backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by mmcdonalataocd.. on Nov 16 at 7:51 AM


2009 Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid  (Source: General Motors)

  (Source: General Motors)
GM's 2-mode hybrid system boost fuel efficiency by 25 percent overall

General Motors is stepping up its efforts in the hybrid game with its second generation Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid pickup. The new Silverado Hybrid goes far beyond what the first generation "mild hybrid" model could achieve and instead uses GM's much-touted 2-mode hybrid system.

The standard gasoline-powered Silverado is already the most fuel-efficient full-size pickup on the market, but the 2-mode hybrid system -- which is shared with the Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon and Cadillac Escalade hybrids -- boosts efficiency even further. The Silverado Hybrid can travel up to 30 MPH under electric power alone (even while towing) and still has the ability to tow up to 6,100 pounds.

The 300-volt nickel-metal hydride battery used in the Silverado Hybrid is mounted under the rear seats. A 300-volt air conditioning compressor is also used to cool passengers even with the gasoline engine is not running.

When all is said and done, the 2-mode hybrid powertrain boosts the fuel efficiency of the Silverado by 40 percent in the city and 25 percent overall. This achievement is quite remarkable when you consider that the Silverado Hybrid is still packing a 6.0 liter V8 engine with 332 HP and 367 lb-ft of torque.

GM also notes that thanks to the hybrid powertrain and its 26-gallon fuel tank, the Silverado Hybrid will travel more than 500 miles on a single tank of gas.

"The Silverado Hybrid is the newest example of Chevy's heritage of truck innovation, which stretches back 90 years, and exemplifies Chevrolet's commitment to fuel solutions," said Chevrolet general manager Ed Peper. "Silverado Hybrid will deliver fuel economy comparable to many small and midsize trucks that are equipped with four- or six-cylinder engines -- all while delivering the capability customers expect of Chevy full-size trucks."

The 2009 Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid will launch in late 2008 and will be available on Crew Cab models in both 2WD and 4WD trim levels.



Comments     Threshold


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

Why not...
By joemoedee on 11/14/2007 11:28:45 AM , Rating: 2
Put a diesel in the light pickup? I know folks that have 3/4 Ton and 1 Ton trucks that are getting 20-22 mpg highway now. A 1/2 ton pickup wouldn't need near the torque, so it could be tuned even more-so for fuel economy.

I would think the gas mileage improvement would be more substantial, and initial and longterm cost would be less than this Hybrid.

I do believe Ford is looking into a smaller Diesel for their F-150. I hope GM/Dodge/Toyota start looking that way as well.

I just don't see a Hybrid being the ideal powerplant for a truck.




RE: Why not...
By Chernobyl68 on 11/14/2007 11:37:16 AM , Rating: 1
notice they still don't tell you the actual milage? just the "40% improvement?"
or how much its going to cost. If hybrids don't make economic sense, it will be that much harder to justify buying one. and I don't know many people that travel less than 30 miles per hour to work.


RE: Why not...
By ElFenix on 11/14/2007 11:43:52 AM , Rating: 2
it probably hasn't been EPA rated yet. they can't tell you anything other than the EPA number, by law. this truck so far is an auto show special.

the tahoe improved from 14/20 to 21/22.


RE: Why not...
By Black69ta on 11/14/2007 1:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
In a round about way they do, 500 mile on 26 Gal is slightly more than 19mpg since under 30mph is Batt only then City might be even higher than 500 miles a tank


RE: Why not...
By Oregonian2 on 11/14/2007 2:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
If you're not in the market for the non-hybrid version then it'll matter little to you. If you have such a truck or are seriously thinking about buying one, then the 40% improvement likely has your riveted attention, regardless of what the actual numbers are.


RE: Why not...
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 3:01:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you have such a truck or are seriously thinking about buying one, then the 40% improvement likely has your riveted attention, regardless of what the actual numbers are.


I think it will grab attention, I just dont think it will grab sales. The extra cost of purchasing a hybrid and the potential high costs of having to repair the hybrid technology is not worth a few MPG in my opinion.

Whn it comes to cars, the more technology you put into them, the more that can go wrong. I had an 03 Audi A4 turbo quattro. I had more problems with the additional options on that thing - the turbo blew, the headlight washer motors gave out, digital climate control went screwy, etc - all before 40,000 miles.


RE: Why not...
By FITCamaro on 11/14/2007 5:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you. I overheard a guy at work who hasn't had his BMW for 2 weeks. What went wrong? The part of the ignition that reads the code on the key isn't working so he can't start his car. Is there anything wrong with just putting a metal key in an ignition and turning it to start the car?

Every time I see a car commercial that brags about some innovative new feature, I just think to myself "And how much will that cost to fix when it breaks?".


RE: Why not...
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 5:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
My window in the Audi also fell off the track somehow, and it cost $700 to fix.....and the window didnt even break!


RE: Why not...
By AlphaVirus on 11/15/2007 9:50:53 AM , Rating: 2
I actually have this feature in my 2005 Taurus. Its not just "some innovative feature", it protected my car from theft. Someone broke the lock on the driver side door, and they tried to steal the car but couldnt. This feature will not allow the car to start no matter what you do unless you have the coded key.

Even though my Taurus is not a BMW, it still saved me from getting my car stolen and to me that is important.


RE: Why not...
By jdjbuffalo on 11/15/2007 6:21:00 PM , Rating: 3
That does stop the common car thief but don't be fooled.

Had your car been broken into by a professional car thief then you definitely would have had your car stolen. On top of that you would very likely have had your insurance company deny your claim because of this very feature. They would state that it's impossible to steal and therefore you must have left the keys in there. If you get in this position you will be pretty well screwed because you'll have to go to court and even if you win, you'll likely lose because it will cost you several thousands of dollars to get a judgment.


RE: Why not...
By Spuke on 11/14/2007 3:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
22 would great. We're getting 17 mpg right now but we're looking at a diesel truck for a replacement for ours.


RE: Why not...
By wolrah on 11/14/2007 8:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
notice they still don't tell you the actual milage? just the "40% improvement?"


What difference does it make? 40% better is 40% better no matter what the start and end points are. Hell, the worse the start point, the more gas that 40% increase is saving.


RE: Why not...
By Myrandex on 11/14/2007 12:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
As you said, Ford has had one in the works for a while for the F150, and in other countries they already do this (I believe in South America you can even get a Ford Ranger with a Diesel engine). The F150 Diesel is rumored to come out possibly next year.


RE: Why not...
By 16nm on 11/14/2007 6:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
That's good to know. I would like to see Honda make a small pickup with an efficient deisel engine. I could really use a small diesel pickup that gets around 30/40 mpg town/highway. I think many home owners would find it useful for running to Home Depot. Full size pickups and even medium-size pickups are overkill for tasks like this.


RE: Why not...
By riddance on 11/14/2007 12:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do believe Ford is looking into a smaller Diesel for their F-150. I hope GM/Dodge/Toyota start looking that way as well.


GM is working on a light duty diesel that should be out in a year or two.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/2935


RE: Why not...
By Alexvrb on 11/14/2007 9:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, GM's new 4.5L Diesel should kick some serious butt. I wouldn't be surprised if it wipes the floor with Ford's upcoming light duty diesel. Its got oodles of power, almost as much as current Duramax configurations, and its more efficient and cleaner too.


RE: Why not...
By EricMartello on 11/15/2007 8:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
GM's Duramax engines are really nice. I had a Diesel Silverado that could do 22 MPG on the highway and about 14.5 in the city...not bad for something with enough torque to pull a house and enough HP to hit 60 in about 8 seconds.

I don't see the point in hybrids. People say they're better for the environment? No, it's called used batteries in landfills. Last I checked, most components that make up those batteries are "toxic". Using less fuel or more efficient? No, not really...today's diesel engines run cleaner, quieter and more efficiently than the best hybrid. Not to mention, diesels are inherently more durable and less costly than a hybrid powerplant, both initially AND over the long term.


RE: Why not...
By bhieb on 11/14/2007 1:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
My .02..

It will cannabilize their F250 market. Most people I know with an F250 (about 10) are in construction or just people who need to tow smaller loads (haul a few ponies to the rodeo). The only reason any of them give for getting the 250 vs. the 150 is milage. Why buy a weaker smaller truck that gets less milage. I had an F150, and the milage was just aweful 11-13 range. Most of the people with the diesel are getting upper teens. If the 150 had a smaller effecient diesel I think a lot of potential 250 buyers would be lost.


RE: Why not...
By bhieb on 11/14/2007 1:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and one more thing. Why not both? Give us the diesel and the hybrid. If it is effecient enough then the need to haul a generater to small jobs would be gone too as the onboard hybrid gen would provide power to a few power tools. I believe GMC offered this at one point, but the big V8 was far less effecient that running a small generator. Maybe the engine could run off of only 2 or 4 cylinders when in "gen" mode???


RE: Why not...
By walk2k on 11/14/2007 3:16:33 PM , Rating: 1
Because diesels suck. They are noisy, smelly, and hard to find gas for them.


RE: Why not...
By Spuke on 11/14/2007 3:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because diesels suck. They are noisy, smelly, and hard to find gas for them.
The new one's don't have those issues anymore. And every gas station I've been to has a diesel pump where I live (CA).


RE: Why not...
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 3:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
Thats California. Youd be hard pressed to find diesel stations around the Midwest - unless you go to a Truck Stop. The populations are not centralized out here like they are in California. We are so spread out that its just a different region, and diesel is mainly used here for trucking purposes.


RE: Why not...
By Spuke on 11/14/2007 4:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm from the east coast originally and I've been around to other parts of the country and I've seen diesel pumps everywhere. What part of the Midwest don't you have diesel gas?


RE: Why not...
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 4:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
Im actually from Ohio. Im not saying there aren't diesel stations, just that most gas stations only have regular gasoline. Most truck routes - gas stations off freeways and state routes have diesel pumps, but driving through the big city and what not, its not nearly as predominant here as it is in places like California


RE: Why not...
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 5:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
Most gas stations (not truck stops) up here in Michigan have at least a single diesel pump. Are you saying it's not the same in Ohio?

From my perspective, availability of diesel wouldn't be a concern that would keep me from buying a vehicle. I heard a really nasty, loud VW diesel car just yesterday that looked like it was just a few years old. That kind of thing is what might keep me from buying a diesel.


RE: Why not...
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 5:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
I live downtown Columbus, and to be honest, I really dont see many pumps here that have Diesel. Im sure when you get out into the suburbs where the land is available to build larger gas stations that they have diesel. Like I said, its not that we dont have diesel, just in parts its not as popular.


RE: Why not...
By Phattio on 11/15/2007 7:24:25 AM , Rating: 2
hey guys,

he's right. i am in Cleveland, OH and it's the exact same deal.


RE: Why not...
By RjBass on 11/14/2007 5:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Kansas City and nearly every convenient gas station around my home has diesel. I don't know where in the Midwest you are, but in Kansas City diesel is everywhere.


RE: Why not...
By FITCamaro on 11/14/2007 5:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
I lived in Milwaukee for three months. Every gas station I went to had diesel. In Florida diesel is everywhere as well. Same with South Carolina.


RE: Why not...
By Andrwken on 11/14/2007 6:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
The Midwest doesn't have diesel pumps? Just about every city I go to in the upper Midwest has diesel available at multiple stations. The pumps by the major roadways are almost all gas and diesel.


RE: Why not...
By Andrwken on 11/14/2007 6:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
I live in WI, for the record.


RE: Why not...
By riddance on 11/14/2007 4:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because diesels suck. They are noisy, smelly, and hard to find gas for them.


I disagree. Many newer diesels (especially in Europe) are cleaner, more efficient and quiet running. It is this generalization that has hurt the adoption rate of these motors in other areas such as light duty trucks/SUV's and passenger cars. Im not saying they should replace gasoline motors, but perhaps a compromise between the two can be made.

Look here
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/07/25/diesel-without-...


RE: Why not...
By Calin on 11/15/2007 6:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
My brother has an 1.5 turbo diesel engine on Renault Clio.
He can find diesel everywhere I can find unleaded gasoline
His idle is rougher than on my 1992 1.8 injection gasoline engine (VW Passat).
Once the rpm goes over 1800, its engine is similar to mine in noise, is almost as powerful, has a much better torque, and when the turbo starts, you feel it pulling real strong.
Recent diesel engines (and turbodiesel most of all) are brutish only in the low peak torque they have. Little noise, less smelly than an old gasoline engine. Diesel availability will come


Ouch
By Bioniccrackmonk on 11/14/2007 1:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM also notes that thanks to the hybrid powertrain and its 26-gallon fuel tank, the Silverado Hybrid will travel more than 500 miles on a single tank of gas.


Where I live gas just hit $3.10 for the cheap stuff which means it will cost $80.60 to fill this beast up. Meanwhile all the prince's in Saudia Arabia just purchased brand new $450,000,000 yachts. Anyone else see something wrong with this?




RE: Ouch
By Oregonian2 on 11/14/2007 2:07:48 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, that we're still using gasoline at all. We need to build nuke plants to generate massive amounts of electricity and make cars 95% electric. Still use oil, but only for lubrication and for the small built-in "emergency" charger.

P.S. - That's not much more spendy a sail yacht than owned by the American venture capitalist who was interviewed on 60 minutes last week. :-)


RE: Ouch
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 2:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
Not going to happen. All electric is ok for city only driving - but much of our shipping industry is based on trucking goods from one location to another - diesel fuel. Then there is also farming & agriculture, and so many more applications. Not to mention that with the airfare hikes, could you imagine trying to fly a family of 5 round trip from like Ohio to Florida? That would cost $1500 rd trip. Or they could drive their Ford Expedition for about $400-$500 round trip.

Yes, Oil is a major natural resource, and yes the foreign oil tycoons are making mad cash. But lets not forget that we have so many places in the US that we COULD drill for oil, and dont. Its about time our environmentalist just sit down and shut the hell up, and let us do what we need to do instead of preaching "GREEN", because all that is doing is costing the average american MORE "GREEN".

Environment is important, but Economy is more important. Our nation & power is based on our Economy - and its ability to fund our Military. If we put Economy 2nd or 3rd, or 4th....we lose the strengths of our country.


RE: Ouch
By rudy on 11/14/2007 5:22:11 PM , Rating: 3
Here is another thought, we will drill for oil when we really need it, but in the mean time while it is not horribly priced let the other countries deplete their resources? Yeah gas has gone up but for the most part the US is still running like usual. In the mean time the slightly high prices will give incentive to research other feul and energy sources/systems. I think the way things are going is good. Just cause you can't afford that extra beer does not mean we need to go drilling every spot we have. Drilling for oil and trying to hold gas prices in check will only set us up for a terrible correction later. That instability would be much worse then the steady rise over the years we are seeing now.


RE: Ouch
By Oregonian2 on 11/15/2007 3:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
No, the US needs to "save" that last bit of our resources to use in the future when we go into panic mode because we've not enough oil available for what we need, supplies are going downhill, and we've still not solved the replacement problem that WILL occur someday. We will then be in a panic to get that last bit of oil out of domestic sources at whatever it costs to do so, while also running in panic mode to replace oil. If we use that reserve now, we may not have the resources to replace oil because the economy will tank seriously -- so the replacement might not be economically feasible if there's not something there to tide us over the panic period. Nothing is done in the US until there is a panic, and those who try to do things ahead of time are usually shot down as being money wasters when there are starving to feed, etc. Then when the panic happens, there will be calls as to why something wasn't done ahead of time -- but if the reason is one particular party going unnamed, then there won't be the calls for why, but mostly calls for action without finger pointing.

BTW - I spoke of electric cars in generic fashion, could be hydrogen or some other transport mechanism between nuke plants and vehicle wheels. But oil needs to be eliminated except for where it can't possibly (aircraft perhaps, and lubrication).


RE: Ouch
By Misty Dingos on 11/14/2007 2:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the Saudi that just bought an A380 for himself. Total will be around $500 millon. Try buying a christmas gift for that guy.


RE: Ouch
By Ringold on 11/14/2007 4:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
Invent something the whole world wants and, until your patent runs out or someone else figures out how to duplicate it, you too can afford a $450m yacht or A380.

That, or be lucky enough to own the land under which you find such a product. Dilithium crystals?


Forgot part of the story!
By SLEEPER5555 on 11/14/2007 2:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
this is the system that was co-developed by GM and Chrysler (bmw also had a small interest in it but much smaller than GM and chry) Chrysler launched the aspen and durango using this same system a few months ago, dunno why it took GM so long to implement it too. so far the chryslers have shown some good real world savings already!

--Sleeper




RE: Forgot part of the story!
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 2:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
Real world savings? Do you have actual statistics for this?

I am very skeptic of Hybrids - not the fact that they increase fuel milage - but that the costs of a Hybrid in the long run are actually more expensive. You pay thousands more for the Hybrid technology than the same car/truck/suv with out the Hybrid Technology. And the cost of maintaining the Hybrid car and fixing the Hybrid system if it goes bad is much more expensive than a regular car.

IMO, its not worth the hassle and extra money for a few miles per gallon. Its great if you buy one because you want to be "green", but lets not advertise it as some sort of real world savings plan for a car.


RE: Forgot part of the story!
By Spuke on 11/14/2007 3:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am very skeptic of Hybrids - not the fact that they increase fuel mileage - but that the costs of a Hybrid in the long run are actually more expensive.
Not to mention you lose some of your towing capacity with the hybrid version which is my biggest beef here. Towing is the number one reason we own a truck and 6100 lbs isn't enough for us. Hell our current 7700 lbs is barely adequate.


RE: Forgot part of the story!
By clovell on 11/14/2007 4:26:00 PM , Rating: 1
Serial hybrids don't have nearly as many moving parts as parallel hybrids, and shouldn't be nearly as costly to repair. I think if serial hybrids are developed to the same degree as parallel hybrids, you'll eventually see maintenance costs that are on par if not better than those of ICE cars.

I think that with serial hybrids you've got a better shot of recovering the extra investment.


RE: Forgot part of the story!
By rudy on 11/14/2007 5:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
What about speculation? For the last 4 years prices have just been going up steadily. If you speculate further on that with the rise of so many developing nations and peoples demand, prices should keep going up. Maybe now you lose a little, next year you break even, after that it becomes real world savings.


Waiting for people to wake up...
By RobberBaron on 11/14/2007 11:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
And realize current battery tech is not a solution for modern cars.

Stuff like this is where we need to go: http://www.waterfuelcell.org/index.html




RE: Waiting for people to wake up...
By Spuke on 11/14/2007 4:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone can post a website and fill it full of crap. Check this one out: http://www.hondapoweredbyass.com.


RE: Waiting for people to wake up...
By clovell on 11/14/2007 5:09:13 PM , Rating: 1
Being at work, I knew better than to click the link, but the URL had me cracking up.


By RobberBaron on 11/15/2007 10:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
Marty!
By Misty Dingos on 11/14/2007 11:07:17 AM , Rating: 2
300 volt battery. Nothing can go wrong there. I will admit that this is a remarkable achievment but I will wait a couple of years before I buy one. I want to know what the real world failure rate and costs are.

One of my brothers is a GM service manager. I wonder if he is going to have to hire mechanics with electrical engineering degrees now.




pretty cool
By cleco on 11/14/2007 11:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
The Silverado Hybrid can travel up to 30 MPH under electric power alone (even while towing) and still has the ability to tow up to 6,100 pounds.


thats awesome.




GM is finally a competetor again.
By pauldovi on 11/14/2007 12:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think GM can finally compete with Toyota and Honda. I still don't think you can top the Honda Accord, but it seems that GM is definitely a far better company (better products) that it was 5-10 years ago.




why diesel?
By bryanW1995 on 11/14/2007 1:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel engines are a great concept, but the US govt has made it more and more difficult in recent years for major auto manufacturers to sell them and make a good profit. In europe they have significant tax credits and do a great job in general of encouraging diesel engines in vehicles, while over here we have diesel fuel that costs significantly more than premium unleaded. In fact, I have customers all the time who come in to trade in their diesels because they're paying more on fuel when the higher cost is factored in. Diesels are inherintly a more efficient engine design, and a diesel hybrid would be a great vehicle to have, but consumers just aren't willing to spend (yet) the extra money that it takes to buy most ultra-fuel efficient vehicles. If we have $5+ a gallon for gas next year then this could change very quickly, however, and if that happens then this truck hybrid will be the truck to have. Hopefully we won't find out if this prediction is correct.




this may have been said...
By tdktank59 on 11/14/2007 6:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
The point of these big trucks are normally not for commuting... however in our society bigger is always better...

So really this truck was meant to be a hybrid pickup (of course) that could tow while on the batter! not just on gas

the hard part about towing is i believe you need a lot of torque not horsepower... So still maintaining its 3xx lbs of torque is awesome.




By EVangel on 11/14/2007 6:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
300 volts worth of nickel metal hydride (NiMH) battery! Exactly what Bob Lutz says can't be used in the 2010 Chevy Volt. Hmmmm.
The 1997 GM EV1 went over 150 miles on a charge of its 330V NiMH batteries, but Lutz now says that GM has to have Lithium batteries to move the Volt 40 miles. Someone please explain.




Why?
By andrinoaa on 11/15/2007 1:17:08 AM , Rating: 2
In case most people cannot read, this story is about a TRUCK. Most people in their right minds wouldn't buy one for commuting. So why all the interest anyhow? If it was about a new car, wow maybe, but a TRUCK? Who gives a continental?




Huge battery!
By redeyedfly on 11/14/07, Rating: 0
i don't like the battery there
By ElFenix on 11/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: i don't like the battery there
By iFX on 11/14/2007 11:32:43 AM , Rating: 1
What if you drive off a cliff or a semi runs a read light and smashes you?


RE: i don't like the battery there
By Chernobyl68 on 11/14/2007 2:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
then you get a bionic arm and its all good.


By Misty Dingos on 11/14/2007 2:45:37 PM , Rating: 1
A bionic arm and a bitchy attitude. Don't forget the attitude.


By retrospooty on 11/14/2007 11:34:11 AM , Rating: 3
Money is why... They would have to redesign the whole truck and use many different parts to do that. Its not a hybrid from the ground up design, its an already existing truck that got a minor and cheap redesign to become a hybrid.


RE: i don't like the battery there
By Kougar on 11/14/2007 11:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't have a problem with the placement, if anything keeping the battery in a enviromentally contolled cab should help with the lifespan.

Also a key detail that was mentioned is that the battery is Nickel-metal hydride, which has proven to be a quite safe combination... not Lithium-ion.


RE: i don't like the battery there
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 2:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a big high voltage battery, and my passengers are sitting on it? granted, that big steel housing is protecting the battery, but still. what if there is an accident?

If you are seriously worried about that, you might want to contemplate what your passengers are riding on top of in your current vehicle: gallons and gallons of pure gasoline just inches away from a hot exhaust pipe.


You can put lipstick on a pig...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By Misty Dingos on 11/14/2007 11:18:36 AM , Rating: 2
Would you still dislike the SUV and pickup drivers and their vehicles if global warming was a hoax? My guess is that you would.

Let me ask you this. Why hatred is embraced by the eco-nazi when it is wrapped in a global warming wrapper? It is OK to hate (not using the word lightly here kids) anyone and anything that opposes or represents a environmental viewpoint that you don't agree with? To hear some of the eco-crowd talk you would think that man has to go. Man is the worst possible event in the billons of years of earth's existence. That they actually hate man kind. Don't they then hate themselves? And with that kind of hatred for yourself and others how can you (the rabid environmentalist) ever hope to help anyone or anything?

Oh well probably just talking to the trees here. It is lunch time and I got to get into my pick up truck and burn some gasoline going out to eat dead cow.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By retrospooty on 11/14/2007 11:31:25 AM , Rating: 1
"Man is the worst possible event in the billons of years of earth's existence."

That is probably the most absolutely true thing ever said. Hybrids are a good step, but its not going to solve the issue. Once we get closer to 15-20 billion people things will really start to break down, and I am not sure there is an answer that works. Mankind itself is destructive, and may not be capable of widespread mental change.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By Misty Dingos on 11/14/2007 12:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Once we get closer to 15-20 billion people things will really start to break down
I invite you to read a popular book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb It also predicted the doom of mankind. Turns out it was wrong. As I suspect you are in your prediction.

You do realize that the population of the planet is not going to be over 9.5 billion by 2050. And that the estimated 15-20 billion is not going to happen before another 50 to 100 years beyond that. How much will the world change before then?

If I am really lucky and live to 100 I might see a planetary population of 10-12 billion. It is more likely as more and more of the third world become more like first world nations that the population growth we see in those countries will slow and then begin to reverse. As it has in many nations.

Of course then you could start crying about the inverse population crisis. About how will we be able to sustain the infrastructure with out the people to do the work. No doubt you will want to pay people to have babies.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By retrospooty on 11/14/2007 2:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
"You do realize that the population of the planet is not going to be over 9.5 billion by 2050. And that the estimated 15-20 billion is not going to happen before another 50 to 100 years beyond that."

Yes, I was not saying it would happen overnight. I would have actually thought it would take a bit longer. Don't get me wrong, I certainly hope it all works out. But I am not as optimistic as you. History and human psychology has shown us that when resources are plentiful, Man is mostly kind and generous... When they dwindle, its everyone for themselves. We have millions that have already starved to death in many 3rd world countries and we have plenty food an resources to stop it from happening now, what about when there is 10x the population? What about 20x? Most of that population boom is going to be in 3rd world countries, keep that in mind as well.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By Ringold on 11/14/2007 4:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
My understanding is that the latest theories suggest the population will plataeu at 9-10 billion around 2050; Europe is at below replacement birth rates, native-born American's more or less are, both areas being held up purely by immigration. Japan is about to go in to complete population implosion; other south east Asian's nations are worrying about the same problem. China and India has an amazingly fast growing middle class and therefore aren't far behind in the ferility drop.

Once the industrial/post-industrial revolution works its way to Africa, a process already well under way, the cycle will be complete. With nothing in sight that would change the fact that more developed nations, and their more educated people, put off child birth and choose to have many, the end game becomes obvious. Europe and America both need to start working quite seriously on policies and cultural values that can be propagated that promote child birth.. at least enough for a slow rate of growth.

From an economics perspective, this is actually something of a bad thing, but regardless, there's little to suggest economic growth faces any hurdles for a fantastically long time, global warming or not. There's just far too many resources too close to the surface of the planet, we're much too good at extracting them, technology advances too rapidly, and the potential for recycling at high raw material price levels is too high for resources to constrain wealth expansion any time in the next several lifetimes.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By rudy on 11/14/2007 5:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
Money, will balance it all, simply you don't have children in these countries because they are too expensive. In other countries you have children because they are cheap labor or even a source of direct money (prostitution). They are also cheaper to care for because they are not taken care of to the same standards as in developed nations. When the populations decline wages and government assistance will go up and then you will see people having more children again.

In the end its all about money. Also an interesting thing about out population decline is are high abortion rate, if we just kept those kids we probably would not have this problem.

In many third world countries people believe in odd things like certain birth controls cause problems (you can please a woman with a vasectomy) this also will turn around with education and time.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By DallasTexas on 11/14/2007 3:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
Great point. I agree with you.
This is feeble attempt to make what is clearly a guzzler category pretend to be energy efficient.

The right ans is to apply a $5,000 surcharge on these pigs for needlessly polluting the environment and taking that money to promote the use of smaller vehicles.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 3:33:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The right ans is to apply a $5,000 surcharge on these pigs for needlessly polluting the environment and taking that money to promote the use of smaller vehicles.


Point #1. Just because a vehicle is bigger in size does not make it "pollute" any more than the small car.

Point #2. There is still no proof that the "pollution" you are referring to is actually harming the environment.

Point #3. You have quote a perfect analogy of "Socialism". (Do what I tell you to because I say so).


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By DallasTexas on 11/14/2007 4:25:45 PM , Rating: 1
Point #1. Just because a vehicle is bigger in size does not make it "pollute" any more than the small car.


** I'm afraid that moving 4 tons still takes more energy than moving 1 ton. Never mind the efficiency - it's the philosophy being argued. So step up from the weeds and look at the big picture.


Point #2. There is still no proof that the "pollution" you are referring to is actually harming the environment.

I realy don't need any "proof" that burning fossil fuels is not a good thing for the environment. If society has to appease the likes of you for "proof" to do anything, it will be too late. I'm not willing to wait for your proof to come - and good for me, I don't have to.

Point #3. You have quote a perfect analogy of "Socialism". (Do what I tell you to because I say so).

You must be republican. There are times when government and world bodies actually have a role and obligation to play for the common good. I think this is one of them. I pay taxes for products and service I will never use, but I understand their value. I don't call it socialism. I call it being practical


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By Ringold on 11/14/2007 4:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You must be republican. There are times when government and world bodies actually have a role and obligation to play for the common good. I think this is one of them. I pay taxes for products and service I will never use, but I understand their value. I don't call it socialism. I call it being practical


Your $5000 suggestion is still an arbitrary figure. You've got no idea how much the fair value of the pollution that will be created by that truck is relative to a smaller vehicle. You allow no consideration for the type of usage its owner may operate with. No accounting for engine options, that it is still more efficient than a normal non-hybrid model, or anything else.

What is left? Ideology. In your case, an idea based on class warfare that someone shouldn't have something you consider excessive -- because you and those like you simply say so.

If you really gave a damn about the atmosphere, and I doubt that's your sole motive, you'd endorse instead one of the systems or mechanisms that would accurately price in the cost of pollution in to energy, including fuel. Some government economist could meet with some government climate scientist, determin a needed level of emission reduction, and use predicted price elasticity to calculate a tax level per gallon needed to create that change in the portion of emissions accounted for by fuel that was needed. At the end of the year, or fiscal quarter, tax payers could take their receipts and get a refund for the amount of the tax, or the government could simply lower general taxes in an amount equal to fuel revenue. This return of capital would be very easy to calculate in to the tax.

That would achieve the narrow goal of discouraging fuel consumption while avoiding hurting other consumption without passing any kind of communist (he was nice with saying socialist, I drop the BS) value judgement on the matter. I almost never hear any such suggestion because, of course, it doesn't serve the ideological goal of punishing those with whom we disagree.

Oh, and not only are you an AMD troll, you're an environmental one. Nice; evolving before my eyes. :P


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By Ringold on 11/14/2007 4:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
For the record, I bet any BA or BS in Economics graduate, or even a sophomore taking an intermediate course, particularly intermediate microeconomics, could probably calculate the above information by hand given the proper data set.

Since not much fuel is sold under the table, and we've got a nice wide range of price levels to observe over the past several years, the data seems to be available.

Difficulty on the econometricians side, then, isn't the issue. The climate scientists and politicians, that's different. However, since you clearly already believe in the global warming gospel, you probably can't use that as an excuse, leaving you with.. none as far as I can see.

Except, again, the desire for class warfare.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By DallasTexas on 11/14/2007 5:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. Four sentence in all that below. If you wanted to win the argument by boring me to death - mission accomplished!
I give.


"..If you really gave a damn about the atmosphere, and I doubt that's your sole motive, you'd endorse instead one of the systems or mechanisms that would accurately price in the cost of pollution in to energy, including fuel. Some government economist could meet with some government climate scientist, determin a needed level of emission reduction, and use predicted price elasticity to calculate a tax level per gallon needed to create that change in the portion of emissions accounted for by fuel that was needed. At the end of the year, or fiscal quarter, tax payers could take their receipts and get a refund for the amount of the tax, or the government could simply lower general taxes in an amount equal to fuel revenue. This return of capital would be very easy to calculate in to the tax..."


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By clovell on 11/14/2007 5:49:05 PM , Rating: 1
Were it so easy...


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 5:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
DallasTexas is basically saying "yeah, you made a point. i have no comeback. my statements were idiotic at best. therefore i will try to make moot justification by sarcasm".


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By DallasTexas on 11/14/2007 6:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
No it's basically I'm not going to "come back" with those that bring the argument to the gutter. I'm not in it for the final word - which is the juvenile measure of winning.

Also, it's not a good use of my time and when I have someone like you to all of a sudden to pretend to be my spokesperson, why bother? It just deteriorates from here.


By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 6:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Its not about winning. The point is that if you are going to make accusations about what should and should not be done, and what people should and should not do, there should be something sufficient to back it up. Not just the typical "because that what i think and i dont need data to back it up" type of answer.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By Ringold on 11/14/2007 7:56:52 PM , Rating: 3
The gutter ?!

Talking points supported by theories straight out of any college economics textbook, right down to the principles level. Dirty.

I guess this means Dante gave economic theory on the graduate level its own ring in hell.

I actually just assumed you wouldn't post again. I personally can't see how your "screw them with a 5k tax" is anything but class warfare as opposed to a carefully reasoned, productive tax policy aimed at causing minimal economic damage while acheiving a socially desirable goal, but you could've tried to prove otherwise. I don't feel as though my pointing out the class hatred was any worse than your clear expression of it.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By Nfarce on 11/14/2007 8:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
Any time you see the phrase "common good" you know you are dealing with a socialist liberal democrat who knows no ends to the "common good" just like a good little Stalinist - the first blood drawn with "You must be a Republican" excluded of course. Anyway, this sub thread is a classic example of hysterical liberalism that likes to spout off and run instead of a tit-for-tat honest debate of facts, which, of course, you owned. Nobody from the Right has ever said all government regulations are bad. The problem here is that classic liberalism, with the modern Moveon.moonbat.org Democrat party, doesn't seem to know when to stop with government regulations and individual choice. Then again, when was the last time liberalism was ever for individual choice other than abortion?


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By jtemplin on 11/15/2007 12:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
If what DallasTexas is saying is that the Gas Guzzler Tax should apply to vehicles over 6,000 lbs too, then I agree. The heavier vehicles are obviously more likely to have worse MPG, so making them exempt is creating a huge loophole. I am sure there was reasoning behind the exemption, but I think the tax needs to be re-configured.

Regarding all the talk of socialism and other political BS, obviously our government found a reason to identify certain vehicles as gas guzzlers. Whether you agree with the government prescribing things upon the people or not, the tax exists. So why does the tax have a huge loophole that is circumventing the spirit of the tax? If the government is worried about oil availability then perhaps they are interested in promoting more efficient use of oil by its citizens? I don't buy into all these accusations.
quote:
Communist value judgement. Punishing those with whom we disagree.
The government disagrees with fuel wasting sports cars (an example of a class of cars oft-affected) in the form of the aforementioned tax, how is including other inefficient vehicles suddenly make this become communist value judgements. If you think he is so biased because he must be buying into global warming etc, then I would answer that you must be an SUV fanatic. Why else would someone defend SUVs...they MUST love them. Not everything is so black and white (left-right in this case), although every political discussion on these boards seems to end up there.

If this is collegiate level discussion, then keep the simple minded generalizations and McCarthyism OUT.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By Ringold on 11/15/2007 3:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, the Gax Guzzler Tax is a relic of an era when the federal government tried to take a command economy approach to combat fuel shortages. Other manipulative and punitive measures were ended long ago, thank god; Ronald Reagan in his first day in office signed an executive order ending the price controls on gasoline, for example. (That mechanism was the true reason for shortages, btw)

The first problem is the environmental one; a blanket tax does little to address the real ongoing problem, but rather acts to shift the burden, almost a form of wealth redistribution. That alone, by the way, allows my use of the word socialist; it's not just a political ideology but obviously an economic one as well. If CO2 reduction is the goal, what the hell does making new cars more expensive do? Almost nothing.

The solution, then, is to tax gasoline at an appropriate level to reduce its consumption to.. an appropriate level, as estimated by climate scientists. This requires a fuel tax. Obviously, gas guzzling vehicles driven daily will pay much of this tax, but so will everyone else, encouraging efficiency throughout the economy on an ongoing basis.

It's a value judgement partly because his disdain for someone who dare drives a hefty vehicle was clear, but it's also in your own post. Note your use of the word "waste". If we strip away the environmental issue, it's none of your business how other people use their resources so long as it doesn't involve causing harm to you. You believe that driving an SUV is wasteful; that's your opinion based on your values. To the other person, it's clearly not wasteful; they derive some sort of personal utility from this or they would not do it. Your attempt, then, to take punitive action through the federal government's ability to tax (and enforce taxes by the threat of jail time) other people who don't share your values is.. damnit, I can't believe I have to spell this out like a child to you guys. It's a value judgement! That act essentially involves you, by way of the federal government, violating another persons private property rights, and therefore allows the operative use of the word "communist", since that's what they do. At the very least, Bolshevik fits nicely, but then again so does fascist. Why? Because you're interfering with someones ability to do with their money as they please in a way that has nothing to do with you (asides from offending your personal moral values).

As I've also posted many, many times, the framers of the US constitution feared exactly this sort of class warfare infringeing on the rights of minorities, and inserted everything in that they could to try to forestall it (like the ability to filibuster).

Therefore, I am not an SUV fanatic, and just in case this needs to be spelled out again, I am simply the defender of liberty and the concept that government is not compatible with liberty when used to project values. This is why I advocated a narrow approach to solve the problem at hand -- not engange in socialist (reference above) or communist (reference above) social engineering.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 7:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
LOL. Four sentence in all that below. If you wanted to win the argument by boring me to death - mission accomplished! I give.

You can either back your views, or back away from them. Apparently you chose the latter. Mission accomplished indeed.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By isaacmacdonald on 11/15/2007 12:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think your emissions oriented taxes are a good idea, but I'd go a step further. We should get rid of mandated fuel efficiency (CAFE standards) and raise taxes on gas to a sufficient level to produce the desired results.

Sadly politicians have no foresight--they only value measures that will be immediately popular, making economically sound policy impossible to enact.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By Ringold on 11/15/2007 3:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
That's exactly right. CAFE seems to just be a way of the government acting like its doing something while really just trying to attract campaign donations from the auto industry with the threat of acting, while really doing nothing.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By clovell on 11/14/2007 4:44:57 PM , Rating: 1
> I'm afraid that moving 4 tons still takes more energy than moving 1 ton. Never mind the efficiency - it's the philosophy being argued. So step up from the weeds and look at the big picture
What the hell? Nevermind the efficiency? That's the whole damned point. Moving 4 tons efficient can have less environmental impact than moving 1 ton inefficiently.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 4:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm afraid that moving 4 tons still takes more energy than moving 1 ton. Never mind the efficiency - it's the philosophy being argued. So step up from the weeds and look at the big picture.

Since when it anything short of total efficiency immoral? (Ever watch TV or use an exercise machine or use a computer? What a waste of electricity!) I think you've missed the big picture - human choice is also an important principle - just as important as environmental converns (or paranoia) to many people.
quote:
I realy don't need any "proof" that burning fossil fuels is not a good thing for the environment.

But there should be proof that it is really destructive before we take on the kind of draconian regulations you advocate. A person's freedom should only be limited when there is a compelling reason to do so. A few extra PPM of CO2 out the tailpipe doesn't consititue "compelling."
quote:
You must be republican.

You must be a Democrat - and obviously of the socialist-leaning sort. Who the are you to judge the actions of others and to tell them they are right or wrong? How about letting people make their own decisions.


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/16/2007 7:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
I dislike the SUVs and Minivans and Pick ups I have to contend with on my daily commute into the city because they think that since they have giant vehicles, they own the road (ask any large vehicle driver and they will tell you they love the intimidation factor) they use too much gas to take one person to work, and you can't see around their fat a**es so my view is always their lame bumper stickers.
I drive a mid-size sedan and car pool.
Please don't resort to ad hominem fallacy when making your point. Just because you call me clever names doesn't give any merit to your point of view - unless you're on Jerry Springer.


By Chris Peredun on 11/14/2007 11:29:21 AM , Rating: 3
So what you're saying is you'd rather have GM eschew development of this system entirely because it's "not good enough" for you?


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By ElFenix on 11/14/2007 11:38:13 AM , Rating: 5
if it goes from 15/19 to 21/20, over 15,000 miles averaging 50% city/50% highway it'll go from 895 gallons used to 732, a savings of 163 gallons. that's as good city mileage as a toyota camry.

a civic ex sedan with auto gets 30/40. a civic hybrid gets 49/51. that goes from 437.5 gallons to 300. or, a saving of 137.5 gallons

so, we'd save more gas by replacing a single silverado with a hybrid model than by replacing a single civic with a hybrid model. and given how many silverados are sold in comparison to civics, there is a lot more potential for savings due to hybridization of trucks than of economy cars. 500,000 silverados are sold each year. if every one can be improved similarly, that's more than 80 million gallons of gas saved.

(granted, there is far more potential for savings by merely getting people out of trucks who aren't using them for anything other than commuting, but that ain't gonna happen.)


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By Oregonian2 on 11/14/2007 2:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, from what I've read, it's the bigger vehicles that can most benefit from hybrid technology. They have more room for improvement.

As to keeping folk from commuting in big trucks, the $3+/gal price tag should help in that direction. But bigness isn't what one is after or against, it's the gas economy. I had an old tiny Toyota corolla once that I drove for many years. Had a over sized rubber band for its engine. Its mileage was terrible. Chrysler T&C minivan was about the same.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 3:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
Personally for me - the convenience, safety feeling, and luxury are what will keep me driving my new Grand Cherokee SRT-8. People who drive $35k, $40k, $50k SUV's rarely worry about whether gas is $2.75 or $3.75 a gallon. I buy cars according to what i want my lifestyle to be, not what others want my lifestyle to be.

Now, as for your post, I dont think its going to decrease the number of big trucks on the road at all. People have them becuase they need them. However, I think it will cut down on how much they use them.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By ElFenix on 11/15/2007 1:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
come to texas, where people have them just because everyone else does.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By MrFluffo on 11/14/2007 2:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
Just wow.... first of all. I guess you dont see those SUV drivers towing stuff or carrying heavy loads. Your Yaris' and Fit's are nice for gas mileage however some people have to use a truck for work or around the home. I dont know how you plan on towing a car in your Yaris. Or transporting Building materials in your Fit. Also some people with families feel safer in an SUV than in a normal sized car, have you ever seen a highway accident between a normal sized car and an SUV? Not so good for the car. I dont want to be the poor guy in the Fit/Yaris getting into an accident with an SUV. SUVs have become a major part of business and home for alot of people and they wont be going away anytime soon. And i would rather them have better gas mileage than not. Not all people can do there work with a standard car.


By andrinoaa on 11/15/2007 2:17:54 AM , Rating: 1
Yea right , everybody has a need for a TRUCK, ONLY in AMERICA.
What a selfish bunch of rednecks
Only a glutton doesn't know when to stop!!

LOL


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By peter7921 on 11/14/2007 3:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
You know some people actually have pick-ups because they need them. My father who has a restaurant in the country has to use his for garbage, construction etc.. Of course it isn't pretty like the ones that never get used for actual work, and its only a V6. I do agree sometimes when i see people with trucks that just use them for transportation and not for what they are made for I have to wonder. But whatever floats there boat, its their money.

BTW just so you know I use a car for commuting, and the truck when i need it.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By mdogs444 on 11/14/2007 3:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
Dont apologize to that guy for doing what you do. Hes a socialistic idiot.

Its your money, you have the right to drive what you want to drive. And for whatever purpose you want to use it for. I drive a gas guzzling SUV with a huge V8 and im a single guy. Rarely is anyone in my car - with exception to my little 10lb dog. People see material things the way they want to - the problem is they expect everyone else to see them that way too. Some see cars as methods of transportation, some see them as status symbols, some see them as a hobby, and some see them as a waste to environment. Personally, I love cars, i love the status of them, and i love the luxury in side them. I dont care what anyone else likes or dislikes about my opinions.


RE: You can put lipstick on a pig...
By andrinoaa on 11/15/2007 2:12:42 AM , Rating: 1
If being concerned about things is being a socialist, then what is "I'm alright jack, F#$% you"?
You are no more a rightwing jackoff than other people are socialists so stop using such childish terms, they mean nothing at all and are irrelevant to the arguement
These things should cost $15,000 -$20,000 more to buy because they are TRUCKS and if they were even more expensive, you wouldn't even buy one, which is the point.
Its no coincident that GM and Ford are going backwards when this is were their priorities lay.


By EricMartello on 11/15/2007 9:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
What are you concerned about? Global warming doesn't exist, it's a media buzzword and in many ways, propaganda. It is not fact and it has ZERO scientific basis or merit.

What else are you concerned about? Air pollution? If a volcano "farts", it emits more pollutants in that moment than an entire city of cars with 1970s emissions standards. The point is, man's contribution to global air pollution is not even 1%...even with our industrial development the way it is now, we're still a minimal contributor.

If you think there is a problem, stop trolling the forums and figure out a solution. If you can't, then just shut up and accept that things are the way they are. :)


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki