Seeking Alpha

The Obama administration releases its final fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks,...

The Obama administration releases its final fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, requiring each automaker's fleet to reach an average 54.5 miles/gallon by 2025, nearly doubling current levels. To meet the standard, automakers will need to introduce new technologies and sell more alternative fuel vehicles. Critics say the rules will add thousands to new car prices.
Comments (80)
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    Get ready for doubling of car prices. Thank you Mr. President.
    28 Aug 2012, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • thotdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1604) | Send Message
     
    Are you a troll?

     

    No matter who is in the White House, we need to move away from oil products and move toward cleaner air.

     

    Can you hold that in your mind along with your apparent dislike of the President?

     

    Good. Now, come up with a plan.

     

    Do I have a plan? Yes. Some cars would be powered by fuel cells, some by electric, and some by ICE 1.0 liter super charged, then turbo charged, and some by larger engines for people who are willing to pay the fees.

     

    Will that cost more? Maybe. Let's see what competition brings.
    28 Aug 2012, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • wepaddle
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    The "plan" is to keep trying to put common sense in D.C. Probably an surmountable objective.
    28 Aug 2012, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • montanamark
    , contributor
    Comments (1435) | Send Message
     
    do you ride a bike and walk every where? if not - you are nmaking the air "dirty"

     

    your "plan" - =you didnt build that
    28 Aug 2012, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • HenryArthur
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I had a 1981 Chevy diesel that got 45 mpg, BUT they stopped making them! a little more HPower and one more gear, probably would have got 55 mpg..
    28 Aug 2012, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • whysaduck
    , contributor
    Comments (62) | Send Message
     
    On behalf of the President let me say you are quite welcome. For myself I say you are a fool.
    28 Aug 2012, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • drrobcornell
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    And we need "cleaner air" b/c your Lefty buddies invested in the pathetic and incapable alternative say so? Pull your head out of your ass. If you want to make yourself a vulnerable projectile in one of those tin cans, go for it. It's natural selection, IMO.
    29 Aug 2012, 07:21 AM Reply Like
  • TJD
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Don't you believe in the great American can do spirit. I think GM and Ford will come up with many options to meet these standards once they see car sales falling along with their stock prices.
    If you don't set the bar high. no one even bothers to jump.
    29 Aug 2012, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • timoates
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    That's all you got from this?
    29 Aug 2012, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • repdetect
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    pardon my French, but that's a load of BS.

     

    The automakers have pushed back on EVERY new standard to make cars safer and cleaner, from seatbelts to airbags , ALWAYS whining about skyrocketing price increases.

     

    Never happens.
    29 Aug 2012, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • jerryu44
    , contributor
    Comments (111) | Send Message
     
    Obamas plan is to raise gasoline prices to $10 per gallon per his energy czar who has proclaimed that Americans should pay the same for gasoline as europeans. Obama says energy prices must sky rocket under his plan. Yet many idiots still support him in his effort to destroy Americas economy. Remember gas prices cause everything that is transported to shoot up in price.
    29 Aug 2012, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • flumeride
    , contributor
    Comments (275) | Send Message
     
    There are better ways to move to cleaner air than to destroy the auto industry. Why doesn't the president find a way to put incentives towards cars that drive them self?

     

    Self driving cars coupled with cars communicating with other cars on the road will significantly improve gas mileage during rush hour. Google has prototypes of self driving cars. Ford has cars that parallel park. With a combination of wifi or bluetooth and location sensors (like many cars have for backing up warnings). Cars could zip down the highway at 70 mph during rush hour. When a car needed to enter or exit a highway the other cars would move out of the way unlike some cars with humans at the control. We could reduce accidents and eliminate DUI's.

     

    Electric cars are great, but how is the electricity generated? The electrics available don't have much range and then there is the issue of disposing the old batteries. You do realize that using nat gas to generate electricity is only about 27% efficient. We'd be much better running cars and trucks on compressed or liquid nat gas. I don't hear the pres talking about that possibility. It isn't the ideal solution, but it is technology we have today. It could be implemented quickly and not raise the cost of a car or require major modifications to existing engines. Fuels cells are great and that may be a final solution, but I don't we have that technology ready for mass production yet. How about compress hydrogen? Riverside california had busses running off hydrogen in the 70's. They put a porous rock like material in the tank to absorb the hydrogen. The result was that the hydrogen tanks weren't explosive like gasoline tanks. The porous rock could only release the hydrogen at a slow rate.

     

    The idea of forcing gas cars to get unreasonable mileage is more about controlling the masses than making the world a better place.
    29 Aug 2012, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3723) | Send Message
     
    Ford also has smart cruise control that automatically slows down the car to match speeds with the vehicle ahead, avoiding collisions; and lane departure warnings, and also automatic steering correction for pulling caused by wind or crowned road surfaces.

     

    So it is not a far stretch to consider smart freeways with "convoy" lanes, with smart cars automatically negotiating merges in and out of lanes as needed, based on navigation system destination and such, and close following for minimum drag.

     

    Of course when a "dumb car" gets into the "smart car" lane, things can get messy. Also nobody (other than the blood sucking lawyers) wants to consider the prospect of mass murder charges against the makers of robot cars that suddenly turn all "I, Robot" (or perhaps all "Caprica" and "BSG") on our @$$&$...
    29 Aug 2012, 05:34 PM Reply Like
  • skiz
    , contributor
    Comments (372) | Send Message
     
    Actually, raising (reasonably) taxes on gas specifically to pay for roads and infrastructure would be a good, capitalistic move that would encourage people and businesses to be more efficient, seek economical alternatives, etc. while making necessary improvements and investments. It may get trucks off the road and make business use more rail, which is currently under utilized. Highly subsidized roads may no longer be the best thing for the country.

     

    Instead, Obama just mandates. No funding for improvements to roads & infrastructure. No R&D funding specifically aimed towards these goals. Just a mandate because big business must be evil.

     

    The problem with the current administration is they want to run everything and rule every aspect of everything. That's not leadership... that's oligarchy.
    29 Aug 2012, 10:05 PM Reply Like
  • flumeride
    , contributor
    Comments (275) | Send Message
     
    Exactly Tdot. With smart cars negotiating merges the over all traffic could move at a higher speed in higher gears and the cars would get better mileage. I have no doubt that commuter lanes do not save gas when you total the mileage of all the cars on the freeways. When you have 3 lanes at stop and go those cars are getting terrible mileage. Yes, you have fuel efficient cars in the commuter lanes. It is just a case of the government beating us on the head to do what they want. It doesn't come close to significantly reducing overall emissions. What they really want is less of us to have cars. Then we are easier to control.
    30 Aug 2012, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7834) | Send Message
     
    Politics and bulls**t.
    If he is still around in 2025 he'll simply mandate that everybody walk.
    28 Aug 2012, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • mitchjl
    , contributor
    Comments (262) | Send Message
     
    wyostocks:You need more walking for your health.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • lostalloncoal
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    Do you have any car. Please donate it for Obamacare. And then try to live without a car ever. Also, disconnect your electricity. Please get some solar panels from Solyndra. The bankrupt company started by Obama's friend where Obama donated millions of tax-payers money.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7834) | Send Message
     
    mitchji
    You sound like my wife, stop it.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • Boxed Merlot
    , contributor
    Comments (1583) | Send Message
     
    When will the government require the automobile manufactutrer to disclose the amount of energy it spent to produce the vehicle it brings to market?

     

    The point was made earlier about the waste of resources in manufacturing new vehicles vs. the minimal energy cost of driving older models already manufactured.

     

    The rate of consumption of fuel for the life of the vehicle pales in comparison to the waste generated in getting the hunk into the garage of the average US customer. More false "broken window" economic wonderment. imo.
    28 Aug 2012, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    Vote this clown out of office.
    28 Aug 2012, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • winnersdon'tquit
    , contributor
    Comments (211) | Send Message
     
    Obama continues to over-burden the system, the game plan of Cloward & Pivens.
    28 Aug 2012, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • tom_t
    , contributor
    Comments (271) | Send Message
     
    2025 is 13 years away. At most, Obama will be around until 2016.
    28 Aug 2012, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • Ted Bear
    , contributor
    Comments (597) | Send Message
     
    What in gods name does having air that is breathable have to do with politics (okay, i am not naive)?

     

    To turn the illogical into your logic, you all want a president who mandates that we get 10 mpg, but the air is so putrid you can only go outside on Tuesday and Sunday afternoons. Is that what you want?

     

    When was the last time that the car companies ever met the efficiency standards? What they do is to get a vehicle which otherwise isn't a 'car' by any logical description re-classified as a car, and presto, all 'cars' meet the standard.

     

    As i said in another post about cars, how difficult can it be to build an electric or other non-fossil fuel (sorry about that big oil) car which meets with public acceptance at an affordable price? If Detroit spent as much on R&D for sensible vehicles which encompass ALL needs as they do making sure the right politicians get wined and dined so that lax laws can be promulgated, they would have it done by now and we wouldn't be having a stupid conversation about a car getting 50, or even 100 mpg...because 'gallons' wouldn't even be part of the conversation.
    28 Aug 2012, 06:58 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    There are currently diesels in the EU that get WELL over 50 mpg; they are not available for sale in the US due to-wait for it-the EPA.
    No need to make a new fuel dist. grid, no need to come up with new engines/motors.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    If it's so easy Ted Bear, why don't you do it. Why hasn't any independent research center come up with anything? Why hasn't any university come up with anything? Why haven't any other companies outside the US come up with anything?

     

    I know what your answer is already: conspiracy. Right. And then you call the Tea Partiers nuts.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:30 PM Reply Like
  • skiz
    , contributor
    Comments (372) | Send Message
     
    Why don't you look up energy density and replace your diatribe with real science.

     

    Everything isn't a corporate conspiracy. Detroit isn't the problem any more than Germany or Japan or anywhere else on the planet that produces cars.

     

    Government mandating doesn't change the laws of physics.
    28 Aug 2012, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3723) | Send Message
     
    Need to remember two things:

     

    1. Imperial Gallons used in European mpg quotations are 20% larger than US gallons, so those "50 mpg" quotes there immediately drops to about 42 mpg.

     

    2. Drive cycles used for fuel economy quotes in Europe are steadier and more soft-footed than US EPA drive cycles, which also include running the air conditioner.

     

    Bottom line - take a old 35 mpg quoted US vehicle to Europe, and they get 50 mpg..

     

    Yes, current small-displacement diesels in Europe can get an honest US 40+ mpg, in the same ballpark as current gasoline hybrids.

     

    Combining a small displacement diesel with a hybrid electric power train is a decent guess for the next generation of hybrids. Right now though, those diesel engines cost at least twice as much as the gasoline counterpart for similar displacement. But it is just a matter of time, and diesel electrics should be able to stretch into the 60 mpg range.
    28 Aug 2012, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • Osterix
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    kcr357: Allow someone who has lived in Europe to correct your ignorance. It has nothing to do with the EPA. Americans are not culturally ready for Diesels (Diesel should be capitalized because it is a proper noun named after its inventor Rudolph Diesel). But I digress.

     

    Americans are slobs when it comes to maintaining cars. Diesel engines need to be carefully maintained, unlike gasoline engines which can take almost unlimited neglect.

     

    In Europe Diesel mechanics are everywhere. In America they are only at truck garages and truck dealerships. Half of all new car registrations in Europe are Diesels. Plenty of auto mechanics to take care of them in the future.

     

    Except for the UK Diesel fuel is cheaper than gasoline in Europe. That is the reverse of here. Europeans get more mph plus the fuel is cheaper.

     

    Except for Mercedes Benz and BMW who are selling Diesel luxury vehicles the non-luxury automakers don't want to sell Diesels here because of the low profit on a mass market car plus the headaches they know they will have with Diesel powered cars in the hands of Americans.
    28 Aug 2012, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • wepaddle
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    Can't be too easy to make that car - I haven't done it yet.
    28 Aug 2012, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    Dude, there's articles in Motor Trend, Car and Driver, etc. explaining exactly why those cars are not sold here, and yes, it is the EPA. Simply put, the particulate emissions per mile for diesel on those cars don't meet US regs, end of story.
    Diesels are no more high maintenance than gas, VW's clean diesel engines are driven and maintained just like any other car, and those things outlast gas engines by hundreds of thousands of miles. (trans seem to go first on them)
    Since you don't seem to have google where ever in Europe you may reside, let me give you a freebie-
    http://bit.ly/Q0j6Bj
    http://bit.ly/Q0j9x2
    http://bit.ly/PqpqQ9
    Next time it's on you to correct yourself ;)
    29 Aug 2012, 01:45 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    "Government mandating doesn't change the laws of physics."
    that's because obama hasn't gotten the notion to mandate a change to the laws of physics. Probably big oil/repubs fault.
    29 Aug 2012, 02:12 AM Reply Like
  • timoates
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Europe measures efficiency by "liters per 100 kilometers" not "miles per gallon".
    30 Aug 2012, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • flumeride
    , contributor
    Comments (275) | Send Message
     
    Breathable air is great. We can't live without it. The problem is Obama and the democrats in general do not come up anything that really works. They just think if we keep beating people on the head they will do what we say. We can explore hybrids, we can make a move to natural gas as a fuel (The US has huge reserves of natural gas and it is much cleaner than gasoline or diesel). We can make a push for smart cars that drive there selves, that get better mileage, that eliminate DUI's. But Obama just wants to say "Okay cars have to get way better mileage". He has no idea how that will be accomplished. In fact, he probably wants us not to have cars.
    30 Aug 2012, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3723) | Send Message
     
    yes, and when Europeans try to convert the liters to gallons in fuel efficiency quotations, they use "their" Euro Imperial gallons rather than US standard gallons.

     

    The Imperial or UK gallon is 4.54609 liters

     

    The US gallon is 3.785411784 liters, some 20% smaller.

     

    So, when someone claims a vehicle gets 50 mpg in Europe, it is really closer to 40 mpg in the US.
    30 Aug 2012, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • BucketShop
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    Better mileage is fine and good. How much will it ad to the cost of new cars?

     

    I'm sure this makes environmentalist happy but I don't think China cares what we do with our cars. They don't even have catalytic converters on their exhaust systems.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • Continental Kid
    , contributor
    Comments (201) | Send Message
     
    LOL...GM can't sell the Volts they make now because they cost 40k each.....hello GM bankruptcy....and Obama won't be around to save them....but he'll blame someone in the post presidency interviews..
    28 Aug 2012, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • lostalloncoal
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    How much of tax-payers money wasted in auto industry bailout.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • Osterix
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    Continental Kid: How is Obama reponsible for GM's idiotic decision to create the Volt which is an automotive pig's breakfast.
    28 Aug 2012, 09:21 PM Reply Like
  • Continental Kid
    , contributor
    Comments (201) | Send Message
     
    Are you nuts...look they took over GM ....top down.. installed people with the same line of thinking...Think Solendra and Obamas tree hugging friends......and for all the enviromental screamers of pollution from standard engines...take a long look at the componets of a battery ...Lead ..Candium....Zinc... Lithium Ion....and different acids....they will need a thier own Super Fund site to dispose of these used tired/wrecked batteries...not mention when they plug it in at home...there is an power plant down the road burning some fossil fuel anyway......
    29 Aug 2012, 12:20 AM Reply Like
  • flumeride
    , contributor
    Comments (275) | Send Message
     
    Osterix: Obama has had a big push on "green technology". I know "green technology" is a vague term, but that has meant electric cars, solar power and anything that isn't hydrocarbon based. At least anything that is not derived from an "oil company". An electric car with only 100 miles per charge is not going to be a big seller. Especially when it takes hours to charge, you can't change out the battery pack while charging, and we don't have a good plan for recycling thousands of tons of batteries.
    31 Aug 2012, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    To me its a liberal late abortion....the Liberals will buy the little plastic smart cars...I will have my big truck...and in an accident..I win...hands down..or probably hands and legs off...
    28 Aug 2012, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • lostalloncoal
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    Well, you have Obamacare to take care of you.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • frosty
    , contributor
    Comments (693) | Send Message
     
    For the average driver in the average car, that's a saving of 600 gallons per year - $2,400 per year at today's prices, $3,300 per year in 2025 at 2.5% inflation between now and then.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • Machiavelli999
    , contributor
    Comments (829) | Send Message
     
    What difference does it make on the gas savings if the average car increases in price by 50%-100%?

     

    It's also so typical of liberals/Democrats/big government types to just mandate higher fuel efficiency. As if no one had wanted higher fuel efficiency and it only requires a government law and **POOF** like magic it just happens.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • jaydill
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Obama has know knowledge of what makes a automobile operate and neither do his advisors. He will make a law that he feels will get him votes, regardless of what it does to the economy or the citizens of this country. That is the working and dutifully employed citizen. This Presidency is a farce,all ways will be, and will be over soon, thank God!
    28 Aug 2012, 07:30 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5393) | Send Message
     
    2025?

     

    President Obama is passing regulations for 2025? Why would a sitting President have the authority to regulate what take place thirteen years from now?

     

    Please let Mitt Romney be out next President so he can repeal all of this nonsense.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:43 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    Yeah. Lets go back to carburetors and breaker point distributors and even hydraulic valve lifters. Those were cheap. We could use more steel too and cut the price of cars by thousands. Get rid of computerized ignitions, air bags and even seat belts, go back to steel wheels, skinny bumpers and dump the cat converters. Back to the sixties, when everyone complained that the upcoming mileage standards would make cars unaffordable. While we pushed our cars into the gas stations during the OPEC boycott. How do you people get so $%#@ing dumb?
    28 Aug 2012, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    One other thing. In the 60's you couldn't see two blocks away because of the smog in the summer. While you were pushing your car into the gas station. Our other complaint, at the time, was the smog controls were going to ruin the cars and drive up the prices.
    28 Aug 2012, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • Osterix
    , contributor
    Comments (425) | Send Message
     
    Hendershott: You forgot to mention that in Europe cars are much more expensive to buy because of the higher taxes and gasoline is twice as expensive. That does not seem to stop the Europeans from buying cars.

     

    We will just go to ten year auto loans, the way we went from three years to five years and now to seven.
    28 Aug 2012, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    Yup, they have big taxes on cars in Europe. I don't see anything in higher CAFE standards that proposes European type of taxation. You can buy a nice entry level car here for $12-14k. Computerized ignition, air bags, great gas mileage. GM, Ford, Hyundai. GM has a nice affordable little car, internal combustion, not hybrid, that already approaches 45mpg. Raising CAFE standards won't kill the auto business or make prices out of reach.
    28 Aug 2012, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • wepaddle
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    Yep. And then you could buy a full-sized sedan for four grand (Just like today.)
    29 Aug 2012, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    "That does not seem to stop the Europeans from buying cars."

     

    Are you kidding me? Yes it does. The car ownership rate for Europeans is much lower than for Americans. If anyone does own a car, it's a 10 year old hatchback.
    29 Aug 2012, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    $4,000 in 1965, adjusted for inflation, is now $29,000. About the price of a full sized sedan.
    29 Aug 2012, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    Europe is a lot different than the US. It's a lot smaller, has a lot of public transportation. You don't need a car in Europe as much as we do here.
    29 Aug 2012, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • bosco115
    , contributor
    Comments (196) | Send Message
     
    Chicken or the egg. You're saying they don't own cars because there is so much public transportation. Rather, there is an abundance of public transportation because cars are too expensive.

     

    Regardless, the result is Europeans travel less than Americans. There's a reason why the automobile (or Harley) is a symbol of American freedom.
    30 Aug 2012, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4018) | Send Message
     
    Over 20 years ago, cars with over 30mpg were available.

     

    If progress has stagnated to the point that we can't pull another 20mpg out of automobiles in another 15 years, clearly we are doing something wrong.

     

    We probably aren't, since there are plenty of vehicles that already do more than 55mpg.

     

    This is a non issue. The only people complaining are knee jerk reaction folks with little real understanding of how this mandate will play out in the real world.
    28 Aug 2012, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3723) | Send Message
     
    Over 20 years ago, the EPA had different drive cycles than today. The rules changed in 2008, to be more representative of how Americans normally drive.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/TrrhoZ

     

    A car that got 30 mpg 20 years ago would be closer to 25 mpg today.

     

    And again, those 55 mpg cars in Europe would only get 40 mpg in the US, due to the fact that the European Imperial gallon is 20% larger than the US gallon, and that the Euro drive cycles are more like the pre-2008 EPA cycles, not the new, more aggressive cycles.

     

    And anyone with decent hyper-miling skills can take a typical gasoline car quoted by the EPA as 16 city / 22 highway / 18 combined mpg, and get 30+ mpg on a level highway in good weather, and 26 mpg combined, beating the EPA estimates by 40% or more.
    28 Aug 2012, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    I've tried hyper-mileing my 09 Rabbit...30mpg on the freeway at 70-75 mph....I've been able to drag almost 35mpg out of it doing 55...which isn't a safe speed on an LA freeway. I can't seem to get much more out of it. it's rated at 30mpg highway mileage and does what it says.
    28 Aug 2012, 10:46 PM Reply Like
  • thotdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1604) | Send Message
     
    All would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

     

    We need to stop being so dependent on oil and oil products, including diesel.

     

    We all need to breath clean air.

     

    We need to develop new technologies to get there, especially since other countries will be pushing the same agenda.

     

    Politicize it to your hearts content. Then, come up with a plan.
    28 Aug 2012, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • lostalloncoal
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    Where is NatGas act Obama ? NG is your Ponzi scheme. 100 year of energy independence. All scam.
    28 Aug 2012, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    Mitch McConnell won't allow the natgas act to even come to a vote. Guess who's pocket he's in.
    28 Aug 2012, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • Ted Bear
    , contributor
    Comments (597) | Send Message
     
    Wow. This thread is frightening as to revealing the true nature of (mostly) Americans. I am truly shocked as to the ignorance, stupidity and political mud slinging.

     

    You all have a LOT to learn about life, and especially Washington politics.

     

    Hint: If you think it matters who is in the White House; think again. And PS, if it is mittens, and GM goes into bankruptcy, you don't have a concern: Private equity will take the good parts, the Government will take the bath on its stock position, and the PBGC will take the hickey for the retirement benefits. Two thirds of that...the distasteful two thirds, is you.

     

    I think i am done posting here for a while. Truly, the comments in this thread frighten me.
    28 Aug 2012, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    We are true Americans the ones who care where our country is headed.
    28 Aug 2012, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    Gov already took a both on the stocks...
    29 Aug 2012, 02:09 AM Reply Like
  • wepaddle
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    Agreed. I came here in search of possibly reliable information and ideas. Been there, done that. Bye
    29 Aug 2012, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • rag2rag
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    Personally I am for clean air, clean water, sustainable energy sufficiency. How are we going to achieve that, or are we arguing agianst this vision ?

     

    Is there a difference in our "war on cancer" propounded by GWH Bush and the "efficiency mandate" by Barrack Obama. All past presidents , having the pulpit, lay out a vision for our country. It is up to the successor administrations to set priorities and specific goals.

     

    The vision for clean-air is not a new vision, Obama is not giving us a new mandate, the EPA is not a new agency and ECAFE is not a new mechanism. This country , on its own, must adopt a sustainable energy plan and develop technologies to support that plan.

     

    One option is to use our tremendous military might and keep invading foreign countries with plentiful oil - been there , done that, they hate us.

     

    Another alternative is to exploit all known reserves in US, damn the consequences and effects on the environment. Been there, done that, Exxon Valdez - Alaska, BP - Gulf of Mexico. Disaster.

     

    28 Aug 2012, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • skiz
    , contributor
    Comments (372) | Send Message
     
    You've been sold up the river. The effects of Valdez and particularly BP were over stated - the environment is resilient and bounced back quickly (even quicker with a lot of help). In the geological timeframe, the blip known as the oil era will be a forgotten memory. 100% natural leaks happen all the time. Where do you think oil comes from... space?

     

    Besides, there are viable alternatives like biofuel from algae and nuclear breeders that are about to make oil obsolete. MPGs will be an irrelevant point when that happens. And, capitalism & the military are both funding the research, not some government mandate. What do you think of that Mr. Socialist Tree Hugger?

     

    Not saying efficiency isn't good, but mandating it may not be the best way to achieve it -- capitalism works, vote with your wallet.
    29 Aug 2012, 05:36 AM Reply Like
  • Thinking DNA
    , contributor
    Comments (48) | Send Message
     
    and the discovery of biofuels & nuclear breeding are all republicans, correct???

     

    U R such an Id..t
    29 Aug 2012, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • rag2rag
    , contributor
    Comments (28) | Send Message
     
    At least we both agree that the problem needs to be solved.

     

    - BTW -military is an arm of the government.
    - We disagree on the role of regulatory agencies, looks like you might want to run the clock back some , but I do remember General Motors (and large banks) needed massive government bailouts to get out of the financial collapse of 2008. It is dis-ingenious to argue that we should allow the capitalism to function freely when we do not want GM to go out of business
    30 Aug 2012, 12:18 AM Reply Like
  • Cliff Hilton
    , contributor
    Comments (1556) | Send Message
     
    Drive less, share a ride, make fewer trips into town, walk some, move closer to the destination you travel to the most often, use some commonsense, you could lower your gallon purchases and reduce the impact of future higher gas prices; their coming. I've done all of these some of the time. The mpg has to triple to make it interesting for me to purchase a higher mileage car. I drive a 02 Saturn SL1 sometimes (32 mpg combined)(42 hwy). I drive a 03 Acura TL Type S (25.6 mpg combined)(34 hwy). My wife drive a '10 370Z (25.5 combined)(33.7 hwy). My total miles are the only thing I really care about.
    28 Aug 2012, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • flumeride
    , contributor
    Comments (275) | Send Message
     
    It's funny that Obama the green president let the government take over GM and then they dissolved Saturn which was the only GM subsidiary that had a focus on fuel efficient cars. Weird huh? The reason was Saturn was building cars without a union. I guess unions always trump a company trying to do the right thing.
    31 Aug 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • sethmcs
    , contributor
    Comments (3198) | Send Message
     
    What right does the federal government have to tell car makers how to make a car? I do not see that anywhere in the constitution. Lets just get rid of National Highway Administration and use the costs to pay down debt. Too many damn rules and regulations and bureaucracies. I'd eliminate the EPA too.
    28 Aug 2012, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • Stoploss
    , contributor
    Comments (1727) | Send Message
     
    Im a burner... I prefer 12 - 16 mpg. When it costs 4 or 500 to fill up, i may take a look at a 16 - 21 mpg, but has to be 4WD 6.2L or bigger.
    28 Aug 2012, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • Ryandan
    , contributor
    Comments (1614) | Send Message
     
    The moron in office could set a 100 mpg standard, by then and by now no one cares what he says. He's clueless on automotive specs and realistic possibilities.

     

    He should have said 100 mpg and a retail pricing under $2000 per car. It would have gotten the same laugh from the auto industry.
    29 Aug 2012, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • flumeride
    , contributor
    Comments (275) | Send Message
     
    Wait wasn't it Obama that said if we check the tire pressure and get regular tune ups we'd all get better mileage? That is pure genius!! Glad he made that point as most of us didn't already know that.
    31 Aug 2012, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • fschaaf
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Here's something to think about: 1961 Morris Minor, 50mpg and when it breaks down you can fix it. Too much intractability so nothing substantial is going to get done. Look at what you have, not what you don't. Coffee smells good, sunrise is nice and on a murky day in Cincinnati the air is still much cleaner than anywhere in China. Or Kenya. I'll opt for Isaiah 30:15.
    29 Aug 2012, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • timoates
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Saving 50% on fuel not only offsets some of the increased price of the car, but it puts a greater chunk of the total money spent on car ownership into American jobs - assuming you buy a car manufactured in the USA - as opposed to going to oil exporters.
    29 Aug 2012, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • Tdot
    , contributor
    Comments (3723) | Send Message
     
    What about the guys that work at the US refineries that turn the $95 barrel of oil (or $2.26 a gallon) into the $4 per gallon gasoline ... ? They have families to feed too.
    29 Aug 2012, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • Chetco
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Let's see if I've got this right. We keep our oil reserves in shale and other promising places locked up; We spend huge amounts meeting a laudable, but impracticle goat of over 54mpg; We continue to mandate 10% or even more alcohol, which in the average car reduces mileage by...yes! 10%; (While theoretically it makes the gas burn cleaner, it seems the real world result has been flat) So we are burning the same amount of gas, but dealing with 10% more, particularly in cost, with unknown downstream effects from the alcohol. To acheive the high mpg, steel gets phased out in favor of not only aluminum, more susceptible to age and use related failure, but exotic metal alloys which may well contribute to worse pollution from their processes. And more varieties of plastics with unknown useful lives, and environmentally unsound fabrication processes. And what are we going to really do with all those batteries. On paper, it looks sort of OK, but is it?

     

    One thing of which we can be sure: If it is a mandate from on high, the government, there is a very high risk it was done politically, not well thought out, and subject to all sorts of unintended consequences. .When the government regulates, somebody gets screwed; most frequently us.
    31 Aug 2012, 03:40 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|