Here’s the thing about me-I’ve got ideas, son. Lots of ideas. Things I want to invent. Things I want to do. Places I want to go.

Here’s another thing about me-I’m a big talker.

I’m often that guy who, when hanging out with a bunch of other guys, will say something like, “Hey, it would be funny if you…,” or “You know, someday we should…,” or even “Stop! If you touch her there she might wake up!” For now, I’ll focus on the first two.

And yes, that joke was stolen.

In the last however many months since the last thing I wrote, which I believe was a review of a Judas Priest cd (which is still awesome), I’ve had a number of what I felt were great ideas for things to write about: Things Carmax could do to make my job less cruddy. The Secret to My Success (or, How to Completely Avoid Success). Wayne’s Eight Rules of Pimpitude: How to Pick Up Chicks Like a Nerd Who’s Engaged to the Only Girl He’s Ever Dated. Why There’s Nothing Wrong With That, and Why This Subtitle is Just a Bit Too Long.

Note that the last one has no subtitle.

Everything comes back to the fact that I am not one to act upon any impulse to do something. Unfortunately, writing happens to be something. In fact, I think the last time that I was documented showing initiative I ended up with a device made of two trashcans designed for hauling someone through a field behind a moving vehicle. It got a little bloody.

I guess what I’m trying to do is tell all of my fans, which I’m convinced actually exist, that I’ll be writing more soon. Not so much because I’m trying to become initiative-ious. Not so much for the fame and the glory that comes with posting on this site. It’s because I want to put nonsense in an article and be able to find it with Google.

I’ll leave everyone out there with something I shared just a few days ago with some folks from church: I’m too sexy for my cat. Too sexy for my cat. Poor pussy. Poor pussycat.

Potentially Related Posts (Automatically Generated):

1. Changing the way I think.
2. I Cannot Think of a Title

So, the other day this guy comes up to me at work and says, “Wayne, you’re the coolest guy ever. In my ongoing attempt to be just as awesome as you are, I want to listen to the same kind of music you do. What kind of cds do I need to go buy?”My response: “Aaaahhhh, pod people!” Then I stabbed him in the face with a soldering iron.

Had I been of sound mind at the time, I likely would have told him that I always go back to the rock.

Browsing through my music collection, from 58 to ZZ Top, it is easy to see that I either have a thing for rock music, or groups of four or five white guys. I won’t deny either one.

This being said, it may not be too hard to understand how excited I was a few years ago when it was announced that Rob Halford had rejoined Judas Priest, one of the most influential bands in the history of heavy metal. I’m pretty sure that I told everyone I know two or three times, at least. I’m also pretty sure that I don’t know anyone who really cared (sigh). Really, people, these guys co-headlined Ozzfest last year! They’re still awesome!

Whatever. On March 1, 2005, Judas Priest released Angel of Retribution, their first album in 15 years with the original lineup. None of my friends cared. However, I know better. I know that it may just be the best album in the 30+-year history of the self-proclaimed “Metal Gods.” Sweet guitar solos, a driving double-bass drum, and bald guy who can wail just about as well as he did before I was born. And that’s just the first song, “Judas is Rising.”

The first single released is “Revolution,” a song that seems radio-friendly and even has an accompanying video on the band’s website. It’s a bit of a different sound than the band’s last few albums, but not very different at all from Halford’s last two, which makes his re-entry into the band even more welcome.

I suppose that the best way to sum up Retribution is to say that if you like Judas Priest, you’ll like the album. I’d even say that if you like a heavier, non-Tom Petty-type rock, you’ll like the album. If you have at least one functioning lung, and an attention span of more than 17 seconds, you’ll like the album. It’s a collection of songs that is simultaneously classic Priest and something new, and it works. And where else can you find a 13-minute song about the Loch Ness Monster?

Potentially Related Posts (Automatically Generated):

1. Yeah, they still rock.
2. My Celebrity Playlist
3. The Meaning of That

Listen, I know this is really long and that I haven’t fixed spacing and such, but pity me and read it. Or pretend to read it just to get friends to read it.

The automobile has been a part of the American dream since 1908, when Henry Ford introduced the Model T, the first car that many Americans could actually afford. Since that time, the automobile has changed dramatically. These days, cars are more powerful, more comfortable and quieter than ever before. They can travel faster and further than ever. However, one thing has not changed. Automobiles still rely on gasoline for their operation. Additionally, cars today are no more fuel-efficient than they were fifteen years ago. This means that, in the not so distant future, or supply of fuel will be depleted. Therein lies the problem: most Americans do not care.

Five of the best-selling vehicles in the country weigh more than 4,000 lbs (Csere). This in itself would not be a bad thing if people were actually using all the room afforded them in Ford F-150 or Dodge Ram pickups to haul or tow. However, most people buy these to become personal vehicles. It just takes one trip to the mall or down the interstate to see that most large trucks and sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) are carrying just one person, and a lot of air. The public will not make the necessary changes, but will surely complain loudly in a few years, after it is too late. Also, the car manufacturers themselves cannot be relied on to make their own vehicles more any more than slightly more efficient, and then it is only to have a selling point or advantage over the competition. In the end, only the government has sufficient power to make the changes required to preserve our fuel supply.

Simply put, it is our dependence on fossil fuels that has produced the increasing prices and rapidly diminishing reserves that affect everyone, whether they actually own a car or not. Tied directly to the prices and availability of fuel, is the American economy. Every day, millions of dollars of merchandise are shipped from one end of the continent to the other by truck and train, and this alone amounts to a huge amount of consumed fuel. Were these distributors forced to pay higher prices for gas or diesel fuel, they would charge the manufacturer a higher price. This would then mean an increase in the price consumers must pay, which is something that no one wants.

Not only are the prices of consumer goods affected by fuel prices, but also our nation’s budget, which takes a hit each year because of all of the oil we must buy from other countries. According to “Energy Security,” a report recently published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the US spends $200,000 each minute on foreign oil. That amounts to $105,120,000,000 each year that we are spending on oil which could be used on education or tax relief. There are some say that we should just rely on our own oil supply. That is a perfectly valid idea until one see that he same report also states that the United States supplies about 2% of the world’s crude oil, yet consumes about 29% of it. Additionally, if we were to begin drilling the Alaska, which President Bush has proposed, we would not actually get any oil until 2010 (10). Unfortunately, this means that we are too dependent on other nations to supply us the energy we need. Unless drastic changes are made to reduce the amount of fuel we are using, Americans will likely not be able to afford to maintain our current lifestyle. One of the most important of these changes involves our vehicles.

Historically, the automotive industry does not like to innovate unless it is forced to. It was not until our government forced them to that carmakers began installing such safety devices as seat belts and air bags, and even then, they complained for years. There is one group, however, that they will listen to: the consumer. Over the past few years, demand for large, inefficient vehicles has skyrocketed. The result is an explosion of new models of trucks and SUVs whose motto seems to be, “bigger is better.” Not since the heyday of tail fins decades ago have such large vehicles been used to transport people. According to Ford’s own website (www.fordvehicles.com), the 5,000+lbs. F-150 averages 15 miles per gallon (mpg). Compare this to the Toyota Prius, which is powered by an advanced gasoline-electric hybrid, which averages 48.5 mpg (Edmunds) and we can see that a great deal of progress could be made if customers spoke with their wallets. Yet, these same customers refuse to part with their trucks. The truck has become a symbol of success in America, part of the American Dream, and it is going to take something powerful to change that.

Enter the federal government. During the 1970s, the fed began to track something called the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAF, (Fix). This program offers incentives to auto manufacturers who could successfully reach an average fuel economy of around 27.3 mpg for all of its cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks and SUVs (Lane), and assesses penalties, based on sales volume, those that do not. One problem is that the requirements have not changed since their inception. The second problem lies in the fact that trucks are allowed to be less efficient than cars, and this is compounded by the fact that so many of them are sold. Immediately addressing these problems would constitute a major leap in prolonging the life of the crude oil supply. Carmakers would not be able to get away with selling such wasteful vehicles were it not for the fact that they are trucks, and apparently exempt from responsibility. The fines levied on foreign carmakers that do not meet the average mileage requirements have been very steep. For example, BMW was fined $13,147,249.50 just in 1999 (“Summary”) because its cars are not efficient enough. If trucks, which are sold in much higher quantities, were held to the same standard as cars, domestic makes would needlessly be shelling out incredible amounts of cash. As it stands now, however, our future fuel supply is being penalized. One thing that some companies are looking into, and this is a promising fact amid our current trend of “big rigs,” is an alternative to conventional gasoline engines.

If everyone decided to minimize overall fuel consumption, which is a great start, then a diesel-electric hybrid is a good way to go. It combines a diesel engine (diesels are more efficient than gas equivalents), and an electric motor, which powers the vehicle alone when the engine is not needed. These vehicles require no batteries, because the engine acts as a generator when necessary. It is estimated that this powertrain could offer a 47% increase in fuel economy when compared to a gas engine, and 22% better economy than a diesel engine alone (Lane). Other proposed alternatives involve hydrogen or ethanol, or E100, a fuel made entirely out of plant material. Numerous obstacles are involved with both options. Until fuel cells (devices that turn hydrogen into electricity and water) are perfected, not many people are going to want a tank full of extremely explosive gas just a few feet behind them. In addition, producing hydrogen, which is done through electrolysis, consumes a great deal more energy than the hydrogen will produce. As for E100, it ends up using roughly the same amount of petroleum as gasoline because of all of the diesel fuel required by farming, transporting, and processing machines (Bedard).

It would seem that the American way is in jeopardy. The people of this fine nation have dug themselves into a hole. Sadly, it is a hole which many are all too happy to live out their years in. What is worse is the awakening these people will receive when they realize that they are paying $200 to fill the forty-gallon tank of their Ford Excursion. I am optimistic, though, that changes will be made to improve what appears to be our future, although I may just be setting myself up for disappointment. Recently, a bill tried to work its way through legislation that would include cars and trucks together and increase the CAFE requirement for both. While it is true that this bill did not go too far, it shows that there are people out there who actually care, which is not a bad way to start.

Works Cited
“Ford, Henry.” Encarta 2001 Standard. CD-ROM. Redmond: Microsoft, 2001
Bedard, Patrick. “Gas is good,” Car and Driver. Mar. 2002: 22
Csere, Csaba. “The Steering Column.” Car and Driver. Mar. 2002: 11
Edumnds. http://www.edmunds.com 21 Apr. 2002
Energy Security. Cambridge: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2002
Fix, Janet L. “Ford has ideas about helping environment.” Auto.com 23 July 1999 21 Apr. 2002
Ford Division of Ford Motor Company. www.fordvehicles.com 21 Apr. 2002
Lane, Robert. Blue Oval News. 4 Dec. 2000 21 Apr. 2002
“SUMMARY OF CAFE CIVIL PENALTIES COLLECTED FROM MY 1983 TO 2000.” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 21 Apr. 2002

Potentially Related Posts (Automatically Generated):

1. High Gas Prices and Who’s to Blame
2. Mad Dog’s first show
3. 2002 Mercury Cougar

Right, so I went to Best Buy the other day to get a cell phone, which every good car salesman has. While I was there, I remembered that the new Metallica album, St. Anger, had an early release. Finding it in the music section, I decided that it was surely worth the $13.99 sticker price. I later found out, that it was well worth the $9.99 sale price that it rang up at.

I’ve been a fan of rock and/or roll since my days as a yout. Yep, I just said “yout.” Anyway, instead of that song about the mulberry bush, I had memorized Welcome to the Jungle. I was five at the time. It wasn’t until elementary school that I really found Metallica. They had a heavy sound, a scary looking frontman (James Hetfield is pretty spooky when you’re little, though I now outweigh him by 10 pounds), and cool lyrics, which might be why they’re the most popular band in the world.

Their last album, ReLoad, has sold over 12 million copies worldwide, despite the fact that the “true Metallica fans” spoke out against it and it’s predessesor, Load. The widely acclaimed, and self-titled, Metallica, has sold over 14 million copies in the US alone. Needless to say, these Bay-area rockers know how to do just that.

“Frantic,” the first track, does a good job of setting the tone of the rest of the album. It begins with a short, though fun, back and forth assault from Hetfield and drummer Lars Ulrich and continues with a force that the band hasn’t shown since pre-Load days. The first single, “St. Anger”, for those who haven’t yet heard it, makes a really good initial offering, because it gives a taste of just about everything this album offers. I’ve played these two songs more than the other just because they rock to dang much. Not that they’re bad, I just won’t give any of them away, though.

Don’t expect anything slow like “Nothing Else Matters,” or any long, melodic breaks, such as you might find in “Master of Puppets.” There aren’t even very many solos. Just pure, unadulterated rock. Hide the kids. Actually, scratch that. Sit the kids down right in front of the stereo, tape their ears open, and show them what a 20 year old band can do.

Potentially Related Posts (Automatically Generated):

1. Rock that band a little harder… in July
2. Review of Angel of Retribution
3. Get legal — or else

Each Saturday until April 26, Universal Studios is celebrating Mardi Gras with a pretty well-known musical guest. I missed Sugar Ray (darn) and The Allman Brothers Band (oh my), but it didn’t matter. Why? Because for weeks I had been looking forward to seeing the great Lynyrd Skynyrd (that a tough one to spell). Oh, to hear such timeless rock classics as “Simple Man”, “Gimme Two Steps”, and “Saturday Night Special” would have been quite the experience.

So, you may imagine how disappointed I was when, 5 days prior, I learned that the band had cancelled their appearance. I was alone in my car, but I’m sure that if you’d seen me my lip would have been sticking out in a semi-pouty manner. Minutes later I perked right up when Mr. Radio Voice told me that David Lee Roth was now going to perform on the 8th. Huzzah! Oh, happy day!

See, that’s because David Lee Roth rocks. Van Halen was a groundbreaking band when they released the self-titled “Van Halen” in 1978. Eddie Van Halen is a true genious with a guitar, but it was Roth who put a voice to the music, and for that matter, to the music videos. Constantly jumping around and high-kicking, belting out the high notes all the while, Roth brought a huge amount of energy to the stage. Until this past Saturday, I had only tasted the phenomenon that is Roth on MTV and VH1 (I just love Behind the Music).

Let me tell you first, that he still kicks and jumps high, now combining the two in what could be an impressive martial arts move. Second, let me inform you that he still has that trademark voice that he had 25 years ago. Thirdly, let me recommend that everyone go see him perform if given the opportunity, because he only seemed washed-up two, maybe three, times over the course of the hour-longish set. Once is when he offered to let an audience member to “reach between his legs and ease the seat back.” A little while later, he mentioned that this was his first gig all year, which made me feel a little bad for him. All he wants to do is keep rocking your socks off. He should be playing clubs or something, at least. Get a better agent, buddy.

His new band was pretty good. The bass player remained for the most part in the background, letting the guitarist and drummer do most work. This makes pretty good sense to me, as few Van Halen/Roth songs focused on bass. The drummer (forgive me, but I don’t know the guys names) sounded like he should be playing something much heavier, like Slayer, Testament, or the Misfits. I don’t remember Alex Van Halen being this noticable, and heavy, but the music was better for it. The louder, lower mix made the songs seem much newer than they actually are, and if done right, makes for a better experience than seeing old guys play the same old songs.

Van Halen songs are about Eddie Van Halen showing his skill with the guitar, and Roth’s new guy did a decent job reproducing the classic sounds of hits like “You Really Got Me Now,” “Panama,” and “Eruption” However, he doesn’t play it as cleanly and, whether done intentionally to make things sound newer, the end effect is that you constantly compared it to the cd you have at home.

Potentially Related Posts (Automatically Generated):

1. 1982 in Pictures
2. Review of Angel of Retribution
3. Buffett Does Tallahassee

Working at a video store, I have the pleasure of having available to me many movies that I fondly remember from my youth. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The Transformers. Howard the Duck. With many of these now being released on DVD with added features and 5.1 audio, this truly is the “Golden Age of Radio,” except without the “radio” part.

This past week I decided that I’m going to watch as many old movies as possible, completely ignoring new releases and thereby eliminating any reason to talk to customers. First on my list was G.I. Joe: The Movie. First off, let me encourage anyone who has not seen this wonderful example of American animation (I think it was animated in Korea or something) to please do so immediately. To miss it would be to miss the self-proclaimed “most exciting movie of all
time.”

There. I might as well stop typing now, because I’m sure that all of you have rushed to the Family section your local Blockbuster and picked this up.

Huh? Still reading, are you?

Well then, what if I mention that G.I. Joe features some fantastic “actors” starring as voice talent. First off, there’s Don Johnson of “Miami Vice” fame as the young, rebellious Lt. Falcon. In the role of Golobulus (?), the evil snake thing, we have veteran actor Burgess Meredith, who some may remember as Mick from the Rocky series of films. Last, but not least, there’s former wrestler Sergeant Slaughter as the voice of himself, except that he’s an actual drill sergeant and not a wrestler.

Okay, so surely now you are all rushing to Rhino.com to purchase this. I’ll wait.

Still here?

Fine then, what if I told you that all of your favorite characters from the television series are here too, like Roadblock, Duke, Flint, Snake Eyes, Shipwreck, and Leatherneck, all taking part in stopping an enemy far more dangerous than Cobra Commander. The sound effects and hard-rocking theme song sound wonderful for a 15 year-old movie and the animation, though as choppy as most other cartoons of the day, has a clean look to it, making it look much newer. Better yet, all of the original public service announcements are included. I now know how to stop a nosebleed and how to tread water if I fall off a cliff. Every one of these made me giggle aloud.

Overall, of the animated features about secret government organizations defending freedom from a terrorist organization, this is one of the best. Especially if you are, or were, a fan of the series.

Potentially Related Posts (Automatically Generated):

1. Solid Snake in Super Smash Bros. Brawl
2. Year in Movies: August
3. Diamond Dave Still Shines

As many of you know, I am an avid Parrothead. For those sole-less individuals out there, a Parrothead is a lover of Jimmy Buffett’s music. If you do not know who Jimmy Buffett is, well, you should be shot on site because you have no reason for living. Anyway, whether you knew it or not (and you should because it’s posted in a few places on my website) Lone Palm Creations gets it’s name from Jimmy Buffett’s song Lone Palm and I included the lyrics to said song on the About portion of my website. Well, in doing so I thought, why not provide all of Buffett’s lyrics as well as make them searchable? Hum, what a wonderful idea! So I come to you today announcing the launch of the Jimmy Buffett Lyrics Archive here on LPC. I hope you enjoy it and if not, well screw you!

Back in the day I also promised various authors would be giving their two cents here on LPC. Well, if you frequent my site you’ll notice that this is the case. A few people, other than myself have posted articles especially in the past few days so I thought it would be appropriate to introduce you to my current authors. My authors. Mwhahahahahahaha! Ok, anyway I’ve assembled a team so far of 5 people and they are, in no particular order:

Blakey-D, a madman back from the woods, who has settled in the apparently trashy and oh so immoral town of Daytona Beach, Florida.

Sarah is, well… I could tell you about Sarah, however, we’ll leave it all a mystery; it’s better this way for, well, protecting the not so innocent.

Shannon appears to be sweet and innocent, but this just masks the truth as she has secret lovers strategically placed all across the world.

OneAndOnlyWayne is a mild mannered Blockbuster employee by day, and a blood hungry warewolf by night.

Ok, so that is not really a truthful description of my authors… or is it? You’ll have to judge for yourself. For more information on the LPC team, check out the new Authors page and keep checking back for new articles from the almost legally insane, as well as myself of course.

Potentially Related Posts (Automatically Generated):

1. Welcome to Lone Palm Creations
2. Version 4.0 is Here
3. JustinCox.com

In 1998, the Mercury released the Cougar as a 1999 model. It was a departure from the previous model, which had been a large, rear-wheel drive coupe with no sporting intentions. This new Cat was not only front-wheel drive, but smaller, lighter, and, dare I say, sporty. Possibly the most noticeable thing about the new Cougar was it’s styling. And that’s what first drew me in. In 2002, I was finally able to purchase one of my very own, and it’s still the best-looking car on the road.

The concept behind the styling of the Mercury Cougar is what Ford calls “New Edge.” It combines sharp edges and shapes with a smooth overall shape. The overall impression is that this is a much faster and exciting car than the previous model, which this most certainly is. While seen rarely in America (Mustang and Focus), this theme is widely used in Europe in vehicles such as the Ka, Mondeo, Focus, and the Cougar.

Yes, you read that correctly: the Cougar is a European car. No longer is it the Mustang twin that the nameplate started out as. This brought with it advantages, but may also have helped lead to this model’s downfall.

The Cougar is (or was, seeing as production has now ceased) built in Michigan, not imported from Europe as one might think. They kept the vehicle in tact, however, retaining a European feel and quality. Unfortunately, one thing that did not make the transition was the engine. The 2.5L Duratec V6 was detuned so that 87-octane fuel could be used. This brought horsepower down to 170 from an engine that should be able to produce at least 200. This affects not only the car’s performance, but gives the Cougar’s competitors, almost all of which sport stronger engines, another selling point.

Don’t get me wrong, this is a still a sporty car, but straight-line acceleration is not this car’s strength, running to 60 mph in about 7.5 seconds. What it can do is corner. The 16″ BFGoodrich Comp T/A VR-4 tires that came on my V6 Sport model have more grip than one would ever need, which makes sense because these are the same tires that were recently used on the Ford Mustang Cobra. This car will take turns at seemingly any speed, never feeling uncontrolled and producing just the right amount of squeal from the tires.

Of course, performance isn’t the only thing one should worry about when deciding which car to buy. Since most of the time one will be inside of the car, it has to be comfortable and interesting. The interior of the Cougar packs both of these qualities, something I had not initially expected.

Designers carried the styling from the outside to the inside, with good success. The dash has sweeping lines and different textures. The gauges have a light metallic fact that look great in the day and provide great contrast to the green lights at night. Controls for the rear-window defroster and traction control are mounted in attractive, prominent buttons just above the climate controls, which consist of three simple knobs, as seems universal these days.

The seats are supportive, especially when performing some hard turn, and feature standard electronic height adjustment. The back seat is a little short in legroom, but this car was not intended to carry anyone but the driver and passenger. The trunk area is impressive for a car of this size, and if more room is needed, both rear seatbacks fold down. Overall, the interior is pretty well thought out and works well.

The final price for my Cougar was around $19,000 for a V6 Sport model. It has every feature possible in the car except for leather seats, sunroof, and automatic transmission. I’ve got everything I need or want, including alloy wheels, ABS, 6 disc in-dash stereo, trip computer, chrome exhaust tip, aluminum door sills, alloy pedals, A/C, and four wheel disc brakes. It’s great value, especially when compared to other cars out there.

The price drops even more now that Mercury will take $3000 off any Cougars that are still around.

Something that stands out in my mind is how this car has changed in the last four years, or how it hasn’t. The sport compact segment is fickle, and if something isn’t new, it’s often not worth even looking at. Ford gave the Cougar what amounted to paint and spoiler packages while the public was looking for performance. A 200 horsepower “S” version was being prepared, and was actually in the 2001 product brochure, but the plug was pulled at the last minute. Ford dropped the ball on this car, a car that everyone had high hopes for, and it’s the Cougar fans that have suffered.

The Mercury Cougar is a well-engineered and entertaining machine, but had some crucial shortcomings and too small a marketing budget, but I still love it.

Potentially Related Posts (Automatically Generated):

1. Be Careful
2. I might be cursed…
3. Again with the gas?

This is a paper I wrote for my Comp 2 class last year. It’s a fictional talk show. There are a lot of number and facts, which can make it a little disorienting, and it’s long, but I don’t care, so you’ll have to deal with it. I’m not going to post the bibliography or whatever, but everying thing here could, at some point, be backed up.

Transcript

Program: Hard-Hitting, In-Your-Face Stuff, with Mad Dog
Episode: E194D8938-”Will Americans be Driving in Ten Years?”
(Audience cheers as Mad Dog enters studio)

Mad Dog: Alright, shut up.

(Audience continues to cheer)

MD: Seriously, you guys need to shut up so I can talk, fer cryin’ out loud!

(Audience finally calms down)

MD: That’s better. Hey people, and welcome to my show, Hard-Hitting, In-Your-Face Stuff with Mad Dog. I am, in fact, Mad Dog, so shut up and listen. Today’s topic involves something that is very near and dear to my heart.

(Various audience members break into fits of laughter)

MD: HEY! I’ve got a heart!! Stop laughing or I’ll have two! That’s right, I’ll rip your heart and show it to you, you pale-skinned little punks!

(Audience, fearing for its life, decides to pay attention)

MD: Like I was saying, today’s topic involves something important to millions upon millions of people here in the good ol’ US of A. I’m talking about driving. More importantly, I’m talking about gasoline. I’m talking about fuel economy. I’m talking about being able to pour $20 into my tank and cruising down the highway for the rest of the day, without having to worry about hitting empty. Today, my guests include everyone from a honest-to-goodness scientist, to government officials, to industry insiders. We’re gonna get the skinny, ya know? With that, my first guest is Dr. Johnny Boopshin, from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Johnny Boopshin: Hi Mad Dog, it’s really super to be here!

MD: Just get to the point before I replace your teeth with baked beans. And why are you wearing your lab coat on my show?

JB: Yes, well, I’ll cut to the quick. The fuel economy of the average new passenger vehicle peaked in 1988 and is now less than it was 10 years ago (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy).

MD: But aren’t carmakers always telling us how efficient their cars are? What’s the deal?

JB: Well, the stagnation of the Federal government’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards since 1985, doubling of annual vehicle miles driven in the last 25 years and the recent explosion of SUV and light truck sales have eaten away at the nation’s fuel efficiency (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy).

MD: So the government has something to do with gas mileage, huh? I guess it’s a good thing I’ve got this next guest. Introduce yourself pal.

Robert Murphy: Hello, my name is Robert Murphy. I work at the United States General Accounting Office as the General Counsel.

MD: What do you have to say about the government standards being “stagnant?”

RM: Let me explain the CAFE before I respond to that. Section 32902(a) of title 49, United States Code, requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe by regulation, at least 18 months in advance of each model year, average fuel economy standards–for automobiles manufactured in that model year. As for the standards being “stagnant,” I’ll be the first to admit that there hasn’t been much change in the last few years. I’ll use light trucks as an example. The light truck CAFE standard for model year 1998 was established at 20.7 miles per gallon (mpg). The NHTSA, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, interprets section 323 of the Appropriations Act as requiring it to prescribe the same light truck CAFE standard for model year 1999 that applies to model year 1998.This action is consistent with NHTSA’s action in 1996 when it established the 1998 model year standard as the same as the 1997 model year standard, 20.7 mpg, based on similar language in its 1996 Appropriation Act (Office of the General Counsel).

MD: That sure is a lot of words, man.

RM: Thanks?

MD: Okay, so we know about trucks, now what about cars? Please welcome Sven McBoring. Sven has memorized the entire United States Code, which is basically a list of everything that this country uses to make decisions. Thanks for being on the show, Sven.

Sven McBoring: It’s really an honor to be here. I’ve been a fan of the show since the time you got in a fight with the entire audience. That was great TV.

MD: Thanks. You know that I broke thirty-eight ribs that day, and I stole three souls.

(Murmurs from the audience)

SM: Thirty-eight. Wow. I’m impressed.

MD: That’s because I’m impressive. Anyway, what’s the deal with fuel standards for passenger cars?

SM: Here’s how it breaks down: the average fuel economy standard for passenger automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer in a model year after model year 1984 shall be 27.5 miles a gallon (United States Code). You can see that.

JB: Can’t you see?!! He just pointed out the problem! CAFE standards increased new car and truck fuel economy by 70 percent between 1975 and 1988. In 2000 alone, CAFE saved American consumers $92 billion, reduced oil use by 60 billion gallons of gasoline, and kept 720 million tons of global warming pollution out of our atmosphere. The original schedule for CAFE improvements ended in 1985, leaving Congress and the administration responsible for future improvements — none of which have been pursued, leading to the current drop in fuel economy of the national vehicle fleet (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy).

MD: So, the government isn’t doing jack to help things. I just wonder why carmakers aren’t doing something on their own. Dr. Boopshin, have you got any information about this?

JB: Automakers have a history of not incorporating cost effective technologies that benefit consumer safety and the environment until they are required to do so. As a result, government has had to step in to protect consumers by setting safety, fuel economy and emissions standards. One of the most recent in a line of examples is the air-bag that is now required in all new vehicles — automakers resisted this technology even in the face of clear demonstration of its safety benefits and calls from consumers for safer vehicles (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy).

MD: I just don’t get it. Why are companies so resistant to increasing fuel economy? To possibly answer that question, as well as some others that may pop up, is Robert Lane owner of BlueOvalNews.com, a website that reports inside information about Ford Motor Company. Robert, where does your information come from?

Robert Lane: Everything I publish comes from internal Ford documents, press releases and magazine articles. Let’s just say that I’ve seem some interesting things over the years, especially when it comes to Ford and fuel economy and emissions. Bill Ford told congress that C.A.F.E. “just isn’t the way to go.” Maybe Bill Ford doesn’t believe that government regulations are the way to go because Ford’s upcoming diesel engine will be BANNED in an estimated 20% of its market within four years after it’s introduced because it cannot pass emissions standards in several states–what does that say about Ford’s commitment to cleaner air quality for future generations in the remaining states? But the topic here is fuel mileage, right? Well, Ford has lobbied against improved fuel efficiency standards, and then taken advantage of those lax standards to push auto design advances in precisely the wrong direction” – and all under the banner of being green (Lane).

MD: That doesn’t make much sense for the environment or economy.

JB: It might not make sense, but it does fit. A number of automakers have pledged to build more efficient automobiles, but these promises result in approximately a 5 percent increase in the fuel economy of each company’s fleet by 2005. This would barely slow the growth in gasoline use, consumer costs and environmental pollution (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy).

MD: Maybe my next guest will have something to add about Ford Motor Company. Please welcome Janet L. Fix, who works for the Detroit Free Press.

Janet Fix: Hey, Mad Dog, how’s things?

MD: Eh, you know. Just doin’ the talk show thing. So, have you got anything that might help clear things up?

JF: Well, I recently spoke with Jac Nasser, who is now the former CEO of Ford Motor Company, about the government’s CAFE standards. “Personally, I’d eliminate it,” he said. At Ford, “we’d like the chance to do better on fuel economy, voluntarily, like we’ve done on clean air,” he said (Ford has ideas about helping environment).

MD: Well, if it doesn’t work, what will FoMoCo be doing instead?

RL: I’d like to address that, if I may. Ford Motor Company desperately wants to create the impression that they alone at setting the auto industry’s environmental standards because they plan on introducing four more SUVs in 2004. I’ll use the Ford Explorer as an example. The Explorer’s 2001-2010 fuel economy powertrain improvements require major investments as Ford plans to boost the fuel economy of the Explorer 2% year over year. In order for Ford to achieve that goal they have to boost engine efficiency by 14% and cut the vehicle’s weight by 5%. Consider that the 2001 Explorer will average 20.5 m.p.g. while the 2010 will average 25.6 m.p.g. – that’s an increase of only 5.1 m.p.g in almost a ten year span. When averaging in both the standard Explorer with the FFV Explorer, the numbers tell a different tale. The standard 2004 Explorer will average 22.9 miles per gallon, but when averaged in with FFV Explorers the average increases to 26.4 miles per gallon. But how many people are really going to purchase a propane powered Ford Explorer? What Ford Motor Company has proven is that anything can be accomplished by using averages and statistics (Lane).

MD: Alright people, any closing comments?

RL: I would just like to say that the paintbrush that Ford Motor Company is utilizing, paints a pretty picture. However, once their true colors come shining through, utilizing their own documents, the paint falls right off of the canvas (Lane).

JB: I’ll sum things up this way: With consumers saving money and automakers being spurred to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles, new jobs can be created and the overall economy will see an increase in wages. By 2010, more than 40,000 new jobs could be created in the automotive sector alone, and the nation’s wages and salaries could increase by over $3 billion dollars. By 2020, over 100,000 new jobs could be created in the automotive industry and national wages and salaries could increase by over $10 billion (Questions and Answers on Fuel Economy). This alone seems like enough to make increased fuel economy worthwhile.

MD: Anyone else? Okay, I guess I’ll present my final thought of the day. I wanna start by saying that today’s show my have raised more questions about the topic than it answered, but that’s not always a bad thing. It creates a desire to learn more, to find a sense of closure that is sorely lacking. Dr. Boopshin brought up some very good points concerning the technical and economic aspects of increasing fuel mileage, while Robert Lane brought those points to life by using an example that everyone is familiar with. Through their own testimony, those representing the Federal government basically admit to doing nothing to improve the situation, and we didn’t hear as much from Ford as I would have liked. It’s had to say what will be done in this ongoing debate, but I believe that everyone can, or at least should, agree that someone has to get something done, because we can’t afford not to.

Potentially Related Posts (Automatically Generated):

1. Again with the gas?
2. 2002 Mercury Cougar
3. Internet Explorer 6 Needs to Go Away