Who are you guys?

Adac autotest nissan note 1.6



May 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will announce new vehicle-emission rules tomorrow, setting the first-ever nationwide limit on greenhouse-gas pollution from autos, people familiar with the plan said.

The move would force automakers to meet a fuel-economy standard for 2016 models of slightly less than 35.5 miles a gallon, a target Congress has said wouldnпїЅt have to be met until 2020, according to one of the people, who asked not to be identified until the plan is made public.

The action is the пїЅbiggest single step to curb global warmingпїЅ and follows the lead of California, which wants to cut emissions 30 percent by 2016, Dan Becker, director of the environmental group Safe Climate Campaign, said in an interview.

The federal plan settles the question of whether states can set their own rules for regulating tailpipe emissions, which automakers called an unworkable patchwork of rules.

пїЅIt will establish a single national standard that will provide predictability and certainty for the auto companies in meeting regulations,пїЅ Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in a statement.

Auto industry officials such as General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson will attend tomorrowпїЅs announcement by Obama, as will CaliforniaпїЅs Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and MichiganпїЅs Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm, one of the people said.

пїЅTomorrow you will see people that normally are at odds with each other in agreement with each other,пїЅ White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said today.

пїЅI believe the automakers are going to get behind this and declare victory,пїЅ Becker said. The companies will also drop their lawsuit against the state of CaliforniaпїЅs proposed emissions standard, he said.

The Washington-based Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, whose members include GM, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. didnпїЅt immediately comment on the plan.

Under the proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency would set the new standard for greenhouse gas emissions, and that standard would be harmonized with separate fuel-economy rules set by the Transportation Department.

The federal rule would start with 2012 models, according to one of the people familiar with the proposal. The Transportation Department would continue with plans to set fuel-economy standards based on vehicle attributes, such as size and weight, an approach that automakers back, the person said.

A law enacted by Congress in 2007 required automakers to raise fuel-economy standards by at least 40 percent, forcing them to hit a target of 35 mpg by 2020. By comparison, the standard for 2011 models is 27.3 mpg.

The companies will have to redesign their vehicles faster than planned to meet the 2016 target, пїЅand that makes for a lot of expense because you canпїЅt recoup the cost for whatever youпїЅve invested,пїЅ said K.G. Duleep, managing director of consulting firm Energy & Environmental Analysis Inc. in Arlington, Virginia.

California has been seeking a federal waiver to set a greenhouse-gas emissions standard under legislation signed into law by Schwarzenegger in 2004.

Former President George W. Bush turned down the waiver request, only to have Obama, during his first week in Office, direct the EPA to reconsider the decision. More than a dozen states said they would follow the California program.

пїЅWhat the auto companies need is certainty,пїЅ said Roland Hwang, San Francisco-based vehicles policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. пїЅThe longer there is lack of clarity about whether there will be 14 states with the California program and what the stringency of greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards will be, the more difficult it is for them to make investments.пїЅ

California still may need to get its waiver so the state could regulate emissions while the federal regulation is developed, Becker said.

May 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will announce new vehicle-emission rules tomorrow, setting the first-ever nationwide limit on greenhouse-gas pollution from autos, people familiar with the plan said.

The move would force automakers to meet a fuel-economy standard for 2016 models of slightly less than 35.5 miles a gallon, a target Congress has said wouldnпїЅt have to be met until 2020, according to one of the people, who asked not to be identified until the plan is made public.

The action is the пїЅbiggest single step to curb global warmingпїЅ and follows the lead of California, which wants to cut emissions 30 percent by 2016, Dan Becker, director of the environmental group Safe Climate Campaign, said in an interview.

The federal plan settles the question of whether states can set their own rules for regulating tailpipe emissions, which automakers called an unworkable patchwork of rules.

пїЅIt will establish a single national standard that will provide predictability and certainty for the auto companies in meeting regulations,пїЅ Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in a statement.

Auto industry officials such as General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson will attend tomorrowпїЅs announcement by Obama, as will CaliforniaпїЅs Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and MichiganпїЅs Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm, one of the people said.

пїЅTomorrow you will see people that normally are at odds with each other in agreement with each other,пїЅ White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said today.

пїЅI believe the automakers are going to get behind this and declare victory,пїЅ Becker said. The companies will also drop their lawsuit against the state of CaliforniaпїЅs proposed emissions standard, he said.

The Washington-based Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, whose members include GM, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. didnпїЅt immediately comment on the plan.

Under the proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency would set the new standard for greenhouse gas emissions, and that standard would be harmonized with separate fuel-economy rules set by the Transportation Department.

The federal rule would start with 2012 models, according to one of the people familiar with the proposal. The Transportation Department would continue with plans to set fuel-economy standards based on vehicle attributes, such as size and weight, an approach that automakers back, the person said.

A law enacted by Congress in 2007 required automakers to raise fuel-economy standards by at least 40 percent, forcing them to hit a target of 35 mpg by 2020. By comparison, the standard for 2011 models is 27.3 mpg.

The companies will have to redesign their vehicles faster than planned to meet the 2016 target, пїЅand that makes for a lot of expense because you canпїЅt recoup the cost for whatever youпїЅve invested,пїЅ said K.G. Duleep, managing director of consulting firm Energy & Environmental Analysis Inc. in Arlington, Virginia.

California has been seeking a federal waiver to set a greenhouse-gas emissions standard under legislation signed into law by Schwarzenegger in 2004.

Former President George W. Bush turned down the waiver request, only to have Obama, during his first week in Office, direct the EPA to reconsider the decision. More than a dozen states said they would follow the California program.

пїЅWhat the auto companies need is certainty,пїЅ said Roland Hwang, San Francisco-based vehicles policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. пїЅThe longer there is lack of clarity about whether there will be 14 states with the California program and what the stringency of greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards will be, the more difficult it is for them to make investments.пїЅ

California still may need to get its waiver so the state could regulate emissions while the federal regulation is developed, Becker said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Col.BBQ:
Tomorrow, a gigantic oil field will be founded in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and we'll bring back the 6000 SUX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny you mention this as an intended joke. Recently it was discovered that we have a new oil reserve in the 48 states called the "Bakken reserve" that is far bigger than any other oil reserve on earth! It has been announced the the U.S. Geological Survey. It's in eastern Montana, North and South Dakota. But current politics will not allow us to use it. The Dems would rather have us dependent on our enemies for our oil.

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States!!

But we are the only country on earth that ignores oil reserves, mostly due to whackjob enviromentalists and their politician friends.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But we are the only country on earth that ignores oil reserves, mostly due to whackjob enviromentalists and their politician friends. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Less tards like you and this planet would be an entirely nice place.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Col.BBQ:
Tomorrow, a gigantic oil field will be founded in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and we'll bring back the 6000 SUX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny you mention this as an intended joke. Recently it was discovered that we have a new oil reserve in the 48 states called the "Bakken reserve" that is far bigger than any other oil reserve on earth! It has been announced the the U.S. Geological Survey. It's in eastern Montana, North and South Dakota. But current politics will not allow us to use it. The Dems would rather have us dependent on our enemies for our oil.

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States!!

But we are the only country on earth that ignores oil reserves, mostly due to whackjob enviromentalists and their politician friends. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

recently discovered? Biggest reserve on earth? I think you've been smoking to much crack dude.

about 20,200,000 barrels per day (22% of the world's total, and 12.4M barrels of that is imported (or about 59%))

100 to 200,000,000,000 barrels (with current and forseeable technology for extraction) (some geologists think only

How long would that power America at current consumption rates of 20M barrels a day. (even if every single drop went to the USA)


Question is: Is it worth that much destruction and trauma to the surrounding ecosystems for oil that lasts less than one human generation ?

Another thing to consider: How would you like it if your big fat uncle came for Thanksgiving and dipped his big mitts down into the turkey first and took almost one quarter of the turkey for himself while everyone else sat dumbfounded and stared. That is exactly what is happening with world oil in relation to the USA. We use 22% of the worlds oil but make up only 4% of the worlds population. In effect we are using more than five times our fair share of energy.

and I dont see any skinny people in the USA. Lots of McDonalds burger girls with thighs bigger than a T-Rex tail and plenty of Hummers. but not many skinny people.

I'm eyeing up a new Dodge Ram V-8 4WD even as we speak.

Gas Guzzling. My right as a goldang red, white and blue American patriot!

We saved the world from nekkid agression and by golly if we ain't gonna stink 'er up.

Just might buy me an AK-47 while I'm at it. Full Otto Matick. Keep them lazy little sonsaguns south of the border, if ya'll get ma drift.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Another thing to consider: How would you like it if your big fat uncle came for Thanksgiving and dipped his big mitts down into the turkey first and took almost one quarter of the turkey for himself while everyone else sat dumbfounded and stared. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Uncle Fatty paid for the turkey, I guess I wouldn't say anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is exactly what is happening with world oil in relation to the USA. We use 22% of the worlds oil but make up only 4% of the worlds population. In effect we are using more than five times our fair share of energy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. and I dont see any skinny people in the USA. Lots of McDonalds burger girls with thighs bigger than a T-Rex tail and plenty of Hummers. but not many skinny people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe you should find a better place to cruise for chicks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even if Uncle Fatty paid for it, lock, stock and barrel, its not right and we all know it. My father was our only 'earner' when I was a small child in the 1980s. Does that mean he should have gotten 95% of the groceries to himself, while my mom and sister starved. We dont live under the nationistic creeds of the 1950s anymore. Our planet is a closed loop, and with almost 7 billion people on it, what happens in one area quicly affects all the others.

Many would disagree (including all conservative Republicans I suppose) and say if we have the money or the power, we should do what we need to keep up our 'way of life' in the USA.

I say we have moral obligation to do what is right.

Just because I can beat my wife, doesnt mean I should. Just because I have the money to buy Nigerian oil (which causes multiple problems in that country for thousands of people) to power my own overweight burger eating family to Wendy's, when its only a quarter mile away and I could get there even faster on a bicycle, doesnt mean it is right. And last time I checked, our 'way of life' was pretty decadent, even compared to Europe and Japan.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Even if Uncle Fatty paid for it, lock, stock and barrel, its not right and we all know it. My father was our only 'earner' when I was a small child in the 1980s. Does that mean he should have gotten 95% of the groceries to himself, while my mom and sister starved. We dont live under the nationistic creeds of the 1950s anymore. Our planet is a closed loop, and with almost 7 billion people on it, what happens in one area quicly affects all the others.

Many would disagree (including all conservative Republicans I suppose) and say if we have the money or the power, we should do what we need to keep up our 'way of life' in the USA.

I say we have moral obligation to do what is right.

Just because I can beat my wife, doesnt mean I should. Just because I have the money to buy Nigerian oil (which causes multiple problems in that country for thousands of people) to power my own overweight burger eating family to Wendy's, when its only a quarter mile away and I could get there even faster on a bicycle, doesnt mean it is right. And last time I checked, our 'way of life' was pretty decadent, even compared to Europe and Japan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarding the topic, I applaud the new emissions standards. I would rather drive a smaller car, provided that it's safe, rather then a big gas guzzler. Not only are we protecting the environment, but saving money and reducing our reliance on oil.

IMHO, I would have gone a step further and put forth legislation that gives automakers a time frame to develop affordable alternate fuel vehicles, as well as incentives to local governments to overhaul and expand public transportation with clean fuel vehicles.

Don't quite understand the issue here, never have.

Us scientists and engineers in car companies and other related industries will be working flat out to ensure that the vehicles produced will look and respond in a way that will appeal to the market. i.e perform how you are used to; and meet the targets.

Do you want them to guzzle gas for the sake of it?

I got my car. http://forums.ubigroupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


anyone know what it is. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/winky.gif

little known fact. The more wheels one leaves off a car the better the fuel mileage. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

What happens when 2 109s mate. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/88.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Even if Uncle Fatty paid for it, lock, stock and barrel, its not right and we all know it. My father was our only 'earner' when I was a small child in the 1980s. Does that mean he should have gotten 95% of the groceries to himself, while my mom and sister starved. We dont live under the nationistic creeds of the 1950s anymore. Our planet is a closed loop, and with almost 7 billion people on it, what happens in one area quicly affects all the others.

Many would disagree (including all conservative Republicans I suppose) and say if we have the money or the power, we should do what we need to keep up our 'way of life' in the USA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get me wrong, I more or less agree with you, but it still gets paid for.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I say we have moral obligation to do what is right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'd have a difficult time finding anybody to disagree with that statement. The problem is, everybody has a different definition of what's "right".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Just because I have the money to buy Nigerian oil (which causes multiple problems in that country for thousands of people) to power my own overweight burger eating family to Wendy's, when its only a quarter mile away and I could get there even faster on a bicycle, doesnt mean it is right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I hear ya. When I lived in the city, I didn't have a car for ten years, and biked everywhere. I still bike when I can, do my recycling, grow some of my own food; and I still weigh what I did when I was 18. But what can you do? You can't force people onto a Stairmaster.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And last time I checked, our 'way of life' was pretty decadent, even compared to Europe and Japan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I got my car. http://forums.ubigroupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I got my car. http://forums.ubigroupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do they stash the wings and prop? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got a pull along trailer for that. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/winky.gif

Listen, none of you responded when I tried to be humorous so I'll say it in plain English: I will drive whatever I want to drive whenever and wherever I please.

I could care less about the rest of the world. Nobody in the rest of the world cares about me.

I will be dead in 10 years or so. If I want to drive a V-8 to Las Vegas and pay a prostitute $2K to sit on my lap wearing pantyhose, then I will do it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
Listen, none of you responded when I tried to be humorous so I'll say it in plain English: I will drive whatever I want to drive whenever and wherever I please.

I could care less about the rest of the world. Nobody in the rest of the world cares about me.

I will be dead in 10 years or so. If I want to drive a V-8 to Las Vegas and pay a prostitute $2K to sit on my lap wearing pantyhose, then I will do it.

Tired of being so totally ignored. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear you breeze and I understand your views completely. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you want them to guzzle gas for the sake of it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Recently it was discovered that we have a new oil reserve in the 48 states called the "Bakken reserve" that is far bigger than any other oil reserve on earth! It has been announced the the U.S. Geological Survey. It's in eastern Montana, North and South Dakota. But current politics will not allow us to use it. The Dems would rather have us dependent on our enemies for our oil.

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Bakken formation has a lot of oil shale. No one has ever come up with a commercially viable way of extracting the oil.

Bakken also has some freely recoverable oil. According to the US Geological Survey, Bakken contains:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

3.65 billion barrels means perhaps 1 million barrels of oil a day for a decade. The US currently imports more than 12 million barrels a day.

In my 'yute' I drove an Opel Kadett GSi 16V (2.0 N/A 157bhp under 1000kg/2200lbs) .I got 149mph AND 40mpg in it although obviously not at the same time .(Im sure a Lotus Elise would top both figures.)In fact I had two of them ,one black ,one white. Terrible handler on a sharply twisting road but stuck like glue on a fast 'sweeper'. Crude but fun (Same as Vauxhall Astra GTE 16V in the UK but with NO heavy extras -even had manual windows)
I drove a 2.4 Litre USA Market Ford Focus on Honeymoon and it was much slower than 'our' 1.4.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
Listen, none of you responded when I tried to be humorous so I'll say it in plain English: I will drive whatever I want to drive whenever and wherever I please.

I could care less about the rest of the world. Nobody in the rest of the world cares about me.

I will be dead in 10 years or so. If I want to drive a V-8 to Las Vegas and pay a prostitute $2K to sit on my lap wearing pantyhose, then I will do it.

Tired of being so totally ignored. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here. I'll keep driving my 15mpg city, 19mpg highway Z car everywhere.

If other countries don't like it, maybe they should have become the most powerful nation on the planet and stopped us.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
Listen, none of you responded when I tried to be humorous so I'll say it in plain English: I will drive whatever I want to drive whenever and wherever I please.

I could care less about the rest of the world. Nobody in the rest of the world cares about me.

I will be dead in 10 years or so. If I want to drive a V-8 to Las Vegas and pay a prostitute $2K to sit on my lap wearing pantyhose, then I will do it.

Tired of being so totally ignored. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here. I'll keep driving my 15mpg city, 19mpg highway Z car everywhere.

If other countries don't like it, maybe they should have become the most powerful nation on the planet and stopped us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical. If you read the original post, it was about our government enacting the lower emission standards in the future. They aren't going to take away your car, other countries aren't going to take your car.

I wouldn't be surprised if you had to pay more for registration, but hey, if you want to drive it, I'm sure you can afford it.

Coming off with the "most powerful nation" schtick is arrogant, to say the least.

Anything that gets less than 40mpg should be banned for funding terrorism.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
Listen, none of you responded when I tried to be humorous so I'll say it in plain English: I will drive whatever I want to drive whenever and wherever I please.

I could care less about the rest of the world. Nobody in the rest of the world cares about me.

I will be dead in 10 years or so. If I want to drive a V-8 to Las Vegas and pay a prostitute $2K to sit on my lap wearing pantyhose, then I will do it.

Tired of being so totally ignored. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here. I'll keep driving my 15mpg city, 19mpg highway Z car everywhere.

If other countries don't like it, maybe they should have become the most powerful nation on the planet and stopped us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical. If you read the original post, it was about our government enacting the lower emission standards in the future. They aren't going to take away your car, other countries aren't going to take your car.

I wouldn't be surprised if you had to pay more for registration, but hey, if you want to drive it, I'm sure you can afford it.

Coming off with the "most powerful nation" schtick is arrogant, to say the least. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical? You're right, it is typical that I believe in the freedom to drive what I want, when I want, without the government trying to **** down my throat with their regulations. Government involvement in this is a terrible idea. The big three in the US already have econo cars that get great mileage. You want to know why you don't hear about them and people dont drive them? BECAUSE THEY SUCK. Now, if the people of this country actually wanted fuel efficient small cars, then car companies would respond to that and build them. But we DON'T want small cars. We want big highway cruisers. We want V8s, with forced induction if at all possible. We want clouds of tire smoke, the smell of octane, and the roar of a powerful engine. So that's what we get (or would get, except for the government stepping in).

Hell, putting it into perspective, the US doesn't even produce that powerful of cars (with a very few exceptions). That distinction goes to the Europeans these days. AMG, M, Quattro, etc all kick out higher powered cars than we have here in the US (other than the ZR-1).

But that's a different topic. It comes down to if you want the government telling people what is best for them, or if you want to let people have the freedom to choose for themselves. Me, I'll take the one that doesn't smack of Leninism and Stalinism.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
I'll take the hot rod Lincoln </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What gets me is that the U.S. tried to get the ball rolling with biofuel production and ended up being criticized for being thoughtless about the rest of the world as far as food supplies are concerned.

Production of biofuels is a crime (http://www.independent.coenvironment/green-living/production-of-biofuels-is-a-crime-398066.html)

The U.S. is already the biggest food aid supplier to the world, providing more than half of all international food aid. The world is indeed overpopulated if all it takes is the U.S. to slow food exports to cause potential havoc.

Even with the new EPA rules in place, the remaining domestic U.S. manufacturers will be hard pressed to compete against the imported cars by the supposedly domestic GM.

GM to import Chinese cars (http://content.usatodaycommunities/openroad/post/2009/05/66670925/1)

[email protected] a new econobox. I want a Nash Metropolitan! If only they would retool for this little MF'er, I would buy one because finding an inexpensive one in excellent condition to use for an everyday driver is next to impossible. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/winky.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messaschnitzel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
I'll take the hot rod Lincoln </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go! http://forums.ubigroupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Thats what I'm talking about http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:

IпїЅm sure youпїЅve heard this before, but driving is a privilege, not a right. If it were a right, then you would be able to drive whatever you please, whenever you please.

Also, sales figures for gas-guzzling tanks like SUVs and V8 trucks are way, way down. Fuel economy cars may suck, but they are selling, and they are getting better. The big 3 didnпїЅt see that fast enough, and look what it got them? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, car sales in general are way, way down. And I never said it was a right, but you seem to be missing the point that you can't legislate morality (which is what this is in the end), and expect it to really work. Hell, gas economy has more to do with HOW you drive than what you drive. Drop a 600whp engine in a car like mine, and you can still get 30+mpg on the freeway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
More pollution and gas usage just so you can have the пїЅroar of a powerful engineпїЅ? How selfish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Believing that your value system is the best? How selfish.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">


How 1950пїЅs of you. The government enacts legislation to protect the environment and you call it Communist.

The government has been telling us what to do for years, this is nothing new. пїЅYou can do *this*, provided that you donпїЅt do *that*.пїЅ ItпїЅs the American way, like it or not. And it doesnпїЅt matter who is in the White House or which way congress leans this week, itпїЅs always the same.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I say it was Communist? I said it was Leninist and Stalinist, which is NOT Communism. Communism as written is a completely voluntary economic system in which the labor of a company owns a controlling share of the company, and they get wages commensurate with the work that they put into it. I have no problem with that. I don't think it is necessarily the best idea, but I don't have a really big problem with it.

What I DID say was that the government telling us what we can and can't do smacks of authoritarianism, which I DO have a problem with. In addition to this, the legislation is completely misguided. Cars are not the primary polluters in modern society. That place belongs to semi-trucks, manufacturing plants, and power plants. Cars, compared to those, are negligible in their impact on the environment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

This week, it goes something like this: пїЅYou can drive, but you canпїЅt use a ****load of oil to do it with.пїЅ

1) We buy way too much foreign oil (and I can see some of the money going to terrorists)
2) We burn way too much oil (and pollute the environment)
3) We shouldnпїЅt be drilling for more oil at all (and destroy the environment)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what will change? We are still going to be using tons of foreign oil, we are still going to be burning absurd amounts of oil. And drilling destroying the environment? Last I checked, most of the oil wells in the world exist were there really isn't an environment that can be destroyed that easily. Alaska? It's ****ing cold, and it stays cold (not to mention the pipeline actually provides shelter and warmth for herds during the winter, preventing them from dying). The middle east? It's a bunch of sand and scrub brush. Sure, light all the wells on fire and let them blacken the sky and it'll damage the environment, but beyond that, not much is going to happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
ItпїЅs selfish and arrogant of us to think that we can do as we please just because we have the bigger stick. If we lead by example, with the example being lower emissions and a cleaner environment, then others will follow suit. ItпїЅs the smart thing to do, and itпїЅs the right thing to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, the irony. You DO realize that is exactly what the enviro-nuts are doing these days, right? They mobilize masses of sheeple by talking about how evil oil companies are, and bully the government into penalizing them for simply meeting the demands of the average consumer.

As for it being the smart/right thing to do: Maybe by your value system, but me? I'd rather get the economy fixed first, or clean up the industrial sector before I worry about cars.

"After taking little blue pill, Mine is harder than this vodka glass in my hand! A cat could not scratch it! Now I want to drive Lincoln Continental with suicide doors and have big-a$$ed 430 with open headers in it! I want to go so fast that it make telephone poles look like picket fence! I want to. I-I-I don't feel good now, and must sit down!" http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/winky.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
Actually, car sales in general are way, way down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> True, good point. However, low MPG vehicles did take a hit before the economy tanks, thanks to high gas prices.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And I never said it was a right, but you seem to be missing the point that you can't legislate morality (which is what this is in the end), and expect it to really work. Hell, gas economy has more to do with HOW you drive than what you drive. Drop a 600whp engine in a car like mine, and you can still get 30+mpg on the freeway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Telling a car company that they need to build cars with better fuel economy isn't legislating morality in my opinion. And, while you didn't say straight up about your right to drive, you did say

"it is typical that I believe in the freedom to drive what I want, when I want, without the government trying to **** down my throat with their regulations."

That sounds like you are affirming your right to drive what you want, correct? I'm not trying to twist your words around, just telling you how I interpet what you are saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Believing that your value system is the best? How selfish. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said my value system is better. I wasn't even thinking that. But, I would guess that we could give two ****s about each others value system. Whether mine is better then yours is not up to me to decide.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Where did I say it was Communist? I said it was Leninist and Stalinist, which is NOT Communism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I DID say was that the government telling us what we can and can't do smacks of authoritarianism, which I DO have a problem with. In addition to this, the legislation is completely misguided. Cars are not the primary polluters in modern society. That place belongs to semi-trucks, manufacturing plants, and power plants. Cars, compared to those, are negligible in their impact on the environment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does the legislation call for only private vehicles to have the new emissions standards? Everything I've read has been really general in that regard.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
As for it being the smart/right thing to do: Maybe by your value system, but me? I'd rather get the economy fixed first, or clean up the industrial sector before I worry about cars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough. And yes, I think it's the right thing to do. You don't, ok. More power to you.

1. Cafe standards regulate consumer grade vehicles more than they do trucks. So this is mostly pointed at consumers. Consumers do not make up the interest of the teamsters union or the uaw or collect farm subsidies.

This yet again smacks of social engineering, which time and again our government has proven that it sucks at.

The fastest way to get folks out of big trucks and into more efficient vehicles would be to put an end to fuel subsidization altogether. The fuel industry here is heavily subsidized, end that let fuel prices rise to where they would be and let capitalism actually work. Right now, its not working because taxes are used to prop up broken ideas. Mostly to protect corp interest and labor unions. Neither of them have done us any favors, so we should cut them loose and let the market actually do its job correctly. In the transportation sector even before the current administration, at best we had socialism disguised as capitalism. Unfortunately what we had was the worst of both worlds. Now, it looks like its just going to keep getting worse. Really we should cut them loose and take our lumps till things settle down to a new version of normal.

This whole "runing out of oil" scare is just a marketing stunt to keep the price high.

How much out of the surface of this planet did we drill to see if there's oil? How about the oceans? We didn't even touch one percent of them.

I think the Russians have something going with the "abiogenic theory". Not all oil is originates from dead chickens. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy
With more and more deposits found way deeper then dead plants or animals could be found, (sometimes under kilometers of crystalline rock), I tend to belive them.

I love how some are saying its the end of performance cars. they will take on a new shape. I can't wait for electric boosted performance cars. efficiency and tons of torque.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crucislancer:

Does the legislation call for only private vehicles to have the new emissions standards? Everything I've read has been really general in that regard.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, really only covers POV IIRC. Truckers have pretty good lobbyists, and it helps them that any regulation for air quality stuff that affects them they can point to the fact that it will generally put all the independent owner/operators out of business and get it shot down that way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
This whole "runing out of oil" scare is just a marketing stunt to keep the price high.

How much out of the surface of this planet did we drill to see if there's oil? How about the oceans? We didn't even touch one percent of them.

I think the Russians have something going with the "abiogenic theory". Not all oil is originates from dead chickens. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy
With more and more deposits found way deeper then dead plants or animals could be found, (sometimes under kilometers of crystalline rock), I tend to belive them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a friend who works high up managing oil rigs for the "evil company" Haliburton. He always says that we've got about 30 years left before oil becomes uneconomical as an energy source.

How dare the tyrannical gummint tell me I can't dig holes in my garden using dynamite!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
Jesus Christ man. So not only is it not enough for your own government to run your entire life, but now you want the US to run EVERYONE'S lives? Have you EVER looked at what happens when the US does get involved on the world stage? People get ****ed off and cry about economic imperialism etc, etc, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get the feeling this reply is a joke, it`s so moronic.
Bottom line is that an economy so big as the US, has always had an influence on the rest of the world. The crisis THE WHOLE WORLD IS EXPERIENCING is partly fault of idiots in the US. An economical crisis is something that must return after few years, but simply idiotic decisions based on NOTHING made by American banks have made the crisis 10 times harder than it would normally be.
So, no I`m not talking about Iraq here. Im talking about the US influencing everyone else, because world economy is HEAVILY connected to the US dollar.
The American style of life, as the crisis shows, is largely outdated, causing huge waste of resources because of careless living.

Unless the whole world resigns from using US dollars, the US` role in fixing the crisis is the main one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, car sales in general are way, way down. And I never said it was a right, but you seem to be missing the point that you can't legislate morality (which is what this is in the end), and expect it to really work. Hell, gas economy has more to do with HOW you drive than what you drive. Drop a 600whp engine in a car like mine, and you can still get 30+mpg on the freeway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seriously can`t be serious!
There`s nothing of morality here. The whole issue is a-moral. The aim is to repair world economy. Few things must be done. And no matter how you brag about it, the Obama movement is right, because it goes to modernize America, and most of all the American way of life.

And car sales are way down in the US.
In Germany. the government passed laws that actually made car sales THE BIGGEST since the uniting. Partly because the idea is good. You utilize your old vehicle and get a discount for a brand new one.
All you need here is THINKING.

And I repeat, normal gas consumption is 8L/100km which is roughy 2galons/60miles. Telling me that those big *** vans, SUVs and pickups with 4L engines are able to make the norm is simply BS.

Because of COMPLETELY IGNORING the need to cut down the `70s way of life, the top hybrid technology you Yanks can come up with are cars which have max range of 40miles, pathetic!

The state of affairs shows EMPHATICALLY that the citizens are not interested in such idea.

I have seen some pretty fast "econo boxes" in Germany. I wish we had some of that stuff here as you really aren't sacrificing performance for economy. but you won't be having any more big cars and trucks.
As far as global warming is concerned, I haven't really seen any evidence to suggest that it is man made. I am no expert, but there is a global climate that changes over time, like the last ice age that had nothing to do with human influence. If you have an ice age, then you will also have a "warm age".
I am afraid that these new laws will be imposed on the US to curtail something that may not exist.

I hope they have plenty of crumple zones built into those "econo boxes."

My vehicle has steel bumpers at both ends, I don't want too much trouble scraping them off when I drive away from a possible collision. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/59.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
I hope they have plenty of crumple zones built into those "econo boxes."

My vehicle has steel bumpers at both ends, I don't want too much trouble scraping them off when I drive away from a possible collision. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/59</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They modeled the crumple zones from the damage models of early Il-2 zeros. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/winky.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:

I get the feeling this reply is a joke, it`s so moronic.
Bottom line is that an economy so big as the US, has always had an influence on the rest of the world. The crisis THE WHOLE WORLD IS EXPERIENCING is partly fault of idiots in the US. An economical crisis is something that must return after few years, but simply idiotic decisions based on NOTHING made by American banks have made the crisis 10 times harder than it would normally be.
So, no I`m not talking about Iraq here. Im talking about the US influencing everyone else, because world economy is HEAVILY connected to the US dollar.
The American style of life, as the crisis shows, is largely outdated, causing huge waste of resources because of careless living.

Unless the whole world resigns from using US dollars, the US` role in fixing the crisis is the main one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not talking about Iraq either. Maybe it's just more noticeable in the US, but most of the world would rather have us stay the hell out of their affairs (and I can't blame them for that either.

As for the banks making decisions based on nothing, that also is not true. Legislation was passed in the late 90s I want to say that was designed to force banks to extend credit to those that were not currently qualified to get it. the reason they weren't qualified for credit is that the banks knew that the majority of the people in that socio-economic stratum were going to default on their loans. But the government (and all the regulatory power it has) told the banks to extend credit, so extended it was. (As a side note, there is a bank in Mass. that DIDN'T extend credit, and has remained solvent even in the current finacial crisis. and the is breathing down their necks for remaining so.)

Plus, nobody is forcing other countries to use the USD. They can use the Euro, Pound, CDN, Peso, Leke, or ruble.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You seriously can`t be serious! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
There`s nothing of morality here. The whole issue is a-moral. The aim is to repair world economy. Few things must be done. And no matter how you brag about it, the Obama movement is right, because it goes to modernize America, and most of all the American way of life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, but I *really* can't understand what you are trying to say here. You may not be familiar with the term 'legislate morality', but it doesn't necessarily do that. It includes legislation that tends to be labeled as "for the children/ethnic group/etc". And what Obama movement? It's business as usual in the white house these days. Spend spend spend, tax tax tax. Same ****, Different Day.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And car sales are way down in the US. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, I believe I mentioned that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In Germany. the government passed laws that actually made car sales THE BIGGEST since the uniting. Partly because the idea is good. You utilize your old vehicle and get a discount for a brand new one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We have that in the United States as well already.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And I repeat, normal gas consumption is 8L/100km which is roughy 2galons/60miles. Telling me that those big *** vans, SUVs and pickups with 4L engines are able to make the norm is simply BS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*sigh*. Once again, I wasn't talking about a van/SUV/truck. I drive a Datsun 240Z. It weighs less than 2500lbs, is shorter and narrower than most sub-compact cars, and low enough to cause back problems. I know of several people with 600+whp engines (V8s, straights sixes, NA, turbo, supercharged, etc) who are getting atleast 30mpg freeway.

But actually, vans and SUVs and pickups can get that kind of mileage. Granted, an Escalade isn't going to do it, but the older stuff can. One reason for this is that they do have such a big engine, that it doesn't have to strain to power the car down the road. Older Jeeps are great examples. The 4L V6 versions got significantly better mileage than the four cylinder versions, with everything else the same.

Throw the option for a diesel engine into the mix, and I bet most vehicles in america today could get 30mpg.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Because of COMPLETELY IGNORING the need to cut down the `70s way of life, the top hybrid technology you Yanks can come up with are cars which have max range of 40miles, pathetic! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What? 40 miles? What are you smoking? Pri-i get probably 400 miles per tank, and if you meant electrical, Tesla motors in the US makes electric cars with 200+ mile ranges.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The state of affairs shows EMPHATICALLY that the citizens are not interested in such idea.

Then the voice of reason will be forced by law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is antithetical to the principles of the United States, and is the Stalinist/Leninist movement that I mentioned earlier.

jayhall, I'll grant that I'm nowhere near an expert on oceanography, but I was under the impression from something I read awhile ago that mapping was easy, but that doing what you said in the ocean (exluding costal waters) was extremely time consuming and inaccurate, and thus hadn't been done to any great degree. If I'm wrong, I'm more than willing to read up on it if you have any good sources on it.

Stick a scary tall OD gear on there, probably still get 30mpg freeway :P

I know someone has test fit a Merlin 572 into the Z chassis as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As far as global warming is concerned, I haven't really seen any evidence to suggest that it is man made. I am no expert, but there is a global climate that changes over time, like the last ice age that had nothing to do with human influence. If you have an ice age, then you will also have a "warm age".
I am afraid that these new laws will be imposed on the US to curtail something that may not exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
As far as global warming is concerned, I haven't really seen any evidence to suggest that it is man made. I am no expert, but there is a global climate that changes over time, like the last ice age that had nothing to do with human influence. If you have an ice age, then you will also have a "warm age".
I am afraid that these new laws will be imposed on the US to curtail something that may not exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The billion of tons of pollutants spewed into the atmosphere every year can't be totally ignored.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by uppurrz:


The billion of tons of pollutants spewed into the atmosphere every year can't be totally ignored. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't like pollution either and creating less is very good.
I just don't want to see laws going into effect based on scientific guesswork.
I also don't understand what is so bad about carbon dioxide. This has always been the largest component of our breathable air. Plants breathe it, they make oxygen which we breathe, and then we exhale carbon dioxide for the plants to breathe again.
If we continue on our current path, there will someday be a tax for breathing, since we as people produce this greenhouse gas.
I imagine active people and athletes will be in a higher tax bracket since they exhale more CO2.
What is so bad about CO2? Without it, everything on this planet will die.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by uppurrz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
As far as global warming is concerned, I haven't really seen any evidence to suggest that it is man made. I am no expert, but there is a global climate that changes over time, like the last ice age that had nothing to do with human influence. If you have an ice age, then you will also have a "warm age".
I am afraid that these new laws will be imposed on the US to curtail something that may not exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The billion of tons of pollutants spewed into the atmosphere every year can't be totally ignored. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, I am not sold on man made global warming, however, we should be better stewards of this planet. I do not think we need vast, sweeping and immediate legislature. Slow and easy, set realistic deadlines that won't kill the economy dead. I just think we are moving too quickly.

Its interesting. Jalopnik see's the glass half empty with this interesting set of data:

http://jalopnik5261242/no. uel-economy-standard (http://jalopnik5261242/no-automakers-meet-obamas-new-fuel-economy-standard)

But. I see it half full. Lots of automakers aren't that far off. Honda and Toyota are very close. and everyone is introducing new engines, transmissions, and technology to boost fuel economy (and often power at the same time). I think a little adversity is sometimes good to keep things rolling along. The Chevy Volt will probably cause a significant change in GM's average. Ford is working with Magna on an electric version of the 2011 Focus. good stuff is happening. finally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by iroseland:
Ha..

This is us pulling down a tree with mine, 240,000 miles later and the car still runs great, it just kind of looks a bit lived in.

+1 on the VW's! I converted to VW last year and will never drive anything but VW or Audi from now on. I used to be a diehard Chevy man but the last two that I bought put me off for good. I was really ****ed at GM for what they did to me with my 2003 Silverado. After it was only one year old the steering started popping and it felt like the front sus*****on was loose. I took it to the dealer and was told there was a recall on the steering u-joint. After installing the part the popping and sloppy steering went away for about four months and then returned again. When I went back to the dealer I was told that it was now a regular maintenance item and would cost me $100.00 to service each time! http://forums.ubigroupee_common/emoticons/icon_madThey were essentially telling me that I would have to pay for their patched enginnering mistake. Also on all my prvious GM vehicles I had to constantly take them back for recalls and getting them to honor their own warranty was a huge ordeal. I almost beat a service manager down for arguing with me over a warranty issue once. Now that I swithced they are calling me from my old Chevy dealership begging me to come back. Never again! They had their chance and they blew it. I now have a 2008 VW Jetta 2.5 SE which I absoultely love in every way. It has the sweetest transmission of any car I've ever driven and it can be run in three modes. Drive is for economy and normal cruising. Sport for high RPM shifting. And pushing the shifter over to right side engages manual shift mode. Handling is beautiful and the speed is amazing. Hard to believe it's only a five cylinder engine. I blew away a Z-71 V8 Silverado about a week ago. Passed him at 121 mph with the A/C on(Kids please don't try this)http://forums.ubigroupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. All VW's sold in the US have their speeds limited to 124 due to US regulations but you can have your chip flashed to remove it as I did. The car also has traction and stability control which can be switched off. I drove forty miles in the ice last winter with no problems at all. It doesn't ice much in Texas and the city does only a so-so job of sanding the roads. While all the big trucks were spun out I was cruising along easy. Now I'm as patriotic as the next man but I've just had such a bad experience with US made vehicles that I can no longer even consider buying them again. They will have to really prove something to me before I come back if that's even possible now. So I already have my Euro econo box and I love it.


Here is my 08 Jetta SE. Will be upgrading the wheels and springs shortly. I'm all for more fuel efficent and well thought out designs like this. And by the way the TDI Jetta gets 41 mpg all at a price anyone can afford.
http://i182.photobucketalbums/x277/Jagdgeschwader2/Img_2682
http://i182.photobucketalbums/x277/Jagdgeschwader2/Img_2694.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also don't understand what is so bad about carbon dioxide. This has always been the largest component of our breathable air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, nitrogen is the largest component of air, about 78%. Oxygen is second at 21%. Carbon dioxide makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If we continue on our current path, there will someday be a tax for breathing, since we as people produce this greenhouse gas.
I imagine active people and athletes will be in a higher tax bracket since they exhale more CO2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, breathing isn't a problem. It's part of the carbon cycle. We take in energy that comes from plants, burn it up creating CO2, and the plants then use the CO2 to make more plant, and release oxygen.

That's not a problem. As long as there is food to eat, there will be air to breathe. The problem is we are also releasing CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. That's not part of the carbon cycle, and is increasing the amount of carbon in the air.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What is so bad about CO2? Without it, everything on this planet will die. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without salt you will die. With too much salt you will die. Don't drink enough water and you will die. Drink too much and you will die. The same is true for most things. Too little is bad, too much is bad.

With too little CO2 the earth would be too cool. With too much it will be too hot. We are currently increasing the amount in the atmosphere at a pretty fast rate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
I'm not talking about Iraq either. Maybe it's just more noticeable in the US, but most of the world would rather have us stay the hell out of their affairs (and I can't blame them for that either.

Plus, nobody is forcing other countries to use the USD. They can use the Euro, Pound, CDN, Peso, Leke, or ruble. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ofcourse they can, but it is impossible to change over a day. Staying out of other countries` affairs doesn`t have much to do with the situation. Most of all the transactions all over the world markets are made in US dollars.
As the US economy progressed steeply up after WWI and even more after WWII, all developping countries put trust in the US dollar. The USA became the center of world economy. Everything that happens to US economy, gives a share to Europe and the rest. Even China although with a gigantic economy, uses the US dollar almost exclusively.
So whether you want it or not, the USA influences everybody, everywhere. If you go down, we go down. It would take decades to change that.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Sorry, but I *really* can't understand what you are trying to say here. You may not be familiar with the term 'legislate morality', but it doesn't necessarily do that. It includes legislation that tends to be labeled as "for the children/ethnic group/etc". And what Obama movement? It's business as usual in the white house these days. Spend spend spend, tax tax tax. Same ****, Different Day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`m saying that it`s the same as always. You can never depend on a lazy nation to get rid of their privileges. That concerns every country. We have a serious situation here and something must be done about it. Obama wants to reform the whole system, because it has major flaws which led to what we`re experiencing now. I don`t negate that it does include his personal views. If you really want to label it, it`ll be "fix the world economy". It`s a time where all of us have to make a sacrifice. It`s entirely human that you don`t want to, because you don`t care at all.
That`s why the state has to make you work for the better of others.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Yes, I believe I mentioned that.

We have that in the United States as well already. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But results are quite different. You can have a good plan and ruin it completely. That`s the difference between Germany and US.
A chairman of a car company traveled his multimilion dollar jet for the bailout money. Conclusion is that there are wrong people on some positions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
*sigh*. Once again, I wasn't talking about a van/SUV/truck. I drive a Datsun 240Z. It weighs less than 2500lbs, is shorter and narrower than most sub-compact cars, and low enough to cause back problems. I know of several people with 600+whp engines (V8s, straights sixes, NA, turbo, supercharged, etc) who are getting atleast 30mpg freeway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent. Can you do that while going places in the CITY? 30mpg? I don`t think so. On the freeway, European cars with 2.5TDI engines easily make 6L/100km, that`s 1,5 gallon/60miles, that`s 40mpg. Not to mention most of those hot rod`s wouldn`t be let in some European cities, Berlin for example.
Old cars are out of the question, because of their horrible efficiency.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
What? 40 miles? What are you smoking? Pri-i get probably 400 miles per tank, and if you meant electrical, Tesla motors in the US makes electric cars with 200+ mile ranges. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was basing my saying on the Chevy Volt as the eco car that`s cheap enough to be affordable for an average American. It`s to be produced in the future, so I thought it`s the pinnacle of affordable eco car with middle Euro class type measurements. If there are offers you type, then I`m wrong but it`s good because it would seem the technology to change the world is here and today.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Which is antithetical to the principles of the United States, and is the Stalinist/Leninist movement that I mentioned earlier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to say it but it`s bigger that just the United States of America. If your goverment acts in time and with the right measures, maybe the USA stays the superpower, because all the today`s writers do, is preseeing it`s downfall.
I know that you`re born with some strong values and I understand. The truth is, the society can`t live the way it did earlier, it has to change or it will only go worse from here. History shows that`s been made in America before. The state imposed measures it had to and it worked. It worked after WWI, it worked after WWII.

Even if we have reserves up the arse, why blow it all? It's a horrible mentality, not dissimilar to living beyond our means economically, and look what that's got us. A little frugality isn't going to kill ya.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
see this is the kinda crap that scares me about the left.

the instant dismissal of any conservative view. i make a statment that doesnt fall into line and i get labeled a conservative.

im not even a freaking conservative. im very liberal. im just not a liberal of the fascist variety.


i almost never agree with any of the statements the right wingers your arguing with in here make. heck i dont even agree with them on the current topic.

but i can see their cause for concern with the fascist attitudes in here that some on the left seem to support. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Whatever man, you came here, blew some steam calling others names, and that`s about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are you trying to qualify me as another liberal pinko commie sympathizer? Is your reasoning actually able to perceive anything in a different way than political sympathies? Paranoia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try to open your mind for a change without connecting everyone to politics. Until you do that, don`t even bother.


Paranoid is what some people really are. I don`t see liberals or republicans.
The only thing I see here is people debating how to DO SOMETHING to resolve the crisis and work toghether to help the situation.

On the other hand I see those people face some really frustrated human beings who accuse them of fascism. Just because they are summoned by the society to sacrifice a little bit of their wasteful style of life and do their part.

All I see is people who want to actually do something and people who don`t give a damn.

You ignore any reason, trading it for accusations. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


well deserved accusations from the tone of yours and others posts.

you guys see a problem where there isnt really one and start screaming for others to make a sacrefice (and if they're not willing they will be forced i.e. facism), while at the same time your living a life that many in this world would kill for.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
I tend to agree except for one falsity:

Restricted energy use does not have to equal a restricted economy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

true, but when you get down to it the guy driving to the mail box is irrevelant. the savings from restricting usage like that are pretty much just symbolic.

its the sheer size of the western worlds economies that use up the lions share of the worlds energy. savings such as you posted about are just a drop in the bucket and will produce more ill will than any savings could compensate for.

that said, i repeat that im in favor of the new mileage standards. the goverment should reduce auto pollution (again real pollution not gw). and it should reduce the usa's dependence on foreign oil.

but it shouldnt be doing such things in the name of so called "fairness".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
I tend to agree except for one falsity:

Restricted energy use does not have to equal a restricted economy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That pretty well sums up how much Von_Rat knows about economy. Doesn`t matter how hard evidence you give, how good you try to explain.

The only good thing is, nowadays such people aren`t in charge .

Edit. anyways, this one has gone to dogs long ago, since the freedom fighters lost it, again giving credit to Mr. Godwin.

i know more about economics than someone who calls for restrictive measures and doesn't give a dam about the effects that a really meaningful and not just symbolic restriction will have on the economy.

you and your kind put "fairness" above the economy.


btw, i and my sister helped elect the people now in charge in the usa. with both time and money.

Lots of things to comment on in this thread, good discussion so far. Lots of talk about Liberal and Conservative, and that isn't so good. I hear in that too much the echoes of the 3rd Reich labeling anything, idea, person, place or thing, that they didn't like, didn't want to deal with, or wanted to discredit, Jewish. The labels, while convienient, have too much the tendency to cause us to stop thinking, stop seeing, make it too easy to dismiss what a person is saying. Browsing a bookstore, I came upon Naomi Wolf's new book, 'Give Me Liberty', which at first glance, seemed to me a funny title for one of Wolf's books. I opened to a random chapter and was surprised to find that Naomi and I agreed on something. Ms. Wolf, an ardent pro-choice advocate, recounted being invited to a seminar that brought pro-life and pro-choice advocates together. One of the exercises was to see if there wasn't some way to solve the abortion problem in America. She was surprised to find that the people she had always seen as the enemy, were in fact much more like herself that she would have guessed, having never really met anyone who didn't share her position on the matter. She found that the 'pro-life'label had in fact blinded her to the fact that her enemies were people of some good will who had come to their beliefs honestly, much as she had. She was further suprised to find that though both sides held their views deeply, they were able to come to a compromise that suited them all. (Ms. Wolf goes on to point out that the leadership of both camps have too much to lose to ever agree in such a manner, but I digress. ). In the same way, I find that much of our discussion of a political bent is effectivly over once the first Liberal/Consevative is tossed in. I encourage all of us to guard against this tendency.

Another point that I'd like to address is the nature of the United States. Much is made of democracy, which can be little more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. It remains that the US is a republic, our government formed for no other reason than to secure the rights of the individual. America is not a nation where the people are ruled by the government, much thought and effort was put into the formation of our government to prevent that. In this light it can be better understood that to be American is to decide things for yourself, free to make good decisions or bad, and to enjoy or suffer the consequences of such. Thus, to be told you have to drive this or that, or produce this or that, is at odds with the core ideal of this nation. In America you must persuade me, if you want my support.

Addressing the op, the biggest problem with the government setting these sorts of standards is that like anything, the participants will try and interpret the rules to their best advantage. It happens in racing, all sports, anything. The CAFE rules that the President plans to replace were meant to encourage auto makers to improve fuel economy, but they were structured in such a way that little more than lip service was paid to it. The new rules will be paid the same heed. As an alternative, how about setting an automaker's corporate tax rate as a function of how many of it's vehicles surpass mileage goals. That gives incentive to actually innovate.

A lot is said of how 'unfair' the US energy consumption is. I can't agree. I don't know of a single example where some other nation is deprived of a resource simply because the US uses so much of it. As demand grows, and competition for resources grows, I think we'll see a leveling of consumption. It isn't unfair for me to have more of something than you do, as long as I came by it fairly.

The argument of need has been advanced, and it's a very weak one indeed. To say that you shouldn't be allowed something because you don't need it is contrary to the idea of liberty, not least because of the issue of who decides the need? This argument reminds me very much of the old communist saying, "From each according to thier abilities, to each according to thier need". It doesn't work that way in America. Follow this way of thinking, and consider how much wouldn't exist: did anyone need to fly? Or take the train? Or sail across oceans?

Some of you are aware that I fly corporate jets for a living. This provides for an interesting viewpoint on many issues. Starting with the idea of need being the only valid reason for having something. While congress and the media got their jollies castigation the automakers for flying in on corporate jets, those very same people used private aircraft for their travel. Nancy Pelosi rates a 757 all her own to travel. I'll ask, if it's wrong for the automakers to use jets to travel and ask for money from us, the taxpayers, then how is it right for our lawmakers to use our money to travel privately in the same fashion? Nancy could easily catch a United flight out of Dulles, or at least use a VC20.

I've recounted the story before, but just in case some of you havn't heard it. We had a crew up at Teterboro and they noticed a G2 on the ramp where they parked. Talking to the G crew, they discovered that the jet was a charter to take Leonardo DeCaprio to Iceland for some meeting. While they watched, a couple of town cars arrived with the entourage, followed by a couple of Chevy Suburbans with the luggage. Finally Leo himself shows up with his girlfriend in a Prius. Now, if a guy was really serious about getting to Iceland with the smallest carbon footprint, this is not how to do it. It is a very good way to get to Iceland, however. You can travel on your schedule, don't have to worry about random people, can discuss things privatly, and it's more comfortable, by far. While I like to give Leo grief for what seems hypocritcal, I'm all for him to continue chartering jets. And if you can handle the price tag, I want you to do it too. If we find ourselves in a future where someone decides if you need to travel in such a fashion, you can be sure that the rich and powerful will 'need' to.

On the issues of pollution, global warming, et cetera. If you can get done what you need done for 20 gallons instead of 40, that's good. Less pollution is better than more. It's interesting that China called Friday for developed nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions 20 (40?)%. The Chinese, with their great respect for the environment, of course have no need to cut theirs. I say this to bring up the point that while nearly everything that burns fuel in America has gotten more fuel efficient, has gotten greener, I see that over the last 20 years inflight visibility has steadily worsened.

To bring a painfully long post to heel, the goal of what the President proposes is a good one, but the method to acheive this goal is flawed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jayhall0315:
These are the main statistics from the FBI and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (a state agency). If you have something that shows otherwise and is not from some quack, please bring me up to date. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. The CDC keeps detailed mortality figures for all deaths. Accidental firearm deaths in the age 1-17 for 2006 are 102, or about 16% of total accidental firearm deaths. The rate per 100,000 population is lower than that for adults and for the population as a whole.

Florida FWC (your source) reports 73 Manatee deaths from watercraft strikes for 2007 out of a total of 317 deaths, or about 23%.

A gruesome accounting to be sure, but characterizing these percentages as "many of" gives the wrong impression. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looked into this a bit more Target and I think you are right about the manatees. The 73 deaths seems to be correct. Thanks for the update. I prefer the scientific method at all times and this kind of fact checking helps to keep me on my toes.

(Although, there is much debate on how much man made pollution is affecting the fetal and stillborn manatee death rates)

On the other hand, I cant confirm the gun deaths stat of 103. It seems that the CDC says about 380 children under 17 died in accidental gun accidents and that number rises to 680 if you count all accidents under age 24. And I thought this was bad until I realized that this was only the deaths. 12,754 people were seriously injured (some for the rest of their lives) by gun accidents who were under the age of 24 in 2006. That is alot of maimed people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now give me some facts on how many people are maimed, dead, or have lost loved ones because of alcohol. It is by far a much much much much bigger killer/maimer then guns, so I can only assume that you are as much against alcohol as you are against guns? How about getting into your car or better yet riding a motorcycle, I wonder if you speak out against them as well? Or cancer, and other diseases. Seriously, there are so many other things more important then guns and who has them.

That said, I think guns are a problem, but lack of education and those getting guns illegally is a bigger one.

What is this crisis everyone is talking about? It is like the Earth is going to spontaniously burst into flames. That would be totally awesome to see from space.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
its the sheer size of the western worlds economies that use up the lions share of the worlds energy. savings such as you posted about are just a drop in the bucket and will produce more ill will than any savings could compensate for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If US cars had the same economy levels as those in Western Europe, it would save about 5 million barrels of oil a day, which is about 6% of world oil consumption. That's not a trivial amount. With oil at $60 a barrel it would mean the US importing about $300 million less oil a day, or a saving of about $110 billion a year.

And of course it would help keep oil prices lower, increasing the savings further.

It wouldn't require any major changes in lifestyle, either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
its the sheer size of the western worlds economies that use up the lions share of the worlds energy. savings such as you posted about are just a drop in the bucket and will produce more ill will than any savings could compensate for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If US cars had the same economy levels as those in Western Europe, it would save about 5 million barrels of oil a day, which is about 6% of world oil consumption. That's not a trivial amount. With oil at $60 a barrel it would mean the US importing about $300 million less oil a day, or a saving of about $110 billion a year.

And of course it would help keep oil prices lower, increasing the savings further.

It wouldn't require any major changes in lifestyle, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that just cars, or does that include all the big trucks(delivery), tractor trailer trucks, and big working man trucks that are needed out west(yes there are ******s out here that drive monster trucks for no reason, I don't mean them)? I don't see a change like that a bad thing at all, I wouldn't minde it actually, but I just hate being forced to do something I don't want to or that isn't warented. It won't save anyone any money as the price of gas would sky rocket both here and around the world, wouldn't it? If so, everything you buy would then be more expensive, which would mean more layoffs and less jobs. Its a no win in my opinion, for something that isn't proven to be true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
its the sheer size of the western worlds economies that use up the lions share of the worlds energy. savings such as you posted about are just a drop in the bucket and will produce more ill will than any savings could compensate for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If US cars had the same economy levels as those in Western Europe, it would save about 5 million barrels of oil a day, which is about 6% of world oil consumption. That's not a trivial amount. With oil at $60 a barrel it would mean the US importing about $300 million less oil a day, or a saving of about $110 billion a year.

And of course it would help keep oil prices lower, increasing the savings further.

It wouldn't require any major changes in lifestyle, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Has the USA grown out of its Wild West days? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There never were any Wild West days. At best there were one or two towns that were the wild west. The rest were just frontier towns trying to get by.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
its the sheer size of the western worlds economies that use up the lions share of the worlds energy. savings such as you posted about are just a drop in the bucket and will produce more ill will than any savings could compensate for. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If US cars had the same economy levels as those in Western Europe, it would save about 5 million barrels of oil a day, which is about 6% of world oil consumption. That's not a trivial amount. With oil at $60 a barrel it would mean the US importing about $300 million less oil a day, or a saving of about $110 billion a year.

And of course it would help keep oil prices lower, increasing the savings further.

It wouldn't require any major changes in lifestyle, either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

6% isnt going to change the world. it isnt going to lift third world countrys up to the same level as europe or the us. so it wont help anything in the name of "fairness".

it will however decrease real air pollution and decrease to a small amount (probaly just symbolic)) the usa's dependence on foreign oil.

i have nothing against high mileage cars and reducing air pollution. heck im all for it.

its that stupid "fairness" argument that grinds my gears.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by uppurrz:
Has the USA grown out of its Wild West days?

If an F1 car can weigh 800kg then I don't see why a normal car can't weigh 500kg and still be a fairly big car (in size). And 500kg will accelerate extremely well on as little as 40hp.
And if it has the height of a Ferrari then it will also go 100mph+ on 40hp.

So personally I favor limiting all car weights to 500kg and leaving it at that - no emissions caps.
And it also keeps you safe from crashes with SUVs because there will be noone driving SUVs for safety - safety in a crash is 90% a matter of conservation of momentum.
(this leaves the problem of crashes with trucks unanswered but I'm sure something can be done about this with enough thinking in highway code or infrastructural context)

The benefit to limiting car weight that much is that you simply can't get it done with existing production methods and materials, so it also forces massive innovation and entrepreneurship - it also gives a massive boost to the economy. And if everyone has to buy a 'new car' then than it's a safe boost - demand is guaranteed.
I suppose the car companies at present are simply not the kind of organizations that can innovate any longer, but that means that they will either have to become such organizations, or the field will be wide open for start-ups and airplane making companies (which is not the case at present).

A simple emission limit is achievable by shrinking ordinary cars, so it has no economy boosting potential.

Capping car weights and emission caps have the exact same greenhouse gas limiting effect, but neither are a solution because the only solution is a non-oil-based energy generation for the whole industrial infrastructure.
Capping car weights is better in that respect, because a major car redesign can make the new cars more easily adaptable to different energy sources with minor redesigns, if some of them they are not electric cars already running on electricity from oil-fired power plants.

From what I have read, the average weight of a US automobile has increased 500 lbs in the past 20-odd years as a result of successive government crash worthiness and emissions control dictates. Auto fuel efficiency &gt;maxima&lt; (Honda CRV, for example) were actually higher in the mid-80's than they are today.

BTW, has anyone noticed the gigantic recent natural gas strike in Louisiana - equivalent to 33 billion barrels of oil, enough to supposedly supply energy equivalent to 18 years of US oil consumption at current usage rates.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is that just cars, or does that include all the big trucks(delivery), tractor trailer trucks, and big working man trucks that are needed out west(yes there are ******s out here that drive monster trucks for no reason, I don't mean them)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Europe has lots of trucks too. US trucks are very close to the efficiency of European ones.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It won't save anyone any money as the price of gas would sky rocket both here and around the world, wouldn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it will slump. Oil is expensive when there is little excess capacity.

Look at the position over the last year. In spring 2008 oil production was running almost flat out everywhere. Spare capacity was almost non existent. The price went over $140 a barrel. Then the recession hit, demand fell heavily, and the price went down to less than $40 a barrel.

If the US used 5 million barrels of oil less a day, spare production capacity would increase by 5 million barrels a day. That will have a major downward effect on prices.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Care to cite *any* statistics for that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The EPA in the US publishes an annual report on the fuel economy of all "light duty vehicles" sold in the US. For 2008 the figure was 20.8 mpg. It's been rising for several years (as you'd expect with rising oil prices). In 1998 it was 20.1 mpg.

The European figure is 40 mpg. http://www.msnbc.msnid/17344368/

That's almost exactly twice the consumption for the US as Europe.

US gasoline demand is over 9 million barrels a day, even in the current economic climate.

Note that this is just based on Americans driving smaller more efficient cars, not on them driving less.

Sadly, supply and demand aren't the only forces driving oil prices. OPEC does their bit, and a recent report in Forbes magazine says that last year's spike was due to Goldman-Sachs manipulating the oil futures market in a successful attempt to ruin a company called SemGroup, whose CEO was heavily involved in futures trading. (Sounds just like the movie, Trading Places, don't it?). The story got mentioned in the local paper, which was ultimatly more interested in the man's alleged extramarital affairs. Funny thing, maybe a coincidence, but prices fell soon after SemGroup filed bankruptcy.

Ironic, I watched a muscle car auction last night. What great cars. Difficult to care about mileage when a 454 Chevelle convertable is under the lights. Numbers matched, too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erco415:
Sadly, supply and demand aren't the only forces driving oil prices. OPEC does their bit, and a recent report in Forbes magazine says that last year's spike was due to Goldman-Sachs manipulating the oil futures market in a successful attempt to ruin a company called SemGroup, whose CEO was heavily involved in futures trading. (Sounds just like the movie, Trading Places, don't it?). The story got mentioned in the local paper, which was ultimatly more interested in the man's alleged extramarital affairs. Funny thing, maybe a coincidence, but prices fell soon after SemGroup filed bankruptcy.

Ironic, I watched a muscle car auction last night. What great cars. Difficult to care about mileage when a 454 Chevelle convertable is under the lights. Numbers matched, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


. Interesting re this SemGroup contretemps. Can you recommend any background material on it?

I'll be interested to see whether the credit crunch curtails the sort of oil speculation we witnessed last summer.

BTW, your earlier post = +100. It's refreshing to read a well presented, wellreasoned post from a well informed individual who has no ideological axe to grind.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW, your earlier post = +100. It's refreshing to read a well presented, wellreasoned post from a well informed individual who has no ideological axe to grind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks guys. I can't link to the stories from my phone, but google Semgroup + Goldman Sachs and you'll hit paydirt. It doesn't surprise me that an Oklahoma newspaper is more interested in infidelity than in wholesale robbery, but where are our major media types? Heads have rolled for much less with much less proof.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gurypuddle:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW, your earlier post = +100. It's refreshing to read a well presented, wellreasoned post from a well informed individual who has no ideological axe to grind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Very well said Erco. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If fuel prices in the US were anything near what they are in Germany (current standing around 14,90 $per gallon) the problem of fuel guzzlers would solve itself. It worked wonders over here http://forums.ubigroupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[email protected] addition: However, a large part of the fuel price in Germany depends on mineral oil tax. This tax was introduced in imperial german times to stabilize the economically challenged colonies in Africa. Hmmm. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/shady.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
If fuel prices in the US were anything near what they are in Germany (current standing around 14,90 $per gallon) the problem of fuel guzzlers would solve itself. It worked wonders over here http://forums.ubigroupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[email protected] addition: However, a large part of the fuel price in Germany depends on mineral oil tax. This tax was introduced in imperial german times to stabilize the economically challenged colonies in Africa. Hmmm. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/shady</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm indeed. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

It also helps that public transport is very good in Germany. I even noticed that things are well organised especially in smaller towns for bicycles as well. Helps that German cars are a bit better in terms of fuel efficiency for the most part as well. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/10.gif

as someone who lives and works in a rural area, i'd much rather have a hi mileage car than have gas taxed at european rates in order to get people to use less.

i have to use what i use. i have no choice, theres is no public transport here except for a few mini buses to take the elderly around. any large scale public transport here would be doomed anyway because of the low population density.


and dont say somthing stupid like move closer to work. hundreds of people work there and there's not a enough houses, let alone houses for sale near it. for good reasons its in the middle of a refuge.

carpooling is a possibility, however during the last gas crunch i did some investigating among my fellow workers. we all live at the four points of the compass. carpooling for many of them, including me, wouldnt be of much help.

in short, public transportation and high goverment taxes on gas might work wonders in urban areas. but the rural working man will get screwed again.


btw i used to live in chicago. i hated waiting for buses in february, froze my friggen arse off.

I have been reading this thread with interest and finally decided it was time to say something.

First, while I dislike government telling the people that they need to be more frugal with fuel, it is obvious we are behind the curve when it comes to developing vehicles that get better fuel milage and it is something that the automakers here in the US have fought tooth and nail over the years. It is good that they are being told to do so.

That said, I also know that we have come a long way from the days of carburated vehicles. As a former mechanic, I always liked fixing those over fuel injected cars. They were easier to diagnose and fix.

The biggest problem is not the fact that cars do not get more MPG, it's the fact that people do not properly maintain their vehicles. I had a 77 Cougar (4 door no less and only the second owner) that got great gas milage, at least on the highway, and so so milage in the city. I most likely could have driven the 597 miles from my place to my folks on one tank of gas (28 gallons) if I were so inclined to attempt it, but I never allowed the tank to get below 1/4 full.

People do not fix oil leaks, change the oil when needed or even get the vehicles checked out when the check engine light is on (it really does mean that there is something wrong and fuel efficency is decreased and emissions have increased, at least with vehicles made since 96). Air pressure in tires are not kept up properly. This increases fuel usage as well as overinflation.

Anyone can own whatever vehicle they want, but is it really practical? Soccer moms driving SUVs around that never go off-road just to drive Suzie and Johnny to their activities (along with their friends) could do so in a minivan or better yet, a station wagon (which is what the minivan and SUV are being used as). Jose with the big wing over the back of his pickup shows that he is more worried about styling than actually hauling anything, not practical. Many of you complain of rednecks and hillbillies with the trucks with big tires and raised up, but at least they are taken off-road unlike that Expedition with air ride suspension (not off-road capable really and expensive to repair if one blows out). Also is it really practical for a family man to have a Mini Cooper for a primary vehicle?

The US does have a long way to go before we catch up to where the rest of the world is as far as fuel efficent vehicles and it stinks that the government has to push the automakers to do so, but they wouldn't otherwise. They didn't learn back in the 70's and they didn't learn in the 90's and early 00's and now they are asking for help to survive. Something they didn't learn very well with foreign automakers kicking them from the top of the sales list.

On the public transportation front, I really liked Germany's system. I rode the train from the airport to the city, then caught a cab to the hotel. I could walk to eat and was able to ride the light rail/trolley to the convention center each day.

US cities could learn a lot from this. New York and Chicago have the best transit systems here in the US. Atlanta has a moderate system, but the outlying counties need to catch up and get buses to where the people live (this is the problem with suburban neigborhoods). I live between 2 bus routes and the closest is just under a mile away and that is how I get around.

Agree with most of what you say here, with the exception that the gov needs to push automakers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles. Why? Don't Honda/Toyota/etc make such vehicles? If people want these cars, and it seems they do, let them buy them from automakers that care to make them. If the US manufacturers don't care to do so, then let them suffer the fate of the market. They'll never learn if they know that a bailout is always to be had.

That's not to say that I oppose our gov giving automakers incentives to improve their fuel efficiency fleetwide.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erco415:
If the US manufacturers don't care to do so, then let them suffer the fate of the market. They'll never learn if they know that a bailout is always to be had. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As the bailout money showed, this has little to do with the fate of the market. As you may know, the main reason why they got their bailout money was that letting them rot would put tens of thousands people workless, thus making the costs much greater.
Main automakers in USA don`t have to be efficent, as long as the fate of too many people rest on their shoulders.

There`s no reason to think they wouldn`t get that money again and again thus no reason to learn a lesson.

I live in a rural area. City dwellers would probably call me a hillbilly. I own two Ford trucks, and a 28 foot boat. I also own guns, and I am neither Democrat or Republican. I also work in a coal-fired, steam turbine power plant.
The air where I live is clean, and smells good and fresh. If you don't like the pollution, then get out of the city! The "city dwellers" are the cause of most of the pollution. no smog problems here.

Here is my daily driver. I get around 46 mpg.
http://i74.photobucketalbums/i274/13thAFMonterey/trlr1.jpg

To be fair comparing Germany's public transportation system with the USA is not wholly appropriate. Just look at the map and at the size of both countries. Plus german public transportation is heavily subsidized by the state (or it wouldn't be even halfway profitable).

But: What needs to change in the US is the mental picture of cars. For decades the US car makers put that image into people's minds that only almost-tanks guzzling more fuel than a jet on take-off are "truly american cars" (I got CNN over here, too). This mixing of patriotism with sheer development laziness has to come to an end.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erco415:
Agree with most of what you say here, with the exception that the gov needs to push automakers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles. Why? Don't Honda/Toyota/etc make such vehicles? If people want these cars, and it seems they do, let them buy them from automakers that care to make them. If the US manufacturers don't care to do so, then let them suffer the fate of the market. They'll never learn if they know that a bailout is always to be had.

That's not to say that I oppose our gov giving automakers incentives to improve their fuel efficiency fleetwide. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


. I agree that Honda/Toyota have eaten the American auto industry's lunch because they make better quality more desirable autos. Mileage is IMO a secondary factor.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
To be fair comparing Germany's public transportation system with the USA is not wholly appropriate. Just look at the map and at the size of both countries. Plus german public transportation is heavily subsidized by the state (or it wouldn't be even halfway profitable).

But: What needs to change in the US is the mental picture of cars. For decades the US car makers put that image into people's minds that only almost-tanks guzzling more fuel than a jet on take-off are "truly american cars" (I got CNN over here, too). This mixing of patriotism with sheer development laziness has to come to an end. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


. Of course, generally speaking, US public transportation is also heavily subsidized by government, but still operates at a heavy loss

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sadly, supply and demand aren't the only forces driving oil prices. OPEC does their bit </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OPEC regulates supply. They have the upper hand when prices are high, but history shows when prices are low OPEC members simply ignore their quotas.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The biggest problem is not the fact that cars do not get more MPG, it's the fact that people do not properly maintain their vehicles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The average new car/light truck sold in the US gets 20.8 mpg, that's according to the official EPA figures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The US does have a long way to go before we catch up to where the rest of the world is as far as fuel efficent vehicles and it stinks that the government has to push the automakers to do so, but they wouldn't otherwise. They didn't learn back in the 70's and they didn't learn in the 90's and early 00's and now they are asking for help to survive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not really the car makers fault. They made the cars people wanted. When fuel was cheap who cared about fuel consumption?

The problem is when the fuel price goes up, people still have the same cars. The average age of a car in the US is something like 8 - 10 years, last I heard. That means when the price spikes, people have to put up with high fuel bills for years before they can replace their cars.

I'm all in favour of the market deciding in most things, but this is one of those areas where the market doesn't work very well because people don't know what the oil price will be in years to come.

It works in Europe because fuel is taxed heavily and everyone knows the price will be high next year, higher still 10 years from now. So people choose cars with good economy. In the US a lot of people believe low prices are the norm and last year was just a function of "speculators".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">a recent report in Forbes magazine says that last year's spike was due to Goldman-Sachs manipulating the oil futures market in a successful attempt to ruin a company called SemGroup, whose CEO was heavily involved in futures trading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The CFTC report was pretty clear that fundamental supply and demand issues were behind the oil price. Interestingly enough, whilst various groups involved with the financial markets pointed to speculation, the two big western oil watchdogs, the EIA and IEA, both put the oil price rise down to fundamentals.

You only have to look at those fundamentals. The 3 highest oil production months every were in 2005, 2006 and 2008. Between 2005 and 2008, despite a booming world economy, oil production stagnated. With growth rates running so high the world would have been using a lot more oil in 2008 than in 2005, if it hadn't been for the high prices.

It's worth noting that speculators are now driving up the price somewhat, but they are doing so by buying oil and storing it for resale later, when they expect the price to be higher. I have yet to see any plausible method by which they could have been driving prices up last year without taking physical delivery of the oil (and thus removing it from the market).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Funny thing, maybe a coincidence, but prices fell soon after SemGroup filed bankruptcy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They actually fell before. The oil price peaked on 12 July. By the 22nd, the day Semgroup filed for bankruptcy, the price had already fallen $20 a barrel.

US gasoline consumption:
2006
May 9.32 mbd
Jun 9.44
Jul 9.60

As you can see, despite the higher prices consumption rose in 2007. But in June and July 2008 demand in the US started to see major falls. And it wasn't just in the US.

On the other side of the coin oil production peaked in July 2008, with an increase of about 600,000 barrels a day over previous months.

So you had slumping demand at the same time as increased supplies were coming to market. The fundamentals dictated a fall in the oil price.

I happen to work for a major (top 5 worldwide) automotive supplier.

Hybrids and the "genius" of american car makers:

The first hybrid vehicle of Ford was the "Explorer", not the biggest one, but still a SUV. Fords electrical system is the crappiest one of all car makers, thats what they are known for in my company. Thus we were almost unable to succesfully install the brkae-by-wire system needed for the hybrid drive. Instead of improving the electrical system to sufficient levels, Ford (customer is king) just forced us to do the implementation at all cost with questionable result.

GM installed hybrid technology first into the Dodge Durango. I have seen that thing on our test track. From a european view its a HUGE dinosaur SUV with the aerodynamics of a brick wall, featuring a V8 5,6l engine, producing some 300HP with a top speed of 180km (110mph), weighing some 3 tons (empty). What a brilliant idea to fit future hybrid technology to a car that whas known at the time of its introduction to sell like ice cream on a very cold day.

Meanwhile Toyota fitted the Prius with hybrids they developed on their own (including brake system). From what i hve heared that thing sold in the states like clod german beer on a real hot day.


Ford:
They are widely regarded for having real crappy quality, arent they?
Well, they still have their own "Ford bible" for quality and try to tell suppliers like us (most succesful supplier wordlwide in the past few years with incredible increase in quality lately) how to make good quality products.
How funny is that?

When dealing with guys like Toyota and Nissan, better be prepared to get asked a loooooooooot of questions about your product. They definitely want to make sure that they get good quality with almost no compomise. And when they do compromises, they know which ones. When dealing with the "big 3", sorry, but we sold a LOT of BS stories to them.
It was also the Japanese who "forced" us to reduce the failure rates for our brake systmes in the past few years from several 100s down to 10 (!) with the simple argument that this is their STANDARD! First we went "W T F", but guess what, it was doable.

No offense to americans, but i agree that the "big 3" are still "resting on the accomplishments" from the past. Even before the big crisis it was obvious that they didnt want /couldt learn and improve to state of the art.
Like in evolution, they were outperformed by some rather small mammals (Japanese and Euros to a part).

So some may view the new rules of the Obama administration as a violation of the constitutional rights. Its a question of principle.
Talking about what "works" and what needs to be done, Obama is maybe on the right track. He seems to try and push the car makers (and the customers) into the right direction. That direction is imo not necessary "fuel consumption" but the new cutting edge technology behind. Either they make it or americans will have to get comfy with the thought that they do NOT have the choice anymore to buy domestic cars, because. there arent any left.

To the question, if we still have enough fuel for the next 10 ot 1000 years. Lets be honest guys: mankind is lazy a lot sometimes. Do we really want to wait until fuel runs out, 10 or 1000 years, only to find out we dont have a backup plan for (big) engines/cars relying on fossile fuels?
Imo pushing automotive technology forward, regardless when the ressource will be running dry is a forward looking idea.

One last note on the question of principle: Just last year (afaik) the US government (and car makers?) have agreed that from 2010 on, every car produced in the USA has to be fitted with an anti-brake-lock system, thus cutting the freedom of everyone to buy a (new) unsafe car and kill himself with stupid driving.
Yet i have not heared of a big howl in the public, because the valuable freedom of individuals was cut.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monterey13:
The "city dwellers" are the cause of most of the pollution. no smog problems here.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I agree with that I don't want to live in a city center, but to be honest your claim is wrong. The "city dwellers" can use less resources and thus pollute less than dwellers in the country side.

That can be achieved by living in a high rise building and using public transport. That way you can minimize your "ecological footprint" because you share all the resources with others. No need to warm separate buildings for every family or driving long distances in separate cars.
The moment a family moves from the centre to their own small house outside of the city and buys a car, they start to pollute considerably more.

But like I said, I wouldn't like to live in a city center either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JZG_Thiem:
Re: american car makers

I happen to work for a major (top 5 worldwide) automotive supplier.

Hybrids and the "genius" of american car makers:

The first hybrid vehicle of Ford was the "Explorer", not the biggest one, but still a SUV. Fords electrical system is the crappiest one of all car makers, thats what they are known for in my company. Thus we were almost unable to succesfully install the brkae-by-wire system needed for the hybrid drive. Instead of improving the electrical system to sufficient levels, Ford (customer is king) just forced us to do the implementation at all cost with questionable result.

GM installed hybrid technology first into the Dodge Durango. I have seen that thing on our test track. From a european view its a HUGE dinosaur SUV with the aerodynamics of a brick wall, featuring a V8 5,6l engine, producing some 300HP with a top speed of 180km (110mph), weighing some 3 tons (empty). What a brilliant idea to fit future hybrid technology to a car that whas known at the time of its introduction to sell like ice cream on a very cold day.

Meanwhile Toyota fitted the Prius with hybrids they developed on their own (including brake system). From what i hve heared that thing sold in the states like clod german beer on a real hot day.


Ford:
They are widely regarded for having real crappy quality, arent they?
Well, they still have their own "Ford bible" for quality and try to tell suppliers like us (most succesful supplier wordlwide in the past few years with incredible increase in quality lately) how to make good quality products.
How funny is that?

When dealing with guys like Toyota and Nissan, better be prepared to get asked a loooooooooot of questions about your product. They definitely want to make sure that they get good quality with almost no compomise. And when they do compromises, they know which ones. When dealing with the "big 3", sorry, but we sold a LOT of BS stories to them.
It was also the Japanese who "forced" us to reduce the failure rates for our brake systmes in the past few years from several 100s down to 10 (!) with the simple argument that this is their STANDARD! First we went "W T F", but guess what, it was doable.

No offense to americans, but i agree that the "big 3" are still "resting on the accomplishments" from the past. Even before the big crisis it was obvious that they didnt want /couldt learn and improve to state of the art.
Like in evolution, they were outperformed by some rather small mammals (Japanese and Euros to a part).

So some may view the new rules of the Obama administration as a violation of the constitutional rights. Its a question of principle.
Talking about what "works" and what needs to be done, Obama is maybe on the right track. He seems to try and push the car makers (and the customers) into the right direction. That direction is imo not necessary "fuel consumption" but the new cutting edge technology behind. Either they make it or americans will have to get comfy with the thought that they do NOT have the choice anymore to buy domestic cars, because. there arent any left.

To the question, if we still have enough fuel for the next 10 ot 1000 years. Lets be honest guys: mankind is lazy a lot sometimes. Do we really want to wait until fuel runs out, 10 or 1000 years, only to find out we dont have a backup plan for (big) engines/cars relying on fossile fuels?
Imo pushing automotive technology forward, regardless when the ressource will be running dry is a forward looking idea.

One last note on the question of principle: Just last year (afaik) the US government (and car makers?) have agreed that from 2010 on, every car produced in the USA has to be fitted with an anti-brake-lock system, thus cutting the freedom of everyone to buy a (new) unsafe car and kill himself with stupid driving.
Yet i have not heared of a big howl in the public, because the valuable freedom of individuals was cut. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with everything you said, I used to work at an Auto Auction while going to college. I drove a bunch of slightly used to brand new vehicles. A lot of them. At 2 years old the American cars were nearly junk to almost junk, while Honda, Toyota, and Nissan where still almost like new. VW was in the middle of the two and the German(they were very clean) autos were also not as nice as the Japanese makes.

The only thing I don't agree with is what Obama is doing with the big three. They should fail, you make a crap product, screwing the consumer, if that comes back to screw you, it should.

As far as automobile safety standards go, I beleive the government asked the auto makers to change a safety standard, and they agreed. They weren't forced into anything, and I can still unhook any safety device in any car I choose to. I can do that legally. Of course I'm not going to make a big deal of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Euro NCAT issues four stars out of five to the Smart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">5th Gear has a test where they slammed smart cars into concrete walls at 70mph

The protective cage didnt deform at all and the doors could still be opened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Car into solid barrier tests are quite good for small cars because small cars have less kinetic energy (because they are light). What shows up the problems of small cars in accidents are tests where a small car crashes in to a large one. Then you have to worry about the total kinetic energy.

The German ADAC crash tested an Audi Q7 against a Fiat 500:
http://jalopnik399523/fia. patibility-standards (http://jalopnik399523/fiat-500-sacrificed-by-audi-q7-to-encourage-crash-compatibility-standards)

The Audi q7 gets 4 stars for adult occupant protection from Euro NCAP. The Fiat 500 gets 5. The test showed people in the Audi would be uninjured, the people in the Fiat seriously injured.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People don't want to spend money on gas, but they do want certain types of vehicles. Offer those vehicles in a high mileage and low mileage variants, and most folks will take the one that puts more money in their pockets, as long as it gives them the things they want in a vehicle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fuel consumption is a function of size and weight. You cannot have a frugal 3 ton 7 seater 4 wheel drive vehicle.

European cars don't have better fuel economy because they are better designs (although diesel engines help). They have lower consumption because they are smaller and lighter and have less powerful engines.

Erco, what is your friend's take on the mercury pollution from those CFL bulbs?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Audi q7 gets 4 stars for adult occupant protection from Euro NCAP. The Fiat 500 gets 5. The test showed people in the Audi would be uninjured, the people in the Fiat seriously injured. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If less people were driving SUVs, less danger would be on the streets. Quite simple.
And please don't tell me that soccer-mommy, talking on the phone, trying to calm the kids and propably goin too fast ain't a danger to be dealt with.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">European cars don't have better fuel economy because they are better designs (although diesel engines help). They have lower consumption because they are smaller and lighter and have less powerful engines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus, they are better designs.
What's the use of putting huge engines into overweight designs anyway? Crash safety? Please!

How about thinking of preventing crashes in the first place?

We don't have general speed-restrictions on our Autobahns, yet we still have a lower ratio of people being killed in traffic accidents (that's per capita) than most other western countries.
Coincidence?
Don't think so.

Quite right, Hop, about size and weigh being major factors in a vehicles' mileage. It remains that most people are eager to adopt new tecnologies that are of benefit to them and affordable. I love my 97 Ford Explorer for it's driving position, towing and carrying capacity, and surefootedness in snow/ice. These are the things I value it for. I don't really care what sort of prime mover is in it, what fuel it uses, or how much it weighs. Give me a vehicle me that does the things I like my Ford for, burns less fuel, and is still affordable, and I'll switch happily. I don't believe that such a thing is technically unfeasable. I do believe that the US automakers focused too much on giving the customers what they want at the least possible development cost and not at building innovation and maximum value into their vehicles while giving the customer what he wants.

Uppurrs, he didn't really say much about the mercury issue, other than he thought that people who were concerned about it ought to retain the option to purchase a suitable alternative. Personally, I can't stand the things, and mercury's the least of it. I don't like the light they give, the warm up time, or the noise they make. Plus, I'm hooked on the GE 'clear white' incandescents. I'm counting on the new LED and mini plasma light bulbs, which give a light I like and use less energy and generate less heat then even the CFL's, to replace
my incandescents, they're almost ready at a price I can handle.

Brems, what does need have to do with it? As I pointed out earlier, need is a lousy argument in a free society. Who decides if your 'need' is acceptable? If you decide that people can't have an SUV because they don't need it, wouldn't it be just as fair for someone to decide that YOU can't have something because your need isn't valid?

Brems is more of an authoritarian than a libertarian. He does not see a need for something, so it does not need to exist. He also does not live in the U.S. and does not see what what most North Americans use SUVs for. (Most really do not need one, but think that they are more "Macho" when driving one.) They paid thier money for what they wanted, so far be it for me to say they don't NEED it.

If you all were really so concerned about fuel milage and other eco concerns, then you would be riding a bicycle or motorcycle, of around 90cc, all the time. If you aren't doing that, then you are just talking out your rear end!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He does not see a need for something, so it does not need to exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only there is no need for SUVs, they also harm the environment much more than other types of cars - that's the difference.

I don't give a fcuk if something is needed or not, but when the only purpose of a thing consists of dcik enlarrgement and the effect is increased emissions of carbon-oxides, then yes, I'm all for outlawing those kinds of cars.

ive seen the 5th gear test of the Smart car. your legs would have been crushed beyond repair & your torso would have had the life knocked out of it

smart cars are a great design - but in car crashes. physics dont care how smart you are.

SUV's appeal to peoples nature. thats what your up against Bremspropeller

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I don't give a fcuk if something is needed or not, but when the only purpose of a thing consists of dcik enlarrgement and the effect is increased emissions of carbon-oxides, then yes, I'm all for outlawing those kinds of cars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


. You contradict yourself in the same sentence. And I think you are situated on a very slippery intellectual slope.

Brems, using your logic, you must also be against various sports type cars that get worse mileage than an SUV. I suppose you also hate airshows, especially the ones with jet aircraft involved that burn more fuel in twenty minutes than a SUV does in a year (God forbid a formation team perform). Really, no one needs that sort of thing. I can't wait to explain to all of these women that the only reason they like their SUV's is because of a case of double ***** envy- once to have one and again for it to be bigger! To simplify, would you please define what sort of mileage is acceptable? That would really make it easier to decide if I needed a car or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If less people were driving SUVs, less danger would be on the streets. Quite simple.
And please don't tell me that soccer-mommy, talking on the phone, trying to calm the kids and propably goin too fast ain't a danger to be dealt with.

Nobody needs SUVs.
Period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's not true. Some people need SUVs, vans, pickups etc.

What's true is that a lot of people who don't need such a vehicle drive one anyway, especially in the US.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Thus, they are better designs.
What's the use of putting huge engines into overweight designs anyway? Crash safety? Please! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant "technology" rather than "design", my mistake.

The point of huge engines in overweight vehicles is you can have cheaper comfortable vehicles. It's not a route I'd chose, but Americans seem to like them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I love my 97 Ford Explorer for it's driving position, towing and carrying capacity, and surefootedness in snow/ice. These are the things I value it for. I don't really care what sort of prime mover is in it, what fuel it uses, or how much it weighs. Give me a vehicle me that does the things I like my Ford for, burns less fuel, and is still affordable, and I'll switch happily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You cannot have a vehicle that will do everything an Explorer does with substantially better fuel consumption. You could improve it a bit with lighter materials, but the cost would increase a lot.

The problem is Americans are using huge gas guzzlers for things that can be achieved just as easily with a small hatchback.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They paid thier money for what they wanted, so far be it for me to say they don't NEED it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oil is a limited resource. Self interest says everyone should consume as much as they like now, because no individual's reduction will make a difference. Read "Tragedy of the Commons" for a full discussion of why that's the case.

That logic leads us to a position where oil is cheap until it begins to run out. People are then forced by price to reduce consumption, but because the average age of a vehicle on the roads is about 10 years, they face reducing consumption whilst driving a large vehicle with very poor mileage.

We had a brief taste of that last year. We were "saved" by the worst global recession since WW2. Next time will be worse.

So, does everyone have the "right" to use a limited resource as fast as they like? That of course increases the price for the rest of us.

The argument that people should be allowed to **** up the atmosphere just for the sake of having a choice is really epic http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/88.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, that's not true. Some people need SUVs, vans, pickups etc.

What's true is that a lot of people who don't need such a vehicle drive one anyway, especially in the US. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell me who actually needs SUVs - cars that neither serve you in cruising that well, nor do they do you any good off-road.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I meant "technology" rather than "design", my mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last time I checked, european and asian engines were more efficient.
That's paired with lighter frames.
That's what I call "technology".


I don't get why people argue about the cost in money when they have to pay those "bargains" with their own health.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Brems, using your logic, you must also be against various sports type cars that get worse mileage than an SUV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep.
I actually like the new Formula 1 step towards smaller engines.
Racing has always been a good platform for research.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I suppose you also hate airshows, especially the ones with jet aircraft involved that burn more fuel in twenty minutes than a SUV does in a year (God forbid a formation team perform). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, depends on the aircraft and engines used.
When all your aircraft can bring up is a lousy Lymcoming, I'd tend to agree with you http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/59.gif

Oh yeah, military formation-teams are waste of tax-payers' money anyway.

BTW: there is a difference between having a rarely flown aircraft/ oldtimer car and your everyday fuelhog that's beeen used for drives that could easily accomplished by bike.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> To simplify, would you please define what sort of mileage is acceptable? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wanna play the smart-*** game?
A car that has REASONABLE performance and efficiency.
Anything less than 40 mpg is a joke, given today's technology.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

heck don't euro car makers produce some cars that get pretty sucky mileage? and their standards are even higher. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but then they are Ferrari's, Aston's, Pagani's, Bentley's and Jaguar's etc. They still have to meet emission and noise standards. Generally gas guzzlers in Europe are either luxury or sports cars. That said some turbo diesel Jaguars are extremely fuel efficient.

right exactly - you CAN have a fast, powerful and responsible car and you could have had them built right here in the USA - if the automakers were 'nt in bed with big oil they would have been in production and leading the world market AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. but no - we chose to ignore the '73 embargo and resume guzzler production shortly afterward.

Then even in the face of RECORD profit taking by the big oil corporations even as we were at phoney war - our auto mfgs continued to build and push behemoth SUV's and trucks on our ignorant and belligerent populace all the while screaming about PATRIOTISM and THE AMERICAN WAY - the real problem is that we are stupid enough as a whole - to buy into that crap.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
right exactly - you CAN have a fast, powerful and responsible car and you could have had them built right here in the USA - if the automakers were 'nt in bed with big oil they would have been in production and leading the world market AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN. but no - we chose to ignore the '73 embargo and resume guzzler production shortly afterward.

Then even in the face of RECORD profit taking by the big oil corporations even as we were at phoney war - our auto mfgs continued to build and push behemoth SUV's and trucks on our ignorant and belligerent populace all the while screaming about PATRIOTISM and THE AMERICAN WAY - the real problem is that we are stupid enough as a whole - to buy into that crap. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Useful website -
http://www.btspublication. l/table_04_11_m(http://www.btspublications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_11_m.html)

After wading through the historical data, some interesting points emerge:

1. Between 1975 and 2005, average passenger car fuel economy has improved by 58 pct.

2. The average fuel economy of passenger cars AND other 2-axle 4-tire vehicles [suv's, etc] on overall fuel economy, weighted for miles travelled by each class is as follows:

Passenger car avg mileage---5.925----7.413----8.980----9.380 - km/liter
Other 2-axle avg mileage----4.500----6.100----7.400----7.500 - km/liter

Combined aggregate mileage--5.690----7.100----8.420----8.669 - km/liter
weighted for mileage travelled
by each

Difference: aggregate------[-4 pct] [-4 pct] [-6 pct] [-7.6 pct]
mileage vs passenger car
mileage alone

Mileage driven [passenger---1.987----2.636----3.585----4.424 - km
cars + other 2-axle] in
millions of kms.


It's pretty obvious that the real culprit here is not really suv's but miles driven. If you magically replaced every suv and minivan in America with a passenger car, you'd save about 7.5 pct of the fuel consumed nationally per year - not anything to sneeze at to be sure, but quite small in comparison to the 2.226x increase in miles annually driven since 1975 or even the 23+ pct increase in miles annually driven between 1995 and 2005.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

heck don't euro car makers produce some cars that get pretty sucky mileage? and their standards are even higher. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but then they are Ferrari's, Aston's, Pagani's, Bentley's and Jaguar's etc. They still have to meet emission and noise standards. Generally gas guzzlers in Europe are either luxury or sports cars. That said some turbo diesel Jaguars are extremely fuel efficient. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ford in cooperation with PSA (Peugeot-Citroen) has developed a biturbo diesel direct injection engine. It is used in the latest Jaguars as well as in the Citroen C6 (the one with the HUD).
Imo this engine is very impressive.

V6
Displacement: 2700ccm (165cu-in)
Power output: 205HP
Torque: 440nm (325lbft)

delivers a top speed of 230km/h (143mph)
accelerates form 1-100km/h (0-62mph) in 9,3s
consumes 8,7l fuel (avg use) -&gt; 27mpg
Co2 emission is twice the new euro limit, but its a (heavy) premium car.
Now imagine to scale down that engine a bit and use it on a smaller car than 4500lb.

I drive a small French econo-box, the Peugeot 1007. It has a tiny 1.4 liter turbo-diesel engine, just 70 hp and I get usually around. 23 km/l, that is about 65 MPG.

The "thing" is small, has electric doors and you can fit 4 adults in complete comfort, navigation system, parking sensors etc etc..without the need to have a 5 meters long vehicle with little space inside.
And 7 airbags and 5 stars at the euro NCAP safety ratings.

The americans should really start to consider smaller european cars in their future, as they are really "smart" nowadays, are well made, are extremely technologic and you could travel 850 kms with about only 40 liters of diesel as in my case

Of course my parents have a Land Rover Discovery 3 but that is another matter. http://forums.ubiimages/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif