Not from where I sit. The fact is that cars that got in the range of
50 miles per gallon were available decades ago for people who wanted
them. They did not use batteries or highly-complex hybrid drivetrains.
Thus it is difficult to consider today's hybrids to be a particularly
remarkable or useful achievement.
Yes, you are right. There were a few cars that did. But they were also
fairly light and compact even by today's standards. I remember the
rabbits being on the road. My uncle owned on in the 70s. But I also
remember it being smaller than today's Coop Mini. And before you say
it, I have seen Mini's from the 60s, they make the old Rabbit look
like a stretch limo. From where you sit, there were cars that could
hit that magic number. The swift, as you said in the earlier post.
From where I sit, they were both very light, low liter, and low HP so
it's no surprise they could get that mileage. By the way, the Swift
was actually a Suzuki.
It's hard to judge participants' age in a forum such as this but you
sound a little wet behind the ears yet.
34. Sorry, not wet by any stretch.
It's good enough for me. What anyone else does is their own business.
("New" and "improved" are not necessarily the same thing.)
Again, for YOU. Everything that affect us all does, indirectly,
affects you. Maybe you don't see it that way. What's so wrong with
wanting make things better for everyone?
Adjusted for the rate of overall price increases in other commodities,
gasoline is no more expensive today than it was 40 years ago.
We're not talking about other commodities we're talking about gas.
Energy is it's own market. Last I checked, cost of living was based on
food not gas, CPI aside. How much exactly was gas during the Arab Oil
Embargo compared to the cost of living at that time? Care to give us a
history lesson? Right at 1978 which, not surprisingly, coincides with
the Energy Tax Act, crude shot up nearly 4 times what it was at the
time. Adjusted for today's inflation, gas during the 70s oil embargo
(beginning in 1974) would have been $1.50 up until 1978. In 1978,
adjusted for today's inflation, it went to $1.75, peaked at $2.75 in
1981-ish, and didn't come back down to $1.50 until 1986. In 1986, like
Van Halen, people were read to Jump..for joy. So if my math is
correct, that spans 12 years. So, again, not more expensive in the
last 40 years? That's false.
Have a look:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp
Due to limited supply and high prices Europeans have always had
smaller cars at least since the end of World War II, even before
specific fuel economy standards were developed. (Remember the BMW
Isetta?)
Europe gets a lot of their oil from the UK and some from Denmark but I
understand Russia and the Kazakhs are trying to get into the action,
if not already. Still, they have some market problems in that area so
sourcing and that the UK is the primary supplier does contribute to
less competition in the market. That could also be a large component
of their high prices.
Your desire for more government control over our lives is very
disconcerting. Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of government as
an institution. It is in fact a system of force and plunder, not one
of compassion and service, and needs to be kept strictly under control
for personal freedom to exist.
I don't advocate for more government control over anyone's lives. It
would be great if that one thing, a loophole, be closed and a document
that was written nearly 30 years ago when trucks were considered
utilitarian vehicles were exempted from fuel standards because of that
fact. If you feel that is not ok, you're in denial. It needs to be
revisited and have the loophole closed. Of course, no Oil company or
auto-maker who's making money off of the loophole would voluntarily
close it to benefit anyone other than themselves. To say that they
have not capitalized on the loophole is ridiculous. I do not believe
for second that either the Oil boys or some of the US auto-makers will
recognize we need better efficiency out of our cars. While I cannot
find the article at the moment, a recent news blurb I read stated that
Europeans were fighting for higher standards of fuel economy from
their leaders while some US auto-makers were fighting to actually
lower them.
Who are you to determine what is a "poor" decision, and to forcibly
impose your values on everyone around you?
I'm nobody Joe, I'm just trying to make a point. There are things I
think are problems and are the result of a lack for foresight and
were, at the time, a consensus, but now, I would consider a poor
judgment. No one is I am not forcing anyone to do anything. You're
twisting my words and trying to put words in my mouth. I am pointing
out a problem that needs correcting. I'm sorry, when did fixing
something bad become evil or negative. The 50s are over. We have
problems today. Do you think everything in the US is fine and dandy?
It's disappointing if you think so. Do you happen to hear what your
buddy Lee Iacocca said recently on NPR (National Public Radio)?
You should get up to speed, or not, I don't care. I might be "forcing"
you to do something:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9839029
By the way, who are you to not care about what goes on in the country
in which you live?
By the way, we are nowhere near "running out of oil" (a cry I've been
hearing for at least 50 years now). Particularly when sources like tar
sands are taken into account, there is enough to last for centuries
and there are large deposits in North America. No doubt alternative
energy sources will ultimately be developed, but the immediate need is
to develop new sources of oil and build new refineries, not to find a
replacement.
There is fact and evidence to support that oil will not be in the
supply you claim it will be given the current worlds rate of
consumption. The error is your lack of extending and translating it to
the global world consumption. You do know that China is going to
surpass our consumption very shortly and India will be runner up?
There are a lot of developing economist. The US is not the only
country on the planet. In 10 years, the world will not be what we know
it to be today in terms of Energy consumption. this is economic fact.
Deny it at your own peril. There is no "you" and then what everyone
else is doing. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care
about anyone else other than yourself but I would remind you that
you're not the only one living on the planet.
You have not made a convincing case as to why the year is of any
relevance.
I prefer a vehicle that is reliable, simple to work on, and easy to
maintain. Air bags are not needed (they are merely a supplement to
seat belts, and were introduced because people were not buckling up),
and antilock brakes etc. are no substitute for driver skill. It is
also questionable how well those systems will perform over the long
term, as the vehicle gets to be 10, 15, 20 years old or more. If you
want those features that's your business, I have no interest in
them.
The case of for year goes like this: I don't believe car makers make
more profit off of small cars. There is no specific demographic for
small cars. Car makers have their fingers on the pulse of the salary
ranges and demographic of their buyers and they have more number
crunchers and statisticians in their army to give them indicators of
what people will buy and can afford to buy. They already know what we
all can and can't afford. It probably doesn't help when they advertise
0% financing for X years. This is a new phenomena in the past 6+
years.
I'm quite shocked that you feel safety features, things that protect
people and children, from injury are not needed. You do know that by
having them (air-bags, anti-lock brakes) they reduce insurance rates,
right? That's a bad thing? I don't get it. You might not care about
your own safety, but the soccer mom who takes the team to practice
does. It's irresponsible to think they are unnecessary. I don't agree
with you at all. I know the statistics don't agree with you either.
But hey, it's you personal choice.
How well those systems perform over the years is questionable, yes.
Haven't heard of any customer revolts to have them removed though. I
partially agree with you there. ABS and air-bags are fairly recent
technologies so I'm not sure the stats on their efficacy. I am for the
traction control standard though. If it keeps cars..err, sorry, SUVs
and trucks, from rolling over, that's a good thing.
I, myself, have never been in an accident in my 19 years of driving.
In fact, I am becoming the old man who shakes his head and fist at the
idiot teenagers doing stupid crap in their cars. I guess I'm glad here
in Illinois they want to raise the driving age range up a little bit.
We do have a high accident rate. The stats don't lie, teens kill or
are killed more than experienced drivers. I agree with you there.
You are the one looking to forcibly impose your values on others.
Nowhere have I attempted to "drag the rest" of you anyplace. (Even
here at home, the wife prefers a newer car for herself and I don't
have a problem with that. On the other hand, my own preference has
been to drive the same car for the last 30 years. Having driven both,
I prefer my older vehicle.)
Well, how am I forcing anyone to do anything? Can you substantiate
that assertion? I never said anyone has to do anything. I seem to get
the impression that you'd much rather we go back to the carburetor
days and that the cars of today are too complex to work on by the
average person. For the most part, they are. I know how to change the
oil, air filter, plugs, speakers, radio, bulbs, and now, cabin air
filter, on my own car. I'm not a grease-monkey or hang around a crowd
that likes to take apart engines and get in there to rebuild it. I
take apart and repair computers. I know it's cheaper to do one's own
maintenance on their own car but I don't have the time in my life to
learn the complexities of modern car engines. It would cost me less to
have something fixed by a mechanic than it would me trying to get in
there, break it, and not know how to un-do the damage.
You really seem to have a problem with anyone who does not arrange
their lives in accordance with what *you* want.
Hey, it's a debate and I don't hold a gun to anyone's head to make
them do anything. I can only give my viewpoint based on the state of
things today and get a feel for what people think. I don't expect
anyone to agree or disagree with me. I have never told anyone what to
do yet you seem to feel I am directly telling people what to do. I am
throwing ideas out there, you're not. You're arguing from the
emotional and reactionary perspective. At least I feel you are. You've
made some points but no facts to back them up. I'm giving you facts
but you're overtly choosing to discount them based on personal
opinion.
Who are you to dictate what is "waste?"
And not that I have to justify anything to the likes of you, but just
for grins go find out how much energy and raw materials are consumed,
and waste produced, in the manufacture of a new car. Then calculate
how much I have prevented from being "wasted" by not purchasing a new
car every few years. (That's not the reason I drive an older car, it's
just a side effect.)
When I read statement like this, to me, it reads like "Don't tell me I
can't waste, I'll waste as god damn much as I want to waste. This is
America! We can waste if we want to!" This originally had to do with
fuel efficiency and rear-wheel drive Hyundai. You've now gone far
outside the scope of the debate. I can't even respond this one.
That's what the electric car advocates were saying 30-40 years ago.
We've been 10 years away from a practical battery for as long as I can
remember.
Electric cars were around since the early 20th century and you had to
crank them. Internal combustion changed it. Internal combustion has
been around for 120+ years. It's like any new technology, it will take
time. Hopefully less than the internal combustion engine.
"Better" is in the eye of the beholder.
That's like saying leaded fuel is better than unleaded fuel with
respect to this debate.
If there is meaningful competition, then yes, consumers control the
market. Companies have to build products that consumers want or a
competitor will do so instead. This is Economics 101. Detroit found
this out the hard way.
Yes, that's why Toyota is a #1 brand and the Big 3 does not exist
anymore. They got cocky and just maintained the status quo (read:
market). Obviously, change was not in their vocabulary. What do we
have today? Layoffs and CEO with fat exit packages. Worked out really
well for the country no? At least Hyundai brought the 10-year 100k
mile warranty. It's taken Detroit HOW LONG to get even close to that?
Still, customers were not demanding this kind of value, it came solely
from Hyundai. Maybe they saw that "American cars" were falling apart
after a few years and had very short warranties. I bought mine partly
because of the warranty. If not, I would have been driving a more
expensive but less-featured Camry right now.
The theory of government in this country is completely different than
in most other countries. In the European model, the individual is
merely a subject of an all-powerful State. In the U.S., the function
of government is supposed to be strictly limited to enumerated powers
that are delegated to it from the citizens.
As a Democracy, the people decide what's best, suggest it to their
Senators and Congressman, and see if change can be effected. Ideally.
Government IS supposed to be hands off, you're right and I do agree
with that to a large extent. But when people cannot have an effect on
what the companies do, neither can the government. I mean, take the
whole Enron thing. The employees got hosed and the exec made out like
bandits. Ken Lay died before he could be convicted, Skilling got
spanked with jail time but what happened to all the money? All those
hard working folks never got a dime back that was legally theirs
(i.e., pensions). So, by your rationale and perspective, that the Fed
created legislation and laws that keep that kind of things from
happening would be bad, correct?
If people want a change, the people are obligated to make a case for
it and argue for the change to their contemporaries and fellow people.
The facts seem to point to the White House being the pockets of big
business and corporate interests. I do agree with that fact. There is
too much conflict of interest. I'm not looking at it from a left or
right wing nutjob perspective, but I do want a government that does
actually listen to it's PEOPLE and not private interests. I do not
personally feel that our representatives have our country's best
interests in mind.
Thanks for you comments. I appreciate a good debate.
- Thee Chicago Wolf
