Ford Jellymoulds Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 What will Arnie do when he wants a new Hummer? Is California trying to kill Detroits car makers. http://www.eagleaid.com/index.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFan Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Move.Faglifornia.to.Egorope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swenson88 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 This would hurt EVERY car maker. What are there like three vehicles that get 50mpg or better, and those mpg ratings are pre-2008? A 50mpg minimum would kill just about every vehicle out there except the Prius, Insight, and Civic Hybrid. No minivans for families, no midsize sedans, no luxury cars, no sport cars, nothing. It would essentially be the death of the automobile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I don't mean to be condescending here, but I do hope no one takes proposed legislation in the California statehouse too seriously. It's like taking Jack from Jack in the Box ads at face value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focalxplosion Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I don't mean to be condescending here, but I do hope no one takes proposed legislation in the California statehouse too seriously. It's like taking Jack from Jack in the Box ads at face value. True, but some of the people on here live and breath for kill Detroit conspiracy theories. Please don't take the wind out of their sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I don't mean to be condescending here, but I do hope no one takes proposed legislation in the California statehouse too seriously. It's like taking Jack from Jack in the Box ads at face value. True to a point. But I doubt anyone a decade ago thought they'd ban smoking everywhere. I doubt they saw emissions standards going so out of control either. It starts with intoducing legislation. It might not see the light of day the first time around, but it plants the seed in legislators' collective mind for future law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Not going to happen. Easier and better to raise the price of gas. Otherwise, people who want big barges that belch CO2 will buy used Suburbans and Expeditions, when the largest new vehicle you can get is Escape-sized. Used car dealers will love it. It'll be fun to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Not going to happen. Easier and better to raise the price of gas. Otherwise, people who want big barges that belch CO2 will buy used Suburbans and Expeditions, when the largest new vehicle you can get is Escape-sized. Used car dealers will love it. It'll be fun to watch. it may just be subliminal leverage......ask for 50mpg..scare the crap outa them and settle for 32...who knows....I would call it mileage Addendums...ahem! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 What I love is the people that say Detroit is sitting on high mpg technology, that they refuse to introduce it because they're in the pockets of Big Oil. It's hilarious, because Big Oil hasn't done jack squat for the Big Three. People that think the Detroit automakers are sitting on technology that they refuse to use are off their rockers. What benefit would it be to Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Nissan--anyone, in short--if it were possible to reliably build a 40mpg midsize sedan for an extra $200 per car (a number frequently tossed around), and these manufacturers didn't utilize this technology? Commonly, it's said that "Big Oil" would benefit, but where's the quid pro quo? The Big Three are losing money hand over fist. If the Big Three did favors for Big Oil, they're being pretty poorly recompensed. And if the idea is that bean counters are keeping this technology off cars, well, it's fair to ask that if this technology costs only $200, but a company can charge $600 for it, where's the bean counter's objection? People that allege that there are simple fixes to the fuel economy question should go back inside and put their tinfoil hats back on, because obviously the CIA's orbiting satellites have completely destroyed their common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 What I love is the people that say Detroit is sitting on high mpg technology, that they refuse to introduce it because they're in the pockets of Big Oil. It's hilarious, because Big Oil hasn't done jack squat for the Big Three. People that think the Detroit automakers are sitting on technology that they refuse to use are off their rockers. What benefit would it be to Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Nissan--anyone, in short--if it were possible to reliably build a 40mpg midsize sedan for an extra $200 per car (a number frequently tossed around), and these manufacturers didn't utilize this technology? Commonly, it's said that "Big Oil" would benefit, but where's the quid pro quo? The Big Three are losing money hand over fist. If the Big Three did favors for Big Oil, they're being pretty poorly recompensed. And if the idea is that bean counters are keeping this technology off cars, well, it's fair to ask that if this technology costs only $200, but a company can charge $600 for it, where's the bean counter's objection? People that allege that there are simple fixes to the fuel economy question should go back inside and put their tinfoil hats back on, because obviously the CIA's orbiting satellites have completely destroyed their common sense. political postering is the way I see it, convince the voters that they are "Ecologically empathetic " so the greenies get their votes and they offend NO_ONE. The other one that chaps my a$$ is how "spiritual" they are with prayers etc for unfortunate people/ events....what a crock...but sure does pad the voting #'s........there ARE no simple fixes as Richard states but they sure sidestep the issues with said actions/ statements.....fool me once...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 What's interesting is that every improvement in engine efficiency in the past 10-15 years has been biased towards improved performance but it's also true that the V6 has now replaced the V8 as the mainstream engine. As a result, overall fuel efficiency is increasing so the EPA may not have to tackle fuel consumption on Trucks and SUVs if the swing to CUVs continues. New generation RWDs are slated to use more efficient 6 cylilder engines and turbocharging. What I see California is proposing is a desire to push car makers to do more at a quicker rate. While the goals are probably unrealistic, I think we'll see a more real world timetable of changes coming from the Federal government. Nothing better than continuous incremental increases in fuel economy restrictions to keep auto makers focused on goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Toyota is #1 now, so they should now be 'piled on' to solve all the worlds problems supposedly caused by cars. GM/Ford should now say "Hey, most of the cars in CA are imports, don't look at us!" Also, tell the home builders in CA to stop building the sprawling subdivisions, too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolarBear Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 What's interesting is that every improvement in engine efficiency in the past 10-15 years has been biased towards improved performance but it's also true that the V6 has now replaced the V8 as the mainstream engine. As a result, overall fuel efficiency is increasing so the EPA may not have to tackle fuel consumption on Trucks and SUVs if the swing to CUVs continues. New generation RWDs are slated to use more efficient 6 cylilder engines and turbocharging. What I see California is proposing is a desire to push car makers to do more at a quicker rate. While the goals are probably unrealistic, I think we'll see a more real world timetable of changes coming from the Federal government. Nothing better than continuous incremental increases in fuel economy restrictions to keep auto makers focused on goals. And yet, the largest selling model on the planet, by any manufacturer, is...... a Ford F-Series pickup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadamaster Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 It amazes me how CA is allowed to legislate for the entire country. If CA wants to essentially ban new car sales, LET THEM. There's 49 more states. Hell, let it can become like Mexico where the newest cars are ten years old. :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 It amazes me how CA is allowed to legislate for the entire country. If CA wants to essentially ban new car sales, LET THEM. There's 49 more states. Hell, let it can become like Mexico where the newest cars are ten years old. :happy feet: Even Mexico has the C1 Focus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focalxplosion Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 It amazes me how CA is allowed to legislate for the entire country. If CA wants to essentially ban new car sales, LET THEM. There's 49 more states. Hell, let it can become like Mexico where the newest cars are ten years old. :happy feet: The problem with that theory is that CA is too large a market to walk away from. It will never happen and other states will follow CA's lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eel Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 it may just be subliminal leverage......ask for 50mpg..scare the crap outa them and settle for 32...who knows....I would call it mileage Addendums...ahem! Unfortunately, as fuel economy increases, the oil companies will simply raise the price of fuel. I think they have finally realized what a favor the government has done for them by restricting drilling and forbidding new refineries. For years, the oil companies actually wanted to increase supply, but at last, they now realize why bother. This self-imposed shortage of fuel works to their advantage. So, I do not look to ever see a "cheap" fuel again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 You guys have ALL missed the big point!!! The US Supreme Court has declared an inert gas a pollutant! Not only is this a LUDICRIS uneducated decision, but it now declares that everytime YOU EXHALE YOU are polluting!! It is assinine!!! It is going to be used to screw everybody!!! WAKE THE F*%& UP!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 I used to get 52 MPG highway with my wife's leased 96 Sentra for $99 per month and property taxes paid for 4 years. How did I do it? I know how to drive economically. And I get 80K to 100K plus miles on my brakes doing it! So who needs hybrids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 What would be worse: 1. US of A being totally dependent on foreign oil at $6 - $10.00/gal? Don't forget, that imported oil comes from very unstable countries. 2. The Big 3 sales reduced by 60% because we buy cars that get 50 MPG? You think that $3.50/gal of gas is high now.... wait until we pull out of Iraq. Watch how fast Saudi Arabia turns. I already boycott Citgo gas.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.