 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Nissan / Nissan Maxima / May 2004Nissan receives fuel economy exemption
Nissan receives fuel economy exemption Story NHTSA has given Nissan an exemption from gas mileage standards for the 2006-2010 model years. At issue is the two fleet rule, which requires that a foreign manufactuer's imported and domestic fleets individually meet fuel economy requirements. Due to NAFTA, Nissan's Sentra, assembled in Mexico, qualifies as a domestic vehicle starting in 2006. The removal of the Sentra from the foreign fleet calculations meant Nissan's imports could not meet fuel economy standards. Critics say Nissan had a decade to prepare for the effects of NAFTA, and failed to do so. Nissan threatened to move to foreign sources for Sentra components which would result in it being classified as an import despite its North American assembly point. The law authorizes NHTSA to exempt companies from standards if American jobs are at risk. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040421/ap_on_bi_ge/nissan_fuel_e conomy_2 Analysis It is no surprise NHTSA failed to run the numbers all the way out and missed the point. The Sentra is a low profit vehicle in a price sensitive market segment. Foreign sourcing for Sentra components, with associated higher labor and transportation costs, really wasn't a viable option for Nissan. Had the request for the exemption been denied, Nissan's actual choice would have had to been to move production of low mileage high value vehicles to NAFTA countries, which would result in more American jobs. Once again, the US government has been out-negotiated. Given the choice between saving a few jobs and creating many more, the choice was to save a few. -- There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result. --- Winston Churchill > Once again, the US government has been out-negotiated. > Given the choice between saving a few jobs and creating > many more, the choice was to save a few. The real point is CAFE is stupid system that accomplishes nothing of value. >> Once again, the US government has been out-negotiated. >> Given the choice between saving a few jobs and creating >> many more, the choice was to save a few. > >The real point is CAFE is stupid system that accomplishes nothing >of value. That's not true. It drove the market towards SUVs which means larger profits for the automakers. It'll be interesting to see what happens in about 5 or 10 years from now as oil supplies can't meet demand anymore and the prices go up, up and up. Keep your bicycle tuned! ;)  SignatureBrandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail) A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg. >>> Once again, the US government has been out-negotiated. >>> Given the choice between saving a few jobs and creating [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's not true. It drove the market towards SUVs which means larger > profits for the automakers. That was an accident. It took about a decade for the automakers to figure that one out only after being led to it by buyers. > It'll be interesting to see what happens in about 5 or 10 years from > now as oil supplies can't meet demand anymore and the prices go up, up > and up. Cheap ferraris ? :) > Keep your bicycle tuned! ;) Yep. so long as I can 'get by' with the cannondale I'll be fine. >>>> Once again, the US government has been out-negotiated. >>>> Given the choice between saving a few jobs and creating [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >That was an accident. It took about a decade for the automakers >to figure that one out only after being led to it by buyers. The fact that it wasn't intentional doesn't mean it wasn't accomplished by CAFE. ;) >> It'll be interesting to see what happens in about 5 or 10 years from >> now as oil supplies can't meet demand anymore and the prices go up, up >> and up. > >Cheap ferraris ? :) Naw, only the rich will be able to afford gasoline, so they'll be even *more* exotic. Buy one now! >> Keep your bicycle tuned! ;) > >Yep. so long as I can 'get by' with the cannondale I'll be fine. It'll be interesting to see how people who thought bikes were for kids react when no one can afford gas anymore. :) SignatureBrandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail) A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg. >> Once again, the US government has been out-negotiated. >> Given the choice between saving a few jobs and creating >> many more, the choice was to save a few. > >The real point is CAFE is stupid system that accomplishes nothing >of value. So, what should have been done after the 73 oil embargo? > So, what should have been done after the 73 oil embargo? Not a darned thing. Let the market forces determine MPG. -Dave >> So, what should have been done after the 73 oil embargo? > >Not a darned thing. Let the market forces determine MPG. -Dave Well, there's another factor. Gas prices can change quickly and the characteristics autos change slowly. While normally I'd agree with letting the market totally to its own, gas prices can change drastically in a few months, while significant changes in the types of vehicles on the road take close to a decade. "edward ohare" <edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message > > Well, there's another factor. Gas prices can change quickly and the > characteristics autos change slowly. While normally I'd agree with > letting the market totally to its own, gas prices can change > drastically in a few months, while significant changes in the types of > vehicles on the road take close to a decade. Your argument would carry weight only if we assumed that vehicles sold in the U.S. were the only vehicles sold in the world. There are many small, fuel efficient vehicles sold in other countries that are NOT sold in the U.S. . . or are heavily modified before they are sold in the U.S. Assuming that all vehicles sold in the U.S. were large gas-guzzlers, and the price of gas were to triple in a short time to say, $6/gallon, it would only take a year or two at most before we'd see really fuel-efficient vehicles packing new car lots. If the price of gasoline stayed high like that, you might see some new vehicles DESIGNED for the U.S. being sold in the U.S. within 10 years. But there'd be no shortage of fuel efficient vehicles in the meantime. There is no reason at all for CAFE. -Dave >Your argument would carry weight only if we assumed that vehicles sold in >the U.S. were the only vehicles sold in the world. There are many small, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >There is no reason at all for CAFE. -Dave I'm not defending CAFE. I'm pointing out that changing the composition of the US fleet takes a long time. Your point that there would be fuel efficient vehicles available has little relevance. Just how is a person with a SUV that now has a market value near zero that he owes $20,000 on to buy one of these fuel efficient vehicles? > I'm not defending CAFE. I'm pointing out that changing the > composition of the US fleet takes a long time. People will ditch cars pretty frequently. > Your point that there would be fuel efficient vehicles available has > little relevance. Just how is a person with a SUV that now has a > market value near zero that he owes $20,000 on to buy one of these > fuel efficient vehicles? The same way he upgrades to the bigger, newer SUV today, goes upside down on the loan. >> Your point that there would be fuel efficient vehicles available has >> little relevance. Just how is a person with a SUV that now has a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The same way he upgrades to the bigger, newer SUV today, goes upside >down on the loan. There is a limit to how much upside down people can go. There is a limit to the payments people can make. Let's presume an SUV that "should" be worth $20,000 is worth $5000 due to $6 a gallon gas. Impossible? Do you have any idea how little 75-76 big GM cars and 75-78 big Fords and Chryslers were worth in 79? Actually, no one knew how little they were worth, because they would sit on lots for months with no one even kicking the tires. So a guy has an SUV that he owes $20,000 on, and maxed his payment capacity buying it. How is that guy going to apply $15,000 or more negative equity to a $20,000 "economy" car and afford the payment? Back then, people literally could not pay the price to get out of their gas guzzlers, and the same can be true again. You can't restructure the US fleet in a short time. >>> Your point that there would be fuel efficient vehicles available has >>> little relevance. Just how is a person with a SUV that now has a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>The same way he upgrades to the bigger, newer SUV today, goes upside >>down on the loan. > There is a limit to how much upside down people can go. There is a > limit to the payments people can make. Guess they'll have to buy those '89 geo metros at the back of the lot then. > I'm not defending CAFE. I'm pointing out that changing the > composition of the US fleet takes a long time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > market value near zero that he owes $20,000 on to buy one of these > fuel efficient vehicles? By doing an "upside down" trade. Outside of Isuzu, I can't think of a dealer that wouldn't gladly take an SUV in trade for something they sell that is more fuel efficient. Isuzu would do it also, if they made anything BUT SUVs. But even at an Isuzu dealer, you could probably trade a Isuzu SUV for a used car made by someone else. -Dave > >Your argument would carry weight only if we assumed that vehicles sold in > >the U.S. were the only vehicles sold in the world. There are many small, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > market value near zero that he owes $20,000 on to buy one of these > fuel efficient vehicles? that's easy! report it stolen, and when it's recovered unrepairable, use the insurance proceeds to buy a new vehicle. redc1c4, (imagine what a wave of that would do to the economy %-) Signature"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide >> Your point that there would be fuel efficient vehicles available has >> little relevance. Just how is a person with a SUV that now has a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >report it stolen, and when it's recovered unrepairable, use the >insurance proceeds to buy a new vehicle. Cute. <G> However, may I point out that insurance owes Actual Cash Value which we've already determined is very low. >redc1c4, >(imagine what a wave of that would do to the economy %-) That's right. Bush has run out of paper to print money... let's have the insurance companies put some in circulation. <G> >>report it stolen, and when it's recovered unrepairable, use the >>insurance proceeds to buy a new vehicle. >However, may I point out that insurance owes Actual Cash Value which >we've already determined is very low. That depends. Not everybody buys the same insurance. >>>report it stolen, and when it's recovered unrepairable, use the >>>insurance proceeds to buy a new vehicle. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >That depends. Not everybody buys the same insurance. I would suppose astute insurers would suspend sales of "I'm buried" riders for those with standard loans. Those leasing who have gap insurance would be OK. But that still leaves the majority of people buried with no way out. > >>report it stolen, and when it's recovered unrepairable, use the > >>insurance proceeds to buy a new vehicle. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That depends. Not everybody buys the same insurance. True, but every insurance company makes money by taking it in, not sending it out, so most have that stipulation. Have you read your (boring, long) policy? >> >>report it stolen, and when it's recovered unrepairable, use the >> >>insurance proceeds to buy a new vehicle. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Have you read your (boring, long) policy? Most policies in Canada provide replacement insurance, which basically means you can get another car of the same year and style. > Most policies in Canada provide replacement insurance, which basically > means you can get another car of the same year and style. After somebody else has abused the heck out of it? No thanks. -Dave >> >>report it stolen, and when it's recovered unrepairable, use the >> >>insurance proceeds to buy a new vehicle. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Have you read your (boring, long) policy? Don't need to. I have typical insurance, but some people pay for replacement cost. Now some will argue that the replacement cost went down, but this is not true. If you did this illegal activity early enough, the blue book (or whatever damn color insurance companies use) would still be the higher cost. >> So, what should have been done after the 73 oil embargo? > >Not a darned thing. Let the market forces determine MPG. -Dave That would only be valid if the market didn't heavily subsidize the oil companies. Since gas is cheap there's no motivation to buy smaller or more fuel efficient vehicles. Taxing the manufacturers is crazy because there will always be loopholes that they can exploit (SUVs in this case) which defeat the purpose of the regs. Stop the subsidies and see what happens. I figure we've got about 5 more years before everything goes kablooie. It's not that we're running out of oil, it's that we're about half way there, which means the easy stuff has been found. Demand keeps climbing in North America which is bad enough, but China, IIRC, increased the number of cars on their roads by about 70% last year and their energy demands have been increasing over the last two years by the total amount consumed by Brazil! There's only so much oil available and they're going to want a chunk of production. That means either raise prices, *seriously* search for alternatives, start conserving or go to war to keep the oil flowing. Given that in 2002, Bush said "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption", which way do you think it's going to go? SignatureBrandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail) A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg. > >> So, what should have been done after the 73 oil embargo? > > > >Not a darned thing. Let the market forces determine MPG. -Dave > > > That would only be valid if the market didn't heavily subsidize the > oil companies. Since gas is cheap (snip) RIGHT NOW You are writing as if you think it's NECESSARY for people to buy small, fuel efficient vehicles, and that we must force people to do it right away, somehow. So gas is cheap right now and people want huge vehicles with huge engines. So what? That won't last forever. CAFE is not necessary. The cost of fuel is bound to go higher and STAY higher. The only question is how soon will it happen? When it does, there will be a great demand for smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. In the meantime, we have a glut of V12 SUVs. :) In any case, how does CAFE help? It's not like small cars wouldn't exist without CAFE. -Dave >> >> So, what should have been done after the 73 oil embargo? >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >efficient vehicles, and that we must force people to do it right away, >somehow. I said nothing of the sort. You said "let the market forces determine MPG". How can the market forces determine MPG if the gas prices are heavily subsidized? >So gas is cheap right now and people want huge vehicles with huge >engines. So what? That won't last forever. CAFE is not necessary. The >cost of fuel is bound to go higher and STAY higher. The only question is >how soon will it happen? My guess is within 5 years, 10 at the outside. >When it does, there will be a great demand for >smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. In the meantime, we have a glut of >V12 SUVs. :) There will be a great demand for *bikes*. The government is going to seize the remaining oil for military purposes. How effective will the military be if they can't move troops? >In any case, how does CAFE help? It's not like small cars wouldn't exist >without CAFE. -Dave No, but that's got nothing to do with what you suggested as an alternative. SignatureBrandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail) A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg. > I said nothing of the sort. You said "let the market forces determine > MPG". How can the market forces determine MPG if the gas prices are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > seize the remaining oil for military purposes. How effective will the > military be if they can't move troops? Ummmm . . . the low gas prices somewhat influence the market. Without CAFE, we might not see much of a difference in selection of vehicles sold in U.S. UNTIL gas prices go way up. But that doesn't mean the market forces wouldn't determine MPG before gas prices go up. At 25 cents per gallon, there would still be a market for small cars. There will never be a great demand for bikes before our economy totally implodes. That is, when we are reduced to a third-world country, then you can buy stock in Trek. Gee, when I was in the military, the primary mode of transportation was the LPC. Besides, with no oil, maybe we'll be motivated to keep our troops home where they frickin' belong. :) Actually, before that happened, we'd have nuclear powered troop ships. -Dave >> I said nothing of the sort. You said "let the market forces determine >> MPG". How can the market forces determine MPG if the gas prices are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Ummmm . . . the low gas prices somewhat influence the market. But the low gas prices are maintained by subsidizing the oil industry, so it's not truly the "market" deciding anything. >Without CAFE, >we might not see much of a difference in selection of vehicles sold in U.S. There would be more big cars instead of SUVs. >UNTIL gas prices go way up. But that doesn't mean the market forces >wouldn't determine MPG before gas prices go up. At 25 cents per gallon, >there would still be a market for small cars. True enough. >There will never be a great demand for bikes before our economy totally >implodes. That is, when we are reduced to a third-world country, then you >can buy stock in Trek. Give it 5 years or so. >Gee, when I was in the military, the primary mode of >transportation was the LPC. Besides, with no oil, maybe we'll be motivated >to keep our troops home where they frickin' belong. :) Actually, before >that happened, we'd have nuclear powered troop ships. -Dave Oil isn't going to run out any time soon, but it's costing more and more to extract it (the easy stuff has all been found) and more and more people are demanding more and more of it. The math falls apart very quickly unfortunately. Given the stated intentions of US governments in the past it's likely going to lead to *more* troops going overseas. Are you above draft age? If not, get ready for it. SignatureBrandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail) A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg. > >> I said nothing of the sort. You said "let the market forces determine > >> MPG". How can the market forces determine MPG if the gas prices are [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > governments in the past it's likely going to lead to *more* troops > going overseas. Are you above draft age? If not, get ready for it. I usually avoid these trolling flame wars but this one is good. In any case it comes down to a matter of opinion and political views. For the record I can't wait for gas to run out or at least hit $50.00/ounce. Yes I drive, I drive a 1.6l Nissan. It's an extremely fuel efficient car. I'm sick of seeing these mulletted sh.t heads in their big stupid pickups and SUV's who think they own the world. When gas gets too expensive for those bubba's they be forced to stay in their trailer parks and hitchhike. I of course will drive by while waving my middle finger >I usually avoid these trolling flame wars but this one is good. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I of course will drive by while waving my middle finger Why, you have a lot of restrained anger there, friend. But, I suppose I'd feel the same way if I'd chosen to drive a tin can while waiting all these years for gas prices to vindicate the "superiority" of my decision. Its been a long wait... and you still have a long one ahead. > Oil isn't going to run out any time soon, but it's costing more and > more to extract it (the easy stuff has all been found) and more and > more people are demanding more and more of it. The math falls apart > very quickly unfortunately. Given the stated intentions of US > governments in the past it's likely going to lead to *more* troops > going overseas. Are you above draft age? If not, get ready for it. The problem is that the USA should have been at a higher level of technology by now and decreasing demand on oil. But the way politics and business works in this country, the status quo was maintained and will be maintained until critical mass is reached. I would like to see the 'renewable' oil programs get a huge boost and get up to whatever maximum capacity they can run at. Another process for renewable oil was recently developed that takes pig manure and turns it into oil. It's on lab scale of course. This is where we are going to need to look to find more oil. But even at $10-15 a barrel to make oil, few seem interested when it costs $5 to take it out of the ground. These various processes together will likely be the quick patch needed to keep things going. > The problem is that the USA should have been at a higher level of > technology by now and decreasing demand on oil. But the way politics and > business works in this country, the status quo was maintained and will be > maintained until critical mass is reached. People need to make the choices that CAN be made NOW to change the situation. 100% Biodiesel is available in my city for $3.20 per gal, and a nice mercedes 300d can be had for 2500.(80's vintage) Boom, you are off the dino habit. Soy powered luxury on the cheap! Plus, the biodiesel smells MUCH less than the regular stuff. > I would like to see the 'renewable' oil programs get a huge boost and get > up to whatever maximum capacity they can run at. Another process for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > These various processes together will likely be the quick patch needed > to keep things going. >> The problem is that the USA should have been at a higher level of >> technology by now and decreasing demand on oil. But the way politics and >> business works in this country, the status quo was maintained and will be >> maintained until critical mass is reached. > People need to make the choices that CAN be made NOW to > change the situation. 100% Biodiesel is available in my city for $3.20 > per gal, and a nice mercedes 300d can be had for 2500.(80's vintage) > Boom, you are off the dino habit. Soy powered luxury on > the cheap! Plus, the biodiesel smells MUCH less than the > regular stuff. What idiot pays for biodiesel when local resturants still pay to have their grease traps emptied? Just empty their grease trap for free into the tank. >> I would like to see the 'renewable' oil programs get a huge boost and get >> up to whatever maximum capacity they can run at. Another process for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> These various processes together will likely be the quick patch needed >> to keep things going. > People need to make the choices that CAN be made NOW to change the > situation. 100% Biodiesel is available in my city for $3.20 per gal, and > a nice mercedes 300d can be had for 2500.(80's vintage) Boom, you are > off the dino habit. Biodiesel would doubtless tumble in price if more refineries were in place, and if it were legally permissible to grow hemp. It does get sort of frustrating watching obvious solutions to problems get passed over in favor of complicated, expensive, halfassed solutions or endless regulatory tailchasing. Two additional cases in point: California Air Resources Board has been wringing their hands and chasing their tail over barbecue charcoal lighter fluid for over a decade. They've futzed around with trying to regulate teh VOCs, outlaw it, and all sorts of other silly bassackwards crapola. I stopped using charcoal lighter fluid a long time ago. When there's no chimney-type starter handy, I use denatured alcohol. It burns hotter and *vastly* cleaner than petroleum-based fluids and burns completely away so the food doesn't taste like jet fuel. Problem solved, and it's also cheaper. Lawnmower and other small engines are a target for emissions reductions, because they are essentially emissions-uncontrolled. Even with today's better ignitions and carburetors, the exhaust from a lawnmower is much dirtier than that from a recent-model passenger car. Most of the technology that has made car exhaust so clean is not feasibly adaptible to small engines. California regulates emissions from small engines; Briggs and Stratton and the rest of the industry moan and bitch and move to block other states from adopting California's reg, and it's a big mess. What is the *matter* with these people? The solution is right in front of their noses! Propane-powered small engines are not new; they've been around in great number for many, many decades. Just mandate propane power for small engines sold after such-and-such a date, and move on to the next problem. Gasoline stations sell propane, as do hardware stores, so there's no availability problem. Starting is much easier with gaseous fuel, and engine life is longer. And exhaust emissions are clean enough for such engines to be used indoors, which they frequently are. I'm sure other examples can be come up with in a hurry. DS >Lawnmower and other small engines are a target for emissions reductions, >because they are essentially emissions-uncontrolled. Even with today's [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >I'm sure other examples can be come up with in a hurry. But then the manufacturers of those small gasoline engines will be up in arms claiming that you're infringing on their rights to make a buck or two. They'll challenge the decision in court and delay any ruling for a few years and cost the state millions of dollars in legal fees. The most obvious, easily implemented solution will always piss off those who have a stake in keeping things the way they are and profits are more important than clean air to some people. SignatureBrandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail) A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg. > availability problem. Starting is much easier with gaseous fuel, and > engine life is longer. And exhaust emissions are clean enough for such > engines to be used indoors, which they frequently are. Ever try to use a basement lab when the propane powered floor buffers are being used? I couldn't get enough air to breath.... And the emissions did have an effect on me. While they would probably be clean enough for a large place, like an airport, smaller spaces are bad. > > availability problem. Starting is much easier with gaseous fuel, and > > engine life is longer. And exhaust emissions are clean enough for such > > engines to be used indoors, which they frequently are. > > Ever try to use a basement lab when the propane powered floor buffers are > being used? I've been in small spaces when the propane powered floor buffers were being used, yes. > I couldn't get enough air to breath.... And the emissions > did have an effect on me. Then those particular floor buffers' engines were not in proper repair. DS > > Biodiesel would doubtless tumble in price if more refineries were in > place, and if it were legally permissible to grow hemp. Yes, more refineries for biodiesel are one of the answers to fuel independence. we can take all that subsidized Archer Daniels Midland farmland, subsidize soy instead of corn, and start importing new generation diesels. People need to realize that they are sending capital out of this country and into the hands of those who do not wish us well. I don't understand how fuel independence can be such a low priority considering the events of the last couple of years. I ran into an employee of my local municipality who was filming people putting B-100 into their cars, and interviewing people. he said they were considering building a plant themselves! This would certainly help with supply, so the rest of us could enjoy lower prices. Local governments can incrementally make a change even if the national admin. will not see what is plainly in our best interest, because it is not in the best interest of certain segments of their donor base. Bernard > > > Biodiesel would doubtless tumble in price if more refineries were in > > place, and if it were legally permissible to grow hemp. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a low priority considering the events of the last > couple of years. You have an oil man running the country and another oilman as backup. As long as special interests run the worlds most powerful *democracy* you'll have oil wars, terrorism, hundreds of soldiers dying and astronomical fuel prices and no hope of any alternative. > I ran into an employee of my local municipality > who was filming people putting B-100 into their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is not in the best interest of certain segments of > their donor base. In the end the oil companies and the defense contractors will either crush or take control of any alternative fuel industry because those two sectors run the US government. > Bernard > In the end the oil companies and the defense contractors will either crush > or take control of any alternative fuel industry because those two sectors > run the US government. Yep, US government, the best government money can buy. But don't under estimate the power of big agricultural companies. Given a viable alternative fuel that is grown there could very well be a clash of titans. I just don't see a company like ADM passing up a chance for that kind of profit. Maybe I am nuts, but I think the USA could grow a significant amount of the fuel it uses if the effort was put into developing the processes. Processes that turn agricultural wastes into oil look promising to me. The recent one of turning pig crap into oil is great IMO just because it could solve the pig crap problems created by demand for pork products alone. Problem with growing fuel is that other areas of the world may go hungry without US food exports. > Problem with growing fuel is that other areas of the world may go hungry > without US food exports. Let them eat oil. >Problem with growing fuel is that other areas of the world may go hungry >without US food exports. Actually it may improve things around the world. US agricultural subisidies make American food cheaper than that produced in many 3rd world countries, making "free trade" impossible for them. Providing a new need for this food might change this. SignatureBrandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail) A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg. >>Problem with growing fuel is that other areas of the world may go hungry >>without US food exports. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Providing a new need for this food might change this. "free trade" doesn't exist IMO. lack of labor and environmental protections in much of the 3rd world make manufactured goods from those countries much cheaper than the same products produced in the USA. High fuel prices may drive manufacturing back closer to the end users of the products. >>>Problem with growing fuel is that other areas of the world may go hungry >>>without US food exports. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >High fuel prices may drive manufacturing back closer to the end users of >the products. Very true. The "global" economy only works when shipping is cheap. SignatureBrandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail) Cheney Wows Sept. 11 Commission By Drinking Glass Of Water While Bush Speaks http://www.theonion.com/index.php?issue=4016 > >> So, what should have been done after the 73 oil embargo? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > oil companies. Since gas is cheap there's no motivation to buy > smaller or more fuel efficient vehicles. It would also only be valid if the environmental and political costs could be somehow figured into the costs of driving a low-MPG vehicle. Market forces are the most efficient way to allocate resources, but only when all the costs and benefits are factored in. > Taxing the manufacturers is crazy because there will always be > loopholes that they can exploit (SUVs in this case) which defeat the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Given that in 2002, Bush said "We need an energy bill that encourages > consumption", which way do you think it's going to go? And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by none other than Patrick Hosokawa: >It would also only be valid if the environmental and political costs >could be somehow figured into the costs of driving a low-MPG vehicle. Raise taxes so the pump price is US$5+/gallon, maybe? :} (I'm for this IFF the money is well spent.) SignatureE.R. aka S.J.G. aka Ricardo - Xlate & correct for e-mail reply '91 mx6gt, white, 5sp MT, V1, CB >>> Once again, the US government has been out-negotiated. >>> Given the choice between saving a few jobs and creating [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So, what should have been done after the 73 oil embargo? Well let's see what CAFE did, it inspired the SUV, so now fleet fuel economy is worse than it would have been *WITHOUT* CAFE. If taxing fuel to encourage conservation wasn't possible, then having one CAFE number instead of the complex system or no CAFE at all would have been better. No CAFE at all we would have fuel economy levels only a tad lower for passenger cars than they are today IMO. The reason for that is emission regs that still would have brought about the control system improvements without CAFE being there. But without CAFE, people would not have converted to trucks. Instead of driving an 18mpg enclosed truck, people would be driving a 22mpg passenger car. Sure, those really huge cars would have lived on, but they would get better fuel economy than the SUVs. >Well let's see what CAFE did, it inspired the SUV, so now fleet >fuel economy is worse than it would have been *WITHOUT* CAFE. No it didn't. Marketing found a need for the SUV and the manufacturers filled it. The fact that SUV's avoid most of CAFE is *very* secondary to the fact that people want that type of vehicle. > No CAFE at all we would have fuel economy levels only >a tad lower for passenger cars than they are today IMO. Highly speculative. >The reason for >that is emission regs that still would have brought about the control >system improvements without CAFE being there. But without CAFE, people >would not have converted to trucks. CAFE doesnot enter into SUV buyer's decision criteria. >Instead of driving an 18mpg enclosed >truck, people would be driving a 22mpg passenger car. Sure, those really >huge cars would have lived on, but they would get better fuel economy >than the SUVs. No, they wouldn't. They'd be driving the SUV that they want. >>Well let's see what CAFE did, it inspired the SUV, so now fleet >>fuel economy is worse than it would have been *WITHOUT* CAFE. > No it didn't. Yes it did. > Marketing found a need for the SUV and the manufacturers filled it. The SUV existed for 40+ years before people started buying them as regular passenger vehicles. And yes, people started buying them before the marketeers realized what was happening. > The fact that SUV's avoid most of CAFE > is *very* secondary to the fact that people want that type of > vehicle. At the start of the trend they wanted a *BIG*, affordable vehicle that had the usual, like some kind of style. Problem was by the mid 1980s you couldn't buy a new, large passenger car that wasn't designed for the over 70 set. People turned to trucks. If trucks had all the advantages that SUV people think they do, they would have surpassed passenger cars in aproximately 1965. The large passenger car / full size station wagon is the ideal form, but CAFE made selling those bad for the manufacturer. Look at how SUVs are evolving. They are looking more like station wagons every day. >> No CAFE at all we would have fuel economy levels only >>a tad lower for passenger cars than they are today IMO. > > Highly speculative. No, look at what the remaining large, RWD cars get in the USA. Look at the fuel economy numbers of what is offered in Austrailia. Austrailia is a great example for what the US automotive landscape would look like without CAFE. >>The reason for >>that is emission regs that still would have brought about the control >>system improvements without CAFE being there. But without CAFE, people >>would not have converted to trucks. > CAFE doesnot enter into SUV buyer's decision criteria. Didn't say it did. The average american vehicle buyer has never heard of it. He just sees the choice between grandma's car, a cop car, a taxi, and those SUVs that say 'hip and new'. If CAFE didn't exist the *choice* in large cars would also include those that would attract alot of drivers. Problem is the manufacturers cannot make more than CAFE allows them, so they paired down the choices marketing wise. I suspect we'll start geting some better large car choices as more of the WW2 generation dies off and the marketing has to move on. Until then senior citizens and police departments pretty much cover all they can build under CAFE. >>Instead of driving an 18mpg enclosed >>truck, people would be driving a 22mpg passenger car. Sure, those really >>huge cars would have lived on, but they would get better fuel economy >>than the SUVs. > No, they wouldn't. They'd be driving the SUV that they want. The SUV would have never gotten a foothold because it's an inferior vehicle type. It had FORTY years to win in the open market. FORTY. What is now called an SUV first appeared to the consumer market in 1946. Yet, their rise outside the speciality niche doesn't start until the mid-late 1980s. What was special about that time? Oh, the last big step for CAFE and a loss of nearly all the choices of large passenger cars that could do things like hold the 4 kids and tow a boat. >If taxing fuel to encourage conservation wasn't possible, then having >one CAFE number instead of the complex system or no CAFE at all would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >huge cars would have lived on, but they would get better fuel economy >than the SUVs. I don't disagree with you, but I don't see your point. How exactly did CAFE encourage buyers to shop for SUVs over cars? I do see that for manufacturers, CAFE as it stands today allows them to ignore fuel efficiency in what are labeled trucks. I just don't think they are the same. >>If taxing fuel to encourage conservation wasn't possible, then having >>one CAFE number instead of the complex system or no CAFE at all would [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I just don't think they are the same. It encourages buyers to buy SUVs because the cars they want aren't available. You don't think that GM, Ford, Chrysler could design an build an updated version of the 60s family sedan very easily, and at a price competitive with other cars on the market? With sportier hardtop and convertible versions for those who like such things? I believe they could, but CAFE would suffer so it won't happen. nate Signaturego dry to reply. http://www.toad.net/~njnagel > I don't disagree with you, but I don't see your point. > > How exactly did CAFE encourage buyers to shop for SUVs over cars? Because they have no frickin' CHOICE!!! If you understand CAFE, then you would understand that it discourages making large CARS, but does not discourage making trucks of any size. Thus, if you have a family, you are forced to buy a truck . . . one that looks an awful lot like a jacked-up family car, and gets really shitty fuel economy. This is because CAFE regulated family cars out of existence. It didn't encourage buyers to shop for SUVs, it just made it impossible for many buyers to shop for CARS. So lots of people were forced to buy SUVs as "plan B" as plan A was legislated out of existence. -Dave > How exactly did CAFE encourage buyers to shop for SUVs over cars? Because the big family station wagon had to be jacked up and made unstable to miss out on the gas guzzler tax. Buyers shopping for that big family station wagon found it, just a bit taller than before. >> The real point is CAFE is stupid system that accomplishes nothing of >> value. > So, what should have been done after the 73 oil embargo? There's any number of ways to strongly encourage the manufacture and purchase/use of fuel-efficient vehicles while not unduly restricting the range of vehicles available to consumers. Gasoline taxes are up there on the list, but they're not the only way. Look at Australia -- they've got vast spaces like we have in North America, and North American style RWD cars have been popular there for decades -- in fact, you can buy many more "North American style RWD" cars in Australia than you can in North America. Many or most of the SUVs available in North America are available in OZ, but few people buy them. CAFE is a poorly-conceived, poorly-implemented, poorly-administered hodgepodge of regulations that do nothing but shift stacks of paper around to make it look like something's being regulated. Its only real-world effects have been to greatly increase the popularity of SUVs and nearly eliminate the large car from the North American market. Were it not for CAFE, we'd be driving around in 25-28mpg '04 V8/RWD Caprices as the Australians can, instead of in 8-11mpg SUVs. It is never EVER better to do the wrong thing just to have "done something" about a problem. CAFE was, and is, the wrong thing. DS >CAFE is a poorly-conceived, poorly-implemented, poorly-administered >hodgepodge of regulations Of course. That's because it's a compromise of people who think CAFE is a good thing and try to strengthen it at every chance, and those who would like to see it repealed and try to weaken it at every chance. >that do nothing but shift stacks of paper around >to make it look like something's being regulated. Its only real-world >effects have been to greatly increase the popularity of SUVs and nearly >eliminate the large car from the North American market. Were it not for >CAFE, we'd be driving around in 25-28mpg '04 V8/RWD Caprices as the >Australians can, instead of in 8-11mpg SUVs. Nonsense. Manufacturers have not driven the demand for SUV's, the buyers have. It's the free market at work. The need was there: the manufacturers simply used marketing skills to perceive it. The notion that CAFE has somehow changed the market is foolish. People still buy whatever they want. CAFE has not changed the market or changed the buyer's choices very much at all. It's not as if there's a shortage of some type of vehicle or a "need" the auto manufacturers don't meet. Whatever you want is out there. Go buy it. > The notion that CAFE has somehow changed the market is foolish. > People still buy whatever they want. CAFE has not changed the market > or changed the buyer's choices very much at all. It's not as if > there's a shortage of some type of vehicle or a "need" the auto > manufacturers don't meet. Whatever you want is out there. Go > buy it. I need a full size RWD station wagon fully loaded, and no older than 6 months. -Dave > Nonsense. Manufacturers have not driven the demand for SUV's, the > buyers have. It's the free market at work. The need was there: the > manufacturers simply used marketing skills to perceive it. The buyers have because the choices of large, RWD passenger cars dried up. Gentle decline to 1985 where it just fell off the cliff. > The notion that CAFE has somehow changed the market is foolish. That's what killed the large passenger cars that people used before the SUV craze. > People still buy whatever they want. So long as it is built. CAFE puts a huge disadvantage on the automakers for building lots of huge 24mpg lincoln town car sized vehicles. However a 20mpg truck is just fine. > CAFE has not changed the market > or changed the buyer's choices very much at all. It very well has. It's made large passenger cars go away and stay away. > It's not as if > there's a shortage of some type of vehicle or a "need" the auto > manufacturers don't meet. Whatever you want is out there. Go > buy it. Not much choice in the traditionally sized large car. You got the senior citizen versions and not much else. The mauraduer (sp?) failed IMO because it still looks like a police cruiser. >The mauraduer (sp?) failed >IMO because it still looks like a police cruiser. Plus, it was marketed as a fast car, but wasn't fast. >It is never EVER better to do the wrong thing just to have "done >something" about a problem. > >CAFE was, and is, the wrong thing. I agree. One of the major problems is that for twenty years after the 79 fuel crisis, the price of gas in real dollars steadily declined. This gave people a false sense of security and so the current increases, which intutively without running the numbers I believe **still** result in lower current gas prices in real dollars than what we had circa 1984, have been shocking. As I have observed elsewhere, we cannot quickly reconfigure the US fleet, and comments of others concerning negative equity loans doesn't account for the inability of enough people to be able to afford to do so to make a difference. The correct answer in 73 or 79 was to plan for gas price increases that were steady and at minimum kept the price of gas at 73 or 79 levels in real dollars. This could have been accomplished by a variable tax... charge the tax during times when actual gas prices weren't keeping pace with inflation, escrow the money, and use it to buy down the price of gas during temporary peaks, such as in 1990. I believe the goal **should** have been $2.00 a gallon or so regular in 2004, which is what we have, but we currently have it in a that normal market forces on vehicle choices aren't effective. Had gas prices been increased by the scheme I've described, we would still have big cars, they'd be fuel efficient, and we'd have a lot fewer less fuel efficient truck based vehicles. > As I have observed elsewhere, we cannot quickly reconfigure the US > fleet, and comments of others concerning negative equity loans doesn't > account for the inability of enough people to be able to afford to do > so to make a difference. I am sure there are enough fuel efficent cars from the mid 1980s in junkyards that can be patched together for them. If gasoline prices get bad enough I'll just put some money into the torqueless wonder car. >> As I have observed elsewhere, we cannot quickly reconfigure the US >> fleet, and comments of others concerning negative equity loans doesn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I am sure there are enough fuel efficent cars from the mid 1980s in >junkyards that can be patched together for them. <Sigh> Salvage yards don't store intact cars waiting for someone who wants parts off them. Its 1990 and you have ten 85 Escorts. Eight have front damage. You pull the front sheet metal off the two without front damage. You keep a couple of motors. You keep two intact that are good from the cowl back. You crush everything else. You've now freed 8 of the 10 spots. If you fill those 8 spots before the two intact cars good from the cowl back are stripped, you crush them, and some of the new 8 ones. >>> As I have observed elsewhere, we cannot quickly reconfigure the US >>> fleet, and comments of others concerning negative equity loans doesn't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Salvage yards don't store intact cars waiting for someone who wants > parts off them. Some do. Some don't. Some sell *the whole car* in running condition. > Its 1990 and you have ten 85 Escorts. Eight have > front damage. You pull the front sheet metal off the two without > front damage. You keep a couple of motors. You keep two intact that > are good from the cowl back. You crush everything else. In 2004, all 10 1985 escorts go to the U-pull yard intact. 2 of them are patched up and sold in the used car lot next door. The rest sit until well scavaged, the remains are then crushed. What you say is true of full serve yards and late model cars, but not all cars are wrecked or die in their first five years of live. The import yard at the U-pull has a wide variety of mid 80s to 1990s fuel efficent cars to choose from parts wise, and a couple whole cars for sale. If fuel prices got high enough the value of those cars may increase enough to push more of them into the used car section. On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:22:53 GMT, comments4u@spamstopper.mindspring.com.invalid (Comments4u®) wrote: >The Sentra is a low profit vehicle in a price sensitive >market segment. Foreign sourcing for Sentra components, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >choice would have had to been to move production of >low mileage high value vehicles to NAFTA countries, Please explain this suggestion. How would moving *more* production to NAFTA (domestic) countries help Nissan's *imported* fleet to meet the standards ? Certainly you are not foolish enough to suggest that Nissan would move _all_ of it's production to NAFTA countries simply to solve the Sentra problem. >which would result in more American jobs. The issue cited above aside, Mexican jobs, while NAFTA jobs, are not *American* jobs. (At least not until GWB tries to declare all Mexicans as Americans, no doubt the follow-on to his plan that any illegal Mexican in the USA with an illegal job provided by a criminal employer should be made a citizen). |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.