Yes, your approach is communistic, but I don't know if you personally
are a communist or not. I've voted in the past for Democrats, but that
doesn't make me a member of the Democratic party.
It doesn't benefit people who need or want to drive real trucks and
SUVs. The modifications required to make a 3/4 ton pickup get 30 MPG
would make it not useful for plowing snow or towing anything bigger than
a utility trailer.
Neither do I which is why I save a large percentage of my income and
live pretty frugally relative to my income. However, I don't want to
subsidize those who chose to live their life beyond their means.
The COLA is the annual increase that all people drawing SS get in their
check. You are showing a profound ignorance of the SS system.
Nobody NEEDS a TV, or a private house, or large tracts of land (unless
you are a farmer), etc. So you are saying the government should decide
what we need and don't need and place us all in small publicly owned
apartments, give us a bicycle to ride to work, etc. I think that was
tried once or twice already. The outcome wasn't pretty...
You just refuted your own argument. I believe that your claim was that
a mandated higher mileage standard would reduce demand and thus reduce
the price per gallon of gasoline. Since Europe has much lower demand
than the USA, by your logic they should pay LESS for gas than we do
rather than more. I think you just shot down your own argument. Don't
you just hate it when that happens? :-)
I know a big part of the reason that Europe pays much more for fuel than
the USA, and that fact also shoots down your argument.
I just did your homework for you on SS COLA. It is time that you did a
little yourself. You are acting like a person on welfare who expects
Uncle Sam to take care of you and do everything for you. I hope that
isn't the case, but it looks more that way with every post.
Truthfully, I never said or used the word "mandated" with respect to a
higher mileage standard. I did, however, state that the loophole that
exempts trucks should be closed or brought into the 21st century. When
the 1978 Energy Tax Act was instituted, SUVs and Hummers weren't on
the market nor on anyone's mind. People used trucks for utility most
of the time not to drive 2 blocks to get a loaf of bread (and re-fuel
probably). Whatever a person wants to buy with their money is their
deal. Nothing anyone can say about it. So no, my argument was not
self-imploding or self-refuted. Twisting someone's words or
re-interpreting them inversely does not stand as well as a good
counter argument. Europe is just as dependent on other countries'
(Russia) energy and the amount of manipulation they face in THEIR
markets is deplorable. To a large extent, they don't have the freedom
of market that we Americans enjoy. Again, $3.50 a gallon is nothing to
complain about if you compare what they pay per liter. They have
smaller cars as a direct result of this. No one in the states drive
micros because we're American, we like our cars big. You are also
aware of the fact that the large majority of European cars are stick
shift and that stick shift is more fuel efficient than automatic? Last
I checked, Europe had somewhere in neighborhood of 80+ % stick whereas
the US is, again, last I checked, a 90+ % automatic country. Funny
that in the car commercials the drivers almost always look as if they
are "shifting"...their automatics. Ha! Cheers.
- Thee Chicago Wolf
This would constitute a mandated increase in required fuel economy. Do
you know what mandate means?
I drive a stick shift. However, if you check you'll find that the
difference in fuel economy is now pretty slim. There are many other
reasons that Europeans drive standard shift. Europeans also drive a
very high percentage of cars with diesel engines as compared to the US.
Not from where I sit. The fact is that cars that got in the range of
50 miles per gallon were available decades ago for people who wanted
them. They did not use batteries or highly-complex hybrid drivetrains.
Thus it is difficult to consider today's hybrids to be a particularly
remarkable or useful achievement.
It's hard to judge participants' age in a forum such as this but you
sound a little wet behind the ears yet.
It's good enough for me. What anyone else does is their own business.
("New" and "improved" are not necessarily the same thing.)
Adjusted for the rate of overall price increases in other commodities,
gasoline is no more expensive today than it was 40 years ago.
Due to limited supply and high prices Europeans have always had
smaller cars at least since the end of World War II, even before
specific fuel economy standards were developed. (Remember the BMW
Your desire for more government control over our lives is very
disconcerting. Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of government as
an institution. It is in fact a system of force and plunder, not one
of compassion and service, and needs to be kept strictly under control
for personal freedom to exist.
Who are you to determine what is a "poor" decision, and to forcibly
impose your values on everyone around you?
By the way, we are nowhere near "running out of oil" (a cry I've been
hearing for at least 50 years now). Particularly when sources like tar
sands are taken into account, there is enough to last for centuries
and there are large deposits in North America. No doubt alternative
energy sources will ultimately be developed, but the immediate need is
to develop new sources of oil and build new refineries, not to find a
You have not made a convincing case as to why the year is of any
I prefer a vehicle that is reliable, simple to work on, and easy to
maintain. Air bags are not needed (they are merely a supplement to
seat belts, and were introduced because people were not buckling up),
and antilock brakes etc. are no substitute for driver skill. It is
also questionable how well those systems will perform over the long
term, as the vehicle gets to be 10, 15, 20 years old or more. If you
want those features that's your business, I have no interest in
You are the one looking to forcibly impose your values on others.
Nowhere have I attempted to "drag the rest" of you anyplace. (Even
here at home, the wife prefers a newer car for herself and I don't
have a problem with that. On the other hand, my own preference has
been to drive the same car for the last 30 years. Having driven both,
I prefer my older vehicle.)
You really seem to have a problem with anyone who does not arrange
their lives in accordance with what *you* want.
Who are you to dictate what is "waste?"
And not that I have to justify anything to the likes of you, but just
for grins go find out how much energy and raw materials are consumed,
and waste produced, in the manufacture of a new car. Then calculate
how much I have prevented from being "wasted" by not purchasing a new
car every few years. (That's not the reason I drive an older car, it's
just a side effect.)
No, I do not. Your arguments are specious, frivolous, and without
foundation or merit.
That's what the electric car advocates were saying 30-40 years ago.
We've been 10 years away from a practical battery for as long as I can
"Better" is in the eye of the beholder.
If there is meaningful competition, then yes, consumers control the
market. Companies have to build products that consumers want or a
competitor will do so instead. This is Economics 101. Detroit found
this out the hard way.
The theory of government in this country is completely different than
in most other countries. In the European model, the individual is
merely a subject of an all-powerful State. In the U.S., the function
of government is supposed to be strictly limited to enumerated powers
that are delegated to it from the citizens.
I see this post which shows as 8 AM, but that is probably due to time
zone differences. Is this the one you mean? If so, I don't see
anything close to an apology here. Maybe you can point it out.
I guess the irony here is that: 1) BOTH are Hybrids, 2) BOTH are
front-wheel drive. Those number assume people do 45% HWY driving and
55% city. I don't speak for most people in this group but I'd say my
ratio is closer to 75% CITY and 25% HWY. While on paper those numbers
may be true, in ideal condition, you know the old saying: "Actual
Experience May Vary."
Honda Civic Hybrid:
- Thee Chicago Wolf
You are really showing how little integrity you have. Here is what you
"So, I don't mean to feed trolls but if Matt says your car is such a
"gas hog" and there are ALL THESE CARS THAT GET OVER 50 MPG...well,
Matt, put your money where you mouth is. And be sure to put it with
the updated EPA standards as well. he ain't a hypocrite. I think he
just reinforced the fact that since you have no evidence to support
your claim, you're like a Republican debating a Democrat: all blame
and no game."
I showed you data using the updated EPA standards. Now you are changing
the rules because I called your bluff. That shows you have no integrity
and thus aren't worth further effort to educate. Adios.
Matt, you did in fact show me two cars that, according to the EPA,
that do in fact get 50 MPG. You are correct. I look at and saw those
EPA numbers. Did you follow the links posted by me? It seems you
purposely chose to ignore them and didn't even acknowledge them. Why?
I didn't change the rules. I thought it was common knowledge that the
EPA rating in no way reflects real world performance. I'm sure you
know that. Anyone who buys a car knows that what's printed on the
sticker is never what the car gets. That's why I supplemented what you
showed me from the exact same web site. I felt you were omitting
facts, that's all. Why you choose to ignore the same data from
exactly the same source is to your convenience, not mine. From the
exact same web site, real world customer performance is showing it be
under 50 MPG, albeit close. The EPA ratings, while correct and true on
paper and according to an ideal driving situations and the percentage
of city to highway ratio they specify, could not possible reflect all
driving conditions of all drivers. You see the same tiny text printed
on the bottom of TV ads for cars: actual result may very. And that is
all I am saying.
- Thee Chicago Wolf
You claim was that I couldn't produce cars that got 50 MPG according to
the new EPA standards. You didn't say anything about "real world"
mileage. I consistently match or exceed the EPA ratings for all three
of my current vehicles.
Is this all you do for recreation? If I only list three, I'd list
camping, cycling and hunting (in my backyard so I don't even have to
drive to where I hunt). However, I have more than three and I suspect
you do also, but just don't want to list those.
Of course there are other things I do less frequently, but those are my
"big 3", so to speak. There's nothing I do that involves burning fuel
other than as transportation. Most of my cycling involves riding from
home, so there's no driving involved.
What's your point? Do you have one or are you just trying to insinuate
that I'm hiding something (which I'm not)?
My point is that you have drawn some self-appointed line in the sand as
to what is a gas hog and what isn't. My point is also that your line is
no better than mine. You think that 30 MPG constitutes not driving a
gas hog and I say the line is 20. My line is just as good as yours.
Fair enough, but hopefully if/when the gubermint decides to draw a line
again, it will be closer to mine than yours. As much as I dislike
government interference in my life, if people won't do the right thing
on their own, sometimes there's little other choice.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.