Hypocrisy of the Federal Government

I don't know if this post better belongs in 'Rant' or 'US Political Madness' so I put it here. Feel free to move it if so desired...

In 1981 when I was 18 I had a Volkswagen Rabbit with a diesel engine. That car got 40 miles per gallon fuel mileage. It didn't matter where I went, city or highway, it consistently got 40mpg. I could drive all the way from RKS, WY to SLC, UT and the gas gauge wouldn't even move! Back then just about all small compact cars consistently got in the high 20's to low 30's for gas mileage. Diesel was less than $1 per gallon then.

My best friend had a Chevy LUV pickup back then. For $5 in gas (gas was about $1.25/gal then) we could go out and hunt / play all weekend. I don't know what the gas mileage was, but it must have been in the 20's anyway.

Now, 40 years later, you can't even find a car which will get 40mpg. Heck, it's nearly impossible to even find a car which gets even 30mpg anymore. Forty years of technological improvements...FORTY YEARS...and we've gone backwards.

Why? Well, the principle reason for this is because of all the emissions control crap they put on cars these days. All this emissions control equipment saps the life blood (horsepower) from cars and trucks. Less horsepower means engines have to work harder to achieve the same result. The result is severely reduced fuel economy.

Every day we hear non-stop blather about alternative fuels to conserve oil usage. There's ethanol, biodiesel, electric, hybrid and the list goes on. The government continues to raise excise taxes on fuel, driving up the price. But fuel efficiency in vehicles continues to drop. In just the last two years we've seen fuel prices as high as $5 PER GALLON (now they're back down to something more sensible, but still).

Our government has created a racket where unless you have all this smog control on your car you can't license it. Yet out of the other side of their mouths they're screaming about conserving oil. The politicians are forcing the wasting of oil with all the laws, regulations and taxes.

They say 'conserve oil' yet place regulations on auto manufacturers which force them to make progressively more inefficient vehicles.

In 1929 there was a great depression. Forty years later man walked on the Moon.

In 1981 cars got 35-40mpg. Forty years later cars get 16-20mpg on the average.

The hypocrisy, double standards and bureaucracy of this government just defies imagination! It's an absolute JOKE!! ...and not a funny joke either!!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

My 2012 Ford Fiesta gets 42 MPG and has great acceleration. Very fun to drive also.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

My gas powered Honda Civic is rated at 40-42MPG.

a reply to: olbe66

The 2016 Ford Fiesta is EPA rated at 27mpg in the city and 37mpg highway. No 40mpg there!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, the 2016 Honda Civic is EPA rated at 30mpg in the city and 39mpg on the highway.

No 40mpg there either.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

42.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Guten Morgen- I just got a VW GTI w/the SuperTurbo and it is by far the "funnest" car I've ever driven and I got to drive 1,000s of hours in the Ford Crown Vic (cop cars) and 100s in undercover cars and many were top of the line..

Anyways, meet the Elio® 84 mpg for $6,800.00

www.autoblog.com...

www.eliomotors.com...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, 31-35 combined (depending on which numbers you look at).

I will concede this much though; I just checked my source and it was a 2014 Civic.

However, my initial point still stands. Forty years later???

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Most of my use is highway so I get close to that 40MPG number. Either way, they are out there if you want them and they are not stripped down beaters like they were 40 years ago. Mine is loaded and still gets great mileage.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You are apparently missing my point. Forty years have elapsed since the car I referred to in my OP.

Why isn't your Civic getting 250mpg? Or 300mpg? As I noted previously; in 1929 people were standing in soup lines and eating dirt on the plains. Forty years later Neil Armstrong was walking on the Moon. Why not the same evolution?

In the 1920's radio had barely been introduced to the average person. By the 1960's there were telecommunications satellites orbiting the Earth. And if that wasn't enough, here's an even more stark comparison...

In the 1930's war was fought with bullets, bayonets and mustard gas...just FIFTEEN years later atomic weapons were created, effectively ending "World War X" type conflicts...forever (save one more). All in just 15 short years. Yet nearly 3x this amount of time has elapsed since cars routinely got 40mpg...and they still only get 40mpg (on their best day)!~

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Why isn't your Civic getting 250mpg? Or 300mpg?

Because fossil fuel technology is not capable of that type of MPG on a mass produced level.

You can certainly purchase a hybrid with 100MPG or greater performance which is directly relatable to technological improvements from 40 years ago.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I remember wanting a Honda CRX HF when I was 16. the car got 57 MPG. And that was 1984.

If burning more fossil fuel is bad for the world, then it would seem that better fuel efficiency would be a positive thing, but (as your point is) emission control makes that impossible.

It's really sad that we haven't moved very much in that department in all these years.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You're right generally, about the intentional dependency on the automobile promoted by the auto manufacturers. The switch was made in Los Angeles a long time ago. There are still remnants of the undergroud tunnels and track all sealed up under the city.

The auto manufacturers and oil companies got that closed down so the city of Lost Angels could sit in traffic and pollute all day. The promise was inexpensive cars in everyones garage, lots of cheap fuel to drive on. Now we're embroiled in endless wars abroad to fill your tank at the pump and fill the skies with carbon.

search results

Jeep Wrangler > 40mpg

I don't care what kind of regulations they start to impose, I'm never giving my baby up.

Also OP, I highly recommend you watch the documentary "Gashole" they talk about how in the 20/30s they were designing cars that got 100+ MPG & were threatened/shut down by big oil.

a reply to: network dude

You're a tech guy, you should have a better understanding of what's going on here. All model years of Honda CRX HF weighed less than 2000 lbs. Some of them were less than 1800 lbs. The OP seems to think that 's all about HP and it's not. The 1.5 liter in the HF's was what? 62 HP? It also had a 0-60 of 12 seconds.

No no no, let's just compare apples and oranges and then blame emissions standards for our ignorance.

SMFH

EDIT to add:

I'm going to go ahead and guess the shape had something to do with it too. I don't happen to know the drag coefficient but I'm sure it was pretty low.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

EPA is an average of an average and does not take into account how an individual drives, what the air pressure or average temperature is in a give area, or even altitude.

I do almost all highway driving - 500 miles per week commuting on 4 lane freeways. I have gotten up to 42 mpg and as low as 38. I keep a log not only of my start and stop times (to figure out the best time to leave for work), but my MPG. It all goes into a spreadsheet for evaluation. My average is 40 mpg. Best time to leave for work 5:15 am M,T,T - 5:00 on W,F.

I do a lot of statistical work at my job, I think I know what my average mpg is, thank you.

a reply to: olbe66

Please take and post a photo of your sock drawer.

You are using selective evidence. "Cars" did NOT get 40mpg when you got your Rabbit Diesel. Only your rabbit diesel did. It was a very basic diesel engine with virtually no pollution controls and a black cloud followed you everywhere.

If you measure MPG over the years you will see that the overall average has steadily improved. CAFE standards mandate it. Along with this the pollution cars emit has steadily decreased.

Although it is doubtful they did back then, we now know VW intentionally cheated the pollution ratings on their "clean diesel" engines that weren't, and the fallout from that isn't yet over.

In this case the Federal government is not at all hypocritical, but given your selective use of evidence, you are. Your rant is ill-advised. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: olbe66

Please take and post a photo of your sock drawer.

We're having a very serious discussion here and we have no time for your fetishes!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
We're having a very serious discussion here and we have no time for your fetishes!

Come on, you cannot tell me you were not curious as well.

I was hoping they had little 'M-T-W-T-F-S-S' tags on them.