CAFE Objections: Big-3 + Even from Toyota
 

So, it turns out that the "Big-3", in addition to Toyota has a problem with the CAFE standards imposed in the U.S.

ARTICLE.

I'll let you be the judge of what's going on. FYI, if you will.

RH77

Typical. I don't know about other people, but I think that it's time for a boycott of new cars. The manufacturers and big oil are working very hard to ensure that great mileage cars are limited run cars or nonexistent in order to pretend that they care.

I have a problem with them too. They're so ineffective as to render themselves unnessessary.

Just by lowering the drag coefficients of todays cars from .32 to .20, we could increase combined fuel economy by roughly 25%, with no engine, transmission, or tire modifications and no weight reduction. Adressing aerodynamics would add very little to the cost of a vehicle and if done right would not affect the vehicle's practicality. Hybrid drive trains, CVTs, LRR tires, diesel engines, and other advances would allow for even more gains.

One only needs to look at cars that have been built as prototypes to understand what is and isn't possible.

You may want to google search the following:

*Opel Eco Speedster(diesel), 94 mpg combined fuel economy, 160 mph top speed(electronically limited), 0-60 mph in 8.9 seconds, sports car

*GM Ultralite(gasoline), 88 mpg, 135 mph, 0-60 in 7.8 secs, compact

*Loremo LS(diesel), 157 mpg, 100 mph, 0-60 in 19 secs, sub-compact

*Loremo GT(diesel), 88 mpg, 138 mph, 0-60 in 9 secs, sub-compact

*VW 1 Litre(diesel), 235 mpg, 78 mph, sub-compact

*Jetcar 2.5(diesel), 87 mpg, 100 mph, sub-compact

*VW Lupo 3L(diesel), 79 mpg, 102 mph, 0-60 in 12.7 secs, compact

*Mercedes Bionic(diesel), 55 mpg, 118 mph, 0-60 in 7.9 secs, compact

*Ford Prodigy(diesel-electric), 72 mpg, 80 mph(lim), 0-60 in 12 secs, midsize

*GM Precept(diesel-electric), 80 mpg, 85 mph(lim), 0-60 in 11.5 secs, midsize

*Dodge Intrepid ESX3(diesel-electric), 72 mpg, 90 mph(lim), 0-60 in 11 secs, midsize

*VW Ecoracer(diesel), 69 mpg, 143 mph, 0-60 in 6.3 secs, sports car

*Audi A2 3L(diesel), 78 mpg, 105 mph, 0-60 in 13 secs, compact

*Renault Twingo SmILE(gasoline), 71 mpg, 93 mph, 0-60 in 14 secs, subcompact

*VW Wundercar II(diesel), 118 mpg, 112 mph, 0-60 in 12 secs, subcompact

*Vapor Fuel Technologies Alé(gasoline), 92 mpg, 140 mph, 0-60 in 5 secs, single person commuter

*Opel Astra ECO4(diesel), 54 mpg, 109 mpg, 0-60 in 13.5 secs, compact

*Mitsubishi i(gasoline), 62 mpg, 115 mph, 0-60 in 10.6 secs, sub-compact

The typical American midsize sedan accelerates 0-60 mph 10 seconds, tops 115 mph, and gets ~27 mpg on gasoline. Considering the above, isn't that embarassing?

Basically, we could have had since the 1990s 70 mpg midsize cars that do 0-60 mph in 11 seconds, 90+ mpg sports cars that top 160 mph, 80 mpg compact cars that perform adequately on the highway, and 150 mpg fuel misers. All with today's off the shelf technology. Even as far back as the 70s, by addressing aerodynamics, we could have had 30+ mpg V8 musclecars.

I'm not a big fan of regulations, but if they are to exist, at least make them effective. Either scrap the CAFE standard altogether, or make it an immediate 60+ mpg fleet average.

Admin edit: Next time you try to get around the profanity filters you'll find yourself with a temporary ban. It's not cute.

Rock on, dude! I think that it's time for action. There are quite a few of us here, and we're all sick of this. Would anyone be interested in a "drive" on DC in which we all in a line hypermile in front of the Capitol? It would be different, and might grab attention. Show that with casual tinkering in our spare time, we've outdone the 'fuel efficient' hybrids in normal cars.

i would if my parents would let me considering that im 17. It would need to be in the summer which would help our case with the prices usally up.

Unfortunately, calling the automakers names won't get anything done. 300,000 people (including myself) marching in the capitol could not give the country second thought about waging war, what do you think a few people waving signs that say "**** you ****s" will do for environmentalists. I am certainly behind much, much stronger regulations, but I have very little respect for the opinions of people whose argument centers around rhetoric such as toecutter's.

You going to the Pentagon protest? I was thinking of going, but there's a collective in my area that's going to be doing some more of a theatrical culture jamming action in my area for M17 and M19 that I'm going to assist with instead. The largest oil importing port in the South East is in Ft. Lauderdale, and Department of Homeland Scrutiny has an office there, so it should be pretty fun.

Were you at the J27 march in DC? I was there for that one. We had about 100k people there for that one, 300 of which tried to take the Capitol.

I was there 4 years ago, now I do not live near enough to make the commute to anything at the capitol. It's unfortunate, but I do my best writing my representatives and working with candidates and issues I support. I try to spend as little time with politics as I can...

If all someone sees is the language they've completely missed the point altogether. Oh well.

I'm the opposite. I probably have one hell of an FBI file because I tend to be at a protest at least once per month, and write several letters (my friends call them rants) to my representatives per week. I'm actually thinking of running for city council in Cape Coral this year as an independent. The government is more corrupt down here than it is even in DC. The city of Cape Coral is run almost entirely by real estate agents (the exception being the mayor) who are moving protected land to areas that don't need as much protection so that more waterfront condos can be built. Under their stewardship, the cost of real estate in Cape Coral has risen by about five times in the last 10 years. They did a great job of helping themselves.

I'm pretty passionate about my political views.

If someone uses language they know will cloud their point I begin to wonder if they really have one or are trying to cover the fact that they do not.

If you want a brief summation then:

The automakers claim that CAFE hasn't done much. I agree. Fuel economy has been stagnant since the 1980s. However, the automakers don't think there is demand for high mpg cars and this is false; this is their copout excuse. If anything, the standards are ineffectual because they aren't strict enough.

What I'd like to see done is to either scrap the regulations altogether since they are so inneffective, OR give the regulations some teeth so that they are effective. No use having rules that don't do anything.

The automakers often claim that the technology for high fuel economy isn't there, even though they've built numerous working prototypes. I gave a list of some of those prototypes to show what is feasible. 60+ mpg CAFE would be easily doable immediately without serious hardship on part of the U.S. as a whole, with benefits that will likely far outweigh any negative consequences.


That last paragraph that seems to have either offended or annoyed a few here illustrates my view of how the automakers and oil industry should be addressed. They've been given a free ride long enough, and their interests have no reason to be heard at this point until they dramatically modify the way they operate. They can whine all they want, but their concerns are nothing compared to the concerns of society as a whole and the problems society has to face as a RESULT of the actions of these companies. But the government isn't going to do anything, even if we the people want them to, so it's up to us to use any means at our disposal to change things, legal or if that doesn't work, illegal. The legal methods haven't been bringing meaningful change for decades. The oil industry still holds as much sway over our electoral process and lawmaking as ever(if not moreso), and the auto industry hasn't given us anywhere near the best they could. The government is still hijacked by special interests. What the current crop and previous crops of activists have been doing isn't working. Time to step things up a bit or change methods completely.

If that is still all completely over anyone's head, I'm sorry, but there's no helping you there. If you consider me or my views obnoxious, fair enough. You ultimately decide whether or not they have merit to you and for what reasons, and whether they are rational or emotional in their content.

***edit***

I'm glad to see another activist on these boards. I've been involved in protests against Monsanto, ADM, and Anheiser Busch. I've also been involved in protests against the Iraq War.

However, I changed my views a few years back. 100% complete nonviolence doesn't work unless the powers that be allow it to. If they don't want to cooperate, a different method is needed. However, the dilemma is that the people that threaten you with arrest or worse are just doing their jobs, even if their job is to oppress, intimidate, arrest, and convict.

If I would have stuck to the nonviolence philosophy? I'd have been arrested on numerous occassions. And I will be if I ever get caught. Would be tough luck I suppose. I recently quit going to protests where lots of law enforcement or feds would be involved because I'd be too tempted to carry a firearm. That would get me in a lot of trouble if I'd foolishly use it to assert what rights I should normally have.

One tip to stay out of jail that won't involve hurting anyone: keep a pair of scissors under your belt. They'll get the zipties off, if you can get to them.

Glad to see you're running for office. In local offices, you have a chance(however small). Anything above that, not really since the process is rigged at the higher levels that can actually make larger scale impacts. I imagine if I ran for Alderman or some such near worthless position in my area I'd have a chance, but anything after that would require money.

I've written letters to my representatives and senators many times before. I've gotten all maner of replys except for what was wanted: some geniune feedback. I've gotten automated replies, replies from secretaries who say the issue doesn't concern them, replies reminding me to vote for such and such candidate next election, replies saying that I am ignorant of the issue and only our leaders have the authority to make such and such choices instead of we the people(although it was dressed up to look friendly), but never a genuine response. But voting them out with paper-trail free machines and where votes from areas such and such candidate doesn't like mysteriously go uncounted? Heh.

Well, I say things as I intend to say them, and figure people will understand. It's much easier to say big oil should go **** themselves than to explain this meaning in a more polite but excruciatingly more detailed manner. Someone once told me that brevity is brilliance. :p

What a waste of good honey.

All arguments are based on rhetoric. Those that aren't are usually called laws (phys), theorems, etc... And can stand on their own. That being said,
Ranting about CAFE standards isn't reasonable, and protesting doesn't do much these days. A reasonable being would try to maximize the impact they have on the issues they care about. And imo, protesting and ranting don't do much...

I think you're selling yourself a little short. The only other comparable oil price spike was the result of the Iranian revolution and Iran/Iraq war. A reasonable assumption is that military action in the ME would spark another price spike, and the subsequent increase in profits. It seems like that's what happened. So, over ~4 years, an extra ~$30 in pure profit on every barrel is roughly a trillion dollars per year in pure profit on the world market.

An increase in CAFE regulations of ~30% would only cut a hundred or so billion bucks of profit from the bottom line. The administration is more likely to respond to 50,000 marching about an issue that can impact profit margins of their sponsors marginally than they will respond to 300,000 people marching about an issue that can cut the profit margins of their sponsors in half. If that made any sense... To put it bluntly, imo they are much likelier to cater to the more powerful lobby.

Good Grief what have I done???
 

OK, the post was designed to provoke some intelligent conversation on the fact that CAFE standards were (as usual) being attacked by automakers. What didn't surprise me was the "Big-3" involvement, but rather Toyota.

I expected to delve perhaps into their strategy in the Full-Sized truck segment, but yet how this Political involvement doesn't help their image as a "Green" company.

Perhaps some solutions would be to:

• Continue to express your thoughts to governing bodies (write Congress)
• Boycott products by these manufacturers
• Vote for candidates with a platform similar to your interests, or run yourself
• Write a letter to the Editor to your local paper
• Make your opinion known in informal discussions
• Further Discuss the concept of CAFE: should a handicap be placed on Ethanol or other low-BTU fuels?
• Are you surprised that Toyota is in on it?

And let's keep it Civil folks, geez.

RH77

To an extent, yes, but the consumers can't buy a product that is not available. Consumer demand for EVs in the US where gas was cheap was extremely positive, but that is demand that the auto industry wished was not expressed and demand that the auto industry did not want to meet. Never mind Europe, where gas is $7.00/gallon and demand for EVs is even higher. The industry refuses to meet it, regardless of what the consumer wants. They know that the small companies willing to offer EVs don't have the economic means to make their product affordable.

If someone today were to put to market a 60 mpg midsize car that did 0-60 mph in 9 seconds, cost $15,000, and didn't use a hybrid drivetrain, the public would flock to it like crazy and demand more of these sorts of cars be built. But since such a car hasn't been built...

Even the hybrids of today fly off the lots like crazy. Just a few months ago no where near enough were being made to meet demand. Before the TDis were taken out of the market in the US, they were flying off the lots post $2/gallon as well, with demand unmet.

For fuel efficient cars, it's been a sellers market for years. With big SUVs sitting in the dealer lots colecting dust, the Big 3 complain about the foreign automakers offering a marginally better product, that marginally better product being that which customers flock to since that's the best the companies are willing to make.

Not really, considering it's Toyota of America who's involved iirc. They're trying to cut into the juicy big truck/SUV market, and this potential CAFE increase is tailing the introduction of their newer, more powerful Tundra. Business' are around to make money, and some do it a wee bit more ethically than others, but they're still here to make ph4t l00tz... :p

Regarding the lack of decent economy from small cars, I'm surprised no one has mentioned inter-brand pressure. For instance, most car buyers believe that by spending twice as much, they're getting twice the car. But given the technology, that's just not possible. They're simply paying a premium for some add-ons... Most of the cost is in the platform. So, car manufacturers may detune a specific engine to not make as much power, and not threaten the sales of a more expensive line. Or leave off aerodynamic improvements in a base model, just so the mileage of the hybrid is noticeably greater. Because they want to make the more profitable high end cars more appealing. Even if they could offer a stripped down version with manual windows (Are these even made any more?), super tall OD, and a small engine that could do as well as the hybrid mileage wise, why would they hamstring their own hybrid sales?

There's also tooling and supply contracts. GM can't just tell Delphi that they don't want any more V8s. They have contracts, and I'm guessing stiff penalties if they're violated. So, they see where they have some wiggle room via analysis of the market and whatnot, and try to do the best with what they can. Like putting V8s in passenger cars with cylinder deactivation, etc... So they don't get hit by their suppliers too hard, and don't get hit in the market too hard. Until they can burn through the *current stock. In this context, the US would serve as the dumping ground for most major manufacturers less FE friendly components, since gas isn't taxed nearly as much here, and power/size has always been pushed. A CAFE increase may leave manufacturers with tons of unusable parts, that they have to sell off wholesale for a loss.

*Which is a PITA. Go check out GM trucks. They still have last year's models, which they're selling as legacy pickups or something. No a good indicator.

I am nonviolent, but then again, I don't consider self-defense violence, and I don't consider destruction of corporate property to be violence. Most of my activist friends are direct action eco-anarchists in groups like Earth First! or Root Force. I'm definitely not the "sit down and start singing John Lennon" type.

Its hard to blame the car buyers for not choosing a fuel efficient car.
The government has worked hard/ used military force ect. to insure that we here in the US have a plentiful supply of cheap fuel.
The auto industry has been constantly advertising big vehicles for years.
more Horsepower, torque, zoom, more room, They have brainwashed the public into big and powerful is better.

I think the recent news of global warming is changing some minds but I fear the only way Americans will change is if the gas price jumps significantly.

That's because those Americans who want efficient cars want midsize cars with decent size that get good fuel economy, not unaerodynamic econoboxes with small engines that get good fuel economy. And given what technology is there, their demand is perfectly reasonable. Hence, the Prius hybrids are selling like crazy, while the less efficient Ford Fusions, Chevy Malubus, and the like aren't near as successful. Gut the hybrid drive out of the Prius and put a 150-180 HP V6 in it, and it would still get a large FE improvement over other midsize cars due to its efficient body design.

Americans don't want to sacrifice to get good economy, and by addressing aerodynamics(something automakers haven;t done near as good of a job as they could), they don't have to.

Even still, given that those who want the more efficient cars usually buy cars second hand, the Suzukiclones, Sprints, ect. have really kept an impressive amount of their resale value at $2.50-3.00/gallon gas. Where I live, they don't last long at all on used car lots if they are in good condition and fetch large amounts of money. Last sumer when I was looking for a Metro that passed emissions and was in good condition, I quit looking after I found many examples fetching $3,000 on up when their KBB value was much lower and the sellers were not negotiating price. The cars ended up being sold eventually. The upper middle class that buy new cars avoided them like the plague when they were new.


For the working poor and lower middle class, fuel costs eat up a huge portion of disposable income. But this segment of the population is the one that usually can't afford a new car, and often buy those that the upper middle class filteres down through the 2nd hand market.

What the consumers want is very clear, with huge waiting lists and price premiums on hybrids and relatively FE cars like the Civic, while SUVs and large trucks languish for months in dealer lots. The Big 3 are in the rut they are in because consumers don't want their products because they are too high maintenance and too inefficient. The public therefore gravitates to the foreign products that have only incremental improvements over the domestics. Are Honda and Toyota going to turn over their SUV and pickup production plants so they can produce more efficient Civics and Corollas and meet all the demand for them? Probably not, given where the higher profit margins are at.

The public can only buy what is there.

If someone were to tomorrow release a midsize or full size car with a low Cd that had an engine with horsepower expected of cars today, which got FE similar to a Geo Metro, there'd be a huge waiting list. But then the market for every other design that is possible to sell in-between this is compromised, and so too is the market for other cars under the same brand.

The automakers aren't simply going to roll out the best product they can as that wouldn't maximize the return generated on all of their R&D costs and their new hypercar would be competeting with other cars in the brand. This is a huge no no when it comes to maximizing profit.

Joe and Jane Dirt are overworked, underpaid, overtaxed and generally are so fatigued that it is near impossible to pry them from the TV on their time off. If I were in their situation, I'd probably be the same way. Their inaction will come to haunt them in the future, but it is unfair for anyone to place the bulk of the blame on them. They buy the products the auto industry wants them to buy, and not necessarily what they want to buy because what they want to buy usually hasn't been allowed to enter the market(eg. EVs, for instance).

These acts are violent by definition. The difference is that in the first, you are not the initial aggressor, and in the second, you are not harming a person. But I agree that both of these acts usually are justifiable. Many within the peace movemenmt believe they are not.

this I am glad to hear. :)

Hello -

At the end of the day they're all corporations, aka amoral economic institutions whose only goal is a greasy buck. In California, Honda was on the list of corporations that were fighting the tougher emissions standards. Toyota is basically the "GM of Japan", so why wouldn't they agree with the Big-3? I forgot the posting on the "story of Honda" that someone else cited. To succeed, Honda had to sell it's soul. It's all the same. We're all just Soylent Green (money) to them.

CarloSW2

Toecutter -

I really agree with you. The violence part is very complicated to me because it is part of the "trap" that the authorities are setting for you. An MLKing vs Malcom X argument.

I see peaceful protests as necessary because they are reflections of the "conscience" of the nation. When we as a nation actually do the right thing, it is usually because of long years of fighting for it.

The effectiveness of the protests are diminished today because the media is more corporate controlled than ever. Just like the cops that beat you up because of their cop-culture conditioning and their need to make a living, the journalists are self-censoring because they want to keep their jobs.

But the protests still stand as historical facts that need to happen, and they fall within the "comfort zone" of people who are sympathetic with your world view.

CarloSW2

But when there are 60k pigs on the street beating peaceful protesters with permits like they were during the FTAA demonstrations in Miami in '03, it makes me realize that peace only goes so far. The media claimed that we were rioting in '03 and was always citing the professionalism of the MPD and expressing how grateful they were for the MPD keeping the city safe from the people who were responsible for the '99 Seattle WTO revolution. After seeing that firsthand, I don't consider it bad to throw a brick at a cop in body armor who wants to kick the crap out of you for expressing yourself legally.

Glad I have a smart cdi....it's brilliant!

The indescriminate unlawful killing of an innocent victim by a pepper-ball shot in the eye on October 2004 comes to mind ( Google "victoria snelgrove" ). I recall working at a place next door to fenway at the time.

Mindless thoughtless violent rioters (not protesters) were met with the mindless thoughtless thugs of Boston's finest. I fault both sides with inexcusable and barbaric atrocities.

repete86 -

I know. They can get away with that because no one is covering it for what it is, good old fashioned state sponsored oppression.

I don't really have a good answer for you.

CarloSW2

Yes and no. Yes because they risk muddying their hard-earned green hue. No because they currently have a competitive advantage over the big slackers. Among other strengths, their products generally have superior FE. If new regulations mandated that all other companies also had to have better FE, Toyota could lose one of their key marketing assets. They know that the big 3 are too stupid to do it on their own.

Exactly!. Toyota (and other Japanese makers) set out around the early 70's to be just a little better than the stodgy big 3. At that time, the big 3 believed in planned-obsolescence through making inferior products. When one of their products wore out, they counted on consumers not asking questions, instead just buying a new one.
Ford, GM, Chrysler, and AMC all operated this way fearing that if they didn't, the market would shrink. Toyota planned to simply grow in marketshare with a 5, 10 and 20 year plans. Leaders of the big 3 have never been able to see beyond the next 10 minutes.

Right!
 

Now we're getting somewhere. It's predicted by the end of the year that 'Yota will pass the General in sales by the 4th quarter, making them a new #1 in 8-decades (read: eight). Since more people these days seem to want size and not FE, Toyota (as usual), has figured out what's most profitable for them. In the meantime, their lineup of fuel-efficient vehicles is at stake. We know the return on investment is much smaller on a Yaris than an Tundra, so they need to sell more of the Yarii to profit. It all makes sense...if more options are available from other manufacturers, then that cuts into their margin.

But the question remains, where is Honda on this one?

RH77

The big three are just flat out idiot's. It took Ford,,, 10 years to do a knock off K Series Honda motor. The big three are a working example of the lazy *** way America does things. I mean Yota just put the ownage to the big three with the new Tundra. And to cap it off Yota has been telling them for at least 3 years. We are going to build a better truck than you. Well they did it. And then Yota can out produce and sell them on large, med, and small cars. Hybrid and standard.

Ive basically given up on American auto company's. Fact is Ive just about given up on American company's and production period. I will never buy another car built in America again! I have pretty much given up on Honda's built in America or Canada. I will only buy J, UK, or Mexican Honda's from now on.

As for Honda. They have them selfs between a rock and a hard place. Right now they are bragging about being the most FE car company in America. But they are loosing market share. And they are loosing some of the faithful to other company's. Be it cheap FE cars or High End Super Sleds. And the Ridgeline is a joke.

Lets start at the bottom end. Fit and Civic. Fit is a failure in this part of the world. Nobody wants one at all. The dealers are only taking what Honda tells them they have to take. And fighting to not take those or dealer trade them to the east or west coast. Yaris is selling 3 to 1 here against Fit. Fit would be doing better if they had made it the heavy duty Civic wagon with a R-18. It sure wouldn't have hurt the car any.

Civic is just flat out in trouble. Honda's hybrid design really kinda sucks. IMA looks more and more like something GM would have done. The Si's are fun little cars and honestly... Driven right will get about the same mpg as a R-18. I believe Honda's huge failure is the R-18. I think it was meant to be the next VX class super engine. Then the Hybrid, Smug thing took off and they gutted the lean burn out of it and raised the compression. I honestly believe if Honda had offered the R-18 as intended it would have gutted there hybrid efforts. I think the marketing and admin levels in the company should be physically hurt over this move. Stoning them would be to good.

Accord IMO is a wonderful car. The wife and I really like our 7th gen a lot. I don't like a auto tranny in a car of that size or smaller. But everything else about it is near perfect. ( Well except build quality ) The next Accord has to be a smash hit. Its going to have to offer all of Accords classic angles of marketing and something new. Its going to have to be able to offer great mpg and brute force. And I hate to say it,,, but Honda is more than likely going to have to enter into NASCAR with the next Accord. Or suffer some more loss of market share. Race on Sunday,,, Sell on Monday,,, it does work. I for one hope they at least do a hybrid right in Accord or possible offer a R or K series lean burn in the Coupe or Sedan.

There truck and SUV offerings seem to be set. And they appear to be quite proud of them. Its a shame Ridgeline is such a UTE. I don't expect it to last.

Acura needs to wake up. Shuting down RSX in favor of Civic? Who knows. TL will always be the super Accord. TSX is kind of lost in the mix. And RL is a failure over all. Its been a hard sell from the start. RL is going to have to go V-8 to meet the elitist needs and NSX is going to have to be the new super duper giant killer or it will fail. There SUV. Its a SUV with a turbo. Big Whoopee ( for me anyway :p )

The fact is we as consumers aren't going to see the car's we want to see for sometime if ever. Sure a lot could be done about aerodynamics. But I for one am not going to drive around in a car that looks like a double dong on wheels.

I have thought and fought hard on areo mods for my Civic. And short of making it into a Asian lower rider it isn't going to happen. I could put a under tray on it, smooth out the nose. ( here comes that dong look ) Wheel skirts on the back, french the tail lights. Put skinny Centerlines on it. Light the fender wells, play mexican music and run multi color window tint and get a whole 2 mpg more out of it. Aint going to happen. Just like Honda isn't going to put a 5 or 6MT tranny in the HCHII.

The Asian and whats left of the UK auto company's have the ball in there court. Either they will kill the American big three or flat out own them. Either way it doesn't matter to me. Because I'm never buying any of there junk again anyway. They have lost me as a cust. forever.

psy

A brick? I feel that any authority figure who assaults you for expressing your constitutional rights deserves nothing less than a bullet. I know our founding fathers would feel that way if they were around. People need to stop letting authority herd them into 'free speech zones' that defeat the entire purpose of free speech, and assert their right to free speech with force if they need to. If you read the writings of our founding fathers it is very clear that this is exactly what they have demanded of us as Americans.

I remember reading about the incident in '03. The protests were initially peaceful until the city bureaucrats and corporate types decided they didn't want the protestors around for a second longer, and that's when the cops started cracking skulls. There were families with their children at these protests and they got shot at with wooden bullets and pepper balls and had tear gas grenades thrown at them. Absolutely deplorable.

Sadly, they still do believe in planned obsolescence. Instead of 100,000 mile life in cars, they last 150,000 miles. Not much has changed for the better, but more has changed for the worse. With all of the new cars' systems being integrated with each other, you can no longer work on it yourself and neither can any mom and pop auto servicing center. We're talking tens of thousands of dollars of proprietary equipment for each specific model of car. One particularly egregious case is the 2001 and later Impalas. If one computer goes bad, you have to replace the other three simultaneously, and if you mess anything up in the process, you have to buy more components and try again.

Do a search on the GM Precept(.16 Cd), Ford Prodigy(.20 Cd), Dodge Intrepid ESX2(.19 Cd), and Opel Eco Speedster(.20 Cd). Those are perfectly normal looking cars.

Subtle, almost imperceptible, changes in the angles of the front and rear of a car can dramatically lower drag coefficient.

Your gain will be small with the mods you can do because the car's body is already designed and there's not a whole lot you can do to change its overall shape. Didn't the new Civic have a .28 Cd? That's where its FE gain over the previous model came from despite increased weight by over 100 lbs, and an extra .1 L of engine displacement.

The new Prius(.26 Cd) is the most aerodynamic car currently on the market, which just barely beats the 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagen(.27 Cd). When Honda was selling the Insight, that was the most aerodynamic car any major automaker ever sold the public(.25 Cd).

Aerodynamic cars don't have to all look alike or follow the same outline. There's a world of difference in the appearances between the Rumpler, Tatra T77a, GM Precept, and Ford Probe V. The Rumpler basically resembles a streamlined Model T or any similar car from that time period, just as an Alfa Romeo BAT7(.19 Cd) resembles a streamlined car from the 1950s, with its tailfins and such.

Hey now. first hand experience shows ~230k and ~170k miles respectively. And more than 400k according to another family member. :p Course, some people can make a chebby go 500k miles, so it may be more the owner than the car. :D

so now, almost 2 years later, the big 3 are again in washington. this time their posture is a bit less confident.

is supply and demand yet on the same page in regard to more efficient vehicles? perhaps, but they better make them more affordable via cutting salaries and benefits while reorganizing!

The issue of employee wages and benefits is a red herring in the GM and Chrysler financial woes. They are literally a drop in a very large bucket of financial trouble.

The automaker has interest expense of about $2.9 billion on its $43.3 billion in bonds, JPMorgan Chase & Co. analyst Himanshu Patel wrote in a report yesterday. Without a cut in debt, interest may rise to $3.8 billion on debt of $60 billion, he said. - Bloomberg.com

Even if all of their employees agreed to the cuts similar to what their non-union brothers and sisters at Toyota and Honda are getting, it would not be enough to cover the debt servicing expenses. The refusal of Republican senators to put through a bridge loan is nothing more than self serving motives to bolster the market share of foreign owned manufacturers in their home states, or union busting. Take your pick. 700 Billion for banks no questions asked. But try to save MILLIONS of jobs in the automotive industry and the Republicans have nothing more than a big 'f--- off' to offer.

This isn't about the economy to them. It's the same old political roadblocking **** that has lost them so much authority in the house and senate already. Make no mistake about this one thing: If GM and Chrysler fail, the depression that will afflict our nation will surpass that of the 30s and it will take DECADES to recover fully without aggressive SOCIALISM! :eek: :p

Glad to hear another voice against socialism :)

I gotta agree, the usually pro-business republicans seem to have it in for this industry. It's a bit shocking to me, I guess I'm a bit naive on this. The only guess I have is that the republicans don't like the car industry because it has so many union members (who vote democratic), but I'm not sure if that really makes any sense.

I've heard some republicans say "we'd just be prolonging the inevitable", which might or might not be true- but by prolonging it you give the economy a chance to adjust instead of just sending tens of millions out of their jobs in a "shock", which we would probably never recover from. An adjustement over a few years would be MUCH less devastating.

Of course I was listening to Barney Frank (by accident, I wouldn't go out of my way to listen) and the interviewer asked "so you believe in corporate welfare?" and he responded "Of course I believe in welfare, do you think people should starve?". So, we have a ways to go I guess...

it's a matter of perspective really...

https://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1215/p02s01-usgn.html

https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,452806,00.html

i believe the republicans want the big 3 to show initiative to help themselves FIRST! afterall they declined a reduction in benefits and salaries. that's not ALL of the problem, but it would be a good start.

i believe they should give detailed plans of how they will turn their respective corps around before being given a dime as well. more efficient, more affordable vehicles ARE the future.

spending got us into this economic fiasco; spending more will NOT get us out of it(alone). taxing our future for the lack accountability today? i'm not buying it! i stand with missourians--SHOW ME(what you're gonna do).

edit: BTW, if they get a bailout, who's next? i need a bailout, what about me? :)

lol give it 10 years on the tundra, the frames will rust out just like the Tacomas did...always have always will rust out.

american trucks are just the opposite, sure the body will rust away but id be damned if the frame were as strong and solid as new...

The problem is that this issue goes multiple levels beyond the poor management of the auto manufacturers to supporting industries that were more responsibly managed. Trucking companies for example, employing drivers from all areas, are laying drivers over for days at a time just waiting for hauls to give them, whereas just within the last year many of those layovers were a matter of hours if anything at all.

I can think of a couple of local manufacturers here that will be adversely affected and forced to lay people off if domestic auto makers are forced into bankruptcy. These are the same people who pay for the services the company I work for provides. Am I next to get laid off??? If so, so long cellular phones. So long Netflix. So long more expensive US manufactured clothing for my family. Seriously, this stuff runs REALLY deep into the fabric of our economy - and we haven't even hit the peak of the mortgage crisis yet.

And I forgot the most important point: A bridge loan (it's not a bailout/giveaway), is in fact a bailout of YOU if you depend on the income from a job or business, because not doing it puts it all at greater risk.

I'll second that... my old 74 chevy had rust holes in the fenders you could stick your arms through, and the floorpans were starting to rust through, but the frame was 100% solid. Man I miss that truck...

-Jay

EDIT: I was just thinking... My current DD, The Beast, is 10 years old, 155,000 miles and the paint still looks great and there's no rust. I think the body panels are galvonized steel. There's one really deep scratch on the rocker panel that I never fixed because you can't see it unless you're almost under the truck. This has been there since I bought the truck, and it has yet to even turn brown, nevermind rust. I'd say they've gotten a lot better with their rust protection.

i dunno my s-10 has great paint except for the cab cornners (kinda dumb design when you look at it, theres a hole where salt/water/anything can get into from the bottom then it just pools there) and the rear fenders. (one from where the tire caught the lip and seperated the 2 pieces of sheetmetal letting in water and salt)

i dunno i still think model A's have held up very well for the last 80 years.