New of from Iraq OR better MPG!
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, September 7, 2007 23:56
VIEWED: 11914
PAGE 1 of 2
There has been a very quiet shift in strategy since Jan 2007 when Gen Petraeus succeeded Gen Casey. It hasn't exactly been shouted from the rooftops because its a reversal of de-Baathification, but the United States has been supporting Sunni militias for quite some time. That news is leaking out little by little as can be found in today's CCN story
Quote:www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.democracy/index.html?iref=mpst
The health care system is run by one Iranian-backed militia and the national police are dominated by another. Death squads terrorize Sunni neighborhoods. Sectarian cleansing is pushing people into segregated enclaves, protected by Shiite or U.S.-backed Sunni militias and spurring the flight of thousands to neighboring countries.
oryview
Meanwhile, what is prompting Bush's criticism of Maliki is prolly not Maliki's failure to make progress with democracy OR security, but his failure to push through the oil law that Bush wants so badly.
Quote:www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/ The troops can come home when the ink is dry because then the contract will be enforceable internationally.
Depending on how Iraq's petroleum law shakes out, the country's enormous reserves could break the back of OPEC... Both independent analysts and officials within Iraq's Oil Ministry anticipate that when all is said and done, the big winners in Iraq will be the Big Four -- the American firms Exxon Mobile and Chevron, the British BP Amoco and Royal Dutch Shell -- that dominate the world oil market. Ibrahim Mohammed, an industry consultant with close contacts in the Iraqi Oil Ministry, told the Associated Press that there's a universal belief among ministry staff that the major U.S. companies will win the lion's share of contracts. "The feeling is that the new government is going to be influenced by the United States," he said.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fromt the same article as above:
On March 7, 2003, two weeks before the United States attacked Iraq, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, told the U.N. Security Council that Saddam Hussein's cooperation with the inspections protocol had improved to the point where it was "active or even proactive," and that the inspectors would be able to certify that Iraq was free of prohibited weapons within a few months' time. That same day, IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei reported that there was no evidence of a current nuclear program in Iraq and flatly refuted the administration's claim that the infamous aluminum tubes cited by Colin Powell in making his case for war before the Security Council were part of a reconstituted nuclear program.
...
In February of 2001, just weeks after Bush was sworn in, the same energy executives that had been lobbying for Saddam's ouster gathered at the White House to participate in Dick Cheney's now infamous Energy Task Force. Although Cheney would go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep what happened at those meetings a secret, we do know a few things, thanks to documents obtained by the conservative legal group JudicialWatch. As Mark Levine wrote in The Nation ($$):
… a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of "Iraq oil foreign suitors" were the center of discussion. The map erased all features of the country save the location of its main oil deposits, divided into nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of suitors revealed that dozens of companies from 30 countries -- but not the United States -- were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to some of the best remaining oil fields on earth.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, it's clear - this administration had a plan in 2001, and 9/11 gave them a way to sell it. And not a damn thing was going to get in their way. The first thing Bush did after the planes hit (well, besides staring stupidly into space) was call for the Iraq invasion plans...
So, back in 2002-2003, it was my belief that Dubya had multiple ideas about how exactly the invasion of Iraq was going to protect Americans. The obvious interpretation of his speeches was the scary WMDs and terrorism, but I think that, in his own mind, he was out to solidify our economic power by gaining control of Iraq's oil reserves.
Seriously, there was a lack of specificity in his wording, and I really think that he knew he was out for oil as much as terrorism, but he couldn't admit that openly. His ongoing righteousness makes it clear to me - this man doesn't operate from greed (though those whispering in his ear might). He thinks he's saving the future of our country by securing oil wealth.
Thing is, there's some truth in that. But the people running this war are so focused and sure of themselves that they can't see the real damage they're doing.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, but here's the kicker: We don't need the oil. The USA automobile fuel economy standards are the lowest in the industrialized world, including China. And WHO has been conistently blocking efforts to improve fuel economy....? The same could be said for our energy consumption all arounbd.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I truly believe that he truly believes that.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
He thinks he's saving the future of our country by securing oil wealth.
Hitler was out to save Germany, too. Not equatin' them, just stating a small similarity in motive.
Bush is an econo-fascist, not a political one
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually Bush is far closer to Mussolini, Chris, go read up on some of the history - the parallels are rather striking.
-F
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He was, um...not good, right?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Mussolini
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And then there's this....
August 22, 2007
Clinton: It's time for Maliki to go
WASHINGTON (CNN) — White House frontrunner Hillary Clinton called for the ouster of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Wednesday afternoon, hours after President Bush expressed confidence in the embattled leader.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Boy I dunno, but I think this is more than just "I'll dump anyone Butch supports". There's been a LOT of talk about changing the Iraq government from three different angles: Dems, Repubs, and Generals. Doesn't matter if they're saying "yes" or "no", they're talking about it. Maybe what that means is that the USA is going to change the government in Iraq. HOW we do that, I have no idea seeing as we have not enuf forces on the ground to accomplish the task and the government WAS elected. Mebbe there's a US-backed "revolution" in the wings, one that will sign that all-important oil law before the December deadline.
Anyway, sure seems weird to me.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Their government is a mess- and on vacation at the moment if I'm not mistaken.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Boy I dunno, but I think this is more than just "I'll dump anyone Butch supports".
Nothing like lame, sloppy asshats that need a vacation. WAIT! They set up the government of Iraq in our own image....
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm with you on that! Wasn't there a guy who invented some black box you plug into your engine to double your mileage? And then an oil company bought him out and buried it...
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, but here's the kicker: We don't need the oil. The USA automobile fuel economy standards are the lowest in the industrialized world, including China. And WHO has been conistently blocking efforts to improve fuel economy....? The same could be said for our energy consumption all arounbd.
OK, I have no proof of that and can't remember where I heard it, but I'm sure things like this are happening. I've worked with these companies, and they operate by buying out their competition.
What really confuses me is this: in 1998, oil was hovering around $15/barrel and the industry was in a tizzy because they had budgeted for $22. Now it's up around $70 - it's been above $22 for years, and they're making record profits. Yet they still don't invest in research for the future. (Yes, I work in the industry. Obliquely.) So... where's all this money going?
And why is the price so high? Well, interesting that it started going up right after Bush and Cheney took office. Yes - it was going up before 9/11, and every time they talk more war (ie Iran) it bumps up again...
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The history channel did a special about how Hitler took power in the early 30s. The tactics he used to shift control into his own hands were frighteningly familiar. All Bush needs is his own Night of Long Knives, and the metaphor will be complete...
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:I truly believe that he truly believes that.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
He thinks he's saving the future of our country by securing oil wealth.
Hitler was out to save Germany, too. Not equatin' them, just stating a small similarity in motive.
Bush is an econo-fascist, not a political one
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, Bush is an evil robot put in place to speed the takeover of Earth by alien forces. I don't have a link as proof because the truth has been obfuscated by the evil Cheney-bot. Everyone keep your heads down and your tinfoil hats on and we might just make it through this darkness.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey MAl4
I have two words for you - water injection ...
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey - wasn't that in a Simpson's episode? OMG, all this time I've been reading the news when I should have been watching the Simpson's to get the truth!!!
Edit: this was in reply to BDN's aliens... still checking on the water injection...
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Home-Building/1979-09-01/Water-In
jection-Wizardry.aspx
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Hey - wasn't that in a Simpson's episode? OMG, all this time I've been reading the news when I should have been watching the Simpson's to get the truth!!!"
More a truth is spoken in jest --- than you'll EVER find on the news. 
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's true! Viewers of the Daily Show are better informed than those who watch Fox news...
Originally posted by rue:
More a truth is spoken in jest --- than you'll EVER find on the news.
Good article - this is exactly what I heard of many years ago. It boggles the mind, that this technology was smothered.
I wonder where this guy is now?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know where he is.
I was put onto the topic by my BIL who is now a big mucky-muck - but as a kid he was interested in planes so he knew about WWII planes and water injection.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank heavens the government and oil sat on this one, just think of the water shortages we might be experiencing today with this in common use!
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Home-Building/1979-09-01/Water-In
jection-Wizardry.aspx
====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hey MAl4
I have two words for you - water injection ...
While water injection works well on high-performance air-craft and auto engines, usually super or turbo-charged and requiring rigorous maintenance schedules, it has a few problems in an every-day car.
1. Water freezes. Unless you can provide 24/7 heating, injection water will freeze in cold climates. Anything added as an anti-freeze is not emissions friendly.
2. Water oxidizes things it contacts. Any corrosion preventative, such as the stuff added to anti-freeze, is again not too emissions friendly.
3. A motor tuned to get the most efficiency out of water injection will destroy itself if the water injection stops. On computer-controlled cars (all new ones) this can be detected by sensors and the tuning changed, but the motor will then go into 'limp' mode with much less efficiency.
4. Tap water probably won't do on an every-day car. Mineral deposits can build up on water injection nozzles relatively quickly (100 hrs of engine use?) and shut this system down. This could be a warranty and maintenance nightmare. Distilled water would work better, but how to ensure everyone uses it?
Remember that the car-buyer expects a vehicle they can pretty much ignore, except for gas, oil, warranty service, and tires. The extensive maintenance required for an effective water-injection system just wouldn't sell.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1. "Unless you can provide 24/7 heating, injection water will freeze in cold climates." In somewhat cold climates people used to buy "dry gas" (at the time I think it was diethyl ether) to keep water in solution with gasoline and keep gas lines from freezing up. Now it's made with isopropyl alcohol (IPA). "Anything added as an anti-freeze is not emissions friendly." Ether is very emissions friendly and was used as a gas additive (MTBE) to reduce winter CO emissions, until it leaked out of fuel storage tanks and contaminated underground water. In REALLY cold climates people already use block heaters to keep oil from turning solid.
2."Water oxidizes things it contacts." Only if it's iron. Most engine blocks are made of aluminum with steel-lined cylinders.
3. "A motor tuned to get the most efficiency out of water injection will destroy itself if the water injection stops. On computer-controlled cars (all new ones) this can be detected by sensors and the tuning changed, but the motor will then go into 'limp' mode with much less efficiency." Which will be restored when the water injection is fixed.
4. "Distilled water would work better, but how to ensure everyone uses it?" Sell it at gas stations for a nominal fee.
"Remember that the car-buyer expects a vehicle they can pretty much ignore, except for gas, oil, warranty service, and tires. The extensive maintenance required for an effective water-injection system just wouldn't sell." No extensive maintenance required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally am waiting for a direct-electric drive, ethanol-water fueled, fuel cell vehicle, with titanium roll-cage. But until then, cars could be retrofitted with water injection fairly cheaply, and save billions of gallons of gas every year.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As Geezer points out, there are flaws in the technology, but what is being done to address the flaws?
Even if introduced in a more limited area, say city buses in Southern climates it would be a proving ground as well as a sales exhibition for the possibility of a wider use.
In a fleet situation the maintenance could be manageable, and likely attractive with the fuel cost savings.
It would be a start, and once in use the technology would evolve at a faster pace.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And it's absolutely unheard of for engineers to tackle problems like this...
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As Geezer points out, there are flaws in the technology, but what is being done to address the flaws?
Even if introduced in a more limited area, say city buses in Southern climates it would be a proving ground as well as a sales exhibition for the possibility of a wider use.
In a fleet situation the maintenance could be manageable, and likely attractive with the fuel cost savings.
It would be a start, and once in use the technology would evolve at a faster pace.
Goggle "water injection" diesel and you'll find any number of research projects and papers. most will note that the technology just hasn't developed enough yet to think of applying it in a real-world situation. I know that this isn't as dramatic as positing some secret government-oil industry plot, but there it is.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's b/c you used diesel in your search. Look under "water injection" engine and you'll find gems like these.
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me3.ht
ml
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The approach I suggest would only work for water injection, but electric if the bugs can be worked out or better yet gasoline-hydrogen hybrid vehicles, leading into purely hydrogen fueled vehicles.
Something like this program with its biodiesel oil
http://www.halifax.ca/FleetServices/index.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So it looks like water injection works for gasoline-powered engines but not diesel powered engines. Right?
What about electric cars? Electric cars do more than just tranfer pollution production to power plants, they're far more efficient than gasoline-powered engines and would be responsible for a lot less pollution overall. They require almost no service and they really zip! There were a whole bunch in production ten years ago and the people who leased them LOVED them. But the makers- GM specifically- took back ALL the cars. Wouldn't even let people buy them outright. And then they crushed them. You should see Who Killed the Electric Car? for the full story of how a viable, competitive technology was killed outright.
You could make it a better hybrid by simply adding a constant RPM turbine-powered generator: the BIG waste in gasoline engines is that they're expected to work over wide RPM range. Combine that with an electric braking system and you've got a 100 mpg car with a 300 mile-range.
Another form of motive power is the flywheel. Yep, the flywheel. People have been "studying" this form of energy storage for decades. It's actually part of the electric trolley system... that's what provides the motive power when the trolleys switch from one power line to another when they turn. There is nothing infeasible about it, especially with newer materials. Once again, it's being raised as a possibility: A new flywheel the size of a regular auto engine block that can pull a freight engine was just recently built. (I'll try and find the link.) But like the electric car I'll bet it goes.... nowhere.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gino
Another thing I learned from my BIL (who was a motocycle mechanic in his younger days) is that bio-oil burns cleaner than fossil fuel oil. That's why they used to use Castrol (castor bean oil) in 2-stroke engines like motorcycles.
Looking it up, fossil fuel oil has a lot more minerals in it - silica, iron and others - that come from the rocks the oil is found in - that don't burn and create a lot of "ash" - and incidentally cause engine wear. That's why bio-diesel fuel cleans engines, it washes off mineral deposits left by fossil fuel diesel.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM
Sigh ... I'm still holding out for my direct electric drive (like an electric car), ethanol-water fuel (handles just like regular fuel - and renewable), fuel-cell vehicle (much more efficient than IC) with a titanium safety cage (b/c, well, it's light and really, really strong).
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This isn't the link I was thinking of but here's one application of flywheel technology
www.utexas.edu/opa/pubs/oncampus/99oc_issues/oc991202/oc_bus.html
Rue, I want the electric car back. It's an immediately available technology that improved with the development of the Li-H battery. They can still work on more advanced stuff, but why withhold something that would work right now?
This is a good example of why capitalism is not always the best adapter of new tehcnology: old technology and old investments are vastly more profitable than newer technology and having to retool and retrain.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Goggle "water injection" diesel and you'll find any number of research projects and papers. most will note that the technology just hasn't developed enough yet to think of applying it in a real-world situation. I know that this isn't as dramatic as positing some secret government-oil industry plot, but there it is.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
You mean like the water injection kits that have been available for diesel cars in the UK for at least the last 20 years? And can be bought easily today?
http://www.aquamist.co.uk/
In the UK serious off roaders see water injection is a standard addon to any high performance turbo-diesel because it helps lower the flash point of the diesel air mixture and therefore counteracts some of the problems with compression heating.
It's not been popular in cars because you would either have to increase the compression ratio or add a turbo to see any benefit and that makes it more complex than a simple bolt on upgrade.
Quote:
So it looks like water injection works for gasoline-powered engines but not diesel powered engines. Right?
Wrong way around
From the website
Quote:
THE CONCEPT of injecting water into the internal combustion engine has been around for over 50 years. But the desire to extract more power from the standard production engine has increased at a neck-breaking speed. ERL has just revived this old principle, applying the latest techniques in both electronic and mechanical engineering to take water injection into the next millennium.
WATER? Water exists mainly in a liquid state because that is its most stable inter-molecular structure. When we apply heat energy to it, its molecules begin to expand: a great deal of heat is absorbed during this process owing to water's specific heat capacity - approximately 4.2kJ/(kg.K). When the water changes from the liquid to gas state, large amount of heat energy is consumed in sustaining the process. The latent heat of evaporation is 2256kJ/kg, approximately six times more than gasoline!
SO WHAT? Because of its huge specific- and latent- heat capacity, water is the perfect liquid for regulating excess heat under certain engine-operating conditions, for example induction charge air cooling; but its biggest contribution is inside the combustion chamber where, under excessive loading, pre-ignition and detonation can otherwise occur. Such abnormal combustion is particularly common in force induction engines, where exhaust temperature can exceed 1100°C!
WHAT CHANCE has a piston got under these conditions, given that aluminium melts at 660°C? 99% of production cars keep exhaust temperature below 850°C by fuel-dumping, and hold crown temperature below 550°C by conduction to the underside and skirt of the piston, which is constantly being quenched by engine oil. Most of the heat is transferred to the cylinder wall. Simple and wonderful solutions, but ...
TURBO-CARS are easily upgraded just by adjusting the boost pressure and adding a commercially-available pre-programmed chip; but the hidden drawback of this solution is that even more fuel is being dumped -- as a coolant! -- to compensate for standard engine-cooling arrangements (inside the engine bay your fast-road car has more-or-less the same radiators and cooling fans as the family car next door). But as you upgrade your power-upgrade, you will get to the point where the fuel becomes so rich, and the flame is burning so slowly, that power is being lost rather than gained.
WORSE STILL your piston is no longer being lubricated properly: bore-wash is taking its toll of the pistons. You might decide to combat this with a very special synthetic oil, developed from years of research, which helped some car to win a few championships last season. Your favourite racing-driver recommends it on TV, so of course you want to believe him. But have you ever wondered why he has to get his engine rebuilt after every race?
HELP! Help is indeed at hand! The ERL Aquamist syNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
That's b/c you used diesel in your search. Look under "water injection" engine and you'll find gems like these.
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me3.ht
ml
1. I used Diesel because Gino was talking about city busses, which burn - guess what- Diesel.
2. From the article you cited: ... "but he also added a drag-reducing "air dam", under the Honda's front bumper, to further improve his car's gas mileage."
I did this on my CRX race car, and picked up 5 mph on the Summit Point racetrack's main straight. I'd suspect that this is where most - if not all - of the mileage improvement came from.
3. Note that this 25 year old article refers to carburetted cars, has no data about emissions, no indication that the 'improvement' was rigorously or repeatably tested, and no long term testing to determine if the system would damage the car over several years use.
4. I spend a good bit of time on other boards where performance car nuts who actually do use water injection hang out. As I noted above, it is useful for gaining a bit of performance in forced induction engines, but everyone who uses it is familiar with the technology, well aware of the downside of increased maintenance, and has felt the wallet hit of several thousand dollars it takes to install all the components needed for a useful, reasonably reliable system.
5. A critique of one of the newer water injection systems on the Free Energy News site.
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Hydrogen/aquatune.htm
If you want to install water injection on your car, fine with me. I expect I can get better improvements in mileage by properly inflating tires and driving more smoothly.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
You mean like the water injection kits that have been available for diesel cars in the UK for at least the last 20 years? And can be bought easily today?
http://www.aquamist.co.uk/
In the UK serious off roaders see water injection is a standard addon to any high performance turbo-diesel because it helps lower the flash point of the diesel air mixture and therefore counteracts some of the problems with compression heating.
It's not been popular in cars because you would either have to increase the compression ratio or add a turbo to see any benefit and that makes it more complex than a simple bolt on upgrade.
Which is pretty much what I've been saying. Serious car nuts are willing to go along with the expense, trouble, and increased maintenance load these systems require because they're car nuts. Water injection works efficiently on only specific types of engines, and requires much more committment from the owner. Most vehicles can't be effectively retrofitted. The technology is not yet mature enough to be installed in mass production cars which will be expected to work for 100,000+ miles with indifferent care.
If you want water injection run out and buy a system for your car. It may do something useful, or it may kill your motor, depending on who built and installed the system, and how well you maintain it. Try the Aquamist. You apparently believe everything they're trying to sell you on their website.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, but what about the electric car? I want an electric car, damnit! And that's a clear example of a technology being killed so naturally you avoid it and hyperfocus on water injection.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Like I said, it's old technology. A guy I worked with 20+ years ago had it on his Landrover off roader. Since my car is not supercharged/turbocharged or a diesel there would be no point fitting it (as was pointed out by the Aquamist website.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yeah, but what about the electric car? I want an electric car, damnit! And that's a clear example of a technology being killed so naturally you avoid it and hyperfocus on water injection.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Get a Preus and retro fit it as a plug-in hybrid (expensive right now but usefull if you have a relatively short commute AND you get the advantage of a petrol engine for longer trips)
http://www.calcars.org/priusplus.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yeah, but what about the electric car? I want an electric car, damnit! And that's a clear example of a technology being killed so naturally you avoid it and hyperfocus on water injection.
You can easily do the plug-in Prius conversion Fletch suggests. There are other ways to retrofit to a pure electric car if you want - just don't try any long trips. Current range is pretty much under 200 miles per charge at best. Relatively limited battery life and safe disposal of used batteries are also considerations. Besides, the electricity you use to charge your car has to come form somewhere, quite possibly a coal-fired plant. A nation of electric cars would require massive increases in electrical generation, distribution, etc.
Pure electric cars are a niche product that fits the particular requirements of a small portion of the population. Aside from the Prius, with it's cachet as the car driven by earth-friendly celebs, even hybrids aren't selling well due to relatively high cost. The extra cost generally isn't amortized by gas savings in under 200,000 miles.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1. I used Diesel because Gino was talking about city busses, which burn - guess what- Diesel.
1. But if one is talking very generally, which is where the discussion is going, restricting the search with diesel artificially limits the responses.
2. From the article you cited: ... "but he also added a drag-reducing "air dam", under the Honda's front bumper, to further improve his car's gas mileage."
2. Also from the article cited: ... "Since that first attempt, Ron has installed his "bubbling bottles" on all sorts of vehicles ... from a BMW R60/2 motorcycle ... to a 1973 Opel GT ... to a 1968 Cadillac. In each case, gas mileage improved dramatically! So, folks, there "ain't no reason" why you can't get better performance and gas mileage by building your own water injector ... no matter what form of gasoline-engined transportation you're driving!"
3. Note that this 25 year old article refers to carbureted cars, has no data about emissions, no indication that the 'improvement' was rigorously or repeatably tested, and no long term testing to determine if the system would damage the car over several years use.
3. Rigorous may be missing, but repeated is certainly there. (see above)
4. ... it is useful for gaining a bit of performance in forced induction engines, but everyone who uses it is familiar with the technology, well aware of the downside of increased maintenance, and has felt the wallet hit of several thousand dollars it takes to install all the components needed for a useful, reasonably reliable system.
4. Ah yes, I remember now. You did mention at some point your Civic which you race. There's a difference between modifying a car for racing to get peak power, and modifying your everyday ride. Of course people who race are going to go for specialized (and expensive) systems. But making a variable output water mist generator that's precise, accurate, and repeatable is no big deal, we do it regularly here all the time. All it takes is a pump, capillary, and sonicator.
5. http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Hydrogen/aquatune.htm
5. Aquatune - well, there's a certain amount of misinformation in that one. Sonication may produce hydrogen, but in infinitesimal amounts. But the link you supplied was written by a competitor to Aquatune. Another link (from the same website) http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=4129768 says this about Aquatune specifically:
" On one stretch of highway we got better than 40 miles to the gallon. That beats the 28 miles per gallon we were getting before we installed the Aquatune. We also got a boost in our city mileage from 17 to 23. Both numbers are in line with the 25 percent increase in fuel economy the makers promised."
Now that is something significant, better than well-inflated tires and smooth driving together can manage. And it would be interesting to check out what other mfgs say about their products.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But why do I have to make a DIY car? What about capitalism? Isn't it the be-all end-all of technology advancement? (NOT)
You can easily do the plug-in Prius conversion Fletch suggests.
Quote:Like only about 95% of the urban population who don't drive more than 50 miles in any particular day!
There are other ways to retrofit to a pure electric car if you want - just don't try any long trips Current range is pretty much under 200 miles per charge at best. ... Pure electric cars are a niche product that fits the particular requirements of a small portion of the population
Quote:The studies have already been done. Despite the inefficiencies of power generation and transmission, even coal-fired plants come out to a net pollution-savings.
Besides, the electricity you use to charge your car has to come form somewhere, quite possibly a coal-fired plant. A nation of electric cars would require massive increases in electrical generation, distribution, etc.
Quote:The price would come down if the car were mass-produced. That is supposed to be the genius of capitalism, so why isn't it working?
Aside from the Prius, with it's cachet as the car driven by earth-friendly celebs, even hybrids aren't selling well due to relatively high cost. The extra cost generally isn't amortized by gas savings in under 200,000 miles.
BTW- If the batteries were lead-acid you'd have a point about disposal, but LIH batteries are OK.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
1. I used Diesel because Gino was talking about city busses, which burn - guess what- Diesel.
1. But if one is talking very generally, which is where the discussion is going, restricting the search with diesel artificially limits the responses.
However, I was responding to Gino's post, not the general thread. If I were talking generally, I'd probably note (in fact I did) that water injection is currently used in specialist applications only, and note the reasons.
Quote:
Also from the article cited: ... "Since that first attempt, Ron has installed his "bubbling bottles" on all sorts of vehicles ... from a BMW R60/2 motorcycle ... to a 1973 Opel GT ... to a 1968 Cadillac. In each case, gas mileage improved dramatically! So, folks, there "ain't no reason" why you can't get better performance and gas mileage by building your own water injector ... no matter what form of gasoline-engined transportation you're driving!"
Still leaving out the fact that all these are carburated vehicles. Fuel injection is much more finicky. Still considering that this is, without some sort of structured, repeatable process, just anecdotal. Still ignoring the lack of emissions data, engine longetivity data, etc.
Quote:Sorry, but we have no idea how his 'dramatic' increases were obtained. Did he drive from LA to Denver (just an example) and check his gas mileage, then install his device and drive from denver to LA? Any repeated routes? Any dynomometer runs? Any actual data besides the word of someone who really wants it to work?
[3. Rigorous may be missing, but repeated is certainly there. (see above)
Quote:
But making a variable output water mist generator that's precise, accurate, and repeatable is no big deal, we do it regularly here all the time. All it takes is a pump, capillary, and sonicator.
This would be fine if all that it took was the water injection. To use it effectively requires a higher compression ratio or turbocharging, either of which place added stress on the engine - requiring more expensive alloys or heavire parts to provide reliability. Also requires a seperate, precisely metered water injection system, which had better not fail without some computer failsafe or the engine is toast. And we still have the problem of water freezing at relatively mild temperatures and being an oxidizer of iron and steel.
You can buy the Aquatune if you believe the spiel of the folks selling it, or some TV station who take the word of a guy who makes $400.00 for the hour it probably takes him to install one. Or maybe you should look at this Popular Mechanics test, the only independent test I could find which used at least a bit of rigor and scientific method. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html?page=
4
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, wrenching the thread back on-topic:
Clinton, D-New York, said she already had reservations about al-Maliki's leadership in January, but since then, "Iraqi leaders have not met their own political benchmarks to share power, modify the de-Baathification laws, pass an oil law, schedule provincial elections and amend their constitution."
Yeah, let's not forget that all-important black stuff.
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/nie/index.html
A powerhouse Republican lobbying firm with close ties to the White House has begun a public campaign to undermine the government of Iraqi, CNN has confirmed. A report by the U.S. intelligence community questions Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ability to govern. This comes as President Bush is publicly taking great pains to reiterate his support for the embattled Iraqi leader... When asked whether the White House will ask the prominent Republican lobbying firm to stop lashing out at al-Maliki, the official said, "I don't rule it out." Pressed on why allies of the White House would be contradicting the president publicly, the senior administration official said of the lobbyists, "They're making a lot of money."
One should wonder: WHO is paying them???? The same people who are paying Clinton?
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/anti.maliki.compaign/index.html
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But why do I have to make a DIY car? What about capitalism? Isn't it the be-all end-all of technology advancement? (NOT)
Not enough demand for a car that can cover only 150-200 miles a day, costs more than a conventional car of the same performance, and loses range if you use the a/c or radio. As noted, hybrid cars that get 50mpg don't sell based on economy alone, based on the time it takes to amortize the extra cost in fuel savings. The market does recognize enough demand to provide aftermarket kits, but not enough to justify the expense of tooling up mass production.
Quote:
Like only about 95% of the urban population who don't drive more than 50 miles in any particular day!
But on some particular days they drive to Grandma's in Texas, or to Disneyworld, or somewhere else. It may also surprise you to know that a lot of the population isn't urban.
Quote:
The studies have already been done. Despite the inefficiencies of power generation and transmission, even coal-fired plants come out to a net pollution-savings.
How about economic savings? Someone still has to pay for the increased generator capacity, the increased transmission and switching capability, the increased amount of electricity used. If you can't always charge up your car at home there has to be some sort of commercial infrastructure to charge it somewhere else. Even if you just swap batteries rather than hooking up to a metered system for a few hours every 200 miles, there is still a massive infrastructure involved, which someone has to pay for.
Quote:
The price would come down if the car were mass-produced. That is supposed to be the genius of capitalism, so why isn't it working?
The cars (hybrids, at least) are mass produced, and most are sold at cost, which is still so high that the mileage savings can't pay off the difference. The technology for storing electricity just isn't mature enough at this point to be economical. Batteries are currently heavy, expensive to make, slow to charge, and reltively short-lived compared to gas-powered engines.
Quote:
BTW- If the batteries were lead-acid you'd have a point about disposal, but LIH batteries are OK.
But the Lithium Hydride batteries are more expensive. They show up in concept cars, but mass production at the price you'd need to sell a car is a ways away.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:But why do I have to make a DIY car? What about capitalism? Isn't it the be-all end-all of technology advancement? (NOT)
You can easily do the plug-in Prius conversion Fletch suggests.
Toyota are planning a plug hybrid but only when they have made an improvement to the battery. For products that cost say $500 there will be enough people willing to buy v0.1 of a product. For $30k+ ......not so much.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You can buy the Aquatune if you believe the spiel of the folks selling it, or some TV station who take the word of a guy who makes $400.00 for the hour it probably takes him to install one. Or maybe you should look at this Popular Mechanics test, the only independent test I could find which used at least a bit of rigor and scientific method. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html?page=
4
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Needs to be pointed out that aquatune isn't really a water injection unit as most mechanics would understand it because it doesnt actually contain a pump, it "works" off of manifold pressure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
How about economic savings? Someone still has to pay for the increased generator capacity, the increased transmission and switching capability, the increased amount of electricity used. If you can't always charge up your car at home there has to be some sort of commercial infrastructure to charge it somewhere else. Even if you just swap batteries rather than hooking up to a metered system for a few hours every 200 miles, there is still a massive infrastructure involved, which someone has to pay for.
Let's look at that.
1) You probably won't need massive amounts of additional transmission equipment and infrastructure. Your average subdivision has to be configured to supply the expected daytime peak use. If you charge the car at night the hardware already in the neighborhood should be able to supply it. Likewise the generating capacity to provide peak loading is still there during the night. In fact since you cant let the generators cool off you have to run the plants at night even if there is low demand.
Back in the UK you can buy cheap electricity at night, people use it in storage heaters or to run things like washing machines/ dish washers.
2) When I was living in Canada cars had block heaters to stop the oil from freezing. Because people spend 8 hours at work businesses had electrical boxes outside. You drove to work parked then plugged in your car so that it didn't freeze. It was not in general a big problem to set up those kinds of hookups.
Since home and work/school are the two places people spend most of their time electrical charging stations in both of those places deal with the majority of cases. If you need to go to Disneyland take a train, the TGV people make a nice one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer
Quote:Which are not terribly convincing.
... water injection is currently used in specialist applications only, and note the reasons.
Quote:Did you read it? There's no "emissions data, engine longetivity data" or etc, "repeated routes", or "a bit of rigor and scientific method." And one dynamometer run. It's also anecdotal.
... without some sort of structured, repeatable process, just anecdotal. Still ignoring the lack of emissions data, engine longetivity data, etc. ... Any repeated routes? Any dynomometer runs? ... the only independent test I could find which used at least a bit of rigor and scientific method. http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive /new_cars/1802932.html?page=4
They also apparently used too long a hose to the manifold. Our ultrasonic capillaries are fitted directly into the gas stream.
Quote:Or retarded timing, requiring nothing else.
To use it effectively requires a higher compression ratio or turbocharging, either of which place added stress on the engine - requiring more expensive alloys or heavire parts
Quote:perhaps, or not - see below.
Also requires a seperate, precisely metered water injection system
Quote:Like today's cars don't have computers.
which had better not fail without some computer failsafe or the engine is toast.
Quote:Water could be added directly to fuel and kept in suspension with dispersants (aforementioned diethyl ether or IPA) or added under the hood and prevented from freezing by IPA as antifreeze. The only 'critical parts' exposed to high-temp water needed to oxidize steel are the cylinders and exhaust. But water is normally formed during combustion anyway - by your logic people shouldn't be able to burn gasoline in air b/c the water formed would destroy the engine.
And we still have the problem of water freezing at relatively mild temperatures and being an oxidizer of iron and steel.
Not that I would go out and buy the product. Its physical set-up looks designed to fail. If I had the time though, I would put something together that would actually put water into the engine, while I'm waiting for the vehicle of my dreams to come out on the market. Or at least, SignyM's e-vehicle that's already been deigned, delivered and road-tested by thousands of consumers.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So. Okay guys.
Tell me why we aren't all zipping around in electric cars, or in water-injected cars.
Better yet, tell me why European and Japanese manufacturers, who should have an easier sell, what with much higher gas prices and generally shorter distances to drive, aren't churning out electric cars by the millions?
While you're at it, explain why hybrid cars, which are available and mass produced, are selling so poorly that Honda, for example is dropping some hybrid lines.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer: So, if only CHEAP products can be introduced and only mass production can make products less expensive, how does capitalism introduce relatively expensive new technology? What you're saying is that we can drown in hula-hoops and 50 different kinds of toilet paper but nothing ground-breaking stands a chance.
BTW, I accidentally has a "water injection system" because of a pinhole leak in the head gasket. Man, I got GREAT mileage!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: So, if only CHEAP products can be introduced and only mass production can make products less expensive, how does capitalism introduce relatively expensive new technology? What you're saying is that we can drown in hula-hoops and 50 different kinds of toilet paper but nothing ground-breaking stands a chance.
I've explained why I think affordable electric cars aren't in production yet (in case you forgot, it's because the technology needed to build and sell them in volume at a profit is not yet available, along with the associated infrastructure costs). You obviously don't agree with this, so tell me why you think we're not all driving electric right now.
BTW, I mever said only CHEAP products could be introduced. Only products that the manufacturer thinks can be sold at a profit are introduced (in a free market). As mentioned before, most hybrid cars are priced at cost, and many still remain unsold. The only reason they're manufactured at all is to meet government low emissions standards, not to make money.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You had a question about Germany and hybrid cars. The same thing that's driving the US automakers is driving the German automakers:
Quote:This is a problem with capitalism across the board. High profit product does not mean advanced or best product (or better mousetrap). When you have an established technology and infrastructure- such as the gasoline-powered automobile, gas filling stations, roadways, refineries, plus ALL those invested corporate board members- there is a huge incentive to keep things the same. I know, I deal with big refineries often. Their physical plants are more than 40 years old, have been paid off decades ago. Except for maintenance and repair- and precious little of THAT- the oil corporations seem content to keep making money on things as they are. The only oil company that I know of to invest in alternative technology was Arco (now BP-Arco) which invested in solar cells (Arco Solar) and they kind of got their neck chopped off.
Rather than emulate Japanese carmakers who have seen success by enhancing fuel economy across varied product lines, it seems Germany's auto industry is closer to the US model: keep pumping out the most historically profitable classes. In their case, that happens to be high-end fuel guzzlers.
You can apply that model to any technology that requires a big investment. Which is why many of the real big advances- like the internet and the interstate- were made by government.
So the process that you postulate is very much a dead-end.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Rather than emulate Japanese carmakers who have seen success by enhancing fuel economy across varied product lines, it seems Germany's auto industry is closer to the US model: keep pumping out the most historically profitable classes. In their case, that happens to be high-end fuel guzzlers."
First, let's identify the origin of this quote.
http://www.hybridcars.com/news2/germanys-hybrid-laggards-play-catch-up
.html
Quote:
When you have an established technology and infrastructure- such as the gasoline-powered automobile, gas filling stations, roadways, refineries, plus ALL those invested corporate board members- there is a huge incentive to keep things the same.
True. And when you've established an infrastructure such as stables, farriers, harness makers, carriage makers, wheelrights, feed and grain stores, rendering plants, breeding facilities, plus all those invested in the horse industry, there is a huge incentive to keep things the same. Seen any horses on the interstate recently?
When it makes economic sense for a new technology to take over, it does. Just because it's doable doesn't mean that it can be done economically.
But come on. Tell me why we don't have electric cars. Surely some auto company in some country which doesn't have a big oil industry should be able to manufacture them. You reject the premise that it's a technological challenge, so someone should be able to make a go of it. Why aren't they out there?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You had a question about Germany and hybrid cars. The same thing that's driving the US automakers is driving the German automakers:Quote:This is a problem with capitalism across the board. High profit product does not mean advanced or best product (or better mousetrap). When you have an established technology and infrastructure- such as the gasoline-powered automobile, gas filling stations, roadways, refineries, plus ALL those invested corporate board members- there is a huge incentive to keep things the same. I know, I deal with big refineries often. Their physical plants are more than 40 years old, have been paid off decades ago. Except for maintenance and repair- and precious little of THAT- the oil corporations seem content to keep making money on things as they are. The only oil company that I know of to invest in alternative technology was Arco (now BP-Arco) which invested in solar cells (Arco Solar) and they kind of got their neck chopped off.
Rather than emulate Japanese carmakers who have seen success by enhancing fuel economy across varied product lines, it seems Germany's auto industry is closer to the US model: keep pumping out the most historically profitable classes. In their case, that happens to be high-end fuel guzzlers.
You can apply that model to any technology that requires a big investment. Which is why many of the real big advances- like the internet and the interstate- were made by government.
So the process that you postulate is very much a dead-end.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
On a side note Signy, you may find this of interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Highway_Association
How this project was done, likely couldn't happen today, but interesting
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And when you've established an infrastructure such as stables, farriers, harness makers, carriage makers, wheelrights, feed and grain stores, rendering plants, breeding facilities, plus all those invested in the horse industry, there is a huge incentive to keep things the same. Seen any horses on the interstate recently?'
Seen any multinational stables, farriers, harness makers, carriage makers, wheelrights, feed and grain stores, rendering plants, or breeding facilities - ever ?
And you seem to think cars just 'came about' due to economic advantage. You forget the initial political push to outlaw horses, the later intentional destruction of mass transit across the country, and the big-money vested interests developing highways (with tax dollars).
Cars didn't 'just happen.'
************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"And when you've established an infrastructure such as stables, farriers, harness makers, carriage makers, wheelrights, feed and grain stores, rendering plants, breeding facilities, plus all those invested in the horse industry, there is a huge incentive to keep things the same. Seen any horses on the interstate recently?'
Seen any multinational stables, farriers, harness makers, carriage makers, wheelrights, feed and grain stores, rendering plants, or breeding facilities - ever ?
Ah, we're getting closer, but still haven't gotten you, SignyM, or Fremd to come right out and say it.
You all do not accept my postulates that electric cars are not yet common because the technology is not sufficiently robust to mass produce them at a price at which they can profitably be sold, and because the infrastructure to support them is not available or economically feasible to develop at this time.
So you apparently think that the technologies for effective, profitable, large-scale electric car use and the infrastructure to support it are available and ready to implement after a relatively short run-up, but are being hidden and not used.
Why are they being hidden and not used?
C'mon, just say it. You'll feel better.
Here. I'll even get you started. Repeat after me.
"It's"
"An"
"International"
"Multi-decade"
"Industrial-"
"Governmental"
"Consp..."
You can take it from there, can't you?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"electric cars are not yet common because the technology is not sufficiently robust to mass produce them at a price at which they can profitably be sold"
See - "Who Killed the Electric Car."
Mebee you'll get some education.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it is alot like the Lincoln Highway link I posted. When they built that road, the main means of long distance travel was the railroads, and there was big money tied into that monopoly and they were not willing to invest into projects which worked against their interests. As was stated in the link.
I think the oil companys and car manufacturers are tied together so that being the case, the best way to go would be a third party, a smaller company steps in and puts a product on the market separate of the bigger companys. Unfortunately if the big guys buy out the little guys and shut the projects down it will never happen.....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You all do not accept my postulates that electric cars are not yet common because the technology is not sufficiently robust to mass produce them at a price at which they can profitably be sold, and because the infrastructure to support them is not available or economically feasible to develop at this time.
Incorrect in my case - in fact because I made this exact same argument concerning straight electric and hydrogen powered cars.
I don't feel we're "there yet" - but we COULD be, barring the problem of human nature and human greed, no one wants to give up the short term loss to make long term (but less overall) profit, you see ?
We *could* do it, but all manner of folk with a vested financial interest ain't willing to do so, given that it would indeed lose money in the short term, and in the long term make less money than what they have now because the Gov hasn't handed them total monopolies on that product.
One issue of Gov nitpicking crosses up with not-quite-there-yet technology to make a problem out of this, and that is safety standards, which add weight, to a car that's already gotta be stripped to the bones just to move on an underpowered engine, and overstressing a tiny engine as a matter of operation sucks, just ask any Miata owner - not to mention what's like to happen to your ass in that eggshell when some dimwit in an Excursion with the radio blaring, yapping merrily into his cellphone, doesn't even SEE your tiny little bug from his kingdom and runs it over.
Bear in mind that I am likely not as much effective in discussing this because I really really don't understand some of the tech involved in the electrics, and some of the info coming from these alt-fuel people does indeed have that bovine aroma about it, as I feel a bit of whitewash is going on (the issue of batteries is a big one, with several models I have looked at, one of whom will sell you the car, but tells you in the fine print that the batteries needed to operate it won't exist for 4-5 more years).
I don't see E-85 as a solution, nor corn-base ethanol, the latter would only work if we were willing to radically cut back consumption - vegetable oil/bio-diesel is a good solution but it doesn't help much on the emissions front.
Funny story relative to that, long time ago, I learned how to make bio-diesel and convert a straight diesel to vegetable oil (such a bitch of a conversion even now, that goin with Bio-D is prolly better) if I wanted to, and cussing the $1.19 a gallon I was payin for fuel, looked into it.... I almost bought a small Diesel Powered VW Rabbit for the conversion, and had all the other equipment lined up for purchase and install, and I get to this poor car, and it's so rusted out there's nothin I can do with it.. meh.
Seen some Volvos running veggie or Bio-D, but the folks that own them are *very* protective, not just of thier vehicles, but also thier secrets, they do NOT wanna discuss it with you, and the local farmers are a suspicious, slightly paranoid bunch, so I don't push em on it... I KNOW the red Volvo is runnin straight veggie tho, damn thing smells like a fry vat at McDonalds when it's runnin.
Another interesting bit of trivia - know what Gasoline was, when Henry Ford decided to run a car on it ?
Toxic Waste.
Gasoline was a waste product of Kerosene production, and not in any kind of demand at the time.
My opinion on it...
Electric - Needs R&D on batteries, not there yet.
Hydrogen - Six gallons of petrol energy to make one gallon of Hydrogen energy is not a savings.
Vegetable Oil - Maybe viable, but I can't get enough information to really tell you.
Bio-D - Renewable, and a handy interm solution, but it does not address the consumption or emissions issue.
Hybrid - Overcomplicated, not financially viable, needs simplification and refinement for true inexpensive mass production.
E-85 - Halfass joke as an excuse to say they're "doing something" just like Gasahol back in the opec crunch.
Two ideas I'd like to throw in... one is a secondary rail system powered by
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No time for a long discussion at the moment. But the answer to your question is... they WERE out there. As I have said several times already! GM made a whole bunch of EV1s
But come on. Tell me why we don't have electric cars. Surely some auto company in some country which doesn't have a big oil industry should be able to manufacture them. You reject the premise that it's a technological challenge, so someone should be able to make a go of it. Why aren't they out there?
Quote:
In late 2003, GM officially cancelled the EV1 program.[2][3] Despite unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees, GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You can buy an electric car today...
http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyPage1.php
Well, soon. Base price 98K. Details.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
As I have said several times already! GM made a whole bunch of EV1sQuote:
In late 2003, GM officially cancelled the EV1 program.[2][3] Despite unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees, GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
The problem is that there is no contradiction in that statement. If you need to make 30,000 to break even and 60,000 to make a profit and you have orders for 10,000 then you can't afford to make them even though there is obviously demand. Look back 20 odd years to when home computers first came out. In the UK there were dozens of small computer companies making (largely uncompatable) machines. A lot of them went bankrupt not because there was no demand for what they made --- they had good sales, but the sales where less than expected and didn't cover their costs.
That's the problem. An EV1 made as a pilot project and operated at a loss by GM is not the model to take forward, it's a way of gathering data. On the other hand Toyota -- the world's biggest car company says that plug hybrids will be available in the future they just need the battery technology to improve.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
...In essence a simplified bare-minimum car that could be quickly churned out and sold for (then) $3600 to (now) under $5000 brand new, something you'd sell as a starter car, to college students, or as a runabout for in-town stuff.
It would come with a full manual patterned off military equipment breakdown manuals, a 1yr defect warranty, and that's IT.
Cheap, efficient cars have sort of went the way of cheap, efficient health care - they've been outlawed. I can't ever seem to get this concept across to liberals, but regulation is the glue that keeps this kind of collusion in place. It's what prevents enterprising competitors from undercutting the fatcats.
Quote:
In the end, looking at the "Big Three", you'd have a better chance of pushing the great wall down singlehandedly than convincing them of anything, their corporate inertia defies all reality cause they can always count on the Gov for a bailout and subsidies if their pig-stupid, economically blind policies come back to bite em
Ayup... and as long as we're wildly off topic, I heard on NPR this morning that Democrats are demanding that we bail out all the nimrods who created the housing bubble. How's that again? They (the overly eager bankers handing out mortgages like candy, and the credit-leveraging, yuppies buying McMansions) thought their little scam could continue indefinitely. Or maybe they assumed their bought and paid for congress folks would bail them out. Either way, they deserve to crash and burn. Sure, it might mean a bit of a recession. But those of us who aren't caught up in their scam will be alright, and our nation desperately needs to learn a few lessons about debt.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"electric cars are not yet common because the technology is not sufficiently robust to mass produce them at a price at which they can profitably be sold"
See - "Who Killed the Electric Car."
Mebee you'll get some education.
Sure, when you watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and admit that manmade climate change is all just (excuse the expression) hot air.
Come on, Rue. Quit dancing around the point. Just come right out and say who You think has killed the electric car worldwide for the past couple of decades.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
You all do not accept my postulates that electric cars are not yet common....
Incorrect in my case - in fact because I made this exact same argument concerning straight electric and hydrogen powered cars.
Okay. Sorry.
Quote:
I don't feel we're "there yet" - but we COULD be, barring the problem of human nature and human greed, no one wants to give up the short term loss to make long term (but less overall) profit, you see ?
We *could* do it, but all manner of folk with a vested financial interest ain't willing to do so, given that it would indeed lose money in the short term, and in the long term make less money than what they have now because the Gov hasn't handed them total monopolies on that product.
So if they were just willing to lose their investors' money, their employees' pay, quite possibly their entire business, gambling that they could build a salable electric rigt now, rather than waiting a few years until it becomes less of a risk, you'd be willing to stand good for their losses?
Quote:When I try to consider the switching requirements needed to keep such a syatem moving, it makes my head ache. Consider a single lane highway that has to carry all the two way truck traffic of a major motorway, with no passing allowed. Consider this a nation-wide system. Shudder.
Two ideas I'd like to throw in... one is a secondary rail system powered by solar panels on top of the cars for non time-critical freight - you just load the cargo, set the destination and it gets there when it gets there - the US lacks an effective railway transportation system for passengers also, I know, but solar is sun-dependant, and this more suited to non time-critical shipping of freight.
Quote:
The other is the Wren, an idea that's been floating around Detroit for almost 20 years now, a completely stripped down bare-bones bucket with a tiny 4stroke simplified high efficiency engine (mileage estimated at 35-42mpg) torque converter/transaxle (automatic transmission, of sort) and pretty much nothin else but a seat, headlights, turn signals, brake lights, etc.
And no one would buy it. You could get a two year old Hyundai for the same price, with pretty much the same mileage, plus a/c, a sound system, more comfort, better safety and a better warranty. Heck, you can get a brand new Accent for under $10,000.00 on sale.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
On the other hand Toyota -- the world's biggest car company says that plug hybrids will be available in the future they just need the battery technology to improve.
No, Fletch. It's not the batteries, it's the (shhh) c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All I can think of is that very cynical statement made to me years ago: you can live in your car but you can't drive your house.
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
You can buy an electric car today...
http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyPage1.php
Well, soon. Base price 98K. Details.
Anyway, I'm still holding out for my ideal car.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Anyway, I'm still holding out for my ideal car.
Now tell us why it's not being built.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FremD
"I don't see E-85 as a solution, nor corn-base ethanol, the latter would only work if we were willing to radically cut back consumption - vegetable oil/bio-diesel is a good solution but it doesn't help much on the emissions front."
There are many solutions lab-proven for the various problems, but no investment to make them reality.
Ethanol
Of the several advantages of ethanol, it's renewable, it uses existing infrastructure (tankers, underground storage tanks and pumps), and, using the proper catalyst, you don't have to purify it much to use it.
There is a wonderful catalyst that makes H2 out of wet ethanol. It's self-heating and, unlike other catalysts you can't kill it with metals, sulfur, nitrogen or organic compounds that aren't ethanol. Best of all, whereas all other catalysts need the ethanol to be dry (distillation only gets you 95% ethanol, the rest of the water has to be extracted and kept out by expensive means), this catalyst not only uses wet ethanol, it also converts some of the water to hydrogen as well.
http://it.umn.edu/news/inventing//2004_Summer/harvestinghydrogen.html
I've written to the researchers for corn-based ethanol who've done energy production/ use calculations. I've asked all of them if they count the fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation in their energy equations, b/c while those are needed to mass-produce food-grade corn they're not needed for fuel-grade corn. I've also asked if they're counting the energy used to dry the ethanol rather than using the crude 95% straight distilled ethanol. I haven't gotten an answer from any of them, so I suspect it's something they didn't think of. So while they all calculate that corn-based ethanol is sustainable, they say they want higher margins. But, they're using faulty assumptions as the basis for their calculations. IOW: GIGO.
There's also a move in the works to make cellulose (rather than sugar or starch) based ethanol. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061108102052.htm Cellulose-based ethanol would be a boon, since even waste paper could be used to make ethanol.
Fuel cells
Now that you have an abundant, renewable and cheap fuel and the converter, you need a fuel cell - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070116131346.htm - that's simple and works at the human end just like a gas engine. You push on the pedal and you go faster. And then there's some really nice catalysts out there - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070125122857.htm - this one looks like it'll do the trick.
Almost there
As hybrid cars have demonstrated, there are other necessary and nifty things you can do - regenerative braking, battery mediation etc. And it's be nice to have an overall car redesign for things like center of gravity, maneuverability, and my favorite, the break-away titanium safety cage.
As you can see, this is an issue near and dear to my heart. I've been following it for quite some time. There is NOTHING impossible here - it's all been invented, studied, and worked out. All that's missing is the will to put it together, and get the show on the road ...
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, yeah, Geezer, my post above addresses yours too. Any time you feel ready to reply ...
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:yep.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Either way, they deserve to crash and burn.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, yeah, Geezer, my post above addresses yours too. Any time you feel ready to reply ...
Reply to what? Most of the things you note (aside from E-85, which is pretty much homemade hydrocarbon fuel) are still lab experiments and still years away from any possible commercial application, assuming they ever become commercially viable.
You still haven't explained why we aren't all driving around in electric cars.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geeze, such Gambling is done all the time - it's called free enterprise, only the established fatcats get to play it win-win all the time, as the Gov bails em out when they lose.
And yep, all those regs are a nightmare Sarge, and a primary brick wall which keeps the Wren a concept rather than a reality.
Mass produced without regard to them, I would lay good odds we could get the price down to $1999.99, and some folks would surrender all those creature comforts quite willingly in exchange for a car they could, you know, AFFORD.
Try tellin the Big Three that, however.
As for the rail system, I said a SECONDARY system, something independant of our current one, which is hangin on the ragged edge like the rest of our tattered infrastructure.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"are still lab experiments and still years away from any possible commercial application"
Not really. They're ready for prototyping and beta-testing. With funding, that could happen in under a year.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And it's petty easy for you to gamble with other people's money, isn't it?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Geeze, such Gambling is done all the time - it's called free enterprise, only the established fatcats get to play it win-win all the time, as the Gov bails em out when they lose.
Quote:
As for the rail system, I said a SECONDARY system, something independant of our current one, which is hangin on the ragged edge like the rest of our tattered infrastructure.
Oh, so it requires an entire new rail infrastructure, massive right-of-way acquisition (requiring major application of eminent domain), all-new rolling stock, new bridges, etc. And you'll still need trucks to move stuff from the railheads to comsumers. This assumes that there is enough stuff out there that people want to buy, but don't particularly care when they receive it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not really. They're ready for prototyping and beta-testing. With funding, that could happen in under a year.
Prototyping and beta-testing lab-sized systems is far from developing large scale, economical systems to produce such fuels in mass. Oh, are all the raw materials needed to produce both the fuel and support the refining process available and cheap enough to be cost-effective? Then can you develop vehicles which can run on those fuels and which also have to be economical to produce? Then that damn infrastructure bugaboo comes up again. Then a sufficient number of people actually have to want to buy them. Don't expect to be driving this type of car any time soon.
And by the way, why aren't we driving electric cars?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'cause they cost $98,000?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, I really wish you'd read my posts. It's frustrating to have to repeat the same things three, four, five or more times.
"developing large scale, economical ... all the raw materials needed to produce both the fuel and support the refining process available and cheap enough to be cost-effective"
As I mentioned above, there have been several studies on the feasibility of corn-ethanol, and they all come out positive, looking at ALL inputs from growing to transport to refining. (BTW these processes are not out of mainstream and bulk capability.) They would be MORE positive if the analysts didn't account for growing the corn as if it was food, and drying it from 190 proof to 200 proof.
The economics are favorable for corn-based ethanol.
"develop vehicles which can run on those fuels and which also have to be economical to produce"
Yes. That's the thrust of the development work - efficient, rugged and SMALL catalysts (about the size of a thimble and flow-through porous), small, rugged easy to modulate fuel cells, rugged fuel cell catalysts ... and so on. The other parts - regenerative brakes for example - have already been developed for hybrid systems.
The vehicles are already in production, the powertrain is the only change and it's been made to be small, cheap and rugged.
"Then that damn infrastructure bugaboo comes up again."
Well, as I (ahem) already mentioned, the beauty of 95% crude ethanol is that it uses the exact same type of infrastructure as gasoline.
"Then a sufficient number of people actually have to want to buy them."
Quiet, great pickup, long-range, cheap to run - what's not to like ?
"And by the way, why aren't we driving electric cars?" (And BTW, you switched the question from why MY ideal car - the ethanol-fuel-cell vehicle isn't being made, to the 'electric car' question. I'm answering the first question, as it's pertinent to my original post.)
I believe I already answered this one as well - "There is NOTHING impossible here - it's all been invented, studied, and worked out. All that's missing is the will to put it together, and get the show on the road ..."
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LeadB
I'm surprized you didn't read the website, it costs what it costs 'cause it's not being made to be a cheap family car:
How fast is it?
Zero to 60 mph in about 4 seconds with a top speed of over 130 mph. But this is not the whole story. Because it has no clutch pedal and a very wide, flat torque curve, the acceleration of the Tesla Roadster is much more available to enjoy: just step on the accelerator and go. No matter what speed you are driving, no matter what gear you are in, the acceleration is instantaneous. (Rue - a Corvette does 0 -60 in 4.2 seconds.)
Why does the Tesla Roadster have a two-speed transmission?
The Tesla Roadster has a two-speed transmission to maximize acceleration, while also allowing a reasonably high top speed. First gear gets you from zero to 60 mph in about 4 seconds, while second gear takes you to above 130 mph.
How did you come up with the idea for Tesla Motors?
Tesla Motors co-founder Martin Eberhard had always been interested in fast, fun cars, but wanted something that was very energy efficient.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gamble with who's money ?
I suggested two *concepts* - and you'll note that I mentioned free enterprise and not one word about Gov't funding, and yet you persistently try very hard to misrepresent my position and it's pissin me off, Geeze.
Of the two concepts, I think the Wren is a bit more real world viable, and it would be something I might invest in if someone capable of producing the damned thing could run the gauntlet of stumbling blocks in the way, primary amongst them just how much the Big Three have locked up the market on that kind of infrastructure around here - they'd buy a factory and scrap it at a multimillion loss (written off on taxes, of course) just to keep a potentive competitor from having it, and would buy off any of your personnel they could rather quick - it would require someone pretty damn ruthless to get it done, and that brings it's own problems.
On the other, the question of scale versus need is also to be raised, but I do see it as a possibility, a concept, that someone with more tech knowhow and vision than me could quite possibly make viable.
For someone who claims to believe in a free market, Geeze, yer awfully hardheaded when it comes to the concept end of one.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, Geezer is a master of that.
and yet you persistently try very hard to misrepresent my position and it's pissin me off, Geeze.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer, I really wish you'd read my posts. It's frustrating to have to repeat the same things three, four, five or more times.
And I wish you'd read mine.
"Most of the things you note (aside from E-85, which is pretty much homemade hydrocarbon fuel) are still lab experiments and still years away from any possible commercial application, assuming they ever become commercially viable."
As to making hydrogen from ethanol, in the article you cite, Dr. Schmidt himself is quoted as saying "This is fundamental research, and a lot of steps are still required to turn it into a viable technology." So maybe you should read what you cite as well.
Also noted in your other cites are the fact that the first paper describing the new fuel cell has just been published, so it's probably not even completed peer-review. " They will publish their findings in the February {2007} issue of the journal Chemical Engineering Science." BTW, fuel cells produce water vapor, the leading greenhouse gas.
None of this stuff is ready to go into production, and probably won't be for a while. Also, consider that there are other technologies out there which also show promise. Should we just go into full-scale production of five or ten different, unproven, competing systems, or take the time to find out what's going to be the most effective.
"There is NOTHING impossible here - it's all been invented, studied, and worked out. All that's missing is the will to put it together, and get the show on the road ..."
In your opinion. Dr. Schmidt thinks of his work that "...a lot of steps are still required to turn it into a viable technology." You've got the Veruca Salt thing down pretty good. "I want it now!" Then go spend your money on developing it, since all it takes is will.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I suggested two *concepts* - and you'll note that I mentioned free enterprise and not one word about Gov't funding, and yet you persistently try very hard to misrepresent my position and it's pissin me off, Geeze.
"We *could* do it, but all manner of folk with a vested financial interest ain't willing to do so, given that it would indeed lose money in the short term, and in the long term make less money than what they have now..."
Well, that would pretty much explain why free enterprise wouldn't want to do it.
Quote:
Of the two concepts, I think the Wren is a bit more real world viable, and it would be something I might invest in if someone capable of producing the damned thing could run the gauntlet of stumbling blocks in the way...
Government regulation isn't going away any time soon, since the poeple, however mistakenly in your view, seem to want cars that provide a reasonable level of safety. I'm still not seeing nuch of a market for a dangerous, uncomfortable, noisy, bare bones vehicle when I can get a good used car for the same price.
Quote:
For someone who claims to believe in a free market, Geeze, yer awfully hardheaded when it comes to the concept end of one.
I know enough about the free market to realize that a lot of concepts get fed into one end for one product to come out the other. And even then many products fail to make it. Free enterprise doesn't (or shouldn't) just say "Ohh, that's neat. Let's make that". They say (and here I'm massively simplifying a very complex analysis of all possible factors) "Can I make that at a cost less than I'll be able to sell it for, and will enough people actually want it to pay my up-front costs."
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Oh, Geezer is a master of that.
and yet you persistently try very hard to misrepresent my position and it's pissin me off, Geeze.
Why aren't you out on this fine day driving your electric car around?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because GM pulled the plug on the program. I hate to have to keep repeating myself, but apparently it's a necessity.
And by the way, why aren't we driving electric cars?
First, let me get back to the original premise: We don't need Iraqi oil. Despite the fact that Geezer has done a marvelous job of leading the discussion down the bunny-trail (away from Iraq AND oil conservation) my original statement remains true. The USA has the worst fuel economies of the entire industrialized world. Greencarcongresss.com (the site that Geezer dismissed out of hand because of its name) cites Pew research (Geezer may have heard of them?) which shows that as of 2002 (two years before the report was written so likely to be reliable) fuel economy standards were as follows:
Japan............46 mpg
EU..................40 mpg
China............30 mpg
Australia........30 mpg
Canada...........26 mpg
Beetlebong (USA)....24 mpg
www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Fuel%20Economy%20and%20GHG%20Standards_0
10605_110719.pdf
Their projections only widen the figures, with the USA remaining stagnant while the other nations aggressively increase fuel economy. It doesn't take a genius to see that the United States could cut its gasoline consumption nearly in half by adopting technology that is already sold in mass today, irrespective of electric cars, fuel cells or other advanced technology. Why hasn't this happened? In large part its because American car and oil companies have lobbied heavily to keep things as they are: SUVs are hugely profitable as well as hugely hungry. We're not talking advanced technology here, we're just talking re-tooling. And for those of you NOT trying to "make a point", here is the website that Geezer dissed: www.greencarcongress.com It's full of world-class research.
So what impact would this have on imports? According to http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_m.htm the USA used a total of approximately 630 Mbbl/month of crude oil to produce approx 410 Mbbl/month of finished motor gasoline (that does NOT include diesel and aviation fuel). Of that crude oil usage, we imported approx 390 Mbbl/mo. That means that we imported approximately 62% of our crude oil, and used more than half to make gasoline.
In other words, if we cut our gasoline usage by a third with existing technology to standards that are mandated everywhere except here we could stop importing 220 Mbbl/month of crude oil. That is more than ALL the imports from ALL of the OPEC countries combined. So let me re-state the original premise: WE DON"T NEED IRAQI OIL.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl
_m.htm
We could easily adopt EXISTING technology... we SHOULD have mandated higher standards, adopted existing technology YEARS ago... to reduce our gasoline consumption by at least a third and if we were as aggressive as the Japanese we could reduce our gasoline consumption by ONE HALF. Simply adopting existing technology would have ELIMINATED our need for OPEC oil. If you think I'm repeating myself, it's because Geezer has the annoying habit of making people repeat themselves several times and still not "getting" the point, so I thought I'd get that painful process out of the way up-front. I hope it works!
When I have more time, I'll get to some of Geezer's other misleading arguments.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Because GM pulled the plug on the program. I hate to have to keep repeating myself, but apparently it's a necessity.
And by the way, why aren't we driving electric cars?
And why did GM pull the plug (chortle) on the electric car? Because they couldn't make a profit on it. Oh, the horror! A business expecting to make a profit! How could they?
And how could you, Rue, and Fremd have lived in capitalist society all your lives and not figured out the first thing about how free enterprise works? Business is in business to make money, not to go in the hole throwing it at any idea that comes along.
Develop a reasonable cost-benefit analysis, maybe some actual market research to support demand, some sort of business plan, and, see if any of this stuff is actually practical - that's what the people who actually have to invest in development and risk their capital do.
You're talking about making multi-billion dollar investments, risking tens of thousands of jobs, not to mention the pension funds invested in stock, on ideas that either aren't out of the lab yet or have already proven to be uneconomic at their current level of development. Easy for you to do when it's not your money.
You people need to wake up and realize that crying "I want it!" until your face turns blue may work in the nursery, but not in the grown-up world.
I'm done with this thread, so you can go back to your playground.
Look for a new thread on "Causes". in a few days.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh profit could indeed be made, for crying out loud the demand is there - the elephant in the room you are dancing around is artificial stumbling blocks placed by folks attempting to protect their investment in petrol based technologies who have enough financial influance to buy politicians, something the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts were intended to prevent, but were subverted by the false concept of corporate personhood.
When there is a heavy demand for something and established enterprises can not or will not fill it, that is where new enterprises come in, but that does not happen when established enterprises can manipulate factors to prevent it, that's neither competition nor Free Market.
You completely contradict yourself saying there's no demand, and then mock those who are showing said demand for the product, that's somewhat ridiculous Geeze, and you know it.
My current in-town vehicle is actually a hand built trike with cargo box constructed from the front end of a Tomos Sprint connected to a Pryer Trike rear end, running a 2-stroke 64cc overbored A5 Motor with dual centrifugal clutches, can move 900lbs of cargo at up to 35mph and gets well over 100mpg easy - but i'm gettin a bit old for open air riding, and wouldn't mind a replacing it with an alt-fuel vehicle, or high efficiency econobox.
And for all your gripe about such things, tell me then, why are all the econoboxes you mention foreign imports ? because american automakers have such a market lock that they do not give a shit what their customers want, that isn't a sign of a Free Market buddy, rather the opposite, but yer so busy cheering on an utterly failed business construct that depends on being propped up by the Gov (kinda like the current airline industry) rather than customer demand and cost-efficiency.
Every decent invention or innovation in history has at one time or another been mocked as a useless, unprofitable pipedream, from the steam engine to the telephone, and yet, here they are.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, by your logic NOTHING new can be introduced. Because a new product of any sort calls for investment ahead of profit (unless you're manufacturing hula hoops which require no new investment at all). That requires... Umm what is that word that capitalists always like to point to? Oh yeah: RISK. So are you saying that capitalists in general or GM specifically are gutless wonders? Or are you saying that the technology isn't there because real RESEARCH advances are not driven by profit because it costs too much money? Or are you saying that the only way to move froward is by government mandate?
I don't know, Geezer, you leave me so confused!
In any case, I'd be happy to discuss the introduction of new technologies under capitalism in another thread. But for now, my position- which have have not chosen to address- is the complete geopolitical NON-necessity of us being in the Mideast at all, based on CURRENT technology. So why are we there?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The USA has the worst fuel economies of the entire industrialized world. Greencarcongresss.com (the site that Geezer dismissed out of hand because of its name) cites Pew research (Geezer may have heard of them?) which shows that as of 2002 (two years before the report was written so likely to be reliable) fuel economy standards were as follows:
Japan............46 mpg
EU..................40 mpg
China............30 mpg
Australia........30 mpg
Canada...........26 mpg
Beetlebong (USA)....24 mpg
www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Fuel%20Economy%20and%20GHG%20Standards_0
10605_110719.pdf
I gave that some thought when I first hired a car in the US and the "compact car" was larger than the car we had in England. Americans like bigger (heavier) cars and we aren't just talking SUV's and trucks. I've asked people why and the consensus seems to be that comfort/utility for long distance road trips is the deciding factor.
When you cram the 2.4 kids into a vehicle and intend to drive for more than 3 hours you really want a more comfortable vehicle. It's a question of distance. From the bottom of Texas to the Okie border is London to Glasgow kinds of distances and that represents the longest run we've ever driven in the UK in a single trip. If I wanted to go to Paris I would TGV my way there. In fact I would probably take the train to Glasgow if time allowed. So I think that could be the problem. European cars are made for running shorter distances. In the US people buy the car that can service the twice yearly road trip even though that means they pay to push around metal they dont need when commuting every day.
Perhaps the answer is to make economic people pushers like Frem suggests for the weekly commute and have low cost hire vehicles for long distance trips (or build a TGV network.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And for all your gripe about such things, tell me then, why are all the econoboxes you mention foreign imports ?
Hardly all. Every American manufacturer has a 35+ mpg econobox in the $10,000 - $13,000.00 range. Some share platforms with Japanese or european cars, but that's just logical considering that the foreign cars are required to get much better gas mileage due to the dreaded GOVERNMENT REGULATION (see Sigy's post above)
Companies build what the people will buy, consistent with profitability and government regulation. I can hardly help it if Americans still want big cars and trucks. Until the government tells them they can't have their gas-guzzlers, or the cost of gas goes much higher than it is now, most folks will opt for comfort, room, and performance over economy.
Quote:
Every decent invention or innovation in history has at one time or another been mocked as a useless, unprofitable pipedream, from the steam engine to the telephone, and yet, here they are.
Yep. And so have the flying car, and the passenger blimp, and the Gyrojet pistol, and the V/STOL airliner, and the Beta video cartridge, and wind-powered mega-cargo ships, and canal excavation using nuclear bombs, and other things that did turn out to be "...useless, unprofitable pipedream(s)..."
Go look at old patent models and applications sometime, and then find out how many were actually produced in volume.
But I'm out'a here. Have fun with the pipedreams.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, I could pick apart your last post until there was nothing left but the hot air from which it came. But I'm going to stick with this question: why are we in the Middle East? Why are we still importing oil from OPEC?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well I guess that's Geezer's MO in a nutshell... when you can't distract the discussion or answer the question your throw a hissy fit and leave.
Buh bye! *waves* Don't let the door hit your backside on the way out! 
--------------
So now that Geezer's gone, we might actually HAVE a discussion.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I could pick apart your last post until there was nothing left but the hot air from which it came. But I'm going to stick with this question: why are we in the Middle East? Why are we still importing oil from OPEC?
That's actually two questions, so I guess I get to pick one, since you ask so nice.
We're still importing oil from OPEC because we use more than we can domestically produce, and there's not enough public demand to make a 40 or 50 mpg requirement a life-or-death issue for politicians. If everyone drove one of the sub-compacts currently offered by US and foreign carmakers (or even just US carmakers), we could probably do without OPEC. But, as Fletch noted above, folks who drive longer distances want bigger more comfortable cars. Damn that market-driven economy anyway.
So pick this one apart.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah yes... Market-driven economies. As Fletch (your fellow capitalist) will point out, people can be persuaded to spend $100 for a $5 sneaker. So how much demand is driven by advertising? Are gas-guzzlers what people really want, or are they what people are persuaded to want? Where is the advertising in the other direction? Seen any multi-million-dollar ad campaigns pushing for more responsible auto purchases? Eh, no.
Also, higher fuel economy does NOT mean "small and uncomfortable". The Lexus gets 24-31 mpg, the Sonata (a full size car) gets 24-32, and the Toyota RAV4 (an SUV) gets 24-30. www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&story=mpgClass&subject=be
st_mpg All are above the USA average. Now, if you look at US models you'll see the Hummer (10-16 mpg), Chevy Suburban (14 mpg), Cadillac Escalade (12 mpg), Ford Expedition (12 mpg), Chevy Avalanche (10 mpg) and GMC Yukon (12 mpg). Cadillac, GMC, and Buick do not offer a single fuel-economic car in their entire line.
www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/bymakemodelNF.shtml
So, what you're saying is that although it is clearly possible to produce fuel-efficient comfortable/ luxury vehicles, because USA auto manufacturers are greedy and risk-averse they will stick with high-profit, gas guzzling models, preferring to use their spare dollars on advertising and lobbying efforts rather than on retooling and research?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah yes... Market-driven economies. As Fletch (your fellow capitalist) will point out, people can be persuaded to spend $100 for a $5 sneaker. So how much demand is driven by advertising? Are gas-guzzlers what people really want, or are they what people are persuaded to want? Where is the advertising in the other direction? Seen any multi-million-dollar ad campaigns pushing for more responsible auto purchases? Eh, no.
Don't watch much TV, do you (or read magazines, newspapers or billboards, or listen to radio). There are commercials for fuel-efficient cars all over the place, along with commercials for luxury cars and trucks. The customer base is not monolithic, and there are ads for all segments.
Quote:
Also, higher fuel economy does NOT mean "small and uncomfortable". The Lexus gets 24-31 mpg, the Sonata (a full size car) gets 24-32, and the Toyota RAV4 (an SUV) gets 24-30. All are above the USA average.
Then why don't they rule the market? I see plenty of Lexus, Sonata, and RAV4 ads, so folk must know they're out there. They buy other stuff anyway.
Quote:
Now, if you look at US models you'll see the Hummer (10-16 mpg), Chevy Suburban (14 mpg), Cadillac Escalade (12 mpg), Ford Expedition (12 mpg), Chevy Avalanche (10 mpg) and GMC Yukon (12 mpg).
And they sell every one they make. Some really need that power for load carrying or towing, some just like the bigger vehicles. If they wanted gas mileage they could buy a RAV4, or the bigger Chevy Equinox at 19/26mpg. Darn that freedom of choice.
Quote:
Cadillac, GMC, and Buick do not offer a single fuel-economic car in their entire line.
Caddy tried offering an economy car, the Cimmaron, a few years ago. It sold like putrid meat on a hot day. GMC makes only big trucks, that's their niche, so don't expect GMC sub-compacts. Buick has cars that get 30mpg highway. Besides, if you want a fuel efficient GM car, (Caddy, GMC, and Buick areall GM cars, you know) GM subsidarary Chevrolet will be glad to sell you one.
Quote:
So, what you're saying is that because USA auto manufacturers are lazy and risk-averse they will stick with high-profit, gas guzzling models, preferring to use their spare dollars on advertising and lobbying efforts rather than on retooling and research?
Not really. I'm saying that US manufacturers sell all kinds of cars to all kinds of people. They sell sub-compacts and luxury cars, and advertise all of them. If you want a fuel-efficient car, you can get one. If you want a gas-guzzler, you can get one. If people are willing to pay more for the bigger cars, it's their choice, not yours.
But that's what gripes you, isn't it. That people choose to buy things you know they don't 'really' need. That they won't take your advice, since you know exactly what's best for them.
Wait for the upcoming thread on "Causes" coming soon to a forum near you.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No. What I'm saying is that American manufacturers COULD offer comfortable fuel efficient vehicles and they won't. Not can't- won't. Americans were induced to buy gas guzzlers over a decades-long advertising campaign to steer people AWAY from fuel efficient cars. Most American auto manufacturers (with the exception of Ford) decided - after getting their asses handed to them on a platter by Honda and Toyota- to avoid that market because it would require too much engineering and retooling. I'll see if I can find the links to that advert campaign. And Americans, unfortunately for them, show far more loyalty to American companies than the reverse.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I gave that some thought when I first hired a car in the US and the "compact car" was larger than the car we had in England. Americans like bigger (heavier) cars and we aren't just talking SUV's and trucks. I've asked people why and the consensus seems to be that comfort/utility for long distance road trips is the deciding factor.
When you cram the 2.4 kids into a vehicle and intend to drive for more than 3 hours you really want a more comfortable vehicle. It's a question of distance. From the bottom of Texas to the Okie border is London to Glasgow kinds of distances and that represents the longest run we've ever driven in the UK in a single trip. If I wanted to go to Paris I would TGV my way there. In fact I would probably take the train to Glasgow if time allowed. So I think that could be the problem. European cars are made for running shorter distances. In the US people buy the car that can service the twice yearly road trip even though that means they pay to push around metal they dont need when commuting every day.
I drive 25 miles to work every day. I drive 135 miles to visit my family every week. And trips to Nashville, Memphis, and Eglin AFB by car are not uncommon. I suppose I could drive a smaller car, like a European kind, but it would be hell to spend that much time in it.
My guess is that the majority of Americans really can’t afford to buy a Lexus. If you have a family, it doesn’t make sense. It makes more sense to buy one big car to drive the family around and not several small ones.
Quote:That sounds possible. I’ve never driven anything but an American car, and I’ve never driven anything that didn’t get at least 30 miles to the gallon. To say that the American auto manufacturers don’t provide fuel efficient cars is just nonsense.
Originally posted by Geezer:
But that's what gripes you, isn't it. That people choose to buy things you know they don't 'really' need. That they won't take your advice, since you know exactly what's best for them.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No. What I'm saying is that American manufacturers COULD offer comfortable fuel efficient vehicles and they won't. Not can't- won't.
Chevrolet alone offers 8 vehicles which get 30+mpg highway, as you'd know if you cared to check rather than just parrot stuff you heard. Some are full-sized sedans. People do buy them, but other people buy other, less fuel-efficient cars.
http://www.chevrolet.com/fueleconomy/
So you're wrong there.
Quote:Prove it. Ford and Chevy had economy cars such as the Falcon and Nova in the early 60's, when gas was a quarter a gallon, then Pinto and Vega, then Fiesta and Chevette. There's always been econoboxes out there. They've always been advertised.
Americans were induced to buy gas guzzlers over a decades-long advertising campaign to steer people AWAY from fuel efficient cars.
Quote:
Most American auto manufacturers (with the exception of Ford) decided - after getting their asses handed to them on a platter by Honda and Toyota- to avoid that market because it would require too much engineering and retooling.
See my link to the Chevy site above.
You make your claims (no advertising of economy cars, no American economy cars) I refute them, and you just make them again. Try something else.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm, no one else has mentioned it, so why not...
Problem with many american-built econoboxes is that they suck from worse quality control and poor manufacturer issues than a damn Yugo - this I know all too well since my girl works in the Big Three supply chains and we live fairly close to the plant that built the Focus, a disaster of an overpriced piece o shit if there ever was one.
Why buy an american made car that's gonna be in the shop twice a month, when you can buy a honda that won't ? QC seems to be real problematic for american made cars on the low end, as does some awfully piss poor engineering.
I dunno a lot about car engines, but I learned some respect for Honda, who I originally disliked, because many folk brought me Honda Spree NQ-50 scoots for servicing, and THOSE engines are second to none, simple, efficient, and damn near indestructible... if they make car engines the same way, I don't even see how american companies compete at all.
All that being said, american automakers CAN bang it over the fence if they try, the hunk of junk Alero we have, everything else on the car is total crap, including a disaster of a braking system that chews up the rotors every 3000 miles or less, but the engine itself is the most solid and reliable machine I have ever seen in a US car.
As for Chevy, we rented a four door Geo Metro when we were out in Reno on vacation, and I don't remember the exact model, but I rather liked it, it was quite efficient, but try finding a product line like that now - hell, try finding anything but a used rustbucket for under 10k.
Gonna come a day soon enough when no one can afford to buy a car, prices bein what they are, and wages not keepin up - there's intense market demand for an affordable car, and I mean affordable by folks who actually work for a livin.
To say that demand isn't there is ridiculous.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, yeah, there is that QC problem. The last American we bought was a Dodge Caravan. It ran rough within the first 10 miles... cracked valve springs... and spent the first 29 days of its working life in the shop. The tranny burned up at 30,000 miles, and again at 60,000 miles. At 80,000 it developed a persistent overheating problem that no amount of radiator flushing could fix. And that's not counting the A/C which blew at 40,000 mi, struts that broke, and a host of minor problems that made me want to drive the damn thing off a cliff. When it was in accident we crossed our fingers and hoped for a total loss, and took the money to buy a used Honda Odyssey.
Generally, the offerings from the Big Two Point Five have been either big cushy vehicles that get 10 mpg, or pieces of shit.
But Geezer, I DO watch TV and I haven't seen a single ad for a Focus or any of the other American fuel-efficient cars. Not a one. Not in YEARS. Interestingly, in looking for the links to the articles that I saw describing the strategy of American automakers, I found this:
Automakers create radio and print ads in an attempt to stall fuel economy regulations Quote:
Nothing like spreading FUD, huh?
May 26th 2007 Jeremy Korzeniewski
In an effort to sway consumer's minds when it comes to the types of vehicles they purchase and the regulations concerning fuel mileage of those vehicles, a consortium of automakers is running radio and print advertising in some states. The group, Auto Alliance, consists of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Porsche, and is known officially as The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.... According to this article, "the alliance said it would spend "way north" of $1 million on ads to be run in ... all states with high percentages of truck and SUV owners.... The idea is that fuel mileage regulations would make it more difficult for consumers to purchase heavy duty, work capable pickups and for mothers to find safe vehicles.
Grassroots efforts are also said to be in effect to contact retirees from the large automakers with similar information. At this time, automakers are under regulations that were created in 1975 to regulate fuel economy. Source: Detroit News
Also
Dealers and auto executives take their lobbying efforts to Washington Posted Jun 21st 2007 This is about the CAFE standards.
I found this assessment from the head of Chrysler in 1985, which is when Ford and GM decided they would rather exert their lobbying effort rather than their engineering know-how:
Quote:www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_pickups_suvs/life-in-the-slow-lane.
Sperlich added that his company {Chrsyler} had invested $5 billion in meeting CAFE standards, then ascribed a simple motive to GM and Ford’s foot-dragging: “...[It is] not about saving jobs or saving factories. It’s about maximizing profits, pure and simple. Those who want the standard dialed back have forgone the investments necessary to move their CAFE to the statutory level of 27.5 mpg; now they want an administrative ruling to forgo paying the fines that Congress intended as the penalty for noncompliance ...
GM and Ford eventually won their rollback in 1986, and Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca angrily noted, “I’m a little more than unhappy about it..... GM and Ford said if they couldn’t sell big cars in order to meet CAFE they would have to shut their plants and lay off people. Would GM shut a plant because instead of making $5,000 profit on a car they had to pay a CAFE fine and only make $4,500? That’s mad; that’s crazy.”
html
You should read the entire paper; it describes years and years of intense lobbying by Ford and GM to keep rolling back the CAFE standards and threats to move production overseas instead of just rolling up their sleeves and getting to work.
Meanwhile, I'll keep looking for that strategy paper that I read. It's from the mid-80's so it's going to be hard to find.
---------------------------------
Alwa
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, yeah, there is that QC problem. The last American we bought was a Dodge Caravan. It ran rough within the first 10 miles... cracked valve springs... and spent the first 29 days of its working life in the shop.
And my '99 Tahoe has run trouble-free for 140,000 miles, where as our 2002 Acura TL needed a new Tranny at 60,000. All anecdotal data, and not reflective of overall quality.
Quote:
Generally, the offerings from the Big Two Point Five have been either big cushy vehicles that get 10 mpg, or pieces of shit.
My '72 Pinto ran fine to 100,000 miles when I sold it in 1980. Didn't explode in that rear end collision either. My dad's Dodge Dart and mom's Dodge Omni ran great too. Based on the anecdotal evidence you love, that should convince you that all US compacts are great.
Quote:
But Geezer, I DO watch TV and I haven't seen a single ad for a Focus or any of the other American fuel-efficient cars. Not a one. Not in YEARS.
You're either not watching TV much or in such denial you block them out. For example, I've seen many of the Chevy commercials touting their eight cars making over 30MPG. Also notice you don't mention print or radio ads.
Quote:
Automakers create radio and print ads in an attempt to stall fuel economy regulations ...May 26th 2007 Jeremy Korzeniewski
An actual link would be nice, so we can see where this came from and what you left out.
Quote:
Dealers and auto executives take their lobbying efforts to Washington Posted Jun 21st 2007 ... This is about the CAFE standards.
Fuel efficient cars, American and foreign, are available to the American consumer right now. American consumers don't always buy fuel efficient cars. Why wouldn't the auto makers lobby to be able to sell the cars a large proportion of their customer base want to buy?
Quote:
I found this assessment from the head of Chrysler in 1985, which is when Ford and GM decided they would rather exert their lobbying effort rather than their engineering know-how:
So if it's in agreement with your bias, you'll believe a 22 year old paper in which the head of one auto company disses his competitors? Is that the best you got?
Quote:
Meanwhile, I'll keep looking for that strategy paper that I read. It's from the mid-80's so it's going to be hard to find.
Sorry, Siggy, this isn't 1985. Management at all the Big Three has changed several times since then.
Your argumentative skills are weak, grasshopper. You can hop down to any of the Big Three and find a safe, comfortable, fuel-efficient car for between $10,000.00 and $13,000.00. Any idiot who can read can do so. If you're not happy with the concept of buying an American car, you can do the same at dealers selling German, Japanese, or Korean cars.
US and foreign dealers sell plenty of these cars. They also sell plenty of expensive, less fuel efficient cars. They sell what the people want. Damn them all.
You're losing this argument, and you'd realize it if you weren't such a fanatic.
Wait for the "Causes" thread...Coming in September.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I read the whole thing. Thing is, I searched the web, and this is the -only- all electric car I could find where they are at least accepting orders. A few points...
Originally posted by rue:
LeadB
I'm surprized you didn't read the website, it costs what it costs 'cause it's not being made to be a cheap family car:
As far as proof of concept, this shows that at least everything we need for a car with a 200 mile range (personally, I'd settle for 100 mile range) is available with current technology. Now it's nice they are doing -something-, but bottom line, I'm not going to spend over 20K for an all electric, second commuter car; and I'd really like to see something below 15K. Hence my observation to (I think geezer) that the reason I wasn't driving one is not that you can't order one; but that the price is too high.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME