...for the last 25 years. What would our cars/trucks look like and be like?
Hypothetically Question: If the US govt had stayed out of the auto/oil biz
- Thread starter Speak2Mountain
- Start date
- Status
Probably close to same looks, but not MPG rating's or safety ratings.
Last edited:
Higher quality...
Originally Posted by Speak2Mountain
...for the last 25 years. What would our cars/trucks look like and be like?
IMO you'd have to go back to the late 1950's when smog was choking much of SoCal. It arguably all started with the Resources and Conservation Act (RCA) of 1959.
...for the last 25 years. What would our cars/trucks look like and be like?
IMO you'd have to go back to the late 1950's when smog was choking much of SoCal. It arguably all started with the Resources and Conservation Act (RCA) of 1959.
Then the USD will likely collapse, and we will have the same buying power like the rest of the world on auto and oil, and we will likely all drive small engine (even diesel) wagon like those in Europe and Japan. Our auto industry will likely be building better small cars instead of better big trucks / SUVs.
Carbon Monoxide.
Well, the crankcase fumes used to vent beneath the engine through a pipe. The gasoline was leaded. But we loved it!
Originally Posted by PimTac
In b4 the ðŸ”
Me too.
In b4 the ðŸ”
Me too.
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Then the USD will likely collapse, and we will have the same buying power like the rest of the world on auto and oil, and we will likely all drive small engine (even diesel) wagon like those in Europe and Japan. Our auto industry will likely be building better small cars instead of better big trucks / SUVs.
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.
Then the USD will likely collapse, and we will have the same buying power like the rest of the world on auto and oil, and we will likely all drive small engine (even diesel) wagon like those in Europe and Japan. Our auto industry will likely be building better small cars instead of better big trucks / SUVs.
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.
I'm curious if the various government regulations and programs actually provide long term benefits over the entire vehicle's lifecycle. Lower emissions is a good thing, but you see manufacturers designing vehicles lighter and sacrificing in other areas to meet these requirements. Vehicles are becoming less serviceable and as disposable goods rather than something to keep as long as possible. Parts made of plastic, start-stop systems, overly complicated systems that become expensive to repair, etc...
Manufacturing a brand new vehicle rather than reusing is hugely wasteful on it's own. Just look at what happened with the Cash 4 Clunkers program. Most cars can probably last 1 million+ kilometers if not rusted out, but their lives are cut short because it becomes uneconomical to fix them.
Manufacturing a brand new vehicle rather than reusing is hugely wasteful on it's own. Just look at what happened with the Cash 4 Clunkers program. Most cars can probably last 1 million+ kilometers if not rusted out, but their lives are cut short because it becomes uneconomical to fix them.
One simple answer: Bigger.
There is a reason American drivers have switched to Trucks and SUV's. Fitting a family and the yellow lab in the government mandated Chevy Cruze, Malibu or Fusion is a non starter.
There is a reason American drivers have switched to Trucks and SUV's. Fitting a family and the yellow lab in the government mandated Chevy Cruze, Malibu or Fusion is a non starter.
Last edited:
No electric cars, no hybrid cars, more weight, larger size, better safety, greater reliability, lower mpg. Cheaper gas without 25 fuel blends in CA, but higher pricing overall due to higher oil consumption. More production in the USA with relaxed CAFE.
Also, only Ford would be a viable automaker. GM gone. Chrysler gone.
Also, only Ford would be a viable automaker. GM gone. Chrysler gone.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by NO2
Also, only Ford would be a viable (US) automaker. GM gone. Chrysler gone.
Absolutely correct.
Also, only Ford would be a viable (US) automaker. GM gone. Chrysler gone.
Absolutely correct.
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.
And C4C is more to do with creating new demand to bail out auto industry, rather than to reduce fuel consumption. If it is another political party in office it would have easily been using other measures instead of fuel consumption as the passing criteria. It would still happen due to the auto industry collapsing.
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.
And C4C is more to do with creating new demand to bail out auto industry, rather than to reduce fuel consumption. If it is another political party in office it would have easily been using other measures instead of fuel consumption as the passing criteria. It would still happen due to the auto industry collapsing.
Last edited:
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..
The latest iteration of CAFE gives "footprint" allowances so a car that covers more pavement has a looser, and easier to meet, CAFE target. This is why the new Ford Ranger is huge, and why even cars like Corollas got bigger. The target MPG for a tiny truck is astronomical.
On a tangent, if the government stayed out of seat belt & car seat laws, kids would be riding shotgun at a young age and we wouldn't "need" huge, high roofs in the rear seat so parents can reach over the their kids and buckle them in seats. Part of the growth of vehicles is having one seat essentially banned from child carrying when it's a single parent in the car ferrying kids around.
I think we'd still have fuel injection and feedback fuel controls. I shudder to imagine how bad it would otherwise be, though. But since Europe and Asia would theoretically have some smog controls, we'd inherit their technology.
The arbitrary cutoff of 1994, 25 years ago, gave us some pretty nice and low polluting cars. I don't think, for PR reasons, the manufacturers would go back on that all that much.
We would still have had a couple of gas crunches, but the timing might have been a little different (earlier). I bet we'd still have the Prius and Tesla.
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..
The latest iteration of CAFE gives "footprint" allowances so a car that covers more pavement has a looser, and easier to meet, CAFE target. This is why the new Ford Ranger is huge, and why even cars like Corollas got bigger. The target MPG for a tiny truck is astronomical.
On a tangent, if the government stayed out of seat belt & car seat laws, kids would be riding shotgun at a young age and we wouldn't "need" huge, high roofs in the rear seat so parents can reach over the their kids and buckle them in seats. Part of the growth of vehicles is having one seat essentially banned from child carrying when it's a single parent in the car ferrying kids around.
I think we'd still have fuel injection and feedback fuel controls. I shudder to imagine how bad it would otherwise be, though. But since Europe and Asia would theoretically have some smog controls, we'd inherit their technology.
The arbitrary cutoff of 1994, 25 years ago, gave us some pretty nice and low polluting cars. I don't think, for PR reasons, the manufacturers would go back on that all that much.
We would still have had a couple of gas crunches, but the timing might have been a little different (earlier). I bet we'd still have the Prius and Tesla.
I kid you not, we would still be using carburetors if Government didn't get involved.
Last edited:
Competition and computer tech would driven advances in autos,, however, heavy handed big brother has held back innovation causing diesels to be all but priced out of the market.
- Status
