Regulators to require rearview cameras in cars

[SentraSE-R]

Walt Kelly was a far wiser man than RonOld Raygun. The predicate nominative would be "the problem is we." But, Kelly didn't say that, so I didn't paraphrase him to correct his grammar. I did it to echo his point. Here's what Pogo really said.


Put the communist bogeyman back in the closet. He doesn't scare anyone anymore. We should worry more about our sheeple willingly selling themselves into slavery to buy goods from capitalist and communist alike.

[Frank Lee]

Rules to prevent car back-over deaths delayed - Yahoo! News

The link notes that large SUVs and Pickups are the main problem... yet this was gonna go across the board.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

If a manufacturer can make a vehicle that gets better mileage at the same cost as their competitor, they'll sell more and make more money. Manufacturers already have the ability to increase fuel economy--it's just that it increases the cost more than the consumer would like to pay. All the regs do is force the customer to accept a more costly vehicle than they otherwise would.

Dead wrong. Sure, manufacturers could build cars with much better fuel economy, and many people would buy them if left to themselves, as they did in the '70s and '80s. But (excepting a few like the Prius) manufacturers don't WANT to build cars that get good fuel economy. They would much rather build gas guzzlers, and spend billions on advertising to convince people to buy them.

As for having to pay for things we don't want... Well, I don't want power windows, remote-control door locks, GPS units, "infotainment" systems that interface my car with a cell phone, or a number of other things that manufacturers add to cars without being forced to do so through regulation. But (unless government intervenes) it looks as though I'll be stuck with all of those, and with paying for them.

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Dead wrong. Sure, manufacturers could build cars with much better fuel economy, and many people would buy them if left to themselves, as they did in the '70s and '80s. But (excepting a few like the Prius) manufacturers don't WANT to build cars that get good fuel economy. They would much rather build gas guzzlers, and spend billions on advertising to convince people to buy them.

Why would the manufacturers build ineffecient cars just for the sake of building inefficient cars? If manufacturer A can make a car that gets 40 mpg and offer it at the same or a better price than manufacturer B whose car gets 30 mpg, all else being equal manufacturer A is going to sell more cars. Case in point is the Japanese automakers (Toyota, Honda, etc.) that came into the US market in the 70's & 80's. They made cars that got better mileage than the big 3 US automakers and sold their cars at a better price. It took some time and they had some other issues to take care of, but today look at how much market share those companies have gained. Or look at how well the Prius has done vs other hybrids. Other comanies have made hybrids, but the Prius is better than most in terms of FE and their sales are a reflection of that.

As far as increased cost goes, here's my point. Manufactures could make a car that gets unbelievable mileage by, for example, going with a small diesel engine with two-stage turbocharging (to meet the power demand). Of course, with that diesel comes an expensive 30,000psi+ fuel injection system and an aftertreatment system to meet modern emissions (which cost as much or more than the engine BTW). We'll put machined titanium compressor wheels in those turbos too so we can get more boost out of them. We'll go with an aluminum block and head(s) to reduce weight. We'll add a turbo compound and/or a waste heat recovery system to recover the exhaust heat energy. We'll polish all the intake and exhaust ports & manifolds and add a ceramic coating inside & out. We'll put in electrically driven cooling fans, coolant pump, & lube pump. Of course, it will be a hybrid with the latest, most power-dense batteries money can buy, accompanied by a regenerative braking system. We'll make all the frame and body out of aluminum and/or carbon fiber to reduce the weight. We'll spend gobs of money on engineering, CFD, and windtunnel testing to perfect the aerodynamics. We'll put high-efficiency LED in every light bumb on the vehicle. And, voila! We've just made you a 100+mpg mid-sized sedan...that will cost $100,000+.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

As for having to pay for things we don't want... Well, I don't want power windows, remote-control door locks, GPS units, "infotainment" systems that interface my car with a cell phone, or a number of other things that manufacturers add to cars without being forced to do so through regulation. But (unless government intervenes) it looks as though I'll be stuck with all of those, and with paying for them.

I didn't want to pay for power windows, remote-control door locks, GPS units, or "infotainment" system--so I found a truck without them and bought it (fairly inexpensively too).

[gone-ot]

...on some GM models all those "gadgets" cannot be "deleted"--the car comes with them or else!

[Diesel_Dave]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...on some GM models all those "gadgets" cannot be "deleted"--the car comes with them or else!

And by GM, I assume you mean the GM that just went bankrupt. Hmm...might be something to that.

[gone-ot]

...on a different website, I derisively state: "...'new' GM = 'old' GM with new paint..."

...and, the more often that I have to interface with mothership GM, the more certain I become of my perception of them.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

Why would the manufacturers build ineffecient cars just for the sake of building inefficient cars?

I don't know why they do it. However, the observed evidence that they do just that is overwhelming.

[SentraSE-R]

The current meandering direction of the thread, and its discussion so far, prove a couple of things.

1. If you want true change* to occur, you have to legislate and enforce it.
2. Sometimes you can't enforce it.
3. You can't satisfy everyone, ever.

*except for the rare sea change, like the invention of the wheel, light bulb, etc.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

*except for the rare sea change, like the invention of the wheel, light bulb, etc.

Not even light bulbs :-( There are people and communities that still use gas lighting: Gas lighting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia