My internal combustion engine conspirasy theory

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
In that situation, a family would need three cars, not two. If there are only two cars, then one of the adults is going to end up commuting in the "cargo" vehicle every day. Unless you're assuming that one of the adults doesn't work, which is atypical.

The reality is that when insurance, maintenance, and licensing costs are factored in, it is almost always cheaper to have one car that can do many things than it is to have two specialized vehicles. This really only breaks down if the "cargo" vehicle is very old and essentially worthless (for example, having a mid-70's beater pickup) at which point insurance costs become negligible, but maintenance costs (unless the owner can do his own maintenance) creep upwards. That would also result in the "cargo" vehicle being something that most people will not want to drive.

ZV

At some point, the economy could adapt. Insurance companies, at least in my experience, reduce rates for cars that get very little use.
Hell, some people somehow get by with a motorcycle. One of these little two-seaters could be viewed as a luxurious motorcycle.

If you need a cargo vehicle rarely enough, then do away with it entirely, and rent a Uhaul truck when you really need to. $25 to rent, plus 59 cents per mile.

One way or another, society in the US will have to adapt to increasing fuel prices.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Over the last 30 years we've had major advances in technology.

Computers, cell phones, aircraft engines just to name a few. The one thing that has had very little advancement in efficency is the internal combustion engine.

My therory is advancment in fuel efficency is being held back. Why doesn't the average size new car already get 35-40 mph without adding a bank of batteries that will cost $5000-7000 to replace in 4-6 years?

I found a stat the convinces me this is true. Here is the 2008 Corvettte Z06.

V-8 7 litre engine
505 hp

This engine is rated at 15 mph city 24 hwy.

Any reason we can't cut this engine in half V-4 3.5L 250hp and get double the gas mileage 30/48??

This shows how little you know about engines.

 

[BrownTown]

On one side you are right, making a car have better fuel economy is something that could easily be done, but on the other hand you are completely wrong as to why it isn't. Its not some huge conspiracy its simply that a small car would in general have less room, have worse acceleration, be less safe etc.. Unfortunately these things are all stuff people want. Like for example my family has a Suburban, its gas millage is downright pathetic, my mom refused to get any car smaller because she is paranoid about her kids and wanted the biggest car possible so if there is an accident her kids are OK. Now maybe thats not a great reason, you certainly don't need THAT big of a car to be safe. But on the other hand if you were to make a car with 100MPG it just simply would not be as safe. There is no way to make a car that much lighter and still be as strong unless maybe you go with carbon composites and such which means a 100,000$+ price tag and such. Same could be said about acceleration, having a week engine can be annoying, and if your some macho man it might even think it says something about you penis size. As for less room, this is something that would personally annoy me, after growing up riding a suburban around everywhere even a normal sized car seems incredibly cramped and claustrophobic, and a tiny little car would annoy me a good deal so I would never buy one.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
On one side you are right, making a car have better fuel economy is something that could easily be done, but on the other hand you are completely wrong as to why it isn't. Its not some huge conspiracy its simply that a small car would in general have less room, have worse acceleration, be less safe etc.. Unfortunately these things are all stuff people want. Like for example my family has a Suburban, its gas millage is downright pathetic, my mom refused to get any car smaller because she is paranoid about her kids and wanted the biggest car possible so if there is an accident her kids are OK. Now maybe thats not a great reason, you certainly don't need THAT big of a car to be safe. But on the other hand if you were to make a car with 100MPG it just simply would not be as safe. There is no way to make a car that much lighter and still be as strong unless maybe you go with carbon composites and such which means a 100,000$+ price tag and such. Same could be said about acceleration, having a week engine can be annoying, and if your some macho man it might even think it says something about you penis size. As for less room, this is something that would personally annoy me, after growing up riding a suburban around everywhere even a normal sized car seems incredibly cramped and claustrophobic, and a tiny little car would annoy me a good deal so I would never buy one.

I don't think carbon composite is really all that expensive. It's scale of production. If they can sell a carbon composite hood for 420 bux, taking that up to automaker level would make it a lot cheaper.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
At some point, the economy could adapt. Insurance companies, at least in my experience, reduce rates for cars that get very little use.
Hell, some people somehow get by with a motorcycle. One of these little two-seaters could be viewed as a luxurious motorcycle.

If you need a cargo vehicle rarely enough, then do away with it entirely, and rent a Uhaul truck when you really need to. $25 to rent, plus 59 cents per mile.

One way or another, society in the US will have to adapt to increasing fuel prices.

This is a good point. However, as long as people can afford to have their own cars financially, they will do so out of convenience.

Remember that the only time anything needs to adapt is when it suffers an inconvenience. In my experience, renting a U-Haul is massively inconvenient. It's not by any stretch difficult to do, but it is certainly not convenient. You're limited by the hours that the U-Haul dealer is open, you have to drive to and from the U-Haul dealer and leave your car there, etc. It's much easier to just have a vehicle that can take care of that situation when the need arises and just use that vehicle every day. In order to drive me to using a U-Haul, the inconvenience of owning my own cargo vehicle must be subjectively greater (in my own view) than the inconvenience of dealing with U-Haul.

People will always choose what is most convenient while still being possible. They can and will adapt as you say, but that adaptation will necessarily come at the expense of what they judge to be convenience.

ZV

 

[Auric]

Merkins care more aboot flamboyant appearance, even to the detriment of performance (including fuel economy); witness the fad for oversized novelty wheels.

Said performance costs muy moolah to develop which is difficult to recoup given pricing pressure and thus virtually profitless margins on mainstream autocarriages (horseless). So, cheap cars generally have cheap relatively unsophistitated 'ginnies. The consumer then has the choice to step up to more expensive cars that are either technically equivalent but have high peacock value else technically superior with little peacock value. Alas, the swinish masses invariably choo choo choose the former. Manufacturers are happy to oblige -indeed, 'tis all they can do.

So, consumers need to demand and be willing to pay for the technology (whilst forgoing flamboyance unless willing to pay even more). Otherwise they will stay behind the normal trickle-down curve versus more rapidly increasing fuel costs and thus ultimately spend more.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Over the last 30 years we've had major advances in technology.

Computers, cell phones, aircraft engines just to name a few. The one thing that has had very little advancement in efficency is the internal combustion engine.

My therory is advancment in fuel efficency is being held back. Why doesn't the average size new car already get 35-40 mph without adding a bank of batteries that will cost $5000-7000 to replace in 4-6 years?

I found a stat the convinces me this is true. Here is the 2008 Corvettte Z06.

V-8 7 litre engine
505 hp

This engine is rated at 15 mph city 24 hwy.

Any reason we can't cut this engine in half V-4 3.5L 250hp and get double the gas mileage 30/48??

No, you couldn't simply cut it in half and double the mileage because you'd still be pushing around the same hunk of metal/plastic/fiberglass. Sure you'd increase fuel efficiency but it wouldn't double.

Fact is the internal combustion engine has gotten a lot more efficient in the past 30 years. Most V6 engines now put out as much or more hp as a higher displacement V8 put out 20 years ago and get better mileage. Hell, 20 years ago a 5.0l V8 engine in the Mustang put out a little over 200hp and got 17/25 mpg. A naturally aspirated 2.0l 4 cylinder engine can make 200hp and get 23/29 mpg and likely offer better performance.

It's not that we can't make more efficient internal combustion engines, it's that we want vehicles that either go fast or that can haul a lot of crap (no matter how little we actually use them for that purpose).

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist... but it's definitely possible to get better gas mileage out of cars. It's controlled to keep the oil companies going and the economy running strong. A person that can afford a 2008 Corvette can afford to keep filling it up yes? So why design its engine to be incredibly efficient when you can move more money through the system?

have you looked at the economy lately? rising fuel costs spill over to increasing costs of consumer products

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
My thermodynamics professor put it this way: It's because you guys keep buying new low-mileage, high HP cars, year after year. Hummers and huge SUV's bring in lots of revenue, as do cars that make a lot of goddamn noise and can accelerate from 0-600 in 3.6 microseconds - you know, stuff that appeals to the primitive apelike instincts in some of us, the same instincts that compel gorillas to beat their chests, or loudly thrash about in the forest to assert their dominance. We do the same thing, only we use technology to make more noise.

The car makers go where the money is, and right now, the money is in selling inefficient models with lots of power. All this work going into composites, making cars lighter and lighter, but what happens? Hey, weight savings! We can make the engine even more powerful now, so that guys can brag about how big their penises....I mean, engines are! (Translation: sell more cars, make more money.)

He also said that, right now, they could make cars that easily get 150-200 mpg, or more. The only problem: most people don't want to spend 2 minutes accelerating to 60mph. So there is going to be some happy medium of power and acceleration. But we can definitely do better than sedans that get 25 mpg on the highway.

Plus, most people really don't need a 4-door vehicle to get to work and back. I'd love to get my hands on a cheap, efficient little thing, perhaps like the something you might see coming out of parts of Europe. A smaller car means less weight to lug along to transport the 100-200 lbs of squishy human to a place of employment. A smaller car means less air volume to air condition or heat, which also saves energy. A smaller car means less force needed to accelerate it.

This is exactly right. :thumbsup:

My Insight gets 50MPG on a bad day.

It's also slower than hell. It's a tradeoff.

 

[Metron]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
<snip>
Any reason we can't cut this engine in half V-4 3.5L 250hp and get double the gas mileage 30/48??

That's called a Honda Civic... LOL.

My 2006 Civic Coupe EX (I-4 1.8L 140 hp) gets 32 City and 41 Highway.

*edit* that's with a 5 speed automatic, and it's not exactly a slouch on acceleration.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
This is a good point. However, as long as people can afford to have their own cars financially, they will do so out of convenience.

Remember that the only time anything needs to adapt is when it suffers an inconvenience. In my experience, renting a U-Haul is massively inconvenient. It's not by any stretch difficult to do, but it is certainly not convenient. You're limited by the hours that the U-Haul dealer is open, you have to drive to and from the U-Haul dealer and leave your car there, etc. It's much easier to just have a vehicle that can take care of that situation when the need arises and just use that vehicle every day. In order to drive me to using a U-Haul, the inconvenience of owning my own cargo vehicle must be subjectively greater (in my own view) than the inconvenience of dealing with U-Haul.

People will always choose what is most convenient while still being possible. They can and will adapt as you say, but that adaptation will necessarily come at the expense of what they judge to be convenience.

ZV

And the inconvenience is then something that you must factor into the cost. If you only need a cargo vehicle once every year, then it's just not worth it to own such a vehicle.
For example, I'd like a pickup truck, but the fact is, I'd only need to use it maybe 3x a year. It's not worth it. I settle with my car, or if I need to, I will rent from a place like U-Haul, as I did recently when I needed to transport multiple sheets of wafer board, 4'x8' each. Something like that just won't fit in my car, but it would fit in a U-haul van. It was convenient for me though, because I put a total of 4.4 miles on the van - the hardware store is less than a block from the rental place, and I live about 2 miles from either location. Not everyone could be so lucky.

Either way, this balance between convenience and time is like that faced when compressing a video file - you can choose between quality, filesize, and encoding time, gaining one at the expense of one or both of the others. Same here - gain convenience, at the expense of money.

 

[yllus]

I really wish you'd spell "conspiracy" correctly in your thread title.

Anyways, some car companies are making headway. Witness: The Chevy Volt: An electric/gas hybrid that gets 141 mpg, uses no gas for first 39 miles, costs $30k. Coming 2010.

 

[MyThirdEye]

Originally posted by: her209
Wrong forum?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
And the inconvenience is then something that you must factor into the cost. If you only need a cargo vehicle once every year, then it's just not worth it to own such a vehicle.
For example, I'd like a pickup truck, but the fact is, I'd only need to use it maybe 3x a year. It's not worth it. I settle with my car, or if I need to, I will rent from a place like U-Haul, as I did recently when I needed to transport multiple sheets of wafer board, 4'x8' each. Something like that just won't fit in my car, but it would fit in a U-haul van. It was convenient for me though, because I put a total of 4.4 miles on the van - the hardware store is less than a block from the rental place, and I live about 2 miles from either location. Not everyone could be so lucky.

Either way, this balance between convenience and time is like that faced when compressing a video file - you can choose between quality, filesize, and encoding time, gaining one at the expense of one or both of the others. Same here - gain convenience, at the expense of money.

Precisely.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that we cannot adapt to smaller vehicles, only that, given current conditions, most people find it preferable to absorb the additional costs of a mid-size sedan than to absorb the inconvenience of not being able to comfortably fit extra people in the car. In other words, we admit that we can adapt, but what's the point of adapting just for the sake of adapting when other options remain viable.

And sometimes the inconvenience is measured differently. For example, I don't own a cargo vehicle. Because I already have a superfluous vehicle, a sportscar. Since I value the sportscar more than a cargo vehicle, I'm willing to accept what is, to me, the relatively lesser inconvenience of having to rent from U-Haul in order to gain the convenience of a fun car for sunny weekends.

In any case, cheers! :beer:

ZV

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: gingerstewart55

Originally posted by: jagec


The only reason that you think you need as big of a car as you own is that culture tells you so. People in Europe get along just fine with smaller cars, as "impractical" as Americans consider them. We've just learned to set our standards around what's on the market, and then those same standards drive what will come out on the market in the future. If either of those things were to shift, suddenly we would find ourselves driving much smaller cars, thinking that they were perfectly practical for what we were doing, and having trouble imagining wasting all that money on a bigger car--while at the same time not being able to imagine having to tolerate anything smaller. Deja vu?

The main reasons small cars proliferate in Europe are not simply cultural choices, although some cultural influences do come into play. Large cars do sell in Europe, just not in the numbers that sell in the U.S.

Why is that?

European countries are typically the size of mid-sized U.S. states....hence most driving distances are much shorter in Europe than the U.S. The countries evolved long before the U.S. did, and many of the cities grew up around the tracks left by horse-drawn wagons and foot traffic. (Look at the very narrow streets in most older sections of any European city....) So, to fit a car on those narrow streets, a typical large U.S. car won't do.....and the bulk of the U.S. vehicle isn't needed for the vast travel distances Americans drive....doing a 600 mile round trip over a weekend from one town to another is not unusual at all in the U.S.

Consider...France is just a little smaller than Texas....and thw whole of western Europe fits easily within the central U.S., and when western Euro's map is overlaid on the U.S. map, Euro fits nicely within the central U.S. leaving the entire eastern seaboard states untouched and every state west of Texas untouched. The U.S. is just so much larger in land mass than Euro, not to mention a lot of our cities developed around the car and truck, whereas Euro cities developed centuries before around foot and animal traffic.

(The journeys we Americans partake in for business or pleasure with our autos is in large part dependent upon the presence of the interstate system that crisscrosses the U.S......thanks ge to Eisenhower for something!!! Very little of Europe is covered with anything resembling our interstate system. True, Germany has some, but one country out of many does not an efficient highway system make. That'd be like Texas having the interstate system and no other state having anything but two-lane highways.)

Second, the governments long ago in Europe faced facts that they'd have to import almost all of their oil, outside England. Being 100% dependent on an energy source for powering your vehicles makes for a very nervous government......hate being held hostage to the whims of the suppliers, either politically or economically. So, they tax the crap out of petrol. Europeans pay the same that Americans pay for oil, yet at the pump Euro gas is typically 4X higher in price as compared to American's gas prices. Ultra high prices = lower consumption through economic means.

Third, most Euro. countries tax the crap out of cars over certain engine sizes. Italy starts the "engine size tax" at one (1) liter. England does the same, as do most all other Euro countries. Why? Again, forced conservation of an energy source they have no control over at all.....since they are importing ALL of their oil. Much the same exact problem Japan has.....

So, engine sizes are taxed and on a sliding scale.....bigger the engine, more tax paid. So, do you fulfill your desires and buy a 5L biturbo scramer or that 1L econobox? Easy answer unless you are filthy rich.

While Europenas may have their cars and car sizes influenced by "cultural choices" as you put it, much of the cultural choices are dictated by governmental influences.....and who can blame the Euro governments? They're faced with having to buy a resource that does not exist within their own borders and have to buy every drop from outside. I'd make small cars the de facto standard, too. The Euro countries just missed out on having all the oil and coal deposits that exist in N. America and the oil deposits in the Middle East.

Excellent analysis.

To add, given the much longer distances between U.S. cities, planners decided early on to build high-speed freeways ostensibly to reduce travel times. One could argue the frontier/pioneer mentality contributed to the decision to build interstate freeways. Larger engines are quieter and more efficient at high speeds than smaller engines, so you need larger cars to house these engines. Of course the trade-off is worse mileage in the cities, in stop and go traffic...

There is more of a collectivist mentality in many European countries, hence the greater investments in public transportation and less focus on individual forms of transport (read: private cars).

Other points:

Media and auto companies have brainwashed the public into thinking that SUVs are safer than compact cars, and thus are necessary purchases. This is not the case. SUVs are far more likely to roll over at high speeds, and improving safety technology such as crumple zones and multiple air bags have made modern compact cars very safe.

The debate over efficiency and performance has been covered by other posters. Modern ICEs are more efficient than in the past, but gains in horsepower and performance have negated any gains in fuel economy.

An example I have noted in other threads:

(I'm going on official EPA ratings. I think they're a bit low, but anyways...)

My 1992 Accord (19 city/26 hwy; 8.3 tons C02/year) - 2.2L I4 135HP
2008 Accord (19 city/29 hwy; 8.3 tons C02/year) - 3.5L V6 268HP

The fuel economy is identical after 16 years, although the new Accord is significantly more powerful (3.5 seconds faster 0-60). There are definitely more features in the newer car which add mass, but the new Accord is also much larger (it's no longer a mid-size, but a full-size car).

A car comparable to my 1992 Accord in size and HP would be a 2008 Corolla (130HP, 26/35, 6.3 tons C02/year). Undoubtedly technology has made the ICE more efficient, but people will only see these gains if they choose smaller cars with more efficient engines and reject extraneous, wasteful performance.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Over the last 30 years we've had major advances in technology.

Computers, cell phones, aircraft engines just to name a few. The one thing that has had very little advancement in efficency is the internal combustion engine.

My therory is advancment in fuel efficency is being held back. Why doesn't the average size new car already get 35-40 mph without adding a bank of batteries that will cost $5000-7000 to replace in 4-6 years?

I found a stat the convinces me this is true. Here is the 2008 Corvettte Z06.

V-8 7 litre engine
505 hp

This engine is rated at 15 mph city 24 hwy.

Any reason we can't cut this engine in half V-4 3.5L 250hp and get double the gas mileage 30/48??

ICE fuel efficiency has actually more than doubled in the past 30 years. That same Corvette used to weight less, get worse gas mileage, and make 200 hp.

Your last sentence just shows you don't understand the issues. First, you can't just cut a cross-plane V8 in half, the resulting V4's would be unbalanced and wouldn't run. Second, assuming for the sake of argument that such a thing were possible (to cut the engine in half), you'd still have the put the theoretical half-engine in a chassis that weighs just as much as (or more than) the Vette.
There are a lot of 3.5l V6's out there right now, and most of them happen to make around 250 hp even (hmmm...), but they don't get 30/48 mpg. Why not? Because they get stuffed into 4,000+ lb cars.

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
That's a good question, but I'm sure it has more to do with physics than conspiracy theories.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: SampSon
Jeff7 your professor sounds like the stereotypical pencil-neck nerd. No one that drives today wants to spend 2 minutes getting from 0-60. What would be a happy medium? 1 minute? 30 seconds? We already have vehicles that make thoes types of time with high efficiency. The reality is that no one wants to drive a scooter or a go-kart around. See people want to be comfortable, not crammed into a metal and plastic box like a sardine. Most people also need vehicles to tote around more than one person and mabey some luggage, or groceries. Ya know, the stuff that you need in daily life. I drive a compact car and most likely could not tolerate anything smaller.

You can get your hands on a smart car, go buy a fortwo. Just pray that you don't get hit by anyone else, even if they are driving a VW golf.
More efficient ICEs are not the answer. ICE's are inefficient in nature and can only be stretched so far. A different fuel source is what the goal should be.
Add all that on to the fact that gasoline is a small fraction of the typical US income, and highly efficient cars become a non-issue for most.

The only reason that you think you need as big of a car as you own is that culture tells you so. People in Europe get along just fine with smaller cars, as "impractical" as Americans consider them. We've just learned to set our standards around what's on the market, and then those same standards drive what will come out on the market in the future. If either of those things were to shift, suddenly we would find ourselves driving much smaller cars, thinking that they were perfectly practical for what we were doing, and having trouble imagining wasting all that money on a bigger car--while at the same time not being able to imagine having to tolerate anything smaller. Deja vu?

So you consider my subaru a big car? That's news to me.

Not all european cars are small. It's true they don't have an SUV obsession, but I don't like SUVs and think they are wasteful. The main driving factor of the europeans use of small cars revolves around incredibly high gas prices. Gas prices in the US simply have not reached a high enough level for the vast majority of the population to consider a drastic shift in vehicles.

Europe is also a bunch of countries together in an area the size of the US. There are drastically different situations as you move from country to country. Luxury taxes, carbon caps and other restrictive legislation also artifically creates the market for very small cars in many parts of europe. You can't really directly compare "europe" with America, it's not a complete apples to apples comparison.

I would venture to guess that wealthy europeans are more prone to purchase cars based on what they want, rather than the gas mileage they get. You can't generalize all of the people and say they all drive tiny fuel efficient cars, becuase that's just straight up false.

That was part of his point, that of course nobody wants to spend 2 minutes getting from 0-60. That's one reason that the companies don't roll out those 150mpg cars tomorrow. Something like that would take decades of R&D, with alternate fuels or something, to get acceptable acceleration AND good mileage.

The primary reason was the first thing I said: "Because you guys keep buying low-mileage cars, year after year."
Why should the companies go where there's not enough money to justify millions upon millions of dollars of R&D? "Hey, look at this great car we spend $100M making!" *crickets* Well, that was a waste.
Instead, invest that $100M in making an H4 that has the guaranteed lowest mileage in the industry or your money back, or a car that emits 200dB when it accelerates. They'll earn back that $100M in a week.
They go where the money is, simple as that. Right now, the steady revenue streams are found in conventional

Sure, but the market is dictated by what the consumer wants, end of story. Many want to believe there is some conspiracy theory of manufacturers deciding what the public will buy. If gas prices go to high that consumers decided a huge push for very small fuel efficient cars was necessary, then that's what the manufacturers would produce. You're not going to shove a product down the American consumers throat and expect them to just accept it. Now the new energy bill with these incredibly high CAFE standard has the potential to create an artifical market for small cars. If energy prices stay within a range that American consumers consider decent enough not to make a major shift in vehicle size purchasing desire, then most likely very small cars will not be a major market here.

The problem with this sort of argument is, if safety is the absolute paramount issue, then what size car is truly acceptable? In any collision, the energy needs to be absorbed by something, to lengthen the amount of time it takes for your body to decelerate.
One solution is to drive a bigger car. But how big? Do we all get SUV's to even the playing field? Should someone then start using reinforced bumpers like those found on police cars or military vehicles, so that their vehicle is safer? Does everyone then upgrade to this, to again even the playing field?

I've heard that argument countless times on this forum. While it does have some merit, taking it to the extreme of continually increasing vehicle size for the sole purpose of safety doesn't make sense.

The issue is the size disparity between large and small cars. There probably won't be a time when everyone in America drives tiny smartcars. There actually are plenty of situations where full size vehicles are required and thoes situations are not going to change regardless of the price of energy. Then you have the fact that as long as there are people with the financial resources to pay the high cost of energy and the premium to drive a large car, then there will be a market for these vehicles. If you want to go drive a gokart sized twofour, then be my guest. I really don't care what you drive. When you need to tote around more than you and a luchbox, say when you have a family, the smartcar isn't going to suit your needs.


I could type a reason why comparing the US to europe is not a good argument, but gingerstewart55 already explained it perfectly. I'm not sure why people are so obsessed with european lifestyle, if it's so great then go over there and participate in it, there is nothing stopping you.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: gorcorps
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist... but it's definitely possible to get better gas mileage out of cars. It's controlled to keep the oil companies going and the economy running strong. A person that can afford a 2008 Corvette can afford to keep filling it up yes? So why design its engine to be incredibly efficient when you can move more money through the system?

See, this is the argument I can never understand. Why in the hell would the ailing domestic auto companies give a rat's ass about keeping the giant oil companies going? Answer me that, pleeeeeaasssseeeee.

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that Ford, GM and Chrsyler are willing to lay off thousands of employees, see their market share and stock price plunge and get all kinds of bad press because Americans are no longer buying their gas guzzlers, and they won't change because they want to help out the oil companies? Are you friggen kidding me?

If there was "help" going on, it wouldn't be out of a sense of altruism. Kickbacks, payoffs, that sort of thing, would be a reason - assuming anything like that even does go on within the industry.
Other industries get involved in price setting schemes, all to help out a very select group of a few wealthy individuals, by screwing over millions of consumers. It worked (for awhile anyway) for chocolate companies in the US, and for memory manufacturers.

Sure, before Sarbanes-Oxley and a plethora of other Federal and State regulatory processes came into play. Where would Ford, GM and Chrysler (or even the big-wigs) stash all of that cash without anyone noticing? Eventually, someone notices, but this theory has been going on for years and years. It's retarded, if you ask me.

 

[revnja]

I don't think you're allowed to have conspiracy theories if you can't spell conspiracy.

I'm pretty sure there is a law on the books somewhere that says this exact same thing.