Maybe the car makers should pay more attention to this guy who can convert your car to run on water alone for the mere price of $60 (about a tankful).

http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=wealthprom

I heard manufacter’s were going to direct injection like they have on diesel engines to get more power AND fuel economy. I’m soooooo tired of the Bush administration signing crap he can’t even read. When there’s a Bush and a Dick in the Whitehouse you know someone is getting screwed.

Allowing companies to offset low mileage with excess mileage from economy cars is pointless. If you’re trying to make every car on the road economical, then there can’t be any excuses. Otherwise Chrysler will put out a hybrid version of the Versa and continue to have the Wrangler do 10.5 MPG city.

Its about time

Deanster, they are trying to make the “average” car economical - not every car. That is why they are allowed to build and sell a bunch of high mileage Versas to offset a gas-hog - as long as the average of vehicles sold hits the target.

Don’t you know that deanster knows everything.

Dean, obviously making every vehicle more economical helps with the average, but CAFE is just that -an average which works out anyway (given the right ratio of economical to non-economical cars). Which means they could sell Wrangler without penalty but better hope that a hybrid versa would sell much more. Now I wonder if these “points” are going to be one to one, or if there is some multiplier (or other loop hole) involved which could make this pointless as you suggest. We’ll see.

It’s the only thing that gives hope to still produce a modern muscle car, or else we’re all doomed to cookie cutter milf cars.

You guys misinterpreted my statement. We all know that CAFE regulations concern average fuel economy, this is obvious. That’s not what I’m discussing. I’m stating that they should enact some sort of improved fuel economy for each individual vehicle, not just corporate averages. I understand that market forces dictate the Wrangler will be sold with whatever MPG it can attain, I would just like to see Chryler be forced to think about exacting a better mileage return on large vehicles without resorting to MPG-offset by subcompacts.

And HRR, go back to getting fisted by your father, that pillowbiting ****-miner.

America, unlike Europe and Japan, has always lacked a good mass transportation system. It’s a wonderful day in the neighborhood, a beautiful day…Hi kiddies, today’s words are “mass transportation.” Can you say that? You can’t, well, please take a look at these escalating gas prices you dumbass kiddies. Oh, you didn’t plan for mass transportation as you should have because of large car corporations like…like GM? It’s a wonderful day in the neighborhood…

You don’t have to buy it if you don’t want to dumb@$$. Of course they will improve all of them some. An SUV or muscle car will never be a 35 mpg car unless there is a HUGE technology advancement. But, I still have the decision to buy the muscle car if thats what I want.If all I want is gas mileage, I’ll get the compact.

It all seems so simple: just sell more small, economical cars to get that average up. Right. Take a look around next time you’re at the mall or in a fast food joint; there are a f*ck of a lot of grain fed North Americans who can barely fit into a Crown Vic never mind fit into a Fit. **** load of good it does to that real world fuel economy when you’ve got 1000lbs of humanity compressing some poor subcompact’s shocks and struts into near submission. I say tax the obese. It’s not only the weight and size of the cars we need to be concerned about, but the weight and size of some of the fat bastards that drive them.

What is with deanster and wrangler’s anyway? You said in a previous post you have “more than enough money to support a gas guzzler” Than why are you driving a crappy wrangler? Your .50cent an hour raise at taco bell isn’t mad money dude. And what a dumb@$$ for still trying to talk crap, yeah, I’m sure your that much of a bad@$$ aren’t ya. I know someone that will be driving the pu$$y honda fit so they don’t get mugged.

Besides deanster, I fist your mom every night but even that is enough for her loose @$$. You need to tell her to do some excerices to tighten that up.

Oh God, here we go with the playschool-level insults.

Look HRR, it’s not my fault you’re a fag of epic proportions and you never understand anything anyone writes. Between your anti-union/pro-little guy stance that keeps contradicting itself and bouncing all over the place, no one knows what the **** to make of you. The only constant is taht you’re a fan of the giant purple veiny hog, and you enjoy getting your face creamed! OK later ****face! LOL!

Look dude, your the one who has the playschool level insults and I think everyone knows that. My opinions are pretty straightforward. I’m not going to repeat myself a thousand times so your childish @$$ can understand. Yes, I am tired of greedy unions forcing companies to look elsewhere for workers. I am ALSO tired of CEO’s getting paid MILLIONS whether their company did satisfactory or not, as I have said in previous posts. I, like most people, agree with both sides depending on the subject. Your just too lazy to read or too stupid to understand what you read. So take another 30 minutes to think up another insult so you can pretend your a bad mofo.

DeansterTJ’s plan in theory might look good, but the corporate averages I think are still the way to go. With corporate averages, car companies can rein in costs and respond to market demands.

I believe it is true that, overall, consumers’ taste for smaller vehicles grows with the price of oil. Sure, some people will always want their Suburbans, but even those people might have their breaking point, but others–those in the market for a commuter car, for example–will resort to smaller cars sooner.

Thus, we might be in a situation where the demand for large SUVs is relatively static from now until 2015, so it wouldn’t make as much sense to force GM to endure the costs of engineering a more fuel efficient Suburban, when it won’t make as much impact as designing and selling a competitive B-class car, or further refining its other compacts.

Requiring every car to be more fuel efficient would likely cost car companies more money than just dropping a more fuel efficient powerplant in each car, especially since vehicles generally get bigger and heavier with every iteration.

I think Europeans came up with a better formula: they tax car based on pollutants. The more your car poops the more you pay taxes. Cars that burn more fuel obviously pollute more. With expensive fuel to begin with more efficient cars are all over: they are not much smaller then US cars just more efficient. There are very few SUVs on the roads compare to our roads, and those are diesels. Diesel actually produces less CO2.
In the past I praised CAFE for doing common good, but in reality the cost of fuel will take of common good. As always, market will bring correction regardless of government actions or intentions.

Bastards. All of them.
Come suck on my 10% EPA mandated ethanol I have to pump so I can get crappy gas mileage.
No choice..”We the people” is a long lost ideal.

Please ****ing tell me how co2 which is natural plant food and 1/3 of 1 percent of the entire atmosphere is causing a demon to go off in these idiots heads.Thats right the United Nations punked the environMENTAList and liberal zealots into it with smoke and mirrors and phony models and hockey sticks damn…

It’s those fat hummers that make gas high and the air bad