User Panel
Quoted:
My dream car list has never included Geo Metros (although Suzuki had a Turbo 4 version of the same car). I drove a poverty spec model of the Metro as a delivery car for a short period of time. At the time my daily driver was a lifted 115hp Toyota 4x4. They are not fast trucks by any stretch of the imagination but It felt like a rocketship compared to the Metro. I also owned a few aircooled VW bugs so I have a lot of slow car experience. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone remember early 90's Geo Metros? Three cylinder manual transmission. ...... over 55mpg. I know this for a fact because I drove one as a company car working for a dealership. It was a great little commuter. Was actually kind of fun to drive. I also drove a convertible version for a while. Where'd they go??? Safety demands and all the other mandated equipment, and poof...., no more 55mpg $8,999 car. There are still a few running around my small town. It's amazing they still run. I drove a poverty spec model of the Metro as a delivery car for a short period of time. At the time my daily driver was a lifted 115hp Toyota 4x4. They are not fast trucks by any stretch of the imagination but It felt like a rocketship compared to the Metro. I also owned a few aircooled VW bugs so I have a lot of slow car experience. |
|
|
|
|
Millions of tree hugging liberal loons suddenly cried out in unison.
|
|
|
Quoted:
Curious.. what are the negatives for consumers for higher gas milage standards? How is this a win for us? View Quote It's easier to pull off with cars. Trucks, not so much. For all of the crap added to my 2016 PW for fuel economy it may get 2 mpg more than my 2007 PW on a good day. For that (maybe) 2mpg I have to put up with a CAD unit on the front axle now and all of the electronic shit that goes with it. Then they added MDS and hydraulic cam phasing, shitty shift points that hold higher gears longer, dropped the rear end from 4:56 to 4:10. TPMS that thinks I have to run my tires at high pressure even though it's an offroad type truck and never tows. There's probably more that I'm forgetting. I doubt if the MDS ever kicks in on a 7000lb truck unless it's going downhill with your foot off the gas. |
|
Quoted:
The mpg sounds great but you do understand this increases the cost of the vehicles as well. 50 mpg suv thats $100k-$120k sound good? And i’m not talking Tahoes and Navigators here. View Quote 1. I literally said "this isn't going to ruin my life". Meaning, I can take this or leave this. My hope is that a push towards higher mpg is a goal of every car company. I hope this removal of this regulation doesn't slow or diminish that goal. That's all I'm saying. 2. Every person here that quote me talked about the markets. I'm 110% for markets. But it works both ways in this argument - if the car companies have to meet a standard of 50 mpg (for example) and the car costs $100k...they will only offer that vehicle if people buy it. How many people are going to be market for a 100k car? If the market won't allow it, it won't be offered and the car companies will be forced to do something to lower the price to a level that the market will allow. (Reality right now is though...the market is not rejecting $60k trucks/SUVs...so it's not like those fuel economy standards are ruining the market. How many 8mpg one ton trucks are they gonna sell at the price it's gonna cost to produce + standard mark up?) With that people don't always have the ability to vote with their dollars if the market doesn't produce what they want. It's not like someone can say "hey, I see a gap in the car industry. I'm going to start my own car company to fill that gap". That's an extremely difficult thing to do. Not unlike cell phones. If you're unhappy with ATT and Verizon and T-Mobile and...the others...what choices do you have that the free market can genuinely fix? The infrastructure needed to meet the consumer demands are substantial which would make actual market competition very difficult/near impossible. So the consumer may have no choice but to purchase a product and be unhappy. They are, a lot of times, at the mercy of the manufacturers. The ability to "vote with dollars" on something like fuel economy is hard, almost by design. Toyota has the Prius that gets 50mpg. Awesome. If the Prius fits your needs, there's your car. But what if you need a truck? Well the only option would be the 15mpg Tundra. I want 50mpg...but I need a truck for various reasons. How can I "vote with my dollars"? Me having to purchase the 15mpg Tundra because I need a truck doesn't mean there isn't a demand for a 50mpg truck to fill that gap. Toyota may not WANT to produce a 50mpg Tundra for fear of ruining sales of other product lines. Now, looking at both sides of that argument - perhaps Toyota could indeed do a 50mpg truck but, like you said, it may drive costs up to $120k. Who's gonna buy that? Well the market may or may not "allow for it". If people want 50mpg and the .gov says you have to give that but people won't pay $120k...then it's Toyota job to figure out how to lower the costs to a price point that the market will tolerate. Again, I'm not heartbroken over this. I'm not going to go out and protest. This is a win for the car companies and the markets. You won't get a different opinion other than that from me. But when I think about where I would like to see cars go...better fuel economy is up there. And that's for MY dollars not having to keep tossing them away at the gas pump. My "iffy-ness" on this comes with the question of "will car companies continue to pursue better fuel economy". I believe they should and I hope the market steers them in that direction. |
|
Quoted:
Curious.. what are the negatives for consumers for higher gas milage standards? How is this a win for us? View Quote Have you noticed the "OMG, new trucks are too expensive!!!111" thread we've had every week for the last 5 years? This is one of those things that has fucked everyday Americans every bit as much as .gov meddling in toilet and washing machine design, but a lot of people aren't familiar enough with vehicles to understand what is up. This is a big fucking deal. |
|
Quoted: Reliability could take a huge hit. I imagine overly complex direct injection systems, valve timing, secondary starters, and God knows what other fuckery they'll be forced to dream up. Remember cars from the 70s? We'll get a plastic-ey Chinese version of that. View Quote |
|
Wow, arfcom has a lot of progressive members.
"what's so bad about higher fuel economy?" go be progressive somewhere else. |
|
Quoted:
More expensive, complicated and in the end, shittier vehicles. Especially when it comes to trucks. It's easier to pull off with cars. Trucks, not so much. For all of the crap added to my 2016 PW for fuel economy it may get 2 mpg more than my 2007 PW on a good day. For that (maybe) 2mpg I have to put up with a CAD unit on the front axle now and all of the electronic shit that goes with it. Then they added MDS and hydraulic cam phasing, shitty shift points that hold higher gears longer, dropped the rear end from 4:56 to 4:10. TPMS that thinks I have to run my tires at high pressure even though it's an offroad type truck and never tows. There's probably more that I'm forgetting. I doubt if the MDS ever kicks in on a 7000lb truck unless it's going downhill with your foot off the gas. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Curious.. what are the negatives for consumers for higher gas milage standards? How is this a win for us? It's easier to pull off with cars. Trucks, not so much. For all of the crap added to my 2016 PW for fuel economy it may get 2 mpg more than my 2007 PW on a good day. For that (maybe) 2mpg I have to put up with a CAD unit on the front axle now and all of the electronic shit that goes with it. Then they added MDS and hydraulic cam phasing, shitty shift points that hold higher gears longer, dropped the rear end from 4:56 to 4:10. TPMS that thinks I have to run my tires at high pressure even though it's an offroad type truck and never tows. There's probably more that I'm forgetting. I doubt if the MDS ever kicks in on a 7000lb truck unless it's going downhill with your foot off the gas. |
|
Quoted:
Curious.. what are the negatives for consumers for higher gas milage standards? How is this a win for us? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
More MAGA. I'm now more sure than ever that Trump is trying to mend fences with his base after the Bump Stock and Omnibus debacles. View Quote |
|
Long overdue. The EPA is destroying the auto industry as well as off highway equipment
|
|
|
Now get rid of the ethanol requirement too while they're at it.
|
|
Quoted:
I remember Smog alerts here in LA. http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/los-angeles-smog_53499058.jpg The manufacturer would not of pushed for cleaning burning cars. Remember. There were 49 state cars. And then California cars. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a fan of this. I would rather my vehicle get 50mpg than 15mpg...but this isn't gonna ruin my life. http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/los-angeles-smog_53499058.jpg The manufacturer would not of pushed for cleaning burning cars. Remember. There were 49 state cars. And then California cars. |
|
|
Just a reminder that vehicles are getting heavier and bigger, not smaller and lighter.
Everyone keeps saying smaller, lighter vehicles. If you're talking about a smaller class of vehicle becoming the modal form of transport, it's most likely because America cottoned on to the fact that two tonne land yachts with giant v8 engines that still somehow made no power were complete and utter shit. |
|
Jeremy Clarkson / Grand Tour talking about the best selling vehicle in America, the F-150:
Fuel economy ranked 28th on the buyer’s list of priorities lol |
|
On another note I remember the days of 49-state vehicles, specifically motorcycles. I had a CBR600F3 Cali model (stolen) and then the same bike in a Michigan model.
They had different cams and then some other minor differences. |
|
I have to giggle when I read people talking about 100% effeniency with ICE. Mercedes Formula 1 teams have just now hit what they consider 50% effeniency. The amount of engineering associated with that will trickle down to the consumer cars, but is so far away from being put to use it's laughable. The cost of it is in the millions to design and actually produce just for a season of racing. Of which they only get to use 3 engines per season w/o penalty.
I think it's absolutely fantastic that these targets are getting rolled back. Sure, it could be possible in the future, but we are so far away from this being a reality on cars that the everyday person can purchase. CAFE was great when it started but like all government agencies, has ballooned to the point of near uselessness. Trying to justify it's continued existence. |
|
Quoted:
I will use your reply to "reply all" to those that quoted me. 1. I literally said "this isn't going to ruin my life". Meaning, I can take this or leave this. My hope is that a push towards higher mpg is a goal of every car company. I hope this removal of this regulation doesn't slow or diminish that goal. That's all I'm saying. 2. Every person here that quote me talked about the markets. I'm 110% for markets. But it works both ways in this argument - if the car companies have to meet a standard of 50 mpg (for example) and the car costs $100k...they will only offer that vehicle if people buy it. How many people are going to be market for a 100k car? If the market won't allow it, it won't be offered and the car companies will be forced to do something to lower the price to a level that the market will allow. (Reality right now is though...the market is not rejecting $60k trucks/SUVs...so it's not like those fuel economy standards are ruining the market. How many 8mpg one ton trucks are they gonna sell at the price it's gonna cost to produce + standard mark up?) With that people don't always have the ability to vote with their dollars if the market doesn't produce what they want. It's not like someone can say "hey, I see a gap in the car industry. I'm going to start my own car company to fill that gap". That's an extremely difficult thing to do. Not unlike cell phones. If you're unhappy with ATT and Verizon and T-Mobile and...the others...what choices do you have that the free market can genuinely fix? The infrastructure needed to meet the consumer demands are substantial which would make actual market competition very difficult/near impossible. So the consumer may have no choice but to purchase a product and be unhappy. They are, a lot of times, at the mercy of the manufacturers. The ability to "vote with dollars" on something like fuel economy is hard, almost by design. Toyota has the Prius that gets 50mpg. Awesome. If the Prius fits your needs, there's your car. But what if you need a truck? Well the only option would be the 15mpg Tundra. I want 50mpg...but I need a truck for various reasons. How can I "vote with my dollars"? Me having to purchase the 15mpg Tundra because I need a truck doesn't mean there isn't a demand for a 50mpg truck to fill that gap. Toyota may not WANT to produce a 50mpg Tundra for fear of ruining sales of other product lines. Now, looking at both sides of that argument - perhaps Toyota could indeed do a 50mpg truck but, like you said, it may drive costs up to $120k. Who's gonna buy that? Well the market may or may not "allow for it". If people want 50mpg and the .gov says you have to give that but people won't pay $120k...then it's Toyota job to figure out how to lower the costs to a price point that the market will tolerate. Again, I'm not heartbroken over this. I'm not going to go out and protest. This is a win for the car companies and the markets. You won't get a different opinion other than that from me. But when I think about where I would like to see cars go...better fuel economy is up there. And that's for MY dollars not having to keep tossing them away at the gas pump. My "iffy-ness" on this comes with the question of "will car companies continue to pursue better fuel economy". I believe they should and I hope the market steers them in that direction. View Quote If I don't burn them, the dinosaurs died for nothing. |
|
Quoted:
Cry me a river. If I don't burn them, the dinosaurs died for nothing. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I will use your reply to "reply all" to those that quoted me. 1. I literally said "this isn't going to ruin my life". Meaning, I can take this or leave this. My hope is that a push towards higher mpg is a goal of every car company. I hope this removal of this regulation doesn't slow or diminish that goal. That's all I'm saying. 2. Every person here that quote me talked about the markets. I'm 110% for markets. But it works both ways in this argument - if the car companies have to meet a standard of 50 mpg (for example) and the car costs $100k...they will only offer that vehicle if people buy it. How many people are going to be market for a 100k car? If the market won't allow it, it won't be offered and the car companies will be forced to do something to lower the price to a level that the market will allow. (Reality right now is though...the market is not rejecting $60k trucks/SUVs...so it's not like those fuel economy standards are ruining the market. How many 8mpg one ton trucks are they gonna sell at the price it's gonna cost to produce + standard mark up?) With that people don't always have the ability to vote with their dollars if the market doesn't produce what they want. It's not like someone can say "hey, I see a gap in the car industry. I'm going to start my own car company to fill that gap". That's an extremely difficult thing to do. Not unlike cell phones. If you're unhappy with ATT and Verizon and T-Mobile and...the others...what choices do you have that the free market can genuinely fix? The infrastructure needed to meet the consumer demands are substantial which would make actual market competition very difficult/near impossible. So the consumer may have no choice but to purchase a product and be unhappy. They are, a lot of times, at the mercy of the manufacturers. The ability to "vote with dollars" on something like fuel economy is hard, almost by design. Toyota has the Prius that gets 50mpg. Awesome. If the Prius fits your needs, there's your car. But what if you need a truck? Well the only option would be the 15mpg Tundra. I want 50mpg...but I need a truck for various reasons. How can I "vote with my dollars"? Me having to purchase the 15mpg Tundra because I need a truck doesn't mean there isn't a demand for a 50mpg truck to fill that gap. Toyota may not WANT to produce a 50mpg Tundra for fear of ruining sales of other product lines. Now, looking at both sides of that argument - perhaps Toyota could indeed do a 50mpg truck but, like you said, it may drive costs up to $120k. Who's gonna buy that? Well the market may or may not "allow for it". If people want 50mpg and the .gov says you have to give that but people won't pay $120k...then it's Toyota job to figure out how to lower the costs to a price point that the market will tolerate. Again, I'm not heartbroken over this. I'm not going to go out and protest. This is a win for the car companies and the markets. You won't get a different opinion other than that from me. But when I think about where I would like to see cars go...better fuel economy is up there. And that's for MY dollars not having to keep tossing them away at the gas pump. My "iffy-ness" on this comes with the question of "will car companies continue to pursue better fuel economy". I believe they should and I hope the market steers them in that direction. If I don't burn them, the dinosaurs died for nothing. |
|
Good!!
Give me a better price and more dependable vehicle that's what matters to me. MPGs is great but not as important. I saw yesterday that Volkswagen had 300,000 used diesel Vehicles parked on Lots ready for sale just waiting for EPA regulations. |
|
Quoted:
Then buy a Prius, I'll take my V8 truck. I dont need the government telling me what to buy. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a fan of this. I would rather my vehicle get 50mpg than 15mpg...but this isn't gonna ruin my life. I don’t want to be driving around in a plastic pickup with a turbo charged 4 cylinder that shuts off at every stop sign in ten years. Let people decide what they want via the market and keep the EPA the hell out of it. |
|
Quoted:
I don't think people see the big picture with fuel economy. Higher requirements force innovation to focus on compliance, which with these regs ends up being a reduction on reliance of oil. Even with US oil production increasing, moving towards a sustainable energy source (hydro is huge in the NW) insulates us from a global commodity. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Electric cars have a purpose, but they will never be the nationwide panacea they are sold as. View Quote They really do hold a TON of potential, over IC cars. There are so many fewer moving parts and less friction and heat wastes. It's just a matter of time for the MARKET to get us there, and FBHO for pushing this on us (and his predecessors) |
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
Higher acquisition cost, reduced safety, lower quality, smaller vehicles, unattainable goal. EPA's target would have us driving Yugos powered by two cylinder Diesels. Clean Diesels of course. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I suspect this is untrue. They really do hold a TON of potential, over IC cars. There are so many fewer moving parts and less friction and heat wastes. It's just a matter of time for the MARKET to get us there, and FBHO for pushing this on us (and his predecessors) View Quote When was the last new power plant built in California? What's paying for the hundreds of thousands charging stations and how long it's going to take? Be real. |
|
Quoted:
Let's go back to building cars out of steel instead of plastic. Let's have cars with style that look different from each other View Quote |
|
Quoted: I remember Smog alerts here in LA. http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/los-angeles-smog_53499058.jpg The manufacturer would not of pushed for cleaning burning cars. Remember. There were 49 state cars. And then California cars. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Curious.. what are the negatives for consumers for higher gas milage standards? How is this a win for us? View Quote |
|
I'm going to be in them minority here, but demanding fuel economy standards have made vehicles better than ever before.
|
|
|
Quoted:
I'm going to be in them minority here, but demanding fuel economy standards have made vehicles better than ever before. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Other thing happen too, like dramatic price spikes in inefficient vehicles (like fullsize trucks) to help offset the loss leaders that the manufacturers have to sell to meet the standards. Simply put, Toyota has to make a big profit off every Tundra sold to offset the loss on every Prius. Honestly I have no idea if Toyota makes money on Prius or not, just using them as an example. That said, I don't know how much of an impact this will have for consumers. It is 2018, 2025 being only 7 years away puts it in the lifecycle of automotive manufacturing. Designs for cars to be made then are already far along in design, prototypes are in testing, manufacturing tooling is being engineered and ordered. Plus if the largest automotive market in the US (California) is going to stay the course on those regulations, I doubt the manufacturers will change direction. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Curious.. what are the negatives for consumers for higher gas milage standards? How is this a win for us? Simply put, Toyota has to make a big profit off every Tundra sold to offset the loss on every Prius. Honestly I have no idea if Toyota makes money on Prius or not, just using them as an example. That said, I don't know how much of an impact this will have for consumers. It is 2018, 2025 being only 7 years away puts it in the lifecycle of automotive manufacturing. Designs for cars to be made then are already far along in design, prototypes are in testing, manufacturing tooling is being engineered and ordered. Plus if the largest automotive market in the US (California) is going to stay the course on those regulations, I doubt the manufacturers will change direction. |
|
Quoted:
Curious.. what are the negatives for consumers for higher gas milage standards? How is this a win for us? View Quote Options in the marketplace. I would like a V-8 in my large SUV and Ford no longer offers a V-8. Thanks EPA. I don't want all cars to end up with the same shape due to the EPA and NHTSA. |
|
Quoted:
I don't think people see the big picture with fuel economy. Higher requirements force innovation to focus on compliance, which with these regs ends up being a reduction on reliance of oil. Even with US oil production increasing, moving towards a sustainable energy source (hywdro is huge in the NW) insulates us from a global commodity. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
Tell me more about camless technology, and gasoline compression engines. Both of those sound interesting. Whatis the problem with cams? Is it that they don't change to fit the current engine conditions? Or is it the friction caused by the cams? Or all of the above? View Quote |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.