Obama orders new auto fuel standards

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Because the cost of food hasn't risen enough.

Obama to order the EPA to issue new auto fuel standards - Washington Times

 

[TakeAStepBack]

yeah, but check out this sneak peak of the 2016 luxury and heavy duty models that the EPA is heping them push:

Here is the GM 2016 prototype of what was formerly their SUV line up. It offers space, comfort and is energy compliant. it runs on leg power.

Here is Toyota's 2016 prototype offering for the most fuel efficient car on the market.

Here is Honda's answer to having their mid and large size cars not EPA approved in the US. This prototype model for 2016 offers seating for 4, fuel efficiency and what they are calling "the easy door system.

 

[Rozman]

And the Lefties will cheer....

 

[Katzndogz]

If someone wanted to totally crash the country, this is exactly what they would do.

 

[Mr. H.]

Again? I thought they were raised only recently.

 

[Iceweasel]

He wants to outdo Clinton with his idiotic CAFE standards. I made the mistake of buying a GMC Jimmy with a 2.something engine. At 144,000 miles it completely died, the engine was toast. The dealers knew what the problem was and the mechanics confirmed it. It was too small an engine for that body, the 4 liter was fine. Why did they do it? It was the only way they could meet CAFE standards by having a percentage of the line get such and such gas mileage.

Another thing people don't think of, to meet standards the cars are lighter and lighter. They do have good safety features built in but a light body takes a beating in a wreak. So do the occupants.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY]The 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition - YouTube[/ame]

 

[idb]

Why is this a bad thing?

The trucking industry said it’s willing to work with the administration but urged caution.
“Fuel is one of our industry’s largest expenses, so it makes sense that as an industry we would support proposals to use less of it,” said Bill Graves, president and CEO of the American Trucking Association. “However, we should make sure that new rules don’t conflict with safety or other environmental regulations, nor should they force specific types of technology onto the market before they are fully tested and ready.”


Read more: Obama orders up new mileage standards for big rigs - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Why is this a bad thing?

The trucking industry said it’s willing to work with the administration but urged caution.
“Fuel is one of our industry’s largest expenses, so it makes sense that as an industry we would support proposals to use less of it,” said Bill Graves, president and CEO of the American Trucking Association. “However, we should make sure that new rules don’t conflict with safety or other environmental regulations, nor should they force specific types of technology onto the market before they are fully tested and ready.”


Read more: Obama orders up new mileage standards for big rigs - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Because miles per gallon is not the sole way to measure fuel efficiency.

 

[idb]

Why is this a bad thing?

The trucking industry said it’s willing to work with the administration but urged caution.
“Fuel is one of our industry’s largest expenses, so it makes sense that as an industry we would support proposals to use less of it,” said Bill Graves, president and CEO of the American Trucking Association. “However, we should make sure that new rules don’t conflict with safety or other environmental regulations, nor should they force specific types of technology onto the market before they are fully tested and ready.”


Read more: Obama orders up new mileage standards for big rigs - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Because miles per gallon is not the sole way to measure fuel efficiency.

The press release talks about 'fuel economy' - not efficiency.
But, please elaborate.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Horsepower.

We are getting significantly more power out of smaller engines than even 10 years ago. More power AND higher mileage.

After that, it's none of the government's damn business how much I spend for gasoline.

 

[idb]

Horsepower.

We are getting significantly more power out of smaller engines than even 10 years ago. More power AND higher mileage.

After that, it's none of the government's damn business how much I spend for gasoline.

Where does it say that the government is going to tell you how much to spend on gasoline?
I think you're confused.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I'm not confused.

The government is interfering in yet another place where they have no constitutional role.

If I want to buy a car with a fuel swilling engine, and auto makers want to build them for me and others, that's nobody's business but ours.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why is this a bad thing?

Because you cannot legislate physics to co-operate with your wet dream. Auto makers know the value of offering better gas mileage. They are on it. They can only push technology so far, doubling gas milage in a brief time is insane. It could only come from someone with no clue.

 

[idb]

Why is this a bad thing?

Because you cannot legislate physics to co-operate with your wet dream. Auto makers know the value of offering better gas mileage. They are on it. They can only push technology so far, doubling gas milage in a brief time is insane. It could only come from someone with no clue.

The article says 10-20% reduction in consumption.
That isn't doubling.
Maybe maths has changed since I was at school - entirely possible I suppose.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Why is this a bad thing?

Because you cannot legislate physics to co-operate with your wet dream. Auto makers know the value of offering better gas mileage. They are on it. They can only push technology so far, doubling gas milage in a brief time is insane. It could only come from someone with no clue.

The article says 10-20% reduction in consumption.
That isn't doubling.
Maybe maths has changed since I was at school - entirely possible I suppose.

Couldn't care less what the percentage is. It's still none of their business.

 

[idb]

Because you cannot legislate physics to co-operate with your wet dream. Auto makers know the value of offering better gas mileage. They are on it. They can only push technology so far, doubling gas milage in a brief time is insane. It could only come from someone with no clue.

The article says 10-20% reduction in consumption.
That isn't doubling.
Maybe maths has changed since I was at school - entirely possible I suppose.

Couldn't care less what the percentage is. It's still none of their business.

So, you've changed your reason for objecting.
Your original reason was-

Because miles per gallon is not the sole way to measure fuel efficiency.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Haven't changed any reasoning. Just reiterated another objection, stated a few posts ago.

Try to keep up.

 

[idb]

Because you cannot legislate physics to co-operate with your wet dream. Auto makers know the value of offering better gas mileage. They are on it. They can only push technology so far, doubling gas milage in a brief time is insane. It could only come from someone with no clue.

The article says 10-20% reduction in consumption.
That isn't doubling.
Maybe maths has changed since I was at school - entirely possible I suppose.

Couldn't care less what the percentage is. It's still none of their business.

I'm just wondering.
Is it the government's business to keep the Straits of Hormuz open for oil shipments?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Is there a reason you're trying to change the subject?