Tighter fuel efficiency standards for heavy trucks

Status
Not open for further replies.
We pay by the pound here in FL. Sure seems fair to me, as road damage is directly linked to weight.

Balance in this country is non existent as government scrambles for more revenue. Since we collected record amounts last year perhaps we should consider reducing spending a bit...?
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
We pay by the pound here in FL. Sure seems fair to me, as road damage is directly linked to weight.

Balance in this country is non existent as government scrambles for more revenue. Since we collected record amounts last year perhaps we should consider reducing spending a bit...?


Reducing the spending and starting to pay off the debt is in direct conflict with the FED. That is why, despite our leader's acknowledgement that the debt is out of control and has to be reduced, the total opposite is happening.
 
Originally Posted By: bbhero
Roads do cost money to maintain and build. Gas tax increase does make sense here to me. Last time federal gas tax increase has been awhile. Here in Va the state gas tax hasn't been increased over 20 years and yet we have added over 2 million people to our population.


Alternate point of view:

The infrastructure we enjoy was constructed and PAID FOR, largely by our ancestors. And, to some extent, us. WE ARE NOT creating major new infrastructure. Yet, with a corrected tax base many times larger than what our ancestors required to produce it, WE CAN'T MAINTAIN IT?????

Case in point. The George Washington Bridge in NY. It been paid for many times over. The toll was never removed, and is higher than ever, at $15 per car, $42 for a pickup with dual rear wheels, $84 for 4 axles and a stunning $126 for a 6 axle truck. The tax (yes, a toll is a tax) income is stunning. Yet the GWB is "chock a block" full of rust holes that have simply been painted over with fresh paint in an attempt at slowing the deterioration. Very few honest repairs are attempted.

DISGUSTING, CROOKED and they are not fooling me.

Be VERY CAREFUL when reviewing tax revenues and outright expenditures. The tax income for fuel taxes don't pay for the roads. But coupled with the nearly 100 various other taxes related to the transportation of goods, the funding is no longer so clear. Per mile tax, weight tax, registration tax (yes it's a tax and it's based on vehicle size, compare to aircraft, which all cost $5 for 3 years and you'll see my point) Internal registration plan, international fuel agreement, tolls and on and on.

Even the taxes on the sale of goods, "sales tax" and "property tax" that all of us pay, is intended to partially cover such expenses. Those are the normal functions of government.
 
Last edited:
The problem with infrastructure projects isn't the money, its all the red tape that one needs to go threw to do one.

Back 100 years ago we were a lot like China is today. If we wanted to build say a bridge we did it. Their were no studies, no NIMBY's crying. Heck if a piece of property was in the way a judge or local government on the take took it. The bridge was than built.

Fast forward to 2015 and it takes probably 20 years to put together all the red tape to do something like the GW bridge.

Than some limp wrist animal lover finds a bird or a turtle and the project is scrapped.


I work in construction and I know a number of guys who do big projects with big companies like a GW bridge project for a living. Its not a money problem, money cannot fix every problem.
 
Last edited:
First off.. There are some new roads being built across this country.. I know this for a fact captain. I memorized the ENTIRE US road system by the time I was 8 yrs old. I've kept up with it since 1983. Interstate 69 is being built in Indiana, interstate 49 is being built in Arkansas and Missouri and interstate 99 was Just completed in Pennsylvania, interstate 485 around Charlotte was JUST completed. There are more has well....
That having been stated.. Maintaining and building roads doesn't come from the money tree or tooth fairy. We have to find a way to pay for them.
Now speaking of bridges paid for that still have tolls on them.. I am more aware of this than you know. Route 17 into Gloucester county has had a toll\tax on it since 1996. We were told once it was paid for the toll would go away. That NEW BRIDGE HAS BEEN PAID FOR YEARS. So, I get that argument quite well. The small town of West Point has TWO new bridges built.. Who paid for them ?? People who lived where I lived did.. Garbage.
So, yes I agree with your thoughts to a degree on that point. But again, we need to PAY for building and maintaining our road system. It's not a free deal. Cost TRILLIONS to build. No doubt. But it has to be maintained because the Eisenhower Interstate system was started in the 50s and 60s. It is a very old system that will cost Hundreds of Billions to maintain. Period. End of story.
Question is how best to pay for it. And yes I agree there are GREAT difficulties in paying for them due to corruption and reshuffling the money around for pork barrel pet projects. That HAS to be dealt with in order to have a better outcome across the board. I agree with that 1000% too
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
Well, the EPA was originally supposed to get all their proposals approved by Congress. Now, they are just a out of control agency with no voter input or control.
 
What I find fascinating, is that I bought a 2013 Freightliner... body and chassis only... and dropped in a factory rebuilt Detroit 60 made in 2000. No emissions junk whatsoever and legal. And it delivers 20% better mpg than the trucking industry average with all the emissions stuff and so-called efficiency improvements. It is all about gearing, tires, and a number of other factors. And no two operations are identical in every detail. A truck being used to haul grain off the farm is not going to get the same mpg as a truck pulling a dry box with general freight. Even if spec'd identically.

It all comes down to destruction of the American economic system. We live in a virtual paradise, ecologically, than the 60's. We have come a long, long way, and much of the EPA stuff, as initially setup, was needed. With the stuff they are putting on diesels now, the air is almost cleaner coming out the stack as it was going in the air filter. It adds roughly $15,000 to the cost of a new truck, decreases the load carrying by almost 1000 lb, which is less freight and less revenue per truck. And it is a maintenance nightmare which has increased truck downtime considerably on average. It is a feel good, warm fuzzy thing that those well off can absorb thru higher prices at the store, but penalizes those that cannot just absorb higher costs to buy their groceries.

Keep in mind, the more the trucks get taxed, EPA'd to death, etc, those additional costs are piled on the consumer. They just get rolled into my rates to haul. You want the stuff, you will have to pay to get it. If I get a call from someone to haul a product I hauled just 4 months ago, and do it at the same rate, the product will stay sitting on the dock, as I will not show up. You have to pay to play. I am not a charitable organization. The fuel, repairs, cost of equipment, fuel and road use taxes, all the new emissions stuff, etc is in the price you paid for your groceries.
 
Business can't work if its workers are calling in sick from air pollution. And they can't sell anything to folks who are out of work since those folks have no money. Air pollution causes folks to lose work days either themselves or taking little Johnny to the doctor for a nebulizer treatment when their asthma flares up. Those lost work days add up to a fair bit of change for businesses. It just may be the same cost to clean up the air as to compensate for lost work.
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
I remember an interview some months back with one of the head engineers for the Ford 6.7 PS diesel when they were introducing the new updates. He said that today the emission equipment doesnt really affect their fuel economy with their 6.7L diesel.


He's lying. Yes, it's that simple!
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
My old 1989 Festiva with minimal emissions standard equipment would get 43 mpg. It was slow and could barely run at highway speeds. 1.3L motor with 58 hp.

I replaced it with a 2008 Accent. 43 mpg, 1.6L motor with 110 hp. Runs great, very low maintenance and I would buy another (2008) in a heartbeat.


My wife had a Festiva...a 1988 base model. It had a carb and no power steering or overdrive. She got 46-47MPG...her WORST tank was about 43. Having driven it, I can vouch that it was fine on the highway. I had a diesel Ford Escort...about 50HP. Slow to accelerate, yes, but would happily run 70-75MPH all day, and get 50MPG doing it!
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: edyvw

If you want to solve the problem let's tax gas higher (so we can pay for roads) and let's increase taxes on pick-pu trucks unless those trucks are bought by farmers or construction workers, meaning, if they are bought for work, fine, if not, pay for being stupid.
Hey boy. Not everyone is 5 ft tall 're and can comfortably fit into shoe boxes. You welcome to tell me to my face how stupid I am for my P/U.


I won $20 when my 6'6", 280lb co-worker fit easily into my wife's Festiva. Some small cars have plenty of room! (I recall that Shaq-7'3"-drives a VW Beetle.)
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
We pay by the pound here in FL. Sure seems fair to me, as road damage is directly linked to weight.

Balance in this country is non existent as government scrambles for more revenue. Since we collected record amounts last year perhaps we should consider reducing spending a bit...?


It costs me more to tag my Burgman than it does for my Dakota. Wait, what?
confused.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


I won $20 when my 6'6", 280lb co-worker fit easily into my wife's Festiva. Some small cars have plenty of room! (I recall that Shaq-7'3"-drives a VW Beetle.)
I drove a 99 Escort ZX2 around for several years. Fitting into and being comfortable are two different things. I did ride in a Festiva one time like 10 tens years ago. Seat went back a mile. A tiny little seat. No way it'd be comfortable over the long haul. And in a crash I'm sure a motorcycle had more protection than that old thing.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Business can't work if its workers are calling in sick from air pollution. And they can't sell anything to folks who are out of work since those folks have no money. Air pollution causes folks to lose work days either themselves or taking little Johnny to the doctor for a nebulizer treatment when their asthma flares up. Those lost work days add up to a fair bit of change for businesses. It just may be the same cost to clean up the air as to compensate for lost work.


The air quality has not been that bad due to vehicle emissions in decades, if it ever was at all.

People keep thinking the worst pollution came from vehicles. It didn't. It came from factories and other commercial operations.

The funny thing is, I have had asthma since I was very young, work around boats belching raw exhaust from engines with carburetors that never worked well when new, 2 strokes ripping out blue fumes, and open diesel exhausts from drayage trucks, diesel lifts, and old rigs, and the water table and air quality have never been better. I suffer more from yanking a dusty tarp and natural pollen levels than I do my work environment.
 
Originally Posted By: sciphi
Business can't work if its workers are calling in sick from air pollution. And they can't sell anything to folks who are out of work since those folks have no money. Air pollution causes folks to lose work days either themselves or taking little Johnny to the doctor for a nebulizer treatment when their asthma flares up. Those lost work days add up to a fair bit of change for businesses. It just may be the same cost to clean up the air as to compensate for lost work.


Maybe in LA in the 60's or in China today, but not in the US or Europe today. Most of our pollution came from industry which is gone, its in China and India polluting over their.

I remember when I was little watching the yellow haze of smog float across the sound from NYC on hot summer days. I have not seen that haze since the late 90's.

The EPA has done a lot of good, but like anything their is a law of diminishing returns which is where they are right now. But like any government organization they need to continue to justify their existence so they will continue to make laws.

I suspect what will happen with this just like the 2025 CAFE standards which are not going to be met unless fuel goes to $5 a gallon and stays their, is that when they get close the manufactures will cry and the politicians will move the goal posts.

In terms of manufacturing vehicles that typically take 7 years to develop 2025 and 2027 are not that far away.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Quote:

Tiguan? Avg 24mpg. Limited to 130mph, etc. Put ANY other vehicle in that class and compare performance/MPG? Yeah, the cannot meet performance (Honda CR-V, RAV4).
People have a right to do whatever they want, no one is disputing that. However, pay per lbs for a damage that you do to the road. If you tow boat that has 7000lbs, you should pay way more then what I pay who use cars for skiing. Freedom of choice? Sue, but pay for what you use.


And you called people stupid for choosing a pickup truck unless they are in construction workers or farmers.

Ah, so you chose performance over fuel economy.

Vehicle taxes according to vehicle weight is nothing new. You pay more taxes when you register it. You also pay more tax when registering a high capacity trailer. And believe it or not, farmers and construction workers are not excluded.

Not sure how pick-up and performance can go in same sentence, but whatever.
Tiguan? Combination of size, torque, mpg. Since torque is not common term in Toyota, Honda etc, it was Tiguan. I did not call people stupid bcs of their decision. I call people stupid for buying truck, and then complain about gas prices etc. You wanna drive V8 truck? Sure, but pay for it, and pay what needs to be paid so we can have decent roads. Whenever price of gas goes up, it is always same people who complain about prices.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
We pay by the pound here in FL. Sure seems fair to me, as road damage is directly linked to weight.

Balance in this country is non existent as government scrambles for more revenue. Since we collected record amounts last year perhaps we should consider reducing spending a bit...?
Reduce spending,,,,,
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
We pay by the pound here in FL. Sure seems fair to me, as road damage is directly linked to weight.

Balance in this country is non existent as government scrambles for more revenue. Since we collected record amounts last year perhaps we should consider reducing spending a bit...?
Reduce spending,,,,,

Cut defense budget for example.
 
Cut social programs. They consume a massive amount more than anything we spend, or even dreams of spending, on defense. And from what I have read in the Constitution, defense is the primary job of Federal government, not nanny state stuff. Social program spending consumes over half of the entire federal budget. Defense consumes about 815 billion out of 6.2 trillion annual government expenditures. Social programs consume a minimum of 4 trillion. Most of what government spends our money on is stuff that they are not tasked to do in the Constitution. I know, that seems quaint to believe the Constitution should actually set the parameters of government and what they can and cannot do.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown
 
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
Cut social programs. They consume a massive amount more than anything we spend, or even dreams of spending, on defense. And from what I have read in the Constitution, defense is the primary job of Federal government, not nanny state stuff. Social program spending consumes over half of the entire federal budget. Defense consumes about 815 billion out of 6.2 trillion annual government expenditures. Social programs consume a minimum of 4 trillion. Most of what government spends our money on is stuff that they are not tasked to do in the Constitution. I know, that seems quaint to believe the Constitution should actually set the parameters of government and what they can and cannot do.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown

Than what would welfare queens like Texas do if we cut social programs? And what social programs?
Constitution is written in 18th century, today is 2015. Society is not fixed thing, it is ever changing, evolving and fluid environment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top