Oppose Federal Vehicle Scrappage Program
Jan 25, 2009, 07:12 PM
#16
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The automotive industry needs to evolve. This, however, does not seem to be the proper way of going about it...
Your *** is grass and the government is the lawnmower. Words to remember.
Your *** is grass and the government is the lawnmower. Words to remember.
Jan 25, 2009, 08:25 PM
#17
What's the government going to do, pay $4,500 of taxpayers money for a car and then sell it to a junkyard/salvage yard for $100?
If none of this helps to bring you around, remember: Evo's run better on e-85 anyway.
Jan 25, 2009, 08:43 PM
#18
Evolved Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: "Tri-Cities" WA
Posts: 1,493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont agree with this at all. But it is inevitable that everything is moving away from gas. Most of all the car concepts and cars coming out from SEMA this year were all Hybrid cars. They actually have made huge improvements from what you see as hybrids on the street today. I wouldnt mind having one of these in my garage.
http://images.google.com/images?q=ka...num=4&ct=title
And thats just the start. Lamborghini, Ferrari, Porsche all have electric cars being made as concepts.
But that is beside the point. Obama is doing allot more then just messing with our cars. Look at what he is doing to our gun rights. You can own a gun but every bullet or amo you buy is going to be regulated. What kind of **** is that. I have not been able to buy any ammunition locally since November becouse people are freaking out and buying everything they can.
Anyway sorry for the rant! I hope things get better but i have my doubts.
Chris
http://images.google.com/images?q=ka...num=4&ct=title
And thats just the start. Lamborghini, Ferrari, Porsche all have electric cars being made as concepts.
But that is beside the point. Obama is doing allot more then just messing with our cars. Look at what he is doing to our gun rights. You can own a gun but every bullet or amo you buy is going to be regulated. What kind of **** is that. I have not been able to buy any ammunition locally since November becouse people are freaking out and buying everything they can.
Anyway sorry for the rant! I hope things get better but i have my doubts.
Chris
Jan 26, 2009, 01:35 PM
#20
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The second benefit, pollution aside, is that there is a direct injection back into our economy b/c the proposal is based on a credit towards the purchase of a new vehicle.
A lot of the discussion on this thread is goes beyond that into the belief that the new Obama administration will be tougher on environmental issues, which it will be, and how, for performance enthusiasts such as us, such a stance by the new administration would be the death of the industry.
There is a certain level of irony about this thread though. We are on a japanese car performance enthusiast board. One of the reasons the Japanese cars evolved as they have is because energy costs are so high there. They import all their energy with little domestic supply. so lightweight cars with small displacement engines evolved. Some of the best tuners in the world are in Japan and their standards are far stricter than ours.
SEMA is clearly fighting this battle on the behalf of their American iron enthusiasts. For those cars, these types of rules definitely do signal a deathknell as its pretty tough to get a 7 liter engine to be "fuel efficient".
On the other hand, I think that for those tuners of small displacement engines like ours, with turbocharging and electronic fuel injection experience, will definitely gain advantage as time progresses.
Why not build a fuel efficient map for our cars and a performance oriented one and then flash between the two based on need?
Jan 26, 2009, 06:19 PM
#21
Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: usa
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to contact Diane Fienstien, the senior expert in legislating internally combusted vehicles, that she has got to be the ugliest botoxed bag of skin in seat next to polossi
Jan 27, 2009, 05:48 AM
#22
they're encouraging you to buy a new and more fuel efficient car and scrapping an older car that is probably less fuel efficient. So you get a new ford focus that gets 35 mpg and scrap your 1970 whatever that gets 10 mpg.
The second benefit, pollution aside, is that there is a direct injection back into our economy b/c the proposal is based on a credit towards the purchase of a new vehicle.
A lot of the discussion on this thread is goes beyond that into the belief that the new Obama administration will be tougher on environmental issues, which it will be, and how, for performance enthusiasts such as us, such a stance by the new administration would be the death of the industry.
There is a certain level of irony about this thread though. We are on a japanese car performance enthusiast board. One of the reasons the Japanese cars evolved as they have is because energy costs are so high there. They import all their energy with little domestic supply. so lightweight cars with small displacement engines evolved. Some of the best tuners in the world are in Japan and their standards are far stricter than ours.
SEMA is clearly fighting this battle on the behalf of their American iron enthusiasts. For those cars, these types of rules definitely do signal a deathknell as its pretty tough to get a 7 liter engine to be "fuel efficient".
On the other hand, I think that for those tuners of small displacement engines like ours, with turbocharging and electronic fuel injection experience, will definitely gain advantage as time progresses.
Why not build a fuel efficient map for our cars and a performance oriented one and then flash between the two based on need?
The second benefit, pollution aside, is that there is a direct injection back into our economy b/c the proposal is based on a credit towards the purchase of a new vehicle.
A lot of the discussion on this thread is goes beyond that into the belief that the new Obama administration will be tougher on environmental issues, which it will be, and how, for performance enthusiasts such as us, such a stance by the new administration would be the death of the industry.
There is a certain level of irony about this thread though. We are on a japanese car performance enthusiast board. One of the reasons the Japanese cars evolved as they have is because energy costs are so high there. They import all their energy with little domestic supply. so lightweight cars with small displacement engines evolved. Some of the best tuners in the world are in Japan and their standards are far stricter than ours.
SEMA is clearly fighting this battle on the behalf of their American iron enthusiasts. For those cars, these types of rules definitely do signal a deathknell as its pretty tough to get a 7 liter engine to be "fuel efficient".
On the other hand, I think that for those tuners of small displacement engines like ours, with turbocharging and electronic fuel injection experience, will definitely gain advantage as time progresses.
Why not build a fuel efficient map for our cars and a performance oriented one and then flash between the two based on need?
Thanks for explaining that indepth. And I think you have a good point aswell with the suggestion of an Fuel Efficient Map would be... for lack of better word, epic. But at the same time this wouldn't dictate from us not being able to own the cars that we want but would benefit the public to get out of a guzzler suz and step in the right direction...
Jan 27, 2009, 06:37 AM
#23
Thanks for explaining that indepth. And I think you have a good point aswell with the suggestion of an Fuel Efficient Map would be... for lack of better word, epic. But at the same time this wouldn't dictate from us not being able to own the cars that we want but would benefit the public to get out of a guzzler suz and step in the right direction...
Interesting question...let me help. Its not the fuel efficeint map thats the problem. You would have options for running lean mixtures,-less the 14.7:1 if.....we didnt have another great goverment attempt at fixing the problem called a catalitic converter.
While this item does its job, it doesn't function well in lean conditions ( under 14.7:1) and its becomes ineffective and will destroy itself if its run lean...so there you go.. A governmental " good idea" that actually is keeping efficiencies from being able to be achieved. So in our Evo's you can't lean them out because of gov't regulation, that means run anything lower then 14.7 to 1 from the factory.
I know we have work arounds, but not from the factory and thats the point.
Jan 27, 2009, 06:46 AM
#24
Listen, I'm probably more terrified of the "slippery slope, big government babysitter" than anyone outside of a montana survivalist camp, but this legislation is really a win for the average enthusiast. The only people truly negatively affected is the guy trying to restore some obscure car that doesn't have an established aftermarket parts community already in place and relies on some private rust rocket that people won't put to sleep.
For the other 99% of the country it means free money for the POS you've got sitting in your driveway that hasn't started in 3 months. Yes a lot of 78 trans ams and beater monte carlos might get crushed, but no one is going to miss them, and frankly if you don't think the oil and soot slick these old iron beasts trail behind them on the road have an environmental impact (be it air quality, ground water, or quasi-likely global warming) then you're a recalcitrant moron.
So long as this is 100% voluntary, this program is a win. But it does have to be used by the lobbyist from SEMA et al as leverage to slowdown emission standards and inspection requirements that truly will affect the tuner community and car buyers in general.
For the other 99% of the country it means free money for the POS you've got sitting in your driveway that hasn't started in 3 months. Yes a lot of 78 trans ams and beater monte carlos might get crushed, but no one is going to miss them, and frankly if you don't think the oil and soot slick these old iron beasts trail behind them on the road have an environmental impact (be it air quality, ground water, or quasi-likely global warming) then you're a recalcitrant moron.
So long as this is 100% voluntary, this program is a win. But it does have to be used by the lobbyist from SEMA et al as leverage to slowdown emission standards and inspection requirements that truly will affect the tuner community and car buyers in general.
Jan 27, 2009, 03:46 PM
#25
Sad thing is polititcians are far from scientists and will legislate their own ideas in an attempt to fix things or rip us off (both go hand in hand).
5 years ago MIT (Cohn) manufactured a port fuel injected/alcohol direct in-cylinder injected 2 liter, 4 stroke ICE. The engine operates on ethanol under full load, but at 13.0:1 compression ratio and 3-4 bar of boost, at fuel equivalence ratio of 1.0 (that's at 14.7 AFR) where the cat converter can do it's thing even at full load.
You think these politicians know or care about it? Probably not, because there's no way to build govt with it. Also a low emmission engine to them shouldn't have over 600 ft/lbs of torque
5 years ago MIT (Cohn) manufactured a port fuel injected/alcohol direct in-cylinder injected 2 liter, 4 stroke ICE. The engine operates on ethanol under full load, but at 13.0:1 compression ratio and 3-4 bar of boost, at fuel equivalence ratio of 1.0 (that's at 14.7 AFR) where the cat converter can do it's thing even at full load.
You think these politicians know or care about it? Probably not, because there's no way to build govt with it. Also a low emmission engine to them shouldn't have over 600 ft/lbs of torque
Last edited by C6C6CH3vo; Jan 27, 2009 at 03:49 PM.
Feb 12, 2009, 02:39 PM
#26
Account Disabled
Thread Starter
iTrader: (91)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 2003 Evo VIII - Silver
Posts: 16,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally some good news
To view this email as a web page, please follow this link
THANKS TO YOU U.S. CONGRESS REJECTS
“CASH FOR CLUNKERS” PROGRAM
In recent weeks, thousands of SEMA members and SEMA Action Network (SAN) enthusiasts responded to a call for action urging lawmakers to reject a Cash for Clunkers program as part of the economic stimulus being drafted in Congress. Your efforts were successful. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill are “clunker-free.” Congratulations!
Two proposals were put forth and then withdrawn during the Congressional debate. The first was a $8 billion program targeting SUVs and pickup trucks of any year that make less than 18 mpg such as Chevy Silverados, Dodge Rams, Ford F-Series and Jeep Wranglers. The second would have provided $16 billion worth of cash vouchers to individuals making less than $50,000 a year ($75,000 for families) who allowed their turned-in cars to be destroyed. A Cash for Clunker proposal may reemerge later this year. SEMA will remain vigilant in educating legislators on the need to oppose programs that do not spur car sales, reduce emissions or raise fuel economy.
The Senate economic stimulus bill includes a SEMA-supported amendment allowing taxpayers to claim a tax deduction for car-loan interest payments and excise taxes when they buy a new car in 2009. If enacted in the final stimulus bill, the provision should provide a healthy boost to auto sales.
Members of Congress recognize that our industry played an important role in scrapping a federal Cash for Clunkers program. SEMA thanks all member companies and SAN enthusiasts who donated their time and effort to contact legislators. Your voice helps protect our industry and hobby.
To view this email as a web page, please follow this link
THANKS TO YOU U.S. CONGRESS REJECTS
“CASH FOR CLUNKERS” PROGRAM
In recent weeks, thousands of SEMA members and SEMA Action Network (SAN) enthusiasts responded to a call for action urging lawmakers to reject a Cash for Clunkers program as part of the economic stimulus being drafted in Congress. Your efforts were successful. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill are “clunker-free.” Congratulations!
Two proposals were put forth and then withdrawn during the Congressional debate. The first was a $8 billion program targeting SUVs and pickup trucks of any year that make less than 18 mpg such as Chevy Silverados, Dodge Rams, Ford F-Series and Jeep Wranglers. The second would have provided $16 billion worth of cash vouchers to individuals making less than $50,000 a year ($75,000 for families) who allowed their turned-in cars to be destroyed. A Cash for Clunker proposal may reemerge later this year. SEMA will remain vigilant in educating legislators on the need to oppose programs that do not spur car sales, reduce emissions or raise fuel economy.
The Senate economic stimulus bill includes a SEMA-supported amendment allowing taxpayers to claim a tax deduction for car-loan interest payments and excise taxes when they buy a new car in 2009. If enacted in the final stimulus bill, the provision should provide a healthy boost to auto sales.
Members of Congress recognize that our industry played an important role in scrapping a federal Cash for Clunkers program. SEMA thanks all member companies and SAN enthusiasts who donated their time and effort to contact legislators. Your voice helps protect our industry and hobby.
Feb 16, 2009, 09:06 AM
#28
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ashton MD
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to know how much energy it takes to make a new car. If it takes more energy and makes more pollution to make a new car that the replacement car will make, it seems like a net loss energy and pollution wise.