Should C.A.F.E standards be raised even higher?

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
And with today's economy getting worst Joe contractor will not be buying. And fleet sales are shrinking. And the states and such don't have the $$ anymore and that is getting worst.

Then add in the cost of fuel and the vehicles using more fuel than others will be slowing down in sales.

Bill

Whats getting "worst"?

You tell me, if you can review the actual numbers instead of spreading sensationalistic "doom and gloom"...

YTD sales comparison

The numbers represent facts, your predictions are nothing more than speculation...and they fly in the face of the facts.


We will see who is correct. PLENTY of states (and cities/counties) are NOT replacing their fleets. They are sticking with units and keeping them on the road. People are getting less and less for their $$ and the last thing they are doing is thinking about new rigs. Esp ones that are $30-50k for a half ton truck. There is NO money floating around. IF you truly think that year to date is worth anything (like for the REST of the year) then fine. Get ready for reality. No "gloom and doom", just reality.

Back to OP, CAFE needs to go. So does the EPA and the rest of the agencies that are preventing something that could actually benefit someone.

Bill

 

[LS2JSTS]

Yeah, I think it goes without saying that the rest of the year could prove very different.

But the fact remains that for the last thirty years, and if you read the link, right up through last month. The cost of fuel has not displaced trucks from the top ten list. And considering how much their sales are up over cars as a percentage vs last year, I don't see anything changing that.

IF you truly think that thirty years of data right up through last month is meaningless and less indicitave than your "feelings", then fine.

As you say, we will see who is right. But I suspect in 2012, when I post the 2011 sales data you will dismiss the numbers just like you do today with the exact same set of data from 2008.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Before they raise CAFE (which I'm personally against) we should mandate lower HP in vehicles. Also lower the speed limit to 60 MPH for vehicles that get over 30 MPG, 55 for 25MPG and 50 for anything less than 20mpg.



How much do you suppose the death rates would increase on our highways if this plan were to be implemented?

Do you value a barrel of oil more than you value a human life?

Ever heard of the 85th percentile rule?

Did you put as much thought into this plan, as you did into your pick-up being displaced by gas prices theory?

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Before they raise CAFE (which I'm personally against) we should mandate lower HP in vehicles. Also lower the speed limit to 60 MPH for vehicles that get over 30 MPG, 55 for 25MPG and 50 for anything less than 20mpg.



How much do you suppose the death rates would increase on our highways if this plan were to be implemented?

Do you value a barrel of oil more than you value a human life?

Ever heard of the 85th percentile rule?

Did you put as much thought into this plan, as you did into your pick-up being displaced by gas prices theory?



Please. I'm not even going to address your insults towards me.

Interesting that you wait over 8 pages of "discussion" to post this.

Bill

 

[subiedriver]

What are the car makers going to do in 2014 when the CAFE standard goes up to 35 mpg? Ford and GM are certainly not going to get there building Expedition's and Tahoe's. This new standard will greatly diminish the SUV production numbers and could ultimately put the fork in them.

 

[ZZman]

If all people could chose from were small and mid sized cars and trucks we would all get used to them and enjoy them. It is only because of our huge selection in almost every product these days that we have a problem.

Do i really need supersized meals? No.....but hey if they are available.

Manufacturers love excess.....we pay for it.

 

[Cutehumor]

today, I went with my wife to her favorite shoe Store DSW. Well, we parked next to a Ford Expedition King ranch edition? Some lady was on her cell phone with her SUV running in a parking spot. We spend at least 15 minutes in the store, we come back to our car. the lady is still on her cell phone with her Ford expedition idling. I guess gas prices isn't high enough yet.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
Before they raise CAFE (which I'm personally against) we should mandate lower HP in vehicles. Also lower the speed limit to 60 MPH for vehicles that get over 30 MPG, 55 for 25MPG and 50 for anything less than 20mpg.



How much do you suppose the death rates would increase on our highways if this plan were to be implemented?

Do you value a barrel of oil more than you value a human life?

Ever heard of the 85th percentile rule?

Did you put as much thought into this plan, as you did into your pick-up being displaced by gas prices theory?



Please. I'm not even going to address your insults towards me.

Interesting that you wait over 8 pages of "discussion" to post this.

Bill



I'm sorry, I sincerely did not mean to insult you. They seemed like legitimate questions in regard to your "mandate" or plan. Frankly, they still do, interesting that they will go un-answered.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
It is only because of our huge selection in almost every product these days that we have a problem.

Manufacturers love excess.....we pay for it.

There is no problem

 

[Trav]

Social Justice has failed in every single country that has tried it.

 

[whip]

If the gov't wanted better economy, why not make the regulations friendlier to diesel?

 

[Vikas]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Social Justice has failed in every single country that has tried it.


Please tell us more about the current system in Germany and if it is functioning or not. Does it help average wage earner?

- Vikas

 

[Trav]

No it didn't work Germany stepped back from many of its social programs beginning in the early 90's.
This is way to political for discussion here,although IMHO the thread is laced with Social Justice doctrine under the guise of fuel rights usage.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Trav
No it didn't work Germany stepped back from many of its social programs beginning in the early 90's.
This is way to political for discussion here,although IMHO the thread is laced with Social Justice doctrine under the guise of fuel rights usage.


BIG TIME! This thread is full of progressive/socialist political rhetoric but it is being allowed to stay open?

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: whip
If the gov't wanted better economy, why not make the regulations friendlier to diesel?


+1 and give tiny lean burning cars a pass on NOx if they manage 45 MPG. CO2 is not on our radar.

If NOx is no good in the Los Angeles basin, hardwire a GPS into the car so its PCM pollutes less by pulling timing, ONLY WHEN IN LA.

 

[Drew2000]

You guys realize that all transportation (rail, boat, car and truck) only account for around 29% if the total US energy consumption? The lion's share of energy usage is residential and commercial properties.

Energy consumption by sector

Motor Vehicle Milage by year

Overview

 

[LS2JSTS]

Exactly Drew...If this country really wanted to save a huge amount of energy. We would update our antiquated building codes to reflect current technology.

I wonder how many in here lambasting pick-up and SUV owners have a home with triple pane windows, air tight construction with air-air interchangers, SIP panel construction with R values in the 50-70 range, tankless water heaters and efficient closed loop geo thermal heating? If the average is the norm, then I would guess none of them do.

I drive a pick-up, a bunch of them if you count business use, but I also own a highly efficient air tight home. It can be heated and cooled for a fraction of what the typical home consumes.

It's been said in this thread before, what someone drives is but a sliver of the whole story.

Those who are snickering at others at the pump may be themselves the real energy "pigs" when all uses are accounted for.

 

[spasm3]

I wonder what the enviromental impacts are from mining , hauling and producing (heavy metal) batteries for the coal fired cars.

 

[javacontour]

I can see why folks would focus on vehicles first. Vehicles have a much shorting life span than homes. So to drop energy usage right away, calling for more fuel efficient vehicles would have a more immediate impact.

Another reason is the sources of energy. Homes are heated and cooled with electricity (coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric and some other smaller players), natural gas, propane and on the east coast heating oil is popular.

With the majority not being fueled by crude oil or crude products, changing our home energy use does little to impact the amount of oil imported.

I think if folks want CAFE standards raised, then it's a legitimate question regarding home energy efficiency.

I'm not sure if it's energy efficient to retro-fit homes, but it probably is more efficient to require new homes to meet a higher standard.

Based on costs, my family still uses 2x-3x as much gasoline as energy to run my home. That's about $200/mo for the home and about $500/month for gasoline purchases, and that was before the recent price increases.

So if there is a correlation between energy density and costs of that energy, vehicle fuel usage is far greater than home energy usage.




Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Exactly Drew...If this country really wanted to save a huge amount of energy. We would update our antiquated building codes to reflect current technology.

I wonder how many in here lambasting pick-up and SUV owners have a home with triple pane windows, air tight construction with air-air interchangers, SIP panel construction with R values in the 50-70 range, tankless water heaters and efficient closed loop geo thermal heating? If the average is the norm, then I would guess none of them do.

I drive a pick-up, a bunch of them if you count business use, but I also own a highly efficient air tight home. It can be heated and cooled for a fraction of what the typical home consumes.

It's been said in this thread before, what someone drives is but a sliver of the whole story.

Those who are snickering at others at the pump may be themselves the real energy "pigs" when all uses are accounted for.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
I can see why folks would focus on vehicles first. Vehicles have a much shorting life span than homes. So to drop energy usage right away, calling for more fuel efficient vehicles would have a more immediate impact.

Another reason is the sources of energy. Homes are heated and cooled with electricity (coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric and some other smaller players), natural gas, propane and on the east coast heating oil is popular.

With the majority not being fueled by crude oil or crude products, changing our home energy use does little to impact the amount of oil imported.

I think if folks want CAFE standards raised, then it's a legitimate question regarding home energy efficiency.

I'm not sure if it's energy efficient to retro-fit homes, but it probably is more efficient to require new homes to meet a higher standard.

Based on costs, my family still uses 2x-3x as much gasoline as energy to run my home. That's about $200/mo for the home and about $500/month for gasoline purchases, and that was before the recent price increases.

So if there is a correlation between energy density and costs of that energy, vehicle fuel usage is far greater than home energy usage.




Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Exactly Drew...If this country really wanted to save a huge amount of energy. We would update our antiquated building codes to reflect current technology.

I wonder how many in here lambasting pick-up and SUV owners have a home with triple pane windows, air tight construction with air-air interchangers, SIP panel construction with R values in the 50-70 range, tankless water heaters and efficient closed loop geo thermal heating? If the average is the norm, then I would guess none of them do.

I drive a pick-up, a bunch of them if you count business use, but I also own a highly efficient air tight home. It can be heated and cooled for a fraction of what the typical home consumes.

It's been said in this thread before, what someone drives is but a sliver of the whole story.

Those who are snickering at others at the pump may be themselves the real energy "pigs" when all uses are accounted for.


Outside of coal/nuclear(which could continue to power electric vehicles for commuters), a typical ICE vehicle could/can be altered to run on any of the fuels you mentioned.

The energy savings realized with a massive change to our building codes could easily be utilized in the transportation industry much easier and cheaper than the hoops we are jumping through to try and build electric cars with suitable utility.

Changing the codes would by definition hit the new homes first, most often older homes would/could be grandfathered. If we had changed the codes ten years ago, think of all those newer homes that went up in that time frame. Delaying that beneficial change in codes any longer is just a short sighted premise.

But the bottom line point is that we are ignoring current technology that is readily available in the home building industry. Yet we are demanding even further efficiencies from the auto indutry while it could be argued that the technology just isn't there yet. Despite silly arguments about 100 mpg carbs and such, there really is no technology that can instantly raise the Corporate averages, and there is current technology in the home industry that would make instant returns. Any "quick" fix in regards to CAFE or overall transportation efficiency would require a wholesale change in buying habits, either forced or voluntary.