jpd80 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 That's exactly why you can't compare a Corvette's gas mileage to a Flex. Or a hybrid SUV to a specific Mini..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 It's the way we look at the problem, sure our current vehicles will find it difficult to meet the new standards but the same was true in 1975 when manufacturers had 6 an 7 liter V8 as standard in vehicles and a fleet average of 13 mpg. I'm sure those folks though 27.5 mpg average was impossible except with econo boxes. We see the same arguments today, the rules are too hard. manufacturers are forced to think outside the box, new materials, more efficient power trains. A Mustang GT didn't cost over $30,000 then either.... I know, I know...inflation. But the costs of vehicle ownership are still higher than they used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Bicycle's!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S-52tduwy4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) A Mustang GT didn't cost over $30,000 then either.... I know, I know...inflation. But the costs of vehicle ownership are still higher than they used to be. But hang on, your base V6 is near $20,000, add an EB V6 and GT extras - that still under $30,000. Edit, It's also lighter and has better fuel economy than the V8 GT. Edited May 22, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 But hang on, your base V6 is near $20,000, add an EB V6 and GT extras - that still under $30,000. I am dying to see the SVO reborn..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) I am dying to see the SVO reborn..... Oh yeah, and Ford haven't even begun to explore lighter materials yet. These new laws make motor companies bring to market technology advances they would normally eek out to buyers over much longer periods. Nothing like targets for inspiring engineers. Edit, Weight reduction is the best way to meet tighter fuel regs, I'm looking forward to the possibility of magnesium chassis and aluminium bodies on our Fords - cutting 400 to 750 lbs from small to big.... Edited May 22, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Oh yeah, and Ford haven't even begun to explore lighter materials yet.These new laws make motor companies bring to market technology advances they would normally eek out to buyers over much longer periods. Nothing like targets for inspiring engineers. Edit, Weight reduction is the best way to meet tighter fuel regs, I'm looking forward to the possibility of magnesium chassis and aluminium bodies on our Fords - cutting 400 to 750 lbs from small to big.... easy there JPD....magnesium? 80k 6 cylinder Mustang....lightening a car may even be more prohibitively expensive than more efficient drivetrains.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) easy there JPD....magnesium? 80k 6 cylinder Mustang....lightening a car may even be more prohibitively expensive than more efficient drivetrains.... That's why Ford started out with power trains but ultimately weight is the enemy. I do know that FoA had a plan for a future Falcon that used magnesium chassis and Aluminium body but the plan soured when a magnesium project near me went bust due to lack of a major investor, Ford and Fiat agreed to buy the first 5 years of production..... edit, When manufacturers finally decide to step off steel and go to Aluminium, the volume will bring the price down - at the moment it's about $3,000/car. Would your customers pay $2,000 extra for a Focus with remarkable economy? Only people like you in sales could gauge whether that is achievable or whether the whole thing is purely driven by meeting regulations. I hope manufacturers see real opportunity in this. Edited May 22, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 easy there JPD....magnesium? It'll look pretty cool looking when it's set on fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) It'll look pretty cool looking when it's set on fire. I as referring to the chassis not the body, you have to get it really hot to burn like that, In the Falklands War there was a ship deck made of Ally that went up but that was a missle strike. I've had enough goes on this thread, time to step back, thanks for listening. Edited May 22, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 It'll look pretty cool looking when it's set on fire. new meaning to daytime lights.....would blind people for miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 It'll look pretty cool looking when it's set on fire. I've submitted a proposal to the company, and I think it will take hold. Now before any of you think you will make money on it, I've trademarked and copyrighted it also. So I feel safe to let you's all know it here first. HELIUM in the tyres! I predict if you add enough, you will lift the entire vehicle off the ground and you might approach a 100% improvement in MPG, across the board. Anyways I've got my fingers crossed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) The thing is, CARB sits on some pretty solid constitutional grounds: The tenth amendment grants states what are called the 'police powers', or the authority to legislate for public welfare (e.g. reducing pollution). Any attempt to strip CARB of its authority would be open to a challenge on constitutional grounds. The EPA has to balance the states' police powers with the commerce clause. See, per Art. 1, Sect. 8, EPA is allowed to exist because Congress can regulate commerce, and the EPA regulates commerce. Per the 10th Amendment, CARB has a right to exist. --- It's a balancing act. Exactly. States rights. I'll tell you something about the CARB- while there are people within that organization that believe they can simply legislate whatever emission regulation they can dream up and it will be so, current technology be damned, there actually are some very talented and knowledgeable engineers there as well. Now that's a balancing act! Edited May 22, 2009 by 7Mary3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Exactly. States rights. Of course, traditionally, a state's right to legislate ended at its borders. Several state laws upheld by the Supreme Court although they regulate interstate commerce had some definable gain that offset the restrictions on interstate commerce. With CARB & CO2, however, we may be seeing the high water mark; it is doubtful that they could've sustained a legal challenge against the EPA's waiver based solely on the assertion that "the EPA ALWAYS gave us waivers." I strongly doubt that any future proposal by CARB will be this far reaching. I think the 4 year process that this has turned into, coupled with the likelihood that CARB, ultimately, loses control over these regulations will be considered lessons learned. Essentially, CARB spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars and four years only to claim a pretty hollow victory. ---- As to Cali-bashing, well California residents, get a thicker skin. A lot of people don't like the power-play that your government just got away with, and you can expect to hear about it on an ongoing basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Of course, traditionally, a state's right to legislate ended at its borders. Several state laws upheld by the Supreme Court although they regulate interstate commerce had some definable gain that offset the restrictions on interstate commerce. With CARB & CO2, however, we may be seeing the high water mark; it is doubtful that they could've sustained a legal challenge against the EPA's waiver based solely on the assertion that "the EPA ALWAYS gave us waivers." I strongly doubt that any future proposal by CARB will be this far reaching. I think the 4 year process that this has turned into, coupled with the likelihood that CARB, ultimately, loses control over these regulations will be considered lessons learned. Essentially, CARB spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars and four years only to claim a pretty hollow victory. ---- As to Cali-bashing, well California residents, get a thicker skin. A lot of people don't like the power-play that your government just got away with, and you can expect to hear about it on an ongoing basis. thicker skin maybe, perhaps more common sense...people bitching here all of a sudden think something has been taken from them....exactly what????? you can only GAIN..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I don't see California putting a gun to anyone's head... Really? Neither did I. Did you think gun point was the only way to get what you want? Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 thicker skin maybe, perhaps more common sense...people bitching here all of a sudden think something has been taken from them....exactly what????? you can only GAIN..... Snort. These increases aren't free, and if you've read up on the history of the United States, you'll find the term 'taxation without representation.' People like to at least have the illusion that they have a say in what's being done to them. That certainly wasn't the case here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) So where does this leave car makers like Ford who previously rolled out a technology plan that described 2008-2012, 2012-2016 and 2016-2020 milestones for meeting the previous CAFE plans? Does this mean we'll see a ramp up in delivery of all strategies including weight reduction? Edited May 22, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 The thing is, CARB sits on some pretty solid constitutional grounds: The tenth amendment grants states what are called the 'police powers', or the authority to legislate for public welfare (e.g. reducing pollution). Any attempt to strip CARB of its authority would be open to a challenge on constitutional grounds. The EPA has to balance the states' police powers with the commerce clause. See, per Art. 1, Sect. 8, EPA is allowed to exist because Congress can regulate commerce, and the EPA regulates commerce. Per the 10th Amendment, CARB has a right to exist. --- It's a balancing act. And with all these state governors challenging the Fed these days that ISCC may soon be found to be much weaker than what congress wanted and how the courts previously applied it. Hardly ever, if ever, has anyone won fighting the ISCC. But maybe this will change... Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Snort. These increases aren't free, and if you've read up on the history of the United States, you'll find the term 'taxation without representation.' People like to at least have the illusion that they have a say in what's being done to them. That certainly wasn't the case here. oh I agree completely...not cool having someone THRUST something down your throat...so much for democracy...however, excuse the pun....if this stops us being "Held over a barrel' in even the slightest way and reduces the leverage oil bearing countries seem to have over us then I'm all for it, and reducing emissions ( irrespective on the beleif if global worming is real or not ) doesn't do any harm at all does it....I'm more pissed at the raising our BROKE ( ???????????????????????????infinity ) states tax rate from 7.75 to 8.75....no-one had any say in THAT either!!!! Hell its even higher in L.A county....but Arnies the man...I remember his campaign of "No new Taxes.....".....ahem..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Snort. These increases aren't free, and if you've read up on the history of the United States, you'll find the term 'taxation without representation.' People like to at least have the illusion that they have a say in what's being done to them. That certainly wasn't the case here. all about smoke, mirrors, you scratch my back etc etc....politics is pretty much the same world wide.....its just a case of how high up the BS ladder certain countries climb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, I believe, provides the most current definition of the extent of the commerce clause, and I doubt that the definition of it will be restricted any time in the future. It is said that the operation of the motel here is of a purely local character. But ... the power of Congress to promote interstate commerce also includes the power to regulate the local incidents thereof, including local activities in both the states of origin and destination... Additional tenth amendment exceptions may be carved out, but that definition which essentially elaborates on a definition that dates back to the Marshall era (Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824) seems unlikely to be restricted going forward. Edited May 22, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Richard, I read an article the other day that stated that the Clean Air Act of 1970 specifically gave California the right to regulate auto emissions within California. I can't remember if any other details were offered, but this might explain why they have to get approval from the feds before they can implement regs that are more strict than the federal regs - they are required to get permission via the CAA of 1970. Also, IIRC, over the years their requests were approved every single time until the most recent refusal during the Bush administration, which of course has now been resolved with this week's announcement. Personally, I'd like to see the government place a "special" gas tax on California related to its more stringent regs, if they choose to enact them after 2016. Raise the price of gas to, say $8.00/gallon, and I don't think any of the manufacturers will have a problem selling the type of product mix the politicians seem to want. Of course, the politicians will never grow a set large enough to actually confront their constituency with the reality of things - that's why California is in such a mess today. Nice idea. Make the cost of the huge CARB demands paid for my Californians! Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ford4v429 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 I dont doubt semi trucks are pretty efficient- but I think all commercial vehicles over 10K GVW being emissions exempt is simply stupid. "Work Trucks" are burning far, far more than our cars, and as downtime costs money, they'll often run them till they wont go before fixing them...over the years twice Ive seen cement mixers come in to deliver concrete that when revved much above idle the friggin rubber tube to the air filter collapsed due to the filter being so plugged up...diesels dont run too well in a vacuum- guess if it gets bad enough, the driver will get slowed down enough theyll take it in for service- but not till then. Ever seen a gas engined five ton dump hauling a muddy backhoe go smokin down the road? I bet you all have... truth be told if semis had supersingle wheels(current technology) drivers would HAVE to watch tire pressure or get stuck...adding TPMS to the biggest tire blowers on earth would help too...either/both would help keep the highways cleaner, reduce the tire wear(carbon to produce), improve mileage, and keep tire carcasses from blowing tru minivan windshields. As far as weight reduction, thats my biggest beef with the new mandate: the only way to get carbon down is to decrease fuel consumption, weight is the enemy...all we need is to be pushed into a Pinto of a different name. unless they ban existing trucks and cars, who walks away in a head on collision- the family in the Expedition or the family in the "Pinto II"? or the family in the 2005 taurus or the "Pinto II"? and as how the new cars will cost more, and more plants are yet to be closed that produce 'big' cars, they may end up selling like 15 cars a year instead of a million...who does it help if nobodys working on them in this country? my prediction is the remaining working class that decides they need a new car will buy the cheapest crapbox chinese or indian 40 mpg one star rated 35,000.00 cramped sedan to get to work...till their job goes away too due to no sales of American stuff. all this government required restructuring/feel good green crap being applied to the auto industry is 100% wrong in my personal opinion. they gave the banks a trillion bucks that made the mess, they let the banks party on our tax money, the same freakin banks are jacking up interest rates bankrupting even more families...it dont end with those guys BUT the evil car companies that employ more americans than any other industry are systematically being castrated 'for their own good' and told they must make yet something else most americans wont want or be able to afford in the way of a car...if they'd have just gave 3.8 million americans 10k checks to spend on a new AMERICAN car last november instead of chopping their legs off for the same 38 billion(a few percent what the TRULY evil banks got no questions asked) it woulda helped prop up the economy from the bottom up- where we all need it most...the companies woulda still had to do whats necessary to keep going, but with a little sales kick, they probably coulda been doing more like Ford has without the government ruining the show. You know what: I BET the bankers personal jets put out more carbon last year than all the flyweight cars of the next ten years will combined...no data, but just a guess. California has rediculous taxes, yet they are still broke: think they are possibly doing something STUPID with all that tax money? If theres a lot of 'green' folks in here, I would like to suggest some stuff to search/read up on: midwest aquifer water table levels, desalination technology. Cali has some desal plants, but not enough. all the 50-100 mpg cars in the world wont save Cali when the water runs out, and they need to look into what they are gonna do...mandate Colorado quits tapping the river maybe so they can keep their orange crop? yeah, the government could sacrifice Colorado for the sake of all important california...Cali will run out of water before they run out of gas...but that will be the next 'sweeping green legislation', maybe they can implement that by 2016 too- why not, the government is screwing with EVERYTHING else already... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 I think you'll find that vehicles over 8,000 lb are also regulated but have different rules to follow, I know diesel locomotives have to comply with EPA NOX regulations so I guess trucks are in the middle. Freight companies in Australia tried super singles, they are false economy, mini duals are better. Reducing vehicle weights doesn't me we all have to drive pintos, look at the Fusion Vs Atlanta Taurus. 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.