35.5 mpg- what a crock!!

My Metro got 48 MPG average over 100,000 miles. Had no trouble going 70 MPH which is my speed limit.

 

Some people talk about obama's intelligence. I don't buy it but he is SLICK. He makes "slick willy" look like a gravel road.

 

Little o's only interest is himself, a narcissist donchuno!

 

I suppose that is the reason the environmental whako's are pro slaughter of the unborn, reduce CO2 emissions.

 

Those with any knowledge of thermodynamics know there is a limit to the efficiency of any engine. Eventually the only way to increase gas millage is to reduce the size of the car which increases the hazard during a collision, especially with larger cars.

 

Then we'll just have to live in compact cities managed by the UN, WTO, WHO and the IMF and World bank riding our bicycles to work or better yet, living in apartments provided by the state owned factories! That'll make room for all the bio reserves the UN plans to engineer here too. See, all this gloom does have an upside! Of course there won't be room for everyone in the compact cities so a few are going to have to make sacrifices for the good of the many.

 

I don't think that will ever happen. In order to get 35.5 miles per gallon, vehicles are going to have be lighter than they are. His limo has to be armor plated.

Statistically, if people are able to drive more, they will. If there are more people on the roadways, that means there will be more wrecks, which means more injuries / fatalities.

I also have to wonder if he will expect our military vehicles to be "fuel efficient" I can just see a lightly armored tank that can get 100 miles to the gallon.

 

It amazes me how much Obama abhors freedom. He must relish telling me what kind of car I must buy, deciding who owns that company, deciding who gets to own the company (and Obama, in his overwhelming genius, gave a majority ownership to the primary entity that caused the "big 3's" demise).

Well, keep it up, fascists. My revenge is that I will never buy a government/UAW car. Ever. I'll teach my kids that they shouldn't...it's a poor investment, and it rewards fascism.

But hey...what do I know? I'm hopelessly out of touch, because I cling to that pesky idea of "liberty." I forgot, we voted that down in 2008.

 

"We" didn't vote it down.. Just the ignorant did.

 

What are you guys making the fuss for? It seems an eminently sensible - and Christian - thing to do to reduce carbon emissions and pollution in this way. We're doing our bit as stewards of God's creation over here - my family car does about 50mpg so I think 35.5 is a very modest target; a good starting point maybe but worth improving upon - so I don't see why you can't. I really don't see how a Christian can be pro-pollution in the way some of these posts suggest

 

Indeed! We are not a total free market. Industry has regulations. Sarbanes-Oxley. FCC regs. SEC regs. Emmisions standards. OSHA requirements. Child labor laws. Your belief that we are a runaway, unregulated free market is demonstrably incorrect. Business MUST be regulated or it will not consider the needs of its employees, customers or the nation...only what is good for the company. When Tucker put seat belts in its cars, the other companies refused, saying it would make people think their cars were not safe. How many lives has that regulaion saved? How many by airbags? How much more pollution did old cars put out versus new ones? These things were done via government regulation.

 

It depends how the electricity to charge them is generated, doesn't it?

 

How do we generate the electricity needed to charge the batteries? Under obama nuclear is out, domestic oil, and apparently domestic gas, is out. No one really knows the environmental impact of thousands of wind turbines. There is a decline in bee population which is essential to the agriculture industry. Could that decline be caused by the low frequency noise generated by these turbines? Considering the entire cycle from generation of electricity, fabrication of the batteries, safe disposal of used batteries is the overall thermal efficiency of the cars improved?

The country is being panicked into believing that CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming which itself is not necessarily been proven. I have lived in South Carolina since 1960 and this is the first time I have turned on the heat in May.

[Incidentally, some hybrids use the energy lost in braking to charge batteries. This concept has been discussed for years but engineers have finally developed the technology to accomplish it. An excellent way to reduce energy consumption.]

 

And yet my car doesn't run on batteries at all but averages 50mpg even on largely urban use.

 

So, the government hides the requirement for fuel economy is and the manufacturers keep guessing until they figure it out? Can you be specific about how this is a shell game? I'm an idiot. Help me not be an idiot.

You're right. I say kill 'em all. Who needs 'em?

Yep, you're right. Because rich men are all about driving small cars. Those rich men driving their small cars and not wiping their noses. That's not right.

Yep, you're right. It's clear that Obama hates the middle-class.

Let's try this one on for size.

Reduce population = less people to pay taxes = less tax revenue for the government to spend

When was the last time the government wanted less money to spend?

I don't buy the carbon emissions argument, Matt, but I can buy the pollution argument.

And every new problem breeds a whole new set of solutions.

 

Keep in mind your cost for petrol vs. ours (aren't you impressed? I even said "petrol." )

There is no doubt that US has not embraced ultra-high-mileage cars...but that has to do with American preference and culture, not the manufacturers. Believe me...if the market demands a 50-mpg car, it'll happen here. When gas hit $4.50+ here, sales of high-mpg cars (ultra-compacts like the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Nissan Versa, etc., hit the roof. Folks were even looking for mid-90's Geo Metros!

My point: crushing a market based on sketchy (at best) hypotheses of "global warming" is foolish. I'm very glad our cars are less polluting than before. But that was some verified scientific data that precipitated the change in emissions standards. This isn't.

 

There is a big difference in driving in the city, and driving out here. It seems un-Christian to force people to drive unsafe cars.

Also, there is the fact that the environmental movement is extremely short-sighted, and will not admit when it has made a mistake. Look at the mess they created forcing ethanol down everyone's throats. Doesn't seem very Christ-like to me. Since the environmetla movement is made up of mostly Christ denying evolutionists, it would be best to fight them in these matters.

 

Yes, I did. Still missing the point. Please explain the shell game and please be specific.

So what?

From the link:

So, they don't meet the fuel economy requirements that the government specified, but they still want to sell cars here, so the government gave them a way to do that by penalizing them. This seems not only fair to the U.S. automakers, but it may tilt the playing field in their favor by requiring foreign automakers to pay millions of $$ that U.S. automakers don't have to pay. (Of course, if it costs U.S. automakers more to meet fuel economy standards than it would to be penalized for not doing so, then the playing field gets tilted the other way, but that may not be germane to this discussion.)

Ok, but CAFE's been around for a few years, right? Why the outrage over it now?

It's very interesting to note that companies like Toyota or Honda have never paid the fines. It's almost like they say, "Oh, these are the new standards? Very well, we will meet them." And then they go do it. It's long past due for U.S. automakers to do the same.

So, again, you didn't explain the shell game. Kindly explain it to me.