Truth for SUV Loving Airheads II

[Bubba1]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by VimyJ

Average fleet fuel efficiency of auto manufacturers are declining because light trucks and SUV's are forming a greater part of their overall vehicle sales. Since SUV's etc. are generally heavier and require larger engines to power them, they consume fuel at a higher rate than passenger cars. Ergo, the fleet fuel efficiency is declining in relation to the duties the fleet perform. Pretty straight ahead, eh?

That is straight ahead but it's not that simple, VIM. A manufacturer only produces vehicles it can sell. If you owned FoMoCo and you have more people wanting v-8 Expeditions than Aspires, you're not going to build more Aspires than Expeditions because of CAFE. You're not in business to make vehicles no one wants to buy. There are also other manufacturers building even bigger and thirstier vehicles than the Expedition who may have a higher overall CAFE measurement. The car buying public drives CAFE. If everyone in this country was VIMYJ, perhaps everyone would drive J30's, saving millions of gallons of fuel. That sounds logical, but it's not realistic. We're a nation of individuals. All of my needs can't be met with a J30 or Ford Aspire or a bicycle, but they can be met with a 4-Runner. And because my 4-Runner gets Xmpg less than a J30, am I contributing the decline of our nation, handing money to the Axis of evil and killing the environment because I drive a bigger vehicle? C'mon. A Honda Insight gets better mileage than your J30. I don't see you trading your J30 for a bicyle or Honda Insight. With the price of rising rapidly, you're going to get your wish anyway. Fewer gas guzzlers are being sold now which will improve CAFE. The trend has already started. FoMoCo is discontinuing the Excursion, Chrysler has trimmed back production of their V-8 Durango due to reduced demand.

Regards

[VimyJ]

Originally posted by VimyJ "]Everybody would be interested in a logical argument proving the conclusion that the US is less dependent on fossil fuels now than lets say 5 or 10 years ago.

That wasn't the point of contention... I'm still waiting for you to cite your statistics regarding 'overall vehicle efficiency'. Instead of turning this around on me AGAIN (for the third time) maybe you could address the question at hand. I have not made any statement that would require evidence to support my OPINION. You have presented supposed facts without evidence... and have failed to give credit to, and let us review your source. Spin the issue as you will, but we both know your bluff has been called... and that's more than enough to satisfy me!:D

I don't know why I have to be the one to teach you about the real world but anyhing for a NICO member.

There are a plethora sources for your edification of the one point you aren't grasping. However, because of your paranioa of "left wing" organizations like the NY Times or CBS, et al, I tried to find a source from which you wouldn't immediately recoil.

"Refocusing on Fuel Economy: SUVs, OPEC, and Kyoto Recent developments have focused fresh attention on the CAFE standards and fuel economy in general. The sharp increase in crude oil and gasoline prices that began in 1999 has brought into higher relief the continuing loss of market share of passenger cars to the larger, multipurpose sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that are subject to the less stringent light-truck fuel economy standard. ...... The increasing market share of these vehicles, combined with their lower average fuel economy, has contributed to a lowering in overall average fuel economy since the mid-1980s."

Congressional Research Service, 2002

Link:

http://www.policyalmanac.org/e...shtml

An interesting sidebar is that the author has written different slants for whoever was in power at the time. This is the most recent version. Differs in tone from 1999. :rolleyes

OK, I have proved my point. I only speak of facts when presenting arguments. I try to be objective. That you believe I am subjective when presenting facts brings into question your objectivity.

Have a nice day.

[MaineExport]

Originally posted by VimyJ "]I don't know why I have to be the one to teach you about the real world but anyhing for a NICO member.

Your condescending attitude has been duly noted and registered in the log of 'stuff that makes Vimy look like an arrogant prick'

There are a plethora sources for your edification of the one point you aren't grasping.

Sweet... you mut have found some statistics to support your argument... or as you like to call it... FACT.

However, because of your paranioa of "left wing" organizations like the NY Times or CBS, et al,

Rather presumptuous... but we've grown to expect that from Vimy.

I tried to find a source from which you wouldn't immediately recoil.

Thank you.

"Refocusing on Fuel Economy: SUVs, OPEC, and Kyoto Recent developments have focused fresh attention on the CAFE standards and fuel economy in general. The sharp increase in crude oil and gasoline prices that began in 1999 has brought into higher relief the continuing loss of market share of passenger cars to the larger, multipurpose sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that are subject to the less stringent light-truck fuel economy standard. I just thought I would point out the irony of the part you omitted "A 1996 study conducted for the Department of Transportation found that consumers valued the larger vehicles for their versatility and roominess, and the availability of four-wheel drive." (it almost sounds as though they (consumers) feel SUVs are a generally good use of resources! hmmm.. wonder why you left that out?) ...... The increasing market share of these vehicles, combined with their lower average fuel economy, has contributed to a lowering in overall average fuel economy since the mid-1980s."

Congressional Research Service, 2002 Well... the point that you fail to grasp is that your statement is not FACT. It is a conclusion based on the observation of trends... yet it is not supported by evidence and actual numbers. That is all I was asking for.. some actual numbers to show that overall vehicle efficiency is lower than 10 years ago (your time frame not mine). Yes... for several years the sales of SUVs increased, yes... they are generally heavier than their passenger car counterparts, Yes... reasoning could conclude that this leads to an overall decrease in fleet fuel efficiency.... but your source (albeit a darn good one) simply makes a logical conclusion. It does not support it with scientific evidence... and neither have you.

The problem is that you originally stated:

It is a fact that overall vehicle fuel efficiency is falling due to the popularity of heavy duty vehicles being used as basic commuter transportation.

You could have simply worded it, "One could CONCLUDE that..." and have avoided anyone questioning your FACTS.

OK, I have proved my point.

That's interesting... becasue I think you actually proved mine.

I only speak of facts when presenting arguments.

Yes.. and we've covered your definition of 'fact'. It is what the rest of us call opinion,

I try to be objective.

I would hope so, it wouldn't help your argument to say that you try to be subjective. Although it would be closer to the truth and in that regard add some credence to your argument.

That you believe I am subjective when presenting facts brings into question your objectivity.

Yup... no argument here. When it comes to digging through your BS to uncover the half-truths disguised within.. I am subjective. If I am presenting an argument that would require evidence to support it... then yes I would remain as objective a humanly possible. thanks.

Just cite some damn statistics to support your statement and I will GLADLY admit that you are correct. I have already conceded the fact that I DON'T KNOW if the statement is true... just support your argument with proof (not heresay) and you will have indeed made your point. If that's not possible... simply admit your choice of words was poor. Geez, I hate to get hung up on a technicality... but it seems to work for you... so why not.Have a nice day.

[MaineExport]

:rolleyes

________ :firedevil ____________:bowdown

(forced perspective rendering by MaineImport!)

[VimyJ]

Hey! That's the best post you've had on this thread yet but I thought that I was the one accused of forcing perspective.

[MaineExport]

Hey! That's the best post you've had on this thread yet but I thought that I was the one accused of forcing perspective.

Thanks... I enjoyed the quiet irony of it as well!:)

[AZhitman]

HEY! Dammit, you guys quit agreeing and read some counterpoint.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,02934.cfm

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regul...8.pdf

There - That's better.