[QUOTE=skewbe;65629]Yah, that's kinda my point. Blaming Lawmakers and car manufacturers is pointless, it's the people making the stupid environmental decisions and influencing the law makers and the manufacturers.
yeah exactly people need to be smarter about what they buy and the auto makers will adapt to what works thats how our country works. so if people stop buying suv's they will slow down im makeing um till they arnt around anymore.
Yes, nothing is perfect, but if the politicians would show a little backbone and actually make laws to influence decisions, then this wouldn't be a problem.
Problem with people driving everywhere, many people really don't have time to just go driving aimlessly for no reason. People have to work, buy groceries, see the doctor, ect, there really isn't a whole lot of trimming to do, and there's no real public transportation systems available outside the really large cities. My own driving, for example, is 90 percent go to work and back with the occasional side trip on the way home to the grocery store. Where can I scale back my driving? I can't, unless the county puts in bicycle trails. I'm certainly not going to risk my life on the roads around my area trying to save fuel on a moped or bicycle.
Further, peak oil is not a known fact. They've been making peak oil claims since the 1900s, but then more is found or a way is found to get at oil they couldn't reach before. Peak oil is really a weak argument for cutting fuel usage ir explaining away oil prices. Air pollution is a far better argument for cutting fuel use, and is the only proven problem caused by petroleum use. Global warming hasn't really been proven conclusively, but as fuel usage does emit greenhouse gasses, it's better to err on the side of caution and reduce them even if it isn't completely proven. Greed is a far more accurate reason for high fuel prices. If this weren't the case, then gasoline in other nations wouldn't be going for 20 cents a gallon and oil companies wouldn't be seeing record BILLIONS in PROFIT (not how much they bring in, profit is when they take how much they bring in and subtract how much it cost them to make that money) every year.
And yes, I still don't like FWD and try to stay away from it where possible, up to and including driving a full size SUV when I needed one. It's completely possible to build a RWD that gets good mileage, it just costs a little more to do so. Back when they built full size cars that were RWD that's what I bought, didn't go to trucks and SUVs until the cars went FWD.
I realize my opinions here will fly in the face of the majority of the folks here, sorry. But consider, I am still here and still trying to cut my consumption for whatever reasons I may have. I just don't believe everything I see or hear, just because some guy with strong political views is spouting it off.
"Daddy, where are the polar bears?"
"Sorry kids, Daddy has to have his rear wheel drive, and it only comes in this giant sized canyonero. It's all the politicians fault."
Wow, thanks for clarifying that! The world's problems are all because of rear wheel drive! How informative!
I wish the world were that simple for me. If I were wrong about what caused the SUVs to gain prominence, that it was the rise of the front wheel drive, then the Chrysler 300 with rear wheel drive wouldn't have been so popular. People would go back to more efficient cars if more decent rear wheel drives were available, but they aren't. It's easier and more profitable to make a less efficient truck or SUV than a more efficient rear wheel drive car, so that's what the automakers push. It takes an economic trigger to force people to change, and it takes making what people want available to get people to want to change. Raising the price of fuel is the wrong way to do it, because it hurts everyone. Raising the cost of the least efficient vehicles is a better way, because (pay attention here, this is important) it is a negative trigger that only punishes the person buying the inefficient vehicle, WITHOUT punishing the guy in the efficient car or even the guy who doesn't even HAVE a car. Raising the price of fuel to get the SUV off the road only makes it take longer to get the SUV off the road because it takes longer to get it up there, and really won't affect the SUV driver before it kills everyone else. A slow rise in fuel costs can be adjusted to and absorbed, but paying a thousand dollars to tag your SUV this year when it cost 100 bucks last year? List price 50K, add gas guzzler tax and now it's 65K? In addition to the grand or more to tag it every year, 300 dollar apiece tires and 100 dollar bill fills? Now it might be time to start thinking about getting a car.
For my part, I can handle 6 dollar a gallon gas right now with no change to my driving or spending habits, in 2 years I'll be able to afford 12 dollar a gallon gas with no change to my driving or spending habits. I won't like it, but I can handle it. Can everyone else? Would it not be better to get the gas sucking pig off the road without making everyone pay to get one guy's rig off the road? Would it not be better to pay a buck a gallon and get 60MPG in the econobox, and watch the Hummer guy write a check for thousands every year just to tag his Hummer, than to pay 5 bucks a gallon just like the Hummer guy does? Obviously if you can afford to pay 50-60 grand for an SUV, a few bucks a gallon isn't going to bother you.
Also, while I can't stand a front wheel drive vehicle, I do have a Toyota Sienna for a family car. It's a front wheel drive minivan. Hate it, but it does do the job, and I can't wait to swap it for a little 2 seat rear wheel drive sports car in a couple of years.