EPA fuel standards

[Kevin Taylor]

Light Weight=Fuelmileage Heavy=Safe, Not always the case most wrecks envolve out of control distracted drivers and overloaded or overworked vehicals they will for the most part pull or haul more than they can stop with and usualy are through in a sockermom talking on the phone in a SUV that is late and you have a pileup waiting to happen The car company's all have tryed the chepeconimy cars through history and for the most part they lost sales and wern't very good sellers With the cafa standard's they all have to sell lot's of V6 pickup's for a single Large V8/V10 or diesel The car's are the same way a V8 police car has a surcharge on it. There's not to much recycled material in them eather Kevin

[flyboy1015]

There are a few points that are being overlooked here. A lighter car doesn't necessarily mean that it is less safe. When you have two very heavy cars collide, there is a LOT of energy to be absorbed, you know F=MA? Lots of Mass means lots of Force to stop it. Two light cars collide means less mass and, therefore, less energy (force) required to stop it. That energy is absorbed in the crushing of the metal of both cars. It takes energy to cold work steel, and that's what happens in the collision. There are other things in new cars that help also. Airbags are used to help cushion a person in a collision. The seatbelts work well, but in some situations, it is necessary for some extra safety devices. Don't be fooled into thinking that more weight means more safety. It's not just a simple solution. There is a lot of engineering that goes into the things all around us. With the high cost of litigation and liability, companies aren't flippantly building products, as some would suggest.

[sdantonio]

Interesting article. The head of the UAW was in front of the senate last week testifying about this very thing. I caught part of the testimony on cspan (yeah it wa a really slow day).

His comment, basically, when it came to both fuel economy and also as a reply to the questions of why American cars last 5 years or less and foreign cars last considerable longer... if we make our cars better then that would put Americans out of work and decrease their payment of union dues. So we won't do it.

Your union dues and tax dollars at work

[fizzissist]

Originally Posted by sdantonio if we make our cars better then that would put Americans out of work and decrease their payment of union dues. So we won't do it.

There's some factors at work other than simply the unions....and I honestly don't understand fully what's going on.....and here's why:

Just did a search for a new car 2 years ago, and went through the full gamut of $20-28k cars in sedan class. Even rented cars for a couple of days to see what was most suitable comfort and handling wise. Did the full internet research thing that covered resale, safety, customer reviews, handling, service, reliability...blah, blah, blah...

One car that I actually loved was the Monte Carlo...I hate Chevys, but that car was a delight...but...but...rented 2 of 'em and put 1800 long trip miles on 'em...they don't appear to live that long.

We ended up with an Accord. Wanted the Altima V6...but she didn't want to have to use premium....

What we found out in this quest was that pieces and parts of all the cars you buy today are made all over the place.

Had an '86 Chevy S-10...half metric, half SAE...25% made in Canada, 25% made in Mexico.

The Honda was mostly built in the US, with japanese and mexican parts.

MBZ, BMW, Honda, Toyota...they're all built right here. Chevy, Ford, Chrysler....they're built, well, here and there too.

There's things I like about this global market concept...and things I really don't like.

[flyboy1015]

Union dues isn't the real issue. You have to look at the standard of living and the wages of the people in the area where the product is manufactured. Here in the US, we have a high standard of living. That requires some high wages to support that lifestyle. Granted, unions do help raise the costs even more, but that's not the whole reason for the comment.

[NinerSevenTango]

The big three are maneuvering their assets out of country preparatory to declaring bankruptcy, which they will have to do because no amount of sales is going to bring enough income to pay their future pension obligations.

The consumer has spoken -- they wanted real cars but those were outlawed, so now anyone who has kids or wants to haul something goes out and buys a truck or SUV. Which is why they outsell cars. They have to sell a certain amount of high mileage cars to be able to sell the big stuff. It sells at a loss. It isn't worth it any more. Now the all-knowing government will put mileage (power and size) restrictions on trucks. Woo hoo! It was nice working with you all!

--97T--
Fizz, you might like some of the articles in the editorial section at this site:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango What if we mandated bulletproof vests be thinner, would you say that police officers should just avoid situations where they might get shot at? --97T--

Legislators aren't that smart: It more likely that law abiding citizens would be disarmed to prevent criminals from shooting at police.

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by flyboy1015 When you have two very heavy cars collide, there is a LOT of energy to be absorbed, you know F=MA? Lots of Mass means lots of Force to stop it. Two light cars collide means less mass and, therefore, less energy (force) required to stop it. .

What about a heavy car hitting a light car? The light car suffers much greater decelleration, and so do the people inside it.

[fizzissist]

Originally Posted by dynosor Legislators aren't that smart: It more likely that law abiding citizens would be disarmed to prevent criminals from shooting at police.

I'm sure you didn't intend that slip.....

Law abiding citizens don't shoot at police, criminals do. Law abiding citizens are the ones disarmed by legislators, not criminals, under the pretext of the police and law abiding citizens being safer.

I guess it would be a tough sell disarming people under the pretext of protecting criminals....

[dynosor]

Originally Posted by fizzissist I'm sure you didn't intend that slip..... Law abiding citizens don't shoot at police, criminals do. Law abiding citizens are the ones disarmed by legislators, not criminals, under the pretext of the police and law abiding citizens being safer. I guess it would be a tough sell disarming people under the pretext of protecting criminals....

My point exactly! Just a demonstration of newspeak logic in action.

The fact that any action taken by legislature may not prevent a problem from occurring, or may even increase the probability of that problem occurring doesn't mean lawmakers won't pass silly laws.