AUG 27

There's a bit of a problem with both of their ideas. They want to raise the average quickly. The big three auto manufacturers usually take 3-5 years in the design to manufacture of any given model. Part of this is to ensure that a vehicle will be reliable over it's projected lifespan (one reason the Volt is still 3 years away). That is without any really major changes. Also, drastic increases aren't really possible either, if you still want cars to be affordable or manufactured. 40mpg by 2016 is almoast a 50% increase, a pretty big increase in only 8 years.

Say, 4% yearly increase starting 5 years from enactment and you have something more realistic.

Here is what Bill Richardson is planning.

The following quote is from http://www.richardsonforpresid...ues/energy

Cut Oil Demand: 50% by 2020

That means reducing oil imports from around 65% to 10-15%. We can do this in part by getting the 100 mile per gallon (mpg) car into the marketplace. We must work to double the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE, to 50 mpg by 2020. And we will set a life-cycle low-carbon fuel standard that reduces the carbon impact of our liquid fuels by 30% by 2020.

'bout sums up what your "Higher Mileage Men" have in store for us all.

May as well call them both Vlad, as far as I'm concerned. Totalitarians, one and all.

It is strange that John Edwards runs 3rd right now. Obama brings a fresh face, but that is his shtick. Hilary,..oh gawd Hilary....draws popularity from her name, gender, and pompous, dreary frowny face. Edwards, though white, male, and Protestant, seems to be actually running on substance, populism, and at the same time, hope and fight. He is sneaking up on the bland talking heads. Let's see those MPG changes!!! Whoooo Hoooooooo!!!1

Back in 87 I had a car that got me 50 mpg. Then something happened and car makers got stupid again. I think that the quicker they get the MPG up the better. None of the US car makers ever had a car that was that great on mileage. They all relied on their partnerships with foreign car makers to get efficient cars. I think since they haven't put any effort into it at all they should suffer the consequences. It isn't as though they didn't know this was going to happen. We need to look out for the country and not worry about the auto makers. If they don't adapt then they fail and those workers can go to work in the foreign car factories that move here after they fail.

These standards are averages. They wouldn't NEED to engineer new cars to meet the increases, they would just need to sell MORE of their more efficient cars and less of their less efficient cars. They could pull that off while developing newer more efficient cars and still easily meet Obama's projected standards. Hell they can bring over some of their European models (as GM is now doing, selling Opel/Vauxhalls under the Saturn moniker) and raise their averages easily.
PS. As far as I know Obama's funding all comes from individuals and not from lobbyists or corporations. If this claim is true he can change the standards as he likes.

You can't pin it all on the car makers....America wanted bigger, less efficient vehicles. They only supplied what we demanded. Now there is a huge green initiative, they are thinking about hybrids. I hope the green revolution continues...I hope gas prices stay high, it seems to be the only thing that gets everyone fired up about more efficient vehicles.

It is really a lot easier than the auto manufacturers would have us beleive. Look at what Volvo did cheaply and easily.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/volvo_improve_m.php

@Blamegame

Actually there has always been a part of the population that either needed, or felt they needed a huge inefficient vehicle. The government while trying to help business people out gave big tax discounts to "business" owners so that they could buy these vehicles for delivery or work vehicles. What happened is that even an e-bay business qualified for these tax breaks. The auto makers saw a way to make some easy money and capitalized on that and made vehicles that they could get a bigger profit on and sell less of. I guess you can't blame them for wanting to do less and make more, but I still think that they dropped the ball for not offering ANY high MPG alternatives. I don't call 32 MPG a high mileage vehicle. If people wanted to buy a car from them they were stuck with one of the less efficient vehicles whether they wanted it or not.

In a way I am with you thinking that it would actually be good for gas prices to stay high, but it is really hurting people that can least afford to pay more and those people that can afford those large inefficient vehicles can more easily afford to pay the $3 plus per gallon to drive them. One good sign is seeing them all over the side of the road for sale now. That is a step in the right direction.

While is sounds grand. I'll bet you a dollar, if either of these guys are elected, it will never happen. The crazy thing is is that they could have made this promise in their current political positions. This is just a manipulation of voters. Its almost a lie.

Guess again...hypocracy-Obamas choice owned vehicle is a V8 Hemi-powered Chrysler 300C emits a whiff of hypocrisy along with its exhaust fumes. Obama's choice proves once again that fuel economy is seldom the No. 1 factor when Americans buy cars. The 340-horsepower 300C has plenty of room for the lanky senator, his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters with lots of luxury extras. It gets 25 miles per gallon on the highway, 17 city, far from fuel economics and far short of hybrids and compact cars.
Politicianss are well known for telling you what you want to hear...nice sales pitch to get the job, don't you think?