“W” couldn’t reduce 20/40 to its lowest dominator. He is out of touch, out of control and out of his ever loving mind. Please Mr. President, show real concern for our nation and resign.
Whoever becomes the new V.P. will be eternally grateful. It would change the picture for 08.
I think I’ve bought my last vehicles. I’m going to keep my F-150 and my old Lincoln Towncar on the road forever. They’re going to end up looking like something out of “Road Warrior.”
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
But look at the positive side to this! With more drivers dying, once the wreckage is cleared away, there will be less congestion on the roads, fewer traffic jams wasting gas, and most importantly, fewer drivers using gasoline.
It looks like a “win-win” situation to me!
Mark
FOX News propounding Big Oil’s propaganda? Who woulda thunk it?
These statistics are junk science.
My most liberal friend, actually an admitted socialist, blathers on about gas consumption. Went postal on me when I pointed out hybrids are BS.
Both of his kids got new Ford Explorers at 16. He said they weren’t driving small cars, too dangerous.
He also never offered to explain why they each had to get a car at age 16.
Sacrifice=other people’s responsibility
I like small cars. I also like motorcycles. Not only because they use less fuel and take up less space in my garage but, even more, I like the way they handle. That can be helpful in an emergency, too. If "safe" is the measure, I'll take a car that's nimble enough over one that's "big enough" every time.
I can't imagine ever buying something big in the name of "safety" and paying for it every day while sacrificing both the economy and the fun of driving a smaller, nimbler car.
So, if you don’t want smaller and lighter cars, keep the behemoth you have now for the next 20 years.
It worked for the Yellow Cab company.
Part of it too is the speed of cars and the amount of power ti took. Ten years ago a family car might go 0-60 in 8 or 9 seconds. Now many are in the low 6’s. I do think that at some point we do have to reduce gas usage for the purposes of foreign policy. I don’t like relying on the Middle East and Hugo for a lot of our oil and i’ve never read anything to indicate that our own resources (which we should exploit more) could support us in the longterm at our present usage.
This is junk reporting about junk science. There are many ways to boost mpg, using available 'High and Low Tech,' and achieve higher CAFE ratings. Weight reduction is just one of them.
For example, six-speed automatics, with much 'lower' final drive ratios. Streamlined belly pans, computer improvements,(auto shut down at stop lights) etc. etc. Re-educating consumers about "performance."
I had an '88 legend coupe, with a 2.7 liter V6. It was luvurious and very fast and certainly capable of maintaining a cruising speed on the freeways that was faster than a Piper Cub. (I'll say no more.) It also delivered 30 MPG+ highway.
Subsequent models went to a 3 liter, than a 3.2 because owners were complaining about "poor acceleration." Highway mileaage fell 5mpg or more. Surprise, surprise. Jackrabbiting away from stoplights is still a big deal! It really shouldn't be.
People commute today from previously UNHEARD OF distances. Businesses utilize the company car to keep from having satellite offices. So, most of the improvement in fuel efficiency gets gobbled up by increased usage.
In which alternate universe can the CONSERVATION of a commodity be increased by making it cheaper to use?