Deanh Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 WASHINGTON - New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming, sources said Monday. President Barack Obama was expected to adopt the higher mileage standards on Tuesday, administration sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the official announcement. The new requirement will mark the first time that limits on greenhouse gases will be linked to federal standards for cars and light trucks. A 30 percent increase in mileage for cars would raise the standard to 42 miles per gallon in 2016. The average for light trucks would be 26.2 miles per gallon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 counterpoint...these constantly changing regulations are becoming RIDICULOUS...actually pissing me off, I, pwersonally am in the market relitively soon....THIS sort of "comedy" has me seriously thinking about waiting until the stand up comedy sorts its act out..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) How is ANY automaker expected to plan a business model when this administration seems intent on changing the rules ever other day? Pick a standard and GO with it. Edited May 18, 2009 by NickF1011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 18, 2009 Author Share Posted May 18, 2009 How is ANY automaker expected to plan a business model when this administration seems intent on changing the rules ever other day? Pick a standard and GO with it. it is THIS sort of shortsightedness that makes me wonder if Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosely are involved somehow.....I don't think I will be the only one sitting back and waiting till they get their Ducks in a row before i make a move, hell at this rate Cash for Clunkers will apply to a 2 year old car!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eel Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 WASHINGTON - New cars and trucks will have to get 30 percent better mileage starting in 2016 under an Obama administration move to curb emissions tied to smog and global warming, sources said Monday. President Barack Obama was expected to adopt the higher mileage standards on Tuesday, administration sources said, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the official announcement. The new requirement will mark the first time that limits on greenhouse gases will be linked to federal standards for cars and light trucks. A 30 percent increase in mileage for cars would raise the standard to 42 miles per gallon in 2016. The average for light trucks would be 26.2 miles per gallon. Unfortunately this is what happens when government bureaucrats run a private (formerly private) industry. They are not taking into account anything other than obama's goal of making our economy "green". However, the greener the economy, the less "green" we will have in our wallets, saving accounts, etc. We will be paying much more for much less vehicle. If the government thinks auto sales are slow now, just wait until this crop of econoboxes hit the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Hey, we elected these fools. Now all of us (including those of us who never vote for donkeys or elephants) must live with the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonlu Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) Hey, we elected these fools. Now all of us (including those of us who never vote for donkeys or elephants) must live with the consequences. I'm seeing (elsewhere, not here) a lot of comments of: "I'll never drive a hybrid!" It's that kind of thinking that makes the standards seem unreasonable. Test drive the Fusion/Milan Hybrid before you say that you'll never drive a hybrid. I can imagine a fourth-generation hybrid EcoBoost V6 Mustang in 2016 that can be much more powerful than the current V8 Mustangs that we get -- as long as Ford has a will to do it -- for example. Imagine a Ford Division lineup in 2012 that includes: Fiesta EcoBoost I4 Focus EcoBoost I4 + Focus EV Fusion EcoBoost I4 + Fusion Hybrid Taurus EcoBoost V6 Escape EcoBoost I4 + Escape Hybrid + Escape Plug-In Hybrid Edge EcoBoost V6 Flex EcoBoost V6 Explorer EcoBoost V6 Transit Connect + Transit Connect EV (It should also be remembered that before the Fusion Hybrid came out, Ford publicly talked about the hybrid powertrain being designed to be adoptable to other models. They haven't talked about it recently, probably to avoid appearing to over-promise, but I think based on their prior statements the hybrid powertrain should be able to make it the Taurus and the Edge at least.) That should take the average significantly over 30 MPG already without sacrificing performance. Four more years to get to 35? I believe Ford can do it without sacrificing performance, utility, or vehicle range. I believe that any car company that is healthy and competent can do it without sacrificing much performance. And why do we need these standards? Frankly, what's good for the nation and the world is more important than what "auto enthusiasts" want -- and, based on some of the remarks I'm seeing on a number of blogs, these Obama Administration-bashers are inflexibly rejecting new fuel efficiency technologies without looking at them. I'm fairly convinced that none of them had test driven a Fusion hybrid, for example. If and when global warming causes major flooding in the U.S. coastal areas every year, what good would a "traditional" V8 Mustang be? This reminded me when the federal government started combating smoking by mandating warnings, banning ads, and making other efforts to reduce smoking among the youth. Critics clamored and argued that it's a violation of the individual right to choose. Perhaps. It's also necessary for the American people, and the United States is now the leader in reduction of smoking, which we absolutely needed to reduce the human and monetary costs associated with that activity, for example. There's not much that I agree with Phil Gramm about, but I actually saw a lot of truth in Gramm's quote (although he did not mean it the way that I'm going to use it): "We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline." This is America. If any nation can do 35 MPG by 2016, we can. And we must. Will it mean sacrifices? Sure. But if it means one fewer Katrina-type disaster per year for the world, it'd be well worth it. Giving up the current type of V8 engines shouldn't be considered too big of a sacrifice. Edited May 19, 2009 by nelsonlu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The problem is that it will be forced upon us! In CA I bought my F250 Diesel because I can not pull my 30' Travel Trailer with a sedan or even an F150. But you and others will say 'but you will still be able to get those. Its not like they will be made illegal.' To which I say you and others have either no idea of what is going on or your agenda includes lieing through your teeth! Those are the only two options. You see. In CA when I bought my truck, the wonderful govt there had reduced the cost of fees on new cars and trucks by 50%. Not sales tax mind you. But registration fees. That way Registration for my $38lk truck was only $900!!! Otherwise it would have been $1800. So tell me. Is $1800 a fair reg fee on Any vehicle? My truck put money in peoples wallets. The camper I bought put money in peoples wallets. 4 years later my truck was still $500 in reg fees in CA when I moved. In MN? $90. Also, CA, since I did not register my truck threatened to take it out of my bank account!!! Now registration is not apparently optional in CA. Well, not on the high reg fee ones. They made no issue about my 96 Tahoe $100 in CA, $30 in MN. In Ca is mandatory and assessed by fees and they will dip into your own bank accounts to get it. So now, with this new Obama scheme, trucks and camping in decent sized travel trailers will become only for the rich! Because if you think that there wont be huge fees on top of personal purchased 'gas guzzlers' you are either ignorant or part of the lie. They are mandating not only MPG. They will use it to mandate what we can buy and use. There will be huge fees and taxes on things not approved of by the Left/Greenies. When they put the luxury tax on large purchases ~20 years ago is slaughtered whole industries such as the yacht building industry by over 80%. The whole industry world wide went into bankruptcy. And they want to do the same now when 1/2 the world is currently already in Bankruptcy? Huge taxes on cigarettes. Now that we are used to that... Taxes on health care. More taxes on fuel. New huge taxes on cars. What else? I live in MN. Sales tax is ~7%. There are no taxes on Food (ex restaurants, candy and a few others), Clothing, Shelter. The state deems it inappropriate to tax things that people MUST have. Quite amazing for such a liberal state. But it is farm liberal, not Me Liberal. CA is almost 10%? Most liberals do not deem Anything as not taxable at some point in time. MN has not had huge budget deficits every year and is capable of taking care of itself quite well as are many other states. However, the more liberal and wanting to give everything to everyone and do everything about everything the worse off they are. California, the largest liberal selfish me state has not been able to take care of itself in a decade or more. And it is all at the feet of those who want to give more and tax more. CA is about what they want. It should be about what is needed and appropriate. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonlu Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) To which I say you and others have either no idea of what is going on or your agenda includes lieing through your teeth! Those are the only two options. You see. In CA when I bought my truck, the wonderful govt there had reduced the cost of fees on new cars and trucks by 50%. Not sales tax mind you. But registration fees. That way Registration for my $38lk truck was only $900!!! Otherwise it would have been $1800. So tell me. Is $1800 a fair reg fee on Any vehicle? My truck put money in peoples wallets. The camper I bought put money in peoples wallets. 4 years later my truck was still $500 in reg fees in CA when I moved. In MN? $90. Also, CA, since I did not register my truck threatened to take it out of my bank account!!! Now registration is not apparently optional in CA. Well, not on the high reg fee ones. They made no issue about my 96 Tahoe $100 in CA, $30 in MN. In Ca is mandatory and assessed by fees and they will dip into your own bank accounts to get it. Everybody has to pay registration fees -- including Prius/Insight owners. If you can't pay them, don't own a vehicle. In any case, this has nothing to do with fuel efficiency standards. (And it was Schwarzenegger's roll-back of registration fees that's partly responsible for the big mess that the California budget is in -- but that also has nothing to do with fuel efficiency standards.) And in any case, there is no such thing as an entitlement to have F-450s. (I'm sure that F-150s and F-250s will survive just fine.) If your work only really needs a F-150 or Ranger or Transit Connect, get one of those rather than a F-450; that's the responsible thing to do for your own pocketbook (even disregarding CAFE, registration fees, and gas prices), as well as the environment. (The Transit Connect will have an EV version available, and my guess is that Ford will bring the Ranger EV back at some point thereafter.) Don't get obsessed about size. It shows just as much insecurity as those Toyota Tundras do. Edited May 19, 2009 by nelsonlu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 The problem is that it will be forced upon us! In CA I bought my F250 Diesel because I can not pull my 30' Travel Trailer with a sedan or even an F150. But you and others will say 'but you will still be able to get those. Its not like they will be made illegal.' To which I say you and others have either no idea of what is going on or your agenda includes lieing through your teeth! Those are the only two options. You see. In CA when I bought my truck, the wonderful govt there had reduced the cost of fees on new cars and trucks by 50%. Not sales tax mind you. But registration fees. That way Registration for my $38lk truck was only $900!!! Otherwise it would have been $1800. So tell me. Is $1800 a fair reg fee on Any vehicle? My truck put money in peoples wallets. The camper I bought put money in peoples wallets. 4 years later my truck was still $500 in reg fees in CA when I moved. In MN? $90. Also, CA, since I did not register my truck threatened to take it out of my bank account!!! Now registration is not apparently optional in CA. Well, not on the high reg fee ones. They made no issue about my 96 Tahoe $100 in CA, $30 in MN. In Ca is mandatory and assessed by fees and they will dip into your own bank accounts to get it. So now, with this new Obama scheme, trucks and camping in decent sized travel trailers will become only for the rich! Because if you think that there wont be huge fees on top of personal purchased 'gas guzzlers' you are either ignorant or part of the lie. They are mandating not only MPG. They will use it to mandate what we can buy and use. There will be huge fees and taxes on things not approved of by the Left/Greenies. When they put the luxury tax on large purchases ~20 years ago is slaughtered whole industries such as the yacht building industry by over 80%. The whole industry world wide went into bankruptcy. And they want to do the same now when 1/2 the world is currently already in Bankruptcy? Huge taxes on cigarettes. Now that we are used to that... Taxes on health care. More taxes on fuel. New huge taxes on cars. What else? I live in MN. Sales tax is ~7%. There are no taxes on Food (ex restaurants, candy and a few others), Clothing, Shelter. The state deems it inappropriate to tax things that people MUST have. Quite amazing for such a liberal state. But it is farm liberal, not Me Liberal. CA is almost 10%? Most liberals do not deem Anything as not taxable at some point in time. MN has not had huge budget deficits every year and is capable of taking care of itself quite well as are many other states. However, the more liberal and wanting to give everything to everyone and do everything about everything the worse off they are. California, the largest liberal selfish me state has not been able to take care of itself in a decade or more. And it is all at the feet of those who want to give more and tax more. CA is about what they want. It should be about what is needed and appropriate. Peace and Blessings Come on mac...funny, and a simple question...why do a few seem to blame Ca....does California RUN the whole sountry, do THEY make the final decision? whos Obama, and there is no Administration with advisors...all there is is California....so KNEEL SUCKERS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Everybody has to pay registration fees -- including Prius/Insight owners. If you can't pay them, don't own a vehicle. In any case, this has nothing to do with fuel efficiency standards. (And it was Schwarzenegger's roll-back of registration fees that's partly responsible for the big mess that the California budget is in -- but that also has nothing to do with fuel efficiency standards.) And in any case, there is no such thing as an entitlement to have F-450s. (I'm sure that F-150s and F-250s will survive just fine.) If your work only really needs a F-150 or Ranger or Transit Connect, get one of those rather than a F-450; that's the responsible thing to do for your own pocketbook (even disregarding CAFE, registration fees, and gas prices), as well as the environment. (The Transit Connect will have an EV version available, and my guess is that Ford will bring the Ranger EV back at some point thereafter.) Don't get obsessed about size. It shows just as much insecurity as those Toyota Tundras do. So you like super high taxes and registration fees in Ca. Have at it. Sales tax approaching 10%. Nothing to do with it? But you still keep going? Actually it has Everything to do with it. Did you know know that Taxes and Fees go to pay for services? And no. It was not Schwarzenegger's fault. It was the Democrats fault. They gave us the Lottery with 90% going to schools. Then in just a few years Willie Brown said, hey, why not take .50 cents out of the school Budget for every $1 that the schools get from lottery. That worked so well that two or so years later he again had a great idea. Now we will take $1 out of the school budget and put it into the gen budget for every $1 that the lottery raises for schools. Yeaa!!! No net change + the lottery to tax the poor!!! Then, the democrats saw the .com boom. So they with the great business sense they have in CA decided to create Mandatory new programs with Mandatory increasing funding with ~70 of it based on the .com revenue. Yeaaaaa!!! Oh, crap. .com implosion. $90 billion upside down in 1 year. Yea. That was Arnold. Arnold rolled back a ridiculous Registration fee. One that the democrats implemented and one that taxed the heck out of who again? The poor that can not afford it. Hmmm. Did I say F-450? Or is that just you changing the conversation? Insecurity? What? Ohhhhh. No real valid argument so going in all different directions. Cool. Did you not read that I have a camper? Did you not know that a diesel F250 gets equal mpg as an F150? There is no entitlement to cable tv for prison inmates. Oh, wait, there is. There is no entitlement to a life of welfare. Oh, wait, there is. There is only entitlement or lack of it where you see fit to grant it or take it away. Now I see. Entitlement. What a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Come on mac...funny, and a simple question...why do a few seem to blame Ca....does California RUN the whole sountry, do THEY make the final decision? whos Obama, and there is no Administration with advisors...all there is is California....so KNEEL SUCKERS! I lived in CA for the last 20 years... Does Canada not have challenges with a few provinces paying for everything? Some there are getting tired of paying for the whole country. But it feels like it is going the opposite here in the states. We are implementing things CA wants and needs to the whole country because CA wants it. CA wants to run its govt into the ground and loose all its credit rating with cities filling for bankruptcy, etc. I don't see that happening to Texas, NY, or Arkansas. CA's economy is in ruins and has been for over a decade. CA is the largest home mortgage problem. It all started there. You think Detroit is in love with CA and their CARB regs? No. CA does not run the whole country. If it did we would have filed bankruptcy as a nation years ago with Willie Brown! Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonlu Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Nothing to do with it? But you still keep going? Actually it has Everything to do with it. Did you know know that Taxes and Fees go to pay for services? And no. It was not Schwarzenegger's fault. It was the Democrats fault. They gave us the Lottery with 90% going to schools. Then in just a few years Willie Brown said, hey, why not take .50 cents out of the school Budget for every $1 that the schools get from lottery. That worked so well that two or so years later he again had a great idea. Now we will take $1 out of the school budget and put it into the gen budget for every $1 that the lottery raises for schools. Yeaa!!! No net change + the lottery to tax the poor!!! I don't think I'm going to bother refuting your other points. They're not worth refuting. However, this one needs a factual correction: The California Lottery, from its inception to date, has never had a 90%-going-to-schools ratio. At the time that it was instituted, it was 50% was mandated (per the terms of the ballot proposition that instituted it) to go into earnings. The idea of 90% going to the schools is pure fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I don't think I'm going to bother refuting your other points. They're not worth refuting. However, this one needs a factual correction: The California Lottery, from its inception to date, has never had a 90%-going-to-schools ratio. At the time that it was instituted, it was 50% was mandated (per the terms of the ballot proposition that instituted it) to go into earnings. The idea of 90% going to the schools is pure fantasy. By all means. Only the ones you can refute. And in fact, you are correct. Only 34% of it was to go to schools. However, it was above and beyond what school funding there originally was. Then it was cut in half, then half again. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 And now they are taking money from the Lottery to fund the govt. Proposition 1C proposes changes to the California lottery system. It would allow the state to borrow $5 billion from the lottery to balance the 2009-2010 state budget and allow future legislation to use the lottery as a resource for future deficits. Prop 1C is expected to protect education funding. "[Prop 1C] will make the lottery a little more attractive to players," Salazar said. "It's a win-win for everybody." All on the backs of the poor people Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonlu Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) Those sissy hypermilers at Motor Trend apparently agree with the Obama 35.5 MPG by 2016 initiative: Motor Trend comment As they put it in invoking a bumper sticker: Freedom isn't free. Edited May 19, 2009 by nelsonlu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonlu Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 And now they are taking money from the Lottery to fund the govt. Proposition 1C proposes changes to the California lottery system. It would allow the state to borrow $5 billion from the lottery to balance the 2009-2010 state budget and allow future legislation to use the lottery as a resource for future deficits. Prop 1C is expected to protect education funding. "[Prop 1C] will make the lottery a little more attractive to players," Salazar said. "It's a win-win for everybody." All on the backs of the poor people Peace and Blessings First, Proposition 1C hasn't passed and is not expected to. (Certainly, I voted against it as highly ill-advised, and every single one of Schwarzenegger's "special" propositions is going down except for 1F [restriction of raises for elected officials] hard in opinion polls.) Second, even if it passes, no one is forcing anyone, rich or poor, to buy lottery tickets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Harbinger Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 The whole point of this is to unify the morass of conflicting standards into one unified standard that the automakers can count on for the next decade. That's why the auto companies got behind it: It'll be a technical challenge, but at least they'll have a sitting target to shoot for. I, for one, congratulate Obama for getting California, Detroit and Washington on board the same plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 The whole point of this is to unify the morass of conflicting standards into one unified standard that the automakers can count on for the next decade. That's why the auto companies got behind it: It'll be a technical challenge, but at least they'll have a sitting target to shoot for. I, for one, congratulate Obama for getting California, Detroit and Washington on board the same plan. You really believe that just because they say it? What auto companies and got behind it? Govt owned Chry? Govt very owned GM? Or the lone Ford left out there all alone? Yea, increasing and pulling in the standards was done through Obama's highly famed 'lets discuss it and go my way' plan. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 (And it was Schwarzenegger's roll-back of registration fees that's partly responsible for the big mess that the California budget is in -- but that also has nothing to do with fuel efficiency standards.) If only that were the real reason for the California budget mess... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 21, 2009 Author Share Posted May 21, 2009 If only that were the real reason for the California budget mess... +1...what a crock THAT statement is...bottom line when DMV fees were dramatically increased sales stopped. And guess what, for every 20000 transaction taxes were lost on the sale ( at the time 7.75% sales tax ) so their $80 additional DMV fees ended up losing them approx $155....on top of that the sales personell weren't selling and thus paying LESS income and state federal....STUPID math...and counter productive.........now, ramp that up to a $900 DMV fee on a 40000 service body, now rub salt in by doubling it ( coming 6/1 ) think $1800 DMV fees will piss buyers off?...you betcha....it will reduce the sale to absolute necessity....they are biting off their noses to spite their faces.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 It is really a shame. The young people who peruse these boards don't even understand how they have lost freedoms. They don't know that their country has one of the largest energy reserves in the world known as coal, but that due to political posturing, they aren't allowed to use it. Eventually, each of you will come to the conclusion you have been sold a faulty premise. By that time, the lone domestic auto company that could survive will also be a ward of the state, and you will be left to also do the governments bidding. The government needs you under its thumb so as their companies which they control, can build little cars made out of tiki-taki and sell them. You work for what might be the last company who can build something that America is willing to drive, and damn if some of you don't want to get in the government fold as a government worker, for government security. Guess I can't blame you for thinking that way though. If we build cars nobody wants to buy cause they are to small..........screw them, they will have to; cause the government will insure they have no choice if they want a new car. And we thought we fought wars to stop dictators; silly us. We actually fought wars to decide who the dictators were, we elected them, and now we all should be happy as pigs in sh##. Lunch is served fellas!!!!!! How many of you are hungry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonlu Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 (And it was Schwarzenegger's roll-back of registration fees that's partly responsible for the big mess that the California budget is in -- but that also has nothing to do with fuel efficiency standards.) If only that were the real reason for the California budget mess... I wrote "partly responsible." Certainly it's not the sole or the main cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsonlu Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 +1...what a crock THAT statement is...bottom line when DMV fees were dramatically increased sales stopped. Do you have any sales figures to support this assertion? But even if it's true, it's still irrelevant. Registration fees were paid on old cars and new, so even if new car sales dropped, the state still would have brought in much more revenues from the registration fees. (Note that the state only gets a portion of the new cars' sales taxes, not the entire thing.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I wrote "partly responsible." Certainly it's not the sole or the main cause. Even if true it would be .00001% of the budget problem. Regardless, you are incorrect. 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.