Trump Thinks Your Car’s Gas Mileage is . . .Your Business . . .

[Anti Federalist]

And there is technology that will deliver stunning mileage, far above what the best hybrid can: small diesels.

But they have to be able to burn real diesel fuel, not this sludge that government demands we use now, nor festooned with so many emissions gadgets that nothing but unicorn farts come out of the exhaust.

Economy rally drivers achieved 90 MPG in a diesel powered Ford Focus, and that was five years ago.

My VW Jetta, that Uncle Sucker demanded be scrapped, got 50+ on the highway.



Trump Thinks Your Car’s Gas Mileage is . . .Your Business . . .

http://ericpetersautos.com/2017/03/16/trump-thinks-cars-gas-mileage-business/#comment-660770

By eric - March 16, 2017

The Clovers are aghast that Trump is threatening to do the unimaginable – and stop threatening the car companies with federal fuel economy fatwas (and add-on fatwas forbidding or restricting how much plant food – carbon dioxide – cars may emit).

He appears to be entertaining the horrible idea that the people who buy cars ought to be free to decide for themselves how much fuel economy matters to them – since they will be the ones paying for both the car and the gas. And – oh my god! – that this is really none of the business of the “concerned” scientists and other professional busybodies who regard their opinions and preferences as holy writ enforceable at gunpoint.

“We’re going to work on the CAFE standards so you can make cars in America again,” said Trump. He should have added the qualifier – affordable cars in America again.

Leaving aside the moral issue – who are these people to tell anyone whether their next car should get 10 MPG or 40 MPG? – the issue never addressed by the media, including the automotive media, is how much will all this cost us?

Obama’s mullahs ululated about the many billions (allegedly) which would be “saved” by force-marching every automaker to build cars that average 54.5 MPG. It is the sort of “savings” one realizes by emptying your bank account to buy something you don’t need that’s 5 percent off.

Only worse, because you’re not given the option to keep your money in the bank.

A week or so ago, executives from the major automakers came to the White House to explain to Donald – who probably already grokked it – that to get a single car to average 54.5 MPG requires more than merely ululating that it will be so. A new Prius hybrid almost manages it – and the hybrid Prius costs several thousand dollars more than an otherwise similar but not 54.5 MPG non-hybrid car.

And to get every car made to average 54.5 MPG – which is what Obama’s EPA ululated in the last weeks of his regime – won’t magically just happen, either – even if the entire regulatory Mecca ululates in unison for a week straight.

In the first place, it requires technology – and new designs. These generally involve work and resources, which cost money. New components don’t generally rain from Allah’s merciful bounty, upon ululation.

The executives pointed this out to Trump – who almost certainly grokked it beforehand, since he appears to be a man who probably knows where the dipstick is under the hood of a car and also what it’s for.

It is doubtful Obama knew – or did.

Or cared.

The current CAFE fatwa is 35.5 MPG and to achieve this without going hybrid across the board has required some very elaborate – some very expensive – technology. Two specific examples: Direct injection and transmissions with eight, nine and lately ten forward speeds.

These are coming online (the new Ford F-150 pick-up, reviewed here, has a ten-speed automatic and probably two-thirds of all new vehicles are already direct-injected) because of the existing CAFE fatwa.

But they offer no particular advantage to the buyer, in terms of how the car drives or performs. Indeed, cars with these too-many-speeds automatics often have strange driving characteristics. I can vouch for this; I test drive and review new cars each week.

For instance, the sensation that the car is surging forward (it is) when the transmission skips up three or four gears on a downhill because the computer is desperate to get the transmission into the top overdrive gear as quickly as possible in order to cut engine revs to the minimum in order to squeeze out a teensy uptick in MPGs, for the sake of CAFE.

Direct injection, meanwhile, has supplanted port fuel injection (PFI) with a two-stage system that operates at extreme pressure (3,000 psi vs. 35 or so psi) and which has created a carbon deposit problem inside the engine. In engines fed fuel via PFI or TBI or even a carburetor, the fuel washes over the backsides of the valves as it enters the combustion chamber – and because gas is a solvent, that action keeps the valves from crudding up. But in a DI system, the fuel is sprayed through a hole inside the combustion chamber and there is no solvent effect.

And so, crud forms.

To fix this problem the automakers are adding a separate, additional port-fuel circuit to keep the valves clean. So now you car will have two fuel injection systems – and multiple fuel pumps rather than just one.

It is not free.

What would it take to get all cars to average 54.5 MPG?

Keep in mind that not a single non-hybrid/non-electric new car comes close to that. Obama’s fatwa was in a way an ululation demanding that most if not all cars be hybrids or electric cars – because that is probably the only way to get to a “fleet average” (CAFE terminology) of 54.5 MPG absent the discovery of miracle technologies such as Roswell Crash-style ultra-light metal that is also ultra strong (so that other fatwas regarding “safety” can also be complied with).

This brings us back to the moral issue: Why is how much or little fuel our cars use anyone else’s business, since we pay for the car and the fuel? If gas “costs too much,” we can buy a different car that uses less.

And there is another issue, very obvious, but – like the cost of the fatwas – never asked or discussed:

If the market is so “concerned” about fuel economy – as the various scientists, “public citizens” and other such self-appointed voxxers of the populi claim, why not allow the market to apply the pressure?

Can’t have that. Pressure must come from above.

It doesn’t matter that there are already cars available that were designed to deliver much higher-than-average mileage – the Prius, for instance – which people are free to pay for if that is their priority. What the various “concerned” and the mullahs within the EPA and federal apparat are really concerned about is that people can choose not to buy such. That they are free to buy something else.

For the ululators, everyone must buy the same thing – the thing the ululators insist they buy. Or else.

Always, collectivism and coercion.

Never free choice, liberty – the market.

It’s worth recalling that the literal translation of laissez-faire is… leave us alone.

Exactly.

Good on Donald. He appears to grok.

[tod evans]

Good news!

[specsaregood]

why don't you tweet dear leader and suggest he allow us to import those diesels you love so much? Oh and suggest hiluxes while you are at it.

[angelatc]

What the various “concerned” and the mullahs within the EPA and federal apparat are really concerned about is that people can choose not to buy such. That they are free to buy something else.

Yep. Health care too.

Back to cars. I wish he would roll back the safety standards too.

[Anti Federalist]

why don't you tweet dear leader and suggest he allow us to import those diesels you love so much? Oh and suggest hiluxes while you are at it.

I would if I used Twatter.

I think Mrs. AF has an account.

Sorry if I appear to harp on that issue, but my ass is still chapped over that whole VW diesel fiasco, even though I came out pretty good personally.

Randal seems to have his ear, maybe I could get Teh Collinz to reach out to him.

[specsaregood]

I would if I used Twatter.

I think Mrs. AF has an account.

Sorry if I appear to harp on that issue, but my ass is still chapped over that whole VW diesel fiasco, even though I came out pretty good personally.

Randal seems to have his ear, maybe I could get Teh Collinz to reach out to him.

I definitely don't mind the harping. Get Mrs. AF to go twat at dear leader, list some cars you'd like to import. don't forget the hilux.

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.toyota.com.au/hilux/~/media/toyota/vehicles/hilux-ng/images/features/exterior/hilux-exterior-overview.jpg?w=400&hash=3F7A1A80148314C5C255AECBF81BE9BADD8444FF

30 MPG turbo diesel midsize truck.

Can't have it here, because Uncle.

[Anti Federalist]

I definitely don't mind the harping. Get Mrs. AF to go twat at dear leader, list some cars you'd like to import. don't forget the hilux.

Import or better yet, build them here.

Imagine how many people would get put to work if Toyota starting building Hiluxes for the US market in Kentucky.

MAGA ;)

[Jamesiv1]

yep. that would be some MAGA everyone would celebrate.... Getting America to Make Great Cars Again©

[tod evans]

yep. that would be some MAGA everyone would celebrate.... Getting America to Make Great Cars Again©


Yenko rebirth!



http://roa.h-cdn.co/assets/14/51/980x490/landscape_nrm_1418911685-11.jpg

http://image.superchevy.com/f/16157149+w640+h640+q80+re0+cr1+st0/sucp_0903_02_z%2B1969_yenko_camaro%2Brear_view.jpg

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Good post. Eric Peters has been on top of the over-regulation of the car industry for decades.

[phill4paul]

I want my HiLux!

[opal]

oooo.. maybe they'll bring back a real land yacht station wagon.. none of this short, narrow, 4 or 5 seat garbage that they say is a station wagon.
jmho, if you can't put a 4x8 sheet of plywood, in the back, BETWEEN the wheel wells (not tipped up on one of them) it's a station wagonette

[tod evans]

oooo.. maybe they'll bring back a real land yacht station wagon.. none of this short, narrow, 4 or 5 seat garbage that they say is a station wagon.
jmho, if you can't put a 4x8 sheet of plywood, in the back, BETWEEN the wheel wells (not tipped up on one of them) it's a station wagonette

With a V-8 and a carburetor!

[opal]

With a V-8 and a carburetor!

and a front bench seat

[tod evans]

I want my HiLux!

I'd rather have a non-smog Cummins with a cast iron transfer case and full floating axles.....

[Anti Federalist]

oooo.. maybe they'll bring back a real land yacht station wagon.. none of this short, narrow, 4 or 5 seat garbage that they say is a station wagon.
jmho, if you can't put a 4x8 sheet of plywood, in the back, BETWEEN the wheel wells (not tipped up on one of them) it's a station wagonette

It may very well do just that.

It was EPA/CAFE fatwas that killed the station wagon, since at the the time, light trucks and what were to become SUVs did not have to comply.

[tod evans]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6WbL31h9E8

[Anti Federalist]

http://roa.h-cdn.co/assets/16/07/1600x800/gallery-1455806078-volvo-v90-front-quarter.jpg

Volvo diesel wagon that you cannot get here, because Uncle.

[Anti Federalist]

Cutting the EPA’s Budget Could Save American Consumers and Businesses Hundred of Billions of Dollars

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/16/6317877/

by John Carney16 Mar 2017770

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

While President Donald Trump’s proposed budget cuts just $2.6 billion from the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency, the benefits for the American economy will likely be much larger.

The biggest economic benefits from Trump’s EPA budget would come from the complete elimination of funding for implementing the “Clean Power Plan,” the Obama administration’s scheme to cut carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity generating sector. The plan would have cost consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in increased energy costs and inflicted even further damage on America’s coal mining sector.

Estimates of the costs of the Clean Power Plan vary, with the EPA itself claiming it would cost virtually nothing while industry estimates say it would cost consumers as much as $214 billion in higher energy costs by 2030. Energy Ventures Analysis, a consultant group that receives much of its income from the energy industry, has said that replacing otherwise perfectly good electricity generating capacity with Clean Power Plan compliant capacity would cost as much as $64 billion.

But even if the costs are smaller, stopping the Clean Power Plan will mean consumers have more money to spend, save and invest in America’s growing economy. And billions of dollars that would have gone to replace existing power generating facilities, can be invested in expansionary economic activity.

Defunding the Clean Power Plan puts into action the idea of “deconstructing the administrative state.” The Clean Power Plan’s demands for a radical reshaping of America’s power industry weren’t included in any legislation passed by Congress or signed by the President. They were the creation of career bureaucrats and Obama administration political appointees.

The Supreme Court went so far as to issue a stay of the plan pending judicial review, blocking the EPA from implementing the scheme pending judicial review. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments over challenges to the plan in September of 2016.

Cutting the EPA staff by 20% may also benefit the American economy if it forces the EPA to backdown from its aggressive regulatory and enforcement agenda. Last year, The American Action Forum, a center-right policy Institute, estimated that EPA now imposes nearly 200 million hours of paperwork to comply with its regulations. It estimated that it would take more than 94,000 employees working full-time to complete one year of EPA paperwork.

“The agency’s burden has surged 23 percent since 2009 and 34 percent since 2002,” the American Action Forum reported.

[opal]

http://roa.h-cdn.co/assets/16/07/1600x800/gallery-1455806078-volvo-v90-front-quarter.jpg

Volvo diesel wagon that you cannot get here, because Uncle.

nope.. glorified hatchback.. not a station wagon

[Anti Federalist]

California Clovers Temper-Tantruming

www.epautos.com

By eric - March 16, 2017

Automakers hailed President Donald Trump’s call on Wednesday for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review and possibly dial back car fuel efficiency standards.

But California Clovers see things differently.

California plans to move ahead with tougher car pollution rules for 2022-2025, which President Barack Obama hastily approved before Trump took office. California regulators are expected to finalize the rules at a March 23-24 meeting.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a climate change skeptic, said his agency will review the federal rules and is widely expected to loosen them.

Meanwhile industry group Auto Alliance has sued the EPA to overturn its rules, which automakers says are expensive and could cost Americans jobs. California’s attorney general has asked the court to let the state defend the Obama regulations.

Currently, the nation has a single set of standards automakers must meet when manufacturing vehicles. The clash between California and the Trump administration could lead to one set of standards in California and at least a dozen other states and another standard in the rest of the country, increasing costs for car makers and headaches for consumers.

“We are not backing down,” said Hector De La Torre, a member of the California Air Resources Board, which sets policy that more than a dozen other states follow in full or part. Reuters spoke to a majority of board members, who all voiced support for the original plan worked out by the federal government, carmakers and California during Obama’s presidency.

That plan includes stricter tailpipe emissions targets and a California mandate for zero-emissions cars.

Uber Clover California Gov. Jerry Brown has promised to lead the fight to stop Trump from weakening environmental rules, a stance echoed by Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols.

“We intend to stick by the commitments that we made. If for some reason the federal government and the industry decide to abandon those agreements that we all reached, we will have to re-examine our options,” she said in an interview. “If the issue is are they going to relax the standards, then we would vehemently oppose that.”

Federal law prohibits states from setting their own vehicle emissions rules, except for California, which can seek waivers to federal policy under the Clean Air Act.

California has a waiver for the plan through 2025, although its targets are the same as federal ones and it does not require separate compliance from automakers.

If the EPA relaxes its own rules, that could change. California may hold automakers to the original targets by beginning to enforce its rules independently. It is not clear whether that technical decision would require an additional waiver from the Trump administration.

Another Clover, Natural Resources Defense Council vehicle analyst Simon Mui argued it would not. “California doesn’t need a permission slip to stick with the standards it has on the books,” he said.

Automakers desperately want to continue with a national policy to avoid making different cars for different states. Oil refineries already face challenges in California because they say the state has the strictest environmental rules in the U.S., requiring special blends of gasoline to reduce pollution.

In a battle with California, the federal government could try to change the Clean Air Act to end regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, or it could try to revoke California’s permission to enforce the current car pollution program.

Both approaches could be difficult, and a Trump administration official speaking on condition of anonymity, said the president was not seeking to revoke California’s authority at this time, but would not rule out such a move in the future.

[Anti Federalist]

nope.. glorified hatchback.. not a station wagon

Yup...as close as you can get now.

These were the last, gone twenty years now, and highly sought after for customizing:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1996-Buick-Roadmaster.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Chevrolet_Caprice_wagon_rear_--_08-12-2010.jpg

[phill4paul]

California Clovers Temper-Tantruming

www.epautos.com

By eric - March 16, 2017

Automakers hailed President Donald Trump’s call on Wednesday for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review and possibly dial back car fuel efficiency standards.

But California Clovers see things differently.

California plans to move ahead with tougher car pollution rules for 2022-2025, which President Barack Obama hastily approved before Trump took office. California regulators are expected to finalize the rules at a March 23-24 meeting.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a climate change skeptic, said his agency will review the federal rules and is widely expected to loosen them.

Meanwhile industry group Auto Alliance has sued the EPA to overturn its rules, which automakers says are expensive and could cost Americans jobs. California’s attorney general has asked the court to let the state defend the Obama regulations.

Currently, the nation has a single set of standards automakers must meet when manufacturing vehicles. The clash between California and the Trump administration could lead to one set of standards in California and at least a dozen other states and another standard in the rest of the country, increasing costs for car makers and headaches for consumers.

“We are not backing down,” said Hector De La Torre, a member of the California Air Resources Board, which sets policy that more than a dozen other states follow in full or part. Reuters spoke to a majority of board members, who all voiced support for the original plan worked out by the federal government, carmakers and California during Obama’s presidency.

That plan includes stricter tailpipe emissions targets and a California mandate for zero-emissions cars.

Uber Clover California Gov. Jerry Brown has promised to lead the fight to stop Trump from weakening environmental rules, a stance echoed by Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols.

“We intend to stick by the commitments that we made. If for some reason the federal government and the industry decide to abandon those agreements that we all reached, we will have to re-examine our options,” she said in an interview. “If the issue is are they going to relax the standards, then we would vehemently oppose that.”

Federal law prohibits states from setting their own vehicle emissions rules, except for California, which can seek waivers to federal policy under the Clean Air Act.

California has a waiver for the plan through 2025, although its targets are the same as federal ones and it does not require separate compliance from automakers.

If the EPA relaxes its own rules, that could change. California may hold automakers to the original targets by beginning to enforce its rules independently. It is not clear whether that technical decision would require an additional waiver from the Trump administration.

Another Clover, Natural Resources Defense Council vehicle analyst Simon Mui argued it would not. “California doesn’t need a permission slip to stick with the standards it has on the books,” he said.

Automakers desperately want to continue with a national policy to avoid making different cars for different states. Oil refineries already face challenges in California because they say the state has the strictest environmental rules in the U.S., requiring special blends of gasoline to reduce pollution.

In a battle with California, the federal government could try to change the Clean Air Act to end regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, or it could try to revoke California’s permission to enforce the current car pollution program.

Both approaches could be difficult, and a Trump administration official speaking on condition of anonymity, said the president was not seeking to revoke California’s authority at this time, but would not rule out such a move in the future.

If the Fed/ Gov would just shit can their regulations and allow car companies to build what the majority want then, eventually, Cali would have to come along when all their vehicles are, say, 20 yrs. old.

[Mordan]

diesel are dirty though. in a city fine particules are really bad.

diesel engines are forbidden in Japan, except for real Trucks.

[phill4paul]

diesel are dirty though. in a city fine particules are really bad.

diesel engines are forbidden in Japan, except for real Trucks.

Your ignorance of diesel is only surmounted by your ignorance of liberty principles.

[tod evans]

diesel are dirty though. in a city fine particules are really bad.

diesel engines are forbidden in Japan, except for real Trucks.

Or good.............Depending on your point of view.

[Mordan]

Your ignorance of diesel is only surmounted by your ignorance of liberty principles.

the noise of a diesel engine is against my god given liberty to consume the sweet sounds of nature.

like the barking dogs of disrespectful neighbors are going to be regulated out of existence.

[Swordsmyth]

the noise of a diesel engine is against my god given liberty to consume the sweet sounds of nature.

like the barking dogs of disrespectful neighbors are going to be regulated out of existence.

And another Subjective, Self-centered, Liberal Tyrant exposes himself.

[Mordan]

And another Subjective, Self-centered, Liberal Tyrant exposes himself.

I am who I am. I came to hate dogs because they bark all the time preventing me from using my mind. Can't read, can't program, can't sleep. A guy sued a dog owner for 500k dollars. He won because the dog owner didn't show up at the court.

[phill4paul]

I came to hate dogs because they bark all the time preventing me from using my mind.

That explains it.

[jmdrake]

This belongs here. Inner city public school builds experimental diesel hybrids that get 100 MPG.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/fast-times-at-west-philly-high/

[tod evans]

This belongs here. Inner city public school builds experimental diesel hybrids that get 100 MPG.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/fast-times-at-west-philly-high/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZo7gXxBm-k

[tod evans]

Speaking of HS kids;


High school kids build killer S-10 drag truck in shop class

http://www.autoblog.com/2017/03/09/high-school-kids-build-killer-s-10-drag-truck-in-shop-class/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=hIFz0sHZK8Y


You guys know the Farm Truck, right? The clapped out Chevy C10 drag monster out of Oklahoma that is the sleepiest sleeper that ever tore up a drag strip? Well, a pack of high school kids and their shop teacher recently unveiled their loving homage to the venerable old Farm Truck, and it's an absolute beast.

There's precious little hard information out there on the truck's build, but going from this video it seems pretty solid. Using a first generation Chevy S-10 as their starting point, the shop kids dropped in an LS with factory EFI and an MSD ignition system. To add some extra punch they plumbed the LS for nitrous and dialed it all the way up to a 400-shot. The truck is tubbed and sports some really nice wheels and extremely meaty slicks to get all that power down to the ground. To finish it all off, they sprayed it with a nice looking two-tone orange and cream paint job and slapped a shorty cap on the bed in a final nod to their inspiration.

The kids took the Farm Mod, yet another nod to Farm Truck, out for a day of racing recently and it definitely made an impression. Sadly, much like the lack of build info, we don't have anything on what kind of times the truck was running that day. What we do know is that it sounded great, looked relatively quick, and pulled the front end off the ground at launch, which is more than I can say for any vehicle I currently own.

[Anti Federalist]

the noise of a diesel engine is against my god given liberty to consume the sweet sounds of nature.

like the barking dogs of disrespectful neighbors are going to be regulated out of existence.

Wait until someone sues you for being annoying.

[Dr.3D]

and a front bench seat
I miss the triangular vent windows that could be adjusted to blow air at the passengers.

[Dr.3D]

I am who I am. I came to hate dogs because they bark all the time preventing me from using my mind. Can't read, can't program, can't sleep. A guy sued a dog owner for 500k dollars. He won because the dog owner didn't show up at the court.

It's a wonder the dog owner didn't borrow a backhoe and people would still be wondering where the guy who was suing went.

[tod evans]

I miss the triangular vent windows that could be adjusted to blow air at the passengers.

Got 'em in my '56....:cool:

[opal]

I miss the triangular vent windows that could be adjusted to blow air at the passengers.

we called those butterfly windows and yes, I miss those too. The last car I had with them was.. either the '77 volare wagon (slant 6) or my little Plymouth horizon hatchback with the 2 x 6 for a front bumper. I don't remember what year that one was... it was still better than what passes for a wagon these days

[merkelstan]

weaponized anti-diesel laws were used to destroy VW

also the emissions standards mean the diesels are spewing much smaller particles, so small they penetrate cell walls and have carcinogenic effects

[Anti Federalist]

My 93 F150 has butterfly windows. No AC, I use 'em all the time.

[Mordan]

weaponized anti-diesel laws were used to destroy VW

also the emissions standards mean the diesels are spewing much smaller particles, so small they penetrate cell walls and have carcinogenic effects

I agree. And then what? I drive LPG. Cleanest oil based fuel. Pleasure of a real engine.

[Mordan]

It's a wonder the dog owner didn't borrow a backhoe and people would still be wondering where the guy who was suing went.


SEATTLE, WA --
A family in Seattle may have to pay more than $500,000 because their neighbor sued them over their barking dog, and won.

In the sprawling 36-page complaint obtained by ABC affiliate KOMO-TV, Norton's neighbor Woodrow Thompson claimed Denise Norton's dog named Cawper is known for "raucously, wildly bellowing, howling and explosively barking." The lawsuit called the dog an outrage, with intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claimed the dog's barking caused "profound emotional distress."

The suit claims the dog's barks and howls were as loud as 128 decibels through double pane windows. Research from Purdue University says that would make Cawper louder than a chainsaw and a clap of thunder. The dog would also almost be nearly as loud as the takeoff of a military jet.


http://abc13.com/pets/family-loses-$500000-lawsuit-over-barking-dog/511454/