressively than they originally thought," said Tony Posawatz, who heads development of the Volt's technology. "For us, we feel comfortable that we've got choices."
Just a few years ago, GM and other auto executives were doubtful they could meet even less stringent standards, but Posawatz said the technology has changed since then, especially with new lithium-ion batteries.
GM also is looking at electric trucks, which may bring them even closer to the goals, he said.
Earlier this year, Toyota said it planned to launch as many as 10 new hybrid models worldwide by early 2010, and it plans to bring a new version of the Prius to the U.S. in the coming weeks. Honda's new Insight hybrid is already on sale in the U.S. Mazda, meanwhile, has said it plans to focus less on hybrid vehicles and more on improvements to its basic internal combustion engine.
___
AP Auto Writers Kimberly S. Johnson and Dan Strumpf in New York, AP Energy Write
May 28, 2009 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
You ask me where in the story it states you will not be able to buy what you want. After pointing you to the very first sentence you criticize me for believing everything the media says, nice. How lame, after proven wrong you attempt to tell me what I believe. If you don’t like the answer maybe you shouldn’t ask the question.
-
Class envy is exactly what you typed. As soon as you brought up an “ornament on the hood” and stating others are “compensating for their inadequacies”.
-
Limited choice, more limited, is exactly what this story brings up; the same you complain now about in your last quest for a vehicle. This act will not make more choices for you or your family in the future.
May 26, 2009 at 2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh well, I guess if the author of the article, Tom Krisher, states,"Some soccer moms will have to give up hulking SUVs.", then I guess it must be true, RAF. I didn't realize you believed everything you read from the media. Using your twisted logic, the choices were limited before the changes. I tried shopping for a family vehicle that was roomy and economical but only found 4 models to choose from. The term "limited choices" is relative, at least in this instance.
"Why do you care if someone buys a car or truck with a fancy hood ornament, how does this make your life different? You are the one saying this is about status and your comments are strife with class envy."
Class envy, RAF? Not too likely. I'm more concerned with why our culture believes progress comes at the expense of our planet and the people sharing it. If you want to believe we can keep poisoning our environment with little or no future consequence then you are either naive or ignorant. Believe it or not our buying choices for thousands of goods and services comes with an environmental or humanistic price tag. You either make a good choice and help other people and/or our environment or a bad one and help to enslave other people and/or poison our environment. The choice YOU make does affect others either directly or indirectly. So yes, our choices are limited, just not the way you think!
May 22, 2009 at 7:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
“Yes, change is coming to the auto industry. Will it limit choices? No.”
-
You are completely false. The change will indeed limit choice, just as the article stated.
May 22, 2009 at 7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
“By the way, if property taxes are based on the value of your home, why shouldn't vehicle registrations be tied to the value of your car(truck)?”
-
Some states already do, Arizona for one.
May 22, 2009 at 7:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
“Explain to me in the article where it states buyers will not be able to buy what they want.”
-
Did you read it? Sentence number one for starters.
May 22, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
"I simply said let people buy what they want."
People are free to buy what they want, RAF. Explain to me in the article where it states buyers will not be able to buy what they want. It may cost them more but cars, trucks, vans will all be available. What you probably won't find on new car lots are inefficient gas guzzling vehicles. I miss the days when you could open the hood and actually identify many of the parts or perform most of your own maintenance. With the advent of computers all that has been changed. I can't even control the headlights in my GMC. Yes, change is coming to the auto industry. Will it limit choices? No. Besides, the person quoted stating prices will be significantly higher is tied to the auto industry. By the way, if property taxes are based on the value of your home, why shouldn't vehicle registrations be tied to the value of your car(truck)?
May 22, 2009 at 3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
The automobile market is imperfect because there are not enough players working independently. They often share drive trains, engines and other parts, so there is little choice because of collusion. Automobiles are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers; we pay for roads, disposal and waste through higher medical bills and breathing related problems. The raising of cafe standards actually means that the value of used trucks will go up. However, I unlike some naysayers believe that they will figure out how to make fuel efficient large vehicles. Currently, they are trying to figure out how to make titanium or carbon fiber cheaply.
May 22, 2009 at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
"You always seem to know what won’t work but offer very little evidence of what could work."
-
hmmm, don't look to close in the mirror.
May 22, 2009 at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Panama my sarcastically dripped comment about your earlier needless remark escaped you. Again you are on a kick of what others should not have. Why do you care if someone buys a car or truck with a fancy hood ornament, how does this make your life different? You are the one saying this is about status and your comments are strife with class envy. If you drop your attitude of what other people have or want and read my comments you would see I never said “we should have more choices”. I simply said let people buy what they want. What’s next on the list limiting the size and type of home a family can own? Everyone family could fit just fine in apartment buildings, should we stop home ownership? Yes, it does sound stupid…just like the facts surrounding this story.
May 22, 2009 at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF, read my earlier post again. I was not comparing SUV’s to Viagra. I was comparing the consumers perceived NEED for SUV’s and Viagra. According to you, we should have more choice. Between what, a Cadillac SUV and a Chevy or GMC SUV? What is the point of Cadillac building SUV’s and pickup trucks? Because there are plenty of consumers stupid enough to pay the extra money to have the little Cadillac ornament on the hood of their vehicle, that’s why. It’s all about status, not choice. If some individuals feel the need to compensate for their inadequacies by owning a Hummer and consequently wasting more of OUR natural resources then they should pay extra for the privilege. It boils down to this, RAF, you can buy a car or truck that does more damage to the environment or less damage because all cars and trucks perform the same task. The auto companies that were not giving consumers the choice of more fuel efficient cars are the same companies going bankrupt. Again, if you have a better solution that what Obama has presented then lets hear it. You always seem to know what won’t work but offer very little evidence of what could work.
May 22, 2009 at 5:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
That's exactly what Tesla Motors is doing, RAF. A tiny, underfunded start-up whose R&D has put the Big Three to shame. A great story of American innovation and entrepreneurship. Meanwhile, GM makes excuses as they grow their production and marketing in China with the help of our money.
May 21, 2009 at 8:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
To those that think there is a market for these small cars and you really believe the auto makers are not making them...I guess this is an opportunity for all of you to start your own business (the American way) and sell "your product" for others to buy...well?
May 21, 2009 at 8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
"...What’s your solution RAF, whine about lack of choices? It’s time the automakers stepped up to provide efficient, reliable and affordable automobiles. It can be done."
-
Really PanamaRed, your is the dumbest comments I've read so far; equating car sales to viagra pills. You’re assumptive, "what's your solution" is the problem. Automakers have and currently do make fuel efficient cars….big surprise many people don’t want them. The fix by government and by your own words, people like you is to limit choice so the average consumer has no choice but to purchase what you and others want them to have; instead of letting American’s buy what they want. If every person who thinks all Americans should be driving small cars would step up to the plate and do it themselves…perhaps your debate would have more meaning. Until the leaders of the fight to limit American's choices get rid of their SUV's and private aircraft I say stop blowing hot air to make yourself feel good.
May 21, 2009 at 7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
spark, there are several affordable hybrid vehicles for sale right now, both domestic and transplant, that are already very close to meeting the 2016 fuel economy regulations. I would hardly call the as-yet-for-sale $40k Volt an example of what the industry can do.
May 21, 2009 at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
good post panama
hybrid cars at one time were deemed unaffordable. then gas hit 4 bux a gallon and all the sudden everyone could afford one. as more peeps buy the technology it will become more reasonable to mass produce allowing everyone who WANTS to drive a yukon or tahoe, to be able to afford a yukon or tahoe hybrid and get 25-30 mpg instead of the current less than 20 mpgs. if you cant afford a 55G tahoe hybrid you probably shouldnt be looking at the 50G regular tahoe. these CAFE rules are not forcing you to drive a certain type of vehicle, as the 'rush heads' would have you believe, the ONLY forcing the govt is doing is the forcing of better mpgs by the factory. if the factory were competent enough to not need the govt to tell them that...well...they would have forced themselves to make the changes and we wouldnt be in the situation we are in.
May 21, 2009 at 4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spark, I agree with your past two comments. That is why I am suggesting that we need to and are able to catch up. They've had quite the head start while we chose not to recognize these problems long ago.
*
"Key word is AFFORDABLE. Right now, their vision is not affordable. If they can change that, something may come out of this. If not, black eye. Back where we were."
*
It takes time. We won't have overnight magic solutions. Once we get a black eye, do we quit, crawl into the fetal position, continue to fall behind, and let the third world continue to leap-frog us?
May 21, 2009 at 4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Key word is AFFORDABLE. Right now, their vision is not affordable. If they can change that, something may come out of this. If not, black eye. Back where we were.
May 21, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
“The central point in the argument is limited choice. Not by consumers or businesses but by government and the influencing outside factors driving policy. “You don’t need one” (SUV). Well guess what you don’t need a television, cell phone, cable TV, computer, new clothes, or grocery store either…but we all want/have or use them. Given the “choice” most consumers have decided not to purchase the small car, this drives policy makers crazy because that is not what they want to see happen. So, if they can’t convince you to purchase what they want you to drive taking away what you do want makes them feel better.”
Really RAF, your's is the dumbest argument I have read regarding this topic (of course andre may not be done yet). The average person does not “need” an SUV, (but they do need a car) however creative marketing by the automakers have led simpleminded consumers to “think” they were necessary. Don’t believe me? Recently it was reported a drug company Marketing Team invented the medical malady “weak bladder syndrome” as a means of generating sales for their product and it worked. Sales (and profits) went through the roof. Just one problem, there is no such thing as a “weak” bladder. Automakers were able to generate huge profits on sales of SUV’s so naturally they used every means necessary to create the “need”. Do you actually think all those taking Viagra really “need” it? They wouldn’t be spending all that money on advertising if they weren’t selling tons of the stuff. By and large, our society is gullible and will throw hard earned money on anything they can be convinced they need. A sad but simple fact. Generally consumers determine what products sell, however, Advertisers have found ways to "create" needs for the consumer. Instead of buying based on need, decisions are now based on emotional wants which has paralleled the growth of our disposable income.
This country should have taken steps 30 years ago by enforcing higher efficiency standards and imposing higher fees on vehicles that didn’t meet those standards. Sure, you have a choice but that choice should cost you. The choice the auto companies made to fight any type of efficiency standards is costing ALL of us now. Obama is making the tough decisions that previous Presidential Administrations took a pass on. What’s your solution RAF, whine about lack of choices? It’s time the automakers stepped up to provide efficient, reliable and affordable automobiles. It can be done.
May 21, 2009 at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
I once asked a vacuum cleaner salesman why vacuum cleaners have to be so noisy. He answered, "Because no one would buy one. It's all this noise that convinces buyers it is powerful."
Fast forward a decade or two and everyone here worried about losing their powerful trucks, vans and SUVs will be angry at the US automakers for not having developed hybrid and other technologies of their own accord long before being dragged there kicking and screaming. The all electric Tesla can kick the pants off an internal combustion sports car. At least test drive a hybrid. It is probably nothing at all like you imagine it to be.
May 21, 2009 at 1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dissenting using fear is exactly what fear mongering is. Besides, if you look at the numbers, the risk of death every time you drive a car is 1 in 10,000, now it will be 1.08 in 10,000. Plus death in a small car is quick and painless. So don't loose any sleep over this you poor God fearing souls.
May 21, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
"blah, blah, blah..."
-
A dissenting opinion is "fear mongering"?
May 21, 2009 at 12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Let the Republican/FOX News fear mongering begin. Smaller cars won't keep our families as safe, attack them before they attack us, don't bring those dangerous terrorists into our district, accept Jesus in your heart or you'll spend eternity in hell...blah, blah, blah...
May 21, 2009 at 11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
JanesvilleNow - Building a $40,000 electric car is still putting us behind the foreign market. There are foreign vehicles that get amazing mileage for half that price. Now, if us Americans can wise up with engineering and do all this without jacking the price up on everyone and build these vehicles where they are cost effective and actually look decent, we will recover. If not, the foreign market will still dominate. That is relevant.
May 21, 2009 at 11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spark and others,
"All's this will do is get more people to buy foreign cars and used cars for that matter. The U.S. auto industry is in the toilet and it's going to get worse."
*
You seem to be missing something fairly trivial here: Not having done this long ago has forced us to buy 'Foreign'. Bringing our regulations up to date will encourage American companies to build something competitive with the 'foreign' companies. Or are we only claiming that Americans are somehow naturally doomed to innovative incompetence?
*
I'm not sure why so many of you seem to be so convinced this is the end of your lifestyle as you know it. Automakers will still make large vehicles, they will just have to make them more fuel efficient.
*
Crafty - NOW the world is laughing at us? Seriously?? I'm not sure where you've been the last few decades, or which world you're talking about, but we've been a joke to much of the world for about thirty years in many respects. We've gained more respect since November than you can imagine, fully warranted or not.
May 21, 2009 at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce---> I choose to agree with you on certain aspects.....
*
What I will say though, is that I was raised to be straight republican(I think), I guess that it's just that this was always pumped into me with two parents who worked at GM their entire lives. I've always drove American made, Chevy or Pontiac, and now own a 2008 Trailblazer that I semi regret purchasing, as I don't use all of the room like I thought I would. I mean it's GREAT to pack full for a camping trip, horse show, and it pulls the trailer nice, BUT I'm not exactly to happy with it. It's been in the shop 5, count that, 5 times since I've owned it (purchased it @ the eo Feb), for a "stabili-trak service light" meaning my stabilitrak is not working right, and Fagan cannot figure out what is wrong with it? I recc. them checking a few things that might be wrong, and they told me I was nuts, but in the end that was what ended up being wrong with it. Sorry to go on a tangent about this, but it's rather upsetting to purchase a new used vehicle and have it in the shop w/ in a week! Sorry for going on and on ;)
*
Rummage~~~> You can come hill-billy it with me! I have plenty of horses that need to be rode, and they can go plenty of places cars can't ;) He he.
*
I guess I'm going to stay that I stand middle road....I voted one way, my signifigant other voted the other way, so we tend to get in arguments over non-sense, as I'm def. not as politically correct as some.
*
And at least I'm brave enough to admit this.....most people would not :) All I will say is that everyone knew this was coming with Obama being elected into office.
*
I stand in the middle right now......
May 21, 2009 at 8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
small cars can and do attain the same crash test from the NHTSA as large cars. the star safety rating is based on percantage of fatal injury. a 5 star rated sub compact car is as safe in a crash as a 5 star rated suburban.
May 21, 2009 at 8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
AS far as being able to afford to buy an SUV, we could and can also, but I would highly suggest, pass up the urge if you have it. Seriously, after having one, which sure, it is beautiful, and I 'feel' safe with my family in it (sometimes a false sense of security I am sure..the only absolute is I know I won't get stuck in our hickville unplowed roads...lol), it has become evident to me, that my intentions of buying for the convenience is absolutely false. They are not as roomy as you would think, they just rob my wallet, and the basic need of one in my opinion is for pure status purposes... Of course I am only one of many owners, but the argument of the convenience that motivated me to buy one, is truly false now that I know how inconvenient they really are.
May 21, 2009 at 8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Money, Egos and 'feelings' need to be removed from our systems, and facts need to take over! Enough with worrying about whose feelings may get hurt.....in order to have a smooth running economy, school, home etc..., discipline needs to be the main focus! AND consistency! The government has allowed for all of this woo ha about equalities for all races, sexual orientation, gender etc, well what about equalities for all political parties? The goals should be the same across the board! Our 'leaders' shouldn't be trying to one up each other....after all, aren't we ALL AMERICANS???????
May 21, 2009 at 8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
ZOOM ~ thank you for the information on the other minivans available. I am not so sure I can, with a clear conscience buy a "total" foreign vehicle. I understand that our vehicles here in the US that were once entirely AMERICAN made are more than a large percentage made from foreign parts and/or countries, but with the way our country is pretty much on the verge of defeat of china, I would prefer to find an ulterior option. I am not exactly sure what that possibly could be at this point, but I sure hope that there is one.
*
The sad part about all of this is, we as Americans have criticized for decades how the china culture is so cold, etc. with the way they put public behavior at the utmost importance and education is extremely important over there. It is becoming evident what their goal in this world was and is isn't it? Sure, we think the fact that they are so strict in their cultures and expectations of their youth, but look at us, with our exceedingly looseness with our youth, and the 'politically correctness' of our schools, work places etc... It has allowed for our systems to become completely out of whack, while other countries who have been considered behind us, are exponentially passing us by. And I do believe that this was and is their plan all along! Our country needs to step back, take a deep breath, CLEAR OUR HEADS of all the clutter, and get back on track, stat! And stop blaming everyone else. The damage is done, the past is gone and the only thing that is certain at this point is our future is pretty much doomed unless we pull up our britches, buckle our belts and get to work!
May 21, 2009 at 7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
All's this will do is get more people to buy foreign cars and used cars for that matter. The U.S. auto industry is in the toilet and it's going to get worse.
May 21, 2009 at 4:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
“This would increase the fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save the United States billions of gallons of fuel.”
-
Hey Zoom, where in all that fancy data has it shown what this is going to cost the government? You know in lost revenue. The administration is touting saving 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of the program (yeah, like any program like this has an end date). The population of the US is consuming about 400 million gallons of fuel per day (rough guess). The “penalty tax”, not sales tax paid on that is ~50 cents per gallon (state and fed level) for a whopping total of 200 million dollars per day, that is 73 billion dollars per year in gasoline tax; not including diesel. The new proposal will save about 100 million gallons of gasoline use per day; or a decline in government revenue of ~ 20 billion dollars per year. So much for us saving money at the pump with the smaller cars; you can just smell the tax hike comming.
May 21, 2009 at 3:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Actually, policy makers want the U.S. to be less dependant on foreign oil..."
-
Are you kidding? Where in their actions have they shown this? Their actions over the last three decades has done the complete opposite; opposing increasing our independence by supplying ourselves. To the nay Sayers that continue to echo the old argument “it will take years for us…”, well it has been plenty long enough now where our own production would have made a vast difference. Not only production what about refinement? You can’t just run straight crude oil in a fancy government mandated econo-bucket. When was the last time a refinery has been built in our country? “No, can’t have that here it is not pretty or safe”; yet YOU keep driving to the gas station and buying the products that are coming from these places. You go ahead and keep playing the ostrich with your head in the sand believing what they say and not believing what they do. These complainers are the same ones through Darwin’s (the real one) theories would make great lab rats…they would die off waiting for someone to help them survive.
May 21, 2009 at 2:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Kiowam TOTALLY agree. So lets get this right? Our gov. wont let us drill or refin more oil here in the states, but will keep letting us import oil? Hmmmm...... Again I question how on earth Huessen Obama is trying to bring jobs to America, or atleast keep the American working man from going broke.... Lets spend more money then all the previous presidents combined... not write a single check to the american working man, only write billion dollar checks to the big corperations, support companys the move american jobs overseas, and again not give a single check to the american working man..
Oh and Gm worker reading this, think about how your tax money that you gave to the gov. while you had a job is going to the company that layed you off and moved your job elsewhere, and will never bring it back. So what are you paying for again? Oh yea someone else, and that means we are entering the New Socializm of America.
May 21, 2009 at 1:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
What a joke that any politician talks "less dependent on foreign oil" with a straight face. Just take a look at the charts, and real numbers. We are becoming MORE dependent on foreign oil every single year!
May 21, 2009 at 1:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Actually, policy makers want the U.S. to be less dependant on foreign oil, and to have a cleaner environment. There is a cost to both goals.
By the way:
"On December 19, 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act. This Act aims at improving vehicle fuel economy. The Act set a goal for the national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020. This would increase the fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save the United States billions of gallons of fuel.[22] This standard is the first standard that has been set above the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFE) since it was created in 1975."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_A...
May 21, 2009 at 12:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
The central point in the argument is limited choice. Not by consumers or businesses but by government and the influencing outside factors driving policy. “You don’t need one” (SUV). Well guess what you don’t need a television, cell phone, cable TV, computer, new clothes, or grocery store either…but we all want/have or use them. Given the “choice” most consumers have decided not to purchase the small car, this drives policy makers crazy because that is not what they want to see happen. So, if they can’t convince you to purchase what they want you to drive taking away what you do want makes them feel better.
May 21, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Ahhh, we now finally get down to what all of this is really about - class envy."
Not even close. I could buy a new one, but with so many used, ginormous SUV's on the market, almost anyone could buy one now days.
"How safe are you in your little tinfoil car when you get smashed by an 18 wheeler? Or would you propose to get rid of those too?"
And you think you're much safer in an SUV against a 25+ TON semi-trailer truck? You have no clue. Smaller vehicles are simply more maneuverable to avoid an accident in the first place. Nobody wins in an accident with an 18 wheeler.
May 20, 2009 at 11:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
...and VW sells a rebadged version of the Chrysler minivan.
Minivans are really more practical than an SUV for 90% of families. It's a shame they have fallen out of favor.
May 20, 2009 at 11:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
RummageSalesRock, Honda, Nissan and Toyota make minivans. The Ford flex is really a minivan without the sliding doors.
May 20, 2009 at 11:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
"What about families with more than two kids, people in wheel chairs, obese people, people who haul anything more than a bag of groceries, and tall people?"
All of those groups can and do use mid-sized cars right now. The Chevy Malibu already gets 30 mpg.
May 20, 2009 at 9:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
On another note, a fear of mine with all of these electrical vehicles in the making, what about our electricity usage? We already over exceed our limits in the summer time, and are put on limited use quotas... I know they say that cars will be charged at night or at low peak hours, but if all of these cars are being charged at low peak hours, won't those hours turn into high peak hours? And electricity is already reaching ridiculous prices............. I think we all better just go back to horse and buggy days, group up our families withing a certain mile radius and live simply. I know, impossible, but doesn't it sound so nice about right now?? I can certainly hillbilly it...how about you?? lol.
May 20, 2009 at 9:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hey ((pout)) I am a 'soccer' mom (well, actually a baseball, football and plain ole' mom), and I take offense to that first sentence!! Just kidding. I actually have one of those SUVs and to tell you the truth, we bought it when our family was increased from four to five thinking that it would be the only way to go to fit all of the 'gear' along with bodies. WELL, I TELL YOU WHAT! I miss my mini van SOOOOO much. My Tahoe doesn't have near the room my venture had. And guess what, now there are no more mini vans being made other then by Chrysler.....that I know of. So, in all actuality, I am not sure how this is going to work for us 'soccer' mom's. I agree with what is being put in force, but I am confused as to how it is actually going to be feasible for my family along with others'. Not to mention my husband whom has his own small business and uses a commercial van for work. If those types of vehicles are going to be more expensive to use, then the 'little man' with the small business is going to have more expenses which will cut into our bottom line and then other things are going to have to be omitted from our lifestyle once again. And what about the people who integrate camping and other activities into their lives that require large vehicles for hauling campers etc.? Sure, these are luxuries, I understand, but this will then in the end cut into another 'little man's' business, the campgrounds and such. Just not so sure about this, just not so sure it can work. I am HOPING I am not understanding it completely, and that my interpretation of what will come of it is wrong.
May 20, 2009 at 9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Idiot- “A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers” hmmm that “idiot” you speak of graduated from Harvard law. Can you say the same? And if the whole world is laughing at us, its residual laughter from bush.
May 20, 2009 at 9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
The tanks well all drive to go get are groceries or run to the mall are not necessary (most of the time, if you are one of the few that actually needs, not wants, a large vehicle don’t chew my head off I know your out there). I fully support our president in this. Our auto industry is obviously not doing so well on its own, at the point in which the government has to flood billions of dollars into an organization to simply keep the doors open, I think a few limitations, regulations, and yes even a few pink slips are not only just but most likely necessary. The world is changing and we as a nation are going to have to start to change with it. I love the idea of the consumption tax. Let the energy/resource sucking people start to pick up their share of the tab. Crafty I do not think American’s ever expanding waste line should be seen as a reason to continue with our outdated lifestyles in fact I think it’s a push in the other direction. We are killing ourselves and our environment because of the choices we are making. Our government needs to step in and but a baseline out there. I have a handicapped parent so I can see the wheelchair point to an extent, but necessity spurs inventions… the wheel chair could get a make over!
As I drive to work in the morning I often catch a man on Milton Ave riding on a bicycle that has a tandem bike attachment so he can ‘drive’ his kids to school on the bicycle. There are other options available we are just to spoiled the see them as viable options. This guy could have a fleet of “ginormous SUV’s” at home for all I know, but instead of hoping in one of them to drop the kids off at school, he uses his bicycle.
Hey Kid, im right there on the line with you, legalize it and tax the bejesus out of it! Smoke it, toss it in the fuel tank whatever you want to do with it but its time. Perhaps you could petition to someone to be the “pilot” program…
May 20, 2009 at 8:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
What about families with more than two kids, people in wheel chairs, obese people, people who haul anything more than a bag of groceries, and tall people?
The whole world is laughing at us!
Aren't you all glad you voted for this idiot? He is ruining everything everyone died for and worked so hard to accomplish.
When all the cars are tiny and there are people getting killed left and right, I'll be there to tell you all I told ya so!
May 20, 2009 at 8:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
"These changes are long, long overdue. Give 'em hell Mr. President!"
-
Yes, thanks for telling American's what they are no longer able to have! Keep voting for change America and you will get what you asked for...
May 20, 2009 at 6:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
These changes are long, long overdue. Give 'em hell Mr. President!
May 20, 2009 at 5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Stacy,
After the 1970s oil crisis, the rest of the developed world took action. It was a wake up call for most. In the 1980s; easily distracted, we swept it under the rug, never increased fuel efficiency standards again, and continued to subsidize oil to the point the general public would never see the true costs, therefore, continuing to buy inefficient vehicles.
*
Europe and Japan have higher fuel efficiency standards, pay more realistic prices for fuel, therefore have highly innovative and functional public transport, and more practical vehicles.
May 20, 2009 at 5:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
SwissChick, correct, I misspoke.
*
Spark, I didn't mean to lump you into the boom of people who began purchasing SUVs and large trucks simply as a fad. I'm sure you know just as many people as I do that own a full size truck and refuse to put dirt in the bed. Trucks have been around as long as cars, but the number of people who perceive the need for one has grown dramatically.
*
I am not questioning the quality of your vehicle. The US has the highest 'safety' standards for cars/trucks. In many cases standards are very redundant and only provide 'perceived' safety - which is what we really want. Just as many people die in Trucks/SUVs (per number of Truck/SUV owners) as in cars per car owner in the US. Greater size does not immediately ensure greater safety, and often proves otherwise. The assumption that small vehicles are unsafe is also a silly assumption. Collision analysis is too situational and there are far more variables than would seem intuitive.
*
As far as oil; of course I can research the findings of Exxon, Royal Dutch that will reassure us there is nothing to worry about.
However it makes more sense to look at the scientific consensus that these are great overestimates. Not to mention, we are still prolonging some even bigger problems, continuing our denial of the problems and avoiding solutions of such.
*
It seems to make much more sense to solve the problem(s) now. Pick off quite a few birds with one stone.
May 20, 2009 at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Swiss - you know what they meant. Pointing out a typo doesn't refute the point.
Assuming an accident does happen, SUVs are probably safer for people inside. But they also cause more accidents due to stopping distance and handling... and more injuries to other drivers due to increased size and force.
May 20, 2009 at 4:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
All I see happening, is that they are going to force us to buy foreign... Our country has the engineering premiss to make such a vehicle, but our gov't is too stupid follow through with it... Someone tell me why Japan, Germany and other countries have vehicles that run farther and more efficient than our factories can put out, for less cost that our money hungry plant workers can put out... come on... pay someone $21.00 to push a broom or clean a bathroom... no wonder our car prices are so high... and the comparable foreign care is about 5-10% less... Just venting.....
May 20, 2009 at 4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
JanesvilleNow - Following your information - wouldn't the heavier vehicles "increase" stopping distances. I know semis can't stop like a car or pickup, so wouldn't that same rationale follow between a small car and a "ginormous" SUV?? Just asking.
May 20, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
JanesvilleNow - Perhaps you should take an eight grade physics course so you know that my truck (not SUV) is built extremely well and will handle an accident much better than a compact car. They obviously are heavier and take longer to stop. I'm not too concerned about it tipping because I don't take corners at 60 mph. I'm more concerned about someone else hitting me in which most cases, you're going to get the raw end of that deal. Aside from all of that however, I have a truck for what it's intended for...to use. I didn't jump on the larger vehicle trip just to own one, and if someone does, so be it. It's their choice. I don't think you were disrespectful with your comments, however I totally disagree with your theory that there's not enough oil within our own borders. Do a little research and you will find some facts to prove that wrong.
May 20, 2009 at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Check out the Envi line for Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep. They are doing electric versions of the minivan, Patriot and Wrangler. They are not your "tin" can of a car. Check it out they are really cool. Change is good.
May 20, 2009 at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spark, regarding you 1:29 post. I pretty much said the same thing on my 9:12am post and for some strange reason, I got bounced. Wonder why?
May 20, 2009 at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spark,
I don't like to be disrespectful, nor do I regularly like to even comment on these blogs; however-I am not sure where you got your degrees in Geotechnical and Automotive Engineering, but I would guess they are not ABET Certified institutions.
*
There is not enough accessible oil within our borders to meet our current demands, as Zoom said, not to mention the growing thirst to guzzle in the time to come. There is little point to waste time squeezing every last drop out of our soil, to only sit here with the same stupid look on our faces we have now (and 30 years ago) when we finally realize we need an alternative. Dependence on oil will always result in dependence on FOREIGN oil (unless we annex Saudi Arabia). This will not hinder oil companies’ propaganda blitz however. They will do whatever it takes to stay in business, gliding along the same primitive course.
*
As for the all too common misconception that big vehicles are safer; take an eighth-grade physics course... or simply use some common sense. SUVs are much heavier, carry greater momentum that greatly reduces stopping distances, have a much higher center of gravity than conventional passenger cars making them much more likely to tip. Some people get a little to comfy with this false sense of security.
*
I don't necessarily hate SUVs, but they are rarely a "Sport" or "Utility" vehicle, let alone a hybrid of the two. And the fact that everyone assumes then 'need' one suddenly has become a bit comical. I suppose it wouldn't be too difficult to put a speaker below future electric trucks for those of us that need to hear a loud muffler to feel like we have a pair.
*
Spark, though I don't agree the government should intervene all aspects of our life; it clearly seems needed in this case in one way or another. As you said, automakers have (or should have) developed the technology to greatly improve fuel efficiency; but they are companies. But why would they without encouragement? They would not invest the money just because it's the 'right thing to do'. Profits (or loss thereof) are their only interests.
*
Thanks to previous enormous tax subsides and other externalized costs, oil in the US has been perceived as 'cheap' to consumers. This has enabled the stagnation in innovation in our auto industry for 30 + years, as well as the deception of the general public. If we began paying a price that was nearly reflective of the costs of our gasoline, we’d have adapted years ago (as the rest of the developed world did).
May 20, 2009 at 4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wow, apparently I hit a nerve with someone regarding my comment. The articles I was referring to were in the USA Today and the Wisconsin State Journal through the years. Hm.
It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't some sort of collusion between the auto makers and big oil.
May 20, 2009 at 3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ethanol actually ruins your car.
May 20, 2009 at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
This action by the current administration goes right back to the Presidents own quote. "We will help automakers build cars that Americans want to buy." However, those cars are already being built but are not being bought in high volumes. This is mostly due to the higher cost that is not worth the extra mileage you receive. This new plan will make sure we are buying the "cars Americans want to buy" by giving us no choice but to buy cars that look like pregnant roller skates and will threaten our safety on the roads. The President states that the added cost of the vehicles that will meet this new standard will be offset in three years. That is basically as long as a lot of people keep a vehicle. Also, he took great pride in "brining all of these CEO's together" yesterday. Of course they came and agreed to a policy that can't resonably be met. If they didn't agree they would no longer receive funds from the government for research or maybe he would have fired another CEO. Trust me people this is just the beginning of the government telling us as consumers what we can or cannot purchase.
May 20, 2009 at 3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Your ginormous SUV isn't safe for the other people you hit who can't afford to drive one"
.
Ahhh, we now finally get down to what all of this is really about - class envy.
.
How safe are you in your little tinfoil car when you get smashed by an 18 wheeler? Or would you propose to get rid of those too?
May 20, 2009 at 2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom - Your comments are ridiculous. "Thank you for contributing to our enemies economies?" Thank your own damn Government and Country for that. They choose to get fuel from them. By the way, we live in a state where it snows a lot. Some of us prefer to have vehicles with four wheel drive. Some of us use the vehicles for what they are intended for. If you or others can't afford them or choose not to drive one, that is fine. Those that choose to shouldn't be penalized. I never complained about high gas prices even though how ironic, summer is approaching and look what the gas prices are doing. How convenient. Zoom, you better start seeing the light and placing the blame where it deserves to be. With your Government that you trust so much.
May 20, 2009 at 2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
"I choose to transport myself and my family in a SAFE "Ginormous SUV"."
Your ginormous SUV isn't safe for the other people you hit who can't afford to drive one.
By the way, what percentage of time do you spend driving that SUV alone? I have no problem with SUV's. I just have absolutely no sympathy when owners complain about high fuel prices, while 99% of the time they are driven with only one or two people inside. Thank you, though, for contributing to our enemies economies.
May 20, 2009 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Call me crazy but I have a question. My electric bill goes up and up and up all the time so when we get these better cars that use electricity or electricity and gas then how much is my bill going to be to charge that battery?
May 20, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
My comment was directed to horselvngrl.
May 20, 2009 at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Read the article again. It spells it out. 35.5 mpg is an AVERAGE for a manufactuerers fleet of all vehicles available for sale. Cars will need to AVERAGE 39 mpg, trucks will need to AVEREGE 30 mpg. Trucks are not going away. This is for NEW vehicles sold.
All this needs to be met by 2016. We have SEVEN YEARS to meet this standard.
May 20, 2009 at 2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
i apologize for wasting your time;) ill stick to topic. did you know henry ford built a 'hemp car'??
http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml
and the fuel...ughh dont get me started on what we could be doing with ethanol RIGHT NOW if they would have never enacted alcohol prohibition. this article isnt about the govt telling you what to drive. its about them regulating the fuel economy of the vehicles built, regardless of where the oil is coming from. same as they regulate the speed you drive. the percentage of alcohol in liquor. the cable companies. the phone companies. they arent making it illegal to drive a big suv. they are merely forcing the companies to step up and increase the mpg, since they OBVIOUSLY cant do it on their own. big suvs will still be available...it will just cost you more to drive...as it should.
May 20, 2009 at 2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spark & Russ.....I'm on your side :)
******
Obama did say he could do all he had planned in 4 years and didn't need to be re-elected. We aren't even in our first full year yet and look what's happening.
*****
Telling me what I can and cannot drive is not going to happen ;) We run a rather large, well it is a large dairy farm here in Janesville and we use all of the trucks on a daily basis, so are they saying that we are going to have to switch over to little electric, foreign "things"??
May 20, 2009 at 2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm the farthest thing from being a hypocrite. I could care less if they make all drugs illegal. My life doesn't depend on drugs to get by. You just summed it up. You're dedicated to the herb. That's your choice and I can't help it that it's illegal. Find something else to do. This story is about vehicles and fuel.
May 20, 2009 at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
thanx. i have one. and its dedicated to freeing the herb:) i knew you would have no reason other than being a hypocrite. good day. i said good day.
May 20, 2009 at 1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh my God. Get a life.
May 20, 2009 at 1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
spark. you can seriously kiss my herb. why is it that 'The Government shouldn't be the ones telling you what you can and can't drive' but they should be the ones telling me what i can/cant drink/smoke?? i dont expect you to actually answer...since there is no logical answer...i just wanted to point out that exactly what i said would happen...did. as soon as the govt wants to step on the personal freedoms of the blind...they mysteriously gain vision...
May 20, 2009 at 1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
thekid3477 - Can you seriously not leave pot out of one discussion? Everyone knows that's what you're referring to. Seriously, stick to the subject. Drilling for oil, gas mileage and the cost of vehicles really has nothing to do with your personal habits.
May 20, 2009 at 1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
spark: you have a solid point about the govt stepping on yo personal freedom...funny it comes up when its YOUR personal freedom potenitally being stepped on.
May 20, 2009 at 1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom - Are you listening to what I'm saying? The auto industry has total capability of making vehicles more fuel efficient without having everything go electric. That in return would cut down on consumption drastically. If they would do this along with using our own sources, we would have a lot less problems. Really pretty simple. If you trust the auto industry, along with the Government, you are blind.
May 20, 2009 at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom-I'll take a collision in my full size pickup over a little tin box any day of the week. Your comments about the safety are a bit ridiculous. Old vehicles were heavier than hell and had a ton of horsepower. Gas didn't matter. It was about driving a strong car. If you believe today that the reason the newer vehicles don't get good gas mileage is because of those same reasons, you're in denial of the truth. With todays technology compared to back then, anything is possible. If you make all vehicles fuel efficient you cut down on the options for the manufactures to sell and they make less money. SCAM, SCAM, SCAM. Here is some other good myths below.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automoti...
May 20, 2009 at 1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sorry spark, more drilling isn't going to end our dependance on foreign oil if our consumption keeps rising.
May 20, 2009 at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
By the way, I don't agree with all the meddling the government does. Higher roof crush standards, for instance, adds weight to the vehicle where you want it least...at the top, where the extra mass creates less stability in an accident avoidance manuever. You'll be more likely to roll over, but hey, at least that roof won't crush. Brilliant.
May 20, 2009 at 1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
realitybites, what you are proposing is a consumption tax, and does actually make more sense than a "tax" on production (i.e. higher fuel milage standards).
New vehicles don't get better milage than old vehicles because they have to meet much higher safety standards, which has added weight to the vehicles. Horsepower has also increased to offset the extra weight, and horsepower sells. People also forget how much slower those old cars were. Zero to sixty in under nine seconds used to be fast, but now it's considered slow. Go figure.
The perceived safety of SUV's is a joke. The mass of SUV's makes them slower to react to hazards. It's better to avoid the hazard in the first place, then to smash into it and let the mass of the vehicle save you. Gee, what did we ever do before ginormous SUV's were invented?
May 20, 2009 at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
I really get tired of liberals who think they should be deciding what everyone else should be doing. Russ68
How about the conservatives doing the same only making it more personal?
Who some can/can't marry, if a women can choose to have an abortion or not, what defines, "family values", marijuana use, etc... Conservatives are constantly telling people how to live their life. They believe they have the moral authority on what is right and wrong all the time.
.
BTW, I am straight, a christian and against the legalization of pot but that doesn't change the fact that BOTH parties "tell" us how to live our lives.
.
It ain't just the libs.
May 20, 2009 at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
realitybytes - Why should customers be taxed more when you and everyone else knows damn well the auto manufactures have complete capabilities of make more FUEL efficient vehicles including the current vehicles? The auto industry is a joke and having the Government so involved makes it a bigger joke. It's all a scam. Same as telling someone they need to change their oil every 3,000 miles. Of course they're going to tell you that. They have to make money on service somehow. Even though the newer vehicles can go double the miles before one.
May 20, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here is a suggestion on vehicle related taxes..double the gas tax and charge a per pound tax on vehicle purchases. Why? Larger vehicles tear up our roads more than lighter vehicles. Somebody who drives a sub-compact car SHOULD be taxed less than somebody who drives a heavy truck that is likely to be towing something. And my reasoning for the gas tax? Burning gas does pollute the environment and does keep us dependant on foreign oil. Those who choose to pollute more (by driving less fuel efficient vehicles) SHOULD be taxed more. If you want to lower your taxes you could choose to purchase a smaller that gets better mileage.
One more point: Why are our MPG expectations so low? I see many small vehicles being advertised that make it sound great that they get 29 MPG. My '92 Civic regularly got 40 to 45 MPG and it was a straight gasoline vehicle. You would think that 17 years of innovation would have raised the mileage ratings of most vehicles. Hybrids SHOULD be getting 60 MPG or more. Even pickup trucks and SUVs should be getting more than the 15 to 20 MPG that most get.
May 20, 2009 at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
those that voted for Obama, i hope you are happy. He said change is coming...I guess he meant it!
May 20, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
It's about time to make sacrifices and have a little social responsibility for the environment and the common good - on both the manufacturer's and the consumer's part.
~
I like this idea, but like most people are saying, there are still going to be people that need their "big" vehicles. Hopefully car companies are able to come up with the technology.
May 20, 2009 at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
The scariest words we can possibly hear from our own government; "We're here to help".
This may have trumped that. The "New Obama Rules"....wow what have we done to this country??
May 20, 2009 at 11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom, drive what you want, and I'll do the same. If you want to drive a matchbox with tinfoil and wheels, fine and dandy - just don't expect me to do the same.
.
"Trucks should be reserved for those that actually need the utility every day. And no, taking your kids to school doesn't count."
.
Wow, who appointed you school transportation czar? Pretty bold for you to decide for me what I take my kids to school in, don't you think? I really get tired of liberals who think they should be deciding what everyone else should be doing.
May 20, 2009 at 11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
These are truly stupid ideas. Even the very concept of the national government micro-managing the automobile I choose to drive is ludicrous. Legalize freedom!
May 20, 2009 at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom - Your last comment just proved my point. WE DON"T NEED THEM!
May 20, 2009 at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom- Colorado and Utah have more oil that anyone even comprehend. Just as much as places we get overseas. Creating $40,000 electric cars that nobody wants is not the answer. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the option of an electric vehicle, but telling people what they can and can't drive and then jacking the price up on vehicles because we're too stupid to use our own resources, is simply wrong. Read the article closely. Gas is the primary issue and problem in this Country. Mark my words, when these vehicles come out, you will see a huge hike in gas prices so the Government can look good.
May 20, 2009 at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom: Back in the 70's nobody used seatbelts either. You just packed everyone in like sardines. If you want to drive a compact electric car then that is your choice and your right. I choose to transport myself and my family in a SAFE "Ginormous SUV". My choice and my right.
May 20, 2009 at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Zoom - The Government shouldn't be the ones telling you what you can and can't drive. What is next?"
What's next is the Middle East and Venezuala telling us what we can drive.
May 20, 2009 at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
spark, there isn't nearly enough oil in this country to satisfy our current demands, nor will it last long once it can be economically extracted. This isn't an either-or proposition. The oil companies will continue to develop better ways to extract local oil, but we can't ignore the demand side. This is long range planning.
May 20, 2009 at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom - The Government shouldn't be the ones telling you what you can and can't drive. What is next?
May 20, 2009 at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
To your point Russ68: Assuming you were born in '68, what did parents use to haul around a family of 6 back in the 70's? Ginormous SUV's didn't exist then. You'll just have to make due with the wagons of the future...or todays crossovers. Trucks should be reserved for those that actually need the utility every day. And no, taking your kids to school doesn't count.
May 20, 2009 at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Zoom - There is oil in our own Country. That is the point. The sacrifices in this article are not realistic and there is other alternatives.
May 20, 2009 at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Americans want the country to be less dependant on foreign oil, yet aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do so. How typical. The days of one person driving around in a ginormous SUV are almost over folks. Enjoy it while you can afford it.
May 20, 2009 at 11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
The auto industry has been capable of these improvements for years. It's about time that we faced reality.
May 20, 2009 at 10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
I refuse to participate in this madness. I will never buy a vehicle that won't transport (SAFELY) my family of 6 and what ever cargo I need to haul. You go first Obama, give up your motorcade of SUV's, helicopter's, Jets, etc., etc.... then we'll talk. What? Oh, he NEEDS all that to conduct the normal business of being President... well, I NEED the vehicles I own to go about MY business...
May 20, 2009 at 10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is beyond rediciulous. I'm keeping my 2005 Ford F250 Turbo Diesel and 2008 Chevy Trailblazer.
*****
All I will say is that I didn't vote for this "president".
May 20, 2009 at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Once again, the consumer is the one that takes the hit. I found this quote in the story extremely ironic "Automakers have said they need stable, relatively high gasoline prices to create a market for electric vehicles. General Motors fears rolling out its rechargeable Chevrolet Volt next year with gas at $2 per gallon." Just wait and see what happens to the gas prices when the Government pushes for all these electric cars and hybrids. I'd put money on it, the price of gas will sky rocket just so they can make themselves look good and sell these things. It's such a conspiracy.
May 20, 2009 at 9:12 a.m.
May 20, 2009 at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
So this is the solution instead of trying to use our own sources of oil, etc. Jack the price of vehicles up and make it completely unrealistic for most people. This Country needs to grow a pair and this Government needs to pull their heads out.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.