Posted 2009-05-20 11:25 AM (#105214) Subject: C.A.F.E
Member
Posts: 24
Location: North Webster,Indiana
My question. When the government says light trucks will get 30 M.P.G. are they including 3/4 ton and 1 ton trucks if that is the case how in the world will they build a truck to pull large or even medium horse trailers. The only trucks out there now that can get thirty M.P.G. have four cylinder engines. Can't pull my trailer with a four cylinder. Will we have to go with Euorpean style trailers or just plan on keeping our old trucks forever.
Posted 2009-05-20 11:41 AM (#105215 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Expert
Posts: 1351 Location: Decatur, Texas
Originally written by ecoman on 2009-05-20 11:25 AM
My question. When the government says light trucks will get 30 M.P.G. are they including 3/4 ton and 1 ton trucks if that is the case how in the world will they build a truck to pull large or even medium horse trailers. The only trucks out there now that can get thirty M.P.G. have four cylinder engines. Can't pull my trailer with a four cylinder. Will we have to go with Euorpean style trailers or just plan on keeping our old trucks forever.
These numbers are an AVGERAGE. They combine ALL light trucks including small, midsize and any suv that is registered "light truck". So if they have a hybird light truck that gets say 35+ mpg, this will figure in with the trucks that only get say 20mpg. There is a lot more to the numbers than what is being told.
just one I can think of right off is Ford has a hybird suv that is listed as a light truck that will get over 40mpg, but the F-250 light truck only gets 15+mpg.
Posted 2009-05-20 12:11 PM (#105217 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Member
Posts: 31
It is all about avg. of class. But your right to be concerned. A Ranger w/2.3L I4 manual 21 city 26 Highway. an Escape Hybred is rated 32 MPG. I don't know if they count the 3/4 and one ton's as light trucks. But if they do. There could be problems getting something to pull 10,000 lbs down the road. The only way they can get better MPG is make them smaller and lighter. Dont sell your diesels.
Posted 2009-05-21 10:05 AM (#105282 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Elite Veteran
Posts: 714 Location: Minnesota
In Minnesota a F350, 3500, etc. one ton truck has a different license plate classification and rating system. We pay a much lower plate fee. $120 /year on a new truck vs. about $450 on a 1/2 or 3/4 ton. I think they would be exempt from that 30 mpg requirement.
Posted 2009-05-22 2:54 PM (#105343 - in reply to #105327) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
New User
Posts: 2
Location: Mansfield, Tx
IIRC 3/4 and up are not considered light duty trucks. It has been a while since I looked at a new truck and things could have changed, but that is why 3/4 and up do not have MPG's listed on the window sticker.
Posted 2009-05-23 11:18 AM (#105370 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Expert
Posts: 1723 Location: michigan
Regardless, the result will be the government forcing us to buy cars that are light,small and much more deadly in a crash than a heavier car would be. People should have a choice what they want to buy,how much gas mileage it gets and if they want to drive something safer than a cardboard box on wheels. In fact- people DO want to drive safer,larger cars! But nooooooooo the all knowing government is forcing us to buy what we don't want. This is nothing short of tyranny and once again the amercian people bend over and take right up the wazoo.
Posted 2009-05-25 12:20 AM (#105412 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Elite Veteran
Posts: 714 Location: Minnesota
Speaking of government interference, what do GM and Chrysler gain by cutting dealerships? Our government is telling them to reduce the number of dealers to help them get back to solvency? How does that work? What do the dealers actually cost the manufacturers'?
Posted 2009-05-25 1:06 AM (#105414 - in reply to #105412) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Expert
Posts: 3853 Location: Vermont
Originally written by genebob on 2009-05-25 1:20 AM
Speaking of government interference, what do GM and Chrysler gain by cutting dealerships? Our government is telling them to reduce the number of dealers to help them get back to solvency? How does that work? What do the dealers actually cost the manufacturers'?
Manufacturers help dealers with their holdback finances so they have their money tied up in each dealer and end of the year models sales comes out of the manufacturer...so fewer dealers less competition among the manufacturers outlets...The customer will get less of a deal if there is ONE GM dealer in a particular area vs FIVE...therefore they should have LESS vehicles to discount at end of model year...This isn't the whole answer to the reduction...but it is part of it...
Posted 2009-05-25 7:30 AM (#105418 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Expert
Posts: 1723 Location: michigan
the dealer reduction is stupid government planning. It will do nothing but put more people out of work and making less hader to find the product you want to buy.Some of the dealers the government forced out of business were making money. The idea that these dealers were dead weight is simply wrong.Some were just small or in crowded markets. Whatever the reason,we now have a government that is choosing who stays in business and who does not...thats is tyranny folks.
Posted 2009-05-26 8:06 AM (#105452 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Location: Where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain...
I agree with the downsizing of the dealer base. While it will affect the price and availability to us, it will will make both the dealer and manufacturer more profitable in the long run. It is a smart business decision. It's just sad that the government had to get involved to make them see it.
Posted 2009-05-26 2:00 PM (#105473 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Expert
Posts: 1723 Location: michigan
The government made a "smart business" decision? I guess we are going to have to wait on see on this one as there is no evidence that the government has EVER made a smart business decision- IE Postal service and Amtrak. If these dealers were ,in fact, a finacial drain, then the company and the dealers themselves would have closed up those shops before this happened but the fact is some of these dealers were making money. They were forced out by the government and that should make your skin crawl. First Obama takes over the banking industry,now the automakers- who is next? Oh wait- they are going to run your health care!As to the CAFE standards- they will force you to buy cars you don't want. Lighter cars are death traps-enjoy.
Posted 2009-05-26 2:32 PM (#105477 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Location: Where the wind comes sweepin' down the plain...
I personally don't think that the government should have done any of the bank bailout or auto bailout.
The car market isn't running rampant like it was 10 years ago....they were selling everything they were building and needed to have 10 dealers in a 20 mile radius...now they could stop production for the next two months and at the current rate of sale...still have too many cars there. It is perhaps the simplest of all business that drives what is going on...supply and demand. There isn't much of a demand so there is an endless supply. Dealers are surviving on rebates and incentives...all of which comes out of the manufacturer. In order for the manufacturer to be healthy, the dealer base has to be healthy. Dealers which are selling cars strictly because of rebates and incentives are not healthy. It is that simple.
By the way...GM for example is cutting 18% of it's dealer network. That 18% only produced 7% of their annual sales.
Posted 2009-05-26 4:03 PM (#105479 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Expert
Posts: 1723 Location: michigan
Those dealers making money were closed not by the company,not by market conditions but by the government- thats the problem here. I don't have a beef with a legally operating company cutting dealers but I do strongly object to a government known for waste ,fraud and abuse,a government over reaching its constitutional authority shutting down a business. I predict the plan will ultimately fail.
Posted 2009-05-27 10:47 AM (#105533 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Elite Veteran
Posts: 714 Location: Minnesota
If the dealers were surviving on rebates and incentives, weren't those coming from the manufacturers? So maybe the companies needed to lower the prices so the vehicles would sell better. The dealers I've talked to one that is getting cut off, two who aren't) tell me they make most of their money in the shop. Especially warranty work. Reducing dealers may be fine in the heavy population areas, but it looks like it is the smaller rural dealers who are being affected. The remaing one may find it harder to sell a particular brand if the customer has to drive an hour or more to get warranty work done. For some people that might mean having to take a day off from work.
Posted 2009-05-27 2:37 PM (#105548 - in reply to #105214) Subject: RE: C.A.F.E
Expert
Posts: 1723 Location: michigan
It also appears that most of the dealers being closed were owned by those supporting the GOP and its candidates. Polticially motivated? Obama is from Chicago.............
C.A.F.E
Speaking of government interference, what do GM and Chrysler gain by cutting dealerships? Our government is telling them to reduce the number of dealers to help them get back to solvency? How does that work? What do the dealers actually cost the manufacturers'? 
