Thanks to Obama regs, 7 million lower income consumers will be cut out of the car market

posted at 3:06 pm on April 13, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Last summer, the Obama administration announced new regulations to require car manufacturers to increase the fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles and light trucks. New research reveals that they’ll price 7 million consumers out of the car market. The Washington Examiner’s Conn Carroll reports:

The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations that President Obama announced last summer will make it impossible for 7 million lower income consumers to buy a new car according to a National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) study released today.

Obama’s proposed CAFE standards, which will begin taking effect in 2017, raise minimum average vehicle fleet fuel efficiency to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimate that this regulation will raise the average price of passenger cars and light trucks by $3,000.

“The unintended consequences of the proposed fuel economy increases are clear,” NADA Used Car Guide analyst David Wagner said. “If the price of a vehicle goes up by the government estimate of almost $3,000, millions of people will no longer be able to finance a new vehicle.”

Unlike Hilary Rosen’s comments or even the Paul Ryan budget, these regulations aren’t just up for discussion and debate: They’ll take effect in 2017 unless a future administration rolls them back. Electoral politics typically revolve around the “sexiest” of subjects, but it’s important to ground our discussions in actual developments. While “the big ideas” that determine elections are undeniably important, we can’t allow the election to provide cover for the president on “little” policies like this one.

The more the American people realize the actual results of the Obama presidency not just in terms of high unemployment, but also in terms of its day-to-day effects on the lives of even those Americans who haven’t felt the sting of job loss, the more they’ll be unable to be fooled by his rhetoric. Look at it this way: You might not be unemployed and you might not be one of the 7 million consumers who won’t be able to buy a car after 2017, but, if you decide to buy a new car in the future, you’ll still have to pay about $3,000 more for it than you would have if Obama had never been president. It’s one fact among many, but they all add up.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

But…. but… CASH FOR CLUNKERS!!!!

UltimateBob on April 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM

But he’s giving people who make over $170,000, $10,000 more to buy a car!

lorien1973 on April 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM

By 2017, car purchases will be mandated.

So the future cost of cars is moot.

BobMbx on April 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM

That’s OK. He’ll soon be promising to buy cars for them.

db on April 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Obama is still awesome, so take that!

rob verdi on April 13, 2012 at 3:10 PM

The ocean levels will recede and the earth will begin to heal.

a capella on April 13, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Of course. Federal standards for vehicles have always done this. Regulation always, always, ALWAYS, ALWAYs, ALWAYS increases costs and prices.

Sometimes it’s necessary. Sometimes we like it. But it always, inevitably, inherently makes everything cost more.

J.E. Dyer on April 13, 2012 at 3:11 PM

PBHO will simply order manufacturers to sell their cars for no more than $500, problem solved.

You wingnuts needs to learn math and stuff.

Bishop on April 13, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Financing a new car is one of the worst financial mistakes one can make. You’re taking on debt on an object that is literally losing value the second you drive off the seller’s lot.

inthemiddle on April 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

“The unintended consequences of the proposed fuel economy increases are clear,”…

Not unintended…

… Liberal Social Engineering on display for everyone to see and feel.

Seven Percent Solution on April 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

This will impact teenagers and college kids the most.

unseen on April 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Those lower income folks should be using public transportation. Just like Obama.

portlandon on April 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

See, this is good stuff to pin on the White House, when the “war on women” meme eventually runs out of fumes.

Team Romney, store this & use it often.

22044 on April 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

By 2017, car purchases will be mandated.

BobMbx on April 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM

If SCOTUS upholds the health insurance mandate, it’ll be later this year, not 2017.

db on April 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

But he’s giving people who make over $170,000, $10,000 more to buy a car!

lorien1973 on April 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Isn’t that reVOLTing?

Bitter Clinger on April 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

lies

damian1967 on April 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Those lower income folks should be using public transportation. Just like Obama.

portlandon on April 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

They should take Marine one to work?

Bitter Clinger on April 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM

You can’t legislate or sign a presidential order that does away with the laws of thermodynamics. It will be near impossible to hit these unrealistic mpg demands without going electric. And electric is even less efficient when you consider how much fuel a power plant burns through in order to charge a battery.

HotAirian on April 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM

By 2017, car purchases mass-transit will be mandated. So the future cost of cars is moot.

BobMbx on April 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM

FIFY.

RDH on April 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM

So? Obama’s gonna build all kinds of cool fast trains that will take people everywhere! Cars are sooo 20th century!!!

rockmom on April 13, 2012 at 3:14 PM

But he’s giving people who make over $170,000, $10,000 more to buy a car!

lorien1973 on April 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM

robbing the poor to give to his rich liberal friends.

22044 on April 13, 2012 at 3:14 PM

War On Drivers.

Common Sense Floridian on April 13, 2012 at 3:14 PM

More bang for your EPA buck: higher fuel efficiency standards and less people driving…

affenhauer on April 13, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Just for clarification has Mitt said he would roll these MPG regs back?

unseen on April 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I hate the regulations as much as anyone else, but here’s an “easy” way to take a nice chunk out the price of a new car:

- Get a manual trans
- Equip it with fewer than eleventy bazillion airbags (learn to drive / pay attention while driving)
- No touchscreen nav or bluetooth (print out Google Maps)
- Does your family sedan really need 250 hp?

Spannerhead on April 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Let’s not also forget all of the serviceable used vehicles sent to scrap yards under the Cash for Clunkers program.

Perhaps this goes hand in hand with Tina’s post about how conservatives understand liberals. Liberal policies continue to make life more and more expensive everyday, yet liberal voters can’t seem to grasp the obvious and continue to be angry at those that provide them products and services.

It’s like they never got past the age of 2. At that age children believe that when they cover their own eyes they become invisible to everyone else. I see a striking similarity in believing that taxes and regulations will make goods more available and affordable.

NotCoach on April 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Financing a new car is one of the worst financial mistakes one can make. You’re taking on debt on an object that is literally losing value the second you drive off the seller’s lot.

inthemiddle on April 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

The Bicycle Lobby thanks you.

Bitter Clinger on April 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I moved out of the new car market a few years ago.

High car prices, astronomical fuel prices … hmmmm, just what the UN and their Agenda 21 are looking for.

darwin on April 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

There goes the used car market. We’re going to look like Cuba in 30 years, old classic junkers cruising the streets, held together with bailing wire and duct tape.

Bishop on April 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Well with this information, one would imagine car/truck thefts would go through the roof as well as vehicle insurance if this isn’t reversed?

Way to go bho, you are one slimy slug slime!
L

letget on April 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Sounds like it’s time for the “right to private transportation” or some such.

Marxists. Can’t live with them, end of sentence.

robertlbryant on April 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

They should take Marine one to work?

Bitter Clinger on April 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Of course. AirForce One, Limousines, etc. All Public transportation.

portlandon on April 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

There goes the used car market. We’re going to look like Cuba in 30 years, old classic junkers cruising the streets, held together with bailing wire and duct tape.

Bishop on April 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Already occurring in eastern ohio/western pa

unseen on April 13, 2012 at 3:20 PM

I’m sure that they’ll just start to offer sub prime 96 month loans to keep the payments the same.

It’s not like Obama doesn’t own 74% of an auto financing company.

rw on April 13, 2012 at 3:20 PM

He screwed low income when he killed the used car market a few years back and by sending the price of gas sky high. He and his snobby wife are the biggest elitists around.

Blake on April 13, 2012 at 3:22 PM

New car? What’s that? I’ve purchased one new car in my entire 34 year driving career.

We have 6 cars for 5 people in my household – 1993 Honda, 1999 Landrover, 1997 Chevy Cavalier (currently in the shop), 2000 Jeep, 1997 Suburban, 2003 Chevy van (my husband does handyman jobs on the side). The Jeep was purchased new during a prosperous period when I was contracting. It currently has a multitude of problems, but is driveable.

I don’t know when we’ll be able to purchase even a better used car. We’re just recovering from years of child expenses now that the kids are finally out of school (none are going to college). We’re desperately trying to build up savings so we’re hoping our junk cars hold together for a few more years.

After a couple of bankruptcies and periods of unemployment, plus my husband’s inability to manage money, we don’t do credit anymore so we will have to save every dime of the cost of a new car. At a rate of about $500/month, it will take a VERY long time.

The whole thing is just very depressing when you add the additional cost of a new car to the more scarce market for used cars, also thanks to Obama.

Common Sense on April 13, 2012 at 3:22 PM

This is all part of the liberal plan:

1. All women working with their kids in govt run child care centers / schools 12 hours a day

2. Men and women work in the urban center and live in apartments in the urban center.

3. Due to #2, no need for cars, just access to buses, trams and subways.

angryed on April 13, 2012 at 3:23 PM

You can’t legislate or sign a presidential order that does away with the laws of thermodynamics. It will be near impossible to hit these unrealistic mpg demands without going electric. And electric is even less efficient when you consider how much fuel a power plant burns through in order to charge a battery.

HotAirian on April 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Oh that’s ok. They are regulating power plants out of existance, so those fun new cars of 2017 will be of the Flintstone footpower variety.

Funny, but back in the 1960′s when I imagined that I might live long enough to see the year 2017, I figured I would be driving one of those Jetson’s style flying cars with the awesome bleeping sound. Now we will be lucky to have Paleo-Diets and footpower. Progressives, indeed. Back to the Future!!!

Lily on April 13, 2012 at 3:23 PM

To compensate, maybe Obama will increase the flow of funny-money to the development of rainbow colored unicorn fart powered mass transit systems. Ah, the trials and tribulations of central planning…. Every dollar you spend, or force other people to spend, necessitates still more spending elsewhere to balance the system, and that causes an imbalance somewhere else, so on and so forth, cascading from one problem to the next.

Before long you find yourself going to the federal government, hat in hand, begging them to bailout the 2002 Winter Olympics!

FloatingRock on April 13, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I’m not gonna bag on him. He’s got a good handle on things.

a capella on April 13, 2012 at 3:24 PM

But will people be able to put the down payment on their EBT cards?

AZCoyote on April 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Democrats war on poor people! Why do Democrats hate poor people?

rbj on April 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Well, it is not like Democrats wanted those people to have valid government ID’s in order to purchase or drive those cars.

LoganSix on April 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Financing a new car is one of the worst financial mistakes one can make. You’re taking on debt on an object that is literally losing value the second you drive off the seller’s lot.

inthemiddle on April 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Usually, but not always. It depends what the alternative is.

If the alternative is buy a 3 year old car, then yea you’re right buying new is stupid.

If the alternative is keep a 15 year old car that is constantly in the shop and costs more money to service than the depreciation on anew car, then no.

angryed on April 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM

If Romney were severely conservative as he claims, he’d come out and state publicly that he would get rid of this insanity.

Come on Mittens, what are you waiting for?

angryed on April 13, 2012 at 3:28 PM

How stupid are the rank and file democrats?

They vote themselves into inpoverished slavery.

Glittering jewels of collosal ignorance.

tom daschle concerned on April 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Financing a new car is one of the worst financial mistakes one can make. You’re taking on debt on an object that is literally losing value the second you drive off the seller’s lot.

inthemiddle on April 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM

No, buying a used car from one of those little places that are all over the place who sell to people with horrible credit a loan with a ridiculously astronomically high interest rate; that’s one of the worst financial mistakes one can make.

Buying a new car can be a financial debacle, but it all depends upon the buyer. Some people need or truly like having a brand new vehicle – there are pluses (such as three or more years of full warranty). It’s the people who have bad credit or strapped budgets that’re probably making a very bad financial mistake.

Without new cars sold, there’d be no good used cars to buy. Somebody’s got to keep the cycle going.

Logus on April 13, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I hate the regulations as much as anyone else, but here’s an “easy” way to take a nice chunk out the price of a new car:

- Get a manual trans
– Equip it with fewer than eleventy bazillion airbags (learn to drive / pay attention while driving)
– No touchscreen nav or bluetooth (print out Google Maps)
– Does your family sedan really need 250 hp?

Spannerhead on April 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

You had me until the horsepower limit. We tried 40-hp cars, and rejected them.

Steve Eggleston on April 13, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Idiocracy beginnings. The poor can’t afford the new lighter cars so they survive a greater number of crashes than the smarter high-earners. The poor have more surviving children, the smart population continues declining…

rogerb on April 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM

You can’t legislate or sign a presidential order that does away with the laws of thermodynamics. It will be near impossible to hit these unrealistic mpg demands without going electric. And electric is even less efficient when you consider how much fuel a power plant burns through in order to charge a battery.

HotAirian on April 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Which means the car companys, which we just bailed out, will not be allowed to produce fossil-fueled automobiles.

So its not that the plan is to increase MPG, its to decrease the sales of cars the government doesn’t approve.

Thats called control. May as well legislate that batteries must last forever, or you can’t manufacture them anymore.

BobMbx on April 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Who cares, you wingnutz?

Obama is cool and smart and hopey-changey and wants to take care of us and has a symbol and stuff.

Oh, and Sarah Palin is stoopid.

The science is settled.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on April 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM

But will people be able to put the down payment on their EBT cards?

AZCoyote on April 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM

No, those are only good for buying junk food, steaks and lottery tickets.

Logus on April 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Let them eat cake.

- Barack Obamuh.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 13, 2012 at 3:32 PM

There goes the used car market. We’re going to look like Cuba in 30 years, old classic junkers cruising the streets, held together with bailing wire and duct tape.

Bishop on April 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

This was my first thought, too. :(

jix on April 13, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Isn’t that kind of the point? Make cars unafforable to as many people as possible, so they’re forced to use mass transit? So’s that we can be GGGRRRREEEEEENNNNN.

Phooey.

sage0925 on April 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Dude. I get it. Obama sucks. Now, please explain to me why I should expect that Romney will do different?

besser tot als rot on April 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

But…. but… CASH FOR CLUNKERS!!!!

UltimateBob on April 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM

A lot of perfectly good vehicles were scrapped as a result of that program. Used vehicle prices are still high because of it.

bw222 on April 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I hate the regulations as much as anyone else, but here’s an “easy” way to take a nice chunk out the price of a new car:

- Get a manual trans
- Equip it with fewer than eleventy bazillion airbags (learn to drive / pay attention while driving)
- No touchscreen nav or bluetooth (print out Google Maps)
- Does your family sedan really need 250 hp?

Spannerhead on April 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I can go along with 1 and 3, but I think much of 2 is already mandated (which just supports the argument that more regs equals higher cost); I’ve never seen extra or fewer air bags as an option. And given the idiot drivers around here, no matter how well you drive and how much attention you pay to the road, they always create better idiots. It’s been nearly 22 years and my ribs *still* ache from being at the front of a four car pile-up back in the day before air bags were triggered by rear collisions; I was thrown forward so hard that I separated my ribs on the shoulder harness. Preferable to having my face hit the steering wheel, but permanent painful damage none-the-less. I’d like the option to pay extra to get 5-point restraints to spread the force out even further.

I’ve noticed that our local used car dealer has had a lot less stock on his lot the last two years, and what he does have doesn’t stay there very long. I know that when baling wire and duct tape stop working for our current cars, that’s where we’ll be going.

LibraryGryffon on April 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Isn’t that kind of the point? Make cars unafforable to as many people as possible, so they’re forced to use mass transit? So’s that we can be GGGRRRREEEEEENNNNN.

Phooey.

sage0925 on April 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Give the commenter a ceeeee-gar!

Steve Eggleston on April 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM

When will the administration’s War on the Poor come to an end?

djtnt on April 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM

You can’t legislate or sign a presidential order that does away with the laws of thermodynamics. It will be near impossible to hit these unrealistic mpg demands without going electric. And electric is even less efficient when you consider how much fuel a power plant burns through in order to charge a battery.

HotAirian on April 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM

There you go again with the laws of unintended consequences..DRAT.

NJ Red on April 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Spannerhead on April 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

If I could find one that was affordable and in very good shape, as long as it had air conditioning, seat belts and decent fuel mileage – and could hold six people – the older the vehicle the better.

How I miss being able to do a full tune-up on my 1980 Ford Fairmount. Not a great car, but once the engine was cleaned up, it ran well. When I got it, we removed the a/c system, cruise control system and epa stuff (brain fart). Had a clean, straight six that I could easily work on and fully tune up in a half hour – and for me, that’s fast.

Logus on April 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM

besser tot als rot on April 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Bad scrabble hand?

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on April 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

By 2017, car purchases mass-transit will be mandated. So the future cost of cars is moot.

BobMbx on April 13, 2012 at 3:09 PM</blockquote

You mean Zippy "saved" the U.S. auto industry to destroy it?

bw222 on April 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

– Does your family sedan really need 250 hp?

Spannerhead on April 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I prefer ‘em with at least 500 hp and 500 lb ft.

besser tot als rot on April 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Dude. I get it. Obama sucks. Now, please explain to me why I should expect that Romney will do different?

besser tot als rot on April 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Cuz he owns three Cadillacs and has a special elevator for them? ;-)

totherightofthem on April 13, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Dude. I get it. Obama sucks. Now, please explain to me why I should expect that Romney will do different?

besser tot als rot on April 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Wish I could, but it was under Romney’s watch that Massachusetts adopted the CARB standards to combat “Gorebal ‘Warming’”.

Steve Eggleston on April 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM

You can’t legislate or sign a presidential order that does away with the laws of thermodynamics.

Sure you can, if you’re a guy who can make the air cleaner and the seas lower just by being elected.

Bishop on April 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Wish I could, but it was under Romney’s watch that Massachusetts adopted the CARB standards to combat “Gorebal ‘Warming’”.

Steve Eggleston on April 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Just when I was getting reconciled to voting for him in the general. . ..

totherightofthem on April 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Bad scrabble hand?

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on April 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Better dead than red, baby.

besser tot als rot on April 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM

You mean Zippy “saved” the U.S. auto industry to destroy it?

bw222 on April 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

By 2017, the UAW will have profited quite handsomely from the Bush/Obama bailout/takeover of GM and Chrysler.

Steve Eggleston on April 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM

The world is ending in 2012…why are we worrying about 2017???…

PatriotRider on April 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM

California has a better idea:

Environmentalists are thrilled about California’s adoption of the toughest, new clean-air regulations in the country that will mandate that one out of seven cars sold in 2025 are plug-ins or full electrics.

In particular, they say that the mandate will help lower prices of electric cars because it will force more of them to be manufactured. Makers will finally achieve economies of scale.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/01/environmentalists-laud-californias-electric-car-mandate-/1

We are sooooooo screwed!

Rovin on April 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Abolish the CAFE standards. They’re time to expire is long past!

JellyToast on April 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Except that all Government Motors cars will then come with a taxpayer funded tax rebate of $3,000………

albill on April 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM

old classic junkers cruising the streets, held together with bailing wire and duct tape.

Bishop on April 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Quit dissin’ my rides ;^)

db on April 13, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Funny, in John Stossels book on lies myths and the government or something. I can’t remember the title. The books around here in my house somewhere.. sorry for butchering the title.

He had some information on the car industry I never knew. Until the government started getting involved in safety issues and so forth, car accidents and deaths and injuries caused by them were all on the decline. They’ve increased ever since the government started regulating everything about the cars we buy.

JellyToast on April 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Just when I was getting reconciled to voting for him in the general. . ..

totherightofthem on April 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Yeah, this is why I just can’t get excited. I find it very unlikely any of these things will be repealed, and if we talk or complain about them too much, we’ll be labelled secret democrat operatives by the usual suspects.

Doomberg on April 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM

You had me until the horsepower limit. We tried 40-hp cars, and rejected them.

Steve Eggleston on April 13, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I had a blast in my old ’85 RX-7 with barely 100 hp. My old Audi 4000 sedan got by just fine with 115. I’m not saying go down to 40, but 250? In a Honda Accord? Really??

Spannerhead on April 13, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Let’s not also forget all of the serviceable used vehicles sent to scrap yards under the Cash for Clunkers program.

NotCoach on April 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

“Serviceable” makes them sound like clunkers. Not at all. My neighbor traded in a six-wheel, four door, rather nice truck for a Lexus. The Lexus just got better gas mileage.

My son who graduated from college just in time for Obama’s Amerika needed a truck for the only job he could find. The prices for used trucks skyrocketed with the cash for clunkers program. There were absolutely no deals out there. Someone needs to document that Democrat brain child. There are so many outrages, it’s difficult to remember all of them—and the American people have notoriously short memories.

Cars will always get more expensive, but folks have always made do in every age with a used car. I’ll never forget my first car. A 1959 Chevy. $50. Windsheild wipers didn’t work; stuffing coming out of the back seat; no heater….course, it wouldn’t pass today’s inspection, but it was a LOT better than walking 10 miles to work.

Portia46 on April 13, 2012 at 4:03 PM

I’m not saying go down to 40, but 250? In a Honda Accord? Really??

Spannerhead on April 13, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Yes.

Bishop on April 13, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Dude. I get it. Obama sucks. Now, please explain to me why I should expect that Romney will do different?

besser tot als rot on April 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Because you and I and all our peeOed buddies are going to work our tushes off and dig deep to contribute to conservative candidates for the House and Senate and they will be our police force.

Portia46 on April 13, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Yes.

Bishop on April 13, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Suit yourselves. You’ll pay for it, though. As for me:

http://www.spannerhead.com/2011/07/15/hoping-for-detente/

Spannerhead on April 13, 2012 at 4:09 PM

They will still buy them anyway, whether or not they can afford them. It’s the “American Way”. They DESERVE a nice car. /s

Take my BIL and his wife. They make about $70K combined (both work FT) Their daycare costs run them $1200/mo. Yet, they have $80-85K in cars parked out front of their house. (I know because they told us how much they paid for them) So BIL works his FT job as a police officer and basically every single free hour he has at off duty security jobs just to pay for those cars. Their reason for buying them in the first place? We thought we deserved something nice.

Huh. I usually go buy myself some new nail polish when I “deserve” something nice.

JennM111 on April 13, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Doesn’t matter how much it costs. Idiots just want to know what the monthly payment will be.

db on April 13, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I had a blast in my old ’85 RX-7 with barely 100 hp. My old Audi 4000 sedan got by just fine with 115. I’m not saying go down to 40, but 250? In a Honda Accord? Really??

Spannerhead on April 13, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Now where did I put the Car and Driver comparo of the 1979 Pontiac Trans Am Turbo and a first-generation Pontiac Vibe GT? Guess which car won out?

Oh, and your RX-7/4000 went up against the likes of the 1986 Subaru GL (66 hp) and the 1980 Volkswagen Dasher diesel (44 hp, could barely hit 60 mph in 19 seconds, though it did gett nearly 45 mpg on the highway as long as it was summer and one wasn’t trying to climb hills).

Steve Eggleston on April 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Well you use cars to travel in between states and the auto industry makes a large part of our economy…I suppose the government can compel you to buy cars too.

nazo311 on April 13, 2012 at 4:17 PM

This is not by accident. They are perfectly fine with this; all part of the green bull****. Fewer cars on the road and now you can take the green bus! Members of “the party” will be driven around in massive, fuel inefficient machines but hey, they deserve it cuz they care so much!

yubley on April 13, 2012 at 4:18 PM

nazo311 on April 13, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Yes, but they’ll let us choose which color Volt we want ;^)

db on April 13, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Steve Eggleston on April 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Understood. My point is that we were okay with those numbers. And then, over the years, wants turned into “needs.” Any new Kia, Hyundai, Ford, Toyota, Chevy or Honda family sedan now has to have a 250 hp engine option just to be competitive, and development costs escalate, which trickle down to the cost of the cars themselves.

Spannerhead on April 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM

You mean Zippy “saved” the U.S. auto industry to destroy it?

bw222 on April 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Pssst….it wasn’t his money that saved the unions. And to answer your question, yes. He needs the unions to have any chance of staying in power. And just like Rosen, as soon as they become a liability to his agenda, boom.

Or, ‘bump’.

BobMbx on April 13, 2012 at 4:25 PM

But the Obamas understand the average American better than the Romneys-that’s the important thing.

I’m sure we’ll all be happier walking and taking public transportation knowing that the President and his wife empathize as they take their individual private jets to their identical vacation destination a few hours apart. Oh, and don’t forget the private jet for the dog.

talkingpoints on April 13, 2012 at 4:26 PM

The Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimate that this regulation will raise the average price of passenger cars and light trucks by $3,000.

It’s impossible to predict costs this far out, making these estimates nothing short of pointless. Many ways tor reach higher mileage targets involve technology that doesn’t exist yet. Of course, smaller and lighter cars don’t necessarily cost more- and demand for those cars will only grow as gas prices rise with global oil demand.

bayam on April 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM

You can’t legislate or sign a presidential order that does away with the laws of thermodynamics. It will be near impossible to hit these unrealistic mpg demands without going electric

Not true. Some automakers already have clean diesel cars on the market that exceed 65 MPG.

bayam on April 13, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Yes, but they’ll let us choose which color Volt we want ;^)

db on April 13, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Yes, limited to several shades of highly reflective white in order to combat global warming, err…global climate change, err…global climate disruption, err…global climate stagnation (next name change on the list).

NotCoach on April 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

To little Bammie this is all part of the plan! Cash for clunkers, CAFE, anything else he can do to get prices for cars higher, he will do. It goes hand in hand with his mission to raise the price of gasoline.

It all means more people likely to want those high-speed trains!

slickwillie2001 on April 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Feature, not bug.

jukin3 on April 13, 2012 at 4:36 PM

“You vill drife zee tiny clown carsss und you vill enchoy it!”

slickwillie2001 on April 13, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I hate the regulations as much as anyone else, but here’s an “easy” way to take a nice chunk out the price of a new car:

- Get a manual trans
- Equip it with fewer than eleventy bazillion airbags (learn to drive / pay attention while driving)
- No touchscreen nav or bluetooth (print out Google Maps)
- Does your family sedan really need 250 hp?

Spannerhead on April 13, 2012 at 3:17 PM

You do realize that the these are driven by regulations, don’t you?

The EPA exhaust regulations have made it so that the manufacturers have to run 6+ speed manual transmissions, as these units keep the engine in the sweetest spot for torque/exhaust pollution. So good luck buying a non-shitbox with a manual.

Airbags are all over the place thanks to impact regulations. Why do you think that all the new vehicles have such high waist lines? Impact regulations.

The touch screens etc are a tiny fraction of the cost of the electronic suites that cars have to have nowadays. Engine management, transmission controllers, chassis computers, and ABS are just a short list of the computers needed on a new car thanks to regs. After 2014 you will have to add mandated stability control systems.

As to the 250 hp, that goes back to the emissions games. A 6 cylinder sedan can hit the EPA sweet spot for emissions easier than a 175 four banger trying to haul the same vehicle.

A currently produced car has more linear feet of wire and more than 50 time’s the rare processing power than the Apollos had. So we will see a lot fewer older used cars out there for the entry level buys, as a computer gremlin will kill these newer rides well before they wear out.

Nathan_OH on April 13, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Not true. Some automakers already have clean diesel cars on the market that exceed 65 MPG.

bayam on April 13, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Which markets are those, again? It’s certainly not the US market.

Steve Eggleston on April 13, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2