Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Badd Brainz
10278 Followers
NewsMeBack
6467 Followers
Janine Wallace
4729 Followers
Muhammad Siraj
1544 Followers
TakinADigg2
-347 Followers
Shovelbaby
2110 Followers
darkmatter911Jun 2, 2011
How about a standard gasoline nationwide. Some of these "summer" blends they sell to reduce emissions suck.
agmlauncherJun 2, 2011
How much of a no-brainer is it that states should NOT be allowed to set their own fuel economy and emission standards? How can you realistically expect an auto maker to produce 50 variations of each model? It's so retarded.
pfenixfireJun 2, 2011
That's not how it works. California would set more stringent standards than our corporate-bought congress would, and the car manufacturers would build only one variant that meets California's standard, not 50 variations.
agmlauncherJun 3, 2011
Umm lol, what's stopping every every state from adopting their own standards?
You can't just base your entire product line off of one state's standards and sell it everywhere. Maybe achieving California's standards costs more money and thus the car has to be more expensive or the margins have to be lower depending on how competitive the segment is. That means you'd be better off building cars that have lower standards since your margins can be higher or the cost of the car can be lower.
People living in Iowa might have cheaper gas than in California, and have less money, therefore it's harder to sell an expensive 46 MPG car there than, say the same car with only 35 MPG. Thus you have to build it differently.
If every state did this, it would suck for automakers.
pfenixfireJun 3, 2011
What I am trying to say is that the car makers would go by the regulations of the state with the most strict requirements.
"You can't just base your entire product line off of one state's standards and sell it everywhere."
Funny, this is how it has worked for the past few decades, and not only with cars. Nearly every product in the US market will go by the strictest State's regulations. Multinationals will also do the same thing by going by the regulations of the country with the strictest regulations. That's why you see the European Union's "CE" logo on most electronics in the United States.
By going with the strictest requirements, a company saves money because they then only have to create one type of production line for one product for everywhere they are selling. Please see Economies of Scale if you do not understand this.
agmlauncherJun 4, 2011
"What I am trying to say is that the car makers would go by the regulations of the state with the most strict requirements. "
No, they wouldn't, because it costs more to produce a car for California than it does say, Texas. There is a reason why automakers are stressed out about the CAFE standards as it is - developing fuel efficient vehicles is costly, thus to reduce costs, they will develop cars for different states' standards.
pfenixfireJun 4, 2011
It would not be cheaper for them to make a Texas model. It would be cheaper to take the strictest regulations of California and to sell all cars in the US using this strict standard due to economies of scale: that is they only have to create one process for production and can mass produce the same parts which then makes them cheaper.
It would be cost prohibitive to make a model for Texas due to Diseconomy of Scale and more specifically due to Duplication of effort and In-elasticity of Supply. (Wikipedia and basic economics classes are your friend if you don't know what those terms are)
Again, look at some of the electronics in your house. They are usually built to both the United States' specifications and the European Union's specification because it is cheaper for them to built one product that meets the standards of both Markets than it is to build two products even though one may have stricter standards than the other.
Whether there is a national standard or each state has there own standard, the company will still only make one product for the US market due to economies of scale making it cheaper. California wants more fuel efficient cars than congress would implement, which is why I am in favor of California implementing their own standard. It means more fuel efficient cars for the whole country.
I would also point out that the US auto makers were struggling the past two decades because they were producing big gas guzzlers and not making smaller, more efficient cars like foreign firms. So one could say that California's standard would actually help the auto industry because it would force them to make smaller more efficient cars to compete with their competition.
kingpJun 2, 2011
the smartest decision Ford ever made, was hiring this guy to be CEO. Although, we should've had national fuel standards since the 1970's, but better late than never, I guess.
yarozeJun 2, 2011
They Did have standards in the 1970s it's called CAFE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy
digger4allJun 2, 2011
Now why are we JUST now thinking about this??????
FPSmotoJun 2, 2011
The answer is and always will be... money.
jspurlockJun 2, 2011
If The damn french built a car during WWII that could get 68MPG then why the hell have the Americans not.
Someone somewhere must know how to do it, and it need to happen before we run out of these precious fossil fuels that have cost the lives of many innocent husbands and wifes, and ruined many families. It's time for a change.
I am happy Ford has the balls to call people out on this.
goweigusJun 2, 2011
They all know how, they just don't want to (and one reason is that consumers might not like that kind of a car for the sacrifices that must be made to achieve such mileage). In the US people don't want to give up spacy long distance cars, which aren't as needed/popular in Europe (because people don't have as far to go or buy as much crap :P)
aarons44Jun 2, 2011
Fuel standard? I'd be happy with a standard for which side the gas cap is on.
mpfitlife24Jun 2, 2011
Its about time..definitely need something to regulate it
macparrotJun 2, 2011
Instead of pushing for CAFE standards (which means really very little), how about pushing auto makers to cooperate on fuel-cell and battery powered cars? How about a battery powered car with a removable pack that can be easily replaced at say an old gas station? Except all cars running on batteries would have to use the sqame type or it wouldn't work. A lot of people (myself included) won't even consider a battery powered car since the average isn't enough for any type of long distance driving.
barackalypseJun 2, 2011
There shouldn't be any fuel economy standards to begin with. Of course the Government hasn't stopped there, they're now limiting what kind of light bulbs you can buy. It won't stop there either, they'll go after the amount of salt in food and every other aspect of your consumption unless you stop them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingpJun 2, 2011
because the free market has done such a wonderful job of pushing the car makers to have better fuel efficiency. That's a pipe dream, and is used as a pulpit by greedy corporatists who want to make money by any means necessary.
I want as little government interference as possible, but Fuel Standards are a must. Cars from the mid-late 1990s get better mileage than the ones of today. That isn't exactly progress.
macparrotJun 2, 2011
Actually the free market does a pretty good job. See many SUV's anymore? You know why? Because gas is more expensive so most people stopped buying them. And before you start going on about CAFE, trucks (which included most SUV's) were exempt.
kingpJun 2, 2011
many factors are involved in that equation, not just the price of gasoline. What about the global economic downturn that caused people to either lose expendable income, or lose income altogether, due to job loss?
That had more to do with the lack of Hummers on the road, than the price of gas and has little to do with "Free market" economics being the cause.
macparrotJun 3, 2011
I don't agree as there were many less expensive SUV's on the road than the Hummer and most of them are gone now too.
yarozeJun 2, 2011
We now have higher emissions standards than we did in the late 80s-early 90s, to achieve the higher standards they have the cars running less efficiently (yes it's odd, but a 1990 Honda CRX HF that would get in the high 40's sometimes low 50 MPG range, and still be fun to drive fast, will not pass new car emissions standards), and they also have tacked on several new safety features (airbags etc...).
Combine the Weight of the new engine controls for emissions and the weight of the added safety systems (My 2004 New Beetle Convertible has 4 airbags and a deploy-able safety cage) you will see where the fuel economy is going.
kingpJun 2, 2011
What you're saying makes sense. However, if we have reached a performance peak, that can't possibly get any better with current internal combustion technology, then we need to be using another fuel, besides petroleum, to power our cars.
This should have been a priority 20+ years ago.
Closed AccountJun 2, 2011
Why stop there? Why not eliminate safety standards as well? Why regulate emissions? Why require a license to drive?
The reasons should be obvious - because American consumers need corporate regulation to keep from being fleeced by corporations or injured by corporate malfeasance, or the stupidity of other consumers.
I would love to live in a world where businesses gave an honest product or service for an honest price, took care of the waste products they created, didn't compromise safety for the bottom line, and didn't resist honest competition. Unfortunately, we live in a very different world.
I'm sorry that America is still relying on the technology of the 19th century for terrestrial propulsion. And I'm sorry that the boards of these companies behave as if their products don't create massive hazards for humans and animals. What I am not sorry about, is the fact that these monkeyf**kers are being held accountable for dragging their feet with regards to environmental standards, and their obvious collusion with oil interests.
Ask the complete scumbags at General Motors about the EV1, and maybe you'll begin to see the issue in a different light.