Canada / US proposed heavy -duty fuel standards

[bakes]

http://www.autos.ca/general-news/u-s-proposes-pollution-standards-for-heavy-duty-vehicles

[turbovanman²]

If they can do it, why not, its a win win for everyone, :nod:

[Aries_Turbo]

because it will raise the price of every truck and therefore every truck delivered item that you buy.

we need less regulation of everything, not more.

f the govt. f the epa. they are useless, actual progress hindering pieces of ----.

Brian

[turbovanman²]

because it will raise the price of every truck and therefore every truck delivered item that you buy.

we need less regulation of everything, not more.

f the govt. f the epa. they are useless, actual progress hindering pieces of ----.

Brian

True on one point but if they hadn't stuck their noses in, we'd still have carbs, road draft tubes, 5 mpg vehicles and smog so thick you could cut it with a knife.

[zin]

True on one point but if they hadn't stuck their noses in, we'd still have carbs, road draft tubes, 5 mpg vehicles and smog so thick you could cut it with a knife.

I really doubt that with the cost of fuel always going up, the gas crunch of the 70s and the fact that people would demand cleaner air (how we got the California Air Resources Board, etc), that all of these issues wouldn't be addressed, not because of regulation, but because of demand by the free market.

In fact, I'd bet we'd have some makers that have better mileage, etc, but due to onerous regulation, both NTSB and EPA (among many others), it is nearly impossible for anyone short of a Bill Gates type to start a new car company, so we as stuck with car makers that are almost as bad as government itself and "too big to fail", so we get to bail them out for political favors...

Yeah, it's a great system!

Mike

PS The real kicker here is that the proposed regulations are to address the Global Warming Hoax!! Guess we're going to kill 4-5million jobs here in Cali for the same cause, why not spread the damage to the whole of North America?! Just gotta fool those Mexicans into do it too...

[turbovanman²]

I really doubt that with the cost of fuel always going up, the gas crunch of the 70s and the fact that people would demand cleaner air (how we got the California Air Resources Board, etc), that all of these issues wouldn't be addressed, not because of regulation, but because of demand by the free market.

In fact, I'd bet we'd have some makers that have better mileage, etc, but due to onerous regulation, both NTSB and EPA (among many others), it is nearly impossible for anyone short of a Bill Gates type to start a new car company, so we as stuck with car makers that are almost as bad as government itself and "too big to fail", so we get to bail them out for political favors...

Yeah, it's a great system!

Mike

PS The real kicker here is that the proposed regulations are to address the Global Warming Hoax!! Guess we're going to kill 4-5million jobs here in Cali for the same cause, why not spread the damage to the whole of North America?! Just gotta fool those Mexicans into do it too...

Again, I agree to a point but you really think people, industry would have clamoured for anything if fuel costs etc never went up. Yeah, right.

I do agree that the system is ludicrous and needs changing. It baffles me that some European cars can't be imported here because they don't meet Canadian standards? WTF, they are built for the Autobahn but don't meat out standards??????? The list is endless.

[shadow88]

What I don't understand about emission regulations is the stupidity to try to reduce CO2. In a perfect combustion cycle, the tailpipe emmits CO2, and water. You can't improve on perfection.

[turbovanman²]

What I don't understand about emission regulations is the stupidity to try to reduce CO2. In a perfect combustion cycle, the tailpipe emmits CO2, and water. You can't improve on perfection.

They keep saying CO2 is the death gas, lol. Guess we better cap all the volcano's, :rolleyes:

[shadow88]

They keep saying CO2 is the death gas, lol. Guess we better cap all the volcano's, :rolleyes:

And stop breathing, and kill off unnecessary CO2 emitting creatures. And for God's sake, grow more pot!

[Aries_Turbo]

co2 is plant food. dumbasses those global warming liars are.

[bakes]

rememember guys we are not talking cars here we are talking big rigs , trains, tractors and industrail big motors and big ships!

[Aries_Turbo]

it doesnt matter. those regulations will raise the costs to do business, hamper production and stifle the economies even more than they already are.

Brian

[zin]

The reason the Leftist choose CO2 is for that very reason, it IS something that will always be a component of any combustion process, something intimately connected to power production, be it personal or utilities. They learned that picking something that can be considered hazardous or a result of imperfect combustion can and WILL be addressed, as in carbon monoxide, and lead, etc.

This simply won't due. Once technology evolves to treat or deal with the side effects,they loose their leverage to manipulate various things and industries. Things like gasoline formulas, and therefore its cost. Among countless others! Just think about the things we rely on that produce or require energy. Every one of those things is subject to their laws.

BUT, pick something that is always going to be a part of combustion and proportional to the amounts used, and you have an iron clad method of controlling energy costs, supplies, and even what energy technology is going to be used, despite market forces and even the will of the people!

It is their last chance to gain that kind of control over us, the only other products of perfect combustion, are water and nitrogen, neither of which can be demonized, as they are too well understood by even the most poorly educated.

I think this fact is part of the reason why Al Gore lost it, he sees his chance to, in a way, rule the world fading away as the world's people realize the lie.

Mike

[A.J.]

True on one point but if they hadn't stuck their noses in, we'd still have carbs, road draft tubes, 5 mpg vehicles and smog so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Safety glass, seat belts, headlights, windshield wipers, and air bags ALL came out before the government mandated them. The free market works every time it's tried. One manufacture comes out and says, "Buy our car, it pollutes less than the other manufacturer" and sales go up. Every other manufacturer will jump on the bandwagon. Just like seat belts. "Our cars are safer than the other guys." Seat belts began appearing in more vehicles.

A.J.

[black86glhs]

Safety glass, seat belts, headlights, windshield wipers, and air bags ALL came out before the government mandated them. The free market works every time it's tried. One manufacture comes out and says, "Buy our car, it pollutes less than the other manufacturer" and sales go up. Every other manufacturer will jump on the bandwagon. Just like seat belts. "Our cars are safer than the other guys." Seat belts began appearing in more vehicles.

A.J.Actually, if you read up on this, people laughed at the idea of safety in cars when it was first introduced, by Ford if I am correct. SO this is not true. Free market failed in the past quite often. With today's views, it would work better. people tend to be up on stuff better, but not always.

[zin]

Actually, if you read up on this, people laughed at the idea of safety in cars when it was first introduced, by Ford if I am correct. SO this is not true. Free market failed in the past quite often. With today's views, it would work better. people tend to be up on stuff better, but not always.

I'll have to disagree that the free market failed in the safety dept. It's just that the free market, at that time, didn't see a need for it...

Let's face it, at the dawn of the automotive industry, and for some time after, there wasn't much difference in danger between riding a bike and driving a car! In fact, you'd be much safer driving a car than riding a bike, should you hit something...

As we improved the breed, the safety started to follow, in response to the free market/customer demands.

The problem with government mandates is that it often forces technology down one route and that may not be the best way to go. We got air bags that could kill you in a crash you would normally walk away from, but they had to be there...

I think hybrids are a good example of the market directing technology (not that I'm a fan of hybrids as marketed), the government didn't mandate them, but they became very popular due to free market forces (and not a small amount of naivete and snobbery), but the point is that a company was able to innovate an advantage that gave them enough sales to force so many other "me toos" to market.

This is the dog wagging the tail, the way things should be...

An example of the tail wagging the dog would be the Chevy Volt (IMHO), it is a car that is not commercially viable, and it would seem no marketing campaign will boost its demand to make viable, so we have the Government offering $7000.00 bribes to anyone foolish enough to buy one.

If you have to pay someone to take your product, or rely on Government subsidies to make it not loose money at sale time, YOU HAVE A DEAD PLAYER!! Run, do not walk away from it! But, I guess if you are owned by the Gov and are "too big to fail", us tax payers will just HAVE to keep paying to keep those union workers paying their tribute to the Dems (with our tax dollars...)

Back to the OP subject, I'd like to know why these standards are NEEDED? I doubt these "needs" are reasonable as I do not see any imminent danger from allowing things to go on as they are, leaving people to live their lives without the government sticking their over-sized noses into your business.

In fact, the only reason given is the Global Climate Change Warming Hoax! I'm sure they could make up some stats like the CARB did here in Cali, that X number of people die "prematurely" due to diesel particulates, etc... What's that? Oh, yeah, some guy working there with false credentials from an internet "school" run by a fugitive pedophile (truth is stranger than fiction!), MADE THEM UP! There is no definition of what "premature" is. Is that a day, a week, 5 years? What is the common connection to these premature deaths?... Oh, yeah, you're just supposed to go along with it because the government bureaucracy and those political appointees say it is true!! Yeah, that's a smart play, they've never let us down before... Right? By the way, what I refer to is California Assembly Bill 1070, which was put into law despite the truth coming out and WILL cost CA 2-3 MILLION jobs!! Just what the state with the highest debt and most F'd up budget needs, less tax payers and more tax takers (unemployment, etc)

Mike

[trannybuster]

True on one point but if they hadn't stuck their noses in, we'd still have carbs, road draft tubes, 5 mpg vehicles and smog so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Sad isnt it, the govt has to step in...wanna get 50+mpg cars, people need to get together and not buy new cars of any sorts. Within months youll 50mpg, AND they will be safe, actually they would be whatever we wanted IF we stuck together...not likely to happen.

[zin]

Sad isnt it, the govt has to step in...wanna get 50+mpg cars, people need to get together and not buy new cars of any sorts. Within months youll 50mpg, AND they will be safe, actually they would be whatever we wanted IF we stuck together...not likely to happen.

This is kind of like the adage: Your choices are these: Affordable, Safe, High Performing (mileage/speed). The trick is you can only pick two!

Technology does exist for 50+ MPG cars, my Dad owned one (86 Chevy Sprint 3cyl carb for $5600.00), got 55 on the highway from IN to NY! But when he got hit by an Olds 88, he did almost get killed...

The Libs like to trot out the XX MPG car as a boon to "the little people", but they are not stupid (though it may seem that way sometimes), they know that in order to get to that point the cost will put them out of reach of most people, which is what they really want, push people into public transportation, which puts you conveniently under government control. If you don't want people downtown (or wherever) after a certain time, just stop running the trains after XX hour, just like in Japan. If you can't afford an overpriced taxi, you'll obey willingly, even unknowingly... But when people can afford personal transportation, they are much more difficult to manipulate...

It may sound like tin-foil hat material, but when there is not a real, impending danger, regulation is merely a means of control/manipulation.

Mike

[shackwrrr]

They are still stuck on the global warming thing yes but they are also stuck on the stupidity that Diesel is dirtier than gas.


achieve up to a 10 per cent reduction for gasoline vehicles and 15 per cent for diesel vehicles by 2018 model year

[zin]

They are still stuck on the global warming thing yes but they are also stuck on the stupidity that Diesel is dirtier than gas.

They like to talk about diesel being "dirtier", but only because the general public is ignorant and sees something coming out of the pipe, therefore it must be polluting! They have a narc line here in SoCal that you can call if you see a "gross polluter", which I think is really just a way to gauge how many aggressively ignorant people we have here, after all, the average soccer mom isn't going to know what she's seeing other than "smoke" coming out of their tailpipe!

That and since industry is the number 1 consumer of diesel, they can feel confident that the public will let them go after "those guys", since they don't realize it impacts you and I just the same as if they had taxed us directly! Just another way to sneak a tax on the public, so the polititians can buy some more votes with do-nothing programs, etc...

You know, I really wouldn't have much of a problem if the money collected was used withing the industry/application that the tax is collected on. Say a R&D lab that works to improve overland trucking technology/efficiency that would lead to lower costs to the operators and or public, but alas, we all know that goes only as far as handing over the money, from there it is off to buy votes or off-set the overspending in another area on those "get me votes" programs...

We really need to conceive of a way to hold polititians to doing the business of government, not the business of re-electioneering... We just have to figure a way to eliminate or severely reduce the motivation to put their service to the public in the back seat to their self-interests...

Mike