WTF!!! Now what is everyone gonna bitch about

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » December 13, 2002, 12:36 pm

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3529186.html

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » December 13, 2002, 12:58 pm

Well I'm glad too see that *something* is being done, even if it is such a small increase. 1.5 mpgs over 3 years (for you slow wits thats only a half mile per gallon a year) is almost nothing. However, the govt is at least making an effort to cut down on the fuel we use and making big business pay for it. I'm all for that!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · December 13, 2002, 1:02 pm

Good stuff indeed.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » December 13, 2002, 1:14 pm

1.5? Snort.

Not enough by a long shot.

Apollyon · Post by **Apollyon** » December 13, 2002, 1:15 pm

Just another example of the federal gov't. sticking its nose someplace it doesn't belong. Wonder how huge an increase in federal spending and waste is going to be involved enforcing this one? I swear I can't tell the difference between Replican and Democrat anymore, both are for increasing the size of government, only in varying degrees.

Venti · Post by **Venti** » December 13, 2002, 1:25 pm

Remember though that while 1.5 MPG sounds small, multiply that by the number of cars affected and you've got something.

I work in the car industry, and have in the past been involved with the GM EV1 see: http://www.gmev.com/ . Im not an environmentalist wacko, but it was a fun product to be around, and be involved in on OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of levels. The most glaring truth of a car like that though, is that during the time it was in production/release, many criticised it saying it wouldnt meet the needs of the average person due to limited range, etc.......but those same average commuters only drive 22.5 (at the time) to work, and the car would have worked fine.

Perception is a powerful thing, right or wrong.

Post by **Xouqoa** » December 13, 2002, 1:28 pm

I really don't see how this could be viewed as a bad thing. There won't be any more policing for this mandate than there already is in place for the restrictions they pass on current models of cars.

Don't you want to try and clean up the planet a little bit, or are you content with wasting as many resources as you can since you know you'll most likely be dead before it becomes a problem? It might not be a problem for us, but it will be at some point down the road. I'm by no means a tree-hugging hippy about this stuff, but I do believe in common sense and a little bit of conservation when it comes to our transportation. There is no reason why auto makers can't work to improve the fuel economy of their larger vehicles.

Venti · Post by **Venti** » December 13, 2002, 1:43 pm

In car manufacturer's minds, are two ways of thinking.

push, or pull.

Push marketing, is what you see OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of when the economy is in the shitter. Zero down, no payments forever, and a blowjob with every scheduled maintenance, but BUY TODAY!

Pull marketing is what you see in higher line brands, or models within a brand that dont need any marketing assistance due to demand.

The general fear in trimming the powerband/increasing fuel economy of mass produced cars, is that the buying public respond negatively to what your pushing them, and sales fall. In the manner described in that article, a slower approach to less powerful, more fuel efficient cars over time will likely reduce the negative impact to the manufacturer's and the consumer.

The predominant problem imo, is that the public in general will reject wholeheartedly most of the currently available technologies/compromises that would allow fuel efficiency to reach the potential that exists even right now, because it would require a shift of the mindset of the driver from the current recreational alignment it is now, to the utility of point a to point b transportation.

Millie · Post by **Millie** » December 13, 2002, 3:22 pm

Damn it. I was really hoping for a story entitled "Lawmakers ban SUVs." Oh well. Maybe next time.