CAFE of death

[ocnblu]

As we sit here, a dedicated group of GM enthusiasts, blissfully waiting for the new Camaro among other great products, the curtain is being drawn on us. These new CAFE requirements are ever closer to reality, and they will kill any chance for auto enthusiasts to get what they want.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned this? By ignoring this coming apocalypse, are we hoping it will go away and our lives will not change? This is a huge blow to so many things automotive we hold dear as Americans. By imposing these ridiculous standards on cars AND light trucks, they are forcing the car companies to kill pickup trucks with work capacity... cars with passenger capacity and any kind of horsepower... Zeta will be aborted... Alpha will be considered too big.

How will passion for the automobile survive this? This is a catastrophe in my eyes, a complete and utter disgrace put upon us by a myopic Congress that is using the auto industry as a whipping boy... when so much can be done in so many other areas to help our country become more self-reliant.

The market is smart enough to correct itself... let the customer drive the auto companies' offerings... NOT the Congress!!!

Edited December 15, 2007 by ocnblu

[deftonesfan867]

Viva Revolution!!

[Camino LS6]

The problem is that the automakers themselves have already caved to the new standards.

To me that means that they have strategies to deal with it. The fine print will determine how it all shakes out.

I predict that the post-election government will re-visit this issue and change things to a more realistic version later.

[avant1963]

I'm curious... and there is no answer I am looking for, just want to know passionate opinions:

If GM introduced a Camaro RS/SS - It would be as fast as a projected SS. Would have no weight gain - actually have a near favorable 50-50 distribution, handle just as well, and come with all the bells and whistles on any other Camaro, except for one thing... A big honking V-8.

This Camaro would have a souped up version of the Volt drivetrain - run completely on electric except for a little diesel (yes I stole that from the Opel version) that would kick in to charge the batteries. As I said this "imaginary" Camaro would have the same speed as a top of the line V8 powered car. Would anyone bite? All the speed and power without the mpg overhead.

Can we motorheads accept something so strange? Can we accept giving up the rumble of the V8? Can we exchange that for gas $, pollution, less oil changes, etc. I don't know how I would even answer that, but I feel that a change is coming - and I certainly don't want it legislated, let the market run its course - and curious how we would react to a musclecar without the usual ingredient.

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm curious... and there is no answer I am looking for, just want to know passionate opinions:

If GM introduced a Camaro RS/SS - It would be as fast as a projected SS. Would have no weight gain - actually have a near favorable 50-50 distribution, handle just as well, and come with all the bells and whistles on any other Camaro, except for one thing... A big honking V-8.

This Camaro would have a souped up version of the Volt drivetrain - run completely on electric except for a little diesel (yes I stole that from the Opel version) that would kick in to charge the batteries. As I said this "imaginary" Camaro would have the same speed as a top of the line V8 powered car. Would anyone bite? All the speed and power without the mpg overhead.

Can we motorheads accept something so strange? Can we accept giving up the rumble of the V8? Can we exchange that for gas $, pollution, less oil changes, etc. I don't know how I would even answer that, but I feel that a change is coming - and I certainly don't want it legislated, let the market run its course - and curious how we would react to a musclecar without the usual ingredient.

What is coming next in the auto performance world is anyones guess. The Big boats of the 50's were replaced with the full sized muscle of the early sixties followed by the smaller muscle cars and pony cars, which were followed by the mullet generation Camaro's and Mustangs, which were followed by the Japanese tuner cars...the only constant we have is change.

Supply of petroleum and energy will kill off the factory V8 muscle car if the government does not. The best thing is to enjoy and preserve the older v8 cars and to develop new, more fuel efficient muscle cars.

That Camaro you describe may very well be the 2019 version...

Chris

[ocnblu]

From where I sit, if we want trucks to retain any kind of work capacity, cars will need to be tiny, 45+ mpg machines. Trucks will still be castrated, but cars will be decimated by this.

I am not ready for the sweet, sexy rumble of a V8 engine to be choked off forever in favor of the whir of an electric motor. For God's sake, a Chevrolet Camaro is more than just a bodyshell, it's the whole package. Who in the heck wants to plug in their virtual musclecar?

[CaddyXLR-V]

I'm curious... and there is no answer I am looking for, just want to know passionate opinions:

If GM introduced a Camaro RS/SS - It would be as fast as a projected SS. Would have no weight gain - actually have a near favorable 50-50 distribution, handle just as well, and come with all the bells and whistles on any other Camaro, except for one thing... A big honking V-8.

This Camaro would have a souped up version of the Volt drivetrain - run completely on electric except for a little diesel (yes I stole that from the Opel version) that would kick in to charge the batteries. As I said this "imaginary" Camaro would have the same speed as a top of the line V8 powered car. Would anyone bite? All the speed and power without the mpg overhead.

Can we motorheads accept something so strange? Can we accept giving up the rumble of the V8? Can we exchange that for gas $, pollution, less oil changes, etc. I don't know how I would even answer that, but I feel that a change is coming - and I certainly don't want it legislated, let the market run its course - and curious how we would react to a musclecar without the usual ingredient.

I would need to experience it before I pass judgment on it. I've never lived with a fuel cell/electric powered car, so I don't know if I would like it or not. My initial reaction would be HELL NO! just because I live with a V8 powered car, and I love the rumble from it, but I'm willing to give fuel cells/electric cars a chance, as long as improvements are made to them to where they don't kill the performance aspects of cars.

[mustang84]

I'm somewhat optimistic that we will embrace new technology that will allow cars to not change much while getting better MPGs. We have made some pretty big leaps in the last few years. Look at the Tahoe Hybrid now getting 21 mpg in the city or the Volt being able to go 40 miles without using any gas. As long as they keep improving on that technology, I can see it being possible. As for heavy duty trucks, I think and hope that concessions will be made for them, but sports cars, large cars, and regular trucks and SUVs hopefully will be able to meet these changes with turbodiesels, hybrids, fuel cells, etc. The downside I can see is that cost of a new vehicle will skyrocket in the first few years these technologies are on the market.

[CARBIZ]

My enthusiasm for 'spirited driving' and boulevard cruising in the big V8 of my dreams died a long time ago. Endless traffic jams, ridiculously low speed limits, arrogant and stupid drivers, outrageous insurance prices - these all killed the automobile as anything more than mere transportation for me.

There are so few places where the modern motorcar can be used to its full design capability left. Sorry, but I would rather see the European approach of high gas taxes to 'encourage' people into more fuel efficient vehicles. At $10 a gallon (which is where most other countries in the world are at these days), consumers are free to buy what they want, but most will choose a vehicle that gets 40+ mpg.

A 1960s anything will always turn my head, but I live in the reality of today...........

[Robert Hall]

Diesels are part of the answer, I think... I'll always have V8 fun cars for weekend use, but for daily driving, I'd be happy in the future w/ a diesel SUV or diesel luxury sedan.

Edited December 15, 2007 by moltar

[Croc]

Honestly I don't mind the "death of the V8"--at least as it affects me. I don't like driving V8s very much. Sure, they're fast, but I don't need that much power off the line, and I certainly tend to inadvertantly squeal tires at traffic lights. I much prefer the feel of the V6 powerbands (at least of those that I've driven), and that's why my 2001 Aurora is a 3.5 and not a 4.0--It has plenty of power for me, and the mileage is pretty good!

[Camino LS6]

I'm curious... and there is no answer I am looking for, just want to know passionate opinions:

If GM introduced a Camaro RS/SS - It would be as fast as a projected SS. Would have no weight gain - actually have a near favorable 50-50 distribution, handle just as well, and come with all the bells and whistles on any other Camaro, except for one thing... A big honking V-8.

This Camaro would have a souped up version of the Volt drivetrain - run completely on electric except for a little diesel (yes I stole that from the Opel version) that would kick in to charge the batteries. As I said this "imaginary" Camaro would have the same speed as a top of the line V8 powered car. Would anyone bite? All the speed and power without the mpg overhead.

Can we motorheads accept something so strange? Can we accept giving up the rumble of the V8? Can we exchange that for gas $, pollution, less oil changes, etc. I don't know how I would even answer that, but I feel that a change is coming - and I certainly don't want it legislated, let the market run its course - and curious how we would react to a musclecar without the usual ingredient.

NO!

[BigPontiac]

If the goal is to curb the consumption of gasoline, a gas tax would seem to be much more effective...but politically unpopular with the voters. CAFE is ill conceived, much like letting hybrids (optimized for stop and go traffic) use the HOV lane with only a single occupant in the vehicle.

[ocnblu]

Gasoline gets to $3/gallon, and voila, people start paying attention to fuel economy ratings when they shop for a vehicle. That speaks loud and clear to me that the market is not stupid! Forcing this legislation down our throats is borderline communist... it will severely limit choice in new vehicles. For the sake of the auto industry's future, and our freedom as Americans, we've gotta do something to steer this off course. I don't want to pay huge amounts of money for a vehicle that does not meet my wants or needs.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Can we motorheads accept something so strange? Can we accept giving up the rumble of the V8? Can we exchange that for gas $, pollution, less oil changes, etc. I don't know how I would even answer that, but I feel that a change is coming - and I certainly don't want it legislated, let the market run its course - and curious how we would react to a musclecar without the usual ingredient.

Nope, I'll stick to the classics. If I want a golf cart, I'll buy one and save the extra cash for all the liquor I'd need to buy to stave off constant depression.

Supply of petroleum and energy will kill off the factory V8 muscle car if the government does not. The best thing is to enjoy and preserve the older v8 cars and to develop new, more fuel efficient muscle cars.

And why exactly?!?!

We can run factory V8's off of much more than oil. (Hydrogen, Ethanol, CNG)

I think the real answer lies in a combination of things... 20 years from now, will hybrids and electrics be a dominant form of transportation? YES. But will we gearheads still have the option of a V8 in the same showroom? MORE THAN LIKELY.

Remember: This isn't going to happen over night and we're not looking at the death of the V8 anytime soon. Gas was more expensive in the 80's and more scarce in the 70's. What did we do? We engineered better performance cars.

My enthusiasm for 'spirited driving' and boulevard cruising in the big V8 of my dreams died a long time ago. Endless traffic jams, ridiculously low speed limits, arrogant and stupid drivers, outrageous insurance prices - these all killed the automobile as anything more than mere transportation for me.

There are so few places where the modern motorcar can be used to its full design capability left. Sorry, but I would rather see the European approach of high gas taxes to 'encourage' people into more fuel efficient vehicles. At $10 a gallon (which is where most other countries in the world are at these days), consumers are free to buy what they want, but most will choose a vehicle that gets 40+ mpg.

A 1960s anything will always turn my head, but I live in the reality of today...........

Sounds like you need a change of location, my friend.

If the CAFE passed seriously affects our choice (Which I think it ultimately won't -- I'm optimistic that if the companies are embracing it now; THAT says something) I'll just stick with older cars and probably say 'to hell with the hobby'

When they come to take my old cars... Well, that's when I'll have the guns ready and I guess it'll be the end. (I'm seriously as your mother-in-law about that too)

[loki]

Viva Revolution!!

Vive R[EVOL]ution! hope you get the meaning behind that.

[thegriffon]

I predict that the post-election government will re-visit this issue and change things to a more realistic version later.

:rotflmao:

The auto companies caved now because a) it was a losing battle; and b) it would only get worse (much worse) after the election (do I hear 50 mpg, I have 50 mpg, do I hear any advance on 50 mpg? …)

The main problem for auto companies is not technical, it is the economics of supply and demand, which is why CAFE has never worked in the past and never will in future. If cars are priced similarly consumers treat more efficient vehicles as an excuse to buy more powerful vehicles with the same economy. If increased fuel economy costs more money, they'll buy a used car that doesn't have better fuel economy. These higher regulations will add a lot of cost (at least $5K in the near future, probably $10K by 2020). Added cost will drive down sales, and result in an older fleet of less efficient, more polluting vehicles. Unless sufficient financial incentives are given to consumers, particularly in the form of tax rebates, they will not buy the more efficient vehicles congress thinks they want. They simply won't be able to afford to. It won't just kill big trucks and large cars, it could kill mainstream cars sales as you know it. Choices will be limited to A-, B- and C-segment cars in the affordable brands, and only luxury models for anything larger than a 1.6 L compact. No Accord, no Camry, no Malibu, no Chrysler or Buick under $35-40K. The top 5 best-selling cars lines wil be the Aveo, Fit, Yaris, 3-series and Fiesta. The top 10 won't include anything larger than the Astra (which will cost as much as a Malibu [or more]). Higher fuel consumption, clapped out 10-15 yo cars will be nearly 70% of car purchases in 2020.

[thegriffon]

… If the CAFE passed seriously affects our choice (Which I think it ultimately won't -- I'm optimistic that if the companies are embracing it now; THAT says something) I'll just stick with older cars and probably say 'to hell with the hobby'

When they come to take my old cars... Well, that's when I'll have the guns ready and I guess it'll be the end. (I'm seriously as your mother-in-law about that too)

What choice do they have FOG? "Embracing" CAFE is all about PR—no-one wants to be enabled the evil corporate opposition to good fuel economy. There is also an element of "Will you please come to an agreement so we can decide how many people to fire (the UAW should have laid seige to congress over the summer—2013 will be black Friday every day), plants to close and models to cut.

They won't take your old cars FOG, although they should have made it increasingly more expensive to register them for daily use, and offered substantial rebates to trade them for modern, fuel-efficient models. Like increasing gas taxes, I think the anti-car opponents are too scared to bring a wider range of older cars under the limited annual-mileage "classic" category. Get in early and organize a national heritage register for specific vehicles in good condition to ensure they are saved from the crusher.

[daves87rs]

We aren't going to get a chance to do anything about it.

You only have to look at the population growth to see that.

Carbiz does make a good point, as you are going to see this in more and more cities world wide.

We used to laugh at the idea of a banning of muscle cars, but that is not going to seem as funny as the "greenies" get more and more of their way. In most ways, it is just a matter of time.....

I actually see less cars as more and more cities will jump on the public transportation bandwagon....

The next ten years are going to be very intersting for us car people....

[daves87rs]

What choice do they have FOG? "Embracing" CAFE is all about PR—no-one wants to be enabled the evil corporate opposition to good fuel economy. There is also an element of "Will you please come to an agreement so we can decide how many people to fire (the UAW should have laid seige to congress over the summer—2013 will be black Friday every day), plants to close and models to cut.

They won't take your old cars FOG, although they should have made it increasingly more expensive to register them for daily use, and offered substantial rebates to trade them for modern, fuel-efficient models. Like increasing gas taxes, I think the anti-car opponents are too scared to bring a wider range of older cars under the limited annual-mileage "classic" category. Get in early and organize a national heritage register for specific vehicles in good condition to ensure they are saved from the crusher.

Nah-I see more of a push to "recycle" these cars....

And if you don't want to do it-your neighbor might.....

Nobody in Congress cares about cars. Period.

Edited December 16, 2007 by daves87rs

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

First off, the whole 'green movement' is nothing more than the social movement of the moment. Sure, there will always be greenies and there always has been but the movement has just recently begun under the Gore The average social movement only lasts about 5 years before everyone gets tired of it. This is already happening in some places (Remember? Europeans now view the green 'commitment' as just another way to regulate our lives)

Honestly, I don't think it'll ever get to the point of disaster that griffon predicts because there is too much at stake. As far as the old cars go, that's fine by me. Like I've stated before, my costs are very little because the cars are driven less than 500 miles each year. Heck, gas could reach $5/gallon and it really wouldn't affect me that much. The classic car industry already has lobbyists and groups formed and working for us. HOPEFULLY they have the foresight to be keeping an eye on things and can be proactive as opposed to reactive. We fight 'recycling' laws every year and as far as neighbors doing it for me; I'll never live in the Suburbia hell that is an owners association, so I don't see that happening anytime soon.

You guys are so bleak that it floors me (Which is funny, since I'm usually Mr. Negativity) We have very good technology and a society that has adjusted to change very well thus far. I just don't see a communist-like push to destroy ALL cars. Maybe some, like large SUVs that a lot of people shouldn't be driving anyway, but not everything. Hell, even the yuppies will start bitching when they start having to give up their Highlanders, 4Runners and Camrys.

[thegriffon]

The classic car community needs to be active in locating unmodified classic cars in good condition and having them designation as "protected" (just like buildings) or too many of them will end up in the crusher to be recycled. Be pro-active and do it now before demands come to get rid of old gas guzzlers. The provision that they be only driven limited miles like the oldest classics should appease "green" lobbyists.

[pow]

Twelve years is far, far away, and with oil prices the way they are, as well as the interest of green technologies and a new generation of drivers, I'm confident we'll exceed 35 miles per gallon, CAFE or not.

I don't see performance cars or classics being compromised any time soon, as they exist in relatively low numbers, and apart from the odd 300C or G8, there aren't mainstream V8 sedans anymore. This effects the average everyday car, and for most people, the silence of hybrid drive or lower fueling costs would be an advantage.

[ocnblu]

Vehicle prices are going to go through the roof, limiting sales which will hurt the car companies. People will hold onto their older cars longer, thereby defeating the stated purpose of these stupid rules. Cars will be tiny. Americans have shown they prefer larger vehicles. This is a big country. This is not Europe or Japan, where smaller vehicles make so much more sense, due to population density, narrow roads, and yes, fuel prices.

[Camino LS6]

First off, the whole 'green movement' is nothing more than the social movement of the moment. Sure, there will always be greenies and there always has been but the movement has just recently begun under the Gore The average social movement only lasts about 5 years before everyone gets tired of it. This is already happening in some places (Remember? Europeans now view the green 'commitment' as just another way to regulate our lives)

Honestly, I don't think it'll ever get to the point of disaster that griffon predicts because there is too much at stake. As far as the old cars go, that's fine by me. Like I've stated before, my costs are very little because the cars are driven less than 500 miles each year. Heck, gas could reach $5/gallon and it really wouldn't affect me that much. The classic car industry already has lobbyists and groups formed and working for us. HOPEFULLY they have the foresight to be keeping an eye on things and can be proactive as opposed to reactive. We fight 'recycling' laws every year and as far as neighbors doing it for me; I'll never live in the Suburbia hell that is an owners association, so I don't see that happening anytime soon.

You guys are so bleak that it floors me (Which is funny, since I'm usually Mr. Negativity) We have very good technology and a society that has adjusted to change very well thus far. I just don't see a communist-like push to destroy ALL cars. Maybe some, like large SUVs that a lot of people shouldn't be driving anyway, but not everything. Hell, even the yuppies will start bitching when they start having to give up their Highlanders, 4Runners and Camrys.

Agreed.

Don't regulate - innovate!

I will never drive a microcar - never.

No one will ever take any of my cars to the crusher, I won't permit it.

If the cars and trucks I want are forced off of the market, I'll just have older cars for the rest of my life.

In fact, I'll build one to be as polluting and wasteful as I can make it and drive it whenever and wherever I please.

This is non-negotiable, so they had best not push the issue.

With all of that said, I don't think we will have to face any such thing. When the impact of the unintended consequences hits, the government will be forced to relax the rules. In any case, I will own and drive whatever I choose.

[Robert Hall]

Twelve years is far, far away, and with oil prices the way they are, as well as the interest of green technologies and a new generation of drivers, I'm confident we'll exceed 35 miles per gallon, CAFE or not.

I don't see performance cars or classics being compromised any time soon, as they exist in relatively low numbers, and apart from the odd 300C or G8, there aren't mainstream V8 sedans anymore. This effects the average everyday car, and for most people, the silence of hybrid drive or lower fueling costs would be an advantage.

I'm not worried...I'm not one of these 'the sky is falling' worriers... a 35mpg average could be met with widespread use of diesels... there is no reason 75% or more of SUVs and trucks couldn't be diesels--the full size trucks and SUVs are the real gas hogs now. Cars of all sizes could be diesels, and with a mix of hybrids and or fuel cell vehicles for the remainder. This is not pie-in-sky either---look all the diesels offered in Europe now (BMW even has diesel coupes and convertibles).

[Robert Hall]

Agreed.

Don't regulate - innovate!

The problem is, without regulation as motivation, there will be no innovation.

[Camino LS6]

The problem is, without regulation as motivation, there will be no innovation.

I don't believe that, automakers innovate all the time as the market demands it. Good fuel economy is a selling point. Also, alternative fuels could make this sort of regulation moot.

[CARBIZ]

Vehicle prices are going to go through the roof, limiting sales which will hurt the car companies. People will hold onto their older cars longer, thereby defeating the stated purpose of these stupid rules. Cars will be tiny. Americans have shown they prefer larger vehicles. This is a big country. This is not Europe or Japan, where smaller vehicles make so much more sense, due to population density, narrow roads, and yes, fuel prices.

There are a couple of flaws with our argument:

1) Canada is larger than Europe and the best selling vehices here are small vehicles, especially in the larger urban areas.

2) As the U.S. surpasses 300 million people (all concentrated in 3 or 4 mega urban areas), pollution and crowding will approach those of Europe. It's not like 100 million people are

going to move to Nebraska and North Dakota, after all (no offense to those who do live there!)

And along with American's God-given right to have guns and drive SUVs, do you guys not get it that you are financing the very people that hate you? Sure, Exxon and Mobil are doing very well, but every time a Shiek buys a mega-yacht, he has YOU people to thank. Saudis would be EATING their sand if Americans started buying Aveos and Fits.

Some of you on this board get it when it comes to buying Toyotas, how it effects everyone's standard of living, but don't seem to get it when it comes to buying frivolous, gas swilling trucks and cars that are unnecessarily consuming energy. There is a world of difference between restoring a '70 Cuda and driving it on Sundays and driving a Trailblazer SS to work every day - alone. Americans IMPORT 60% of their oil, and that number is not going down any time soon. Everyone would benefit if that number dropped in half, by whatever means.

[Camino LS6]

I'm all for alternative fuels and eliminating oil importation, but not by limiting my vehicle choices. Those in urban areas need to have better mass transit, not microcars.

[Robert Hall]

There are a couple of flaws with our argument:

1) Canada is larger than Europe and the best selling vehices here are small vehicles, especially in the larger urban areas.

Geographically, yes, but Canada's population is less than 10% that of the EU.]

2) As the U.S. surpasses 300 million people (all concentrated in 3 or 4 mega urban areas), pollution and crowding will approach those of Europe. It's not like 100 million people are

going to move to Nebraska and North Dakota, after all (no offense to those who do live there!)

Maybe in a few urban areas, but in general, there is a lot of space for suburbs to spread out into (look at Phoenix, for example...growing and growing, infinite desert to use up as suburbs). Dying places like the Dakotas are experiencing depopulation now..

And along with American's God-given right to have guns and drive SUVs, do you guys not get it that you are financing the very people that hate you? Sure, Exxon and Mobil are doing very well, but every time a Shiek buys a mega-yacht, he has YOU people to thank. Saudis would be EATING their sand if Americans started buying Aveos and Fits.

Unfortunately, the god, guns and pickups crowd is huge in the US...this is the deluded demographic that elected GW Bush, after all..

The problem with Aveos and Fits, though, is they are viewed as poor people's cars to most Americans...now if I could get something stylish with a Cadillac quality interior in an Aveo sized package, then I might consider one..

Some of you on this board get it when it comes to buying Toyotas, how it effects everyone's standard of living, but don't seem to get it when it comes to buying frivolous, gas swilling trucks and cars that are unnecessarily consuming energy. There is a world of difference between restoring a '70 Cuda and driving it on Sundays and driving a Trailblazer SS to work every day - alone.

I do it..I drive a Grand Cherokee to work everyday, but I get 18-19 mpg and can afford it..far better mileage than the giant bloat-beast trucks and SUVs I see everyday on the road--usually with one person aboard. I could see myself trading it on a diesel that gets 25-30mpg or better..

Americans IMPORT 60% of their oil, and that number is not going down any time soon. Everyone would benefit if that number dropped in half, by whatever means.

Agreed...

[regfootball]

First off, the whole 'green movement' is nothing more than the social movement of the moment. Sure, there will always be greenies and there always has been but the movement has just recently begun under the Gore The average social movement only lasts about 5 years before everyone gets tired of it. This is already happening in some places (Remember? Europeans now view the green 'commitment' as just another way to regulate our lives)

exactly. bingo. remember the conservationist movements in the 70's? like when my mom told me i would come home from school and i wouldn't let her have me take a bath with warm water because heating the water wasted energy. think those teachers weren't pushing agendas on the kiddies back then?

here's what factored into the whole green thing

cheap gas in the 90's + large SUV's as fashion = gotta swing the pendulum the other way and go to the other extreme. Great way for exxon etc. to almost double gas prices in 18 months and rake in excess profits. the social hysteria of the green movement only serves to prop up gas more.

9/11 and the Iraq war, lefties always need a cause (because they don't want to focus on doing real work) and they realized they lost Bush's push to fund and start a war, so fighting the war that is 'winnable' (i.e. a war of a cause, not against a people, that being, being green and the environment) is a cause the lefties and ecoweenies can feel good about. There is no life or death confrontation with a real evil opponent. It is merely a function of PR and some social cause. They can line up on talk shows and write endless theory articles and bully people but they don't have to solve a real tangible problem. There really isn't as important of a moral component to it. It's a lot easier to fight for a cause that doesn't require moral conviction, which is the type of cause the lefties usually have no problem lining up for.

Just the fact we'll have a new pres and will prob pull out of Iraq at some point, plus engineering the economy to strengthen our mortgages will alone change the mood of many and we'll be on to other causes. Gas prices will drop some and people will be interested in big vehicles again. People want big vehicles in this country. There are too many people in this country whose well being is dependent on their homes being their source of financial strength, so you can bet in about 2 years the home and real estate markets will boom again and people will want the big cars to go with it again. No one wants to live in cramped dense urban communal hardscape either.

ANd the part everyone forgets. The moment we double our mpg, the price of gas will double. We are hooked on gas and they have it figured out how much they can extract from us as a percentage of our incomes to get it. Only until we diversify what we propel our cars with will we create competition for those dollars we spend to move around. the politicians will want their tax cut out of it also. look at all the roads we need to fix and rebuild in the next 20 years or more.

We're already seeing backlash in the building industry on green building and LEED. Owners and developers are questioning the merits of the dollars spent even more than ever, and recent efforts in green building that were well intentioned but not repsonsibly planned are exposing all sorts of flaws in extreme green building, with things like mold and moisture damage and poor air quality and materials that require too much maintenance and disintegrate too quickly. Or worst yet, building function is sacrificed, the new expensive facilities do not work as planned. The marketing benefits of green building is waning and when that driving factor is gone, people that pony up the money won't be wanting to spend it on that anymore.

Edited December 16, 2007 by regfootball

[regfootball]

Geographically, yes, but Canada's population is less than 10% that of the EU.]

Maybe in a few urban areas, but in general, there is a lot of space for suburbs to spread out into (look at Phoenix, for example...growing and growing, infinite desert to use up as suburbs). Dying places like the Dakotas are experiencing depopulation now..

Unfortunately, the god, guns and pickups crowd is huge in the US...this is the deluded demographic that elected GW Bush, after all..

The problem with Aveos and Fits, though, is they are viewed as poor people's cars to most Americans...now if I could get something stylish with a Cadillac quality interior in an Aveo sized package, then I might consider one..

I do it..I drive a Grand Cherokee to work everyday, but I get 18-19 mpg and can afford it..far better mileage than the giant bloat-beast trucks and SUVs I see everyday on the road--usually with one person aboard. I could see myself trading it on a diesel that gets 25-30mpg or better..

Agreed...

if NDak wasn't so effing cold, and i could get a good paying job there....I'd move back in a heartbeat. neither of those are bound to change any time soon.....

[regfootball]

Geographically, yes, but Canada's population is less than 10% that of the EU.]

Maybe in a few urban areas, but in general, there is a lot of space for suburbs to spread out into (look at Phoenix, for example...growing and growing, infinite desert to use up as suburbs). Dying places like the Dakotas are experiencing depopulation now..

Unfortunately, the god, guns and pickups crowd is huge in the US...this is the deluded demographic that elected GW Bush, after all..

The problem with Aveos and Fits, though, is they are viewed as poor people's cars to most Americans...now if I could get something stylish with a Cadillac quality interior in an Aveo sized package, then I might consider one..

I do it..I drive a Grand Cherokee to work everyday, but I get 18-19 mpg and can afford it..far better mileage than the giant bloat-beast trucks and SUVs I see everyday on the road--usually with one person aboard. I could see myself trading it on a diesel that gets 25-30mpg or better..

Agreed...

the chryco lot by my house has at least 2 GC diesels rotting on their lot I am sure you could acquire for about 10 grand off sticker......

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

9/11 and the Iraq war, lefties always need a cause (because they don't want to focus on doing real work) and they realized they lost Bush's push to fund and start a war, so fighting the war that is 'winnable' (i.e. a war of a cause, not against a people, that being, being green and the environment) is a cause the lefties and ecoweenies can feel good about. There is no life or death confrontation with a real evil opponent. It is merely a function of PR and some social cause. They can line up on talk shows and write endless theory articles and bully people but they don't have to solve a real tangible problem. There really isn't as important of a moral component to it. It's a lot easier to fight for a cause that doesn't require moral conviction, which is the type of cause the lefties usually have no problem lining up for.

We're already seeing backlash in the building industry on green building and LEED. Owners and developers are questioning the merits of the dollars spent even more than ever, and recent efforts in green building that were well intentioned but not repsonsibly planned are exposing all sorts of flaws in extreme green building, with things like mold and moisture damage and poor air quality and materials that require too much maintenance and disintegrate too quickly. Or worst yet, building function is sacrificed, the new expensive facilities do not work as planned. The marketing benefits of green building is waning and when that driving factor is gone, people that pony up the money won't be wanting to spend it on that anymore.

Funny you should mention that... My girlfriend got into a huge debate the other day with her brother's leftie wacko girlfriend when she (the brother's GF) brought up the fact that we should use solar panels on everthing. My GF explained how that was a bad idea and how many more cost effective things could be done to save energy and the leftie nut really got flustered. (Of course, this is the same person who believes that GM had "carbureator technology" in the 80's that would get 100MPG and subsequently -- just like the big, evil corporation they are, sold it to Chevron who destroyed it.)

It's funny how naive some people are these days.

[ocnblu]

We have a diesel Liberty in the shop right now. That thing sounds awesome, and I'm sure gets about 25 mpg when a 3.7L gas Liberty would probably be averaging 18-19.

Let me clarify: I'd love to have a diesel engine option in every GM car and truck. If the engine option were no more than $2k, I think they'd be able to get more people into diesels, especially when people see the mileage ratings.

I'd love to go Ethanol/Biodiesel. Let our farmers become the new sheiks! What I am against is government interference into something they don't know much about... because the government always screws things up. If the energy bill included a phase-in of much higher ethanol production and a requirement that all cars and trucks be flex-fuel by a certain date, I'd be all for it. That would lessen our dependence on foreign oil without the pain of ruining our vehicle choices.

[pow]

We have a diesel Liberty in the shop right now. That thing sounds awesome, and I'm sure gets about 25 mpg when a 3.7L gas Liberty would probably be averaging 18-19.

Let me clarify: I'd love to have a diesel engine option in every GM car and truck. If the engine option were no more than $2k, I think they'd be able to get more people into diesels, especially when people see the mileage ratings.

I'd love to go Ethanol/Biodiesel. Let our farmers become the new sheiks! What I am against is government interference into something they don't know much about... because the government always screws things up. If the energy bill included a phase-in of much higher ethanol production and a requirement that all cars and trucks be flex-fuel by a certain date, I'd be all for it. That would lessen our dependence on foreign oil without the pain of ruining our vehicle choices.

Farmers will never be the new sheiks, 'cause they can't even set their own prices. It's done by the CME, which reflects the interests of big ag lobbyists and have no correlation with the actual prices needed to sustain farming. Corn is sold at a loss, and it's only our tax dollars - subsidies - that keep farmers from losing money each year; 84% of household income is earned off-farm. Meanwhile agribusiness saved $35 million at the expense of taxpayers, as a result of this below-cost cattle feed.

Sure it's great to innovate, find a magical fuel that has no consequences, so that we never have to conserve, but that's as realistic as a $25K Escalade that gets 100 MPG. Even with cellulosic ethanol, we don't have enough land to replace our import fuel at our current rates of consumption. You can spend billions of dollars on an alternative fuel infrastructure, only to see those gains completely overshadowed by growth after a few years.

Fuel efficient technologies seem cheap by comparison...

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Indeed this is a matter which has no quick and obvious solution, contrary to the attitude of our Government and Congress. In all honesty, this is just so much more than a matter of automotive enthusiasm, as it is a matter of freedom of choice.

It's been repeated by the hundreds of people that make up the consensus of automotive enthusiasts here and by the millions of people that make up the consensus of auto enthusiasts everywhere: Congress doesn't realize the reality of auto building and the transportation-related wants of the people it works for, so they shouldn't be poking their asses into it. Granted, our economy has a weak point which we haven't had to come fact to face to until recent times, but the millions of people that live in the United States shouldn't have to unwillingly conform to one standard, which do effectively violate the rights and freedoms we stand for, in order to fix our major economic flaw.

I want to buy what I want to buy, and not what some $h!-for-brains politician tells me to. These politicians are supposed to work FOR US and protect what WE WANT, and not the other way around. That's the way it was intended to be from the start. We fought so many wars in our past to repel this "controlling big-brother" mentality (Vietnam War, Korean War, etc.) and yet we are so slowly succumbing to it and the realities of its failures.

Congress wants us to drive cars that are slow, small, boring, tepid, and basic. This is evidence of that. They want cars that only fit the purpose of going from Point A to B to back to A again. Cars that don't fit our individualities, our wants, and our needs. If we let our Government take control of this one thing, what's to say they eventually won't wake up one day and start applying this conforming mentality to other aspects of our lives that reflect our individuality? It sounds like pessimistic paranoia, but it's something that you have sit down and reflect on. If we let them control this one thing to the degree they want to control it, what says they'll stop just here?

There are ways to fix our problem without dampening our freedom of choice. This affects almost every single American citizen of the United States, as many of us hold a license, so many more people should be encouraged to speak out on this and be presented both sides of the realities of the situation from an mostly unbiased source, if one can ever be found.

I embrace a solution that doesn't deprive me of what I want in a new car, that doesn't deprive me of the enthusiasm I've had since a child, and doesn't potentially deprive me of keeping what I already drive on a daily basis. I can say I feel very threatened by this failed CAFE legislation that is beginning to take flight and take hold.

But let's not also forget the corrupt OPEC bastards that love to constantly yank the short leash they have us hooked to. They are another cause of our woes and their monopoly should be terminated indefinitely.

And why doesn't Congress grow a rigid spine and set of balls bigger than the little raisins they have now? If you're going to decide for me what I drive, control those Big Cheese assholes sitting comfortably in their leather-bound office chairs at the Big Oil companies. Regulate it like you do our utilities, our electric, our water and sewage, and as you may possibly be doing to our cars.

Of course, the latter two statements are wishful thinking and won't happen. If we start to pick a fight with OPEC and Big Oil, we will be the ones with the bruised asses in the end. Both of them will see to that.

We can only hope for the best in the end, but not let that hope obliterate our knowledge of what grim reality can come of this.

Edited December 17, 2007 by YellowJacket894

[knightfan26917]

They won't take your old cars FOG, although they should have made it increasingly more expensive to register them for daily use, and offered substantial rebates to trade them for modern, fuel-efficient models. Like increasing gas taxes, I think the anti-car opponents are too scared to bring a wider range of older cars under the limited annual-mileage "classic" category. Get in early and organize a national heritage register for specific vehicles in good condition to ensure they are saved from the crusher.

Hmm....not a bad idea....

I love driving my older car ('87 MC LS) daily. For me, to make it economically "enticing" to buy something brand new ... would be to make sure I pay nothing for the car. I have had NO car payments since mid-2003 ... and love it. The only thing modern right now I'd want would be a Dodge Charger ... and I have a feeling that isn't the type of car the government/auto makers would want me to buy as a "fuel-efficient" model....

*shrugs*

Cort:34swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve.pacemaker

WRMNshowcase.lego.HO.model.MCs.RT.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"Decorations of red on a green Christmas tree" ... Elvis Presley ... 'Blue Christmas'