Kerry plans on CAFE standard of 36 mpg

[Bustov]

Check out this article in The Car Connection
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=6986

Looks like Mr. Kerry is not a car enthusiast and doesn't care if you are.

[TT]

LOL I see Kerry already losing some votes here and there :D

[FerrariKiller]

He's just saying what he thinks we want to hear. He doesn't realize that if we wanted fuel efficient cars, we would buy them.

[hemi_fan]

man, I hate these people who make up stupid laws to "Save the environment" or "reduce oil consumption" I remember reading an Article on HotRod Magazine where California was paying scrap-yards $200 per old car they could crush, because they were supposedly harming the environment too much. They offered $150 for cars to crush, but they were all old, nice/restorable classics, and owners didnt know what they had. it was mindless. and i was sad :(

[RC45]

As long as the Presedential Limo he goes around in becomes a Kia Rio... made of tin foil, and getting 50mpg... fucking hypocrite....

[danroz]

Its pretty funny that he is going after Oil consumption, which is a Bush specialty. Give me a fuckin break, how bout you go after the utility companies before you make the automobile industry as guinea pigs.

Power to the people...and dont kick Stern off the air

[nejcdolinsek]

I don't agree with what he's saying, but the world had better hope Kerry wins... :|

[RC45]

I don't agree with what he's saying, but the world had better hope Kerry wins... :|

Now why would you say that?

Because Bush is a republican war monger?

More democrat presidents have attacked other countries and declared war than republicans have. ;)

[graywolf624]

I don't understand the irrational hatred of Bush presented by so many people. The man has demonstrated time and time again a pursuit of what he believes. The man is utterly honest, whether we agree with his actions or not(want proof.. look at the unpopular shit hes done for both sides.. even the republicans want his head for being a liberal spender). He attacked a country with a scum bag for a president that has repeated threatened the united states and refused to have his weapons development audited by the UN. I'm not saying the attack was necessary or well planned, but it isn't like bush attacked france or something(that would be a short war).
That isn't to say I think the man is perfect or that I wouldn't vote for someone else if I had the chance. But at least we know what we get with him. Kerry is so wishy washy who knows what he is.

[flat6]

I agree with Kerry. The lack of technology going into cars is disgusting. If you want and can afford a Ferrari, that's fine. Those can be inefficient. As long as these high-end cars comprise only about 0.01% of what's on the road, then they can stay. Same with classics, etc. But give me a break, the SUVs and pickups and family cars? Slap some hybrid on that shit already you lazy industry bastards. The technology is there, in the long run it's not going to be more expensive, and you're just avoiding useless waste. Yes, like it's been mentioned, it's not fair for only the cars to be targeted, but still, there's no reason to have inefficient cars in the face of advancing technology. I won't for a minute let the dumb majority decide what they think is right about where fuel efficiency should be. That's what brought us the SUV mostrosity, idiots who don't care about logic, fuel efficiency and decency. People won't wake up until disaster hits them in the face, and by that time it's too late...


And my problem with Bush?

It's not that the fundamentalist ramblings involving Christianity when justifying actions (I don't ever want to hear again that God is on your side and will protect you in declaring war on Iraq). It's not the flagrant anti-homosexual actions (he's "troubled" by it. Take a fucking stand, you weren't elected to sit on a fence for four years hoping for a re-elect), an issue that future generations will look upon with awe and shame at what took so damn long. It's not even the general conservativism of republicans. I can even get over the fact that in a time of increasing concern, he's ignoring the environment, that he owns a ranch and drive a Ford pickup truck, that he's taken huge amounts of time off from the job (more than any other president, if I recall). I can accept that he and his goons have been stifling the scientific community and systematically skewing and ignoring facts (there's been a report signed by leading scientists regarding this). His conservatist policy has allowed the US to fall behind in leading edge genetic research to countries like Korea, and the US's only advantage, its massive technical prowess, will come down because he's not focusing on science and engineering... the best technical jobs are being exported to China, Eastern Europe and India.

But all I want is a guy that doesn't portray the image of such a fucking moron. There are enough sufficiently intelligent people behind him that the world won't go to total shit, since the president isn't alone in the presidency. He may try his best to pick felllow morons, but inevitably someone will hold his hand so he doesn't do something totally stupid. But this is about image. I need a person who I can respect, who is eloquent, and can say the right things. I wholly disagree with a lot of what he stands for, but it's the fact that he's a fucking moron that does it. Can you people not find, out of 0.3 billion people, one eloquent, intelligent, balanced person who wasn't a cokehead?

[flat6]

And what kind of biased idiot is this writer?

CAFE requirements have also had unintended side effects - most notably the boom in SUV and pickup sales, which now account for about half of all new vehicles sold. When the original CAFE mandates came along, they effectively outlawed large, rear-wheel-drive passenger sedans and station wagons equipped with V-8 engines. In fact, just one such mass-market model exists today: the Ford Crown Victoria. But the marketplace did an end run around CAFE by switching over to "light trucks," SUVs, and pickups. These formerly niche vehicles, mostly bought by farmers, contractors, and so on, were subject to a less-strict CAFE requirement. But these vehicles provided the same attributes people used to buy large sedans and station wagons for: roominess, size, and powerful engines. Thus the SUV boom was ignited, courtesy of CAFE and the law of unforeseen consequences.

Does Kerry have another "plan" to deal with the unforeseen consequences of CAFE II?

How about you extend the law to SUVs as well? Or just apply it to any vehicle selling over a certain volume. Gee, that would be impossible wouldn't it :roll:



One consequence, though, is a sure bet. If the government imposes the draconian new fuel efficiency requirements Kerry is agitating for, the automakers will have to build smaller, lighter - and thus less safe - vehicles, just as they did in the 1970s.

Yeah, because we want huge tanks to demolish shit. Smaller cars crashing into smaller cars will have the same effect as bigger cars crashing shing bigger cars. That and this'll force engineers to do some more safety work, which is not fucking impossible is it now?


While non-engineers such as Kerry like to talk in generalities about "new technologies" that will somehow allow us to drive mid-size and larger cars that also manage to return the fuel economy of subcompacts, the fact is such technology does not yet exist - and may never exist. The internal combustion engine has already been refined to the nth degree and significant improvements in fuel economy will be hard to come by, or at least very expensive. Few Americans - excepting perhaps a multimillionaire such as Kerry - could afford a $60,000 family car, even if it can get 40 mpg.

Have you been living in a fucking BOX? They're called hydrids, they already exist, they're not expensive, and they're not really that fucking hard to make.

As before, the automakers will simply shave weight and build smaller cars to comply with CAFE II. And as before, people will die. It has been estimated that about 2000 people are killed every year as a result of the CAFE-induced "downsizing" of the typical passenger cars, which lost about 1000 pounds on average between the 1970s and the 1990s. All the air bags and crumple zones in the world won't prevent a similar body count in the event Kerry's proposal becomes law.

Gee, I wonder how many people die from air pollution, cancers and other related diseases associated with inefficient MPG. Oh, we better not mention those numbers, since they'll fucking annihilate the 2000 people statistic.

[graywolf624]

Some facts for you:
Bush stands at an identical position to Kerry on the gay issue.
Both are against gay marriage and for unions.


Clinton took more time off then any president. Bush has taken time off but does work when he takes time off.

The environment: where is the increasing problem? You mean the farce known as global warming? How about we look at the polution levels of a jet or bus compared to car? Or even cars now compared to 10 years ago? You want to argue their not improving I'm gonna have to wonder what your agenda is. Or how about remember that kyoto would have ruined our economy cause it was designed for europe not here. We need different types of regs.


How about some tech to back up the thing on the scientific community? Or are you refering to stem cell research.. On that I dunno.. Thats an abortion thing.. Thats a person perspective, not an on the fence type of thing.. I respect him for doing what he believes.

Exorting of jobs- generally a good thing and has nothing to do with the president. In fact other then possibly increasing educational spending(which he's passing a bill for) he has no effect on this countries technical accomplishments. (well unless you count gaining more science to go to mars.. but you miss that)


And last, the man is not an idiot. Quite the contrary theirs every reason to believe hes intelligent(see where his masters and bachlors are from). Speaking ability has nothing to do with your intelligence. I've said it before.. Id rather have a poor speaker then someone who can lie out his ass and you can't tell the difference.

Now I don't like alot of his policies.. But if your going to criticize them you sure as hell better know where he comes from. Now I'm gonna ask you another question.. Does anyone honestly know where kerrys comming from? If you can show me that he has been consistant in his statements I may just vote for him. So far hes flipped sides so much I wouldn't trust him to wash my car let alone run the country.


Things I don't like of bush so far:
Hasn't told people to screw off when they questioned about going to iraq in the aftermath.
Has passed this bs about prescription drugs.. damn bigger govt
Has pushed for an amendment to constitution to ban the aforementioned gay marriage(we should make it be unions not marriage, but we don't need an amendment).

[RC45]

blah blah blah

Your profile says toronto.. until you come live here and excercise your vote to change things, instead of just mouthing off - who gives a rats ass what "your problem is with this countries president".

My God - the ass-clowns you have running that socialist enclave called canada are a fucking joke... unless you really would like to become the 51st state :roll: :roll: STFU

[flat6]

Hah, this is laughable, I won't even get into this, but here's a couple of quick references to REAL FACTS to show that you're talking out of your ass.

Or even cars now compared to 10 years ago?
For the first time in decades, the collective MPGs have been going down. It's a goddamned fact that no one seems to be aware of:

(from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2001/07/02/ED224023.DTL)
Today, the average fuel economy of all of nation's vehicles is 24 miles per gallon and is the lowest in 21 years.
SUVs and other lack of seriousness from the industry is to blame for this shameful reversal of technology's efforts.


Clinton took more time off then any president.
Bush has the record. It's a damn fact man:
(From http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-06-bush-vacation.htm)
If Bush returns as scheduled on Labor Day, he'll tie a modern record for presidential absence from the White House — held by Richard Nixon at 30 days. Ronald Reagan took trips as long as 28 days.
And that was back in 2001! Just image what tally he's up to by now. Working away? It's a ranch, you need to be out with world leaders and in the center of politics... This is a joke...

How about some tech to back up the thing on the scientific community?
(From http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=/news/news_single.html?id%3D2980 , New York Times article)
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

According to the report, the Bush administration has misrepresented scientific consensus on global warming, censored at least one report on climate change, manipulated scientific findings on the emissions of mercury from power plants and suppressed information on condom use.

Also, here's something on the stem cell stuff, an article from Salon.com:
(from http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/03/25/stem_cells/index_np.html )
Thou shalt not make scientific progress
Medical research is poised to make a quantum leap that will benefit sufferers from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, muscular dystrophy, diabetes and other diseases. But George W. Bush's religious convictions stand in its way.


Again, read some news and you'll Korea is now the world leader in genetic research, because US can't do research due to the man's basically religious convictions. He fucking moderates his advisors and runs the country based on his religious convictions:

(from http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=/news/news_single.html?id%3D3022)

President Bush reshuffled his advisory council on cloning and related medical issues Friday. He replaced two of the Council on Bioethics members with two conservatives who have spoken out strongly against cloning.

Elizabeth Blackburn of the University of California San Francisco, who was replaced, has spoken in favor of therapeutic cloning, in which cloning technology is used for medical and biological research.



I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this... do a little research and you'll find facts for everything I've said.

[flat6]

blah blah blah

Your profile says toronto.. until you come live here and excercise your vote to change things, instead of just mouthing off - who gives a rats ass what "your problem is with this countries president".

My God - the ass-clowns you have running that socialist enclave called canada are a fucking joke... unless you really would like to become the 51st state :roll: :roll: STFU

Yes, that's good, because facts don't travel across borders into other countries, yes? Only the people in America have a right to have their heads stuffed up their asses... Look, I'm not attacking anyone here, everything I'm saying is basically either common knowledge or backed up by facts. There's nothing to get offended about, this is just education and facing the basic truth.

[graywolf624]

For the first time in decades, the collective MPGs have been going down. It's a goddamned fact that no one seems to be aware of:

MPG does not equal pollution.

And from your oh so bias article:

"Not that this is a full-fledged vacation, Bush aides insist."
Even if you are not there does not mean your on vacation. We aren't talking about when your away from the whitehouse.

Facts that blow that article out of the water..
They support global warming. The fact is their is no evidence that carbon dioxide has caused a warming period. There is also no evidence that man has caused a warming period. Not to mention the full article is not visible to us layman and the ny times is a well known liberal new source(them and cnn)


Again, read some news and you'll Korea is now the world leader in genetic research, because US can't do research due to the man's basically religious convictions. He fucking moderates his advisors and runs the country based on his religious convictions:


Abortion views are not strictly a religious view. In fact our country is split about 50-50 on it. I don't know what side I stand on, but frankly you have no right to say that half our country are not entitled to believe that you shouldnt be killing fetuses for science.


Damn your a bias guy.. Go back to your socialist regime. And I thought some of the bush people were brain washed. Media bias is not a thing of just america clearly.


MY own theory on politicians:
The ones who were career politicians or lawyers are almost always scumbags:
Examples so far:
LBJ, JFK and teddy and the rest of the kennedys, Clinton, Nixon.
Examples that weren't which have been clearly moral in their actions(whether you agree with their actions is another story):
Regan, both Bushes, Carter, Ford, ect.

Kerry is a lawyer.. And to boot he has flipped flop on many issues(gay marriage to corporate taxes to war). I don't trust the man.

The fact is Bush is moral..


The biggest fact of them all: Just because you wouldn't vote for him doesn't make him a bad person.

[graywolf624]

And just to calm myself down and say where Im comming from. I don't like socialism in any form. I think bigger govt fails because of buracracy. That being said, I can see where people come from on the other side and respect them for their beliefs. In general I don't hate them or insinuate about their character from their political beliefs. What that equates to is me having very little patience for people that attack others based on their beliefs. You sir are doing just that. You want to argue who to vote for.. Stick to which issues you support and leave the mudslinging in preschool where it belongs.

[blah]

I don't agree with what he's saying, but the world had better hope Kerry wins... :|

Now why would you say that?

Because Bush is a republican war monger?

More democrat presidents have attacked other countries and declared war than republicans have. ;)

actually all the major wars were started by us Democrats, or liberal minded people, So i dont understand why we are called pussies.

Revolutionary War
War of 1812
Civil War
Spanish American War
World War I
World War II
Vietnam War


Republics got
Gulf War
Gulf War Part II, Return to Bahgdad
Grenada, and a few other minor missions


But also if you dont think detroit could make a car that gets 36 MPG and performs, then thats pure stupidity. They dont make cars get that much MPG cuz they dont want to. We can make a Shuttle go from here, to the moon, and back, but we cant make a car that wont fall apart when it gets hit?

[SPEEDKILLAR]

I don't agree with what he's saying, but the world had better hope Kerry wins... :|

Now why would you say that?

Because Bush is a republican war monger?

More democrat presidents have attacked other countries and declared war than republicans have. ;)

Isn't that because more democrats where elected(correct me if I'm wrong)

[graywolf624]

But also if you dont think detroit could make a car that gets 36 MPG and performs, then thats pure stupidity. They dont make cars get that much MPG cuz they dont want to.

I'd argue that is incorrect. MPG sells. A company makes what sells case closed. The issue is that certain performance levels are not available at current tech levels for current prices. There have been alot of improvements (see corvette fuel economy at 28 mph). That being said I don't see something with zo6 performance hitting the street with 36 mpg anytime soon. In mr kerrys defense he has said by 2015, which may be reasonable by then(depending on what he applies it too.. if it applies to full size trucks hes smoking something). I don't like his statements of financial interference. The market will do whats best in terms of fuel usage, the problems with pollution have generally been taken care of(at great costs, our cars alot more expensive then 20 years ago even adjusted for inflation because of alot of these emissions and safety issues. That doesn't make them less worthwhile though).

Before anyone says hybrid technology.. Only one car has so far done hybrid technology well.. The prius..
The hybrid civic for example only gets about 3 mpg better then the standard car(as observed by multiple magazines).

There is going to be small suvs comming out next few years with hybrid technology.. but the same issue remains.. and it isnt the manufacturers.. Its us..
That we don't want a car that doesn't accelerate that great. WE DECIDE what is sold to US. If a company were able to make a 300 hp car with 40 mpg you can better believe it would sell like crazy. The tech just isn't advanced enough yet.

As for fuel cells.. They are a ways off.. Their are some serious issues yet to be resolved in regards to hydrogen cars (real cars.. not that gokart crap). My guess is these won't be worked out until 2009-2010 and that it may be delayed past then for lack of infrastructure for them.

[flat6]

MPG does not equal pollution.
So, you're saying that if a car gets 20 MPG and another gets 40 MPG, they both pollute the same? Nice try though. There's an obvious correlation between how much gas a car consumes and how much it pollutes. Try as you may, the bottom line is still that burning gasoline means releasing pollutants. Burn more gasoline, you release more pollutants.


Abortion views are not strictly a religious view. In fact our country is split about 50-50 on it. I don't know what side I stand on, but frankly you have no right to say that half our country are not entitled to believe that you shouldnt be killing fetuses for science.

Abortion? No one's talking about abortion my friend... if Bush lets up on the religious bias, there's not going to be an outbreak of scientists engaging in a baby-killing orgy. The point is simple, genetics is the technology of the future, and the US is built on technology. A conservative stand on these types of issues will simply shift economic and world power into the hands of others.

Kerry is a lawyer.. And to boot he has flipped flop on many issues(gay marriage to corporate taxes to war). I don't trust the man.
I'm not one for Kerry either, the US has got a fucked up election coming up... from what I've seen a lot of people hate both candidates, and the only reason Kerry's going to get any votes is because he's not the other guy. Sad.


the ny times is a well known liberal new source(them and cnn)
Oooh, another irrelevant point. I don't know which parts of 60 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel winners, the NY Times can fake, bias or brainwash.

I don't like socialism in any form. I think bigger govt fails because of buracracy.
Hey, no arguments here. I don't enjoy 50% taxes, nor do I like slow, corrupt, useless governments.

That being said, I can see where people come from on the other side and respect them for their beliefs. In general I don't hate them or insinuate about their character from their political beliefs. What that equates to is me having very little patience for people that attack others based on their beliefs. You sir are doing just that.
I'm don't hate anyone here because of their beliefs. For example, I've certainly not resorted to assumptions about political beliefs based on facts such as living in a country which has the opinion that socialism is good in some small aspects. You, however, have. All I'm doing is merely pointing out some facts, with references.

[graywolf624]

So, you're saying that if a car gets 20 MPG and another gets 40 MPG, they both pollute the same? Nice try though. There's an obvious correlation between how much gas a car consumes and how much it pollutes. Try as you may, the bottom line is still that burning gasoline means releasing pollutants. Burn more gasoline, you release more pollutants.

Wrong... I'm telling you that polution amounts of a car are not directly related to mpg and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If your arguement was true then the durango my friends mom drives would polute more then a caddilac from the 80s... Oh wait it doesn't... You forget about catalitic converters, operating temperatures of the engine, ect. Hell my car has 2 different emission ratings depending on the state I bought it in. (different emissions systems.) One more time for you.. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.



Abortion? No one's talking about abortion my friend... if Bush lets up on the religious bias, there's not going to be an outbreak of scientists engaging in a baby-killing orgy. The point is simple, genetics is the technology of the future, and the US is built on technology. A conservative stand on these types of issues will simply shift economic and world power into the hands of others

First off.. what do you care you don't even live here.. Second off its an abortion issue. ITs not a religious issue and it isn't bias.. I can show you that 50 some percent of our people are with him on this stance.. I don't have a position on the issue but Id suggest what you watch what you say cause Id bet there are a few people here that would agree with him too.


Oooh, another irrelevant point. I don't know which parts of 60 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel winners, the NY Times can fake, bias or brainwash.

The part that equates to no part of the article saying who the scientists are. I can show you scientists who believe anything. They are people just like you and me. I can show you many scientists that back him.. Wheres that story? OH yeah, your source doesn't care about that.


I'm don't hate anyone here because of their beliefs. For example, I've certainly not resorted to assumptions about political beliefs based on facts such as living in a country which has the opinion that socialism is good in some small aspects. You, however, have. All I'm doing is merely pointing out some facts, with references.

No your bashing my presidents credentials based on his political beliefs. You are insinuating that he is evil or stupid.. And I don't appreciate it. I haven't said shit about you, but frankly you really are starting to tick me off. You want to say I don't like Bushes policies.. then fine.. You want to say I don't like bush.. well frankly who cares cause youve never even met the man.

"You, however, have"
Excuse me but I didn't even comment on you being from canada beyond saying that doesn't make your media free from bias. The news media clearly has it out for bush for the most part. (disregarding fox which seems to be extremely the other way). You must read things from unbias sources.
Thinking about it further though.. If you really want me to comment on it..
Who cares what you think.. Your not one of our citizens and we need to do whats right for us.. not the world. All to often we go be the world police ect.. Well screw that.. Handle your own problems and don't mettle in our affairs at home(ex what we choose to research). I am sick and tired of hearing people say.. "but this other country did this so we should too" (see kyoto, gun control, ect., ect.)

[flat6]

Alright, I'm done. Nice talking to you, sorry if I upset anyone.

[RC45]

Nice talking to you,

..no it wasn't...