Subaru mentioned in this low gas mileage article.

[SUBARU3]

It will be interesting what Subaru does to increase gas efficiency. I think a return to FWD, or RWD is a given. (Option for AWD). Subaru really needs to work on this, or lose market share.

 

Todd

 

________________________________________

 

 

A Porsche 911 is a marvel of automotive engineering and an object of desire for people who've worked hard enough, and been lucky enough, to have $80,000 or more to drop on an exotic sports car. One thing a Porsche 911 doesn't do is get 41.3 miles per gallon in city and highway driving.

 

That could be a problem, because under the fuel-efficiency targets recently proposed by the federal government, Porsche cars sold in the 2015 model year (which begins in the fall of 2014) could be required to average 41.3 miles per gallon to avoid fines levied under the revised U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules.

Most of the discussion of federal efforts to boost the average fuel efficiency of new vehicles to 35 mpg by 2015 has focused on how the new standard will do in large sport-utility vehicles. But high-performance cars -- particularly those sold by relatively small manufacturers such as Porsche, Lotus, Ferrari and Subaru -- are also targets of the proposed reforms to the CAFE regime.

 

Overall, the new standards put a tougher burden on luxury and specialty manufacturers. By 2015, BMW AG, for example, is supposed to sell a fleet of cars that averages 37.7 mpg. Toyota, however, will have a fleet-wide passenger car target of 34.6 mpg, and General Motors Corp.'s car fleet will have to average 34.7 mpg.

 

If you have been griping that Uncle Sam seems to wants everyone to drive around in a midsized sedan with a small four-cylinder engine, you can now assure your friends and relatives that you're not paranoid.

The challenge to high-performance sports cars is a consequence of the government's move to regulate the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks according to "footprint," essentially the number of square feet a vehicle covers when parked in the driveway.

 

Consumers tend to distinguish cars and trucks by attributes such as body style, number of doors, resale value, brand image, engine displacement and functionality -- distinctions embedded in automotive marketing. A Toyota Camry and a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti are both categorized as "midsize cars" by the Environmental Protection Agency, but no one would seriously compare them.

 

But based on their footprints, the Camry and the Ferrari 612 are roughly in the same EPA class and by the middle of the next decade will be required to average more than 30 miles to the gallon. That might not be so tough on the Camry, but today's Ferrari 612 Scaglietti, with its 540 horsepower, 12-cylinder motor, is rated at just 9 miles in city driving, and 16 mpg on the highway.

 

The government's proposal plots footprints and mileage on a curve, with cars below 45 square feet in area required to average around 35 to 40 mpg by 2015, according to an analysis of the proposed CAFE rules by the Alliance of International Automobile Manufacturers. The mileage targets drop steeply for cars larger than 48 square feet. Light trucks have a much easier curve, with the maximum below 35 mpg for very small trucks, and roughly 25 mpg by 2015 for large trucks.

 

As far as the government is concerned, the Porsche 911 is a "minicompact car." As such, it should be capable of delivering about 40 mpg by the 2015 model year. Right now, the average for Porsche's fleet of sports cars is about 1 mpg under the current 27.5 mpg standard, and Porsche pays fines to the government to continue selling its cars here.

 

More from Yahoo! Finance:

 

• The Best Cars for Lean Times

 

• Top 10 Deeply Discounted 2008 Cars

 

• What Your Car Says to the Opposite Sex

Visit the Family & Home Autos Center

It's not just expensive sports cars that have a problem. My Subaru WRX is also in the crosshairs.

The WRX, which has a turbocharged four-cylinder engine, is rated at just 18 mpg in the city, 25 on the highway, for a combined 20 mpg rating. By 2015, Subaru's fleet average will have to be 40.8 mpg under the rules. That means a lot fewer cars like my WRX.

"In choosing the footprint" as the basis for fuel-economy regulation, "smaller high performance cars get nailed," says Mike Stanton, president of the Alliance of International Automobile Manufacturers. "Maybe that's what they want to do."

Of course, nothing in Washington is over until it's over, and even then fights over regulation can drag on and on. The government hasn't made its CAFE proposals final, and is awaiting comments on its proposals. It will get plenty, including arguments that the law should allow an exemption for specialty cars made by low volume manufacturers such as Ferrari or Porsche.

 

Meanwhile, specialty car makers must weigh some difficult options. They can carry on offering the kinds of vehicles that have got them where they are today, and build the costs of fines into their pricing and profitability plans. They can try to re-engineer high performance cars to meet the standards -- which carries the risk that the resulting vehicles wouldn't be recognizable to their customers. One tactic could be to redesign cars so that they can qualify for the less stringent mileage targets offered to light trucks. (Porsche's already got a vehicle like this, the Cayenne, which has sold well but also outraged the sensibilities of some Porsche purists.)

They could seek shelter under the wings of larger, mass-market manufacturers, which sell lots of super-efficient cars to even out the fleet-wide averages, and perhaps cushion the costs of fines and high-tech fuel-economy fixes. (Porsche's expanding alliance with Volkswagen points in this direction.)

 

Tom Baloga, vice president of engineering for BMW's U.S. arm, says BMW has concluded it can meet the standards without compromising its image. But it won't be easy or cheap.

 

The way the government's proposed footprint/mileage curves work, a BMW 3-Series, at 45 square feet, will need to average 37 mpg. But a 5-Series, with a footprint four square feet larger, will be allowed to average 31 mpg. This steep curve puts a lot of pressure on high performance cars such as the M3.

Though it might appear tempting for BMW to simply make its future 3-Series cars as large as the current 5-Series, Mr. Baloga says that's not what BMW wants to do.

"We are going into this with the idea that we aren't going to compromise our ultimate driving machine characteristics. We are going to find a way to have the best of both worlds," Mr. Baloga says. That means, he says, more aggressive use of sophisticated engine technology, lighter weight materials, fuel-saving systems such as idle stop and further "electrification" of the car. BMW -- which has sold mainly six- or eight-cylinder cars in recent years -- will likely offer more four-cylinder engines, including diesels, going back to its roots as a high-performance, four-cylinder car company, he says.

"Everything will cost more," he says. "We have to do this more efficiently to keep costs from skyrocketing out of control."

[hankosolder2]

I may be mistaken about this, but I think that a lot of the German auto makers simply pay the CAFE penalty fees and pass the cost on to the consumer. On a higher end vehicle, an extra $1k or so isn't that big a deal.

 

Perhaps manufacturers can work some sort of emissions trading scheme; i.e. rather than Porsche (or Subaru) having to manufacture an economy car themselves to get their CAFE numbers in line, they can simply make a financial contribution to a pool which provides tax credits to purchasers of ANY brand of high mileage vehicle. Anything which encourages the sale of high MPG vehicles can only be a good thing. If the average MPG of all vehicles on the road meets the CAFE standards, it doesn't really matter if a small number of Porsche customers are driving about in 15 MPG vehicles if they've helped get more Honda Fits (for example) on the road.

 

I agree; Subaru needs to explore non AWD vehicles, or aggressively start trimming curb weight with exotic materials and reducing drivetrain friction; all of which will be expensive.

 

Nathan

[nipper]

WRX is a sports car, the corvette has the same issue, the challanger, the new camaro, i can go on.

 

Personally i have no problem with them having to raise thier gas mileage, as everyone has to do it.

 

The public will have to make some compromises too, on what they want in a car, the same way they had to in the 1970's.

 

Newsweek had the 10 most fuel effeicnt cars, and it was a bit of a shock to see how crappy the "effecient" mileage was. They called 26 mpg highway effecient. Blu does better then that most the time.

 

nipper

[bulwnkl]

Isn't it interesting that so many of us here would really like higher fuel efficiency from our cars that really aren't out in front in terms of mpg?

 

I'd like much higher fuel efficiency. What I remain conflicted about is why the gov't 'must' mandate this? If the market (consumers) truly demanded higher fuel efficiency from the fleet, there'd be more fuel-efficient vehicles available. It's just odd and an internal conflict for me as a very staunch anti-command-economy person (perhaps extra odd, given whom I work for).

[nipper]

Thats because more effecient means more expensive, and people never thing of the long term, they only think of the short term. Look at all the stupid people who bought Hummers then complained about the really poor gas mileage.

 

Market economics dont work all the time, and needs nudging along. If it did , we wouldnt have had the mess we are in now.

 

The big three said that it was because americans wanted trucks that they built them, but they never mention they high profit margin on them that drove them to make them.

 

 

nipper

[Spiffy]

sounds like the government wants us to keep buying gas for a while...

 

I would rather we all drive 5 mpg vehicles and use up the supply so that an alternative energy source HAS to be developed...

 

they're just dragging out their own death because there's a lot of money in oil...

 

spending money regulator mpg when they could use that to get rid of fossil fuels altogether...

 

 

--Spiffy

[daehttub2000]

It's a good thing Subaru's new "Parent" company is Toyota. I think Subaru is on top of this with their gutsy investment in an all new diesel. I would hope/expect to see the following from Subaru sometime soon:

 

1) Turbo Diesels across the product line. Someone posted some news/rumors about a higher output diesel for the WRX. On the opposite end of the performance spectrum, I fear an anemic non-turbo diesel model for a smaller car (see 3) to bring up the corporate fuel economy average.

 

2) A Subayota hybrid of some sort.

 

3) The return of a "Justy" type small Subaru. If the Smart cars become popular, maybe even the Subaru "micro" cars might cross the pond. Strange things will happen when gas hits $5 a gallon...

 

I have faith that the automotive wizards from the land of the rising sun will continue to wow us and force our SUV happy domestics to get their act in gear.

Super unleaded in Chicago has already passed the $4 per gallon mark:dead: and my WRX is becoming a hanger queen :-\

[Olnick]

I haven't really gotten my head wrapped around these proposed new standards yet, but the "footprint formula" seems grossly unfair to me.

Seems like they are giving an unfair advantage to the oversized, less efficient--and generally unneeded--SUVs and large pickups.

 

Anyone agree with this?

[SUBARU3]

I sill find it amazing that 30 years ago...30 YEARS!!! Subaru was able to turn out these mpgs.

 

(Directly from brochures)

 

1978

 

Sedans 2/4 door 4 speed 41 Hwy/29 City

5 Speed 43/29

automatic 31/25

 

Wagons 4 speed 34/25

5 speed 40/27

Automatic 31/25

4WD 34/25

 

And these cars were CLEAN running, no catalyst!

 

My 79 GF ran as clean as a 1995 car on the dyno! I also get fairly close to those #s in MPGs

 

Size matters, so I predict a return to the econoboxes to keep price low and fuel economy up. $5.00 a gallon will ratically change America.

 

Todd

[Durania]

I can't stand to read any automotive publication such as Car and Driver, Motortrend, etc. Every single one of them is full of Porsche worship and has a large stigma against just about all Japanese manufacturers, especially Subaru. I remember reading when they test drove the new STi. Real quick to overlook the 305 HP and focus on road noise and poor MPG.

[bulwnkl]

Thats because more effecient means more expensive, and people never thing of the long term, they only think of the short term. Look at all the stupid people who bought Hummers then complained about the really poor gas mileage.

 

Market economics dont work all the time, and needs nudging along. If it did , we wouldnt have had the mess we are in now.

 

The big three said that it was because americans wanted trucks that they built them, but they never mention they high profit margin on them that drove them to make them.

 

 

nipper

In the long term, even with very expensive fuel, an older vehicle that gets relatively poor(er) mpg is less expensive than buying the newest, highest-mpg vehicle every couple or few years. The proliferation of and higher margins in trucks and SUVs are the best evidence there is that the market demands those vehicles. No matter how you option it, a Suburban costs a whole lot more than a Civic Hybrid. People want Suburbans, so they get built. People want them badly enough that the factories can make more money on them, and the demand remains. Clearly people don't mind paying more to get what they want, they just don't want 50-mpg econoboxes. I feel very strongly that the gov't should NOT try to save 'stupid' people as you call them from themselves.

 

Free markets DO work, and they work all the time, whereas gov't mandates essentially never work as intended.

[nipper]

I sill find it amazing that 30 years ago...30 YEARS!!! Subaru was able to turn out these mpgs.

 

(Directly from brochures)

 

1978

 

Sedans 2/4 door 4 speed 41 Hwy/29 City

5 Speed 43/29

automatic 31/25

 

Wagons 4 speed 34/25

5 speed 40/27

Automatic 31/25

4WD 34/25

 

And these cars were CLEAN running, no catalyst!

 

My 79 GF ran as clean as a 1995 car on the dyno! I also get fairly close to those #s in MPGs

 

Size matters, so I predict a return to the econoboxes to keep price low and fuel economy up. $5.00 a gallon will ratically change America.

 

Todd

 

They were clean running for the standards set at that time. They wouldnt be considered clean by todays standards. The true tests is not the annual test, but the EPA test, which is far more complicated then what you get at inspection.

 

Now add in the extra material required for crash protection, all the widgets and gizmos that todays drivers demand (and are going to have to sacrifice), sound insulation, heated seats, leather, dual clkimate control, i can go on.

 

Sorry but its an unfair comparison.

 

nipper

[Bluestone]

Well clearly, Subaru's gonna have to come up with some high mpg cars if they wanna still sell cars, especially in the US. Ya never know, that might , possibly, mean abandoning AWD, at least in gasoline powered cars.

As gasoline prices go through 5, 6, 7 and 8 dollars a gallon in the next few years, turbo engines will become passé (let's face it, whenever a turbo is actuated, the car that it's in becomes a big time gas hog).

What's likely to happen is cars with turbo gas engines will plummet in resale value (especially so for the STi) just as is starting to happen with gas-swilling SUVs.

As the economy, here, in the US implodes, the unemployment/underemployment rate goes higher and higher and the cost of food skyrockets, (yup, it's all gonna happen...or aren't you paying attention?), folks will be thinking "economy first"; not many people will have the money to burn on a low mpg vehicle (and that may mean any car that gets under 30 or 35 mpg), or even the inclination to consider one.

The party's pretty much over, boys and girls; we're in an era, now, of some gut wrenching changes.

[Gloyale]

I feel very strongly that the gov't should NOT try to save 'stupid' people as you call them from themselves.

 

Problem with that is we are all sharing the same planet and finite resources. It not saving Them from themselves, it's saving all of us. Those people who are still drivng 10 MPG hummers are shortening the supply, increasing the demand, driving the prices up for everyone.

 

Free markets DO work, and they work all the time, whereas gov't mandates essentially never work as intended.

 

I won't even address this other than to call BS on free markets working "all the time" If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed the government to prevent diseased meat, asbestos in our houses, and lead in our paint.

 

Free markets driven solely by profit frequently do not take things in the right direction. Ussually the profits come at the expense of the health, or pockets, of some other segment of society, ussually the poor. The concept of how completely *Free* unregulated markets work is a fictional. It doesn't work in the real world.

[nipper]

People need to stop thinking about MEMEMEMEMEME and start thinking about US.

 

i have said this once, and i will keep saying it.

 

Completly free markets dont work, completly regulated markets dont work, but a mix someplace inbetween do.

 

Enron was based on free market.

The Present mortgage meltdown, and its fall out is based on free market (let derritives police themselves).

 

Most bank credit cards are in states with almost no regulations, and they are doing a good job of robbing us blind (how many acually read the fine print, i just started and found out ive been getting ripped off letf and right).

 

Emissions and polution were a total failure in the free market. Look at china, any third world country, or even the US in the 1970's.

 

Greed will always rule what some people call the free market. Technically drug dealers can be called free market, and i dont want them around either. (monopolies are part of a free market in theory, if you have no goverment regulation to control them).

 

Please, we need to start realize we are all living under one very large roof, with a lot of spoiled brats with the power trying to hog the remote control to get what they want.

 

Also remeber without the goverment, we wouldnt have highways, dams, electric grids, indoor plumbing, public works, beaches, parks, law enforcement, communictaions, i can go on.

 

We need to think differntly if we wisht to survive. The me generation gave birth to the "all about me" generation, and now we really need to get into the "we're all in this together" generation.

 

It wont be easy, but we really have no choice.

 

nipper

[bulwnkl]

If allowed to run, the market corrects (corrected) every single thing you mention. It may not correct any given problem in the way you prefer, but it corrects it and it corrects it vastly more efficiently than anything else.

 

Your premise is based in the idea that only you know what's 'best' for everyone else, and only you are willing to take the steps necessary to address those things for everyone else. Nothing but the market changed how Detroit built cars between 1970 and 1990. Nothing but the market ended the oil crisis of the 1970s. Gov't intervention to 'help' us all think of 'us' instead of 'me' lead to fuel shortages. There is only an oil supply problem right now because OPEC has decided they like higher prices. Once they decide they've extracted 'enough' from those whom they don't see eye to eye with, or once one or two of their members break ranks (just like they did in the 1970s), oil prices will drop significantly, just like they did in the 1970s. It just probably won't happen until we've expended vast resources chasing alternatives that we'll then abandon, just like we did in the 1970s.

 

That doesn't mean one shouldn't conserve nor that wastefulness is OK. It means that all the arm-waving from the folks who think that 'this time it's different' only drives poor choices in technology and ends up costing far more than letting the market work. I do not dispute that small nudges CAN make market adjustments much more palatable if done well. What I dispute is that arm-waving ever achieved anything at all besides mass hysteria.

[daehttub2000]

If allowed to run, the market corrects (corrected) every single thing you mention. It may not correct any given problem in the way you prefer, but it corrects it and it corrects it vastly more efficiently than anything else.

 

O.K. I can't sit by and let this Libertarian drivel slide.

 

In a perfect fantasy world, a completely unregulated free market may work all the time and pigs may fly. However, in the real word we have IMPERFECT markets and EXTERNALITIES. There are are many cases where the social cost of a delayed or obstructed market correction is unacceptable

 

Econ PhD's recognize something called an EXTERNALITY which is a cost or factor that is not properly allocated to market participants (often a public good like our air and water). Back in the bad old days, companies could poison the air and water because they were not being CHARGED for ruining our air, water, etc. We actually killed one of the Great Lakes, Lake Erie. Pretty unbelievable.

 

We are allowing the free market mechanism to drive our economy which is the best method available to us. However, it is the role of goverment to step in when the free market mechanism is driving us off a cliff. See Mortgage crisis, global warming, adulterated food/drugs, pollution, corruption & conflict of interest, etc., etc. China, among other countries, are learning tough lessons that we've already experienced.

 

Anyway, I could go on for hours but that's best left in the classroom or pub.

 

Cheers,

[bulwnkl]

In a perfect fantasy world, a completely unregulated free market may work all the time and pigs may fly. However, in the real word we have IMPERFECT markets and EXTERNALITIES. There are are many cases where the social cost of a delayed or obstructed market correction is unacceptable

O.K. I can't sit by and let this Socialist drivel slide.

 

Imperfect markets are the product of interference (sometimes called 'externalities' to help mask the fact that they're just interference). No one anywhere can demonstrate a market that was allowed to run its course without interference that didn't correct itself. Do not confuse something that's called a market with something that really is a market.

 

Nowhere at any time have I said that there should never be an effort to make the world be what we want it to be rather than what others want it to be. I have started from a different base than some, and that base is very important. I have no problem with folks who want to have a command economy with a little freedom rather than a free country with a few rules, I just won't let them turn my country into that one.

[SUBARU3]

Great dialog here! I'm really enjoying this reading!

 

One thing is for sure, as gas, fuel, heating oil and diesel goes higher and higher, our society will be in for MAJOR changes. And I mean MAJOR! Smaller, self sustaining communities, where the residents depend on one another. Manufacturing will return to the US and the "global economy" will end.

 

I believe in some version of the "peak oil" theory. It's going to be an interesting as the next few years go by. I'm sure we will get a sense of direction by then.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

 

Todd

[idosubaru]

that was an interesting read folks. i feel like i should be taking a test soon and paying tuition!

 

If allowed to run, the market corrects (corrected) every single thing you mention. It may not correct any given problem in the way you prefer, but it corrects it and it corrects it vastly more efficiently than anything else.

you're speaking theoretically which isn't palatable to most people. in academia maybe people are just numbers and worth it for the greater good of a perfect free market.

 

yes, a free market corrects china, lead paint, asbestos..... when 10 years from now everyone realizes products are tainted and killing or disfiguring their children, buying habits change. but few people support that kind of "efficient" market correction.

 

a few have said "free markets don't work"...it may be more accurate to say they are not tolerable (to most people)? and bulkwnkl has said he understands the idea of "a free country with a few rules"....

 

i do like this discussion and wish/hope there's better things in store for the future. but for most people, is this really anything other than financial? most of this hype about oil prices is because it's hitting people in their pockets right? pointing fingers, expecting gov. handouts, and talking isn't going to solve anything. learning to live within your means helps tremendously. for those that live close to 100% of their income this is killer i'm sure. if it's not gas prices, it's medical, living, rent, family, health...something else. it just so happens that gas prices effect all of these people at the same time so it's easy to get a group think mentality going where everyone thinks it's someone elses fault. set a goal to live at %75, %80, %90.......or something not close to 100% and gas prices are much more tolerable.

[bulwnkl]

I agree that many times people are afraid of free markets, but I also think folks are missing a key point or three, much of which you rightly point out, Gary.

 

There's an extremely common response to our present situation re: oil prices. We see high prices and see a finite supply (strictly speaking, believe in[/b] finite supply, but I accept it as finite). We also know that the crude oil supply system is not a market because OPEC sets the supply level completely arbitrarily. We see some people who make vehicle choices different from ours, combine that with the high price and finite supply observations, and respond by saying we ought to raise taxes to 'fix' the problem. Raising CAFE is an indirect way to raise fuel taxes on only some portions of the fuel supply. As it happens, I prefer CAFE increases to straight gas tax increases, but they're essentially equivalent steps. No one talks about breaking the supply monopoly, which would allow the market to correct the inflated prices. No one is talking about how the sinking dollar value worldwide is responsible for a significant portion of the current high prices, we just see the high prices and hollar about how the end is nigh. Better to address the supply-side interference in the market and let the market work to establish the price.

 

Please let's remember what the market does: It finds the most efficient allocation of resources to accomplish a task. If folks decide that some things are not acceptable to use for a particular purpose, then that option is taken off the table (in large part through education and consumer choice, with perhaps other means as well depending upon our non-economic evaluation) and we get out of the market's way to let it find the next most efficient option. We do not ignore the problem and then interfere 8 ways to Christmas with the market working.

[Wayne Boncyk]

Wow! A debate of market economics cleverly disguised as a Sube mileage thread!! I'm glad that I wandered back to the forums after so many months away, and nipper & gary, I'm glad to see you trying to interject some commonsense into the storm.

 

However, I can't just sit by and watch without throwing my two pennies on the table.

 

Like it or not, we all must always be vigilant to balance the incentivization (the spur to greater creativity and the benefits that provides) of "free" market rewards, against the inherent nature of some humans to want to scam the system. No completely free market will ever work for long in any human society, because there will always be those who figure out how to "game" the system to reward themselves all out of proportion to their productive contribution to that society. I believe that the current crop of American CEOs and "Funds Managers" falls squarely into the category of those who game the system to their benefit, without contributing much of lasting consequence. IMHO, nobody on the face of the planet is worth a salary in the tens of millions of $$ per year, especially not when they also set up golden parachutes to provide themselves with additional millions when they tank the company and move on!

 

Likewise, we have seen every socialist-communist-utopian economic scheme ever attempted, fail miserably. Why? Because there is absolutely NO incentive built into any of them to encourage people to innovate, contribute, or produce! They all rely on the "belief" that all people are willing to support the common good. A fallacy, as demonstrated over and over by my CEO example cited above. Virtually every attempt at a socialist economy that we've seen tried throughout history has degenerated into an oligarchy or dictatorship, where power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of a very few or just one individual, since they quickly learn how to play the game under their rules to their exclusive benefit.

 

Until we devise a system of payment for labor that only rewards "real" productivity, we will have to manage the force-fight between those desiring more controls, and those arguing for a completely free and open system. The bottom line is that we as humans are driven in two mutually exclusive directions. We all, at least at some level, think that the common good is a noble objective, but we all are ultimately in it for ourselves to at least a certain degree. So, it is my belief that there is no perfect economic structure -- no matter what we do, it will be controlled by imperfect human beings.

[Gene J]

 

Please let's remember what the market does: It finds the most efficient allocation of resources to accomplish a task. If folks decide that some things are not acceptable to use for a particular purpose, then that option is taken off the table (in large part through education and consumer choice, with perhaps other means as well depending upon our non-economic evaluation) and we get out of the market's way to let it find the next most efficient option. We do not ignore the problem and then interfere 8 ways to Christmas with the market working.

 

Unfortunately the free market is not always the best solution. It is only best for some economically.

 

We have caused animals to go extinct, made the sea a lifeless cesspool, wiped out entire forests and caused pollution that will not go away for centuries. Oh. And heated up our planet.

 

We will use a resource whether it be food, minerals, animals and plants until they are gone and then move on to something else after destroying everything that got in the way of exploiting it..

 

The technology is already here. We just have to stop waste and use energy sources other than oil and coal. It just takes a little planning that the free market will not do for us

[Chip]

I can't stand to read any automotive publication such as Car and Driver, Motortrend, etc. Every single one of them is full of Porsche worship and has a large stigma against just about all Japanese manufacturers, especially Subaru. I remember reading when they test drove the new STi. Real quick to overlook the 305 HP and focus on road noise and poor MPG.

 

A stigma against anything Japanese ????? Check out Car and Drivers annual top 10 lists....Japanese cars/10

 

2001 3/10 (+ 3/5 on the truck list)

2002 4/10...including a Subaru...(3/5 on the truck list)

2003 6/10....including a Subaru..(3/5 on the truck list)

2004 4/10...(3/10 on the truck list)

2005 4/10

2006 4/10

2007 5/10

2008 4/10

 

These publications are about the only place where you can see meaningful comparison tests and actual racetrack numbers...(0-60, 1/4 mile, laptimes, etc...).

Unlike most of us, these guys have driven just about everything on the road and are in a good position to judge.

[bulwnkl]

No completely free market will ever work for long in any human society, because there will always be those who figure out how to "game" the system to reward themselves all out of proportion to their productive contribution to that society.

A true market (a relatively large number of buyers _and_ sellers) will not allow this to happen because no one has sufficient control/influence to make it work. The 'gaming' can only begin once there is disproportionate control by a few or one. Things like CAFE and fuel taxes are where the 'gaming' occurs in this thread's context because it's easier to mask that from end-use individuals. The 'gaming' is the reason for the universal failures of socialism you mention. Those who 'know best' end up primarily rewarding themselves over time. A person may be perfectly immune to this failing, but people are not. What's the saying? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

I agree that what's best for an individual is very commonly at odds with what's best for a group, and that causes lots of troubles. Still, history has proven time after time that starting with free markets and keeping them as open and free as possible is most effective and 'best' for both individuals and groups over time.