Jump to content


Photo

Trump Dumping Another Stupid Obama Policy


62 replies to this topic

#1 jagibelieve

jagibelieve

    That is not logical.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11514 posts
  • LocationJagsonville

Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:33 PM

This is great news for both car makers and consumers.  Get rid of the stupid mileage rules for cars and drive down the cost.  Getting rid of stupid regulation makes sense.  The federal government shouldn't be in the business of telling a manufacturer what the standards are when building something.  Give consumers the choice.  Want a lower gas mileage truck or SUV that performs well?  Go buy one.  Want to "save" the environment and be "green"?  Go buy a useless Prius or a Tesla.



;

#2 HURRICANE!!!

HURRICANE!!!

    Hall of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16970 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:46 PM

Make America Beijing again

 

ca574caf1a7f4358b98a306f0a268131_18.jpg



#3 EricC85

EricC85

    Just your local Anarchist.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24168 posts
  • LocationBostwick FL

Posted 15 March 2017 - 05:03 PM

It is a good move the cost savings on better fuel economy are a joke. Chrysler was requiring spark plugs every 30k miles GM and Ford are using smaller engines with turbos to offset fuel consumption. GM's echotech is loaded with problems but they had to use smaller engines to avoid massive fines and stay within regulation. You paid less at the pump but it cost you a lot more to visit people like me.

Edited by EricC85, 15 March 2017 - 05:04 PM.

5_RdfH.gif


#4 jagibelieve

jagibelieve

    That is not logical.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11514 posts
  • LocationJagsonville

Posted 15 March 2017 - 05:20 PM

LOL.  GLOBAL WARMING!

 

Fuel efficiency has nothing to do with being "green".  Imposing fuel efficiency standards on automakers just drives up the cost.



;

#5 jagibelieve

jagibelieve

    That is not logical.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11514 posts
  • LocationJagsonville

Posted 15 March 2017 - 05:25 PM

It is a good move the cost savings on better fuel economy are a joke. Chrysler was requiring spark plugs every 30k miles GM and Ford are using smaller engines with turbos to offset fuel consumption. GM's echotech is loaded with problems but they had to use smaller engines to avoid massive fines and stay within regulation. You paid less at the pump but it cost you a lot more to visit people like me.

 

Agreed.  I have a Ford F150 with the Ecoboost V-6, and while the fuel economy is good, it just doesn't have the "behind" that my Dodge pickup had with the V8 Hemi.  I've only had the truck for a year, but I have been thinking about getting out of it and getting another with a "real" engine.



;

#6 EricC85

EricC85

    Just your local Anarchist.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24168 posts
  • LocationBostwick FL

Posted 15 March 2017 - 06:22 PM

Agreed.  I have a Ford F150 with the Ecoboost V-6, and while the fuel economy is good, it just doesn't have the "behind" that my Dodge pickup had with the V8 Hemi.  I've only had the truck for a year, but I have been thinking about getting out of it and getting another with a "real" engine.

 

Out of the three big domestics Ford has adapted the best to the smaller engine doing more norm. They don't have nearly the problems GM's Ecotech or Chrysler have. Hands down the 5.0 F-150 is the best motor out of the newer flock of trucks. 

 

That said we've been seeing a slow work towards better fuel economy prior to federal regulation mandating it. All the regulation does is force manufactures to cut corners in other areas to try and stay ahead of the mandated mpg specifications. The demand and tech just isn't there for a 50 mpg Truck, you'd have to compromise so much on tow ability and horsepower it wouldn't be useful as a utility truck and that's why most truck owners have a truck to haul and tow. 

 

I love the Prius it's a great car made solid and sold for a good price point. but you don't see Toyota making their Tundra in the image of a Prius, they're two completely different vehicles for two different markets. That's the beauty of a free market, if I'm looking for fuel economy there's vehicles made for that purpose (the Prius is the best hands down without a doubt) if I'm looking for tow ability and hauling there's vehicles made for that. But this regulation wanted to ignore the different needs for different models and make everyone drive around in Prius's or pay the price. 


5_RdfH.gif


#7 lastonealive

lastonealive

    All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4733 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 06:23 PM

How's that good? Now people will need to spend more money on fuel? Why are you excited about that?

#8 EricC85

EricC85

    Just your local Anarchist.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24168 posts
  • LocationBostwick FL

Posted 15 March 2017 - 06:31 PM

How's that good? Now people will need to spend more money on fuel? Why are you excited about that?

 

no not at all, the better "fuel economy" was only made by compromising on other aspects that cost WAY more. For example an easy one brake rotors. I'd say a fairly conservative estimate 75% of the cars made after 2006 you can't get a single pass on the brake lath they're throw away rotors. that means your old days of a $100 brake job are done, now the average brake job cost between $350-$600 PER AXLE, so a four wheel brake job is easily north of $600. Why? well when they make the rotors thin (weight reduction to increase fuel economy) they make the pads ceramic to offset the thin rotors otherwise they'd squeal like a pig off the show room floor and use electronic calipers (more and more common) to maximize fuel economy (through abs, vcs, and cruise control) your brake job is no longer a $35 set of pads from Advance slap it on and go. 

 

You want another example I said it earlier Chrysler is scheduling platinum plugs every 30,000 miles that's the only way they can keep the engine clean and in line with mpg standards, that means you saved $10 bucks on a file up but now you've got to drop $200-$300 every 30,000 miles on maintenance.

 

I can go on and on and on about how your just offsetting fuel economy for more maintenance. 


5_RdfH.gif


#9 Indy2Jax

Indy2Jax

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1771 posts
  • LocationFernandina Beach

Posted 15 March 2017 - 07:00 PM

So CAFE was an Obama policy?

#10 EricC85

EricC85

    Just your local Anarchist.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24168 posts
  • LocationBostwick FL

Posted 15 March 2017 - 07:05 PM

So CAFE was an Obama policy?



I don't know what CAFE is but I know under Obama and bush there was regulations about specific milestones that had to be achieved in mpg. I can speak first hand how those regulations cost you the owner of a vehicle double if not triple anything you saved at the fuel pump.

5_RdfH.gif


#11 Dakota

Dakota

    Hall of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22853 posts
  • LocationJacksonville

Posted 15 March 2017 - 07:51 PM

Common sense returning to the country finally.

 

Still waiting on more posts to be removed by the liberal, biased admin (FBT excluded, who has and will always have my full respect).


Edited by Dakota, 15 March 2017 - 07:52 PM.

PROUD AMERICAN!

 

       AGAIN!


#12 Indy2Jax

Indy2Jax

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1771 posts
  • LocationFernandina Beach

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:25 PM

I don't know what CAFE is but I know under Obama and bush there was regulations about specific milestones that had to be achieved in mpg. I can speak first hand how those regulations cost you the owner of a vehicle double if not triple anything you saved at the fuel pump.


CAFE Sets the regulations of MPG and has been in place since 70's.

#13 EricC85

EricC85

    Just your local Anarchist.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24168 posts
  • LocationBostwick FL

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:37 PM

CAFE Sets the regulations of MPG and has been in place since 70's.

Perhaps but it wasnt until 2006 they set the standard for 25 mpg average and then it was supposed to reach 48 mpg average by 2020. When I say average im talking about Ford makes x million vehicles if they don't average 48 mpg as a manufacture it's a $1 fine per mpg they miss it per vehicle produceed that year.

Correction it's 54 mpg by 2025 just double checked which is even more ridiculous and would cost you the owner a ton more in compromises to achieve that goal.

Edited by EricC85, 15 March 2017 - 08:41 PM.

5_RdfH.gif


#14 Indy2Jax

Indy2Jax

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1771 posts
  • LocationFernandina Beach

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:45 PM

Perhaps but it wasnt until 2006 they set the standard for 25 mpg average and then it was supposed to reach 48 mpg average by 2020. When I say average im talking about Ford makes x million vehicles if they don't average 48 mpg as a manufacture it's a $1 fine per mpg they miss it per vehicle produceed that year.
Correction it's 54 mpg by 2025 just double checked which is even more ridiculous and would cost you the owner a ton more in compromises to achieve that goal.


That's what the said in 1980 about 20 mpg.

CAFE is what Nader railed against for years.

#15 EricC85

EricC85

    Just your local Anarchist.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24168 posts
  • LocationBostwick FL

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:53 PM

That's what the said in 1980 about 20 mpg.

CAFE is what Nader railed against for years.


And the 90s was amoung the worse decade of vehicles manufactured ever. You had some of the worse quality vehicles in the 90s we've ever seen. You can push for fuel economy and set artificial standards all day long but if it's not market driven and the technology isn't there it's just an artificial marker to make the environmentalist feel good. why stop at 54 why not 60 or hell make it 100?

5_RdfH.gif


#16 The Drifter

The Drifter

    Not Politically Correct and Proud Of It

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11857 posts
  • LocationFrederick Maryland

Posted 15 March 2017 - 08:58 PM

The Higher the MPG Standard, the less fuel used. The Less Fuel used = less in gasoline taxes collected.  So..... to upkeep all those roads and bridges like they say they do, they'll have to raise fuel taxes which = MORE $$$$ spent by the consumer which would off-set any savings in increased mileage.


MIA2_zpsgljkiewr.gif

 

 

1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow....

#17 Indy2Jax

Indy2Jax

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1771 posts
  • LocationFernandina Beach

Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:23 PM

And the 90s was amoung the worse decade of vehicles manufactured ever. You had some of the worse quality vehicles in the 90s we've ever seen. You can push for fuel economy and set artificial standards all day long but if it's not market driven and the technology isn't there it's just an artificial marker to make the environmentalist feel good. why stop at 54 why not 60 or hell make it 100?


Point is the title of this post is inaccurate.

#18 MalabarJag

MalabarJag

    Hall of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10117 posts
  • LocationSanford, FL, USA

Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:45 PM

Point is the title of this post is inaccurate.

 

The title is accurate. Trump isn't dumping all fuel-efficiency standards, only the ridiculous ones imposed in the last eight years.


The world ate my homework.

#19 lastonealive

lastonealive

    All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4733 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:45 PM

The Higher the MPG Standard, the less fuel used. The Less Fuel used = less in gasoline taxes collected. So..... to upkeep all those roads and bridges like they say they do, they'll have to raise fuel taxes which = MORE $$$$ spent by the consumer which would off-set any savings in increased mileage.


Hold on...you are pro increased taxation and spending? You dirty lefty!

#20 MalabarJag

MalabarJag

    Hall of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10117 posts
  • LocationSanford, FL, USA

Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:47 PM

The Higher the MPG Standard, the less fuel used. The Less Fuel used = less in gasoline taxes collected.  So..... to upkeep all those roads and bridges like they say they do, they'll have to raise fuel taxes which = MORE $$$$ spent by the consumer which would off-set any savings in increased mileage.

 

You are so naive. Big Brother is planning to put trackers on everyone's car and tax people according to mileage.


The world ate my homework.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users