NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to open up a discussion on whether or not the state should begin to interviene with regards to fuel efficency levels in cars and other vechiles. I'm not sure if it does currently, but given the numbers of cars particually in the US which are massive fuel pigs (Four wheel drive useually) and the current threats to the enviroment, it doesnt look as if people are going to be willing to volentarrly drive more efficent cars. I personally think the state should interviene more with regards to enviromental policy. Unless people themselves begin to drive more efficent vechiles then the state needs to start curtailing the ease at which the more wasteful cars are purchased. Perhaps an efficency tax. The less fuel efficent the car, the higher the tax.

Perhaps an efficency tax. The less fuel efficent the car, the higher the tax.
That's what we have in Britain. It isn't very effective as people who can afford to run petrol-hungry cars can afford a few quid extra in vehicle tax each year.

I think a better solution would be to legislate a certain standard of fuel efficiency & emissions.

You should start with km/l, IMO.

You should start with km/l, IMO.

Or litres per 100km?

Or litres per 100km?
Why would anyone do that? It would just be confusing.

It's simple. Higher tax on petrol hungry vehicles, ban four-by-fours within cities (in my opinion, anyone who can not prove that they actually NEED a 4x4 should not be allowed to buy one) and set some standards for L/Km (or Gallon/miles if you're old fashioned) and more stringiant carbon emmisions standards.

It's simple. Higher tax on petrol hungry vehicles, ban four-by-fours within cities (in my opinion, anyone who can not prove that they actually NEED a 4x4 should not be allowed to buy one) and set some standards for L/Km (or Gallon/miles if you're old fashioned) and more stringiant carbon emmisions standards.

Here here

Also I don't think people in America understand that if you have a family, a 4x4 isnt the only option. In Britian we have many people carriers that are far more compact, the Citron Xara picasso and the Ford focus C+ are just examples. As well as estates that may as well function as people carriers like the Pergoet 307 SW. Not to mention the Ford Galaxy or the VW Sharran (almost identical) as members of a larger people carrier non 4X4 vechile family.

Why would anyone do that? It would just be confusing.

That's how it's measured here. My car uses 9-10 L/100km in the city & 6-7 l/100km in the country, depending how I drive it.

That's how it's measured here. My car uses 9-10 L/100km in the city & 6-7 l/100km in the country, depending how I drive it.

Creepy.

Creepy.

Meh, it's what you're used to I suppose.

Here here

Also I don't think people in America understand that if you have a family, a 4x4 isnt the only option. In Britian we have many people carriers that are far more compact, the Citron Xara picasso and the Ford focus C+ are just examples. As well as estates that may as well function as people carriers like the Pergoet 307 SW. Not to mention the Ford Galaxy or the VW Sharran (almost identical) as members of a larger people carrier non 4X4 vechile family.
None of which are necessarily any more fuel efficient than 4x4s. The '4x4 is evil' argument is one of the biggest red herrings in the history of stupid arguments. There are many cars that are less fuel efficient; yet Greenpeace and the like would have you believe that the planet is being destroyed purely because Mrs Smith is driving an SUV.

Any human impact on global warming comes from unregulated airtravel, terrible industrial pollution and ships that use low grade fuel and the like to bring crap like bottled water (!) half way round the world. It does not come about because someone drives a car that has the power sent to all four wheels.

None of which are necessarily any more fuel efficient than 4x4s. The '4x4 is evil' argument is one of the biggest red herrings in the history of stupid arguments. There are many cars that are less fuel efficient; yet Greenpeace and the like would have you believe that the planet is being destroyed purely because Mrs Smith is driving an SUV.

Any human impact on global warming comes from unregulated airtravel, terrible industrial pollution and ships that use low grade fuel and the like to bring crap like bottled water (!) half way round the world. It does not come about because someone drives a car that has the power sent to all four wheels.

To use a pedantic example: If you compare an Audi A4 2.0L & Audi A4 Quattro (4WD) 2.0L, the Quattro will use more fuel because of the extra weight of the 4WD system. The popular 4WD vehicles tend to be even bigger & heavier, with larger engines, thus using even more fuel.

No, climate change is not due solely to people using 4WD vehicles, but we could certainly be more responsible about it & use more fuel efficient vehicles.

To use a pedantic example: If you compare an Audi A4 2.0L & Audi A4 Quattro (4WD) 2.0L, the Quattro will use more fuel because of the extra weight of the 4WD system. The popular 4WD vehicles tend to be even bigger & heavier, with larger engines, thus using even more fuel.

No, climate change is not due solely to people using 4WD vehicles, but we could certainly be more responsible about it & use more fuel efficient vehicles.
Take the example highlighted, though. The just retired model of Ford Galaxy 2.8 litre Auto does 23 mpg. The Honda CR-V SUV? 31 mpg.

I'm not claiming that 4x4s are the most fuel efficient cars on the planet; just that they are made out to be the bogeyman of climate change, when actually, they're just cars. There are many more things that it would be better to address than the Chelsea tractors.

Take the example highlighted, though. The just retired model of Ford Galaxy 2.8 litre Auto does 23 mpg. The Honda CR-V SUV? 31 mpg.

I'm not claiming that 4x4s are the most fuel efficient cars on the planet; just that they are made out to be the bogeyman of climate change, when actually, they're just cars. There are many more things that it would be better to address than the Chelsea tractors.

Yes, but a Honda CRV & a Ford Galaxy 2.8 are not directly comparable vehicles, that's why I used the Audi example. In a direct comparison, a 4WD uses more fuel. Also, as I said, the more popular 4WDs tend to be the really big & heavy ones. That said, I agree with your basic point. 4WDs are not the biggest villains of climate change, but the car we buy is something over which each owner has direct control and we can be more responsible with our choices.

Or litres per 100km?

That would give cleaner figures, that's true.

Any human impact on global warming comes from unregulated airtravel, terrible industrial pollution and ships that use low grade fuel and the like to bring crap like bottled water (!) half way round the world. It does not come about because someone drives a car that has the power sent to all four wheels.

That is true. I was wondering how possible it would be to adapt the hybrid princple to larger vechiles?

That is true. I was wondering how possible it would be to adapt the hybrid princple to larger vechiles?
Very possible. The Lexus SUV comes with the option of hybrid technology. But again, a few celebrities driving a fashionable hybrid aren't going to save the planet.

Actually, the thing that always makes me laugh about these cases is that invariably the Greenpeace enviro-nutters drive about in a clapped out old Pug 205 or something, claiming to drive a small, 'green' car, when actually those older machines are far, far more polluting than anything on sale today.

Yes, but a Honda CRV & a Ford Galaxy 2.8 are not directly comparable vehicles, that's why I used the Audi example. In a direct comparison, a 4WD uses more fuel. Also, as I said, the more popular 4WDs tend to be the really big & heavy ones. That said, I agree with your basic point. 4WDs are not the biggest villains of climate change, but the car we buy is something over which each owner has direct control and we can be more responsible with our choices.

Weight in a truck means little. The fuel economy is lost due to excess drag on the drivetrain while in 2wd mode. There are measures that can be taken to reduce said drag, and return the fuel efficiency of a 4wd to that of a 2wd.

I would like to point out that while there might be a difference, the difference of 1-2mpg is negligible given the added safety of AWD and while a 4x4 is in 2wd mode, the difference is rarely actually seen.

I want to open up a discussion on whether or not the state should begin to interviene with regards to fuel efficency levels in cars and other vechiles. I'm not sure if it does currently, but given the numbers of cars particually in the US which are massive fuel pigs (Four wheel drive useually) and the current threats to the enviroment, it doesnt look as if people are going to be willing to volentarrly drive more efficent cars. I personally think the state should interviene more with regards to enviromental policy. Unless people themselves begin to drive more efficent vechiles then the state needs to start curtailing the ease at which the more wasteful cars are purchased. Perhaps an efficency tax. The less fuel efficent the car, the higher the tax.
The US government already regulates and requires a certain standard of fuel efficiency, but they do it in a peculiar way. They require an average across the automaker's fleet, and then they build in an enormous loophole which classifies SUVs as light trucks and therefore exempt from the CAFE average. Close that loophole and you'd have a whole different system in place.

I think an efficiency tax rather than standards is a better way to improve fuel efficiency. The main problem with CAFE is that there are many, many loopholes for car manufacturers to offset their low mileage vehicles; making vehicles E85 capable to offset low mileage is a classic example, because most people who buy them run them on regular gasoline which means the vehicle is exactly the same as any other non-flex fuel vehicle.

Efficiency taxes could be structured to give tax rebates on vehicles that are above a certain mileage standard and then progressively increased as mileage falls. Companies would then have to increase mileage either to meet consumer demand or to offset the increase in prices caused by the taxes.

Either way, it lifts overall fuel economy while still leaving the production decisions up to the market; if a company wants to produce fuel inefficient vehicles and they have a market willing to pay for the markup due to taxes, then they'll keep producing them. However, since the majority of people don't have incomes high enough to offset such taxes it will force companies to switch to more efficient vehicles to keep market share.

Plus, it drives competition; if a car company were to make a large, attractive SUV that gets 30 mpg and costs as much as ordinary SUVs they would make massive profits. In an era of high gas prices, getting a product like that out there would be an incredible windfall to the company and the consumers. Simply put, a Chevy Suburban that gets 30-40 MPG would dominate the market and reap unthinkably large profits for GM.

Plus, it drives competition; if a car company were to make a large, attractive SUV that gets 30 mpg and costs as much as ordinary SUVs they would make massive profits. In an era of high gas prices, getting a product like that out there would be an incredible windfall to the company and the consumers. Simply put, a Chevy Suburban that gets 30-40 MPG would dominate the market and reap unthinkably large profits for GM.

Then why dont they do it? The LS1 engine has been around for over a decade and offers 25-30mpg (and with the properly geared transmission and differential, this could be realized in SUVs), and yet has not been offered in the GM truck line.

The newer LS2 engines are even more fuel efficient while producing more power and yet are not available in the SUV and truck line.

Realistically, the same transmission the Corvette uses could be used in a light truck sitting behind the LS1 or LS2 engine - producing nearly the same fuel efficiency as it does for the 'Vette (lets be honest, if the vette's cruising at 70mph at 1500RPM and an SUV is doing the same, with the same engine, the fuel economy of each is quite similar).

Then why dont they do it? The LS1 engine has been around for over a decade and offers 25-30mpg (and with the properly geared transmission and differential, this could be realized in SUVs), and yet has not been offered in the GM truck line.The newer LS2 engines are even more fuel efficient while producing more power and yet are not available in the SUV and truck line.

The main reason is because the main SUV manufacturers haven't had any reason to do so. The recent spike in gas prices is only really a two-year phenomenon; as recently as late 2004 gas prices were only $1.50 a gallon and SUV demand was as solid as ever. When gas was cheap, it wasn't really seen as logical to improve fuel economy because the cost would exceed the benefit.

Increasing mileage does cost billions of dollars to retool production and design and implement new models, so unless you are confident that improvement in mileage will drive sales and profits for at least several years in to the future it is not a good idea to do it. However, the companies that design fuel efficient vehicles from the start are much better off and that has a lot to do with why Japanese and European automakers were able to gain market share so rapidly in the past few decades.

I remember in the late 90's that I almost never saw mention of fuel economy as an advertising tactic; the main reason to improve fuel economy is, for car companies, to drive sales but if that does not sell it is not a good idea to pursue it. However, the risk of ignoring fuel economy is that if gas prices start to turn on a dime and stay high you're screwed because you can't retool production fast enough.

However, a lot of this is due to corporate red tape rather than anything else.
The US increased the fuel economy of its car fleet by more than 50% from 1979-1985, so there's no reason why we can't do it now with 20+ years of additional technology other than bureaucracy and incompetence (and GM is definitely run by incompetent managers) in the major manufacturers.

The main reason is because the main SUV manufacturers haven't had any reason to do so. The recent spike in gas prices is only really a two-year phenomenon; as recently as late 2004 gas prices were only $1.50 a gallon and SUV demand was as solid as ever. When gas was cheap, it wasn't really seen as logical to improve fuel economy because the cost would exceed the benefit.

Increasing mileage does cost billions of dollars to retool production and design and implement new models, so unless you are confident that improvement in mileage will drive sales and profits for at least several years in to the future it is not a good idea to do it. However, the companies that design fuel efficient vehicles from the start are much better off and that has a lot to do with why Japanese and European automakers were able to gain market share so rapidly in the past few decades.

I remember in the late 90's that I almost never saw mention of fuel economy as an advertising tactic; the main reason to improve fuel economy is, for car companies, to drive sales but if that does not sell it is not a good idea to pursue it. However, the risk of ignoring fuel economy is that if gas prices start to turn on a dime and stay high you're screwed because you can't retool production fast enough.

However, a lot of this is due to corporate red tape rather than anything else.
The US increased the fuel economy of its car fleet by more than 50% from 1979-1985, so there's no reason why we can't do it now with 20+ years of additional technology other than bureaucracy and incompetence (and GM is definitely run by incompetent managers) in the major manufacturers.

Ok, well, back in '96, when the Vortec engine was developed, the LS1 had already been in production. Why not simply use the LS1, since it's already been developed?

This is not the first 'fuel crisis' the US has suffered under, and it wont be the last.

Unless the Gov't takes a firm stance against the Auto-manufacturers and forces them to improve truck and SUV mileage, it just wont happen.

Ok, well, back in '96, when the Vortec engine was developed, the LS1 had already been in production. Why not simply use the LS1, since it's already been developed?

This is not the first 'fuel crisis' the US has suffered under, and it wont be the last.

Unless the Gov't takes a firm stance against the Auto-manufacturers and forces them to improve truck and SUV mileage, it just wont happen.
Well, there is the chance that the market will sort this one out--the big SUV makers are in a world-o-shit financially, while Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc are raking in the profits.

Ok, well, back in '96, when the Vortec engine was developed, the LS1 had already been in production. Why not simply use the LS1, since it's already been developed?

Bureaucracy and cost; since the 1970's, GM has been locked in a bureaucratic mire that makes it hard to implement significant changes. That in turn drives up the cost of implementing changes, making it very likely that GM would be willing to lose $1 billion in sales and future revenue to save $250 million in costs now. Since probably the 1950's, GM has failed to look forward with its planning, preferring to focus only on the short term and that costs them more and more as they fall further behind trends and market demand. Ford is similar, but they are better off than GM in this regard.

This is not the first 'fuel crisis' the US has suffered under, and it wont be the last.

No, but at least it appears things are in motion to put an end to fuel crises. High prices are driving change, conservation, and technology just like they did in the 1970's but I think this time those changes will be permanent and much more dramatic than they were then. If GM refuses to change just like they did in the 1970's they will follow the same path. Judging by their market share, that's happening right now. It's sad to see a once great company driven in to the ground by shortsightedness, but it's bound to happen unless they start to respond to a changing market.

Unless the Gov't takes a firm stance against the Auto-manufacturers and forces them to improve truck and SUV mileage, it just wont happen.

The market is already taking care of a lot of that problem; GM and Ford can bludgeon the government in to backing down, but they're powerless against the demands of the market and the market wants more efficient vehicles. GM lost in the 1970's to foreign automakers offering better fuel economy and desirable vehicles, and that's happening again but this time they aren't going to be able to count on cheap gas. Contrary to the spin from automakers, it's perfectly possible to have desirability and fuel economy. Just ask Toyota or Honda, who have been producing some of their product lines for 20 or more years.

GM and Ford have great talent and productive workers, but shortsightedness and corporate bureaucracy are dooming them to failure just like Studebaker or any of the companies that fell before them. If they turn around, make dramatic investments in SUV fuel economy (SUVs drive Ford and GM's profits) and drive up mileage, they'll have a revival. Otherwise, it's just a long slide down from here.

It's simple. Higher tax on petrol hungry vehicles, ban four-by-fours within cities (in my opinion, anyone who can not prove that they actually NEED a 4x4 should not be allowed to buy one) and more stringiant carbon emmisions standards.

could not agree more. how many people ACTUALLY go on off-road adventures or live on Mt. Everest? Not too many. They can have them, fine. but the rest of us dont need them. I'm fine driving a regular car, or preferably a hybrid. I dont feel this sudden urge to buy an SUV when i know it'll cost me $150 just to fill up my gas tank, and then i remember that if i drive a 4x4, i need to fill it up about twice a week on average. Any car that gets less than 15 m/g (dont know the metric conversions...one of the many flaws that comes with being American...) shouldnt be street legal in urban areas.


and set some standards for L/Km (or Gallon/miles if you're old fashioned)

...or if you're American, as I am. Why we insist on keeping this horrid system of measurement i dont know, but it truly bothers me that we do.
...And America calls other places backwards...:rolleyes:

could not agree more. how many people ACTUALLY go on off-road adventures or live on Mt. Everest? Not too many. They can have them, fine. but the rest of us dont need them. I'm fine driving a regular car, or preferably a hybrid. I dont feel this sudden urge to buy an SUV when i know it'll cost me $150 just to fill up my gas tank, and then i remember that if i drive a 4x4, i need to fill it up about twice a week on average. Any car that gets less than 15 m/g (dont know the metric conversions...one of the many flaws that comes with being American...) shouldnt be street legal in urban areas.


...or if you're American, as I am. Why we insist on keeping this horrid system of measurement i dont know, but it truly bothers me that we do.
...And America calls other places backwards...:rolleyes:

It doesn't cost me anywhere near $150 to fill up my 2003 4wd Silverado's tank (last week when I filled it up, it was $70 and almost empty on the 24 gallon tank). A tank lasts me almost the entire week.

My next vehicle will probably be either a hybrid Silverado (they're available now) or a diesel model (hopefully I'll have a house by then, and can make bio-diesel).