| Author |
Message |
    
Perry
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 03:30 pm: | 
|
Many great little cars that are available and sold widely in Europe that get incredible mileage don't pass our safety standards.
Many European countries have been paying the equivalent of $5 per gallon for thirty years now - they have smaller cars, LPG cars, and a lot of bicycles...
It's all tradeoffs. Throw away the safety ratings and we'd have faster cars with better mileage.
I agree we should be leading the world, not trailing behind in developing new energy technologies, including nuclear power. We are like oil junkies with nowhere else to go for our fix... bad position to be in. |
Davegess
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 03:36 pm: |
|
So, are you suggesting that folks should be told to live so that you can have a nice bike route?
Hmmm.
When I'm king of the world all the good roads will be reserved for bikes and no cops will be allowed. All the good parking spaces will be for bikes and free. Car people will be forced to pay and walk!! Crashing will also be outlawed as will flat tires and running out of gas. Any tire that goes flat will result in a fine for the tire maker. It will simply not be allowed to happen. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 03:42 pm: |
|
Technology is not the block to nuclear energy, politics and the greenies are.
In France, they have middle of the road nuclear tech but have TONS of plants to supply the energy.
That was a political decision made by them back in the 60s.
Where is our leadership when we need it? Well, we are looking at it in the mirror everyday. Or, the lack thereof. |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 03:48 pm: |
|
"If I have an SUV getting 15 MPG and I buy a Subaru Outback getting 25 MPG, I have just increased by mileage by 66%"
Good idea. Thats a whopping 1more MPG than the US fleet in 1980 |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 03:53 pm: |
|
If you are referring to diesel engine cars, the EPA is NOT keeping them out, nor in this case, is Congress.
The states of Massachusetts and California are keeping them out. Their state air pollution standards do not allow diesel cars to pass. Given these two markets are not available to diesel makers, they CHOOSE not to import the cars
Those states have only had those laws on the books for 2 or so years. So could you explain 1970-2003.
Congress and Ole Shurb could simply pass a short term law. Any car getting above 40mpg will not be required to submit to EPA testing. Allow the current European standards to be used. Short term. Honda, VW, Audi, Benz, Ford, BMW would all be able to import and sell alot of cars.
I'd love to have a Audi A3 quartro with the 2.0l TDI. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 04:07 pm: |
|
"Those states have only had those laws on the books for 2 or so years. So could you explain 1970-2003.
Congress and Ole Shurb could simply pass a short term law. Any car getting above 40mpg will not be required to submit to EPA testing. Allow the current European standards to be used. Short term. Honda, VW, Audi, Benz, Ford, BMW would all be able to import and sell alot of cars.
I'd love to have a Audi A3 quartro with the 2.0l TDI. "
No you are wrong on the diesel issue, the laws have been around in CA and MA for much longer. In fact, VW and Mercedes were importing diesels to the US through the 1980s I believe and then stopped. Combo of no demand and emissions issues.
I like diesels and they have improved.
As far as Congress overriding CA and MA, actually, I don't think they have the legal authority to do so. I KNOW they don't have the balls.
Two blue states, hmmmm |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 04:12 pm: |
|
"Good idea. Thats a whopping 1more MPG than the US fleet in 1980"
I have no idea what you mean by this. My point is that there are TONS of cars that one can buy IF they want better gas mileage.
If you want us to have MORE of them, call you Congressman.
And buy one yourself. |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 04:19 pm: |
|
Nice to have you back Richard. Just one request. Could you find a way to differentiate the quoted material in your posts from your following commentary. My head hurts enough already.  |
Midknyte
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 05:58 pm: |
|
Many great little cars that are available and sold widely in Europe that get incredible mileage don't pass our safety standards.
and I don't quite get that... how can they be consired not safe [enough] when we have lesser vehicles - motorcycles, scooters, etc...
Ok, I get it - it's whatever the safety ninny's here want to ban. But I mean, in spirit...
Being that I already ride a bike, I'd tool around in one of these, if I had the money for one...
http://www.smartcar-usa.com/ |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 08:15 pm: |
|
Will do Blake!
Thanks |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 09:01 pm: |
|
"No you are wrong on the diesel issue, the laws have been around in CA and MA for much longer. In fact, VW and Mercedes were importing diesels to the US through the 1980s I believe and then stopped. Combo of no demand and emissions issues. "
VW and Benz diesel cars were sold in cali up untill 2003 or 2004. Even then you can buy a used 2004+ diesel car from a different state and then bring it to cali.. some tricky paperwork stuff.
NewYork, Cali and a few other yankee states have the new tougher EPA laws in effect. |
Johnnylunchbox
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 11:42 pm: |
|
Anybody realize how much energy is required in making a car? So how about making cars that don't fall into the idea of planned obsolescense? How about making a million mile car for the masses? Make it right. Make it efficient. Make it last. It's all about quality. We won't have to replace a piece of crap car that has deteriorated in 5 short years.
It's just another viewpoint. There are just too many facets to the "energy crisis" arguments. |
Ctyxrnr
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 12:06 am: |
|
started reading this thread and it got me thinking. after getting off of the floor laughing at some of the posts. so i thought of throwing in my $.02. so before some of you bash me for my anti Big-Three views. know this 60% of the Toyota products sold in the U.S. are built in the U.S. by Americans!! not sure about the other import companies. it's great that the Japanese are creating jobs for Americans while the big-three are f'ing up by outsourcing jobs to other countries and closing plants here in the U.S..
so here i go.
you can blame GM for destroying the credibility of the diesel powered cars. for example the biggest P.O.S. 5.7L gas engine converted to diesel. that was the most unreliable diesel engine ever produced and the most under powered diesel engine. look at the recent VW diesel powered vehicles their economy is around 50MPG! and the power output ain't to shabby. those cars are quick for the power to weight ratio. plus they are very reliable cars. diesel engines are designed for torque. torque is what gets you going from a stop. so the more torque output the greater the fuel economy. diesel powered vehicle are more prevolent in Asia and Europe than here.
hydrogen, hybrids and diesels are the way to go if you want high fuel economy on four wheels. Toyota has been the leader in hybrid and hydrogen technology for the auto market. just think Ford has purchased patents from Toyota for the Escape Hybrid. they have been researching hydrogen tech for around 5 years!! one of the problems with hydrogen is the cost of building fueling stations and production of it.
i just purchased a 2005 Toyota Tacoma X-Runner, 4L DOHC V6, 6Speed manual trans. it currently gets (at 75-80mph) around 20mpg. pretty sure if i take off the massive air brake (tail gate) and slow down to 70mph i should see at least 25-30mpg.
yes i love my japanese truck and Buell!!
reason #1: they are both built here in the U.S. by Americans.
i was stationed in Okinawa for a year between Sept 99 and Sept 00. they have some cool little cars available. one i remember was named the Cappucino. it was powered by a rear mounted Yamaha 1000cc 4cyl engine. think it was a Yamaha engine. the car was Tiny! i can only imagine the MPG rating.
on another note i currently work for a Infiniti dealership as a service tech. and the amount of large American SUV's traded in is unreal. people are starting to see the light that the japanese and europeans have it right. more reliable and more MPG than the american conter-parts. plus the import cars have generally more ponies under the hood and rear wheel drive. but then again i have seen at least 4 QX56's sold in the last week. that would be the very big P.O.S. SUV counterpart to the Nissan Armada and Titan. which are all built in the U.S. as well. |
Jpgrego
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 01:37 am: |
|
pretty sure if i take off the massive air brake (tail gate) and slow down to 70mph i should see at least 25-30mpg
Not trying to get into this big argument... but I thought I'd point out that the mythbusters proved that gas mileage is actually better with the tailgate up as opposed to down.  |
Smoke
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 06:31 am: |
|
have a 95 mercedes diesel(last year of import until last year). at 80 on highway, 33mpg, pulling open motorcycle trailer with s1, 24 mpg. bought honda accord hybrid for wife, 29 city, 35ish hwy. traded in 12mpg ford f150. cut my gas bill in half, which pays 1/2 the accord payment of 500.
have fun,
tim |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 07:38 am: |
|
My VW Golf diesel with "some" mods is putting down at least 150hp and over 330ft/lbs of torque.
I've kept 16" rim size, upgraded the 5th gear from a German spec van which allows for 400less rpms, 5th gear is swaintech coated, Amsoil Eaa cone air filter, Amsoil bypass oil filter, ELF CRV 506.01 oil (13.5 per liter), free flowing exhaust, fuel cooler, Bosio powerplus pp764 nozzles, RocketChip stage 4 tuning 22psi max, vnt17 turbo thats ceramic coated... I still never get less than 42mpg Though I did only get 38mpg but that was on 100% biodiesel and three trips from Atlanta in traffic then 90mph to make up for time lossed. Once I get the oil changed, adjust the timing, and improve my cold air intake-- I will be at 48-50mpg!
Now if the EPA would allow VW to sell the pd150 engine format.. You start off with 150hp and 2xxdt/lbs of torque. A simple 300 chip tuning will make 180-200hp and more torque than the clutch can handle. Yet still get over 40mpg! |
Johnnylunchbox
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 08:08 am: |
|
Ctyxrnr said. " i currently work for a Infiniti dealership as a service tech. and the amount of large American SUV's traded in is unreal. people are starting to see the light that the japanese and europeans have it right."
They are not seeing the light. They are feeling an intense pain in their pocketbooks. As soon as efficiency rises again, and U.S. demand for fuel comes down, after a decade or so people will once again start driving 7 MPG behemoths. One thing I know about history is that it repeats itself. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 09:53 am: |
|
"Even then you can buy a used 2004+ diesel car from a different state and then bring it to cali.. some tricky paperwork stuff. "
This is correct, you can buy a used Diesel car and bring it into CA. You cannot buy a new one from a CA dealer though. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 10:00 am: |
|
Again, I will assert that their are plenty of cars available that would allow folks to increase their MPG. They have been around for years.
On average, folks have NOT bought them in large numbers to bump up the avg MPG numbers.
This will likely change as prices go up. There is NOTHING bad or immoral about driving a car that uses a lot of gas. People choose to use their money how they want and large SUVS appeal to many folks.
In fact, the GOVT LOVES SUVs and other guzzlers. Why, well look at the revenue from gas tax. BINGO!
BTW-one of the quickest ways to lower gas prices is for the govt to lower the tax on gas.
Have you seen THAT idea floated around much? One state is talking about it but I wager it will not happen.
It is easier for pols to talk about how Americans are "addicted" to foreign oil as if you and I formulated energy and tax policy in the US. Or, they can bring in the oil execs and roast them on CNN.
These guys make me sick! |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 10:07 am: |
|
This is why I love Supply and Demand!
IEA Cuts Its Forecasts
For Global Oil Demand
By ADAM SMALLMAN
May 12, 2006 7:43 a.m.
LONDON -- The International Energy Agency made sweeping cuts to its forecasts for world oil demand this year, saying there were clear signs that high energy prices were eating into demand and that this trend could well accelerate.
The energy security watchdog for the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development in its monthly oil-market report made hefty cuts to its previous expectations of growth in oil demand in the first half of this year, and cut 15%, or 220,000 barrels a day, off its growth forecast for the whole year. U.S. light, sweet crude prices surged to a record $75.35 a barrel last month, fueled by a wall of investment money from hedge and pension funds and on anxiousness over the supply outlook for Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries members Iran and Nigeria.
The IEA said unusually warm winter weather had contributed to weaker oil demand, with falling natural gas prices capping the tendency to switch between fuels.
These factors underpinned the IEA's biggest downward revisions yet to its growth forecasts in the first half of this year, with growth being slashed by as much as 430,000 barrels a day to substantially below the one million barrel-a-day mark.
Despite the bearish report, traders argued the underlying bullish geopolitical and fundamental factors are still there. The front-month June Brent contract on London's ICE Futures exchange was down 30 cents at $73.13 a barrel. The front month June crude contract on the New York Mercantile Exchange was trading 42 cents lower at $72.94/bbl.
In contrast to the weakening demand picture, global oil supply appears to be experiencing a substantial rebound, with supply up 485,000 barrels a day last month thanks to a turnaround in production from Iraq, as well as improvements to flows from the U.S., China and former Soviet Union bloc countries.
Many analysts have been skeptical about what they regard as the agency's optimism over improving non-OPEC producers' supply. Friday's report left its outlook on non-OPEC supply almost untouched, though growth is "increasingly back-end loaded" and at its highest in the last quarter of this year. It noted that April production from former Yukos and Sibneft oil fields was edging higher for the first time since 2004.
Reflecting its cuts to demand, the IEA revised down the implied need for crude oil from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in every quarter and for the year, while reporting a turnaround in supply in April to above 30 million barrels a day.
The agency also nudged lower its estimate of OPEC's usable spare capacity, to 1.67 million barrels a day, its lowest level in three months and in contrast to almost eight million barrels a day exactly four years ago.
Write to Adam Smallman at adam.smallman@dowjones.com |
|
