Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Government United States News Technology

White House Issues New Gas Mileage Standards 555

Posted by Soulskill
from the it's-not-easy-being-green dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "NPR reports that the Obama administration has signed off on the nation's first rules on greenhouse gas emissions and set new fuel standards to meet a fleet-wide average of 35.5 mpg that will raise current standards by nearly 10 mpg by the 2016 model year. Although the new requirements would add an estimated $434 per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016, drivers could save as much as $3,000 over the life of a vehicle through better gas mileage, according to a government statement. 'We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air,' says Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Dave McCurdy, leader of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing 11 automakers, says the industry supports a single national standard for future vehicles. 'Today, the federal government has laid out a course of action through 2016, and now we need to work on 2017 and beyond.' As the auto industry seeks to emerge from ashes, many manufacturers already are trying for the right mix of approaches, experts say. Some will try to sell more hybrids. Others are introducing not-so-gas-guzzling SUVs. They may also push slightly downsized and small cars, such as the Ford Fiesta."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Issues New Gas Mileage Standards

Comments Filter:
  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hardolaf (1371377) on Friday April 02, 2010 @06:25PM (#31710580)
    Won't this just make people buy new cars less often?
    • and? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by RelliK (4466)

      > Won't this just make people buy new cars less often?

      and this is a bad thing... how?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chemisor (97276)

        >> Won't this just make people buy new cars less often?
        > and this is a bad thing... how?

        Considering that cars are one of the few products that are still manufactured in the US, I'd say it could be a bad thing. A country that thinks that it can survive on imports without making anything itself is going to get exactly what it deserves: bankrupcy.

        • The rumors of our death have been greatly exaggerated.

          The United States still makes many things, and is still one of the worlds largest exporters, with over $1 Trillion in exports in 2009.

          See:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports [wikipedia.org]

          http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres10_e/pr598_e.htm [wto.org]

          It appears that cars accounted for 11% of those exports:

          http://www.trademap.org/tradestaz/Country_SelProductCountry_TS.aspx [trademap.org]

          • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Friday April 02, 2010 @10:16PM (#31712290) Homepage Journal

            That doesn't change the fact that we remain a nation of wasteful asses, who prefer disposable trash over quality goods. As long as the net value of imports exceeds the net value of exports, we are doing it wrong.

            I've just purchased two new T-shirts. I could have gone to Walmart, and paid something like ten bucks for them, imported from almost anywhere in the world. Instead, I bought Carhartt T-shirts, which cost me 30 bucks, or 15 dollars each.

            From long experience, I know that those cheap T-shirts would wear out in a year, give or take a little bit. My Carhartt T's last between 6 and 8 years. Not only have I purchased better quality, but someone in America was paid for making those T's. Each person involved in the production of those T's paid some tax, and whatever they profited after taxes will almost certainly be spent in America, to better an American's life.

            A couple shirts doesn't mean much, in the grand scheme of things - but if 350 million American made a similar decision each and every day, our economy would begin to turn around.

            "Just Say NO" to disposable worthless trash. Shop around, and get value for your dollar. Sometimes, that might mean purchasing an imported product - but not all the time. Not even most of the time!

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sznupi (719324)

          Finding ways to push more cars out, as a way to fight hypothetical downfall of the industry caused by people restraining from buying new cars, is pretty close to broken window fallacy...

          I'm driving an 11 year old car. It's in great condition, comfortable, reliable, safe, gets good gas mileage...why should I replace it?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mrchaotica (681592) *

          What, and you think failing to keep up with the rest of the world in MPG standards would help American cars' competitiveness?! We already can't sell half the shit the Formerly-Big Three make in (for example) China, because we fail to meet Chinese standards!

      • by ShakaUVM (157947)

        >>and this is a bad thing... how?

        Well, now that we (the American People) are majority shareholders in General Motors, I was kind of hoping to get our investment back.

        But then again, I'm not sure anything can save GM.

    • No bad thing (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CdBee (742846) on Friday April 02, 2010 @06:32PM (#31710662)
      A lot of the total carbon emissions from a vehicles lifetime are incurred in construction (extensive high-energy metalworking)

      Keeping a car a longer time might use more fuel but less manufacturing carbon emissions result.

      Personally I worry that the result of this will be leaden, electronics/batteries-loaded vehicles that lurch and rumble along on their hard suspension due to the extra weight of systems to reduce emissions...

      I live in hope of someone designing a mid-sized car with ultralightweight materials and putting a slow-running non-turbo diesel in it with high gear ratios and the maximum possible low-rev torque setup - economy and long life without complications. And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony
      • by lewiscr (3314)

        I'd like a pony

        You missed that April Fools by a few years.

      • Re:No bad thing (Score:5, Interesting)

        by maxume (22995) on Friday April 02, 2010 @06:59PM (#31710882)

        Why do you worry?

        If you do a little controlling for available horsepower, vehicles have improved a huge amount since 1980, but people have spent a lot of the improvement on having more power available.

        • Re:No bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)

          by eclectus (209883) on Friday April 02, 2010 @07:09PM (#31710990) Homepage

          Mod This up! I have a hard time looking at the stats on new cars and see nothing but HP improvements, not MPG improvements. For example, I had a '89 Mustang GT with 225 HP, and it was fast enough to be dangerous. I could shift out of 2nd gear at 75 mpg, and spin the tires in 3 gears. It got (for the time) decent mileage, namely 18 in the city, close to 25 on the highway. Fast forward 20 years, and the new mustangs get THE SAME MILEAGE, but have 300+ horsepower. The government can mandate all they want, but until people's attitudes change, horsepower sells more cars than MPG.

      • by Cyberax (705495)

        Read the recent review of electronics-laden electric GM Volt:

        http://gm-volt.com/2010/04/02/gm-volt-reader-test-drives-the-nasaman-report/ [gm-volt.com]

        THE VOLT IS BY FAR THE EASIEST TO DRIVE, THE MOST RESPONSIVE & THE MOST EXCITING CAR I’VE EVER DRIVEN!!! It’s impressive from the getgo! Just a touch of the accelerator starts the car rolling without even the slightest hesitation or jerkiness like I’ve come to expect from any ICE-powered car. From a replay of the video I shot, I blurted out, “Oh man! .talk about torque!!!“ at the first nudge of the Volt’s ‘go pedal’. We turned the first short-radius corner so sharply that my new HD video camera, on its normally very-secure dash mounting rig went careening across the dash —and as I grabbed for it the Volt ignored my ‘panic antics’ and continued smoothly around the sharp turn on the wet, slick pavement with no detectable leaning or sliding —it felt like it was on rails!

        _AND_ it will get 50mpg on ICE.

        • 50mpg on ICE is ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC.

          I drive a large turbo-diesel saloon (sedan, for americans), a Ford Mondeo 1.8TD. I frequently get overall fuel economy in excess of 55mpg over an entire tank of fuel. and thats in an 11 year old car built using 1980s diesel technology.. but even after 180,000 miles it still does the distance, and can sprint to 3-figure speeds (yes, miles not kilometres/hour) given a lot of time for acceleration (and preferably a tailwind)

          Show me one of your electro-gasoline abominat
      • Re:No bad thing (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mister_playboy (1474163) on Friday April 02, 2010 @07:56PM (#31711346)

        non-turbo diesel

        There is zero reason to have a non-turbo diesel in a car. The turbo significantly improves the engine output while having no adverse effects on mileage at cruising speed. Turbochargers in diesels are much less stressed than in gasoline engines, so they are just as durable as the engine itself.

        Non-turbo diesels have disappeared from cars because turbocharged diesels are better in every way.

    • Possibly, but they can always do another Cash for Clunkers.

      That's assuming of course that they don't just up the standard again later. And why not?

    • by Loonacy (459630)

      Broken Window Fallacy:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window [wikipedia.org]

    • by fm6 (162816)

      I see your "why" and raise you a "huh?" What's your connection between having a higher-mileage car and not wanting to buy a new one?

  • by eightball (88525) on Friday April 02, 2010 @06:28PM (#31710606) Journal

    CAFE was already set to go to 35 in 2020, the only major thing (ignoring .5mpg) is that it was moved forward 4 years.

  • by bigtomrodney (993427) * on Friday April 02, 2010 @06:38PM (#31710710)
    The sad thing is that every time I read something about improving efficiency or consumption in the American car market it just seems to misplaced. Read this:

    They may also push slightly downsized and small cars, such as the Ford Fiesta.

    I've been to America several times and there are a few things that prevent this happening. First of all the Fiesta is far too small for your average American consumeer. These cars sell massively here in Ireland but they just won't work in America because you'll hear all of the horror stories about how they're not safe because they're small. Realistically the average weight and size of your average American citizen is a lot more too.

    The problem is that I saw the VW Golf (you call it Rabbit now) all over the place in San Francisco, LA and Vegas. That sounds great except I only saw them in two sizes: 1.8l and 2.5l engines. You look at that same car in Europe and they sell better at the 1.4-1.8l range. What's the point in going to a smaller car if the engine is still big? I can only imagine if the Fiesta was to be pushed it'd have a 1.6l engine anyway.

    Much in the same way that I think the Hybrid market was mostly lip service I think this isn't enough either. If you need a powerful car get one, if you don't then just get an economical one. Even with hybrids, it'd have made just as much sense for your averager American to switch to a 1.5l car to begin with because all of the cars out there are already overpowered or desperately inefficient - they're all automatic for a start! Just imagine the savings if every American switched down 30% in their engine size, more if your average Joe forget about his oversized petrol powered SUV and drove a modest saloon.

    Let me put this another way; I look forward to electric or decent hybrid cars at a minimum. In the meantime I drive a SEAT Leon which is a badge-engineered VW Golf. I drive the 1.9TDI variant and on one 55l tank of diesel I drive 900-1050Km (550-650 miles roughly). I know that's diesel rather than petrol but the point is efficiency and it puts out the same horsepower as a 1.6l engine which would get you a good 450 miles plus per tank.

    Forget the massive forced changes which will be rejected by the public - just start by reducing engine displacement and increasing efficiency. And hey, would it kill you to write the engine size on the back of your car like we do in Europe...awareness is half the battle!

    • The Ford Focus over there only seems to be sold with one engine choice - a 2 litre petrol. Similarly, the Mondeo equivalent's smallest engine is a 2.4 litre. There isn't even an option of accepting less power in exchange for efficiency. While I can see that maybe some people will want the more powerful car, surely there are some who'd like higher fuel efficiency but aren't currently given the option.

      Actually, just looking at Volkswagen's UK page, they do a 1.6 litre model that gets 47 miles per (imperial) g

    • In paragraph two you espouse a fallacy; specifically that large engines mean low fuel economy. It's true that a large engine _may_ get less fuel economy but it's less than you think.

      As proof I submit the latest generation of Corvette's. 6.0L, or larger, V8 engines that will get 20+ MPG knocking around town when properly driven. By properly driven I mean that the driver doesn't ram the accelerator down at every opportunity and observes good start / stop procedure.

      Why? Weight. They're light. Aluminum engine b

    • by joggle (594025) on Friday April 02, 2010 @07:08PM (#31710976) Homepage Journal

      You're exactly correct. A huge reason why Americans aren't seeing much better gas mileage now versus 30 years ago isn't due to a lack of progress in engine technology. It's due to ever-increasing horsepower. If our parents and grandparents could get by with less engine displacement but even heavier cars why can't we?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Totenglocke (1291680)

        You're partially correct. Yes, it has gotten ridiculous that people think they "need" a 300hp mid-size sedan just to go to work and the store. However, an even more important issue in why mpg hasn't improved more is WEIGHT. We have so many bullshit "safety" regulations that add unnecessary weight that it's not even funny (those 25 airbags in your new car that you never use because most people aren't in a major accident) -then there's the fact that car sizes have ballooned over the last decade to where a

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by HungWeiLo (250320)

        The 2008 Honda Accord coupe has more horsepower than a early 90s Porsche 911.

    • by plusser (685253)

      I've been to America several times and there are a few things that prevent this happening. First of all the Fiesta is far too small for your average American consumeer. These cars sell massively here in Ireland but they just won't work in America because you'll hear all of the horror stories about how they're not safe because they're small. Realistically the average weight and size of your average American citizen is a lot more too.

      The current Ford Fiesta is exactly the same size as the mkI Ford Focus, which if I remember correctly was a big sales success for Ford in the USA. In fact the likelihood is that due to improved packaging, the chance is that the interior could be even bigger and have better crash protection.

      True some Americans like big cars, but if the price of oil goes Northwards again (which appears likely, without even considering the impact of the AGW lobby), surely they will need to consider the fact that fuel consump

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Friday April 02, 2010 @07:23PM (#31711094) Homepage Journal

      Realistically the average weight and size of your average American citizen is a lot more too.

      Now we come to the heart of the matter.

      America is about consumption. Whether it's oil, food, bling or large-screen TVs, we are taught from childhood to buy, to use, to waste. Everything has to be supersized and extra sauce on the side and there is no such thing as "enough". In fact, continuous and endless consumption is institutionalized here to the point where our very economic existence depends on it. When people stop buying for a few months, things start to fall apart and our economy is like a cancer patient, sucking smoke through their tracheotomy hole. It's just not in our social vocabulary to economical or for that matter, rational.

      It wasn't always so. Ben Franklin and Henry David Thoreau very eloquently expressed a thriftiness that was uniquely American. It went hand in hand with self-reliance. When I see the over-fed, demanding, soft, food-stamp using Americans of 2010 who are claiming to champion a return to "every man for himself", I wonder how long they would last if any one of them were to actually be expected to pull their own not inconsiderable weight.

      No. Americans aren't going to like the new fuel-efficiency standards, because they believe the world owes them whatever amount of fuel it will take to power their personal locomotives down the federally-funded highway, so they can waddle into the all-you-can-eat buffet. Like one of the porcine princesses we see on television, telling Maury Povich how she's going to "do what I want!" we're not going to even consider being more efficient with fuel until we suffer a shock to the system. They're not going to slow down slurping down the Colonel's Special Gravy until they get that massive cardiac arrest and they need a pair of high-voltage paddles to the chest.

      And maybe not even then.

      • by Dirtside (91468) on Friday April 02, 2010 @11:20PM (#31712616) Journal

        It wasn't always so. Ben Franklin and Henry David Thoreau very eloquently expressed a thriftiness that was uniquely American. It went hand in hand with self-reliance. When I see the over-fed, demanding, soft, food-stamp using Americans of 2010 who are claiming to champion a return to "every man for himself", I wonder how long they would last if any one of them were to actually be expected to pull their own not inconsiderable weight.

        It's become obvious to me lately that advertising is a big culprit here. For the last sixty years, Madison Avenue and friends have been refining ways to convince us to do things that aren't in our best interests: buy more than we can afford, buy things that we don't need, buy, buy, BUY!

        Advertising is corrosive. It sells an idea of a world where everything has a simple solution. Buy our product, and life will be BETTER! Even if you're smart and assume that advertising is always lying to you, being exposed to lies for years on end will start to make you believe them, or at least believe the normative view they come from.

        My friends' kids, and my older son's friends are frequently obsessed with this cartoon character or that. Ours aren't. Why? We don't have TV. We haven't for about three years now, and so our son isn't getting exposed to constant advertising that exhorts him to eat shitty fake food at shitty fast-food chains, or to harass us to buy character-branded toys. All the video we watch, we watch on our computers after he's in bed. (And it's all ad-free; I don't really want to see ads any more than I want him to. In fact, I'd happily pay $2-3 per episode for the few shows we watch, if it meant no ads.)

        A huge problem with "free" TV (that is, ad-supported TV) is that there's a cost associated with watching ads. As I said, it promotes a false worldview; even if the ad is relatively accurate, its sole purpose is to get you to spend money on something that you may not actually have any real need for. And the advertisers don't care if you spend money you don't have, or spend money on a product you don't need instead of saving for retirement, or your kids' education.

        Okay, okay, I could go on for hours. Rant over.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by rrohbeck (944847)

          Damn. I just spent my last mod points a few minutes ago.
          I've become kind of allergic to ads, to the point that I analyze the psychological tricks used when I have to watch any. There's hardly any advertising left that just says, "Hey, I'm selling this great product at a great price." Everything drips with emotions, NLP and other tricks. Like the latest ads where Exxon is trying to sell itself as a high tech company that will fuel clean energy. Jeez.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Dirtside (91468)

            I remember several years ago seeing an ad for an oil company, where the whole ad was talking about clean energy and the environment and all that. At first I thought, "Cool, I'm glad they're doing something positive." Then a while later I read an article which pointed out that such ad campaigns were of course feel-good nonsense, and the oil companies were acting just the same as before. I felt like an idiot, and that was a big wake-up call to me. I'm not dumb by any means, but I had just been accustomed

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Whether it's oil, food, bling or large-screen TVs, we are taught from childhood to buy, to use, to waste.

        A strongly related summary on your subject can be found on The Story Of Stuff with Annie Leonard [storyofstuff.com]

  • We need to make manufacturers calculate mileage averages from the total vehicles they sell, not the total vehicles in their lineup. This is just going to result in more abominations like the PT Cruiser, which was designed to lower the average mileage of Dodge's truck line rather than to be a useful (or even safe) passenger vehicle.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pt_cruiser#Overview [wikipedia.org]

  • by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Friday April 02, 2010 @06:54PM (#31710832) Homepage Journal

    If you read through it, you'll notice they allow all-electric cars to count as zero-emission vehicles, when in actual practice, the emissions depend on where you get the energy from.

    So, each manufacturer gets an allotment with a cap for any electric cars they churn out.

    But someone in a state which makes electricity from coal - like Wisconsin - creates more emissions pollution using the same all-electric Chevy Volt car than someone in a state using hydroelectric, nuclear fission, solar, wind, and tidal like Washington State.

    In Seattle, our utility is carbon-neutral - no emissions. In Madison it's carbon-heavy - coal.

    Another thing to notice is that the mpg requirements vary based on the footprint of the vehicle.

    So if you made a very thin batmobile you could get sucky mileage and be "better" than a car with twice the mpg that has a small footprint like a Smart Car.

    Of course, none of this will prevent somebody installing an industrial electric turbine in their batmobile to go 0 to 60 in 0.9 seconds - cause all-electric dragsters outrace even the best gasoline or diesel vehicle. Unless you use jet fuel.

    • by s73v3r (963317)
      True, but running electric means you decouple the source of the emissions from the car. I could build a solar powered generator to generate the power for my electric car.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by icebraining (1313345)

      If you read through it, you'll notice they allow all-electric cars to count as zero-emission vehicles, when in actual practice, the emissions depend on where you get the energy from.

      That's not the car manufacturer's problem. Maybe we need a limit on the average emission per kWh produced by utilities.

  • about saving $$$ in the long run. Everyone I know wants to see savings now because they need the savings now and not broken down to $1 per day over three years.
  • by TaleSpinner (96034)

    As raising the CAFE has proven time and again, every time they are raised, they have the effect of increasing the amount of time older, less-efficient cars will remain in service, instead of being replaced with newer, more fuel-efficient models, and, once again, the country's overall average mileage will shrink. Way to go. Of course, once they ram cap-and-trade through the way they did health care, no one but Donald Trump, the President, and Congress will be able to drive. So much for sticking it to thos

  • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Friday April 02, 2010 @07:00PM (#31710900) Homepage

    Fuel economy standards are actually a stupid way to reduce petroleum usage. A far more effective way to do this would be to put a hefty tax on gasoline, and then the market can decide what the optimum trade is for fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, tax is such an incredibly dirty word in politics that this is just flat out impossible; anybody trying to do such a thing would not merely be voted out of office, they'd very likely be lynched.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Do not forget the Law of Unintended Consequences. When you raise taxes on gasoline, you also raise prices on food and every other good that needs to be transported, which includes just about everything. The US is flat-out large and even though we try to do large-scale transportation for goods (such as trains and river shipping where applicable), everything comes down to trucks in the end.

      Yes, they're diesel. You think that not taxing diesel would work when there's a heavy tax on gasoline?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by purpledinoz (573045)
        So what? Then raise taxes on gasoline and lower the VAT. The problem is, adding complicated rules artificially increases the cost, which makes everything cost more anyway. A gas tax is simple and elegant, and will have the desired effect without having to setup agencies to enforce the mileage regulations. Also, companies may find a way to "cheat" or find loopholes.
  • by gillbates (106458) on Friday April 02, 2010 @07:12PM (#31711022) Homepage Journal

    So long as you don't mind sacrificing safety.

    A motorcycle, for example, can easily get 45 to 55 mpg. With rider, even a large bike won't top 500 kg.

    About 20 years ago, MADD put up a billboard with a crushed Toyota Corolla - a man and his 4 children were killed when the distance between the dashboard and the trunk was reduced to a mere 6 inches by a drunk driver. They were trying to demonstrate the evils of drunk driving, but the impression it left on me was that we've been trading mpg for safety for quite some time in this country. It shouldn't come as any surprise that teens who grew up seeing the smashed cars caused by drunk driving are now buying behemoth SUVs with full frames.

    Long story short - unit body construction saved hundreds of pounds of structural steel from car designs. It raised gas mileage. But the whole car - crumple zones and all - simply folds up like a tin can in an accident. Accidents which used to be survivable are now deadly, thanks to the weakening of car frames designed primarily to boost fuel economy.

    • by ErikZ (55491) *

      I thought crumple zones were to absorb kinetic energy?

      Otherwise the force transfers to you and you get thrown around the car extremely violently.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jaime2 (824950)

      but the impression it left on me was that we've been trading mpg for safety for quite some time in this country

      The IIHS crashed a 1959 Bel Air into a 2009 Malibu for its 50 year anniversary. The biggest takeaway I had from the analysis of the crash test was that the 2009 Malibu was only 100 pounds lighter than the Bel Air. Cars have gotten way heavier since the 90's. That's why we used to get 50mpg from econoboxes like the Chevy Sprint and Dodge Omni, but now we are impressed by 45 from a Prius.

      A motorcycle, for example, can easily get 45 to 55 mpg

      I concur. Mine gets 40 and it is built for all out speed. It has 60 more horsepower than my Civic, gets ten more miles

  • Consumers can already buy cars that get that kind of gas mileage if they want them. This really means fewer options in car purchasing.

    We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air,

    Translation: "People don't know what kind of car is good for them, so we will to force them to buy the right kind."

    Politicians are too cynical. I'm smart enough to make decisions for myself. I didn't need the old regulations and I don't want new ones.

  • And money. Clearly, our whole society would benefit much more (and create much less pollution) by switching over completely to electric. If the government spent even a fraction of the money they spent on the TWO useless oil wars we have going on in the middle east on nano-capacitors or eliminating costly and vile corporate patents on battery technology, we would have better more reliable cars (electric cars have many, MANY less moving parts), that would be cheaper to operate, own, and be faster and quiete

  • by Jon Harms (1759076) on Saturday April 03, 2010 @01:26AM (#31713372)
    I really hate the push for mandatory reduction in fuel consumption. One of the primary ways they do this is by reducing the drag coefficient, which means lowering the roof. I am 6'5" and I cannot find a car that fits me anymore. It used to be that trucks and SUVs had much more headroom, but even now when I try the newer models, the roof is so low I cannot sit up. Besides serious discomfort, it also adds severe safety hazards. Most people don't think about the roofline, but because they keep on lowing the roof, my vision gets cut off at the top of the window. The consequence is that I cannot see strait out, but I have to look down. When I come to a stoplight, I cannot see the lights unless I lean into the passenger seat. I once ran a red light and my wife screamed... I didn't even see there was a light because it was above my vision. I don't have a problem with reducing emissions, and, protecting our environment is important, but please don't push a 'one size fits all' car on me that was made for someone 8 inches shorter than I am!
  • by RichiH (749257) on Saturday April 03, 2010 @05:42AM (#31714304) Homepage

    ...the US is still behind the rest of half the world. 35.5 mpg == 6.6 liter / 100 km

    Europe: 5 l/100 km by 2012
    Japan: 6.7 l/100 km by 2010
    Australia: 6.7 l/100 km by 2010
    China: 5.7 l/100 km since 2008

    Better late than never, though.

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long

Working...