EPA and NHTSA tailpipe emissions standards (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

dtc

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
618
Reaction score
1,004
Age
52
Location
Florida
Offline
Whether by incompetence or ill intent, it seems our current administration has once again used its power to shred and burn reasonable regulation. For the life of me, I don't know who this benefits or why they would even bother to do it. Tailpipe emissions have gone down and every single American is better for it. Vehicles are safer now and more efficient than at any time in history and technological advances are seeing more horsepower, performance and efficiency every year only the Trump Administration seems to believe we won't be happy unless we have black smoke belching from our cars and factories again.



 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,942
Reaction score
1,910
Age
40
Location
Ft. Lauderdale
Offline
SNAFU may be a better moniker. To change a federal rule, the executive branch must do its homework and publish an economic study arguing why the update is necessary. But Trump’s official justification for SAFE is honeycombed with errors. The most dramatic is that NHTSA’s model mixed up supply and demand: The agency calculated that as cars got more expensive, millions more people would drive them, and the number of traffic accidents would increase, my reporting shows. This error—later dubbed the “phantom vehicles” problem—accounted for the majority of incorrect costs in the SAFE study that the Trump administration released in 2018. It is what made SAFE look safe.

Read: The Trump administration flunked its math homework

Once this and other major mistakes are fixed, all of SAFE’s safety benefits vanish, according to a recent peer-reviewed analysis in Science. If SAFE is adopted into law, American traffic deaths could actually increase, carbon pollution would soar, and global warming would speed up.

In other words, SAFE isn’t actually safe—and the Trump administration based its rollback on flawed math
And they stonewalled the EPA engineers/scientists who quickly saw the error.
 

The moose

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
926
Age
51
Location
New Orleans
Offline
For the life of me I don't understand how they can even see how this is a problem for anyone.

When you consider that full size trucks have gone up in mpg by thirty percent since it was introduced and are cleaner by leaps and bounds I can't see a reason for it.

Just think about this full sized pickups now get similar mpg to a Honda Accord did before the laws passed.

The only answer is that the last administration passed it.

Direct injection, turbos, and auto transmissions that have more than four years is a win for everyone.
 

Heathen

add me on COD @cautiousmink
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
586
Reaction score
589
Age
30
Location
Utah
Offline
We now have swaths of voters who look at keeping our air and water clean and not poisoning our people as a 'radical leftist agenda'. Literally they are voting against their own health. They have been conditioned to support corporate greed over their fellow working class citizen. It's all a political one-up contest to these folks.

Think about that for a minute. Sad? Yes. It's reality...

This is why I don't mind being called radical. Voting against such harmful legislation and those cultists who support it with a passion is the prerogative here. I couldnt care less about who gets offended along the way, whether it be right wingers who deny science or democrats who screech 'its too far left'.

No it isn't. Taking bold steps to reduce what humans have done to absolutely ravage our planet and harm the well being of innocent people for decades to come isn't too far. It's being responsible. It's stepping outside of the political bubble and looking at it through the lens of what we have done to our home and what we can do now, even if things look fairly grim. It's finally realizing that we have the ability to be adults in this country and take care of the planet that takes care of us....
 

Goatman saint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
39
Reaction score
62
Age
49
Location
California
Offline
Which is also idiotic because those emissions standards have upped efficiency and power to insane levels. People think of the good old days of the 60s horsepower and all that as the high standard. I own a stock 1966 GTO 4 speed. Well kinda. Newer better camshaft and bigger 4 barrel carb. I also own a V6 Camaro. On the perfect day with the perfect shifts and perfect traction I may be able to beat my Camaro in a race. With it getting 30mpg and left in automatic on any given day. I wouldn’t even try against an SS or Hemi Challenger. The efficiency has created power and economy unseen before.
It has also massively increased reliability. Engines cannot have any change in emissions in either 100,000 or 150,000 miles I forget which. This has forced automakers to create engines that if taken care of essentially don’t wear out.
There isn’t one bad thing about where this has gone and is going, except that you have idiots like Trump who have no idea what he’s talking about
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #6
OP
dtc

dtc

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
618
Reaction score
1,004
Age
52
Location
Florida
Offline
Which is also idiotic because those emissions standards have upped efficiency and power to insane levels. People think of the good old days of the 60s horsepower and all that as the high standard. I own a stock 1966 GTO 4 speed. Well kinda. Newer better camshaft and bigger 4 barrel carb. I also own a V6 Camaro. On the perfect day with the perfect shifts and perfect traction I may be able to beat my Camaro in a race. With it getting 30mpg and left in automatic on any given day. I wouldn’t even try against an SS or Hemi Challenger. The efficiency has created power and economy unseen before.
It has also massively increased reliability. Engines cannot have any change in emissions in either 100,000 or 150,000 miles I forget which. This has forced automakers to create engines that if taken care of essentially don’t wear out.
There isn’t one bad thing about where this has gone and is going, except that you have idiots like Trump who have no idea what he’s talking about
Damn right!

My wife's new BMW has 450hp, seats 5 full sized people easily and gets more than 25mph on the highway. In efficiency mode, it's close to 20 in the city. Years ago I had a couple of sports cars and none of them were close to as fast or efficient. Those include a blown Saleen Mustang, tubro supra, and a 928S4. None of them were close. The Mustang may have been faster when it hit the peak, but you couldn't keep the power on the ground and it would swap ends in an instant if you made any abrupt move or found a slick spot in the road. The BMW would kill it in any straight line or course race.

I don't understand how people can pine for the days of 300 hp cars getting 8mpg and lasting 80k miles before being junk.
 

The moose

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
926
Age
51
Location
New Orleans
Offline
Which is also idiotic because those emissions standards have upped efficiency and power to insane levels. People think of the good old days of the 60s horsepower and all that as the high standard. I own a stock 1966 GTO 4 speed. Well kinda. Newer better camshaft and bigger 4 barrel carb. I also own a V6 Camaro. On the perfect day with the perfect shifts and perfect traction I may be able to beat my Camaro in a race. With it getting 30mpg and left in automatic on any given day. I wouldn’t even try against an SS or Hemi Challenger. The efficiency has created power and economy unseen before.
It has also massively increased reliability. Engines cannot have any change in emissions in either 100,000 or 150,000 miles I forget which. This has forced automakers to create engines that if taken care of essentially don’t wear out.
There isn’t one bad thing about where this has gone and is going, except that you have idiots like Trump who have no idea what he’s talking about

Now I understand goat man.

Man don't tell me it is tiger gold also!

I have been after one here in tiger gold for the better part of twenty years. The guy bought it new still drives it all the time. I am never getting anything from him but the honk and wave.

The other thing people don't understand the is the mpg rating is not the same standard as in window sticker mpg rating. It is the CAFE rating. That is really not as bad as you think. The rating is based in fleet. So to get the rating it will be Chevy's small arse car light truck and so on up to the suburban. So the number is broken down across the fleet of vehicles sold. It doesn't mean suburbans need to get 56 mpg.

It has been a win for everyone when you can buy a half ton truck that get 30 mpg hwy now opposed to twenty years ago they got 18 with a 6cyl with a stick downhill!

I just don't even get how you have anything at all to complain about except they don't build manual transmission stuff or the price because everything else is a win.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

General News Feed

Top Bottom