OK, guys - Time to mobilize... Need your help!!!

A General Discussion forum for cars and other topics, and a great place to introduce yourself if you are new to NICO!
User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

JimmyMethod wrote:As for the reasons for doing it, how are those bad? Of the cars on the road, these 'junkers' drive 25% of miles driven, however, they account for 75% of the pollution. Doing the math, if you were to replace them all with modern vehicles, that would cut auto pollution in half(!!!!!) (for civil vehicles, the study didn't include commercial vehicles).

By encouraging people to drive newer cars, you also let them buy less gas, and therefore spend money on other things that put more $ back into domestic hands, too, instead of sending the money overseas.
Once again: why is the solution to GET RID OF the problem cars? Fixing them is SO MUCH BETTER all around. The government has really put consumers in a bad position when it comes to emissions. You HAVE to meet stringent (over-stringent, I say) standards, but emissions equipment is EXPENSIVE and finnicky and has a shorter lifespan than most cars it's used on. How about instead of giving someone $1000 for a new car or $500 to fix the old car, the feds buy them some new cats (which you CAN NOT buy for $500)? Wow, problem solved.

As for the fuel economy comment, that's straight bunk. Newer cars ARE NOT MORE EFFICIENT. Age does not enter into it at all. To say that getting people into new cars would reduce fuel consumption is a gross generalization that is EXACTLY what is wrong with this proposal.
JimmyMethod wrote:(read: that seems really petty).
I will not argue with that. It's petty. And you know what? I don't care. I don't feel that the government should be meddling in these affairs. It's not their place. Last I checked, this was America, not the Soviet Union. The recent turn of events toward green-thinking and oil conservation are causing everyone to ignore the fact that over the last 35 years our auto industry is becoming more and more government controlled. ENOUGH. This is the CONSUMERS' place to make decisions. Legislation will not only NOT solve the "problem" it's targeted at, but will cause MORE problems. This is just another unacceptable legislation affecting "action" for the sake of being seen to act that will have negative affects on the auto industry. As a car enthusiast and an American citizen, I refuse to accept it.


User avatar
JimmyMethod
Posts: 6450
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:18 pm
Car: 97' 240SX SE
Contact:

Post

The government having a 'hands off' approach to the U.S. economy in general is why we are screwed economically.

Allowing people to do whatever they want doesn't result in the best solution.

Nash proved this a long time ago, but Reagan came in and created a nation of self concerned whiners who don't give a damn about the common good, and finally it's coming back, and finally, the door has swung back, and hit us in the back of the head.

Both parties are to blame. Clinton did almost as much deregulation as Reagen (the Glass Steagall Act being the biggest).Limits must be imposed on our society.

It's like dealing with a child. You don't just give them unlimited freedom. You give them freedoms paired with responsibilities. If they abuse their freedoms, and neglect their responsibilities, you have to take away those freedoms.

EDIT: As for the first statement... are you saying, say, a computer controlled VVT car with a new engine with significantly better aerodynamics like, .3 CoD compared to the .5 of the brick shaped cars of the 80s, is as fuel efficient as a car in disrepair, with a poorly designed EFI, Maybe a leaky o-ring, bit of engine knock is going to have the same gas mileage?

User avatar
MinisterofDOOM
Moderator
Posts: 30928
Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 5:51 pm
Car: 1962 Corvair Monza
1961 Corvair Lakewood
1974 Unimog 404
1997 Pathfinder XE
2005 Lincoln LS8
Former:
1995 Q45t
1993 Maxima GXE
1995 Ranger XL 2.3
1984 Coupe DeVille
Location: The middle of nowhere.

Post

That is a good point. My problem with that approach is that (to use your child analogy) it ends up holding the whole class responsible for the one troublemaker.

Anthonysflying
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:01 pm
Car: 2004 Silverstone 350z Touring

Post

Some food for thought...

Top 10 Most Popular Cars based on sales volume from Automotive News, first half of 20071) Ford F-150 (16 mpg)2) Chevrolet Silverado (17 mpg)3) Toyota Camry (25 mpg)4) Toyota Corolla (31 mpg)*5) Dodge Ram (16 mpg)6) Honda Accord (26 mpg)7) Chevrolet Impala (22 mpg)8) Honda Civic (29 mpg)*9) Nissan Altima (26 mpg)10) Honda CR-V (23 mpg)*meets federally recommended gas mileage

PS. the 2009 F150 drag coefficient is .403 which is 6% better than last years model. (TruckTrend Magazine)

2009 Camry curb weight - 3680lbs. 1980 Camry curb weight - 2227lbs

Now for some Aerodynamic cars!

The economically priced scion XB

Here is the aforementioned Camry

And its predecessor.

Ford Flex.

Toyota Corolla

1980 Mazda RX-7

And finally the almighty 1971? Datsun Baby maker!

Sorry i may have gone a bit too far with the pics there. thing is there are exceptions to everything...new cars are not economical unless they are designed to be. They are definitely getting more powerful and faster. Automakers appeal to the masses, we want crazy, fast, sexy, cool, quirky, fun, tough, mean, sleek, bulky, muscular, conservative, smart, peaceful, rich, luxurious, smooth...You know what i mean, a product.

There is no such thing as "cleaning up the environment" by changing emissions standards or MPG. Face it. Decreasing the amount of waste created does not mean that there isn't waste being created. <--way off topic

The Aftermarket is enormous. The new car market is incredibly weak. Eliminating "Fixer-uppers" is quite a shot to the foot. Why Drive a car to the junkyard when it could be driven away by a buyer. I bought my first car for $1200 it was an 86' Camaro

User avatar
JimmyMethod
Posts: 6450
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:18 pm
Car: 97' 240SX SE
Contact:

Post

Your argument is based on comparing sports coupes to... SUVs? Wanna be SUV look alike cars?

The new Camry has a CoD of .27The 1994 Duster had a CoD of .42

Congrats and comparing apples to apples.

You win the I-Don't-Know-How-To-Structure-An-Argument Award of the day! Huzzah!


Return to “General Chat”