Bush administration’s fuel-economy regs for bigger vehicles smacked down 4

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   mrLee Posted 12:50 am
   16 Nov 2007

   smackdownExcellent news, I live in suburbia so believe me- all these trucks and suv's aren't full of pig feed or fodder, they're full of soccer moms instead.

   Permalink

2. 

   PolluteLessDotCom Posted 4:48 am
   16 Nov 2007

   Here is the thing.....if you want an SUV, you maybe want a big vehicle that has the strength and mass to ensure that you and your family survive an accident AND enables you to tackle adverse road conditions. Neither have to be related to a lousy gas mileage.
   You can tackle most adverse road conditions with a front-wheel drive car and excellent tires. I have passed 4-wheel drive cars uphill on snow packed roads with a Civic.  The more horse power you have, the more difficult it gets to control the power and prevent slipping or spinning of wheels. The fact that SUVs have lousy gas mileage can be blamed on the size and power of the engines. A less powerful engine would be better for off-road or adverse road conditions for most normal drivers. Smoothness is the secret to managing difficult roads and is not easily possible with huge powerful engines. So, a smaller engine would use less gas and work better in adverse conditions.  
   
   Same with size: A large or heavy vehicle does not have to have a lot of power. It only has to have a lot of power if you want to drive it like a sports car or even like a regular car. The old VW bus had maybe 50 horse power and was used to transport many people and stuff. Old Land Rovers did not have much hp either. It is not necessary.
   SUV and light truck are POSSIBLE if, and only if, the folks who drive them start seeking their adrenaline rush somewhere else and begin driving reasonably for this size of vehicle.
   The problem is not the SHAPE of the vehicle, the problem is the performance that the folks who drive them expect right now. For some people the acceleration from 0-60 mph is still important. Will they ever grow up?
   Maybe it would be better to drop the S from the SUV.
   Karsten
   
   http://www.polluteless.com

   Permalink

3. 

   nycowboy Posted 6:53 am
   16 Nov 2007

   I DisagreeIn contrast, I believe the Bush administration standards where quite aggressive.
   On average, the Bush standards would require medium duty full-size trucks and SUVs to be about 24% more efficient by 2011 then they currently are.
   (Full-size truck 16.1 MPG * .24 = 21.8 MPG)
   
   (Small SUV) 21.28 MPG * .24 = 28.4 MPG)
   24% is a meaningful goal. But the way MPG is measured and averaged, it actually distorted the number down from what would actually be saved in fuel.
   See:
   
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005 ...
   and
   http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_7479269?nclick_che ...
   
   

   Permalink

4. 

   Jeremiah Posted 12:57 am
   20 Nov 2007

   Another judge legislating from the benchThis is just another judge legislating from the bench. Fuel economy standards for SUVs should be tougher, but the remedy lies in the ballot box. It's simple... elect people who do what you want them to do. But first check they haven't already been bought by special interests like unions, companies, foreigners, lobbies and enviros. :-)
   
   

   Permalink