EPA fuel standards

[cdlenterprises]

Here's an article I found about the new EPA standards for fuel economy. More of an FYI than anything

http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-article_153/

[miljnor]

Thats cool that they are actually trying to get it right.

I always thought you had to push your car down hill in a windstorm (with the wind) while crossing your fingers to get the mileage on the sticker!

I don't think I have ever gotten the MPH listed On any of the cars I have ever owned, and I have had a lot of cars!

[Demon440]

Most of my cars have meet or exceeded the EPA ratings. Now I have a ’95 Z28 Camaro and I record my fuel data at each fill up and even with almost 150k miles it still gets well over the advertised mpg of 17/25.

[miljnor]

ya well I guess I just don't drive like the test simulators they use and you do!

might have something to do with the gridlock here in california!

[NinerSevenTango]

EPA fuel standards kill more Americans than the 'war' in Iraq.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,03703.cfm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...371867,00.html

[miljnor]

Thats a BS argument, its like saying that guns kill people. Which is like saying that the people involved have nothing to do with the problem.

I would say that at least 80% of all accidents could have been avoided by a little dilegence and watchfulness of the drivers involved.

Its like saying that the faster cars is making people get more tickets. The car can go 0-150mph, you could just as well drive under the speed limit as over, its in how you drive not what your car is capable of.

[NinerSevenTango]

It's not like saying that guns kill people. It's like saying that mandating lighter cars makes accidents more fatal when they happen, regardless of who might be at fault. 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--

[Demon440]

No way. While I don't agree with mandating cars to be made smaller, I think that a link between the two is wrong. No one makes a person buy a smaller car. Maybe if large cars weren’t made at all, then you could use that argument. But as it is, I don’t see how.

[miljnor]

mandating lighter cars dosn't mean they are mandating weaker cars.

The cars may not survive accidents because the are weaker and they are weaker because the auto manufacturers don't believe people will accept the price hike.

If you make two identical cars one more crash resistant and one less so, all other factors are equal the people will typically buy the cheaper more fragile car. All of these things are driven by supply and demand. If the public wanted safe they would get safe.

The bullet proof vest is a saftey item a car is not so that is a horrible analogy! But if your looking at cost then some police would buy the cheaper one to safe money, Heck when it gets hot some police don't even wear the dang things! (and its against regs!)

[NinerSevenTango]

Originally Posted by Demon440 No way. While I don't agree with mandating cars to be made smaller, I think that a link between the two is wrong. No one makes a person buy a smaller car. Maybe if large cars weren’t made at all, then you could use that argument. But as it is, I don’t see how.

The result is that more people buy trucks. The cars are built to comply with regulations, at a loss. There aren't any inexpensive larger cars, because the regulations dictate average fleet mileage. That skews the market any way you look at it. When truck sales fall, losses are in the billions. Yes, those losses are attributable to a lot of other factors as well. Get ready for the big three to use bankruptcy protection to escape their cost structures after having moved all of their assets out of the reach of the unions and the U.S. government.

--97T--

[NinerSevenTango]

Originally Posted by miljnor mandating lighter cars dosn't mean they are mandating weaker cars. The cars may not survive accidents because the are weaker and they are weaker because the auto manufacturers don't believe people will accept the price hike. If you make two identical cars one more crash resistant and one less so, all other factors are equal the people will typically buy the cheaper more fragile car. All of these things are driven by supply and demand. If the public wanted safe they would get safe. The bullet proof vest is a saftey item a car is not so that is a horrible analogy! But if your looking at cost then some police would buy the cheaper one to safe money, Heck when it gets hot some police don't even wear the dang things! (and its against regs!)

All good points, but there are limits to what you can design with a certain weight of material.

--97T--

[elcam84]

Compare weights of current cars to older cars. You will be surprised that the newer cars are heavier for the same size.

It's all that extra crap people want on them now. The car itself has to be lighter so you can pile on all the extra cup holders huge consoles, power motors for stuff that doesn't need power etc. Allot of that plastic body stuff is heavier than the steel equivelant too.

I'm glad the EPA has finally decided to get closer to a real way of measuring fuel mileage. I never understood how they thought that they could tell the fuel mileage of a car by only reading the exhaust gasses.