Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#611
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
Unfortunately it won't fly.
So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of existance
(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg, they
should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient large
cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers would
still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity have
to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those that
aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying huge
fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models here--but
they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is to
mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it comes
on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this should
make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures, with
no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
rise _significantly_.
--Aardwolf.
#612
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
Unfortunately it won't fly.
So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of existance
(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg, they
should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient large
cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers would
still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity have
to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those that
aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying huge
fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models here--but
they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is to
mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it comes
on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this should
make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures, with
no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
rise _significantly_.
--Aardwolf.
#613
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
Unfortunately it won't fly.
So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of existance
(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg, they
should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient large
cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers would
still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity have
to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those that
aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying huge
fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models here--but
they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is to
mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it comes
on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this should
make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures, with
no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
rise _significantly_.
--Aardwolf.
#614
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
Unfortunately it won't fly.
So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of existance
(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg, they
should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient large
cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers would
still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity have
to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those that
aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying huge
fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models here--but
they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is to
mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it comes
on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this should
make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures, with
no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
rise _significantly_.
--Aardwolf.
#615
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
Unfortunately it won't fly.
So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of existance
(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg, they
should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient large
cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers would
still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity have
to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those that
aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying huge
fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models here--but
they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is to
mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it comes
on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this should
make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures, with
no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
rise _significantly_.
--Aardwolf.
#616
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
Unfortunately it won't fly.
So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of existance
(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg, they
should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient large
cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers would
still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity have
to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those that
aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying huge
fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models here--but
they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is to
mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it comes
on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this should
make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures, with
no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
rise _significantly_.
--Aardwolf.
#617
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
> > running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
> > anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
> > car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> > pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
> You are generally correct.... but...
> '68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
> '68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
> same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
> of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
> was in 1995 or 96.
I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just _comparing_ it to
them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a gross
polluter.
--Aardwolf.
#618
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
> > running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
> > anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
> > car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> > pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
> You are generally correct.... but...
> '68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
> '68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
> same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
> of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
> was in 1995 or 96.
I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just _comparing_ it to
them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a gross
polluter.
--Aardwolf.
#619
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
> > running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
> > anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
> > car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
> > pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
> You are generally correct.... but...
> '68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
> '68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
> same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
> of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
> was in 1995 or 96.
I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just _comparing_ it to
them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a gross
polluter.
--Aardwolf.
#620
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> You have got to be kidding if you think that auto exhaust isn't toxic. But
> obviously you do, and your going to keep believing it no matter that the
> facts are otherwise.
>
> For the non-morons in the group that are actually willing to listen, see the
> following:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sixpoll.html
That isn't the issue here--CAFE deals only with fuel _efficiency_ standards.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy. The only thing that that regulates--and
indirectly--is CO2 emissions, as they are directly tied to the amount of fuel
burned.
Actual pollutants, defined as such by the EPA, including oxides of nitrogen,
etc., are regulated in grams per mile, _regardless_ of engine size or amount of
fuel used. Which means that theoretically at least, it is actually easier for a
smaller-engined car to meet those standards. Less fuel burned, so the relative
emissions level, per gallon, can actually be _higher_ and still meet the
requirements.
--Aardwolf.