Could America Remain All Powerful with Enviro-weenie Cars/Trucks? - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Go Back   Fuelly Forums > Fuel Talk > General Fuel Topics
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-21-2009, 10:11 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Mayhim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179
Country: United States
"Oversize" is relative. What's oversized to the car-centric may be undersized to a person that uses a working truck for all it's worth in either a business arena or in private life.

"...are you suggesting that if there are no more "oversize" vehicles, American's will lose the drive to obtain wealth?..." Not at all, and quite the opposite. Would the forcing of a smaller and less capable fleet upon America hamstring a hardworking and hard driving populace? As a rule, through the centuries America has overcome any number of things to become top dog. Could Americans overcome being forced into ever smaller and ever less-capable vehicles...working trucks specifically.
__________________

Mayhim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 10:13 AM   #12
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Who is talking about restricting working trucks?
__________________

__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 10:19 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Mayhim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179
Country: United States
The very first paragraph of my original post would answer that question.

But, is it not inevitable that larger trucks will be in the crosshairs? Only a matter of time? Light trucks are included in emissions, won't larger trucks be at some point? In our own lifetime(s)?

Do the environmentalists seem likely to slow down before that?
Mayhim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 10:23 AM   #14
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
I did look at that before I posted. The "offerings on another website when it occured to me the editorial comments" doesn't tell me squat.

Is it just editorial musings, or Congress or somebody in authority? Either way, I don't see it gaining traction.
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 10:41 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Mayhim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179
Country: United States
I was perusing the offerings on another website when it occured to me the editorial comments seem to be pursuing an automotive ideal that would make America surpass Europe in electric, hybrid, and tiny. They appear to approve of new developments in vans, trucks, and semi's, but I always get the feeling they'd like to see them off the highway entirely.

Perhaps this helps.

Editorial musings-yes. But musings from one of those that currently reflects the goals and ideals of those in our nation that are active in, and successful to a degree with, changing what we can buy.
Mayhim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 10:45 AM   #16
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Actually, that doesn't help at all. The question was "Who is talking about restricting working trucks?" How about a link to the real deal- or is it a secret?
__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 11:15 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Mayhim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179
Country: United States
Not a secret, CLEANMPG.COM. I just thought it in bad taste to cite another website on this one.

Nobody was asking specifically about restricting working trucks. I did not say they were...see underlined portion.
Mayhim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 11:27 AM   #18
Registered Member
 
bowtieguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,873
Country: United States
Location: orlando, florida
at any rate, it is interesting that congress and the white house promised to give the economy highest priority, yet they continue to promote "fixing" climate change w/ anti-growth legislation.

in another thread it was discussed that we can go green w/out affecting industry so much. of course we can promote "greener" cars in other ways.

it seems people are catching on. did anyone see California's voters speak loudly against new taxes?

BTW, theclencher, whom i consider to be disinterested in political discussions, did elude to draconian legislation. thanks clench. you're right tho, we might just deserve it.
bowtieguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 12:18 PM   #19
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,258
Country: United States
Location: wiliamsburg virigina
Hmmmmm. there seems to be a pre-concieved notion that big does not mean efficient.

That conclusion is totally false.

Current class 2 truck at 13.5 MPG and 9000 pounds gorss weight.

Make it a hydraulic hybrid, cut the CD to .34 with the same frontal area, and reduce the gross weight by 1600 pounds without affecting the payload by a single pound.

58 MPG. That's right 58 MPG in a big arse truck people. Those are EPA projections. I have posted the chart before.

Now if you can do that in a vehicle with 3.7 square meteres of frontal area, it should be easy to double that in a Corolla sized vehicle.

Now, when the public realizes the real possibilities, you should think a few decades into the future when the average person looks back at us and comments on how stupid we were to allow such waste to continue.

Consider this people, a tractor trailer gets about 6 MPG, but look at the load and aero drag that same vehicle has, compared to a passenger car, its about 3 to 5 times more efficient.

I am a conservative, but I am also a conservator. I want those who come after me to have it better than I do now.

Automotive technology has stagnated for my whole lifetime. With few exceptions there is very little real improvement. Take a perfectly restored pickup truck made in 1955 and a brand new one and put both of them on a lift and look at the bottom. It's practically identical, and both get about the same gas mileage.

When we dedicate the resoruces to improving vehicles, in the same way we dedicated our resources towards the atomic bomb, in WW2, we will solve our energy problems for 1000 years, bury OPEC, and possible save the atomosphere, while improving our quality of life on a planetary scale.

I KNOW how to do it, and I KNOW it can be done.

The mileage requirements should be 75 MPG for cars and50 MPG for trucks.

regards
gary
__________________
R.I.D.E. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 12:50 PM   #20
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Well I dug around a bit over there- not sure what it is exactly you are referencing. So, working with this:

I was perusing the offerings on another website when it occured to me the editorial comments seem to be pursuing an automotive ideal that would make America surpass Europe in electric, hybrid, and tiny. They appear to approve of new developments in vans, trucks, and semi's, but I always get the feeling they'd like to see them off the highway entirely.

I surmise re: electric, hybrid, tiny they are talking about Peak Oil and the need to pretty much be off oil altogether possibly in our lifetimes. Well, yeah, if there's no oil, or there is some but it's more expensive than the alternatives, what else are you going to do? It's no longer an IDEAL then; it's a NECESSITY. And if there are new developments that improve fe on vans, trucks, and semis, then that's good but it's not good enough if the premise is Peak Oil is real, so we still need to look beyond relatively minor improvements. They may have more trains in mind? Local production for local demand?

In the DeBord/Motavalli EV/future of cars "debate", they're saying oil will be pretty much done by 2050. Even the pro-oil guy doesn't disagree.

The "emissions deal" article was about the new national emission and fe standards. Much more streamlined than a patchwork of different state standards IMHO. No mention of trucks.

Quote:
I think we're doomed
Sure looks that way. Maybe 40 years left of affordable oil and what have we got? Autostarts and millions of solo V8 4x4 commuters, ever lengthening commute distances and times, ever expanding population.

If people had any sense they'd have declared anything less than, say, 30 mpg for the family hauler unacceptable years ago. There's been 30+ mpg vehicles commonly available for 50 years now. But then, of course, when they do get something with double the fe, they shouldn't turn around and rack up double the miles.
__________________

__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.