Quote:The Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that all new cars that aren’t electric must average 55 miles per gallon by 2026.

This amounts to a Great Leap Forward of almost 20 miles per gallon from the currently ordered 36 miles per gallon that all new cars must achieve, else their manufacturers be punished for making them via “gas guzzler” fines applied to them.

Which are then passed on to the people who buy them. Which makes it progressively more difficult to afford them.

That being the point of the fines, you understand.

The Biden administration considers it their right and duty to punish you for buying the car you want if it doesn’t do what they like.

The free market being an intolerable affront to them. Can’t have supply and demand determined by … supply and demand. That would be even worse a thing than free association.

The administration will say they are “saving you money on gas” via their “rules.” Which is true in the same way that “ruling” you must live in a small apartment in the city “saves” you the bother of having to cut a lawn. They do not say anything about the cost of the apartment — including the diminishment of your personal space — and your control over it.

Nor, of course, do they say anything about using “rules” to make you pay more for what you don’t want. An affront which brings us to the following fact:

Right now, only two new (2022 model year) cars meet the new “rule” — just barely. They are the Toyota Prius and the Hyundai Ioniq.

Both are partially electric cars (i.e., hybrids) and also small cars designed to be primarily economical cars. They are not bad cars. Indeed, they have their merits — chief among them their ability to average about 55 miles per gallon. But they are not cars most people want — or else you’d already see most people driving them.

Italics to make the point.

Why then aren’t most people driving them — assuming (as the Biden administration insists) that “saving gas” is the most important consideration motivating car buyers? The answer, of course, is that it isn’t — even though Biden has caused the cost of gas to almost double in less than 12 months.

Small hybrids are wonderful — as commuter cars and cars for single people and even small (emphasis on small) families. They are inadequate for large families and the bottom line fact is that many — most people — do not want to drive a small hybrid car, even if it does average 55 miles per gallon.

They prefer to drive some other kind of car. More precisely, a crossover or an SUV, or a pick-up, the three most popular kinds of vehicles — by far. None of which averages 55 miles per gallon.

There isn’t a single car — without batteries and motors — that meets this standard or comes even close to averaging it.

A few non-hybrid medium-small cars manage just slightly more than 40 miles per gallon … on the highway.

They average much less.

Consider what that implies about the purpose of this New Rule.

All of those other kinds of cars are to be “ruled” off the market, by positing a “rule” which they cannot “comply” with. There are hard deck limits to what is possible, in terms of physical facts, in terms of engineering. In terms of cost — and the ability of people to absorb it.

It’s not possible — as a purely technical matter — to build a car, crossover, SUV, or pick-up that averages 55 miles per gallon without converting it into at least a partially electric car, crossover, SUV, or pick-up. And even then, it will be exceptionally difficult and very expensive, both in terms of the cost of the technology necessary (adding hybrid components adds thousands to the cost of the vehicle) and the cost of the compromises that will be necessary, such as diminishment of size and capabilities. (RELATED: The Future of Electric Vehicles Is Highly Flammable)

Well then, just buy an entirely electric car!

Like the new GM Hummer. It’s only $112k to start.

This being the ultimate point of the new “rule.” Which is to say, to make non-electric and even partially electric vehicles at least as expensive as electric cars … but without the charms of electric cars.

A “ruled” role reversal is underway.

Non-electric cars will get progressively weaker (note the trend toward micro-sized engines, even in $50k-plus luxury cars) while becoming more expensive and complex (hybrid drivetrains, nine-ten speed transmissions, multiple turbos applied to smaller, and smaller engines, rendering them less and less likely to last much longer than the warranty coverage) and so less desirable.

Kind of like electric cars would be … in a free market.

And so, by four years from now, it is likely there will be not much left that isn’t at least partially electric — and much more expensive, regardless.

The point of that being to drive all cars off the market — or at least, out of the reach of almost all people. Some will say this isn’t so. I ask them to say how most people will be able to continue buying cars when the average cost of a car sails to $30,000-plus for the handful of partially electric (hybrid) cars still available by then to $40,000-plus for the electric cars which our rulers are determined to force onto the “market” even before then?

“We are setting robust and rigorous standards that will aggressively reduce the pollution that is harming people and our planet — and save families money at the same time,” says EPA Thing Michael Regan.

Saves?

This isn’t about “saving gas” or reducing gas — i.e., the production of carbon dioxide, the new excuse for the “rules” from on high.

How does an electric car with 1,000-plus pounds of caustic materials that require massive energy inputs to manufacture and which requires massive — and nonexistent — energy capacity to support save — or even reduce — anything?

Well, except new car ownership.

The point of the thing, you see.

Link

[quote='CrimsonPhantom' pid='17969054' dateline='1640299084']

Quote:This amounts to a Great Leap Forward of almost 20 miles per gallon from the currently ordered 36 miles per gallon that all new cars must achieve, else their manufacturers be punished for making them via “gas guzzler” fines applied to them.

Just bought a new Ranger that gets 24 on the highway

I might take my retirement money and buy 25-30 new pickup trucks in 2025 and store them in a warehouse. I could sell one a year and live comfortably. It’s damn hard to pull a cattle trailer with a Prius.

Also, what about boats? My bass boat gets about 3 mpg? Those getting outlawed? What about rich guy yachts that burn x gallons per hour? What about private planes? Shouldn’t those be nixed?

Insane

Im for electric because of the tech and other benefits like the incredible acceleration .

The left is trying to separate the haves even further as well as trying to force people into their shithole slum cities.

It.wont.work.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I wonder what does NASCAR has to say about this?

(12-23-2021 08:36 PM)banker Wrote:  I might take my retirement money and buy 25-30 new pickup trucks in 2025 and store them in a warehouse. I could sell one a year and live comfortably. It’s damn hard to pull a cattle trailer with a Prius.

Also, what about boats? My bass boat gets about 3 mpg? Those getting outlawed? What about rich guy yachts that burn x gallons per hour? What about private planes? Shouldn’t those be nixed?

All the rich people toys will get a carve out for sure. Rules only apply to plebs.

I presuming this rule applies only to passenger vehicles. No way in hell are you going to get that kind of mph in a utility vehicle or truck. The weight, size and drag make that virtually impossible. It would be great if the automakers can achieve such performance in passenger vehicles..but..I think that would basically turn the market into 4 cylinder coupes and eliminate larger sedans. I cant see larger sedans getting 55 mph due to the weight issue.

Im perfectly fine and would applaud the automakers for using technology to increase mph in all vehicles. However...I oppose the government intrusion into this on all fronts.

Garbage

(12-24-2021 12:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I presuming this rule applies only to passenger vehicles. No way in hell are you going to get that kind of mph in a utility vehicle or truck. The weight, size and drag make that virtually impossible. It would be great if the automakers can achieve such performance in passenger vehicles..but..I think that would basically turn the market into 4 cylinder coupes and eliminate larger sedans. I cant see larger sedans getting 55 mph due to the weight issue.

Im perfectly fine and would applaud the automakers for using technology to increase mph in all vehicles. However...I oppose the government intrusion into this on all fronts.

Yeah there is no way this would apply to trucking or any other kind of commercial vehicle.

I have Chevy 2500 vans and we drag trailers around almost every day. We get 8-10mpg when hauling those and 15-16 when we aren’t. Isn’t possible to drag around our heavy equipment with a 6 cylinder, much less a 4.

I own a gasoline engine car mass-produced in 1993 that already gets over 55mpg with a 450mile range on a single tank of unleaded (8 gallons). Car has driven on original engine near half a million miles, seats 4 comfortably and has plenty of extra hauling room/trunk space. The technology to do this with gas-powered vehicles has existed for over thirty years WITHOUT having to resort to environmentally polluting batteries and all the environmentally irresponsible so-called "electric vehicle" ethos (which receive most of their electricity form the same carbon fuel sources that they are allegedly supposed to be foregoing.) Electric vehicles are predominantly a lie perpetrated upon the ignorant and weak-minded for control purposes of the obtuse.

(12-23-2021 08:55 PM)maximus Wrote:  Insane

Im for electric because of the tech and other benefits like the incredible acceleration .

The left is trying to separate the haves even further as well as trying to force people into their shithole slum cities.

It.wont.work.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

But the Left is for the poor... Riiiight?