Hypothetically Question: If the US govt had stayed out of the auto/oil biz

[emg]

Originally Posted by Vern_in_IL
I kid you not, we would still be using carburetors if Government didn't get involved.


Without the EPA, we might be driving turbine cars. They're the ones who forced Chrysler to shut down development , because every time Chrysler got the engine to meet the current NOx requirements, the EPA demanded more.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted by PandaBear
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Well if there's no CAFE, how do you get smaller cars? Smaller cars are only a result of CAFE and they're hard to sell. Smaller cars are also in vogue in Europe because their governments have huge taxes on gas which if the premise of this thread is that the US doesn't get involved, the gas stays cheap and you just drive big cars or gas guzzlers. We'd probably be flooded with a lot more cars that can do 0-60 in 4-6 seconds or less.


Not true. Small cars are there when it cost a lot of money to buy oil (i.e. money you have to earn instead of print from thin air), and you need to have good security to guarantee your seller is not going to bail on you overnight, because you can't just sue another government for voiding a contract like you sue a dealership for charging you more than you agreed upon.


I don't even know what you're talking about with the above.

Oil now is cheap. If the government wasn't involved, then it stays cheap and there's no CAFE so people can buy big gas guzzlers because gas is cheap. Not only that, but with fracking, the US is starting to become an oil exporter again.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Well if there's no CAFE, how do you get smaller cars? Smaller cars are only a result of CAFE and they're hard to sell. Smaller cars are also in vogue in Europe because their governments have huge taxes on gas which if the premise of this thread is that the US doesn't get involved, the gas stays cheap and you just drive big cars or gas guzzlers. We'd probably be flooded with a lot more cars that can do 0-60 in 4-6 seconds or less.


Not true. Small cars are there when it cost a lot of money to buy oil (i.e. money you have to earn instead of print from thin air), and you need to have good security to guarantee your seller is not going to bail on you overnight, because you can't just sue another government for voiding a contract like you sue a dealership for charging you more than you agreed upon.


I don't even know what you're talking about with the above.

Oil now is cheap. If the government wasn't involved, then it stays cheap and there's no CAFE so people can buy big gas guzzlers because gas is cheap. Not only that, but with fracking, the US is starting to become an oil exporter again.


Actually. The price of oil has been subsidized for decades. That's subsidy comes in many forms but it's primarily found within US Foreign Policy and Domestic Subsidies. First and foremost it starts with the decision by the Saudis to trade oil in USD (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...d-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret) and the USD hegemony*. There's a lot of other things which come along with this Saudi agreement (ie. Arms sales, defense agreements, etc etc).

*It allows the US to perpetually run deficits which makes imported goods cheaper than they would otherwise be.


Domestic Subsidies come in a few forms of direct subsidies, tax subsidies (Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy), royalty subsidies (Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act), regulatory Subsidies. For example states are having to grapple with the cost of managing thousands of abandoned wells because previous policy decisions figuratively allowed drilling companies to avoid that responsibility.

 

[supton]

Hmm, 25 years? As in, just stopped at whatever last regs they had put into place? Seems like we'd have dual front airbags but no side curtain airbags. I'm dubious that ABS would be standard--let alone VSC. And various dieselgates would not have happened!

That said, there is a trickle down effect. It's possible that ABS would be standard now, if only because it isn't expensive (once you start making it in quantity). Consumers might push for it, voting with their wallet. The early 2000's were a boom time, and I could see consumers buying better and better, thus pushing the OEM's to meet 5 star crash and safety. Maybe some independent reviewers would do their own emissions testing, and thus keep alive a low emissions segment.

Lastly, we might still have compact trucks and compact cars that were complete strippers. They got killed off for a couple of reasons, but if an OEM could just import whatever manages to meet 1995 crash ratings they could have a car that was more global and cut development costs.

 

[4WD]

This group has done some good things

https://www.iihs.org

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Well if there's no CAFE, how do you get smaller cars? Smaller cars are only a result of CAFE and they're hard to sell. Smaller cars are also in vogue in Europe because their governments have huge taxes on gas which if the premise of this thread is that the US doesn't get involved, the gas stays cheap and you just drive big cars or gas guzzlers. We'd probably be flooded with a lot more cars that can do 0-60 in 4-6 seconds or less.


Not true. Small cars are there when it cost a lot of money to buy oil (i.e. money you have to earn instead of print from thin air), and you need to have good security to guarantee your seller is not going to bail on you overnight, because you can't just sue another government for voiding a contract like you sue a dealership for charging you more than you agreed upon.


I don't even know what you're talking about with the above.

Oil now is cheap. If the government wasn't involved, then it stays cheap and there's no CAFE so people can buy big gas guzzlers because gas is cheap. Not only that, but with fracking, the US is starting to become an oil exporter again.


Actually. The price of oil has been subsidized for decades. That's subsidy comes in many forms but it's primarily found within US Foreign Policy and Domestic Subsidies. First and foremost it starts with the decision by the Saudis to trade oil in USD (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...d-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret) and the USD hegemony*. There's a lot of other things which come along with this Saudi agreement (ie. Arms sales, defense agreements, etc etc).

*It allows the US to perpetually run deficits which makes imported goods cheaper than they would otherwise be.


Domestic Subsidies come in a few forms of direct subsidies, tax subsidies (Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy), royalty subsidies (Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act), regulatory Subsidies. For example states are having to grapple with the cost of managing thousands of abandoned wells because previous policy decisions figuratively allowed drilling companies to avoid that responsibility.


That's a decision by the Saudi's not the US. There are other currencies that could be used like the Euro or the Yen, but the US dollar is still the world's currency, not only for oil but for many other things.

You can go on and on about the original premise of this thread, but it's mostly pointless. It is what it is and shall remain so until something else changes.

 

[oil_film_movies]

No government or IIHS interference? No airbags for sure. Roof strength way down. Very little front or side crash protection like accordion structures present. Fuel economy way down. Emission control systems far less clean (driveability main concern, not emissions.)

Vehicles would be about $4,000 cheaper on average though ! It could be mini-vans and family vehicles might gain extra safety features as the dangers are publicized over the years though, just not to near the expensive level we have now. ...

Every time the feds or the IIHS pressured or got laws about safety, emissions, and MPG, the industry lobbyists threw every sort of argument up against the wall to see what stuck. Usually along the lines of "its not technically feasible" or "would cost so much nobody could afford to drive" type of arguments in public testimony and other documents, "supported" with campaign contribution bribes, gifts, & expensive cigar dinners for congressmen. .....

Its an old example, but Ford's beating it took in 1956 when it scared people with .... brace yourself now... LAP BELTS (radical!).. which made the public, and GM-Chrysler too, reject it, deeming it just frightening people. "See the USA in your Chevrolet" was the selling point, not worrying about death and destruction.

Another good example of how industry idiots in charge of car design can screw it up royally without tight strict laws: Remember the head restraints in the 70's and 80's? They fit people shorter than 5 foot tall. Everyone else got whiplash with them. Thats because they met the letter of the law with small bench seats with tiny, low head rests.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Speak2Mountain
...for the last 25 years. What would our cars/trucks look like and be like?


Similar, because mpg and safety are huge selling points. The environmental friendliness (catalytic converters, etc.) likely would have been emotional buys, although luxury items maybe, as they do make exhaust not nearly as noxious smelling, and that's "nice". Especially for people with garage under their main roof structure who may not want to smell that while the car warms up on a cold day.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Car companies are profit based. That does not make them your friend.
Without safety regulations, etc., if something happened they would get off scott free.
And laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[aquariuscsm]

All oil fill caps would say "20W-50" on them :^D

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by Vern_in_IL
I kid you not, we would still be using carburetors if Government didn't get involved.


Without the EPA, we might be driving turbine cars. They're the ones who forced Chrysler to shut down development , because every time Chrysler got the engine to meet the current NOx requirements, the EPA demanded more.


Right, because every other country in the world has a 100mpg carb or turbine car hidden in the basement because US gov is threatening them, and they have to go turbo diesel and hybrid instead.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted by Wolf359
Oil now is cheap. If the government wasn't involved, then it stays cheap and there's no CAFE so people can buy big gas guzzlers because gas is cheap. Not only that, but with fracking, the US is starting to become an oil exporter again.


Oil is cheap because we want them to be cheap in the US, with all the subsidizes like charging tax elsewhere to support the cheap oil here. The biggest subsidies is the military dominance and therefore our oil industry does not have to worry about attack on our route, our off shore field in the Golf of Mexico, blockade in the ocean (like how Iranian export ban is enforced), etc.

Oil industry is the government.

Russia has oil production, in fact almost the same as we do, but they still drive small engine car. Congo has more production per population, along with more than 15 others, their populations all drive smaller cars than we do.

Just because we produce oil doesn't mean it deserves to be cheap, even if it is high production per capita, it is the country's policy to encourage more oil use that makes it cheap. By your definition Congo would have the biggest car in the world because their government likely regulate nothing, yet people there drive small cars (because it still cost money to buy a big car and fuel it up).