I don't think this one is an April Fool's joke...

The world economy is heating up and gas is already at 3 bucks a gallon. Maybe those socialist shiny happy person economists in Washington, after investing a gadzillion of our dollars keeping the U.S. auto industry afloat want it to be an industry that is competitive domestically and globally, and therefore can build something other than trucks and suvs (which defiantly have a place in our country). Then, with any luck we will get our money back, and will be building cars that are not the laughing stock of the Top Gear crew (we might be already). Maybe we even set up shop in China and India and sell a few million cars over there since our emissions and mileage standards will match theirs. But that sounds kinda slippery. Like somehow pretty soon we lose our freedoms.

Alternatively, instead of letting OBAMA the illegal alien Muslin extremist and his cabal of commie regulators regulate the finacial industry, we could further de regulate banking and forget all this gas milage stuff go back to having the lowest gas mileage standards on the planet and then Detroit can get back to the business of building Hummers and loaning us money to buy them. This time, when gas hits 5 bucks a gallon, instead of getting all upset and buying Priuses, we all need to just buy more of these fancy loan products from the un regulated and therefore once again creatively unleashed banks and finance our gasoline purchases. Maybe it could be like a mortgage, with the equity being based on some compound derivative of oil price futures tied in with c02 levels, which would of course create financial sector jobs! Then we would not need to make cars and trucks anyone else on the planet would buy. Simple. Easy. All we would need is for the Chinese to promise to keep loaning us money. They are the only friend we need. We must resist the new world order, down with regulation!

gamby wrote:

Marty! wrote: Not wanting to make this ANOTHER political thread but WTF?!?!? Our country's manufacturing is already hurting badly and now to throw this wrench in the works will not help our economy recover any faster. Not to mention flashbacks of the early '80's keep replaying in my mind, I mean do we really want to see another line-up full of Citations and 4 cylinder Mustangs?

The fact that Detroit is slow to adapt is not a political problem. When Japan was rolling out the Fit, Versa and Yaris, we were rolling out the Aspen, Commander and the new Tahoe. Adapt and improve--Detroit is capable of this. There is no reason whatsoever that Detroit can't build a great fuel-efficient car.

Riiggghhhttt...the Japanese don't make trucks or large SUVs......

alfadriver wrote: As for the different averages- that's so that GM and Ford don't get nicked for selling a FULL range of vehicles, including Frame Off trucks, partial work vans, and other medium and heavy duty vehicles. Ones that nobody else makes. If Honda wants a slightly lower target, they are welcome to make vans and trucks that are capable of towing +20,000lb. To me, it make the exectations a lot more realistic.

I understand the thinking with the averages I am just opposed to the whole idea that some small group of people working at the EPA get to throw darts at a dartboard and decide the right number for each car company.

Is their goal to get Honda to build less fuel efficient vehicles so they can get a lower goal? Who are these people and what makes them think they have a clue as to what the right overall fuel economy number should be? What a joke.

I would rather see a higher gas tax than crap like this....of course this won't affect me unless I buy a new car whereas a gas tax would get me.

TJ wrote: I would rather see a higher gas tax than crap like this....of course this won't affect me unless I buy a new car whereas a gas tax would get me.

my exact situation... still thinking of what to buy as that "last" car (as I retire) the Integra is 9 yr old now (only 70k) gets mid 30's on a trip.... make it last another 20 yrs...? considering a VW TDI Clean Diesel ... like the idea of 40+ on the hwy, course by last car I mean my go on trips car, not my track/a-x/winter beater car(s)

Not all manufacturers chose EVs as their uber-green technology....some of them have been hyping hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (e.g. Honda's FCX clarity). Hydrogen is usually produced from natural gas or from the electrolysis of water, which requires generating electricity. If the law takes into account the CO2 produced from the generation of hydrogen, we might see a shift towards clean diesels instead.

Cotton wrote: Riiggghhhttt...the Japanese don't make trucks or large SUVs......

Large ones sometimes, but truly humongous ones, no. I can't think of a Japanese equivalent to my big block Suburban.

MadScientistMatt wrote:

Cotton wrote: Riiggghhhttt...the Japanese don't make trucks or large SUVs......

Large ones sometimes, but truly humongous ones, no. I can't think of a Japanese equivalent to my big block Suburban.

http://www.newcars.com/toyota/sequoia/reviews/chevrolet-suburban1500.html

Might not be as big as, but the gas mileage (which is the important factor here) is damn close.

wbjones wrote:

Marty! wrote: That article only tells half of the story though. Before today all the manufacturers were counting on their zero-emission cars (i.e. plug-in electric) to offset their truck and performance cars mileage and emissions as it has been in the past, bur now the current administration changed the rules in the middle of the game and will now make the manufacturers to count the extra emissions generated by the third party power suppliers (i.e. the electric company). Now all those ZEV aren't as beneficial to their line-up as before.

it doesn't seem to take into account the electricity by means other than a coal fired or gas fired plant... nuc, wind, water..?? not a whole lot of emissions from those...

What about burrito emissions from workers who had taco bell on their lunch break?

racerfink wrote: This Citation deserves to come back. Even with just a four speed, it got pretty decent gas mileage, and would stomp Mustang GT's and Z-28's in F Stock back in the day. It even has a SCCA SSB National Championship under it's belt. And yes, it's hotlinked.

berkeley it. It just means gas will run out slower and us real enthusiasts can keep driving our older cars. New cars suck anyway.

96DXCivic wrote: berkeley it. It just means gas will run out slower and us real enthusiasts can keep driving our older cars. New cars suck anyway.

+1.

Fit_Is_Slo wrote:

racerfink wrote: This Citation deserves to come back. Even with just a four speed, it got pretty decent gas mileage, and would stomp Mustang GT's and Z-28's in F Stock back in the day. It even has a SCCA SSB National Championship under it's belt. And yes, it's hotlinked.

damn I'm old... I remember when that ad was being shown...

Remind me what sort of mileage one could get with the new 3.7L Duratec from the '11 Mustang if it were put in a 1700 lb Locost? 1700 lbs even covers a good amount of creature comforts.

alfadriver wrote: Ones that nobody else makes. If Honda wants a slightly lower target, they are welcome to make vans and trucks that are capable of towing +20,000lb.

Don't tempt them!

I was thinking about this the other day, with respect to the Japanese auto industry's arrival and growth in the US market. We levied a hefty tariff on small pickups, something they made and we didn't. Solution: They made bigger trucks.

Let them find a niche that we don't particularly care about and let them have it, or they'll be forced to muscle in on your niche. Beefy trucks are our niche. Fortunately, they haven't quite figured it out yet and don't seem keen on working on it too seriously yet.

But they have kinda cornered the straight truck market. All the straight trucks tend to be Hino/Fuso/UD. I know it's not the same as a Excursion but they have made serious in-roads into a market that used to be dominated by White/GMC and Mack.

A 1-ton Tundra dually with a Hino motor would be awesome!