Does anybody really buy this crap?: Off-topic discussion forum: Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Aug. 9, 2011 3:47 p.m. pstrbrc New Reader

Obama announces fuel standards for big vehicles

The part I liked best:
In a statement, Obama said people who build, buy and drive medium and heavy-duty trucks support the new standards.

The second-best part?
Officials did stress that the costs of making the trucks more fuel-efficient - ranging from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars per vehicle - will be recouped through reduced fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicles.

Now, if all that were true, it means that businesses are right now too stupid to realize that it's possible to build a more efficient vehicle that will recoup the costs of its higher efficiency over the life of the vehicle. (sigh) Businessmen are so stupid. Good thing O is looking out for us.
Aug. 9, 2011 3:50 p.m. nderwater Dork

Take politics out of the debate and just look at the numbers. Tractor-trailers can easily see over a million miles in their service life; box trucks, hundreds of thousands. Then consider how improving a heavy truck by 5 mpg is immensely more productive than improving an econobox by 5 mpg:

Recouping upgrade costs through fuel savings should be pretty easy, but buyers typically balk at any added up-front cost.
Aug. 9, 2011 4:09 p.m. DoctorBlade Dork

ultimately, it'll be the consumer who gets to pay for all this improvement.
Aug. 9, 2011 4:09 p.m. slefain SuperDork

pstrbrc wrote: Good thing O is looking out for us.

Yup, just like W did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act

Bush got the ball rolling on heavy truck fuel economy standards.

I just don't want Bush telling me what light bulb to buy...oh wait, he did.
Aug. 9, 2011 4:17 p.m. Cone_Junky HalfDork

Businesses (big 3) are stupid. Remember how far behind the curve they were with thier vehicles? The Japanese and Koreans OWNED the fuel efficiency market the last time gas prices soared. All the while domestics were pumping out bigger and bigger vehicles. I think we all know how that worked out for them. The US population has a very short attention span. We are dumb enough to buy gas guzzlers the next time fuel prices go down and the first to whine when the prices go back up. The ONLY way the industry will plan for the future is if they are forced to.

Thank goodness Obama is the ONLY President (sarcasm) to ever mandate CAFE standards. Good grief...
Aug. 9, 2011 4:21 p.m. mad_machine SuperDork

I have driven big trucks (box) and it sucks to get single digit MPG. I had often wondered what adding a wing to the roof of the cab to help airflow over the box and maybe some aero panels beneath the box would have done to help the aerodynamcs of the bricks I used to drive
Aug. 9, 2011 4:37 p.m. T.J. SuperDork

Efficiency as a method the reduce consumption is a myth. Making something more efficient will tend to increase its use. Get better mileage from a semi truck so it is cheaper to ship via truck and the result will be more miles driven by trucks and more fuel used. It does not save fuel at all in the big picture. We will never decrease our dependency on foreign oil or save the planet from global warming through greater efficiency....it just doesn't work that way.

If they really wanted to cut back on how many trucks are driving around they should mandate a maximum mpg rating and make it low. That would decrease the mileage driven. Look at CAFE standards over the years and our country's oil consumption. As CAFE standards have gone up so has our overall consumption.
Aug. 9, 2011 5:08 p.m. JoeyM SuperDork

T.J. wrote:

If they really wanted to cut back on how many trucks are driving around they should mandate a maximum mpg rating and make it low. That would decrease the mileage driven.

talk about a way to hurt consumers.....
Aug. 9, 2011 5:17 p.m. T.J. SuperDork

I wasn't saying that's what they should do. I said if they wanted to curtail the amount of oil we use that would work.

The facts are that they want us to believe that they can reduce the amount of oil used by raising CAFE standards, but it simply not true and will never work, and if given 15 seconds of thought the American public would know it and call BS on them, but we as a people seem to excel in not thinking and belieiving what we are told.
Aug. 9, 2011 5:20 p.m. JoeyM SuperDork

T.J. wrote:

I wasn't saying that's what they should do. I said if they wanted to curtail the amount of oil we use that would work.

fair enough
Aug. 9, 2011 5:44 p.m. 914Driver SuperDork

That Hope & Change is working for me!
Aug. 9, 2011 6:09 p.m. Cone_Junky HalfDork

T.J. wrote:

Efficiency as a method the reduce consumption is a myth. Making something more efficient will tend to increase its use. Get better mileage from a semi truck so it is cheaper to ship via truck and the result will be more miles driven by trucks and more fuel used. It does not save fuel at all in the big picture. We will never decrease our dependency on foreign oil or save the planet from global warming through greater efficiency....it just doesn't work that way.

If they really wanted to cut back on how many trucks are driving around they should mandate a maximum mpg rating and make it low. That would decrease the mileage driven. Look at CAFE standards over the years and our country's oil consumption. As CAFE standards have gone up so has our overall consumption.

Does that account for the rise in population, growth of the amount of vehicles on the road, or the increasing use of petroleum used in manufacturing?

Just using increase in vehicle mileage vs our country's oil consumption doesn't even come close to telling the whole story.