What do y'all think. Should there be a floor on mpg that a vehicle gets. I think it would possibly be a good idea to help keep gas costs down.

Now I'm not cracking on those that already have large vehicles. Im just saying, if legislation were enacted for this, it would force manufacturers to produce efficient vehicles. I think im gonna start writing congressmen (and women).

9/10/2005 8:53:14 PM

essentially we already have that:
CAFE - Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

basically what it is is all of GM's passenger cars must have an average mileage of 27.5 (i think), and so on and so forth.

but i think there should be explicit mileage minimums on every class of automobile, such as regardless of the average in the maker's fleet of passenger cars, NO CAR should fall below a set mileage.

and i believe the consumer AND the automaker need to share the burden. but realistically...

[Edited on September 10, 2005 at 9:25 PM. Reason : clarified]

9/10/2005 9:22:46 PM

I'm old enought (35) to remember some of the 70's oil crisis, owned a 86 CRX back in the day that got 50 mpg on the road, and am not some bullshit hippy ranting off.

Having said that, it's rediculous that the total fleet average is going DOWN each year. WTF? Letting SUV's off the hook by putting them in the same class as my folk's farm dumptruck is assine. Drive what you want, but right now we're in a race to the bottom.

Shit, I'm a capitalist and think that we have some sort of responsibility to get the fleet average up. Taking care of shit and utilizing scarce resources doesn't equal communisim.

9/10/2005 10:03:13 PM

How about either a tax on low MPG cars or a tax break on high MPG cars. (i prefer the former)

9/10/2005 10:04:12 PM

There used to be some kind of tax on low mileage vehicles if I remember correctly. Need to look it up though.

9/10/2005 10:06:26 PM

^
It's called "federal and state gas taxes"

9/10/2005 10:34:13 PM

but SUV have been given tax breaks

yes tax breaks

9/10/2005 10:35:23 PM

no - they haven't

however, SUVs and indeed any other vehicles that are used for business purposes do have an associated tax credit.

i guess that what you meant to say was, "some people defraud the government"


[Edited on September 10, 2005 at 10:39 PM. Reason : s]

9/10/2005 10:38:44 PM

Excoriator wins.

And even that tax break got cut by 75% with the 2004 tax cut package...

9/10/2005 10:42:25 PM

Quote :

"essentially we already have that: CAFE - Corporate Average Fuel Economy. "

Quote :

"Letting SUV's off the hook by putting them in the same class as my folk's farm dumptruck is assine."

Quote :

"There used to be some kind of tax on low mileage vehicles if I remember correctly. Need to look it up though. "

still there, as far as i know

Quote :

"however, SUVs and indeed any other vehicles that are used for business purposes do have an associated tax credit. "

for the big write off, you have to be (a) self-employed, (b) use the vehicle for at least 50% business use, and (c) the vehicle must have a gross vehicle weight (not curb weight) of at least 6,000 lbs.

and yeah, that write off has been greatly reduced, and is on its way out the door.



i think this thread is over now.

9/10/2005 10:48:11 PM

CAFE is such a joke... just because Chrysler makes a few vehicles that COULD run off of ethanol they get off the hook for producing vehicles like the Charger or the Viper...

9/10/2005 10:56:52 PM

I predict that a few years from now, regardless of whatever regulations are passed (some already have been), the average mpg will be higher.

At this point, people are freaking out about mileage, so are the companies, so we don't need to do shit to fix this problem. I'm not arguing that we should do nothing, it's always better to over-solve a problem. Fast-tracking construction permits for refineries is a good idea, particularly if they build in un-enhabited areas.

9/10/2005 10:56:56 PM

Quote :

"however, SUVs and indeed any other vehicles that are used for business purposes do have an associated tax credit."

Vehicles over 6000 pounds still, even after the changes to the tax code, have a significantly higher percentage deduction.

9/10/2005 11:00:06 PM

Loneshark,

I agree that the market will get the standards higher if gas prices continue to go up. God forbid that we have a newer version of the MustangII though.

I wish I still had that CRX. The perfect car for putzing around town and roadtripping for two people.

9/10/2005 11:07:34 PM

real world economics just has a fairly long lag time. we'll see the MPG go up in a year or two.

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 12:45 AM. Reason : .]

9/11/2005 12:45:35 AM

but the ones used for business purposes arent the problem

the problem is suzie homakersoccermom driving her excursion around town...im sure she doesnt own a business

Screw tax breaks, i want a floor on mpg.

I'm no hippy, and anybody that has seen my posts can vouche for that, but I really think it would help everybody out if we phased gas guzzlers out. Yeah, so you have enough money to afford the car and the gas. I dont, and your unnecessary fuel consumption is running up the costs.

9/11/2005 2:06:52 AM

i would love a CRX

9/11/2005 2:10:32 AM

I thought this was about MPEG! LOLOLOLOL!!!1

9/11/2005 2:58:52 AM

Its called the gas guzzler tax. Its a one-time $2000 tax when you purchase a commuter vehicle that has an average mpg below 16.

It's something to that effect. Correct me if Im wrong.

[Edited on September 11, 2005 at 4:26 AM. Reason : .]

9/11/2005 4:25:21 AM

^^ me too dude I thought it involved porn in some way

can never have enough North Pole videos

9/11/2005 7:28:21 AM

a floor would definitely help, look at the boating industry.....in 1998 they put restrictions on emissions and fuel economy on all outboard motors that were sold, and these restrictions did not go into effect until 2004....by 2000 every company had 75% of their motors sold met or exceeded the expectation and it was 4 years early.....the technology is there, its just the automakers need a push to actually use it.

9/11/2005 10:11:05 AM

Doesn't the fact that they were done 4 years early imply that the improvements were not because of the government? Could it not also be that the introduction of electronics small enough to fit in an outboard motor, thus enabling a four stroke engine to fit in an outboard cowling in an effort to make the boat engines more powerful also had the unintended benefit of dramatically increasing fuel economy?

Why do you think the companies spent money four years ago when they didn't need to until today?

9/11/2005 11:20:47 AM

im not saying the improvement was solely based on the restrictions the government put on them, but i am saying that the govt leaning on the manufacturers to produce these more efficient engines allowed the new technology to be brought into the market sooner than it would have without the govt restrictions...

9/11/2005 12:40:16 PM

^^Business logistics are far more complex. Its a vague assumption that a company would wait until the deadline to recondition their engines.

9/11/2005 1:06:06 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, so you have enough money to afford the car and the gas. I dont, and your unnecessary fuel consumption is running up the costs. "

well, i hate SUVs too (unless you have a legitimate reason to have one), but i don't think gas prices are affected all that much by them, compared to say, China and maybe India getting in on the oil consumption market.

9/11/2005 1:42:29 PM

^^ It's a vague assumption that they would not. The only way to really answer this question is to ask them what they were thinking. Doesn't sound to hard to me, anyone here know an outboard manufacturer?

9/11/2005 2:02:21 PM

Well if they put a floor on the mpg's then we would stop seeing Ferrari, Lambo, Bentley, and a lot of other sports cars as well as the big SUV's.

Dunno if I like socializing our choives for vehicles. I personally like the idea of setting like a 4 year goal to raise the percentage of total vehicles that are manufactured to a new higher MPG standard. If they don't shit double the tax on the gas guzzlers or all vehicles that don't make the cut.

Realistically though, its not a bad system right now how they have to average for their fleet. I mean great the Neon does a bit better on gas mileage so they can put out the Viper. But how many Neons do you see on the road compared to Vipers? Perhaps they should do the mpg distribution based on production numbers, rather than weighing a vehicles like the Viper with a run of a few hundred to thousand a year again their econobox cars like Neons which are built 30-50k a year.

I personally would like them to revamp the EPA fuel mileage estimates to a system like Consumer Reports uses. While I currently drive 30 miles to work on 55 mph country roads that I don't have to slow down much on, its not realistic to most consumers to taunt them with those figures and then they get the car and have MPG that is half that.

9/11/2005 2:07:55 PM

I support regulating emission to some extent, since there's nothing "capitalist" about making everybody else pay for your "choice" to pollute the air. As for the mpg, people pay for their choce at a gas pump. If they are happy to spend $100 every week on gas, let them.

9/12/2005 10:19:06 AM

First off, most minivans have gas mileage that is just as bad as an SUV's, sometimes even worse.

Quote :

"CAFE is such a joke... just because Chrysler makes a few vehicles that COULD run off of ethanol they get off the hook for producing vehicles like the Charger or the Viper..."

My Tahoe has the E85 fuel ability but there is only one pump in the state (that I can find listed) that offers it... and its in Shelby. Perhaps this push will get bigger with the infalted gas/oil prices. http://www.e85fuel.com

Instead of taxing some people more, why not just offer significant breaks to those who use alternative fuel vehicles or hybrids? Our government doesn't need more money.

9/12/2005 2:17:39 PM

^ Because that is revenue negative, making the government tax others to buy you a car. Better to tax what you don't like, because at least then the people being hurt are known.

9/12/2005 7:45:20 PM

Hell I'd be in favor of some alcohol/gasoline blends. Saw a website with some guys running a Mustang modded up running on 85% alcohol 15% gasoline. Said she was putting out more power, running cooler, and the gas was cheaper since they put in like midgrade gas and the alcohol upped the octane to like 108. Also alcohol is only like $1.99/gallon right now. Only downside was it lost about 10-15% of its fuel economy, but with the cheaper price, you probably still end up cheaper and faster.

9/12/2005 10:10:31 PM

We're subsidizing the shit shit out of corn (wheat, soybeans...) right now. Why not go for the alcohol blends.

What's the long term effect on engines? I understand the Brazillians are bigtime into this.

9/12/2005 10:13:01 PM