Where's the commuter cars?

[bowtieguy]

i read in my local paper today that mercedes (and several other auto manufacturers to follow) will start selling diesels that will comply even with new york and cal standards.

[Lug_Nut]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

i read in my local paper today that mercedes (and several other auto manufacturers to follow) will start selling diesels that will comply even with new york and cal standards.

Talk about slow news days!....
There is no CARB emission standard anymore. The Fed couldn't rescind the existence of a CARB emission standard since it predated the Fed standard. Other states were able to choose the fed or the stricter CARB one. It was becoming apparent that more states were going to adopt the CARB standard and automakers were complaining about having to build to two different emissions standards. So the Fed went and set it's standard tighter than CARB's thus making the CARB emissions standard moot. There is now a 50 state standard stricter than the most recent CARB standard, so there is in effect no more CA (NY, MA, VT, CT) emission standard.
The diesel cars and emission equipment existed for many years, but the diesel fuel was too high in sulfur to allow the emissions systems to operate properly. (It was as if the catalytic converter was needed to pass emissions, but oil companies could continue to add lead to gasoline.) Now the sulfur is reduced, the emissions systems last longer, and the choice of 50 state diesel passenger cars will grow beyond the new VW and M-B 45 state offerings that had been available right along.
Really, nothing news-y about it.

[bowtieguy]

Lugnut,

i wish i would have kept the article to give a link. sorry.

[bowtieguy]

found it!

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busin...2501055.column

i wonder if the price to refill the AdBlue would offset the extra mileage/fuel savings? nah, couldn't, could it?

[skewbe]

"Daddy, where are the polar bears?"
"Sorry kids, Daddy has to have his rear wheel drive, and it only comes in this giant sized canyonero. It's all the politicians fault."

[Telco]

Originally Posted by skewbe

"Daddy, where are the polar bears?"
"Sorry kids, Daddy has to have his rear wheel drive, and it only comes in this giant sized canyonero. It's all the politicians fault."

Wow, thanks for clarifying that! The world's problems are all because of rear wheel drive! How informative!

I wish the world were that simple for me. If I were wrong about what caused the SUVs to gain prominence, that it was the rise of the front wheel drive, then the Chrysler 300 with rear wheel drive wouldn't have been so popular. People would go back to more efficient cars if more decent rear wheel drives were available, but they aren't. It's easier and more profitable to make a less efficient truck or SUV than a more efficient rear wheel drive car, so that's what the automakers push. It takes an economic trigger to force people to change, and it takes making what people want available to get people to want to change. Raising the price of fuel is the wrong way to do it, because it hurts everyone. Raising the cost of the least efficient vehicles is a better way, because (pay attention here, this is important) it is a negative trigger that only punishes the person buying the inefficient vehicle, WITHOUT punishing the guy in the efficient car or even the guy who doesn't even HAVE a car. Raising the price of fuel to get the SUV off the road only makes it take longer to get the SUV off the road because it takes longer to get it up there, and really won't affect the SUV driver before it kills everyone else. A slow rise in fuel costs can be adjusted to and absorbed, but paying a thousand dollars to tag your SUV this year when it cost 100 bucks last year? List price 50K, add gas guzzler tax and now it's 65K? In addition to the grand or more to tag it every year, 300 dollar apiece tires and 100 dollar bill fills? Now it might be time to start thinking about getting a car.

For my part, I can handle 6 dollar a gallon gas right now with no change to my driving or spending habits, in 2 years I'll be able to afford 12 dollar a gallon gas with no change to my driving or spending habits. I won't like it, but I can handle it. Can everyone else? Would it not be better to get the gas sucking pig off the road without making everyone pay to get one guy's rig off the road? Would it not be better to pay a buck a gallon and get 60MPG in the econobox, and watch the Hummer guy write a check for thousands every year just to tag his Hummer, than to pay 5 bucks a gallon just like the Hummer guy does? Obviously if you can afford to pay 50-60 grand for an SUV, a few bucks a gallon isn't going to bother you.

Also, while I can't stand a front wheel drive vehicle, I do have a Toyota Sienna for a family car. It's a front wheel drive minivan. Hate it, but it does do the job, and I can't wait to swap it for a little 2 seat rear wheel drive sports car in a couple of years.

[Z man]

The really smart people get a pickup and raise it 4 feet off the ground so
they can't tow anything anymore or even drive a lawnmower into the bed.
Then they get smokestacks and burn more gas showing off in the parking lot then I use to get home!

Best commuter, CRX!

[GeekGuyAndy]

I think CAFE is still way behind it's time. It's odd that computers can double their power every year or so, yet cars have been declining since the beginning. Yet they keep "improving" by adding DVD players and bulking up. Can I get an improved car that just has what I need?

[GeekGuyAndy]

We ALL need to be driving less. It's easy to focus on the big cars that are making a bigger dent in the gas supply, but anyone using gas needs to understand that it's not going to be around forever.

Yesterday, someone asked me what I was studying and I when I said geology, his reply was "I hope you're not working in oil." Sure most of us say things like that, but he's the one that drove 100 miles to get here, relying on petroleum. I'm pretty sure everyone on this site uses gas, and we all need to drive less, especially those that are driving less efficient vehicles. I've said it before, but I highly praise those that are biking or walking their commutes when possible instead of driving, even if they are capable of driving high mpgs.

I think we should be alloted some amount of gas per year, then anything over that should cost 5x the price. It would mean a lot more meaningful trips, and a lot less "I'll drive because I can".

[Telco]

No, I'm actually not missing a major point. There isn't a whole lot of leeway to cut here. Most driving is necessary driving, not leisure driving. If it were, then when gasoline hit 3 bucks a gallon demand would have dropped a lot more than it did. My family cut as much as we could, but really only dropped maybe 100 miles a week across all drivers. We could cut a bit more, but we're not going to. Cutting the rest of the unnecessary driving would mean cutting out going out to dinner twice a month along with the very occasional movie. It isn't going to save the world, but will cost a job or two, if we stop eating out altogether.

The real problem is not in how far one travels, but in how much fuel one burns to get there. Requiring cars to get better mileage, and putting stiff penalties on those who choose to be wasteful in their choices, would help the problem. Finding a new source of cheap, clean fuel would be the perfect solution, but until it comes along we need to work with what we have, and that includes building vehicles to be more efficient, and putting negative incentives on gas hogs, not in whining about someone who goes somewhere for fun on occasion.