As noted above, I’m not certain how technical marketing terms are. Would you say the EPA uses technical terms?
Those darn Republicans, stopping all that is right and true in American politics.
If only Democrats controlled the White House, Senate and House, so they couldn’t be stopped so easily.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re being sarcastic, but just in case you think you’re making some kind of intelligent point, I’ll take your post seriously. Neither party operates in a political vacuum, nor should they. Governing by ignoring half the country didn’t work out so well for the past eight years. The Republicans, having campaigned for many years against all taxes, but especially a carbon tax, have made the policy political anathema. Of course the Democrats could, as a matter of bare numbers, pass the tax. But that is an incredibly naive view of how Washington works. The point is that they can’t do so without getting creamed in their next elections because of the extent of Republican demagoguery on the issue.
If you want to make a rational argument instead of offering snide sarcarm, you need to either prove that Republicans haven’t campaigned for a decade against the gas tax or show that the national popularity of a policy is or should be irrelevant to the decisionmaking of Democratic politicians. Good luck on either front.
They probably thought that Toyota and Honda had cornered the sedan market for hybrids, so they tried to go after the popular SUV market.
So what you are saying is that Democrats would rather win elections than do what is good for the country.
And this is the Republicans’ fault. Gotcha.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, c’mon Shodan. I know you’re capable of actually engaging with what I said. Try again.
Too little, too late?
It is not insane for an auto manufacturer to produce what they expect will sell.
America was buying hybrid sedans but not anywhere near in the volume (or near the profit margins) that SUV and cross-overs were selling at. The Honda Accord hybrid was a dismal flop. Those who were buying smallish sedans may have been choosing to buy hybrids but those who wanted big cars or SUVs and crossovers were still buying a big car or an SUV/crossover and would have even if Ford and GM had great hybrid sedans on offer.
Per vehicle sold making and selling hybrid SUVs and cross-overs had more of an impact on decreasing CO2 and foreign oil use than did selling hybrid sedans.
Assume that the purchaser is going to buy either a sedan or an SUV/cross-over in any case. We’ll use 2007 Honda Civics and the Ford Escapes as our examples.
Choosing the hybrid Civic over the regular version increases your mpg from about 35 mpg (2.8 gallons/100miles) to about 50 mpg (2 gallons/100miles) - saving about 0.8 gallons of gas and associated emissions per hundred miles traveled. Impressive.
Choosing the hybrid Escape over the regular version increases your mpg from about 20 mpg (5 gallon/100miles) to about 31 mpg (3.2 gallons/100miles) - saving about 1.8 gallons/100miles traveled. More impressive.
Which has more of an impact, burning 0.8 gallon less per 100 miles or burning 1.8 gallon less per 100 miles?
As to Democrat vs Republican - this really does cross party lines. This is less about party than about who votes you in therefore whose interest you represent. Partisanship is secondary. Jobs in your district, short term effects in your district, those come first.
That’s vaguely kicking around somewhere in the back of my mind, pushed out by American Idol and whatever the latest white girl abducted the media likes more than all the black and brown girls who get abducted. 
Everything does have consequences, but it seems to me that your arguments suffer from the fallacy of pre hoc, ergo procter hoc. The auto company bailouts were approved in December of 2008. The CAFE standards were raised in May 2009. It appears as if you are claiming that the auto company bailouts occured because of something that happened almost six months later!
If you have some evidence that bailouts will be needed, for example, were bailouts required after the last time CAFE standards were raised? IIRC, CAFE standards for cars (as opposed to light trucks, etc.) have been flat for 20 or 30 years.
Interesting that you bring up Europe. Having to sell under European standards, Ford made $1 billion in profit in 2008 in Europe, climbing from $997 million in profit in 2007 in Europe. That rapidly declined in late 2008 and 2009 will not be a profitable year, but it seems to me that if they can make a profit in Europe under stricter standards, they can make a profit in the US under stricter standards. I’m not seeing evidence that the stricter standards will send them into the hole, but I would gladly take a look if you would present some.
Possibly true - but since all the automakers will be under the same standards, it’s still an even playing field. None of them can break ranks and only sell gas-guzzlers.
This does play into one important facet (that we agree on) that’s come out in this thread. CAFE standards are a less efficient solution than a gas tax of $0.70 or $0.80 a gallon (there’s a reason for that number - I can dig up a cite if you like.)
But who here seriously thinks that either Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats will actually support a 70 or 80 cent per gallon gas tax?? 
I just don’t see that as something that could get done. It’s irrelevant since it’s just not possible. Like if there were gold on Titan.
Luckily, this week I happen to be doing some reading on energy issues:
I should note that as bad as our current economic situation is, I don’t think it is a “great and disasterous global depression” and I hope it will not turn into one.
- All quotes above from Klare, Michael (2008) Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy.
Sadly, the average American family can’t plan for what the energy market will probably look like in 2016. The government and the automakers should be doing that, and the CAFE standards, as inefficient as they are, are the compromise way of doing that.
OK, how’s this - apparently it is the fault of Republicans that people don’t want their taxes raised. If it weren’t for those naughty Republicans, everyone would be clamoring to have the federal government grab as much of their paycheck as they could carry.
And the Democrats are helpless in the face of this. They can’t even present a case for it - everyone is hypnotized by the mind control rays that Republicans have used for the last eight years.
Because the Democrats are unanimous in their conviction that raising taxes in the midst of a recession - especially a regressive tax like a gas tax - so that can’t be it. Nope, has to be the party that is barely clinging to a filibustering minority.
Uh huh. That’s probably it.
Regards,
Shodan
Dude, that’s not even a complete sentence. It doesn’t make sense as written.
Shall we assume that you meant “unanimous in their conviction that raising taxes in the midst of a recession is a bad thing” and go on to ignore the partisan snipes and debate real issues?
Are you incapable of a good faith, non-sarcastic reply? I’ve seen you do it from time to time. Not sure why you can’t muster it here.
Anyway, through your sneer I see three attempts at arguments.
(1) People hate taxes regardless of what the GOP says: I acknowledged already that taxes are never popular with any voter. But taxes are sometimes necessary, and voters can be persuaded to accept the intelligent ones. If the GOP hadn’t spent millions decrying a gas tax as bad policy, it would be much easier to persuade voters about the wisdom of the policy. You see some conservatives coming around on the issue now, but they’ve dug themselves a deep hole having argued against them for so long. If it makes your partisan brain feel happy, I feel the same way about Democratic demagoguery on free trade.
(2) A tax is bad in a recession: True. But we are talking about a gas tax as an alternative to raising the CAFE standards, which will happen incrementally over five years. Maybe we’ll still be in a recession two years out, but I hope not.
(3) Regressive taxes are bad: Indeed. Which is why this issue has been already addressed in this thread. I’ll wait for you to read the rest of the thread and respond to the proposals made to address the regressive aspect of the tax.
Heavier, yes, attached to the rotating mass of the engine, no. If I take the compressor off of my engine, and put it in the back seat (or even just take the belt off the pulley), I will not be allowed to run in stock classes at autocross. This is because my car would then have an advantage in the power output that it has (it is more efficient). It’s not a lot, but it’s no zero either. Even with a CCOT system, why spin the pulley when it’s not doing anything useful?
Upon review, I was confusing what I had read with an article on a separate subject, and withdraw the claim that the power steering pump was moved for these reasons. I still believe on the whole that there was an advantage to be had with regard to engine efficiency, whether it was realized by the engineers or not.
I can answer this. The reason American car makers don’t make Prius type cars is because they would lose money on it. It’s an expensive market to scale up to and they don’t have the funds for it.
On top of that, they aren’t price efficient for consumers. In order for a car purchase to make sense, it should save more money in gas than the cost of the car over a reasonable amount of time. You can read Edmund’s breakeven pointto see what the BEP is on various hybrids. I believe this was based on government rebates so if that goes away the time line increases. You’ll note that the Ford Escape has a much better return for the money than a Prius in terms of vehicle type.
Hybrids do not provide good purchase value because they cost more and provide less vehicle. By default, you lose storage space, and towing capacity. You also take a hit with air conditioning. Notice the Prius loses about 10 mpg with the air conditioner. The Escape loses 5 mpg. For comparison, I lose 1 mpg with my Saturn SL1 which goes from 38 to 37 on the highway.
IMO, diesels provide a much greater bang for the buck and that’s why Europe has gravitated toward them. Given the newly announced emmissions standards and the recent advancement in cleaner diesels, I would expect American car makers to introduce their euro-diesel models in North America. This could easily kill the only viable market for hybrids.
I’d say the EPA uses a slightly different set of technical terms, that don’t necessarily match with industry standard. Either way, the Dodge Magnum is not a sports car by any measure.
This is simply not true.
Bigger cars for everyone is safer than smaller cars for everyone because cars don’t just hit other cars.
Coherence, here, would be nice, but refraining from making charges of trolling are mandatory.
Don’t do this again.
[ /Modding ]
The base model was a twin cam V6 at 190 hp, the next engine is a 340 hp hemi V8 and the next one above that is a 426 hemi. It’s a sports car complete with tuned suspension. The SRT-8 was named Best New Modern Muscle Car in the 2006 Canadian Car of the Year contest.
Link (youtube video) from the comments of your link. Size isn’t always the best indicator of safety. Obviously, safety features count for quite a lot whether you’re hitting another car or a tree.
It’s an interesting video but you’re comparing a much older Volvo. The other thing they aren’t showing you is the energy that was transmitted directly to the passengers in the smaller car. It snapped around in a 180 degree spin.