New of from Iraq OR better MPG!

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, September 7, 2007 23:56
VIEWED: 11914
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:09 AM

Geezer- not a single American car made it into the top 10 Consumer Reports in any category. If you look at reliability ratings Toyota is top, Honda second. My experience was just as you say: anecdotal. Fortunately someone is actually tracking consumer experience on a broad basis, so my experience is pretty much in-line with the overall.

AFA gas-guzzling vehicles: People don't buy vehicles BECAUSE they're gas-guzzling And the point is they don't HAVE to be. The big automakers could provide vehicles with all the cush that some folks demand AND better gas mileage, except... darn it.. they might make a little less $$$ on the deal. And AFA their strategy is concerned, my point is that the strategy which continues today goes SO far back. People might think it's a recent invention, a mistake... excpet the trail goes back so far. I have no problems whatsoever with the idea of significantly raising the CAFE standards. Do you?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Sunday, August 26, 2007 1:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- not a single American car made it into the top 10 Consumer Reports in any category. If you look at reliability ratings Toyota is top, Honda second. My experience was just as you say: anecdotal. Fortunately someone is actually tracking consumer experience on a broad basis, so my experience is pretty much in-line with the overall.

Wish I could see the report, but I don't subscribe to CR. And not top 10 out of several hundred models worldwide is hardly damning.

Quote:
AFA gas-guzzling vehicles: People don't buy vehicles BECAUSE they're gas-guzzling

True. They buy vehicles which have to be large and heavy to perform the tasks they're designed for: large cargo and passenger capacity, off-road ability, performance, ego satisfaction. These large, heavy, powerful vehicles just aren't going to get good mileage. People know this and buy them anyway.

Quote:
And the point is they don't HAVE to be. The big automakers could provide vehicles with all the cush that some folks demand AND better gas mileage...

And they do. See for example the Chevy Impala and Malibu, which both get over 30mpg. Every American manufacturer has similar cars.

So let's recap. We've gone from Worldwide conspiracy to stifle fuel-efficient cars (busted), to Big Three conspiracy to not manufacture fuel-efficient cars (busted), to Big Three conspiracy to not manufacture comfortable fuel-efficient cars(busted). So people can buy comfortable fuel-efficient cars of American manufacture, but some, for whatever reason, choose to buy larger, heavier, less fuel-efficient cars.

Quote:
I have no problems whatsoever with the idea of significantly raising the CAFE standards. Do you?

I'd actually prefer to see the free market demand higher fuel economy standards. Imposed standards would deny automakers the ability to manufacture what much of their market wants - big honkin' SUVs, trucks, large powerful cars, heavily optioned mini-vans, etc.

I expect that what will happen is sort of a hybrid. If gas prices go up, people will complain to their congresspersons. Rather than telling their voters to wise up and buy more efficient cars, congress will respond by bumping up CAFE.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 26, 2007 3:16 PM

Quote:
They buy vehicles which have to be large and heavy to perform the tasks they're designed for: large cargo and passenger capacity, off-road ability, performance, ego satisfaction. These large, heavy, powerful vehicles just aren't going to get good mileage.

This is the nub where you and I disagree. Large cargo capacity, off-road capability, performance and ego satisfaction... AND safety...AND loyalthy to American products... do not HAVE to be linked with 12 mpg. These vehicles will prolly never get 30 mpg (unless they're completely redesigned as hybrids) but they CAN achieve an average 20 mpg with minor re-engineering. The full-size Suzuki gets 17-23 mpg, is built on a box frame and has a 5-star crash rating and good towing capacity. With more aggressive re-engineering (diesel or the 4-6-8 engine) you can go up quite a bit higher... 25 mpg for the 4-6-8 and perhaps up to 28 with diesel.

You don't deal with industry and regulation on an everyday basis. I do. I don't mean mom-and-pop shops, I mean WSPA and API and EPRI and NPCA- big regional/ national organizations. We write a regulation.... industry whines and wrings their hands and claims THE SKY IS FALLING!!! ... and well, whaddayanno, they meet the regulations. And some of our rules and regs are VERY aggressive. The past 30 years have not seen many demands placed on American SUVs and pickups. There's a lot of technology out there to spare that could raise the mileage from the pathetic 10-13 mpg range that typifies most of the line to 14-19 mpg. Not a "good" mileage mind you, but "better" than current.

As much as you whine and cry and wring your hands, the fact is that the ONLY reason American auto mfrs haven't improved their mileage is because it costs them money. There is no technical reason not to improve mpg on the American line.... especially on the line of full-size SUVs and pickups. And since the auto industry is doing what IT does best, its' time for government to do what IT does best.... and in this case that doesn't mean spending our tax money and our children's lives propping up "cheap" oil prices so that two huge industry segments can get richer

If the oil industry wants Iraqi and/or Mideast oil so badly, let THEM pay for the acquisition and security arrangements instead of transferring the cost to the American military and the general public. And then we would see the true cost of oil.

BTW- I know you keep trying to MISrepresent me, and Rue, and anyone else who disagrees with your right-wing views as "conspiracy theorists" but it doesn't take a "conspiracy" to get the current results. All it really takes is a political system greased with lots and lots of money. So in the future, please don't try to "paint" people with your particular stripe.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Sunday, August 26, 2007 5:47 PM

Actually, I'm at the point of saying let the US car makers do what they want; but please, let's stop bailing them out when they are about to go belly up. They don't deserve it. If they want to take the 'cheap' way out and put out cars and trucks which routinely get 10-30% worse gas mileage than Toyota's, let'em. Eventually, they will get the message or they won't. In the mean time, I've cut all loyalties to USA Brand Owned cars (prior to about 5 years ago, I was a very avid Ford, etc advocate); but I now have three criteria:
1) High gas mileage
2) Reasonable price
3a) Made as locally as possible (Toyota's made in the USA rank -higher- in my book than a Chevy made in Korea).
3b) Acceptable quality

If Chrysler has another 'crisis', let it die.

(Edit to give a more realistic span of gas mileage)

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 26, 2007 6:02 PM

It'll never happen. Industry has the government pretty much in-pocket.

---------------------------------
One dollar, one vote.

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, August 26, 2007 6:04 PM

Discussing the same thing in Canada, a few friends and I had an idea...

Some want to regulate millage wise the manufacturers, etc but that doesn't work because so much is done overseas. The solution we thought might work is variable taxation.

If say you pay 10% tax on a new vehicle purchase,

What if the car were broken into category's performance wise A= good B = Average C= Poor

A buyers now pay 5%

B buyers pay 10%

C Buyer pay 15%

You get you choice if your willing to pay for it, but the buyers get a nudge to change their purchasing habits, and the manufacturers get a nudge to get their products into a lower catagory to increase profit.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 26, 2007 6:27 PM

BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED TOPIC:
Ex-Iraqi leader Ayad Allwai returning 'to fight for our country'

Quote:
Ayad Allawi says Sunday that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is loyal to Iran and Shiite interests. However, Ayad Allawi's ties to a powerful Washington-based GOP lobbying firm is raising eyebrows as President Bush has adamantly expressed his support for al-Maliki. {That won't last long} Speaking from Amman, Jordan, Allawi told ... Wolf Blitzer that he will push for "a less sectarian, nonsectarian course" when he goes back to Baghdad next week -- and al-Maliki's ouster may be part of the solution.

Well I SAID it was weird. What I haven't figured out is... who is behind this? This "Heckuva job Brownie" assessment from Bush: "Prime Minister al-Maliki's a good guy-- good man with a difficult job and I support him" is meaningless.

Quote:
Allawi has hired Barbour Griffith & Rogers, a GOP lobbying firm ... "We are asking this firm to help us to advocate our views, the views of the nationalistic Iraqis, the nonsectarian Iraqis," he said, adding that he is not directly paying the firm. "This payment is made by an Iraqi person who is a supporter of us of the {Iraqi National Accord}, of myself, of our program -- and he has supported this wholeheartedly without any strings attached."

Well. Allawi is a secular Shiite and an ex-Ba'athist who worked for Saddam. He was recruited by the CIA, and his appointment to the Iraqi government led to a bruising battle between Bush and the CIA over who would choose Iraq's direction.

Bush, the IMF, AND the Democratic party (especially the Wicked Witch of the East Hillary Clinton) are all pushing for contracts to the oil companies on terms that guarantee MUCH higher rates of return than industry average for 50 years. It's all about the oil law. Its' ALWAYS been about the oil law.

www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=13600

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Monday, August 27, 2007 1:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
They buy vehicles which have to be large and heavy to perform the tasks they're designed for: large cargo and passenger capacity, off-road ability, performance, ego satisfaction. These large, heavy, powerful vehicles just aren't going to get good mileage.
This is the nub where you and I disagree. Large cargo capacity, off-road capability, performance and ego satisfaction... AND safety...AND loyalthy to American products... do not HAVE to be linked with 12 mpg.
These vehicles will prolly never get 30 mpg (unless they're completely redesigned as hybrids) but they CAN achieve an average 20 mpg with minor re-engineering. The full-size Suzuki gets 17-23 mpg, is built on a box frame and has a 5-star crash rating and good towing capacity.

Don't know where you get this 12mpg stuff.
A 2007 Tahoe gets 16/22mpg, and can tow 8,200 lb vs. the Suzuki XL7(which btw gets 18/24mpg per their site) with 3500lb, can handle more gross combined weight, seats six vs. five, and is also built on a box frame. Actually, a Chevy Equinox, with 19/26MPG, would be more comparable with the Suzuki XL7 in size, capacities, and price.

Quote:
There's a lot of technology out there to spare that could raise the mileage from the pathetic 10-13 mpg range that typifies most of the line to 14-19 mpg. Not a "good" mileage mind you, but "better" than current.

Where did that 10/13MPG come from again? Ford currently sells the Escape Hybrid SUV which gets 34MPG city/30 highway. No Chevrolet SUV model gets worse than 16/21MPG and their pickups all meet or beat 17/22MPG.

Quote:
As much as you whine and cry and wring your hands, the fact is that the ONLY reason American auto mfrs haven't improved their mileage is because it costs them money. There is no technical reason not to improve mpg on the American line.... especially on the line of full-size SUVs and pickups.

And if you'd actually checked, instead of just mouthing off, you'd have found that American auto manufacturers HAVE increased their MPG to exceed the 14/19MPG you mention above.

Quote:
BTW- I know you keep trying to MISrepresent me, and Rue, and anyone else who disagrees with your right-wing views as "conspiracy theorists"

Well, considering that you believe all American trucks and SUVs get less than 13MPG, I guess I might have been wrong. You're just too stupid to do your research before coming out with bogus claims. If I can run down to my local Ford dealer and buy the most fuel efficient SUV, midsize station wagon or pickup truck per EPA ratings, or the most efficient mini-van at my Dodge dealer, or most efficient cargo van at my Chevy/GM dealer, then your whole thesis just flys right out the window. You might note that in all other categories, the most fuel efficient American cars are near enough to their competition to make little or no difference.

Try looking here, to find out just how mis-informed you actually are. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2000.htm

So fuel-efficient American cars, trucks, SUVs, and mini-vans are all available - at par, for fuel efficiency, with the rest of the world, category by category. The main reason our national fuel economy isn't great is that people choose to buy the bigger vehicles. Those Damn people! Why don't they listen to you?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, August 27, 2007 3:14 AM

Quote:
Well, considering that you believe all American trucks and SUVs get less than 13MPG, I guess I might have been wrong.

No Geezer, I didn't say ALL, what I said was

Quote:
... raise the mileage from the pathetic 10-13 mpg range that typifies most of the line to 14-19 mpg.

So, here is the city mpg of American full size SUVs across the board; I omitted the Ford and Mercury hybrids which are considered small size and also too expensive to make much difference in CAFE. There is some variation depending on whether you get 2WD or 4WD or 6 or 8 cylinders, but I think these are all the full-size SUVs (and maybe some of the mid-sized ones too):

Dodge Durango 11-12
Lincoln Navigator 11
GMC Yukon 12- 13
Chevy Suburban 12- 13
Cadillac Escalade 12
Ford Expedition 12
Jeep Wrangler 13
Chevy Trailblazer 13 -14
Chevy Tahoe 13
Chevy Avalanche 13
Jeep Grand Cherokee 13 -15
GMC Envoy 13
Ford Explorer 13
Jeep Commander 13 -14
Dodge Magnum 13 -15
Cadillac SRX 13
Mercury Mountaineer 13
Hummer 14
Buick Ranier 14

www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass.htm

And that's the point of the CAFE standards Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, Note the word AVERAGE. Not a model here or there, but the sales-weighted AVERAGE. And that is affected by the whole line of model offerings and relative prices.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Monday, August 27, 2007 5:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And that's the point of the CAFE standards Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is the sales weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lbs. or less, Note the word AVERAGE. Not a model here or there, but the sales-weighted AVERAGE. And that is affected by the whole line of model offerings and relative prices.

What does "sales weighted average" mean? Does it mean an average by volume sold or by value?

SIGNYM

Monday, August 27, 2007 6:03 AM

volume sold. It's just a weighted average of fuel economy. The reason why price comes into the picture is that hybrids, being relatively more expensive will represent a smaller part of number of cars sold and will therefore not affect the weighted average fuel economy as much, altho their absolute fuel economy is thru the roof. ---------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 27, 2007 6:22 AM

Quote:
but please, let's stop bailing them out when they are about to go belly up.

That being a sticky point with me - they've developed a business strategy that *depends* on such intervention, hardly Free Enterprise, that.

Some of the Ford employees I know drive Nissan trucks made in the Indiana plant, by american workers, rather than some mexican-built "Made in NORTH America" Ford products, even though the UAW gives em shit for it, and even though Ford won't allow them to park in the company lot.

The other dodge is "Assembled in America" whereupon foreign built components are put together and only the final step is skipped when they're shipped over, which is then done here - by no means is that an american vehicle, and if Billy Ford wants Ford to be a foreign corporation than I strongly suggest we treat them as such by removing all those precious subsidies, tax breaks and lucrative no-bid Govt contracts until his entire workforce consists of 50% or more american citizens.

Corporate welfare and Govt bailouts are not Free Market, nor are business strategies that depend on them - and businesses that maintain an HQ here only for those conveniences in spite of employing a primarily foreign workforce are not, to my mind, american companies... right now Nissan is more "american made" than Ford is, so why should Ford catch special breaks ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

GEEZER

Monday, August 27, 2007 12:12 PM

Wrong button. darn.

GEEZER

Monday, August 27, 2007 12:17 PM

And again. Must need coffee.

GEEZER

Monday, August 27, 2007 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, here is the city mpg of American full size SUVs across the board; I omitted the Ford and Mercury hybrids which are considered small size and also too expensive to make much difference in CAFE. There is some variation depending on whether you get 2WD or 4WD or 6 or 8 cylinders, but I think these are all the full-size SUVs (and maybe some of the mid-sized ones too):

Dodge Durango 11-12
...
etc., etc., etc.
www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass.htm

I note you left out the fullsize foreign SUVs, which do so much better - not.

Volvo XC90 - 13 to 14
Isuzu Ascender - 14
Saab 9-7X - 12 to 14
Audi Q7 - 12 to 14
Volkswagon Touareg - 14
Porsche Cayenne S - 13
Nissan Pathfinder - 12 to 13
M-B GL450 - 13
M-B ML550 - 13
Infiniti FX45 - 13
Toyota Sequoia - 13 to 14
Porsche Cayenne Turbo - 12
Range Rover Sport - 12
Nissan Armada - 12
Toyota Land Cruiser - 12
Lexus LX470 - 12
M-B R500 - 12
M-B ML63 - 11

No full-size foreign SUV gets better than 14MPG city. So even the Japanese and European makers can't provide a full-size SUV that gets better mileage than the American versions. Those lazy bastards.

So. American makers produce econo-boxes that match foreign cars for MPG, and full-size SUVs that match foreign SUVs for MPG. Checking the EPA site, it's pretty much the same in all classes - little or no difference between US and foreign makers. This pretty much explodes the "cheap Americans who won't develop mileage technology to world standards" argument.

Quote:
And that's the point of the CAFE standards Corporate Average Fuel Economy ... Note the word AVERAGE. Not a model here or there, but the sales-weighted AVERAGE. And that is affected by the whole line of model offerings and relative prices.

So if CAFE goes up, manufacturers are forced to make less of the vehicles people want to buy, forcing folk to settle for what they don't want.

It's interesting that if there's a slight possibility that the government might listen in on your phone conversation with Aunt Suha in Baghdad, you are all up in arms about the loss of your freedoms, but if the government is going to tell folks what type of vehicle they have to buy, that's fine with you. Looks like your fear of government limiting your freedoms is kind of conditional.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, August 27, 2007 1:37 PM

Quote:
No full-size foreign SUV gets better than 14MPG city. So even the Japanese and European makers can't provide a full-size SUV that gets better mileage than the American versions. Those lazy bastards.

Geezer- Those are the mpgs of the vehicles they sell HERE. The vehicles they sell THERE are not the same. Why? Because EU standards won't let them! (Standards work.) It's difficult to find direct comparisons because the EU population in general aren't in the market for SUVs. But if you look at their heavy luxury automobiles you'll see they've gone heavily to diesel which get much better fuel mileage. European diesels are smokeless, powerful and get 40mpg+. There are a lot reasons why I would NOT choose diesel for an entire model line (or I would insist on the engines being able to handle biodiesel or I would require low-sulfur diesel across the board like we sell here in CA), but they would work for our heavier SUVs.

Quote:
So if CAFE goes up, manufacturers are forced to make less of the vehicles people want to buy, forcing folk to settle for what they don't want. It's interesting that if there's a slight possibility that the government might listen in on your phone conversation with Aunt Suha in Baghdad, you are all up in arms about the loss of your freedoms, but if the government is going to tell folks what type of vehicle they have to buy, that's fine with you. Looks like your fear of government limiting your freedoms is kind of conditional.

Wow. You've gone off the deep. The government is not going to force people to buy something they don't like. As I've said before... and you should know this since you modify engines for racing... there is no technical reason why American auto manufacturers cannot produce a powerful engine with "better" fuel economy. And I don't mean increase to 40 mpg like diesel, I mean just to 19 mpg. If there is say it here or hold your peace. So unless you show me otherwise - and I don't think you can- the American auto manufacturers should be able to provide vehicle that people want with improved gas mileage.

Also I don't have an aunt in Baghdad. Do you? You're sinking this conversation pretty low.

AFA government limiting our freedoms... lets' see.... I didn't hear you complain about the government limiting our freedom to buy tainted products from China, Mexico, or the USA. So it seems as if YOUR support of "freedom to shop" is kind of conditional.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Monday, August 27, 2007 3:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Those are the mpgs of the vehicles they sell HERE. The vehicles they sell THERE are not the same. Why? Because EU standards won't let them!

[/]

Google Toyota GB, Lexus GB, whatever GB and you'll find that the same SUVs are sold in Great Britain. Try the same for France and Germany, and you'll find them there as well. Range Rovers are sold in Japan. They sell, just not as many, because, as you noted, the government won't let them. So the dealers can jack up the price since demand exceeds supply.

Quote:
It's difficult to find direct comparisons because the EU population in general aren't in the market for SUVs.

Not when a Lexus RX350 that costs $39,000.00 in the US costs $65,000.00 in England, and similar across Europe. Ain't supply and demand great. Only the rich can have SUVs in Europe.
Quote:

But if you look at their heavy luxury automobiles you'll see they've gone heavily to diesel which get much better fuel mileage.
European diesels are smokeless, powerful and get 40mpg+.
The heavy luxury diesel cars don't get 40MPG. more like 25 city. Also most european diesel engines don't meet US emissions standards in their normal trim.

Quote:
Wow. You've gone off the deep. The government is not going to force people to buy something they don't like.

"The vehicles they sell THERE are not the same. Why? Because EU standards won't let them!"

So not letting folks buy what they want is different from forcing people to buy what they don't like - How, exactly?

Quote:
As I've said before... and you should know this since you modify engines for racing... there is no technical reason why American auto manufacturers cannot produce a powerful engine with "better" fuel economy.

Nobody in the world is capable of producing a more powerful engine with better fuel economy. Give me one example of a commercially built vehicle from Europe or Japan that produces meaningfully better mileage than an American vehicle of the same size, weight, engine capacity, power, performance, and price.

You can produce a less powerful vehicle, or a lighter vehicle, or a more expensive to make and sell vehicle (turbo-diesel for example), but that's about it.

Quote:
AFA government limiting our freedoms... lets' see.... I didn't hear you complain about the government limiting our freedom to buy tainted products from China, Mexico, or the USA.

Didn't weigh in on that one way or another here, that I recall. I'm not sure that preventing children from getting poisoned by using toys or food as they are intended to be used equates to allowing their parents to buy the vehicle they may need to carry out their livelihood. Ever try hauling a half-ton of hay or gravel, or fenceposts, or feed, or bricks, or whatever in a Prius? While towing a 6000 lb horse trailer?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, August 27, 2007 4:44 PM

Quote:
Wow. You've gone off the deep. The government is not going to force people to buy something they don't like.- Signy

"The vehicles they sell THERE are not the same. Why? Because EU standards won't let them!"-Signy

So not letting folks buy what they want is different from forcing people to buy what they don't like - How, exactly?-Geezer

"Not the same" doesn't mean unacceptable, it means NOT THE SAME. It could mean BETTER.

Quote:
Nobody in the world is capable of producing a more powerful engine with better fuel economy. Give me one example of a commercially built vehicle from Europe or Japan that produces meaningfully better mileage than an American vehicle of the same size, weight, engine capacity power, performance, and price.

As far as direct comparisons, I don't think I will be able to find a comparable vehicle because the EU has gone heavly in the turbo-diesel direction while the Japanese have headed in the hybrid direction, and both have much better fuel economy than what I'm suggesting. I don't think "comps are possible.

But if we're considering technology to improve fuel economy why restrict "engine capacity" since that's one of the variables we might choose to change? Why restrict weight? Most people use weight as a surrogate for "safety" but it's posible to build a SAFER vehicle that weighs less. And why restrict price (within about 10-15%)? I've said all along that the problem with more fuel-efficient vehicles is NOT technical it's economic. Costs more to build and design.

I can see trimming the weight (a little), improving the jetting, increasing the compression ratio a bit, maybe going with a more efficient tranny... in other words, tweaking here and there while keeping the same basic technology (gasoline powered engine) and keeping the price within about 15%... something that would amortize over about 5 years in terms of fuel costs.

Quote:
Ever try hauling a half-ton of hay or gravel, or fenceposts, or feed, or bricks, or whatever in a Prius? While towing a 6000 lb horse trailer?

Like I said, you're dragging this conversation into the mud. Let's focus on the issues instead of hyperbole, OK?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Monday, August 27, 2007 4:51 PM

Geezer

Quote:
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.

"E-85 ... homemade hydrocarbon fuel" -- by home-made I hope you don't mean backyard stills

(though your specific choice of words does a great job putting that in mind.) B/c there is nothing small-scale about ethanol production. While the petroleum industry is not geared to handle this type of process on a large scale, the chemical industry is.
"Most of the things you note ... are still lab experiments" -- But they are GEARED TO CREATING VIABLE COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGIES, when a 'successful' experiment results in a viable product.

The original reports are available in Science, for those with a subscription. In it you'll find the successfully completed work creating a product that is rugged, veratile, cheap and efficient.
LETTERS
Using Ethanol as an Energy Source
Burton Richter; and Lanny D. Schmidt (16 July 2004)
Science 305 (5682), 340b. [DOI: 10.1126/science.305.5682.340b]
REPORTS
Renewable Hydrogen from Ethanol by Autothermal Reforming
G. A. Deluga, J. R. Salge, L. D. Schmidt, and X. E. Verykios (13 February 2004)
Science 303 (5660), 993. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1093045]

Quote:
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."

I hope you're not confused by the term 'fundamental'. It's a common research term used to wow potential funding. There's a difference between 'fundamental' as in an entirely new concept like E=MC^2 and 'fundamental' as in the concept has been previously proved but the application is new. His is the second type.

"a lot of steps are still required to turn it into a viable technology" -- these steps are production steps.

Quote:
... 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.

Either you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the research process, or a fundamental will to misrepresent it. When something is ABOUT to be published it ALREADY has been peer-reviewed and ACCEPTED. And BTW this doesn't represent some 'concept', it represents years of work to - well - make a working, practical product.

Quote:
BTW, fuel cells produce water vapor, the leading greenhouse gas.

So does regular combustion.

Quote:
None of this stuff is ready to go into production, and probably won't be for a while.

But - as I (ahem) already said - it's ready for prototyping as a complete system and beta testing.

Quote:
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.

Such as ... ?

Nothing about potential cellulose-based ethanol where ethanol would be created from really cheap waste, nothing about the already developed systems for hybrids that will work in fuel-cell vehicles, nothing about the Berkeley Lab/ Argonne National Laboratory fuel cell-catalyst ... just some lame misdirection about research and water vapor. Sheesh.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Monday, August 27, 2007 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Not the same" doesn't mean unacceptable, it means NOT THE SAME. It could mean BETTER.

Quote:
As far as direct comparisons, I don't think I will be able to find a comparable vehicle because the EU has gone heavly in the turbo-diesel direction while the Japanese have headed in the hybrid direction, and both have much better fuel economy than what I'm suggesting. I don't think "comps are possible.

Sounds like a copout to me. Vehicles, from econo-boxes to SUVs made in Amreica have pretty much the same mileage as equivilent European and Japanese vehicles. I note that you dropped the Ford Escape Hybrid out of your calculations earlier because it was "too expensive" but have no problem bringing up the Japanese hybrids now. Turbo-diesel adds quite a bit to cost, and requires re-engineering to meet US emission standards. BTW, diesel fuel is currently more expensive than premium gas.

Quote:
Like I said, you're dragging this conversation into the mud. Let's focus on the issues instead of hyperbole, OK?

What hyperbole? Millions of people in the US use trucks and SUVs every day to do their jobs. Should we tell them they can't work because the US automakers can't legally produce enough heavy vehicles to go around?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Monday, August 27, 2007 8:14 PM

"Millions of people in the US use trucks and SUVs every day to do their jobs."

SUV's and trucks are the male equivalent of minivans and passenger cars, which the US male population thinks of (minivans especially) as being too effeminate.

If the SUVs and trucks have a legitimate business function they should be registered to a business, tax-exempt by the business and insured by the business. Otherwise, they're a passenger vehicle and should be regulated the same way.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Monday, August 27, 2007 8:47 PM

Two things that need to be mentioned.

1) The principle reason for the interest in diesel cars in Europe was not fuel economy. For a while diesel fuel was taxed far less than petrol which meant that there was a substantial market for diesel vehicles.

2) We tend up raise economy by making high compression ratio engines. This in turn increases NO2 production beyond acceptable US emissions standards.

GEEZER

Monday, August 27, 2007 8:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"E-85 ... homemade hydrocarbon fuel"

Made in the USA. But you knew what I meant, and just wanted to be cute. I also know that the industrial production of ethanol is already ongoing. It's already available, and E-85-capable vehicles are running on it. Of course, fuel economy on E-85 is about 20% worse than on gasoline. In any case, there's not enough land availabe to grow enough crops for ethanol to replace gasoline.

Quote:
"Most of the things you note ... are still lab experiments" -- But they are GEARED TO CREATING VIABLE COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGIES, when a 'successful' experiment results in a viable product.

The original reports are available in Science, for those with a subscription. In it you'll find the successfully completed work creating a product that is rugged, veratile, cheap and efficient.

So there are people working on these possible solutions, but haven't reached the point where they can go commercial. Hardly equivilent with the technology being suppressed by greedy oil companies.

And, once again, just because something works in the lab, or can even be scaled up for viable production, that doesn't mean it should go into production. I still haven't seen anything about cost/benefit analysis, business plan, or any of the myriad things needed, besides the science, to see if something is really worth producing. We could build flying cars with today's technology, or excavate using small nukes, but we don't because it's not the best way.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Monday, August 27, 2007 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Millions of people in the US use trucks and SUVs every day to do their jobs."

SUV's and trucks are the male equivalent of minivans and passenger cars, which the US male population thinks of (minivans especially) as being too effeminate.

Ever worked on a farm or ranch, or construction? Minivans can't handle the loads and terrain required. As noted before, you can't tow a cattle trailer, or a feed trailer with anything but a heavy truck/SUV.

Quote:
If the SUVs and trucks have a legitimate business function they should be registered to a business, tax-exempt by the business and insured by the business. Otherwise, they're a passenger vehicle and should be regulated the same way.

Doesn't matter how they're registered or taxed (aside from, oh, more government involvement in everyone's lives). If the CAFE is raised to the point where demand for heavy-duty vehicles exceeds supply, the price will go up (You've heard of supply and demand, I take it?) People who currently make a living using their vehicles will be priced out of the market, while rich can still buy their SUV grocery-getters.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Monday, August 27, 2007 9:15 PM

Nearly all SUV's and trucks are used as passenger vehicles. When work demands heavy-duty equipment, there is reason to write in exceptions for CAFE standards.

As for government intrusion, it's all instrusion - CAFE standards, emissions testing, registration, insurance, inspection, safety requirements, gas tax, write-off laws, traffic laws and all the way down the line. Really, get a grip.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Monday, August 27, 2007 9:34 PM

Just curious Rue; my sister is a big horse nut; it's her thing. She does the 'amateurs' circuit; which is another way of saying 'loses money'. So, no business; she wants a truck which is capable of hauling her trailer, horses and gear. Where does this fit in your vision of how you would prefer to see things handled?

RUE

Monday, August 27, 2007 9:38 PM

A dba. Otherwise, a hefty tax up-front and/or annual registration for non-comforming vehicles. As you say, this is her hobby, not a necessity.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Monday, August 27, 2007 9:48 PM

dba = Data Base Administrator???? Ok, clearly, I'm not 'getting' that one.

Ok, personally I don't have a problem with either solution; but keep in mind there's a ton of folks with a ton of exceptions; and if you don't satisfy enough of them, it won't pass politically.

Keep in mind there already is a gas guzzler tax; but obviously we at least need to get rid of the exception for non-business use (of course, then there's the entire front of having businesses that lose money (or pay poorly, depending on how you look at it) to avoid some of this stuff).

That's one reason I tend to like simply having a stiff gas/diesel/etc tax... and if you have too much sympathy for the poor folk, allow some mechanism for a rebate for 'em.

RUE

Monday, August 27, 2007 10:03 PM

dba - doing business as

So, do we write exceptions for off-roaders who like to burn excessive fuel going up and down hills ? Or for yahoos who like that gun-rack in the pickup window who never saw a day on the farm or construction site in their life ?

It's either necessary for business (generally regarded as > 50% business use) or it ain't. If it ain't you can buy the business gas-guzzling model (without the business exemption from the extra fees and fines) or you can buy the fuel efficient version. Take your pick.

Bottom line - I don't think the government is responsible for funding hobbies and frivolous uses.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Monday, August 27, 2007 10:21 PM

Quote:
Sounds like a copout to me. Vehicles, from econo-boxes to SUVs made in Amreica have pretty much the same mileage as equivilent European and Japanese vehicles. I note that you dropped the Ford Escape Hybrid out of your calculations earlier because it was "too expensive" but have no problem bringing up the Japanese hybrids now.

I brought up the hybrids simply to drop them from the discussion of American markets.... same reason why I dropped them b4!

Quote:
Turbo-diesel adds quite a bit to cost, and requires re-engineering to meet US emission standards. BTW, diesel fuel is currently more expensive than premium gas.

Which is why I DROPPED them out of comparison to American markets. Am I being so very unclear or are you being purposefully obtuse???? That's why I brought up

Quote:
trimming the weight (a little), improving the jetting, increasing the compression ratio a bit, maybe going with a more efficient tranny... in other words, tweaking here and there while keeping the same basic technology (gasoline powered engine) and keeping the price within about 15%... something that would amortize over about 5 years in terms of fuel costs

... relatively easy tweaks which you seem to be evading

Quote:
What hyperbole? Millions of people in the US use trucks and SUVs every day to do their jobs. Should we tell them they can't work because the US automakers can't legally produce enough heavy vehicles to go around?

Since when does 'heavy' equate to power, torque, or performance? Sometimes its just dead weight.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Monday, August 27, 2007 10:29 PM

Quote:
Doesn't matter how they're registered or taxed (aside from, oh, more government involvement in everyone's lives)

. IGeezer- your argument about ranches or construction is baloney. If you own a business, your vehicle and gas are business expenses and your vehicle is depreciated over time. Problem solved. Or maybe we should just get RID OF the whole concept of depreciation and business expenses since it's all just government intrusion as far as you're concerned?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 27, 2007 10:31 PM

And sometimes that dead weight is just and only there to put the vehicle over a certain GVW in order to dodge even current fuel economy standards.

Oh, and one suggesting for anyone who has to tow anything, we got a couple taxis that use a retrofitted transmission cooler unit - I *highly* suggest one of these for towing purposes, for such use it's almost worth it's weight in gold.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, August 27, 2007 10:59 PM

Just seen this on TV, apparently it works very well in its limited application:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/tags/islay-wave-bus

What is the Islay Wave Bus?
The Islay Wave Bus is the first electric bus in the world to be powered by wave energy. It is also one of only seven electric buses currently operating in the UK. It was formerly used in demonstration projects in Oxford and on Jersey, and has now been refitted with the most up to date electric vehicle technology for community use on Islay. The bus has been upgraded by C&H Bradbury Ltd for Greenpeace, and will be managed and operated by the Islay Development Company (IDC), and used by local community groups.

What will this bus be used for?
The bus will be used for local transportation needs for local community groups. The groups will have designated drivers, and a local supervisor/ mechanic will be responsible for the maintenance of the bus. The bus will be based at the Morrison Bowmore Distillery, where it will re-charge over night. As a minibus, it can be driven by anyone with a standard driving licence, as long as they have undergone basic training and induction. The capacity is 16 passengers, plus a driver.
Limpet power
Find out how the Limpet works
Watch the animation

How is it wave powered?
The LIMPET wave machine is the only commercially operating wave power station in the UK. Scottish and Southern, the local electricity company, have allocated electricity generated by the LIMPET to the bus operators, to cover the charging needs of the bus.

How much did it cost?
The upgrading, refurbishment and reinstatement of the bus cost £60,000 paid for by Greenpeace. The fuel cost per mile is however substantially less than a diesel bus - around 8p per mile to cover electricity used compared with around 23p for equivalent diesel buses. Argyll and the Islands Enterprise (AIE), the local enterprise company (part of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the government economic development agency for northern Scotland), is providing financial support towards running costs and maintenance over the next three years.

What are the specifications of this bus?
The bus was built in 1993 by Optare (a leading UK bus manufacturer), based on their Metrorider model, with a DC electric drive system substituted for the normal diesel engine and gearbox. It has recently been converted to run on a new AC drive system, and fitted with new maintenance free lead acid batteries, charging equipment and motor. It has a range of around 40 miles per day, dependent on the gradient of the route, and can reach a maximum speed of about 30mph. The bus weighs 7.5 tonnes, and a full recharge of the batteries takes 10 hours.

What is the environmental impact of this bus?
The Wave Bus doesn't fill up on petrol or diesel, so will emit no exhaust pollution, meaning a minimal local environmental impact. This feature is common to all electric vehicles, but when the electricity used to recharge them comes from a renewable energy source - like the waves, wind or sun, the electricity generating process does not produce carbon dioxide - the main cause of global warming.

GEEZER

Monday, August 27, 2007 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
relatively easy tweaks which you seem to be evading

Name one that's in use somewhere in the world today.
Quote:
What hyperbole? Millions of people in the US use trucks and SUVs every day to do their jobs. Should we tell them they can't work because the US automakers can't legally produce enough heavy vehicles to go around?

Since when does 'heavy' equate to power, torque, or performance? Sometimes its just dead weight.

Okay, "heavy-duty" then (although anyone who's actually dealt with such vehicles would understand the menaning of 'heavy'). Able to carry 1500 lb of cargo, tow a 10,000 lb trailer, or traverse an unimproved road.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- your argument about ranches or construction is baloney. If you own a business, your vehicle and gas are business expenses and your vehicle is depreciated over time.

Well, first off more expensive vehicles require either more ready capital or better credit to purchase, regardless of whether they can eventually be offset against income. Second, high CAFE standards effectively limit the number of heavy-duty (once again, in case you forgot, that's carry 1500 lb, tow 10,000lb, and traverse un-improved roads) vehicles. If there's not enough to go around, folks go out of business.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh, and one suggesting for anyone who has to tow anything, we got a couple taxis that use a retrofitted transmission cooler unit - I *highly* suggest one of these for towing purposes, for such use it's almost worth it's weight in gold.

Tow a 10,000lb trailer 1,000 miles at highway speed, or over a Rocky Mountain's pass (2,000 to 8,000 feet altitude in 15 miles) and then tell me how good your taxis are. Highest hill in all GB is what, 3,000 ft?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:13 AM

"Second, high CAFE standards effectively limit the number of heavy-duty - vehicles. If there's not enough to go around, folks go out of business."

This is the second time you've posted this and it still makes zero sense. These vehicles are already being manufactured and sold. People who obtain business exemptions will be able to purchase these CAFE-exempted vehicles at normal cost. There's nothing here to limit the number of these vehicles - just the number of consumers.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:45 AM

Quote:
Name one that's in use somewhere in the world today.

Toyota Announces New Intake Valve Lift and Timing System June 12, 2007 Toyota Motor has announced its new variable valve lift mechanism, which it calls Valvematic.... Valvematic improves fuel efficiency by 5% to 10%, reduces CO2 emissions, boosts output by at least 10% and enhances acceleration responsiveness, according to the company.

GM’s powertrain line-up for 2008 includes... applying fuel-saving technologies such as Active Fuel Management (cylinder deactivation), direct injection, variable valve timing, and six-speed transmissions; and flexfuel options.

Next?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
dba - doing business as
{...}
Bottom line - I don't think the government is responsible for funding hobbies and frivolous uses.

First, keep in mind I agree about 97% with you; but it is not a question of 'funding hobbies'; its about taxing hobbies. Having gotten past a semantic point ;-), I didn't say it shouldn't be done, but rather to consider the opposition, and what might be done to avoid it while having the same effect.

One thing I think folks get excessively hung up on is 'fuel taxes should be for transportation purposes'. Hogwash. We tax stuff, we spend it. If we can influence behavior, and do some good, all the better.

So, let's do something like... $5.00 a gallon fuel tax?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html 384.7 million gallons/day
or... 140 billion gallons a year? So that would be $700 billion a year. Let's assume that folks rolled back usage considerably and say $600 billion a year. Roughly 300 million folks in the US; so we could reduce income tax burden by about $2000 per person; probably $6000 per family. Then play around a bit with it; setup a system where folks making less then 10k get a refund of 95% of what they pay in gas taxes, reducing it to nothing back for folks at say 50K per year.

Then... let the folks who want to drive a 10 mpg car drive it; I like systems that let folks volunteer to pay my taxes; its one of the reasons I like lotto.

Here's what I like about it...
1) Encourages folks to buy energy efficient vehicles of all classes.
2) It encourages folks to drive in an efficient manner, and maintain vehicles to run well.
4) Encourages folks to get 'old iron' off the road (if the old iron is a gas guzzler, anyway).
5) By heavy reimbursement back to folks who can least afford buying a new vehicle leaves things mostly a wash for them, but enough hassle to make it worth considering anyway.
6) Blind eye to business or private usage; if you are really worried about the impact to business do a similar offset to business taxes with some of the money raised instead of aiming it just toward income tax.

Give folks 2 years warning; put in place $1/year at a time.

If someone needs the big, gas guzzling vehicle, then let 'em have at it.

RUE

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:12 AM

There are people who make very little money who would have a hard time with a $5.00 / gal tax. It's probably a better idea to shave off the conspicuous gas-consuming toys.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:36 AM

Ah, that's why the provision to reimburse 95% of it; however, I will grant that coming up with the money in the first place is part of the challenge at the lower income span. On the flip side, perhaps that will get them to look at mass transit (yes, I know; bad enough in the cities; moribund in the rural areas. Actually, if I could get myself to consider living in NYC, it would be without a car for sure. Mass transit works there.).

I will point out your method does nothing to motivate improved driving methods, nor proper maintenance.

Well, I think you getting between folks and their toys isn't likely to work either; most of 'em who have 'em will convince themselves they want 'em anyway, and will fork over the money. The only folks who won't have 'em anyway were the poor folk again who could barely afford it.

RUE

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:42 AM

"most of 'em who have 'em will convince themselves they want 'em anyway, and will fork over the money"

Then you have to make it more painful than SOP. Considering > 40% new vehicle purchases are trucks and SUVs, that most people making those purchases aren't either independently wealthy or using them for business - I think one could make a major dent.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:59 AM

Part of the problem is you are -only- hitting the gas guzzleres. So, you define a vehicle that gets 10 mpg as a guzzler; and so folks buy 11 mpg.

Second problem, having bought them, there is no incentive to use them as little as possible. I say let'em buy the truck, but motivate them to buy -and use- a compact for the daily commute. Hitting the guzzlers does -nothing- to motivate the average person do do a thing either, they don't buy something that guzzles gas. My guess, you would really tick folks off, and save a very small amount of gas.

RUE

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:10 AM

Autos per se have applicable CAFE mileage standards. Light trucks just came under regulation.

What I'm proposing (which you seem to misunderstand) is that all trucks and SUVS also come under CAFE standards. This will improve US mileage considerably.

Those who need CAFE exempt vehicles (for heavy-duty business-use) must register and insure them under their business and MUST take them as tax-deductions from the business income. Others who merely want their toys would pay substantial disincentive taxes and vehicle registration. Capice ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:01 AM

I meant a transmission cooler, not a taxicab, Geeze - damn your such a fuckin brickhead it's not even possible to reason with you, it's like playin "Who's on first" or arguing with a religious zealot who keeps changing the meaning of the words on ya.

Your mask is slipping, and your agenda's kinda showing, when you miss the clear and bloody obvious looking for nits to pick.

As far as public transportation goes, if it didn't suck ever so terribly, and wasn't damned dangerous more folk would probably use it - admittedly my own experience is limited to baltimores MTA system, but when the bus stops are free feeding zones for muggers, and more than half the time they are so off schedule that the schedule itself is but a polite fiction, compounded by the fact that no employer will hire you *because* being dependant on MTA means there's no way in hell you will be dependably able to meet a schedule...

I bought a 1989 Tomos Golden Bullet, it was cheaper than the bus, much more reliable, and if you could keep and defend it (no easy task in the ghetto) it was solid affordable transportation.

Many in-city folk would be well served by a scooter or moped barring inclement weather, you know.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Second, high CAFE standards effectively limit the number of heavy-duty - vehicles. If there's not enough to go around, folks go out of business."

This is the second time you've posted this and it still makes zero sense. These vehicles are already being manufactured and sold. People who obtain business exemptions will be able to purchase these CAFE-exempted vehicles at normal cost. There's nothing here to limit the number of these vehicles - just the number of consumers.

In simple terms, since you apparently can't figure it out yourself:

A whole lot of the vehicles used in the US for commercial purposes are in the under 8500GVW category that fall under CAFE standards. If the CAFE standards are raised, that means that US manufacturers can make less of these relatively low MPG vehicles. Hence, there will be less available for folks to buy. Since the manufacturers respond to supply and demand, they'll raise the price of these vehicles, since there are more people who want them than there are vehicles to sell. Rich people, rather than working folks who are making a living but are not able to afford the increased prices, will buy the lower MPG vehicles. Working folks will lose their livelihood.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Toyota Announces New Intake Valve Lift and Timing System June 12, 2007.

GM’s powertrain line-up for 2008 includes... applying fuel-saving technologies such as Active Fuel Management (cylinder deactivation), direct injection, variable valve timing, and six-speed transmissions; and flexfuel options.

In case you didn't realize it, GM is one of the American companies you've been ragging on for not improving gas mileage. Thanks for proving my point that US manufacturers are not lagging behine Europe and Japan in technological improvements.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

LEADB

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Autos per se have applicable CAFE mileage standards. Light trucks just came under regulation.

What I'm proposing (which you seem to misunderstand) is that all trucks and SUVS also come under CAFE standards. This will improve US mileage considerably.

Those who need CAFE exempt vehicles (for heavy-duty business-use) must register and insure them under their business and MUST take them as tax-deductions from the business income. Others who merely want their toys would pay substantial disincentive taxes and vehicle registration. Capice ?

I understand. I also understand this will only influence folks who are considering buying new vehicles, unless you are going to make the registration fees retro active upon folks who currently have same vehicles.

I understand it will do nothing to motivate folks to drive in a more effective manner once they have the vehicles, or to use them less. It will motivate them to keep old vehicles rather than to trade them in for something 10% to 20% more gas efficient (but still deemed guzzlers) because the new vehicle will have the new tax.

But sure, it will help some. I would certainly support it going forward; I simply believe that some vehicle fuel tax increase would help more, and in a broader way.

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I meant a transmission cooler, not a taxicab, Geeze - damn your such a fuckin brickhead it's not even possible to reason with you, it's like playin "Who's on first" or arguing with a religious zealot who keeps changing the meaning of the words on ya.

Jeeze. Any vehicle in the US that's set up to tow comes with a tranny cooler as standard equipment. Has for 20 years at least. Plus a heavy-duty hitch, plus a bigger radiator, plus a heavier rear suspension. This is your high-tech solution? Please get a clue and join the 21st century with the rest of us.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

LEADB

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As far as public transportation goes, if it didn't suck ever so terribly, and wasn't damned dangerous more folk would probably use it - admittedly my own experience is limited to baltimores MTA system, but when the bus stops are free feeding zones for muggers, and more than half the time they are so off schedule that the schedule itself is but a polite fiction, compounded by the fact that no employer will hire you *because* being dependant on MTA means there's no way in hell you will be dependably able to meet a schedule...

EEEeeg. Well, locally, Binghamton NY, I've not heard any problems with safety. Schedule = joke, sure enough. Taking a predictable 20 minute drive and changing it to an unpredictable 40 to 60 minute bus ride was where I was going with it. I can't say my employer checks that you have a vehicle; and I have known folks who used the bus to come to work (though it seems to be limited to folks who happen to sit on a one-bus direct drop route) for years.

====
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

RUE

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:34 AM

Well Geezer,

This is what you actually said:
Second, high CAFE standards effectively limit the number of heavy-duty (once again, in case you forgot, that's carry 1500 lb, tow 10,000lb, and traverse un-improved roads) vehicles.

But then you said I was too stupid to understand your simple point that:
A whole lot of the vehicles used in the US for commercial purposes are in the under 8500GVW category (ie light duty) that fall under CAFE standards.

So what are YOU talking about - heavy duty or light duty ?

Take your time - I don't want you claiming that I rushed you and you got all confused ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:35 AM

I didn't drive much in Europe, it's simply unnescessary, driving to work is unproductive time when you have a good rail and tube system. I could read my email, write, read a book every day in what would otherwise dead commuting time. As a student I got around by bicycle and as bikes can go on trains I could ride to one station, travel 100 miles and then ride the rest of the way at the other end.

When I moved to the US I had to get a car within weeks because my daily 20 mile commute was impossible any other way. It wasn't that public transport was expensive or time consuming, it was simply none existant.

If you tax fuel, which we do in Europe you have to have a practical alternative --- which to be honest you dont have.

As for taxing vehicles, we do that too both at time of sale and in road taxes.

LEADB

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:40 AM

Yeah, we definitely need to improve the mass transit.

Road tax... how is that charged?

VETERAN

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 4:37 AM

Quote:
Geezer wrote:
Thursday, August 23, 2007 14:19
...

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.

Isn't there a $2,000 income tax credit on "alternative fuel" vehicles and hybrids?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:19 AM

Quote:
In case you didn't realize it, GM is one of the American companies you've been ragging on for not improving gas mileage. Thanks for proving my point that US manufacturers are not lagging behine Europe and Japan in technological improvements.

WHAAAA???? Oh PUHLEEZ Geezer! 40-120 mpg hybrids? Came from Japan. 25-40 mpg turbodiesel? The EU. Show me the advanced car that the USA has put into production BEFORE it's competitors.

So now GM... and Chrysler... and Ford are getting into the fuel economy act by tinkering with the gasoline-powered engine???? If they can do it now why couldn't they do it before? The reason is... there is no reason. It's not a question of "can't" it's a question of "won't".

I'll reiterate my points: There was nothing technically impossible about creating a vehicle with "better" fuel mileage which still delivers the same power and safety that a certain American market is used to. It was all about avoiding risk and preserving profits.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:23 AM

Citizens and political leaders in Anne Arundel County expressed fears about "undesirable elements" coming into their area via the subway, and many transit buffs cite this as the origin of the term "LOOT rail", a takeoff of "light rail" meaning that criminals without cars who live in the city would take the subway to the suburbs, commit burglaries and robberies, and then take the subway back to the city; and that by building a subway to the suburbs, that such crimes would be greatly facilitated. Most people would think this line of thinking to be nonsense, since most people know how to drive and can borrow or steal a car if they have criminal intentions. Still, in some other cities as well, including the D.C. area, a significant number of suburbanites had these kind of general fears about having city subway lines extended out to the suburbs.

Alas, such thinking wasn't exactly nonsense, and the "Loot Rail" at one point was kinda so taken over by these goons, and their accomplices that even the pathetic transit cops were scared of the lil bastards, not to mention scoping their percentage for lookin the other way.

They take the loot rail to the burbs and get some loot, then back to the hood and fence it, then turn the money over into drugs, some of em - others would take the drugs into the burbs and sell em, often resorting to theft and burglary when they ran out of product, and catch the rails back into the city - several of the ghettos are bad enough that the police won't make a showing without a full tac-team or at least a minimum of 3-4 doubled up squaddies, so going over these guys for petty theft or small scale possession/distribution was suicidally useless, generally the only time any of the smaller guys got busted is when they became a threat to the bigger guys, who then sold em to the cops and agreed to look the other way when the bust went down.

You do NOT wanna ride the Loot Rail or MTA in B-more, the Loot Rail is fulla crooks and the MTA buses are fulla crazies and often medical/psych patients so stressed and desperate that any attempt to predict their behavior is a waste of time - since a favorite game of the social services and medicare schemes locally is to find some place to make you go that's as far away from YOU as possible, in an attempt to make you default on the game by not being able to show up, and having been a victim of it, I can assure you that they do this even to potentially-terminal medicare patients, many of whom are nearly psychotic with stress and have really nothing left to lose.. no one you'd wanna ride a city bus with, and many of whom would roll you in a heartbeat for enough dosh to grab a cab instead.

And as mentioned, thus bus stops themselves are free feeding zones for muggers, to the point where they, like pirahnas, start feeding on each other when the prey gets thin, and think little to nothing of roughing up someone for entertainment if they have no money to steal.

I guess it's a comment on the "personality" of the city that in the case of a failed mugging, very rarely does it see the police blotter, more often than not the would be victim rolls and robs the mugger in retaliation for the attempt.

Nasty city, leaving that hellhole was one of the best live choices I ever made - and ranting at the moment cause business and duty takes me back there for a while soon... grr

Anyhow, public transportation in the Baltimore City itself is suicidal... just so ya know.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

LEADB

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Isn't there a $2,000 income tax credit on "alternative fuel" vehicles and hybrids?

Yes, though act soon, as most of the rebates are phasing out; check out
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
for details. You can also see where the gas guzzler tax kicks in.

Still, when I looked 3 years ago when my wife was car shopping, feature for feature, taking the costs of gasoline, etc.; you were still financially better off buying a high MPG car of comparable nature than getting the Prius. Haven't done the math since, but I suspect it is still true because it wasn't even close at the time.

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
40-120 mpg hybrids? Came from Japan. 25-40 mpg turbodiesel? The EU. Show me the advanced car that the USA has put into production BEFORE it's competitors.

First, please tell me where I can buy that 120mpg hybrid.

Second. Japanese and EU carmakers didn't go to these expensive ways to improve mileage out of the goodness of their hearts or any earth-friendly consciousness. They did so when, and only when, they were forced by government regulation.

So this whole deal boils down to you wanting more government regulation of a business you don't like. Why am I not surprised?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FLETCH2

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
40-120 mpg hybrids? Came from Japan. 25-40 mpg turbodiesel? The EU. Show me the advanced car that the USA has put into production BEFORE it's competitors.

First, please tell me where I can buy that 120mpg hybrid.

Second. Japanese and EU carmakers didn't go to these expensive ways to improve mileage out of the goodness of their hearts or any earth-friendly consciousness. They did so when, and only when, they were forced by government regulation.

So this whole deal boils down to you wanting more government regulation of a business you don't like. Why am I not surprised?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I thought that was the point of his argument? Fact is that there has been no reason to buy an "econobox" fuel prices have been low enough to ensure that the difference in mileage doesn't hit the wallet too hard and the difference in price between "bare metal" and something larger and more comfortable hasn't been that great. Obviously left to their own devices in a market without regulation people will buy the wrong kind of vehicle. Telling them that they are idiots is politically risky, putting up fuel taxes to a point where a similar market to Europe exists is political suicide the only answer is to force the industry to make the cars you want them to make and bypass the voting consumer all together.

Put $5 a gallon tax on fuel to back your belief and you wont be governing anything much longer it's the honest path but politically costly. Forcing the industry to make those changes and hoping that the public doesnt connect the discontinuation of their favorite models with your political meddling.... priceless.

I think in the long term it has to be done. The current US lifestyle is unsustainable long term getting more fuel efficient cars is actually going to be easy compared to the changes needed in building standards and new infrastructure. People won't like it though and true freedom means people have to be able to make their own choices, even if you dont like what they chose or those choices are not in their best interest.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
40-120 mpg hybrids? Came from Japan. 25-40 mpg turbodiesel? The EU. Show me the advanced car that the USA has put into production BEFORE it's competitors.

First, please tell me where I can buy that 120mpg hybrid.

Second. Japanese and EU carmakers didn't go to these expensive ways to improve mileage out of the goodness of their hearts or any earth-friendly consciousness. They did so when, and only when, they were forced by government regulation.

So this whole deal boils down to you wanting more government regulation of a business you don't like. Why am I not surprised?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I thought that was the point of his argument? Fact is that there has been no reason to buy an "econobox" fuel prices have been low enough to ensure that the difference in mileage doesn't hit the wallet too hard and the difference in price between "bare metal" and something larger and more comfortable hasn't been that great. Obviously left to their own devices in a market without regulation people will buy the wrong kind of vehicle. Telling them that they are idiots is politically risky, putting up fuel taxes to a point where a similar market to Europe exists is political suicide the only answer is to force the industry to make the cars you want them to make and bypass the voting consumer all together.

Put $5 a gallon tax on fuel to back your belief and you wont be governing anything much longer it's the honest path but politically costly. Forcing the industry to make those changes and hoping that the public doesnt connect the discontinuation of their favorite models with your political meddling.... priceless.

I think in the long term it has to be done. The current US lifestyle is unsustainable long term getting more fuel efficient cars is actually going to be easy compared to the changes needed in building standards and new infrastructure. People won't like it though and true freedom means people have to be able to make their own choices, even if you dont like what they chose or those choices are not in their best interest.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think in the long term it has to be done. The current US lifestyle is unsustainable long term getting more fuel efficient cars is actually going to be easy compared to the changes needed in building standards and new infrastructure. People won't like it though and true freedom means people have to be able to make their own choices, even if you dont like what they chose or those choices are not in their best interest.

I think people won’t like it if the ideologues heft it on them, but as gas prices increase, the consumer will shift more towards fuel economy. It’s already happening, actually. Anecdotally, my cousin’s family has never driven anything but 8-cylinder gas-guzzling trucks, but today, the only own one SUV, which they don’t drive a lot, opting instead for cost effective Volvos and Escorts. I’ve been telling them for a long time that they should shift to fuel economy, but they never listened to me and only did so when gas rose to three dollars a gallon. And I suspect that gas will continue to rise, as new deposits become more difficult to tap and China and India continue to expand. Eventually, the market will have to shift to newer technology.

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

FLETCH2

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:10 PM

I think that's true, but at $3 a gallon fuel prices are still low compared to the European level so I think it will take some time.

To my mind people buy the bigger cars because there is no economic reason for them not to. They are cheap enough to buy and cheap enough to run, further the big 3 can make money off of those models. There is nothing in the current market that on its own will change that. Now if market situation changes, if taxes or fuel costs upset that balance then we will see change. It's not that people buy these cars because that's what Detroit decides to sell them, these are the cars that people decide to buy and will continue to buy unless the underlying economics makes a different choice preferable.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:55 PM

Quote:
First, please tell me where I can buy that 120mpg hybrid.

That would be a plugin hybrid. More "electric" car, less gasoline engine.

Quote:
Second. Japanese and EU carmakers didn't go to these expensive ways to improve mileage out of the goodness of their hearts or any earth-friendly consciousness. They did so when, and only when, they were forced by government regulation.

Well, that's pretty much what I've been saying all along so it's nice to see you "get it"! Businesses with established infrastructure (like petrol companies, auto makers, electrical power generators etc.) like to keep things the same. Why? Because their infrastructural investments are already paid off and generate a higher profit. Why do they keep flogging a 40-year old vacuum distillation tower or a 100-year-old coal power generating station? Because it's cheaper! It's very short-term thinking because there ARE significant opportunities in advanced technology in the long run but publically traded companies are on a quarterly-report leash. (Which is why so many advances are made by startups and SMALL companies... I see it all the time. I also see big companies buy out small companies just to kill the technology.)

Quote:
So this whole deal boils down to you wanting more government regulation of a business you don't like.

It's not that I "don't like" a business... (And ONCE AGAIN you are misrepresenting my position!

) But "the market" sometimes doesn't handle certain issues very well, like big infrastructural investments that don't generate a profit (think sewage systems) or introducing new technologies into an established market. So in recognition that the (so-called) free market is not the appropriate model for EVERY transaction, other models come into play.

And BTW- it seems to me that our industries get a lot out of the deal with our government. Among other things, they get favorable treatment with tax, labor, and criminal law, and they get represented and supported internationally by our government and military (as opposed to labor and the environment which are not represented at all). If they don't want to be interfered with so much, maybe we should just cut them off the government teat and make them TRULY "private" enterprise.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 7:17 PM

Not sure how viable it is, but Desuenberg plans a mid-late 2008 release of a retro styled roadster using a CEM engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylindrical_Energy_Module

Their own estimates place anticipated MPG at around 70, which prolly means a real-world 50mpg, cause every MPG estimate i've ever seen was based on unrealistically perfect conditions, generally you get maybe 70-80% of that, on a good day.

-F

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 7:27 PM

Huh. Elegant design!

There are lots of options "out there" for those companies with balls enuf to invest in them.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Huh. Elegant design!

There are lots of options "out there" for those companies with balls enuf to invest in them.

.

Nice but as far as I can tell they dont actually make anything. All the pages have "coming in..." messages in them some of which are still for 2006.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 8:28 PM

Oh, I wasn't refering to the Duesenburg specifically, but I was doing some research for this thread and I found a lot of new engine designs out there that are in the prototype-to-production stage. Some of them are really VERY impressive and innovative.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 8:53 PM

That's a big jump though. I mean I remember when the Wankel engine was considered the cutting edge because in theory an engine with few moving parts is more efficient. Mazda went as far as making a couple of roadsters with Wankel engines but once you got them to production they proved disappointing. I also remember the ceramic gas turbine engines that everyone was convinced were going to make the piston engine obsolete in cars and nothing came of that either.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:07 PM

Well, nobody is guaranteeing that everything proposed will work. That's the risk part, which is why it takes balls to invest. But some of this technology is just downright whiz-bang pretty.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 9:20 PM

Oh I agree, I mean if this cylindrical engine works you could get some major weight savings (air cooled engines should be very light) but the big question is will they push a car around day after day for 5 years, could you run an engine like this under load for 8 or 12 hours a day for a week or more?

LEADB

Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Not sure how viable it is, but Desuenberg plans a mid-late 2008 release of a retro styled roadster using a CEM engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylindrical_Energy_Module

Their own estimates place anticipated MPG at around 70, which prolly means a real-world 50mpg, cause every MPG estimate i've ever seen was based on unrealistically perfect conditions, generally you get maybe 70-80% of that, on a good day.

-F

Dunno, bought a scion xb 3 years ago. 30/34 rated. Being AC gluttons, we typically get 29/33; that's really not a bad estimate; I bet we'd get the 30/34 if we didn't use the AC as much.

RUE

Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:14 AM

My 12year old car was rated 26/36, I've gotten 33.5 in real life since day one.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, September 7, 2007 8:03 PM

Battery-like device could power electric cars

Quote:
AUSTIN, Texas (AP)... An Austin-based startup called EEStor promised "technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries," meaning a motorist could plug in a car for five minutes and drive 500 miles roundtrip between Dallas and Houston without gasoline.

By contrast, some plug-in hybrids on the horizon would require motorists to charge their cars in a wall outlet overnight and promise only 50 miles of gasoline-free commute. And the popular hybrids on the road today still depend heavily on fossil fuels.

"It's a paradigm shift," said Ian Clifford, chief executive of Toronto-based ZENN Motor Co., which has licensed EEStor's invention. "The Achilles' heel to the electric car industry has been energy storage. By all rights, this would make internal combustion engines unnecessary."

www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/09/07/electric.car.batteries.ap/index.html

They're talking about a big capacitor.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, September 7, 2007 8:34 PM

Yeah I saw that

"Previous attempts to improve ultracapacitors have focused on improving the metal sheets by increasing the surface area where charges can attach.

EEStor is instead creating better nonconductive material for use between the metal sheets, using a chemical compound called barium titanate. The question is whether the company can mass-produce it."

Assuming they can manufacture the insulator, I hope they can maufacture the insulating case ... otherwise, one wrong move and you're toast. :pile of char: But hot damn! If they can do this, I'm in line ...

***************************************************************
Fuel cell vehicles are, like, soooo yesterday ...

LEADB

Friday, September 7, 2007 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[...]
By contrast, some plug-in hybrids on the horizon would require motorists to charge their cars in a wall outlet overnight and promise only 50 miles of gasoline-free commute. And the popular hybrids on the road today still depend heavily on fossil fuels.

FWIW, with overnight charge and 50 mile gasoline-free distance, I'd probably get 90% of my driving done w/out gas. 10 mile each way trip for me to work. Not that the 500 mile range isn't appealing...

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2