62 mpg for new cars? It's the US target for 2025

Oct 1, 2010 Full story: WAFF-TV Huntsville 50

Cars and trucks averaging 62 miles per gallon? Seems extraordinary now, but the government suggested Friday that automakers could be required to build lineups like that by 2025, making today's high-mileage hybrids seem conventional and turning gas guzzlers into mere relics.

Full Story
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#21 Oct 6, 2010
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, the statement was not abount maintaining the current revenue. It was about creating more income by raising taxes to the levels of European taxes on gasoline. If Volcker has his way, our US taxes on gasoline would look like the European taxes on gasoline.
If so, then the quoted statements would have said that. They DIDN't.

They stated the need to generate the SAME revenue with lower gas sales.

Either you are stupid or you are paranoid. Come to think of it, there is no reason that you cannot be both..
Fun Facts

AOL

#22 Oct 8, 2010
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you the only person who can't understand your own posts?
Try reading what you posted before and what you just posted there, they are utterly different.
Previous posts

"Paul Volcker stated, we will have to raise taxes on gasoline to look like Europe to make up for the increased fuel efficiency.

Volcker is not talking about creating the same revenue we have now. Our current revenue is down and cannot support the highway system. To create enough revenue the taxes on gasoline need to be more like the taxes in Europe, therefore the price of gasoline would be much more expensive than it is today.

Once again, the statement was not abount maintaining the current revenue. It was about creating more income by raising taxes to the levels of European taxes on gasoline. If Volcker has his way, our US taxes on gasoline would look like the European taxes on gasoline. "
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#23 Oct 8, 2010
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Previous posts
"Paul Volcker stated, we will have to raise taxes on gasoline .. to make up for the increased fuel efficiency.
As I stated. Whether that makes us 'look like Europe' is a bit of a judgement call and not relevant to the issue.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
To create enough revenue the taxes on gasoline need to be more like the taxes in Europe..
"More like" just meaning higher as I specified when I calculated the necessary adjustment for 'equivalent funds'.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
If Volcker has his way, our US taxes on gasoline would look like the European taxes on gasoline. "
You really are a bit dim. Paul Volker wants a carbon tax which is a separate issue from the 'road taxes'. Actually it shouldn't be called a tax as it is intended to put a "price on carbon' to reduce energy consumption but the funds would ( must really ) be rebated to prevent economic strain or must replace other taxes such as payroll or income (thus being a tax but being 'revenue neutral in terms of the overall tax load).

Personally, I favor that idea as it would put the markets to work at reducing emissions while not seriously impacting the economy. I seriously doubt if the tax would be large enough to put US pump prices in line with Europes, especially if the 'price on carbon' is universally applied to not only gasoline but diesel, fuel oil, coal, etc.

http://tinyurl.com/39nglbu

A price of about $50 per metric ton of CO2 would mean a 'carbon surcharge' of about (8.87 kg * 5 cents = 44.35 cents)

This is hardly doom and gloom or even a move towards EU pricing ( at $3.00 more per gallon).

Get it through your head that the reason for the high price of gasoline today is NOT taxes but the fact that we can only PRODUCE about 85% of the DEMAND. Therefore improved gasoline mileage and switching out old gas guzzlers will probably REDUCE the overall cost at the pump as the cost of a barrel lowers. The US will then be spending more on auto production and research and less on pampering Saudi Princes.
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#24 Oct 8, 2010
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Previous posts
"Paul Volcker stated, we will have to raise taxes on gasoline to look like Europe to make up for the increased fuel efficiency.
Volcker is not talking about creating the same revenue we have now. Our current revenue is down and cannot support the highway system. To create enough revenue the taxes on gasoline need to be more like the taxes in Europe, therefore the price of gasoline would be much more expensive than it is today.
Once again, the statement was not abount maintaining the current revenue. It was about creating more income by raising taxes to the levels of European taxes on gasoline. If Volcker has his way, our US taxes on gasoline would look like the European taxes on gasoline. "
Ok once again for the hard of thinking..........

Did you or did you not post this:

'What are you talking about? Volcker's statement was that gasoline taxes would have to be raised so that the same amount of income could be generated for the highway funds.'

Is that the same as what you said in the post I just quoted?
Earthling

Spain

#25 Oct 8, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
As I stated. Whether that makes us 'look like Europe'
When was Toronto ceded to the USA?
albedodown

Pittsburgh, PA

#26 Oct 8, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Whether expressed in liters per 100 km, or miles per US gallon, or farthings per Imperial gallon it is just a different unit for the idiom of "mileage".
Actually, it will be a bit easier to figure taxes (or fuel consumption), using litres/100KM than the MPG method, whether in U.S. or English gallons. The following will clarify the math problem using the MPG method:

Take 3 vehicles, averaging 10, 20, & 40 MPG. Lots of people might think that driving the 40MPG vehicle should save as much fuel compared to the 20MPG vehicle, as the 20MPG vehicle would save compared to the 10MPG vehicle. But, that doesn't happen. The 10MPG vehicle uses 4 gallons over a 40 mile distance, the 20MPG uses 2 gallons over the 40 mile distance & the 40 MPG vehicle uses 1 gallon over the 40 mile distance. Whereas, the 20 MPG vehicle saves 2 gallons over the 10 MPG, the 40 MPG vehicle only saves 1 gallon versus the 20 MPG vehicle.

Strangely, the decreasing advantage of ever increasing MPG is more easily seen using litres/100KM. A 14.125 litre/100KM vehicle will save 14.125 litres/100KM over a 28.25litre/100KM vehicle. It is easily seen for any vehicle to save another 14,125 litres/100KM over the 14.125 litre/100KM vehicle, the mythical vehicle would have to use no fuel per 100KM!

Or, use this website:

http://www.eforecourt.com/l_100km_mpg_convert...
Fun Facts

AOL

#27 Oct 9, 2010
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok once again for the hard of thinking..........
Did you or did you not post this:
'What are you talking about? Volcker's statement was that gasoline taxes would have to be raised so that the same amount of income could be generated for the highway funds.'
Is that the same as what you said in the post I just quoted?
The full text/post

"What are you talking about? Volcker's statement was that gasoline taxes would have to be raised so that the same amount of income could be generated for the highway funds. Currently highway funds from gasoline taxes have gone down. Fuel efficiency and limited travel due to economic conditions have reduced the revenues. Volcker said that the cost of gasoline would look like Europe's, which is much more costly than the US."

You can make what I said look different if you pull something out of context. Context is not only the singular paragraph in this post it is the entirety of the comments made.

Is this the way you evaluate global warming issues as well? Just take the little bit you can find to support your contention and leave the rest behind?
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#28 Oct 9, 2010
Sweet Jesus you're a retard.

I'm not going to try and teach you English, it isn't worth my time.

Please go back to scholl and get your equivalency certificate though, you'll go much farther in life if you can read.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#30 Nov 22, 2011
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
That is LITERS per 100 kilometers, dimwit.
Not in Canadian English, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, it would be litres and kilometres.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#31 Nov 22, 2011
It's high time LessFact/Nobody admitted he's about as thick as two short planks nailed together with screws at low tide on midsummer day in late afternoon December moonlight.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#32 Nov 22, 2011
I can read wrote:
Sweet Jesus[,] you're a retard.
I'm not going to try and teach you English, it isn't worth my time.
Please go back to scholl [sic] and get your equivalency certificate though, you'll go much farther in life if you can read.
ROFLMAO at that.
hemi

Kraków, Poland

#33 Mar 5, 2013
This is simply ridiculous 4 liters per 100km? really? that's rating of motorcycle. It's simply overkill and obama knows it, he introduced it to finish US economy, there's no other explanation I won't even mention blatant disregard for people's right to chose cars as some surprisingly want something more than mere a to b transportation mode and like cars with big engines, where's that liberty that founding fathers fought for!? obama and his friends are basing this all on the nonsense global warming and theory that oil is going to end within 10 years well mr carter in 70s was saying the same yet in didn't and USA has vast reserves mitt romney was going to allow for more drilling so economy would be better off as all the cars so far are oil powered, until they run on unicorn farts…
ev kind of guy

La Grange, IL

#34 Mar 7, 2013
I sure hope we are totaly off oil by 2020.Im getting a tesla as soon as they can go 500 miles on a charge.
PHD

Overton, TX

#35 Mar 8, 2013
Have you considered a Volt?
ev kind of guy

La Grange, IL

#36 Mar 8, 2013
PHD wrote:
Have you considered a Volt?
I did for about ten seconds.Then I found out they are gas guzzlers.We need to get off oil all together.If we did it back when smiley jimmy carter wanted us to back in 1973 we would be home free now and not fighting a war in the middle east.It would have been a Win=Win for all.I hope gas goes to ten bucks a gallon.That will force us to go EV for good!!!!
PHD

Overton, TX

#37 Mar 8, 2013
ev kind of guy wrote:
<quoted text> I did for about ten seconds.Then I found out they are gas guzzlers.We need to get off oil all together.If we did it back when smiley jimmy carter wanted us to back in 1973 we would be home free now and not fighting a war in the middle east.It would have been a Win=Win for all.I hope gas goes to ten bucks a gallon.That will force us to go EV for good!!!!
Ok by me as long as Tesla retros my RV.Talking about the 70's,what happened to that opel built in a garage that got 178 mpg?
Kyle

Knox, IN

#38 Mar 9, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Talking about the 70's,what happened to that opel built in a garage that got 178 mpg?
Not sure of the reference. As an automotive engineer, I have to point out that just saying a car got high mileage sans any other information is meaningless. Many questions must be answered:

How was it accomplished?

At what cost?

How was it driven? Where?

What was the performance? Was it comparable to production cars .... or even acceptable?

It's trivially easy to make a car get 178mpg if that's all you care about. With technology available or likely to emerge soon, we should be able to get 100-125mpg equivalent with safe, comfortable, affordable, 4-5 seat cars with luggage space and a modest towing capability.

How we get there is another matter. I personally am not a big fan of the CAFE mandate/fine system and the buyers' tax credits. The former mandates the manufacturer instead of incentivizing the buyer. It causes distortions such as selling high mpg cars at a loss while making $10K profits on low mpg cars.

The tax credits are targeted at specific technologies, thereby picking winners and losers.

Conservative, mainstream economics and basic common sense says that we should merely increase the costs associated with hydrocarbon fuels and let the market drive the technologies and the manufacturing industry. IOW, a carbon tax. That's the conservative solution.
PHD

Overton, TX

#39 Mar 9, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure of the reference. As an automotive engineer, I have to point out that just saying a car got high mileage sans any other information is meaningless. Many questions must be answered:
How was it accomplished?
At what cost?
How was it driven? Where?
What was the performance? Was it comparable to production cars .... or even acceptable?
It's trivially easy to make a car get 178mpg if that's all you care about. With technology available or likely to emerge soon, we should be able to get 100-125mpg equivalent with safe, comfortable, affordable, 4-5 seat cars with luggage space and a modest towing capability.
How we get there is another matter. I personally am not a big fan of the CAFE mandate/fine system and the buyers' tax credits. The former mandates the manufacturer instead of incentivizing the buyer. It causes distortions such as selling high mpg cars at a loss while making $10K profits on low mpg cars.
The tax credits are targeted at specific technologies, thereby picking winners and losers.
Conservative, mainstream economics and basic common sense says that we should merely increase the costs associated with hydrocarbon fuels and let the market drive the technologies and the manufacturing industry. IOW, a carbon tax. That's the conservative solution.
You claim to be the scientific science guy so you tell all. Looks like you’re not as brilliant as you claim to be. Just out of curiosity are you one of the automotive engineers that cause all the recalls? Just to help you along one of the BIG THREE as they were called purchased the car and crushed it. Now can you tell all what car and who engineered it?
Kyle

Knox, IN

#40 Mar 10, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>You claim to be the scientific science guy so you tell all.
Jealous of my knowledge?
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Looks like you’re not as brilliant as you claim to be.
Looks like you can't tell me why. Just a fallacious ad hominem argument.
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Just out of curiosity are you one of the automotive engineers that cause all the recalls?
Ad hominem Argument.(And no, I'm not.)
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Just to help you along one of the BIG THREE as they were called purchased the car and crushed it. Now can you tell all what car and who engineered it?
It's no wonder you;re a denier; you actually believe in one of the dozens of conspiracy theories about mythical 200mpg carb or such and that it was buried by car and/or oil companies. I often heard them told where the inventor was a friend of a friend or such. Never have seen one of these urban myths substantiated. Nor have I ever heard the thermodynamics of these backyard tinkerer inventions explained. They're just stories for the scientifically iliterate and conspiratorially minded. I suggest you check Snopes before swallowing nutty CT's.

Why can't you see the real conspiracy - the open one - of the funding of the denier movement?
PHD

Overton, TX

#41 Mar 10, 2013
Kyle wrote:
<quoted text>
Jealous of my knowledge?
<quoted text>
Looks like you can't tell me why. Just a fallacious ad hominem argument.
<quoted text>
Ad hominem Argument.(And no, I'm not.)
<quoted text>
It's no wonder you;re a denier; you actually believe in one of the dozens of conspiracy theories about mythical 200mpg carb or such and that it was buried by car and/or oil companies. I often heard them told where the inventor was a friend of a friend or such. Never have seen one of these urban myths substantiated. Nor have I ever heard the thermodynamics of these backyard tinkerer inventions explained. They're just stories for the scientifically iliterate and conspiratorially minded. I suggest you check Snopes before swallowing nutty CT's.
Why can't you see the real conspiracy - the open one - of the funding of the denier movement?
No not really, if you were as educated as you claim I wouldn’t have to tell you. I bet when you go into your office an apprentice could tell you what car and who destroyed it. Now go back to school the one you attended seems to have educated you stupid.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Powerful Photos Blast The Media's Portrayal Of ... 43 min no fatties 4 me 374
Vigil honors Pulaski County murder victim 46 min Old friend 1
Seizures of cash from Americans fuel police spe... 1 hr Shawanna 5
Power plants lead in greenhouse gas pollution 3 hr IBdaMann 2
McCormick given 3 years probation 4 hr Listening 5
GOP governors don't see 'Obamacare' going away 4 hr Responsibility 7
Puerto Rico R&G Financial Corporation settles f... (Feb '08) 4 hr dariusrickard 15

Law People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE