Toyota/Prius Fans.... Toyota is part of the evil empire

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GaS @ Aug 6 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]491249[/snapback]</div>

 

Hi Gas,

Which is why I think Toyota joined the group lobbying against mileage improvements. With a government mandate, the big 3 can go off to their bankers and get financing, vote out the luddite management and hire engineers with the background in motors and electronics. Wihtout it, they have to prove to the bankers the cars will sell - which is kinda tuff when you are talking to a guy driving around in a big SUV or luxury sedan from Europe or Cadilac. Without the mandate, the big 3 leaders will shuffle their feet, hamstring their engineers, and wait for retirment. And throw CNW Research at Toyota some more.


Toyota knows their engineers can beat CNW Research any month of the year.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GaS @ Aug 6 2007, 08:38 AM) [snapback]491249[/snapback]</div>

Yes, punish the auto industry for making what people want, while most of the CO2 emissions comes from industry, commercial, and residential sources.

How about demanding proportionate changes across all sectors and industries?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(donee @ Aug 6 2007, 06:32 PM) [snapback]491624[/snapback]</div>

CNW Research is a joke that has been busted numerous times for out-and-out manufacturing of data.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TLS @ Aug 7 2007, 10:46 PM) [snapback]492190[/snapback]</div>

This whole "CNW Research" thing makes me giggle.

The full name of the company in question is CNW MARKETING RESEARCH.

People hear the word 'Research' and think scientists, which is likely why they always spin the releases of their 'study' as coming from "CNW Research".

They are hired Marketing Guns not "Researchers" in any sense we would understand.

 

Why am I not surprised? Toyota Corp. is the same as the big 3 as they are all in the business to make money...

It just so happens that Toyota makes a more reliable product than the big three combined.. :mellow:

 

If we buy more fuel efficient cars, the automakers will make them. Pure and simple. That's the mandate.

20 years ago I would have never thought that my vehicle would have 12 cupholders! No government intervention in that innovation!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GaS @ Aug 6 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]491249[/snapback]</div>

The sky isn't going to fall. Nobody is forcing or foisting "gas guzzlers" on anybody, just like nobody forces me to buy what I buy, or choose what I think. The great beauty of our society is we as a collective group dictate to a manufacturer what we want.
Some of us want a very small, highly fuel efficient vehicle. Some of us want a large, less efficient vehicle.
Why should you be concerned what I drive? I pay, just like you. I decide, not you, what I want. I, for one, see the advantage of CAFE, but if you remember what the '70s and '80 vehicles were all about--
keep Washington or Tallahassee out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(stukid @ Aug 9 2007, 07:54 PM) [snapback]493275[/snapback]</div>

It's not quite as simple as you think. Can you buy a car without a catalytic converter? Can you buy a car without airbags? Can you buy a car with no seat belts? Can you buy a car 16 ft wide? Can you buy a car with the brake located on the right side of the floor?

Please understand I am not advocating more government intervention, but your choices are very much determined by the regulations and requirements of the auto manufacturers. Yes, there is free choice.....but only of the options allowed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FL_Prius_Driver @ Aug 10 2007, 09:41 PM) [snapback]493842[/snapback]</div>

I think you are talking apples and oranges. CAFE is meaningless unless a weighted average is used: FE x # of units of each model. The people that drive the gas-guzzlers are not the least bit concerned about mileage. If nobody bought the gas-guzzlers, the manufacturers would not build them. The only way to improve the average drivers mileage, is to somehow convince them to get more fuel efficient cars (and to slow down!). Taking away the choice of large vehicles would probably be the only way to realistically get to a weighted CAFE of 35 MPG, and that goes against most folks grain. Do you want to be the guy to tell Schwarzenegger to give up his Hummer?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Per @ Aug 10 2007, 11:16 PM) [snapback]493856[/snapback]</div>

Not really. I was just making a very basic point that when it comes to buying vehicles, you choices are limited to what is available....and what is available is VERY dependent on the legislation applied to the manufacturers.

The talk about total freedom of choice often overlooks the very limited choices presented. For example, the CARB Zero pollution % mandate that spurred the EV1 and RAV4 EV created a new set of choices .....till that mandate was repealed, and that "freedom of choice" was destroyed.

I (nor anyone else) fully knows how the CAFE standards will evolve and what choices will appear and disappear. What is clear is that a lot more legislation will be focused on shaping your available choices to "discourage" vehicles that get low MPG. There will be no legistation taking forcing personal choices. I will not be the guy telling Schwarzenegger to give up his Hummer, he will be the guy that sponsers legislation making his next "H5" Hummer as big as a present day Prius....if you get my drift.

 

Deleted repeated post

 

Up front...I am all for stiffer CAFE standards. Having a Prius allows me to be part of the solution.

It has been pointed out to me that the current system was poorly conceived and implemented. The 'SUV Loophole' is as big as a HUMMER. It needs to be closed for our national well-being. The automakers won't like that much but it's a necessity.

However CAFE in its current form is also unfairly judgemental. The automakers are fined based on what we purchase!!! This is their main point of contention and it takes several forms.

A) Fuel has been dirt cheap for most of the last 30 yrs so consumers cared nothing about fuel economy because it had no effect on their budgets...which lead to..
B) Consumers with no fear of the cost of fuel could invest more of their income in larger, slicker, heavier vehicles.
C) The Big 3 have only been reacting to the demand of consumers ( who had no fear of the cost of fuel ).

Oh, BTW larger vehicles carry a higher sticker and more margin ( shush ).

To stay in balance with the CAFE standards the vehicle makers were forced to sell 'x' number of smaller cars. [reading between the lines: Well if we have to sell these we sure aren't going to put much money into development or marketing here. Heck this isn't Europe.]

Inefficiencies exist galore.
Vehicle makers reluctantly producing vehicles that are sent out with no support to fight possibly the two best small vehicles in the world.
Consumers who have a clear conscience about buying whatever they damn well please with no thought of the consequences.
Fines being levied if consumers don't buy enough of the castaways and orphans.

Solution?

It's tough since the vehicle makers have gotten lazy ( Detroit ) or greedy ( Toy/Niss ) and we now have a lot of 17 mpg monsters and lots of buyers for these.
It takes about 7-10 yrs from conception to launch for a 'from-scratch' vehicle or 5-7 yrs for a 'renew'.
Fuel is going to be a HUGE concern in the very near future. Want to make a guess what it will be in 5 yrs? By 2020?

1) Somehow the public has to be weaned off the Tahoe/Expedition/Sequoia to something more efficient with a more efficient drive system. GM's lambda triplets do this but it's a first step. Adding their 2-Mode to them is a big second step. ( think hybrid Highlander with a lot more room ). These would seem to be the natural progression from the big SUVs. At 28-30 mpg a good progression too.

A modified 'gas guzzler' tax perhaps? $5000 for 17 mpg vehicles reducing to $500 in 1 mpg increments as the vehicles become more efficient should make the public aware of its decisions? $10000 reducing to $1000?

2) Pickups are a different story. Lots of people have to have them. Lots of buyers also use them as driveway Queens. Diesel is the logical progression here. It's already in trucks. The plants' knowhow is in place already and the 17 mpg trucks can be jumped to 21-25 mpg almost right away. Mandate that all trucks have to use biodiesel or biofuels. Make it more specific. No pickup truck can use petroleum-based products at all.

3) Crossovers, minivans and wagons have to attain 35 mpg average without question by 2020. The FEH this year will be in the low 30's on average; the HH in the high 20's. This is doable.

4) Midsized autos have to achieve 40 mpg on average in order to be sold. The TCH, NAH and probably the new diesel Accord are nearly there already. The GM Malibu/Aura 2-Mode and Ford Fusion/Milan/Taurus hybrid could be there as well.

5) All small vehicles have to achieve 50 mpg minimum

6) A tax credit bonus, scaling upward, for any vehicle averaging over 60 mpg? These are to be taken from the funds received above in 1)

 

My mommy is a 80 year old conservative with more money than God. She's part of the evil empire too, but I still love her.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Aug 8 2007, 10:08 AM) [snapback]492469[/snapback]</div>

Yes, we know. Art Spinella likely suffers from mental retardation.