[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by hat_man

OK...I really don't think it's a conspiracy (and never did) but I figured putting it out ther like that might ratchet up the thought process and let folks explore different avenues on this topic. I still somewhat believe parts of what I said but not to the alarmist/extremeist/conspiritorial level that I led out with.

First you said "IMHO I think the auto industry, the oil industry, and the gov't are in bed with each other." Then you said "OK...I really don't think it's a conspiracy (and never did)". Why would you say "In my honest opinion" when you really mean "in my facetious opinion"? Within the same paragraph you say "I still somewhat believe parts of what I said". You make a wild and unsubstantiated claim, backpedal, and then tiptoe back to your original claim.

The evidence you point to is the fact that cars used to get relatively good fuel economy (back when they were much smaller and less powerful). This "evidence" is very weak. To substantiate a claim such as this, we need to see indictments, or a whistle blower, or a secretary who overheard a politician saying we need to keep fuel economy poor, perhaps an email... the claim is a conspiracy theory just as absurd as "the moon landing was faked".

That isn't to say there isn't massive corporate, government, and personal corruption motivated by greed, but I just don't see any evidence to suggest the sabotage of fuel efficient vehicles coming to market. Fuel would be consumed at enormous quantities regardless of fuel efficiency. In fact, increases in efficiency almost always positively correlate to increased use of a resource.

Example: In 1995 I got my first computer, a Pentium 100. It consumed 10.1W of power, or 10MHz per Watt. More recently a quad core i7 consumes 55W, or about 145MHz per Watt. That represents a 15x increase in efficiency! How the heck did we still end up increasing power consumption by 5x?

Another example is cell phones. My old flip phone would go 4 days on a charge. My "smart" phone can't go 24hrs, has a bigger battery, and gets hot to the touch.

We want more, we want bigger, we want faster. As long as the resources exist, we will find creative ways to consume them.

...Do the car companies produce bigger cars because that is what the consumer buys or does the consumer buy bigger cars because that is what the car companies produce? I'm it's not as simple as that but I think you get my point. What would happen if the car companies produced smaller mid sized (again not mini's or econoboxes) cars at the same rate as the larger more inefficient cars?

Of course, they both influence each other. To answer your question, a car company in the US would go bankrupt if they produced as many econo-boxes as mid-sized. Here's why. People like faster. People like bigger. People like luxury. People like excess. My girlfriend is highly intelligent and rational (for a woman ) but she made fun of an ex because he drove a Tacoma. She said it was a small girly truck. A woman has never had the primal "take me now" urge seeing a man pull up in a Geo Metro. They might admire a man who is "saving the world" by driving a wimpy car, but they certainly aren't throwing themselves at him.

So, women are attracted to big, powerful, fast, high-class, macho. Men who like women generally make decisions based on what attracts them. I don't see this changing. Ever.

...I'm sure there is a little "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" going on...Seems to me that a somewhat similar thing happened a few years ago in California with a so called "energy-crisis" and electrical rates went up pretty high. I thought I had heard that it was a manufactured crisis to benefit the utility companies.

You are absolutely correct. The energy crisis was manufactured by Enron, and it took government help(whether knowingly or unknowingly) to pull it off. I would be surprised to see any industry that is completely righteous, free of greed and corruption. Again, I fail to see how stalling efficient vehicles would benefit anybody.

...I agree with your statement about striving for both powerful or efficient cars being fun and neither being absolutely necessary. Neither extreme is necessary, but moderation is. And that is what I guess I feel the US car industry isn't ready for, even though the US consumers are. If they weren't ready for it they wouldn't have been buyuing the midsized imports for the last 15 years. It seems what we have to choose from is mainly the two extremes and not much in the middle.

Why do you think the US auto industry wasn't ready for change? Is it possible they didn't have the R&D money because they were stuck paying pensions and outrageous wages and benefits to union workers? Sure, they are to blame for the mess they put themselves into, but that mess is why they haven't withstood stiff global competition.

...as for technology, I know it isn't sitting on a shelf collecting dust. But when you look at some of the older model cars that were really efficient, you saw ideas that aren't around anymore.

Old technology like what, carburetor? Cars were efficient back in the day because they were small and sucked. When people could afford cars that weren't small and sucked, they got bigger cars that sucked (gas).

We as consumers are partially to blame, but the auto industry must shoulder some of the blame also.

I 100% agree with this.

If you look at some of the older model vehicles they DO out perform a lot of todays vehicles when it comes to efficiency. Maybe not in speed and HP but that isn't what I was getting at. I am talking fuel efficiency.

Fuel efficiency is defined as making the most power for the least amount of fuel consumption. Did cars really use to make more power per quantity of fuel consumed? I would say quite the opposite has happened.

...take some of the unemployed or underemployed millions of Americans and get them to build the cars for non-union labor rates and benefits. Hell, hire twice as namy of them and have them work 24 hours a week so you don't have to pay them any benefits because they are now part-time employees.

You would see a high turnover for these positions if auto companies did this. Turnover I'm sure is not efficient or good for quality control. Americans don't want these jobs long term because we see manual labor as below us. That's the reason cars are built overseas, or domestically by overpaid "unskilled" workers. I just don't see domestic production being economically feasible in a global marketplace until people lower their expectations for compensation.

Unions are the primary reason the auto industry has failed. Coincidentally, they are also the primary reason our education is failing. This isn't to say unions are always bad, or that they don't have their beneficial place, but at least in these 2 areas they have become a ravenous monster.