vader1

I would agree with what you said except that I would add one point. Poeple drive full size trucks because they pull a camping trailer, or work gear, or a big boat. Cool. But they also want the 6000 pound vehicles to get to 60 in 6 seconds.

Can a full size truck pull a big trailer and get better milage than they do today? Absolutely. Can they decent milage if we expect them to have 350+ hp and get to sixty like a mid nieties sports car? Probably not.

It would still mean capable trucks, just not monster power trucks, and maybe going the other direction in size from how big they are today.

You can build your whole line of pickups to tow 10,000 pounds while most will never tow more than 5000. Or you can build a limited number of "super duty" style pickups for those that need them and have most of the half tons "power down" to meet higher milage standards.

Some will be fine with that (mostly people who don't buy them) and some will not. I am not directly suggesting that everyone give up their truck. I am still a free choice guy. But I do support higher CAFE standards, and if the manufacturers can not do it through technology and have to downsize a bit, I guess I don't care.

I bought a tow vehicle sized for just the amount I need. It tows 2800 pounds, is rated 28 hwy (though wwith 3000 miles on it I have yet to beat 24 on a tank) and is a station wagon. I purchase as big as I need and no more. It is almost as though if you need a full size pickup you don't even have the choice. They all tend to be in a HP and towing capacity race, so even the entry level ones are up there on the scale.

vader1

And one more thing, as far as the fuel tax and its effect on behavior, yeah it can be used effectively, but I advocate a higher fuel tax for another reason. Our country needs much better highway infrastructure and that is the main way it is financed.

If I get better roads from an extra nickel per gallon, great. The price fluctuates 30 cents a gallon every time I fill up, if it goes another 5, who would notice?

Spec_Ops2087

Personally, I can see why people need trucks / large SUVs, etc. However, what I can't understand is why everyone needs to be the fastest 0-60 times out there. Its that stupid american ego that hasn't gone away since the 70s in the muscle car erra. When your towing 10,000lbs who the hell cares how fast you can get to 60? Instead of making 400hp v8s that suck gas, I'm sure you could make far less horsepower engines tow just as much but maybe not get to 60 in under 6 seconds

Then you have soccer moms with yucon's for little johnny...but I won't get started on that. (do they need to get to 60 in under 5 seconds consuming enough gas to power america in one WOT run..? NO)




Also, whoever thinks there is not a global warming problem is completly missinformed.

I reccomend everyone to go out and watch "An inconvient truth"
That'll set things straight and show you the true facts, not the BS that rednecks want you to think so they can get their 2mpg trucks.

marthafokker

For those that does not want CAFE to increase manufacturer's MPG averages, then you must be willing to go back to 55mph speed limit then.

It is one or the other to conserve energy without having to pay more from taxing consumers.

Anyone really want to drive 55mph on freeways again?

GPMike

GM should split its trucks from its cars and make the truck company a totally separate entity/company. Then they can concentrate on building better cars since their trucks are what carries them and they rely on too much for profit. With a clean break...they would be forced to make better cars in terms of performance, quality and efficiency.

rockville

That isn't logical any more than saying we should increase CAFE and lower the speed limit to save gas. The two methods are independent of each other.

Chris Stack

The scenario was obviously exaggerated to make a point. I had in mind my neighbor, who owns a large camping trailer, an F250, and a Civic. 99% of the time, he drives the Civic. But every year he hitches the trailer to the truck and drives to FL. Now, if he was taxed on the projected fuel useage of his vehicle, he'd pay the same "gas guzzler tax" on his truck as a guy who commutes in his F250. But, that's not fair since my neighbor does most of his driving in a non-guzzling Civic.

My point is, tax people on the fuel they ACTUALLY use. When you tax people on the fuel economy rating of their vehicle, you are taxing their PROJECTED or GUESSTIMATED fuel consumption. I don't find that to be particularly fair.

rockville

Even taxing the projected mileage makes more sense than CAFE. Taxing the vehicle at least puts the financial burden on the consumer rather than the manufacture. In that case the manufacture would sell what the consumer wants rather than the current system where the consumer wants power (weight, size etc) instead of mileage and the manufacture has to figure out how to convince the market as a whole (not the individual buyer) otherwise.

marthafokker

It might be illogical, but it has been done. This is the land of illogical politics after all.

Besides, if GM craps on these MPG thing so much... they should play the FlexFuel scam. Using e85 computation would increase their gas mpg averages.

We all know most FlexFuel cars never see e85 in the gas tank.

rockville

You said we have a choice between CAFE and a 55mph speed limit. I've never heard a single politician make that claim. If you are making the claim please provide something to support it.