Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

President Bush told a crowd of auto workers on the outskirts of Kansas
City Tuesday that the hybrid vehicles they make are fitting examples
of the fuel-efficient vehicles he hopes to see filling roads in the
future.
Read More
http://9updates.blogspot.com/2007/03...-bushs_21.html

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On 9 Apr 2007 04:05:01 -0700, "kaash" <kashifraza.tbm@gmail.com>
wrote:

>President Bush told a crowd of auto workers on the outskirts of Kansas
>City Tuesday that the hybrid vehicles they make are fitting examples
>of the fuel-efficient vehicles he hopes to see filling roads in the
>future.
>Read More
>http://9updates.blogspot.com/2007/03...-bushs_21.html

Meanwhile, he is pushing for revisions of the CAFE regulations which
will allow manufacturers to build more monster SUVs without penalty.

Hey George, if you want to do something about fuel efficiency, why
don't you propose incentives for consumers and manufacturers to
purchase and build fuel efficient cars instead of monster trucks.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Hey George, if you want to do something about fuel efficiency, why
> don't you propose incentives for consumers and manufacturers to
> purchase and build fuel efficient cars instead of monster trucks.

People who want them can buy them now. If you don't want that
shitbox there are other choices such as honda civic hybrid
and (a used) insight for you. You have a choice to work for a company
that partially pays for such a shitbox.
You want MORE from the government and the corporate?

I don't want a Toyolet prius thank you very much.
I hope that whoever tightens CAFE standards for cars
any further will fall the victim of the next Timothy James McVeigh
that he creates in that process.
Could not care less about the trucks. Why won't they screw
up the requirement for trucks?

The car drivers are already screwed
with the previous CAFE version and other regulations that apply
to cars but not the trucks.

As if it was not enough there is more regulatory in the
form of the mandatory stability control coming my way.

The useless s in DOT and NHTSA have too much time on their
hands and their tiny reptilian brains are just uncapable of
processing the corner cases correctly.
What a pitiful bunch.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On 9 Apr 2007 08:42:42 -0700, isquat@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Hey George, if you want to do something about fuel efficiency, why
>> don't you propose incentives for consumers and manufacturers to
>> purchase and build fuel efficient cars instead of monster trucks.
>
>People who want them can buy them now. If you don't want that
>shitbox there are other choices such as honda civic hybrid
>and (a used) insight for you. You have a choice to work for a company
>that partially pays for such a shitbox.

Encouraging people to drive hybrids is meaningless as long as we are
also encouraging others to drive monster SUVs.

>You want MORE from the government and the corporate?

Yes, what's wrong with wanting more?

>I don't want a Toyolet prius thank you very much.
>I hope that whoever tightens CAFE standards for cars
>any further will fall the victim of the next Timothy James McVeigh
>that he creates in that process.

So we shouldn't regulate vehicles because some right-wing nut will
blow up buildings? Anyway, I wouldn't tighten the regs on cars, so
much as modify them to make larger cars viable alternatives to SUVs.

>Could not care less about the trucks. Why won't they screw
>up the requirement for trucks?

Huh?

>The car drivers are already screwed
>with the previous CAFE version and other regulations that apply
>to cars but not the trucks.

CAFE does apply to trucks, but it is a separate calculation with lower
mileage standards. The problem is that the car companies got a very
flexible definition of "truck" which allows them to play games with
the numbers. The reasons why CAFE is so screwed up: 1. car companies
were allowed too much influence to manipulate the rules, and 2. There
has been insufficient political will to modify the rules to close the
loopholes exploited by car companies.

Still, there may be better solutions than CAFE. How about an extra $3
tax on motor vehicle fuels and a $3000 tax credit (claimable even if
it exceeds income tax liability) and a rebate for legitimate business
use of trucks. I bet that if gas went up to $6, we wouldn't need CAFE
to encourage conservation. If family a family drives 24,000 miles per
year in cars that gets 24 mpg, the tax credit would exactly offset the
additional fuel cost. If they want to drive a Hummer, they can pay an
extra $3000 for the privilege. OTOH, if they buy a hybrid and/or
reduce driving they can pocket the savings.

>As if it was not enough there is more regulatory in the
>form of the mandatory stability control coming my way.

Irrelevant.

>The useless s in DOT and NHTSA have too much time on their
>hands and their tiny reptilian brains are just uncapable of
>processing the corner cases correctly.

What's a corner case?

>What a pitiful bunch.

You apparently don't even have a clue what these agencies do.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On Apr 9, 11:46 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2007 08:42:42 -0700, isq...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> Hey George, if you want to do something about fuel efficiency, why
> >> don't you propose incentives for consumers and manufacturers to
> >> purchase and build fuel efficient cars instead of monster trucks.
>
> >People who want them can buy them now. If you don't want that
> >shitbox there are other choices such as honda civic hybrid
> >and (a used) insight for you. You have a choice to work for a company
> >that partially pays for such a shitbox.
>
> Encouraging people to drive hybrids is meaningless as long as we are
> also encouraging others to drive monster SUVs.

Who is encouraging them to buy trucks????

> >You want MORE from the government and the corporate?
>
> Yes, what's wrong with wanting more?

BECAUSE people with stick shift cars would get even
more screwed up gearing.

> >I don't want a Toyolet prius thank you very much.
> >I hope that whoever tightens CAFE standards for cars
> >any further will fall the victim of the next Timothy James McVeigh
> >that he creates in that process.
>
> So we shouldn't regulate vehicles because some right-wing nut will
> blow up buildings? Anyway, I wouldn't tighten the regs on cars,

I hope he'll do a bit of a research and target a DOT or NHTSA think
tank next time instead of blowing a random federal building.

so
> much as modify them to make larger cars viable alternatives to SUVs.
>
> >Could not care less about the trucks. Why won't they screw
> >up the requirement for trucks?
>
> Huh?

CAFE average for the truck category is about 6mpg lower than it
is for cars for example.

> >The car drivers are already screwed
> >with the previous CAFE version and other regulations that apply
> >to cars but not the trucks.
>
> CAFE does apply to trucks, but it is a separate calculation with lower
> mileage standards. The problem is that the car companies got a very
> flexible definition of "truck" which allows them to play games with
> the numbers. The reasons why CAFE is so screwed up: 1. car companies
> were allowed too much influence to manipulate the rules, and 2. There
> has been insufficient political will to modify the rules to close the
> loopholes exploited by car companies.

Maybe that's why there are still some cars that a driveable
and fun on the market today. I gotta thank the lawmarkers
at least for that.

> Still, there may be better solutions than CAFE. How about an extra $3
> tax on motor vehicle fuels and a $3000 tax credit (claimable even if
> it exceeds income tax liability) and a rebate for legitimate business
> use of trucks. I bet that if gas went up to $6, we wouldn't need CAFE
> to encourage conservation. If family a family drives 24,000 miles per
> year in cars that gets 24 mpg, the tax credit would exactly offset the
> additional fuel cost. If they want to drive a Hummer, they can pay an
> extra $3000 for the privilege. OTOH, if they buy a hybrid and/or
> reduce driving they can pocket the savings.

You can move overseas to satisfy your thirst for $6/gallon gas.
UK for one and Japan for another are pretty close to that I think.
You'd get to pay exorbitant prices for the cars, insurance,
registration, etc too. On the flip side those countries
haven't imported as many ugly bastards as US yet. Or so I think.

> >As if it was not enough there is more regulatory in the
> >form of the mandatory stability control coming my way.
>
> Irrelevant.

It is? Does your job have anything to do with the actual
product development or you are one of the marketing types
that come up with assorted set of disjoint and otherwise
ed up specifications?

> >The useless s in DOT and NHTSA have too much time on their
> >hands and their tiny reptilian brains are just uncapable of
> >processing the corner cases correctly.
>
> What's a corner case?

Cars with manual transmissions and short gearing.
Once the displacement goes up the gearing gets taller
to accomodate for the averages they have to meet.

> >What a pitiful bunch.
>
> You apparently don't even have a clue what these agencies do.

They set a bunch of regulations that feed the
overblown legal departments at all automakers.
Did I miss anything important here?
Hmm, I don't think I did.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

Well, everyone else is putting in their two cents, so here goes...

Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at
all? If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV, I want to be able to
whether the government agrees with it or not. As long as I can afford
the gas, that's all that should matter. I don't see why the government
should have a say in any of that.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

> Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at
> all? If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV, I want to be able to
> whether the government agrees with it or not. As long as I can afford
> the gas, that's all that should matter. I don't see why the government
> should have a say in any of that.

Amen ! I drive a 5.4L Ford Expedition and my wife drives a 5 spd
Honda Civic EX. Each to his own even if she does gripe at me
that my Expy uses 2X as much gas as her civic. She sure does
like to travel in the Expy though with the dog, etc...

Lynn

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficientcars
 

Robert wrote:
> Well, everyone else is putting in their two cents, so here goes...
>
> Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at
> all? If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV, I want to be able to
> whether the government agrees with it or not. As long as I can afford
> the gas, that's all that should matter. I don't see why the government
> should have a say in any of that.
>



I'm with you on that. They should stay out of everything except the
basics for safety and function and by that I mean nothing more mandatory
than seat belts and a functioning exhaust to keep you from being
overcome by fumes.

Let the market place and prowess of the consumer dictate what direction
car design takes.

JT

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficientcars
 

Lynn McGuire wrote:

>> Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at
>> all? If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV, I want to be able to
>> whether the government agrees with it or not. As long as I can afford
>> the gas, that's all that should matter. I don't see why the government
>> should have a say in any of that.
>
>
> Amen ! I drive a 5.4L Ford Expedition and my wife drives a 5 spd
> Honda Civic EX. Each to his own even if she does gripe at me that my
> Expy uses 2X as much gas as her civic. She sure does like to travel in
> the Expy though with the dog, etc...
>
> Lynn
>


I drive an ancient Honda Civic daily but if it absolutely becomes push
to shove, I'll drive the Studebaker T-Cab and the last word in
dependability and ability to carry a *real* load...

JT

(A slave to nothing!)

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On 10 Apr 2007 08:38:50 -0700, "Robert" <kraft.fhs@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, everyone else is putting in their two cents, so here goes...
>
>Why does the federal government need to regulate the auto companies at
>all? If I want to drive a gas guzzling SUV, I want to be able to
>whether the government agrees with it or not. As long as I can afford
>the gas, that's all that should matter. I don't see why the government
>should have a say in any of that.

You know, that wouldn't be a bad idea if the price at the pump
reflected the true cost of the product including:

Past, present and future costs of pollution which invariably result
from the consumption of this product. This includes, but is not
limited to, injury and death of humans from air pollution, damage to
streams and lakes from runoff, general damage to the environment, and
now the prospect of climate catastrophe growing ever more likely to
cost untold trillions of dollars over the next century.

Future costs of squandering our finite resources which will inevitably
drive up the cost faster and sooner than would otherwise be the case.

Past, present and future costs associated with our involvement in the
Middle East and potentially other regions driven by our demand for
oil.

These costs are hard to calculate but they are massive. And they are
not reflected in the price you pay at the pump beyond a few pennies in
tax. (If paid for by a gas tax, Iraq would be about a dollar a
gallon.)

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On 9 Apr 2007 22:23:19 -0700, isquat@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 9, 11:46 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2007 08:42:42 -0700, isq...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 9, 8:14 am, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> Hey George, if you want to do something about fuel efficiency, why
>> >> don't you propose incentives for consumers and manufacturers to
>> >> purchase and build fuel efficient cars instead of monster trucks.
>>
>> >People who want them can buy them now. If you don't want that
>> >shitbox there are other choices such as honda civic hybrid
>> >and (a used) insight for you. You have a choice to work for a company
>> >that partially pays for such a shitbox.
>>
>> Encouraging people to drive hybrids is meaningless as long as we are
>> also encouraging others to drive monster SUVs.
>
>Who is encouraging them to buy trucks????

You mean besides the multi-billion dollar ad campaign? How about the
government allowing the car companies to classify passenger vehicles
as trucks and thereby avoid car regulation? How about the insurance
companies that charge the same flat fee for liability insurance
whether you drive a Civic or a Suburban?
>
>> >You want MORE from the government and the corporate?
>>
>> Yes, what's wrong with wanting more?
>
>BECAUSE people with stick shift cars would get even
>more screwed up gearing.

You are really hitting the wacky pills tonight.

>> >I don't want a Toyolet prius thank you very much.
>> >I hope that whoever tightens CAFE standards for cars
>> >any further will fall the victim of the next Timothy James McVeigh
>> >that he creates in that process.
>>
>> So we shouldn't regulate vehicles because some right-wing nut will
>> blow up buildings? Anyway, I wouldn't tighten the regs on cars,
>
>I hope he'll do a bit of a research and target a DOT or NHTSA think
>tank next time instead of blowing a random federal building.
>
>so
>> much as modify them to make larger cars viable alternatives to SUVs.
>>
>> >Could not care less about the trucks. Why won't they screw
>> >up the requirement for trucks?
>>
>> Huh?
>
>CAFE average for the truck category is about 6mpg lower than it
>is for cars for example.

So when you say, "screw up" you mean "increase" ? Not an unreasonable
thing to do but it could be meaningless unless they change the
fundamental regs. For instance, there is no CAFE regulation of
Suburbans and Expeditions, they are too big to be covered by CAFE. At
the other extreme, there would be nothing to stop Toyota from
classifying a slightly modified Prius as a truck. Sell one Prius SUV
and you can sell six Sequoias. Car companies already do this - the PT
Cruiser is a Neon classified as a truck.

>> >The car drivers are already screwed
>> >with the previous CAFE version and other regulations that apply
>> >to cars but not the trucks.
>>
>> CAFE does apply to trucks, but it is a separate calculation with lower
>> mileage standards. The problem is that the car companies got a very
>> flexible definition of "truck" which allows them to play games with
>> the numbers. The reasons why CAFE is so screwed up: 1. car companies
>> were allowed too much influence to manipulate the rules, and 2. There
>> has been insufficient political will to modify the rules to close the
>> loopholes exploited by car companies.
>
>Maybe that's why there are still some cars that a driveable
>and fun on the market today. I gotta thank the lawmarkers
>at least for that.

The loopholes do not help fun cars. The loopholes help trucks. The
truth is that you are being denied a lot of interesting cars because
the manufacturer would rather that you buy a truck because it makes
his CAFE numbers work a lot better.

>> Still, there may be better solutions than CAFE. How about an extra $3
>> tax on motor vehicle fuels and a $3000 tax credit (claimable even if
>> it exceeds income tax liability) and a rebate for legitimate business
>> use of trucks. I bet that if gas went up to $6, we wouldn't need CAFE
>> to encourage conservation. If family a family drives 24,000 miles per
>> year in cars that gets 24 mpg, the tax credit would exactly offset the
>> additional fuel cost. If they want to drive a Hummer, they can pay an
>> extra $3000 for the privilege. OTOH, if they buy a hybrid and/or
>> reduce driving they can pocket the savings.
>
>You can move overseas to satisfy your thirst for $6/gallon gas.

$6 might come closer to reflecting the true cost. Crusades don't come
cheap. But if you don't want a gas tax, there is CAFE.

>UK for one and Japan for another are pretty close to that I think.
>You'd get to pay exorbitant prices for the cars, insurance,
>registration, etc too. On the flip side those countries
>haven't imported as many ugly bastards as US yet. Or so I think.

Well, not until you go there.






>
>> >As if it was not enough there is more regulatory in the
>> >form of the mandatory stability control coming my way.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>It is? Does your job have anything to do with the actual
>product development or you are one of the marketing types
>that come up with assorted set of disjoint and otherwise
>ed up specifications?
>
>> >The useless s in DOT and NHTSA have too much time on their
>> >hands and their tiny reptilian brains are just uncapable of
>> >processing the corner cases correctly.
>>
>> What's a corner case?
>
>Cars with manual transmissions and short gearing.
>Once the displacement goes up the gearing gets taller
>to accomodate for the averages they have to meet.
>
>> >What a pitiful bunch.
>>
>> You apparently don't even have a clue what these agencies do.
>
>They set a bunch of regulations that feed the
>overblown legal departments at all automakers.
>Did I miss anything important here?
>Hmm, I don't think I did.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On Apr 10, 6:01 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>


> >> >You want MORE from the government and the corporate?
>
> >> Yes, what's wrong with wanting more?
>
> >BECAUSE people with stick shift cars would get even
> >more screwed up gearing.
>
> You are really hitting the wacky pills tonight.
>

http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578
I should really consider to author a page on wiki
"10 cars of the 21st century with the most ed up
gearing" and have pictures of subaru impreza and
mazdaspeed 3 as two fine examples.

> >Maybe that's why there are still some cars that a driveable
> >and fun on the market today. I gotta thank the lawmarkers
> >at least for that.
>
> The loopholes do not help fun cars. The loopholes help trucks.

Really? Muscle cars are not my cup of tea but here you
go again
http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578
Enjoy

The
> truth is that you are being denied a lot of interesting cars because
> the manufacturer would rather that you buy a truck because it makes
> his CAFE numbers work a lot better.

? I would not buy a truck with the current CAFE standards.
But if EPA would keep pressing the automakers and make my life more
miserable I'd consider buying
a Hummer H2 and painting it green just to please people like you.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On 10 Apr 2007 20:41:36 -0700, isquat@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 10, 6:01 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
>
>
>> >> >You want MORE from the government and the corporate?
>>
>> >> Yes, what's wrong with wanting more?
>>
>> >BECAUSE people with stick shift cars would get even
>> >more screwed up gearing.
>>
>> You are really hitting the wacky pills tonight.
>>
>
>http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578
>I should really consider to author a page on wiki
>"10 cars of the 21st century with the most ed up
>gearing" and have pictures of subaru impreza and
>mazdaspeed 3 as two fine examples.
>
>> >Maybe that's why there are still some cars that a driveable
>> >and fun on the market today. I gotta thank the lawmarkers
>> >at least for that.
>>
>> The loopholes do not help fun cars. The loopholes help trucks.
>
>Really? Muscle cars are not my cup of tea but here you
>go again
>http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578
>Enjoy
>
> The
>> truth is that you are being denied a lot of interesting cars because
>> the manufacturer would rather that you buy a truck because it makes
>> his CAFE numbers work a lot better.
>
>? I would not buy a truck with the current CAFE standards.
>But if EPA would keep pressing the automakers and make my life more
>miserable I'd consider buying
>a Hummer H2 and painting it green just to please people like you.

Right, it doesn't matter if we burn all the oil in the world and mess
up the planet beyond repair. Who really cares about that? Only green
idiots. Tough nuggies on our grandchildren, we were here first.

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

dgk wrote:
"Right, it doesn't matter if we burn all the oil in the world and
mess
up the planet beyond repair. Who really cares about that? Only green
idiots. Tough nuggies on our grandchildren, we were here first."

I am in no way an environmentalist (I drive a V8 Police Interceptor
Mercury Grand Marquis every day, usually short trips too) but I do
agree that it's not a bad idea to conserve oil or preserve nature for
our grandchildren. However, I don't think that the government needs to
play nanny and regulate car manufactures -- it should be up to the
people what vehicle they drive, as long as they are aware of the
consequences. I would go so far as to say that I should be able to
drive a car that failed crash-safety tests, if I chose to -- as long
as I was made aware that it failed. People are made aware of the gas
mileage estimates, it's posted right on the window sticker when you
purchase a new car. If we want to save the planet, we should be able
to. If we want to ruin the planet, we should also have just as much
leeway in that respect. Our great country was founded on the basis of
FREEDOM...plain freedom, not regulated "freedom."

Re: Missouri Auto workers support Bush's push for fuel-efficient cars
 

On 10 Apr 2007 20:41:36 -0700, isquat@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 10, 6:01 pm, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com>
>
>
>> >> >You want MORE from the government and the corporate?
>>
>> >> Yes, what's wrong with wanting more?
>>
>> >BECAUSE people with stick shift cars would get even
>> >more screwed up gearing.
>>
>> You are really hitting the wacky pills tonight.
>>
>
>http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578
>I should really consider to author a page on wiki
>"10 cars of the 21st century with the most ed up
>gearing" and have pictures of subaru impreza and
>mazdaspeed 3 as two fine examples.

I could not find anything like this on the site so I still have no
idea what you are saying and I can only respond generally. 1. If you
have a point to make, make it. Don't make some cryptic reference to
something you read on a blog. 2. Blog credibility is no higher than
the average usenet poster, which is to say it is a lot higher than
yours at this point. So I can understand why you might want to quote
from this source, but then just go ahead and quote enough that we
actually have a clue what you are talking about.

>> >Maybe that's why there are still some cars that a driveable
>> >and fun on the market today. I gotta thank the lawmarkers
>> >at least for that.
>>
>> The loopholes do not help fun cars. The loopholes help trucks.
>
>Really? Muscle cars are not my cup of tea but here you
>go again
>http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=578
>Enjoy

Are you referring to the headline: GM Pauses RWD Car Development?
I don't see how this would demonstrate that loopholes help fun cars.
If you are referring to something else on this web site, see above.

> The
>> truth is that you are being denied a lot of interesting cars because
>> the manufacturer would rather that you buy a truck because it makes
>> his CAFE numbers work a lot better.
>
>? I would not buy a truck with the current CAFE standards.

Frankly, you don't make any sense. How do the CAFE standards
influence your decision not to buy a truck?

>But if EPA would keep pressing the automakers and make my life more
>miserable I'd consider buying
>a Hummer H2 and painting it green just to please people like you.

At $6 a gallon, A fill-up will cost you about $150. Bon appetit.