Interesting Article on the Demise of the V-8

[bill440rt]

Came across this link, thought it was an interesting read. Nothing probably not already known, but thought it was interesting nonetheless.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/24/goodbye-v-8s-the-engines-that/

[resq302]

another reason to buy an old car and fix it up!  No computers, bells, or whistles or other big brother accessable stuff!

[hatersaurusrex]

Wow, I don't get the truck thing.    People use them for, you know, towing and stuff.   The new ford EcoBoost V6 is REALLY impressive (tows 12K lbs), but what about trucks bigger than 1/2 ton?

I guess they'll have to use the old 'Toyota 4 cylinder 1 ton' formula:  90 horse 22R motor with so much gearing it takes 200 seconds to get up to speed, but can pull a 7.5K lb trailer.   Just not uphill very fast

On a related note:  This is why our country is jacked.   Politicians (meaning lawyers by trade mostly) make laws based on engineering, but have no engineering knowledge.   They make our federal budget, but few of them went to school for economics or even understand it.    They have the sole power to send our troops into harm's way and declare war, but almost none of them spent a single day in the military.

This is why our infrastructure crumbles, our debt is through the roof, and our troops are off fighting pointless oil wars.   The wrong people are leading this country.     This is what happens when a distracted public would rather watch reality TV than fix their own nation.    When they wake up it's too late.

Yeah I realize these two things seem unrelated, but I'm fed up with some shitty bureaucracy making rules just to keep itself relevant.

[Mike DC]

            
Washington is increasing CAFE rules because that is what most of the public wants.  

Higher CAFE regs or higher gas prices - we have to pick one or the other.  The public's opinion on this is crystal clear.  It has been for decades.



And even if it wasn't an either/or choice, a decent portion of the public would probably STILL vote for higher CAFE regs just on principle.  

[myk]

They can do whatever they want to with them new-fangled cars and trucks, as long as they leave my current stuff alone.  They can pry the keys to my V8's and my AR rifles out of my cold, dead hands!

[resq302]

           
Washington is increasing CAFE rules because that is what most of the public wants.  

Higher CAFE regs or higher gas prices - we have to pick one or the other.  The public's opinion on this is crystal clear.  It has been for decades.



And even if it wasn't an either/or choice, a decent portion of the public would probably STILL vote for higher CAFE regs just on principle.  

I have to disagree Mike DC.  If the public wanted this then we would see more hybrid or electric cars on the road than gasoline powered vehicles and that is not the case.  You also really can't compare higher CAFE regs to higher gas prices.  Lets face it, the price of gas skyrockets due to some stupid morons "speculating" that consumption will go up so the price goes up yet because of the heat or poor economy, people do not go on vacation causing a surplus in the gasoline.  Essentially, this should make the price of gas drop yet it still remains the same or goes up.

I also disagree with the whole CAFE thing.  How many contractors or landscapers use a truck larger than say an F150 or other 1/2 ton truck for their business?  I know with towing a 9000 trailer that I need  a V-8 whenever I tow my car to a long distance show.  I am not about to settle for a V-6 and crawl up a hill causing a traffic back up.  Again, I would rather then buy a used truck and fix it up vs. having to deal with all the crap that a new one would have.

This country is going to be its own demise with all these regulations and other issues.  Time for someone to get into office and fix it!  I am a huge supporter of taking care of our own country before we go rushing to other countries aid when they have a problem.  The US has its own problems and our government does not seem to be trying to help our own out yet we are the first country that goes in and helps others out.  Maybe it is time for us to start collecting on favors we've done to other countries to help us out!

[Ghoste]

I think you both are a little right.  I think the majority of the public are under the impression that if the government mandate enormous mpg figures then it will magically happen across the board.  Brian is right, the majority do NOT want the hybrids and electrics and the free market system is proof of that.  The public WANT big suvs and such but they also think the huge powerful beasts should get 60mpg because the majority of people have no more knowledge of cars than making flying carpets.

[Cooter]

They can do whatever they want to with them new-fangled cars and trucks, as long as they leave my current stuff alone.  They can pry the keys to my V8's and my AR rifles out of my cold, dead hands!

Be careful what you say, for there might come a day in the near future that BOTH might just happen.

[Mike DC]

I have to disagree Mike DC.  If the public wanted this then we would see more hybrid or electric cars on the road than gasoline powered vehicles and that is not the case.  You also really can't compare higher CAFE regs to higher gas prices.  Lets face it, the price of gas skyrockets due to some stupid morons "speculating" that consumption will go up so the price goes up yet because of the heat or poor economy, people do not go on vacation causing a surplus in the gasoline.  Essentially, this should make the price of gas drop yet it still remains the same or goes up.

Oil is a commodity like steel or copper.  Speculators can temporarily inflate prices but the long term average price is just supply & demand.  (I would support more drilling in the USA but it's not going to make a big difference in the big picture.)


If the govt does not control the efficiency of the vehicle fleet then the US public will buy more gasoline  . . . until gas prices inevitably rise, and the economy stalls . . . and the public starts guillotining everyone in Washington over it.  So, Washington treats the problem by rationing the fuel in each individual car:  They increase CAFE regs.  It really is a choice between higher fuel costs or higher vehicle costs.  


--------------------------------------------------

I think you both are a little right.  I think the majority of the public are under the impression that if the government mandate enormous mpg figures then it will magically happen across the board.  Brian is right, the majority do NOT want the hybrids and electrics and the free market system is proof of that.  The public WANT big suvs and such but they also think the huge powerful beasts should get 60mpg because the majority of people have no more knowledge of cars than making flying carpets.

Exactly.  

[Ghoste]

Do you think the government allows high CAFE standards as a way to ration gasoline and thereby control the economy though, or do you think they allow because the environmental lobby is so strong at the moment and they think it's a sly way to get votes?  For that matter, how much does the governement control the EPA at all?  Are they not a bit of a free rein horse?

[myk]

They can do whatever they want to with them new-fangled cars and trucks, as long as they leave my current stuff alone.  They can pry the keys to my V8's and my AR rifles out of my cold, dead hands!

Be careful what you say, for there might come a day in the near future that BOTH might just happen.

Well then I guess I'll have to look up joinamilitiagroup.com and move out to the sticks or something to protect myself...

[Mike DC]

Do you think the government allows high CAFE standards as a way to ration gasoline and thereby control the economy though, or do you think they allow because the environmental lobby is so strong at the moment and they think it's a sly way to get votes?  For that matter, how much does the governement control the EPA at all?  Are they not a bit of a free rein horse?

Probably none of it is as well planned out as I make it sound.  Certainly not today anyway.  There is a limit to how much the USA can affect oil prices because it's a worldwide market.  We can't lower worldwide oil prices significantly by drilling a little more oil inside US, and the same principle means we also can't decrease our domestic consumption a little bit and lower worldwide prices very much either.  

CAFE was originally a knee-jerk result of the 1970s gas crises.  Now it's probably more the result of environmental stuff and foreign oil dependency concerns.


But regardless of the intent of the laws at one time or another, I think it does work the way I described, at least to some degree.  If we hadn't used CAFE regs for the last 30 years then we would have higher gas prices in the present.  And more CAFE regs will help slow (but not stop) the rising prices in the future.  The price effects wouldn't be big & obvious just from looking at 5 years of data.  But it would be there in the longer term.

 

[Ghoste]

Am I correct that the EPA has a very broad mandate these days and a very long arms length from anything within DC as far as an ability to control what they do?

[Mike DC]

           
If the EPA was really as powerful as the Right complains then we would have a lot fewer environmental problems.  And if the EPA was really as weak as the Left complains then there would be a lot fewer dirty industries moving overseas.



I don't see the EPA alone being able to put a headlock on the automakers as tight as this new round of CAFE is doing.  Not without our foreign oil dependence (and the indirect problems it causes) also playing a big role in it.

[1974dodgecharger]

WELL FCKIN PUT!!!!!!! 

Wow, I don't get the truck thing.    People use them for, you know, towing and stuff.   The new ford EcoBoost V6 is REALLY impressive (tows 12K lbs), but what about trucks bigger than 1/2 ton?

I guess they'll have to use the old 'Toyota 4 cylinder 1 ton' formula:  90 horse 22R motor with so much gearing it takes 200 seconds to get up to speed, but can pull a 7.5K lb trailer.   Just not uphill very fast

On a related note:  This is why our country is jacked.   Politicians (meaning lawyers by trade mostly) make laws based on engineering, but have no engineering knowledge.   They make our federal budget, but few of them went to school for economics or even understand it.    They have the sole power to send our troops into harm's way and declare war, but almost none of them spent a single day in the military.

This is why our infrastructure crumbles, our debt is through the roof, and our troops are off fighting pointless oil wars.   The wrong people are leading this country.     This is what happens when a distracted public would rather watch reality TV than fix their own nation.    When they wake up it's too late.

Yeah I realize these two things seem unrelated, but I'm fed up with some shitty bureaucracy making rules just to keep itself relevant.

[aussiemuscle]

On a related note:  This is why our country is jacked.  

At least your country doesn't blindly follow Europe

Fortunately, a TT 4 cylinder engine can have as much power as old 6s, also the six can have as much power as old V8s.
trouble is here they are trying to kill of the sixes as well 

There is a limit to how much the USA can affect oil prices because it's a worldwide market...Oil is a commodity like steel or copper.....

You do realise oil is not a market controlled commodity, don't you? (hint: no country can sell it's oil cheaper than world price because of OPEC)

[Mike DC]

You do realise oil is not a market controlled commodity, don't you? (hint: no country can sell it's oil cheaper than world price because of OPEC)

OPEC has power because one of their countries still has about 2 ounces of extra producing capacity.  Nobody else on earth has any to spare at all, let alone enough to replace OPEC if they go on strike.  

Supply and demand, that's all it really is.  

[Ghoste]

Yes, OPEC holds the world for ransom and then fanatics come out of those areas hating the western world for only wanting their oil (among many other sins of course).  Ironic.

[resq302]

I beg to differ with you Mike.  The US has a ton of oil to spare, reserves, untapped oil under the ground, plants that are shut down could be reopened, etc.  So, yes, it is out there, but in the US too many tree huggers cry the blues when we try to get this.  Don't forget that we now recycle oil too.  Where is all of that used oil going?  Im sure that something can be done with that.  Yes, I know Valvoline has the recycled oil now on the market in the "green" bottles, but why are they the only ones doing it?

Same arguement can be said for these "wonderful miracle cure" electric cars.... who thinks that the power grid can handle the demand if say, 10 people on a span of a 4 block section gets these cars?  Aside from having to upgrade the electric in their own home to do so in charging up their cars.  Then what about when the batteries die?  It isn't going to be some small battery like the gas powered engine cars have.

[adauto]

And heaven forbid that the EPA would allow updates on our refineries..........

[HPP]

Brian is right, the majority do NOT want the hybrids and electrics and the free market system is proof of that.  .

I saw something recently that said of the electric and hybrid buying public, only 35% of current owners would buy another similar vehicle after owning one. When you consider how small a percentage that segment of the market is to begin with, to think 65% of them woldn't repeat their purchase, I think that pretty much signifys a failed attempt to foist those vehciles on us.

[resq302]

Honestly, with being in the AACA, they had all electric cars out back in the early 1900s.  It failed back then and I have a feeling it is going to fail again this time around.

[Ghoste]

And for largely the same reasons.

[elacruze]

Here's the balancing act.

We have players; Environmentalists, Oil industry, Auto industry, EPA, and Consumers. (Minor players of course such as Caterpillar and the Rail industry, and Trucking industry)

Environmentalists want zero emissions.
Oil industry wants as much oil consumed as possible.
Auto industry wants as many cars on the road as possible.
EPA wants traditional governmental administrative bloat and self-preservation.
Consumers want Everything.

It doesn't take long to see that these players are all in conflict with each other, and in conflict with their own unrealistic desires and expectations.

However.
Environmentalists vote, and they infiltrate positions of authority.
Oil industry spends enormous $$ on lobbying legislation.
Auto industry spends $$ on lobbying and advertising.

EPA is the lynchpin; they have the authority and obligation to mandate all the other players. The really bad part is that they are strangled by their environmentalism vs. political consequenses vs. technological possibility.

So what we end up with is a weird balance that serves no distinct purpose. The reason that most American market cars get about 32mpg max is because the amount of energy it takes to move a car down the road doesn't change. The ratio of emissions (let's limit the conversation to unburned hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen) is set arbitrarily by the EPA. The amount of energy you can get out of a gallon of gas is finite, but the efficiency is not-however, the efficiency is constrained by the emissions edict. The Oil interests want to use more oil, so they want high horsepower engines with high unburned hydrocarbons. The Environmentalists want the least harmful emissions so they want tiny efficient engines with no unburned hydrocarbons. So the EPA has to balance these things with an arbitrary mandate. If you are willing to increase oxides of nitrogen, you can reduce unburned hydrocarbons to nearly zero. This should be the ultimate goal, as it reduces UH but also reduces the overall volume of emitted polution, because the gallons per mile travelled goes way up and consumption goes way down. Neither Oil interests nor most consumers want tiny weak efficient engines, and they vote so the EPA has to serve many masters to maintain their existence.

Clear?

If the goal was actually to preserve resources, maximize efficiency, and reduce overall emissions the EPA would not constrain manufacturers with arbitrary emissions requirements hammered out by special interests-they would look at the overall mass of emissions, weigh the damage of each component of emissions, and assign a percentage appropriate to balance the quantity and damage of emissions to the minimum possible. That is precisely what we do not do.

[Ghoste]

Make no mistake though, the environmental lobby is huge too.  And you forgot one of the players, politicians who want to remain in power so desperately that they are willing to sell their mothers soul for a single vote.

[Mike DC]

I beg to differ with you Mike.  The US has a ton of oil to spare, reserves, untapped oil under the ground, plants that are shut down could be reopened, etc.  So, yes, it is out there, but in the US too many tree huggers cry the blues when we try to get this.  Don't forget that we now recycle oil too.  Where is all of that used oil going?  Im sure that something can be done with that.  Yes, I know Valvoline has the recycled oil now on the market in the "green" bottles, but why are they the only ones doing it?

The amount of oil the USA has . . . it's one of those subjects where the longer you look at it, the more complicated & ambiguous the answer gets.  I've been interested in the oil industry for years and I still don't feel very informed about the whole picture. 


The amount of oil in the ground matters absolutely nothing.  There are fields all over the world containing billions of barrels of perfectly good oil that will probably never be tapped, and some of those are in regions where the local govt lets the oil producers do whatever the hell they want.  

The only thing that matters is the economics of a field.  If oil sells for $100 a barrel and it cost $101/barrel to get oil out of a field, then it does not get pumped.  It doesn't matter if there is a trillion barrels being abandoned.  

There is indeed tons of oil in the USA, but a ton of it is non-economic.  Another ton of it is economic, but it will never get extracted out of the ground at more than a snail's pace, which renders the raw amount irrelevant for today's pricing.  (What good is inheriting a billion dollars if you can only withdraw it from the bank at a rate of $100/week for the rest of your life?  You're technically a billionaire but not in the practical sense.)  

Another ton of the USA's oil is "non-conventional" oil, which often means its not really oil at all.  Rather it's a form of oil's raw material that can be turned into oil with a bunch of money thrown at it.  We "found" a lot of non-conventional oil lately by reclassifying stuff that we've already know about for decades under the umbrella of petroleum reserves.  Some of it realistically deserves to be classified as oil in these discussions, but a lot of it does not.

[Ghoste]

What is the current situation with pumping in the Gulf?

[HPP]

...and automotive emissions are only a slice of the pie, not the whole problem.

[Mike DC]

What is the current situation with pumping in the Gulf?

Gulf of Mexico?  I dunno exactly.  I haven't been following that deal lately.  

The bottom line is that there is producible oil in the GOM and that means there will be operations drilling to get it.  An American order to restrict or stop drilling in the GOM just means it won't happen right off our coastline.  There are still lots of foreign operations just a few miles farther out.  They will merrily continue on drilling (and potentially spilling) anyway.  

[Ghoste]

As they are.  And if my understanding of it is still the current situation, we talk about decreasing our dependance on foreign oil but then not permit the American drillers to get the domestic stuff.  So its just that, talk.

[lloyd3]

Well said elacruze!  I worked as a government contractor for over 20-years.  My clients were EPA and DOD and the Bureau of Reclamation (Wreck-the-nation?).  There are forces pulling in just about all directions, and for all the reasons you specifically mentioned. It's amazing that anything actually gets done anymore, when you consider our current regulatory environment. How this all ends up is anyones guess, but in my mind, it's almost a sure bet that V-8s will become far-less common. Heck, they already are. The era that produced the big V-8s that we so love here, is long past.  Cheap oil, relatively uncrowded roads (the USA had 100 million fewer souls then) and a booming economy were the crucible that brought the musclecar to life.  There is still lots of it left, but cheap oil will never happen again, ever.  Our highways, in general, are pretty crowded and poorly maintained (there are a few exceptions, but in the more populated sections of the country this is the norm). There will always be the wealthy few who have exotic and powerful toys, but the era of mass-produced high-performance is over. Stick a fork in it.  The average Joe will be driving econoboxes from here on out.  And that's if he's lucky. I see mass-transit in the future for lots of folks (far easier to "control" and far-more energy efficient).

Freedom in this country is rapidly becoming an illusion.

[Cooter]

"From our perspective, as consumers, it's not such a good deal. We pay more up front -- and while that will be somewhat mitigated by reduced fuel consumption, those savings may -- and probably will be -- swept away by down-the-road maintenance and repair costs. Smaller, higher-stressed engines tend not to last as long as larger, less stressed engines. A force-fed (turbocharged or supercharged) engine is not likely to be a trouble-free 150,000 mile engine. Maybe these new-generation turbo'd and supercharged engines are built tougher -- and will last longer. Or at least, as long as a similarly powerful, but less stressed, V-8. We'll see. If they don't, look out. Replacing a turbo on a late model car is typically a $2,000-plus job. Many of these CAFE-engineered new cars have two of them."

This is what I've been saying for YEARS..Good thing all my junk is older junk that I can and WILL still work on..just one more reason not to buy a newer car.

[Mike DC]

As they are.  And if my understanding of it is still the current situation, we talk about decreasing our dependance on foreign oil but then not permit the American drillers to get the domestic stuff.  So its just that, talk.

We can't cut our dependence on "foreign" oil and keep our dependence on domestic oil.  The oil market is worldwide.  All the oil produced on earth goes to the same huge auction block before the portion that we buy comes back to the USA.  (At least that's what happens in the financial sense.)  



If OPEC ever actually stopped all production, there goes about 1/3rd of the world's oil.  Prices go up accordingly for everyone in the world, including the USA.  It works that way regardless of how much or little of the world's oil supply is being produced by the USA.  The only way we cut our dependence on "foreign" oil is to cut our dependence on oil in general.  

The threat has never been that OPEC might shut off their pumps for a while and leave us with no oil whatsoever.  They can't do that, never could.  They only have enough power to shut off their pumps and raise worldwide prices.  That is already more than enough to crash our economy.  



We cannot get free of OPEC's threat by just producing enough to supply ourselves.  We only get 100% free of it by having enough unused spare oil-producing capacity sitting idle to make up for OPEC's portion of the worldwide market.  (Never gonna happen in anyone's wildest dreams.  It's geologically impossible by a wide margin.)  

If we could get ANY spare production capacity then it would give us a lot more leverage in the whole matter.  (For decades Saudi Arabia has been the only oil producer in the world with any real spare capacity.  And lately they are spending more money-per-barrel every year to hold onto it.)  By far the most practical way to do that would be to just withhold a portion of the production capacity that we currently have.  

[Ghoste]

It's kind of a sick self defeating cycle in a lot of ways isn't it?

[TruckDriver]

I am really suprized that no one here caught this, that are dip shit president slipped this through congress quietly on the 28th....

Obama administration seals deal with 54.5 mpg standard

The Obama administration on Tuesday released final regulations designed to double the average fuel economy of the American auto fleet to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80273.html#ixzz254VfkjTu
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80273.html?hp=l8

[Ghoste]

Nice.  Get your North American car while you can because the tiny cars only are on their way.

[Mike DC]

Well, we have tried leaving the MPG rules stangnant & full of loopholes for the last 20 years.  

The result was 5000-lb trucks being the new commuter cars, 3 middle-eastern wars fought in that time, and a population that pretends there is no connection there.




I'm not thrilled about 54mpg either, but IMHO the American public could use some moderation on this subject.  Would a 35mpg regulation have been so terrible? 

Or better yet, just raise the price of gasoline and leave the cars & trucks alone? 

[lloyd3]

A fleet average of 54.5 mpg?   Are automakers going to start selling mopeds and motorcycles now?  Oh well, by 2025 I'm guessing that I won't really give a damn.

[stripedelete]

The more we drill the less they pump.  The supply/demand ratio will always remain at the price they choose.  It's a strategic commodity and they are in control.  We have only got away with our "oil wars" because we won the cold war, but, that is going to change.  The only way out is an alternative energy source. 

In the mean time, why not 54 MPG?  We sent a man to the moon with a computer you get in box of cereal today, but, we can't make this happen?  Mike DC is spot-on.  In regards to CAFE, the automakers have been "phoning-it-in" for the last 25 years.  In this case the EPA has my full support.       

As for the V8, back in the 20's or 30's there was probably some writer lamenting the demise of the V-12.  Myself,,,I've never missed it.

[Fred]

Oh well, by 2025 I'm guessing that I won't really give a damn.

I'm with you.

[resq302]

by that time I could have restored a nice old Dodge Power Wagon! Screw these new cars!

[HPP]

I am really suprized that no one here caught this, that are dip shit president slipped this through congress quietly on the 28th....

Obama administration seals deal with 54.5 mpg standard

Actually, that was mentioned in the third post on this subject on teh first page, which has subsequently lead to the oil conversation.

[Ghoste]

Well, we have tried leaving the MPG rules stangnant & full of loopholes for the last 20 years.  

The result was 5000-lb trucks being the new commuter cars, 

 

The key question there though is, did they become the new commuter cars because Americans wanted to drive vehicles that got lousy gas mileage or did they want to drive vehicles that were large enough to accomodate their needs?  I'm going to guess number two. 

[resq302]

Well, we have tried leaving the MPG rules stangnant & full of loopholes for the last 20 years.  

The result was 5000-lb trucks being the new commuter cars,  

 

The key question there though is, did they become the new commuter cars because Americans wanted to drive vehicles that got lousy gas mileage or did they want to drive vehicles that were large enough to accomodate their needs?  I'm going to guess number two.  

Very true.  My wife all the time wonders WHY I have to have a pick up truck.  Here is my reasoning for her:  1) I work for a police dept as a communications officer.  I live about 30 mins away from my job and where I live, we get snow where about 10 mins away will get rain.  I don't have the pleasure of not going into work because the weather is crappy.  Hence, the need for 4wd.  2) I do a TON of work around the house.  Sheet rock or plywood will not typically fit onto a 4 door sedan or let alone make it home in the shape it was at the Lowes store.  3) I carry around auto parts sometimes which would never fit into a typical car or even SUV.  4) It has a full frame, hence, makes me feel a lot safer than driving a car with unibody (personal preference on that one but the wife agrees).  5) I can add a plow to it and get snow removed quicker instead of using a snow blower (if I so chose).  6) I can help my friends out with having a truck since numerous times I have been called upon to go get furniture or help people move, and lastly (and probably the biggest one) 7) I can TOW my enclosed car trailer if I need to go to a long distance show and not have to worry about driving on the crappy bias ply tires if it is a strict show.

[elacruze]

I have a '68 Dodge 3/4 ton pickup because I need it. I also have a Chinese scooter that gets 70 mpg for milk runs and errands.
Of course it never snows here.

[stripedelete]

Well, we have tried leaving the MPG rules stangnant & full of loopholes for the last 20 years.  

The result was 5000-lb trucks being the new commuter cars, 

 

The key question there though is, did they become the new commuter cars because Americans wanted to drive vehicles that got lousy gas mileage or did they want to drive vehicles that were large enough to accomodate their needs?  I'm going to guess number two. 

The manufacturer that provides both,,,, wins.

[Ghoste]

If it can be done, I believe that if it could it would have already happened but I guess this will be a good test of whether or not that is true.  In any case, the free market doesn't get a choice, a federal decree is going to mandate the products we get to pick from and my own opinion is that we will be forced to compromise greatly in the area of size and utility.
I hope I am wrong though and the automakers will find the technology to deliver the type of vehicles our buying habits say we want and deliver fuel efficiency figures that are nothing short of astonishing.

[Mike DC]

  
The govt isn't mandating the sticker prices.  You can get a pretty fuel-efficient large car if you make the whole thing out of unobtanium and pass the mountains of extra expenses on to the customers.


Whenever I'm in doubt about how a change in some aspect of our lives will play out, I just look for an answer that pleases the wealthy but makes it more difficult for people in the lower & middle classes to afford their daily life.  It's usually what happens.

[1974dodgecharger]

this will increase the value of muscle cars drasticly 

I am really suprized that no one here caught this, that are dip shit president slipped this through congress quietly on the 28th....

Obama administration seals deal with 54.5 mpg standard

The Obama administration on Tuesday released final regulations designed to double the average fuel economy of the American auto fleet to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80273.html#ixzz254VfkjTu
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80273.html?hp=l8

[Cooter]

Well, we have tried leaving the MPG rules stangnant & full of loopholes for the last 20 years.  

The result was 5000-lb trucks being the new commuter cars, 

 

The key question there though is, did they become the new commuter cars because Americans wanted to drive vehicles that got lousy gas mileage or did they want to drive vehicles that were large enough to accomodate their needs?  I'm going to guess number two. 

Neither IMO.....People Drive big 'ol crazy, heavy, Pick ups and SUV's because they want to feel safe by driving a tank and could care less how many MPG it gets.
Ask any soccer mom in a Big ass Ford Excursion....

[Ghoste]

I'd say then that feeling safe is one of their needs.

[Tilar]

They can pry the keys to my V8's and my AR rifles out of my cold, dead hands!

My thought is that if they want to do that, whoever orders it better send someone they have no emotional attachment to. There's a really good chance they won't be down for breakfast.