• mss627 avatar mss627 Posted: 7/2/2011 2:23pm PDT

    I don't know why anybody with half a brain would be against more fuel efficient vehicles. Thirty years ago I drove a 1978 VW Scirrocco. It had a 120 horsepower 1.6 liter V4 that got about 40 mpg highway. It was considered a sports car. Americans have become drunk with horsepower over the last 20 years. Maybe it's because our waist sizes have increased so much that it take 300 horses to haul our fat asses around. This insanity has got to stop.

  • Cfthelin avatar Cfthelin Posted: 7/1/2011 1:25pm PDT

    I worked at CU almost 10 years leaving in 1981 but I still respect that crew.
    We always reminded readers of the diminishing returns of demanding big increases of “fuel economy” in Miles per Gallon. The Metric world has a better grip in the subject when it is called “Liters per 100 Kilometers”. Look at the following chart for a vehicle going 1200 miles per month on fuel costing $4.00 per gallon. Now think of the engineering effort to get the MPG from 50 to 60, or from 90 to 100.
    mpg $/yr savings
    5 $11,520.00 ‘hello Hummer’
    10 $ 5,760.00 $5,760.00

    50 $ 1,152.00 $ 288.00
    60 $ 960.00 $ 192.00

    90 $ 640.00 $ 80.00
    100 $ 576.00 $ 64.00

  • fb_1841334499 avatar fb_1841334499 Posted: 7/1/2011 10:17am PDT

    Obama and Consumer Reports are idiots! What about people who need a large vehicle to carry a family! These "greenies" are killing us! 35-40 MPG should be enough that most cars can achieve. Plus, drill HERE with our massive reserves that the liberals won't let be developed!

  • fb_1491948054 avatar Kurt Posted: 7/1/2011 12:07pm PDT

    Bob, I'm a sports car guy myself, and there's no provision for us in the CR view of the future, either. Sooner or later internal combustion cars will be like smoking - they're bad for your health and will be regulated into near extinction.

  • oldmanroc avatar oldmanroc Posted: 7/2/2011 5:45am PDT

    I'm not so worried about the CR view of the future - What I worry about is the concept that gov't by regulation, not so much by representation, can have such huge impact on free-market enterprise.

  • Cfthelin avatar Cfthelin Posted: 7/1/2011 1:33pm PDT

    Kurt I worked at Consumers Union, publisher of CONSUMER REPORTS magazine. I can tell you that the Auto Test Division is composed of engineers/scientists who love cars just like you. We, and 'specially me know that your agile MX-5 won't help much when it is hit from any direction by a 4500 pound SUV. When I was doing crash research, the dream was for all cars in the world to be sized more like the Corolla/ Civic. There are fun versions of those cars like your Miata. The gorilla-like vehicles are a danger to all.

  • fb_1491948054 avatar Kurt Posted: 7/1/2011 2:14pm PDT

    The same could be said of motorcycles, since they offer no protection for riders. Whether riding a bike or driving a small sports car, it's always prudent to use the tools at your disposal: you may not have mass on your side, but you do have the advantage of superior acceleration, cornering and braking. If, of course, you're paying attention to driving, which half the motorists on the road aren't.

  • fr8bil avatar fr8bil Posted: 7/1/2011 10:13am PDT

    So, how high will the gasoline tax become if this nonsense of 50mpg becomes law ? States are already complaining their gas tax revenue has dangerously declined. And how small and unsafe are these 50mpg vehicles going to be ? Remember, we share the roads with 80,000 lbs. gross behemoths called 18 wheelers.

  • fb_1491948054 avatar Kurt Posted: 7/1/2011 12:05pm PDT

    I don't equate small with unsafe if a vehicle has exceptional handling and agility (like the Mazda MX-5 Miata or the Porsche Boxster). I don't see gas dropping significantly in price, even as demand declines, since the oil companies, refiners, wholesalers and retailers still need to make their profits.

    It's not the safety that has me concerned, it's the cost. I don't subscribe to the "only $2,100 extra per car" theory, myself.