Malorn was, of course, RIGHT!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 9 2007, 12:51 PM) [snapback]438321[/snapback]</div>

Of course. Toyota is just trying to line the pockets of Bush and his oil buddies.

 

Squid came out of "retirement" to bring us old news? Toyota joined in a lawsuit with other auto manufacturers in 2004 to oppose similar regulations in California. They're a corporation, motivated by profit, like all the rest.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ May 9 2007, 01:01 PM) [snapback]438332[/snapback]</div>

It so obvious. It's because they are evil, greedy bastards who are in bed with the oil companies. Come on... They killed the RAV4EV. This is nothing new.

Oh, and they care more about profits than the environment. The bastards!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ May 9 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]438342[/snapback]</div>

They are not "in bed with the oil companie" They are just "evil, greedy bastards" like the rest of corporate america,this should be no surprise. What we all have to do is write are LEGISLATORS and voice support for this type of legislation !!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(B Rad @ May 9 2007, 01:44 PM) [snapback]438369[/snapback]</div>

Good idea! I just wrote my Senator. I'll let you know his response.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 9 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]438390[/snapback]</div>

Mr. Squid, don't get your tentacles in a knot. I think you're giving marketing a bit too much power. You're clearly aware of the truth underlying Toyota's advertising claims; what makes you think that others aren't as well?

----

Regarding the subject of this thread, I think the problem is that medium and heavy duty trucks are included in the 35mpg overall figure. This does sound a bit too strict, and I'm not terribly surprised that it's an issue.

I do think there should be a different set of standards for dedicated work vehicles/industrial applications.

I believe that the real problem is, manufacturers are not being realistic about the intended purpose of certain vehicles, and haven't been for decades. Just 'cause an Excursion is based on a truck chassis doesn't mean it's going to be marketed at the same consumers, or used in the same environments or in the same ways.

Currently, the gross weight determines whether a vehicle must conform to passenger car standards...when really we need more selective standards to determine what makes a 'work' vehicle and what makes a 'family' vehicle in the first place.

Perhaps a bit more refinement of the verbage of the proposed legislation might be required...? I wouldn't necessarily condemn Toyota or any manufacturer, based only upon the meager details provided in the article.

Also, without higher fuel prices/usage taxes, it'll be difficult to implement such drastic changes to the product mix. You can't force this to happen from one side only...people need to want/be 'encouraged' to want higher mileage cars...and pay for them if necessary.

As it is now, I'm guessing that folks won't want to buy high-mpg cars to begin with (unless the low mpg ones are intentionally priced higher...but, since there's a bigger profit margin on larger cars and especially trucks, no manufacturer would ever want to do this, without some 'encouragement' on the other side --from higher gas prices or other fees-- that would alter consumer behaviour). I mean, take a look at the current situation!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 9 2007, 11:51 AM) [snapback]438321[/snapback]</div>

I think that people should be able to buy a car that gets less than 35mpg. Just add a $1000 tax for every MPG less than 35 mpg for the first 5 mpg, then $2000 tax for the next 5mpg then $3000 for the next 5mpg and so forth. Use tax dollars to fund clean energy initiatives. This way you won't be just paying for the materials of that car, you'll be paying for the extra pollution in emits. So, for a car that gets 25 mpg, you'll have to pay a $15,000 tax premium. If you're hummer that gets 12 mpg, you have to pay $65,000 premium incentive. If you can afford it, then knock yourself out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ May 9 2007, 10:06 AM) [snapback]438342[/snapback]</div>

I'm thinking that this is *almost* as helpful as those who say the same about GM. And I suppose that's your point. Can I stipulate that we get your point so you don't have to bother typing it so much?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 9 2007, 06:22 PM) [snapback]438592[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, that won't fly...

You have to have exceptions. For example, the pickup truck market is heavily tied to the housing market. When house sales are booming, pickup sales go up. The construction people who use pickups generally beat the hell out of them, and I suspect the turnover rate is pretty high. If you're going to tax a HD pickup with 60K 'pollution tax', you're going to see house costs rise to cover that. In the end, everyone gets screwed.

That also won't fly you're talking about extra pollution, but taxing on MPG. Pick one or the other.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 9 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]438607[/snapback]</div>

Or... why does a roomy vehicle need to be truck-shaped. How about just a larger sedan that is more aerodynamic? I'm afriad that it is the "truck look" that attracts many buyers who ALSO want the big cushy seating area.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 9 2007, 03:22 PM) [snapback]438592[/snapback]</div>

Not bad. Also, a tax on gas that sets a minimum (floor) price and is used exclusively to fund alternative energy / energy independence.

And, FEEBATES sound like a great idea to me:

"For each class of car and light truck, a feebate mechanism is used to reward buyers of vehicles that are more fuel efficient than the average vehicle in that class and penalize buyers of less fuel efficient vehicles. This feebate is revenue-neutral, meaning that the amount of money collected through fees (surcharges) equals the amount paid out in rebates."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ May 9 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]438621[/snapback]</div>

That is why I bought my GMC. The truck look mostly. There is also a huge market for making trucks go fast! LOL

Jim's low 10sec truck (old video)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 9 2007, 05:42 PM) [snapback]438607[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I think you were closer when you mentioned the reasons why you drove a truck...it's more about feeling that, in a truck, one always has "more than enough."

More than enough power, room, towing capacity, go-anywhere capability, safety, status, even aggressiveness...I think the folks who drive trucks as luxury vehicles drive them so they (ideally) can feel like they don't ever have to max them out, or come anywhere close.

This is, actually, similar to what 'luxury' has become, to many of us today: absolute abundance...the freedom to do whatever one wants, whenever one wants...and, all along, never appearing to work hard to accomplish any of it.

The folks who actually use these vehicles for work, on the other hand, would probably (hopefully, at any rate) not want to pay extra for excess capability which they'll never use.

I'm hoping that, one day, luxury will be redefined (but I'm not holding my breath!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ May 9 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]438621[/snapback]</div>

I guess they (auto makers) could resort to the ol "Elcamino" style truck for those who like the driving ability of a car but can haul stuff like a truck.


I know dodge made the front wheel drive rampage, but you couldnt tow anything real heavy...
it was based on the K car platform..

Ford had the ranchero, but they discontinued it after 1979.


Mallorn would be the most informed as to why they phased this vehicle out...... :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ May 10 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]439126[/snapback]</div>

I wonder what a Prius "El Camino" would look like? Maybe someone with Photoshop and some free time might take a crack at it?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ May 10 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]439126[/snapback]</div>

I remember reading a review of the "K-cars" in one of the car magazines- the title was "The 'K' stands for Krap"! :lol: