Trump talking about reviewing/rolling back 54.4 mpg fuel economy regulations
03-19-17, 09:57 AM
#46
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
I don't want this to get political but a very successful businessman for decades who is a billionaire and guy who ran for President his first time with his own money who is not a seasoned politician managed to win against a seasoned politician with the entire media and entertainment industry on her side is not "whack in the brain" at all.
03-19-17, 11:51 AM
#47
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
trump doesn't need the money, the fame, is not seeking anything else, and can just do what he feels is right, whether anyone agrees with him or not. actual politicians are not like that (pandering, buying votes with donations, etc, appealing to 'groups', etc).
03-19-17, 01:29 PM
#49
03-19-17, 02:48 PM
#50
Lexus Fanatic
While the moderators, of course (as it should be), have the last word on what is acceptable or not in a forum, it can often be difficult to avoid politics when it comes to a subject like Federally-imposed MPG and emission standards. Politics is where those standards originate....and, of course, how they change. They are voted on by politicians and bureaucrats (and sometimes wind up in Federal court with judges), who, in many cases, have little knowledge of the science behind them...and usually aren't car enthusiasts like we are.
Last edited by mmarshall; 03-19-17 at 03:05 PM.
03-19-17, 03:04 PM
#51
Lexus Champion
^^ The point is there are posts on here that are political with zero to do with mileage standards. It's off topic and political posts don't belong in Car Chat.
03-19-17, 03:06 PM
#52
Lexus Fanatic
You can report any post that you think improper to a moderator. Just click on that small red-border triangle in the lower-left-hand corner. The mods in this forum do a good job, and they will at least check it out.
Last edited by mmarshall; 03-19-17 at 03:14 PM.
03-19-17, 06:29 PM
#53
Lexus Champion
We've got too many unemployed people in the Rust Belt to keep making excuses.....the time for protectionism has come. That is why Trump got elected. The protectionism he wants will actually turn the clock forward, not back. We have had decades of just the opposite....increasing globalization and outsourcing of jobs. Enough is Enough....that just won't cut it any more. Those days are gone...or will soon be. The rollback of the MPG standards (if it comes about) will also help a lot....by allowing more of the type of vehicles built that many people want, and are willing to buy.
03-19-17, 07:54 PM
#54
Lexus Fanatic
I don't think the moderators would want us to get off too deeply into non-automotive-ralated topics here, though. (we have a Debate forum for that).
03-20-17, 05:38 AM
#55
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
looking back at some early posts here... so we can move on from politics (and healthcare)...
the standard says makers must have 54mpg on AVERAGE by 2025. that seems absurd to me, but i have no problem with INCENTIVES for selling more efficient vehicles, especially if combined with a determined effort for the u.s. to become energy independent, specifically reducing our dependence on the middle east and other hotspots to zero.
yup, ridiculous.
except those 'challenging high bars' actually cost consumers money too. the new sophisticated turbo, hybrid and other engines and transmissions have cost a fortune to develop. guess what, car makers have less money and interest in doing fun, limited volume products like coupes and sports cars.
with the rise of dozens of very similar cuvs and suvs now on the road, car makers have gone very safe and bland. and while suvs might seem an odd choice if makers are trying to be more fuel efficient, it's because the world has realized you can't hide lots of batteries in sedans or other small cars.
but you can, pretty easily, in taller vehicles.
the standard says makers must have 54mpg on AVERAGE by 2025. that seems absurd to me, but i have no problem with INCENTIVES for selling more efficient vehicles, especially if combined with a determined effort for the u.s. to become energy independent, specifically reducing our dependence on the middle east and other hotspots to zero.
nothing drives innovation like challenging targets and more to the point efficiency and performance aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. It may well make sense to set lower targets, but there's nothing necessarily wrong in setting the bar reasonably high and challenging manufacturers to meet goals that aren't always easy to meet.
with the rise of dozens of very similar cuvs and suvs now on the road, car makers have gone very safe and bland. and while suvs might seem an odd choice if makers are trying to be more fuel efficient, it's because the world has realized you can't hide lots of batteries in sedans or other small cars.
but you can, pretty easily, in taller vehicles.
03-20-17, 08:30 AM
#56
Lexus Champion
except those 'challenging high bars' actually cost consumers money too. the new sophisticated turbo, hybrid and other engines and transmissions have cost a fortune to develop. guess what, car makers have less money and interest in doing fun, limited volume products like coupes and sports cars.
Yes, innovation costs money, but that money spent is an investment rather than an expense, especially if you are creating the innovative new products rather than buying ready-made products from elsewhere. Why do you think there are so many local governments trying to attract autonomous driving research and testing?
03-20-17, 08:45 AM
#57
Pole Position
except those 'challenging high bars' actually cost consumers money too. the new sophisticated turbo, hybrid and other engines and transmissions have cost a fortune to develop. guess what, car makers have less money and interest in doing fun, limited volume products like coupes and sports cars.
with the rise of dozens of very similar cuvs and suvs now on the road, car makers have gone very safe and bland. and while suvs might seem an odd choice if makers are trying to be more fuel efficient, it's because the world has realized you can't hide lots of batteries in sedans or other small cars.
but you can, pretty easily, in taller vehicles.My main point is that real innovation will happen when challenging goals are set and expected to be met. Letting US automakers off the hook is almost certain, in my view, to result in frankly mediocre future product that will fall behind those designed and produced elsewhere. I'd argue the US manufacturers should be embracing this challenge as much as fearing it. It's in their and our best interests for them to do so. I always expected the 2025 or so target to be relaxed, but to do so now will stifle innovation and encourage lazy phoned-in cars with big inefficient engines to overcome weight due to cheap construction.
As I said before, holding their feet to the fire for a long as possible is a good thing. It's what enthusiasts should be demanding.
Last edited by swajames; 03-20-17 at 08:56 AM.
03-20-17, 11:14 AM
#58
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
One thing that has not been mentioned is that innovation can be a net creator of jobs, and of high-value, solid middle-class engineering jobs. All levels of government, especially local (municipal) and state/provincial governments are doing what they can to try to attract these high-value jobs.
Yes, innovation costs money, but that money spent is an investment rather than an expense, especially if you are creating the innovative new products rather than buying ready-made products from elsewhere. Why do you think there are so many local governments trying to attract autonomous driving research and testing?
Yes, innovation costs money, but that money spent is an investment rather than an expense, especially if you are creating the innovative new products rather than buying ready-made products from elsewhere. Why do you think there are so many local governments trying to attract autonomous driving research and testing?
Non-US automakers aren't standing still, particularly in Germany, and they are highly likely to follow a path of greater efficiency and lighter weight regardless of whether they are required to because of CAFE - because they are subject to EU efficiency targets and, more importantly, comsumer demand for more efficient vehicles.
New technology isn't cheap to develop, but those that invest stand the greatest chance of reaping future rewards.
As an example, I'm driving a car right now that cost Toyota way more to build than they can sell it for
edit: i see you're driving a mirai. again, toyota and others MUST make experimental cars and get feedback because they have no choice.
Letting US automakers off the hook is almost certain, in my view, to result in frankly mediocre future product that will fall behind those designed and produced elsewhere.
I'd argue the US manufacturers should be embracing this challenge as much as fearing it.
I always expected the 2025 or so target to be relaxed, but to do so now will stifle innovation and encourage lazy phoned-in cars with big inefficient engines to overcome weight due to cheap construction.
03-20-17, 11:25 AM
#59
Pole Position
Good discussion and good points 
i do think I'm right about the phoned-in vehicles though. We all benefit if cars get lighter and more efficient (while maintaining safety) and for all its flaws the CAFE target was/is one way of getting there. Something has to drive innovation and market forces alone may not be enough while fuel is cheap. That fuel won't last forever, though, and at some point gas is inevitably going to increase in price....
we've got to set a high bar, easy goals aren't worth setting, but I also recognize that we've also got to reward efforts to get as close to that bar as is reasonably possible.
i do think I'm right about the phoned-in vehicles though. We all benefit if cars get lighter and more efficient (while maintaining safety) and for all its flaws the CAFE target was/is one way of getting there. Something has to drive innovation and market forces alone may not be enough while fuel is cheap. That fuel won't last forever, though, and at some point gas is inevitably going to increase in price....
we've got to set a high bar, easy goals aren't worth setting, but I also recognize that we've also got to reward efforts to get as close to that bar as is reasonably possible.
03-20-17, 11:40 AM
#60
Lexus Fanatic
That's one of the problems, thoughs....and all you have to do is consult Physics 101. All else equal, it can be difficult to maintain crashworthiness as vehicles get lighter. Yes, safety-equipment helps, as with good design and up-to-date features, but the scientific fact is that lighter vehicles have less kinetic energy in a crash, and are more likely to be severely damaged, particularly in collisions with larger, heavier vehicles. I don't care what kind of advanced Mercedes-designed "safety" roll cage a Smart-for-Two may have......run one head-on into a Chevy Suburban and watch what happens.
Last edited by mmarshall; 03-20-17 at 11:49 AM.