Poll: Americans back tougher SUV mileage standards
Thread Starter
HC Racer H5
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
From: KCK
Poll: Americans back tougher SUV mileage standards
they link marijuana grown in the US and south america to terrorism but can't link oil from middle eastern dictatorship countries to terrorism?
February 18, 2003
REUTERS
WASHINGTON - Most Americans support better gas mileage standards for sport utility vehicles but reject activist claims that SUV drivers unwittingly support violence through their fuel consumption, a poll released Sunday showed.
About 70 percent of those polled by CNN/Time Magazine said they believed SUVs burned more fuel than other passenger vehicles, and the same number said Congress should mandate better gas mileage for the large vehicles.
Many also expressed security concerns with SUVs, most of which operate with four-wheel-drive systems considered safer in snow emergencies and other adverse road conditions.
About 54 percent of the 1,010 adults surveyed said they thought roll-over risks made SUVs dangerous to their own occupants, and 55 percent said their size made them a hazard to occupants of other cars in case of accidents.
Still, the vast majority -- 82 percent -- disagreed with recent arguments from groups like the Detroit Project, which has aired television advertisements linking SUV driving, and its associated fuel consumption, to blindly financing terrorist groups and drug traffickers.
The survey results are considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, Time Magazine said.
February 18, 2003
REUTERS
WASHINGTON - Most Americans support better gas mileage standards for sport utility vehicles but reject activist claims that SUV drivers unwittingly support violence through their fuel consumption, a poll released Sunday showed.
About 70 percent of those polled by CNN/Time Magazine said they believed SUVs burned more fuel than other passenger vehicles, and the same number said Congress should mandate better gas mileage for the large vehicles.
Many also expressed security concerns with SUVs, most of which operate with four-wheel-drive systems considered safer in snow emergencies and other adverse road conditions.
About 54 percent of the 1,010 adults surveyed said they thought roll-over risks made SUVs dangerous to their own occupants, and 55 percent said their size made them a hazard to occupants of other cars in case of accidents.
Still, the vast majority -- 82 percent -- disagreed with recent arguments from groups like the Detroit Project, which has aired television advertisements linking SUV driving, and its associated fuel consumption, to blindly financing terrorist groups and drug traffickers.
The survey results are considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, Time Magazine said.
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,033
Likes: 1
From: GA
I somewhat agree, but really everything supports terrorism. Just like everything causes cancer.What about Diamonds? Can we say every girl supports terrorism? How would you like to dig for diamonds for 18 hours a day with bare hands and a gun pointed at your head the whole time?
jeffphx
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
they link marijuana grown in the US and south america to terrorism but can't link oil from middle eastern dictatorship countries to terrorism?
Bingo!! I laugh everytime gas prices go up and they interview someone on the news complaining how much it cost them to fill up the gas tank of their massive, oversized, overweight SUV. Dah!! Should have thought of that before you purchase that beast. We should consider ourselves and feel lucky that our gas prices are not like they are in Europe and Asia. Then we'd really hear a lot of whinning.
Bingo!! I laugh everytime gas prices go up and they interview someone on the news complaining how much it cost them to fill up the gas tank of their massive, oversized, overweight SUV. Dah!! Should have thought of that before you purchase that beast. We should consider ourselves and feel lucky that our gas prices are not like they are in Europe and Asia. Then we'd really hear a lot of whinning.
Thread Starter
HC Racer H5
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
From: KCK
U.S. carmakers contest higher fuel-economy rules
no surprise here that the big 3 would complain using its 20 year old arguments 
February 19, 2003
BY JUSTIN HYDE
REUTERS
U.S. automakers, led by General Motors Corp., have fired back at a federal proposal to raise fuel-economy standards for trucks by 1.5 miles per gallon, claiming regulators overestimated the companies' ability to meet higher targets and that the costs of tougher rules outweigh the benefits.
In a 127-page filing with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, GM suggested Friday that meeting the rules would cost it more than $1 billion, and could force it to cut weight from its trucks, a move GM has long argued would make them less safe.
"We believe that a more accurate assessment of our capabilities will show that the proposed standards are significantly too high," GM said in its comments.
In December, NHTSA proposed increasing fuel-economy standards for pickups, vans and sport-utility vehicles from 20.7 miles per gallon to 22.2 m.p.g. in model year 2007. The standard would first rise to 21 m.p.g. in model year 2005, then to 21.6 in 2006. NHTSA chief Dr. Jeffrey Runge has said he would support even higher increases beyond 2007 to reduce dependence on imported oil, calling it an issue of national security.
The fuel-economy proposal has garnered nearly 20,000 comments since December, many of them in support of higher standards. Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. Ltd. told NHTSA they favor the increase, while environmental groups have said the increases are not sufficient.
In its own analysis of automakers' confidential data, NHTSA found that GM's truck fleet would fail to meet the new standards by as much as 3 m.p.g., while Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG would meet or be just below the standard.
But GM contends NHTSA's analysis is riddled with flaws, double-counting some improvements, skipping others and ignoring time and engineering constraints. In one case, GM said, it doesn't even have a working version of a technology that NHTSA said it could use to improve fuel efficiency on several models in 2005.
"To develop such a design and apply it across the fleet would take many engineers and years of dedicated effort. Yet this is the change that NHTSA deemed the 'easiest to introduce by model year 2005,' " GM said.
GM also said NHTSA's estimate that GM's costs for meeting the rules would total about $678 million was far short. While GM did not give a specific estimate, tables in its comments suggest GM's costs would be at least $400 million more than NHTSA's estimates.
And while GM was touting its plans to offer up to 1 million fuel-efficient gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles within several years, it warned NHTSA not to rely on hybrids for higher overall fuel economy. "These programs are forecast to be a substantial economic burden, with costs far larger than any possible recovery through pricing," GM said.
The industry's lobby, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said, "NHTSA's projections of cost-effective fuel economy technologies are economically infeasible."
Other Detroit automakers did not follow GM's hard line, but still offered some complaints about the proposal.
Ford called the levels "technically challenging," and warned NHTSA's cost estimates were low, but said it is committed to meeting the standards.
DaimlerChrysler offered the briefest comments, but suggested NHTSA lower its proposal to 20.9 m.p.g. for 2005, 21.1 m.p.g. for 2006 and 21.5 in 2007. It also said its costs for meeting NHTSA's current proposals would be four times higher than NHTSA's estimate of $11 million.
February 19, 2003
BY JUSTIN HYDE
REUTERS
U.S. automakers, led by General Motors Corp., have fired back at a federal proposal to raise fuel-economy standards for trucks by 1.5 miles per gallon, claiming regulators overestimated the companies' ability to meet higher targets and that the costs of tougher rules outweigh the benefits.
In a 127-page filing with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, GM suggested Friday that meeting the rules would cost it more than $1 billion, and could force it to cut weight from its trucks, a move GM has long argued would make them less safe.
"We believe that a more accurate assessment of our capabilities will show that the proposed standards are significantly too high," GM said in its comments.
In December, NHTSA proposed increasing fuel-economy standards for pickups, vans and sport-utility vehicles from 20.7 miles per gallon to 22.2 m.p.g. in model year 2007. The standard would first rise to 21 m.p.g. in model year 2005, then to 21.6 in 2006. NHTSA chief Dr. Jeffrey Runge has said he would support even higher increases beyond 2007 to reduce dependence on imported oil, calling it an issue of national security.
The fuel-economy proposal has garnered nearly 20,000 comments since December, many of them in support of higher standards. Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. Ltd. told NHTSA they favor the increase, while environmental groups have said the increases are not sufficient.
In its own analysis of automakers' confidential data, NHTSA found that GM's truck fleet would fail to meet the new standards by as much as 3 m.p.g., while Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG would meet or be just below the standard.
But GM contends NHTSA's analysis is riddled with flaws, double-counting some improvements, skipping others and ignoring time and engineering constraints. In one case, GM said, it doesn't even have a working version of a technology that NHTSA said it could use to improve fuel efficiency on several models in 2005.
"To develop such a design and apply it across the fleet would take many engineers and years of dedicated effort. Yet this is the change that NHTSA deemed the 'easiest to introduce by model year 2005,' " GM said.
GM also said NHTSA's estimate that GM's costs for meeting the rules would total about $678 million was far short. While GM did not give a specific estimate, tables in its comments suggest GM's costs would be at least $400 million more than NHTSA's estimates.
And while GM was touting its plans to offer up to 1 million fuel-efficient gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles within several years, it warned NHTSA not to rely on hybrids for higher overall fuel economy. "These programs are forecast to be a substantial economic burden, with costs far larger than any possible recovery through pricing," GM said.
The industry's lobby, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said, "NHTSA's projections of cost-effective fuel economy technologies are economically infeasible."
Other Detroit automakers did not follow GM's hard line, but still offered some complaints about the proposal.
Ford called the levels "technically challenging," and warned NHTSA's cost estimates were low, but said it is committed to meeting the standards.
DaimlerChrysler offered the briefest comments, but suggested NHTSA lower its proposal to 20.9 m.p.g. for 2005, 21.1 m.p.g. for 2006 and 21.5 in 2007. It also said its costs for meeting NHTSA's current proposals would be four times higher than NHTSA's estimate of $11 million.
jeffphx
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
GM just makes me shake my head and wonder why??? It does make me question what happens when automakers don't meet CAFE standards? Isn't there supposed to be fines? If so, I imagine the fines are just ignored like the CAFE standards are ignored. Automakers better wake up and smell the coffee, we might not always have dirt cheap gas and then they are really screwed since they are surviving currently on their trucks and SUV's.
Thread Starter
HC Racer H5
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
From: KCK
gas prices are up to the 7th highest on record this week spurred by the eventual attack on iraq (2nd largest producer of oil in the world and with saddam's scorched land policy [burn and destroy every oil rig outside of baghdad]) and the fact that the US oil reserves are at an all time low to artificially keep oil prices low
this binge on oil is not backfiring and since the gov't and the american auto industry has continually turned its back on the problem it will explode and we will have the long gas lines adn those that can't afford to buy gas for the guzzlers
this binge on oil is not backfiring and since the gov't and the american auto industry has continually turned its back on the problem it will explode and we will have the long gas lines adn those that can't afford to buy gas for the guzzlers
jeffphx
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
Originally posted by jaje
gas prices are up to the 7th highest on record this week spurred by the eventual attack on iraq (2nd largest producer of oil in the world and with saddam's scorched land policy [burn and destroy every oil rig outside of baghdad]) and the fact that the US oil reserves are at an all time low to artificially keep oil prices low
this binge on oil is not backfiring and since the gov't and the american auto industry has continually turned its back on the problem it will explode and we will have the long gas lines adn those that can't afford to buy gas for the guzzlers
gas prices are up to the 7th highest on record this week spurred by the eventual attack on iraq (2nd largest producer of oil in the world and with saddam's scorched land policy [burn and destroy every oil rig outside of baghdad]) and the fact that the US oil reserves are at an all time low to artificially keep oil prices low
this binge on oil is not backfiring and since the gov't and the american auto industry has continually turned its back on the problem it will explode and we will have the long gas lines adn those that can't afford to buy gas for the guzzlers
Something else I have noticed at the 03 autoshows (Detriot, LA & Chicago) are that a majority of cars coming out of Detroit is big, heavy and a V8 (Caddy 16, Chevy SS, Dodge Magnum and Durango, Ford 427 & F150, etc.) and plenty of 4WD too. These vehicles can't be good for their CAFE averages and just goes to show that they don't take CAFE averages seriously and they are just digging their hole deeper.
Thread Starter
HC Racer H5
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
From: KCK
Detroit Whining
By Selena Maranjian (TMF Selena)
February 19, 2003
Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F), General Motors (NYSE: GM), and DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX) are usually adversaries in the never-ending battle for automotive market share. But now, they're united, lobbying against the Bush administration's call for increased fuel efficiency in SUVs and pickup trucks.
Given our nation's heavy dependence on oil, coupled with its rising price and ongoing unrest in the Middle East, it seems reasonable to demand more fuel efficiency from the vehicles we drive. Environmental advocates have long called for significant increases in fuel efficiency, and have been severely disappointed by the Bush administration's handling of the economy on many fronts. Even in this case, Bush & Co. are asking for a much smaller increase than many would want -- yet Detroit's Big Three are up in arms. Their opposition now is a bit surprising, as they have recently spoken out in favor of new fuel technologies and their ability to deliver greater fuel efficiency.
In a Reuters story, GM said, "The reality is that the true costs of the proposed standards, if they could be adequately determined, would dwarf the benefits." That seems a bit puzzling. How does GM know the "true costs," if, as it suggests, they can't be "adequately determined"? Even if the costs are high, the benefits of increased fuel efficiency are also substantial, including cleaner air, lower fuel costs, and a decreased dependency on foreign oil.
According to a story in The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Toyota (NYSE: TM) and Honda (NYSE: HMC) were less strident in their responses, with Toyota even noting, "The proposed regulation will encourage the entire industry to similarly apply the best available technologies. We believe this is a desirable result."
February 19, 2003
Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F), General Motors (NYSE: GM), and DaimlerChrysler (NYSE: DCX) are usually adversaries in the never-ending battle for automotive market share. But now, they're united, lobbying against the Bush administration's call for increased fuel efficiency in SUVs and pickup trucks.
Given our nation's heavy dependence on oil, coupled with its rising price and ongoing unrest in the Middle East, it seems reasonable to demand more fuel efficiency from the vehicles we drive. Environmental advocates have long called for significant increases in fuel efficiency, and have been severely disappointed by the Bush administration's handling of the economy on many fronts. Even in this case, Bush & Co. are asking for a much smaller increase than many would want -- yet Detroit's Big Three are up in arms. Their opposition now is a bit surprising, as they have recently spoken out in favor of new fuel technologies and their ability to deliver greater fuel efficiency.
In a Reuters story, GM said, "The reality is that the true costs of the proposed standards, if they could be adequately determined, would dwarf the benefits." That seems a bit puzzling. How does GM know the "true costs," if, as it suggests, they can't be "adequately determined"? Even if the costs are high, the benefits of increased fuel efficiency are also substantial, including cleaner air, lower fuel costs, and a decreased dependency on foreign oil.
According to a story in The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Toyota (NYSE: TM) and Honda (NYSE: HMC) were less strident in their responses, with Toyota even noting, "The proposed regulation will encourage the entire industry to similarly apply the best available technologies. We believe this is a desirable result."
Thread Starter
HC Racer H5
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
From: KCK
GM Says Gas Mileage Standards May Compromise Truck Safety
Wednesday February 19, 10:15 am ET
By Sharon Silke Carty, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
DETROIT -(Dow Jones)- General Motors Corp. told federal regulators that plans to make light trucks more fuel-efficient could jeopardize the vehicles' safety, the Detroit News reported Wednesday.
In a 127-page filing with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, GM said a federal proposal to increase fuel economy in light trucks by 1.5 miles a gallon would cost $1 billion, the paper said. The company also asserted that it would entail making trucks lighter, therefore making them less safe.
NHTSA has proposed increasing fuel economy standards on light trucks to 22.2 miles a gallon from 20.7 miles a gallon by 2007. GM said in its filing that it would likely only be able to achieve 20.8 miles a gallon in 2007.
i'm sure they just change the date and hit print every time they complain about raising mpg
By Sharon Silke Carty, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
DETROIT -(Dow Jones)- General Motors Corp. told federal regulators that plans to make light trucks more fuel-efficient could jeopardize the vehicles' safety, the Detroit News reported Wednesday.
In a 127-page filing with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, GM said a federal proposal to increase fuel economy in light trucks by 1.5 miles a gallon would cost $1 billion, the paper said. The company also asserted that it would entail making trucks lighter, therefore making them less safe.
NHTSA has proposed increasing fuel economy standards on light trucks to 22.2 miles a gallon from 20.7 miles a gallon by 2007. GM said in its filing that it would likely only be able to achieve 20.8 miles a gallon in 2007.
i'm sure they just change the date and hit print every time they complain about raising mpg