Members Login
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Government to propose truck fuel efficiency rules!
What do you think this new law will do? [3 vote(s)]

Increase the cost of vehicles beyond any possible savings in fuel cost
Cause them to be made less durable
Increase cost to service and maintain
Line the pockets of the Government
Slightly reduce emissions
All of the above and maybe more.


Status: Offline
Posts: 16008
Government to propose truck fuel efficiency rules!

Thanks to liberal retards like our friend PowerStroker, we will now have the government telling us what kind of trucks to drive! Gone will be the days of REAL TRUCKS, and soon it's possible that the heavy duty trucks will be Toyotas.

Here is an article for everyone to read, thank Big Government advocates like PowerStroker for this one!


Future tractor-trailers, school buses, delivery vans, garbage trucks and heavy-duty pickup trucks must do better at the pump under first-ever fuel efficiency rules coming from the Obama administration.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department are moving ahead with a proposal for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, beginning with those sold in the 2014 model year and into the 2018 model year.

The plan is expected to seek about a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption from longhaul trucks, according to people familiar with the plan. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to speak publicly before the official announcement, expected Monday.

Overall, the proposal is expected to seek reductions of 10 percent to 20 percent in fuel consumption and emissions based on the vehicle's size. Large tractor-trailers tend to be driven up to 150,000 miles (240,000 kilometers) a year, making them ripe for improved miles per gallon.

The rules will cover big rig tractor-trailers, "vocational trucks" such as garbage trucks and transit and school buses, and work trucks such as heavy-duty versions of the Ford F-Series, Dodge Ram and Chevrolet Silverado.

The White House has pushed for tougher fuel economy standards across the nation's fleet as a way to reduce dependence on oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions tied to global warming.

The fleet of new cars, pickup trucks and SUVs will need to reach 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, and the government is developing plans for future vehicle models that could push the standards to 47 mpg to 62 mpg by 2025.

Medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks are much less fuel-efficient than conventional automobiles; the fleet of tractor-trailers typically get about 6 mpg to 7 mpg, while work trucks can achieve 10 to 11 mpg. But they still consume about 20 percent of the transportation fuel in the U.S.

Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, told reporters last week the proposed rules would be a "win-win situation for the country, the economy, climate change and energy security." She declined to release details.

President Barack Obama was joined by truck manufacturers in the Rose Garden in May when he said the government would release the first-ever proposed standards for greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency for large trucks this year. Obama estimated then that the fuel efficiency of tractor-trailers could be improved by 25 percent using existing technologies.

"This is going to bring down the costs of transporting for transporting goods, serving businesses and consumers alike," Obama said on May 21, flanked by executives with Daimler Trucks, Volvo, Cummins and Navistar, and trucking industry and union officials.

The improvements in fuel efficiency will come through a combination of more efficient engines, improved aerodynamics and better tires.

Environmental groups have pointed to a National Academy of Sciences report this year that said the trucks could make broad improvements during the decade through existing technologies. The report found that using advanced diesel engines in tractor-trailers could reduce fuel consumption by up to 20 percent by 2020 while hybrid versions of garbage trucks and buses could see a 35 percent cut in fuel use by 2020.

"Whether you are a company or an individual truck owner, you will be saving money on day one because you'll be saving more on fuel than increased loan payments on a big truck," said David Friedman, research director for the clean vehicles program of the Union of Concerned Scientists.


So when we are all driving underpowered trucks that are built to be light rather than strong, and when your truck cost twice as much to buy and maintain, we can all thank Big Government! I guess now that the Government ownes major stakes in car compaines they wish to ensure people keep buying new cars.

Just more reasons why Big Government needs to go! Someone needs to reduce the amount of hot air coming out of these peoples mouths! Whats next? Reduce our dependance on AIR, FOOD and WATER? You just wait, soon the governement will be telling us what underwear to wear, and how many times a week we can have sex.

-- Edited by SELLC on Sunday 24th of October 2010 08:07:43 PM


What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl




Status: Offline
Posts: 16008

Don't forget it will be the tax payers who will foot the bill for all these newer MORE EXPENSIVE trucks to be purchased. Imagine how many school buses, garbage trucks and other city trucks will need to be replaced, or advocated to be replaced in favor of these small gains!

I am willing to bet that government and military vehicles will be exempt from this law, AS USUAL. While the general public will just have to take it in the ass.

Great Job! I can see this costing us LOTS of extra money, along with the possibility of making our trucks much smaller, less powerfull and more expensive to maintain.

Take for example the Urea injection systems now found on Super Duty trucks! Anyone ever priced that stuff? It aint cheap! Not to mention it's derived from Ammonia, something that has not proven the test of time and could be FAR MORE dangrous in time than anyone knows. The same holds true of electric cars and the dangerous lead, and acids that go into the batteries. Never mind the cost of such things because now days we have more advanced batteries that are 10X more toxic to the environment when the time comes to dispose of them.

This is just another way to soak automobile owners, manufatures and customers at EVERY LEVEL!



What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl




Status: Offline
Posts: 6338

Would I be correct in assuming you don't believein global climate change?

I wonder what it will cost tax payers to build a levy system around Florida and New York when the Ocean rises?


ukraine-flag-nomonkey-b - QRZ NOW - Ham Radio News


Status: Offline
Posts: 16008

Spare me your BS about global warming! I am so sick of you liberal tree hugging tards spewing lies.

The very idea that vehicles are causing a "Global Warming" issue is as unfounded as how the earth was created. Meanwhile we have Russia and everyone else shooting rockets up into space every month, Volcanoes erupting spewing MASSIVE amount of pollution into the atmosphere. Not to mention CHINA, who primaraly burns COAL and all of the other natural disasters that are ever present.

Hell a fucking large rock from outerspace could punch a hole in the planet! Not very likley, but Obama has that coverd with his "Land on an astaroid" goals. He must have figured he needed a back up plan incase Americans did not buy into that whole "Global Warming" sham.

I don't want to hear any more of your Democratic silly talk PowerStroker! I think you will find the entire nation is about fed up with Democratic ignorance!

"Keep the change!"

-- Edited by SELLC on Monday 25th of October 2010 10:45:13 PM


What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl



RIP - Veteran User

Status: Offline
Posts: 337

Spoken like a man that has no idea what is really at stake.

We need to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels... we need to reduce our output of greenhouse gases...

Years ago, we couldn't handle CFCs in a responsible manner and now, with the population of planet Earth (I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't Latin for "Boy, are we fucked now")

From Wiki "population of the world reached one billion in 1804, two billion in 1927, three billion in 1960, four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, and six billion in 1999. It is projected to reach seven billion by late 2011"....

Currently, your own Bureau of the Census estimates world population to be 6,880,300,000  ( That, sir, is a lot of fucking people. More people than the world had to support in decades gone by.

Volcanoes.... I am always amused when people try to justify their actions and desires be stating that volcanoes spew out greenhouse gases "all the time". Well... when you figure out a way to stop a volcano (I imagine you would start with a polite note and progress from there), we can stop the "natural order". The government (both yours and mine) has discovered ways to make us consider limiting our reliance on fossil fuels.  Volcanoes never pay their taxes - I remember Mt. St. Helens... blew it's top even though it never got a tax bill.... Oh, yeah... that filthy old US owned mountain caused a lot of concern globally and a lot of concern here in Canada.... Wanna talk about restitution?

In your world, though, "the natural order" includes you burning fossil fuels at a dizzying rate? In my world, you are considerate and try, to some extent, to limit your carbon footprint.

FWIW, it was only a matter of time before CAFE standards got redesigned. Some of the new technologies (like plug in cars) are expensive technologies. One way to make them more attractive is to make old technology more expensive... through taxes, fees and penalties....

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

We  have a planet where more and more people are competing for dwindling resources ( around Edmonton and Calgary in Alberta.... hundreds of hectares of prime farmland have been swallowed up in urbanization and fossil fuel production ).  These dwindling resources include oxygen (urbanizing farmland and burning rainforests... let alone clearcut logging do little to replenish that resource) and potable water.

And, speaking of clearcut logging.... I can assure you that it is quite easy to tell the difference between lumber from an old growth forest and "modern" lumber.

-- Edited by PogoPossum on Tuesday 9th of November 2010 02:19:36 AM



Status: Offline
Posts: 331

I think you may not have taken away what I meant to say.

I am all for the advancement of technology, but at a rate that does not put fines on companies who will most certianly cobble something together at the cost of the consumer. There are right ways of doing things, and wrong ways. You should know that by now after that little 6.0 fiasco.

No amount of money is going to fix that what we can not make. In terms of what we consume, well we pay the pound of flesh when we meet our makers, so the Dinasaurs that inhabit the earth after us will use the decomposed flesh of humans to drive around in their gas guzzling Ford trucks and Benz's.

Brand new in 1991 some chump paid a $3500 gas guzzler tax on the barge that I sail down the road. Do you think ANY of that money actually helped to make the air better? It's 2010 and they are talking about doing it again, so I guess not!



-- Edited by Administrator on Wednesday 10th of November 2010 01:52:58 AM


All the best!

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard