Originally Posted by hat_man
Just throwing my two cents here but during the "gas crisis" a few decades ago we could get fairly fuel efficient cars. Not efficient by todays standards, but efficient by the standards of the day.
IMHO I think the auto industry, the oil industry, and the gov't are in bed with each other.
RIGHT.........
As long as cars aren't as fuel efficient as they could be then the fed. and state gov'ts can collect $$$'s in fuel taxes and use them wherever they want. I have two reasons for this opinion........
1) If you look at some older cars and trucks they out perform some of todays vehicles. Then we get a hold of them and "tweak" them to get even better mpg's. If we can figure it out why can't the "geniuses" in the R and D departments of the auto industry?
******************
I realize that you qualified this w/ 'in your opinion', but......
1. our 'tweaks' would not survive the abuse of a normal consumer.
2. our tweaks (boat tails etc) would not survivie a day in the normal world of driving
3. the majority of the mpg improvements are at the nut behind the wheel
all of this has been stated before.
To think that everyone is sitting on their hands and not trying to creat the next big breakthru is silly.
****************************************8
Makes you wonder doesn't it?
***************
No.**************************
You see a new car come out today and the advertisements say it has "improved" fuel economy because it went from 20mpg to 22mpg. So what they really mean is that it went from really cruddy mpg to just a bit better cruddy mpg. It's only been in the last few years that there has been an increase in domestic mpg "technology". My opinion is that the auto industry saw that they were losing market share to the more efficient imports and proposed to the gov't that they needed to "release" some of the "technology" (that they probably already had sitting on a shelf in the R and D department)
************
Really.........'sitting on the shelf' ??????
*******************************
to compete or the gov't would lose out in tax dollars on many different levels. Fuel taxes, income taxes on domestic workers, etc. As long as we were making vehicles that were "almost" as good as the imports the auto industry was happy with sales figures, the oil industry was happy because the fuel efficiency was "technologically hindered" and the gov't was happy with it's influx of tax dollars. When the imports started getting a foothold on domestic car sales, all three saw a drop in revenue and something had to be done.
2) Look at the big auto industry bailout. All arguing aside about wether it was a good idea or not, it was supposed to help the auto industry get back on its feet (compete in the marketplace).
**************
You missed the point of the 'auto bailout'.
The $$$$$$ went to the unions. THe bondholder got zero. The manufactures have a failed business model. The labor/healthcare cast are too high. Forcing the manufactures to make expensive cars to cover the overhead. Since nothing was done to change the business model (which a true bankruptcy would have done) then the money did not go to create new technology. I really cant believe that you think that is what the money was for???!!!!!!
The manufacture were running MASSIVE unfunded debt due to the unfunded union healthcare costs.***************************************
You would think that the first cars coming out after the bailout would be something the majority of consumers would buy and be comparable and competetive with the import market that was "hurting" them.
************************
THe unions are hurting them, not the import market.
Think about it.........why do they have to sell expensive vehicles????
because of the total cost to produce them.
**********************
What did we see? Gas guzzling Camaro's, Mustang's, and Charger's. Cars designed to be too powerful, too expensive, and too fuel INefficient for domestic consumers needs. Why couldn't they build a fuel efficient family 4-door that would compete with the imports and appeal to the majority of car buyers? I realize there are cars out there now like the Ford Focus and other similar cars, but why now and not before or immediately after the bailout?
Do we really need 220+hp in our cars? Do we need incredible 0-60 times? Not really. My little truck has just over 110hp and can get up to 85mph and when driven realistically gets 26mpg (before mods) and does it with engine and fuel injection "technology" that is 15 years old and the disadvantage of rear wheel drive and crappy aerodynamics.
********************
the reason mpg is 'different' is because the epa recalibrated (down) the epa # to be more realistic. This fact has also been discused here at length. So your arguement is false******************************
Just think what could be capable today without even having to pay for a hybrid. A fuel efficient mid sized car with 100hp, advanced front wheel drive, aerodynamic styling to keeps it's Cd low, 6-speed transmission to give it a higher highway gear without sacrificing the needed lower in-town gearing, and whatever else can be thought of to help it be fuel efficient, practical, and affordable. Can you imagine the mpg on a car like this? Would you buy it? Do you see this car on the market? Of course not. The auto industry would never build it. Too much money to be lost by the other two groups in this venture.
Again this is only my opinion, but it begs the question.....WHY?
|