Malorn was, of course, RIGHT!

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by Mystery Squid, May 9, 2007.

  1. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
  2. Marlin

    Marlin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    1,407
    9
    0
    Location:
    Bucks County, PA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 9 2007, 12:51 PM) [snapback]438321[/snapback]</div>
    Of course. Toyota is just trying to line the pockets of Bush and his oil buddies.
     
  3. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,886
    1,160
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I wonder if the devil is in the details if all 3 major manufacturers agree that the standards will be that hard to meet.

    IOW, I wonder if exceptions exist (as I think they should) for true work vehicles. IOW, a standard pick-up truck (not that goofy Chevy thing) could, potentially, be excluded from the averaging. SUVs...no.

    My point being, Toyota knows they could achieve the numbers by dropping HSD systems into their entire line up. It seems they'd support this bill if they thought it would give them a major advantage over GM & Ford. So what's their resistance?
     
  4. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    4
    0
    Squid came out of "retirement" to bring us old news? Toyota joined in a lawsuit with other auto manufacturers in 2004 to oppose similar regulations in California. They're a corporation, motivated by profit, like all the rest.
     
  5. Marlin

    Marlin New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    1,407
    9
    0
    Location:
    Bucks County, PA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ May 9 2007, 01:01 PM) [snapback]438332[/snapback]</div>
    It so obvious. It's because they are evil, greedy bastards who are in bed with the oil companies. Come on... They killed the RAV4EV. This is nothing new.

    Oh, and they care more about profits than the environment. The bastards!!!!
     
  6. B Rad

    B Rad New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    295
    1
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ May 9 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]438342[/snapback]</div>
    They are not "in bed with the oil companie" They are just "evil, greedy bastards" like the rest of corporate america,this should be no surprise. What we all have to do is write are LEGISLATORS and voice support for this type of legislation !!!!!
     
  7. ozyran

    ozyran New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    695
    1
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(B Rad @ May 9 2007, 01:44 PM) [snapback]438369[/snapback]</div>
    Good idea! I just wrote my Senator. I'll let you know his response.
     
  8. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 9 2007, 01:03 PM) [snapback]438337[/snapback]</div>
    then why didn't you post up? :p We apologize for not being up on current events. Some of us DO put down the bag of chips and leave the couch on occasion.... :p

    ...thing is, they TRY to come off as a "green" corp... So while, basically, that little green leaf blows out of the Prius's exhaust, it floats away only to land into the gas tank of a Tundra to be burnt to the tune of what, 15mpg???? :lol:
     
  9. Pinto Girl

    Pinto Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    3,093
    349
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 9 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]438390[/snapback]</div>
    Mr. Squid, don't get your tentacles in a knot. I think you're giving marketing a bit too much power. You're clearly aware of the truth underlying Toyota's advertising claims; what makes you think that others aren't as well?

    ----

    Regarding the subject of this thread, I think the problem is that medium and heavy duty trucks are included in the 35mpg overall figure. This does sound a bit too strict, and I'm not terribly surprised that it's an issue.

    I do think there should be a different set of standards for dedicated work vehicles/industrial applications.

    I believe that the real problem is, manufacturers are not being realistic about the intended purpose of certain vehicles, and haven't been for decades. Just 'cause an Excursion is based on a truck chassis doesn't mean it's going to be marketed at the same consumers, or used in the same environments or in the same ways.

    Currently, the gross weight determines whether a vehicle must conform to passenger car standards...when really we need more selective standards to determine what makes a 'work' vehicle and what makes a 'family' vehicle in the first place.

    Perhaps a bit more refinement of the verbage of the proposed legislation might be required...? I wouldn't necessarily condemn Toyota or any manufacturer, based only upon the meager details provided in the article.

    Also, without higher fuel prices/usage taxes, it'll be difficult to implement such drastic changes to the product mix. You can't force this to happen from one side only...people need to want/be 'encouraged' to want higher mileage cars...and pay for them if necessary.

    As it is now, I'm guessing that folks won't want to buy high-mpg cars to begin with (unless the low mpg ones are intentionally priced higher...but, since there's a bigger profit margin on larger cars and especially trucks, no manufacturer would ever want to do this, without some 'encouragement' on the other side --from higher gas prices or other fees-- that would alter consumer behaviour). I mean, take a look at the current situation!
     
  10. burritos

    burritos Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    4,946
    252
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 9 2007, 11:51 AM) [snapback]438321[/snapback]</div>
    I think that people should be able to buy a car that gets less than 35mpg. Just add a $1000 tax for every MPG less than 35 mpg for the first 5 mpg, then $2000 tax for the next 5mpg then $3000 for the next 5mpg and so forth. Use tax dollars to fund clean energy initiatives. This way you won't be just paying for the materials of that car, you'll be paying for the extra pollution in emits. So, for a car that gets 25 mpg, you'll have to pay a $15,000 tax premium. If you're hummer that gets 12 mpg, you have to pay $65,000 premium incentive. If you can afford it, then knock yourself out.
     
  11. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 9 2007, 05:48 PM) [snapback]438568[/snapback]</div>
    This brings up a tangental thought I had the other night...

    First off, I would be tempted to say, at least half, if not more, of folks who own trucks, RARELY use them to their true/full capacity. As was my case. I loved my truck because of the ample space it provided, as I'm 6' and 220lbs. The ability to haul XXXX pounds was simply an added bonus for which I ended up taking advantage of, oh, maybe twice in 2 years? I think people are "in" it for size and interior room far more than tow capacity. IF that's the case, then why not lauch a truck line with fuel efficient 4 cylinder engines? I don't need a 0 to 60 time of x.xx seconds, nor would I care if the thing couldn't go faster than 80...

    Case in point, this dude at work just pitched out for a brand new Yukon. He's like 6' 6" 300+ lbs. (ex pro ball player). All he cares about are the big leather seats, and interior room. I really don't think we need an 8 cylinder, 300hp engine to move him around....
     
  12. darelldd

    darelldd Prius is our Gas Guzzler

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    6,057
    382
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ May 9 2007, 10:06 AM) [snapback]438342[/snapback]</div>
    I'm thinking that this is *almost* as helpful as those who say the same about GM. And I suppose that's your point. Can I stipulate that we get your point so you don't have to bother typing it so much?
     
  13. Jonnycat26

    Jonnycat26 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    1,748
    1
    0
    Location:
    New Brunswick, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 9 2007, 06:22 PM) [snapback]438592[/snapback]</div>
    Yeah, that won't fly...

    You have to have exceptions. For example, the pickup truck market is heavily tied to the housing market. When house sales are booming, pickup sales go up. The construction people who use pickups generally beat the hell out of them, and I suspect the turnover rate is pretty high. If you're going to tax a HD pickup with 60K 'pollution tax', you're going to see house costs rise to cover that. In the end, everyone gets screwed.

    That also won't fly you're talking about extra pollution, but taxing on MPG. Pick one or the other. :)
     
  14. darelldd

    darelldd Prius is our Gas Guzzler

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    6,057
    382
    0
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 9 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]438607[/snapback]</div>
    Or... why does a roomy vehicle need to be truck-shaped. How about just a larger sedan that is more aerodynamic? I'm afriad that it is the "truck look" that attracts many buyers who ALSO want the big cushy seating area.
     
  15. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 9 2007, 03:22 PM) [snapback]438592[/snapback]</div>
    Not bad. Also, a tax on gas that sets a minimum (floor) price and is used exclusively to fund alternative energy / energy independence.

    And, FEEBATES sound like a great idea to me:

    "For each class of car and light truck, a feebate mechanism is used to reward buyers of vehicles that are more fuel efficient than the average vehicle in that class and penalize buyers of less fuel efficient vehicles. This feebate is revenue-neutral, meaning that the amount of money collected through fees (surcharges) equals the amount paid out in rebates."
     
  16. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,064
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ May 9 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]438621[/snapback]</div>

    That is why I bought my GMC. The truck look mostly. There is also a huge market for making trucks go fast! LOL

    Jim's low 10sec truck (old video)
     
  17. Pinto Girl

    Pinto Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    3,093
    349
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 9 2007, 05:42 PM) [snapback]438607[/snapback]</div>
    Actually, I think you were closer when you mentioned the reasons why you drove a truck...it's more about feeling that, in a truck, one always has "more than enough."

    More than enough power, room, towing capacity, go-anywhere capability, safety, status, even aggressiveness...I think the folks who drive trucks as luxury vehicles drive them so they (ideally) can feel like they don't ever have to max them out, or come anywhere close.

    This is, actually, similar to what 'luxury' has become, to many of us today: absolute abundance...the freedom to do whatever one wants, whenever one wants...and, all along, never appearing to work hard to accomplish any of it.

    The folks who actually use these vehicles for work, on the other hand, would probably (hopefully, at any rate) not want to pay extra for excess capability which they'll never use.

    I'm hoping that, one day, luxury will be redefined (but I'm not holding my breath!)
     
  18. Mystery Squid

    Mystery Squid Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    2
    3
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 9 2007, 08:17 PM) [snapback]438672[/snapback]</div>
    So what the heck is wrong with this?

    Working "hard" is simply a more socially acceptable mechanism to make us all feel a little better when we see a 16 year old driving a Ferrari...

    ...is someone really "better", or even more "worthwhile" than someone else if they've simply worked "harder"?

    ...and let's hear what YOU think luxury should be... (hint: functioning toilet is NOT an answer) :D
     
  19. hycamguy07

    hycamguy07 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    2,707
    2
    0
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ May 9 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]438621[/snapback]</div>
    I guess they (auto makers) could resort to the ol "Elcamino" style truck for those who like the driving ability of a car but can haul stuff like a truck.
    [​IMG]

    I know dodge made the front wheel drive rampage, but you couldnt tow anything real heavy...
    it was based on the K car platform.. :rolleyes:

    Ford had the ranchero, but they discontinued it after 1979.
    [​IMG]

    Mallorn would be the most informed as to why they phased this vehicle out...... ;) :mellow:
     
  20. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    4
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ May 10 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]439126[/snapback]</div>
    I wonder what a Prius "El Camino" would look like? Maybe someone with Photoshop and some free time might take a crack at it? :)

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ May 10 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]439126[/snapback]</div>
    I remember reading a review of the "K-cars" in one of the car magazines- the title was "The 'K' stands for Krap"! :lol:
     
Loading...