40mpg.org WEEKLY UPDATE
TELL REP. MARKEY: MORE MPG ... AND FASTER!

March 22, 2007: We need your help to send a message to Massachusetts
Congressman Ed Markey today!

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Rep. Markey is calling for improved federal fuel-economy standards of
35 MPG by 2018.

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?op...8&Ite mid=141

We can do better! The technology exists today to achieve greater fuel
efficiency faster. If we don't move to adopt these technologies, the
American auto industry will fall further behind the German and
Japanese automakers who are rapidly adopting new technologies. People
outside the U.S. already have 161 highly fuel efficient cars to choose
from

http://www.40mpg.org/getinf/021407release.cfm

and these cars meet or exceed U.S. emission and safety standards.
Since Congressman Ed Markey is going to play a big role in what the
U.S. House decides on fuel-efficiency targets, 40MPG.org is urging you
to send the Congressman an email message today to exercise bold
leadership and upgrade his fuel-efficiency plan to get 44 MPG by
2010.

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Or, you can call Rep. Markey's office directly at 202-225-2836 ...
[ask him for "44 MPG by 2010"]
________________________________________
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT 40MPG.ORG
To learn more about 40mpg.org, go to http://www.40mpg.org
________________________________________
Also you might call and use the key words "44 MPG by 2010!":
Rep. John Dingell's office directly at 202-225-4071
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office directly at 202-225-4965
Speaker of the Senate Harry Reid's office directly at
202-224-3542
________________________________________
________________________________________
If this seem like the correct thing to do please share it with your
friends.

On Apr 1, 8:30 am, "Himpg" wrote:
40mpg.org WEEKLY UPDATE
TELL REP. MARKEY: MORE MPG ... AND FASTER!

March 22, 2007: We need your help to send a message to Massachusetts
Congressman Ed Markey today!

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Rep. Markey is calling for improved federal fuel-economy standards of
35 MPG by 2018.

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?op...sk=view&id=268...

We can do better! The technology exists today to achieve greater fuel
efficiency faster. If we don't move to adopt these technologies, the
American auto industry will fall further behind the German and
Japanese automakers who are rapidly adopting new technologies. People
outside the U.S. already have 161 highly fuel efficient cars to choose
from

http://www.40mpg.org/getinf/021407release.cfm

and these cars meet or exceed U.S. emission and safety standards.
Since Congressman Ed Markey is going to play a big role in what the
U.S. House decides on fuel-efficiency targets, 40MPG.org is urging you
to send the Congressman an email message today to exercise bold
leadership and upgrade his fuel-efficiency plan to get 44 MPG by
2010.

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Or, you can call Rep. Markey's office directly at 202-225-2836 ...
[ask him for "44 MPG by 2010"]
________________________________________
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT 40MPG.ORG
To learn more about 40mpg.org, go tohttp://www.40mpg.org
________________________________________
Also you might call and use the key words "44 MPG by 2010!":
Rep. John Dingell's office directly at 202-225-4071
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office directly at 202-225-4965
Speaker of the Senate Harry Reid's office directly at
202-224-3542
________________________________________
________________________________________
If this seem like the correct thing to do please share it with your
friends.



Forget about the US auto industry. Ain't it a curious thing, that
with these readily available foreign built high mileage wonder cars
and a US population that supposidly wants to buy lots of them, that no
one chooses to sell them here? The profit potential should be
endless and they could take market share away from Detroit, so why do
we need a law to force them on consumers? Sounds like the reality is
not quite what it appears to be.

On Apr 1, 9:51 am, wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:30 am, "Himpg" wrote:





40mpg.org WEEKLY UPDATE
TELL REP. MARKEY: MORE MPG ... AND FASTER!

March 22, 2007: We need your help to send a message to Massachusetts
Congressman Ed Markey today!

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Rep. Markey is calling for improved federal fuel-economy standards of
35 MPG by 2018.

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?op...sk=view&id=268...

We can do better! The technology exists today to achieve greater fuel
efficiency faster. If we don't move to adopt these technologies, the
American auto industry will fall further behind the German and
Japanese automakers who are rapidly adopting new technologies. People
outside the U.S. already have 161 highly fuel efficient cars to choose
from

http://www.40mpg.org/getinf/021407release.cfm

and these cars meet or exceed U.S. emission and safety standards.
Since Congressman Ed Markey is going to play a big role in what the
U.S. House decides on fuel-efficiency targets, 40MPG.org is urging you
to send the Congressman an email message today to exercise bold
leadership and upgrade his fuel-efficiency plan to get 44 MPG by
2010.

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Or, you can call Rep. Markey's office directly at 202-225-2836 ...
[ask him for "44 MPG by 2010"]
________________________________________
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT 40MPG.ORG
To learn more about 40mpg.org, go tohttp://www.40mpg.org
________________________________________
Also you might call and use the key words "44 MPG by 2010!":
Rep. John Dingell's office directly at 202-225-4071
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office directly at 202-225-4965
Speaker of the Senate Harry Reid's office directly at
202-224-3542
________________________________________
________________________________________
If this seem like the correct thing to do please share it with your
friends.

Forget about the US auto industry. Ain't it a curious thing, that
with these readily available foreign built high mileage wonder cars
and a US population that supposidly wants to buy lots of them, that no
one chooses to sell them here? The profit potential should be
endless and they could take market share away from Detroit, so why do
we need a law to force them on consumers? Sounds like the reality is
not quite what it appears to be.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are correct that things are not as they seem!

Why are high mpg vehicles excluded from the US market?

There seem to be a "game" in play. Diesels are precluded due to NOx
but no one seems to know how far outside the domestic limits these 50
amd 60 mpg(US) vehicles are.

Detroit contends that people won't buy improved mpg ... my question is
what would happen if they offered 40+mpg? The Civic, Fit, Yaris are
all selling reasonably well in the higher 30s mpg.

In Europe, the BIG 3 already have 50 mpg(US) combined average!

On Apr 2, 11:01 am, "Himpg" wrote:

snip

In Europe, the BIG 3 already have 50 mpg(US) combined average!

The European versions have smaller engines. E.g., they have a 1.4L
Civic in Europe. Americans want more hp.

On Apr 2, 2:13 pm, wrote:
On Apr 2, 11:01 am, "Himpg" wrote:

snip

In Europe, the BIG 3 already have 50 mpg(US) combined average!

The European versions have smaller engines. E.g., they have a 1.4L
Civic in Europe. Americans want more hp.


Exactly. This clown has links that cite surveys that show a high
percentage of Americans
want vehicles with high fuel economy. Like that's some kind of
surprise. What they
should do is show them what one of these 40MPG miracle cars from
Europe looks like
and ask them if they would buy it. Then you'd have your real
answer. But, you don't need
a survery all you have to do is look on the highway. If people want
better fuel economy,
all they have to do is trade in their SUVs for cars that are already
in the showroomthat would
get substantially more MPG.

And then, there is this gem:

"There seem to be a "game" in play. Diesels are precluded due to NOx
but no one seems to know how far outside the domestic limits these 50
amd 60 mpg(US) vehicles are. "

Hmmm, and who would be doing that precluding? Could it be the
environmemtalists that don't like
anything? They want fuel efficient cars, but then diesel is no good
because it doesn't have just the
right emissions profile. They bitch about global warming and want a
cut back in carbon fuels. So,
a nuclear plant is proposed, but guess what? They are opposed to
that too. The final hypocrisy is
even when a company wants to build wind mills, which was supposed to
be another perfect solution,
guess what happens? Here in NJ, the environmental groups are all
opposed to those too.

In short, what you hear is pie in the sky rhetoric, but when it comes
to reality, that's a different thing
altogether.

In article .com,
says...
On Apr 2, 2:13 pm, wrote:
On Apr 2, 11:01 am, "Himpg" wrote:

snip

In Europe, the BIG 3 already have 50 mpg(US) combined average!

The European versions have smaller engines. E.g., they have a 1.4L
Civic in Europe. Americans want more hp.


Exactly. This clown has links that cite surveys that show a high
percentage of Americans
want vehicles with high fuel economy. Like that's some kind of
surprise. What they
should do is show them what one of these 40MPG miracle cars from
Europe looks like
and ask them if they would buy it. Then you'd have your real
answer. But, you don't need
a survery all you have to do is look on the highway. If people want
better fuel economy,
all they have to do is trade in their SUVs for cars that are already
in the showroomthat would
get substantially more MPG.

And then, there is this gem:

"There seem to be a "game" in play. Diesels are precluded due to NOx
but no one seems to know how far outside the domestic limits these 50
amd 60 mpg(US) vehicles are. "

Hmmm, and who would be doing that precluding? Could it be the
environmemtalists that don't like
anything? They want fuel efficient cars, but then diesel is no good
because it doesn't have just the
right emissions profile. They bitch about global warming and want a
cut back in carbon fuels. So,
a nuclear plant is proposed, but guess what? They are opposed to
that too. The final hypocrisy is
even when a company wants to build wind mills, which was supposed to
be another perfect solution,
guess what happens? Here in NJ, the environmental groups are all
opposed to those too.

Vermont too. the greenies do like to talk though...

In short, what you hear is pie in the sky rhetoric, but when it comes
to reality, that's a different thing
altogether.

....unless someone is talking about their back yard.

--
Keith

On Apr 2, 10:01 am, "Himpg" wrote:


Why are high mpg vehicles excluded from the US market?

Because not enough of us buy them.


Detroit contends that people won't buy improved mpg ... my question is
what would happen if they offered 40+mpg? The Civic, Fit, Yaris are
all selling reasonably well in the higher 30s mpg.

Nothing different would happen. The US has some of the cheapest gas
in the developed world. As long as it is cheap, economy isn't a big
enough issue. Raise the cost, and economy will rule supreme.

In Europe, the BIG 3 already have 50 mpg(US) combined average!

Because gas in Europe is much more expensive.

On Apr 2, 3:13 pm, wrote:
On Apr 2, 11:01 am, "Himpg" wrote:

snip

In Europe, the BIG 3 already have 50 mpg(US) combined average!

The European versions have smaller engines. E.g., they have a 1.4L
Civic in Europe. Americans want more hp.

You a correct that the engines are generally smaller but the turbo
diesel give you the torque at lower hp and significantly lower fuel
consumption. Personally, I don't need 0 to 60 mph in less than 10
seconds. I'm not willing to pay $0.10 per mile fuel cost penalty to
get it ... but that is my preference. So not ALL Americans want higher
hp! But you are certainly welcome to your preferences. I just wish we
had the choice!

These types of cars are definitely not for everyone ... many want /
need larger machines and that's OK. But those that do want smaller
engines and lighter cars should not be PREVENTED from having the
CHOICE!

The Cadillac BLs [diesel at 38 mpg(US) combined average] has gotten
significant praise in Europe ... and awards ... I don't know how the
sales have been.

The problem seems to be that Detroit wants to increment mpg 4% per
year.That (1.5 mpg improvement) does not offer economic inducement
based on fuel economy improvements to purchase. Would a fuel economy
improvement of 3 mpg attract your interest. I don't think so! However,
if you were offered a 50% reduction in fuel consumption (a 15 or 20
mpg improvement), it becomes much more appealing. That is, if the
vehicle is large enough and featured to meet your needs.

What I am afraid of is that if Detroit doesn't step up and
deliver .... an interloper is gong to jump in within the next 36
months and that will probably push Detroit out of its' position of
dominance to a second tier status from which they will probably never
recover.

Well ... that's my view of things.

You are not PREVENTED from having a choice. Hey, look, I bet you can
find an importer, and place an individual order to have your favorite
euro model imported. If necessary, you can have the mods done to make
the car street-legal in the US.
"Oh, but that would be too expensive", you say "why can Detroit mass-
produce just that kind of car?" Because there is not enough demand,
and unit costs would be prohibitive anyway!! Just because you and a
couple of your tree-hugger buddies would buy it, doesn't meant that
the auto manufacturer would get enough orders.

Like with everything else, free market forces should dictate what
kinds of vehicles are produced.


On Apr 12, 7:06 pm, "Himpg" wrote:
On Apr 2, 3:13 pm, wrote:

On Apr 2, 11:01 am, "Himpg" wrote:

snip

In Europe, the BIG 3 already have 50 mpg(US) combined average!

The European versions have smaller engines. E.g., they have a 1.4L
Civic in Europe. Americans want more hp.

You a correct that the engines are generally smaller but the turbo
diesel give you the torque at lower hp and significantly lower fuel
consumption. Personally, I don't need 0 to 60 mph in less than 10
seconds. I'm not willing to pay $0.10 per mile fuel cost penalty to
get it ... but that is my preference. So not ALL Americans want higher
hp! But you are certainly welcome to your preferences. I just wish we
had the choice!

These types of cars are definitely not for everyone ... many want /
need larger machines and that's OK. But those that do want smaller
engines and lighter cars should not be PREVENTED from having the
CHOICE!

The Cadillac BLs [diesel at 38 mpg(US) combined average] has gotten
significant praise in Europe ... and awards ... I don't know how the
sales have been.

The problem seems to be that Detroit wants to increment mpg 4% per
year.That (1.5 mpg improvement) does not offer economic inducement
based on fuel economy improvements to purchase. Would a fuel economy
improvement of 3 mpg attract your interest. I don't think so! However,
if you were offered a 50% reduction in fuel consumption (a 15 or 20
mpg improvement), it becomes much more appealing. That is, if the
vehicle is large enough and featured to meet your needs.

What I am afraid of is that if Detroit doesn't step up and
deliver .... an interloper is gong to jump in within the next 36
months and that will probably push Detroit out of its' position of
dominance to a second tier status from which they will probably never
recover.

Well ... that's my view of things.

On Apr 13, 12:24 pm, wrote:
You are not PREVENTED from having a choice. Hey, look, I bet you can
find an importer, and place an individual order to have your favorite
euro model imported. If necessary, you can have the mods done to make
the car street-legal in the US.
"Oh, but that would be too expensive", you say "why can Detroit mass-
produce just that kind of car?" Because there is not enough demand,
and unit costs would be prohibitive anyway!! Just because you and a
couple of your tree-hugger buddies would buy it, doesn't meant that
the auto manufacturer would get enough orders.

Like with everything else, free market forces should dictate what
kinds of vehicles are produced.

On Apr 12, 7:06 pm, "Himpg" wrote:



On Apr 2, 3:13 pm, wrote:

On Apr 2, 11:01 am, "Himpg" wrote:

snip

In Europe, the BIG 3 already have 50 mpg(US) combined average!

The European versions have smaller engines. E.g., they have a 1.4L
Civic in Europe. Americans want more hp.

You a correct that the engines are generally smaller but the turbo
diesel give you the torque at lower hp and significantly lower fuel
consumption. Personally, I don't need 0 to 60 mph in less than 10
seconds. I'm not willing to pay $0.10 per mile fuel cost penalty to
get it ... but that is my preference. So not ALL Americans want higher
hp! But you are certainly welcome to your preferences. I just wish we
had the choice!

These types of cars are definitely not for everyone ... many want /
need larger machines and that's OK. But those that do want smaller
engines and lighter cars should not be PREVENTED from having the
CHOICE!

The Cadillac BLs [diesel at 38 mpg(US) combined average] has gotten
significant praise in Europe ... and awards ... I don't know how the
sales have been.

The problem seems to be that Detroit wants to increment mpg 4% per
year.That (1.5 mpg improvement) does not offer economic inducement
based on fuel economy improvements to purchase. Would a fuel economy
improvement of 3 mpg attract your interest. I don't think so! However,
if you were offered a 50% reduction in fuel consumption (a 15 or 20
mpg improvement), it becomes much more appealing. That is, if the
vehicle is large enough and featured to meet your needs.


Talk about delusional expectations. Do you have any engineering or
scientific background? Anyone with a clue knows that continually
squeezing out
4% a year improvement in fuel economy, if possible, would be
fantastic. In a decade a car
would achieve close to a 50% increase in fuel economy. In two
decades, you'd have a 220%
improvement. But that ain;'t good enough?

Oh, but I see, you also want it to still be large enough and have
enough features to meet
your needs. Is that all? Anything else? BTW, diesel solutions are
available today
in the US from VW and Mercedes. Plus Audi and the Japanese are
looking at possible models too.
But they won't get quite the mileage of those Euro mini **** boxes.
But then you did say you wanted
it big enough, didn't you? Hmmm, and I suppose it has to meet US
impact requirements too?




What I am afraid of is that if Detroit doesn't step up and
deliver .... an interloper is gong to jump in within the next 36
months and that will probably push Detroit out of its' position of
dominance to a second tier status from which they will probably never
recover.

I thought that happened a long time ago.

And according to the 2007 EPA ratings, there are 10 cars available in
the US that get over 32/29 (highway/city). Three of them, the Toyota
Prius, Honda Civic, and Toyota Camry, get over 40/38, and the top car,
the Toyota Prius gets 60/51. So, if you want one, you don't need to
wrtie your Congressman or bitch about what Detroit shoud do. Just go
buy it.

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/overall-high.htm
1 Toyota Prius (hybrid-electric) 60/51
2 Honda Civic Hybrid 49/51
3 Toyota Camry Hybrid 40/38
4 Ford Escape Hybrid FWD 36/31
5 Toyota Yaris (manual) 34/40
6 Toyota Yaris (automatic) 34/39
7 Honda Fit (manual) 33/38
8 Toyota Corolla (manual) 32/41
9 Hyundai Accent (manual)
Kia Rio (manual) 32/35
32/35
10 Ford Escape Hybrid 4WD
Mercury Mariner Hybrid 4WD 32/29
32/29

On Apr 13, 4:32 pm, wrote:
On Apr 13, 12:24 pm, wrote:





You are not PREVENTED from having a choice. Hey, look, I bet you can
find an importer, and place an individual order to have your favorite
euro model imported. If necessary, you can have the mods done to make
the car street-legal in the US.
"Oh, but that would be too expensive", you say "why can Detroit mass-
produce just that kind of car?" Because there is not enough demand,
and unit costs would be prohibitive anyway!! Just because you and a
couple of your tree-hugger buddies would buy it, doesn't meant that
the auto manufacturer would get enough orders.

Like with everything else, free market forces should dictate what
kinds of vehicles are produced.

On Apr 12, 7:06 pm, "Himpg" wrote:

On Apr 2, 3:13 pm, wrote:

On Apr 2, 11:01 am, "Himpg" wrote:

snip

In Europe, the BIG 3 already have 50 mpg(US) combined average!

The European versions have smaller engines. E.g., they have a 1.4L
Civic in Europe. Americans want more hp.

You a correct that the engines are generally smaller but the turbo
diesel give you the torque at lower hp and significantly lower fuel
consumption. Personally, I don't need 0 to 60 mph in less than 10
seconds. I'm not willing to pay $0.10 per mile fuel cost penalty to
get it ... but that is my preference. So not ALL Americans want higher
hp! But you are certainly welcome to your preferences. I just wish we
had the choice!

These types of cars are definitely not for everyone ... many want /
need larger machines and that's OK. But those that do want smaller
engines and lighter cars should not be PREVENTED from having the
CHOICE!

The Cadillac BLs [diesel at 38 mpg(US) combined average] has gotten
significant praise in Europe ... and awards ... I don't know how the
sales have been.

The problem seems to be that Detroit wants to increment mpg 4% per
year.That (1.5 mpg improvement) does not offer economic inducement
based on fuel economy improvements to purchase. Would a fuel economy
improvement of 3 mpg attract your interest. I don't think so! However,
if you were offered a 50% reduction in fuel consumption (a 15 or 20
mpg improvement), it becomes much more appealing. That is, if the
vehicle is large enough and featured to meet your needs.

Talk about delusional expectations. Do you have any engineering or
scientific background? Anyone with a clue knows that continually
squeezing out
4% a year improvement in fuel economy, if possible, would be
fantastic. In a decade a car
would achieve close to a 50% increase in fuel economy. In two
decades, you'd have a 220%
improvement. But that ain;'t good enough?

Oh, but I see, you also want it to still be large enough and have
enough features to meet
your needs. Is that all? Anything else? BTW, diesel solutions are
available today
in the US from VW and Mercedes. Plus Audi and the Japanese are
looking at possible models too.
But they won't get quite the mileage of those Euro mini **** boxes.
But then you did say you wanted
it big enough, didn't you? Hmmm, and I suppose it has to meet US
impact requirements too?



What I am afraid of is that if Detroit doesn't step up and
deliver .... an interloper is gong to jump in within the next 36
months and that will probably push Detroit out of its' position of
dominance to a second tier status from which they will probably never
recover.

I thought that happened a long time ago.

And according to the 2007 EPA ratings, there are 10 cars available in
the US that get over 32/29 (highway/city). Three of them, the Toyota
Prius, Honda Civic, and Toyota Camry, get over 40/38, and the top car,
the Toyota Prius gets 60/51. So, if you want one, you don't need to
wrtie your Congressman or bitch about what Detroit shoud do. Just go
buy it.

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/overall-high.htm
1 Toyota Prius (hybrid-electric) 60/51
2 Honda Civic Hybrid 49/51
3 Toyota Camry Hybrid 40/38
4 Ford Escape Hybrid FWD 36/31
5 Toyota Yaris (manual) 34/40
6 Toyota Yaris (automatic) 34/39
7 Honda Fit (manual) 33/38
8 Toyota Corolla (manual) 32/41
9 Hyundai Accent (manual)
Kia Rio (manual) 32/35
32/35
10 Ford Escape Hybrid 4WD
Mercury Mariner Hybrid 4WD 32/29
32/29- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You missed the new Nissan Altima Hybrid 42/36.

I currently drive a 12 year old vehicle that gets 38 mpg average/45
mpg highway ... so the options you are proposing to get better mpg are
limited to the Prius and Civic (maybe the Camry) Hybrids. The
improvement is marginal at best.

Currently Ford has had about 7 diesels that are above 50 mpg(US)
combined average for about past 2 or 3 model years.

The only hybrid that I have heard of that might be of interest is the
diesel-electric expected to get combined average of 70 mpg(US) due
from Citroen/Peugeot late 2008.

Certainly these types of vehicles are not for everyone any more than
pickup trucks (or SUVs).

On Apr 1, 6:51 am, wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:30 am, "Himpg" wrote:





40mpg.org WEEKLY UPDATE
TELL REP. MARKEY: MORE MPG ... AND FASTER!

March 22, 2007: We need your help to send a message to Massachusetts
Congressman Ed Markey today!

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Rep. Markey is calling for improved federal fuel-economy standards of
35 MPG by 2018.

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?op...sk=view&id=268...

We can do better! The technology exists today to achieve greater fuel
efficiency faster. If we don't move to adopt these technologies, the
American auto industry will fall further behind the German and
Japanese automakers who are rapidly adopting new technologies. People
outside the U.S. already have 161 highly fuel efficient cars to choose
from

http://www.40mpg.org/getinf/021407release.cfm

and these cars meet or exceed U.S. emission and safety standards.
Since Congressman Ed Markey is going to play a big role in what the
U.S. House decides on fuel-efficiency targets, 40MPG.org is urging you
to send the Congressman an email message today to exercise bold
leadership and upgrade his fuel-efficiency plan to get 44 MPG by
2010.

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Or, you can call Rep. Markey's office directly at 202-225-2836 ...
[ask him for "44 MPG by 2010"]
________________________________________
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT 40MPG.ORG
To learn more about 40mpg.org, go tohttp://www.40mpg.org
________________________________________
Also you might call and use the key words "44 MPG by 2010!":
Rep. John Dingell's office directly at 202-225-4071
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office directly at 202-225-4965
Speaker of the Senate Harry Reid's office directly at
202-224-3542
________________________________________
________________________________________
If this seem like the correct thing to do please share it with your
friends.

Forget about the US auto industry. Ain't it a curious thing, that
with these readily available foreign built high mileage wonder cars
and a US population that supposidly wants to buy lots of them, that no
one chooses to sell them here? The profit potential should be
endless and they could take market share away from Detroit, so why do
we need a law to force them on consumers? Sounds like the reality is
not quite what it appears to be.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The reality is that the majority of US buyers is not going to buy a
car that gets high mileage if it comes in a small, underpowered (by US
standards) car. Sure surveys show that everybody wants a high mileage
car. I, however, know that that survey would show as thumbs down if
it were to contain a realistic description of the type of car it takes
to get 50-60 mpg.
Yes, they are perfectly adequate but big and comfortable over long
distances they ain't. US buyers want to be pampered. Those cars
would also be lacking a lot of features to save on weight that US
buyers now demand as standard equipment.

I tried the link to see what is in there but it doesn't work.

Harry K

On Apr 14, 10:31 am, "Harry K" wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:51 am, wrote:





On Apr 1, 8:30 am, "Himpg" wrote:

40mpg.org WEEKLY UPDATE
TELL REP. MARKEY: MORE MPG ... AND FASTER!

March 22, 2007: We need your help to send a message to Massachusetts
Congressman Ed Markey today!

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Rep. Markey is calling for improved federal fuel-economy standards of
35 MPG by 2018.

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?op...sk=view&id=268...

We can do better! The technology exists today to achieve greater fuel
efficiency faster. If we don't move to adopt these technologies, the
American auto industry will fall further behind the German and
Japanese automakers who are rapidly adopting new technologies. People
outside the U.S. already have 161 highly fuel efficient cars to choose
from

http://www.40mpg.org/getinf/021407release.cfm

and these cars meet or exceed U.S. emission and safety standards.
Since Congressman Ed Markey is going to play a big role in what the
U.S. House decides on fuel-efficiency targets, 40MPG.org is urging you
to send the Congressman an email message today to exercise bold
leadership and upgrade his fuel-efficiency plan to get 44 MPG by
2010.

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Or, you can call Rep. Markey's office directly at 202-225-2836 ...
[ask him for "44 MPG by 2010"]
________________________________________
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT 40MPG.ORG
To learn more about 40mpg.org, go tohttp://www.40mpg.org
________________________________________
Also you might call and use the key words "44 MPG by 2010!":
Rep. John Dingell's office directly at 202-225-4071
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office directly at 202-225-4965
Speaker of the Senate Harry Reid's office directly at
202-224-3542
________________________________________
________________________________________
If this seem like the correct thing to do please share it with your
friends.

Forget about the US auto industry. Ain't it a curious thing, that
with these readily available foreign built high mileage wonder cars
and a US population that supposidly wants to buy lots of them, that no
one chooses to sell them here? The profit potential should be
endless and they could take market share away from Detroit, so why do
we need a law to force them on consumers? Sounds like the reality is
not quite what it appears to be.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The reality is that the majority of US buyers is not going to buy a
car that gets high mileage if it comes in a small, underpowered (by US
standards) car. Sure surveys show that everybody wants a high mileage
car. I, however, know that that survey would show as thumbs down if
it were to contain a realistic description of the type of car it takes
to get 50-60 mpg.
Yes, they are perfectly adequate but big and comfortable over long
distances they ain't. US buyers want to be pampered. Those cars
would also be lacking a lot of features to save on weight that US
buyers now demand as standard equipment.

I tried the link to see what is in there but it doesn't work.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, would a Cadillac BLs with a 38 mpg(US) combined average be about
the right size for yot needs?

How about FORD's Focus or Fusion at about 50 mpg combined average?
From your comments I don't think you would like the Fiesta (Ford).

Of course there are 32 variations of the MERCEDES-BENZ A Class with
combined averages between 43 and 48 mpg(US).

Anyway, I am certainly NOT suggesting that everyone (or anyone for
that matter) should be required to buy high mpg vehicles ... any more
than OUR choices should limited to vans, SUVs, pickups, Hummers, or
fire trucks to the exclusion of high mpg machines.

I am suggesting that it would be nice to be able to buy the
technologies that WE paid for as US TAXPERS ... but are only available
every where else in the world EXCEPT the USA.

On Apr 14, 9:26 pm, "Himpg" wrote:
On Apr 14, 10:31 am, "Harry K" wrote:





On Apr 1, 6:51 am, wrote:

On Apr 1, 8:30 am, "Himpg" wrote:

40mpg.org WEEKLY UPDATE
TELL REP. MARKEY: MORE MPG ... AND FASTER!

March 22, 2007: We need your help to send a message to Massachusetts
Congressman Ed Markey today!

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Rep. Markey is calling for improved federal fuel-economy standards of
35 MPG by 2018.

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?op...sk=view&id=268...

We can do better! The technology exists today to achieve greater fuel
efficiency faster. If we don't move to adopt these technologies, the
American auto industry will fall further behind the German and
Japanese automakers who are rapidly adopting new technologies. People
outside the U.S. already have 161 highly fuel efficient cars to choose
from

http://www.40mpg.org/getinf/021407release.cfm

and these cars meet or exceed U.S. emission and safety standards.
Since Congressman Ed Markey is going to play a big role in what the
U.S. House decides on fuel-efficiency targets, 40MPG.org is urging you
to send the Congressman an email message today to exercise bold
leadership and upgrade his fuel-efficiency plan to get 44 MPG by
2010.

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Or, you can call Rep. Markey's office directly at 202-225-2836 ...
[ask him for "44 MPG by 2010"]
________________________________________
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT 40MPG.ORG
To learn more about 40mpg.org, go tohttp://www.40mpg.org
________________________________________
Also you might call and use the key words "44 MPG by 2010!":
Rep. John Dingell's office directly at 202-225-4071
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office directly at 202-225-4965
Speaker of the Senate Harry Reid's office directly at
202-224-3542
________________________________________
________________________________________
If this seem like the correct thing to do please share it with your
friends.

Forget about the US auto industry. Ain't it a curious thing, that
with these readily available foreign built high mileage wonder cars
and a US population that supposidly wants to buy lots of them, that no
one chooses to sell them here? The profit potential should be
endless and they could take market share away from Detroit, so why do
we need a law to force them on consumers? Sounds like the reality is
not quite what it appears to be.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The reality is that the majority of US buyers is not going to buy a
car that gets high mileage if it comes in a small, underpowered (by US
standards) car. Sure surveys show that everybody wants a high mileage
car. I, however, know that that survey would show as thumbs down if
it were to contain a realistic description of the type of car it takes
to get 50-60 mpg.
Yes, they are perfectly adequate but big and comfortable over long
distances they ain't. US buyers want to be pampered. Those cars
would also be lacking a lot of features to save on weight that US
buyers now demand as standard equipment.

I tried the link to see what is in there but it doesn't work.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, would a Cadillac BLs with a 38 mpg(US) combined average be about
the right size for yot needs?

How about FORD's Focus or Fusion at about 50 mpg combined average?

From your comments I don't think you would like the Fiesta (Ford).

Of course there are 32 variations of the MERCEDES-BENZ A Class with
combined averages between 43 and 48 mpg(US).

Anyway, I am certainly NOT suggesting that everyone (or anyone for
that matter) should be required to buy high mpg vehicles ... any more
than OUR choices should limited to vans, SUVs, pickups, Hummers, or
fire trucks to the exclusion of high mpg machines.

Of course you aren't for free choice. You came in here asking people
to lobby to have CAFE standards increased to 44MPG in two years. That
means the auto manufacturers have to sell a mix of cars they gets
44MPG. Simple math suggests that unless they sell a lot of cars
above 44MPG, then they can't sell most of the cars we buy today which
are below 44MPG.

BTW, as I stated before, anyone that thinks 44 MPG in 2 years is
reasonable or realistic, is clueless. You also sneer at 4% a year
increase in fuel economy a year as insignificant. That rate would
give you about a 50% increase in a decade. But, according to you,
that isn't good enough. Do you think you can just endlessly squeeze
more energy out of a gallon of gas or do the laws of physics still
prevail? Oh, and I forgot, you also want the cars to be big enough
and have enough features too, while getting 44MPG. Anything
else? Maybe make them gold plated too?



I am suggesting that it would be nice to be able to buy the
technologies that WE paid for as US TAXPERS ... but are only available
every where else in the world EXCEPT the USA.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Oh, I see. You think the auto manufacturers R&D budgets are part of
the federal budget. Any other delusions you have that we can help
you with today?

And I'd like to see proof that those miracle high MPG sub sub compacts
meet US emission and safety requirements. You acknowledged that many
of the diesels used to achieve high mileage don't meet the US emision
stds. And I doubt few, if any of the rest meet the US safety stds.
But, I know, in your world, that's just a minor problem, that can be
solved in a week or so by any auto manufacturer. They can just bolt
on some of those new 0 weight crash resistant bumpers, right?

The simple fact is that there are 10 cars widely available in the US
that get over 32/29 MPG. The best gets 60/51. So, stop whining and
trying to force some European sub sub **** box on the rest of us and
go buy one.

I think the American auto consumer would 'accept' a smaller car if it
became more popular to drive a fuel efficient econobox.
Right now everybody still thinks they need to commute to work - one
person at a time - in a 4-door 1/2 ton pickup or SUV, but higher gas
prices may start to change our opinions. It might even be 'cool'
again to drive an efficient small car - look at the Beetle during the
musclecar years. Many people bought 'em and drove 'em while other
people were buying El Dorados and other gas hogs.

Vin - Automotive Recall lists, Technical Service Bulletins (TSB) and
Crash Test Videos at
http://AutoSmash.com




On Apr 15, 11:52 am, wrote:
On Apr 14, 9:26 pm, "Himpg" wrote:





On Apr 14, 10:31 am, "Harry K" wrote:

On Apr 1, 6:51 am, wrote:

On Apr 1, 8:30 am, "Himpg" wrote:

40mpg.org WEEKLY UPDATE
TELL REP. MARKEY: MORE MPG ... AND FASTER!

March 22, 2007: We need your help to send a message to Massachusetts
Congressman Ed Markey today!

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Rep. Markey is calling for improved federal fuel-economy standards of
35 MPG by 2018.

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?op...sk=view&id=268...

We can do better! The technology exists today to achieve greater fuel
efficiency faster. If we don't move to adopt these technologies, the
American auto industry will fall further behind the German and
Japanese automakers who are rapidly adopting new technologies. People
outside the U.S. already have 161 highly fuel efficient cars to choose
from

http://www.40mpg.org/getinf/021407release.cfm

and these cars meet or exceed U.S. emission and safety standards.
Since Congressman Ed Markey is going to play a big role in what the
U.S. House decides on fuel-efficiency targets, 40MPG.org is urging you
to send the Congressman an email message today to exercise bold
leadership and upgrade his fuel-efficiency plan to get 44 MPG by
2010.

http://action.40mpg.org/campaign/MARKEY_MORE_MPG

Or, you can call Rep. Markey's office directly at 202-225-2836 ...
[ask him for "44 MPG by 2010"]
________________________________________
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT 40MPG.ORG
To learn more about 40mpg.org, go tohttp://www.40mpg.org
________________________________________
Also you might call and use the key words "44 MPG by 2010!":
Rep. John Dingell's office directly at 202-225-4071
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office directly at 202-225-4965
Speaker of the Senate Harry Reid's office directly at
202-224-3542
________________________________________
________________________________________
If this seem like the correct thing to do please share it with your
friends.

Forget about the US auto industry. Ain't it a curious thing, that
with these readily available foreign built high mileage wonder cars
and a US population that supposidly wants to buy lots of them, that no
one chooses to sell them here? The profit potential should be
endless and they could take market share away from Detroit, so why do
we need a law to force them on consumers? Sounds like the reality is
not quite what it appears to be.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The reality is that the majority of US buyers is not going to buy a
car that gets high mileage if it comes in a small, underpowered (by US
standards) car. Sure surveys show that everybody wants a high mileage
car. I, however, know that that survey would show as thumbs down if
it were to contain a realistic description of the type of car it takes
to get 50-60 mpg.
Yes, they are perfectly adequate but big and comfortable over long
distances they ain't. US buyers want to be pampered. Those cars
would also be lacking a lot of features to save on weight that US
buyers now demand as standard equipment.

I tried the link to see what is in there but it doesn't work.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, would a Cadillac BLs with a 38 mpg(US) combined average be about
the right size for yot needs?

How about FORD's Focus or Fusion at about 50 mpg combined average?

From your comments I don't think you would like the Fiesta (Ford).

Of course there are 32 variations of the MERCEDES-BENZ A Class with
combined averages between 43 and 48 mpg(US).

Anyway, I am certainly NOT suggesting that everyone (or anyone for
that matter) should be required to buy high mpg vehicles ... any more
than OUR choices should limited to vans, SUVs, pickups, Hummers, or
fire trucks to the exclusion of high mpg machines.

Of course you aren't for free choice. You came in here asking people
to lobby to have CAFE standards increased to 44MPG in two years. That
means the auto manufacturers have to sell a mix of cars they gets
44MPG. Simple math suggests that unless they sell a lot of cars
above 44MPG, then they can't sell most of the cars we buy today which
are below 44MPG.

BTW, as I stated before, anyone that thinks 44 MPG in 2 years is
reasonable or realistic, is clueless. You also sneer at 4% a year
increase in fuel economy a year as insignificant. That rate would
give you about a 50% increase in a decade. But, according to you,
that isn't good enough. Do you think you can just endlessly squeeze
more energy out of a gallon of gas or do the laws of physics still
prevail? Oh, and I forgot, you also want the cars to be big enough
and have enough features too, while getting 44MPG. Anything
else? Maybe make them gold plated too?



I am suggesting that it would be nice to be able to buy the
technologies that WE paid for as US TAXPERS ... but are only available
every where else in the world EXCEPT the USA.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, I see. You think the auto manufacturers R&D budgets are part of
the federal budget. Any other delusions you have that we can help
you with today?

And I'd like to see proof that those miracle high MPG sub sub compacts
meet US emission and safety requirements. You acknowledged that many
of the diesels used to achieve high mileage don't meet the US emision
stds. And I doubt few, if any of the rest meet the US safety stds.
But, I know, in your world, that's just a minor problem, that can be
solved in a week or so by any auto manufacturer. They can just bolt
on some of those new 0 weight crash resistant bumpers, right?

The simple fact is that there are 10 cars widely available in the US
that get over 32/29 MPG. The best gets 60/51. So, stop whining and
trying to force some European sub sub **** box on the rest of us and
go buy one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 19, 12:37 pm, OldRoads wrote:
I think the American auto consumer would 'accept' a smaller car if it
became more popular to drive a fuel efficient econobox.
Right now everybody still thinks they need to commute to work - one
person at a time - in a 4-door 1/2 ton pickup or SUV, but higher gas
prices may start to change our opinions. It might even be 'cool'
again to drive an efficient small car - look at the Beetle during the
musclecar years. Many people bought 'em and drove 'em while other
people were buying El Dorados and other gas hogs.

Wrong again. Even if the US consumer was willing to accept a small
euro-style econotrashbox as a _commute_ car, it would not prove so
economical considering the big picture. Many Americans still need a
powerful truck or SUV to carry their mountain bikes, surfboards, haul
a trailer on a weekend out-of-town trip, etc. Now, you might say that
I should have another vehicle, the econobox, and use it for commuting
and grocery shopping trips, while the truck is parked most of the
time, and only drive the truck when I really need it. Sure, that would
be more economical, but only from the fuel economy standpoint. But if
you consider the _total_cost_of_ownership_, it is actually cheaper
only own the big truck, even if you use it for oh-so-fuel-inefficient
commuting. It is more environment friendly, too. Notice that owning
the econobox in addition to the truck implies one additional vehicle
that needed to be manufactured -- additional burden on the
environment.

On Apr 19, 7:00 pm, wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:37 pm, OldRoads wrote:

I think the American auto consumer would 'accept' a smaller car if it
became more popular to drive a fuel efficient econobox.
Right now everybody still thinks they need to commute to work - one
person at a time - in a 4-door 1/2 ton pickup or SUV, but higher gas
prices may start to change our opinions. It might even be 'cool'
again to drive an efficient small car - look at the Beetle during the
musclecar years. Many people bought 'em and drove 'em while other
people were buying El Dorados and other gas hogs.

Wrong again. Even if the US consumer was willing to accept a small
euro-style econotrashbox as a _commute_ car, it would not prove so
economical considering the big picture. Many Americans still need a
powerful truck or SUV to carry their mountain bikes, surfboards, haul
a trailer on a weekend out-of-town trip, etc. Now, you might say that
I should have another vehicle, the econobox, and use it for commuting
and grocery shopping trips, while the truck is parked most of the
time, and only drive the truck when I really need it. Sure, that would
be more economical, but only from the fuel economy standpoint. But if
you consider the _total_cost_of_ownership_, it is actually cheaper
only own the big truck, even if you use it for oh-so-fuel-inefficient
commuting. It is more environment friendly, too. Notice that owning
the econobox in addition to the truck implies one additional vehicle
that needed to be manufactured -- additional burden on the
environment.

I'm seeing it differently ...

Get my NEW very high mpg [hopefully over 50 mpg(US) combined average,
5 passenger, 4/5 door, 1.5 liter turbo diesel vehicle ASAP.

Then wait about 12 months and buy a used pickup for about 20% of MSRP
[probably $3-7 k] to sit in the driveway until I need to haul
something.

Currently our 95 Odyssey gets 32 mpg(US) highway and our small car
gets 45 mpg highway (35 mpg city) ... so we can wait another 18-22
months.

This strategy is not for everyone ... but it works for me!

Just my view of the situation ...

On Apr 15, 11:52 am, wrote:
On Apr 14, 9:26 pm, "Himpg" wrote:


Of course you aren't for free choice. You came in here asking people
to lobby to have CAFE standards increased to 44MPG in two years.


ABSOLUTELY WRONG! I am requesting that you and others support
expansion of choice ... NOT AN ARGUE ABOUT CAFE!


BTW, as I stated before, anyone that thinks 44 MPG in 2 years is
reasonable or realistic, is clueless. You also sneer at 4% a year
increase in fuel economy a year as insignificant. That rate would
give you about a 50% increase in a decade. But, according to you,
that isn't good enough. Do you think you can just endlessly squeeze
more energy out of a gallon of gas or do the laws of physics still
prevail? Oh, and I forgot, you also want the cars to be big enough
and have enough features too, while getting 44MPG. Anything
else? Maybe make them gold plated too?


The 4% over a decade is funny. Here is a list of cars that already do
it ... looks for the names you already see on the roads of the USA.
http://www.40mpg.org/pdfs/021407_fue...ehicle_gap.xls

Oh, I see. You think the auto manufacturers R&D budgets are part of
the federal budget. Any other delusions you have that we can help
you with today?

There have been numerous partnerships between FORD/GM and DOE, EPA,
DARPA, and the list goes on since the 1980s.

The simple fact is that there are 10 cars widely available in the US
that get over 32/29 MPG. The best gets 60/51. So, stop whining and
trying to force some European sub sub **** box on the rest of us and
go buy one.- Hide quoted text -


Sorry to leave you with the impression that I was advocating
eliminating the current product options availabity. Under no
circumstances!

All I am asking for are a few more vehicle choices that get better
than 44 mpg(US) combined average. Both gasoline and turbo-diesels, for
those that want them.

You would not object to that would you?

OR ... are you trying to tell US that the only vehicles that we should
be allowed to purchase that get over 44 mpg(US) average are ONLY the
PRIUS and CIVIC hybrids? Those are the only choices!

Or between 35 and 44 mpg(US) average choices should be limited to the
Toyota Camry & Nissan Altima hybrids, Yaris (2), Corolla. Sorry that
is the limit of choices!
Source http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm

Or are you saying EVERYONE should be driving large SUVs and pickups?

I think my expectations are reasonable, particularly since WE, the
TAXPAYERS, have been funding energy and emissions R&D for over 30
years and all of the advances are everywhere else in the world EXCEPT
North America (and Canada is proposing to force a change by 2010).

Here is my FULL position statement ... I hope you find that you CAN
SUPPORT IT:


"44 mpg(US) by 2010"

" ... not for ALL ... not for average CAFE ..."

"JUST CHOICES for those THAT WANT better than 44 mpg ..."

"waive import restriction (for 24 months - including diesels) if that
is the only way".

Thanks for at least looking over the material and thinking about it.

On Apr 19, 7:00 pm, wrote:
On Apr 19, 12:37 pm, OldRoads wrote:

I think the American auto consumer would 'accept' a smaller car if it
became more popular to drive a fuel efficient econobox.
Right now everybody still thinks they need to commute to work - one
person at a time - in a 4-door 1/2 ton pickup or SUV, but higher gas
prices may start to change our opinions. It might even be 'cool'
again to drive an efficient small car - look at the Beetle during the
musclecar years. Many people bought 'em and drove 'em while other
people were buying El Dorados and other gas hogs.

Wrong again. Even if the US consumer was willing to accept a small
euro-style econotrashbox as a _commute_ car, it would not prove so
economical considering the big picture. Many Americans still need a
powerful truck or SUV to carry their mountain bikes, surfboards, haul
a trailer on a weekend out-of-town trip, etc. Now, you might say that
I should have another vehicle, the econobox, and use it for commuting
and grocery shopping trips, while the truck is parked most of the
time, and only drive the truck when I really need it. Sure, that would
be more economical, but only from the fuel economy standpoint. But if
you consider the _total_cost_of_ownership_, it is actually cheaper
only own the big truck, even if you use it for oh-so-fuel-inefficient
commuting. It is more environment friendly, too. Notice that owning
the econobox in addition to the truck implies one additional vehicle
that needed to be manufactured -- additional burden on the
environment.

Wrong _again_? That was the first time I made any comment here.
My '72 Triumph carries 2 surfboards or 2 mountain bikes with no
problem, and my 10 year old Ford Ranger pickup gets around 27 mpg.
Bought them both used. Cheap to insure and no extra manufacturing
costs for either. As a matter of fact I saved the Triumph from going
into a junk yard. Most people don't need a land yacht for commuting
and most people don't tow boats or trailers.

Vin - Automotive Recall lists, Technical Service Bulletins (TSB) and
Crash Test Videos at:
http://AutoSmash.com