Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:You are so naive. Big Brother is planning to put trackers on everyone's car and tax people according to mileage.

Don't drive on public roads then you freeloader

Quote:The Higher the MPG Standard, the less fuel used. The Less Fuel used = less in gasoline taxes collected.  So..... to upkeep all those roads and bridges like they say they do, they'll have to raise fuel taxes which = MORE $$$$ spent by the consumer which would off-set any savings in increased mileage.

 

So this is actually a tax increase.  They want Americans to buy more gas so the government can collect more taxes?  

Quote:And the 90s was amoung the worse decade of vehicles manufactured ever. You had some of the worse quality vehicles in the 90s we've ever seen. You can push for fuel economy and set artificial standards all day long but if it's not market driven and the technology isn't there it's just an artificial marker to make the environmentalist feel good. why stop at 54 why not 60 or hell make it 100?

You can thank Ronald Reagan and deregulation. Clinton didn't touch CAFE or the automakers.


Hard for me to believe the US technological prowess can't manufacture more fuel efficiency cost worthy. But maybe they just suck and the foreign auto makers are just that much better.


Keep in mind the automakers begged for money and these standards were a condition they all agreed to. Nice job.

Quote:Agreed.  I have a Ford F150 with the Ecoboost V-6, and while the fuel economy is good, it just doesn't have the "behind" that my Dodge pickup had with the V8 Hemi.  I've only had the truck for a year, but I have been thinking about getting out of it and getting another with a "real" engine.

Glad to hear that because I had actually considered the Ecoboost to replace my 5.3 l GM. 

 

I spoke to a guy who owns a business where he travels and tunes GM engines.  Most of what he works on is for performance and racing, but he'll do trucks like mine as well for a pretty hefty fee, but most of what he does is reprogramming the computers to undo a lot of the stuff the manufacturer has to put in place to meet the CAFE standards.  The first thing he pointed out was that as far as emissions go, the vehicles we're driving today are so much more efficient, and run cleaner than at any time in the past.  He was talking about how the mileage standards set by the federal government were ridiculous, and forced companies to do all sorts of things to meet the guidelines that made the engines less reliable.  For GM, they went to shutting down cylinders at speed as a way of increasing gas mileage.  It's effective in bumping up the mpg by a few miles if you do a lot of highway driving, but he was saying that this fuel management system made it almost impossible for a vehicle to get past 100k without having to have something rebuilt.  Much of his business in recent years has been shutting that off in the computer for owners because it does more harm than good, and any money saved in fuel costs is eaten up in maintenance.

 

A friend of mine owns a Honda Pilot that has a similar system.  His SUV is their top of the line touring edition.  Very nice SUV.  He's already had to have the top end of the motor rebuilt because of this fuel management system.  Fortunately, the vehicle was still under warranty and Honda at the cost of the work.

 

CAFE standards established by the government are really unnecessary.  The market will determine what people want and what they're willing to pay for with their vehicles.  They're building these little econoboxes that get 40+ mpg, but they don't sell, so most of them get dumped into fleet sales, and then flood the used car market where they sell them cheaply because they don't retain their resale value.

 

I've got nothing against more fuel efficient vehicles, or vehicles that run on alternative fuels.  What I have an issue with is government mandating standards instead of allowing the market to decide what they prefer.  That doesn't preclude companies from continuing to strive for more efficiency and reliability with the vehicles they're manufacturing, but it would allow them to focus more on innovation than just meeting some number the government has pulled out of their posterior.

 

Quote:You are so naive. Big Brother is planning to put trackers on everyone's car and tax people according to mileage.

 

That is how progressives are trying to manage collecting tax dollars that are lost because of more fuel efficient vehicles.  Unintended consequences are always fun.  It's like taxing tobacco products out the wazoo to finance children's healthcare initiatives, and then being shocked when smoking has dropped off dramatically and the tax revenue isn't hitting projections.  So, the answer?  More taxes! 

Quote:Don't drive on public roads then you freeloader

 

You really are clueless, aren't you. Surely you can see the problem with the government tracking us everywhere we go? It would dwarf the NSA phone call database in totalitarian overreach.


 

I have no problem with fuel taxes being set to what's needed to pay for the roads*. It's the fairest tax in the US because it's essentially a user fee. There would be a problem with electric cars if they became a significant means of transportation, but then the non-invasive solution is to tax electricity and use that as a supplement to fund the roads.


 

 

 

 

* 
 I do have a problem with fuel tax collections being wasted on mass transit and other wasteful boondoggles.

Quote:You really are clueless, aren't you. Surely you can see the problem with the government tracking us everywhere we go? It would dwarf the NSA phone call database in totalitarian overreach.


I have no problem with fuel taxes being set to what's needed to pay for the roads*. It's the fairest tax in the US because it's essentially a user fee. There would be a problem with electric cars if they became a significant means of transportation, but then the non-invasive solution is to tax electricity and use that as a supplement to fund the roads.





*
I do have a problem with fuel tax collections being wasted on mass transit and other wasteful boondoggles.

I'm sorry what? The state has been spying on us since the patriot act was crammed down our throat after the invasion of Iraq.


All of which came from the right.


Who do you think you have to blame?

Quote:I'm sorry what? The state has been spying on us since the patriot act was crammed down our throat after the invasion of Iraq.


All of which came from the right.


Who do you think you have to blame?

 

They were spying on the population long before that, though you probably weren't around for the bad old days. 

Quote:I'm sorry what? The state has been spying on us since the patriot act was crammed down our throat after the invasion of Iraq.


All of which came from the right.


Who do you think you have to blame?

 

Actually before that. What do you think a tax return is? How about the expanded census form? The RICO Act? And no, I don't support the Patriot Act, nor the RICO Act, nor having to file a tax return or fill out a census form.


 

The Patriot Act passed with 98 Senate votes, so it wasn't just "the Right." Funny you ignore the fact that the Dems controlled everything in 2009, including a filibuster-proof Senate, and still didn't rescind the Patriot Act even after it was shown to be a problem. It's not Pubs vs. Dems or Right vs. Left, it's the ruling establishment vs. citizens subjects.

Quote:LOL.  GLOBAL WARMING!

 

Fuel efficiency has nothing to do with being "green".  Imposing fuel efficiency standards on automakers just drives up the cost.

 

:woot:  Burning fossil fuels has everything to do with (adversely) being "green". 

 

Sometimes I really wish that I grew up on a farm, never left a rural town, and just drank Bud on my John Deere while cutting 12 acres of grass on the weekend.   Information can make life quite stressful   

Quote:They were spying on the population long before that, though you probably weren't around for the bad old days.

Bad old days?


For the record, of course they were always spying. The right just made it legal

Quote:The Higher the MPG Standard, the less fuel used. The Less Fuel used = less in gasoline taxes collected.  So..... to upkeep all those roads and bridges like they say they do, they'll have to raise fuel taxes which = MORE $$$$ spent by the consumer which would off-set any savings in increased mileage.

 

 

Quote:The title is accurate. Trump isn't dumping all fuel-efficiency standards, only the ridiculous ones imposed in the last eight years.

See, this is bull crap. I drive a 2002 Chevy Silverado 1500. It is not a gas saver with a V8 and 5.3L engine. I get decent MPG on the highway but it sucks in the city. If they want to tax anyone they can tax the people who drive all those fancy fuel efficient cars and leave me the hell alone. My truck is paid for and I am not going to take on a car payment just to "save the planet" and still get screwed over anyway. 

 

Also, NC is in the top 10 in gas tax in the country right behind FL, with my county being among the highest cost of fuel in the state. They can kiss my butt. 

When the President of the United States starts getting chauffeured around in a Chevy Volt...I'll consider it.

Quote:See, this is bull crap. I drive a 2002 Chevy Silverado 1500. It is not a gas saver with a V8 and 5.3L engine. I get decent MPG on the highway but it sucks in the city. If they want to tax anyone they can tax the people who drive all those fancy fuel efficient cars and leave me the hell alone. My truck is paid for and I am not going to take on a car payment just to "save the planet" and still get screwed over anyway. 

 

Also, NC is in the top 10 in gas tax in the country right behind FL, with my county being among the highest cost of fuel in the state. They can kiss my butt. 

 

Not sure why you quoted my comment on the title.


 

As far as your comment goes, heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear on the roads and bridges than smaller, lighter, fuel-efficient vehicles. You may not like paying more gasoline taxes than a Prius driver, but it's a fair assessment.

Quote:Glad to hear that because I had actually considered the Ecoboost to replace my 5.3 l GM. 

 

...

 

Don't get me wrong, the Ecoboost is a nice engine and I do like my F150.  Unloaded I'm getting around 24 mpg on the highway and about 21 mpg in the city.  Unloaded it has plenty of pep and torque.  However, when you load it down or tow something with some weight fuel economy goes way down (as expected) and the engine does struggle a bit.  I tow a boat sometimes and wonder how my truck is going to perform when I head up to Tennessee or NC to do some fishing where there are actual hills this summer.

 

One other thing I'm not particularly fond of, and glad that my truck doesn't have that "feature".  I bought my truck new last year right at a a year ago.  It's a 2015 model.  A woman that I work with also bought one shortly after I got mine, but she got a 2016 model.  Evidently from 2016 on they made them where they shut off when you are at a stop light.  When you release the brake they automatically start back up.  I'm willing to bet that she'll be getting a starter and/or a battery replaced far sooner than I will.  This method may save a few drops of fuel and may be "greener", but in the long run it causes more unnecessary wear and tear and needless expense.

 

I generally don't buy vehicles very often (I owned my last truck for 12 years), but I may trade this one in depending on how it does this summer.  My other option is to do some modifications to it (tuning and such), but I hate doing something like that while it's under warranty.

Truly we are among idiots.

Quote:Truly we are among idiots.

 

Yes, liberals are around.

Quote:Evidently from 2016 on they made them where they shut off when you are at a stop light.  When you release the brake they automatically start back up.  I'm willing to bet that she'll be getting a starter and/or a battery replaced far sooner than I will.  This method may save a few drops of fuel and may be "greener", but in the long run it causes more unnecessary wear and tear and needless expense.

 

 

 

I definitely understand your perspective because I'm not totally sold on that concept too.  However, I can see where the auto shut-off would have a massive impact (saving fuel) when you factor in 20 million cars alone in the US going through rush hour traffic.  It seems to make better sense in LA, Chicago, NY and other congested areas where it takes 90 minutes to go 15 miles.

 

My 2005 Jeep Wrangler doesn't have the shutoff capability, or XM Radio, or bluetooth, or auto windows, or wind-down windows, or auto lock/unlock key chain, or the fancy beep beep sound when you lock the car.   :mellow:

Quote:I definitely understand your perspective because I'm not totally sold on that concept too.  However, I can see where the auto shut-off would have a massive impact (saving fuel) when you factor in 20 million cars alone in the US going through rush hour traffic.  It seems to make better sense in LA, Chicago, NY and other congested areas where it takes 90 minutes to go 15 miles.

 

My 2005 Jeep Wrangler doesn't have the shutoff capability, or XM Radio, or bluetooth, or auto windows, or wind-down windows, or auto lock/unlock key chain, or the fancy beep beep sound when you lock the car.   :mellow:

 

That's the whole point of this thread.  Mandating fuel mileage standards isn't "universal", especially when the reason for the mandate is to be "green".  Instead, let manufacturers decide what they want to build based on what consumers decide they want to buy.

 

You decided for whatever reasons to buy your vehicle based on your preferences.  For someone like me, yes fuel economy is a factor, but I also want comfort and performance.  My truck has all of the features that you listed, along with heated/cooled leather seats.  That's what I wanted and paid for.

Making Vehicles Great Again

 

also

 

Making Morons Cry Again

Quote:That's the whole point of this thread. Mandating fuel mileage standards isn't "universal", especially when the reason for the mandate is to be "green". Instead, let manufacturers decide what they want to build based on what consumers decide they want to buy.


You decided for whatever reasons to buy your vehicle based on your preferences. For someone like me, yes fuel economy is a factor, but I also want comfort and performance. My truck has all of the features that you listed, along with heated/cooled leather seats. That's what I wanted and paid for.

Okay so who pays the price for the emissions of your vehicle? You plan on paying my healthcare bills?