Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
probowler

Make V8's Great Again: New Trump automobile mileage standards to gut Obama climate effort

Recommended Posts

I am incredibly pleased with this action. While I do believe it's important to protect the environment, I want to stay far away from the strict measures we see in places like Europe.  I also believe that once electric cars and other new technologies prove viable and attractive on their own merit, people will naturally shift to those newer and more advanced products. I fully support the peoples right to buy alternative-fuel vehicles; I only ask they also respect others right to purchase a 700HP Hellcat Challenger :devil: :peelout:
 

Quote

 

  • The Trump administration is expected to release a final rule Tuesday on mileage standards through 2026.
  • “When finalized, the rule will benefit our economy, will improve the U.S. fleet’s fuel economy, will make vehicles more affordable, and will save lives by increasing the safety of new vehicles,” EPA spokeswoman Corry Schiermeyer said Monday, ahead of the expected release.
  • The Trump administration says the looser mileage standards will allow consumers to keep buying the less fuel-efficient SUVs that U.S. drivers have favored for years. Opponents say it will kill several hundred more Americans a year through dirtier air, compared to the Obama standards.

 

President Donald Trump is poised to roll back ambitious Obama-era vehicle mileage standards and raise the ceiling on damaging fossil fuel emissions for years to come, gutting one of the United States’ biggest efforts against climate change.

The Trump administration is expected to release a final rule Tuesday on mileage standards through 2026. The change — making good on the rollback after two years of Trump threatening and fighting states and a faction of automakers that opposed the move — waters down a tough Obama mileage standard that would have encouraged automakers to ramp up production of electric vehicles and more fuel-efficient gas and diesel vehicles.

 

 

 

Full Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That all makes sense except Government setting standards pushes innovation.  If not for President Bush signing off on the lightbulb/appliance standards we would still be using incandescent bulbs.   Why risk investing in innovative technologies to increase fuel economy if your competitor is not, and thus able to undercut you now.    The Focus transmission debacle is proof that not even Ford always looks at the long term effects of hitting the bottom line goals even if it the long run it is a bad decision.    I suppose one could do increased government subsidies to the consumer to encourage adoption of new technology - but setting a standard to I believe places more of the decision making in the hands of auto companies, which is good.     Ford officials have always said they can deal with the benchmarks as long as it is a level playing field for all competitors.      Personally I think gutting the fuel standards is plain and simple pandering to the oil industry and it sets us back in the electrification of the fleet which i turns sets us back in the fight to minimize climate change.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the next Democrat president that is elected, the standards will be put back in place.  So automakers might as well prepare.  No matter which party you vote for...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, if liberals aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is and buy slightly more expensive electric and hybrid cars just because a cheaper gas car exists, then they have no moral or legal standing to mob up and force the rest of us to buy cars they like and pay more for it.

To highlight your lightbulb analogy, I personally have been buying LEDs for a few years now, because I'm too lazy to constantly change the old incandescents. Again I think it comes down to these products maturing and becoming inherently valuable to consumers, versus simply telling the people "you will only buy these".

 

When the technology is ready, it will be ready, and buyers will notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people agreed that 5% per year was far far too ambitious and not at all realistic from a technological viewpoint.   The new proposed 1.5% is much more realistic.

 

As you approach the bleeding edge you force automakers to do strange things and/or you run into all sorts of unintended consequences.

 

We need improvements but we don't need to go overboard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, akirby said:

Most people agreed that 5% per year was far far too ambitious and not at all realistic from a technological viewpoint.   The new proposed 1.5% is much more realistic.

 

As you approach the bleeding edge you force automakers to do strange things and/or you run into all sorts of unintended consequences.

 

We need improvements but we don't need to go overboard. 

Right, like PCV systems that create the catch can industry. 

 

Running for cover....

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Since this thread is in the Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum, it should be noted that Ford preferred the stronger Obama era standards for fuel economy and GHG emissions. Ford sided with the state of California rather than the Trump administration. 

 

In any case, there is no evidence that the Trump administration's standards will significantly improve vehicle performance and safety, save consumers money, or have any major impact to the U.S. economy.

Edited by rperez817

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

Since this thread is in the Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum, it should be noted that Ford preferred the stronger Obama era standards for fuel economy and GHG emissions. Ford sided with the state of California rather than the Trump administration. 

 

In any case, there is no evidence that the Trump administration's standards will significantly improve vehicle performance and safety, save consumers money, or have any major impact to the U.S. economy.

 

Honestly, they're probably just hedging their bets there.  Siding with CA means you don't piss off CA, and if the Trump standards "win" (they have for now), Ford still wins.  Siding with the lower standards would've pissed off CA (I recall reading articles where many CA governments stopped purchasing from companies not supporting their standards).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

Honestly, they're probably just hedging their bets there.  Siding with CA means you don't piss off CA, and if the Trump standards "win" (they have for now), Ford still wins.  Siding with the lower standards would've pissed off CA (I recall reading articles where many CA governments stopped purchasing from companies not supporting their standards).

 

Good points rmc523 sir. In addition to Ford, BMW, VW, and Honda also sided with California to retain the higher Obama era standards. The U.S. DOJ actually started an antitrust investigation last year against those 4 automakers. Not surprisingly, Ford, BMW, VW, and Honda were found innocent of any wrongdoing here.

 

What all automakers want is regulatory certainty. 

Edited by rperez817

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kev-Mo said:

The math on this topic is pretty simple:

If you want this:

image.png.221282166a5cc5e426df7b9b83d9e58e.png

 

Then you better vote for this:

 

image.png.a8dfc9a2ef0b562cb56b830f38e6d13a.png

 

The Green New Deal has no room for big V8 gasoline engines.

 

 

The 7.3L engine shown above isn't impacted by CAFE related fuel economy regulations, as it's only used in commercial vehicles (class 2-7 trucks with GVWR over 8,500 lbs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

The 7.3L engine shown above isn't impacted by CAFE related fuel economy regulations, as it's only used in commercial vehicles (class 2-7 trucks with GVWR over 8,500 lbs).

 

Right on point rperez817 sir. You won't find any fuel economy numbers for 7.3L V8 because commercial vehicles 'don't count'.

You can be rest assured we will see plenty of 53-foot trailers on the highway for the foreseeable future which are the blood cells of this country carrying just about everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 92merc said:

And the next Democrat president that is elected, the standards will be put back in place.  So automakers might as well prepare.  No matter which party you vote for...

But knowing the Detroit automaker's history, they won't prepare, make nothing but huge moose mobiles, be totally caught off guard and lose another 50% market share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kev-Mo said:

The math on this topic is pretty simple:

If you want this:

image.png.221282166a5cc5e426df7b9b83d9e58e.png

 

Then you better vote for this:

 

image.png.a8dfc9a2ef0b562cb56b830f38e6d13a.png

 

The Green New Deal has no room for big V8 gasoline engines.

 

The green new deal has no room for humans!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will get into a huge political argument in short order...but even i think it went too far when they decided to force motorcycle emissions standards...why the hell do we need a charcoal canister on a cycle...there was nothing wrong with the simplucity of a carbuator either.....it is just stupid theatrics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, snooter said:

This will get into a huge political argument in short order...but even i think it went too far when they decided to force motorcycle emissions standards...why the hell do we need a charcoal canister on a cycle...there was nothing wrong with the simplucity of a carbuator either.....it is just stupid theatrics...

 

Because gasoline evaporates at the same rate in bikes as it does in cars- maybe faster due to the tank being in the sun all the time. Evaporative emissions are a HUGE problem for anything that burns gasoline. Add to that, bikes have VERY dirty tailpipes even when carbs are tuned right. Pass a bike, follow a bike... you can smell them even the open air. I believe Mythbusters even did a show on this.  

Edited by YT90SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, probowler said:

IMO, if liberals aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is and buy slightly more expensive electric and hybrid cars just because a cheaper gas car exists, then they have no moral or legal standing to mob up and force the rest of us to buy cars they like and pay more for it.

To highlight your lightbulb analogy, I personally have been buying LEDs for a few years now, because I'm too lazy to constantly change the old incandescents. Again I think it comes down to these products maturing and becoming inherently valuable to consumers, versus simply telling the people "you will only buy these".

 

When the technology is ready, it will be ready, and buyers will notice.

 

I use LED's because they dropped in price and have improved greatly to the point that LEDs now off a better range of lighting options and quickly become more economical than bulbs based just on their life, span.  Add in the electric savings on your mothly bill bill costs and one is way ahead of the game.   The trick was getting.to mass adoption which made them the default bulb and thus economies of scale and store shelf space kicked into make them smart from a $$$ point of view.   

 

Apply that to whatever technology we adopt for cars - once we get to mass adoption costs will drop and infrastructure will increase (mass adoption vs. infrastructure is  a chicken and egg issue).   Getting some "liberals" to cough up some more cash for your kids' future will happen but nowhere near the standards of mass adoption.   Most people aren't thinking about this stuff - sort of like the Buy American ethos. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, snooter said:

This will get into a huge political argument in short order...but even i think it went too far when they decided to force motorcycle emissions standards...why the hell do we need a charcoal canister on a cycle...there was nothing wrong with the simplucity of a carbuator either.....it is just stupid theatrics...

There’s nothing wrong with preventing evaporative emissions but I think the rest of it is the reason why CAFE is killing small efficient gasoline vehicles while opening the gate for large trucks and SUVs.

The imbalance in the whole system, the lack of fairness  is there for all to see.

 

Europe is introducing 95grams CO2/km, that’s going to destroy sales of all ICE only vehicles, that’s social engineering on a grand scale and everyone there goes along with it?

 

Do not go silently into the night......

the people planning a brave new world want everyone else to pay for it.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've reached the end of ICEs and some of you need to get over that. I love V8s and the sound of gas engines but we're stuck in the house losing jobs because of a weird virus that may have to do with the effects of climate change (see ice caps melting effects) . I do think it's time for those who have lived their youth to take a backseat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Justdatdude said:

We've reached the end of ICEs and some of you need to get over that. I love V8s and the sound of gas engines but we're stuck in the house losing jobs because of a weird virus that may have to do with the effects of climate change (see ice caps melting effects) . I do think it's time for those who have lived their youth to take a backseat. 

 

People eating bats and unregulated virus labs near populated areas has nothing to do with it though.

Spanish flu of 1918 and you say it has to do with climate change?

Edited by coupe3w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Justdatdude said:

We've reached the end of ICEs and some of you need to get over that. I love V8s and the sound of gas engines but we're stuck in the house losing jobs because of a weird virus that may have to do with the effects of climate change (see ice caps melting effects) . I do think it's time for those who have lived their youth to take a backseat. 

You're actually stuck inside because of poor hygiene in Chinese live animal markets and the ease with which people can travel and cross borders.

One little virus has changed the way people live in a very dramatic way, imagine if this is the new norm each time someone in China handle

something contaminated. A vehicle rule change in America might be the least of our problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Justdatdude said:

We've reached the end of ICEs and some of you need to get over that. I love V8s and the sound of gas engines but we're stuck in the house losing jobs because of a weird virus that may have to do with the effects of climate change (see ice caps melting effects) . I do think it's time for those who have lived their youth to take a backseat. 

 

Climate change??? Wow! Time to take the tin foil hat off. You want to get aboard the climate change bus? This is the type of thinking you’re signing up for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Trader 10 said:

 

Climate change??? Wow! Time to take the tin foil hat off. You want to get aboard the climate change bus? This is the type of thinking you’re signing up for. 

 

So, you think the caps and Greenland aren't melting? Here's an idea, take a walk to the North Pole in August and show us how your trip went.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MY93SHO said:

 

So, you think the caps and Greenland aren't melting? Here's an idea, take a walk to the North Pole in August and show us how your trip went.

 

Do you remember the BIG hole in the ozone layer? I think that went away didn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, coupe3w said:

 

Do you remember the BIG hole in the ozone layer? I think that went away didn't it?

To be fair, the hole in the ozone layer repaired itself  because we all stopped using CFCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×