[cdlenterprises]

Here's an article I found about the new EPA standards for fuel economy. More of an FYI than anything

http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-article_153/

:cheers:

[miljnor]

Thats cool that they are actually trying to get it right.

I always thought you had to push your car down hill in a windstorm (with the wind) while crossing your fingers to get the mileage on the sticker!

I don't think I have ever gotten the MPH listed On any of the cars I have ever owned, and I have had a lot of cars!

[Demon440]

Most of my cars have meet or exceeded the EPA ratings. Now I have a ’95 Z28 Camaro and I record my fuel data at each fill up and even with almost 150k miles it still gets well over the advertised mpg of 17/25.

[miljnor]

ya well I guess I just don't drive like the test simulators they use and you do!

might have something to do with the gridlock here in california!

[NinerSevenTango]

EPA fuel standards kill more Americans than the 'war' in Iraq.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,03703.cfm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...371867,00.html

[miljnor]

Thats a BS argument, its like saying that guns kill people. Which is like saying that the people involved have nothing to do with the problem.

I would say that at least 80% of all accidents could have been avoided by a little dilegence and watchfulness of the drivers involved.

Its like saying that the faster cars is making people get more tickets. The car can go 0-150mph, you could just as well drive under the speed limit as over, its in how you drive not what your car is capable of.

[NinerSevenTango]

It's not like saying that guns kill people. It's like saying that mandating lighter cars makes accidents more fatal when they happen, regardless of who might be at fault. What if we mandated bulletproof vests be thinner, would you say that police officers should just avoid situations where they might get shot at?

--97T--

[Demon440]

No way. While I don't agree with mandating cars to be made smaller, I think that a link between the two is wrong. No one makes a person buy a smaller car. Maybe if large cars weren’t made at all, then you could use that argument. But as it is, I don’t see how.

[miljnor]

mandating lighter cars dosn't mean they are mandating weaker cars.

The cars may not survive accidents because the are weaker and they are weaker because the auto manufacturers don't believe people will accept the price hike.

If you make two identical cars one more crash resistant and one less so, all other factors are equal the people will typically buy the cheaper more fragile car. All of these things are driven by supply and demand. If the public wanted safe they would get safe.

The bullet proof vest is a saftey item a car is not so that is a horrible analogy! But if your looking at cost then some police would buy the cheaper one to safe money, Heck when it gets hot some police don't even wear the dang things! (and its against regs!)

[NinerSevenTango]

No way. While I don't agree with mandating cars to be made smaller, I think that a link between the two is wrong. No one makes a person buy a smaller car. Maybe if large cars weren’t made at all, then you could use that argument. But as it is, I don’t see how.

The result is that more people buy trucks. The cars are built to comply with regulations, at a loss. There aren't any inexpensive larger cars, because the regulations dictate average fleet mileage. That skews the market any way you look at it. When truck sales fall, losses are in the billions. Yes, those losses are attributable to a lot of other factors as well. Get ready for the big three to use bankruptcy protection to escape their cost structures after having moved all of their assets out of the reach of the unions and the U.S. government.

--97T--

[NinerSevenTango]

mandating lighter cars dosn't mean they are mandating weaker cars.

The cars may not survive accidents because the are weaker and they are weaker because the auto manufacturers don't believe people will accept the price hike.

If you make two identical cars one more crash resistant and one less so, all other factors are equal the people will typically buy the cheaper more fragile car. All of these things are driven by supply and demand. If the public wanted safe they would get safe.

The bullet proof vest is a saftey item a car is not so that is a horrible analogy! But if your looking at cost then some police would buy the cheaper one to safe money, Heck when it gets hot some police don't even wear the dang things! (and its against regs!)

All good points, but there are limits to what you can design with a certain weight of material.

--97T--

[elcam84]

Compare weights of current cars to older cars. You will be surprised that the newer cars are heavier for the same size.

It's all that extra crap people want on them now. The car itself has to be lighter so you can pile on all the extra cup holders huge consoles, power motors for stuff that doesn't need power etc. Allot of that plastic body stuff is heavier than the steel equivelant too.

I'm glad the EPA has finally decided to get closer to a real way of measuring fuel mileage. I never understood how they thought that they could tell the fuel mileage of a car by only reading the exhaust gasses.

[Kevin Taylor]

Light Weight=Fuelmileage Heavy=Safe, Not always the case most wrecks envolve out of control distracted drivers and overloaded or overworked vehicals they will for the most part pull or haul more than they can stop with and usualy are through in a sockermom talking on the phone in a SUV that is late and you have a pileup waiting to happen The car company's all have tryed the chepeconimy cars through history and for the most part they lost sales and wern't very good sellers With the cafa standard's they all have to sell lot's of V6 pickup's for a single Large V8/V10 or diesel The car's are the same way a V8 police car has a surcharge on it. There's not to much recycled material in them eather Kevin

[flyboy1015]

There are a few points that are being overlooked here. A lighter car doesn't necessarily mean that it is less safe. When you have two very heavy cars collide, there is a LOT of energy to be absorbed, you know F=MA? Lots of Mass means lots of Force to stop it. Two light cars collide means less mass and, therefore, less energy (force) required to stop it. That energy is absorbed in the crushing of the metal of both cars. It takes energy to cold work steel, and that's what happens in the collision. There are other things in new cars that help also. Airbags are used to help cushion a person in a collision. The seatbelts work well, but in some situations, it is necessary for some extra safety devices. Don't be fooled into thinking that more weight means more safety. It's not just a simple solution. There is a lot of engineering that goes into the things all around us. With the high cost of litigation and liability, companies aren't flippantly building products, as some would suggest.

[sdantonio]

Interesting article. The head of the UAW was in front of the senate last week testifying about this very thing. I caught part of the testimony on cspan (yeah it wa a really slow day).

His comment, basically, when it came to both fuel economy and also as a reply to the questions of why American cars last 5 years or less and foreign cars last considerable longer... if we make our cars better then that would put Americans out of work and decrease their payment of union dues. So we won't do it.

Your union dues and tax dollars at work

[fizzissist]

if we make our cars better then that would put Americans out of work and decrease their payment of union dues. So we won't do it.

There's some factors at work other than simply the unions....and I honestly don't understand fully what's going on.....and here's why:

Just did a search for a new car 2 years ago, and went through the full gamut of $20-28k cars in sedan class. Even rented cars for a couple of days to see what was most suitable comfort and handling wise. Did the full internet research thing that covered resale, safety, customer reviews, handling, service, reliability...blah, blah, blah...

One car that I actually loved was the Monte Carlo...I hate Chevys, but that car was a delight...but...but...rented 2 of 'em and put 1800 long trip miles on 'em...they don't appear to live that long.

We ended up with an Accord. Wanted the Altima V6...but she didn't want to have to use premium....

What we found out in this quest was that pieces and parts of all the cars you buy today are made all over the place.

Had an '86 Chevy S-10...half metric, half SAE...25% made in Canada, 25% made in Mexico.

The Honda was mostly built in the US, with japanese and mexican parts.

MBZ, BMW, Honda, Toyota...they're all built right here. Chevy, Ford, Chrysler....they're built, well, here and there too.

There's things I like about this global market concept...and things I really don't like.

[flyboy1015]

Union dues isn't the real issue. You have to look at the standard of living and the wages of the people in the area where the product is manufactured. Here in the US, we have a high standard of living. That requires some high wages to support that lifestyle. Granted, unions do help raise the costs even more, but that's not the whole reason for the comment.

[NinerSevenTango]

The big three are maneuvering their assets out of country preparatory to declaring bankruptcy, which they will have to do because no amount of sales is going to bring enough income to pay their future pension obligations.

The consumer has spoken -- they wanted real cars but those were outlawed, so now anyone who has kids or wants to haul something goes out and buys a truck or SUV. Which is why they outsell cars. They have to sell a certain amount of high mileage cars to be able to sell the big stuff. It sells at a loss. It isn't worth it any more. Now the all-knowing government will put mileage (power and size) restrictions on trucks. Woo hoo! It was nice working with you all!

--97T--
Fizz, you might like some of the articles in the editorial section at this site:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/

[dynosor]

What if we mandated bulletproof vests be thinner, would you say that police officers should just avoid situations where they might get shot at?

--97T--

Legislators aren't that smart: It more likely that law abiding citizens would be disarmed to prevent criminals from shooting at police.

[dynosor]

When you have two very heavy cars collide, there is a LOT of energy to be absorbed, you know F=MA? Lots of Mass means lots of Force to stop it. Two light cars collide means less mass and, therefore, less energy (force) required to stop it. .

What about a heavy car hitting a light car? The light car suffers much greater decelleration, and so do the people inside it.