Poll Says That Buyers Want Higher Mileage, But Don't Want To Pay For It

Fack... people are retarded (not the people in the poll, but politicians etc). What if I don't want to have to drive 100,000-200,000 miles to see a financial return for the increases in fuel economy? What if I believe renewable oil reserves will prevent dooms day scenarios regarding fuel prices? What if I also believe our emissions today have a negligible effect on the environment, and that if we burned through the other half of our oil reserves we would be "twice" as bad as we were 100 years ago... which isn't actually noticeable except with sensitive expensive monitoring equipment.

What happens to people like me, is we are "forced" to follow the "green" agenda regardless of our beliefs and concerns. It's like forcing aithiests to go to church on Sunday. Nothing good or measurable will come of these laws other then higher costs of living, reduction in the utility of vehicles, and us kissing good bye to fun cars.

Why would you not want a more efficient vehicle? Prices will drop eventually to the point where they will not demand a premium over a conventional vehicle.

"What happens to people like me, is we are "forced" to follow the "green" agenda regardless of our beliefs and concerns."

Your not forced to do anything, there are still people who drive cars from the 50's, watch black and white TV, use land line phones, and a type writer.

Yes it is forcing. I like new vehicles as much as most other car enthusiasts. If you don't believe that enforcing vigorous fuel standards aren't driving up the costs of vehicles you my friend are not worth arguing with. You lack basic comprehension of fiscal concepts that would take far too many posts to teach, most of which would be filled with your inane arguments.

"inane arguments" you right I do lack the basic compression, to decipher your poor grammar.

Yes, they drive up cost in the short term because they have to develop new technologies. Of course start up cost will be high for any new tech, but it will come down. Just like the computer. Any laptop used to cost over $1000. Now you can get one for 300-400.

The cost of older technology will always be decreasing I'll never argue against that. But image cars actually becoming cheaper instead of more expensive because the fuel economy standards are increasing faster then the cost is coming down.

Joe: welcome to the real world, you're part of a society and generally these involve rules. Just because you believe something doesn't mean everyone else does. Most people start to accept this after about the age of 5, but you're lucky you're stuck in pre-adolesence ... I'm very jealous of the self-centred way that you think, the hair not so much !

The folks that think the way you do often fail to practice what they preach. If you were to tell me that you own a Corolla and cycle commute more miles per year than you drive, I'd eat my words.

I entirely agree that not everyone thinks the way I do, and because of differing opinions everywhere, we shouldn't be creating arbitrary rule sets that limit everybody, let the manufacturers make their own damn cars and you'll make everyone happy, if their are people out there that would prefer an expensive car that takes 100,000+ miles before it's financially competitive to it's competition, then they will buy those cars.

Also remember that once upon a time everyone "knew" the world was flat.

"Also remember that once upon a time everyone "knew" the world was flat."

- Scientists didn't say that. Scientists were the folks who first claimed that earth was round. The people who we're sticking to the belief that the earth was flat were regular folks. It’s the same situation now with climate change. People who aren't scientists are saying that it doesn't exist. Well since climate change is a subject about science, I’ll believe what the scientists say vs. regular folks who doesn't know crap about science.

The first scientists to claim the earth was round were ridiculed their entire lifetimes by their peers.

"The first scientists to claim the earth was round were ridiculed their entire lifetimes by their peers."

- Reminds me of what the scientists are going through now with "climate change". If anyone thinks that Humans can't destroy the environment just take a look at any river that passes through a major city. The Hudson River in NY is a prime example (serious Pollution).

Why should we have to pay for it? There was a time when Economy cars were cheaper. This is just another way for car manufacturers to rob the customer of more $$$$ because they realize how stupid we are, and how short our memories are. This wouldn't fly in European countries BTW, only in America

Economy cars were cheaper because they didn't have to pass the safety standards of today. Again shoved down our throats by the government. Laws remove freedoms for "security".

Labeling Joe as self-centered might make you feel better (and curb your jealousy) but always thinking of /acting on behalf of the collective does nothing to advance society. We're not using computers because some genuis thought they'd make society a better place... We have our great standard of living because individuals "created" to better their own lives.

If a great portion of the world doesn't believe in global-warming, the evils of fossil fuels, etc. as you do; than admit that side of the argument hasn't done an adequate job of convincing the rest of us... Don't name-call and peer-pressure like the very pre-adolescents you decry.

From the global-warming camp I see conspiracy to stop any research that doesn't further their agenda, and attempts to discredit any scientist who won't join the green socialism bandwagon.

Fuel taxes in Europe began after WWII to conserve resources in an era when starvation was very real, and trucks without fuel sat filled with rotting food. Once Europe began to get on its feet and the need to conserve no longer exsted, the governments found themselves reluctant to end a massive revenue stream. If it were concerns with polluting the earth, it would have been the Europeans who took the lead in developing emissions controls; not Americans who mandated the first pollution control devices in the 1950s. It began with crankcase emissions, (aka "blowby") then the study of smog, removing lead from fuel (done first in the US, championed by General Motors) next came catalytic converters (again, GM. 1975 in the US, 1993 in all of Europe) and ultimately modern combustion controls... The best the EurAsians could offer was a small engine.

Sorry, I refuse to drink the green Kool-Aid. I think for myself, and I smell a government control agenda. If my fellow Americans, usually the descendants of late 1800s/early 1900s Europeans, feel that Europe has the right answer with high taxation, small sh*tbox cars, cramped houses and 2 cubic foot refrigerators; I sure do wish they'd cross the ocean again and leave America for the rebellious folk who don't believe something just because their king tells them to believe it.

So you don't listen to scientists?

1c3am5

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments.

There are only 2 sets of people who still believe the "Man Made Global Warming" theory :

1) Immoral people who are funded only when they produce results that support said theory and in their desperation to keep the funds arriving, they discard the increasing Data & Results that show the opposite of what the paymasters ordered.

2) Monumentally Stupid individuals who are unable to put Emotional Bullshit aside and actually ask sensible questions such as why the same group of clowns screaming "Cooling in the early 80s and Warming in the Late 90s have now changed it to CHANGE" ?

Politicians will jump on any bandwagon they feel will give them more power, what i fail to understand is why any "Non-Deranged" human would allow themselves to be sold on the idea that more TAXES is the solution to an Environment Problem {If there was one}

I95SPEEDINGTICKETS: It's the people that refuse to believe mounting evidence in AGW that have their heads in the sand. There is no climate conspiracy. If there were, it would fall apart almost before it began, because what drives many scientists is recognition / reputation / fame (within the science community). So a significant number of them would work to show that AGW does not hold (that evidence does not support it). It's simply not possible for such a conspiracy to exist. That said, almost every climatologist with any reputation at all agrees that the earth is warming, and is doing so at a time that past evidence suggests that we *should* be cooling. The historical record shows that we should be approaching an ice age, but the earth is heating up instead. The historical record also suggests that in past warming periods, co2 levels rose *after* the earth started warming. But currently co2 levels have been rising in advance of the increase in temperature.

Whatever the cause, what is happening now is different than what happened in the past. You can choose to ignore it until it hits you like a sledgehammer to the face, or you can try to deal with it before we're totally screwed. I'm for the latter.

People who ignore scientists are dummies.

holmstar. Riddle me this...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/

*cough cough cough*

Mounting evidence is growing against global warming. To the point that scientists and hard core "greenies" don't call it global warming anymore, they call it "climate change" that way every natural disaster from earthquakes to hurricanes can be blamed on it without having a link to provide any evidence. And technically the only way for them to be wrong is for the temperature to be exactly the same everywhere... lol and that in itself would be a change because the weather is always changing! haha

People who ignore scientists are dummies.

You know who else ignored scientists? The people who thought that the world was flat.

Joe: Here's another link for you, actually from NOAA and not some conservative rag: http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2009/short-term-cooling-on-a-warming-planet/4

Yes, sea ice has increased since 2007, but the over-all trend is still negative.

The term climate change is used because "warming", though accurate on a global scale, is a bit simplistic when applied to specific regions. The warming will cause some areas to be cooler and wetter, while others become more hot and arid, or hot & wet, or cool & dry, and everything in between. Overall though, the planet gets warmer. So anyway, to help reduce the number of people complaining "It was the coldest winter here in 20 years! There cant possibly be global warming!" someone started using the term "climate change", and it stuck. Doesn't make global warming any less true.

The climate has always been changing silly. In fact if the climate stopped changing, then that would be an even greater change and probably something to worry about a lot more! lol

Climate change=I don't know what's gonna happen but... all that bad stuff that's gonna happen is totally due to it! And you sticking your middle finger up, running your car too long, smoking in restaurants, not going to church on sundays etc. is totally the reason why climate change exists.

Of course the climate has always changed. The point of this, as I mentioned earlier, is that it is changing in an unexpected way in comparison to the historical record. By past evidence we should be getting colder, but we're not.

Also, that may be your naive definition of climate change, but that isn't at all what it means to real scientists.

Maybe you should spend less time listening to what your friends and favored blogs are telling you and instead read a few papers. But nah... those experts don't know what the hell they're talking about, right? I mean they only spend all day, every day working on the stuff. How could they possibly know more than the guy that writes for the Daily Mail.

Just like people believe in higher taxes, but not for themselves.

"Poll Says That Buyers Want Higher Mileage, But Don't Want To Pay For It"


I want 10 million dollars, but dont want to work for it..

People want lower operating costs, and they *hope* to find them through better fuel economy by making a gallon of gas go farther. This explains why there is a fair bit of bitching from hybrid owners: They expected to save some money, but they ended up spending a more moolah to burn less gas. In the end, no savings are realized unless there are exceptional circumstances. And that ticks them off.

I disagree, my brother has a prius and works in sales, over the last 3 years he logged over 100K miles on it and has saved 1000's of dollars. And the car still has original brakes! His previous car was an 3.2 A4, and his operating cost are MUCH lower with the prius. After 100K the only thing the car ever needed were tires.

"In the end, no savings are realized unless there are exceptional circumstances" IMO, driving 100,000 miles a year is exceptional circumstances. I have driven my only car 16,000 miles over the same time period. Ridden my bicycles slightly more miles. This is why I am not willing to pay more for higher fuel efficiency. My car gets 16/24 and i could give two-shits.

100K over 3 years which is about 30k a year...you would be supprised how many people drive 20-30K a year.

No one said hybrids or diesels are supposed to appeal to everyone...Some 100lb women drive 5000lb V8 SUVs to work, not everyone makes sence...

A small portion of the population travels that per year. Using actual numbers of 15,000 miles per year you it usually takes almost 7 years to hit the 100,000 mile mark, by then most new car owners are already onto another car!

OK, surprise me. How many people drive more than 33,333 miles per year on their own car? BTW, 20k to 33k+ is quite a broad mileage range. Of the people I know that travel close to 20k per year on their personal cars, they are more concerned with range than fuel mileage. Alas, that is my experience alone.

"A small portion of the population travels that per year."

That "small" portion is in the tens of millins in the US alone.

"Of the people I know that travel close to 20k per year on their personal cars, they are more concerned with range than fuel mileage"

you are correct, the Prius has a great range, about 500 miles on an 8 gallon tank!

Tens of millions? You're saying ~10% of the population drives ~33k a year? bahahahaha!

Considering there are around 200 million drivers in the US, its in no way a streach that 10 million or 5% drive 20-30K a year.

Question is, what percentage drive over 33,333 miles per year? ...not 20-30k.
That is what I was referring to when I made my first rebuttal claiming "exceptional circumstances". All I am getting at, this isn't the norm. I'd also agree that my 5,333 miles per year is probably equally unusual.

You said tens of millions, implying 20, 30 or even 40 million people. That's about 10% of the country. Secondly your range of 20k-30k is a very large portion of the bell curve, if you said 15k-30k you would have encompassed ~50% of the population. Finally, 30k still won't get you there in 3 years, 33k will, and that is an even smaller portion of the population.

"the Prius has a great range, about 500 miles on an 8 gallon tank" Something is amiss here. First, you would have to get 62.5mpg average to pull that; second you would have to run the tank dry. Either the tank is larger or the range is lower, but whatever.

To summarize my feelings, you are full of shit.

LOL you guy are funny. Do you know what your even arguing? The numbers are not exact, but whether you drive 100K with in 2,3,4,5, or 6 years a prius returns outstanding milage numbers. If a hybrid dosnet make sence to you or you dont drive a lot, dont by one.

Autospies, I call shenanigans.

Current motorcycles exceed the mpg figure easy and they cost less than a car. You will say that a motorcycle is more dangerous, but so is a CRX.

I live in Canada Veyron, half the year the roads are covered in ice/snow and a quarter of the year those snow free roads are covered in gravel. Are you telling me that I'm just as safe driving in those conditions as I am a CRX? lmao