Instafap rolls off the tongue more easily.

Even if it wasn’t smutty, a playboy in the sense that spawned the magazine title is problematic.

Remember when hipster was just a certain cut to underwear?

If only people allowing themselves to be art objects was more profitable.

And honestly, people don’t need to understand how CAFE works unless they’re engaging in discussion of policy. I get tired of hearing how complicated CAFE is as if that’s a reason it should be replaced with an easy-to-understand gas tax. CAFE, in its footprint form, is useful complexity that allows for shifts in market…

Overall vs per passenger mile — how does this quibble help your case? It doesn’t, because neither CAFE nor your proposals affect miles driven. I specified per passenger mile because it reflects the useful scope of vehicle design legislation, which isn’t changing the number of miles driven. Broader policies are…

And if it’s not an environmental hazard (eyesores do not qualify; excessive noise and odors do), hazard to public (as in not on his property) safety (e.g. fire or pests), too fucking bad.

This is a good point. What’s to prevent a community from passing a law banning the Juke from driveways?

You’re right; it’s a sad tail.

Those are nice, but I’ve got my eye on a Fnord Fracas hot hatch.

The fact is that concern expressed for a high-powered sports car undercuts any table-thumping admonishments about how bad CAFE is at the real long-term goal of minimizing fuel consumed per passenger mile.

You could argue that the fine Republicans in California, who are living with this treacherous reservoir in their backyards, and not the greedy water-stealing liberals in the cities who benefit from a dangerously-full reservoir, are the ones suffering and the ones who would receive federal assistance.

I’d like to see the cost of them coming up short reflected on the Monroney, perhaps as line items in the options list. This car comes up short of the federal fuel economy standards for its footprint to the tune of $800.

Insane levels of markups that the manufacturers have gotten away with in the last 20 years somehow haven’t translated to insane levels of profits and dividends and stock price increases. Maybe they’re not insane.

Often they wait until the first bun is in the oven — but a little baby does not require a land galleon. Yes, you have to bend down and be careful not to bump your head when strapping baby into a Civic, but higher fuel consumption affects all of us, so maybe your convenience should cost you more.

CAFE is based on footprint, so it’s not driving people to small cars anyway. What it is doing is driving increased efficiency across the product range, because every vehicle has its own footprint-based target. That’s good because the additional costs of efficiency engineering are more easily borne on larger and more…

Clearly we need changes in racing regulations regarding aerodynamic aids which effectively end any chance of sedans being competitive :)

CAFE is calculated on vehicle footprint, so manufacturers don’t have to push consumers to small cars — only to vehicles that are efficient for their size.

It’s also worth pointing out that CAFE is no longer a fixed target for all cars, but based on each vehicle’s footprint (wheelbase x track), and still different for trucks vs cars, so it doesn’t matter what your product mix is, if each platform in that mix hits its footprint target.

CAFE is footprint-based, so the old chestnut about having to sell a ton of subcompacts in order to meet a fixed target is no longer true.