# CAFE rules put new Monaro/GTO and Impala on hold



## 05GTO (Oct 6, 2004)

*CAFE rules put new Monaro/GTO and Impala on hold* 
Posted on Saturday 19 January 2008








GM’s RWD future was looking rosy until the U.S. government decided to vote in favor of new CAFE rules, forcing carmakers to improve the average fuel economy of their fleets to 35mpg by 2020. We were teased with all manner of RWD, V8 powered muscle cars, including sedans, coupes, and even a sports wagon but now many of these cars have fallen off the radar.

Some of the cars will still arrive, such as the Pontiac G8 range, Chevrolet Camaro, and possibly a G8 Ute, however, others such as a new RWD Impala and a next-generation Holden Monaro/Pontiac GTO are unlikely to see the light of day anytime soon. “I think (the Monaro/Pontiac GTO) is gone for now,” GM product czar Bob Lutz told GoAuto at the recent Detroit Auto Show. “We’ve got nothing in the product plan right now like that. We’d like to have, but you can’t do everything.”

Lutz revealed that the plans were dropped because of GM’s need to downsize its range in order for it to meet the upcoming CAFE regulations. “In terms of fuel economy, that’s not the end of the market where we want to stimulate demand,” Lutz explained. “We have to find ways to stimulate demand and desirability in cars that will get us closer to the 35 MPG average.

Instead the future lies in the new ‘Alpha’ midsized platform as well as SUVs derived from car platforms rather than a truck-base chassis. However, Lutz was quick to point out that Alpha still hasn’t been given the green light and that officials are first waiting to see how the entire CAFE deal pans out. If given the go ahead, GM will once again call upon its Holden division in Australia to develop the new Alpha range.


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

Bob Lutz (Mr. Contradiction) has a history of saying one thing one day and something else the next. I put no stock in what he says. He's got people on a roller coaster ride with his press release statements. 

What he says today doesn't necessarily mean it will be what he means tomorrow.


----------



## raspantienator (Nov 20, 2007)

On the upside-No more GTO's can mean ours may have greater historical significance down the road.


----------



## NJG8GT (Nov 14, 2007)

raspantienator said:


> On the upside-No more GTO's can mean ours may have greater historical significance down the road.


Yea, im holding on to mine as long as i can. Unless something goes wrong with my goat, I would have to settle for the upcoming G8 GXP. I wish they would bring the goat back in the future. If they do, it has to have more horses than we've got now! Gotta stay above the competition re: mustangs, chargers, camaros, challengers etc. atleast 600 would be nice place to start! Still above caddys, but uner the vettes. Then we could mod the heck out of them and nothing would get in our way! Not that anything gets in my way now! Id have to say, the picture of the G8 ST really did not look to bad, it would make a great daily driver! Oh, and for the historical significance, I hope everyone keeps all of their factory parts when making those modifications.


----------



## Good 2 go (Sep 7, 2005)

If GM is so dedicated to meet this new CAFE standard, they should green-light the "Trax, Beat and Groove" concepts. One for Chevy, Pontiac and GMC each.


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

I wouldn't be caught dead in any one of those.

I absolutely refuse to be muscled into buying something I do not want for the good of the economy, or it will help the stratosphere, or it will end global warming, or the car is biodegradable, after 10 years you can bury it and it will grow a tree. 

I have talked to so many people who have bought cars they didn't want but did so anyway because it gets pretty good gas mileage. They drive unhappy and only smile when they fill the tank. 

That line of thinking ain't for me.


----------



## cody6.0 (Nov 28, 2006)

In my opinion the government should have set it's target on trucks not a companies full line up. Well except for Ford I guess, they cannot get good mileage out of anything except a Focus.

GTO JUDGE I completely agree with your thinking.

One thing that is funny as hell is this:

People buy these cars because they get 35mpg or a nice Hybrid may see 40mpg. Then they ask what my gas hog V8 gets for mileage. I love watching there jaw hit the floor when I say I get 32mpg highway!


Maybe the government should just out law women from driving SUV's also. Or offer an education class that shows them how to drive them.


----------



## Good 2 go (Sep 7, 2005)

GTO JUDGE said:


> I wouldn't be caught dead in any one of those.
> 
> I absolutely refuse to be muscled into buying something I do not want for the good of the economy, or it will help the stratosphere, or it will end global warming, or the car is biodegradable, after 10 years you can bury it and it will grow a tree.
> 
> ...


I wasn't suggesting that cars like these should be all that GM sells, or that *we*, as in *enthusiasts* should drive. My logic is that if more of these are produced, that would help GM continue to make the stuff *we* like, as in RWD V-8 toys, and yet be more capable at reaching these new CAFE standards. Making Hybrid SUV's and such is all well and good, but I doubt a full-size SUV is ever going to bring the average MPG down enough to justify the continued development of cars like the GTO/Monaro.


----------



## cody6.0 (Nov 28, 2006)

I know what you were saying, I think they should make them available also.

People who want a car for simple point A to B transportation need to pick one up.


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

Good 2 go said:


> I wasn't suggesting that cars like these should be all that GM sells, or that *we*, as in *enthusiasts* should drive. My logic is that if more of these are produced, that would help GM continue to make the stuff *we* like, as in RWD V-8 toys, and yet be more capable at reaching these new CAFE standards. Making Hybrid SUV's and such is all well and good, but I doubt a full-size SUV is ever going to bring the average MPG down enough to justify the continued development of cars like the GTO/Monaro.


I understand what you are saying. I like the way you think..... Let others drive them so we can drive our favorites. :rofl::rofl::cheers


----------



## JerseyGoat (Dec 2, 2005)

I agree. Strengthen the product line with your green vehicles or what have you. Just keep 1 maybe 2 enthusiast minded vehicles in your line up. I don't see why that is such a far fetched possibility.


----------



## cody6.0 (Nov 28, 2006)

Hell they wouldn't even need to sell a whole lot of em to offset the " gashogs " we love. Manufactures are granted credits on MPG that can be used to also offset low MPG vehicles.

All GM would have to do is have each branch Chevy, Pontiac and maybe Saturn carry a ECO friendly car and new V8 projects can continue.

I will however say I will forever hate GM if they put a hold on sports cars that get 28MPG just to keep making trucks that get 10mpg.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

cody6.0 said:


> Hell they wouldn't even need to sell a whole lot of em to offset the " gashogs " we love. Manufactures are granted credits on MPG that can be used to also offset low MPG vehicles.
> 
> All GM would have to do is have each branch Chevy, Pontiac and maybe Saturn carry a ECO friendly car and new V8 projects can continue.
> 
> I will however say I will forever hate GM if they put a hold on sports cars that get 28MPG just to keep making trucks that get 10mpg.


Your off a bit on this. They calculate CAFE from a mix of city and highway giving city mileage a 2 to 1 count. A Corvette is rated at 17 and 26. That works out to a CAFE average of 20. to pull one Corvette up to 35 you would need to sell 3 eco friendly 40 mpg cars that aren't made yet and nobody wants. Throw a dozen Impalas at 24 mpg into the mix with one Corvette and you now need to sell 35 of these not yet produced cars that get considerably better mileage than an Aveo. Throw trucks into the mix and the numbers of the eco friendly cars become unreachable. 

There is only three ways they are going to be able to meet these regs. 

1) Stop or slow truck sales. That isn't going to happen.

2) A bunch of breakthroughs in technology in the next 6 years. It has to happen in the next 6 years too, so that it can meet production cycles and actually be available on vehicles in 2020. 

3) The vehicles we like are going to get extremely expensive, so that no one buys them and when they do they can subsidize the price of cheap tin boxes that no one wants so people will buy more of them. Think Aveo sized tin boxes with 1.0 l 70hp engines selling for $7500 and the Corvette subsidising it at 3,000 per car. That means the price of a new Corvette goes up $9,000. With the base Vette at $57,000 and an average Vette costing $64,000, they are going to sell a bunch less. If Vettes continue to sell they may have to raise the price even further and lower the tin box price more. 

Most of the design, technology and developement is going to be focused on getting the Impala to reach a 32 mpg average and a truck to 26mpg. The resources aren't going to be available to develope a more powerfull, more efficient engine for niche cars like a Corvette or Camaro. We will probably see them stay with the current engines they have and any breakthroughs will be added to them to make them slightly more efficient. Prices will go up considerably to direct consumers to more eco-friendly choices. 

Let's face the fact that the government doesn't think you need or should be able to buy a gas guzzler. The easy answer is to raise CAFE numbers and make us buy underpowered, tiny little tin boxes like most of Europe buys. 

What I don't understand is, why doesn't the government focus it's energy and our tax dollars on real solutions to our carbon dependency. For the one trillion dollars we spent on this war in Iraq, we could have set solar panels up all over the Nevada desert and windmills all across the plains and gulf coast region. The electricity developed would have been cheap if government had helped businesses with the infrastructure and donated government land for power generation use. We could then shift away from oil and where we still need carbon to generate power and such, used coal which we have an excess of. 

By eliminating our dependence on oil and natural gas, we would end up keeping more dollars here in this country which will benefit the average U S citizen. The oil we produce in Texas, California, Alaska would make us nearly energy independent. Then we could open up ANWAR, the gulf coast and Florida Keys, Utah and Colorado for energy exploration and have reserves that would eliminate the need to send nut cases like Hugo Chavez any of our money. 

Also with extremely cheap electricity we would see a bunch of electric powered plug in vehicles that would further reduce our need for oil. This would make the U S a leader in reducing CO2 output, completely energy independent (Screw the mid east wack jobs) reduce our trade deficit, strengthen the U S dollar and allow us to be safer and more secure because we wouldn't be dependent on others that hate us.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

I was talking to a friend about the solar panel idea and the windmill idea using government help to achieve it. 

He brought up a great point. We have a precedent that the government has done this exact thing before. The Tennessee Valley Authority that built hydro electric dams along the Tennessee river was a government project. People in that area have benefitted for 60 plus years by having the lowest cost electric power in the US. 

I think the real issue is, the policy makers that write these laws and push for the US to change, want exactly that. They want us to change our lifestyle and not come up with solutions that allow us to live as we are. They believe that America is wasteful and excessive and that they know what is better for us than we do.


----------



## GOAT06 (May 6, 2006)

Great points fergy!! You always have great insight! Now what really baffles me is the fuel economy that a lot of the 4 cyl cars are getting. In the newspaper this past sunday, they had a review of the new impreza (not sti). I know its a turbo and that requires more fuel, but its rated at 19city/25 highway. I mean COME ON!! My last car was a 2000 camaro ss. The best mileage i got was 31 mpg on a trip to western NY going over lots of hills. My goat gets between 25 and 26 highway with only 7,000miles. With the mods my goat has, it has almost double the horse power of the impreza, the engine is almost 3x larger in displacement, and the goat in about 650lbs heavier, and both cars are about equal in fuel economy. It seems to me manufacturers should be concentrating on increasing the fuel economy in economy cars to get to that magic CAFE number, but hey maybe i'm wrong:confused

Also, what about the DOCH motors. Yes they produce more power with less displacement, but the fuel economy is much worse than a proven small block push rod engine. Its amazing with technology that is as old as the small block is and a couple of tweaks through the years, that we can get mid-high 20mpgs out of a 364ci motor.


----------



## Mike_V (Mar 10, 2006)

I like little cars when it's just me making my way to work. The more go-cart like the better - lol. I had one small car with a fast shifting five speed that was super quick. I bet it was the fastest car on Earth, 0-5 mph. And don’t forget, those cars are so bouncy you can do Dukes of Hazard style maneuvers without even trying. What’s not to love.


----------



## cody6.0 (Nov 28, 2006)

I went to the new car show in Omaha last week and was blown away by what some small cars get for mileage these days. With all of the advances and not to mention most have 6 speeds you would think a 2.4 Liter could do better than 26mpg. 

Anymore it seems as if technology hasn't helped at all!

There isn't one V8 with cylinder deactivation that is one bit impressive. The Dodge lineup being my main focus, a V8 with this feature gets 26mpg. Yet GM can pull the same numbers out of a 505HP LS7.

My 2007 Silverado Vortec 5.3 2WD is also a decent example. GM claims 22mpg highway and I have yet to see 20mpg, and I have even tried!


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

Think how much bigger, heavier and more powerfull cars have gotten since 1988. The full sized LeSabre was 3300 lbs. It had a 165 hp 3.8L V6 and was sized about like a Ford Fusion. The Ford Fusion is considered a smaller midsize car today. It weighs about the same as the LeSabre, but again it's considered small mid size. It has a 2.3l with 160 hp. The 3.0 V6 makes 221hp and it's considered underpowered as far as V6's go. The 4 cyl gets 20/29 versus a 1988 LeSabre getting 19/27. 

I know, your thinking well DUH the 4cyl is going to get better mileage, where's the improvement. Well the 2.3L makes almost as much power as the 3.8 did in 1988. The 3.9L V6 in the Impala makes almost 100 more hp than the 3.8 did and gets the same mileage in a larger heavier car. A 2.4 L Eco-Tech now makes the same power as a 5.0 L V8 in 1988.

Where I'm getting at with this is the American public is going to need to accept an Impala with a 2.4L 170hp Eco-tech that is smaller and a little less solid feeling so it can be lighter. The gearing is going to be focused towards efficiency again and you will see a 9.5 second 0-60 Impala 4cyl that gets 24 city and 32 hwy. The Cobalt is going to end up a 1.6l with 110hp and a 0-60 of 10.0 and 30/38mpg or the base will get a 1.3L with 95hp and a 0-60 of 11.2 and 33/41mpg. The Aveo will end up with the old Metro 1.0L with a whopping 62hp, 38/45 and 0-60 sometimes, especially if there is a downgrade. 

Don't get me started on pick-ups. In 1988 most full-sized pickups made do with 170 to 190 hp. The V6 and straight 6's made 110 hp for a full size pick up. That's what we are headed back to. A Full size pick up with a 2.5L 210hp V6. It will get 19 City and 26hwy. It will do a 11 second 0-60. A 4cylinder turbo diesel full size with 175hp but lots of V8 style torque. Pick-ups will go back to being a work vehicle. 

That's what your government thinks you should be driving. The problem in America, acording to the Government, is You gross pigs with your unneccessary 400hp V8's. You need to conserve so they can continue to ride in their limo's. So they can fly all over the globe countless times and save the world. They are smart and important. They need 10,000 sf houses to entertain dignitaries. You get the point I'll stop here.


----------



## Good 2 go (Sep 7, 2005)

GOAT06 said:


> Great points fergy!! You always have great insight! Now what really baffles me is the fuel economy that a lot of the 4 cyl cars are getting. In the newspaper this past sunday, they had a review of the new impreza (not sti). I know its a turbo and that requires more fuel, but its rated at 19city/25 highway. I mean COME ON!! My last car was a 2000 camaro ss. The best mileage i got was 31 mpg on a trip to western NY going over lots of hills. My goat gets between 25 and 26 highway with only 7,000miles. With the mods my goat has, it has almost double the horse power of the impreza, the engine is almost 3x larger in displacement, and the goat in about 650lbs heavier, and both cars are about equal in fuel economy. It seems to me manufacturers should be concentrating on increasing the fuel economy in economy cars to get to that magic CAFE number, but hey maybe i'm wrong:confused
> 
> Also, what about the DOCH motors. Yes they produce more power with less displacement, but the fuel economy is much worse than a proven small block push rod engine. Its amazing with technology that is as old as the small block is and a couple of tweaks through the years, that we can get mid-high 20mpgs out of a 364ci motor.


One thing I noticed with my Formula and Trans Am: These, and other GM V8's have loads of torque, right where you settle in at a cruising speed. The 6-speed manuals (prolly the same with the auto) loaf along at about 1500 to 1800 rpms at highway speeds. Most 4 bangers have to rev much higher than that, and don't have the torque, so you have to apply more throttle to maintain the same speed. The F-bodies, and 'Vettes are very aerodynamic, which I'm sure helps also. I have no scientific data to back this up, so feel free to pick this apart.


----------



## GM Kid (Mar 21, 2005)

Good 2 go said:


> I wasn't suggesting that cars like these should be all that GM sells, or that *we*, as in *enthusiasts* should drive. My logic is that if more of these are produced, that would help GM continue to make the stuff *we* like, as in RWD V-8 toys, and yet be more capable at reaching these new CAFE standards. Making Hybrid SUV's and such is all well and good, but I doubt a full-size SUV is ever going to bring the average MPG down enough to justify the continued development of cars like the GTO/Monaro.


Yup, I agree. Cars like those (for the great unwashed masses) are what allow guys like us to drive cars like ours.


----------



## bemeyer (Apr 4, 2005)

Good 2 go said:


> One thing I noticed with my Formula and Trans Am: These, and other GM V8's have loads of torque, right where you settle in at a cruising speed. The 6-speed manuals (prolly the same with the auto) loaf along at about 1500 to 1800 rpms at highway speeds. Most 4 bangers have to rev much higher than that, and don't have the torque, so you have to apply more throttle to maintain the same speed. The F-bodies, and 'Vettes are very aerodynamic, which I'm sure helps also. I have no scientific data to back this up, so feel free to pick this apart.



Good point about bringing up speed at which we drive....big impact on economy obviously. Wonder if in search of green-ness our speed limits will once again be reduced????

I agree with fergy about cars simply becoming under-powered, quickest way to gain MPG. This is 1973 all over again. Grab your V8 muscle now and put her in the garage. Our 2+ decade long HP gains for US built cars will be coming to an abrupt halt.


----------



## cody6.0 (Nov 28, 2006)

In all seriousness the HP wars shouldn't have to stop when a 505hp LS7 and a 400hp LS2 get 30mpg. It is the manufactures bull**** of making gas guzzling trucks that mess things up.

9 out of 10 people that have a truck or SUV do not need them. 

It is the millions of cellphone bearing soccer moms that are causing problems not the thousands of car nuts.


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

cody6.0 said:


> It is the millions of cellphone bearing soccer moms that are causing problems not the thousands of car nuts.


Man, .............ain't that the truth.

I am seeing more and more texting behind the wheel too.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

cody6.0 said:


> In all seriousness the HP wars shouldn't have to stop when a 505hp LS7 and a 400hp LS2 get 30mpg. It is the manufactures bull**** of making gas guzzling trucks that mess things up.
> 
> 9 out of 10 people that have a truck or SUV do not need them.
> 
> It is the millions of cellphone bearing soccer moms that are causing problems not the thousands of car nuts.


Problem is Cody, You and I know a C6 gets 30+ on the highway. The EPA cycle though shows it at 26. It's blended CAFE is 20. GM is going to figure that a 320hp slightly lighter C6 that gets 32 highway on the EPA test and averages a CAFE of 27 is going to sell a lot better than a 400 hp C6 that gets current mileage. Why???? Because the lower powered one is going to be 50,000 and the higher powered one is going to be 65,000. That's the only way to make CAFE work and to avoid fines. Now that they have included trucks on the same regs as cars, watch the changes we get in them. If they exempt over 15,000lb GVW work trucks, that's what the next family hauler will be. 

It's not the soccer moms fault either. She wants a safe vehicle to haul her 3 kids to the game in. That was the family station wagon. Then the Government decided that we needed better mileage mandated from above. So they decided that all cars needed to get a certain mileage. Only way to do that was to make the family truckster smaller or go away. But hey guess what, the feds put a loophole in for trucks and automakers drove very car like trucks right through the hole and got the American public hooked on a nice comfortable full size vehicle. Just like the beloved family truckster, except this one was a truck and had different emmission and mileage regs. 

That is why we need to make sure the government never gets control of our healthcare. They will screw that up just like they do everything they try to regulate. When you make people do something other than normal human nature, it always causes more problems than it solves.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

GTO JUDGE said:


> Man, .............ain't that the truth.
> 
> I am seeing more and more texting behind the wheel too.


I was behind a guy the other day. He had a DVD player on his dash and was texting while driving and watching a movie all at the same time. They need to make the penalties for DUI apply to people that text/DVD/ use a cell phone while driving.


----------



## cody6.0 (Nov 28, 2006)

I have always wondered if on of these phone talking/texting jackasses hits me if I can sue them for neglegence?

Because I know if I shove the phone up there ass it will kill them and that would be bad for me.


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

fergyflyer said:


> I was behind a guy the other day. He had a DVD player on his dash and was texting while driving and watching a movie all at the same time. They need to make the penalties for DUI apply to people that text/DVD/ use a cell phone while driving.


:agree


----------



## Good 2 go (Sep 7, 2005)

fergyflyer said:


> I was behind a guy the other day. He had a DVD player on his dash and was texting while driving and watching a movie all at the same time. They need to make the penalties for DUI apply to people that text/DVD/ use a cell phone while driving.


I've even seen folks with a book or pamphlet on the wheel! Trying to read a map to get to where you're going is one thing, but out-n-out *reading* is sick!


----------



## aintmisbehavinn (Feb 9, 2006)

Bob Lutz also told reporters at the Detroit Auto Show the U.S. government's 35 mpg CAFE standard will push car prices up by $4,000 to $10,000 per vehicle, or an average $6,000. (Yes 6K for 0-60 in just under 12 seconds or less and less which ever the government can hand you your a$$.)

"This is going to be a net average of cost of $6,000 per vehicle which will have to be passed onto the consumer," he said. "The good news is it won't come all at once, because 35 mpg doesn't kick in all at once."These new standards were approved by the newly elected democratic congress in December. :shutme 

The new CAFE standards will be phased in beginning in 2011.  The new law calls for automakers to achieve an average of 35 mpg across their fleets by 2020.

Lutz previously warned GM's future rear-wheel-drive lineup might need to be rethought if the government doesn't change its position. In April, he said small cars only count toward an automaker's CAFE average if they're built in the United States. At current prices, it's impossible to build small cars and sell them at a profit, he claimed. :seeya:


----------



## bemeyer (Apr 4, 2005)

FYI
End of an Era? - MSN Autos


----------



## PapitoGTO (Aug 17, 2006)

fergyflyer said:


> Problem is Cody, You and I know a C6 gets 30+ on the highway. The EPA cycle though shows it at 26. It's blended CAFE is 20. GM is going to figure that a 320hp slightly lighter C6 that gets 32 highway on the EPA test and averages a CAFE of 27 is going to sell a lot better than a 400 hp C6 that gets current mileage. Why???? Because the lower powered one is going to be 50,000 and the higher powered one is going to be 65,000. That's the only way to make CAFE work and to avoid fines. Now that they have included trucks on the same regs as cars, watch the changes we get in them. If they exempt over 15,000lb GVW work trucks, that's what the next family hauler will be.
> 
> It's not the soccer moms fault either. She wants a safe vehicle to haul her 3 kids to the game in. That was the family station wagon. Then the Government decided that we needed better mileage mandated from above. So they decided that all cars needed to get a certain mileage. Only way to do that was to make the family truckster smaller or go away. But hey guess what, the feds put a loophole in for trucks and automakers drove very car like trucks right through the hole and got the American public hooked on a nice comfortable full size vehicle. Just like the beloved family truckster, except this one was a truck and had different emmission and mileage regs.
> 
> That is why we need to make sure the government never gets control of our healthcare. They will screw that up just like they do everything they try to regulate. When you make people do something other than normal human nature, it always causes more problems than it solves.


Vote for the FairTax and take the power away from the socialist politicians that keep showing up in office. And is not the fast driver that causes accident, it is the slower driver on the left hand lane that does. Rule of Thumb for you non driving people: Follow the flow of traffic!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

PapitoGTO said:


> Vote for the FairTax and take the power away from the socialist politicians that keep showing up in office. And is not the fast driver that causes accident, it is the slower driver on the left hand lane that does. Rule of Thumb for you non driving people: Follow the flow of traffic!!!!!!!!!!!


Americans For Fair Taxation:

Not only the left hand lane, but the guy driving 15 to 20 mph slower in any lane. People get stuck behind that guy and swerve in front of another car to get around him. Then you have accidents.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

I got into a disscussion on this topic in another forum. One of the comments made was why do we car enthusiasts feel we have a right to a car that has 400hp. 

My answer was this. We car enthusiasts have the same right to enjoy the pursuit of happiness granted by the constitution that every person living in a 2500 sf or larger house does. Just like a 400 hp car or truck, most people really don't need a large house. The resources wasted by a large house are far greater than the resources wasted by a 400 hp car that is driven mostly for pleasure. 

Since it's justified that you have to have housing, and you need to have transportation to survive in America today, why are we attacking just the transportation aspect of it. That's where I derive my happiness and why is my form of happiness worse than the guy down the street that lives in a 4 bedroom 3600 sf house with just his wife. Why is their swimming pool, hot tub and 48 external lights around the house ok, but a 400 hp or 625hp Corvette not ok. 

What we really need is the government to get back to the guidelines of the constitution.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

fergyflyer said:


> I got into a disscussion on this topic in another forum. One of the comments made was why do we car enthusiasts feel we have a right to a car that has 400hp.
> 
> My answer was this. We car enthusiasts have the same right to enjoy the pursuit of happiness granted by the constitution that every person living in a 2500 sf or larger house does. Just like a 400 hp car or truck, most people really don't need a large house. The resources wasted by a large house are far greater than the resources wasted by a 400 hp car that is driven mostly for pleasure.
> 
> ...


Yeah but...........my house has never had a high speed collision with another house. 

My house travels at exactly the same speed as every other home in the country with the possible exception of the idiots in CA who build on steep hillsides that are prone to mudslides or the slow learners who continue to live on the banks of major waterways in a floodplain.

My house can't be used as a weapon to intimidate other homeowners who are minding their own business.

Weather has little effect on the way in which I use my house or it's speed.

My excercise of poor judgement in my home will generally not impact other homeowners.

Lack of maintenance to my home might result in pissed off neighbors but seldom will it result in the death of innocent bystanders or damage to other people's property.

No, aggressive driving in high powered cars with a huge performance gap compared to the average traffic on pulic roads is not quite the same as my McMansion sucking up fuel oil, propane, and electricity.

If you want to drive 150MPH in traffic, do it on a closed prepared track with other like minded enthusiasts and emergency response crews at the ready, not public roads.

You and I absolutely have the right to own and enjoy high performance cars if we can afford them. As long as we do it responsibly without putting other people at risk. Unfortunately, every day we all see examples of a$$holess excercising poor judgement on public roads in cars that likely exceed their skill level by a wide margin. These are the agressive morons that non-enthusiasts react to, not the 45 year old guy that occasionally takes a run to 150 MPH in his Z06 on a wide open restricted access highway. Personally, I don't mind these retards killing themselves. I'm actually very supportive of their attempts to cleanse the gene pool. But, when they put my property, or my life at risk, or the lives of my family, their rights end.....period!


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

Wing_Nut said:


> Yeah but...........my house has never had a high speed collision with another house.
> 
> My house travels at exactly the same speed as every other home in the country with the possible exception of the idiots in CA who build on steep hillsides that are prone to mudslides or the slow learners who continue to live on the banks of major waterways in a floodplain.
> 
> ...


I think you missed my point Wing. 

What I was aiming at was this. We have a CAFE that limits the entire fleets fuel economy for an automobile manufacturer. We don't have anything that limits the energy usage for a home builder. So in effect the government is limiting the freedom a manufacturer has to build a car that a customer wants because it uses too much energy. 

Why is it ok for a home builder to build a house that a person wants, that isn't energy efficient, while I like high powered cars and they are soon going to be regulated out of existance. 

I have a friend that has a 6500 sf house. His electric bill every month is between 450 on the low side and 650 on the high side. That's the equivilant of him driving a SRT10 pickup and my 1300 sf energy efficient house uses 45-85 a month in electricity makes me a Prius driver. 

Why is GM considered to be destroying the world by cranking out Tahoe's and Vette's, while it's just fine for Toll Brothers and KB Homes to crank out 3000-4000 sf houses all day long. Shouldn't there be a standard that says if Toll Brothers makes a 4000 sf house it then needs to build 6 1300 sf houses to equal the enviromental impact of the large house? 

What I really think is this. The government needs to limit itself and it's scope to it's constitutional authority. It needs to mind it's own business and stay out of the peoples right to persue happiness. 

As far as the gene pool, I'm completely opposed to mandatory airbags and seatbelts too. Let the idiots eliminate themselves and the average guy goes on his own in relative safety.


----------



## Wing_Nut (Mar 6, 2005)

fergyflyer said:


> I think you missed my point Wing.
> 
> What I was aiming at was this. We have a CAFE that limits the entire fleets fuel economy for an automobile manufacturer. We don't have anything that limits the energy usage for a home builder. So in effect the government is limiting the freedom a manufacturer has to build a car that a customer wants because it uses too much energy.
> 
> ...


A completely valid point. Which is why my sympathies generally lie with the Republican party. De govamint should stay the fluck out of the free market economy with the exception of providing the infrastructure to allow it to operate. A cental banking system, trade laws, courts to settle disputes, interstate transportation systems (roads & rails), education to provide a ready supply of talent, a military to provide physical security for our interests. All good endeavors for a central govamint to get involved in. Mandating product design requirements.....pretty futile. The market will find a way to get what the market wants whether that be a 6,000 SF house or a 600 HP car.

However, I think a 600 HP car is more socially irresponsible than the big house because the car is constantly interacting with other cars. That sort of performance difference in the hands of a jackass will (and does) kill people. Do people need a 500 or 600 HP car on public roads? Is there ever a safe place to use that potential on public roads? At least the decision to purchse a poorly built McMansion from Toll Brothers won't kill anyone.

As for social responsibility, does anyone need these massive homes? No! And I think the recent real estate market "adjustment" is causing a lot of people to re-examine their "needs". We have a 4,200 SF house with another 1,200 SF of finished space in the basement with a playroom and a bar with walkout to a 20 X 40 heated pool. The house has 360 degree landscape/security lighting. The grass and landscape plants are watered by an automated 9 zone irrigation system. The 7 channel home theater sucks 1.5 -2.0 KW when it's running. The house uses fuel oil (heat & HW), electricity, and propane (pool). Is this necessary for 4 people? Smart? Probably not. It's certainly a far cry from the home I grew up in and I never felt deprived or unhappy because of our house. Our irrigation system was kid powered. Our pool was a public beach at a lake about a mile from the house. It was also our skating rink in winter and a spot to fish. Home theater consisted of a 25" TV and rabbit ears. In fact, happiness as a kid had very little to do with the status derived from our house.

We have friends, he's a orthopedic surgeon, she's a dentist. They have a 6,000 SF home and a single child. The house has 12 ft cielings on the first floor so the doors end up being these huge tall slabs that look a little odd. What makes them look even funnier is that the homeowners are pretty short. He's about 5'6" while she is about 5'1". I can't help thinking of Hobbits when I see them in that house. They like ballroom dancing and so, have installed a dance studio complete with sound system, mirrors on the walls, and those ballet bars on the walls. Never asked but it could be a great room for sex too! Wretched excess? Yeah. Stupid? Probably. Wasteful? Certainly. Should the govamint step in? Hell no. The free market is putting the brakes on the excess pretty well at the moment. I think a lot of McMansion buyers of the past decade are questioning their decision right now. Only the market can find the answers.


----------



## GOATTEE (Nov 30, 2006)

raspantienator said:


> On the upside-No more GTO's can mean ours may have greater historical significance down the road.


:cheersMy thought exactly!!


----------

