Thursday, May 21, 2009


THIS pisses me off more than you could possibly know...

Here's what the WSJ has to say (in part) on the subject. Excerpts:
So far, the Obama administration has yet to lay out its magical thinking on how the homegrown auto makers are to become "viable" when required to subordinate every auto attribute that consumers find desirable (ed: emphasis mine) in favor of achieving a passenger-car average of 39 miles per gallon by 2016. Nonetheless the answer has quietly seeped out: Taxpayers will write $5,000 or $7,000 rebate checks to other taxpayers to bribe them to buy hybrids and plug-ins at a price that lets Detroit claim it's earning a "profit" on its Obamamobiles.

Mr. Obama was supposed to be smart. His administration was supposed to be a smart administration. But the policy coming out has not been smart. It has been a brute shifting of power to the president's political allies, justified by the shibboleths of copybook liberalism (though Mr. Obama is clever enough to know that nothing he's done will have a meaningful effect on atmospheric carbon or climate change or the country's need for oil imports).

As for attributes I find desirable... horsepower is right up there along with agility. It pains me, severely, to think that those rompin', stompin' V8s of my youth... improved as they are (and 304 hp V6s that get 29 mpg, fer gawd's sake)... will go the way of the dodo. I just don't see how they fit in with The One's hybridized bastardized vision of the American auto industry.

I may never own another fire-breathing V8 and it's quite likely I wouldn't choose one the next time I'm in the market for a new car, anyway. But I ain't happy about having the goddamned government take that choice away from me. What have we come to?

(toon from the usual source)


  1. It always bothers me when the Government thinks we the people are stupid and that they must make our choices for us.

  2. Amen. I'm so sick of him trying to decide what's best for everyone. The choices he is narrowing it down to may be good for suburbia, but for others it just doesn't work. SUVs that either has seating or cargo, but not both. Well, guess I have to make a choice: kids or groceries, but can't have both at the same time.

    I haven't heard much about his plans for heavy duty pickups. Hope the ones I have (a 2006, 2002, and 1986) hold out for a long while. Ya know, they aren't just for fun (though that turbo diesel is music to my ears when I put the gas all the way to the floor). Some people have to work out of pickups and haul things around, like seed, hay and cattle.

    Wonder when he is going to start in on the ag equipment.

  3. I'm going to miss having the choice of whether or not to "contribute" $7,000 of my dollars to some yuppie jackass for his trendy Chevy Zap or Chrysler Shock even more. As for cars, I have Subarus. They never die. I can quite easily boycott this massive overreach of gov't authority.

    Yet even if I choose not to voluntarily fluff up Obama's Ego Motors, I still have to do it with a gov't gun to my head. Someone has to come up with the 7 grand, after all.

    When are we going to recognize the new reality and just strike "land of the free" from the Star Spangled Banner? Cuz frankly, I ain't feelin' the freedom no more.

  4. I'm happy owning my 6-cylinder Pontiac Grand Am. And I'm going to hold onto it for the rest of my (or its) life, since there won't be any more rolling off the assembly lines anytime soon.

  5. I'm with Jenny on this one - leave the work trucks alone!

    (forehead smack) "... I coulda had a V8!" I did, I did! I even forgot about it until someone noticed the V8 logo on the hood and said "Nice!" I had lusted over the RT but Terry compromised with me after reading the fuel stats on the RT. Thank God someone around here was thinking before gas hit $4/gal!

  6. My wife is a long time Chevy buyer : been in Suburban’s for more than 20 years (now that's a car!!). I only recently went into a Chevy (2006 Malibu Maxx in SS trim). My two sons’ and the daughter all drive some form of Chevy as well.

    I too, will not be dictated to by The One and his grand scheme to save Amerika, I will be going back to driving Subaru's when the Malibu is done. SN1 who lives in Indiana is looking at trading in the S-10 and I told him to get a Subaru Baja or one of the Toy trucks if he is still inclined to drive a truck. Better to give the bucks to a company that has actually invested in the U.S. as opposed to the ones working hard to fleece the taxpayer of this country (all 20 or 30 million of us, the others taking a pass on the taxpaying business).

    My biggest fear is that this ‘push’ into the public domain by the BO Administration (and yes, hold your nose, I do) of its crazy ideas will only get more and more pervasive. I fear they are working to get whatever they can in this first year so they can coast next year, it being an election year for the cohorts in congress. If they maintain control after the 2010 election then we will have another year of wild-ass programs and then another coast year while they campaign for another term. If there is enough outrage and there is a turn in the Senate or (dream of dreams) the House, then maybe we can stave off total socialization. But turning back these programs will take a complete change in the two elected branches. And that might come too late to save what we had just last year.

    BT: Jimmy T sends.

  7. Oh, but, but, but, Buck. President Obama is smart.
    He got elected, didn't he?
    And he became editor of Yale's Law Review without ever writing a paper for it, didn't he? And he's successfully hidden his real birth certificate from us, hasn't he? And he's gotten people to vote who had never seen a polling booth hasn't he?
    And I'm still going to buy what I want in a car, aren't I?

  8. Lou: There's gonna be a LOT more of that sort of thing in our future... as long as the Liberals are in power. They know what's best for us, even when (and especially when) we don't, eh?

    Jenny: Trucks were exempt from CAFE for the longest time, but I think that just might change. OTOH, even Democrats in the farm states have to answer to their constituents, so you MAY have some hope.

    Jim sez: "...since there won't be any more rolling off the assembly lines anytime soon."

    There won't be anymore Pontiacs EVER after this year or next. I've read GM is going to kill the brand. Makes me positively ILL.

    Lin: It's a good thing you had Terry and not someone like me, coz I'd have been all "YEAH! HELL, YEAH!" about that RT!

    Jimmy: We're gonna have to agree to disagree where American manufacturers are concerned. I don't see them as "fleecing the taxpayer," I see them struggling to survive in a massive credit crunch. Subaru and Toyota may build vehicles here in the US, but the profits go back to Japan.

    OTOH, I think your political analysis is accurate. Obama is smart enough to press hard for his legislation while his popularity ratings are high. It'll get harder as time goes on for him to get his programs through... especially once Americans start to realize just what the Hell is going on.

    Cat: That was Harvard Law, wasn't it? And the birth certificate thing is a non-starter with me... total BS, as far as I'm concerned.

    As for "And I'm still going to buy what I want in a car, aren't I?"... well, maybe. IF (and that's a BIG "if") what you want is available to buy. My point is big powerful vehicles are being legislated out of existence. It's happened before... remember those gutless Corvettes in the early to mid-80s? What a joke they were...

  9. Dave sez: "Cuz frankly, I ain't feelin' the freedom no more."

    I tend to agree with you on this, unfortunately. I keep trying to tell myself it ain't as bad as it looks... and then it gets WORSE.

  10. This fuel economy thing is an interesting subject to me because of what the end project is going to be. The air to fuel ratio for a gasoline powered engine is 14:1, that’s a given for normal operation. Engines can, for short periods of time, be operated at leaner conditions but you must have a very good temperature management system in place because of the aluminum engines. I think that the manufactures have done an excellent job of building efficient engines (modern engines, maintained correctly, probably exceed 95% efficiency). To achieve that next level in mileage the weight will have to be drastically reduced so that smaller engines can be used. To reduce weight, the cars will have to be smaller and more aluminum and carbon fiber will have to used, which will raise the cost of the vehicle tremendously. Aluminum is a difficult material to use for manufacturing the complex parts in a car because of its work hardening characteristics and its resistance to stretch without breaking. Aluminum is also expensive to produce because of the energy requirements needed. Carbon fiber is incredibly light and strong but requires a lot of hand labor to manufacture the components. I hope I live long enough to see these vehicles but I don’t think I will like them…

  11. Good points all, Dan. Not to sound like the Ol Fart I am or anything... but my mind is made up: I'm gonna HATE the "new" cars when they arrive. I'll be damned surprised if there's anything to like about this Brave New Automotive World... anything at ALL.

  12. Ok this is my OPINION:

    While I totally understand how one could be utterly pissed at this decision, I think that it's best for all of us in the long run.

    I don't think that everyone will want to switch over to Hybrid or electric cars, and many people will stubbornly hold on to their Hummers, diesel trucks and V8's.

    However, by pushing alternative energy autos, we lower our carbon foot print considerably, make the air a *little* cleaner, and decrease our rabid dependency on oil.

    We all have the choice to move forward or stick to our trusty gas-guzzlers. All-in-all I think that the ideology is progressive. We can't be using gasoline cars forever!*

    *That is, unless we want to turn every wildlife refuge we've got left into an oil crop.

  13. Crysti: Everyone is entitled to their opinions... AND their choices. What I'm on about here is the government taking away choices, by fiat, without consultation and without recourse. You can't buy what isn't allowed to exist.

  14. "by fiat"

    Buck, I doubt I would 'by fiat' even if they ran fuel cells supplied 100% by electrolysis.

  15. Buck those were meant to be satirical. Sorry it wasn't clear enough. Damn hard to point vocal expressions in writin' ain't it?
    I sorta do wanna point out that if The One really wanted to help conserve gas, why wouldn't he go back to the old 55 on the highways thingee? He owe somebody in big petroleum, you reckon?

  16. Lin sez: "Buck, I doubt I would 'by fiat' even if they ran fuel cells supplied 100% by electrolysis."

    Heh. You got me on that one, ya know. You changed your profile pic! I like it!

    Cat: Ya, agreed on the vocal thing... and raised eyebrows while typing, too. My bad for taking you seriously; I apologize.

    re: 55 mph. HUSH yore mouf!! And... Obama owes a LOT of people, some of which I hope he never repays.

  17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Just be polite... that's all I ask.