Obama to unveil big increase in required mpg

[Cleets Part 2]

Today - right now... at this second in time
Toyota has a hybred engine that gets 35mpg and has 370hp
I don't have the foot pounds of torque spec committed to memory but it's very high as well

so why in seven years - that's f_cking eternity - can't US engineers do that..?

[bobbythekidd]

CAFE standards ruined the American Muscle Car as we now define it. Put in a larger and larger engine in a heavier sturdy box to go in a straight line faster and faster. The more air/fuel you could get to burn in a shorter amount of time; the better it was for the industry. That is a fact that no person here can prove otherwise. I'll wait why some try in vain.

That being said, I'm not sure that is a bad thing. New technologies have been birthed by a tightening of standards actually created a booming aftermarket market (don't mean to sound redundent). We actually have much better cars now than we did then and they go faster and can turn! Better mileage is a straight pipe away, but I like the idea of better engineering to get there.

[D1B]

Nothing has changed, D. They're as slow, inefficient and incapable of change NOW as they were then. If they'd done it THEN, GM and Chrysler would have folded THEN. It's the reason our car companies get their asses handed to them on a regular basis by the Japs.

They met the standards that were raised back then. No reason to think they could not have done it if forced to in the 90's.

But they were content to rake in the billions from everyone buying SUV's, which was good as long as your business model predicted low fuel prices for eternity.

Reagan started us on our current decline. "Reaganism, which coincided with the collapse of America's mortal enemy, the Soviet Union, ushered in a period of history in which more and more public officials denigrated government and offered painless bromides for prosperity. The market is always right. Government is always wrong. And any policy proposal that involved asking the american people to do something difficult - to save more, drive more fuel efficient car, study harder, or be better parents - was "off the table." You could not utter such phrases (so they claimed) and expect to be elected in any high office in America."

From Thomas Friedmans great book Hot, Flat , and Crowded:

[AZGrizFan]

Nothing has changed, D. They're as slow, inefficient and incapable of change NOW as they were then. If they'd done it THEN, GM and Chrysler would have folded THEN. It's the reason our car companies get their asses handed to them on a regular basis by the Japs.

Agree Z, but this is where government steps in and mandates change (CAFE) like the Ford and Carter administrations did. Producing a product (gas guzzlers) that is a direct threat to our national security is insane. Ford/Carter and now Obama understands this. Government is not all bad.

Had Reagan not allowed MPG standards to rollback and essentially gut all programs researching and developing alternative energy we most likely would not have been attacked, we would ne be at war, we would have been the world leader in green energies instead of France, Norway and Japan, and our auto manufacturers would not have to play catch up and would have a waiting list for their hybrids and electric cars instead of Toyota and Honda.

Reagan eventually allow the MPG

All that's well and good, but I just don't see U.S. auto engineers engineering a > 50% increase in gas efficiency in less than 7 years.

[D1B]

Agree Z, but this is where government steps in and mandates change (CAFE) like the Ford and Carter administrations did. Producing a product (gas guzzlers) that is a direct threat to our national security is insane. Ford/Carter and now Obama understands this. Government is not all bad.

Had Reagan not allowed MPG standards to rollback and essentially gut all programs researching and developing alternative energy we most likely would not have been attacked, we would ne be at war, we would have been the world leader in green energies instead of France, Norway and Japan, and our auto manufacturers would not have to play catch up and would have a waiting list for their hybrids and electric cars instead of Toyota and Honda.

Reagan eventually allow the MPG

All that's well and good, but I just don't see U.S. auto engineers engineering a > 50% increase in gas efficiency in less than 7 years.

You would if McCain was president right now. You're a little spoiled kid Z.

I commend Obama for forcing us to sacrifice, something Bush never. I thank Obama for making tough decisions, something Bush never did. I thank Obama for thinking of our children's future, a future of a clean environment and no war over oil, something Bush never did.

[houndawg]

Today - right now... at this second in time
Toyota has a hybred engine that gets 35mpg and has 370hp
I don't have the foot pounds of torque spec committed to memory but it's very high as well

so why in seven years - that's f_cking eternity - can't US engineers do that..?

The problem isn't engineering, the problem is management. Replace the US auto industry's managers with Japanese ones and we're back in the game tomorrow.

[D1B]

Today - right now... at this second in time
Toyota has a hybred engine that gets 35mpg and has 370hp
I don't have the foot pounds of torque spec committed to memory but it's very high as well

so why in seven years - that's f_cking eternity - can't US engineers do that..?

The problem isn't engineering, the problem is management. Replace the US auto industry's managers with Japanese ones and we're back in the game tomorrow.

Dawg, I think that's part of the problem, but to me it's catering to selfish and impatient shareholders. Chasing short term profits versus long term strength and stability.

[dbackjon]

The problem isn't engineering, the problem is management. Replace the US auto industry's managers with Japanese ones and we're back in the game tomorrow.

Dawg, I think that's part of the problem, but to me it's catering to selfish and impatient shareholders. Chasing short term profits versus long term strength and stability.

Which is a major issue for MANY American companies. Many companies now, because of shareholders, only look to the next quarterly statement instead of long-term.

[Cap'n Cat]

They met the standards that were raised back then. No reason to think they could not have done it if forced to in the 90's.

But they were content to rake in the billions from everyone buying SUV's, which was good as long as your business model predicted low fuel prices for eternity.

Reagan started us on our current decline. "Reaganism, which coincided with the collapse of America's mortal enemy, the Soviet Union, ushered in a period of history in which more and more public officials denigrated government and offered painless bromides for prosperity. The market is always right. Government is always wrong. And any policy proposal that involved asking the american people to do something difficult - to save more, drive more fuel efficient car, study harder, or be better parents - was "off the table." You could not utter such phrases (so they claimed) and expect to be elected in any high office in America."

From Thomas Friedmans great book Hot, Flat , and Crowded:

A-fucking-men.

And you hear this kind of shit from people like Limborg every single day. Personal freedom to these diseased people is to not do anything the government even suggests. As in Appaholic's signature, Consume. Watch TV. Be Silent. Work. Die.


Chuckling at Conk "ideals". Like Reagan, they're all sleepwalking through history.

[UNI88]

The problem isn't engineering, the problem is management. Replace the US auto industry's managers with Japanese ones and we're back in the game tomorrow.

Dawg, I think that's part of the problem, but to me it's catering to selfish and impatient shareholders. Chasing short term profits versus long term strength and stability.

D, you're spot on in blaming management issues on impatient shareholders and chasing short term profits. To Dawg's point I don't think replacing management is going to help us improve fuel efficiency 50% in 7 years, that is going to take good ole American know how & innovation. I don't think bureacratic corporations dominated by pencil pushing managers and union reps looking to give their people as big of pay raises and benefit increases as possible are in the best position to get that done. And the Japanese have stereotypically been better at incremental innovations than revolutionary ones. True progress in MPG (and the eventual demise of the internal combustion engine) is likely to come from smaller, more nimble American companies and the government should redirect some of it's tax breaks to encourage these companies to push the envelope.

[D1B]

Dawg, I think that's part of the problem, but to me it's catering to selfish and impatient shareholders. Chasing short term profits versus long term strength and stability.

D, you're spot on in blaming management issues on impatient shareholders and chasing short term profits. To Dawg's point I don't think replacing management is going to help us improve fuel efficiency 50% in 7 years, that is going to take good ole American know how & innovation. I don't think bureacratic corporations dominated by pencil pushing managers and union reps looking to give their people as big of pay raises and benefit increases as possible are in the best position to get that done. And the Japanese have stereotypically been better at incremental innovations than revolutionary ones. True progress in MPG (and the eventual demise of the internal combustion engine) is likely to come from smaller, more nimble American companies and the government should redirect some of it's tax breaks to encourage these companies to push the envelope.

Good post.

[BDKJMU]

EPA poised to scrap Obama CAFE standards
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... story.html
Good- the govt shouldn't be strong arming the vehicle manufacturers with mandates that drive up the cost of vehicles for consumers, pushing them into vehicles they don't want, in the name of alleged global warming.

[CID1990]

im gon go resurrect me one o these geriatric threads


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dbackjon]

EPA poised to scrap Obama CAFE standards
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... story.html
Good- the govt shouldn't be strong arming the vehicle manufacturers with mandates that drive up the cost of vehicles for consumers, pushing them into vehicles they don't want, in the name of alleged global warming.

Another Shitty Trump/GOP idea

CAFE standards have saved Americans billions in fuel costs, saved trillions in saved healthcare costs, and there is nothing alleged about Global Warming.


FUcking shitty ass anti-American Republicans continuing to destroy the country and the planet- - all just need to fuck off and die already and make america great again.

[89Hen]

FUcking shitty ass anti-American Republicans continuing to destroy the country and the planet- - all just need to fuck off and die already and make america great again.

We're in line behind and the shitty ass anti-American Democrats. We expect the queue to be full for another 20 years.

[93henfan]

EPA poised to scrap Obama CAFE standards
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... story.html
Good- the govt shouldn't be strong arming the vehicle manufacturers with mandates that drive up the cost of vehicles for consumers, pushing them into vehicles they don't want, in the name of alleged global warming.

Another Shitty Trump/GOP idea

CAFE standards have saved Americans billions in fuel costs, saved trillions in saved healthcare costs, and there is nothing alleged about Global Warming.


FUcking shitty ass anti-American Republicans continuing to destroy the country and the planet- - all just need to fuck off and die already and make america great again.

Drama queening aside, I agree with you.

It's funny to see him piss you off so much though.

Btw, I think I'll meet whatever standard any President in the next 20-30 years comes up with in my barely legal VW clean diesel: http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/go ... tdi/618927

[andy7171]

It's gotten to the point that the exhaust coming out is cleaner than the air going in, in inhabited areas. Who gives a fuck. Cars today are well beyond the old iron sleds of the 50-60-70's

[AZGrizFan]

EPA poised to scrap Obama CAFE standards
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-p ... story.html
Good- the govt shouldn't be strong arming the vehicle manufacturers with mandates that drive up the cost of vehicles for consumers, pushing them into vehicles they don't want, in the name of alleged global warming.

Another Shitty Trump/GOP idea

CAFE standards have saved Americans billions in fuel costs, saved trillions in saved healthcare costs, and there is nothing alleged about Global Warming.


FUcking shitty ass anti-American Republicans continuing to destroy the country and the planet- - all just need to fuck off and die already and make america great again.

"saved Americans billions in fuel costs" - Costs they didn't ASK to be saved from
"saved trillions in saved healthcare costs" - undocumented, undocumentable, hyperbole
"nothing alleged about global warming" - the entire concept is 'alleged'

[dbackjon]

Another Shitty Trump/GOP idea

CAFE standards have saved Americans billions in fuel costs, saved trillions in saved healthcare costs, and there is nothing alleged about Global Warming.


FUcking shitty ass anti-American Republicans continuing to destroy the country and the planet- - all just need to fuck off and die already and make america great again.

"saved Americans billions in fuel costs" - Costs they didn't ASK to be saved from
"saved trillions in saved healthcare costs" - undocumented, undocumentable, hyperbole
"nothing alleged about global warming" - the entire concept is 'alleged'

Continue to bury your head in Ayn Rand and avoid reality...


The direct benefits of the Clean Air Act from 1970 to 1990 include reduced incidence of a number of
adverse human health effects, improvements in visibility, and avoided damage to agricultural crops. Based on
the assumptions employed, the estimated economic value of these benefits ranges from $5.6 to $49.4 trillion, in
1990 dollars, with a mean, or central tendency estimate, of $22.2 trillion. These estimates do not include a
number of other potentially important benefits which could not be readily quantified, such as ecosystem changes
and air toxics-related human health effects. The estimates are based on the assumption that correlations between
increased air pollution exposures and adverse health outcomes found by epidemiological studies indicate causal
relationships between the pollutant exposures and the adverse health effects.
The direct costs of implementing the Clean Air Act from 1970 to 1990, including annual compliance expenditures
in the private sector and program implementation costs in the public sector, totaled $523 billion in 1990
dollars. This point estimate of direct costs does not reflect several potentially important uncertainties, such as
the degree of accuracy of private sector cost survey results, that could not be readily quantified. The estimate
also does not include several potentially important indirect costs which could not be readily quantified, such as
the possible adverse effects of Clean Air Act implementation on capital formation and technological innovation.

Thus, the retrospective analysis of the benefits and costs of implementing the Clean Air Act from 1970 to
1990 indicates that the mean estimate of total benefits over the period exceeded total costs by more than a factor
of 42. Taking into account the aggregate uncertainty in the estimates, the ratio of benefits to costs range

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fi ... ntsetc.pdf


https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ts/262071/

How the Clean Air Act Has Saved $22 Trillion in Health-Care Costs

In an excerpt from The Silent Epidemic: Coal and the Hidden Threat to Health (MIT Press, September 2012), neurologist Alan H. Lockwood examines how even if the entire cost of complying with the Clean Air Act were assumed by the federal government, we would still be vastly ahead financially.



Reductions in premature deaths are the most important source of the monetized benefits associated with the Clean Air Act amendments. By the year 2020 the scenario predicted by the amended Act avoids 230,000 premature deaths among adults age 30 and above each year. The model also predicts avoiding the deaths of 280 infants each year. The monetary value of these two causes was set at $1.7 trillion for adults and $2.5 billion for infants. Reductions in the number of cases of bronchitis, asthma, myocardial infarction, and other health effects contribute to the predicted $2 trillion in annual benefits by the end of this decade.https://www.foreffectivegov.org/new-soo ... nvironment

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/17/epa ... are-costs/

http://news.mit.edu/2014/cutting-carbon ... vings-0824

Study: Cutting emissions pays for itself
Savings from healthier air can make up for some or all of the cost of carbon-reduction policies.

[93henfan]

Global Warming is undeniable. It's simply fact. Thermometers don't lie.

The cause is debatable, but let's be intellectually honest: you know that all the shit we've pumped into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution has a lot to do with it.

I voted for Trump fellas, because I hate Hillary Clinton more than anybody on the planet beside Maryland drivers.

But c'mon. You know we're fucking up our planet. It won't be made uninhabitable in our lifetimes, but it's certainly being made less livable by human beings by the day. Sure, you can use the law of large numbers and conservative think-tank-funded studies to refute pretty much anything. I'm just saying that deep down inside, you know what's really going on. You just hate hearing Democrats tell it to you.

And I personally hate the misappropriation and overregulation that comes along with when Democrats know they're right, but hey - sometimes you have to suck it up. The environment is one area where I am willing to mingle with them. On guns, I am not.

[BDKJMU]

"saved Americans billions in fuel costs" - Costs they didn't ASK to be saved from
"saved trillions in saved healthcare costs" - undocumented, undocumentable, hyperbole
"nothing alleged about global warming" - the entire concept is 'alleged'

Continue to bury your head in Ayn Rand and avoid reality...


The direct benefits of the Clean Air Act from 1970 to 1990 include reduced incidence of a number of
adverse human health effects, improvements in visibility, and avoided damage to agricultural crops. Based on
the assumptions employed, the estimated economic value of these benefits ranges from $5.6 to $49.4 trillion, in
1990 dollars, with a mean, or central tendency estimate, of $22.2 trillion. These estimates do not include a
number of other potentially important benefits which could not be readily quantified, such as ecosystem changes
and air toxics-related human health effects. The estimates are based on the assumption that correlations between
increased air pollution exposures and adverse health outcomes found by epidemiological studies indicate causal
relationships between the pollutant exposures and the adverse health effects.
The direct costs of implementing the Clean Air Act from 1970 to 1990, including annual compliance expenditures
in the private sector and program implementation costs in the public sector, totaled $523 billion in 1990
dollars. This point estimate of direct costs does not reflect several potentially important uncertainties, such as
the degree of accuracy of private sector cost survey results, that could not be readily quantified. The estimate
also does not include several potentially important indirect costs which could not be readily quantified, such as
the possible adverse effects of Clean Air Act implementation on capital formation and technological innovation.

Thus, the retrospective analysis of the benefits and costs of implementing the Clean Air Act from 1970 to
1990 indicates that the mean estimate of total benefits over the period exceeded total costs by more than a factor
of 42. Taking into account the aggregate uncertainty in the estimates, the ratio of benefits to costs range

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fi ... ntsetc.pdf


https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ts/262071/

How the Clean Air Act Has Saved $22 Trillion in Health-Care Costs

In an excerpt from The Silent Epidemic: Coal and the Hidden Threat to Health (MIT Press, September 2012), neurologist Alan H. Lockwood examines how even if the entire cost of complying with the Clean Air Act were assumed by the federal government, we would still be vastly ahead financially.



Reductions in premature deaths are the most important source of the monetized benefits associated with the Clean Air Act amendments. By the year 2020 the scenario predicted by the amended Act avoids 230,000 premature deaths among adults age 30 and above each year. The model also predicts avoiding the deaths of 280 infants each year. The monetary value of these two causes was set at $1.7 trillion for adults and $2.5 billion for infants. Reductions in the number of cases of bronchitis, asthma, myocardial infarction, and other health effects contribute to the predicted $2 trillion in annual benefits by the end of this decade.https://www.foreffectivegov.org/new-soo ... nvironment

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/17/epa ... are-costs/

http://news.mit.edu/2014/cutting-carbon ... vings-0824

Study: Cutting emissions pays for itself
Savings from healthier air can make up for some or all of the cost of carbon-reduction policies.

We're not talking the Clean Air Act. We're talking CAFE standards. Don't conflate the 2.

[BDKJMU]

Another Shitty Trump/GOP idea

CAFE standards have saved Americans billions in fuel costs, saved trillions in saved healthcare costs, and there is nothing alleged about Global Warming.

**** shitty ass anti-American Republicans continuing to destroy the country and the planet- - all just need to **** off and die already and make america great again.

"saved Americans billions in fuel costs" - Costs they didn't ASK to be saved from

Yep. And on the other hand cost the consumer billions in higher vehicle costs because of higher R&D & production costs. If consumers want better fuel economy in exchange for higher upfront costs, then they'll demand it via the free market. It shouldn't be dictated by govt. Plus the CAFE standards have probably hurt domestic manufacturers more than the foreign.

"saved trillions in saved healthcare costs" - undocumented, undocumentable, hyperbole
"nothing alleged about global warming" - the entire concept is 'alleged'

Yep to both.

[UNI88]

Global Warming is undeniable. It's simply fact. Thermometers don't lie.

The cause is debatable, but let's be intellectually honest: you know that all the **** we've pumped into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution has a lot to do with it.

I voted for Trump fellas, because I hate Hillary Clinton more than anybody on the planet beside Maryland drivers.

But c'mon. You know we're **** up our planet. It won't be made uninhabitable in our lifetimes, but it's certainly being made less livable by human beings by the day. Sure, you can use the law of large numbers and conservative think-tank-funded studies to refute pretty much anything. I'm just saying that deep down inside, you know what's really going on. You just hate hearing Democrats tell it to you.

And I personally hate the misappropriation and overregulation that comes along with when Democrats know they're right, but hey - sometimes you have to suck it up. The environment is one area where I am willing to mingle with them. On guns, I am not.

[Ibanez]

Global Warming is undeniable. It's simply fact. Thermometers don't lie.

The cause is debatable, but let's be intellectually honest: you know that all the shit we've pumped into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution has a lot to do with it.

I voted for Trump fellas, because I hate Hillary Clinton more than anybody on the planet beside Maryland drivers.

But c'mon. You know we're fucking up our planet. It won't be made uninhabitable in our lifetimes, but it's certainly being made less livable by human beings by the day. Sure, you can use the law of large numbers and conservative think-tank-funded studies to refute pretty much anything. I'm just saying that deep down inside, you know what's really going on. You just hate hearing Democrats tell it to you.

And I personally hate the misappropriation and overregulation that comes along with when Democrats know they're right, but hey - sometimes you have to suck it up. The environment is one area where I am willing to mingle with them. On guns, I am not.

You moderate, summabitch.

[BDKJMU]

Global Warming is undeniable. It's simply fact. Thermometers don't lie.

The cause is debatable, but let's be intellectually honest: you know that all the **** we've pumped into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution has a lot to do with it.

I voted for Trump fellas, because I hate Hillary Clinton more than anybody on the planet beside Maryland drivers.

But c'mon. You know we're **** up our planet. It won't be made uninhabitable in our lifetimes, but it's certainly being made less livable by human beings by the day. Sure, you can use the law of large numbers and conservative think-tank-funded studies to refute pretty much anything. I'm just saying that deep down inside, you know what's really going on. You just hate hearing Democrats tell it to you.

And I personally hate the misappropriation and overregulation that comes along with when Democrats know they're right, but hey - sometimes you have to suck it up. The environment is one area where I am willing to mingle with them. On guns, I am not.

Sometimes they do:
Faulty thermometers exaggerated western U.S. mountain warming
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/fau ... in-warming

And people inputting and/or interpreting the data in order to fit an agenda sometimes do.