[Seminole]

Article:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/26/r...-own-emission/

Brace yourselves for a mess. The New York Times is reporting that the Obama administration intends to allow California and other states to set their own emissions and fuel economy standards. Obama is expected to announce his decision this week, maybe even as early as today. The move, which Obama campaigned on during the run up to last November's election, would overturn the prior Bush administration's denial of a waiver to California that allows the state to set its own standards.

If the report is correct, it's not clear yet what the implications of the decision will be or how automakers will react. If things proceed in an orderly and organized fashion, it will be a minor miracle. Consumer experiences may well mirror what went on with diesels, most of which were recently unavailable in states adhering to California's stricter emissions standards.

Critics of state-administrated emissions standards fear that the potential for 50 different requirements will result in a costly quagmire. It will undoubtedly cost automakers more to conform to various and differing requirements, eating up profits (not to mention bailout funds) as well.

Now without taking into account any of my other opinions or feelings for Obama, I am extremely disappointed by this. This could really set back the auto industry, and not just American companies. If this is true and it passes you will have California and their 14 followers jacking up fuel economy standards for their states. CARB (California Air Resource Board) wants to set a standard of 43.7mpg for cars and 26.6mpg for trucks by 2016. That is going to murder the car companies, since I can't think of any gas powered car in existence (gas not diesel) off the top of my head that can get an average of 43.7mpg except for maybe something like a Fiat 500 or Smart car. Not to mention having to conform to selling different vehicles in different states. I guess I should buy the cars I want now, before the neutering happens.

[flyinb501]

I agree. The government should not have any say on the cars the Auto companies are making.

[Seminole]

Originally Posted by flyinb501

I agree. The government should not have any say on the cars the Auto companies are making.

I disagree with you a little bit. The Government should mandate fuel economy figures. But not by individual states, but rather the country as a whole. Also, those figures should actually be attainable in the time specified. I don't think anyone in their right mind, especially with all the hurting the auto industry is doing, thinks they can meet CARB's requirements in 7 years. It takes 3-5 years to design a new car anyways, let alone re-tool your entire fleet.

[stickypaws]

Originally Posted by flyinb501

I agree. The government should not have any say on the cars the Auto companies are making.

Then you won't see airbags, seat belts, bumpers and crumple zones anymore.

[Jet335i]

Originally Posted by flyinb501

I agree. The government should not have any say on the cars the Auto companies are making.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

[Year's_End]

this has to be one of the worst decisions ever.

[bigsakius]

lol i am glad i live in south dakota, I don't foresee anyone here mandating a 43mpg car.

[E82tt6]

This is an awful idea. Absolutely awful.

Whoever suggested this to him should be slapped upside the head.

[flyinb501]

Originally Posted by stickypaws

Then you won't see airbags, seat belts, bumpers and crumple zones anymore.

Really? So you actually think that the market does not want safety features in their cars? Yes cars would still have safety features without the government. Give me a break...

[majin ssj eric]

Originally Posted by flyinb501

Really? So you actually think that the market does not want safety features in their cars? Yes cars would still have safety features without the government. Give me a break...

All the govt does is make things more difficult for the consumer. Let the car makers build what the people want to buy and keep your stupid fingers out of it....

[stickypaws]

Originally Posted by flyinb501

Really? So you actually think that the market does not want safety features in their cars? Yes cars would still have safety features without the government. Give me a break...

You certainly don't know the history of automobile manufacturing and the of role of the feds (USA and Europe.) You're just a young'un

Safety features are primarily mandated. Of course, they'll remain, dumkoff.....

[hks786]

Originally Posted by stickypaws

Then you won't see airbags, seat belts, bumpers and crumple zones anymore.

That's a little extreme, but I do think this is one of the worst decisions ever.

[stickypaws]

Originally Posted by hks786

That's a little extreme, but I do think this is one of the worst decisions ever.

It was tongue in cheek. But a response to knee jerk comments like "keep the govt out of everything" kind of stuff.

The better way to say it is, "I would prefer the government not mandate these sort of controls on all cars; perhaps allow some classifications of cars (sports cars, e.g., just like SUVs and trucks are exempt from certain DOT laws) to be exempt from certain CAFE rules."

We have safer cars primarily from government mandates.

And manufacturers do not have a very good history of fixing mistakes. Accountants decide whether it's better to replace a potentially harmful part under warranty or face an expensive recall. And that's where government takes over. The NHSTA is the watchdog to protect you from exploding gas tanks, failing tires, etc..

And the next time you complain about your BMW being a lemon or how hard it's been to get BMWNA to fix something under warranty, stop and reflect that it was the government that gave you those consumer laws that protect you.

[xxForgedxx]

Fuck this shit, I'm moving to Europe

[BForbes]

Originally Posted by stickypaws

It was tongue in cheek. But a response to knee jerk comments like "keep the govt out of everything" kind of stuff.

The better way to say it is, "I would prefer the government not mandate these sort of controls on all cars; perhaps allow some classifications of cars (sports cars, e.g., just like SUVs and trucks are exempt from certain DOT laws) to be exempt from certain CAFE rules."

We have safer cars primarily from government mandates.

And manufacturers do not have a very good history of fixing mistakes. Accountants decide whether it's better to replace a potentially harmful part under warranty or face an expensive recall. And that's where government takes over. The NHSTA is the watchdog to protect you from exploding gas tanks, failing tires, etc..

And the next time you complain about your BMW being a lemon or how hard it's been to get BMWNA to fix something under warranty, stop and reflect that it was the government that gave you those consumer laws that protect you.

TRUTH.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by xxForgedxx

Fuck this shit, I'm moving to Europe

The Euro 5 emissions mandates that are coming around the same time-frame will also be more strict than current US mandates. You can't escape by going to Europe. If you want to go to a country with big cities and avoid emissions regulations, you will have to go somewhere like Mexico City, or Bejing, and breath their air (like below).

Third world emissions laws == Third world air.

I personally like being in a First world nation. States with big cities need increased emissions regulations just to keep up with population growth and increased miles driven per year.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by stickypaws

"I would prefer the government not mandate these sort of controls on all cars; perhaps allow some classifications of cars (sports cars, e.g., just like SUVs and trucks are exempt from certain DOT laws) to be exempt from certain CAFE rules."

This is your lucky day. Because you will get your wish in an around-about way. Because the new laws already contain exemptions for sports cars.

1) This is a FLEET mandate, not a mandate for each and every car. Sports cars will NOT each have to get 43.7mpg. Only the fleet has to average 43.7mpg. So sports cars already have a built-in exemption from getting good fuel economy -- just as long as the average for the whole fleet is 43.7mpg.

2) You might ask "what about Ferrari?" or some other car maker that makes only super cars. The ALREADY have an exemption that allows them to import small numbers of cars that currently fail the current CAFE standard. This will continue under the new standards.

Nobody is banning sports cars.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by flyinb501

I agree. The government should not have any say on the cars the Auto companies are making.

You mean like in Third-world countries, where big cities are thick with pollution? IF you want to live under Third-world laws, move to a Third-world country.

Or just move into a US state without large population centers that hasn't adopted the California air standard where this issue won't concern you -- and stop complaining about what doesn't concern you.

[Chewyjr15]

thank you nixon for clearing that up when i heard this on the news the other day my heart sank and i thought of a world with only electric cars

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by Seminole

Article:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/26/r...-own-emission/




Now without taking into account any of my other opinions or feelings for Obama, I am extremely disappointed by this. This could really set back the auto industry, and not just American companies. If this is true and it passes you will have California and their 14 followers jacking up fuel economy standards for their states. CARB (California Air Resource Board) wants to set a standard of 43.7mpg for cars and 26.6mpg for trucks by 2016. That is going to murder the car companies, since I can't think of any gas powered car in existence (gas not diesel) off the top of my head that can get an average of 43.7mpg except for maybe something like a Fiat 500 or Smart car. Not to mention having to conform to selling different vehicles in different states. I guess I should buy the cars I want now, before the neutering happens.

PLEASE buy a couple of new cars now, before the standard goes into effect. The economy could use the stimulus.

As for the manufactures not having cars in the future that will meet the standard, that simply isn't true. They all build very highly fuel efficient cars RIGHT NOW that would go a long way towards meeting that standard. They just don't sell them in the US market.

Name any major car manufacturer, and most likely they make at least a dozen vehicles that have much lower emissions and get much better gas mileage that they sell elsewhere in the world, than what they currently sell in the US.

Name any major car manufacturer, and most likely they have a handful of concept vehicles that would beat that standard hands down that could be ready for production by 2015 if they wanted to.

It is a question of will, not of ability.

[Nixon]

Originally Posted by Chewyjr15

thank you nixon for clearing that up when i heard this on the news the other day my heart sank and i thought of a world with only electric cars

You are welcome.

I'm sure there will be plenty of electric cars. But you won't be forced to buy one. The pent-up demand right now for electric cars is massive, and there will be plenty of folks that WILLFULLY will purchase them, bringing way down the fleet averages for buyers of gasoline cars. As more electric cars get sold, the less the pressure there will be on the gas cars in the fleet to get good gas mileage.

So go tell your friends how cool electric cars are, and that they should start buying them when they hit the market in the 2010-2012 time-frame.

[vAnt826]

Oh yes, lets deregulate safety and emissions too! It worked for the corporate world!

Damn republicans.

I'll gladly take a 20hp loss for some damn air for my future offspring.