Hillary Clinton Calling for 55MPG Fleet Average by 2030

[Joey D]

The Cooper S gets 29MPG City now when Oil Costs about 97$, if you were getting 55+MPG and oil cost $200 then you really wouldn't be paying much more.

I was just throwing numbers out there.

 

[Casio]

I was just throwing numbers out there.

Even so, and I'm not singling you out, but everyone seems to complain about how petrol prices are going up and up and up, but as soon as a proposal that mandates better fuel fuel efficiency there is a public outcry about how you'll never be able to drive a V8 again.

2030 is 23 years away, yes by then we should probably be running off something other than petrol, but if not then petrol will be so expensive you're going to need a car that does well over 55mpg anyway, so I don't know why everyone is against it.

 

[Joey D]

Well in America at least they seem to be going up faster then they should. On January 22, 2007 I paid $1.77 for a gallon of regular (yes I keep track of these sorts of things). Yesterday I paid $3.25 for a gallon of regular, that's a rise of $1.48 in less then a year, to me that's quite a jump. This is why Americans complain about gas prices, we aren't used to it and it's something that I have a problem with trying to convey it to people from other parts of the world. You also have to realise that foreign money is better then American money so there is no need to convert it.

Society would be utterly stupid to be running on petrol in 23 years time, that is more then enough time to come up with something better whatever it may be. I'm not an eco-metalist, I don't really care if you drive an SUV and burn up dead dinosaurs, but I do think of the economical impact higher gas prices have on society. I don't know how it is in Australia, never been there, but when I was in Europe you almost didn't even need a car...in America you do, I don't know how you would get anything done. Raise the gas prices and you hurt everything in America...that's how much we depend on cars.

 

[Casio]

In Australia we use cars for everything, the public transport system is pretty bad and the nearest city to any other city is 10 hours away. And yes, our petrol had gone up from about 1$ a litre to $1.50 at one stage in the last 12 months, or another 50%, or just under the increase from $1.77 till $3.25. It would have gone much much higher, the only thing saving us now is the weakness of the US dollar/strong Aussie dollar which has cushioned us lately from the high barrel price.

I agree that it's stupid to be running cars on petrol in 23 years time, which is why I ask again, what does this legislation matter if that's going to be the case, and the steady rise of fuel costs will make petrol-powered cars either be nonsensical or be super efficient anyway.

 

[TheCracker]

I agree that it's stupid to be running cars on petrol in 23 years time, which is why I ask again, what does this legislation matter if that's going to be the case, and the steady rise of fuel costs will make petrol-powered cars either be nonsensical or be super efficient anyway.

Because if it was left upto the manufacturers, they wouldn't bother wasting money on developing new energy sources for their cars, they'd just carry on selling oil powered internal combustion powered cars like they do now - they would make more profits that way. A world with no oil is some other future board/commitees problem to them.

 

[Casio]

Because if it was left upto the manufacturers, they wouldn't bother wasting money on developing new energy sources for their cars, they'd just carry on selling oil powered internal combustion powered cars like they do now - they would make more profits that way. A world with no oil is some other future board/commitees problem to them.

Although I was actually agreeing with the legislation. However, I don't think that if petrol was 15$ a gallon in 15 years manufacturers would continue to be producing internal combustion engines as they are now, because no one could afford to run them and it would only take one company to come into the market with something new and cheaper for everyone else to jump on board.

Petrol prices are still going to rise regardless of any MPG targets, and once those prices reach a certain point it's not going to matter because it will force manufactures to peruse different avenues to actually sell cars.

 

[Joey D]

It is useless legislation though, if it's not going to do anything why waste my tax dollars arguing it in Congress? I already pay a stupid amount in taxes considering what gets done with the money, I don't want to see it wasted.

I don't think the government should be getting involved with the private business sector, if people want to drive 15 mpg SUV's then let them. With the increase in gas prices you'll see a drop in these types of vehicles and a higher demand for smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Auto makers will produce what's in demand because they want to make money. If we let the government control what our cars should be doing, then what else can they start controlling? America is supposed to be a democracy and is supposed to be capitalist, but sometimes I wonder...oh and this is only for America, I don't know enough about other countries to speak for them.

 

[Philly]

It is useless legislation though, if it's not going to do anything why waste my tax dollars arguing it in Congress? I already pay a stupid amount in taxes considering what gets done with the money, I don't want to see it wasted.

It's government. It's supposed to be a big slow waste of money.

I don't think the government should be getting involved with the private business sector, if people want to drive 15 mpg SUV's then let them. With the increase in gas prices you'll see a drop in these types of vehicles and a higher demand for smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Auto makers will produce what's in demand because they want to make money. If we let the government control what our cars should be doing, then what else can they start controlling? America is supposed to be a democracy and is supposed to be capitalist, but sometimes I wonder...oh and this is only for America, I don't know enough about other countries to speak for them.

While it does make sense to let people drive whatever they want now, in the long run it will probably be more beneficial to put more into researching and developing different ways to get around. There will be a time when we just can't practically fill our cars up with gas. I hope that we prepare ourselves for this day. It's also not only gas prices that will go up. Everything will begin to cost more because of the role oil plays in manufacturing, electric power and other things. Laziness pays off now, but hard work pays off in the long run. We need to decide which path to take.

And yes, America is a capitalist democracy. We might have to accept the fact that we are moving in a socialist direction. I would hope that we stay as a democracy, though.

 

[Joey D]

I agree completely, auto makers should be developing this stuff, and I some are. I saw an ad for the BMW hydrogen vehicle the other day while watching football (the American kind) of all things. I'm sure Toyota and Honda are looking at coming up with something, GM has it's E85 which is a step in the right direction but still not really getting it.

I just don't think the government should mandate it, the American public just shouldn't be stupid and start demanding either more efficient vehicles or alternative fuels. Until there is a large demand for them you won't see a whole lot of R&D go into it. This is one of the reasons the electric car failed. It will be interesting to see how everything shakes down.

 

[Keef]

The only reason I see Senator Clinton is saying this is to win over the eco-metalist voters who think we need better fuel mileage out of vehicles.

Ok this is 23 years away, does she realise how much can happen in 23 years? Like I said they can pass all the legislation they want, but I'm willing to put money on it that petrol isn't the main source of powering our cars in 23 years...who's with me?

I think gasoline and diesel will still be the main source of power. Because they just work, and they just don't not work. Hydrogen? I don't believe they cover that in the SAE certification test. They probably will by then though.

Anyway, the old lady is just trying to win votes from dumb people that have the answer to everything. /sarcasm

Basically, she's an idiot. I wonder if she knows hydrogen piston engines require oil for lubrication, just like any other engine...

 

[land sea air]

I think gasoline and diesel will still be the main source of power. Because they just work, and they just don't not work. Hydrogen? I don't believe they cover that in the SAE certification test. They probably will by then though.

Anyway, the old lady is just trying to win votes from dumb people that have the answer to everything. /sarcasm

Basically, she's an idiot. I wonder if she knows hydrogen piston engines require oil for lubrication, just like any other engine...

meh, hydrogen piston engine have their own set of drawbacks and I don't really see them as much more than a half-solution like a hybrid or flex fuel vehicle. Hydrogen fuel cells are another story though.

 

[Keef]

Yes, fuel cells are completely different. Somebody should tell Hillary that, too.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I just don't think the government should mandate it, the American public just shouldn't be stupid and start demanding either more efficient vehicles or alternative fuels. Until there is a large demand for them you won't see a whole lot of R&D go into it. This is one of the reasons the electric car failed.

The main reason probably being that the oil companies killed it.

 

[Joey D]

I would actually like to see someone prove that.

Think about it, gas was $1.50 a gallon, why would anyone want an underpowered, short range electric vehicle? There was no demand.

 

[Philly]

just don't think the government should mandate it, the American public just shouldn't be stupid and start demanding either more efficient vehicles or alternative fuels. Until there is a large demand for them you won't see a whole lot of R&D go into it. This is one of the reasons the electric car failed. It will be interesting to see how everything shakes down.

And THAT is your first problem. Somewhere along the line, the government has to step in and keep idiots from running off in other, counterproductive directions. Us GTPers make much better citizens than the US public IMO.

meh, hydrogen piston engine have their own set of drawbacks and I don't really see them as much more than a half-solution like a hybrid or flex fuel vehicle. Hydrogen fuel cells are another story though.

I don't really see what the major drawbacks to a Hydrogen piston engine. And does anybody know if a H piston engine or a fuel cell will be more efficient or powerful? It might be interesting to see them both on the road.

Think about it, gas was $1.50 a gallon, why would anyone want an underpowered, short range electric vehicle? There was no demand.

Same reason people bought Priuses before gas started spiking? To make a statement. And Prius sales didn't start taking off until a few months ago.

 

[Tornado]

Think about it, gas was $1.50 a gallon, why would anyone want an underpowered, short range electric vehicle? There was no demand.

There was enough demand to make the EV-1 program a success. That being said, I agree. It was the shortsighted automobile companies that killed off the electric car, not the oil trusts.

 

[Joey D]

Same reason people bought Priuses before gas started spiking? To make a statement. And Prius sales didn't start taking off until a few months ago.

For as much as I despise the car that is the Prius, it actually had range in it and didn't look God awful. Plus you could just go into a petrol station and fill it up if you needed to carry on down the road, which took all of 3 minutes to do, apposed to the 3 hours to charge the EV1. Electric cars are a dumb idea, especially since you are using coal/oil electricity in them.

There was enough demand to make the EV-1 program a success. That being said, I agree. It was the shortsighted automobile companies that killed off the electric car, not the oil trusts.

Where is your proof? GM claimed there was a lack of a demand for the car as seen in countless articles.

Here is one from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5245036.stm

Or this site:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/getting-electric-cars-back-on-the-roads.html

Or this site:
http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05415.cfm

The EV1 was a terrible idea from the word go and if GM thought they could have made money off of it there would have been a version of the same car in every brand under the GM name right now. But it wasn't a profitable venture because not enough people wanted them. The thing has a short range, less then a 100 miles, I know countless people who travel that to get to and from work in one day.

But please I'm curious to see who has said the EV1 was a successful program other then biased tree hugging bastards.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Where is your proof? GM claimed there was a lack of a demand for the car as seen in countless articles.

As was mentioned in the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?", GM is partly to blame for that. They did a crappy job marketing the car. I don't recall ever seeing a commercial on the TV for it. And the commercials the people did see didn't really make the car seem appealing.

 

[Joey D]

As was mentioned in the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?", GM is partly to blame for that. They did a crappy job marketing the car. I don't recall ever seeing a commercial on the TV for it. And the commercials the people did see didn't really make the car seem appealing.

That "documentary" was about as convincing as something done by Micheal Moore. Yes GM did a poor job of marketing the car to areas outside California and Arizona...mainly because it wasn't for lease outside those two states if I remember correctly. If you were GM would you have built 50,000 of them not knowing whether they were going to sell or not? Probably not, they tried, and the car didn't do well.

I do agree the car was poorly designed and that is GM's fault.

 

[Keef]

I don't really see what the major drawbacks to a Hydrogen piston engine. And does anybody know if a H piston engine or a fuel cell will be more efficient or powerful? It might be interesting to see them both on the road.

Hydrogen piston engines are generally less powerful than their gas counterparts, like the BMW 7. But they run on Hydrogen. Personally I think many cars today have ridiculous power that never gets used by the old people who drive them, again like the 7, so a drop for more fuel efficiency would be welcomed by me.

 

[Joey D]

Agreed it's better to have a better handling car, better riding car, more fuel efficient car, whatever over a fast high powered car. Realistically you can only get away with 80mph on an American motorway.

 

[Philly]

Hydrogen piston engines are generally less powerful than their gas counterparts, like the BMW 7. But they run on Hydrogen. Personally I think many cars today have ridiculous power that never gets used by the old people who drive them, again like the 7, so a drop for more fuel efficiency would be welcomed by me.

I know that. And I'm sure that a hydrogen powered car could reach power levels of a gasoline engine relatively soon. But the question was how fuel cells compare to combusting hydrogen....

Agreed it's better to have a better handling car, better riding car, more fuel efficient car, whatever over a fast high powered car. Realistically you can only get away with 80mph on an American motorway.

+1. However, I'm sure people won't buy a car that can barely make it up to 60 on an on-ramp and can't go over 80. And having good handling ect will probably only make the car less desirable due to sacrifices in ride quality.

 

[Tornado]

Where is your proof? GM claimed there was a lack of a demand for the car as seen in countless articles.

Which obviously explains why people were willing to throw so much money at GM to purchase them before GM took the car off the market and crushed them all.

The EV1 was a terrible idea from the word go and if GM thought they could have made money off of it there would have been a version of the same car in every brand under the GM name right now.

Which is obviously why the idea is such a big deal now, isn't it? The difference between an idea ahead of its time and the next big thing is timing, and GM lacked it. But GM shouldn't have just tossed all of the progress they made.

But it wasn't a profitable venture because not enough people wanted them. The thing has a short range, less then a 100 miles, I know countless people who travel that to get to and from work in one day.

It wasn't supposed to make money. It was supposed to prove that the idea was feasible for mass production. The Prius hasn't made any money, and that has been on sale for a decade. Does that mean hybrids are completely a waste?

But please I'm curious to see who has said the EV1 was a successful program other then biased tree hugging bastards.

Let's see: It produced a successful, feasible to mass produce electric car. Which is all the program as supposed to do anyways. It obviously was never supposed to produce a profit. Neither are any of the hydrogen cars produced up to this point.

 

[land sea air]

I know that. And I'm sure that a hydrogen powered car could reach power levels of a gasoline engine relatively soon. But the question was how fuel cells compare to combusting hydrogen....

burning hydrogen is cleaner than a gas or diesel engine but is less efficient while
fuel cells have the advantage of being completely clean, you could drink the water that comes out of the tail pipe

 

[Joey D]

Which obviously explains why people were willing to throw so much money at GM to purchase them before GM took the car off the market and crushed them all.

You could not buy the car, as far as I know GM offered them as a lease for $399 per month, quite a lot in my opinion.

But GM didn't kill the electric car, the oil companies didn't kill the electric car, consumer demand is what did it. Yes the car was ahead of it's time, hence why people didn't see a need to buy into it. Gas was cheap, there was no need for the car. Bring it out today and you might have a market for it, but not 7 years ago. I don't think you understand what I am saying to be honest, it was a bad idea for the time.

According to this site:
http://www.acpropulsion.com/EV1_recall.htm

This is what the sales figures looked like over three months

Month/ EV1 Gen-2 Sales (source: GM)

Dec 1999 150
Jan 2000 82
Feb 2000 76
Total 308

Now there are cars that sell worse then that's looking at about 100 cars per month or only 1200 per year (on average), that is low demand when you see some cars sell in excess of 20,000 units per year.

Does that mean hybrids are completely a waste?

Yes and I've actually shown though math how uneconomical it is to buy one.

 

[Grand Prix]

Why did GM not allow the leasers to buy their EV-1s, though? If they were still on the road, that would be free advertising for the car and any future electric vehicles made by GM. Why did Ford and Toyota crush their electric cars as well? Surely it can't be because they wanted the scrap metal? (no, I'm not being sarcastic)

 

[Philly]

I would guess that GM was afraid they wouldn't sell if they were for sale. Having them able to be leased means the public can try it out without getting too involved with the car. And I'm sure the public would never buy a car if they don't know if it's technology will one day be popular. It would be marketing.

 

[Grand Prix]

I would guess that GM was afraid they wouldn't sell if they were for sale. Having them able to be leased means the public can try it out without getting too involved with the car. And I'm sure the public would never buy a car if they don't know if it's technology will one day be popular. It would be marketing.

OK, I can see that. They could have have sold the cars to the people who were already leasing though. It seemed to me from the documentary that most leasers would have been more than happy to buy their leased cars from GM.

 

[Joey D]

Well the one article I posted suggested by crushing the vehicles GM prevented the technology they put into the cars from falling into the competitors hands. That seems like a reasonable answer to me. Also if they allowed people to buy them then they would have had to continue making replacement parts and training mechanics in the art of servicing the.

 

[Grand Prix]

Well the one article I posted suggested by crushing the vehicles GM prevented the technology they put into the cars from falling into the competitors hands. That seems like a reasonable answer to me. Also if they allowed people to buy them then they would have had to continue making replacement parts and training mechanics in the art of servicing the.

That's true. Although it does make them look bad compared to other companies with "special" vehicles, like Mazda with their rotary engined cars for example. Not many mechanics are very knowledgeable of rotaries, although there are private mechanics who specialize in rotaries.

I think, given the time, there would have been more private electric engine and battery specialists willing to work on EV-1s, taking off some of the burden for GM. I admit that would also make GM look bad for abandoning their customers of EV-1s, but not as bad as when they completely destroyed them.

I think the competitor advantage is a valid reason as well. But if GM found the electric car to be a stupid idea after they saw the sales figures... Why were they worried about their competitors, then? It wasn't just GM crushing the cars. To answer my own question, my guess would be that they were secretly planning to make electric vehicles again in the future.