It seems that the plan states by 2016 all new passenger vehicles must do 39+ mpg...I dont know all the details, just what I read in small newspaper article today. Guess Mazda can quit designing that hydrogen powered rotary now lol...

 

https://www.rx8club.com/lounge-4/42mpg-174198/

 

Lulz... repost.

 

Thanks, much clearer article there, than what I saw. Dont think i could ever drive a piston engine again Dont know how Id survive.

 

Dont worry. By the time 2016 comes Mazda will have killed the rotary anyway.

 

How dare you.

 

Blasphemy!

 

I don't think there is anything to worry about. If a car can't meet the MPG they will just put a gas guzzler tax on it and make money that way.
Do you think the Presidential Limo can get 39 mpg. I don't.

 

hELL NO...THAT THING IS A TANK, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING HEAVIER THEN I Would of SAID "THAT"

 

I vote for hybrid renesis

 

Yeah, hydrogen renesis ftw.

 

By 2016 everyone will have a few plug-in cars on the block anyway and they'll be selling.

With USA unemployment in the 9 point range and a global recession, who really thinks $2.50 gas will be around much longer? Once the economy is restored we'll see gas double in price, and that will be long before 2016.

 

well it's a 50/50 chance cause you can only be president for 4 years after that hopefully he doesn't get re-elected and we can keep our rotary's im gonna keep my baby forever and baby it. lol

 

Regardless of how much electrical cars progress in the next few years, if a few million of them hit the streets we would see huge problems with our electrical structure.

California, for example, is already stressed to the max with electrical output. They import more electrical power than any other state in the country. Add a ton of plug in cars and you have yourself a serious problem.

With the possible cap and trade legislation, there's a serious risk coal power plants will be put out of business cause operational costs will skyrocket. With people afraid of Nuclear power there's few alternatives.

The fact is these pie in the sky environmental movements don't take into account real world impact.

Look at the news about ethanol! We've been using E10 for quite a long time and only now are people starting to report about how it does NOTHING for the environment and in fact probably pollutes more than it doesn't.

Biofuels, same deal. You do not burn your food for fuel!

This CAFE standard change will be the same thing. If it stays in place you'll see American muscle cars vanish and prices of remaining vehicles skyrocket.

I do fear, however, that if the rotary survives past 2016 that it will not be sold in the United States.

 

Oh how I fear that aswell. It'll be the 96+ 3rd gen rx-7s all over again. But if it does happen, I'll just turn this 8 into a full blown track car. Then I can pollute all I want there

 

As long as our cars survive until then, we might have free emission.... and our car's value might appreciate.....

 

You can pollute all you want on the street with the accessPORT.

Ask me how I know.

 

I'm not a proponent of pollution although I'm not a believer in anthropogenic global warming either. As much as I suspect our leaders have agendas beyond those on the surface (Mostly money driven), I still think that great good can be derived from their misplaced legislation and mandates(I guess I tend toward a positive attitude). I truly hope all goes well with the introduction of more rotaries because I'm a HUGE rotary supporter. If Mazda can make that happen and cleaner with lower emissions at the same time then FANTASTIC.

I look at intentions vs outcomes and see great folly often: The renesis sends it's unburnt hydrocarbons around again for a planned eventual more complete burn. The design often according to conditions retains a lot of carbon and builds it up in the engine itself which affects the life and performance of the unit. In order to regain some performance we are told to induce some special decarbonizer that appears to bring out a great portion of the same said pollutants that you were trying to avoid, into the atmosphere all at once.

A four seater rotary should be a hybrid for the torque requirment to overcome weight and help with improved mileage. A two seater needs to be light as hell (How light is hell?) and NA affordable with a premium FI version.

My 2 or 3 cents.

Paul.

 

36MPG is not necessarily for pollution purposes. It's to lower our independence on oil. Every thing is derived from the gallon of gasoline. The rotary is already a proven hydrogen vehicle (although current performance on those is minimal). If anything, I think it will drive the technology forward.

This may not be the easy route, but I think it's the smart route for America and the world.

 

It's not that either. There are many locations of crude and alternative oil sources (eg. shale) that have been put out of bounds by the government. This is a way to kill the automobile as we know it.
Where is the report that government is going to reduce their energy consumption? There isn't one. Just like taxes, government consumption of energy will continue to go up while we the people will have to conserve (sacrifice). No political parties were named in this post as to not violate the rules and it mostly applies to both political parties anyway.

 

How about this; Obama (and 99% of politicians in general) do not PLAN anything. They throw ideas around, write bills they do not read, vote on them, and we all suffer the consequences. Even where a situation has no need for manipulation, they screw with it anyway.

Obama has no fuel economy "plan" just as Bush was accused of not having an "exit strategy". Why is Obama never pressed by the news media for the details of his "plans"? 'Cuz he never has any. Obama shoots his mouth off to placate the sheeple and appease his electorate but never follows through or reveals the machinations of his "plans".

Besides, where does the Constitutional authority exist for anything our federal government does these days?

 

Interstate Commerce Clause is in the US Constitution. That is used as the excuse to regulate everything.

 

Erroneously, so as well. Even our current Supreme Court sometimes wakes up and reigns in the universal manner in which the Feds use any clause they can as an excuse for Totalitarianism. Take a look at "US v. Lopez" as it regards guns on school property and the ICC.

The ICC is only intended to ensure that each state does not erect physical borders of their own and harrass the concept of interstate commerce. The classical definition of the term "regulate" has been frustrated by modern politics, too.

 

I was waiting for the Great Philosopher to chime in.

 

Lemme know when he shows up, willya?