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

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:17:53 GMT, Arif Khokar > wrote:

>[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.

THAT must have been a fun, comfortable trip... not...

DPH

On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 01:10:34 GMT, "Morton Davis" > wrote:

>
>"David Hartung" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Dave Head wrote:
>> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:27:45 GMT, David Hartung >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dave Head wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:10:12 GMT, David Hartung >
>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Dave Head wrote:
>> >>>>> On 27 Dec 2006 02:34:04 -0800, wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> 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...gmfueleconomy_
>x.htm
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
>> >>>>>>> would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
>> >>>>>>> trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a
>senior
>> >>>>>>> General Motors (GM) executive said.
>> >>>>>> All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and
>> >>>>>> people could drive as big vehicles as they want.
>> >>>>> From all I've read, we don't have enough land to produce enough of
>those things
>> >>>>> to power our economy. It'd be a small supplement, but not a
>replacement.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Problem solved
>> >>>>> Nope. Guess again.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> - and
>> >>>>>> US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas
>to
>> >>>>>> pay for that oil.
>> >>>>> That'd sure be nice. We need a solution, tho, that somehow makes
>cars
>> >>>>> effectively get 100 mpg in such a way that they're not boring and
>not too small
>> >>>>> and don't involve sharing space with other people or be at the mercy
>of someone
>> >>>>> else's driving the vehicle you're riding in, etc.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Some US drivers have already switched.
>> >>>>> A very tiny percentage. And if everybody did it, there wouldn't be
>enough
>> >>>>> biodiesel and alcohol to keep everyone moving like they do now.
>> >>>> http://www.changingworldtech.com/
>> >>> These people seem to have answers for far too many problems to be
>believable.
>> >>> I'm guessing they're scamming for research $$$. If they knew how to
>do all
>> >>> that stuff, they would, and probably wind up being richer than Gates.
>> >> http://www.res-energy.com/
>> >
>> > Looks great. Hope they get down to business and produce lotsa
>biodiesel. And
>> > gasoline. We need gasoline.
>> >
>> > Hopefully this can be used to empty the landfills and convert their
>contents to
>> > something useful. Landfills seem to me to be one of the dumbest ideas
>of the
>> > 20th century.
>>
>> I agree.
>
>Most of the content of landfills can not be converted to biodiesel.

But a lot of it could be burned for electrical generation.

DPH
>

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:04:27 -0800, Scott en Aztlán >
wrote:

>Dave Head > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>>OK, so where would you put all of that garbage that currently goes
>>>into landfills? Dump it into rivers, lakes, and oceans?
>>
>>No, you figure out a way to use it to some good effect - burn it to power
>>electrical generators, most likely.
>
>So air pollution, global warming, and who knows what else is worse
>than a little methane? Heck, why not just collect the methane and burn
>that?

That's being done, too.

DPH

Dave Head wrote: <brevity snip/groups adjusted>

> Landfills seem to me to be one of the dumbest ideas of the
> 20th century.

3000 BC - In the Cretan capital, Knossos, the first recorded landfill
sites were created where waste was placed in large pits and covered
with earth at various levels.

http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resour...yofWaste.htm#1
-----

- gpsman

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> 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?

This is a throw away society... people get rid of vehicles simply because
they aren't the newest shiny thing anymore. There are even these things
called leases for these people who want a new vehicle every other year.

> 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?

Who wants to drive a friggin' truck everywhere, every day? Talk about a
living hell. It's not like the vehicle you don't use much is going to
need much in repairs... plus if you learn to do your own work it's really
cheap.

>>> 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.

Unions won't do it, they are firmly in the hands of wing of the single
effective party called 'democrats'.

.. . . .
"DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
General Motors (GM) executive said."
.. . . .

Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> necromancer wrote:

> > Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was
> > scuttled.....), hydro, geothermal, nuclear, coal, natural gas or just
> > about anything else that can turn a shaft.....
>
> Yeah yeah yeah. More expensive technological solutions Just go to
> smaller cars and lower speeds.

I've always been a fan of CAFE standards. However, I've also always
been a fan of trucks with big engines that will pull a big family and a
big trailer up a steep mountain road, along with their motorcycles, gas
cans and 50 gallons of extra water, etc. Eliminating these trucks with
big engines is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

An option I would favor, for instance, is to force these gas guzzlers
to stay out of the fast lane. These vehicles are designed to haul a big
load and shouldn't be used to go like a bat out of hell commuting back
and forth to work.

On 28 Dec 2006 02:53:52 -0800, wrote:

>. . . .
>"DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
>would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
>trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
>General Motors (GM) executive said."
>. . . .
>
>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> necromancer wrote:
>
>> > Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was
>> > scuttled.....), hydro, geothermal, nuclear, coal, natural gas or just
>> > about anything else that can turn a shaft.....
>>
>> Yeah yeah yeah. More expensive technological solutions Just go to
>> smaller cars and lower speeds.
>
>I've always been a fan of CAFE standards. However, I've also always
>been a fan of trucks with big engines that will pull a big family and a
>big trailer up a steep mountain road, along with their motorcycles, gas
>cans and 50 gallons of extra water, etc. Eliminating these trucks with
>big engines is totally unacceptable in my opinion.
>
>An option I would favor, for instance, is to force these gas guzzlers
>to stay out of the fast lane. These vehicles are designed to haul a big
>load and shouldn't be used to go like a bat out of hell commuting back
>and forth to work.

These big trucks ought to be work vehicles, not luxury vehicles. Price
controls would be a nice idea. $38,000 for an SUV it's probably costing
$20,000 to build? I don't think so.

All the luxo stuff that makes the SUVs desireable ought to be prohibited. A
work crew ought to have air conditioning, but 6-CD changers, big audio amps,
carpeted interiors, sound deadening stuff, fancy "mag" wheels, and all that
"nice" stuff that one wouldn't order or pay for if they were buying it to get a
work crew to and from the worksite should be prohibited.

Dave Head

wrote:
> . . . .
> "DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
> would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
> trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
> General Motors (GM) executive said."
> . . . .
>
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
>>necromancer wrote:
>
>
>>>Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was
>>>scuttled.....), hydro, geothermal, nuclear, coal, natural gas or just
>>>about anything else that can turn a shaft.....
>>
>>Yeah yeah yeah. More expensive technological solutions Just go to
>>smaller cars and lower speeds.
>
>
> I've always been a fan of CAFE standards.

Then you either don't understand what they've "accomplished," or you're
an idiot.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

David Hartung wrote:

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

Usually with taxes on motorists.

I've yet to see a public transport system that makes *financial* sense.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
>
> David Hartung wrote:
>
>> By the way, how would we pay for this "free" public transportation system?
>
> Usually with taxes on motorists.
>
> I've yet to see a public transport system that makes *financial* sense.

I have long been amazed at the number of people who come up with these ideas,
but don't explain how we would pay for the new "service".