A CAFE Rant from someone who hasn't heard of the Prius

As an automotive engineer, I just have to comment. There is a difference between radical and realistic. Radical is assuming all vehicles must achieve 40+ mpg. Reality is most vehicles on the road today could easily get 10 - 20% better fuel economy. Technology is the hurdle? Cost? Weight? Not really. I can add 5% to most vehicles on the road if the tire inflation was 35 psi, not the 30 psi the ride and handling folks have insisted for more than 2 decades is the only acceptable tire pressure. Transmission control, optimizing gear state and torque converter lockup can result in savings of more than 40% in the city (1987 experiment to demonstrate this resulted in V6 economy going from 14 to 24, however most in my previous company refused to implement these types of changes, but some did). The largest loss we continue to see results from pure greed, the horsepower greed. Does a truck or SUV not to be used to tow anything need 300+ HP? Does it need to go 0-60 in 8 seconds or less? Does a family sedan need to go 0-60 in the same time as a 1980 Corvette? In 1986 a specific engine had 165 HP. Today, that same engine with technology improvements has 225 HP. Rather than decrease displacement, saving mass and reducing friction, and taking advantage of the increased efficiency, this engine is now featured in smaller vehicles, while the original users are utilizing larger, higher HP, and less efficient engines. But hey, HP sells! Another issue is available engine options. I cannot go to a dealer and select a vehicle with full features unless one of those features includes the largest, least efficient engine. I must trade off a sunroof and leather interior for a V8 vs a V6. Or 185 HP for 245 HP. Marketing says that if you want power everything, you also want the largest engine.

The real issue here, IMO, is no one who should care really does. We are spoiled. Too many have enough money to buy the biggest bad beast available, with fuel inefficiency to match. Most don't care that their kids may not have gasoline available or might not be able to afford it. Most live in the here and now, driving 85MPH in a 70 zone, alone in a truck or SUV, not caring that as a result they are using 15% more fuel, and helping drive up demand and fuel costs as a consequence. There is all kinds of technology available to add 20% to fuel economy, however Americans have demonstrated they will consistently choose something like heated seats and leather interiors rather than pay for improved efficiency. But that's just my insight from being in this business for the last two decades. In closing, it is said that by improving fuel efficiency by just 10%, the current "shortage" and high prices would subside. But again, too few care enough to slow down and drive the posted speed limits to effect this simple remedy.

 

Hey John1701a.....are you sure that wasn't a 'republican underground'? Most rational republicans are underground right now.
The fella who wrote the article Cybele referenced at the beginning of this thread should be fired, or at least offered a position at the Fox News Network, for not doing his homework. And you see this kind of stuff all the time in the media today. The info John1701a is offering is real, honest-to-goodness, everyday driving data. We all know it is true because we, too, are experiencing the same numbers with our Prii. Here it is, a comfortable, very well designed, family-sized car that gets fantastic gas mileage and doesn't pollute the environment. It exists. We drive it. How come these 'experts' in the auto media ignore it? I wish there was a way to debunk these misleading articles and let more people know that there is an alternative being produced, although not at the levels it should be yet. I think it is our duty as owners to answer questions about the Prius when people ask and try to get the word out.

 

> Generally talks about how much safer cars are now than in the 70s.

I think you missed the 80s. Remember the "K" car?

That era was loaded with cars that met the MPG requirement by simply reducing size, weight, and power.

 

I don't doubt it one bit. However, I have a hard time taking kerry seriously when he talks about "being connected with the American People," only to reach around and steal their wallets on nearly every single one of his policies.

This guy has no more of a clue than Bush - in fact, he's far WORSE.

 

In Massachusetts, there's a choice of energy providers. Well, in theory. In practice, there are only a few very choices so far, but one of them is Dominion. They didn't heavily advertise the fact, but it appears that most of their electricity has a nuclear source.

 

Now, see, this is where I think the heart of the difference is between Repubs & Dems. You suggest Kerry is far worse than Bush, yet I don't hear him proposing to invade every tomato ketchup facility in the world because they're harboring weapons of mass destruction in attempts to increase his wife's wealth. I also don't hear Kerry suggesting that women should no longer have the freedom of speech, but gays should be allowed to be married.

See, the real difference here is that you're expecting me to defend Kerry, practically to the death. The fact is, I don't like this guy. He's going to allow big business and health care corps to run 'business as usual'. However, that doesn't stop me from voting for him, or even voting for someone else. Our current "president", who can barely even be called that, has truly become what he said - a uniter and not a divider. Iraq is united against the United States, along with the rest of the world, not to mention the Green Party with Dems and Log Cabin Repubs, etc. Yet you seem to find the need, just as every Republican does, to defend his actions as if they are your own. Same with every Republican who's ever served in office.

You know what? Jimmy Carter was a horrible president, and I'm saying that as a democrat. However, since being president that man has accomplished more than anyone could care to dream - so bad example. Bill Clinton? He did some pretty disgusting things, and I'm not talking regarding his 'relations' - I'm talking policies. Don't ask don't tell comes to mind quickly. However, I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat, and I think today most dems would - because unlike repubs, we feel no necessity to defend any leader's actions throughout their entire existance of being on this planet.

George Bush has raped and pillaged, literally, every vestige of our Constitution, of our country, of our Earth. And for once I'd like to hear a republican say 'you know what, I don't like the guy either! Kerry's an idiot and sneaky, but not nearly as bad as this guy has been for the past 4 years!'. Alas, it's like expecting the sun to rise in the west - it never comes.

-m.

 

Now, see, this is where I think the heart of the difference is between Repubs & Dems. You suggest Kerry is far worse than Bush, yet I don't hear him proposing to invade every tomato ketchup facility in the world because they're harboring weapons of mass destruction in attempts to increase his wife's wealth. I also don't hear Kerry suggesting that women should no longer have the freedom of speech, but gays should be allowed to be married.

See, the real difference here is that you're expecting me to defend Kerry, practically to the death. The fact is, I don't like this guy. He's going to allow big business and health care corps to run 'business as usual'. However, that doesn't stop me from voting for him, or even voting for someone else. Our current "president", who can barely even be called that, has truly become what he said - a uniter and not a divider. Iraq is united against the United States, along with the rest of the world, not to mention the Green Party with Dems and Log Cabin Repubs, etc. Yet you seem to find the need, just as every Republican does, to defend his actions as if they are your own. Same with every Republican who's ever served in office.

You know what? Jimmy Carter was a horrible president, and I'm saying that as a democrat. However, since being president that man has accomplished more than anyone could care to dream - so bad example. Bill Clinton? He did some pretty disgusting things, and I'm not talking regarding his 'relations' - I'm talking policies. Don't ask don't tell comes to mind quickly. However, I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat, and I think today most dems would - because unlike repubs, we feel no necessity to defend any leader's actions throughout their entire existance of being on this planet.

George Bush has raped and pillaged, literally, every vestige of our Constitution, of our country, of our Earth. And for once I'd like to hear a republican say 'you know what, I don't like the guy either! Kerry's an idiot and sneaky, but not nearly as bad as this guy has been for the past 4 years!'. Alas, it's like expecting the sun to rise in the west - it never comes.

-m.[/b][/quote]

This is in reference to the text that I highlighted in red.

On the contrary. I am a libertarian, not a republican. There are only two things that Bush has done that I directly approve of - one is the tax cut, and the other was throwing klinktons snowmobile ban for Yellowstone out the window.

While I supported the war, I hated the motives. I still support the war as it WILL eventually mean a better life for the Iraqi people - if they are willing to do what THEY need to do to make it work.

As a republican, he has had some of the WORST fiscal responsiblity of ANY conservative President. In other environmental issues, he's failed miserably. As for the patriot act, you don't EVEN want to get me started on that one. :cussing:

Put kerry in office, and the same spending party will continue. Additionally, he'll reach into our wallets as often as he feels he can get away with it, in order to pay for that spending party. As for the Constitution, the government hates it, as it limits their power. Kerry would be no different in that aspect either.

So, if my choice is going to have to be one of crooked, spend happy sob that thinks I'm a piggy bank, or another crooked, spend happy sob that largely leaves me alone, well, I guess I'll have to go for the crooked, spend happy sob that'll leave me alone.

It's disgusting that the complacency of the citizens of this country, had reduced government to this.

 

First off then, sorry for the misdirected anger. Hopefully no offense taken, and if there was, then I apologize.

Secondly, your last statement is the core of the problem that I see as well - it's a horrible mess that no one seems to be able to do anything about, because almost every political choice is between evil or evil, or corrupt and corrupt. Something major needs to happen to change it all, and it's obvious that even a horrible event such as 9-11 did nothing to stop it.

-m.

 

So... Better the devil you know, then the devil who you can make unsubstantiated assumptions about?

You KNOW that Kerry will "reach into our wallets as often as he feels he can get away with it"? How do you know? Because Bush and his legions of paid supporters tell you so?

Bush is doing the same thing anyway.. just dishonestly. He vastly increased spending, and then gave a small tax cut (big for those making over a million a year, but small for the rest of us) as well. My favorite part is the "child tax credit" advance-rebate check that says "George Bush is giving you this $400...". But since he's increased spending, we're now running at record deficits not seen since, well, the previous Bush.

My wife seems to think that if you spend something on a credit card, it doesn't count. Don't tell me you think that a trillion dollars of added debt will just disappear... The reason Kerry will have to eliminate tax cuts is because Bush spent the money.

Anyway, I'd rather have a tax-and-spend president than a borrow-and-spend president. At least the former is realistic about how much can be taxed and then spent. The latter has effectively no cap on how deep in doo-doo he can put the country.

 

I'll keep it to the basics. If Kerry or Gore had been president over the last 3 years, I think:

• .
• We wouldn't be in Iraq.

 

I just wish John McCain was running.

 

No Jason, KERRY has indicated as much all by himself. His own record shows that he's never seen a tax that he didn't like.

I have a better idea, instead of presidents who treat tax money like gambling winnings, how about we get one that actually pays attention to where the money is going, and lives on a BUDGET, like the rest of the world?

 

There's a difference between voting on bills as a senator and proposing bills as president.

For example, I can imagine a senator from the minority party who, seeing that the party in power was vastly overspending, felt obligated to either cut spending or raise taxes to compensate. If spending cuts were then blocked, he or she would need to vote to raise taxes. I'd consider that to be solid, honest governing from someone with limited options.

As president, that same person would propose a smaller budget in the first place, and would have veto power over spending he or she didn't agree with.

Again, nothing's ever as simple as the pundits make it out to be. And at voting time, no bill is EVER simple enought to be categorized as simply "raising taxes".

 

I think we all better be open to several points of view these days, and a bit suspicious of those blindly supporting the people in power. I'll let Al Franken provide a response to the "Kerry loves all taxes" mantra (and a few others) being widely promoted.

For those who haven't checked it out yet, Al Franken can be found on Air America here: http://www.airamericaradio.com/.

 

cars are much safer now than they have ever been and it has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the vehicle.

this article is so full of BS i cant believe any reputable news source published it.

the CAFE was rescinded in 1997 by the US government as an incentive for the big 3 automakers to participate in the SuperCar Project.

it was a project where the automakers were to design and build a car that could get 80 mpg. (none suceeded although they did get close)

it was hoped that the auto industry would come up with some new ideas for fuel efficiency and alternative power generation techniques.

well the auto manufacturers convince Clinton that they couldnt concentrate on designing these super cars if they had to worry about CAFE at the same time. So the mandate was rescinded.

that is the reason why fleet mileage is the lowest its been since 1980. its because we no longer have CAFE.

 

You just described Howard Dean. He wouldn't have been elected as he would have been too extreme, but damn would he make a great president. If I remember correctly, Vermont was one of only a couple states to not have a deficit this past year.

 

Not really. Dean was another one that wanted to find more money, instead of wanting to eliminate the spending.

Here is my core problem with our current government. BEFORE 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, et al, the government was obliterating 2.7 TRILLION dollars of OUR collective incomes to "function." BOTH candidates were discussing increasing spending. The Bush tax cuts were only accounting for 1.5% of the estimated tax surplus. The other 98.5% of that tax surplus was going to be engorged by the already overly bloated pigs at the trough "running" the government.

Then the tech sector dies 9 months BEFORE the election. Next, almost IMMEDIATELY AFTER the election, the klinkton house of cards begins to fall. Enron, Worldcom, Toys R Us, et al, are exposed for cooking the books. Finally, 9/11 happens. This is where the tax surplus went folks, not into the "rich" persons pocket. Now, unsubstantiated word is that the SEC had approached klinkton early in his first term regarding companies cooking the books. His reaction allegedly was to tell the SEC to leave them alone. With as rapidly as things became unravelled after the election, it seems to fit these allegations well. However, unsubstantiated is just that, so this bit is taken with the required grain of salt.

Adding insult to injury here, after the tax cuts were passed, the feds went on some kind of a spending free for all. How many here would even CONSIDER spending like you just won a billion bucks, after getting a substantial paycut? This spending frenzy is not just the fault of the dems, or republicans. They BOTH share EQUALLY in the responsibility.

NONE of the democratic clown show came up with ANY substantial campaign retorict beyond the tired old tax and spend and conserviatives are evil babble.

Sorry, but I'm sick of hearing the government brag on how they are going to spend our money, and how they need more and more of it to "fix" problems that they've been "fixing" ever since I can remember.