GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

Scotius > wrote in
:

> On 26 Dec 2006 17:45:03 -0800, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> MURDERERS" > wrote:
>
>>
>>Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
>>our troops killed.
>>
>>http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...2-26-gmfueleco
>>nomy_x.htm
>>
>>GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
>
> It can't be GM that's really the source of the bitching. The
> thing is, if it was oil company spokespeople, everyone would laugh and
> tell them to shut up, except Dubya.
> The automakers in the US have treated fuel efficient designs
> as jokes for a long time, and there is some basis for them doing so,
> since the American public doesn't like buying small cars.

Not true;the US public has bought a LOT of
Accords,Civics,Toyotas,Nissans,Kias,etc...they are taking over the US
market.HAVE taken over.
US "domestic" auto production has fallen.even with the increase in SUV/PU
sales,especially if you subtract fleet sales. More accurately,SOME of the
US driving public doesn't like small cars,and that segment has shrunk,and
shrinks every time gas prices go up.

> That would change though if the auto companies followed some
> voluntary kind of rule. The thing is, they have, I'm sure, an
> unwritten contract with the oil giants to NOT do so.

Oh,BULL****;another idiotic conspiracy theory.
Are you going to next bring out the 100 MPG carburetor conspiracy?


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> Face facts;SUVs/PU trucks used as personal transpo are responsible for the
> huge increase in US petrol consumption,and that needs to be addressed.

Which is why CAFE, the legislation that ended up creating them, needs to
be completely junked.

> (note that the number of hunters/campers etc. hasn't really changed,it's
> the people who used to drive no-longer-available big-barge autos that have
> bought all the big SUVs and caused the huge increase in petrol usage;THEY
> are the ones spoiling it for you recreational users! And they didn't/don't
> use those big-barge autos for recreation.)

Yep... the light truck market was about 15% of the new vehicle market
before the mid 1980s when CAFE extinguished most of the large detroit
iron. In the 1990s, it became 45% of the market or more. Those extra
people weren't outdoorsmen.

When I was growing up only one family on the street, a couple blocks away
had what we now call an SUV.... they did a lot of camping, father was
involved in the boy scouts, etc and so forth. They had a giant suburban.
Another guy had a giant pickup truck... it had a equally huge camper that
sat in the bed. It rarely moved except when it was used for its purpose.

Passenger cars were just a lot more useful when they were bigger. When
they got smaller for CAFE, that's when the SUV thing happened. CAFE is a
flawed policy because it's a control freak policy that tries to tell
people what they can buy. Get rid of CAFE... people will go back to large
passenger cars. Which is being seen as the SUVs evolve into station wagons
that cheat the system to be called 'light trucks'.

> I'm all for nuclear power and other methods of reducing petrol
> comsumption,but autos remains a large part of that usage,which DOES need to
> be reduced,and the only practical way to do that is to downsize
> vehicles,beginning with the most inefficient;large SUV/PUs.

We could also just start exploiting oil that isn't taxpayer supported
with foreign policy and use of the military.

Morton Davis wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Laura Bush murdered her boy friend quoted me:
> > > > That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. General
> > > > Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few
> > > > wanted them to keep doing it.
> >
> > and replied:
> > > Are electic cars really the answer?. As many have pointed out, the nrg
> > > to run them has to come from somewhere.
> >
> > The energy can come from much-more-available fuels, not from oil
> > from politically-unstable enemies of us - like instead from coal or
> > uranium. Yes, it would be impractical for any substantial share of all
> > vehicles in America to be electric now - as the added generating
> > capacity that would be needed would take a while to build.
> >
> > > The answer is smaller vehicles
> > > and lower speeds.
> >
> > Bull****. Ever try loading a Boy Scout patrol's worth of camping
> > gear in a Prius? Ever try loading a hunting trip's worth of gear in a
> > subcompact? That's why your parents bought big station wagons - and
> > people now buy SUVs.
> >
> >
> I wonder if they ever try loading up six kids in a Prius? Can't be done.
> Can't be done in a subcompact either - so you need to use two or more
> vehicles to get one vehicle's job done. By the time you do that you're not
> saving any gas.

Ya know, it's funny reading the posts of self-righteous reichwing
blowhard trolls. Pity none of you realize the main use of automobiles
is simply driving to work. A taxpayer subsidized (read: **FREE***)
public transportation system, coupled to zoning rules that clustered
employers the way companies were at the beginning of the 20th century
and there would be plenty of gasoline for SUVs to chauffeur a pack of
boy scouts or to go camping.

Morton Davis wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Laura Bush murdered her boy friend quoted me:
> > > > That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. General
> > > > Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few
> > > > wanted them to keep doing it.
> >
> > and replied:
> > > Are electic cars really the answer?. As many have pointed out, the nrg
> > > to run them has to come from somewhere.
> >
> > The energy can come from much-more-available fuels, not from oil
> > from politically-unstable enemies of us - like instead from coal or
> > uranium. Yes, it would be impractical for any substantial share of all
> > vehicles in America to be electric now - as the added generating
> > capacity that would be needed would take a while to build.
> >
> > > The answer is smaller vehicles
> > > and lower speeds.
> >
> > Bull****. Ever try loading a Boy Scout patrol's worth of camping
> > gear in a Prius? Ever try loading a hunting trip's worth of gear in a
> > subcompact? That's why your parents bought big station wagons - and
> > people now buy SUVs.
> >
> >
> I wonder if they ever try loading up six kids in a Prius? Can't be done.
> Can't be done in a subcompact either - so you need to use two or more
> vehicles to get one vehicle's job done. By the time you do that you're not
> saving any gas.

Ya know, it's funny reading the posts of self-righteous reichwing
blowhard trolls. Pity none of you notice the main use of automobiles is
simply driving to work. A taxpayer subsidized (read: **FREE***) public
transportation system, coupled to zoning rules that clustered employers
the way companies were at the beginning of the 20th century, and there
would be plenty of gasoline for SUVs to chauffeur a pack of boy scouts
or to go camping.

wrote:
> Morton Davis wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend quoted me:
>>>>> That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. General
>>>>> Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few
>>>>> wanted them to keep doing it.
>>> and replied:
>>>> Are electic cars really the answer?. As many have pointed out, the nrg
>>>> to run them has to come from somewhere.
>>> The energy can come from much-more-available fuels, not from oil
>>> from politically-unstable enemies of us - like instead from coal or
>>> uranium. Yes, it would be impractical for any substantial share of all
>>> vehicles in America to be electric now - as the added generating
>>> capacity that would be needed would take a while to build.
>>>
>>>> The answer is smaller vehicles
>>>> and lower speeds.
>>> Bull****. Ever try loading a Boy Scout patrol's worth of camping
>>> gear in a Prius? Ever try loading a hunting trip's worth of gear in a
>>> subcompact? That's why your parents bought big station wagons - and
>>> people now buy SUVs.
>>>
>>>
>> I wonder if they ever try loading up six kids in a Prius? Can't be done.
>> Can't be done in a subcompact either - so you need to use two or more
>> vehicles to get one vehicle's job done. By the time you do that you're not
>> saving any gas.
>
> Ya know, it's funny reading the posts of self-righteous reichwing
> blowhard trolls. Pity none of you realize the main use of automobiles
> is simply driving to work. A taxpayer subsidized (read: **FREE***)
> public transportation system, coupled to zoning rules that clustered
> employers the way companies were at the beginning of the 20th century
> and there would be plenty of gasoline for SUVs to chauffeur a pack of
> boy scouts or to go camping.

In other words, yo wish to intrude the government into our lives even more.

By the way, how would we pay for this "free" public transportation system?

Dave Head wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2006 23:08:09 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:

>> They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something big.

> No, you can't. Try going hunting in a rental SUV. Rental SUV's have _smooth_
> tires - "all season" crap

Then purchase a set of all terrain tires and a set of rims that will fit
on your chosen rental SUV. You don't have to pay yearly registration or
inspection fees, nor do you need to have liability insurance, nor do you
need to pay property taxes on a set of tires and rims.

[groups snipped]

Morton Davis wrote:

> I wonder if they ever try loading up six kids in a Prius?

My family (2 parents, 3 siblings) used to take trips in a Volkswagon
Quantum, and subsequently a Nissan Maxima when I was a kid.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:21:14 -0600, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> Of course, if you need it occasionally, you still need it. And, since you've
>> got money for 1 vehicle, you buy an SUV because you need it... on the 3rd
>> Friday of the month, every other month.
>
>I dunno... given how cheap used vehicles are, I can't see why a person
>couldn't have two vehicles except for the insane licensing and insurance
>regulations... oh but that's the government at play again.

Who wants to ride around in a vehicle that gave someone else so much misery
they traded it in? Who wants to be paying $600 for each repair incidence (what
it seems to average when I go to get something fixed) on a used car with no
mfgrs warranty?

>> Yep. Sounds real "green" to me. Go to work. Come back home. Stay there 'til
>> its time to go to work again. Recreation is _wasteful_. You don't _need_ to
>> be doing that. Just watch the tube and be happy that you are allowed to serve
>> the state. Comrade.
>
>Don't forget to take your soma.

Ya voll!!!

>But that is where our lives are heading given the control of the
>effective single party. Both parties apparently want the population as a
>managed workforce given their _actions_.

Yep. If we don't get another cycle where unionism is on the rise, we're just
going to have a workforce that gets shoved in the ****, time after time, until
we have only super-rich and poverty level people in this country, and nothing
in between.

Dave Head

On 28 Dec 2006 01:03:51 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On 27 Dec 2006 23:08:09 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On 27 Dec 2006 11:17:02 -0800, "
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The answer is smaller vehicles
>>>>>> and lower speeds.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bull****. Ever try loading a Boy Scout patrol's worth of camping
>>>>>gear in a Prius? Ever try loading a hunting trip's worth of gear in
>>>>>a subcompact? That's why your parents bought big station wagons -
>>>>>and people now buy SUVs.
>>>
>>>Not usually. Most buy big trucks/SUVs because they want to drive
>>>something BIG. Lots of old folks,for instance.They grew up driving big
>>>"Detroit" cars/trucks,and that's all they will drive,even at greater
>>>expense and difficulty of driving.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But "the Greens" don't want you to do those things. You're just
>>>> supposed to go to work for the common good, and when you're done, go
>>>> home and stay there until its time to go to work again. Recreation
>>>> is a waste - you waste precious resources on unnecessary things.
>>>> Just stay home.
>>>>
>>>> Dave Head
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>Except that *most* SUV/PUtruck buyers (excluding commercial use) are
>>>not using those vehicles for camping/hauling except on a very
>>>occasional basis.
>>
>> Of course, if you need it occasionally, you still need it. And, since
>> you've got money for 1 vehicle, you buy an SUV because you need it...
>> on the 3rd Friday of the month, every other month.
>
>
>Only SIX times a year,they could RENT and save a lot of money in the
>process.

No, as explained already, they CAN'T! Rentals are unsuitable for hunting, both
for the smooth tires and then there's the issue of maybe decorating the
interior, possibly, with deer blood, depending on how things go. All kindza
stuff could happen that would be incompatible with someone else owning the
vehicle.

>Instead,they pay a lot more for an oversize vehicle,and then pay
>more for gas,and end up with a harder to drive and park vehicle,and waste
>gas that is mostly imported.

Hell, _I_ don't have any trouble driving or parking mine.

>>>They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something
>>>big.
>>
>> No, you can't. Try going hunting in a rental SUV. Rental SUV's have
>> _smooth_ tires -
>
>Which MOST SUVs generally have,

Not mine. I have ATV-style big-lug tires on it. It _don't_ get stuck!

>people not wanting to put up with the noise
>from knobby tires.

Wimps.

>And the ones with knobby tires are unsafe on regular
>roads;

Bull****.

>those tires don't have traction like road tires.

So, you drive it a little different, leave more room, are more cautious on
tight turns. But they're WAY better in snow conditions than the smooth tires.

>(same for the
>"jacked-up" "need the ground clearance" nonsense;unsuitable for public
>roads. Your example of "hunting SUV/truck" is fairly uncommon.

Come up to the Traverse City area around November 15 and look around at what
people are driving, and you'll change your mind. Invasion of the SUVs and
4-wheel drive pickup trucks.

>There's
>where a "limited mileage/use" type of license would be practical.

My hunting destination is 800 miles from my house. Has to do with _who_ I'm
hunting _with_, not how good the hunting is.

>OR,if there's a market for such rentals,they would be available for rent.

There isn't, because everyone has their own, _and_ some people want to hunt 800
- 1000 miles from home.

>For that matter,you could use a smaller,more efficient Jeep,

Ain't that many Jeeps that are significantly smaller or more efficient than my
Cherokee.

>and have an
>attached trailer to haul the 6x per year loads,

I'm not pulling no damn trailer. That's its own sort of hell.

>disconnect it for daily
>driving.

YOU go right ahead. I'm not doing it.

>Heck,these days,they even make tiny camping trailers that can be
>towed by small 4cyl.cars.

Anyone that _wishes_ to choose this sort of travel mode are welcome to it, but
nobody should be forced to.

>> "all season" crap that will get your SUV stuck out on
>> some unmaintained road where you went to chase Bambi, where it (and
>> maybe you) will be found in the spring thaw. And, if somebody _does_
>> rent suitable SUVs for the purpose, they'll be the only ones and will
>> thus be sold out of them when you want to do what everyone else is
>> doing - going fishing in July, or something.
>>
>> And... sometimes you can't even rent anything to drive it as far as
>> you want to. Lots of rentals have restrictions for keeping the
>> vehicle in nearby states. So, when I drive my Jeep up to the Boundary
>> Waters Canoe Area, from Virginia, its 1400 miles each way. My buddy
>> drives his SUV from Albuquerque, which is even farther. Rental
>> companies don't want to hear about such goings-on. But we need 'em to
>> haul all that "stuff".
>>
>>>It's not much different than buying a motor home for a daily driver
>>>because you camp a couple of times a year.
>>
>> Yeah, it is. Motor homes are ridiculously expensive - if you can
>> afford one, you're rich enough to afford a matching car.
>>
>>>Maybe there should be mileage limits on non-commercial vehicles in
>>>excess of certain weight levels,with much steeper yearly registration
>>>fees if exceeded. That would remove much of them from the "daily
>>>driver" category.
>>
>> Yep. Sounds real "green" to me. Go to work. Come back home. Stay
>> there 'til its time to go to work again. Recreation is _wasteful_.
>> You don't _need_ to be doing that.
>
>I *NEVER* said that;

Maybe not, but that's where the "You don't _NEEEEEEDDDDD_ the car / SUV / truck
you want, so you can't have it 'cuz we're gonna pass a law" will eventually
lead.

>that's YOUR interpretation.

Its fairly obvious that's where this is going.

>Those big monsters SUCK GAS that we have to import,

Bull****. We don't _have_ to import a drop. We have the reserves and
capability to drill our way right out of importing any oil at all. But thanks
to leftist democrat enviro-whiners, we can't drill ANWAR, off-shore, and
thousands of places where we _know_ there is oil, oil that is on AMERICAN soil,
and can't build refineries to process it either, again because of leftist
democrat enviro-whiners.

>and their wasteful DAILY
>use

Sure its wasteful. That trip you want to go on, that is _not_ to work, you
don't NEEEEDDDD to be doing that. Just go home, sit in front of the tube, be
glad that you are allowed to serve the state. Comrade.


> as personal transpo needs to be reduced,OR their efficiency increased
>substantially.

The efficiency thing is being worked on furiously. But if the government goes
ripping all the money out of the American car industry by screwing with gas
mileage standards and thus handing all the SUV business to the Japanese, that
goal will never be achieved, at least not by the American auto industry. If
they do that, we _could_ see the complete demise of the "big 3", and the
remainder of our auto industry completely down the tubes. No more Ford,
Chrysler, GM. Gone. Fini. It could happen. The American auto industry is
_extremely_ fragile right now. Any sort of democrat attack on it could spell
the end.

>There would be beneficial side benefits,too. Maybe mandate
>E85 for them?

Watch the fuel station lines extend around the block for fuel that won't be
delivered until the 2nd Tuesday of next week, because there's no way we can
produce that much alcohol, not for years and years to come.

>
>> Just watch the tube and be happy
>> that you are allowed to serve the state. Comrade.
>>
>> Dave Head
>>
>
>
>Face facts;SUVs/PU trucks used as personal transpo are responsible for the
>huge increase in US petrol consumption,and that needs to be addressed.

And the CAFE is responsible for the SUV's / PU's popularity. If the old Ford
Country Squire station wagon could still be purchased, the SUV's / PU's _might_
not be so appealing. Then again, lotsa people have gotten _used_ to large,
high vehicles where they can see forever. Tough to predict.

>
>(note that the number of hunters/campers etc. hasn't really changed,

Oh yes it has. More people are more affluent and can afford such a trip.
There's tons and tons of hunters and campers. Camping is more attractive as a
way for a lot of people to get the hell away from their telephones and the
relatives and work-related calls that they don't want to deal with 24/7/365.

>it's
>the people who used to drive no-longer-available big-barge autos that have
>bought all the big SUVs

No, the yesteryear station-wagon buyers are the SUV buyers now.

>and caused the huge increase in petrol usage;

Yes. If it wasn't for CAFE totally hosing the station wagon market, they'd
probably still be buying station wagons.

>THEY
>are the ones spoiling it for you recreational users!

And the bone-head government regulators, acting at the behest of the leftist
democrat enviro-whiners, are the ones that have spoiled the market by removing
the vehicles that the current SUV-buyers really wanted - big station wagons.

>And they didn't/don't
>use those big-barge autos for recreation.)

>Why should we small auto users be affected because of SUV/PU wasteful
>practices?

'Cuz you didn't do enough to oppose the government meddling in the marketplace
that gave rise to the desire for SUVs and pickups.

>Gas is no longer 30c a gal,and US driving practices need to
>change to reflect that.They haven't.

Yep. Nobody wants to just go to work, come back, flop down in front of the
tube, and stay there 'til its time to go to work again. But that's what all
this "conservation" will lead to...

>I remember the 1973 gas
>lines,rationing(10 gal limit).And the Middle East would have less
>importance and negative political effects on us.

It would now, if the leftist democrat enviro-whiners would get the hell out of
the way and allow drilling wherever there is a drop of known oil, allow
refineries to be built, allow nuclear power to be built, quit opposing power
line construction, and just stop opposing....

>I'm all for nuclear power and other methods of reducing petrol

Then you're one of the rare ones...

>comsumption,but autos remains a large part of that usage,which DOES need to
>be reduced,

Come home, flop down in front of the tube, stay there...

>and the only practical way to do that is to downsize
>vehicles,

Ain't happen'in, at least not without destroying the US auto industry.

>beginning with the most inefficient;large SUV/PUs.

Hand the market to Japan. Way to go...

>IOW,because of world conditions,things have to change.

We just need to invent a more efficient engine,

http://www.scuderigroup.com/technolo...echnology.html

a better hybrid drive,

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/420f04019.pdf

etc.

Dave Head

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:13:32 GMT, Arif Khokar > wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 27 Dec 2006 23:08:09 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>>> They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something big.
>
>> No, you can't. Try going hunting in a rental SUV. Rental SUV's have _smooth_
>> tires - "all season" crap
>
>Then purchase a set of all terrain tires and a set of rims that will fit
>on your chosen rental SUV.

Doesn't do a damn thing for the fact that you can't drive the car you rent
except in the state you rented it in, plus 3 or 4 surrounding states. Most of
the rentals are like that. My hunting spot is 800 miles away. My camping spot
is 1400 miles away.

Plus, you buy wheels the right size for a Ford whatever this year, and next
year your rental availability is GM - different bolt circle, different diameter
wheel, etc. Its just impractical.

>You don't have to pay yearly registration or
>inspection fees, nor do you need to have liability insurance, nor do you
>need to pay property taxes on a set of tires and rims.

Just not worth it.

Plus, by owning my SUV, I _have_ it when the **** hits the fan. Hurricane
knock down a tree out of my only access to my place? I have a 7 hp chainsaw
with a 36" bar, that I can throw in the Jeep, and when I've cut a section out
of the tree big enough for the Jeep to get thru, I can drag it out of the way
with the Jeep. I may or may not even be able to transport the saw with some
smaller cars.

Dave Head