56 MPG mandate by 2025 = SCRAPPED BY current EPA

[nikeairforce1]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

Here are the Top 10 selling cars in the US in 2010.  I posted this on page 5 when Ninjahood claimed that the US GOVT is forcing the electric car down our throats.  He said that because the Ford F-Series is the #1 selling car in America, that means American's don't want fuel efficient cars.  I then posted the Top 10 selling cars which gives us a much more accurate depiction of what kinds of cars Americans want and buy.  He has so far ignored these facts and has continued to claim that Americans don't want fuel efficient cars and the US GOVT is forcing electric cars down our throats.


Total of gas guzzlers= 1098313
Total gas fuel efficient cars = 1817681

http://www.chicagotribune...s,0,4506344.photogallery

highlight the chart if numbers don't show up

[table][tr][td]1. Ford F-Series (528,349 +27.7%)[/td] [td]6. Honda Civic (260,218 +0.8%)[/td] [/tr][tr][td]2. Chevrolet Silverado  (370,135 +16.9%)[/td] [td]7. Nissan Altima (229,263 +12.6%)[/td] [/tr][tr][td]3. Toyota Camry (327,804 -7.5%)[/td] [td]8. Ford Fusion (219,219 +21.3%)[/td] [/tr][tr][td]4. Honda Accord (311,381 +8.1%)[/td] [td]9. Honda CR-V (203,714 +7.2%)[/td] [/tr][tr][td]5. Toyota Corolla (266,082 -9.8%)[/td] [td]10. Dodge Ram (199,652 +13%)[/td][/tr][/table]

I guess I mistook what you said about fuel efficient vehicles.  Fuel efficient to me is an electric/hybrid vehicle like a Pruis or Focus that gets very high MPH.  I had a 2002 accord v6 coupe and that sucker wasn't fuel efficient. 
edit... but then I checked out your link and the first line says the following about 2010.  So wouldn't that be an indication that Americans are in general starting to buy trucks and SUVs again now that the recession is partially over? 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/class...p10-best-selling-cars,0,4506344.photogallery?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/class...p10-best-selling-cars,0,4506344.photogallery?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/class...p10-best-selling-cars,0,4506344.photogallery?http://www.chicagotribune.com/class...p10-best-selling-cars,0,4506344.photogallery?

[h1]Best-selling cars of 2010[/h1]
Trucks and SUVs were back in the driver's seat for 2010. The Toyota Corolla and Camry were the only two cars on the list to see sales decline in what was an otherwise booming 2010. The Chevy Silverado did well enough to retake its No. 2 spot from the Camry.    

If you forgot already, Toyota had a massive recall that most certainly negatively affected its sales.  The Ford F-series has been a best seller for several years now, but again, most of the top ten cars sold are fuel efficient cars. 

But If I am getting this correctly,  you and ninjahood are asserting that the economy has improved under the Obama Administration, correct?

 

[nikeairforce1]

Originally Posted by ninjahood


Ok & I have NO problems ppl voting with their wallets, that's actually ALOT more effective then da government TELLIN car companies & consumersWhat they can make & watch they can buy, which plays into my MAIN point. We're in recession now so I aibt surprised that da majority of commonFolks are coppin smaller whips, but for cats thay want their v8, suvs, performance etc. Da government shouldn't FORCE em to stop makin em with Bureaucracy & BS.

so you concede that most Americans want fuel efficient cars...

tradeoffs for most Americans -

money saved on gas that will be more than the initial cost, cleaner air quality, and a better future for everyone. 
vs.
fast cars, more money spent on gas, pollution, padding the pockets of oil and auto corporations

Gee...that's a tough one.

and for the other lie that you have been spreading around..  Obama has not relented to the UAW or the Auto companies.  From the same video you posted, Obama is still floating around the idea to let trucks PHASE in their MPG targets more slowly.

you really need to stop lying and misleading people.

 

[nikeairforce1]

Originally Posted by ninjahood


Ok & I have NO problems ppl voting with their wallets, that's actually ALOT more effective then da government TELLIN car companies & consumersWhat they can make & watch they can buy, which plays into my MAIN point. We're in recession now so I aibt surprised that da majority of commonFolks are coppin smaller whips, but for cats thay want their v8, suvs, performance etc. Da government shouldn't FORCE em to stop makin em with Bureaucracy & BS.

so you concede that most Americans want fuel efficient cars...

tradeoffs for most Americans -

money saved on gas that will be more than the initial cost, cleaner air quality, and a better future for everyone. 
vs.
fast cars, more money spent on gas, pollution, padding the pockets of oil and auto corporations

Gee...that's a tough one.

and for the other lie that you have been spreading around..  Obama has not relented to the UAW or the Auto companies.  From the same video you posted, Obama is still floating around the idea to let trucks PHASE in their MPG targets more slowly.

you really need to stop lying and misleading people.

 

[nubiandisaster]

i think its the choice that is more important in this case.

 

[nubiandisaster]

i think its the choice that is more important in this case.

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

Originally Posted by ninjahood


Ok & I have NO problems ppl voting with their wallets, that's actually ALOT more effective then da government TELLIN car companies & consumersWhat they can make & watch they can buy, which plays into my MAIN point. We're in recession now so I aibt surprised that da majority of commonFolks are coppin smaller whips, but for cats thay want their v8, suvs, performance etc. Da government shouldn't FORCE em to stop makin em with Bureaucracy & BS.

so you concede that most Americans want fuel efficient cars...

wrong, im saying when da economy is funny duckling, people downsize, when da market pics up, ppl size up...its THEIR CHOICE, da government DOESNT HAVE to put its paws into FORCING auto makers what they HAVE to make..what part of that dont

you understand?

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

Originally Posted by ninjahood


Ok & I have NO problems ppl voting with their wallets, that's actually ALOT more effective then da government TELLIN car companies & consumersWhat they can make & watch they can buy, which plays into my MAIN point. We're in recession now so I aibt surprised that da majority of commonFolks are coppin smaller whips, but for cats thay want their v8, suvs, performance etc. Da government shouldn't FORCE em to stop makin em with Bureaucracy & BS.

so you concede that most Americans want fuel efficient cars...

wrong, im saying when da economy is funny duckling, people downsize, when da market pics up, ppl size up...its THEIR CHOICE, da government DOESNT HAVE to put its paws into FORCING auto makers what they HAVE to make..what part of that dont

you understand?

 

[ricky409]

Originally Posted by RetroSan



no dummy 

 we got cars we're just not as depended of them as other states

  

 

[ricky409]

Originally Posted by RetroSan



no dummy 

 we got cars we're just not as depended of them as other states

  

 

[ricky409]

Originally Posted by ninjahood



NYC isnt da rest of da US...having a car in NY is a luxury, cuz we honestly dont need em to function normally, especially in manhattan where there's more "NO STANDING" signs then people it seems.

however, for people that NEED cars (aka da rest of da country) if jobs are eliminated because of more political garbage its gonna look ugly...you gonna have people moving in stuffy cities because all da manufacturing jobs left are gonna be outsourced overseas.

look no further then da city of Detroit to see what happens when jobs are killed because of Washington.

 

thanks, fambs.

GIFSoup

shout to the homey scshift for the gif.

i was practicing this w/ my lady the other day.

  

 

[ricky409]

Originally Posted by ninjahood



NYC isnt da rest of da US...having a car in NY is a luxury, cuz we honestly dont need em to function normally, especially in manhattan where there's more "NO STANDING" signs then people it seems.

however, for people that NEED cars (aka da rest of da country) if jobs are eliminated because of more political garbage its gonna look ugly...you gonna have people moving in stuffy cities because all da manufacturing jobs left are gonna be outsourced overseas.

look no further then da city of Detroit to see what happens when jobs are killed because of Washington.

 

thanks, fambs.

GIFSoup

shout to the homey scshift for the gif.

i was practicing this w/ my lady the other day.

  

 

[in yo nostril]

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

A person who is in his mid-twentites without a car in a city that doesn't need one basing his political allegiance on the fact that 56 mpg might inhibit him from one day purchasing the luxury vehicle that he will never actually obtain due to the financial restrictions that he is furthering upon himself is why I have no faith in humanity.

damn.

 

[in yo nostril]

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

A person who is in his mid-twentites without a car in a city that doesn't need one basing his political allegiance on the fact that 56 mpg might inhibit him from one day purchasing the luxury vehicle that he will never actually obtain due to the financial restrictions that he is furthering upon himself is why I have no faith in humanity.

damn.

 

[degenerate423]

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Did you really link us to Fox News and expect us to take you seriously?

I've seen this dude ninjahood cite yahoo answers, craigslist, and urbandictionary for his arguments against gay marriage.

...

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by scshift

So when I finally put together enough money to buy my dream Lamborghini, I can't even buy one cause the US wants "efficient" cars?

bingo.

By posting the Fox News bit on this you've instantly discredited your point of view.

so judging a book by its cover is hot on da streets now? 

you tell me what part of da segment were they acting crazy and bringing up irrelevant information......exactly

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Originally Posted by ninjahood

oh and good luck lusting over 3 cylinder econo-boxes da tree hugger interest groups is pushing da left wing to for da hand of what we like to drive.

there's no more technology to squeeze out of da internal combustion engine..so all these monsters they make now..scoop em up now while they still around, da V8 M3, da V10 M5, V12 AMGs, 6.1-6.4 hemis, LS series crate engines by GM....

we gonna hit da late-70's-80's of craptacular cars again

To think that car companies aren't already designing eco-friendly cars is ridiculous.  Tesla has a battery-powered sports car already being produced, it's costly now, but I'm sure by 2025 most car manufacturers will have similar cars.  Trust that companies like BMW and Mercedes won't just throw there hands up over this and stop selling cars in the US, they'll put out quality cars that will meet the requirements.  Why is it bad to have more fuel-efficient cars?  It's not good when temperatures are exceeding 100 degrees and something has to be done about global warming...

 

[degenerate423]

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Did you really link us to Fox News and expect us to take you seriously?

I've seen this dude ninjahood cite yahoo answers, craigslist, and urbandictionary for his arguments against gay marriage.

...

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by scshift

So when I finally put together enough money to buy my dream Lamborghini, I can't even buy one cause the US wants "efficient" cars?

bingo.

By posting the Fox News bit on this you've instantly discredited your point of view.

so judging a book by its cover is hot on da streets now? 

you tell me what part of da segment were they acting crazy and bringing up irrelevant information......exactly

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Originally Posted by ninjahood

oh and good luck lusting over 3 cylinder econo-boxes da tree hugger interest groups is pushing da left wing to for da hand of what we like to drive.

there's no more technology to squeeze out of da internal combustion engine..so all these monsters they make now..scoop em up now while they still around, da V8 M3, da V10 M5, V12 AMGs, 6.1-6.4 hemis, LS series crate engines by GM....

we gonna hit da late-70's-80's of craptacular cars again

To think that car companies aren't already designing eco-friendly cars is ridiculous.  Tesla has a battery-powered sports car already being produced, it's costly now, but I'm sure by 2025 most car manufacturers will have similar cars.  Trust that companies like BMW and Mercedes won't just throw there hands up over this and stop selling cars in the US, they'll put out quality cars that will meet the requirements.  Why is it bad to have more fuel-efficient cars?  It's not good when temperatures are exceeding 100 degrees and something has to be done about global warming...

 

[taymane23]

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

Originally Posted by taymane23

I dont give a damn Im gettin my 1967 yenko camaro

This mandate does not prevent you from doing so.

in that case let it ride tha end is nigh anyways

 

[taymane23]

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

Originally Posted by taymane23

I dont give a damn Im gettin my 1967 yenko camaro

This mandate does not prevent you from doing so.

in that case let it ride tha end is nigh anyways

 

[uptownsdotnetstacky]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

Originally Posted by ninjahood


Ok & I have NO problems ppl voting with their wallets, that's actually ALOT more effective then da government TELLIN car companies & consumersWhat they can make & watch they can buy, which plays into my MAIN point. We're in recession now so I aibt surprised that da majority of commonFolks are coppin smaller whips, but for cats thay want their v8, suvs, performance etc. Da government shouldn't FORCE em to stop makin em with Bureaucracy & BS.

so you concede that most Americans want fuel efficient cars...

wrong, im saying when da economy is funny duckling, people downsize, when da market pics up, ppl size up...its THEIR CHOICE, da government DOESNT HAVE to put its paws into FORCING auto makers what they HAVE to make..what part of that dont

you understand?

You still missing the point....I think when you see "fuel efficient" you automatically recall a Prius....as of today, I feel its fair to say that FE means 30+ mpg to most of us....with a 300hp V6 mustang already in for sale and vehicles like the GTI out, I'm pretty sure people would like both power AND FE.....

 

[uptownsdotnetstacky]

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

Originally Posted by ninjahood


Ok & I have NO problems ppl voting with their wallets, that's actually ALOT more effective then da government TELLIN car companies & consumersWhat they can make & watch they can buy, which plays into my MAIN point. We're in recession now so I aibt surprised that da majority of commonFolks are coppin smaller whips, but for cats thay want their v8, suvs, performance etc. Da government shouldn't FORCE em to stop makin em with Bureaucracy & BS.

so you concede that most Americans want fuel efficient cars...

wrong, im saying when da economy is funny duckling, people downsize, when da market pics up, ppl size up...its THEIR CHOICE, da government DOESNT HAVE to put its paws into FORCING auto makers what they HAVE to make..what part of that dont

you understand?

You still missing the point....I think when you see "fuel efficient" you automatically recall a Prius....as of today, I feel its fair to say that FE means 30+ mpg to most of us....with a 300hp V6 mustang already in for sale and vehicles like the GTI out, I'm pretty sure people would like both power AND FE.....

 

[offbad]

Originally Posted by In Yo Nostril

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

A person who is in his mid-twentites without a car in a city that doesn't need one basing his political allegiance on the fact that 56 mpg might inhibit him from one day purchasing the luxury vehicle that he will never actually obtain due to the financial restrictions that he is furthering upon himself is why I have no faith in humanity.

damn.

 

[offbad]

Originally Posted by In Yo Nostril

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

A person who is in his mid-twentites without a car in a city that doesn't need one basing his political allegiance on the fact that 56 mpg might inhibit him from one day purchasing the luxury vehicle that he will never actually obtain due to the financial restrictions that he is furthering upon himself is why I have no faith in humanity.

damn.

 

[hankmoody]

» Freakonomics
http://www.freakonomics.c...n-to-a-gas-tax-increase/
Raising MPG Standards: The Second-best Solution to a Gas Tax Increase
Eric A. Morris
Aug 15, 2011 12:39 PM more »


It got surprisingly little press coverage given the degree to which it will affect our lives (thanks, pesky world economic meltdown), but in case you missed it, the Obama administration recently worked out a compromise with the major automakers that will dramatically raise the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards.

The new regulations mandate that the mix of new cars sold in the year 2025 must achieve about 54.5 miles per gallon (though if you read the fine print you’ll see that credits for various other green innovations mean that actual fuel economy will be more like 40 MPG.) For reference, the auto fleet currently on the road gets about 27 MPG. It’s a well-done agreement that will help avoid well-done citizens as global warming accelerates.

Before proceeding, let me note that I am strongly in favor of this policy. The problem of excessive fossil fuel use in transportation is multidimensional: if the issue of global warming doesn’t move you, the thought of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad using our own hard-earned dollars to tweak our geopolitical noses should.

However, it is worth noting that raising CAFE standards is what political scientists and economists call a “second-best

 

[hankmoody]

» Freakonomics
http://www.freakonomics.c...n-to-a-gas-tax-increase/
Raising MPG Standards: The Second-best Solution to a Gas Tax Increase
Eric A. Morris
Aug 15, 2011 12:39 PM more »


It got surprisingly little press coverage given the degree to which it will affect our lives (thanks, pesky world economic meltdown), but in case you missed it, the Obama administration recently worked out a compromise with the major automakers that will dramatically raise the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards.

The new regulations mandate that the mix of new cars sold in the year 2025 must achieve about 54.5 miles per gallon (though if you read the fine print you’ll see that credits for various other green innovations mean that actual fuel economy will be more like 40 MPG.) For reference, the auto fleet currently on the road gets about 27 MPG. It’s a well-done agreement that will help avoid well-done citizens as global warming accelerates.

Before proceeding, let me note that I am strongly in favor of this policy. The problem of excessive fossil fuel use in transportation is multidimensional: if the issue of global warming doesn’t move you, the thought of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad using our own hard-earned dollars to tweak our geopolitical noses should.

However, it is worth noting that raising CAFE standards is what political scientists and economists call a “second-best

 

[jewseejay]

it will lead to less fatalties on the road, less overall fuel consumption and us spending less money on gas...

IMO that is > da muscle cars...

 

[jewseejay]

it will lead to less fatalties on the road, less overall fuel consumption and us spending less money on gas...

IMO that is > da muscle cars...