Disney may lose GM sponsorship for Test Track

ridemcoaster said:
So now im seeing you suggest we get the city/state/federal to fund better public transportation so that we can have the ability to commute from all regions of the are into work. I absolutely love and support that idea.. Much heavier price tag than just buying sensibly however.

Long term, sure. Short term, no. For exactly the reason you give. :)

Granted no one method is completely "easy", but it would seem to me the path of least resistance is just being responsible citizens, and it balloons upwards from there.

Make that two things we agree on.

I think the path of least resistance at this moment in time is simply making more people get in the cars that already exist, are owned and use the roads already.

No changes in manufacturing have to be made, no one has to buy anything. The extent of the difficulty is pairing people up. Making friends. Getting to know your neighbors and co-workers.

But perhaps that's just wishful thinking too, because in the face of rising gas prices (another potential way to creative incentive and/or penalty) I can help but suspect more people just went to vehicles with better mpg rather than things like carpooling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a treehugger and I'm the head-in-the-sand type that think the effect and consequences are being overblown, but I do understand that it doesn't hurt to try. What have we got to lose, so to speak.

Just seems to me like if we're going to trumpet just one solution (which it sure felt like was being done back on page 5 or 6) then there's better solutions to get loud about than saying SUVs drivers are vanity drivers who make excuses to cover their guilt for driving such vehicles and that we need to rid the world of these earth-haters. :)

No one is trumpeting one thing. It just happens to be the source of this discussion drawn out of Detroit's inability make the right product.

Lord Gonchar said:
You say the answer is changing what people drive. I'm just saying that's a single-minded answer.

No! No one said that. Is that the only thing that you're arguing about? Haven't I been saying before that it's not only one issue? Yes, inefficient vehicles are the easy target. So what? Do we not address the easy target because it's easy? You're going round and round to say that it's not the only thing, and yeah, everybody gets that. So if we all get that, what are you left with?

don't interest me. What grabs my attention is thesingluar, monotonous, uncreative drum beat of the "SUVs are bad" parade.

That's total b.s. The morality of the issue is what drives it. If there were no moral, political and socioeconomic reasons to have the discussion, we would all drive giant cars that burned puppies and no one would care.

So stating that SUV's are a part of the problem should be ignored because you find it singular, monotonous and uncreative. Is that correct?

You may not like that beat, but it is an undisputable fact that the act of moving a vehicle ten miles on one gallon of gas contributes to the problem. You not liking it doesn't change that. Me not talking at length about the other contributing solutions (car pooling, public transportation, telecommuting, etc.) will not change that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a treehugger and I'm the head-in-the-sand type that think the effect and consequences are being overblown, but I do understand that it doesn't hurt to try.

Im sorry Gonch but the Freudian made me laugh, due to the irony of the perceived role you played in this thread..

No.. No.. Dont change it.. Let me giggle more on this..

Jeff said: In light of the climate and national security issues surrounding the consumption of oil, it would seem to me that doing whatever we can is a priority.

Wanted to take that out of the middle of the post-athons on the last page because it's THAT important. I may have found a new signature... ;)

Jeff said:You're going round and round to say that it's not the only thing, and yeah, everybody gets that. So if we all get that, what are you left with?

That the SUV thing isn't the only solution. (which was the only thing being discussed I jumped in, hence my pointing out the fallacy in that thought)

Yes, in your defense, the topic of the thread led it there, but I wanted to point it out.

The morality of the issue is what drives it. If there were no moral, political and socioeconomic reasons to have the discussion, we would all drive giant cars that burned puppies and no one would care.

Maybe for you. But if morality were enough, we'd all have hybrids doing 50mpg already....just like we don't all kill puppies for fun and profit already. I'm not sure the morality is enough.

If they sold the puppy fueled car, I'd probably drive it. It'd be like feeding mice to a snake. ;)

So stating that SUV's are a part of the problem should be ignored because you find it singular, monotonous and uncreative. Is that correct?

Nope. But as I've said all along, I was trying to point out that it's not the only problem or even the biggest (in my opinion)...which it seemed like was being said. (again, prior to my jumping in)

And the stereotyping of the SUV driver was a little lame. :)

You may not like that beat, but it is an undisputable fact that the act of moving a vehicle ten miles on one gallon of gas contributes to the problem.

Agreed. But as we've said ad naseum, so does inefficiently using something that gets 40. The pot can't in good conscience call the kettle black.

Me not talking at length about the other contributing solutions (car pooling, public transportation, telecommuting, etc.) will not change that.

Nope. But neither will villifying all SUV owners. (which for the last time, is what seemed like was going on before I jumped in)

That's it really. I jumped in because until one is doing all they can, they sound foolish trying to claim others aren't...especially when the argument is such a specific thing in a situation where many apply (and work).

ridemcoaster said:
Im sorry Gonch but the Freudian made me laugh, due to the irony of the perceived role you played in this thread..

No.. No.. Dont change it.. Let me giggle more on this..

Ummm. I actually meant it that way. It a was self-deprecating way of saying while I personally don't really buy into a lot of the scare, I see no harm in playing along...

...and if I'm going to play along, I'd like to do something more useful than yell at SUV owners to buy a smaller car. :)

Riiiight.. Meant it that way.. Got it..

Gonch.. No one is standing on a street corner yelling at SUV owners (least not in this thread) nor asking every one to rally to do such. As you are stating your wealth of POVs, so are we. Ours ... specifically mine... is one of questioning practicality and governmental responsibility for better standards.

I questioned the fact of why cant we live practical and reap the benefits (no matter what size benefit) that occur from it.. my ctrl-c/ctrl-p key is worn down as I keep saying (paraphrased) "buy practical vehicles that match your personal needs, not go overboard just because we can.. If you are 1 person, drive lots of miles to a white collar job thus not hauling large things constantly.. Do you need a suburbon?" But keep hearing you repeat back to telling us we are saying "torch the suv owners".. Not it at all.

Sure I dont approve of it.. People ultimately can do whatever they want, but I just feel a larger portion of the US population drive inefficient vehicles in ineffienct manners more than we really understand.

Honestly, I think something good came out of $4 gas.. People began to reevaluate their driving habits on all ends of the spectrum, and I started to see less and less guzzlers on the road.. This proves to me before gas spiked there was a decent amount of inefficient drivers out there, since some people were obviously able to make adjustments to varying degress.

The SUV sales tanking also proved that people were adjusting needs vs wants, since simultanously, fuel effecient car sales suddenly went on the rise. I vagely remember reading that honda civics were appreciating even. Sad it took a hot poker of high gas prices to encourage some level of consciousness.

Anyways.. This was good stuff.. Enlightening.. I dont regret hopping into this one at all.

ridemcoaster said:
Riiiight.. Meant it that way.. Got it..

Wait. What am I missing?

I'm the head-in-the-sand type that thinks the effects and the consquences are overblown.

That's exactly what I meant. I'm not the treehugger type. Generally, I don't want to hear it.

...Nothing to see here.. Carry on.. What you are the only one who is allowed to exhibit any form of humor? I like you better when you are on your soapbox.. ;)

ridemcoaster said:
Honestly, I think something good came out of $4 gas.. People began to reevaluate their driving habits on all ends of the spectrum, and I started to see less and less guzzlers on the road.. This proves to me before gas spiked there was a decent amount of inefficient drivers out there, since some people were obviously able to make adjustments to varying degress.

The SUV sales tanking also proved that people were adjusting needs vs wants, since simultanously, fuel effecient car sales suddenly went on the rise. I vagely remember reading that honda civics were appreciating even. Sad it took a hot poker of high gas prices to encourage some level of consciousness.

One other thing the spike in gas prices proved was that it's not only the American consumer who's addicted to gasoline, but also government at the federal and state level. When it was reported that miles driven and gas consumption was reduced 5-6%, more than a few state governments reacted with horror that their revenues dropped due to the reduction in gas taxes collected.

When the correlation's obvious that more gas consumed = more money in the coffers, what incentive is there for government to change? This is my general problem with "sin taxes" where the government at various levels tries to use monetary punishment to curtail certain behaviors, then uses that revenue to fund some program or even its general budget. When they're succesful in changing behavior, they have less revenue to support said program.

To look at what Gonch was saying previously comparing the Prius driver putting on a lot of miles vs. the SUV owner who drives sparingly. Another way to look at it is from the supply side rather than demand, since ultimately what we're looking at is reduction of gasoline consumption. Say you allow a "budget" of 100 gallons per month (I won't use the "r" word), however a person wishes to use it is up to them.

The person with the car that gets 35 mpg can go 3500 miles with their allotment, while the person with the SUV that gets 12 mpg can only put 1200 miles on their vehicle. But if those are their regular driving habits, at the end of the month, both drivers consumed the same volume of gas.

Jeff and ridem would say that if the SUV owner purchased a more efficient vehicle, they could consume 30-70 gallons per month less. And Gonch is countering that the car driver could do the same by driving 1000-2000 fewer miles. And both sides are correct.

Lets talk about Ford for a minute:

•They are actually beginning to turn themselves around quite well now. Out of the big 3, Ford is the better of them, but they still have a way to go.

•They haven't had to ask for any bailouts... yet.

•Their quality has gotten much better in only a few years

•The Ford CEO has toured a Toyota Plant and considers Toyota to be the best car builder in the world (which is a very bold statement) and he also owns a Lexus... which he gets a lot of crap for.

•They brought back the name "Taurus" because of the branding and familiarity. It doesn't get 21mpg, it gets an "average" of 21mpg. Dealer stickers are now legally required to state the "average mpg" It actually gets 18 city, 28 hwy. My 89 Accord gets 20 city and 30hwy.

Now lets talk about Consumer Reports:

When CR doesn't recommend a brand new model, it means that they haven't had enough time to test it before print (this year, they didn't recommend a new Acura because they haven't had time to yet). They conduct surveys by readers who own the cars to help determine how their own cars have lasted.

CR averages about 3 months testing each car. Magazines like Motor Trend and Car and Drive spend about a day and are given "high end models" from the manufacturers themselves to rate. CR "buys" their own cars anonymously.

Does that help clear up anything?

Looks like things are getting less heated. I wasn't on at all this weekend. Never turned the computer on. Thought about visiting this site but kept busy elsewhere with the family. Does that mean I should point at people who used their computer this weekend and complain about their carbon footprint? No, in my opinion. I hope everyone that used it enjoyed their time. I, like someone else mentioned, (I think Lord Gonchar, but please don't hold me to it if I am wrong) thikn the environment thing is over stated. But I also want to do what I can to help, but not get carried away. No one seemed to speak up against my 28 plus MPG Taurus even though they were stated a lower number. That was a fact. I was even told before I mentioned my actual mpg. Where on earth is a Taurus good gas mileage?

I would like to add a small bit to the status symbol thing. While there are many SUV owners that want the status symbol, it works the other way to. There are many prius owners who feel they can say look at me I am environmentally friendly. They also bought a status symbol. I would like to say most people aren't like that, but I know better. But if gallons of gas in the end are the concern, should we not go to the amusement parks we like? we could save gas, even if it were the local park. We could all just sit at home all day and not go anywhere. Now, that's not good either. I think everyone should do what they can and try to have an inffluence.

One more thing though. I would be a little worried if the government got too involved. They seem to mess things up quite well. But that's a whole new can to open up and probably not here.

^Has the government messed up more than they've fixed over the years? Certainly debatable either way. But I think it's important to note that political leaders have multiple avenues at their disposal when trying to influence the public. Obviously, legally mandating CAFE standards id one route. But taxes and subsidies are even potentially more effective by utilizing the power of the marketplace to alter corporate and consumer behavior. There is also the persuasive power of leadership simply by setting an example. For you old-timers, nobody wore pillbox hats until Jackie Kennedy did. Kind of like how we've been discussing many ways to lower consumption (and a little bit of sidebar discussion of alternative sources of energy), for best results it's always important to take a more "systems approach" - and government needs to bring ALL its substantial weight to bear in the effort to get us OFF the drug, er, oil.

Dr. Girlfriend wears those hats exceptionally well too.

My 2c.

It all goes back to our favorite coasterbuzz TLA (three letter acronym): ROI

Say we want to save 10 gallons of gas. We can ask the SUV owner to downsize (for now, we will disregard the cost of the transition itself) or we can ask the Prius driver not to commute as far.

The personal cost to the SUV owner, I would claim is small (possibly less comfort, less safety against other SUV's, less status, the once in a blue moon where they want to load up 8 kids and luggage) whereas the personal cost to the Prius owner is large (living where they don't want to live or taking a job they don't want to take). I base this on the fact that I live in Texas and I rarely see the large ass trucks and SUV doing anything other than commuting with one person inside. Even in Texas the "I need it for a job" or "Every now and then I carry a huge load" doesn't play out in reality.

If we want to save a bunch of gas, there's a fairly easy way to do and a fairly hard way to do it. If we can do both, great! But one has a signifantly smaller personal cost and thus, better ROI, than the other.

Jeff said:Dr. Girlfriend wears those hats exceptionally well too.

Venture Brothers remains one of the best cartoon shows going. Dr. Girlfriend is hot...until she (he?) talks. ;)

"Isn't that the guy from Dee-pesh Mode? He's totally straight, I saw it on the VH1."