Obama, CAFE and the End of Performance Cars

No Stephen987, TheMechanic is the man. THEY say it's a 35MPG mandate, but cars have to average 39MPG!
As the current Civic EX cannot meet 39MPG average (It's definitely not a barn-burner)
You CANNOT build a subcompact car that meets 39MPG average without:
1. Cutting the HP to much less than 100HP
2. Severely lightening the chassis with exotics (carbon fiber/aluminum,
3. Making the car much smaller

Makes all the above cars that he mentions 1. Camaro, 2. Corvette, 3. Accord V6!! unable to be built without severe "guzzler tax" penalties

I've decided to finance both a '09 M3 and a '09 Tundra 5.7 V8, before they both end up with 4 cylinder engines and the Tundra with a 3 foot bed and 1000lb towing capacity!

What if they aren't crapmobiles though? What if this actually drives American manufacturers to do something they have never done, innovation?!

Give me a torquey diesel any day! What is Edmunds averaging in the 2009 Jetta TDI? 35mpg+? I'll take it. You wanna go fast? Really fast? Buy a motorcycle. I like cars a lot, too. But really, how many SUV's and Corvette ZR1s are going to sell if the price gas here reaches the price of gas that Europe pays? Probably not too many.

I don't understand why people are so eager to defend the gas guzzling vehicles that cause us to send 100's of billions of dollars to the people who hate us and want to kill us. What part of "our addiction to oil is a huge national security problem" do you have a hard time understanding? Go drive a Tesla roadster and tell me high efficiency can't be fun.

I'm no fan of The Mechanic, but he is largely correct on this one. Those that talk about innovation don't realize that as long as you've got to move a certain amount of mass at a certain minimum level of acceleration, a gasoline (or even diesel) engine is going to burn a certain amount of fuel to do so.

Think about where you're going to find the gains if you want a car of Accord size that will meet all crash standards and the basic consumer demanded feature set. Remember, you need 30-40% better efficiency. Higher compression and direct injection? Might get you 3-4% - 6% on the outside. Rock hard tires? 3-4% again. Lots of aero tweaks? Maybe 3-5% on the highway side of things, but combined only 2-3%. Lighter oils, thinner bearings, etc.? 2-3%. Waste heat recovery(ala BMW's steam system)? 5%. If you take the low hanging fruit (everything but DI and waste heat recovery) you'll be lucky to find 10-12%. Invest the additional money for DI and waste heat recovery and you get another 10%.

Now you're looking at a 4cyl Accord that has increased in price by 10% or more and gets 36-37 mpg highway. That _might_ be enough to be balanced out by an Insight or Fit Hybrid in the corporate average. And that additional 7-8 mpg is going to save you perhaps 100 gallons of gas per year, which, even at $4/gallon, puts the payback a long way out. But wait, you're helping the environment, right? Wrong. Even if the catastrophic UN IPCC estimates and models are right (and they aren't), and the world all improves vehicle efficiency, we'll see the projected temp rise over the next 100 years reduced by about 0.1 C.

Then again, maybe this Obama's plan to stimulate the auto market. Being the inveterate political con man, it would surprise me if he intended to jump start demand for trucks and V8 cars only to come to Jesus in a year or two and postpone the increases in CAFE "indefinitely". Then again, I don't think he's all that interested in looking out of the automakers to begin with....

Sigh. 39mpg under CAFE is like 28 real-world mpg. Still an increase over current regulations, but not apocalyptic. And it's weighted by sales numbers, so half a manufacturer's cars can exceed the regulatory magic number, and niche vehicles can exceed it by a lot.

It's also not that much more of a jump than the one Bush signed into law at the end of 2007.

People see 35 MPG average and think the world's gonna end...

It's 7 years away and it is, as everyone has noted, not that bad. Frankly if our passenger car fleets aren't averaging 28 MPG by 2016, they probably should be. This is hardly the end of performance cars, engineers at automotive firms both large and small thrive under such a challenge. And besides, the automakers are probably still going to get a chance to nerf it a little bit before it goes into effect anyway.

Now let's see if we can do anything about rolling back some of these overbearing safety regulations...it's just turning into overkill, and the weight and cost of these systems is an environmental headache in terms of both production as well as running a vehicle.

I was going to suggest a switch to diesels, but why aren't we investing the bailout dollars on setting up a hydrogen infrastructure? What's so wrong with the Honda FCX Clarity?!

Wow church123, it's really quite impressive to watch someone so thoroughly educated in aerodynamics, chemistry, economics, material sciences and thermodynamics quote percentages like they had extensive access to research and the foresight to know future engineering limitations in every conceivable field! Do you have a testing facility with a wind tunnel in your back yard?

The "catastrophic UN IPCC models" are wrong? How do you know? Are you from the future? Attempting to predict climate change through modeling is tricky business, and we need more data before the dire predictions are tossed aside.

Way to pull numbers out of thin air while hiding your political bent (and lack of objectivity) until the last paragraph.

At least you didn't mention cow flatulence.

But the Mechanic is right. The new CAFE standards will kill performance cars. Just like the 1973 oil crisis killed muscle cars permanently. There's no way any rational person would take a 2010 Camaro SS over its 1969 forerunner. Technology has failed us all.

How much is it averaging now? When you buy performance car today, you paid gas-guzzler tax already, so it should be about the same in the future, just pay more tax if you want to go fast...

I dont see the problem here. If you look back to the 1970's and the regulations that were put in place to decrease dependence on foriegn oil, what happened oooh, 10yrs down the road?? Car makers started to build (real)performance again.

If the 70's were the end all, why the hell do we have the Mustang GT's, and Camaro SS's, now? Its because automakers found the technology to do it!

Its the 70's all over again, and guess what? There will be a 400hp+ turbo V6 Mustang sitting in your drive way some time down the line in the future. STOP BEING RETARDS!

Having recently bought a Mazdaspeed 3...I'm feeling smug after reading this column, I'm guessing I'm the only one feeling non hateful feelings lol.

I can see why "The Mechanic" won't sign his name. It's all over the rest of the site that many of the cars already on the road already meet the mandate because these are CAFE numbers, not EPA estimates. And we've heard all this crap before, yet how many midsize sedans aren't available now with 250HP+ engines? Two and one of them is only 1 off and gets 277HP next year.

Does anyone really think the automakers don't think they can readily make this yet still went along?

I think we should all relax. To imply we have seen the end of muscle cars is paranoia and panic. Granted, we might have performance cars that "suck" until technology catches up (kind of like they did in the mid 70's to the early 80's) but once it catches up, I believe we will see more efficient performance cars. As evident by the response here, there is still an interest in performance cars, there will always be a market, and car makers will find a way to cater to that demand around government regulations...it'll be ok --I also think people are mixing their political fears that Obama is trying to create a Socialist society and force all of us to drive identical black sedans like in the old Soviet Union...relax people, ride out the performance slump, and prepare for a rebirth...it'll happen.

With the accounting gimmicks the government plays with New CAFE and Old CAFE, not to mention the scams they create with peoples' money and the misleading economic statistics that are reported, I wonder why they have any credibility at all, especially with this bunch.

General Secretary Obama *is* trying to create a utopia, something more akin to one of which Karl Marx would have approved. He's punishing achievement and subsidizing failure, and trying to spread the misery around to more people so he and his comrades can grow their power and rule over the masses.

The projections from computer models are worthless when they're flawed from the beginning with invalid assumptions that don't include key factors. Garbage in, garbage out.

By cbrowder on May 21, 2009 8:19 PM
I think we should all relax. To imply we have seen the end of muscle cars is paranoia and panic. Granted, we might have performance cars that "suck" until technology catches up (kind of like they did in the mid 70's to the early 80's) but once it catches up, I believe we will see more efficient performance cars. As evident by the response here, there is still an interest in performance cars, there will always be a market, and car makers will find a way to cater to that demand around government regulations...it'll be ok --I also think people are mixing their political fears that Obama is trying to create a Socialist society and force all of us to drive identical black sedans like in the old Soviet Union...relax people, ride out the performance slump, and prepare for a rebirth...it'll happen.

It has nothing to do with all his socialist crap, it's the lamentation that I feel as a child of the 70's/80's I witnessed the CRAPola gutless cars that was put out by both domestics AND imports during those years when they tried in vain to match the speed and power (for the money) that was available in the 60's. Some have mentioned that we have the Camaro SS/Mustang GT, but again how many YEARS did it take for us to overcome the tech hurdles?

For those of us who value performance for the dollar, buy your performance cars/trucks NOW, before they become impossible to buy as new and sell for six figures on Barrett-Jackson in 2032.

Personally, I intend to get a new mustang gt as soon as I can afford it. I don't care if it makes 315hp or 400hp, so long as it has a v8 and a manual transmission. And boy do I intend to baby it and make it last.

I for one don't care if I randomly get pulled from my house for this one but here it goes. I am sick and tired already of Obama's two facing BS. He is confusing us and causing a great deal of distrust. I absolutely love my V8 and would be really tempted to start a protest myself if there is one day nothing larger than a four banger, if even that. I know the reality that we will all be driving smart cars (which don't even get 35mpg) if we want to reach Obama's ridiculous fleet average mandate. There are already so few vehicles that even reach that 35mpg mark and he wants it to be a mandated average?!?! I don't care that it is in 7 years, look at how hard we are trying to reach above 30mpg now! My moms Corolla is one of the most dull cars someone can buy. There are so many great vehicles that will be lost because of this, and like stated before with the government now basically having stock in GM and Chrysler, we will almost have to buy American. Sure, I would take a Mustang, Camaro, or Challenger today, but those options wont be around much longer. This leaves me to buy...a piece of crap. I absolutely despise this policy and will be first in line with my V8 coupe to do doughnuts in the White House front lawn if it does not change.

The 304-hp Camaro already gets 30-mpg combined in CAFE-speak. The cheapo light-hybrid Malibu already gets 40-mpg combined CAFE. Averaging 39-mpg CAFE for cars is perfectly achievable.

Everyone is missing the point. Since when do we allow the government to determine what type of cars people want to drive? If people demanded cars that obtained 35MPG, then auto makers would produce them.

What about the the impovershed? What about the lower class that the liberals aim to protect. With current technology, how much would a competitive, and i MEAN COMPETITIVE vehicle cost with today's technology that acheived 35-40MPG???? Who could afford that?? Current hybrids only become economical, meaning that the cost savings on fuel saved OUTWEIGHS the cost increase over standard models when fuel prices exceed $4-$5 per gallon....

It amazes me that we all sit here and pretend to believe that if the government mandates some standard, that the world will magically meet it....but at what cost?????????

I say we stick to AMERICAN ideals, where individuals, collectively in the market, dictate what producers produce....in other words, I believe that we should preserve OUR FREEDOM to buy what we choose and not let the loud MINORITY use goverment coersion to dictate what choices the majority has...that is called tyranny...

anyone who supports tyranny, please raise your hand...i didnt think so

I want a V8. I heard this on the BBC when I was driving home yesterday. While they were reporting on it I was continuously shouting at the radio "NO! BASICALLY NO CAR CAN GET 35 MPG!!". It is so frustrating for me to see greenies like this dominate what we're going to be able to drive.

I agree that in the future technology will allow us to have performance, but really, it's going to take awhile.

The Mechanic mentioned the Civic Si, and Magbarn mentioned the Civic EX. People think of the Civic as a very good, reliable, green, high mpg car. So when a staple of the high-MPG movement / state-of-mind (aka non-effective) car cannot meet the regulations then something has to give...

The BBC said that cars would have to increase an average of 5% per year to meet those standards... so that means taking the highway rating of my Sonata (30 mpg) and adding 2 mpg to it, just for one year. But we all know that cars aren't redesigned (or even refreshed) every year... this is a problem.

Mercedes and other German brands redesign their cars after very long periods, about 8 years. I'm thinking that they'll redesign them for 2015 then let them run as long as possible.

A 1.5 L 3 cylinder can only move so much. Moreover, that 1.5 L has to rev HIGH to be able to make the power. It's like merging onto the highway in a Honda Fit versus a 350Z. The Z does not have to break 3000 rpm and it'll get up to speed quickly, the Fit will be pushing 6000 and be much slower... Tiny engines have to rev to make their power.

Diesels are just ducky... but I don't want one. I think they're technically better at almost everything (MPG, durability, reliability, longevity) but they sound weird and don't make their power how I want. I'll buy a Lexus GS 400h (which doesn't meet the standards) before I buy a Jette TDI.

Apologies, I intended to say the GS 450h, not 400h. The RX 400h is what I was thinking of, which again, does not meet the standards.

It is amazing that in the 21st century there are still people with a muscle car mentality. The fist thing that comes to my mind is that most people don’t want a muscle car anymore. They want a car that is not only fast on a straight line but quick on corners. Secondly, why is this so important, for the writer of this article, to have a big car? Most women think that the bigger the car the man drives, the smaller the penis he has. (It’s a joke don’t take it seriously) Having a little knowledge about cars, I can courageously state that, V8 engine isn’t necessary to make your car fast. There are factors like aerodynamics, overall weight, engine location and even what you had for lunch, should be considered too. Most car manufacturers spend their time developing new lightweight and affordable materials. It might surprise you, but if you haven’t noticed it yet, the age of internal combustion engine is coming to an end. Most likely diesel engine will become a bridge to some kind of other way to keep us moving and it won’t be necessarily slow. Maybe faster then you can drive right now. Dear “The Mechanic”, do a little research about future car technologies and I’m sure that after scratching the back of your head a light bulb will come on. By the way, in one of the episodes of Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson used a V8 engine to power a food blender; I guess he’s right; this is want this engine will be used for in a future.

Yup it would be hell. A mix of automobiles more like the continent and less like dreams of John Wayne and wagon trains. Fewer attempts to recapture the glory of baby boomer youth in the 60s with thumping engines from the glory days when The Mechanic and his buds could . . . uh, thump along with the engines.
Performance cars along the lines of a Lotus. Yup, that would be hell. Innovation in structures, engines, transmissions. That would be hell. Programs to buy up older junkers from those of more modest means. Lord only knows, next thing folks will be expected to acknowledge they live in a complex society which is part of a wider world . . .
I don't know how to break it to 'The Mechanic' but steam engines were a great and a glorious thing. They're consigned to museums at this point. The world moves on.
Not The Mechanic. Nope. He just sits there and snarls hoping it will pass for provocative. Mired in the past, snarling, but toothless.
I was watching 'Steamboy' a few months back. The thought struck me with all the wonderful whirling innovation that that is precisely what we need at this point in time – to rise to the challenge of a new age and its possibilities.
Let those who want to sit in their rockers and snarl at a newfangled age and its priorities consign themselves to a bitter oblivion if they insist. The rest will move on with nary a look back.

As lenoroc pointed out, a hydrogen infrastructure is the way of the future.

In Series 12 Episode 7 of Top Gear, James May introduced the Honda FCX Clarity to the world. It looks like a normal car. Drives like a normal car. Functions like a normal car. But it runs on hydrogen - the most abundant element in the universe - and the only exhaust it drips out is H2O. The engine only has one moving part, so it will be infinitely simpler to maintain than internal combustion engines. And the only thing stopping mass production of the hydrogen car is the process of "unsticking" pure hydrogen from other elements. But as James May pointed out, if we can figure out how to build massive oil tankers, sail them to the middle of the ocean, drill out thousands of gallons of oil from the floor, and transport them back to land and refine the oil and sell it for $2.00 a gallon, we can surely figure out how to get more hydrogen (which is everywhere).

One thing I never understood about the US is why diesels never caught on. A diesel commuter car can easily achieve 50-60mpg, far more than a hybrid can. A diesel performance car can still maintain huge HP/TQ numbers while averaging 30-40mpg. In Europe, diesel powered cars are very common, and gasoline powered cars are considered to be more performance orientated and pricey. Diesel engines also burn much more efficiently - about 90% of fuel in a gasoline engine is wasted through heat energy - thus reducing the need for oil. Diesels are a great way to obtain great fuel economy, but the US has just never liked them for whatever reason.

Hybrid cars, although very innovative, are far too expensive to produce, cost considerably more than diesel cars, are costly to maintain, and cannot even obtain a superior mpg. The only reason why hybrids caught on is because of the ignorance on America's part of alternate fuels.

Electric cars get their power from electric companies. Most electric companies get their power from fossil fuels. Thus, electric cars are pointless when it comes to reducing the use of fossil fuels/oil. Also, it takes considerable time to recharge an electric car, and even the best electric cars today have a very limited driving range and cannot compete with a traditional gasoline car, so you'll have to be recharging it all the time. As James May pointed out, electric cars will be making us move backwards, slowing society down, and are not the way of the future.

The Mechanic is right about one thing though - big V8 power is going to become more of a premium than it is today. Back in the 60's, every other American car was powered by a RWD V8, and averaged around 10mpg city/15 mpg highway. Look at how far we've come. 39mpg is not an impossible feat to achieve.

rickshaw

thanks, thats all, goodnight!

Hey, you know when this column would have sounded really dead-on? 1978, when CAFE laws were rolled out for the first time. That time around, when auto-rag columnists crowed themselves hoarse that this was the final nail in the coffin, that fun cars were history, the sky was falling, etc., it was pretty scary. A lot of us believed it.

Yet here we are in 2009--anyone want to trade today's new cars for 1977's? Didn't think so. The V8 Camaro makes 426 horses vs. the 1977 model's 185. Heck, your grandpa's Avalon does 0-60 in the high fives.

I'd say it's lazy at best, and intentionally misleading at worst, for the Mechanic to dust off and regurgitate Brock Yates' thirty-year-old diatribe when it's been proven wrong every one of those thirty years, as faster and faster cars have hit the market. But maybe he just didn't bother looking up what CAFE is in the first place. Here's a hint: the "A" stands for "Average." Which means your 21/29 MPG Civic Si isn't getting canceled for not getting 35 MPG; Insight sales alone will handily balance the equation.

It's sad that in a country that prides itself on innovation (or used to, more accurately), our opinion leaders oppose progress at every turn, encouraging us to dig in our heels rather than rise to a challenge, going so far as to whine that it's un-American to expect new vehicles to have doubled their average mileage between 1978 and the year 2016. And we wonder why our jobs are disappearing.

Allow me to summarize the article:

Chicken little says, "OMGzZZzzZ!!!1!! Sky is Falling!!!111!"

I completely agree with this. Obama has done nothing but impose ridiculous, socialist, fuel economy laws. If I want a 6.2 liter V8 Corvette ZR1, I'm going to get one whether the government wants it or not. Eventually, when Obama leaves office I hope to prove to him that these laws were wrong, by coming to power and buying a V12 powered by coal. Then I'll have UAW members go in my trunk, shoveling coal into the engine.

btw if you look in the past, people foresaw a future of large, spacious sedans powered by V16s. In fact, the "past" really wasn't that long ago. People thought we'd be diving V16s during the nineties. That's why all the concept cars back then weren't trying to go green, they were trying to get bigger, better, and faster. Now were in a dismal, socialist, liberalist, hag hole we call the US of A.

This should be absolutely mindblowing to everybody! The fact is that even the best compacts out there right now (save a few hybrids) can't touch this standard. So let's say that EVERYTHING becomes a hybrid by 2016. Will that be enough? Can it even be done?

Thanks, America for voting this bastard into office and leaving everything up to him and his idiot Pelosi-ites! So we'll be paying taxes out of the ying-yang AND won't even be able to take our agressions out on our favorite twisty road anymore. I would say that will spike alchohol sales, but I'm sure prohibition would be just around the corner (ok, that's a stretch!).

Yeah, Obama's on a rampage to save the world. Maybe if he goes after the rest of the world's heavy polluters...like China. Oh, wait. They own us now. Nevermind.

You are all missing a point... For example back in the days of the carburator and muscle cars what was the average MPG? 15? 20 tops? then innovation came and the Fuel injection came out bringing the average much higher (2010 Camaro for example)... by at least 10-15 mpg MORE and performance and reliability increased too!

Now who says the Mini Cooper is not a fun car to drive? yes it's small but according to the mechanic cars are going to be ugly and boring... well I used to get 37mpg in the hwy in the mini and 30 in the city...

Things are going to change and to tell you the truth if someone has the money to buy a V10 or V12 then they should also have the money to pay a gas guzzler tax...

Oh and rubley... I wouldn't call the tesla HIGH efficient... Takes forever to charge, it uses a LOT of batteries so be careful in an accident... and those batteries don't last that long.

It's a quick car... but not efficient at all...

You are exactly on point even though many people will argue that the new requirements aren't that bad, etc (which is true if you believe the liberal media which of course defends Obama at all costs). The main point that people miss is that the auto industry at (least the GM/Chrysler part of it) is in bed with the government. People gave in to the bailout garbage, felt sorry for the companies, and now the government and the lazy/overpaid UAW own the companies. Now that sounds like a great recipe for a car company doesn't it! I cannot believe that people don't realize what this guy is doing. The Mechanic is right, Obama wants us all to be driving these crap hyper mileage cars that are ugly, have no power, horrible braking, crappy interiors, and don't do the environment the least bit of good. While he is taking laps in Air Force One for pictures, driving his gas guzzling motorcade to go buy a burger for a photo op, and flying to Europe to bad mouth the US to Muslims, the guy is a fraud and cannot be trusted. He fails to realize that if we as Americans want to drive SUVs & exotics when gas is $5/ gallon that's our choice. Depending on your budget, may not be an economical choice, but that's our choice! I agree, the used market will be a popular one and auto parts suppliers are equally excited.

The sky isn't falling, folks. The Mechanic just forgot to do his homework. Oops.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/05/when-cafe-meets-epa-a-tale-of-two-fuel-economy-standards.html

The Mechanic would be right if we lived in a world without technological progress. There are going to be more and more cars that make phenomenal gas mileage and deliver great performance. Now, perhaps these cars won't be quite out in 2016, but I think we all survived the years without the three cars pictured above.

Then again, you have to ask yourself what the alternative is, and that is to continue marching down the road of accelerating global warming and sending hundreds of billions of dollars annually overseas to oil-producing nations, many of whom are our enemies. Hugo Chavez loves your Hemi. So does Ahmadinejad. So does Osama Bin Laden, and his oil-funded network of terror. I don't know about y'all, but I'll accept a car that only goes 0-60 for a little while if it means we don't destroy the planet and don't fund our enemies.

People scare me...and I'm certainly not talking about Obama.

I forsee lot's of Camaro's rolling around with gunracks in the back window. We're in trouble.

My commute is only 2 miles a day. I want to drive a car that goes fast. I don't want to drive a Fiat 500. I want to drive a Camaro SS (the original or new). I want to drive an American car that says I'm an American. I'm tired of people trying to make me think that is wrong. So all of you naysayers can get in your Smartcars and get smooshed in a head on with a Corolla.

At the risk of sounding like the old geezer that I am, I agree with drive571's comment that this column is straight out of 1978. I was in high school then and remember reading Car and Driver's apocalyptic predictions over how we were all going to be driving even wheezier Dodge Omnis (Omnii?). I think the flawed assumption, then and now, is that current technology is the pinnacle of achievement and there's no way to improve. In 1978, the ability of computers, fuel injection, and better catalytic converters to improve efficiency were not factored into CD's predictions. Yes, cars are more expensive today in real terms, but they are so much better. Trust me, I was there and most cars of the 1960s and 1970s, by current objective standards, sucked big time.

Frankly, these Mechanic columns are kind of like a freeway crash or Jeremy Clarkson. I know that I'm not going to gain much by paying attention, but I end up looking anyway.

This is the first time I’m ever leaving a comment on Inside Line, partly because I disagree with the Mechanics propaganda. I absolutely agree with anyone who thinks that the Mechanic is a complete idiot. It is 21st century after all, why are we supposed to drive muscle cars that were “cool” last century? Also, I do not understand why do you people compare today’s cars with standards that will be implicated 7!!! years from now? It is irrelevant to compare todays and future cars. I do not understand why has not the Mechanic said anything about projects like Tesla Model S that you can preorder now? It is all electric, seats 7 people, up to 300 mile range, and 0-60 in 5.6 seconds! With all the respect to the Mechanic Tesla’s Model S is far from TATA and 5.6 seconds to 60 is not slow. It is also true that the price of Tesla is almost 50 grand at this point, but if you know some economics (supply-demand), it is simple to assume that if all the carmakers will start investing in projects like Model S, the prices will eventually go down. Not to mention that it is only the beginning of electric car technology. If Tesla, can make a car like Model S today, imagine the cars that will be created in 7 years? Same goes to SUV’s, Obama is not telling Americans that they cannot be Americans anyone and drive a SUV, he only sends a message to carmakers that they need to adopt to changes that will take carmakers into 21st century by making cars more efficient and environment friendly. And if the Mechanic still wants us to basically hand our money to the terrorist organizations by purchasing gas, it is his right to do so…

Performance, Fuel Economy, Cost. Holding any one the same, to raise the second you have to raise the third. It's not that regulated fuel economy will destroy performance. It's that it will raise the price on ALL cars (fast ones in particular). What's avaialable to buy and what is within our means to buy are two different things - and they are going to change.

How can anyone have more fun than a little Miata or a Mini? Muscle cars are for insecure men.

I think these new standards are a death sentence to fast and beautiful cars.

I, like many others, enjoy how my car looks and performs. I like driving. To think of a future filled with ugly, odd shaped wedges with pitiful acceleration and speed saddens me. I feel like these cars take all the enjoyment and fun out of the driving experience and replace it with getting from A to B.

I feel that as an American I should have the right to buy whatever car I choose. I hope that my future still holds that right.

o ye of little faith...

just because its the end of the 15mpg V8 era doesn't mean its the end of fast, well handling, beautiful cars. it doesn't mean we're all going to be driving quadracycles with 50cc engines, it means engines will shift towards hybrid or electric powerplants to achieve the same kind of performance we're used to.

its the same deal as Kennedy's "to the moon" speech. make a mandate and force technology to meet the goal.

Nothingness, and all you other pseudomen, Yes this may not mean the end of fast, fun, performance cars, but it DOES mean the end of the cars that real men like to drive. Rear wheel drive, rubber-layin, honkin' V8, burblin' exhaust cars that give you a woody just sitting at a stoplight. The real men reading this will know what I'm talking about; the creampuffs who drive Honda Civics and Subarus will not. To Mr. Mechanic and all the rest of you out there who know what I'm talking about, go by yourself the muscle car of your dreams, because in a few short years they will never see an assembly line again. And the existing ones will be command prices far beyond what most of us can afford. Rumble on my friends.

The Civic (non-si) does pass the 39mpg CAFE target. Here is a list of cars that do, for those to stupid to understand the difference between EPA and CAFE numbers. This and more can be found at the link Sebastian provided if you have thirty seconds to educate yourself before you start talking like an idiot.

Aveo
Cobalt
Malibu Hybrid
Civic
Fit
Accent
Rio
Mini Cooper
Sentra
Versa
G3
G5
Aura Hybrid
Xd
Camry Hybrid
Corolla
Prius
Yaris
Jetta TDI
ForTwo

There's some middle ground here. It's historically un-American and, depending on your political bent, just plain wrong for the gov't to tell us what to buy with regulation. But it's also true that, well, several billion people populate the earth and not all of them can drive a G8 around without some kind of appreciable effect on their surrounding environment.

The philosophy behind the legislation is pretty simple. There's too many people. There's not enough resources. The Mechanic and his ilk invoke meaningless platitudes like 'the American way' to justify the selfish behavior that's the primary reason LA's skyline is blocked out by smog every morning at 8:00 a.m.

Mandating greater MPG standards is, more than anything, a part of a larger carrot-and-stick strategy by the gov't to curb traditional energy consumption (fossil fuels) and encourage investment in renewables and alternative fuels.

None of those technologies have become commercially viable. But without government prodding, where would they be?

The internal combustion engine is an awesome thing. But we buy the stuff that powers it from people that run planes into our buildings. It's a 100-year old technology, and it's starting to show. As difficult and frustrating as the transition to unusual and intially awkard powertrains may be, it's inevitable and in the end, beneficial.

The new CAFE standards aren't the beginning of the end. They're the beginning of the beginning.

sabastian thank you. I'm curious what The Mechanic thinks of that article by his own people!

I don't think there are too many people, if by people you mean Americans. There are too many awful-POS cars out there that need to be removed from the road. You replace ALL the cars on the road today with sub-14 second 1/4 mile cars (BMW 335, G8 GT etc) and there will be less pollution than the current mix of Priiii and awful beaters.

By bepperb on May 22, 2009 6:58 AM
The Civic (non-si) does pass the 39mpg CAFE target. Here is a list of cars that do, for those to stupid to understand the difference between EPA and CAFE numbers. This and more can be found at the link Sebastian provided if you have thirty seconds to educate yourself before you start talking like an idiot.

Aveo
Cobalt
Malibu Hybrid
Civic
Fit
Accent
Rio
Mini Cooper
Sentra
Versa
G3
G5
Aura Hybrid
Xd
Camry Hybrid
Corolla
Prius
Yaris
Jetta TDI
ForTwo

Let's see out of all the cars you've listed only TWO are even remotely satisfying to drive (TDI & Mini) the rest are serious POC's (from a enthusiasts POV.) The Civic SI, 370Z, Camaro, Mustang, Challenger, M3, Corvette, C63 AMG, IS-F... all seem to be missing. Speaking of the Corvette, they'd have to put a 2.5L V6/I-4 to meet the standard. Hybrid doesn't cut it for sports cars. Let's see yay I can go 0-60 in 5.5 seconds for the first 2 runs and then the 3rd run, batteries are depleted, so I'm stuck with my 2.0L I-4 pushing 0-60 in 10 seconds. The Tela again isn't even on my list as until you develop a battery that can fully charged in time it takes to fill up a tank of gas...

I have little respect for people who hide behind their words. I get that it gives you an edge, but this was just as bad as reading a blog from some Joe Nobody. Anyone have a better car site I can switch to for my news?

To those who think a real man should only drive a V8 muscle car, you are dead wrong! Real man ride I4 or L2, cars are girly whether it's V8 or V800.

"The Mechanic" needs to begin writing with substance and style rather than spewing bullshit. I always despise what he writes because his words are unsubstantiated and prove his low level of education.

As mentioned before, CAFE standards are different from EPA standards. I believe Jalopnik recently came out with a breakdown of how far automakers are from the 2016 CAFE standards, and Honda and Toyota are not far at all.

http://jalopnik.com/5261242/no-automakers-meet-obamas-new-fuel-economy-standard

Well there is some obvious truth in this. I well rememder the late 70's and 80's. For a while there will be a drought of performance cars, look at Hondas present line up as an example, as usual they are ahead of the curve. That doesn't mean that the sport car is dead, it means new ways to make cars fast will emerge. One good example is electric cars, they can be superbly fast.... if they used multigear trannies though a motor is certainly different from an engine, it too has a more "effecient" rotational speed. And so on.... The fast car has been dead more times than I can count, the truth is they always come back in one way or another. A good example, again, is Honda when the Pony car went dead everyone moaned that nothing short of a V8 could be fast, then Honda gave us production, normally aspirated 4 cylinder engines that could make 120Hp per liter (I've got mine!), thus demonstrating that you could have fun from a little banger! The same story will happen this time. I can see NAPA selling "HIGH PERFORMANCE" ultracapacitors or "ported and polished hygrogen injectors" or whatever. The fast car will be back, its propulsion, however, will be different.

"Let's see out of all the cars you've listed only TWO are even remotely satisfying to drive"

Yeah, I agree with that. Just pointing out that were not nearly as far off as the Mechanic and some early posters stated. Maybe the Fit isn't so bad, either, as long as it's not in a straight line.

Also, the mandate is an average. So Chevy can sell a bunch of Aveo/Cobalt/Malibu Hybrids to balance out all the corvettes. This isn't a bar that every car needs to meet. It's an average the automakers need to meet.

I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong. Just that we're pretty close already, and really just another summer of 4.50 a gallon gas before consumers would demand this anyway. And I would bet we'll have $4.00 gas sometime before 2016.

If its anything, this is one thing I cannot support. It doesnt matter if its a 4 cylinder or a V8, if i demand a high performance car, than they should continue producing them for me. There is a reason why V8's are still being produced and they aren't just american. Its not so much that a Muscle car cant go through turns since they are virtually corrected in this day and age, but Muscle have strong character that other cars do not have, its a magical feeling. I mean muscle cars are the backbone of american industries, without them, everyone will be driving hondas or worse yet nanos. Sure you can buy a tesla and speed around the track, listening to the wind, in your one gear for 2-3 hours. But like many of you out there I love cars, not electric toys. I love hearing engines roar, shifting through gears, and that feeling of complete euphoria on the straightaway. There are other solutions.
39 mpg is ridiculous, diesels, many electrics, and hybrids are only a temporary solution to tackling "global warming" Since many of you guys were referring to Top Gear and Jeremy Clarkson, I recall him saying some like, "its not what you drive, its how you drive it"

There's another way around CAFE that's just around the corner - electric.

The transformation has already begun - first hybrids (many examples already on the road), then electric with gas engines only as generators (Volt), then all electric but affordable (a mainstream Tesla). The only major technical hurdle is battery technology (though I'll admit that there are related political hurdles). With hybrids, Volts, and Teslas, and new initiatives like the U. of Michigan - GM battery technology initiative, high capacity inexpensive storage will be made available. Its an engineering, materials science and supply management refinement problem at this point, rather than an issue requiring some mind-blowing scientific break-through. Its like the design challenges referred to above that came out of the 70's oil crisis, air quality control measures, and safety regulations.

Then instead of miles per gallon we will talk about something like miles per KWatt.

I'll miss the sounds of internal combustion, and the manual transmissions, but I understand electric motors produce great low-end torque.

"Also, the mandate is an average. So Chevy can sell a bunch of Aveo/Cobalt/Malibu Hybrids to balance out all the corvettes. This isn't a bar that every car needs to meet. It's an average the automakers need to meet."

Yes. The problem is, nobody wants to buy an Aveo or Cobalt.

So how are they going to sell a bunch of them to balance out the cars people actually want?

By putting a huge (think 50%) hike in the price of cars that can get out of their own way, and using that to both discourage demand and to subsidize the price of the Aveos they need to move to counter it out.

The Mechanic is exactly right with his article. That is exactly where this country is headed. Anyone who doesn't see it, must have failed high school Physics.

I'm going to buy a 2010 CTS-V in the fall, and I originally planned to keep it for 10 years, but based on the Obamanation plan, I'll likely keep it for far longer. I was also thinking of selling my '02 Z06 when I get the CTS-V, but now I think I'll keep both.

So, when including my Suburban, my garage will house a total of 24 cylinders, 1,201 hp, and 18.4 liters of displacement. A big F.U. to the government. They can try to take it away from me over my dead body.

One thing that is certain is that the automotive industry has always needed to be prodded to move technology forward. To that end, I agree that the need for government intervention would sometimes appear to be needed. The sad reality is that if government were never to do so we'd likely still be driving carbureted behemoths with no seat belts, or the like. Demand would simply never have demanded such tech. Then again cars would cost half as much as today's and would weigh considerably less.

Another fact is that today's vehicles are far more efficient than their predecessors. My father had a Jeep Wagoneer in 1979. It weighed about 3600 pounds, managed only 11-13 mpg, was not very powerful and had no safety features to speak of. I now have an '08 Nissan Armada. It weighs about 4800 pounds, gets about 14-16 mpg and has safety features out the whazoo. The Armada is also huge in size in comparison to that Wagoneer (which was considered full sized in its day). Now if the Armada even split the difference in weight and size with that Wagoneer and added a hybrid drive system (that would be a real feat within itself!), it would likely get 20-24 mpg. But even that would fall woefully short of the new standards.

Again, as I previously posted, today's current compacts barely manage the proposed standard even on the highway cycle. And electric/hybrid only hides the real effect on the pocketbook and the environment (plug and play, right?). So what is the real solution here?

Agrees with themechanic. But this is what we get for allowing Marx, oops, i mean Obama to be elected. We all heard of his socialist background, and were heedless to the warnings. Maybe if we still have the freedom to vote by the next election, we can all drive our G(overnment)M(otors)/Lada Samara, made from hemp, and fueled by granola, to "change" for the better! Change is what was promised, and what we got.

"Yes. The problem is, nobody wants to buy an Aveo or Cobalt."

Really? They sell more Cobalts than Corvettes.

"Again, as I previously posted, today's current compacts barely manage the proposed standard even on the highway cycle"

No. Every single compact passes the standard on the combined cycle. As has been pointed out on Edmunds and on this thread.

The Mechanic is 100% right. Seriously, people, stop drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. You can disagree with him on one issue, it's OK.

I guess we'll just have to wait till 2016 to see just how right The Mechanic is.

lastboyscout, ahahahaaaaa, great post. You are exactly right!

I didn't read the comments before posting, forgive me for I have sinned. Anyway...

1. It's not like all currently-existing muscle cars will go *poof* and disappear. Just buy a used one and get over it. You'd probably do that anyway.

2. Good mileage is not the antithesis of fun. They can (and should, and will) coexist.

the mechanics blogs are consistently nothing more than the death rattle of a dying dinosaur. ironically, the more we post our hatred for him on this forum, the more secure his job becomes, as the number of posts, good or bad, are a sign of how many hits his blog gets.

This CAFE increase is happening because:
1. The voting public (most of whom are not car nuts) voted for a liberal president
2. The president has to figure out how to increase fuel economy to reduce particulate and CO2 emissions (voters have given him a mandate to do this)
3. The president doesn't have the balls to increase gas taxes (which would address the real problem: fuel consumption), but prefers to pass the ball off onto automakers, who the voting public hates right now

Thus, this CAFE increase manages to do a bunch of things that voters like: it promises to spur the advance of alternate-fuel technologies, it reduces public guilt over fuel use, and it screws over the automakers. And it does this, of course, without giving any incentive for consumers to reduce their individual fuel consumption.

So, from an environmentalist standpoint, CAFE has always been an ineffective solution, and this new legislation does not address that. From a car enthusiast standpoint, CAFE restricts individual freedoms by reducing the variety of automobiles that mainstream manufacturers are capable of offering. But, it sounds good to voters and it doesn't directly hit their checkbooks in a tangible way, so politicians like it. So it goes.

American cars need to go on a diet take the F-150 and Charger they are pigs. You don't need 400 horses and a V8 if your car does not way 4,000lbs. I am excited about the range of turbo 4 and 6 cylinder engines that will be making their way down the pipe line. My BMW gets around 30 highway and still gives me enough power to pass almost anything on the road. WE NEED TO WEEN OURSELVES Off of middle east and south american oil. Now maybe mercedes and bmw will start importing their six cylnder engies in their large luxery sedans and coupes. This is better for our environment and national security

(or do you really think that our brave young men and women are fighting in Iraq so Iraqis can have the right to vote. We are their because of the oil and our oil addiction)

Let gas prices determine what we can drive, not the government. When gas prices go way up, people tend to buy smaller cars, but at least they still have the choice to buy larger cars if they have the money and the will to pay higher gasoline bills.

LOL!

Have we all become illiterate?

CAFE 39 = EPA 28

My Accord I4 has never gotten below 29 mpg. I just don't see the problem here. No one is saying you cant drive a particular car. The government signed this into law with the full and immediate support of the auto makers. Because they know they can already meet or exceed this standard.

First post BTW and I would assume that is the reason for this blog. To stir up comments and web traffic. Good business move Edmunds, but just sad.

The Mechanic is just trying to get posts. His column can only be called ignorant.

FWIW, I loved this post:
"But the Mechanic is right. The new CAFE standards will kill performance cars. Just like the 1973 oil crisis killed muscle cars permanently. There's no way any rational person would take a 2010 Camaro SS over its 1969 forerunner. Technology has failed us all."

That's good stuff.

As someone who has owned a 2007 Cooper S (and averaged 31 MPG driving it hard) and a 2007 335i (300HP and I get 22 mpg average), I really don't get the big deal. BMW sells the 320d and 330d in Europe - both of those average well over 30 mpg. Heck, a 520d recently beat a Prius on a long distance drive. The europeans have a plethora of nice, comfortable, safe, flashy, fun diesel cars. And they still have high performance models too.

The technology is there - we've just been focusing on power for so long that Americans forgot all the engineering prowess to make cars more reliable is in effect across the pond.

I would totally buy a 220hp 4 cylinder Ecoboost Mustang that gets 32MPG! Or better yet - I would love to get a 4 cylinder turbo-diesel Mustang that makes about 300 ft-lbs torque and gets 45 MPG!

Mustang and Corvette are already very light weight - but there is no reason why their weight cannot decrease further.

I would pay more for a ligher / faster / more economical fun car!

Just because we need to be more environmental - does not mean we cannot have anymore fun.

I heard the CAFE ratings were lower, so the entire company's fleet would have to average about 26 MPG, as Edmunds had in their article yesterday ... http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=148693 That aside, I really think that this is good, because fast fun cars do not have to be gas guzzlers. Maybe its time to make some automotive progress. Plus, the companies can still build some gas guzzlers and sports cars, as long as they balance it out with a fuel efficient car.

Wait and see, after the gov't takes away our right to drive what we want, they'll tell us how to drive the little biodegradable cars too. Twenty years from now we'll be driving cars made from corn to office buildings made of wheat via roads of dirt, all at about 35mph. But we'll all be smiling b/c they'll run on farts.

I love cars, but I hate most car lovers because they are so close minded and tend to ignore basic tenets of logic.

Edmunds, you guys are going to become the Republican Party of auto websites. You're chasing away all the smart, thoughtful people with the tripe you put out there.

"I'm going to start hoarding cars from this last golden age of performance. Maybe I'll pack away a Camaro SS, Shelby GT500 and Corvette ZR1."

If you have so much cash that you can buy all these cars, then why are you whining to us at all?

Better some hoard guns as well for the Obamacolypse! Way to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and hide behind an anonymous moniker to troll for page clicks and comments. Good job, Edmunds. Your advertisers will love you.

by by fun, damn you obama

bemanix88....you nailed it!

Back in the early 90's the Accord was a smaller car with about 130 hp and no V-6 option, today it is even more popular w/ the public, and has an optional 3.5 liter V-6 that produces about 270 hp. The whole time emissions, safety, and FE standards have been increasing.

If you want to argue the basis for government to do this in the first place, fine (you'd still lose that argument to more educated people), but quit distorting this legislation into something it's not, then giving predictions on the consequences of the legislation that is completely rediculous. The idea that even cars like the Honda Accord with "larger 4 cylendars" are going to be the biggest thing you can buy is a complete distortion of the facts and Edmunds should be embarassed for even posting this article.

The US is 4% of the world population but we use 20% of the oil. Are we really victims here?

During the 1970's I figured that the gas crisis could be beaten if only the government would allow me (and others of like mind) to have a go cart sized car for use on all road, highways, and Interstates. My cart car would even get great mileage despite having a high performance engine as it would weigh 500-750 lbs. (it's not a cart, but Suzuki's Hayabusa gets mid forties mileage with great performance and is app. 565 lbs.). Well, here we are three decades later and my cart car still isn't legal. And that's the problem. Government will not allow an affordable, fuel efficient high performance cart car as it doesn't want such a vehicle available to the average motorist. High performance electric or hydrogen powered vehicles will eventually be available for the wealthy, but they will not be affordable by the average consumer for decades.

I totally agree with TheMechanic, i think these regulations taking place in the future are a load of crap, I mean why did Obama have to set the bar so high... an average of 39mpg per fleet? Would this not put more pressure on American car companies and increase the chance of more job losses? To say at least I'm ashamed to say that I voted for Obama, I never knew he would do this us car-enthusiasts.

I totally agree with TheMechanic, I think these regulations taking place in the future are a load of crap, I mean why did Obama have to set the bar so high... an average of 39mpg per fleet? Would this not put more pressure on American car companies and increase the chance of more job losses? To say at least I'm ashamed to say that I voted for Obama, I never knew he would do this to us car-enthusiasts.

People, do your fxxxing research! This is NOT the reality of the new CAFE standards. Yet, because of your political biases, you're ready to assume The Mechanic is right, no matter how outrageous or distorted his maniacal postings become.

Appealing to people's fears is obviously a more powerful tool than appealing to their ability to absorb real facts. This is why people listen to Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz, et al on the right, and Al Franken, Keith Olberman, and (of all people) Alec Baldwin on the left.

People, do your fxxxing research! This is NOT the reality of the new CAFE standards. Yet, because of your political biases, you're ready to assume The Mechanic is right, no matter how outrageous or distorted his maniacal postings become.

Appealing to people's fears is obviously a more powerful tool than appealing to their ability to absorb real facts. This is why people listen to Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz, et al on the right, and Al Franken, Keith Olberman, and (of all people) Alec Baldwin on the left.

I'm not sure why anyone would run out and buy a performance car now and plan to keep it for the long run. You do realize that once the CARB loonies figure out what you're doing they'll impose a 1000% tax on Parts For Excessively Consuming Cars.

Remember the turn of the 60's into the 70's? When cars were perfectly happy to get 10 mpg on the highway, before CAFE, and before the first oil crisis? If someone had come in and said, "Fleets must get 12 mpg by 1978" the automotive world would have cried foul, as the mechanic is doing now. But they did it, in fact, by the early 1990's, they'd reached the same levels of fuel economy we now find acceptable (the current CAFE requirements, 26.5 or whatever it is), and since then have held those requirements while increasing power, performance and size. Initially, yes, they did it by cutting on things like weight, power, and general fun (the early Civics, with 50+ mpg ability come to mind), but performance came around, when they figured out how to achieve both. Car companies will do the same here.

Think of something like the Volt, which will get stratospheric mpg numbers - Chevy sells a few of those, and the Camaro SS will still be feasible. Also, consider that hybrids will likely constitute larger and larger portions of vehicles. Look at the V6 Accord hybrid from a few years ago - I can't remember exactly, but it got around 250+ hp, and around 35 mpg (EPA rated, on the highway I believe). Apply that same system to a 370Z, and suddenly a 18mpg gas-guzzling sports car is a 23-24mpg modest sports car; yes, with more weight, but also a decent boost in low-end torque from the battery. Once carmakers learn how to modulate the brakes on these things properly, the difference between a hybrid and a conventionally driven car will be negligible.

Oh, and CO2 is a pollutant. And 0.1 degree celsius is still a relavent amount in global warming terms. But there's no point telling the Mechanic that. I just say it more as the token liberal who feels obliged to because the sheer stupidity of the opposing side.

A totally idiotic post from a totally idiot. That was so erroneous that maybe he was being sarcastic...

" I love cars, but I hate most car lovers because they are so close minded and tend to ignore basic tenets of logic.

Edmunds, you guys are going to become the Republican Party of auto websites. You're chasing away all the smart, thoughtful people with the tripe you put out there."

don't you mean, "they are chasing away all of the gullible, Kool Aid drinking whiny liberals."

That would work for me.

get over it. This is among many of the reasons why America is to stubborn to change for the better. The big three failed continuously to create a reliable fuel efficient sports car. As for the Mustang, Camaro, and Corvette; they all have rival models that beat them in performance and fuel efficiency. Its time for America to stop our lust for power, we live in a new age and our cars need to reflect that.

shah, you should be ashamed that you believe what The Mechanic wrote. It's lies and distortions. The average EPA needed to meet the new regs is 26 MPG.

Additionally, a car enthusiast should be aware that low weight is the key to performance AND efficiency. Beyond that, there now plenty of highly efficient, fun to drive, safe cars available throughout the world and they meet or beat the EPA numbers.

Finally, even IF the the car companies needed to average 39 MPG (which they DON'T) that doesn't mean the end of performance cars. Did Porsche, Mercedes, Ferrari, Lotus, Lambo, BMW suddenly stop making cars in the 70s and 80s? Are you saying the Ferrari Daytona Spyder didn't exist? The 2002? The 911 Turbo?

You guys really need to educate yourselves...

hot rods everywhere? that doesn't sound so bad. Hot rods are much more fun than normal cars.

the corvette is one of the most fuel efficient v8 sports/muscle cars around and the v6 camaro gets 29 mpg on the highway.

Why does everyone talk like it was detroit's responsibility to create fuel efficient cars when no one wanted them? Why do you think MG and alfa pulled out of the US

Zephyr_7, please engage brain first, then type. The base Corvette has 430 hp, a top speed in excess of 170 mph and an EPA highway rating of 26 mpg, for a price of about $50k. What $50k car comes close?

I'm sure the mechanic would go as far to say that the girly miata is a 'bad' roadster; that the small Mini wasn't a huge success; that the Prius and Insight are a step backwards in fuel economy.
Well maybe the mechanic has 'bad' judgment, and he will cease to be a 'huge' success, and maybe he's the one who needs to take a step forward with Americans instead of a step back.

This is the stupidest column I've ever read.

I thought this was Edmunds, not Fox News.

I agree with wagonmonster. and Stephen987 as far as research, anyone who has ever driven a base Corvette know that the EPA highway 26mpg is a joke, the Corvette averages 17 -18mpg. we can do better

In the words of Rodney King, Can't we all just get along?

Damn you Americans are really morons! Do you know how ineffectiv your cars really are? Why do all your cars need big block engines with low output and lousy mpg?

And this is not the end of fun cars! Today you can buy (in Europe) a BMW 325d that will get 42MPG. This can has 3 liter inline 6 diesel engine with 197bhp and 295lbs of torque. It will sprint from 0-62mph in 7,4 seconds. Think what kind of cars you can get in seven years?

You Americans really gotta stop whyeing!

Yes, this guy definately is an idiot. the only thing he has done right is get me riled up enough to sign up and respond !
If the auto makers were doing their job and moving forward in making reliable cars that consume less gas on at least a bi-yearly basis, the mpg regulations that Obama has set forth would be no suprise and would probably be a very low standard. Most of us do want powerful asthetically apealing cars. At the same time the economy and our health is far more important. I would definately say good bye to my SS or HEMI knowing that we will have a more controlled future. This also seems to be the only way that the auto makers will take more drastic steps in making cars that we will really like from all points and be more fuel efficient. Yea some may complain about the prices at first but look at where we started with the first prices of dvd players and portable nav systems. It's wont take a lifetime to do this and its seems as though we already started. More power to Obama.

TELL ME WHY I'M WRONG:
CAFE ratings are for the manufactuer and not for each individual model. So if GM produces the Volt and rebadges them to sell as the Converj,etc. they can easily raise their CAFE rating(as the Volt is estimated to get 100+MPG EPA) and keep cars like the Escalade ESV and Camaro SS around. This is also true with smaller brands such as Subaru as they are planning to have U.S. hybrids and diesels by 2012, so yes the WRX can stay. Gas Guzzlers and performance cars do not have to leave just Gas Sippers need to be added. The Gas Sippers can be as crappy and cheap as the manufacturer wants them to be because their CAFE rating raises regardless of the cars being sold/driven.

Guess what, there are plenty of cars that aren't meeting current requirements, they just slap a gas guzzler tax and that's it. All this will change is the SUV market and the mainstream sales of SUVs. Which I for one think is a good thing. As for these "fun cars", they may cost slightly more but they won't disappear. These are niche cars and are not volume cars, they will not cease to exist as long as the niche exists. I would be more concerned about fuel prices than this.

Oil is a finite resource. Even if 50% of the world’s oil supply remains, as some research suggests, it eventually will be gone.
What we need to remember is that oil is not only used for automotive fuel, it is also used for lubricants, asphalt, heating fuel, plastics, and much more.
While alternatives may be found for some of these applications, others will be far more difficult to find a substitute.
Think of everything that we rely on that is made of plastic. Is there a substitute that has the same properties for all of the various applications that plastic is used for?
Think of a world without plastic?
Shouldn't we be using oil for the things that we do not have an alternative for?
I will lament the demise of the vehicles that are currently termed as muscle cars, but as has been mentioned previously, I believe they will be resurrected again using new technology.
What we need to do is to remember that our actions now will affect the world later. I am willing to sacrifice some things knowing that it will benefit people in the future. Even though I will never meet them and tell them what I did for them.
We cannot continue to operate in a “More (for) Me Now” mentality.
Many of you have or will have children. What are you leaving for them?
This is what I think about when I go to my 11 year old nephew’s soccer games and then out for ice cream with his teammates, all bursting with the innocence of youth.
What am I leaving them?

As much as I'd like to see a 6'4" fat extremist right wing blowhard fit into a Mini Cooper every day, that's hardly going to be the case. I sure hope "The Mechan-hick" wasn't paid for this trash. There are so many half-truths, lies, and hyperbole in this article that I don't even know how to reply.

Okay, I just read this article and most of the comments people are leaving are bull sh*t. If you are reading anything on Edmunds.com you are probably into cars...Honda Accords, and Camrys are not the kind of cars people on this website want to hear or read about. We care about sick cars, big V-8's, cars that turn heads, etc... i.e.: MB E63 AMG, BMW M5, 335i, SRT-8 models, Challenger, Camaro, the new 750i (SICK!), etc.

Nobody here wants to drive a f*cking accord or camry haha and if someone here does your a duche. I really dont care who the president is since our votes dont count for sh*t anyways haha, but I do care about someone trying to make cars average 39+ mpg! Is this a joke? Maybe a clerical error lol!!! What the f*ck is he talking about? There are maybeeee 3 or 4, boring and ugly-ass cars that can acheive 39 mpg, and if you drive one your a looser and should get a better job so you can buy a different car haha.

I dont mean to step on any toes here, but this is a joke and im glad i didnt vote, becuase if i did i might throw up in my mouth. This is almost as big of a joke as no cell phones or texting while driving hahahaa whata joke...nobody even gives a good sh*t about that dumb-ass law...everyone still talks on their damn phone and texts. I advise everyone with a navigation system to get a hack disk for your unit so that you can use it while you drive as well. My cousin-in-law burned me a copy of his hacked nav disk and now i can use my nav at any speed in my Charger R/T.

In closing, guys, everytime you pass a ugly-ass Civic or Prius cut um off and floor your big, fun, loud (hopefully you have exhaust) V8 by their duchey ass haha. Even my fiance drives a C6 and she hates hybrids, except the Lexus GS450h which we are going to get when she gets pregnant.

Oh, and one last thing, dont buy brand-new!! Buy used or certified pre owned. You can gea sick car for so much less...just get one still under warranty and with low miles...

I cant wait to see ever person with a civic or accord or some other dumb-ass duchey car respond to this hahaaa.

For all you virgins with a civic, save up and buy a used vette or something with a V-8 and put exhaust on it hahaa...late!

- Shane (L.A.)

I thought this column was the stupidest thing I've ever read.

Until I read charger_rt's comment.

Hey Space Raptor, just because you aren't interested enough to do the research (try signing up with the SAE, you can get discounts on conference proceedings if you don't want to spend the $1000-$2000 to attend like I do) don't go get snarky with someone who is.

The benefits of the technologies I mentioned are pretty well documented (except for BMW's waste heat recovery system, so I used some of their estimates), as are the costs. Just because you don't like the picture that paints doesn't mean it isn't true. All the data is out there if you look for it.

In the meantime, I've been working with biofuels, natural gas/propane and hydrogen on IC engines with people trying to advance the state of automotive technology. I run one of my own cars on an ethanol conversion (although more for power than for environmental friendliness since we can't get sugarcane ethanol). I suspect I'm also the only guy posting here who has sat down with the engineers of cars like the Honda Clarity to discuss the technology face to face (and spent a few hours driving one too). I believe there are better ways for the future, but I don't believe a bunch of ignorant, never worked a real job, politicians should be dictating what comes next based upon a perceived mandate from a lowest common denominator population that, while they can't do high school math, can be whipped into a media driven fear frenzy over the idea they're going to be broiled alive if we don't shut western civilization down.

As for the IPCC, why don't you compare current temperature trends and CO2 trends with their projections for temperature and CO2? CO2 is higher than what they've projected in the last 3 AR reports and temps continue to trend lower. They reset the bar each time they do a new IPCC pow-wow to reflect starting from an observed, current baseline, but they never seem to match the real world future trend, always erring on the high side. Sounds like a modeling problem to me - and none of the modelers can provide an unfalsifiable physics explanation for why their feedbacks are so large, but they keep using them.

But you keep exhaling that pollutant they want to regulate while you can. Just because we know man can affect his environment doesn't mean he is the driving (or even a significant) factor in every aspect of it. But hey, the science is settled, right? As if science can be settled or done by consensus.

P.S. - for those arguing that 0.1 C is significant, you better pull out your statistics textbook. Global temperature can't even be measured to a 0.1 C level of accuracy. With some of the weather stations being used, 1.0 C (or worse) would be more like it (see www.wattsupwiththat.com and visit the site survey section to see what the sensor network is really measuring - with pictures too!)

Im sorry i just read this un-educated post haha...

By bepperb on May 22, 2009 6:58 AM
The Civic (non-si) does pass the 39mpg CAFE target. Here is a list of cars that do, for those to stupid to understand the difference between EPA and CAFE numbers. This and more can be found at the link Sebastian provided if you have thirty seconds to educate yourself before you start talking like an idiot.

Aveo
Cobalt
Malibu Hybrid
Civic
Fit
Accent
Rio
Mini Cooper
Sentra
Versa
G3
G5
Aura Hybrid
Xd
Camry Hybrid
Corolla
Prius
Yaris
Jetta TDI
ForTwo

WHO THE F**********CK WOULD DRIVE ANYYYYYYY CAR ON THIS LIST HAHAHAAA

OH MY EFFING GOD...I FEEL BAD FOR YOU HAHA YOUR ON THE WRONG WEBSITE BRO...I WANNA SEE YOUR ASS GET OUT OF A YARIS WHEN YOU GO ON A DATE AND PICK UP A CHICK FROM HER HOUSE HAHAHAHAHAA IDE LOVE TO SEE HER REACTION!!!!

wagonmonster on May 22, 2009 1:40 PM
I thought this column was the stupidest thing I've ever read.

Until I read charger_rt's comment.

YO THANKS MAN HAHHAA I JUST WROTE ANOTHER SOOO TRUE COMMENT HAHA

ChargerRT, if you don't vote, don't complain. Try again in four years, if you're of age by then.

hey charger_rt, you completely missed the joke.

Not surprising though.

To those hydrogen advocates:

You need a LOT of energy to extract hydrogen out of H20. Unless you have a clean technology break through like 100% solar or nuclear, you are still polluting. Hydrogen is just a medium to store energy like a battery or oil. In fact, a battery has better efficiency as a medium to provide energy.

Check out the story here:

http://www.pbs.org/video/video/980048834/chapter/5/search/cars

I believe Edmunds editors are trying get this debate out so it can bring noise to a bigger media to report about this 35MPG standard. Well, I don't beleve that any auto company needs to cut high perfomance car out totally. It means that they need to have more cars that are fuel efficient. IT IS AN AVERAGE! It can be done with small changes which the auto industry already have. Like engine stop at idle stop, cylinders shut when crusing, electric motor assist on acceleration. There more ways such as better calculation on Engine outputs with the gear ratios. Electronically control of valves. Another thing is most of all cars need to be more aerodynamic. US have a strange laws that regulate car's suspensions heights. Correct me if I am wrong look at VW Rabbit / GTI / Jetta. It was that way. This could directly affect the fuel economy. Changes is hard. With out this change US will not be advancing. Look, other countries will start doing it, if we done, (e.g.) European Union. If they impose a regulation I bet you all the Bimmers, Mercs, Audis will not be as fun as they are now. But maybe they will start doing what Toyota does use Hybrid to replace traditional Tubros or even it could have both at the same time and still have fuel efficent. I truly believe Ford can invest into that to compete vs. GM and Chrysler they first need to have all the executives to have vision about the future of this country not their own payout.

Hey, drive571 and wagonmonster:

You both definitely drive a cheap ugly-ass car hahaa, and are probably 45 years old and overwieght and probably over 250 lbs. hahaa I would also suggest getting a new job that allots enough money for a nicer car and maybe a new wife...good luck in your ventures haha

oh and yo, drive571, im 23 years old you worthless mother f*cker haha do you drive a prius??

f*ck both of you and your DEFF on the wrong website haha

late

atenza,

Why does fun have to disappear? The BMW 320d will deliver over 45 MPG combined cycle. It handles just like a normal 3 series, has 250+ ft-lbs of torque. Are 3 series cars boring? How about 120D?

There's no reason fun and efficiency can't co-exist. Look into cars available in Europe. The Cooper Diesel gets over 50 mpg combined. Would you call a cooper no fun?

Apparently the ten year olds are at it again. . .

First, never ever listen to someone in this blog whose name is Stephen. It should be Steve or go back to driving your Prius because you were never meant for this playground anyway.

Personally, I'm a pocket rocket guy. I like the handling of the GTI, M-CooperS, Scirocco, Mazda Speed 3. I like to go fast. I've driven Toyota Supra's, Mustang GT, Camaro SS, Olds 442 and some battle wagons with 460 4 barrels. I'll miss my Jeep Cherokee, the only true SUV.

Choice, yes you'll have choice. You can choose 90 hp or 80 hp. Some of you don't seem to remember the first foray into small cars. Cars like the Pinto, Gremlin, Mustang, and two barrel carburators during the oil embargo of the 70's. When Toyota produced the first Corollas, Honda Civic were two seets and a lunch box. VW's did 75mph down hill.

We'll see how y'all like sharing the road with Semi's, idiots talking on their car phones, while your driving your carbon fiber. Talk to a guy in Duluth about how that plug-in car works in below zero weather or are all you namby pamby's living in the Sun Belt going to put us folks that live in the great white north up for the winter. Yeah, the same problems that we have with car batteries affect hybrid batteries nimrods. Can't wait to go to my place in Hayward WI where it gets 36 below and find myself stranded because my car batteries gave out. Or how that Carbon fiber reacted when its in 25 degree below weather for a week and a deer jumps out in front of me. We'll see how the hunting and fishing industries do, but you tree huggers don't think tht anybody needs to work and we can all just live on a commune growing organic vegetables and weaving baskets.

Putzes.

I can say without fear of contradiction that every post on here that attacked the mechanic and called him some sort of name was written by someone who is living in a fantasy world.

1. CAFE was designed to wean us off oil in the 1970s. It has not worked for the last 30 years and it will continue to fail because it ignores logic. Just like the people attacking the Mechanic.
2. The only way to dramatically reduce oil usage is to make it more expensive.
3. Making it CHEAPER to drive will encourage people to drive more which defeats the purpose of these rules.
4. Japanese automakers are going to have as much trouble meeting these standards as Detroit. Its laughable to read all these comments talking about "Detroit needs to innovate". WTF are you people talking about? Has anyone here bothered to actually compare the mileage of American and Asian vehicles? Apparently not. Before calling the mechanic any more names perhaps some of you should get a grip on reality and note that mileage between comparable vehicles is close across the board. If you remove the Prius and Insight from the equation there is virtually no difference between the mileage of American and Asian vehicles. Stop taking Obama's word for everything and use the damn EPA mileage ratings.
5. Performance cars will become more rare and more expensive. Period. BTW, the term "muscle car" in today's world could apply to anything from an Sti to a Mustang. Any performance car that is less efficient than a Cobalt SS or civic Si is in trouble going forward. That includes numerous imports such as the Genesis V6, 370Z, EVO, Sti, IS-F, G37, etc. NONE of these cars is efficient even if they happen to have Asian badges on their hoods. The Camaro is more efficient than the Genesis V6 or the Sti or EVO so its ridiculous to insult it (or anyone who doesn't want to see it disappear) just because it was known as a pony car back in the day. The point of the rant is that vehicles that the government feels are excessive in terms of consumption may not survive long term- and that includes many powerful import cars.
6. Hydrogen is going nowhere. The government recently weighed in on this and said its not viable in terms of alternative energy in the near term.
7. Obama and his team want to see SMALL cars and hybrids. They make no bones about this so its comical to see all these people explaining how technology and innovation will allow us to have powerful, fun to drive cars and crossovers and meet these standards. At no time did Obama suggest that he wants to see the vehicle fleet stay the same as it is today. He has referenced the Prius and Japanese hybrids numerous times and has made it clear that he wants that to become the mainstream for Detroit. I assume he wants to see Prius type cars from Nissan, Hyundai, etc. but he never references those companies since he seems to think that "import" means "very fuel efficient". Thanks to the Prius every import manufacturer is off the hook on fuel economy while Obama and other politicians refuse to acknowledge any innovation on the part of detroit.
8. The opposition to these rules has nothing to do with lack of American innovation. I know its shocking to all the hybrid lovers here, but Toyota was against California's proposals and reluctantly agreed to last years 2020 mandate. Toyota is part of a industry lobbying group that also represents Detroit and they ALL were against what California was proposing. Anyone who portends that "Detroit" alone was reluctant to agree to this is an idiot- point blank. Detroit execs have said numerous times that they would support a gas tax to encourage demand for smaller cars (like the ones they already sell in Europe) to the notion that they opposed CAFE rules because they only want to make trucks is a farce embraced by no nothing import lovers who can't bother themselves to do 5 minutes of research on the internet to get acquainted with the facts. Automakers who are in love with SUVs and "big oil" wouldn't push for a gas tax.

Will modding cars still be legal? what will happen to the huge business of aftermarket parts..? In all reality average mpg of 39 by 2016 isnt going to happen...

Gee whiz, what's with idiots that like to put out all this FUD.

There will be a new age for performance, it will an electric monster. It's gonna happen. Why does have to be stuck in the age of internal combustion and requiring a carbuerator?

What is needed to impose the electric powertrain rule to F1, Nascar and the likes and you can see what electric power can do.

I won't bother to read all 100+ comments, but skimming through it seems like a fair number are the usual "The Mechanic sucks, his opinion is so stupid why does Edmunds let him write?"

I just want to offer - does anyone else think this is just some sort of prank or social experiment by the Edmunds staff? Anyone else remember how every new LT post about the Aura set new records for comment volume? Anyone else think "The Mechanic" might just be a name for a staffer feeling bored on a Thursday afternoon trying to set a new comment volume record by just writing a post that pushes as many gripe buttons as possible, and everyone complaining about it is just playing into his hands? Just a thought.

From EDMUNDS News:

New Math: 35 MPG Is Really 26 MPG Under Obama Plan
Date posted: 05-21-2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama's announcement of the more stringent and earlier-than-planned national fuel economy and emissions standards aren't necessarily what they seem...

...a vehicle that scores an EPA rating combined city/highway of 29 miles per gallon actually contributes 39 mpg to its manufacturer's CAFE score.

The new 35.5 mpg by 2016 standard announced by President Obama translates to about 26 mpg...
— Michelle Krebs, Editor

On top of that, the new regs are "an average of" the company's fleet. So, let's say the hybrid of the family obtains, in 2016, 65 mpg (the new Prius reportedly scores in the 50s on the gov tests), that leaves alot or wiggle room for hp down the manufaturer's line. Folks will still have their SUVs, GTs, and SSs. If they want them.

The Mechanic strikes (out) again! Shocker...

Look, as it's been said, necessity is the mother of innovation. Imposing a higher standard on automakers will force them to take their heads out of their asses and start looking to the future. Whether you believe, we all can agree that we're running out of oil fast. Quite frankly, we need someone to step up to the plate and show that alternative energy is available and that it can power our way of life.

The Mechanic is (as usual) dead wrong! Everyone seems to be throwing away that little car called the Tesla Roadster. Yeah, it's expensive, I know. We've barely scratched the potential of lithium-ion batteries and other combinations. It's a start! Plus we have that handy-dandy sun and wind that keep giving us free energy. So, don't tell me we can't have power + eco-friendly!

This is Detroit's chance to flex that muscle we keep hearing about and be the first to take this challenge on. Unfortunately, they've been SO unwilling to change in the past and so willing to cry about their problems when they're producing a crappy product that doesn't match the superior quality of the Japanese, Korean, and European. It's time to let Detroit step up and start acting like they have to compete again!

Actually, I believe it's generally understood that 'The Mechanic' is simply a nom-de-fou, an agent provocateur, viz, The Ghost of Brock Yates On Meth.

Also, Alien UFOs are conspiring to threaten the American Way of Life and 60s Muscle Cars.

PS: Remember, the US is the Country That Couldn't Handle The Challenge of Going Metric.

Gee, this may be even harder . . . ;)

ChargerRT is most likely living in the politically "right" Orange County, is a bitter old white man that wakes every morning to open his garage door and smile at his huge gas guzzling cars that make him feel like a 'larger' person; and he is probably threatened everyday while driving on the 5 passing guys driving civic's, miata's and minis. ChargerRT should stop clinging to the past, obviously there is something wrong with driving v-8s, and it shows in todays American auto dealerships.

*tosses charger_rt a biscuit*

Fetch !!!

Good Troll !!!

Let's point this out in case anyone missed it: for the first time ever, most every manufacturer with any kind of presence in the U.S. not only isn't bucking this, they were on stage with the President in announcing it. GM, Ford Chrysler? Check. Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda? There. BMW, VW, Daimler. Present. Only glaring absence was Hyundai, but they've since issued a glowing statement and were planning on meeting 35MPG by 2015 anyway. So were the UAW and the governors of both California and Michigan. Oh, and did you get the part that EPA and DOT are supposed to work together.

Do any of you people really think that BMW and Daimler are planning to start making econo boxes? Geez. And so what if you can pay for the gas for a huge V-12? Do you think you're so important that someone should have to die fighting for oil so you can burn it? Believe me, the rest of us don't think you're anywhere close to that important.

I agree with much of what the mechanic stated. It is a sad but true outlook for America's future automobile market.

I don't want to drive a Smart car, nor a Ford Fiesta, nor a Chrysler badged Fiat with 80 horsepower.

Our best hope - vote GOP 2010 so the senate can block Nobama's agenda.

Thank You dg0472!!

Of course the manufacturers back this tougher standard. If the price of gas goes up tomorrow it will take 6 years for them to develop hyper mileage cars. At least this way they know the exact dates for the higher standards. The domestic automakers will not be caught off guard with large lots of SUVs. And the foreign companies know the exact time to roll out future developments. It makes no sense to increase the mileage of your fleet by developing expensive technologies while your competitors are charging lower prices for fuel hungrier vehicles.

Whether we like it or not fuel prices will go up. With this legislation the government has simply evened up the playing field. Thats why the photo op had a beaming Mulally and a jovial UAW pres.

BTW LMFAO at ChargerRT

I think that you are sorely mistaken on this front for many reasons.

1) First off, the CAFE standards and the EPA standards (which you see on your window stickers) are not even close to being the same value... read your own website's articles --> "New Math: 35 MPG Is Really 26 MPG Under Obama Plan" (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=148693). Therefore, while this is an increase, it is not as extreme as it appears.

2) This is a fleet wide average, not a mandate for every car. Therefore Ford, Chevy, and Chrysler can still make their muscle cars. Therefore, I believe that this is actually in the domestic car makers favor. Because they will be required to make fewer of these "low mpg" cars to meet their fleet wide average fuel economy, they can charge more for these muscle cars and bring in a higher profit margin.

3) Technology is continuously evolving. Why does a muscle car have to be defined by a large V8 engine that receives poor fuel economy. The initial reason these cars were built was to provide raw power and fun. With additional development, economics of scale, and time, electric cars (or whatever new technology emerges) will be able to provide as much if not more power for a similar price.

4) V8s are not the end all be all. A modern turbocharged 4 cylinder can produce greater horsepower than a V8 engines of the 1960s and 1970s.

5) Finally, the US must kick its oil habit. Whether you want to believe that global warming is occurring or not, there are plenty of other reasons why oil is bad for the US. A big example is national security. The US's oil addiction has placed it in a dangerous position where we are reliant on hostile countries for a large majority of our oil supply (see "Generals: Oil a Security Threat" -->http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/oil_security_threat/2009/05/20/216309.html). No amount of domestic drilling will solve this dilemma.

It is time we kicked our oil habit. I agree that this must come in steps and that it will be painful. But anything worth doing usually is.

A quick peruse of the above and I get the sense a lot of posters are here are rationalizing their support for the Obama administration.

The bottom line is this. Vehicles of any size and power are going to get a lot more expensive, and so is fuel. Muscle cars, SUV will still be available, but in small numbers that only the truly rich will be able to afford. Like Europe is now.

And cut the BS about saving the planet, if climate change is a crisis, why has it been cooling for 7 years?

And cut the BS also about national security, the Obama administration has pursued a lunatic policy that willfully takes a lot of energy options off the table. "National Security" is a smokescreen for environmental zealotry.

Some posters seem to think since the CAFE uses unadjusted calculations, we're practically there already.

This is complete nonsense. The current year car fleet is making about 23.4 mpg (or 4 mpg below the current CAFE mandate of 27.5). Light truck fleet is 17.7 now (adjusted EPA) vs. the CAFA mandate of 22.2 (2007 numbers). The current fleet average is about 20 mpg (adjusted) or only 5 mpg below the current CAFE mandate. The current fleet will have to gain 10 mpg in the next 6 model years, or a 40 % increase over the current CAFE number.

The 2016 passenger fleet is not going to look anything like what it does now.

Clearly over the top, but I still love it!

Great stuff, keep it coming, Mechanic.

klapper, why are all the major manufacturers behind it if this is unattainable?

In re Klapper, et alia:

You miss a simple point: Fuel *is* expensive – it's simply the case that at present in the US it's price isn't fully reflected at the pump, to wit, your latter point – that invocation of national security on the part of the administration is as you so very eloquently put it 'BS'. You might consider the price, first in blood and secondly in treasure of wars fought in the Middle East devoid of any credible rationale or justification save the need to secure adequate supplies of petroleum (Or are you still looking for those cannily concealed WMDs?) As for the environmental argument, personally I'm inclined to accept the scientific consensus, but I would agree that the final evidence may well take time to arrive. So let's consider, then, a truly conservative argument: If there is a significant chance that the problem of global warming is real, even if not a certitude, and if it's the case that it won't be absolutely clear until either it's not a problem and you're proven right, or it is indeed a problem and a very severe one with respect to economic dislocation and the like, what is the truly more conservative approach? To hope that it's not a problem (which is the minority perspective in the scientific community) and there's no need to incur expense to avoid it, or to roll the dice and see if the consensus is wrong. Personally, I prefer to drive over bridges designed by engineers who take a conservative approach in their stress analyses – I suppose you prefer to save money and hope for the best.

Good luck.

In any event, the best design is also the most elegant and efficient design. If you prefer clumsy design, well, Detroit has long been your kind of place, I suppose, and welcome to it.

There is a glory to the rumble of a 427 Cobra like no other.

But it's time, like yours, is past.

Time to adapt or move to the museum.

First off, the recommended mpg for any FLEET of cars from any car makers to 35 mpg, not 39 mpg. Second, this is required for a FLEET of cars, so a smart auto maker can come up with couple performance models and the rest of gas-saving models as long as, at the end of the day, these cars will average at 35 mpg. The mechanis is so dumb and needs to get his facts straight.

First off, the recommended mpg for any FLEET of cars from any car makers to 35 mpg, not 39 mpg. Second, this is required for a FLEET of cars, so a smart auto maker can come up with couple performance models and the rest of gas-saving models as long as, at the end of the day, these cars will average at 35 mpg. The mechanis is so dumb and needs to get his facts straight.

Obama is doing the right thing for this country. His CAFA will change mentality of many Americans. It is sad but we don't know how to use our resources efficiently, our cars are total crap compared to the cars made in Europe or Japan and worst thing is that, we waste more that we consume. For those of you, "real men" and muscle cars lovers try paying a little more attention about what is going on in the world and where American automobile industry is standing. Porsche cars consume less fuel then your favorite Camarro and still manages to get better results. You don't need to drive a huge SUV if you single and live in a city, and you never going to use 8 cup holders in it.

There seems a backward perverse logic at play here. The original argument was that "The evil government headedy by person I didn't vote for is trying to take away the cars I love by raising fuel standards."

But of course, as repeated ad nauseum, the rules don't outlaw low fuel mileage cars, they only require fleet averages to improve by 30% over whatever number of years.

Those that love driving 16 mpg tanks should be standing up and applauding and asking for more.

The logic? The cost of fuel has a far greater impact on the driving market than any cafe standard ever has. For every testosterone heavy car lover who eyes the car and driver next to him everytime he stops at a stoplight and can't wait to show who has the faster car, there are many many more drivers who view cars as a utility, and are far more interested in total cost of ownership, reliability, safety, etc. than the horsepower or quarter mile times. These drivers and their future hybrids will more than compensate for your preferred beasts.

If the new government rules over time can help keep the cost of gas down, it will make it far easier for you to buy your guzzlers in the future. At what income level do you need to be before $4.50, $5.50, $8.50 a gallon gas doesn't lead you to change your driving habits? Anything that helps reduce the cost of gas by lowering demand is helpful to you.

And one more small point. Homo Sapiens are about 140,000 years old. Just over 100 years ago, Kings, Emperors, Popes, and Generals were travelling in 6 horse power carriages. God forbid, Mechanic may need to give up 1/2 an inch of his leather power seat with 6 way adjustments and lumbar support, and sacrafice 20 horsepower with probably little or no noticeable performance difference due to technological advancement 4 years from now in an attempt to bring his next car a little closer to the required average. In the meantime, I'm sure he'll have is "support the troops" bumper sticker prominantly displayed having little or no clue as the hypocrisy of it all.

And congratulations to Edmunds. This bile just made me give them an e-mail address so I could reply.

39MPG fleet average...I think that means either all the vehicles a manufacturer makes (or sells, don't know which) in terms of volume must average at least 39MPG or more. I think that's reasonable. All the technological advances of late have been used in the pursuit of increased performance and not efficiency. I think it selfish and self centered that all you are concerned about is your precious gas guzzling V8! The rest of us prefer something more practical, and there are cars that can be interesting and practical enough for most of us. Probably enough to fulfill that 39mpg average. I find it more fun driving a smaller better handling car, even if it can't quite go 0-60 in 5 seconds. Well, you know what they say, some people are just trying to compensate for something....

A 39 mpg fleet average can be achieved by a manufacturer who sells 9 cars that get 47 mpg and 4 cars that get 21.

The net effect of the increased CAFE standards will not be the total demise of performance cars, though it may reduce the number of muscle cars (note the difference) on the market. The real net effect will be to increase manufacturer incentives to build high-efficiency mainstream cars.

The technology already exists. High-pressure diesels running on ultra low sulfur fuel can already send midsize cars like the Ford Mondeo, Honda Accord, etc. from 0-60 in the mid 8s, with combined average fuel economy near 40 mpg US. The more of those they build, the more room for Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes, and the like.

This has to be satire, right?

This guy cannot really be this uninformed, can he?

So, we'd rather damage the environment and continue funding terrorism by giving billions of dollars to countries who want to kill us - just so we can drive V8's?

Yeah...Obama. What a knucklehead?! He's ruining the American auto industry. They have done so well on their own [cough, GM, Chrysler, bailout and bankruptcy, cough].

Stick to fixing cars and let the big boys worry about the future of the world. Thanks.

Sigh...

So predictable, this OBAMA! guy.

1. Is it such a stretch that soon the President will tell us WHERE to drive, not just what to drive? I mean, hey, we must save the planet and all that.

2. Great, fast, stout driver's cars will still be made. Your average Joe just won't be able to buy them. Enjoy your Yaris. (yes, I have been to Europe and have seen what they drive. The rich drive what they want, the rest drive what the government wants them to).

3. Does anyone now doubt what an utter disaster the bailouts have been? (You naive fools know who you are). Chrysler has ceased production and might not ever return. Dealerships are being stolen. Bond holders are being robbed. GM will be bankrupt next week. All for what???? Too big or important to fail???

4. This is why markets MUST be allowed to work FREELY. OBAMA! and his minions have no right to steal, limit choice and bankrupt dealers. All that fool can do is pick winners (unions) and losers (taxpayers/parts suppliers/everyone else). This is nothing more than a gambit to ensure a Democratic/union monopoly in several key mid-western states.

5. Should we strive for increased mpg? Sure. Should the government be trusted with mandating it? Absolutely not.

6. Full disclosure: AFL-CIO member/full-size American truck owner/Ron Paul voter.

"ChargerRT is most likely living in the politically "right" Orange County, is a bitter old white man"

heh- I kinda thought he was black- which is totally not racist because I am too. But that's beside the point. I think the real message here is that America will have to simply get responsible. So that means the automakers are going to have to build up the small-efficient car market. And NOW, because large SUVs will always be around, but are falling out of popularity quickly. And Chargers/G8s wont be nearly as fun for those who cant afford to pay $4 a gallon.

"...You miss a simple point: Fuel *is* expensive – it's simply the case that at present in the US it's price isn't fully reflected at the pump, to wit, your latter point – that invocation of national security on the part of the administration is as you so very eloquently put it 'BS'..."

(AWeasel)

It's price isn't fully reflected at the pump? I think I know what you're trying to say in your wordier than thou way, but you're wrong. The volatile nature of the price at the pump reflects every provocative act by suppliers like Iran.

In any case my point stands: if the current US administration is as concerned about energy security as it claims, it would be moving aggressively on nuclear and coal and offshore drilling. But it's not, since it's real priority is climate change.

On the topic of climate change, I see you've dragged out that old global warming supporters standby, the "precautionary principle". Not very imaginative and you forget it works both ways. If fighting global warming steals resources from other efforts (since resources aren't infinite), then maybe we should take the precautionary approach and go with what we really know about CO2. That is, it increases crop yields and more of it will avert a future food crisis.

"..But it's time, like yours, is past..."

(AWeasel)

You seem pretty sure about that. Well, enjoy your smugness, it may not last forever. The empirical data are beginning to cast doubt on the human-driven climate change argument. Statements like Obama's "..the science is beyond dispute.." are looking ever more foolish, and so will the environmental movement and it's lefty supporters if this grand re-organization of american life turns out to be based on a false hypothesis.

while i do agree that every person should have the choice to drive what car they want, there are plenty of ways to increase efficiency.

1. adding gears helps both fuel economy and performance, so in 2016 we may start seeing 10- or 12- speed automatics in high-end luxury cars and 7- and 8-speeds trickling down to small sedans. CVT's need to fall out of favor, because they allow the engine to rev way to high under acceleration.

2. small turbochargers also help fuel economy and performance, since you can have a smaller engine with comparable performance to a larger engine while still getting better fuel economy. turbo's help save weight for they allow cars to be propelled by a four-cylinder engine with V-6 like performance.

3. pushrod systems need to go away forever. same with SOHC. DOHC is even beginning to become long in tooth, so auto manufacturers really should start looking into a replacement for that.

4. variable valve timing helps fuel economy and performance, same with direct injection

Just put a displacement tax and carbon tax in place and let the market sort itself out. I'd rather the government tax these real tangible things than dictate a wholly unrealistic miles per gallon figure that will make automakers spend untold billions chasing efficiency levels that simply isn't going to happen. Tax it, make'em pay to play but don't legislate big displacement fun out of existence.

Hey it takes a lot of guts to say stuff like this. I respect The Mechanic, even if he is a little outrageous. He can write down how he feels wihtout worrying about what other people think. Anyway I'm gonna drive whatever the heck i want to. I could really care less what the government does because they are pretty screwed up right now. So I'm taking home the Corvette, Camaro, 370Z, Silverado, Yukon, Peterbilt, etc. And whats this whole addicted to oil crap. All Americans want, and have wanted for the past twenty years or longer, is a car that has amazing power, a truck that can tow the camper to the mountains, and an SUV that can haul the family and the bags in comfort and style. I mean i know thier EPA isn't what people consider Green, but is there anything wrong with wanting those things. I don't thing so. Like i said I'm taking home the Camaro, Yukon, and Silverado and the Obamanation is just going to have to take care of itself.

"..pushrod systems need to go away forever. same with SOHC. DOHC is even beginning to become long in tooth, so auto manufacturers really should start looking into a replacement for that..."

Internal friction losses are likely no worse in a pushrod engine. Plus why do you need the extra complexity of DOHC unless you're going to rev the engine really high to make power. I will guess that frictional losses increase as the square of engine speed so for best mileage you don't want a high revving engine.

Finally, as I've done before I'll compare a DOHC V8 to a pushrod V8 (BMW 4.0 L M3 engine vs GM LS3).

The GM LS3 is the close to the same size, weight, and horsepower as the BMW, but the GM is cheaper to make, with a much higher torque and better fuel economy in the same size of car.

Imagine cars with no pollution, mileage or safety enhancements; LA CA, Las Vegas and many other cities would be unlivable, we'd be shelling 2 - 4 times current rate for fuel, and auto collisions at any realistic speed would offer up dirt naps.

Granted, regulation can be inept or overdone (the first go at Emission controls gave us badly compromised engines). But as the worlds' population goes to 9 BILLION in 20 years or so, the status quo of autos simply won't work.

There will always be performance cars for those who want and are willing to pay for them.

isend2c wrote:

"I want a V8. I heard this on the BBC when I was driving home yesterday. While they were reporting on it I was continuously shouting at the radio "NO! BASICALLY NO CAR CAN GET 35 MPG!!". It is so frustrating for me to see greenies like this dominate what we're going to be able to drive."

You sound like an incredibly immature and selfish person. Not to mention you have no faith in the creativity of American auto engineers.

I hope the new CAFE standards do kill V8s for just about everyone including you isend2d. If for nothing else than to piss people like you off.

Somehow American "freedom" has morphed from ideals such as free speech, freedom of religion and a free press into "I have a right to pollute and use as many resources as my income allows". Just remember the freedom to swing your arm around in public ends at another person's nose.

This comment thread has definitely proved to be some interesting read. As for a die-hard lover of cars go, I might go half and half with what the mechanic said. Sure, cars choices might change and become smaller, more fuel efficient, and well honestly a lot better for the environment say ten plus years from now. BUT here is the thing: somewhere down the line, there will ALWAYS be someone who disagrees with everything... no matter how much sense and logic it seems to make.

From being a true-blooded, born and raised American, I realized one thing that can be pretty much said for a majority of Americans. We don't give a s&#t about what the rest of the world thinks... what we care about is how much it can influence OUR own lives, and how much pleasure/fun it is to do or have whatever the topic pertains to. And in this case, it's cars (the ones with big-engines and big balls attached to the mufflers to be more specific).

Don't get me wrong, I sort of fall into what I mentioned before myself (I too only care about whats fun, and could care less about what others in the rest of the world thinks). But here is the thing: if through technology we can make cars faster, more fuel efficient, better for the environment, and overall simply increase efficiency in all regards, why not? So what if it doesn't have a v8 in the hood? If it sounds like one, acts like one, and sure as hell hauls like one, who would miss it? For example let's take a small fuel efficient car that's VERY popular and trendy, and simply reduces a person's carbon footprint in the world. The Mini Cooper S. I drove it, and it's more fun than getting inside a big bubble and rolling down a hill (which btw, is quite fun too, but that's besides the point). It's fast, fuel efficient, very well made and small. If say, more cars like these were made and offered in the U.S. with REAR WHEEL DRIVE (key point) as well, its all the fun without any of the guilt. So what if it looks like a booger with eyeballs and wheels? It's still fun, and sure as hell can do what most Americans need it to do.

Wow, this post is getting longer than it needs to be. But to sum up some of my thoughts and of what others had mentioned, I'm all for the progress of technology and efficiency. SOMEWHERE down the line, some genius car maker/innovator will stop and say, "Hey, so many of our cars are trying to get smaller and more efficient like our European brothers. Why not do the same? But instead, make it more American by adding more balls to the grunt it makes, make the turbo charger so efficient it sucks air better than a umm... females... umm... No wait, a hoover vacuum or a black hole vortex (haha... xP), rear wheel drive drive, and so much mpg to the gallon that I can go to the moon and back on a single tank of gas," that to me would = perfect car. So please automakers of the U.S. and world... make a car that has four things and its a automatic winner.
1) big power (however it may be obtained), 2)it grunts like high powered chainsaw, 3) fuel efficiency, and 4) its REAR WHEEL DRIVE.

I think this is highly possible with so many of the brightest and best living in the U.S. My fellow Americans, let us rise and demand better cars. If we have to compromise our big stonkin' v8 powered cars (which I would kill to have by the way), make the new strain of cars more fun without the guilt.

By the way, I totally agree with what jm1212, cargeek5, and what klapper has to say.

Power of choice = what the hell we spend money on.

So spend that money where it counts America! xD On cars that produces all the fun without any of the guilt.

Dearest Klapper ~

It is an error of assumption on your part that one who is inclined to agree with a given policy of the current administration is of necessity a mindless supporter of that administration's policies. I, for example, consider the administration's support of the Summers/Geithner/Bernanke approach to the financial debacle to be catastrophic.

I assure you I am not unfamiliar with options and futures on commodity pricing, including oil, and I assure you as well you chose to miss my point, which is simple enough, whether you agree with its implications or not – the cost of oil is in part socialized by the cost of the military and other expenditures necessary to secure its relatively stable supply which socialized governmental expenditures are not reflected at the pump.

Duh.

As for the CO2/global warming issues, I will assume you are possessed of no more independent expertise in this area than am I and that we are both effectively reliant on generally available accounts as to scientific judgement and consensus. One's perceptions of these accounts tends, of course, to be colored by one's own dispositions, and I assure you I am quite happy to leave you to yours. For my part I prefer a cautionary approach. It is clear that, given the population of the globe and the industrialization of great portions of the world's populace previously litte industrialized, and as measured atmospherically compared to the historic long-term record as measured in ice core samples, etc, we are at levels of CO2 not previously experienced by our particular species in recorded time. I will grant that environmental systems are, to the limits of human understanding, horrifically complex. Nonetheless it is clear that we are embarking a long-term experiment with very significant latency, the consequences of which are at best assumption unpredictable and arguably beneficial (plants like CO2, yes they do, quite right) and on the other hand, relatively dire as to the costs exacted on homo sapiens at its present state of development. I prefer to minimize these risks, yes. If nothing else, taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions will buy time to assess objective outcomes as it will reduce the rate of CO@2 increase whereas rolling the dice by continuing on present rates of increase increases the risk level of the experiment.

I agree that nuclear ought, despite its negatives, be pursued more aggressively. Offshore drilling is something I wouldn't rule out, but I'm wary in that it would tend to provide false reassurance to those who argue that there's no reason to take seriously what are i fact very serious issues – I have no fundamental problem with it, though. As for coal, the greater part of electricity produced is of course coal-sourced. The key problem is the sheer level of it all. The US has long been wedded to a self-assumption and self-definition of exceptionalist privilege. To be sure the majority of individuals and of individual families are not particularly 'privileged', yet the society and the culture as a hole see themselves this way and see it as a literally God-Given-Right – the spoiled children of the world, as so nicely witnessed by 'The Mechanic's' self-aggrandizing moniker and the topic of this particular column.

There are many great and glorious things in American culture, and hot rods, hot dogs, jazz, rock and roll, cheerleaders, and muscle cars were amongst them.

A Peter Pan-like attitude of a 'right' to being eternally self-indulgent self-satisfied children, however, is not a pretty thing.

Pretty in a child, yes.

In those presumed to be adults, no.

Vroom-vroom ;)

ps:

A carbon tax, I quite agree, would be far superior. The judgement of the politicos, though, of both parties, and I think they're right (they can't *always* be wrong – I think) is that it's politically impossible. Americans on the whole believe they have a right to 'cheap' oil and energy, which they don't see as 'cheap' at all. Any suggestion of a 'tax' appears to be anathema, though it would be far simpler, and far more effective. I would agree with Krugman (it happens on occasion) that imperfect though the present vehicle (pun intended) may be, it's the best that can be managed at present. If anyone wants to lobby for a carbon tax, a consumption tax, a simpler tax code, etc, I'll be happy to sign up – I just don't think they'll happen. A democratic structure designed originally to thwart attempts to consolidate power also, as the founders well understood, makes it easy to thwart action or reform. It was a price, a tradeoff, they considered wise, and they may well have been right, but we are often faced with the power of No and Not in My Back Yard making sensible action impossible. Better, I think, to settle for what may be managed and try to imporve from that new baseline.

pps: carcando: well said, in my humble opinon *applauds sincerely*

somebody will repeal this before it can make an impact

"...I will assume you are possessed of no more independent expertise in this area than am I..."

(AWeasel)

You'd assume wrongly then. Why would you say the system has "very significant latency"? The effects of additional GHGs are more or less instantaneous, as are the alleged major feed backs (water vapour, clouds). The latency might be in the oceans or the cryosphere, however the recent evidence for that is slim. The oceans show strong evidence of a slight cooling beginning in 2003, or at the very least a lack of warming. Sea ice reached a minimum in 2007, but has rebounded to levels near or even above the long term average. So if there was a "tipping point" in the albedo feedback of sea ice, why did we have the coldest year in the last 10 immediately follow the big ice retreat of 2007?

As for your characterization of America as the "spoiled rotten children of the world" it's complete BS. Americans income bracket for income bracket are the most charitable people in the world. For that matter, America has (I would guess) the best long term foreign aid per capita performance of any of the industrialized countries.

Americans for sure are libertarians, and that's a good thing. Not wanting to submit to excessive government direction, doesn't make you a "self-indulgent self satisfied child".

Do not fear this new idea performance lovers. Do you honestly believe that because Obama has set the bar higher for car manufactuers of the world that they are just going to pack it in and start on making small ugly cars. I'd think not. This just means more of a challenge come to those who make performance cars. It has already begun. Ferrari, one of the greatest performance car companies is going to be make their first hybrid, in the form of the next gen F430. If have some free time try googleing the Giugiaro Frazer M Nash, a beautiful supercar being prepared for production which is a hybrid that gets 100mpg, goes 0-60 in 3.5sec, and has a top speed of 187mph. If that doesn't sound like fun, i dont know what does. So if you worried you ar going to loose your gas guzzeling performance car of today; don't. Instead look forward to the fuel efficient land rockets of tomarrow. Do not worry about slowing down, But you better be prepared to speed up.

-Dr.Speed

"...Somehow American "freedom" has morphed.to..I have a right to pollute and use as many resources..."

(Graham006)

The moralizing by the left (mostly the left anyway) on this issue is based on the premise that CO2 emissions are causing a crisis. It's not about conventional "pollution" anymore, there's been continuous progress on that front for automobiles. You can see this in long term ground level ozone trends in the eastern US.

No, it's all about catastrophic climate change, and what if that premise is incorrect? (as the evidence increasingly shows) We will have wasted uncountable resources on a non-crisis, while real issues were starved for resources.

In developed countries we can afford to indulge our selves in fantasies about saving the world through more expensive cars, expensive fuel taxes, expensive light bulbs, expensive electricity etc.

In poorer countries they just need to survive and food, disease, water, and access to cheap energy are their problems. The climate issue is a big negative for them since it sucks up all the oxygen from more immediate problems, and makes cheap energy (fossil fuels) more expensive.

After rereading the title "Obama kills fun cars" I'm thinking maybe America needs to rethink "fun cars". Do we really need large rwd drive V8 coupes to have fun? In my mind I'm saying hell yes, because nothing on this earth gives me the reaction the Comaro SS does. But in the 70's America was all about bigger=better. Then in the 80's we saw our cars cut in half. And we seem to have adjusted fine. And the Civic Si drives pretty nicely...

While I would claim no expertise, everything I’ve encountered on the subject indicates what most human and social frames of reference would regard as substantial latency – your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. It would seem, however, that your expert opinion has not yet won over your fellow experts – they’ve been drinking Liberal Kool Aid or are controlled by Aliens from Area 51, I suppose. Notions of ‘tipping point’s, I agree, are in a sense dubious and meant for public consumption in what is effectively a political struggle for power on both sides of the argument, the motives for which are fairly (but not inordinately) complex.

I would argue that the investments – social, technical, and economic – particularly given the consensus that anthropogenic contributions to likely global warming are very much a valid concern – are worthwhile. You argue the contrary. So be it.

Work harder to win over those fellow experts, okay?

As to Peter Pan being a wonderful thing if it’s Mary Martin or you’re a child or sharing in the experience of a child but is somehow less charming when paraded by ‘adults’ who are infinitely self-indulgent and self-centered: The very notion of ‘American exceptionalism’, embraced by all major political parties and common consensus, I would argue, proves my point. Then again, I’m no fan of flag-waving nationalism – on the part of any nation.

‘We’re number one! Go back to [fill in the blank here]!’

Every one does it, of course, not only Americans.

Empires come, and empires go. As for the American Empire, its reign is proving surpassingly short – unless the nation redefines and reinvents itself, which, given factors of social intertia, is in my judgement unlikely.

Witness the pointless provcations of our friend ‘The Mechanic’ – determined to have his past and drive it, too.

An ascendency fueled by Continental and UK capital in the industrial era which matured in the early part of the 20th century and achieved dominance in the aftermath of the second great war of the 20th century, and gives every sign of fading now, is rather a brief reign as these things go, as you well know, and betrays in my opinion the hard work of all those both ‘great’ and ‘small’ who accomplished that rise on the back of that external capital, and upon whose accomplishments America and much of the modern world stands.

Thus, perhaps, I suppose, the agonies and rationalizations of decline.

Feel free to buy all the US currency denominated instruments you prefer, I’ll be on the other side of that trade, I assure you.

American foreign aid per capita, incidentally, is very much on the low end of the scale of developed countries – your assertion is commonplace, oft repeated by politicians of all stripes.

‘Americans are the most generous people in the world!’

Of course Americans rarely pay any attention to the world, because they know they’re exceptional and the rest of the world is inferior and, well, not American!

Perhaps you’re relying on Brooks, much beloved of the AEI? The private giving question? Ah yes, that bit. Americans are extraordinarily generous, they just don’t want government to do it. Hooray for individuality. Damn the commonweal. Personally, I think there is a valid point that many liberals are prone to rely on government and tight when it comes to acts of personal charity, and that this point is telling. Rather like caring for the ‘little man’ and being a bad tipper. Hypocricical as hell, agreed. Worthy of condemnation, agreed. That said, however, I don’t buy the notion that charitable giving, principally to churches, little of which goes to other than agrandizement of the faith (Yes, I know people of faith who contribute deeply of time and resources to true acts of charity, and they are worthy of praise, but I don’t find them to be the greater part of the private giving reflected in Brooks’ analysis) reflects Americans generosity.

Then again, I’m a skeptic, not a true believer, sorry.

Please don’t hear me wrong here. I’m not saying, in my cricisim, that Americans are worse than others. I’m just saying it’s insane for them to beleive that they’re better.

Are the Canadians really *that* evil?

Probably not.

So as to the assertion re the US purported extraordinary generosity, feel free to check your facts. – I’ll invoke Keynes on that one, if I may.

Don’t, however, queer your arguments with inappropriate characterization of ‘charitable’ giving to mean temples to men’s desire to celebrate their faith.

I believe, after all, that I recall a tale of someone who threw the money changers from the temple, with considerable fury, and observed as to the likely fate of those who sought to demonstrate their ‘charity’ in ostentatious fashion.

Then again, as to matters economic and Keynesian (and this is, after all, an argument about economics, really, not muscle cars that go thump thump thump) some, it would seem prefer Randian fantasies – the late-sainted Mr Greenspan their most recent chief cheerleader for an extraordinary long-running bipartisan effort to build the world’s most awesome asset bubble. Ever. At least to date. The man always looked fetching in that skirt, waving those pompoms, granted, delighting Bushie old-money and entrepneurial hustler money and Clintonista self-celebrating Ivy-League hustler-scum alike, shoring up the downside with real money but only muttering in sage-like obscurantist drivel as to upside excess, but the outcome seems to have proven less than ideal for the broader polity, though of course the financial/political structures sail to date happily onward.

They generally do.

I believe it was Mencken who said no one ever went broke underestimating the American people. Heaven knows the man had *that* one right. I would argue, though, that Americans aren’t unique in this respect, that it’s the price of mass democratization.

Upsides and downsides, choices to make.

If only we could have had a V-8 the way the Good Lord Intended!

Doubtless I’m quite wrong. America can sail on to a 1950s/1960s future astride a world in ruins, and the big thumping V-8s sans nasty catalytic converters can continue to suck through quad carbs exhaust unmuffled forever.

Still, I’m holding out, along with Kevin Smith, ‘Dante’ and ‘Randal’ for The Flying Car.

Atomik Weasel, aka 'Atomsk'

ps: This really isn't a suitable forum for this sort of discussion, even ad hoc, improv, whatever, so in a sense my apologies. I'll let Klapper or any others have whatever last word he cares to offer.

After all, I'm only a figment of your imagination.

Yup, just as I suspected. The Mechanic is living proof that medical science has perfected transplanting the brain of a jackass to a human being

The 39 MPG average has to average all across the board of each manufacturer. Not just a a few models. Just because a model or two of the Aveo, Cobalt and Impala can average 39MPG doesn't mean GM meets the CAFE standard. Camaro, Corvette, Monte Carlo and all of the others must get much better gas mileage too. Therefore, bye bye muscle car and larger vehicles. Costs will naturally skyrocket to pay for all of the new technology.

"...After all, I'm only a figment of your imagination..."

(AWeasel)

Are you getting drunk or what? You're beginning to ramble badly. I have no idea who Brooks or the AEI is, my argument is basically this: people who want government to solve all their problems are the real children in this argument. Thankfully Americans haven't quite embraced that idea yet. And yes, despite your denigration of them, Americans are a generous people.

I get the feeling you have no clue about the level of scientific skepticism there is on this anthropogenic climate change issue, or you wouldn't make statements about a scientific consensus that doesn't exist.

As for the latency issue, instead of taking the alleged consensus at its word, ask yourself a simple question: "Where the hell is it hiding?"

For his next trick the Mechanic will tell us all how to set the points and check the timing.

Where'd they find this dinosaur?

Maybe a little more research is needed before bashing on your head for your insidiousness.

The fact is that MPG has been up gradually for some years. Even many American cars have caught up to what seems to be the Japanese standard.

First thing you have consider is that your "fun cars" are built based on old technologies. For example, from the three cars that you've posted on this page, how many are DOHC? They are overly big, gas eating, and not efficient. You can say all you want about how larger American engines are better, but the fact is that fast cars can be made using new technologies that can be much more efficient. Much more sophisticated racing industry such as F1 is trying to implement new laws to lower gas consumption and even trying to implement hybrid technologies. Yes, they are SMALL V8's.

Also, I haven't read the provision, but I would imagine that there will be a leeway for your "fun cars." I would say that there will be a tax law that will compensate for their high MPG. Probably things like GAS-GUZZLER TAX will survive. Of course, you are going to pay more to buy one, but that's the same story when BUSH AND CLINTON were presidents. MPG regulation has been getting tougher for many years now. Maybe you should get out more. Do you think 1970's Mustang can be sold (brand new one) without paying gas-guzzler tax in present day? Wow, how did all of your "fun cars" survive the unimaginable MPG rate!?

Let me also tell you about "the freedom of choice."

The choice is relatively given by producer to consumers and it would be a mistake (which everyone makes) to think that it is created solely by demand of consumers. The demand itself is based on illusion created by producers. The choice that you think you have is mere illusion that producers made so that you would believe that "choice" exists. Yes, you can say that without what you want producers won't make them. However, I can also say that you really don't know what you want but to accept what is believed to be what you had wanted. Little tough to understand? Well, I am just trying to give you a different perspective that you should think about once in your life time so that you won't over use the word "choice."

As I said, I'm not interested in extending this discussion further. I'll simply address a few of your 'points', then let it go.

I wasn't aware cites were rambling. In your experience, it would seem on the evidence, they are – or evidence of drunkenness, better still. Please forgive me. (Yes, that's irony – try and keep up, now, it appears some of the class is a bit slow.)

Arthur C Brooks, much favored as source as to American private charitable giving by AEI (American Enterprise Institute), the Hoover Institution, National Review, et alia, and whose research is thus echoed by conservative pundits, is author of 'Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism', which is generally the source of most what little 'claim' there is to the notion which you had advanced that Americans are exceptionally charitable. All other sources, less subject to interpretation, such as levels of international charitable giving on a per capita basis, leave the 'extraordinarily generous' US trailing the pack by a very large margin – thus the enthusiasm in atavistic circles for the work of Brooks to make the claim that in fact Americans are extraordinarily generous at a private personal invisible church level.

Sorry to confuse you with a reference to the facts and their sources. Clearly drunken rambling on my part.

You're also invoking a ludicrously freshman high school fallacy of argument in stating that your concern is 'people who want government to solve all their problems are the real children in this argument'. Presumably (there's that word again) you feel anyone reading your argument is likely to fall for an argument that would fail in a freshman high school debate. Insulting to them, really, isn't it? The use of the word 'all' in this instance is of course absurd. I wasn't aware that anyone either in this discussion or in the current administration had claimed it was the task of government to solve 'all' problems. The real question is in part as to what are the legitimate concerns of government.

Goldman Sachs, for example, feels it's the government's job to make the world safe for Goldman Sachs.

Jim Rogers, on the other hand, a real capitalist (and he has company) feels it's the job of government to let Goldman Sachs and its less-capable playmates die if they're belly up.

I'm with Rogers.

As to your claim that I have no clue as to the 'real' level of scientific skepticism as to the anthropogenic contribution in re climate change, I am disinclined to accept arguments in the form of an argument from authority, which is, of course, the form of your argument.

Otherwise I'd be asking the Pope for the inside dope.

Of course, even the Pope rarely speaks ex cathedra.

Let's say I do know people at Goddard, though it isn't my field, and I'm afraid I find their observations and the quality of their thought somewhat superior to your own, and you decide whether to believe me or not.

As I said, if you have the scientific argument and evidence, I suggest you do a rather more convincing job at lobbying your colleagues.

Ah, yes, I know, we just need to wait for it, and, meanwhile, drive V-8s, make rumbly noises, deny the advancement of technology, and long for lost dreams of a lost past.

Ah, yes, American Glory at its finest.

Let's all salute.

I would suggest you argue for what is finest in the American tradition – accept rather than deny the challenge, and rise to it.

To each, however, his own, and I leave you to your reveries of denial and your invocation of the 'real' as a dream of the past.

Peace, out,

Atomik the Weasel, aka Atomsk

In re the more general discussion:

We have Honda planning the CRZ, with rumors of Toyota considering a RWD sporty hybrid to compete. Emphasis on true sportiness and handling with brisk if not neck-breaking acceleration, and better than 50 mpg. We have the VW EcoRacer concept, which requires no sci fi breakthroughs and is infinitely doable – light and nimble like a Lotus, mid-engine diesel, 0-60 in 6.3, top end of 143 mph, and 80 mpg. Granted the concept is carbon fiber, so perhaps not quite so startling in production-affordable form, though even there who knows as our technologies advance.

It seems to me that machines like these show the way forward, in the best sense. I certainly don't see this as the new dark ages. In many ways such machines represent a possible renaissance of true driver's machines.

Bear in mind, too, that for those who can afford it there will always be more conspicuous displays of power.

I don't know about you folks, but I've seen an investment banker- type driving his shiny new Gallardo Spyder up Park Avenue, and it isn't a pretty sight. Rock stars, yes. Seth Green, yes. Investment bankers, no.

I also don't quite get why so much of the automotive-enthusiast 'community' (some of it, not all of it) seems wedded to the past, the cars they had or wanted when they were younger or whatever all that is about. Well, I do get it, I suppose, but I don't much care for it. Rather like the investment banker in his Gallardo, it isn't a pretty sight or a pretty thought.

When, a while back, there were rumors Porsche might do a four-cylinder turbo there were howls of outrage that this wouldn't be a 'real' Porsche. Huh? What? Not true to Porsche 'tradition' was the chant of the nay-sayers, the self-proclaimed Porschephiles. Now I am no expert on things Porsche (would that I were), but did anyone tell that to James Dean or other fans of the early legendary Porsches? Not to mention some fellow named Porsche. Since when did Porsche 'tradition' become defined as what they'd done more recently – wonderful as that is. The actual engineers don't seem concerned about their followers' notions of 'tradition', though of course marketing folks have to take it into consideration, as do the number crunchers. Hence the rear-engine 911s, which make little sense, but on which the engineering types are able to work miracles – all praise to them for that, as, as a result we have superb machines.

They rose to the challenge.

Is it really so difficult to imagine, for example, a four-cylinder, small-displacement, turbo, direct-injection, etc, mid-engine, light and nimble sports car? In time, as other technologies advance the possibilities become even better.

I could live with that, and wouldn't see it as punishment.

I don't believe I can imagine who would, really.

Oh yeah, maybe that 'The Mechanic' pseudonymous poseur. Now that's a *real* worry. *rolls eyes*

"...As to your claim that I have no clue as to the 'real' level of scientific skepticism as to the anthropogenic contribution in re climate change, I am disinclined to accept arguments in the form of an argument from authority, which is, of course, the form of your argument..."

(AWeasel)

Am I right then, you truly do have no clue? I could do the traditional listing of peer-reviewed references but why bother, you're drunk, and getting drunker.

"...You're also invoking a ludicrously freshman high school fallacy of argument in stating that your concern is 'people who want government to solve all their problems are the real children in this argument'...."

If this is such a freshman argument, how is it you're struggling so mightily to mount a coherent response?

"...Let's say I do know people at Goddard, though it isn't my field, and I'm afraid I find their observations and the quality of their thought somewhat superior to your own, and you decide whether to believe me or not..."

If that's supposed to intimidate me it doesn't. I had posts eliminated or truncated by G. Schmidt of the GISS over at RealClimate.org for posting some rational observations on the recent Levitus et al paper. It was an infantile response, but hey this is the world of climate science. I don't think you actually have the background to judge my observations, but make my day, keep your incoherent responses coming.

Life's too short to drive crap?! So it's all about you and your insignificant life, isn't it? It's all about how much selfish fun you can have while you're here because you're so special. I love cars as much as the next guy but I also know that this planet will need to be in good shape for all those who will inhabit it after we're gone. I'm not super excited about driving a Prius or anything that drives or looks like it for the rest of my life but there are just things that are more important than the fun of driving. I know...wrong website to write something like that. But sack up, people. At the end of the day it's just a car. It's sole purpose is to get us from point A to point B.

"...So it's all about you and your insignificant life, isn't it?..."

(sonny_t)

Another deep thinker. While you're thinking so deeply on this subject why not go one step further, as in "why" the US government is doing this. After all this CAFE thing is only the practice round. The real paradigm shift for America is coming in the "Climate Bill". Have you got to the end of that 946 page monster yet Sonny?

I want to know who in the heck sent all these NY/LA Time/Huffy post liberal readers over to this site? Somebody link this article? Sheesh I thought this was an auto enthusiast site. I repeat, a no 4 banger POC is ever going to compare to a V8 screaming at 8000 RPM or a Boxer 6 in a porsche.

In Re Klapper:

Ad hominems are always fascinating. Remember to keep feeding the trolls.

RealClimate is an advocacy group. What on earth would you expect? Fair treatment? Hold your breath.

Oh, but wait! It's proof of your credentials, to be rebuffed by an advocacy group!

Scientific pedigree, indeed!

Let's have that list of peer-reviewed mainstream publications from that CV you're invoking then, shall we?

I'll wait.

I'm simply pointing out that you're making assertions as if they were not merely assertions but scientific fact, acknowledged widely as such (yet somehow suppressed by Mysterious Evil Liberal Powers) without any accompanying cites, simply invocations of your personal authority.

You're the one arguing from 'authority' here, and on the internet no one (famously) knows you're not a dog.

I'll leave you to it.

As I said, even the Pope very rarely invokes such authority but presumably (yes, that dread word, yet again) your Need surpasses that of His Holiness.

As for me, I'm simply a humble pookah.

Clearly quite mad to question your authority.

If you want to familiarize yourself, incidentally, with the evolution of what are now commonly referred to as 'paradigm shifts' I suggest you first make Norwood Russell Hanson's acquaintance – not literally, that would be rather challenging. He's the critical figure here, and a compelling one.

A brilliant philosopher of science, *and* the possessor of a hell of a motorcycle collection *and* an F8F-2 Bearcat – all 18 cylinders, 2800 cubic inches and 2,100 horsepower of it, no less.

Make careful notes, now.

The man was not a fool.

You may find it something of a challenge.

You may then surf that paradigm shift to the glorious recognition of your scientific expertise by the following well-recognized formula:

Cross your fingers, turn 'round three times, click the heels of those fetching red red red very red ruby slippers together, think of Carroll Shelby, and wait for the world to see the wisdom of your insights.

Till then, it's laters babe,

Atomik the Weasel aka Atomsk

In the spirit of l'esprit d'escalier I'll leave you the last word, Citizen Klapper, as you turn, as always, to ad hominem and vaguery.

The simple fact is that there is a consensus as to the core issue. You loathe that consensus and simultaneously question its existence and claim it will be proven wrong in short order.

Fine, claim what you want.

Your argument has lost.

Sour grapes, babe.

If you, as so many others, prefer to grumble and protest at lost dreams of thumping monsters, you are welcome to it and your accompanying miseries.

I, as many others here, see opportunity to advance technology, not unlike the challenges of designing a competitive machine within racing formula restrictions.

If some prefer to grumble the formula restrictions are unfair and threatening, then fine.

Grumble.

Take your ball and go home.

The rest of the world moves on.

Ciao babe,

Atomik the Weasel aka Atomsk

First of all, on that list one of the above posters made of fun to drive cars, I just want to point out one car: Vw Jetta TDI

Its the only diesel on that list! It seems people forgot about other fun cars that meet that such as the 335d. The 335d is just as fast as a regular 335i and has much more torque on initial takeoff. Whoever thinks a 335d is boring must be out of their mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-tG4gCXT5Y And that isn't including bmw's smaller diesel engines.

If more people looked into Diesel engines and less at the stupid hybrid fad, most of the above comments would not have to have been made.

Mech, I respect your opinion, but I personally think that Diesel and Sports Car can coexist and still exceed the new standard. Especially with all the large geared transmissions coming out like BMWs new 8speed automatic. I'm sure if MB imported ther Diesel AMG cars here, no one would complain. VW GTI and GLI lovers have nothing to fear if they would accept the GTD and GLD (same sports car but with a diesel) engine thats still as fun to drive and gets much better mpg.

There is also an increase in City Mpg to be had for diesels if the start stop technology was added.

Well Obama has no worries until 2012. His current ride at best possibly gets double digits. People don't care if that doesn't affect them. I agree with author. As a Senator he had 300c and to become electable with Greenpeace crowd at DNC he switched to a hybrid. Thus polluting environment somewhere else like China.

All of these comments and no one has addressed how CAFE is a failure. Amazing. CAFE has never reduced our dependence on foreign oil and wont ever be effective.

Also, inefficient cars don't have to have V8s. Numerous people have suggested we don't need guzzling V8s and "Detroit" needs to use technology to get more efficient. Has anyone checked out the mileage of the Ralliart, EVO or Sti? Even V6 or I6 powered performance cars and sports sedans are not that efficient. The Camaro SS gets 16/24 and a 335i gets 17/26- not a huge differene. If the mileage of teh V8 SS is unacceptable in today's "green" world than surely a 300hp I-6 deserves to die as well. The changes we will see involve more than the disappearance of a few V8 powered coupes. And that is the intention. These rules are not being changed so that cars can remain the same. Essentially the government is not satisfied with the mix of cars being developed and purchased by consumers so they are forcing change. If Americans were clamoring for small cars the best selling vehicles in the US would be compacts exclusively. Only two of the top ten sellers are compact cars with great mileage. Some compacts such as the Sentra, Rabbit, Elantra, etc. barely show up on the sales charts.

While cars are all about engineering, CAFE is all about economics. Frankly, CAFE fails on economic grounds. Increasing fuel economy will increase the total amount of fuel consumed and increase the COO2 released. It is a policy that will not work, is not working now, has not worked in the past, and can never work in the future. Look up Jevons Paradox. This idea was proven ineffective in the 1860’s. Better efficiency always increases consumption. Nobody eats less at the buffet.

This is a bad policy that will not achieve its goals and will only serve to restrict choice. It will in fact do the opposite of its stated goals. This is about control not the environment. CAFE is an expensive boondoggle that should be ended. We would all be better off not having to pay for this counterproductive policy.

Just another example of what's wrong with this country.

And this president and this congress is what's wrong, no wonder our society's in peril.

Folks, let's not get too indulged in our own particular political (or supposedly intellectual - you know who you are) agendas, ok...and focus on the points of TM's argument.

1) The government is mandating significant change to fuel economy regulations, and that will make every car more expensive, regardless. When the average has to go up, and smaller cars don't have much of a market (yet or ever) in the US don't sell all that well, all other will have to pick up the slack. Unfortunately, that won't be cheap.

2) The American muscle car was borne out of plain-jane midsize and compact cars with big, inexpensive engines added to give them a sporty character, and make them significantly more fun to drive. TM is lamenting the oncoming death of this type of car, and for a good reason - they were/are cars virtually any American with a decent job can afford. They sound great, are fun to drive, and as long as gas is cheap - inexpensive to own.

3) There can be no doubt that the government has an agenda to reduce both oil consumption and carbon emissions. Simply look at the pending legislation on tap. The increasing cost of driving a car will force some into public transportation, and deny them the freedom to drive anywhere they want to go, anytime they want to - depending on their means. That basic freedom that virtually all have enjoyed for many years will no longer be a reality for many any longer.

4) Automotive choice (affordable choice, that is) will be reduced by the new standards. You may still be able to buy a Camaro, but it will be much harder for GM (if it still exists) to justify keeping it in the lineup, and at some point they will have to add significant cost to it for it to remain.

I think TM (in his slightly twisted way) has a point. This day was coming anyway, and the emergence of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China) economies is forcing the choice earlier than perhaps we'd like (their demand for resources now putting the squeeze on commodity prices of all kinds over the long run). I for one will lament the passing of some great automotive iron like the newer Mustangs, Challengers, Camaros, and the like. There is nothing truly like the sound of a tuned V8....it invokes thoughts of power oversteer, smoky burnouts, and instant acceleration. Poetry in motion, as they say.

You may not agree with how we get there (and I for one am no fan of this administration), and we're not necessarily going about it in the right way (there is still a lot of oil to be had right here in North America, nuclear power is far more viable for power output than wind/solar, etc.), but I think as enthusiasts we can to some degree agree that without some of the above-mentioned metal out there on our highways the state of our 'Gearhead Nation' is somewhat less interesting.

I do think there are yet some interesting cars out there - I personally would love to see how a hybrid STI might turn out - but for each camp (Muscle Cars vs. Eurocars) to deride each others' preferences misses the point. Choice is less, and those that can afford 'fun' cars are fewer - and that goes against some of the core principles that make this the greatest country on earth (and I've been in many others) - freedom of driving = mobility for all. I think that's what TM had in mind, and I think it's sad that we can't simply lament the passing of a great age of automotive transportation.

A 335d is not as quick as a 335i. Sorry, not happening. It may get to 60 mph _nearly_ as quickly thanks to traction limitations, but the 335i traps 5-7 mph faster in the quarter which is substantially better (as in running away at the stripe).

Diesels have their place, but for a similar level of technology and build, they will never produce the power output and acceleration of a gasoline engine. Too constrained by the ignition source for one thing. And because they are rpm constrained they require huge torque production to make reasonable power, which ups the loads on internal components requiring them to be heavier, exacerbating the problem further. Don't get me wrong, I love my diesel tow rig, but wouldn't want a diesel in my car.

schockopopper:

Well argued, in my opinion. The only points with which I differ (somewhat) are matters of emphasis: 1) I think it unfortunate that The Mechanic, in his need to posture and be provocative, rather than lament the passing of an age as you rightly suggest, provides cover for those seeking to deny the necessity of change and seeks to turn the matter into a politically-divided firestorm. 2) I have no enthusiasm for nationalism.

All those who vehemently oppose what the Mechanic said need to read this. Instead of vague talk about "innovation" and assumptions that technology will magically give us vehicles with today's level of performance while getting 40% better mileage we need to face reality. If you want European type mileage be prepared to drive vehicles that mirror what Europeans currently drive. Read the article at the link below. There is no free lunch and diesels will not get us out of this unless the US changes it tax/incentive policies to offset the high costs of clean diesels.

www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/latest_news_reviews/obama_s_cafe_fuel_economy_standards_to_create_fleet_of_tiny_expensive_vehicles_car_news

Hey atomikweasel, I thought you were going to cede the floor to the other guy? If you're not going to shut up, at least stop leading us on.

As for RealClimate, cmon, I quote - "RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science" Hell, even their lead title page says "Climate Science by Climate Scientists"

Gavin likes to use the post delete stick to remove the folks who ask the tough questions of him. He's been defensive ever since civilians like Steve McIntyre started pantsing his boss (Hansen) on a repeated basis. Considering that he is regularly posting on my time (meaning when my tax dollars are paying for him), there's just a little conflict of interest going on there.

p.s. - consensus is a dirty word when it comes to science

Schockpopper:

I think most agree that gas prices will go up and eventually people will move to SLIGHTLY more efficient vehicles. Automakers already know this and have been making gains in efficiency across the board over the last several years by adding 6 speed transmissions and direct injection. The real problem here is that Obama and Co. has decided to legislate what can be built instead of allowing people to buy what they can afford. If gas is $4/gallon most people will skip V8s but those who can afford to fill up such a car should have that option. With these rules many vehicles will simply disappear in order to boost an automakers CAFE rating. If gas goes up people and automakers will gradually adjust and some folks may actually drive LESS in order to keep the type of vehicle they prefer. Instead, the government has decided we are all entitled to drive as much as we want on cheap gas but the automakers must provide us with smaller, slower cars to allow us to do so. If people can afford to fill up SUVs and performance cars they should have the option of buying those vehicles. A V8 powered Camaro gets similar mileage to the average Japanese powered V6 sedan from the early to mid 90s and yet we have politicians and naive CAFE lovers claiming that without the government intervening there is no "innovation" in the industry. No educated auto enthusiast should make such a foolish statement.

The 1997 Accord V6 with a 2.7L 170hp engine got 17/23 under current EPA guidelines. The 2010 Lacrosse with 255hp and hundreds of lbs of additional weight get 18/27. Things like that don't happen without massive infusions of technology.

The bottom line is that this country is based on choice. And choice means freedom. If you would like to drive a gas guzzler than you should be able to. Likewise, if you would like to own a hybrid you should be able to. And if you want to simply ride a bicycle than it is your choice. But it is simply not acceptable for our government to tell us what we should be driving. The 39mpg standard means that If I have a big family I can't own an SUV or a minivan? Or if I have a boat I can't tow it? Or if I am a plumber I can't haul my tools in a full size van or a pickup? Of course our government thinks that anyone who owns a boat is super rich anyway. And those folks should give up their boats and pay higher taxes. What is next? I can't eat a cheeseburger because it is loaded with cholesterol? Will we mandate the food industry to sell products that are only low in fat and cholesterol so we could save money on healthcare? By the year 2020 all food products must meet 6gr of fat per serving, otherwise we will pay a fat guzzler tax!!
Choice means freedom, and if we start by limiting those choices, then there is no telling where this may lead to in the future. Choice and thus freedom is what makes this country so unique in this world, and we should be trying to preserve it rather than challenge it.

And get rid of CAFE, they are a big joke.
This legislation should be repealed.

Dearest church123:

Re your first: I bet you say that to *all* the girls.

Re: RealClimate: Which way would you have it, then? That RealClimate is advocacy or non-advocacy? When you complain of 'unfair' editing or deletion are you complaining that you and your friends' 'scientific' ripostes and observations were deleted because of unfair prejudice or simply because they were political advocacy on the part of you and your friends? In any event, if they're scientifically sound, well, I've heard rumors that peer-reviewed journals exist for a reason. Perhaps you ought try harder. – Yes, yes, I know, those terrible Conspiracies. Awful things, aren't they?

Can't really have it both ways, dear. Though you seem to try. Rather hard.

ps: Consensus (not consensus decision-making) is the way science works. Other notions are romanticism meant for sophomore high school students on the slow track.

b40, I find it funny how you bring up the whole "freedom is choice" thing... for one we do not have freedom of choice when it comes to fuel efficient cars. There is no mid-size (non hybrid) sedan that gets above 20MPG city. We have no affordable diesels, we cannot drive a real electric car, we can't even buy a NGV in any other state than CA and NY... even though there is an CNG infrastructure throughout the US. If we had real freedom of choice we'd be able to buy a hydrogen car right now. Seeing as we've had the technology for hydrogen cars since the 80s... shouldn't we have a hydrogen car by now? The whole auto industry is so corrupt and involved with Big Oil it is ridiculous. Every other technology has advanced in the last 30 years. Look at computers, look at automobile safety, look at the way in which we listen to our music. If we can hold in our laps what used to take up an entire room (computers) or carry around thousands of songs in our hand(mp3 players) why can't we drive a car that gets 50MPG by now? I mean really, what has the auto industry been doing these last 30 years?

People who want to drive fuel efficient cars do not have a choice here in america! Name more than 10 cars that can get above 50mpg... you'll be troubled to find even 4. And so what if we can't drive a huge car anymore? Most people drive alone in those big cars 98% of the time they're behind the wheel. If you think this is so impossible tell me how people in Europe can do the same thing with smaller more fuel efficient cars? WE DO NOT NEED HUGE SUVs we WANT them.

Obama is just trying to 1) reduce our dependence on OIL period, no matter domestic or foreign and 2) clean up our global image of being fat slobs who do nothing for the environment.

We are not challenging our freedom, we are increasing it. Being able to go further between gas stations is freedom is it not? Not having to spend so much money on gas is freedom is it not? Being able to not have to entangled in middle eastern affairs for the sole purpose of oil is freedom is it not?

I'm thankful this has finally happened... in a capitalist society our government shouldn't have to push our manufacturers to make a better product, they should do it on their own. But since they won't the gov't has to step in and thank god that this passed. California has only been trying to do so for the last decade.

shockopopper wrote:
"3) There can be no doubt that the government has an agenda to reduce both oil consumption and carbon emissions."

You need to be more cynical. The government has an agenda to take action that placates the special interests they are beholden to while obfuscating the costs of their actions from their constituency. This is why we have ineffective proposals like CAFE and Cap and Trade instead of a an effective and transparent policy such as a BTU tax.

Government policy is never meant to efficiently solve a problem. It exists to transform problems into issues that are used to create interest groups that can be played against each other.

Large and powerful cars are being sacrificed so the current administration can throw a bone to the environmental lobby. This will not and cannot reduce total fuel consumption. It will cause more fuel to be consumed while giving political cover to a president that owes a debt to the environmental lobby.

JFK said put a man on the moon in 10 years, we started with nothing and got it done in 8-9 years. The president says 35mpg in 7 years, and we already have, turbocharging, hybrid technology, Direct Injection and Common rail TDI technology. This is America, we step up to a challenge. We can do this.

Couldn't agree more, elemoncelli – *that's* what's best in America.

"...ps: Consensus (not consensus decision-making) is the way science works. Other notions are romanticism meant for sophomore high school students on the slow track..."

(AWeasel)

That first sentence is pure nonsense. Real science never stops challenging the consensus.

"...The simple fact is that there is a consensus as to the core issue. You loathe that consensus and simultaneously question its existence and claim it will be proven wrong in short order..."

If you believe the core issue is the earth has warmed, there is consensus, but not necessarily on exactly how much. If you believe there is consensus on that there is some contribution to warming from anthropogenic sources, that's true. However there is no consensus on the following statement from the IPCC in 4AR (which I believe captures the issue at hand):

"Most of the observed increase in global average
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

You'll notice the IPCC waffles a bit on their statement which makes Obama's "beyond dispute" statement a misinterpretation of the science.

Examples of dissent? First lets look at the reasons "we" believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). There's really only 2 supporting arguments:

1. The current warming is anomalous compared to past warming events, the upshot being that the cause of the current warming is the anomalous contribution of mankind to GHG growth.
2. If that doesn't sound very conclusive we have a second argument; sophisticated models which incorporate the rising GHG components, plus volcanoes, aerosols, water vapour, ocean currents, clouds, solar irradiance, etc, can duplicate the 20th century climate history, using GHG forcing as the only forcing with significant change.

Now at the expense of having my post bloat to one of your windbag specials, I'll stop there with one final question. Do you really believe it would be hard to find a bunch of papers that challenge either point 1 or 2?

My Dear Klapper:

I stand by my observation re the philosophy of science. Feel free to acquaint yourself with the field.

Of course there is dissent. Consensus is not of necessity synonymous with unanimity.

The simple fact is that you represent a miniscule rump caucus position and have had no success in pressing your arguments in serious scientific fora, so you're presenting your 'scientific' researches in an auto blog.

Try making your arguments in a meaningful forum, preferably a peer reviewed mainstream scientific publication, and try a sharper riposte than idle assertions as to what is 'real science' that reflect absolute ignorance. As I said, start with Popper, for example, and move forward.

This is my last, at least to you, I assure you.

Feh. Unsinn.

Atomik the Weasel aka Atomsk

I like to call a spade a spade there Atomik. And RealClimate is a heavily biased advocacy site, masquerading as a "scientific" haven, run by a government employee posting on my tax dollars while shilling for his increasingly unhinged boss, James Hansen (he of death trains, and advocating civil disobedience against power plants, whose claimed his speech was repressed even as he did thousands of interviews, press releases, etc.). Maybe if Schmidt and friends were a little more open, they wouldn't have to be repeatedly corrected or called out on other forums on things like GISS corrections, etc.

No one mentioned conspiracy, or any such thing. But the inertia of popular thought, crowd psychology, and the need for funding does play a role. Want to get funding for your research? Better make sure that it intends to prove AGW and not the other way around. Nonetheless, those peer reviewed journals publish plenty of crap that is quickly debunked. Mann's Hockey Stick, for example, or Steig, et al's latest article on Antarctic temperature trends. And they do so with very little oversight, even violating their own rules about archiving of data and methods.

But, hey, you just keep throwing out strawmen at the rate of 1-2 per sentence and see how that works for you. Probably about as well as science by consensus - which you can't honestly believe if you're actually capable of feeding yourself.

"...The simple fact is that you represent a miniscule rump caucus position..."

(AWeasel)

Is that supposed to be a sharp riposte? Try living by your own rules and actually give some facts to support your assertions. Calling something a fact doesn't make it so.

You're right about one thing, this isn't the forum to press technical arguments on the causes of climate change, and you're not the person to waste those technical arguments on.

As for your denigration of Americans as:

"..attitude of a 'right' to being eternally self-indulgent self-satisfied children..."

and

"...the spoiled children of the world..."

Any peer-reviewed papers to support your assertions?

Dear allcarsrcool,
Although I do agree with you regarding the paucity of fuel efficient vehicles in the US, keep in mind that in a free market the consumers decide what products are available on a mass scale. If the demand for hybrid, hydrogen, electric etc technology was high, then the manufacturers would meet it. At this point in time, the majority of the american consumers do not wish to pay the hefty premiums for hybrid vehicles. Not to mention electric or hydrogen cars. The price for the Telsa electric roadster is around $100,000. Furthermore, the break even point for a toyota prius is around 8-10years, so if one would like a new car every 3-4 years, then you would be significantly overpaying.
By mandating 39mpg, the government is essentially limiting the choice for the majority of the amercian consumers and now it will make them pay for it as well.

Okey to start with there are many comments here about the end of fun cars and so on. For you Americans 39mpg is really far out there for most of your cars.

I'm from Norway, for you who don't know where that is, it's in Europe. traditionally we have much smaller cars that the Americans. So naturally our cars get better mpg.

So back to this 39mpg fleet average by 2016. By what I read here this means that the fleet average of the automakers have to be 39mpg? please correct me if I am wrong.

Today the average consumption of new cars sold between 2007-2009 here in Norway is 39,2MPG! That means that we already meet your 2016 standard! And if you think we only buy dull cars that's wrong.

In 2008 the average consumption of new BMW's sold in Norway was 44,38MPG! (this is all in US-MPG and not British-MPG)

To be fair 70 percent of new cars sold here are diesels, but the diesels are superior to their gas counterparts in performance.

Myself I drive a 2008 Peugeot 207 1,6HDi 90HP and 158ft-lbs of torque. I once rented a 207 1,6 petrol with 120HP and my diesel is a quicker car especially in the midrange revs.

And better my 207 gets a 52,6MPG rating in mixed driving.

Right on escaladeviper!!!

How about Obama focuses on where automobile manufacturers and other buildings get their energy from, since that is where the majority of greenhouse gases comes from. I always assumed we should focus on the biggest problem, not the smaller ones which are actually more difficult to change.

Nice alarmist, the sky is falling, woe is me, post.

Do you all not remember $4 gas? Do you think it won't get worse in the future?

And don't give me that crap about the market. The market got us to where we are at this moment. Everybody bought big huge SUVs that got 12 mpg because they thought gas would stay at $2 a gallon forever. The market as people call it doesn't act rationally even though we all know that there are more people using oil around the world and it's getting more expensive to extract from the ground.

If other external forces don't force the car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars ahead of time, they won't. It takes a long time to build a new generation of cars so maybe, just maybe, this will help motivate them to get off their butts and either move beyond the gasoline engine or find ways to make them more efficient. Maybe that's better hybrid tech, or hydrogen tech, or diesel tech...something!

Most likely you'll still be able to get your SUVs and muscle cars but they'll have stiff premiums associated with them either through taxes or manufacturer premiums because they won't sell as many of them due to the taxes or gas prices themselves. If demand is there and there is enough money behind said demand, you'll get your muscle car...it just depends on how important it is to you.

I'll close by saying I'm a car guy...I love nothing more than to drive fast on a curvy road but it annoys me to no end when I read drivel like this posting and some of your responses about socialism and other conspiracy nut job theories.

The author is an *d*ot, more like Bush's extremely close cousin!

American cars are not the only cars on this planet. Many countries have been working on more efficient cars whether in mpg or hp. Between the two, it is obvious that mpg is the most important one for two main reasons: environment and energy control.

Blasting that smaller cars look ugly simply proves how this author is indeed a real *d*ot regardless how experience he may be in the automobile (i.e. American car industry).

Also stating that such new regulation from Obama will destroy high performance cars is nonsense. If you can afford the price of a special Corvette Edition or a Camaro SS, you deserve to pay extra in taxes while you use premium fuel!

Obama and the Congress are TYRANTs. The Mechanic is 100% correct in every capacity. America is about Freedom and this is tyranny. To the commentors about sending our $$ to countries that hate us, DRILL OUR OWN OIL! Shut up and DRILL. Want clean power go Nuclear we're giving Nuc Technology to the UAE why arent we using it? Power and Control!!!! This is not about anything but POWER and CONTROL. OBAMA IS A TYRANT. He thinks he's a king. POWER, POWER, POWER... and yes Barry used to have a 300C because hes all about, "You do as I say, and shut your mouth, I can do whatever I want!!!"

Thats leadership? Hell no! Thats tyranny! Wake up America!

most of the keyboard warriors commenting here need a swift kick in the ass...the anti-obama sentiment is so overblown, absolutely nobody will take you seriously when you come across completely and utterly irrational...

i get the feeling these are the same mouth-breathing rednecks that caused the ammunition shortage by buying every gun and box of ammo in sight in anticipation of the government taking their guns away...

fear, fear, fear...let it take over your entire soul, it's real good for you...don't even try to have a rational long-term outlook...

"you'll pry my v-8 out of my cold dead hand!" they say...bravo, brave keyboard warrior, that's the spirit!

to the author of this piece, though, i gotta say...you probably knew at the outset, when you decided to write and then post this, what kind of response you'd get...i'm a bit surprised i'm saying this, but i'm actually embarrassed for the car-loving community that they're reacting so irrationally to the situation, and that articles like this are put forth by websites that i visit frequently and want to trust...

no matter how vehemently you state it, i refuse to join the mob and believe that the sky is falling...

and really, whoever did write this specific piece shouldn't post it behind an anonymous shield, you should have your real name ascribed to it, otherwise it comes across as an act of almost complete cowardess...

shame on edmunds for posting it, in my opinion...it's done absolutely no good...not even as entertainment, because now i feel worse about my fellow americans than i did before reading it...well done...

cowardice, btw...boo for not proofreading...

Obama and the Congress are TYRANTs. The Mechanic is 100% correct in every capacity. America is about Freedom and this is tyranny. To the commentors about sending our $$ to countries that hate us, DRILL OUR OWN OIL! Shut up and DRILL. Want clean power go Nuclear we're giving Nuc Technology to the UAE why arent we using it? Power and Control!!!! This is not about anything but POWER and CONTROL. OBAMA IS A TYRANT. He thinks he's a king. POWER, POWER, POWER... and yes Barry used to have a 300C because hes all about, "You do as I say, and shut your mouth, I can do whatever I want!!!"

Thats leadership? Hell no! Thats tyranny! Wake up America!

Got that right.

"The Mechanic" sounds like another moron sent by "The Party" to connect with other morons at different sites across the country. The government bailed out GM and Chrysler because they couldn't sell' PERIOD! They also couldn't manage, PERIOD! You need those small cars to boost your CAFE average so you can sell SUV's and performance type vehicles. Those vehicles are the money makers, not small cars. Small cars just set up the deal. The average person cannot afford hybrid, electric, performance or hi-tech high mpg cars, so some compromises will be made. As for muscleheads, myself included, we will pay for technology because we can afford it and we will pay for the fuel to power it. The future is bright, as long as morons stop putting out erroneous info that scares people who don't know any better.....

I don't think that CAFE and Obama will be the death of the performance car, it will be the death blow to the auto industry in America. Automakers will be forced to built electric Pintos and Mavericks that few will buy. Just apart of the bigger picture to separate American's from their cars, property, etc.

Hey Obama, how about making the next presidential limo as a Prius?

Dear b40,

There are affordable hybrids, the honda insight now costs as much as a honda civic, corolla, or w/e you want to drive as an "economical car." The honda insight is an affordable hybrid.

As for electric cars, yes the price is quite steep, but so were the first gasoline powered cars. People tend to forget that. The price will come down.

I feel like the whole demand thing you mention is a chicken or the egg type scenario; are there no alternative fuel offerings because there is no interest or knowledge of the technologies, or are there no interest or knowledge of the alternative fuels technologies because there are no offerings?

I value your point and I think that the answer is both. In an ideal free america we should be able to buy extremely fuel efficient vehicles. These extremely fuel efficient vehicles shouldn't be tiny cars but large cars... frikin chevy suburbans if you want that run on hydrogen or get 100mpg instead of less than 10mpg (yes sad isn't it, i own one and wish it was way more easy on the gas). These gas misers should also be fun, and hopefully they will be. Just look at honda's FC Sport concept.

I hope that cleared things up a little.

and OMG asd;lfkjasdfl;kjasdf;lkj escaladeviper you are an embarassment to this nation. I kindly ask you to stop posting on the internet. There are people from Norway and who knows elsewhere blogging here whose theories are only being proven right about americans, that we are lazy, moronic, sons of b*****s who care about ourselves and could care less about the end of the world. If you think Obama is a tyrant, look at your own party stupid, what in the hell do you think Cheney was??? At least Obama is actually trying to improve our country. Whether or not it actually works remains to be seen. At least he hasn't started another war, choked on a pretzel, or shot someone else in the face yet. And Obama isn't telling what you can't do, he is telling you what you can do to not make a fool out of yourself in an international light.

However I do agree with Nuclear energy, I think it will hopefully become looked upon as more environmentally friendly than other forms of energy. I'd sure as hell rather not be breathing in all of the crap that comes from cars, coal plants, etc. Nuclear plants are actually a lot safer than people think.

typo correction.. end of the world should be rest of the world

This is what you call a trauller blog post. Come on. Can you at least present both sides of the story. The US car companies are in the toilet because the keep missing the market trends. I agree that the government likely can't predict them any better but you can be guaranteed that there will be another energy crunch like has happen in the past. This time we didn't even have rationing coupons.. So the American companies better have something ready. I bought a VW Jetta Sportwagen Diesel this year and I am averaging 41MPG and plenty of tourque performance for me.

By falch on May 25, 2009 7:22 AM
Okey to start with there are many comments here about the end of fun cars and so on. For you Americans 39mpg is really far out there for most of your cars.

I'm from Norway, for you who don't know where that is, it's in Europe. traditionally we have much smaller cars that the Americans. So naturally our cars get better mpg.

So back to this 39mpg fleet average by 2016. By what I read here this means that the fleet average of the automakers have to be 39mpg? please correct me if I am wrong.

Today the average consumption of new cars sold between 2007-2009 here in Norway is 39,2MPG! That means that we already meet your 2016 standard! And if you think we only buy dull cars that's wrong.

In 2008 the average consumption of new BMW's sold in Norway was 44,38MPG! (this is all in US-MPG and not British-MPG)

To be fair 70 percent of new cars sold here are diesels, but the diesels are superior to their gas counterparts in performance.

Myself I drive a 2008 Peugeot 207 1,6HDi 90HP and 158ft-lbs of torque. I once rented a 207 1,6 petrol with 120HP and my diesel is a quicker car especially in the midrange revs.

And better my 207 gets a 52,6MPG rating in mixed driving.

What you fail to realize is the UNREASONABLE emission standards that diesels here have to adhere to. While you guys give a little slack to diesels as they release less CO2 than petrol, our stupid EPA requires diesels here to be AS CLEAN as petrol engines. For example on the infamous 335d, the euro version (BTW which doesn't require stupid urea injection, which actually has been a problem with leaks on a few of the 335d's) of that car is rated at about ~40MPG while our adBlue (Urea injection) gets 36 MPG. Another fact is if your urea runs out, our infamous EPA requires the car to NOT START!
Not only is the Euro version have better mileage it's also a lot more reliable.

All of the fear surrounding the future of cars stems from the impression created by the first generations of super-green machines. It's somehow trendy these days to make a car that takes "boring" to a profound new level in the interest of squeezing every last ounce of efficiency out of the vehicle (i.e. the Prius).

The future is electric, whether it comes in the form of plug-in hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, or something else (ideally something that augments straight-up wall charging). And if you look past the stigma, there's plenty of evidence that electric vehicles can be quite fast and fun to drive, if they are designed with that goal in mind (rather than perpetuating the illusion that "environmentally irresponsible" equals "boring"). Plus there is plenty of room for further technological development (especially with batteries) which would probably take off with enough market pressure behind it. In other words, "it can only improve from here."

Contrary to what some naysayers proclaim, electric cars don't simply move the pollution to a different part of the system (the power plants). As the electric grid becomes greener through increased use of technologies like solar and wind (which will continue to happen), a nationwide fleet of electric cars automatically becomes greener too. But even with current coal-burning power plants, it's ridiculously more efficient to convert fuel to electricity at a centralized location (a power plant) than it is to burn fuel in every individual car. Not only that, but shifting the pollution out of urban centers will greatly relieve localized air quality issues, even though it's not a total long-term solution.

With increased federal pressure for better MPG averages (plus likely increases in gas prices), it will become not only viable, but necessary, to fully realize the "electric revolution." And when it's no longer a niche concept, some common ground will be found, the "boring chic" of today's hybrids will fall out of fashion, and I'm quite certain we'll see plenty of fun-to-drive non-polluting vehicles. The worst sacrifice we'll have to make will be to relinquish the rumbling V8 exhaust note cherished by performance aficionados, but I think we'll live.

Oops, pardon my typing ... I meant to say:

(rather than perpetuating the illusion that "environmentally responsible" equals "boring")

allscarcool:

Your naivete is stunning. Do you really think that CAFE regulations are going to turn the US into Europe? The US will continue to be the most glutonous and wasteful country in the world. Increasing mileage mandates will not change that one bit. The entire premise of these changes is that Americans should NOT have to change their behavior. Obama (and many who share his disdain for the auto industry) believes that Americans should never be asked to pay more for gas or reduce the amount of miles they drive per year. They believe that the onus for reducing oil imports falls ONLY on the backs of the "lazy" automakers who supposedly have not innovated in the powertrain department since the 1970s. In Europe GAS IS EXPENSIVE and people use public transportation far more than they do in the US. Europe is much more densely populated and is organized in a manner that makes it easy to travel without a car. America is developed in a haphazard, sprawling manner that was large influenced by the prevalence of the car and cheap oil. If Obama and others are serious about emulating Europe and reducing our "carbon footprint" he would be talking about conservation and increased gas taxes.

Another point to those who keep harping on "innovation": you cannot change the laws of physics. The best way to increase mileage is to decrease power and size. Period. Technology can moderate the reductions to some degree but you CANNOT maintain today's levels of size, power and performance and increase mileage by 40%. In Europe the cars are more efficient but they are also smaller and considerably less powerful than the average American vehicle.

allscar:

One question for you: Why arent compacts and hybrids at the top of the sales charts if there is so much pent up demand for fuel efficient vehicles? You seem to be suggesting people are clamoring for super efficient cars but manufacturers wont supply them without prodding from the government. That is an unsubstantiated position. The sale charts do not support that idea and I would like to know how you justify what Americans currently chose to buy. If sales of the Accord, Camry, F150, Silverado, etc. declined severely while the sales of subcompacts skyrocketed manufacturers would surely respond. Currently, there is not ONE subcompact amongst the top 10 sellers. I'm not even sure if more than one or two crack the top 20 list.

leftwing:

Not everyone who disagrees with this is a 2nd Amendment quoting gun lover or "redneck" as you so eloquently put it. Instead of worrying about the demographics of those who oppose this you need to consider whether or not its logical. CAFE has failed for 30 years and there is no reason to think it will begin to succeed in 2016. If you believe in "science" and believe that we should make policy decisions based on sound evidence than you cannot support CAFE. The proof of CAFE's failure is irrefutable and if you actually examined the history instead of worrying about what positions rednecks are taking on this issue you might understand why Obama's vision of the future will never come to fruition.

BTW, I don't own a gun and I live Philly which is as reliably Democrat as any city in the country.

Dear 1487

I'm sorry if i wasn't clear enough in all my rambling. I don't think I ever straight out said that americans are clamoring for subcompacts. What i said was the that people who do want fuel efficient cars (not being limited to subcompacts) do not have much of a choice whatsoever.

As I see it the problems that Obama is trying to solve are environmental impacts, dependence on foreign petroleum, and the related economic impacts. An overall energy policy should include aircraft, trains, ships, trucks, cars, and other vehicles. Trains, ships, and buses (when full) are much more energy efficient, economical, and earth friendly. As such I see them playing a major role in any serious national strategy. Keep in mind that the overall environmental impact of cars is not helped by batteries. The mining, production, shipping, and disposal of batteries pose huge environmental impacts. And the total amount of batteries that can be produced is fairly limited.

Note that for cars or aircraft, less than 1% of the petroleum energy is used to move occupants. The rest goes to move the vehicle or is wasted in friction and other heat losses. This makes for an obvious place to make improvements in whatever solutions are developed. Regardless of your opinions, we have a finite supply of petroleum so prices will rise as supply dwindles. This will increasingly work against countries like the U.S. that are net users of petroleum both in terms of balance of trade and the overall drain on the economy.

Solutions can be summed up as short and long term. Petroleum provides a great amount of power per pound and so has worked very well in various vehicles versus electric batteries or fuel cells which are not energy sources per se, (they are energy storage devices). Various enclosed motorcycle designs have been proposed over the years that could provide high levels of excitement while maintaining high efficiency. Clean diesel and perhaps battery power for urban solutions also make sense in the short term. Fuel cells, once the initial cost and long term reliability issues are solved, is the long range answer.

i don't think this article is worthy of insideline. in fact, most of the mechanic's articles seem more fitting for "random car nut blog #3,450".

Oh please, cry me a river "Mechanic". Might cars makers have to scale back a bit on the HP in the immediate future? Sure. But in the long run cars will be far better. Mileage will improve and auto manufactures will continue to make technological advances to provide the power people want WITH the fuel economy required. Just like post-1973. You may want a V8 Hemi, but that doesn't seem to be true for most people. If it was, Chrysler wouldn't be in the world of hurt they are in today. The companies that figure out how to build solid cars with good fuel economy are the ones that will survive. Sorry, but the market for commuter cars is just way bigger than for cars built for the drag strip.

The Mechanic: I enjoy reading your articles. I disagree with this point of view however. American's do need to reduce their dependence on oil in my opinion. How do we do this? Wait until gas costs $6.00 a gallon like in Europe? What kind of cars sell well in Europe? See for yourself:

http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/Top_ten_article.aspx?cp-documentid=2620300

Changes are inevitable.

Bring back the horse and buggy...I cant wait. No cars on the road at and we won't need foreign oil. Having a mustang in the stable will really mean just that. Maybe IL will have a headline. "IL tests a 2016 Appaloosa"

I love this website.

This article made me become an insideline member. Great job! 100% agree.

Crappy cars? VW & BMW make diesels which are fun to drive and meet the standard today. This legislation will make folks stop being sheep and actually THINK! We already have natural gas infrastructure in place in many homes which can be used to fuel vehicles. I do agree a gas tax would have been a better incentive for the desired effect, but this is better than nothing. Oh yeah, I currently drive so-called "no fun" MINI Cooper S and a VW Tiguan - both with high revving, fuel-sipping turbo 4s. The behemoth Tahoe stays parked except for towing purposes - it rates a zero on the fun to drive scale anyway. The writer did incite a response so I suppose it served its purpose. Driving a slow car fast is fun!

.....if they only had a brain.

I'm sick of the people who say "the V8 needs to die, why would anybody want one of them in this century?". Because they rock, that's why. I know you can get V6's and turbo 4's that can rival their power, but they can't match the sound. It's the automotive music that I love to hear. They're not really even gas guzzlers anymore either, when put into the right package. No, it's not 35 mpg but the Z06 gets 25 mpg out of a 7.0 that produces 500 hp. Not too shabby, and that's without any cylinder deactivation, direct injection, or hybridization. Just a reasonably light car with a tall overdrive and a slippery (and attractive) shape. I know, I know, it's not cheap either. Do you really doubt that a standard Vette with a slightly smaller DI V8 and maybe cylinder deactivation wouldn't exceed 30 mpg highway cruising? Oh yeah, and flogging a high performace 6 or 4 puts a pretty big dent in their economy too - so if you drive it hard it really won't be all that much better (if at all) than a V8. And with so many cars now seeming to weigh in around 4,000 pounds - what do you expect? I don't think even the Miata, which is only something like 2500 pounds with a 4 cyl exceeds 30mpg. Mandating increased safety equipment which adds weight and higher mileage at the same time seems like a no-win situation, chasing a moving target.

The article is a bit on thy whiny side. Just because of tougher fuel economy and emission standards doesn't mean, stylish power, user friendly cars will dissappear. The automakers will have to become more innovative about how to improve performance and make cars the run cleaner, cleaner to manufacture, parts that can be put back into the cycle of production(cradle to cradle) when they have outlived its useful live and still be stylish and user friendly/practical. Oh, and fun to drive.

You say “the dream is over…From here on out, cars are going to shrink in size, shrivel in power and grow more expensive.” First of all, while Obama’s standards are a bit more stringent than those in the “Energy Independence and Security Act” of 2007, they only move the date up 4 years and the mpg by ½ a mpg. And secondly, you do not have to have a small car in order to get 35 mpg. As an expert I would think you would know something about what Europe is currently doing. They drive minivans and full size cars with clean burning turbo diesel engine that will cruise happily in excess of legal highway speed, are just as safe as anything else on the road, and return over 50 mpg highway. Yes, over 50 mpg!! The have switched recently to advanced diesel engines that are indistinguishable from gasoline engines - more powerful, longer lasting, pollute less, and get much better mpg; and the fuel can be mixed in any percentage with biodiesel. More than half the cars in Europe are diesel today - it’s cheaper to refine. Nice big and very safe cars on the roads of Europe today are the Ford S Max diesel minivan (58 mpg), VW Passat (Turbo Direct Injection) TDI diesel (55 mpg), VW Jetta TDI diesel (58mpg),
Volvo 1.8TDI diesel (54 mpg), Honda Accord diesel -(52mpg), AUDI A4 2.0 TDI diesel (51.4 mpg), and BMW 5 Series E60/E61 520d diesel (55.4 mpg).

Amazing how liberals continue down the global warming path. Let's see what put-put Gore will drive.

A simple reason why libs like Barack try to push euro-put-puts is because euro-libs avoid parenthood! You don't need a larger car if you don't have/want children.

In this, the greatest country on earth, AMERICA, conservatives have children, libs opt for pets.

You see, having children throws a huge wrench in a lib's self-satisfying plans. Children in their view are a huge burden, require commitment and more importantly, it requires you to love someone more than yourself! - with pets, libs can give the impression of being a caring person, on-demand, at convenient times.

Unfortunately for them, libs continue at full-speed towards a dead end. Spend a few days in Italy or France and talk to locals, they are not reproducing themseleves, at all. They are practically headed towards extinction, all you see in london, paris, rome or milan are muslims. In a few decades, there will be no native Italians, your entry ticket to the coliseum might be written in arabic first and maybe, just maybe, italian as a second language.

Americans, conservative Americans want to be FREE to buy any car or combination of cars we choose to, any car we can afford because of our hard work and success. Those of us that have children simply choose a larger car because they are Family movers!

We don't believe in the hockey stick graph, global warming, bowing down to a bully, in apologizing for America's greatness, in sharing the wealth, CAP-n-Tax, VAT, in Socialism, in dead-ends.

We are people of Strength, Faith, Family and Freedom.