The Trouble With..
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: 3rd gen noob
In the wake of a massive but failed campaign by the auto industry and an army of highly paid lobbyists, California governor Gray Davis recently signed a bill into law which would limit carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles sold in America's most populous state. Proponents and foes agree that the legislation amounted to a clever back-door attempt to impost stricter fuel economy standards for cars, a move which was defeated in the US Congress (sole regulator of fuel economy) only months earlier, following another cash-insentive - and equally dishonest - lobbying effort by the industry.
Testifying before Congress, industry spokesmen had sworn under oath that even a 1mpg increase in their coroprate average fuel economy could not be achieved, even over 10 years, without jeopardising citizens' safety. The position was patently absurd, as Honda alone among car makers pointed out.
Undaunted, the lobbyists and congressmen loyal to them (the best elected representatives money can buy, we like to say) charged that if the enviros had their way, Americans would be pried from their SUVs and forced to drive golf carts. One Washington DC area ad paid for by the industry's primary lobbying entity, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, went so far as to assert that tighter fuel economy regulations would spell the death of our beloved pick-up trucks. 'Farming is tough enough with healthy-size pick-ups', a fellow who looks like a farmer is pictured saying. 'Imagine hauling feed barrels in a subcompact.'
The hysteria, the hyperbole, the utter bullsh*t. It all sounded painfully familiar, reminding us why the industry is so often its own worst enemy. By lying in Washington, it bought itself California. Once again.
To be a young car enthusiast in the 1970s was to spend most of your time deeply depressed. If you believed what you read, it was hard to escape a hideous conclusion: that federal emissions and safety regulations, passed in the wake of similar Californian initiatives, were there to forever sap our cars of their zest for living. Performance was dead, officially so, and in its place a new generation of overweight bumper cars was on its way - clown machines with airbags and strangulated powerplants fit only for the old, the infirm and the tragically dim. And that was if we were lucky.
In 1966, Henry Ford II, speaking out against federal safety standards for cars, warned, 'If we can't meet them when they are published, we'll have to close down.' In 1972, a General Motors executive, testifying against proposed emissions controls, said, 'It is conceivable that complete stoppage of the entire production could occur, with the obvious tremendous loss to company shareholders, employees, suppliers and communities.'
True, the Clean Air Act extension of 1970 caught many car makers on their uppers. The bill authorised the newly reformed Environmental Protection Agency (one of Richard Nixon's less frequently credited legacies) to promulgate air pollution standards. Performance suffered briefly, if not - as Honda showed with its brilliant CVCC engine of 1973 - necessarily.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the future. The dire prophesies failed to materialise. Automobiles got safer. They got cleaner. And they got faster. Faster than the good old days of the muscle car '60s, when cars were cars and men were men, and you could smell them both coming. Faster, in fact, than they've ever been. Quite the opposite of what the industry warned us against. Which is why it is so hard to believe it now as it gears up to fight the new California law in court.
Today, thanks to the power of the microchip, sophisticated fuel injection and emissions systems enable new cars to pollute less but go faster. Indeed, the EPA says the average car's horsepower rating has risen 79 percent since 1981, while performance is up 26 percent. Would that any of us could say the same about our own performance during that period.
The trend to accelerating-enhancing horsepower has shown no signs of deceleration, either - hardly a surprise given the depressing news that the average weight of cars has escalated steadily, too, up 21 percent since 1981, the average car in America gets worse mileage than it did 20 years ago. If the gains from technological advances had been targeted towards fuel economy instead of performance and weight, the EPA says today's vehicles would be about 25 percent more fuel efficient than their 1981 counterparts.
So here's a radical proposition. Is it possible that, say, those three-tonne Cadillac Escalades could make do with just a few less of their standard compliment of 345bhp? Wouldn't that elusive 1mpg increase in fuel economy (and a concomitant reduction in CO2 emissions) suddenly be, gasp, attainable?
Or would that force the auto industry to shut down instead? We ought to be told.
-Jamie Kitman, CAR
discuss
:rolleyes:
Posted by: clocker
It should come as no surprise that the automakers are resisting legislation.
Through a massive and concerted advertising campaign they have managed to convince Americans that bigger is better, everyone needs four wheel drive, and, most astounding of all, that pickup trucks are actually practical urban vehicles.
They would prefer not to mention that these vehicles are their biggest profit makers.
Last March Denver got blasted with one of the "storms of the century". Massive snowdrifts closed the city ( and my neighborhood) down. Nothing was moving-not HumVees, not Navigators, not Explorers. Three days later, after the city snowplows had come by, the first car to leave the area was mine..a thirty year old Japanese sportscar.
Of course my neighbors are all still firmly convinced that they need their monster SUVs.
The best evidence yet that Americans really are stupid.
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
Originally posted by clocker@22 September 2003 - 00:37
Of course my neighbors are all still firmly convinced that they need their monster SUVs.
The best evidence yet that Americans really are stupid.
couldn't agree more
i'm firmly against SUVs for the damage they cause in accidents aswell...
p.s. great story about your city... :lol:
Posted by: bigboab
Surely the answer would be for someone to successfully sue the car manufacturers for inflicting bodily harm by car emission.
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by clocker@22 September 2003 - 01:37
It should come as no surprise that the automakers are resisting legislation.
Through a massive and concerted advertising campaign they have managed to convince Americans that bigger is better, everyone needs four wheel drive, and, most astounding of all, that pickup trucks are actually practical urban vehicles.
They would prefer not to mention that these vehicles are their biggest profit makers.
Last March Denver got blasted with one of the "storms of the century". Massive snowdrifts closed the city ( and my neighborhood) down. Nothing was moving-not HumVees, not Navigators, not Explorers. Three days later, after the city snowplows had come by, the first car to leave the area was mine..a thirty year old Japanese sportscar.
Of course my neighbors are all still firmly convinced that they need their monster SUVs.
The best evidence yet that Americans really are stupid.
Clocker,
You are a total shit. America and Americans are #1 in everything, we are not really stupid, were are the stupidest!!!
Posted by: bigboab
Hobbes you really made a hash of that number one. :P
Posted by: mogadishu
suvs are a total waste of fuel, lives, etc. if some of us americans would try to stop making up for our wee wangs and stop thinking that buying a huge suv will make up for it.. then i think a lot more kids wouldnt die from asthma,
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
Originally posted by mogadishu@23 September 2003 - 04:54
suvs are a total waste of fuel, lives, etc. if some of us americans would try to stop making up for our wee wangs and stop thinking that buying a huge suv will make up for it.. then i think a lot more kids wouldnt die from asthma,
...or decapitation...
good point
Posted by: Biggles
What does the average US car do in terms of mpg?
My car does on average about 42mpg. It can take me well past the offical speed limit of 70mph and has all the usual crumple zones and air bags. I am not really sure I understand the link between mpg and safety. Is the argument that, in order to increase mpg, the US car manufacturers need to dispense with some weight like the passenger cabin so the occupants would have to sit on a plastic bench tied with string to the chasis?
With the biggest car market in the world the European and Japanese manufacturers have not been slow to give the US consumer what they want. I read recently that over 50% of all sales now go to imports. To use an American expression, shouldn't the US manufacturers wake up and smell the coffee? Rather than try to preserve the right to continue to make cars with poor mpg through political lobbying, wouldn't it be better to make cars that people wanted?
I am not familar with large American cars as they only seem to be sold in the US but from what I have seen on TV they lack the grace of a Lexus, BMW, Jaguar or a Mercedes. These cars are not small eco - prams but extremely fast luxurious status symbols - yet they all are capable of returning a decent mpg. I appreciate that these cars are a bit expensive but there are a whole range of Toyotas, Nissans, Volkswagons etc., that do an excellent mpg and are fun to drive. I find it hard to believe that there are not similar products from US manufacturers.
What exactly is the point in having a car with 350bhp when you have such strict speed restrictions anyway? Or is that one of those "if you have to ask you will never understand questions"? :rolleyes:
Posted by: MagicNakor
Originally posted by Biggles@23 September 2003 - 22:22
...These cars are not small eco - prams but extremely fast luxurious status symbols...
You answered it yourself. ;)
:ninja:
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by Biggles@23 September 2003 - 14:22
I am not familar with large American cars as they only seem to be sold in the US but from what I have seen on TV they lack the grace of a Lexus, BMW, Jaguar or a Mercedes. These cars are not small eco - prams but extremely fast luxurious status symbols - yet they all are capable of returning a decent mpg.
Biggles,
1) We aren't really talking about cars here, no one in their right mind buys large American cars anymore. We are referring to SUVs and Trucks which, by legal fiat, do not have to meet the same emissions, fuel mileage and safety standards as cars. Hence their popularity amongst manufacturers, huge profits and very little technological investment.
2) In my area, high end foreign brands such as you name, are the norm rather than the exception. That is, for people who drive cars. Your mileage estimates are a bit off however. Perhaps because of our laws, the big Mercedes and Jags pay a penalty because of substandard fuel mileage.
Of course, if you can afford the car the extra bit of tax is no big worry.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
I agree with Clocko here, there is no such thing as an economical Jag, only more economical then the one before. Does the world really need these big luxury cars? Seems to me that if 99.99% of the world can do without them, they can't be much of a necessity.
:)
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@24 September 2003 - 23:18
I agree with Clocko here, there is no such thing as an economical Jag, only more economical then the one before.
Gotta disagree a bit here, Billy ( no real surprise,eh?).
The early XKs, 120-150 and the E-Type are not that bad economy-wise. Mainly because they hardly ever run.
In America cars aren't about need anyway.
They are all about want...
Otherwise we'd all be driving Civics and Tercels.
Posted by: Biggles
Sorry - got the wrong end of the stick. Likewise, apologies if I sounded pro Jag etc., I drive a Nissan and am very fond of it - especially its frugality.
I can't understand the fascination for SUVs either. They are inefficient, impossible to fit in a supermarket car slot and corner like a drunken pig. There seems to be a minor trend towards them here too although most are diesel and sound like school buses - which seems to be their primary function in life anyway.
Over here petrol costs about $4.50 a gallon. Farmers get red diesel - that is, diesel with a red dye through it to show it is tax free. Given the price of fuel here there is a real emphasis on getting maximum mpg from an engine - surprisingly this does not seem to affect performance in the slightest - cars have never been faster or more reliable - (not counting the Fiat I used to have which was fast, but only if it started :angry: ).
Posted by: lynx
How much does that Spitfire use?
Posted by: Biggles
It is hard to get fuel for that these days - it runs on Jingo. Fortunately, Tony has started a new line in it so I should be airborne again soon. :D
Posted by: Rat Faced
the E-Type
http://www.shiga-med.ac.jp/people/sugimoto%27s/CarImages/Jaguar.E-type.S1.1.gif
:wub:
Posted by: Biggles
Oh yes indeedy
http://www.jaguar-e-type.net/BROCHURE_1961-38-06-L.jpg
A boy's toy if ever there was one
Posted by: Rat Faced
Or the F Type...
http://www.21stcentury.co.uk/images/cars/jaguar_f-type.jpg
Wonder if i'll ever win the lottery :'(
Posted by: Biggles
:rolleyes:
Well if it is a wish list
http://www.mcarsweb.com/tvr/tuscans.jpg
Posted by: clocker
Bravo Rat & Biggles!
The Series 1 XK-E is still the most beautiful and sexiest mass produced car ever,IMHO. It really didn't matter if the damn thing crapped out all the time ( at least mine did...), cause you still looked good just sitting on the side of the road.
A very close second ( and a definate first in performance terms, probably give that TVR a pretty good run...)...
http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/large/10072000/10072580.jpg
I'll bet that even Ralph Nader wants one of these.
Posted by: aserty
Ralph Nader didn't even own a car most of his life. So I doubt he would.
But well we're at it, I want this, almost nothing can take this:
http://www.cknet.org.uk/images/others_917s/91730_003_front.jpg
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by aserty@25 September 2003 - 22:29
But well we're at it, I want this, almost nothing can take this:
Can you get it in different colors?
A CD player?
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
well, it's a good job my ultra-serious topic never got hijacked
oh, wait a minute...:P
ah, who cares?
http://files.conceptcarz.com/img/mclaren/mclaren_f1_lm_0_03.jpg
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
Originally posted by aserty@26 September 2003 - 05:29
But well we're at it, I want this, almost nothing can take this
what about a Dauer 962LM
better looking (arguably) and road legal...
Posted by: Billy_Dean
A little old 300km per hour Bentley GT Coupe will do me thanks.
http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album/cars/2003-gt-coupe.jpg
:)
Posted by: Rat Faced
OK...
Now the decision:
To the lounge and post those beautiful cars for the next week...or get back on topic....
I leave the decision to you gentlemen, with the next few posts....
;)
My appologise noob....my fault
Posted by: Biggles
:unsure:
Err ok.
So laying aside dreams of owning environmetally unsound testosterone supplements (such sweet sweet dreams they are too), exactly what are the anticipated practical oil reserves?
How long before we are all driving hyrdogen cars and we leave things like SUVs behind us, regarding them as much a design abberation as a 70s suit?
That ok Rat Face?
Posted by: Rat Faced
I saw a documentary recently, in which the most optimistic view was about 15-20 years (shell oil) ........ on the assumption that increase of demand continues to rise at same level, and discovery of new fields continues to drop at the same level.
ilw saw something that said nearer 50 years i believe....
Posted by: Biggles
15 to 20 years? Not much point in buying a new Volvo then - they can last well past that.
What will a Tuscan do on hydrogen? I suspect once the oil runs out we will find out that the alternatives are actually even more efficient - if less profitable for the big energy companies. Or do I just have a suspicious mind?
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by Biggles@26 September 2003 - 16:10
15 to 20 years? Not much point in buying a new Volvo then - they can last well past that.
What will a Tuscan do on hydrogen? I suspect once the oil runs out we will find out that the alternatives are actually even more efficient - if less profitable for the big energy companies. Or do I just have a suspicious mind?
I think it's very likely that more efficient means of powering a vehicle can and will be developed.
I think it's just as likely that the big energy companies will continue to thrive (or gouge, if you wish). The consumer will certainly bear the main brunt of the cost of converting to whatever fuel (hydrogen? peanut oil? tofu?) is next in line.
For a change, I also predict that this time around it'll be Americans who take it up the ole yinyang. The new European Union, your higher population density and shorter distances, coupled with Europe's superior public/mass transportation, should keep costs somewhat more in check. Here in the States no one is going to give up their car or the right to travel 30 miles each way to work alone...
Posted by: Billy_Dean
It has also been estimated by some, that during the next 10-15 years, India and China could acquire more cars between them than the whole US. If you factor that in, 20 years seems optimistic.
:)
Posted by: protak
I drive a Dodge Ram 1500, 4x4, v8 magnum... How would a Toyota do what I need for my company? Should we implement a tax on company's that use larger, less fuel efficient vehicles for business purposes? I can't answer that question, you would have to ask my customer's, unfortunately they would swallow the cost in the long run...Rikk that question's your's, Umm 99.99%???? :D
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
what is your business, protak?
Posted by: Rappy
well u know we arent gonna have a bill pass for strict emissions standards with a republican congress fucking oil whores
Posted by: Billy_Dean
PROTAK.
Rikk that question's your's, Umm 99.99%????
Well Tim, I've found that if you don't use lots of 9's in your figures, no-one takes them seriously. ;)
:)
Posted by: protak
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@27 September 2003 - 08:20
PROTAK.
Rikk that question's your's, Umm 99.99%????
Well Tim, I've found that if you don't use lots of 9's in your figures, no-one takes them seriously. ;)
:)
LMFAO that a boy someone honest for a change.... :) :lol:
Posted by: Biggles
Protak
I read somewhere that Toyota make the most reliable pickups in the world and that they have almost completely cornered the world market in the things.
Why would you need a Dodge thingy etc., for your work - unless you are a car salesman for Dodge thingys of course. I could see driving a Toyota in that circumstance might be a bit difficult to explain to customers. :rolleyes:
As an accountant I can assure you that 99.99% is completely unbelieveable (re: Saddam's election results). If you are going to fudge figures always go for something obscure but accurate like 82.3%. It gives senior managers a warm feeling and they can talk about improving efficiency and getting it up (or down) by 5% in the next year. Not that I would do that. :)
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
the toyota landcruiser is a better overall vehicle than the land rover...however, they're both completely unnecessary, unless you're a farmer or live in the coutryside/desert/mountains etc...
why do people need SUV's, jeeps when they live in urban areas?
Posted by: Biggles
3GN
Agree completely. Farmers around here usually drive the no frills land rover and keep them for years as they last forever.
The SUVs with all the accoutrements and bells and whistles are just silly. No one in their right mind would try to use them for their practical application with alloys etc., If a business needs real load capacity they use the ubiquitous white van.
Frankly if a plumber turned up with a massive pickup with huge alloys and chrome gubbings etc., I would be worried I was just about to be hit by a real cowboy. Perhaps a little unfair I know, but first appearances are important.