CAFE standards controlled by our Government? Can someone explain why?

"Jeff" wrote in news:U4JXh.4322$A72.1112@trnddc07:

#3 is the same as #2. It doesn't matter where the energy comes from (human, machine, etc), just that it be expended.

Yes, but money is the product of energy. Paying too much money and not being able to recover it means wasted energy.

Unless you drive like a city taxicab, it'll take 15 years to recoup the cost of a hybrid. This is true whether you're given somebody else's money as a subsidy, or you pay for it yourself.

I disagree. It takes a lot of labor to write a computer program, but not all that much energy to make it compared to the costs of the human labor.

It's actually, more closely related to resources, energy being an important one.

Depends on the price of gas. In addition, it depends on the benefits of decreasing green-house gases, too.

As I said, we don't know the accounting as far as the environment is concerned, but I don't think for a second that this is the same as the money accounting.

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in news:TgMXh.4338$A72.4213@trnddc07:

It is energy regardless. The time it took to make that computer program is gone forever. You cannot re-use that same time to produce anything else of value.

That's the first time I have ever heard of time being called energy.

They are not the same thing.

Jeff

stuff snipped

The car makers are not shoving gas guzzlers down our throats. They are making what the buying public wants to buy. Back in the mid '70s during the "oil crisis", the public DID force the automakers to produce more efficient cars (sadly, at that time it meant smaaaalll) simply by refusing to buy anything else. Remember the Vega and Pinto? Then, the buying habits of the public changed so fast the auto makers had a heck of a time retooling to compete with the suddenly popular Japanese compacts (which few people wanted, except as a second car, prior to the oil embargo). Just as soon as car buyers adjusted to the gasoline prices, they went back in droves to larger vehicles. As long as the people buying the new vehicles (not me, by the way) are actually buying them, there is no compelling reason to make anything else. Besides, there are plenty of models out there that get very good gas mileage and the mileage will only increase as engine control technology advances.

The Pinto and Vega predated the first oil crisis by more than two years. They were both introduced in 1970 as 1971 models. The first oil crisis didn't hit until 1973. I would argue that US automakers had first tried to address the desire of Consumers for smaller cars in the early 50's (Metro, Henry J) and then in the late 50's/early 60's (Corvair, Falcon, Valiant). Even the late 60's Ford Maverick was a relatively small car. Volumes were often good for the smaller cars (Ford had great success selling Falcons, Mavericks, and Pintos) but the profits were not so good. Low end cars had to compete with used cars. Given the gas prices in the 60's and early 70's what do you think must Consumers would rather have - a new Maverick, or a low mileage 1 or 2 year old Mustang or Torino? I bought my first import in

1975 - a Datsun 280Z. I bought it because it was different, not because of reliability (it wasn't) or fuel economy (it wasn't particularly good on gas). A lot of people I know who bought imports early on bought them because they were different. Over the years I have owned imports from England (2 seat sports cars), Germany (Audi), and Japan (Nissan, Mazda, and Toyota). I've never been overly impressed with the quality or value of imported cars compared to domestic cars. I really don't understand why Toyota has become so successful. In terms of what I look for in a car, Toyota has consistently been far down the list - even compared to the Japanese rivals. Apparently boring is what Americans want.

Ed

It sure seems the Greeny car buyers are ONLY looking at MPG and whether or not it's a hybrid.

Newer technology always costs more until more people by that technology.

I do no see a large jump towards greener cars, in fact I see people in middle-class incomes tending to buy gas-guzzlers which much cheaper technology. They're willing to pay high prices for gas and do not buy into the CO2 myth either.

People settle for 25+ mpg cars/trucks now and they want a car/truck with power and comfort. This means they want a bigger car that is 100% gasoline powered.

The gov't will come along at some point and force us all into expensive cars with high technology built-in.

Has it occurred to anyone that if the America driver shaves 10%-20% of their gas consumption that OPEC will simply raise the price of oil to make up the difference in profit lost?

$5-10$ per gallon gas will happen and that savings will be gone in a flash.

I guess some people just what to 'feel warm' inside and not care that their actions forced poorer people to become more poor.

So those 10 year/100K miles warranty are now basically 3-5 year warranties.

Nice.

It is if one drives 20,000 to 30,000 miles a year.

Yo!

Thing is, I split it between three cars.

Buying a $20K car, making payments, with interest and depreciation the car was bought for around $25K and five years later is maybe worth $10K, plus all that repair work and getting busy, in the hybrid's case, finding a new battery. Batteries lifetime stamp doesn't say "4ever and ever"

I wonder what those batteries do to the environment when they're recycled?

Or when they're made?

I have one car I paid $15,000 for. One that cost $600 (plus about $1200 in parts so far) and one that cost $150+$400 for parts. So, I'm under the $20,000 so far...

Let's see how much more the Supra can nickle and dime me for, like a Toyota tech friend of mine said it would...