whats your take on Obama mandating a 36MPG minimum on cars? VOL. RIP V8, corvette, camaro, chargers

70,132
24,177
Joined Aug 1, 2004
personally as a muscle car and truck fan i HATE it..........



i don't ever wanna drive a car whats battery assisted and weak compared to da big block high HP beasts that i love.
 
2,256
10
Joined Jun 5, 2004
Obamas my dude, but my inner car enthusiast HATES to see this happen, pretty much everything newer in the next few years will be underpowered, boringappliances
 
24,893
5,570
Joined Jul 11, 2006
Originally Posted by JFMartiMcDandruff

it's not like anybody will check your mpg

how would they know if it's at least 36 mpg?
it means that all future production vehicles will have to meet a minimum mpg requirement.

not that you'll get a ticket for driving a sports car.
 
70,132
24,177
Joined Aug 1, 2004
Originally Posted by Lemonade41

Obamas my dude, but my inner car enthusiast HATES to see this happen, pretty much everything newer in the next few years will be underpowered, boring appliances
tell me about it.

hopefully it doesn't apply to current cars available on the road so when worse comes to worse you can always buy older cars that aren't gonna run likeR/C cars
 
12,330
3,074
Joined Sep 28, 2004
makes sense to me. i saw this on aol.com a few days ago. within hours thousands of comments and a poll showing them not agreeing with it in large numbers..fundamentally I have to ask why are people so ignorant to think what he's doing is so wrong. Obama stays being hated on no matter what he does, it appears
 
1,305
11
Joined Jun 3, 2007
I think it's unrealistic. There will probably be a huge tax to purchase those that don't meet the requirement.
 
70,132
24,177
Joined Aug 1, 2004
the problem is why would you force auto companies to make cars americans just don't want.
 
70,132
24,177
Joined Aug 1, 2004
What do you think of the federal government setting higher mileage standards for cars and trucks?
[table][tr][td]Thumbs up[/td] [td]51%[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Thumbs down[/td] [td]49%[/td] [/tr][/table][h3]Poll Results[/h3]

What do you think of the federal government setting national emissions limits for vehicles?
[table][tr][td]Thumbs down[/td] [td] 53% [/td] [td]21,084[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Thumbs up[/td] [td] 47% [/td] [td]18,950[/td] [/tr][/table]
right now its pretty evenly split.
 
12,330
3,074
Joined Sep 28, 2004
and whats to say we'll buy them.. unless its an import issue too, whats holding back us going after other brands with "power".

I just did some basic calculations based on the $600 additional tax. It would take nearly 27 months to reach that $600 investment mark before seeing any"savings".. This was based on a two cars- one that has 36mpg on a 15 gallon tank and another with 25mpg on a 15 gallon tank. Filled up twice a month,youre savings is just $22.50 monthly
 

djc

338
10
Joined May 5, 2009
Yeah, were gonna have to get used to it eventually so why not start now.
 
5,094
2,827
Joined Oct 22, 2004
I know he's doing it with good intentions and all, but I don't agree with him mandating it. Instead he should just give companies that do it a taxbreak or a subsidy or something; just some motivation to make their cars at that level. I'd hate to buy a car and have it feel like it runs like a RC car.

Does this apply to imported cars too?
 
11,041
2,298
Joined Feb 22, 2008
Originally Posted by miamin2

I know he's doing it with good intentions and all, but I don't agree with him mandating it. Instead he should just give companies that do it a tax break or a subsidy or something; just some motivation to make their cars at that level. I'd hate to buy a car and have it feel like it runs like a RC car.

Does this apply to imported cars too?
I agree. And I think it's for all cars sold in America. Imported or domestic.
 
70,132
24,177
Joined Aug 1, 2004
its fine if they want the auto makers to build a few "fuel efficient" vehicles..but its stupid to not even give the auto maker or the PEOPLE the choice to decide on what they spend THEIR money on it. I personally will never by a truck or a mustang without a V8..its pointless in my eyes
just one of many quotes echoing this mindset.

Feel Gassy[h1]Obama Kills Fun Cars, Unveils 35.5 MPGFuel Economy Plan By 2016[/h1]
By Matt Hardigree, 12:40 PM on Tue May 19 2009, 18,046 views (Edit post, Set to draft, Slurp)
Copy this whole post to another site

Slurp cancel


select site advertising consumerist deadspin defamer fleshbot gay fleshbot gawker gizmodo idolator io9 jalopnik jezebel kotaku lifehacker valleywag artists gawkershop

President Obama and distinguished hostages auto execs just unveiled new emissions and fuel economy standards. The result? They've just killed all the fun cars.

In his opening, President Obama framed the historic moment by pointing out the gathering of auto executives, governors, legislators, environmental activists and others historically at odds with each other. He failed to mention the reason everyone is so happy to get together is that he has a gun to their heads in the form of government funding.

The goal of a new national standard is a mixed bag for automakers. On one hand, lawsuits and state standards are being dropped and the EPA and Department of Transportation standards are being combined. Obama also mentioned the increase in fuel economy will provide a savings for consumers over the life of a car and save 1.8 billion gallons of fuel.

On the other hand, helping determine what automakers should build does not create demand. Lots of fuel-efficient cars are out there today but most consumers aren't interested. CAFE doesn't deal with the demand side of the equation. We can continue forcing automakers to build fuel-efficient cars that nobody wants to buy, but unless we're willing to enact a higher fuel tax (with obvious progressive checks in place to deal with lower-income car owners) to out-price SUVs and pickup trucks, consumers won't change their habits.

But the details? Ah yes, the details - a 5% annual increase in average fuel economy from 2011, culminating in 35.5 MPG in 2016. The breakout will be 39 MPG for cars and 30 MPG for trucks. So basically, unless you're an automaker building an appliance, get out of the game. There's no room for a Corvette ZR1 or rear-wheel-drive power wagon. Nope, it's all going to be Priuses and Fusion hybrids from here on out. We'd move to Canada except we're assuming it'd be worse up there. Maybe Mexico is the place to go.
 
70,132
24,177
Joined Aug 1, 2004
[table][tr][td]2009 Most and Least Fuel Efficient Vehicles
(ranked by city mpg)[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
MOST EFFICIENT OVERALL
[/td] [th=""]MPG[/th] [/tr][tr][th=""]
City
[/th] [th=""]
Hwy
[/th] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Toyota Prius
[/td] [td]48[/td] [td]45[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Most and Least Fuel Efficient Cars
(by EPA Size Class)

[/td] [th=""]MPG[/th] [/tr][tr][th=""]
City
[/th] [th=""]
Hwy
[/th] [/tr][tr][td]
Most Efficient Two Seaters
[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
smart fortwo Convertible
3 cyl, 1 L, Automatic(S5), Premium
[/td] [td]33[/td] [td]41[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
smart fortwo Coupe
3 cyl, 1 L, Automatic(S5), Premium
[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Pontiac Solstice
4 cyl, 2 L, Manual 5-spd, Premium
[/td] [td]19[/td] [td]28[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Saturn SKY
4 cyl, 2 L, Manual 5-spd, Premium
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Most Efficient Minicompact Cars
[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
MINI Cooper
4 cyl, 1.6 L, Manual(6), Premium
[/td] [td]28[/td] [td]37[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
MINI Cooper
4 cyl, 1.6 L, Automatic(S6), Premium
[/td] [td]25[/td] [td]34[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Most Efficient Subcompact Cars
[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Toyota Yaris
4 cyl, 1.5 L, Manual(5), Regular
[/td] [td]
29
[/td] [td]
36
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Toyota Yaris
4 cyl, 1.5 L, Automatic(4), Regular
[/td] [td]
29
[/td] [td]
35
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Most Efficient Compact Cars
[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Honda Civic Hybrid
4 cyl, 1.3 L, Automatic(CVT), HEV, Regular
[/td] [td]40[/td] [td]45[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Volkswagen Jetta
4 cyl, 2 L, Manual(6), Diesel
[/td] [td]30[/td] [td]41[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Most Efficient Midsize Cars
[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Toyota Prius Hybrid
4 cyl, 1.5 L, Automatic(CVT), HEV, Regular
[/td] [td]48[/td] [td]45[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Nissan Versa
4 cyl, 1.8 L, Manual(6), Regular
[/td] [td]26[/td] [td]31[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Most Efficient Large Cars
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]

[/td] [td]
Hyundai Sonata
4 cyl, 2.4 L, Automatic(5), Regular
[/td] [td]22[/td] [td]32[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Honda Accord
4 cyl, 2.4 L, Manual(5), Regular
[/td] [td]22[/td] [td]31[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Most Efficient Small Station Wagons
[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen
4 cyl, 2 L, Manual 6-spd, Diesel
[/td] [td]30[/td] [td]41[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen
4 cyl, 2 L, Automatic (S6), Diesel
[/td] [td]29[/td] [td]40[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Most Efficient Midsize Station Wagons
[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Kia Rondo
4 cyl, 2.4 L, Automatic 4-spd, Regular
[/td] [td]20[/td] [td]27[/td] [/tr][tr][td][/td] [td]
Saab 9-5 SportCombi
4 cyl, 2.3 L, Manual 5-spd, Regular
[/td] [td]18[/td] [td]27[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Least Fuel Efficient Cars[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Least Efficient Two Seaters
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Lamborghini Murcielago, 12 cyl, 6.5 L, Man(6)
[/td] [td]8[/td] [td]13[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Lamborghini Murcielago Roadster, 12 cyl, 6.5 L, Man(6)
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Least Efficient Minicompact Cars
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Aston Martin DB9, 12 cyl, 5.9 L, Man(6)
[/td] [td]11[/td] [td]17[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Least Efficient Subcompact Cars
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Bentley Continental GTC, 12 cyl, 6 L, Auto(6)
[/td] [td]10[/td] [td]17[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Least Efficient Compact Cars
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Bentley Azure, 12 cyl, 6.7 L, Auto(S6)
[/td] [td]9[/td] [td]15[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Least Efficient Midsize Cars
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Ferrari 612 Scaglietti, 12 cyl, 5.7 L, Auto(6)
[/td] [td]9[/td] [td]16[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Least Efficient Large Cars
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Bentley Arnage RL, 8 cyl, 6.7 L, Auto(S6)
[/td] [td]9[/td] [td]15[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Least Efficient Small Station Wagons
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Saab 9-3 Aero SportCombi AWD,6 cyl, 2.8 L, Manual 6-spd
[/td] [td]15[/td] [td]24[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Saab 9-3 Aero SportCombi AWD,6 cyl, 2.8 L, Automatic (S6)
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Saab 9-3 SportCombi,6 cyl, 2.8 L, Automatic (S6),
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Least Efficient Midsize Station Wagons
[/td] [/tr][tr][td]
Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG, 8 cyl, 6.2 L, Auto(S7)
[/td] [td]13[/td] [td]18[/td] [/tr][/table]
i mean guys....if you haven't caught on yet, where da hell are you gonna be able to buy a lambo, v12 benzes and bimmers, and all da muscle cars at? obamais effectively KILLING em...
 
5,012
9,978
Joined Jun 28, 2004
It makes me shake my head at myself because it has forced me to say something that I never thought I would say and it is "Sean Hannity was right."Years ago the shock jock, said that " the liberals' only solution to our energy problems involves making us all drive Yugos." Well he did getthis one right except that it is not going to end simply with the Pelosi, Obama, Reid et al. forcing us into smaller, less safe and less comfortable cars theywill make sure that they make everything more expensive, more scarce or both. When it as all said and done Barack Obama will be the most costly administrationto date and considering the mess Bush left, that is scary.


I personally will not be effected by this new mandate because I have never been into muscle cars or trucks or SUV's but I am one of the few Americans whobelieves that freedom should exist for the benefits of those who do not share my taste. In my opinion, the cost of this mandate is greater then the benefitsbut I understand that many people want us to consume less energy for less reasons. For that reason, I would suggest a phased in tax on gasoline, that would beoff set my tax cuts in other taxes, that would eventually hold gasoline at four or five dollars per gallon and then let the market react to that.

A gas tax would actually have a better chance of reducing fossil fuel usage (if gas stays fairly cheap and cars are fuel efficient, people will drive moremiles and perhaps end up burning more fossil fuel). Also, taxing gasoline would reduce miles driven and would reduce congestion (which would further reducefossil fuel consumed and carbon emissions) and traffic accidents. It would also provide more flexibility then an mpg diktat because it would still allow peoplewho use less fuel efficient vehicles to do so without significantly higher costs but it would greatly penalize that person, who looks to commute, alone in histruck or SUV.

A gas tax is not perfect but it is the lesser of two evils at a time when Washington is picking winners and making use all into losers. I believe thatpeople should be allowed to drive whatever they want so long as the vehicle conforms to some basic safety guidelines and is not a gross polluter. The practiceof forcing people into certain cars that are approved by the political classes is a vehicle that is heading towards stagnation and a soft tyranny, we shouldjunk this vehicle, no matter how high its promised mpg.


BTW A lot of you guys are still in the honeymoon phase with Obama and many of you guys are still students so I expect many of you to disagree with me and tosupport his plan. It will be interesting to see what you think in seven years when you will be older, wiser, sadder and carrying the burdens of adult life in aworld where public policy, has made you poorer then you otherwise would have been.
 
70,132
24,177
Joined Aug 1, 2004
Disappearing Cars

In a move largely seen as giving in to Washington, General Motors recently closed it High Performance Vehicles division. The HPV team was largelyresponsible for GM's most exciting cars including the Cadillac CTS-Vand the Chevrolet Corvette ZR1.

Bureaucrats have little use for performance-oriented V-8 powered cars, so don't expect cars like the Chevy Corvette, DodgeViper, Chevrolet Camaro SS, or Dodge Challenger R/Tto survivelong term. Their survival is no longer tied to customer demand, but to the demands of the government that now controls the product portfolios and developmentdollars at GM and Chrysler. Recently, GM announced it was killing its Pontiac brand,a concept that seemed to define performance all by itself some decades ago. Now that brand is gone.

Ford Motor Company will also likely be affected. New emissions regulations may keep future V-8 editions of the Mustang in the barn.

According to John Wolkonowicz, Senior Analyst at HIS Global Insight, "With Obama's plan, everything changes in thedomestic automotive world. The government will be able to dictate what General Motors and Chrysler can sell. Washington believes it knows what Americans shoulddrive, and this bail out gives them the means to dramatically change the market." Wolkonowicz sees the potential for a significant narrowing of choice inthe automotive market. He says, "With the power given them by the bail out, the government can simply mandate certain classes of cars and trucks out ofexistence, regardless of whether they are popular with American drivers or not."

After studying the government's response to GM's survival plan, Wolkonowicz believes that the only way for GM to secure government funds will be tobecome even smaller than they had proposed. The analyst expects GM to shrink to just two divisions, Cadillac and Chevrolet. Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Saturn, and HUMMER will all cease to exist.


Gallery: Pontiacs We'll Never Forget


While GM will soldier on in its smaller form, Wolkonowicz doesn't expect Chrysler to survive in its current form, even with news that Fiat has agreed toa broad partnership. If Wolkonowicz is wrong, the Fiat connection would provide Chrysler with needed small car vehicle platforms, but the fate of vehicles suchas the Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 doesn't look good.
Who Is At The Wheel?

This new age of government oversight in the automotive industry may progress using one of two strategies. The first path continues the current practice ofsetting regulations and then allowing manufacturers to meet those regulations. This allows manufacturers a high degree of flexibility in how they react whiledeveloping vehicles consumers want to drive.

However, the essential takeover of GM and Chrysler signals a more active role that will likely dramatically change the way the automakers do business. Thissecond scenario removes the consumer from the auto manufacturing equation. Customer demand is directly superseded by political interest in ecology and energypolicy. In other words, manufacturers will only sell vehicles the government allows them to sell.

Even with ever-present worries of fuel prices, some 70-percent of the orders for Chevrolet's all-new 2010 Camaro are for the V-8 edition that produces over 400 horsepower (whileachieving up to 25 mpg on the highway). Clearly, American drivers want what they want. The question is whether that matches what the U.S. government will wantDetroit to build.
 
168
10
Joined Apr 25, 2004
Hopefully this law will be repealed by whoever takes office after Obama before it goes into full swing.
The car enthusiast aka "hot rodder" is on the verge of extinction.
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now