backtop


Print 232 comment(s) - last by BucDan.. on Feb 3 at 12:51 PM


Bugatti's Veyron produces an astonishing 1001 HP.

This Dodge Viper ACR produces 600 HP.

The Tesla Roadster adds lithium-ion batteries and an electric motor to a Lotus Elise-based chassis.

100 Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles are being distributed to lucky drivers in California, New York, and Washington.

Honda looks to succeed with diesel where the Accord Hybrid failed.
EPA official tells manufacturers to "chill" with the horsepower wars and focus on efficiency

Just a few years ago, 405 HP was seen as an enormous amount of power for a passenger car. That was the heady tally for Chevy's Corvette Z06. A scant eight years later, Dodge and Chevy are dancing around the 600 HP mark with their '08 Dodge Viper and '09 Chevy Corvette ZR-1 respectively. If 600 HP isn’t enough for you, there’s always the ultra-exotic Bugatti Veyron which produces an astonishing 1001 HP.

Despite the fact that vehicles like the Veyron, Viper and Corvette ZR-1 make up an insignificant portion of the millions of the vehicles sold each year, a top-ranking official for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants manufacturers to put an end to the horsepower wars. Instead of funneling money towards the development of vehicles that have the most chest-thumping horsepower and torque, the official suggests that manufacturers look at the opposite end of the spectrum and produce the most ultra-efficient, lowest-polluting vehicles on the planet.

"We must bring about an end to the horsepower arms race among auto makers and replace it with another different kind of a race, a race to produce the most affordable and desirable, low carbon-vehicle each year," said Margo Oge, the EPA director for the office of transportation and air quality.

"Smog-producing emissions from new vehicles are almost practically zero," Oge continued. "I believe the one set of product plans automotive engineers must [include] with every new model is, ‘How can I make this produce fewer greenhouse-gas emissions?’”

Oge suggest that automakers use all of their technological know-how along with a younger generation of Americans who are environmentally conscious to produce "greener" vehicles.

"[They] want to create an energy technology revolution," remarked Oge. "But it’s up to you to make those investments and push the technologies to create this kind of revolution. Carbon emissions must be reduced, and we must begin now. It can be done, and this country and Detroit can become the epicenter for the next great industrial revolution and engine for economic growth."

With the new CAFE regulations breathing down auto manufacturers' backs, Oge's pleas to the industry likely won't fall on deaf ears.

Ford and GM have announced their intentions to use smaller, turbocharged four and six cylinder engines to replace more fuel-hungry six and eight cylinder engines respectively. Turbocharging is not a new phenomenon in the U.S. auto market, but its use is not as widespread as in Europe where fuel prices soar into the stratosphere.

Diesel motors are making a comeback in the U.S. market as well. GM is bringing a 4.5 liter Duramax diesel to its half-ton pickups and Toyota will follow suit with a diesel of its own for the Tundra and Sequoia. Honda has diesels in store for its sedans, pickups and crossovers while Nissan will bring over a diesel engine for its next-generation Maxima mid-sized sedan.

Toyota already made the word "hybrid" a household name in the U.S. The company's Prius gasoline-electric hybrid went from a relatively small blip on American radar screens to a vehicle which found its way into 181,000 driveways in 2007.

Likewise, companies like GM, Ford, Honda and Nissan have all embraced hybrids to improve the fuel economy of their vehicles while at the same time decreasing emissions.

Looking towards the near future, there are vehicles like the Chevy Volt and Tesla Roadster which run solely on lithium-ion batteries and a powerful electric motor. And as DailyTech has already demonstrated, fuel cell vehicles are already here and could represent a major breakthrough in vehicle propulsion if the hydrogen infrastructure gets a boost in the U.S.

The new CAFE legislation that President Bush signed into law calls for auto manufacturers to increase average fuel economy from the current 25 MPG to 35 MPG by the year 2020. The move to more fuel efficient vehicles won’t happen overnight considering the wide variety of vehicles that many auto manufacturers include in their lineups. However, auto manufacturers have twelve years to figure out what technologies are in their best interest – and their customers’ best interest – in the strive for the 35 MPG goal.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Choice...
By Warren21 on 1/30/2008 12:08:40 AM , Rating: 4
I agree that we could use some more efficient vehicles in North America... Some more diesels like those in Europe enjoy for example.

'End the horsepower arms race' altogether however? I don't think that is completely necessary; a shift in focus to efficiency is a good call, but I don't think it's necessary to stop innovating in one area completely to achieve it.




RE: Choice...
By Bluestealth on 1/30/2008 12:18:23 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of cars already have way more power than the majority of people ever will use.
I agree in performance oriented vehicles that efficiency should come second though, however not all segments need to be in a horsepower war in which efficiency falls by the wayside.


RE: Choice...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/30/2008 12:20:44 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A lot of cars already have way more power than the majority of people ever will use.


A 268 HP Camry just seems wrong to me ;)


RE: Choice...
By Samus on 1/30/2008 5:14:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A 268 HP Camry just seems wrong to me ;)


Haha, the Maxima, a similar sized vehicle to the Camry, has had over 250HP for 10+ years.

That Nissan 3.5L V6 is world famous, and it should be. They don't put it in virtually every vehicle they sell (basically the Sentra is the only mainstream Nissan vehicle you CAN'T get that V6 in) because it sucks. It doesn't suck. It sips. My Dad's Altima 3.5L averages 25MPG city/highway. That ain't bad for 270HP or whatever it has. It's looney power for a front-wheel drive car.


RE: Choice...
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2008 6:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
Not knocking on the Altima but I hardly think a car thats EPA rated at best 19/27 is averaging barely below its highway rating. Unless your dad drives 90% on the highway.


RE: Choice...
By therealnickdanger on 1/30/2008 8:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
First, EPA numbers don't reflect real world conditions. They are getting better at it, but it's still only an estimate.

Second, not every car of the same make and model can achieve the same mileage. There are many factors ranging from tire pressure to altitude that affect each users results. I know that with my car (2005 Magnum R/T), I can get an average of 22MPG (40%hi/60%ci) on a tank in the summer if I'm driving Miss Daisy, but in the winter... more like 14MPG. (It was negative 18 degrees this morning with a wind chill of God-knows-what.) Without the engine being at prime operating temp, it really sucks the fuel. In the summer, with the engine at 210 degrees and the cruise at 65MPH, I can regularly get over the rated 24MPG hiway. I came close to 30MPG over 20 miles once. Of course, this is affected by hills...

Friends (online and off) of mine with the same car often claim to get better and worse mileage. It's really all over the board.


RE: Choice...
By Blight AC on 1/30/2008 8:27:45 AM , Rating: 2
My Subaru Forester XT also gets some pretty decent gas milage compared to EPA rating, it's rated at:
MPG (city): 18
MPG (highway): 25

My standard driving is relatively mixed, mostly country roads, with about 30% of it going through towns, in hilly country (upstate NY).

I typically get between 23-24 MPG, and I race it a lot, love that Turbo whine, and when the acceleration kicks in, I just love giving it a little more. However, I did drive really conservatively for a full tank and got around 27 MPG. So yes, a properly maintained car can get above EPA ratings, it's only an estimate, not a limit.


RE: Choice...
By fic2 on 1/30/2008 11:55:42 AM , Rating: 3
I drive a '99 Forester non-turbo w/manual tranny and regularly average 27 mpg. Most of my driving is highway, though. Also, if I am driving in the city I tend to look at the stop lights ahead and if it is red take my foot off the gas. Even going in the mountains to snowboard (I live in Denver) I get 25+ mpg. I have nearly 100k miles on the car. Even driving in the moutains the 165HP is enough to be able to do 65-70 uphill without a strain.


RE: Choice...
By Samus on 1/31/2008 1:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
My Focus SVT is supposed to get 19/26 EPA rating (or something like that.)

Does anyone here think a Focus could possibly get 19MPG, no matter how hard you drive it? It's a 2.0L engine and it weighs 2600lbs (ZX3-platform)

I get 30MPG. It's a 15 gallon tank, and I've never gotten anything less than 350 miles on it, even in the coldest winters. The EPA numbers are worthless BS.


RE: Choice...
By ZipSpeed on 1/31/2008 3:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Forester XT myself. Problem is, I have lead foot and that really kills the fuel economy. :P Nothing like seeing the surprised look of people when a family wagon destroys some of the BMWs out there.


RE: Choice...
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 8:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
My wife drives a 2005 Altima V6. When we take it on long trips, I get 33-34 MPG at 75 MPH. Normal daily use averages about 26 MPG. Of course it also requires premium gas, but it's still a great fuel efficiency to HP rating.

There's a lot of people who spent a lot more on their car that get left in her wake off the line. The looks on their faces is priceless.

When it's cold here in MN (like it has been lately), the mileage drops considerably. She only sees about 22-23 MPG in daily use in the cold.


RE: Choice...
By BioHazardous on 1/30/2008 11:58:15 AM , Rating: 2
^5 diablo! Gas mileage rocks in MN when it's -20 degrees out. I remember reading the article the other day about focusing on putting turbos in cars for increased fuel effeciency. My '04 VW Jetta (1.8T) has been getting about 18mpg with this lovely weather. No I don't go and start my car and leave it run for 10 minutes before I drive it and no I don't race around like an idiot when it's this cold.

I miss my TDI.


RE: Choice...
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 12:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
I used to have a VR6 Jetta (2000, 5 spd manual). I liked driving the car and was happy with the fuel economy (about 25 in daily driving), but I couldn't stand the repair bills! It only had 50,000 miles on it and it had to go in to get some stupid thing (ie - passenger side power window motor, which went up and down maybe twice) fixed every month. It was such a money pit (for silly things) that I doubt I'll own another VW.


RE: Choice...
By BioHazardous on 1/30/2008 2:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know the pain. My TDI was more reliable, and you got the 2000 which was the beginning of the fourth generation Jetta so you probably had a few more problems than the average Jetta owner. It's a fun car to drive while you have a warranty, but outside of that it makes you a little nervous to own it. I'm not sure what I'll switch to next time I get a new car, hopefully something not relying solely on an ICE.


RE: Choice...
By RamboZZo on 1/30/2008 10:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
Hah! I know exactly what you mean. I had a 96 Jetta GLX VR6 and that thing might as well have come with a credit card machine to just drain your account as you drove along. The power windows would never work for more than 4 - 6 months at a time. Each one was rebuilt at least 3 times. It had who knows how many electrical system failures, overheated on whim, blew gaskets like crazy and went through two full engine rebuilds. For every month on the road it spent a full month in the shop. It was a super fun car to drive, when it actually worked and the gas mileage wasn't too bad getting around 23-24 mpg. Got rid of it and bought a 2002 Subaru Impreza RS which drives like a dream. I've run it to 130K miles and required no more than oil changes and tires. I drive almost only highway and it gets a solid 26-27mpg and I can squeeze out 400 miles out of a full tank when I'm not in lead foot mode.


RE: Choice...
By othercents on 1/30/2008 12:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Same here 3.5L Altima and I get 24mpg during summer and 22mpg during winter. I drive very aggressive (IE. red line every stoplight) and spend 80% of my drive time in the city and 20% on the highway. When taking long road trips at 80+mph I get around 30-32mpg. This engine is very efficient for the amount of power you get and for the size. Look at Toyota and Honda and you will find a bigger engine doing the same type of work with a lower full efficiency. I even drove one tank very mildly (IE less than 2,500 rpm) and average 27mpg in the city.

Granted who really cares how much MPG I get? If I want to spend my money on speed then I should be able too and you should be able to save your money by buying 55MPG cars. However the biggest thing that the EPA is concerned about is Greenhouse gas which effects everyone. This is why some (if not all) states have emissions standards and maybe these standards should be increased for the newer cars coming out.

The question that has not been answered is if the 600+HP cars actually help develop more efficient engines that produce less Greenhouse gas. From racing organizations I find that many new technologies are tested on the track before they are introduced for the public. Plus the new Tesla is all about HP I hope the EPA isn't up in arms about a non polluting car.

Other


RE: Choice...
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 12:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
No, I want both - power and fuel economy! And I think that market is bigger than the market for those who only want either.

I was using my wife's Altima as an example of a car that delivers both excellent power and good fuel economy.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 12:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is why some (if not all) states have emissions standards and maybe these standards should be increased for the newer cars coming out.
Actual harmful emissions from cars nowadays are damn near negligible. Out here in CA, we make jokes about how the air is cleaner coming out of the tailpipe of a car.


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 12:38:30 PM , Rating: 3
> "Out here in CA, we make jokes about how the air is cleaner coming out of the tailpipe of a car"

Few people realize just how clean cars are today. A model from 1970 can easily put out 1000+ times the harmful emissions of a modern car -- more, if its not properly maintained.


RE: Choice...
By Azzr34l on 1/30/2008 6:02:16 PM , Rating: 1
And yet the genius politicians allow the older cars to be exempt from smog certs.


RE: Choice...
By rcc on 1/30/2008 6:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
And compared to 20 years ago, the LA air is much better than it was.

I used to drive to Azusa weekly, I'd been doing it for years before I actually realized that the San Gabriel mountains were practically in the back yard of the facility there, the smog was that bad. Now it's relitively clear, even on a bad day.


RE: Choice...
By crazydrummer4562 on 2/2/2008 1:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. I live in Riverside County and I swear it's a smog bowl. The air sucks here so badly.


RE: Choice...
By Aikouka on 1/30/2008 8:53:42 AM , Rating: 2
My Altima 3.5SL gets between 23 and 27mpg. I estimate the norm is 24-25mpg. Of course this depends on speed, acceleration, etc. I don't speed, but sometimes I accelerate faster than normal (nothing excessive) and that cuts down a bit on the gas mileage. I do have a bit of city driving, although most of its use is driving to work where I drive on a state route (that has some stop lights and speed varies from 45-55 with varying inclines).

I kind of agree with what someone else said... I don't think it needs to end (slow down maybe?), but there's nothing wrong with exploring alternative solutions that have been available elsewhere (such as diesel in passenger cars). I wouldn't mind going with a diesel car as long as I don't have to plug it in :P. My father was a huge fan of diesel cars and I remember him having to plug it in on the cold mornings.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 9:06:08 AM , Rating: 2
Good news for you sir, no need to plug it since 1995 :)

The non-turbo diesel engines used in personnel cars pre 1995 (In Finland they were nicknamed "tractors" :) ) and modern turbodiesels are two different animals: the old one was a mule, the modern version is a horse. (Sorry for the metaphora :) )

The modern turbodiesel used in personnel cars has the speed, the strength and the acceleration.
For example
http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_...


RE: Choice...
By eye smite on 1/31/2008 12:09:17 AM , Rating: 2
YOu really lack experience with cars I see. I have a 93 Olds 88 with a V6 that gets 24 town and 30-31 hwy at 15 yrs old. They already make cars that get much higher mpg in europe, and I'm not talking about little car companies. Opel is a division of GM and they have cars that get 50mpg hwy and it's not a hybrid. If you don't believe me though, go to a rental car agency and get a buick lesabre with a 3.8L V6 and log your mpg town and hwy. We're not talking about rocket science here, we're talking about the big 3 pulling the wool over your eyes for decades now.


RE: Choice...
By kenji4life on 1/30/2008 6:53:23 AM , Rating: 3
If you go back 10 years, the 1998 Maxima (which included the same VQ30DE engine from 1995-1999) had 190hp and 210ft/lb torque.

It's probably good to check your facts before you present them as such.

On that note, my 1995 Maxima has more power than I need. That doesn't mean it has as much power as I want. But that's another story. I'd trade for an equivalent car with 10% less power and 10% better fuel economy, if given the option. I'd still be plenty satisfied with the performance.

P.S. In 2002 Nissan introduced the VQ35DE, and it wasn't until a couple of years ago that the Maxima crossed the 250 hp barrier. Now some Nissan Skyline's had a 2.5 and 2.6 liter turbocharged and twin-turbocharged engine which was nearer to 250 hp 10+ years ago, however that model was never sold in the USA.


RE: Choice...
By Shoal07 on 1/30/2008 9:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the Infiniti G35 sedan (aka Nissan Skyline V36/350GT in Japan) with 306 hp - based on the 3.5l V6 (The VQ35DE engine). I would say my G35x averages 18-22 mpg in real world driving, but that's also a AWD automatic - I'm sure the RWD manual, driven responsibly, does a little bit better. Of course, 306hp sedans are rarely driven responsibly - those people buy lexus :)


RE: Choice...
By s12033722 on 1/30/2008 12:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
I also drive a G35x, and I get about 19 MPG average. I also live at 7800 feet in Colorado.


RE: Choice...
By xti on 1/30/2008 12:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
06 35 here, 20-21ish mpg, driven pretty responsibly.

this EPA rant makes me ask 'Does the EPA think that none of the car makers are good enough to achieve 2 goals on opposite ends of the performance spectrum'... reminds me of the friend no one wants to have.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 1:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's almost as if the EPA considers GM to be one person, not a company full of thousands of people.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 12:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Pontiac Solstice GXP (direct injection turbo 4 cyl) and get 28 mpg on my mostly freeway commute. And that's with many full throttle blasts. If I drive like a grandma, then I can get 30-31 mpg. I also get 30+ mpg on longer freeway drives. My best is 33 mpg (only got it once on a Palm Springs trip). In city driving the mileage drops to 24 but only if there's a lot of stop and go AND I drive aggressively.


RE: Choice...
By Spoelie on 1/30/2008 5:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
I have a VAG 1.9TDI, and get 47mpg on my daily commute, mostly highway keeping to the speed limits (~75mph). My best is 56mpg, when driving behind trucks (60-65mph). If I drive on average 90-100mph on the highway, I do about 35mpg.

City driving (low speeds) do not change the figures all that much, only when standing still a lot at red lights.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 7:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
One thing I like about diesel cars is the massive range you get from a tank of gas. If I could drive to Phoenix (430 miles from my house) on one tank of gas that would be awesome. My present car requires one fill up there and one coming back (350 mile range).


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/31/2008 11:25:19 AM , Rating: 2
Piece of cake for modern turbodiesel. Ovet 700 miles per tank.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10509...


RE: Choice...
By theapparition on 1/30/2008 2:37:25 PM , Rating: 3
Since everyone is listing their real world experience......

7.0L LS7 supercharged Corvette Z06, 801rwhp/768rwt, close to 30mpg on the highway, average 25mpg.
That is, until I press the pedal down a little more ;-)


RE: Choice...
By Cullinaire on 1/30/2008 12:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh, all you guys with the latest Nissan V6s are making me jealous with the MPG figures! My '95 Nissan with the 2.4l KA24DE (read: 100hp less than your engines!) struggles to get 20mpg right now (granted most of it is city driving). Of course, the fact that she likes to blow out a nice cloud of blue smoke after each stoplight might have something to do with it...


RE: Choice...
By h8 on 1/30/2008 12:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
My old citroen Jumpy from 98 with 1,9L tdi 88hp is a van, like a smaller ford transit. One winter here in Scandinavia I went to Norway with an average speed of about 100km/h (60mph). One on single 68 liter (17,8 gallon) tank I went to norway and back, that was 1400km (875miles). I guess that means that that old lunchbox looking van has about 50mpg on the highway anyways (and the small crappy norweigan roads). But a friend of mine has a Volvo V70 D5 that has the same MPG.. Enough about disel cars, what I really want is the new Audi RS6 at 580hp.


RE: Choice...
By Arribajuan on 1/30/2008 3:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
Why wrong? it is so sporty :P


RE: Choice...
By TitusDes on 1/30/2008 3:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lot of cars already have way more power than the majority of people ever will use.


I use quite a lot of my vehicle's HP. Not on a regular basis or anything, but it's nice to have. To me, it's like a good set of disc brakes. I've avoided many accidents by using the accelerator instead of the brake pedal.

That said, a good transmission is probably more critical in situations like that than the raw power your engine has.


RE: Choice...
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2008 6:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
Then don't buy that car. People like me though will use the power and we should be able to buy a car with it. Nearly every car out there has smaller engine options in addition to the higher output motors.


RE: Choice...
By GreenyMP on 1/30/2008 11:12:57 AM , Rating: 2
I am more accustomed to disagreeing with Fit. But I think that he is completely right on this one.

If you want to pretend like your prius is saving the planet, then good for you. If I want a monster truck or a Corvette Z06 then that is my right (in the United States of America (until Hillary gets elected)). I think the EPA does a great job at making recommendations, but lets not tell the auto makers that they have to ignore a large portion of their customer base.


RE: Choice...
By tdawg on 1/30/2008 12:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I want a monster truck or a Corvette Z06 then that is my right...


This has been covered before, but you buying or driving a certain vehicle is not a right, it's a privilege. The right to buy and drive any vehicle is not defined anywher in the Constitution.


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 12:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "The right to buy and drive any vehicle is not defined anywher in the Constitution. "

It most certainly is. Check the 9th and particularly the 10th Amendment for details.


RE: Choice...
By Cygni on 1/30/2008 6:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
The 9th and 10th amendments do not apply, in this case. The various agencies of the Federal government, including the FDA, FCC, EPA, and others, can and do limit the so called 'right to buy,' or more correctly in many cases, the right to produce/sell.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say you have any specific right to buy or drive any vehicle. Which is why I can't go out and buy a three-wheeler in the states. ;)


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 8:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "The 9th and 10th amendments do not apply, in this case."

They most certainly do; such laws are, in fact, the raison d'etre of the 10th Amendent. Unfortunately, however, most people seem to have forgotten it even exists, or what purpose it had.


RE: Choice...
By jmunjr on 1/31/2008 10:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
The Constitution doesn't necessarily define what OUR rights are, they define what powers the federal government has.

We do have a RIGHT to travel, and can do so via normal modes of transportation. A car is one such mode. It is unreasonable to restrict our free travel by requiring citizens to have "papers", registration, and arguably a license.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to require vehicle registrations, especially tied to our names. If the states insist that we "register" our vehicles then so be it, but make it anonymous. There isn't a good reason to have our name attached to it. We don't have to register our bodies, our clothing, or even our bicycles. Why cars?

It seems instead of having sensible laws about driving and reliable enforcement of those laws the states would rather just put extreme requirements on how the people can travel.

The most annoying thing for me is with all the restrictions and requirements, taxes, fees, licenses, etc, you'd think they'd only let people who actually knew how to drive on the roads. They let anyone, so long as they submit to all the ridiculous and privacy-infringing conditions(and fees). It's a joke. I give away so much and get so little in return, and share the roads with possibly the worst drivers in the world.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 1:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The right to buy and drive any vehicle is not defined anywher in the Constitution.
Obtaining a drivers license isn't a right but we do indeed have to right to buy a car or a house or clothing or HDTV's or high speed internet connections or computers or etc.


RE: Choice...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2008 11:46:27 AM , Rating: 1
How much power a car has is just an arbitrary standard. If the least powerful cars had as much as the most powerful do today, you'd just want more, and more.

You aren't actually entitled to have a more powerful car than anyone else, it's just a sign you have poor driving skills and no patience.

No matter how much you dare declare what you are entitled to, it's pretty damn selfish to insist you have the right to pollute more than others, while simultaneously taking advantage of the fact that the world you live in is less polluted during your lifetime than it will be after you're gone BECAUSE of your selfish decisions.

You don't actually have the right to leave the world dirtier than you found it. Clean up after yourself (which you can't reasonably do) or don't make the mess, children are the only ones that should expect mom to do that.


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2008 12:49:18 PM , Rating: 3
Once again, you've confused car mileage (or worsr, horsepower) with total pollution generated. You've forgotten the fact that how far you drive is by far the largest factor in total consumption.

A person burning 10 gallons a week in a Civic is generating more emissions than the person burning 5 gallons a week in the Explorer.

> "You don't actually have the right to leave the world dirtier than you found it"

So from this are we to assume you do zero driving at all? Or is this more hypocrisy? The only "true" polluters are the people that pollute more than you do?


RE: Choice...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2008 11:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, I've definitely not confused the two. How far you drive is a function of where you need to go, or even when it is a choice, you still have the other choice of what to drive.

It's a nonsensical excuse to say the car MPG isn't more significant than how far you drive, because ultimately we do see that people with cars having worse efficiency don't just opt not to drive very often, it's actually the opposite when you see every third vehicle on the road is a minivan or SUV with only one occupant, the driver.

You know you have no reasonable argument, the person buring 5 gallons a week in the Explorer could scarcely even get to work and back and do basic things like go grocery shopping. We can make a reasonable assumption that someone who lives very near their workplace and stores might use that as a justification to buy a larger vehicle, but even then they could have bought the smaller one instead and burnt less gas!

Sorry but you're the one confused about reality, that if someone needs to go somewhere they're not going to limit themselves to X gallons of gas a week, if they cared about fuel consumption they wouldn't have bought the gas guzzler vehicle in the first place unless it was truely needed, and need may be a reasonable justification but gas conserving it is not.


RE: Choice...
By superflex on 1/30/2008 2:05:34 PM , Rating: 4
Wait untill the EPA tells nVidia that they should only produce GPUs that draw 35 watts or PSU manufacturers that they can only produce 330w power supplies.

Then we'll see you grand wizard dungeon masters rally from your mom's basement with usb sticks in hand chanting "overclocking and slaying dragons is my constitutional right"

Who cares how many horsepower the Bugati produces. How many are going to be sold worldwide?...10 or 20. Like that's going to have a huge impact on carbon emissions.



RE: Choice...
By theapparition on 1/30/2008 2:32:19 PM , Rating: 4
What I've been saying for ages.

Everyone thinks banning things are OK until it affects them. Most sports cars are a relatively minor impact on sales, and such, hardly affect any epa numbers. Now, if they focused thier attention on trucks, however........

Freedom of choice.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 3:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now, if they focused thier attention on trucks, however........
The new CAFE standards are to include trucks and SUV's. Expect all the cars we now drive, except niche vehicles like sports and luxury cars, to drastically increase in price to accommodate the new CAFE standards. I see a burgeoning used car market in the future.


RE: Choice...
By theapparition on 1/30/2008 4:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
True.

Another thing to consider (and possibly invest in). The incredible growth of the aftermarket car part makers when people who are used to powerful cars get start adding things to get around the new regulations.

Happened in the 70's. Will happen again.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 5:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The incredible growth of the aftermarket car part makers
Considering the amount of turbo cars that will hitting the market in the next few years, I can see an even huger (word?) aftermarket than now.


RE: Choice...
By NullSubroutine on 1/30/2008 2:10:45 AM , Rating: 2
I live in the Midwest and it sucks driving a diesel in the coldest of winter. I dont want to have to add a bottle of anti-freeze fuel supplement every time I fill up. There just isnt enough outlets everywhere to plug your diesel in to stay warm.


RE: Choice...
By Spoelie on 1/30/2008 3:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
What diesel engine is that?? We've had a month of sub-zero temperatures here in europe and none of our diesel cars (1.8tdci ford, 1.9tdi VAG, biturbo 3.0d BMW) had any problems starting or running..


RE: Choice...
By Kazairl2 on 1/30/2008 4:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
Since you're from Europe, I'll assume you're talking about below 0C. Many parts in the upper Midwest of the US have cold snaps that go below 0F, or about -17.7 C. According to the refinery pages I looked up, standard winter diesel begins to cloud up with paraffin crystals below -8C. By -17C, there is so much solid in the fuel that it clogs the filter as the diesel turns to jelly.

As an example of an upper Midwest US winter, Minneapolis-St. Paul in Minnesora is the 15th largest metro area in the US (3.5 million people). The average January low temperature there is -16C, and the record low is -41C. Even Chicago has an average January low of -8C and a record low of -31C. There usually several times a year when inhabitants of the upper Midwest get reminded that they are effectively downwind from Siberia...


RE: Choice...
By Strunf on 1/30/2008 5:05:19 AM , Rating: 4
I don't doubt in North Europe they hit similar low temperatures... and trucks still drive there.

If I'm not mistaken Diesel mixture is slightly changed depending on the temperatures and region to help with cold starts.

Auto makers may also include electrical fuel heaters and other electronic components to detect the wax crystals and deal with it.

I think this is more of a myth than really a reality.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 5:06:12 AM , Rating: 3
There are no problems with diesel cars here in the Arctic Circle. (Finland, Northern Europe) I think you use different kind of diesel in the US (likewise in gasoline, you are using something like 91-92 octane, we are using 95 octane here in Europe.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

Our winter quality diesel works fine even down -40C.(About once per winter we enjoy that weather:) ) The gas stations change their diesel from summer quality to winter quality in October, when temperatures drop below 0 at night.

In Europe diesel is very much used in other vehicles than trucks, in France 70% of all automobiles use diesel. Modern TurboDiesel does not mean a stinking truck (like many people still think), but double torque and halved consumption.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/6/20/212325/307
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R10

People in North America should refresh their opinions about diesel vehicles to this century, the advancement in diesel engines has greatly outpaced gas engines in last 15 years.


RE: Choice...
By ChoadNamath on 1/30/2008 6:49:56 AM , Rating: 5
Kind of like nuclear power plants, a lot of Americans like to pretend that innovation was frozen when we stopped building them here. We tend to be a little myopic like that.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 7:56:59 AM , Rating: 3
Myopic--- a very good metaphora. :)

I checked my facts, you indeed have lower quality diesel in the US, only as lately as 2006 you got better quality. (Becomes mandatory 2010) Better later than not at all :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_fuel

In Europe the market share for American cars is about 5% (give or take a few percentage points), because the American cars are tought to be lower quality, old technology for the price of new (e.g. missing turbodiesel engine options, they are selling the same engine as 20 years ago, more or less, just a little bit bigger and more powerful every couple of years) and unsafe. Neutral safety comparisons: http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx

At 1997, when EuroNCAP became mandator for all new cars in Europe, e.g most Japanese cars got 2 or 3 stars out of five. All European and Japanese manufacturers had to increase safety and quality in their cars (and the cars became more expensive to manufacture). Nowadays new cars get 5 stars, because nobody would 3 or 4 star new car, when the competitor has a 5-star car for the same money.
But the American cars still get 2-3 stars.
(As a sidenote: they tested one large Chinese SUV with EuroNCAP tests, result: 0 stars. Test conclusion: a sure kill in an regular front accident, steering wheel moves thru the driver :( :) ).

Conclusion (the track record of last 20 years):

American car manufactures want to manufacture and sell their cars as cheaply as possible, using only their existing technology and production lines.

They don't invest in anything new, because they don't have to. Consumer buys what he/she can get at lowest price of the available products in the marketplace according to his/her needs.
So if he/she is in the market for SUV, he/she has to choose between the crappy SUV options available, and choose one. But hooray, he/she is happy after the buy, American car manufacturer is happy to accept the money, because the business and marketplace has always been like that and the consumer doesn't know that he/she could demand more.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 8:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
I apologize for typos and missing words. This is my second posting in Dailytech, so I am kind of new here. I really miss a edit-button :)

(And English is not my native language)


RE: Choice...
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2008 9:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
If you go to that site and look at the tests, American owned companies do very well. Sure they show POS's like the Chevy Aveo on there. But several European brands are owned by GM and Ford. And they are quite good cars.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 9:28:10 AM , Rating: 1
That is true.

GM and Ford have bought some parts of European auto industry.

In the global economy the companies are truly global too, it is hard to say how American (or-insert-our-country-here) GM or Ford is, because the shares are constanly bought/selled in NYSE. For comparison Nokia used to be 100% Finnish company, nowadays under 10% of the shares are in Finnish hands. The HQ still is here and Nokia pays it's corporate taxes here.

When I said American cars, I meant cars manufactured in the US (and Mexico ;) ) or models only available in the US.


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 9:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
> "When I said American cars, I meant cars manufactured in the US"

Those models meet the most stringent emissions and safety standards in the world, significantly above those in European countries. For cars sold both overseas and in America, the domestic version is always considerably more expensive. I don't know where you get the idea that American cars are "cheap crap", but it couldn't be further from the truth.

Interestingly enough, even though the primary European models sold in the US are in the luxury segment (and thus one would expect to be in the highest quality segment), European models score worse than American on consumer quality surveys (Japanese models score highest of all).

(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950... par. 10)


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 10:38:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Those models meet the most stringent emissions and safety standards in the world, significantly above those in European countries


What really makes you say that? EuroNCAP is tighter than NCAP. 2min googling
http://detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0404/13/a09-...
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?...
http://www.whatcar.co.uk/news-article.aspx?NA=2188...

California is getting close to EuroIII emission standards in the future,in Europe we are at tighter EuroIV already.
We are considering US emission standards as a joke here. Well, if 25mpg is considered good over there, rest of the world considers 50mpg to be good. Do the maths for the emissions.

The US domestic versions are more expensive than the same model names in Europe, because in the US 2,5 or 3,0 petrol motor, automatic gearbox ans so on are included the standard model. In Europe people choose smaller engines (and nowadays turbodiesels) and manual gear box. If the consumer wants something different, he/she pays extra.

It is the same here, Japanese manufactures get the best consumer satisfaction. (The Japanese companies have many car factories in Europe, 80% of the cars sold here are manufactured on the continent, too.)

[BTW; here is a video of EuroNCAP test to a Chinese SUV, scoring full 0 points. Sure death to the driver
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/122530/land_wind_eur...
"

[note: your NYTimes link doesn't work]


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 5
> "California is getting close to EuroIII emission standards "

Where do people get this stuff? California requires 0.4 g/mile for NOx-- EuroIII is 0.5 per km -- over twice as high. CA particulates are 0.08 g/m, EuroIII is 0.083 g/m.

CA limits non-methane hydrocarbons to 0.25 g/m. EuroIII has no limit at all. CA requires a fleet portion of LEV/ULEV vehicles with non-methane organic compound (NMOG) limits. EuroIII does not. CA limits Formaldehyde. Euro III does not. The single case where EuroIII exceeds CA requirements is in CO output.

Diesel requirements are stiffer, which explains why, of all the hundreds of diesel models sold in Europe, only *one* meets the Tier 2 Bin 5 requirements for sale in the USA -- the Mercedes Bluetec E320.


RE: Choice...
By PlasmaBomb on 1/30/2008 11:36:51 AM , Rating: 2
It's not worth comparing Euro III with anything since it's outdated. Euro IV emissions standards have been in place for 3 years so we should really be discussing them. Euro V sound good in that they prevent heavy SUVs being classed as light commercial (or they are supposed to when they come in).

For the record Euro III does limit hydrocarbon and NOx emissions to 0.56 g/km, with NOx limits being 0.5g/km. Assuming you know what a vehicles NOx output is you can work out what the limit is for its HC output i.e. NOx output 0.25g/km, then HC has to be < 0.31g/km to be within spec (for diesel). For petrol the hydrocarbon output limit is 0.2g/km.

Mike has there been any claims of US car manufacturers engaging in cycle beating? That is designing their engines or mapping their ECU to reduce pollutants during emission test cycles?


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 11:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
> "Mike has there been any claims of US car manufacturers engaging in cycle beating?"

That's a good question. I haven't heard of any myself, but that certainly doesn't mean none exist.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 12:10:21 PM , Rating: 1
Staying OT:

Ok, I stand corrected. California is doing stricter than EuroIII. I am not so up-to-date on Californian legislation :)
I am sorry for all the harm done.

In Europe all passenger cars have been using much stricter EuroIV since January 05, in the US you are still putting into effect TierII, which is more relaxed than EuroIV, getting it done by 2009. By that time, Europe has already stricter EuroV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_I_%28emission_st...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_sta...

And the turbodiesel version pollutes less than the petrol version:
[Example, 2008 Toyota Camry/Avensis, same car different name other side of the pond)

2.0l turbodiesel 130 bhp torque 300 Nm, max speed 127 mph, acceleration to 62 mph in 11.1 seconds, fuel economy on the combined cycle 51.4 mpg, CO2 emissions 146 g/km.

2.0 l VVT-i petrol 145 bhp, torque 196 Nm, max speed 130 mph, acceleration to 62 mph in just 9.4 seconds, fuel economy on the combined cycle nearly 35 mpg, CO2 emissions 191 g/km.

In the US Camry with the smallest engine (2,4l petrol, no turbodiesel available, no indication of emissions.)

2.4-l VVT-i 158 hp 161 lb.-ft., 21/31MPG

I just wonder why you Americans buy cars with 21/31MPG, when for the same money you would get 51,4 MPG and more torque (real power, more important than bhp).

I just wonder.

[If you really need more power and acceleration under 9 secs, ???, there are more powerful turbodiesels available, 400nm torque and still MPG over 40)


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 12:26:36 PM , Rating: 3
> "I just wonder why you Americans buy cars with 21/31MPG, when for the same money you would get 51,4 MPG and more torque"

The reasons are numerous. First of all, per-capita GDP is higher in the US than nearly all of Europe, which means people are more interested in comfort and power than saving money. Secondly, fuel prices are far lower...which means the actual savings is smaller still.

Third, there are historical reasons on emissions. Most diesels have never been able to meet tightening American air standards, which didn't exist in Europe. Remember the original Euro I didn't even exist until the early 1990s.

Europe kept using the smelly, noisy, hard-starting, badly-polluting diesels of the 70s and 80s because, quite frankly, they couldn't afford gas engines. Now that diesel technology has vastly improved and the focus is on CO2 output, they'd like you to think it was part of their master plan all along. Nothing could be further from the truth.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 12:52:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
First of all, per-capita GDP is higher in the US than nearly all of Europe,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

:) Well, you are number 9 on the planet, 7 European countries ahead of you. 2006 you were (in average) whopping $682 ahead of me. Let's see what happens in 2007, shall we?

EuroI came in the early 90's, before that there were national laws (some stricter, some loose than the US), not a European Union wide law (EU got more power from the national parliaments) , like the EuroI, EuroII and so on laws.

quote:
Europe kept using the smelly, noisy, hard-starting, badly-polluting diesels of the 70s and 80s because, quite frankly, they couldn't afford gas engines


"What ever makes you happy"


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 1:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
> ":) Well, you are number 9 on the planet, 7 European countries ahead of you"

Oops -- the dangers of rampant Googling have bit you again. You've referenced the wrong list. In comparing purchasing power, you want the PPP-adjusted GDP per capita list. It's here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

That puts the US 4th by the IMF data. Take out tiny Luxembourg, and the US is in an effective tie for first place.

But even that is a bit misleading. The Euro has done remarkably well the past few years, and the dollar badly. But the auto market moves far slower than the currency market. If one looks at historical trends, the US led all major European nations by a huge margin for the past several decades. High income and low gas prices = people who care more about large, comfortable, powerful cars, rather than saving pennies on fuel costs.

And THAT, sir, is the historical basis between the auto purchasing trends in the two regions.


RE: Choice...
By Ringold on 1/30/2008 6:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's see what happens in 2007, shall we?


Masher already pointed out the useless nature of nominal GDP, I'll also add those European countries are extremely small. If you broke off Staten Island it'd probably put them all to shame.

As for what happens in 2008 (which is what I assume you meant), yes, lets see indeed. The Eurozone is already starting to falter after a lackluster expansion. The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate; growth and price stability. The European Central Bank has only one primary directive: price stability. Growth is secondary. Given more rigid labor markets and an economy that ranks as "less free" all around I wouldn't be so cocky.


RE: Choice...
By Hoser McMoose on 1/30/2008 7:10:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
in the US you are still putting into effect TierII, which is more relaxed than EuroIV, getting it done by 2009. By that time, Europe has already stricter EuroV.

Read your numbers a bit closer, the U.S. Tier 2 regulations are definitely more stringent than Euro IV and more or less in line with Euro V.

Keep in mind that the U.S. numbers measure in g/mile while the European ones measure in g/km. You need to divide the U.S. values by 1.6 to get a comparison.

Also Tier 2 was 100% implemented for cars for 2007 model year and light trucks (pick-ups, SUVs, etc.) for 2008 model year vehicles. The only part still being phased in is the regulations for commercial trucks.

Euro V isn't expected to come into effect until Sept. 2009, about a good 3 years after Tier 2 started (mid to late 2006 for the '2007 model year' vehicles). Like Tier 2 in the U.S. the Euro V guidelines will be phased in over some period of time.
quote:
2008 Toyota Camry/Avensis, same car different name other side of the pond

The Camry and Avensis are most certainly not the same vehicle. The N.A. Camry is 16cm longer and 10cm wider with a 7.5cm longer wheel base. The curb weight is also higher, though part of that is the different engine options.

As for your mileage, first off you're comparing miles to the Imperial gallon vs. miles to the U.S. gallon, so immediately you're off by a factor of 1.2. But beyond that you're comparing the U.K. mileage test to the new EPA test.

Just as a point of comparison, the Toyota Prius is rated for 65mpg in the U.K. while it's rated for 45mpg in the U.S. for the EXACT same vehicle. That works out to a difference of 10mpg difference for imperial vs. U.S. gallons and a further 10mpg for U.K. vs. U.S. testing methodology.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 8:39:33 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you for your reply!

I chose Toyota as an example of a medium size vehicle because Toyota is the world's biggest car manufacturer, Camry is very common in the US, and Toyota has factories on every continent. I really thought that Camry is almost identical with Avensis, but I did miss 16cm difference. (I am not a Toyota fan boy, I don't even own one). I chose the Toyota UK site for it's English language. And because Toyota uses the same engines worldwide.

And no, I didn't know the differences between UK mpg and US mpg.
So now on I stick to facts I know for sure.

http://www.toyota.fi/cars/new_cars/avensis/specs.a...
(and welcome to abroad :)and enjoy the exotic language)

You can choose three different engine options from the drop down lists

I chose
(1)2,4l petrol automatic, (2) 2,2l 177bhp turbodiesel manual and (3) 2,0l turbodiesel manual

The Official European Union combined fuel usage:
1: 9,6l/100km CO2:228 g/km NOx: 0.03 g/km CO: 0.26 HC:0.06 g/km
2: 6,2l/100km CO2:161 g/km NOx: 0.11 g/km CO: 0.11 HC:-
3: 5,7l/100km CO2:155 g/km NOx: 0.20 g/km CO: 0.17 HC:-

One tankful is 60 litres, so
(1) travels 625km per tank (388miles)
(2) travels 967km per tank (600miles)
(3) travels 1052km per tank (653miles)
in combined usage.

In road usage (European union standard) 100 kilometres is still 62 miles :)

(1) 7.3l/100km, 821km/tank = 510 miles
(2) 5.3l/100km, 1132km/tank = 703 miles
(3) 5.1l/100km, 1176km/tank = 730 miles

I am not an auto engineer, I just wanted to tell how much more advanced diesel engines are at the moment than petrol engines. 1,4 times more mileage per tank, almost twice the torque. I think it's a pity and a shame that they are not used more in personnel vehicles in NA.


RE: Choice...
By Hoser McMoose on 1/30/2008 9:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
There are many reasons why diesel vehicles haven't been used in North America as much as Europe, but here are a few that come to mind:

1. Cheap gas. Gasoline (petrol) in the U.S. is half the price or less of the same stuff in Europe (difference being almost entirely made up of higher fuel taxes in Europe). Given that diesel vehicles are slightly more expensive (especially when comparing a turbo diesel vs. naturally aspirated petrol, as is the norm) the pay-back period is much longer here vs. Europe. Even now it's still only about 0.50-0.55euro/liter for gas in the U.S. and a tiny bit more for diesel.

2. The emission regulations I mentioned. The U.S. has always had stricter air pollution regulations than Europe, going back to the very first rules in the 1970s. Many European diesels couldn't be sold in North America over the years. This is especially true for the 2007 and 2008 model years where only ONE company (Mercedes) had a car that could be sold here. Europe has been more focused on reducing greenhouse gases (for which diesel is better) while the U.S. has been more focused on reducing air pollution (for which gasoline is better).

3. Up until 2006 North America had weak sulfur restrictions on diesel fuel. Many European engines wouldn't work without modifications over here. It also presented something of a double-whammy with the above stricter emissions controls. This is (fortunately) fixed now.

4. Most early attempts at diesel engines here STANK, both figuratively and literally! They were especially bad in some of the cold weather winters that many North Americans experience (Finland is about the only country in Europe to get as cold in the winter as most of the U.S. east coast). Again this is fixed now, but people have LONG memories with vehicles, those that were burned with unreliable diesel engines in the 80's are going to be slow to be convinced that they're better now.

As for the efficiency of diesel vs. petrol engines, generally speaking a good diesel will manage about 35% more distance/volume fuel for reasonably similar performance levels (note that in the vehicles you're comparing the 2.4L petrol probably loses a bit of fuel economy due to it's automatic transmission). The torque and power curves will be rather different so it's often tough to get an apples to apples comparison, but as a rule of thumb 35% is close.

Now, where does that difference come from? Two things. First diesel fuel simply contains more potential energy. About 15% more to be specific. For those concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, this 15% more energy also translates into 15% more CO2 released per volume of fuel. The second reason is that diesel's are able to operate closer to their stoichiometric peak more of the time. This basically means less energy wasted as heat.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/31/2008 9:55:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Cheap gas. Gasoline (petrol) in the U.S. is half the price or less of the same stuff in Europe (difference being almost entirely made up of higher fuel taxes in Europe). Given that diesel vehicles are slightly more expensive (especially when comparing a turbo diesel vs. naturally aspirated petrol, as is the norm) the pay-back period is much longer here vs. Europe. Even now it's still only about 0.50-0.55euro/liter for gas in the U.S. and a tiny bit more for diesel.


Almost so. Yes, the price of fuel is very much a taxes policy thing here in Europe (For example, our dear neighbor Norway (World's richest country), a big exporter of oil, they don't import at all, has the highest fuel prices in Europe, about 1,50 per petrol liter), at the moment petrol is something like 1,30e per liter, diesel 1,15e/l in Finland. That's one big difference, diesel is always cheaper than petrol in Europe. So the payback time for the more advanced and expensive engine is much shorter here.

Reply to 2 and 3:

Well, that totally makes sense. The low quality of your diesel fuel (seems to be closer to fuel oil we use in the countryside to warm up houses than the diesel we use in personnel cars) contributes by definition more emissions. And so Mercedes-Benz developed an advanced and expensive filter to reduce emissions originating from the bad quality fuel. And modern turbodiesel engines couldn't handle the thick stuff, so they had to be modified when exported to the US.

Well, the CO2 vs NOx. The rest of world agreed 1997 that CO2 emissions are the worst emissions, the priority. Your government disagreed, so they had to something to show to you citizens . They chose to reduce NOx (in co-operation of you car industry) in their new standards late 90's , early 2000 and nowadays. So you are on your own, there. No, you are with Afghanistan, Zimbabwe :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/.wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#United...

The NOx levels are decreasing in Europe, too. (Of course)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_sta...
in diesel EuroIII(2000): 0,50, in EuroIV(2005):0,25 in EuroV(2009):0.18 and in EuroVI(2014):0.08 g/km

In France, 80% of cars run on diesel. There seems to no evidence, that NOx levels in Paris, Marseille or Toulouse or any other big city cause major (or even minor) problems. Please, guide me to the facts, if there is something. I haven't heard any problems in any European countries with diesel running personnel vehicles.

The 2,4l petrol motor A: CO2:228 g/km NOx: 0.03 g/km CO: 0.26 HC:0.06 g/km, CO: 0.26

The 2,0l turbodiesel M:5,7l/100km CO2:155 g/km NOx: 0.20 g/km CO: 0.17 HC:- CO: 0.17

(In other countries turbodiesel is available with automatic transmission, too. In Finland we prefer manual transmission, so the automatic version oh the turbodiesel is not yet exported here. Maybe if the demand grows.)

So let's see: in 100km (=62 miles):
petrol: 22800g of CO2, 3g of NOx, 6g of HC, 26g of CO
turbodiesel: 15500g of CO2, 20g of NOx, 0g of HC, 17g of CO

Turbodiesel vs petrol in 62miles: CO2: -7300g, +17g of NOx, -6g of HC, -9g of CO

Well, 1970's are quite a way back.... ;)
The world has changed, Zed, the world has changed...


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2008 10:25:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The low quality of your diesel fuel (seems to be closer to fuel oil we use in the countryside to warm up houses...modern turbodiesel engines couldn't handle the thick stuff, so they had to be modified when exported to the US.
Once again, your rabid desire to believe the worst about America leads you astray. There is (and was) no difference in viscosity or any other "quality" degree between US and European diesel, and any and all diesel engines could easily run on both.

The sole difference was the sulfur content only. The EU mandated 50 ppm in 2005 -- the US mandated that level in 2007. Sulfur affects particulate output, but from the perspective of the engine, ultra-low sulfur diesel is actually a bit *worse*. It lubricates less well, and it has a bit less energy...both minor factors, however,

ULSD was sold in some European nations even earlier. That's to be expected. Europe has far more diesels, and thus the quality of their air depends much more on diesel emissions.

> "There seems to no evidence, that NOx levels in Paris, Marseille or Toulouse or any other big city cause major (or even minor) problems"

So why is the EU continually lowering the NOx emissions standards on car? They just like wasting people's money?

In any case, I see you've rather clumsily switched gears, from your earlier chortling that "our standards are better than yours!", to a grumbling, "our air is clean enough, lay off."


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/31/2008 10:51:26 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Choice...
By Hoser McMoose on 1/31/2008 6:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, the CO2 vs NOx. The rest of world agreed 1997 that CO2 emissions are the worst emissions, the priority. Your government disagreed

Technically not my government, I'm Canadian and my government signed on to Kyoto in 1997 and then proceeded to do very little about it.

Either way the idea that greenhouse gases are somehow worse then air pollution is simply ludicrous in my mind. There are several hundreds of thousands of people who die prematurely every year from air pollution. Wikipedia suggests that the number could be as high as 2.4 million people per year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution#Health_...

I'm not sure I quite buy that high a number, but air pollution is DEFINITELY causing major problems NOW. If/when global climate change starts to exceed that I'll agree that CO2 is more important, but for right now I very much would consider it to be a secondary goal.

quote:
I haven't heard any problems in any European countries with diesel running personnel vehicles.

30 seconds of Googling turns up this:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?art...

and this Google Book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=b2G3k51rd0oC&prin...

As for air quality in Paris, it's pretty terrible, definitely worse then, for example, Chicago (a similarly sized city in North America) from my subjective point of view when I visited both places. That being said, London was WAY worse, I was appalled at just how bad the air quality was in that city!

Ohh, and the most troublesome part of diesel air pollution is not in the gases but in the particulate matter. As with gas emissions California was the first jurisdiction in the world to regulate particulate matter from diesel, followed shortly there-after by the U.S. Federal regulations (which us Canadians pretty much just copy). Europe brought on particulate emission limits a couple years after that. The good news though is that with Euro V they're REALLY clamping down here and will actually be very slightly more stringent than the U.S. restrictions (0.005g/km vs. 0.006g/km)

Now, one thing I would point out, I'm actually generally a supporter of diesel in concept, despite what it might seem. There are many situations where I think it would be a superior fuel to petrol. However I strongly believe that emission controls MUST be tightened up for them.

I'd love to see the 'California' emission rules (the same as the U.S. Tier 2, Bin 5 rules) implemented world-wide. But if diesel engines can be made to meet those requirements, I'm all for them! Honda at the very least has said their upcoming diesel engines will meet these emission requirements and Mercedes has one version of their Bluetec engine that will do so as well (though it's not the one they're currently selling here).

Just as a FWIW, this page has a good comparison of the various emission standards:

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/

Keep in mind that some standards are expressed in SI units and some in Imperial units and some in a mix of both (U.S. emissions are listed in grams per mile!)


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 11:08:07 AM , Rating: 2
> "What really makes you say that? EuroNCAP is tighter than NCAP. 2min googling"

Oops again. EuroNCAP isn't legislation-- it doesn't mandate anything. It's simply a rating system. A vehicle can get zero stars (and some do) on EuroNCAP and still be legal for sale all through Europe.

The NHTSA requirements are just that-- mandatory regulations, that all cars must meet.


RE: Choice...
By porkpie on 1/30/2008 11:33:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
EuroNCAP is tighter than NCAP. 2min googling
Lol, believe it or not, "2 minutes googling" doesn't make you an expert. Cali's CARB standards are the toughest in the world.


RE: Choice...
By PlasmaBomb on 1/30/2008 11:50:48 AM , Rating: 5
Did you not read the memo?

2 minutes of googling now makes you a grand master ;)


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 12:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
No, I am not or pretend to be grand master or expert;)

The 2 minutes thingy was a point about how much data there is all over the place. (You knew that already :) )


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 12:31:15 PM , Rating: 1
Sir, my knowledge of the situation in California is very weak. Could you please enlighten me?

For example, how did 2007 Chrysler Voyager manage in Californian tests?
http://www.euroncap.com/large_mpv.aspx

Of course every European country has it's legislation about vehicle safety in addition to EuroNCAP. The power of EuroNCAP is it's independence, no car manufacturer can manipulate or prolong the test process. The EuroNCAP staff buys cars directly from automotive dealers, not from car manufacturers. The idea is to give more information to consumers to base the buying decision, the free market system takes care of rest. And that is what has happened, the cars have improved hugely in last 15 years, in safety terms.

[excuse me for a moment, I have to work too....]


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 12:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "For example, how did 2007 Chrysler Voyager manage in Californian tests?"

The Chrysler Voyager isn't sold in America. In any case, you're trying to divert the argument. The issue isn't how well certain cars score, but requirements that all cars must meet. EuroNCAP isn't a safety standard. It requires nothing at all. It's simply a rating system.

Furthermore, there is much, much more to safety standards than a crash test score. Crash avoidance (not just crash worthiness), lighting, signalling, requirements for brakes, fuel leakage in an accident, mirrors, windshield wipers (clean windows = less accidents), etc, etc.

US safety standards are higher. Some European cars require a total redesign to meet standards here. Even the best require something.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 1:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "So, now we have two contradicting opinions. What shall we do?"

Here's a link detailing the efforts of a small US company to bring Smart Cars to the US market. Legal for sale in Europe, he had to correct twenty eight separate safety issues to get them approved for sale in the US:

http://asmartcar.com/

EuroNCAP site here. Note lack of standards on crash avoidance. Furthermore EuroNCAP crash tests are done with seat belts (US without):

http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx

Contrast to the much more comprehensive US NHTSA standards here:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/standards/qrgt...

News of a VW recall for safety standards on alignment ability for headlights, for vehicles legal for sale in Europe. Just one example of crash avoidance style standards which don't exist outside the US:

http://blog.leasetrader.com/archive/2007/10/01/Vol...

And a side-by-side comparison of the different US and European crash standards:

http://www.crashlabsupport.com/regulations___stand...


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 2:11:45 PM , Rating: 1
We are getting far OT here, I notice that I talk about EuroNCAP. I have no interest in doing so.

quote:
Here's a link detailing the efforts of a small US company to bring Smart Cars to the US market. Legal for sale in Europe, he had to correct twenty eight separate safety issues to get them approved for sale in the US:

http://asmartcar.com/


I didn't find anything interesting at that site. (One EuroNCAP video though :) Could you please point me the important part? Because the manufacturer (=Mercedes-Benz) does not import Smart to the US, asmartcar has to do the modifications to apply to the US auto standards. When an American car is imported to Europe, it is modified to apply to European standards. So? The overall standards for new cars are not 1:1 in the US and EU... I thought we already knew that.

quote:
EuroNCAP site here. Note lack of standards on crash avoidance. Furthermore EuroNCAP crash tests are done with seat belts (US without):


Well, EuroNCAP is designed to give the consumers usable real-life information. The usage of seat belt (brought to market by Swedish Volvo:)) is mandatory in all European countries(I thought in the US, too?). In Finland seat belt usage is over 90%, overall in Europe over 80%. You can G W Oogle for data, how dangerous airbags are without the use of seatbelt. So tests reflect better with real life situations.

Are you sure, that all chapters of these tests are included in the US tests? (Child safety, pedestrian safety and so:
http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Page/fb5e236e-...

quote:
Contrast to the much more comprehensive US NHTSA standards here:
Well, like I mentioned before, all EU member states have their own legislation about car safety, EuroNCAP is on top of that, extra. Are you really serious, that Volvo (made within Swedish laws and considering EuroNCAP) and Mercedes-Benz (made within German laws and considering EuroNCAP)are more unsafe than their US counterparts? All new models that enter the marketplace are going to be tested with EuroNCAP. The manufactures know that, so they can't develop cars to comply the minimum set by laws, but the new model needs to get 5 stars to be competitive.

For example Mercedes-Benz C-class (not known to be the most unsafe car on the planet)

http://www.euroncap.com/carsearch.aspx?make=5338a2...

Model 1997 (before EuroNCAP)= 2 stars
Model 2001 4 stars
Model 2002 5 stars (=maximum)
Model 2007 5 stars (=maximum)

Make a wild guess, how many stars the next model is going to get? 2007 Chrysler Voyager got 2 stars, met the law minimum, it's competition (designed to meet demanding EuroNCAP standards,)got 5 stars and sell tens times more.

quote:
News of a VW recall for safety standards

C'mon get serious..... How many American car recalls you can find? I bet it's not 0 :) :)

quote:
And a side-by-side comparison of the different US and European crash standards:


This link you copy/pasted from G W oogle. Thank you. Not.


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 2:26:48 PM , Rating: 3
> "C'mon get serious..... How many American car recalls you can find? I bet it's not 0"

You missed the point. The recall was just another example of a car that met safety requirements in Europe, but not in the USA.

> "Are you really serious, that Volvo [are] more unsafe than their US counterparts?"

Again, you're trying to shift the argument. The issue is that American safety standards are stricter. Does that translate into more overall safety? That's an opinion call. But the simple fact remains that the US standards are much lengthier, and cover more areas. Many cars designed for the US are safety legal in Europe without changes. It is *never* true the other way around.

And for the last time, that does NOT imply that "Volvos are unsafe". This has to do with government standards, not the crash performance of individual vehicles.


RE: Choice...
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 2:49:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You missed the point. The recall was just another example of a car that met safety requirements in Europe, but not in the USA.


Yes, there seems to be differences in standards of caps of screws between EU and the US.
http://blog.leasetrader.com/archive/2007/10/01/Vol...
So how does this make European safety standards inferior to the US counterpart?

Well, let me get back to my point.

Chrysler Voyager (model 2007) made in the USA according to the US safety standards:
2 stars (independent EuroNCAP tests)

Ford S Max (Model 2006), made in EU according to European safety standards:
5 stars (max)

My point is (and the only point I like to do), do you have any independent data to back up your claim that cars manufactured into American safety standards are safer than cars manufactured into European safety standards???

I don't mind if the safety tests are done in the US, Antarctica or Europe. Or both.

One could assume that better results in safety tests correspond with higher manufacturing safety standards, wouldn't so???

(If higher standards do not contribute anything to safety, why then call it safety standard?)


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 8:52:41 PM , Rating: 3
> "So how does this make European safety standards inferior to the US counterpart?"

Perhaps we're struggling with a language barrier here. I've made no judgement call whatsoever about the inferiority or superiority of either standard.

The US standard is more onerous. It covers many more areas, and imposes a higher overall burden.

Does that make it "superior", or the cases which meet it safer? That's a different question, and one I'm not prepared to argue.


RE: Choice...
By JAB on 1/30/2008 12:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
There is more than just the government doing testing in the US so company's do have a much tougher job that you might think. The government requirements are low but as stated they are enforced by law.

It would be nice to see better rollover testing in US cars and SUV's this is a huge problem for many US cars- at least from personal observation working in a trauma center. Many lives could be saved by better protection and designs less likely to roll over.

I live in the US and my friends love the diesels for the good gas milage and for towing. There is not a cold problem lie the old cars that have good acceleration too with a turbo everyone is shocked when they see how fast they are.


RE: Choice...
By PlasmaBomb on 1/30/2008 11:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
Fixed link - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950...

There are still some american cars in europe which perform worse than european cars, such as -

Chevrolet Aveo- 1.5 stars
Chrysler PT Cruiser- 3 stars
Chrysler Voyager- 1.5 stars (the LHD american market car is better at 4 stars)


RE: Choice...
By eye smite on 1/31/2008 7:04:52 AM , Rating: 3
I've been saying since the 80s that the big 3 are pulling the wool over your eyes. Americans don't want to know though, don't want to learn. It upsets the little world they live in and they don't want to hear it. A good example the big 3 pulling the wool over your eyes is crush zones. Now there may be some validity to that, but it's a nice way of saying we now make a beer can. Cheaper materials while the price keeps going up and I'd rather be seatbelted into a 72 cadillac than an 08 cadi during a crash. Plastic or fiberglass panels that are dent resistant. You think they did that as an innovation to you saving weight or to cut costs in manufacturing? What our euro friend said about the engines being basically the same for 20+ yrs is all too true. It's 2008. In 1985 GM put the 3.8L V6 in their large sedans and oh my isn't it interesting that the same engine is still in use today in the Chevy Impala, Buick Lucerne and so on. Sure, different intakes and fuel injection along the way but it's still the same 3.8L V6 buick created in the early 70s and went GM wide in the 80s. Now I'm sure most fellow Americans will dismiss what I say out of hand. I'm a lunatic not worth listening to. Experience is one of the best teachers, go experience it for yourself, but this time pay attention.


RE: Choice...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2008 9:49:51 AM , Rating: 1
> "A good example the big 3 pulling the wool over your eyes is crush zones."

Ignoring the fact that the government of not only the US, but most nations, now require such crush zones, you're ignoring basic physics. If your vehicle is infinitely rigid, then any instaneous stop results in a infinite acceleration. Bodies don't like that...in fact, it tends to turn them into strawberry pulp.

A crush zone spreads out the force of impact temporally, just as a strong passenger compartment spreads it out spatially. That increases survivability in an accident.

> "I'm sure most fellow Americans will dismiss what I say out of hand. I'm a lunatic not worth listening to"

> "Sure, different intakes and fuel injection along the way but it's still the same 3.8L V6..."

The technology of the wheel hasn't changed much in 4,000 years. Some technologies are at their peak, or very near it.

The IC engine is a couple of centuries old; you're not going to see changes overnight. Still engines today are considerably more efficient today (and far, far cleaner, emissions-wise) than they were even 20 years ago.

The bit where you blamed the Holocaust on "money grubbing" jews went a long way to further that view.


RE: Choice...
By Spoelie on 1/30/2008 5:10:20 AM , Rating: 2
You are right about that, I thought -5°C was cold enough :( I don't have any experience driving diesel engines in that cold weather so I'll leave the arguing to others.


RE: Choice...
By Cobra Commander on 1/30/2008 9:04:27 AM , Rating: 2
NA Diesel is NOT the same diesel as EU Diesel, so it's an apples to oranges debate to begin with. EU is over one generation ahead of NA in terms of its diesel fuel technology. It does sound a tad old-school for that fellow's diesel to have to start up above certain temps, however it's certainly not unheard of and I think people need to understand a LOT of NA diesel engines are going to be found in large trucks - vehicles that in certain respects have not been known to be pioneers of new technology.


RE: Choice...
By PlasmaBomb on 1/30/2008 11:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
In the Wiki link above there is reference to truckers leaving their trucks running overnight rather than risking trying to start them if temps are really low. Does that actually happen nowadays? Certainly sounds like you could do with updating those trucks...


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 12:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's the fuel not the engine that's the issue.


RE: Choice...
By PlasmaBomb on 1/30/2008 2:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
The way I read it, keeping the engine running keeps the engine and fuel warm, preventing the fuel from turning into a gel.

Surely they could implement some other forms of heating/pre-heating fuel or insulating the fuel system so it doesn't suffer as much (cost may be a factor though).

The second point was does this actually happen now or is it something that used to happen and has long since stopped?


RE: Choice...
By rgsaunders on 1/30/2008 4:27:32 PM , Rating: 1
I had a Jetta TDI which I drove for about 365,000km through all sorts of weather here in Ontario, including stretches of cold where the overnight low temps hit -35 to -40C not counting wind chill, yes, a little fuel additive was required to prevent fuel jelling, however, at a cost of about 30 to 40 cents a tank, which lasted about 800-900km, it was cheap. I never plugged the vehicle except overnight, and I didn't have starting problems. The key to using diesel engines effectively is to be found in knowing what you are doing and dealing with things realistically, instead of bitching about what you "want". If you are not prepared to learn something new, then don't bother buying diesel.


RE: Choice...
By Runiteshark on 1/30/2008 2:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
Even thinking to end it altogether is retarded.

Its not like the manufacturers are devoting so much time and effort to figure out they need to have a light chassis, big engine, and aerodynamic shape. I can't even begin to understand how this could equate to a huge "focus" on creating these vehicles. They are halo cars of their respective brand.

Also why the Veryon? Why not the Thrust SSC Ultimate?


RE: Choice...
By Talcite on 1/30/2008 3:41:04 AM , Rating: 4
I think the automanufacturers should fire some of their PhD Mech Engineers and hire you instead, you seem to have all the answers after all.

In case you didn't notice, I was being sarcastic.

You trivialize the process of making a faster car into one sentence and 3 points. Do you realize how hard it is to make a light chassis that's strong enough to support the weight of the car, including that big engine, not flex under acceleration or braking, AND ontop of all that still have a decent crash rating? And don't even get me started on the complexities of fluid dynamic models. Car companies spend hundreds of millions on running simulations in CFDs. I would know, I use software that costs 10k per simulation. And engines aren't any walk in the park either. You're controlling thousands of very hot explosions a second.

Designing a big HP car is a huge focus and it takes a LOT of energy to do. The EPA is saying that the energy there should be redirected into much more useful things, such as efficiency and they have a very valid point. Smog isn't exactly desirable, and neither is ground level ozone. We'd all be much better off without it.


RE: Choice...
By Runiteshark on 1/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Choice...
By MrTeal on 1/30/2008 8:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Car companies spend hundreds of millions on running simulations in CFDs. I would know, I use software that costs 10k per simulation.


quote:
Yeah you are totally right, I'm such an idiot. I think they should hire you.


Seems to me that it sounds like they might have already hired him.


RE: Choice...
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 12:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It makes ZERO business sense to devote most of your time money and effort into something that will have minimum sales, thus not being very profitable in the perspective of the car market (compared to say the Camry).
This is true. The majority of effort of the car manufacturers aren't spent on niche cars like the ZR-1. They're spent on cars like the Malibu. The budgets for these cars alone should be an indicator of what the focus is.


RE: Choice...
By JAB on 1/31/2008 2:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
Wow well they cant make the top cars hand made one offs you just could not find enough people skilled in that kind of welding to make it happen in even the small quantities needed for these rare cars. Then you would need to make it pass the crash tests which requires different things than for safty on the race track because they don't use 5 point restraints or Hans device in the tests or the street.

Personally I would far prefer them to have them make a top racing car with a turbo 4 or at the most 6 cylinder. Big V-8s are more about sounding fast than going fast. They just slow you down in the curves and make it harder to hook up exiting corners. I know this is part of the American history but the US car makers need to start looking forward not back before they have lost all the market.


RE: Choice...
By Drexial on 1/30/2008 10:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
I dunno. I think the 15/25 ratting for the ZR-1 is pretty damned good for a 3,300 lbs car with 600 HP. most euro sports cars that make around 500 get to the high 10s with highway millage.

So I don't really see an argument against the ZR-1 here. I mean they want a 3600 lbs accord with 35 mpg that wont handle ANYTHING like a ZR-1 so i would say its right on the mark for efficiency.


RE: Choice...
By tdawg on 1/30/2008 12:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, why can't they focus on both? It be good PR on both sides of the fence for a car company to tout a car that's the most efficient and a car that delivers the most horsepower in the same lineup. If someone wants to spend a ton of cash on that Bugatti to drive a 1000+ HP car, might as well give them the choice. I know I'd like to get the chance to drive one to see what it's like to have that much HP under my foot.


RE: Choice...
By NastyHabits on 2/2/2008 4:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
When they build a $25K AWD 4-door Tesla, I'll buy it. In the meantime, they'll have to pry my cold, dead hands from the steering wheel of my Subaru WRX. As many of the posts show, we can have horsepower AND decent fuel economy (as long as you don't drive a 7000 pound SUV).

Seriously, good alternatives are a few years away. (Better batteries -- carbon nanotube/lithium ion -- are just around the corner.) Current hybrids have a hidden problem - expensive battery replacement/disposal. Hydrogen, unless you can produce with clean renewable energy just shifts the pollution creation to another source. Ethanol is the biggest sham -- it ends up costing more than gasoline. (Can't ship by pipeline - need to truck it, and we only get 1.3 energy units for every 1 unit used to produce it from corn. To say nothing about what it does to world food prices.)

A "plug-in" hybrid with a small engine for long trips makes the best sense for the near future.


RE: Choice...
By BucDan on 2/3/2008 12:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
yes we do need to get more efficient...hint hint ferrari and laborghini, people like them cause the world to go bad. we are tryin to better ourselves and the world. they(as in everyone, not just bashing those two manufacturers) just spoil the rich. those rich people that would spend a million on a car, people drinking their kool-aid.


So Big Brother tells us what to do
By billybob24 on 1/30/2008 3:11:18 AM , Rating: 1
And everybody claps...

This is what America is today..liberals have won.




RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By AndyKH on 1/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By pauldovi on 1/30/2008 9:17:00 AM , Rating: 4
Since when did you or the government decide how much of anything I need? Where does it gain that right?

It isn't about what I need or want. It is about what the government is legally alloud to do. This is on the long list of things that they are not alloud to do, but do anyways.


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By MatthiasF on 1/30/2008 9:46:44 AM , Rating: 3
It's in the best interest of the common good to help reduce unnecessary individual consumption of shared resources and it's impact on the country at large (pollution, commodity prices, economic repercussions).

This is not some "liberal" agenda. It's modern roots are in Republican conservatism back in the 19th century and even the Constitution writers had it in mind with such language as "promote the general Welfare".


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By mdogs444 on 1/30/2008 10:28:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
reduce unnecessary individual consumption of shared resources

quote:
modern roots are in Republican conservatism back in the 19th century

I beg to differ on that. First those are two entirely contradicting statements. Republican conservativism believes in capitalism and that supply/demand will dictate a price to the point that alternatives will be made available when supply reaches a low point and price reaches a high point. Its very easily understood economics.

quote:
This is not some "liberal" agenda.

quote:
even the Constitution writers had it in mind with such language as "promote the general Welfare".

Not a liberal agenda? What a joke. Next you'll tell me that the "promote the general welfare" refers to redistribution of wealth, higher tax rates for the wealthy, and provind free insurance & welfare to the poor & lazy.

You can try and provide as much liberal spin as you want, but the fact is that any level headed person can see right through this. It falls into the realm of the enviro-nazi's & liberals quest for larger government & socialism.


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By MatthiasF on 1/30/2008 2:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest reading up on the Whigs party, which joined the Republican party when it formed.

As far as the second half of your post, would you prefer wealth to be redistributed by decapitation or death like in other revolutions when class warfare (literal warfare) broke out (France, Russia, China, name an African nation)? Asking more from the wealthy is easier than asking more from the poor. It's not that we're picking on the wealthy, it's just the law of numbers that they can afford to pay more. If we had to raise taxes on the poor to reduce taxes on the rich, we'd have a lot more economic problems.

I myself do not support free health insurance supplied by the Feds. I do support my State's programs to offer health insurance to children without insurance, but the adults should be paying for their own. I have a cheap $85 a month insurance with a high deductable in an HSA that helps me hold onto my money and provide protection if anything serious happens. Anyone who thinks healthcare means an insurance company (or the government) paying for everything, needs to have their freakin' heads examined (on their own dollar).

As far as the "level headed" comment, anyone who uses broad stereotypes is not level headed.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 2:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "would you prefer wealth to be redistributed by decapitation or death... "

This is the logical error known as a "false dilemma". We don't have to choose between stealing from the rich or killing them. We're a civilized society now.

> "It's not that we're picking on the wealthy..."

Having one man pay $1M in taxes -- up to half his income, if all state and local are included -- while another man pays nothing at all is unfair, any way you slice it. Especially when the man who pays nothing is almost always using a far larger share of social and government services.

> "I suggest reading up on the Whigs party, which joined the Republican party when it formed."

Some Whigs joined the Republican Party. The party split pretty much on geographic lines, with the truly hardcore (even in the North) joining groups like the American Party. In any case, whats your point?


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 11:12:13 AM , Rating: 3
> "even the Constitution writers had it in mind with such language as "promote the general Welfare"...

Never taken a constitutional history class eh? The Framers meant no such thing by that phrase. Madison himself stated the "general welfare" clause was not intended to give congress an open hand to exercise any power which might benefit the populace. The functions of government are strictly delineated by the Constitution and further limited by the 9th and 10th Amendment.


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 12:31:46 PM , Rating: 3
Not only have you taken one, but WHICH one did you take? In other words, was it taught by Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken? If so, take a different one.


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By mdogs444 on 1/30/2008 12:35:38 PM , Rating: 1
So he should take one that's taught in a socialist european country...or perhaps one thats taught by an extreme left wing professor? lol


By diablofish on 1/30/2008 4:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
I thought I gave two pretty clear examples of both left and right extremes: Rush on the right and Al on the left. But maybe you think they are both extremely liberal?

My point was that critical thinking (and not just repeating what one hears in class or on the radio) is necessary to attempting to understand the Constitution.


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By MatthiasF on 1/30/2008 1:45:33 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, I'm well aware of Madison's opposition to federal projects created by Congress in his day. One man of many involved in the process and I doubt anyone today would complain that the Feds went too far building our modern highway system (especially on a thread discussing cars).

As far as Constitutional restrictions on Congress's projects, I don't see any that would forbid setting economic goals on corporations.

Also, here are the two Amendments you mentioned.

quote:
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


The first dictates the Feds can't take away rights a State allows and the second dictates that any power not given to the Federal government is deferred to the States.

In this case, the states allowed the EPA to set emissions and mileage guidelines, and only one state (California) has set it's own. My own state, Maryland, is part of a suit to push the EPA to set harder goals for automakers and I support the efforts.

I don't want smog in my city again and I don't want to see $3 a gallon again either.

Have YOU ever taken a constitutional history class?


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 1:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "In this case, the states allowed the EPA to set emissions and mileage guidelines"

Err, no. The EPA sets standards all states must follow. A state can request a waiver or lobby for additional actions...but it doesn't choose whether or not to follow the requirements. It's not an opt-in program.

> "the second dictates that any power not given to the Federal government is deferred to the States"

Or to the people. Which means-- if the Constitution doesn't explicitly authorize a power, it doesn't exist.

> "Have YOU ever taken a constitutional history class? "

I have, yes. The professor was quite liberal (he later became a close friend of the Clintons) but he made the Framers intent quite clear.


By MatthiasF on 1/30/2008 2:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
The EPA's powers are given to it through Acts from Congress, voted on by the States (via their representatives in both Houses). The State can argue it's way out but it would most likely lose many of the advantages the Acts provided as well, like the waiver you mentioned. Or the State can sue for changes, like the suit I mentioned Maryland, California and a few others are involved in recently.

As we discussed, any power given to the Feds is governed by the Feds, anything not is governed by the States. Any right not guaranteed or restricted by the States is not governed, so the "right" doesn't necessarily go to the people unless it is guaranteed in some method. So while you seem to be saying that anything not defined as legal or illegal is legal, that isn't necessarily the case all the time.


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 4:22:01 PM , Rating: 3
I think it might be important to note that Madison's opinions were only one of the many opinions published by the many framers of the Constitution. And some of the other framers disagreed with Madison on many of the issues.

And taking one class, no matter who taught it, hardly makes one an expert on Constitutional Law. And the experts (and courts) still debate the intent of the framers.

Further, a stronger central government was granted in the Constitution because the first attempt at setting up a much more loosely formed central government, The Articles of Confederation, failed.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 8:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
> "And some of the other framers disagreed with Madison on many of the issues."

Sure. But they all agreed on the phrasing of the Constitution itself, and the need for the 10th Amendment. After all, that's why it wound up as part of the text.

Trying to argue the Framers intended "for the general welfare" as a blanket coverage for any and all acts which might possibly benefit people is clearly false.


By Spuke on 1/30/2008 12:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's in the best interest of the common good to help reduce unnecessary individual consumption of shared resources and it's impact on the country at large (pollution, commodity prices, economic repercussions).
In the US, we have a choice as to what direction we want to go, good or bad. Our Constitution supports this. Maybe your Constitution doesn't, I don't know. Does this mean we should be negligent in our actions? If we choose to, yes, and there may or may not be repercussions for those actions. As long as it's not illegal (and even the illegal doesn't mean just), we can do as we choose.


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By eye smite on 1/31/2008 7:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with you by God. Lets keep making vehicles with more HP and torgue and selling them to as many people that will drive them irresponsibly as possible. This will make for more crashes, more death and so on. I know, we'll call it population control statistics at the federal DOT. This post is the level of chosen idiocy I speak of. What they're doing has upset his little perceived world and he's rebeling against it. Man, did you know with the right tranny and gearing you can make a car go over 100mph with a lawnmower engine. Keep the Rebel Flag alive though brotha, the south will rise again.


By Spuke on 1/31/2008 11:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm with you by God. Lets keep making vehicles with more HP and torgue and selling them to as many people that will drive them irresponsibly as possible. This will make for more crashes, more death and so on.
Do you have any statistics to support this assertion?


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By mdogs444 on 1/30/2008 9:39:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sometimes it's just necessary to use law to push people in the right direction - just like with the laws regulating smoking. I believe that the negative image that is now commonly associated with smoking and has been promoted through laws and information campaigns, is necessary to prevent people from starting to smoke.

But who are you, or the government for that matter, to tell someone they cannot smoke cigarettes in the privacy of their own back yard or home? Why is that you think its okay to use law to "push people in the right direction" on smoking because you think its bad and has health risks? Also, lets not start on the number of jobs lost due to the decline in tobacco industry in the south, not to mention how much more in tax increases the average smoker is paying to the local, state, and federal government...just for doing something that is considered 100% legal. I dont think anyone who smokes, including myself, actually think that its good for your health so lets get real here...we already pay higher insurance costs for it, but to punish us for doing something that is perfectly legal and a personal choice, by taxing smokers at a higher rate to pay for other social earmarks that are not benefitting smokers is ridiculous.

So is it wrong for the government to use law to push heterosexuality and make homosexuality have an even worse image?...because lets face it, homosexuality promotes a much higher rate of STD & HIV contraction than heterosexual relationships in the US.

The point is that the government is supposed to represent the people and provide protection of their freedoms and choices by limiting government control. WHat you are promoting is the exact opposite - by wanting the government to transform intself into the interpreter to decide how much is enough, what is acceptable in society, what is not acceptable in society, and what you're allowed to do in the privacy of your own home. Christ man, the state government of California wants to control your home thermostat, other states wanted to provide our privelages of having driving permits to people who are in our country illegaly and already have broken the law without standing trial yet.

You are brainwashed by the liberal nazi's & already drank too much of their Kool-Aid if you dont see this.


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By MatthiasF on 1/30/2008 10:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
Kinda going off topic aren't you?

Insurance rates for cars are determined by the cost of the car. If you buy an expensive car, you can expect your insurance premiums to be higher. This doesn't hurt anyone else.

If you buy a car with far below average gas mileage, you are not only paying more for gas but you're taking a shared resource which in turn makes the next gallon more expensive for yourself and others.

It's not asking much to steer you to keep this in mind when buying a car. Hence the rebates for buying hybrids in most states and from the Feds.

On your other topics, stop smoking, use a condom, HVAC is another shared resource (electricity, heating oil, natural gas), immigration is only illegal federally while some states have no such restrictions and it's within their rights to determine what rights they give to the immigrants within their borders.

Also, if you know anything of the Nazis, you would know they were no were near liberal (even though the term socialist was in their party name). They are however a good example of how a bunch of fascists hiding beneath a viel of good intentions can devastate most of the world.


By mdogs444 on 1/30/2008 10:43:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Kinda going off topic aren't you?

No, I was commenting on the example given by the OP.
quote:
Insurance rates for cars are determined by the cost of the car.

Partially. They are also determined by the city/area you live, how much per year you state you drive, your personal driving record, how many dollars for each section of the insurance you warrant, and how low a deductable. The purchase/replacement value of the car is quite a low factor in the midst of it.
quote:
you're taking a shared resource which in turn makes the next gallon more expensive for yourself and others

False. It does not make the next gallon more expensive. Politically created energy crisis (wars, OPEC, price wars of demand/supply) have more in dictating the price than me wanting a car that does not get the type of MPG that you want me to get. Making it more expensive for others is a stupid statement that basically means "i cannot afford a nicer car or afford the gas for a nicer car, so you shouldn't have one either".
quote:
On your other topics, stop smoking, use a condom

Thanks for the Nanny State advice. And although those are "common sense" objectives - they don't give you much credit for acknowledging "freedom" and "choice".
quote:
immigration is only illegal federally while some states have no such restrictions

False. Illegal Immigration is a federal crime, and has jurisdiction to prosecute that crime above and beyond the state level. The states do not have any laws "allowing" illegal immigration. What they have are "sanctuary cities" who voluntarily decide NOT to cooperate with federal authorities by reporting these illegal scum. Since they do not comply with federal regulations, they should not receive federal funding.
quote:
it's within their rights to determine what rights they give to the immigrants within their borders.

No its not you idiot. To be a citizen of a State, you must first be a citizen of the COUNTRY! Therefore, if you are not a citizen of the country - you technically do not have any of the "rights" provided to citizens of the country who fall under the constitution.
quote:
They are however a good example of how a bunch of fascists hiding beneath a viel of good intentions can devastate most of the world.

Exactly what my point of liberalism and socialism is.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 11:17:38 AM , Rating: 3
> "Insurance rates for cars are determined by the cost of the car."

That's a small consideration in the premium price. A far larger factor are the actuarial tables showing total crashes and (for new vehicles without such data or in states which ban that approach) the vehicle type, number of doors (2-doors are always much more expensive than 4-doors) total horsepower and other factors.

Also critical is the driver, as unmarried males in the 19-25 age bracket pay far higher rates than, say married females in the 30-49 bracket.

> "you are not only paying more for gas but you're taking a shared resource "

Everything sold in this country is a shared resource....and the more of it you buy, the more expensive you make it for everyone else. That's basic supply and demand.

If the federal government really wanted to drop gasoline prices, the most effective measure would be the building of a few more refineries. We're running very nearly 100% capacity now, which means prices have to rise to force us to cut demand, else the pumps run dry. We haven't built a new refinery in this country in over 30 years.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2008 1:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "if you know anything of the Nazis, you would know they were no were near liberal "

On the contrary, their policies in regard to collectivism, economic and business policies, size and function of goverment, support of unions, and many social mandates align extremely closely with current liberal ideology. Their pro-working class, class-warfare rhetoric used during the rise to power during the 1930s is almost identical to that used today.

Hitler's conception of the subordination of individualism in favor of Volksgemeinschaft and its expression in the mantra of "Common Interest Before Self-Interest" recalls Kennedy's famous line, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". His corps of civic-minded volunteers forming the Jugund (Hitler Youth) is eerily similar to Clinton's proposal for a volunteer youth National Service Program.

In fact, the only ways in which the Nazi Party truly diverges from mainstream liberalism of today was in the militaristic ethnic nationalism.


By pomaikai on 1/30/2008 2:38:22 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but smokers effect me. You stink like an ash tray and force us non-smokers to have to put up with your stench. I just got out of an elevator standing next to a guy who smoked. It smelled just like me sticking my nose in an ash tray. Smokers using cologne works just as good as spraying air freshener after a shit. I have been half tempted to walk around with stink bombs and setone off everytime I end up next to a smoker. You cant smell it because you are use to your stink. trying to explain to a smoking coworker how bad it smells to non-smokers I told him the next time I smelled someone smoking I would let him know. We were in an open garage bay and I let him know that someone just lit up. He walked out of the garage bay to see if I was telling the truth and someone about 50 yards around corner just lit up. He had no idea that it was that strong and traveled that far.

It affects me everytime I go to a restaurant or any other event. I have taught my kid at 3 how bad it is and it is funny as hell when we walk past a smoker and he says "Daddy, they stink really bad". I dont care if your killing yourself(hopefully your not killing your kids by smoking in the car with them). My only problem with smokers is how bad they make everything smell.

Why would they force heterosexuality. All it is is gays killing gays. It doesnt affect anyone but them. Smoking in a car with kids is hurting the child, yet parents will light up without even thinking about it.


RE: So Big Brother tells us what to do
By UNCjigga on 1/30/2008 11:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
And you're a moron--you're what Red State America has become today? Seriously, lets take a step back and read between the lines. I don't think this guy cares about 268hp Camrys or 240hp Jettas. He's talking about the monstrous 500hp and 600hp cars.

I believe this EPA guy's argument is "why spend so much money developing these ridiculously powerful drivetrains that only a few people will ever buy, and even fewer will use in a daily driver?" Projects like the ZR1, Viper, GT40, GTR etc. exist solely to give manufacturers a "halo car" in the horsepower wars. You could make the argument that all these projects derive from R&D put into racing, but I suppose this EPA guy's argument is that by spending the R&D on economy/efficiency projects instead, they will make a greater return on investment because it will benefit more customers.


By Spuke on 1/30/2008 1:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I suppose this EPA guy's argument is that by spending the R&D on economy/efficiency projects instead, they will make a greater return on investment because it will benefit more customers.
If the ROI on a ZR-1 wasn't good, GM would never have built it. The R&D spent (not to mention the entire budget) on that one car pales in comparison to the R&D on the Malibu, which is a car that the masses will be driving. And a car that GM MUST make money on. Car makers don't make cars for free anymore (that concept is LONG gone).


WTH?
By KernD on 1/30/2008 12:37:41 AM , Rating: 2
There is no race, this is BS. The manufacturer will develop the cars according to the target market thats all, and if millionaire want more HP in there extreme sports car, then fine. It's not like 600 HP is something new, there is no race... the Bugati is already some years old now, the Ferrari F50 must have near 600 hp if it doesn't have more, and it's more than 10 years old. So is the McLarren F1. Maybe Dodge is only trying to compete with European cars.

This is nothing new, and don't you guys worry, the average Joe's car won't have that much and it's mileage will improve... yet again, has it has been doing since the first oil crisis.




RE: WTH?
By MadMaster on 1/30/2008 1:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
Very true, the demand drives the supply in our free market system.

However, we have reached the point where efficiency is getting extremely important. The industry has been building very efficient engines, but has just made the cars bigger to soak up the extra gasoline.

A case study, comparing a 1991 Toyota Camry to a 2005 Toyota Camry. Both get about the same mpg (2005-21/30 1991-23/31). The 2005 Toyota has a bigger engine (2.4L vs 2.0L) and has a curb weight of about 200 pounds more, and it also has 160hp compared to 115hp.

I think this is what the EPA spokesman was referring to.

But as you say, the car market is driven by demand. If people want big cars, the car manufactures will try to get the big cars into the hands of the consumer. Market fundamentals...

If the USA was really serious about independence from foreign oil (we actually import about 2% of our oil from Russia...nearly enough to put us into a recession) or to protect the planet (global warming), a much larger gas tax would be put in place. That would drive the consumer to demand more efficient cars and the manufactures to supply that demand.

As we all know, the current gas tax is unpopular as hell. Increasing it? Forget it. Basically, the root problem is the consumer. The consumer (generally) doesn't care, so nothing is going to happen. It's pretty much that simple.


RE: WTH?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 2:01:18 AM , Rating: 3
> "A case study, comparing a 1991 Toyota Camry to a 2005 Toyota Camry. Both get about the same mpg..."

Those comparisons rarely take into account the steadily increasing emissions standards (which reduce mileage) and steadily increasing safety standards (which increase weight, decreasing mileage).

Furthermore, the gas sold today is considerably different than that from 1991. Reformulated gas reduces mileage slightly, and the ethanol they're now adding reduces it even more (EPA tests are now done with E5, I believe). It's not a huge decrease (5%) but that's enough to take a point off the mpg numbers.

Engines are much more efficient than they were 25 years ago. Most of those gains have simply been eaten up by federal regulations in other areas.


RE: WTH?
By MadMaster on 1/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: WTH?
By TitusDes on 1/30/2008 3:34:08 AM , Rating: 2
Really? I thought it was elected representatives that controlled the US government.


RE: WTH?
By MadMaster on 1/30/2008 11:15:58 AM , Rating: 2
Who elects the representatives?

Yes the president, senate, and government has power. However, the ultimate concentration is with the people.

If people really didn't want safety standards risen, they would have complained to their representative and the representative would have complained to the appropriate agency. The representative might even push laws to abide by what the people say...

I know, I work in the govn. There is a constant fear of the people and of them finding out 'we aren't doing what they want.' Bosses and the senate and the president hold weight, but the real power is in the people. That's not to say people are responsible with their power...


RE: WTH?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 11:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
> "Who elects the representatives?"

Not the people...at least, not by design of the Founding Fathers. They were very wary of "mob rule" and its resultant effects on personal liberty and property rights. That's why they built a Republic not a Democracy. We elect electors, who themselves elect the members of government.

A distinction that has, unfortunately, been largely forgotten over the years....and explains why so many people think the government can pass any law whatsoever, so long as 51% of the people think its a good idea.


RE: WTH?
By MadMaster on 1/30/2008 11:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
That's a good point.

The power is with the people, but it is spread out across ~250 million people(?). And many of these people really can't decide for themselves what they really want...they just go along with what the crowd, or "mob rule".

I could take it a step further and say whoever controls the people controls government, but you only need to control 51% of the people...

This is probably going to anger a lot of people, but you could say that advertising is propaganda. We do see something like 100+ pieces of advertising a day... not much different than historical propaganda... Yeah, that is a radical idea.


RE: WTH?
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 1:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is probably going to anger a lot of people, but you could say that advertising is propaganda.
You could but you'd be going off topic. The "mob" isn't the majority of the people as the majority refuses to vote. And the government isn't directly controlled by the people either. It's more like a reminder than control.


RE: WTH?
By slashbinslashbash on 1/30/2008 3:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, engine efficiency has gone up considerably, but at the same time HP has gone up considerably, and vehicle weights have also increased, so overall vehicle efficiency is pretty much treading water.

It really seems to be more of a speed addiction than anything else that's causing the horsepower wars (which I do think exist). The original 1973 Lamborghini Countach had a 0-60 time of 6.8 seconds, as did the 1977 Chevrolet Corvette. The 1979 Ferrari 308 GTS had a 0-60 time of 7.8 seconds. This is the kind of performance that we now see everyday from various "family sedans" and even a couple SUV's. People used to be quite content with 10-12 second 0-60 times (of course this was in the day of the 55mph national speed limit), but now anything over 10 seconds is derided as slow (and I happen to agree, but then again I'm a speed demon). I'm not saying I want to return to the bad old days, but really most vehicles could probably use a smaller, less powerful, more fuel-efficient engine. Of course, this isn't the automakers' fault -- V8 full-sized trucks outsell V6's by a large margin because buyers just want the power. No doubt, it's awesome that you can currently buy a Dodge Ram 1500 Hemi that can run a virtual tie with that 1977 Corvette on the drag strip, but is it really necessary?


RE: WTH?
By Noya on 1/30/2008 7:13:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is the kind of performance that we now see everyday from various "family sedans"


Actually, the top V6 Camry/Accord/Altima now run it closer to 6.0 seconds (with some even breaking into the high fives).


RE: WTH?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 10:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
> "but at the same time HP has gone up considerably, and vehicle weights have also increased, so overall vehicle efficiency is pretty much treading water."

Due to improvements in engine design, horsepower isn't automatically an inverse correlation with fuel economy any longer (as any of the Corvette owners here will tell you).

Vehicle weight has increased yes...but as said earlier, much of that is due to continually-increasing safety regulations-- stronger frames, better bumpers, more airbags, additional lights, abs systems, new standards on roof crush resistance, etc, etc.

In any case, the EPA's basic premise is wrong. Automakers aren't "warring" with each other to build the biggest engine. They're offering the consumer what they want-- more power.


RE: WTH?
By Hoser McMoose on 1/30/2008 10:29:51 PM , Rating: 3
Another thing that is rarely taken into account in such comparison is what I like to call car model bloat.

For the past 25 years each new revision of a car model has pretty consistently been bigger than the last. Longer, wider and heavier, usually with more horsepower too. Look at the specs:

1991 Camry - 182.1" length, 66.5" width, 110hp or 156hp engines
2008 Camry - 189.2" length, 71.7" width, 158hp or 268hp engines
2008 Corolla - 178.7" length, 69.3" width, 132hp or 158hp engines.

As you can see the 2008 Camry model is noticeably larger than the 1991 Camry and in fact the 2008 Corolla is a much better vehicle for comparison.

If you look at it this way you'll see that the 132hp 2008 Corolla gets MUCH better fuel economy than a 110hp 1991 Camry (28/37mpg vs. 23/31mpg on the new EPA test).

You can see similar things happening with other makes. "Subcompact" cars today are bigger than "Compact" cars of 25 years ago, while "Compact" cars of today are bigger than "Mid sized" cars from the early 80's. In fact the 2009 Honda Fit will be almost as big as a 1984 Honda Accord and with a more powerful engine.


RE: WTH?
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 9:00:16 AM , Rating: 2
I think the consumer has been demanding better and more efficient cars for decades. And I think consumers are STILL demanding better and more efficient cars and will for the foreseeable future. Hence, there has been a shift from American car makers who focused on large vehicles with huge engines that weren't all that reliable relative to their Japanese competitors. Japanese car makers focused on improving the reliability of their vehicles while delivering decent power and fuel economy. The result? The market share of Japanese car makers has steadily increased while the market share of American car makers has steadily decreased. The recent spike (past 8 years) of high fuel prices has put an added focus on the wisdom of developing vehicles that are safe, efficient, and reliable.

If American car makers were smart, they would have responded to the market that was shifting for years. Instead, they guaranteed huge pensions to their employees based on future sales that never materialized, focused on developing powerful fuel-hungry vehicles, and practically ignored the market's desires. Sometimes government needs to step in to motivate companies (auto or otherwise) to do the thing that is actually in their best interest.


RE: WTH?
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 1:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and practically ignored the market's desires.
They're NOT ignoring the markets desires. You can't sell a car that no one will buy. Why is this so hard to understand? The Ford F150 sold almost 600,000 in 2007 (sales down 12.5% from 06). The Chevy Silverado came in 2nd at just over 500k (sales down 2.4% from 06). The Camry came in just under 400k (sales up 6.4% from 06). The F150 has been the number one selling vehicle for the last 26 years!!! Do you think those sales just came out of thin air? That's the MAJORITY. That's what people are buying. The highest selling small car, the Corolla sold just over 300k and is down 4% from 06. If "everyone" is wanting small cars, why did the Corolla sales go down? They should've been going up. Maybe the Prius is taking away sales from the Corolla (181k, up 69%).

If anything, there MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT be trend towards mid-sized sedans as all of them have experienced decent growth with the Altima growing the most (240k, up 27% from 06).


RE: WTH?
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 4:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
Let's look at the bigger picture. In other words, let's look at cars versus trucks versus SUV's in the worldwide market. That's what I'm talking about. And then, let's look at market share in the US and you can see that GM, Chrysler, and Ford all have been losing market share for years.

And one other thing really needs to be corrected in that post: 600,000 F-150's is HARDLY a majority of the cars sold in the world or the US for that matter. Just GM and Toyota alone EACH sold over 9 MILLION vehicles in 2007. So you're missing the bigger point here. Just because something sells #1 doesn't mean it's being bought my a majority of people. For example, 600,000/18,000,000 = 0.3% of the total market if only Toyota and GM were taken into account.


RE: WTH?
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 6:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's look at the bigger picture. In other words, let's look at cars versus trucks versus SUV's in the worldwide market.
Looking at the bigger picture with respect to the car market doesn't make sense. Americans and Europeans choices in cars vastly differ. I would call it apples to oranges. Europe never had a truck or SUV market so how can we include them with the American market. Conversely, America never had a small car market so how can they be included with the European market. They really need to be looked at separately.


RE: WTH?
By diablofish on 1/30/2008 4:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
And looking at only ONE model isn't a way to determine if people are buying more efficient cars. Add up the Prius, Corolla, Camry, Taurus, Aura, Stratus, Altima, Accord, etc. and compare that to SUV's plus pickups plus vans and you'll have a much more accurate picture of the overall market.


RE: WTH?
By Hoser McMoose on 1/30/2008 11:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
Overall market share is roughly 53% for trucks vs. 47% for cars in the U.S.

As much as people TALK about buying smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles the fact of the matter is that they are voting with their wallets for large, powerful vehicles.


RE: WTH?
By pomaikai on 1/30/2008 4:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
could it be the simple fact that each company produces one full size truck and lots of different cars. Take toyota. They make the tundra and tacoma. Then they make the corrola, prius, camry, avalon, matrix, and yaris. Americans like trucks. There are much less truck models than car models. There for one model truck can easily outsell another model car. Because of only having a single full size truck there are $15,000 F-150 all the way up to $40-50000 F-150. Its like all the car models wrapped up in one.


Turbo charging a gasoline engine hurts fuel economy
By titan7 on 1/30/2008 11:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
You need a 14.7:1 air:fuel mixture with gasoline, unless you want to burn lean or rich (which leads to NOx or unburnt hydrocarbon emissions). This means running at half throttle gives you half the air as full throttle in order to maintain this ratio.

A turbo (or super) charger is just a pump that your engine must turn, which obviously requires energy. The reason one would do this is to force additional air into the engine. The reason for wanting additional air is so you can burn additional fuel. Having an engine pump extra air into it so it can burn as much fuel as a larger engine will never be as efficient as simply having a larger displacement engine.

Manufacturers are adding turbos to 4s and 6s not to make them more efficient, but to make them produce the same power as the 6s and 8s they replace.




By pomaikai on 1/30/2008 12:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
Do you even know what a turbocharger is? It is powered by wasted exhaust gas. While this does cause backpressure and makes the engine have to work a little harder it is compensated with a free breathing intake. With a turbo the engine no longer has to suck air through the intake. The air is forced into the chamber. This actually makes the engine more efficient. While 14.7 is stoichiometric cars now use a leaner mixture while cruising to improve fuel economy.

With a turbo a 2.0L can perform like a V6 3.0L. The turbo creates some backpressure, but more than makes up for it by pressurizing the intake and allowing the engine to breathe easier. At cruising speed the turbo creates very little backpressure while still helping the engine to breathe easier(though not pressurized/boosted).

Now what gets better gas mileage? A 2.0L 4 or a 3.0L V6? How do you get a 2.0L with the same performance as a V6 and maintain the 2.0L fuel economy? By turbocharging. Yes at full throttle both will use almost the same amount of gas(4 cylinder has alot less rotational mass so will be slightly more fuel efficient), but how long do you keep it at full throttle? Also do you notice how a V8 with 4 cylinders turned off doesnt even have close to a 4cylinder gas mileage. The V8 still has the rotational mass of the extra 4 cylinders to overcome.

Just as an example. My 1989 probe turbo with a 2.0L had just as much power as the 3.0L V6 probe. Cruising over a 30 mile stretch of highway I managed almost 40MPG. The V6 3.0L could never even come close to that. Now turbcharging with the intention of increasing power doesnt do much to fuel efficeincy, but using a turbo so you can use a smaller engine with the same power of a bigger one increases fuel economy greatly. You can also increase the boost to get even more power, yet it has no affect on fuel economy for daily driving, only while boosted.


By theapparition on 1/30/2008 3:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
While Titan7's post wasn't completely accurate, he is spot on with the assertion that for most applications, turbo's are NOT as efficient as NA engines. If you put more air into a cylinder, you still have to add the corresponding amount of fuel. The turbo does almost nothing to increase efficiency, while taking power to operate. (There is some advantage at very high RPM where pumping work becomes an issue). What the turbo (or supercharger) does is give the ability of a much smaller displacement engine to equal the power of a larger one, though. So, if your easy on the boost, you'll get the efficiency of a 4cyl, and the power of a 6 when you open the throttle. Interestingly enough, displacement on demand, provides many of the same benefits, acting like a 4cyl for normal drivng, and 8cyl for WOT. Yes, a DoD engine will never have the same fule efficiency as a true 4cyl, but compare it to turbo 4's, and it seems to be on par.

quote:
Now what gets better gas mileage? A 2.0L 4 or a 3.0L V6?

I have a 7.0L engine that gets (epa numbers) better than most turbo 4's and NA V6's on the road. How does that factor into your equation? There's sooooo many factors to consider, but blanket statements like that are incorrect.


By MightyAA on 1/30/2008 4:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
Still wrong. When just cruising, my turbo does not boost at all; the exhaust bypasses the turbo. So my little 2.3L Saab engine simply becomes a low compression four cylinder. But give it gas, the valve switches to the turbo and the turbo will spool force feeding the chamber. That's what I like about turbos.. They only give you the power when you need it. So the gas mileage is up to me and my right foot.

Superchargers otoh always force feed (not sure though about the vortech and paxton ones though).

I don't know about EPA and pollution though, but that wasn't what the mpg law dictates...


By theapparition on 1/30/2008 9:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, just what part of my post do you consider wrong?

quote:
Still wrong. When just cruising, my turbo does not boost at all; the exhaust bypasses the turbo. So my little 2.3L Saab engine simply becomes a low compression four cylinder. But give it gas, the valve switches to the turbo and the turbo will spool force feeding the chamber.

Isn't that what I stated as the sole benefit of a turbo. The turbo itself, when in use, still lowers the overall efficiency.

The centrifigal superchargers (Paxton and Vortech) make very little boost at low RPM. Gas mileage for installation of a Paxton for light driving has a negligable impact on gas mileage. I have 2 Paxton Novi 2000's and love them.


By Spuke on 1/30/2008 9:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of efficiency are we talking about? Thermal, mechanical or volumetric?


By Vesuvius on 1/30/2008 12:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry Titan thats not entirely correct. Turbo cars have much more effecient power and torque curves which translates to better gas mileage for normal driving.

But it definately depends on the tune.
At full throttle a turbo car will typically become less fuel effecient because you would make the mixture more rich to keep the cylinder cool though...


By Spuke on 1/30/2008 6:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At full throttle a turbo car will typically become less fuel effecient because you would make the mixture more rich to keep the cylinder cool though...
And with direct injection you no longer have to richen the mixture. Also, what kind of efficiency are we talking about? Thermal, mechanical or volumetric?


By PlasmaBomb on 1/31/2008 7:35:39 AM , Rating: 2
Direct injection should also increase volumetric efficiency as you don't have a throttle body hanging in the breeze (intake). It also reduces hot spots so I guess that increases thermal efficiency.

VW have a 1.4 golf which is supercharged and turboed. I think its DI too. To bad that its insurance is so high here.

A smaller block should reduce the weight of the engine, which should aid acceleration and handling.


By Spuke on 1/31/2008 11:51:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Direct injection should also increase volumetric efficiency as you don't have a throttle body hanging in the breeze (intake).
I have a DI car and it still has a throttle body.


By theapparition on 1/30/2008 4:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, 14.7 is stoichiometric, but I'd be willing to bet not one single production car runs anything near that. For most applications, anything over 13 is considered lean. Most cars come deliverd from the factory closer to 11-12.

Running rich is much safer, plus you also have to consider a factor of safety that is designed in.


Can it MARGO!
By ryedizzel on 1/30/2008 12:56:27 AM , Rating: 3
http://www.aluminum.org/images/AluminumNow/0704/1f...

Just because a tightwad old lady such as yourself does not see the need for high horsepower vehicles that does not mean the rest of the world does not want them. For starters they make up a small part of the market share, so their overall contribution to pollution is very minor. They are MUCH bigger fish to focus on if that is your only intention. And even if you manage to stop automakers from releasing more the people with the money for cars like this will simply fix up older cars to produce the same level of power while outputting even higher emissions.




RE: Can it MARGO!
By Jedi2155 on 1/30/2008 1:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because a tightwad old lady such as yourself does not see the need for high horsepower vehicles that does not mean the rest of the world does not want them. For starters they make up a small part of the market share, so their overall contribution to pollution is very minor.


You just contradicted yourself right there by stating that most of the world wants a more powerful vehicle and saying they only make up a small marketshare.

By that logic, you are saying even though "they want" more power and performance, they still buy the more "affordable and desirable" vehicle that makes up the majority of the marketshare.

So why should car makers funnel so much of their R&D into vehicles that only makeup a "small part of the marketshare?"

It would be better if they concentrated on the other factors such desirability of a economical, green and desirable vehicle.


RE: Can it MARGO!
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 1:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
> "You just contradicted yourself right there by stating that most of the world wants a more powerful vehicle "

That's not what he said at all. He simply pointed out that one person doesn't speak for the entire world.

> "why should car makers funnel so much of their R&D into vehicles that only makeup a "small part of the marketshare?""

1, it doesn't take "so much of their R&D", and 2, high-performance vehicles are a far larger profit margin. I'm sure the profit on a single 911 GT3 is probably equal to that of 30 Camrys.

> "It would be better if they concentrated on the other factors "

This is the logical fallacy known as "false dilemma".


RE: Can it MARGO!
By pjpizza on 1/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Can it MARGO!
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 10:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
> "I think the point trying to be made, is that American cars suck..."

American automakers produce vehicles every bit as efficient as do European makers. Few people in the US want to buy those models, however.

I would say that Americans value comfort and power more than Europeans...but the fact is that, if European gas prices were as low as they were in the US, you'd see an explosion in sales there of large, powerful cars.


RE: Can it MARGO!
By clovell on 1/30/2008 12:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
>My God, you people seem to be scared... Do you actually think that high performance cars would seize to exist; I don't think that's what has been suggested

Um... if you stop R&D and quit devoting resources to engineering, that's usually what happens...


RE: Can it MARGO!
By killerroach on 1/30/2008 9:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It would be better if the concentrated on other factors such [as] desirability of a economical, green and desirable vehicle.


Actually, I thought that desirability was left to the consumer, not to the producer. Silly me!

"Green" vehicles are not the be-all and end-all of the argument. Some people will value comfort, performance, and vehicle size above efficiency, and will pay accordingly for them. It's just how a consumer-oriented economy works. Personally (being a very large-torso 6'2" individual), I find the vast majority of these "economical, green" vehicles to be extraordinarily uncomfortable to ride in, and that would be something I would take into consideration if I were to get a new vehicle.

I could get a Prius or a Civic or some other Japanese vehicle that gets great fuel efficiency. In fact, I'd love a car that got 35 or more miles per gallon; there's something to be said about seeing whatever gaudy numbers the gas pump extorts you for as little as possible. However, for the sake of not having cramped legs or a head that bumps into the roof of the vehicle unless I adopt a very unhealthy slouched posture, I'd pay the extra money to get myself a Volvo, a Cadillac, or, if I could still find one around, a VW Phaeton.

The thing is, there isn't just one reason people are on the roads, and there isn't just one line of thinking as to how people should be on the roads. That's why we have the diversity in vehicles that we do, and why imposing one mindset on another group tends to be met with resistance. I'm sure that, if you wanted a small, efficient car, you wouldn't want me over your shoulder telling you to get a Lincoln MKZ any more than I'd want you telling me to get something a bit more efficient.


How can they site a Bugatti's Veyron?
By Aloonatic on 1/30/2008 5:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
The Bugatti's Veyron is essentially an concept/development car where a few have been sold to try to make a bit of money back and add a bit of kudos to Audi.

This has nothing to do with the average motorist and the war on carbon/the poor (read average joe) getting too rich and needing to told they can't have what they want/a good excuse to raise taxes again. (All comments targeted at the UK by the way)

Money will be the issue that reduces peoples petrol consumption and lead to cars with more efficient/less powerful engines.

Also, how you drive your car makes a great deal of difference to the MPG of your vehicle and should be the main area that should be targeted. You can have a powerful car and still drive it fairly economically. I get easily ~35 MPG out of my 190BHP Toyota if I drive carefully.

Road layouts and such also make a big difference. Stopping unnecessarily at stop signs (I imagine) and traffic lights certainly doesn't help, nor do speed bumps and other "traffic calming" measures.

Here in the UK petrol is at £1.05 a litre, which is roughly £4 a (US) gallon, which is pretty close to $8 a gallon!

That will get people driving more carefully for sure, but people who buy Veyrons and such will still keep on flying around and driving their fast polluting cars because they don't care and can afford to do what they want.




By Strunf on 1/30/2008 7:37:52 AM , Rating: 2
Ya it’s really dumb to increase gas prices cause it wont affect the people that get that type of cars anyway, the only other way I see is to tax the high powered cars even higher and give more incentives to the lower ones.

What I find funny with these cars is that they are limited to 50km/h in town just like everyone else so it’s not like they could do much with that huge amount of horse power… IMO anything with over 100HP is just a waste of money.


RE: How can they site a Bugatti's Veyron?
By PlasmaBomb on 1/30/2008 12:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
The Bugatti Veyron is selling at a huge loss, and Bugatti will never make money on them.

quote:
Road layouts and such also make a big difference. Stopping unnecessarily at stop signs (I imagine) and traffic lights certainly doesn't help, nor do speed bumps and other "traffic calming" measures.


Traffic calming measures are a pain, as are poorly maintained roads. Unfortunately I don't think that will stop the government, even in the name of environmentalism.


RE: How can they site a Bugatti's Veyron?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 12:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "The Bugatti Veyron is selling at a huge loss, and Bugatti will never make money on them."

Well, that depends how you define it. Certainly direct sales revenue will never equal costs, but the publicity and name recognition generated by the car buoys the entire Bugatti marquis and, by extension, VW itself.

Accountants even have a name for this concept to show on paper-- it's called "good will". It's similar to the reasons corporations donate money to charities, or sponsor sports teams.


RE: How can they site a Bugatti's Veyron?
By Rhaido on 1/30/2008 2:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
Mike, small nitpick perhaps but you may be confusing brand equity with goodwill.

Brand equity is defined: all of the distinguishing qualities of a commercial brand that results in personal commitment to and demand for the brand...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brand+equ...

The Accounting definition of goodwill: equal to the excess cost required to acquire the business over the fair market value of all other assets...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=goodwill

For example, at time of acquisition, a company's goodwill could be mathematically zero yet the company has "positive" (favorable but intangible and unquantifiable from an Accounting perspective) brand equity.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 2:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's my understanding that brand equity is, when quantified, one component of goodwill...which also includes the value of vendor or client relationships, credit ratings, etc.


Euro Diesels don't meet US NOx standards
By snorky on 1/30/2008 3:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
The reason that US doesn't have much of a Diesel fleet is that it is difficult to met NOx standards. As thermal efficiency increases, higher temperatures and pressures produce more NOx. Most auto companies are planning to solve this with some type of Urea based catalyst that must be refilled. "Hey Hans, piss in the tank again so you can meet US standards".

Europe has taken care of this problem by allowing more NOx emissions for their Diesels. Not a technical solution, but simply a political way to avoid the emissions issue.

Recirculating more exhaust also reduces NOx - but has a nasty way of reducing fuel economy - thus making Diesels less fuel efficient.

Remember a Diesel is roughly 40% more fuel efficient while producting 20% more CO2. Reduce the NOx emissions, efficiency drops, and the diesel isn't that great - especially from a greenhouse perspective.

When you factor in the cost, you will see that Diesels aren't going to be a long term solution.




RE: Euro Diesels don't meet US NOx standards
By Eri Hyva on 1/30/2008 4:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Diesel is roughly 40% more fuel efficient while producting 20% more CO2.


Could you please do the math for me, how did you get that 20% ;) ;) For example Toyota Avensis=Camry

2.0l turbodiesel 130 bhp torque 300 Nm, max speed 127 mph, acceleration to 62 mph in 11.1 seconds, fuel economy on the combined cycle 51.4 mpg, CO2 emissions 146 g/km.

2.0 l VVT-i petrol 145 bhp, torque 196 Nm, max speed 130 mph, acceleration to 62 mph in just 9.4 seconds, fuel economy on the combined cycle nearly 35 mpg, CO2 emissions 191 g/km.

http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_...

[if you are impatient person, get the 2,2l turbodiesel, 177bhp62 mph in 8.6 sec. and on to 137 mph, 46.3 mpg combined]


RE: Euro Diesels don't meet US NOx standards
By snorky on 1/30/2008 9:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
Your example is not very good - I'll take the 9.4 sec gas option over 11.1 Diesel.

However, you quote provids a better comparison

2.2 litre 140 D-4D direct injection engine which will Avensis past 62 mph in 9.3 sec. and on to 130 mph, whilst fuel economy is rated at just 47.1 mpg combined and its carbon dioxide emissions are just 156g/km

The 2.0 litre VVT-i engine* (with direct-injection technology for improved performance, fuel economy and low emissions) - 145 bhp, maximum torque 196 Nm, maximum speed 130 mph, acceleration to 62 mph in just 9.4 seconds, fuel economy on the combined cycle nearly 35 mpg, CO2 emissions 191 g/km

This is a much better comparison. Remember, in theory, a Diesel is capable of 40% better fuel efficiency. However, for similar performance, this example is yielding only a 20% advantage in fuel economy and a 9% advantage in CO2 emissions (Diesel fuel contains more carbon than gasoline).

However, a quick Wiki of the Euro IV emission standards allows a Diesel to produce 312% more NOx than a petrol (gasoline for us Americans) engine - ouch

How do we reduce NOx? The easiest way is EGR which changes the composition of the intake air, but also adds heat (always bad thermodynamically). You start to recirculate greater than 15% to meet these requirements, and you might as well go to a petrol engine.

And you could put some ridiculous urea tank in the car - but even people in Europe won't service that regularly. And Americans - won't do it once.

So essentially, your 40% better theremodynamic efficiency gives you a 9% improvement in greenhouse gases and a 300% increase in NOx. Not a good trade off - especially somewhere like Los Angeles, Mexico City, or even London.

I used to design Diesel engine - emissions technology is not friendly to the Diesel.


RE: Euro Diesels don't meet US NOx standards
By masher2 (blog) on 1/30/2008 9:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
> "gives you a 9% improvement in greenhouse gases and a 300% increase in NOx. Not a good trade off - especially somewhere like Los Angeles, Mexico City, or even London."

That's one of the saddest parts of this whole debate. Environmentalists have created a climate that's forcing people into vehicles that mean dirtier air. It's a real blunder, and one that will undoubtedly have health effects for many millions of people worldwide.


RE: Euro Diesels don't meet US NOx standards
By Eri Hyva on 1/31/2008 10:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
I answered to NOx and CO2 at this thread already:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10509...


By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2008 12:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but your answer was incorrect. You first began by saying Europe's air was "clean enough"...which unfortunately cut the legs out from your other posts arguing that higher standards were better.

Worse, you then slid off to make the wild claim that the "rest of the world agreed in 1997" CO2 emissions were worse than pollutants like NOx, VOCs, and particulates. That flies in the face of reality-- the nations that signed Kyoto have, to a man, *increased* CO2 emissions since signing, most of them much faster than the US has, in fact. Yet most of those same nations (and all the European ones) have lowered emissions of NOx and other true pollutants

Clearly, the world doesn't agree with your strange belief that toxins like NOx and ozone-forming volatiles are safer than the carbon dioxide we exhale in every breath.


I can't believe...
By Vim on 1/30/2008 8:49:25 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe some of you actually think anything under 30-40 is a good rating, freaking pathetic.




RE: I can't believe...
By Vesuvius on 1/30/2008 1:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
18 MPG for a public bus is pretty damn fantastic if you ask me :-)


RE: I can't believe...
By PlasmaBomb on 1/30/2008 3:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you turn it into miles per gallon per person it's even better ;)


RE: I can't believe...
By andrinoaa on 1/30/2008 5:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely right. I just can't understand these tech heads, they want the next 5ghz processor but are more than happy with an 8086 in their car! Must be the water, it glows or its black!
lol lol


Mhmmmm
By pauldovi on 1/30/2008 12:17:12 AM , Rating: 2
That Accord is so sexy. Best car ever.




RE: Mhmmmm
By Xodus Maximus on 1/30/2008 12:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
Really? I hope you are kidding. Well at least its not as ugly As a 2001 Hyundai Tiburon. But its not that far from it, the design of an Accord besides being plain seems to have alot of lines that go nowhere, its just ugly, but that is my opinion.

And speaking of ugly cars, why do they keep messing with the design of the Viper, it used to be so smooth and had a nice flow, but every year they add some "holes" on the hood, or make a previously smooth curve jagged.

I cant wait until we switch over electric or hydrogen-electric, we may see some pretty nice designs since the mechanics will be different, of course there will be ugly cars like the Honda Element and such, but thats life.

So to sum it up GO EPA! incite some changes already, you complete tools!


RE: Mhmmmm
By pattycake0147 on 1/30/2008 12:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
Although I agree that the older Viper GTS engine hood looked better than the new one, I think that the new one probably better has better aerodynamics and allows more efficient air flow for engine cooling. At least they haven't touched the roof.


Performance...
By Soccerman06 on 1/30/2008 1:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
Well there are only a few ways to make vehicles more efficient, smaller engine (or leaner mixtures), add some sort of hybridization, engine type (diesel or gas), and to lighten components of the vehicle. The easiest is probably the engine size, making it smaller and less power makes it more efficient ect... but the most efficient way is to do a combination, revolving around weight.

Take the Elise, put a 3-4 cylinder turbo diesel, 75hp 150lb-ft or so, in there and you might have a 75mpg vehicle. Remove all those unnecessary things like air bags, ac, firewall and other safety equipment and a bit more aerodynamic body (less down force), and you may get 100mpg highway out of it. It may not perform like a current Elise, but damn well have good economy like the "EPA" wants.

The real problem with CO2 and C0, is from coal factories. Thats where the EPA should focus on moreso than vehicles esp since we get most of our power from coal. Instead we could get more power from nuclear energy. Okok it may have radioactive waste but I think CO2 is much more troulesome with our current situation than some radioactive goo that we can stick in a hollowed out mountain.




RE: Performance...
By StevoLincolnite on 1/30/2008 3:11:44 AM , Rating: 3
This is the Tricky Part, I Have 2 cars, A Holden Commodore VN SS- (V8) and a Holden Commodore VN Standard V6.
For "Around town" driving I generally get about 550km's to an 80 Litre tank of LPG Gas, The V6 Usually gets about 450km's to the 80 Litre tank, several reasons why is that, it's not efficiency, both cars are the same age, the same model, Just with different engines.

It comes down to driving Styles, With the V8 I found I'm not having to plant my foot in order to get through an intersection before the next guy.
With the V6, I Accelerate allot harder because the power isn't "there" on demand as easily with the V8.
And Accelerating is usually one of the big uses in fuel consumption while town driving, On the open road the V6 wins hands down.


RE: Performance...
By andrinoaa on 1/30/2008 5:28:23 PM , Rating: 1
My honda jazz, 1.3 with cct gets better economy too! It cost much less than your commodes to buy. I don't have to worry about driving style and I don't have to drag anyone from the lights. I DON'T MISS POWER. I CAN LIVE WITHOUT IT. Its only transport. If I want fun, I go to my local cart track and let it all hang out.
ps . I too have owned commodes ( sorry, commodores ) in the past. Enjoyed the power but, shit, I hated the petrol bowser.
I voted with my feet as more people are starting to do!
As to those hardcore nutters who think its their right to drive more and more powerful cars, enjoy it while you can.
Big powerfull cars are on the way out. In Australia, they are on the retreat, both FORD and GM are selling less and less big cars every year.


How about both?
By daftrok on 1/30/2008 12:24:31 AM , Rating: 2
Instead of focusing on one or the other, why not go for both? Go for the bio diesel engine for that extra power and more efficiency. Include more carbon fiber and other light weight "metals" to give that car more durability and less weight. Get Bluetec to cut down those emissions. Now is the time to go for both power and efficiency because that's what the people want.




RE: How about both?
By Vesuvius on 1/30/2008 12:58:45 PM , Rating: 3
Good plan except that car you just described will easily cost 60K to build. And if we all drove bio diesel were are we going to get the fuel? That fuel will cost much more than gasoline or diesel.

Even if you wanted to give it 12 years to get to the point to make this vehicle more feasible. It's going to be a very expensive car.


CAFE Regulations
By pattycake0147 on 1/30/2008 12:37:34 AM , Rating: 3
So how do cars the the Chevy Volt and the Tesla Roadster figure into a company's average fuel mileage. It seems to me like they could count as having an "infinite" MPG.




RE: CAFE Regulations
By PlasmaBomb on 1/30/2008 3:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
They work out how much energy it takes for the car to drive a mile, and then convert it into a gasoline equivalent (or at least that's what the Tesla did).


Europe and car efficiency?
By KingConker on 1/30/2008 8:20:08 AM , Rating: 3
Being a Brit I have enjoyed turbo diesels for several years. My current vehicle averages 55 mpg on a combined cycle.

But please remember it is largely the Europeans that also produce the exotic sports cars with 400BHP+ on tap.

Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Pagani, Aston Martin, Rolls Royce, BMW, VW/Audi, Koenigsegg, Bentley, Mercedes, - the list is endless.

So, why can't we have both?




RE: Europe and car efficiency?
By FITCamaro on 1/30/2008 9:08:11 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. European companies produce sports cars with far worse mileage than many American cars. About all we have is the Viper. The Corvette though gets awesome fuel economy for the power it has. Even the Z06 and the upcoming ZR-1. Even cars like the Charger R/T and SRT-8, the upcoming Camaro and Challenger, etc. all still average around 17/25.

Sure granted people who buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini could car less about fuel economy, but still. I'd rather have a car that can be driven daily and affordably than a car with the engine strung out to the max and needs constant maintenance to keep it in tune.


Power = Efficiency...?
By Blight AC on 1/30/2008 9:35:11 AM , Rating: 3
You know, when the auto manufacturers are squeezing every ounce of power out of an engine to get a bigger number, aren't they also working on making that engine run as efficiently as possible, and isn't that expensive research trickled down to the lesser engines. The flagship models are paying for technology for the average cars.

This kinda news makes me worry. This makes me think of the gas scare that happened during the early 70's, and the results of it were such horrors as the Mustang II.

Oh, and Subaru is working on a Turbo Diesel too:
http://www.google.com/search?btnG=Google+Search&q=...




RE: Power = Efficiency...?
By Screwballl on 1/30/2008 12:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
This is the exact problem.

They have to increase their horsepower in order to keep their high power/high speed models but also include the emission requirements that the government tells them they need.

If you take a Chevy 350 from 1972 with no emissions crap on it, you can get an easy 300-400hp and get 30mpg. Add on all the emissions crap thats required today on the exact same engine and you are looking at 200hp and 15mpg. All of these requirements are robbing the engine from its core efficiency and power, plus making it work much harder just to do its job. All this and it only marginally reduces pollution (5-15% reduction over 10 years). Only when the engine ages and starts spewing more smoke will it help reduce pollution. Also the wear and tear from the emission equipment is reducing the life expectancy of this same engine. The 1972 engines are well known for seeing (minimum 200,000 but up to) 400-500,000 miles or more on a well cared for engine. The same engine from a few years ago with the emission crap are rated for around 100-150,000 miles before needing to be rebuilt, and that is only if they are well cared for.

Someone knew exactly what they were doing, making both big oil and the greenies happy. More emission requirements means more gas used to make the same power, so there is a tiny bit less pollution and much more gas used. Both sides win.

Only now with the current administration has someone gotten smart enough to say screw big oil: force higher mileage requirements.


EPA Sucks
By f1r3s1d3 on 1/30/2008 10:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
Wow this sucks. Not only is global warming a complete myth, but the new 35MPG expected from car manufacturers will only jack car prices up more. Us American's wont drive around in small econoboxes (thank god) so now they have to develop some crazy horsepower robbing technology so we can "be more conscious" of the "damaged environment."

My foot. Emissions standards NOW are 500x better of what they were in the 60's, 70's and even 80's. I don't think we need to make them even stricter. Hell, half the cars now have 2-3 cats. I want my horsepowers!

Let the tree huggers drive around in Prius', let me drive around in my V8 powered SUV or sports car. Kthnx.




RE: EPA Sucks
By NastyHabits on 2/2/2008 4:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
Were you around in the 60's and 70's? I was. The cars sucked. They were noisy, fell apart, and stank when ever you filled them up with gas. When the gov't decided to mandate emissions and safety standards, all the auto manufacturers complained "we can't reduce emissions, or increase crash worthiness, or increase mileage" Guess what, the government "meddled", the manufacturers complied, and we have cars that are safer, get better mileage, have more power and have about 1/30 the pollution of those old "unregulated" cars.

I'll take gov't meddling. Thank you.


war
By splint on 1/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: war
By MadMaster on 1/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: war
By Runiteshark on 1/30/2008 3:59:40 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, everyone knows its bad to set goals and dreams for yourself.

Thanks Dr. Phil.


RE: war
By EricMartello on 1/30/2008 7:27:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Extreme materialism really is a sad existence (just look at all the nutcase rich people).


Sounds like someone is totally happy with their '87 Ford Fiesta.

Rich people are rich because they set goals and pursue them. Are you somehow trying to say that being rich means a person is automatically a "nutcase"?

If you are perfectly content with your mediocre existence, that's just great, but don't expect everyone else to settle when they have a desire for something greater.


RE: war
By MadMaster on 1/30/2008 11:30:53 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you are perfectly content with your mediocre existence, that's just great, but don't expect everyone else to settle when they have a desire for something greater.


hahaha mediocre existence. My life is mediocre! So is yours. Heck, every damn person is mediocre, just some people get more credit for being mediocre (Oh man, I can hear you guys whining that you are so 'important'. Flame boys flame!).

Quite frankly, I'd be perfectly happy with a 87 fiesta! It gets me from a to b, and it would keep my arse warm. Hell man, it takes balls to drive around in a fiesta! Seriously, guys who drive around big trucks (the guys who don't use their trucks for anything but driving) lack gonads and they know it and are overcompensating!

I don't care what others are doing. Go ahead, get your big truck and what not. The problem I have is it effects me. Extreme materialism really is screwing up the planet and the future.


RE: war
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 2:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Extreme materialism really is screwing up the planet and the future.
Care to site some info that proves this or are you just going to give me that "because I say so" line.

quote:
My life is mediocre! So is yours.
YOUR life is mediocre, my life is rich and full. Far from mediocre. Life is what YOU make it to be, not what someone else tells you it is.

quote:
I don't care what others are doing.
If you truly believed this, you would not participate in this thread because the responses here would not move you at all.


RE: war
By EricMartello on 2/1/2008 12:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't care what others are doing. Go ahead, get your big truck and what not. The problem I have is it effects me. Extreme materialism really is screwing up the planet and the future.


I drive around in high performance cars, not because I am trying to impress anyone, but mainly because I like to go fast and I can appreciate a machine that is built to higher standards. Does that make me materialistic? If so, guilty as charged.

Does my choice in vehicles have an adverse effect on other people? I can't say no, since we're all sharing the same planet for now, but can you say that none of your choices have had an adverse effect on others? This world isn't a sterile environment - there are many things that can effect you and others, and unless you want to step up and make some changes you are going to have to accept and adapt to the changes that face you.


RE: war
By mdogs444 on 1/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: war
By andrinoaa on 1/30/2008 5:36:52 PM , Rating: 1
Am i missing something? To be successfull you need to work hard and make lots of money, be filthy rich and don't care about anything? Hmmm, what would Freud make of all this?
The politics of envy, alive and flourishing on this site.
Ashes to ashes , dust to dust. You cant take it with you but you can leave something behind. What it is is up to you.
Actually , it sounds more like Y gen speak. lol


RE: war
By Spuke on 1/30/2008 7:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To be successfull you need to work hard and make lots of money, be filthy rich and don't care about anything? Hmmm, what would Freud make of all this?
Rich and working hard to be successful isn't mandatory. We all have differing views of success that can only be determined by each individual. I would go so far as to say sitting around your parents house with no job and otherwise not contributing to your parents household is NOT a definition of success. But accomplishing one's goals most certainly is. And if someone considers success working hard and becoming rich because of it, good for them. It's definitely not something to ridicule, IMO.


RE: war
By andrinoaa on 1/31/2008 4:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
I totaly agree with you. I am just trying to bring some perspective to the silly rantings of some people.
People who gloryfy the mode of transport seem to want more and more powerful cars where as most of us may admire them but buy more economical cars. And the extreemes are growing further apart.
My point is that gas/petrol is a finite resource and so we should try to conserve it so as to increase its useful life span. Some people bang on about rights and constitutions without looking at the big picture. The big picture is that we need to reduce the average car's consumption. This will maintain a relatively stable price/supply of fuel. If the car makers cannot do it voluntarily, it will be imposed.
We are not talking socialism here, people. We can either do it via legislation or market. Currently we are doing both. The market is too slow to react so your government has provided a small push. NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIALISM or LEFT WING TENDENCIES. Its called planning.
J


RE: war
By masher2 (blog) on 1/31/2008 5:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
> "People who gloryfy the mode of transport seem to want more and more powerful cars..."

I think everyone here, you included, care at least somewhat about the aesthetics of their car.

> "gas/petrol is a finite resource and so we should try to conserve it "

Gasoline is not a finite resource. Natural petroleum is...but gasoline can be synthesized directly from nothing but carbon and air.

> "The market is too slow to react."

On the contrary, the market reacted far quicker than the government did. Prices quickly went from $1.50 to $3.00/gallon, while the government's done nothing but discuss raising mileage standards a decade from now.

The market works better than politicians. Higher prices mean less consumption, and ultimately enables alternatives.


RE: war
By MadMaster on 2/1/2008 1:10:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gasoline is not a finite resource. Natural petroleum is...but gasoline can be synthesized directly from nothing but carbon and air.


This is possible, but synthesizing it from the carbon in the air is very energy expensive. It is also very very inefficient. Usually, the energy comes from coal. Of course, the majority of people believe global warming is a serious issue and it would be near impossible (politically) to build a coal burning, gasoline synthesizing plant, even if it were economical (it isn't even close).

There is another alternative that pulls carbon directly out of the air, it's called bio fuels. I'm not going reason why bio-fuels are not a long term solution. I'm simply too lazy, if someone wants to hear, ask.

quote:
On the contrary, the market reacted far quicker than the government did. Prices quickly went from $1.50 to $3.00/gallon, while the government's done nothing but discuss raising mileage standards a decade from now.


I just want to point a few things out. Assuming there is a perfect alternative to petroleum today (the technology just isn't there yet) and all cars are manufactured to take advantage of this new technology tomorrow. We still won't stop burning petroleum for another 15 years. There are 247 million registered vehicles in the USA, only about 16 million vehicles are sold a year in the USA.

This isn't going to happen, because current factories are streamlined for building traditional ICE cars. In order to change, new factories will need to be built (or completely remodeled), and that takes A LONG time (years). After that is done, alternative fuel vehicles just start to replace traditional ICE vehicles...

This problem isn't going to be solved over night. It is going to take decades.

In the end, it will take higher fuel prices. I have to agree, the free-market economy works a heck of a lot faster than any politics.


RE: war
By masher2 (blog) on 2/1/2008 10:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
> "synthesizing [gas] from the carbon in the air is very energy expensive"

So? There's no shortage of energy. A couple dozen large nuclear plants could provide enough power. In a couple decades, collecting that much via solar might be feasible.

In short, there is absolutely no reason we can't run gas-burning cars for the next several thousand years. The sky isn't falling.

> "We still won't stop burning petroleum for another 15 years. "

This is a bit misleading as well. If a solution became economic and cars were manufactured and sold to use it, demand would start to decline immediately. In five years time, 1/3 of the cars on the road would be using this alternative. If that alternative was cheaper, those 1/3 of the vehicles would likely be the heaviest users also (heavy consumers being more likely to switch), meaning demand would drop by more than 33% in just half a decade.


RE: war
By andrinoaa on 2/1/2008 5:26:45 AM , Rating: 2
I stand by my statement that its a finite source. Once you get past a certain point in the bell curve, the price becomes prohibitive thus making alternatives more economical. I don't have a crystal ball so I don't know when its coming. Could be 2yrs from now , it could be 20yrs from now. It doesn't mean we will end up with no petrol, just very expensive petrol. So in the mean time, we should be using this rather stable period to our advantage .
Yes I do care about the aesthetics, but I am mindful its primary role is to transport me around. Don't worry about performance, comfort or safety because what ever technology we end up with, some body is gonna want to go faster.
I also think that in your hurry to nit pik, you missed another point. The forces acting on the market are BOTH economic AND political. Not always in sync or balanced. Both have their role to play. The politicians determine the parameters the market works within. By tweaking the parameters, the market responds. Personally , the market has been slow to react because Neo-cons like it that way. By definition they are reactionaries rather than engineers!
I am impatient for the new technologies to come through. I just think that your big three have been dragging the chain over the past 10yrs which has affected every other manufacturer to some degree. Just as INTEL got a hurry on a few years back, we all need the big three to step up to the plate. Hence my cheering the subtle push.
As to your assertion that the market works better than the politicians......humbug. Show me a case were its true and I will show you a case were its not. The market is king? Sorry but philosophically, the market is our tool NOT our master!


RE: war
By masher2 (blog) on 2/1/2008 10:34:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "Personally , the market has been slow to react "

Oops-- you didn't read the last post. The market reacted much faster here. Demand rose, and the market doubled the price of gas almost overnight. The politicians debated for a couple years, then signed a bill to increase fuel efficiency 12 years from now.

The market's reaction was not much, much faster, but it was more efficient and useful. Higher prices will reduce consumption far better than higher mileage standards...especially when those standards aren't even in existence for a decade.


RE: war
By MadMaster on 2/1/2008 12:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
To put up a small counter argument to this...

Back in the lat 1990s, the 'big 3' auto makers systematically destroyed battery electric vehicles. If you remember, gas prices were low (0.99-$1.50), and there were studies coming out saying that peak oil won't happen till 2030 (it appears like these studies severely overestimated current oil reserves. Many independent studies put it closer to 2010 or sooner. Interestingly Hubbert put peak at 2000, but this didn't happen because of president carter who curbed consumption in the 1970s). The auto manufactures figured they could produce big cars for another 20-30 years, and the oil companies wanted to increase demand. Also, they got a new conservative oil man president. Good ol' Bushy Bush.

The end result, almost all auto manufactures destroyed their battery electric vehicle program. GM went so far as to crush the EV1 (cars that could have been sold for an enormous profit, demand was there).

An old technology was to be replaced by a new technology. This is called the market churn. It was temporarily halted because of political reasons (often happens, companies that make their old product want to protect their investment). Eight years later, battery electric vehicles are finally hitting the market.

It seems like it is a political and market problem. After all, if the USA did what Europe did and increased the gas tax, our cars would be much smaller (like the European cars). Also, if we didn't get such a horrible president, we might actually be ahead of the curve and not behind it.


RE: war
By masher2 (blog) on 2/1/2008 1:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "Back in the lat 1990s, the 'big 3' auto makers systematically destroyed battery electric vehicles"

Utter nonsense. Battery technology wasn't practical for all-electric vehicles in the 1990s. People wouldn't buy the vehicles. They were hugely expensive and utterly impractical for any area that sees even the slightest bit of cold weather.

Building electric vehicles in the 1990s would have been a huge waste of resources. The market made the right decision here. Wait until battery technology advanced, then revisit the issue.

> "Interestingly Hubbert put peak at 2000"

No. Hubbert's original global peak was for the mid 1990s...then another around 1999, a third prediction for 2004-2006, then finally this latest one for the 2010-2012 timeframe. And when that one fails, a new one will shortly emerge.

Peak oil theory is a fraud. A peak can and will occur...but it won't happen in a vacuum. It'll occur just like whale oil and every other peak in history-- WHEN cheaper alternatives start reducing demand.

I've been reading about Peak Theory since the late 1970s. It falls in and out of favor fairly regularly, just like "population bomb" scares and other sky-is-falling scenarios.


RE: war
By MadMaster on 2/1/2008 8:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Utter nonsense. Battery technology wasn't practical for all-electric vehicles in the 1990s. People wouldn't buy the vehicles. They were hugely expensive and utterly impractical for any area that sees even the slightest bit of cold weather.


That's exactly what the companies wanted people to believe. It just simply isn't so. I drove one myself to work, school, and anyplace else (30 miles daily range, my city end to end is 20 miles). If I needed to go out of town, I took another vehicle. Yes, I did this with lead acid batteries at 15 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit. On top of this, this car had much worse performance than the EV1 (50-60 miles range). The average person drives 33 miles a day. Btw, it was much cheaper than a gasoline car. Electric vehicles can be made cheaper than gasoline vehicles.

Simply put, there is a market and your argument is wrong. They had other reasons for killing the electric vehicle projects.

quote:
Peak oil theory is a fraud. A peak can and will occur...but it won't happen in a vacuum. It'll occur just like whale oil and every other peak in history-- WHEN cheaper alternatives start reducing demand.


Looking at it from an economical standpoint yes, but the world is much more complex than just economics. For example, if the sun doesn't shine, plants don't grow. It doesn't matter what the demand is or who wants food. The farmers simply can't produce food.

It's the exact same thing with oil. Remember, peak oil is about the rate of production. In order for this to make sense, I'm going to have to get into the technical details of an oil field...

When an oil field is first discovered, it produces very well. They just drill a hole, and natural pressure pushes the oil out of the well. Typical pressures are 20,000 psi. However, just like a balloon, the pressure drops. As the pressure drops, natural gas begins to boil out of the oil and the wells start producing natural gas. At the same time, they start to produce more water (water is very bad, because it corrodes the oil pipes and the fields have to install Gas oil and separation facilities (GOSPS) which are expensive), because water starts to seep into the oil field. The bottom line, as a oil field ages, it gets more difficult to extract oil.

A interesting side not is the faster oil is extracted, the faster the psi drops and the less oil that is recovered (has to do with rock porosity).

The oil companies do have a mitigation for this problem. They include..

1. Technology (3d seismic graphs, horizontal wells, etc.)
2. Find more oil fields (Alaska, etc.)
3. More oil field investment. (drill more wells, drill horizontal wells, etc.)

With technology, it is found that it is like a super straw. It sucks the oil out faster, but once it is down to a low level, no amount of technology will stop the decline.

With finding more oil fields, we haven't been finding more oil fields. World field discovery peaked in the 1960s. Since then, no major oil fields have been found. The oil fields that were found in the 1960s are aging and have either already peaked or are very near their peak.

Oil field investment goes with technology. Yes you can pump the oil out (if you drove through Texas, you will see all the 'striper well' pumps that go up and down) but it is at a reduced rate at a much higher cost (than just simply 'opening the valve').

What happens when an oil field peaks is production goes down, and investment goes up. It becomes much more expensive to pull the oil out of the ground.

This is happening globally. ExxonMobil just posted record profits (because of the higher oil prices). It also posted record investment to keep production level (not going up at all). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7222414.stm

The reason Hubbert was off was because he thought consumption would go up faster than it did. In the 70s consumption even went down a little and other fields were discovered. He predicted oil would peak in 1995 at 40 billion barrels a year. Current consumption is at 29 billion barrels a year (the highest it has ever been). He also didn't account for the new technology that would temporarily boost production.

Even the IEA says consumption next year will be higher than production.

http://omrpublic.iea.org/

Whether or not this really happens, we'll have to wait till this summer's driving season (when demand goes up). Watch the oil stocks carefully. When they start to go down, that means we have peaked...

Specifically, you'll probably see the stocks in PADD 3 (where we import most of our oil) drop...

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_stoc_wstk_dc...

When that happens, prices will triple overnight (5-10 dollars a gallon). The government will (hopefully) start to ration gasoline and the prices for everything from electricity to food to computers will go up. The world will be a very different place.


RE: war
By andrinoaa on 2/2/2008 6:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
Stop nit picking , masher2. The market for gas reacted quickly, fair enough. But you still cant see the trees can you? I wasnt talking about the petrol prices, but the car manufacturers dragging a boat anchor. lol


RE: war
By andrinoaa on 1/30/08, Rating: 0
"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki