U.S. mileage standards to rise for first time

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's a little misleading. Anything over 6000# is no longer a light duty truck. That definition would include most commercial trucks.

That's why GM and other auto makers went ape crazy with those behemoth SUV's. Do you know which SUV's fall under that category?

Probably Escalades and whatever other bohemoths fall in that category. GM has been the company building the lion share of motorhome chassis and bus chassis for decades. With that market share, you would think they would have profited by that act.

Here's a list of 38 eligible vehicles over 6000 pounds:

BMW X5

Cadillac Escalade

xChevy Astro

Chevy Avalanche

Chevy Express

xChevy Silverado

xChevy Suburban

Chevy Tahoe

xDodge Durango

xDodge Ram Van

Dodge Ram Maxi Van

xDodge Ram Wagon

xDodge Ram 1500

Dodge Ram 2500

Dodge Ram 3500

Ford Excursion

Ford Expedition

xFord Econoline E-150

Ford Econoline E-250

Ford Econoline E-350

xFord F-150

Ford F-250

Ford F-350

GMC Yukon

xGMC Safari

GMC Savana

xGMC Sierra

GMC Sierra Denali

Land Rover Discovery

Land Rover Range Rover

Lincoln Blackwood

Lincoln Navigator

Mercedes ML 320

Mercedes ML 500

Mercedes ML55 AMG

xToyota Land Cruiser

Toyota Sequoia

Toyota Tundra

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-23277.html

About 75% of that list is correct. I put x's next to the ones that I don't think meet the 6000# GVW, except perhaps, as a heavy duty option.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I wouldn't buy an American Car made post-1972 anyways, they are all pieces of $hit, regardless of what fuel efficiency they get.

My first car was a 1963 Chevy Impala. Easy to work on and parts were dirt cheap. Cars back then crapped out at around 110,000 to 140,000 miles (most at 110,000 miles or less). Also back then the maintenance schedule was really short. Anybody out there in VJ land remember points under the distributor cap?

I grew up on GM, Ford, and Chrysler products, but migrated to the Japs in 2004. I did have a 1990 Ford Ranger pickup I bought new that was a swell vehicle. Fun to drive and never gave me a lick of trouble. I sold it to a friend at 160,000 miles and he is still driving it at 240,000 miles today.

New cars are much better, hands down. Foreign and domestic models.

I started out with older cars (56' Ford F-100, 67 Camaro SS, 70 El Camino). Those cars had a shorter life on the engines if you didn't maintain them. They were easier and less expensive to maintain. Unlike todays cars, you could actually fix just about anything on those cars without having to take it to the dealership to hook up to a computer.

I too went to a japanese car after those, and then I discovered German cars. Far superior.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Rob and Mel

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a little misleading. Anything over 6000# is no longer a light duty truck. That definition would include most commercial trucks.

That's why GM and other auto makers went ape crazy with those behemoth SUV's. Do you know which SUV's fall under that category?

Probably Escalades and whatever other bohemoths fall in that category. GM has been the company building the lion share of motorhome chassis and bus chassis for decades. With that market share, you would think they would have profited by that act.

Here's a list of 38 eligible vehicles over 6000 pounds:

BMW X5

Cadillac Escalade

xChevy Astro

Chevy Avalanche

Chevy Express

xChevy Silverado

xChevy Suburban

Chevy Tahoe

xDodge Durango

xDodge Ram Van

Dodge Ram Maxi Van

xDodge Ram Wagon

xDodge Ram 1500

Dodge Ram 2500

Dodge Ram 3500

Ford Excursion

Ford Expedition

xFord Econoline E-150

Ford Econoline E-250

Ford Econoline E-350

xFord F-150

Ford F-250

Ford F-350

GMC Yukon

xGMC Safari

GMC Savana

xGMC Sierra

GMC Sierra Denali

Land Rover Discovery

Land Rover Range Rover

Lincoln Blackwood

Lincoln Navigator

Mercedes ML 320

Mercedes ML 500

Mercedes ML55 AMG

xToyota Land Cruiser

Toyota Sequoia

Toyota Tundra

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-23277.html

About 75% of that list is correct. I put x's next to the ones that I don't think meet the 6000# GVW, except perhaps, as a heavy duty option.

The point is, Bill - that tax incentive had a huge impact on the auto industry, not only by enticing car buyers, but enticing Detroit itself. What Obama is doing is no different in that sense...except he wants both Detroit and car buyers to be enticed into driving more fuel efficient cars. BTW, under Clinton, there was a rebate for Hybrids, but Bush and the GOP in Congress pushed to end those. You've got to wonder why.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's a little misleading. Anything over 6000# is no longer a light duty truck. That definition would include most commercial trucks.

That's why GM and other auto makers went ape crazy with those behemoth SUV's. Do you know which SUV's fall under that category?

Probably Escalades and whatever other bohemoths fall in that category. GM has been the company building the lion share of motorhome chassis and bus chassis for decades. With that market share, you would think they would have profited by that act.

Here's a list of 38 eligible vehicles over 6000 pounds:

BMW X5

Cadillac Escalade

xChevy Astro

Chevy Avalanche

Chevy Express

xChevy Silverado

xChevy Suburban

Chevy Tahoe

xDodge Durango

xDodge Ram Van

Dodge Ram Maxi Van

xDodge Ram Wagon

xDodge Ram 1500

Dodge Ram 2500

Dodge Ram 3500

Ford Excursion

Ford Expedition

xFord Econoline E-150

Ford Econoline E-250

Ford Econoline E-350

xFord F-150

Ford F-250

Ford F-350

GMC Yukon

xGMC Safari

GMC Savana

xGMC Sierra

GMC Sierra Denali

Land Rover Discovery

Land Rover Range Rover

Lincoln Blackwood

Lincoln Navigator

Mercedes ML 320

Mercedes ML 500

Mercedes ML55 AMG

xToyota Land Cruiser

Toyota Sequoia

Toyota Tundra

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-23277.html

About 75% of that list is correct. I put x's next to the ones that I don't think meet the 6000# GVW, except perhaps, as a heavy duty option.

The point is, Bill - that tax incentive had a huge impact on the auto industry, not only by enticing car buyers, but enticing Detroit itself. What Obama is doing is no different in that sense...except he wants both Detroit and car buyers to be enticed into driving more fuel efficient cars. BTW, under Clinton, there was a rebate for Hybrids, but Bush and the GOP in Congress pushed to end those. You've got to wonder why.

It never crossed my mind, but I did think it foolish to buy an extended cab pick-up with a full size bed, only to go the store to buy groceries. I am with you as far as that goes. There is no reason to buy more truck, or car, than you really need.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[dalegg 143]

The new targets would save nearly 900 million gallons of fuel and cost the industry $1.4 billion, according to the regulation.

There it is- now you know when the next hike in Gas taxes will be!

What - 3 cents on the gallon?

Hard to say. Depends on how many people go out and buy these cars even if they don't need to.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The new targets would save nearly 900 million gallons of fuel and cost the industry $1.4 billion, according to the regulation.

There it is- now you know when the next hike in Gas taxes will be!

What - 3 cents on the gallon?

Hard to say. Depends on how many people go out and buy these cars even if they don't need to.

When has need ever been the sole reason why people would go out and buy a new car? Don't get me wrong, I think we have generally been way too casual about buying cars. I'd have to look up the stats, but I think the average number of years someone keeps a car before replacing it has gone way down in the last 20 years.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I'm planning on purchasing a new car anyway. An electric car. The TESLA will probably arrive in the states in 2012. But, Detroit Electric will have the car ready by 2011. Trade-in my civic for that car.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm planning on purchasing a new car anyway. An electric car. The TESLA will probably arrive in the states in 2012. But, Detroit Electric will have the car ready by 2011. Trade-in my civic for that car.

Back in college, I envisioned owning a home that was running completely on PV power and plugging in my electric car into my home. I don't think we're far off from achieving that for some, depending on their energy needs.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'm planning on purchasing a new car anyway. An electric car. The TESLA will probably arrive in the states in 2012. But, Detroit Electric will have the car ready by 2011. Trade-in my civic for that car.

Back in college, I envisioned owning a home that was running completely on PV power and plugging in my electric car into my home. I don't think we're far off from achieving that for some, depending on their energy needs.

All we have to do now, is develop an eco-friendly, low cost storage battery.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm planning on purchasing a new car anyway. An electric car. The TESLA will probably arrive in the states in 2012. But, Detroit Electric will have the car ready by 2011. Trade-in my civic for that car.

Back in college, I envisioned owning a home that was running completely on PV power and plugging in my electric car into my home. I don't think we're far off from achieving that for some, depending on their energy needs.

All we have to do now, is develop an eco-friendly, low cost storage battery.

They are getting smaller and more efficient. Even the current ones used in today's hybrid have proven to be much better compared to driving a traditional combustion engine...in terms of environmental impact.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'm planning on purchasing a new car anyway. An electric car. The TESLA will probably arrive in the states in 2012. But, Detroit Electric will have the car ready by 2011. Trade-in my civic for that car.

Back in college, I envisioned owning a home that was running completely on PV power and plugging in my electric car into my home. I don't think we're far off from achieving that for some, depending on their energy needs.

All we have to do now, is develop an eco-friendly, low cost storage battery.

They are getting smaller and more efficient. Even the current ones used in today's hybrid have proven to be much better compared to driving a traditional combustion engine...in terms of environmental impact.

That would be an interesting study I would like to see. Most of the concern has to do with the impact on landfills, and the water supply. Reactive and toxic metals versus organic lubricants. One type uses more of one than the other, but they both use each to some degree. I know many of the storage cells in current use cannot even be made in the US due to enviromental concerns, which is why we import a lot of batteries from Japan and other countries.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[natty bumppo 297]

I wouldn't buy an American Car made post-1972 anyways, they are all pieces of $hit, regardless of what fuel efficiency they get.

My first car was a 1963 Chevy Impala. Easy to work on and parts were dirt cheap. Cars back then crapped out at around 110,000 to 140,000 miles (most at 110,000 miles or less). Also back then the maintenance schedule was really short. Anybody out there in VJ land remember points under the distributor cap?

Got real good at setting the points on a dual point distributor

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I wouldn't buy an American Car made post-1972 anyways, they are all pieces of $hit, regardless of what fuel efficiency they get.

My first car was a 1963 Chevy Impala. Easy to work on and parts were dirt cheap. Cars back then crapped out at around 110,000 to 140,000 miles (most at 110,000 miles or less). Also back then the maintenance schedule was really short. Anybody out there in VJ land remember points under the distributor cap?

Got real good at setting the points on a dual point distributor

I liked the sliding door on the GM distributor, so you could set the points with a dwell meter.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[stangguy 0]

The point is, Bill - that tax incentive had a huge impact on the auto industry, not only by enticing car buyers, but enticing Detroit itself. What Obama is doing is no different in that sense...except he wants both Detroit and car buyers to be enticed into driving more fuel efficient cars. BTW, under Clinton, there was a rebate for Hybrids, but Bush and the GOP in Congress pushed to end those. You've got to wonder why.

The Hybrid tax credit wasn't eliminated it was reconfigured. It is based on the number of hybrids a given manufacturer makes. After a manufacturer reaches a given total that manufacturers vehicles are no longer eligible for the tax credit. The idea of the credit was to offset the higher initial costs of including hybrid technology in a vehicle. Once a given manufacturer has made a certain number of vehicles the increased cost of the hybrid technology should be reduced and the vehicle cost should be similar to non-hybrids. However, even with the tax credits and increased fuel efficiency the increased price of a hybrid vehicle over a non-hybrid makes most hybrids more expensive to own than their non-hybrid counterparts.

Also, while this is the first explicit change in the CAFE requirements, there have been 2 prior changes. In 1984 and 2008 they changed the test methods that determine a vehicles fuel economy. Both times it caused the estimates to be lower than under the previous test method so they had the effect of increasing CAFE requirements.