backtop


Print 214 comment(s) - last by TheGreek.. on Oct 1 at 2:04 PM


Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid  (Source: Autoblog)

  (Source: Autoblog)
GM's full-size dual-mode hybrids crack the 20MPG barrier

DailyTech reported back in mid-March that GM had begun early production on its Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon full-size hybrid SUVs. The dual-mode hybrid system, which GM says is superior to Toyota’s single-mode Hybrid Synergy Drive, uses mode one for city driving and mode two for highway driving.

GM's dual-mode hybrid system can accomplish all the feats of the Toyota system -- internal combustion engine (ICE) turned off while idle, electric-only propulsion at low speeds, electric/ICE propulsion during heavy acceleration and regenerative braking -- but also adds the ability to improve highway fuel economy by using two electric motors, two continuously variable transmission (CVT) modes along with a four-speed automatic transmission and cylinder deactivation.

In addition, all of the electric motor mechanicals are housed within the transmission, so no additional space needs to be occupied for those components.

Variants of the dual-mode hybrid system will be used in vehicles from Chrysler and BMW.

GM's current ICE-only Tahoes and Yukons are rated at 14MPG/20MPG for 2WD models and 14MPG/19MPG for 4WD models. Today, we’ve learned that the use of the dual-mode hybrid system boosts those figures to 21MPG/22MPG and 20MPG/20MPG respectively under the EPA’s new testing methodology.

Those are pretty impressive number for a 322 HP/367 lb-ft vehicle that is approaching 6,000 pounds -- especially the city numbers. Despite added complexity added by the dual-mode hybrid system, the two SUVs can still feature a 6,200 pound towing capacity.

According to Autoblog, GM was able to offset the weight gain of the electric motors and batteries by using aluminum for various body panels, lighter wheels, and thinner seats. The system also doesn't take away from passenger space as the battery pack is located under the second-row seats.

There is no official pricing available for the hybrid Tahoes and Yukons, but expect for pricing to start in the mid-$40k range.



Comments     Threshold


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

Good Gains
By Sulphademus on 9/27/2007 9:49:55 AM , Rating: 3
Pretty impressive increase. Though "thinner seats" worries me from a comfort POV.

I wonder what BMW and Chrysler are going to be able to do with this or its brethren hybrid systems, seeing as this is a result of collaboration of the 3 companies. A Charger RT/SRT or 550i with decent city mileage would be extremely hard to turn down.




RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Gains
By jay401 on 9/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good Gains
By Chernobyl68 on 9/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 1:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
No, read the post i wont commenting on - he was referring to Chrysler.


RE: Good Gains
By LogicallyGenius on 9/28/2007 6:41:52 AM , Rating: 2
Why cant they make removable engines , so that in city we will use electric and at long distance we will use combustion one.


RE: Good Gains
By Oregonian2 on 9/27/2007 6:27:46 PM , Rating: 5
I dunno. My 1996 Chrysler T&C now has over 90,000 miles on it and it's not much different than before 50,000 other than a good bit dirtier both inside and outside. Do other brands have automatic self cleaning?


RE: Good Gains
By fxnick on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 10:40:27 AM , Rating: 1
Explain.

Grow up because i prefer toyota & honda over american cars? What?

You must be offended by the 48 payments you have left on the Neon. Sorry.


RE: Good Gains
By pauldovi on 9/27/2007 10:48:34 AM , Rating: 1
Cracks me up.

I have to wholeheartedly agree. You really cannot beat the performance, safety, efficiency, quality, and reliability of Honda and Toyota cars. I think, however, that Honda is leading in the efficiency sector as Toyota is trying to beef up to compete with GM.

I mean... can you really beat the Honda Accord?

Granted GM is making much better cars then they used to...


RE: Good Gains
By bpt8056 on 9/27/2007 1:27:06 PM , Rating: 5
You must still be in your little dream world, here's a little taste of reality:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleI...
http://www.lemonauto.com/complaints/honda/honda_ac...
http://yotarepair.com/Sludge_Zone.html
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...

If you choose to be blissfully ignorant, have fun driving the wheels off your Honda!


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 2:06:51 PM , Rating: 4
Same for my Toyota. So what does that prove?

While I agree that in generally Honda and Toyota have higher quality than other major OEMs, the total difference between them any of them is pretty small. Therefore, the "quality" is not such a distinguishing characteristic as it was in the past. In a nutshell, nearly all major OEMs have great quality now.


RE: Good Gains
By Alexstarfire on 9/27/2007 2:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
Would you like me to start posting links for all the recalls that GM, Ford, Dodge, Chrysler, and Chevy as well as all the problems they have that the companies refuse to acknowledge? Most cars from major companies will have there fair share of problems. What makes a difference is how big the problem is and what the company is going to do about it. I believe it was Ford cars, can't remember the models off hand, that are having engine problems and not only is Ford refusing to admit there is a problem, but they are making people pay for brand new parts out of pocket, even if they are in the warranty period of the car.


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 2:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
Most companies try to keep problems quiet. Toyota, for example, has issues where they will replace things for free/in-warranty if the customer complains about a particular symptom. They do not, however, make these defects publicly known, and nor do their dealerships inform you about them when you bring in your vehicle for other service. I suspect other OEMs do the same.


RE: Good Gains
By FITCamaro on 9/27/2007 3:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that. A guy at work has a new 5.7L Tundra. He says he recently took it in for the 5000 mile service at the dealership. He asked them if there had been any problems with the Tundra. They said no.

He knew nothing about the problem Toyota had with the 5.7Ls snapping camshafts when I mentioned it.


RE: Good Gains
By Alexstarfire on 9/27/2007 8:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure that's fairly accurate. Though I'm not sure if it's so much because they are trying to cover it up or because when they tested it themselves that they never encountered the problem. I'm thinking it's a little of both, but either way it makes no difference.

Even if they didn't admit it until people complained what you kinda missed was that a LOT of people are complaining about problems with American cars, like the engine problem I mentioned, and they are still denying it to this day. With it being something as serious and important as the engine you'd think they'd at least take a look into, by testing engines and looking into the broken ones, and say what they found, but they don't, to my knowledge.


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 9:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With it being something as serious and important as the engine you'd think they'd at least take a look into, by testing engines and looking into the broken ones, and say what they found, but they don't, to my knowledge.

Serious, kind of like Toyota's broken camshafts...?

I agree with you, though, and that's my point about Toyota. The OEMs try to keep these problems quiet in order to keep down warranty costs. It's a conspiracy I tell you!


RE: Good Gains
By Alexstarfire on 9/28/2007 1:46:47 AM , Rating: 1
Well, I can say that many of the major problems have been on SUVs. Honestly, that's not a problem in my book. Might as well have hidden maintenance costs on a gas sucking POS.


RE: Good Gains
By DragonMaster0 on 9/28/2007 6:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They do not, however, make these defects publicly known, and nor do their dealerships inform you about them when you bring in your vehicle for other service. I suspect other OEMs do the same.
Dunno, Honda sent us letters for 2-3 recalls with the 2006 Civic. (Airbag relay replacement, software update to optimize car performance in winter, etc.)

Aren't there car recall/technical service bulletin databases out there?

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/


RE: Good Gains
By bpt8056 on 9/27/2007 2:53:52 PM , Rating: 3
You missed my point entirely. *chuckle* I was merely pointing out that Toyota and Honda vehicles are not without problems as some zealots would like to believe. It's true that American cars have their fair share of problems, but what vehicle doesn't?

Now I'm trying to debate on which type of zealot is worse. The Mac or the Toyota/Honda? Guess I'll have to flip the coin on that one.


RE: Good Gains
By pauldovi on 9/27/2007 3:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
A couple of recalls on the civic means that the Accord is a bad car?

You can drive a civic / Accord to hell and back. They will easily put up 200,000 barring the hands of a crazy teenage driver.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 11:03:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They will easily put up 200,000 barring the hands of a crazy teenage driver.

With crazy teenager they will still do 100,000.


RE: Good Gains
By Plugers on 10/1/2007 9:19:31 AM , Rating: 2
My 1995 Chevy caprice is not much differant, I'm pushing 194,000 miles right now and the can runs great and is in great shape.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 10/1/2007 1:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
By 1980 GM started their FWD series. A lot of the bad that came out of that was they didn't fast or competently. The first x-car brake recall had defective pads replaced with th exact same ones. This happened after an extended period of denial that there was a problem in the first place. I lost count of how many recalls my car had, not to mention the whole car had to be stripped to metal and repainted because the paint had checked.


RE: Good Gains
By odiHnaD on 9/27/2007 1:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, guess that's a non-issue now that Chrysler started that lifetime powertrain warranty on all of their vehicles, go figure...


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Gains
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 2:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
No, actually the powertrain warrenty is lifetime. For as long as you own the vehicle, you're covered. Unless you buy it used.

http://www.chrysler.com/en/lifetime_powertrain_war...


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 2:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeha just read that, had never heard of that before. Its a non transferable.


RE: Good Gains
By Alexstarfire on 9/27/2007 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't even tell you what is covered though. Guess that means you either have to go to the dealership to find out, or buy a car to find out. They also say lifetime is lifetime, but that doesn't explain anything. Is it the model's lifetime or the person's lifetime? If it is the model's lifetime, but that be until the model has a major change, or is that until like the entire line dies? I'm sure that'll be fought over eventually.


RE: Good Gains
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 3:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
From what i have been able to get, from that and from dealerships (I got curious when they first mentioned it and went around asking) It covers any engine or transmission problem (not caused by user error) For as long as you own the car. The only thing you have to have is a 5 year inspection, which really isn't a bad idea anyway. I wish other companies would start to do this too. It might make me consider actually buying a new car, rather than ones somebody leased for a year


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 3:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
The motor/transmission for lifetime if it has a problem. However, the motor and transmission are not covered if a different issue with the car arises and forces the motor to have a problem. For example, if the water pump goes, stopping the serpentine belt, the motor will die. In that case, the motor is NOT covered under warranty. Non motor defects outside of the "bumper to bumper" are exclusions. Like the electricial system if that causes a motor problem - like a short in the computer or a sensor.


RE: Good Gains
By theapparition on 9/27/2007 3:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
LOL,
You may know IT, but nothing of cars.

The water pump is covered under a powertrain warranty, since it's part of the engine. If the water pump breaks, it wouldn't stop the belt, and even if it did, it wouldn't be strong enough to stop the motor belt.........and even if it did stall the motor, there's still no damage to the engine. Now, they could possibly claim that you still drove the car with the broken water pump, causing overheating, causing a cracked head/block, etc. In that case, I'd have to agree. When there's a problem, you have to pull over, no use trying to limp home.

The same denial of repair would apply at a foreign dealership if your water pump broke and you overheated the car, so don't knock chrysler for offering something that no one else in the industry does. It is just the powertrain, but better protection than none. To clarify, the powertrain is engine, transmission, driveshaft/differential. Those are also the most expensive parts on a car to replace. So your complaining that they are offering this??? Or are you mad that you don't have the same coverage.

(Disclaimer: I think Chrysler cars suck, but that's my personal opinion, and I applaud them for offering this level of protection.)

You believe what you want, but fact is on average american cars have higher reliability than foreign models. When you take out european (the worst average reliability) models and the sub-par japanese/korean models (suzuki, kia, mitsubishi, isuzu), the honda/toyota cars have pretty good reliability, but it's not heads and shoulders above the domestic competition.


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 3:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
Just an FYI - i was not singling out Chrysler in the nitty gritty of the warranty. Its like that with all warranties, and my Audi is no better. In fact, I feel the Audi's quality is subpar to many american cars.

But after talking with them regarding my 100k warranty, the water pump is an example that came up. The water pump example is an example i was given when i purchased my extended warranty.


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 2:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected on the lifetime powertrain, that must be new.

However, the rest i claimed about powertrain failure as a an effect from uncovered failure (electrical, hydraulic, etc) voids the powertrain warranty.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 10:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hmm, guess that's a non-issue now that Chrysler started that lifetime powertrain warranty on all of their vehicles, go figure...

In 1982 when I was complaining about my POS GM x-car a coworker asked "Why don't you buy an Omni, comes with a 5/50 warranty."

To which I did not hesitate "I want a car that does need a 5/50 warranty." And other people started to snicker at the "suggestion".


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 11:05:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"I want a car that does need a 5/50 warranty."


Should read "I want a car that doesn't need a 5/50 warranty."


RE: Good Gains
By AlphaVirus on 9/28/2007 1:07:41 PM , Rating: 1
I take it you ride the bus and listen to everything commercials tell you.
If you want to point out the "Luxury" brands Acura and Lexus, why not say Lincoln instead of Ford. Your reasoning skills are poor for that.

I had a 1995 Lincoln Towncar that I bought at 210,000mi and sold at 290,000mi at which it was still able to drive but I wanted a 2005+ model at the time. Please do research before you just speak out of your a**.

And by the way, 50k miles? Any car can get that easily.


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/28/2007 1:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you must be dislexic then. According my post, i see that I did state Honda and Toyota - with acura and lexus in parenthesis because they are based on the same car - just like Audi/VW.

But if you want to compare against lincoln, ill be more than happy to.

Ever heard the phrase "once a lincoln owner, always a lincoln owner"?

Means that once you buy a lincoln, its value goes down so drastically that the only place who will give you any money for it is a lincoln dealership towards a new lincoln - so you get in a hole again.


RE: Good Gains
By Hoser McMoose on 9/27/2007 10:25:34 AM , Rating: 5
The improvements are good but not unexpected. They work out to 32% for the 2WD version and 25% for the 4WD version (based on the EPA standard 55% city, 45% highway driving). Generally speaking I would say that going to a hybrid drive will buy about 25-30% if nothing else changes.

For comparison, if you look at the Honda Civic vs. Civic Hybrid they managed a 44% improvement. However in that case there were a lot more changes beyond simply adding the hybrid drive.

In any case, again following the EPA standard figures of 15,000 miles driven per year and 55% city/45% highway, owners of the Hybrid Tahoe could expect to save about $750-$800 in fuel costs a year. On the other hand it looks like they'll be paying at least a $5,000 premium to purchase the car up-front.

Break-even point assuming only a $5,000 premium and $3.00/gallon gas is probably about 130,000 miles.


RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Gains
By pauldovi on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/2007 11:14:33 AM , Rating: 1
Ever get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt?
Want to shout "fire" in a crowded theater?
Want to smoke a little dope in your home?
I want to smoke around other people but the government tell me I have to go outside!

Shall I go on?

We give up "small" personal freedoms all the time for the "greater good"

Heck I want to shoot off some fireworks but my state does not allow it.

The entire "This is America and we can do ANYTHING we want" is such arrogant BS!

If your actions negatively affect other people then the government can and should get involved. It is sad because people should be able to control themseves but sadly enough asshats exist that do not care about anyone but themselves.

It is no secret that alowing the sale and use of these huge beast vehicles not only helps drive up the price of gas, but also costs more to produce, dispose of and repair.

If there was any sort of logical reason for these vehicles then maybe that would offset it but for 99% of the people who drive these large vehicles it's nothing more than "ego" and showing off.

So please do not come here with the old "we can do anything we want in this free country" BS until you explain why other aspects of our country are controlled.

Tell me why I have to wear my seatbelt if I do not want to. Explain that one and get back to me.

-JB


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Gains
By FITCamaro on 9/27/2007 3:06:59 PM , Rating: 3
There's a word for that. Communism.

While I agree with you that people are allowed to spend their money however they please, I agree with him that people who buy SUVs because they can are retarded. If you're a married couple with no kids and nothing to tow, why do you need a Tahoe? Just to feel big and powerful on the road?

A lot of guys at work here have big SUVs. But they also own boats they need to tow. So it makes sense to own something that can tow it. But the majority of people with SUVs don't own boats.

My parents have a 2004 Durango Hemi. They don't need it anymore and would love to get rid of it. Unfortunately they owe too much on it to get rid of it right now. Once they can though, they will. My mom would love to get a Saturn Vue thats still big enough to haul around 4-5 people when needed, but will get 20+ mpg city and 30 mpg highway.


RE: Good Gains
By acer905 on 9/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good Gains
By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2007 11:45:04 AM , Rating: 5
> "Tell me why I have to wear my seatbelt if I do not want to."

While this is an excellent example of the "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" logical fallacy, it doesn't advance your point.

> "If your actions negatively affect other people then the government can and should get involved."

My neighbor driving his Accord 75 miles to work each day burns over twice as much gas as I do in my SUV. Why not set a govenrment limit on annual mileage?

Better year, we can make it illegal to "endanger others" by driving to theatres, vacations, and sporting events. Surely no one need risk the lives of other people by squandering gas on such pointless activities?

We also need to stop those endangering others by living in private homes. Small apartments are much more energy-efficient. Does anyone really need a private bathroom and kitchen? If it was good enough for you in the college dorm, why should the rest of your life be any different?

In case you've missed the point, "SUVs" aren't the issue here. The real one is total energy usage. Your personal choice of vehicle is just one small factor in that total.


RE: Good Gains
By Alexstarfire on 9/27/2007 3:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think the guy's point was that there are a lot of things that the government prevents us from doing, or makes us do, so that we don't harm other or that helps protect our lives, respectively. I can't go out and drive a tank around if I want to, yet people in the UK can.

The problem people always have when others talk about getting rid of SUVs and low mileage cars is this, "Why can't I get what I want with MY money?" or "Why should the government tell me what I should get?" That is some pretty bad logic there, as my previous paragraph shows. The government never tells us EXACTLY what we should do. All they do is tell us what we can't do. If SUVs and low milage vehicles were removed that wouldn't stop people from getting the lowest mileage cars they coudl get anyways. They'd still be able to choose the brand of car they want and the model of the car. It also doesn't stop people from driving like morons and wasting gas anyways. It's be reported that you can increase your mileage by like 10% just by driving a little more conservative. That means that you don't have your foot on the pedal until you are 100ft from the stoplight as well as accelerating a bit slower. I say a bit, not like how grandma drives. Anyways, we don't need to directly get rid of anything. All that we really need to do and set up stricter emissions, stricter than even California, and classify SUVs as passenger vehicles and not a work class vehicles. If they could make those SUVs and such pass all the emissions tests after those changes then far be it from me to tell them what they should drive. The problem is that none would pass, or even come close to passing.

I agree that the guy driving 75 to and from, not roundtrip?, burning more gas in your SUV is bad, but it would be a lot worse if he was driving an SUV that 75 miles to and from work. On the flip side, think about about how much fuel you could save by switching from an SUV to that Accord your neighbor has. There are reasons why people may have to drive long distances. I'm betting a lot of it has to do with the price of living in the city. Even if he could afford a house or apartment in the city it's probably gonna be twice as expensive, if not more, for the same size house or apartment that he has now. That also doesn't include higher gas prices, though he would probably only be driving a fraction of what he is now; higher food prices; and basically higher everything else as well. It's always more expensive to live in the city than it is to live in the suburbs. This is the reason why we need better public transportation. Public transportation reduces energy use of traveling by quite a bit, especially within the city. Public transportation would also benefit a ton more from better vehicle efficiency. They have hybrid school buses that supposedly get 50% better gas mileage and I wouldn't doubt it.

I'm surely not saying that people don't use SUVs for there intended purpose, but a majority of people don't and that is the problem. SUVs have anywhere from 5-8 seats, with 1-2 being used 95% of the time. Cars have 2-5 seats, mostly 4-5 though unless you get a coupe. Unless you really carry around 5-8 passengers regularly then you don't need an SUV. Hell, even for carrying that many people a mini-van would be a better choice. To really need an SUV you'd have to carry around 5-8 people regularly, AND either tow something regularly or haul more stuff than you could fit in a mini-van. That's usually not done.


RE: Good Gains
By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2007 5:27:43 PM , Rating: 3
> "I agree that the guy driving 75 to and from, not roundtrip?, burning more gas in your SUV is bad, but it would be a lot worse if he was driving an SUV..."

But that's just the point. He isn't driving an SUV. And yet he burns more gas than nearly everyone who does.

There are only two possibilities. Either fossils aren't harming the planet, or they are. If they aren't, then people should be able to drive what they want. If they are, then your level of harm is based off how much gas you actually burn, not your choice of vehicle. The "avoiding harm" argument would require the government to limit how many gallons we can buy each year, not in what car we choose to burn them.

> "It's be reported that you can increase your mileage by like 10% just by driving a little more conservative"

In some cases, much more than that. My small two-seater ragtop gets roughly the same mileage as my SUV. Why? Because I drive one very conservatively, and the other like a bat out of hell. Worse, since I actually enjoy driving the smaller car, I drive it more than I otherwise would, often taking a pleasure trip for the sheer joy of taking it out.

So which car is more "evil" ?


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 6:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because I drive one very conservatively, and the other like a bat out of hell.

But what's the statistical relationship between what you do and what the average guy does?

Hint: Good luck ever spotting a SUV in the right lane of the NYS Thruway. At least you understand the laws of physics, the others are driving the same way one drives a Miata.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 9:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Either fossils aren't harming the planet, or they are. If they aren't, then people should be able to drive what they want. If they are, then your level of harm is based off how much gas you actually burn, not your choice of vehicle.

This grossly oversimplified "theory" completely ignores how well/completely combustion occurs in engines that are in use on the roads today. There are a handful of flat head V-8, side valve engines like lawn mowers, from the 50's that put out how many times more pollution than that the Accord you keep referring to? Straight sixes with log manifolds, V-8s with tri-power or dial fours. Engines pre-PVC, pre-catalytic converter, pre-EGR. It doesn't even address how many cars are running around with pollution equipment and worn out rings and valve guides. Your so call method of evaluation of what's "evil", and what's not, is based on your narrow-minded view to support yet another extremist end point that your followers believe is scientifically accurate, truthful, and pragmatic.

Even with todays pollution standards some vehicles are ULEV and some are not. So even government officials can ascertain differences you can't comprehend. How is that possible with your vast knowledge? Please explain.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 10/1/2007 1:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm waiting for MAsher logic to correct the post above.


RE: Good Gains
By Ringold on 9/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Gains
By pauldovi on 9/27/2007 1:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
I got news for you... you are no conservative. Your statements violate core conservative beliefs.


RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/2007 1:55:24 PM , Rating: 1
And what would these "core" conservative ideals be?

quote:
Conservative: Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.


The world is a complex place and I am "very" conservative in most of my views.

Let me twist it this way:

Years ago most people were happy with 150hp vehicles. Being conservative on this issue I think this should not change :)

Allowing a buch of people who self label themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" or "republican" or "democrate" to sit down and create a master list of things you have to say to be considered one of their group makes this valid how?

Can one be conservative toward national defense and more liberal toward health care? Who said that people have to be all one way or another?

Being wastefull is conservative and being liberal means buy a bike or walk to work?

Now if you mean that conservatives mean that people should be able to do whatever they want no matter the impact then all I can say is that we might as well abolish all goverment - after all we do not want ANY limits on anything some whack job might want to do.

-JB


RE: Good Gains
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 2:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
When was this time period you speak of? when people were happy with 150 hp cars? Was it back in the 60's? Oh, that was a muscle car craze. How bout the 50's? Still had tons of big cars and big engines. I guess you could mean the 70's and 80's when the government forced automakers to clean up the engines, basically killing off the big engines till modern times when they could finally get back to where they had been... But during that time period alot of people i know were rather unhappy about it... OH! i got it! you're talking the 20's and 30's when that was as big as you could ever get! Makes sense now.


RE: Good Gains
By pauldovi on 9/27/2007 3:45:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your definition of conservative falls out of the realm of our subject.

According to The Heritage Foundation (The leading conservative think tank) the core conservative principles are:

"conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."


RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/2007 4:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
Limited does not mean NONE!

Wearing a seatbelt take away my personal liberty
Not allowing me to smoke anyplace I want takes away my personal freedom.
Forcing me to drive at a certain speed takes away my personal freedom.

Does this leading conservative think talk list the above as evil liberal policies that they need to change or do they fall within the realm of "limited government" making rules for the common good of the people?

And while we're on the subject... what makes them the authority on what is considered conservative and what is not? Who elected them king?

I happen to support all they stand for FYI but I fail to see how creating "common sense" laws in regard to excessive consumption that overall hurts this country is against their principles.

If anything I would think our excessive reliance on foreign oil is VERY much something that they would consider a threat to the US over the individual freedom of being an asshat and buying hummer like vehicles for no other reason than personal vanity.

-JB


RE: Good Gains
By pauldovi on 9/27/2007 8:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly why you are no conservative...


RE: Good Gains
By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2007 1:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
> "Large vehicles are not evil when used for the purpose they are intended"

I'd wager a large sum that your own vehicle contains four seats, and most of the time three of them are unoccupied.

What's more evil, an SUV owner who burns 10 gallons of gas/week, or an Accord owner who burns 20?


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 4:46:16 PM , Rating: 3
Which ever used the gas less efficiently, which is why gas taxes hit the driver who gets 10mpg twice as hard as the driver who gets 20mpg, as it should be.

Using your methodology one could justify a tank that gets 7 gallons to the mile if it only goes to church and back.


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 5:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Gas taxes, at least in the US, are not designed to punish "overconsumption" or "inefficiency."

But do they work that way?
quote:
Considering the environmental impact, what is important is the total spent, not the efficiency with which it is used.

Everything is a tradeoff. We could minimize environmental impact by stopping the entire economy and have everyone stay home.

Who's really being the troll here?


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 5:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But do they work that way?

Anything with a cost works that way. But you said the taxes are designed for that purpose, which they are not. They are mainly designed to pay for road repairs and upgrades.
quote:
Everything is a tradeoff. We could minimize environmental impact by stopping the entire economy and have everyone stay home.

Of course, zero would be better for the environment. But now you're changing the subject - I'll say again that the environment doesn't care about efficiency relative to human benefits. Therefore, the person who uses less fuel than their neighbor, regardless of MPG ratings, is done less "harm" to the environment. (The "harm" is miniscule, of course.)
quote:
Who's really being the troll here?

You are. Well, you did ask. :o)


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 6:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
The question was - Which is more evil? The response was:
quote:
Which ever used the gas less efficiently, which is why gas taxes hit the driver who gets 10mpg twice as hard as the driver who gets 20mpg, as it should be.

So where is the word "designed"? In my vocabulary "should" does not mean design. Please clarify.
quote:
They are mainly designed to pay for road repairs and upgrades.

Where is this in dispute?
quote:
The environment doesn't give a damn how worthwhile pollution is to humans.

Most people understand that more efficiency means less environmental toll, in general.


RE: Good Gains
By rdeegvainl on 9/28/2007 5:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
But it still does not work that way. In a linear manner it affects the guy who buys 20 gallons of gas, twice as much as the guy who buys ten, and percentage wise, it affects people who earn less money more than those who earn more.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 9:26:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well MAsher logic only works in the most extremist situations. Notice how his "examples" are completely non-pragmatic, and the more you press him, the more extreme his examples get.


RE: Good Gains
By rdeegvainl on 9/28/2007 10:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
It also seems the more you are pressed the more you go into attacking the messenger instead of the message.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 11:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
Just because your statement may be valid doesn't automatically make mine invalid.


RE: Good Gains
By rdeegvainl on 9/28/2007 11:24:47 AM , Rating: 2
What is your definition of pragmatic?
this is what i came up with on Merriam Webster
1 archaic a (1) : BUSY (2) : OFFICIOUS b : OPINIONATED
2 : relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistic <pragmatic men of power have had no time or inclination to deal with...social morality -- K. B. Clark>
3 : relating to or being in accordance with philosophical pragmatism
Just want to make sure i know what you mean when you say his arguments are non-pragmatic.
As to the extremist situation, I fail to see how, with so many factors and differences in everyones life, how very few people AREN'T in extremist situations.


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 4:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
And rightfully so. Efficiency is really in the eye of the beholder. The old man who only leaves the house once a week to go to church 5 minutes away in his 7mpg car should be penalized because you dont like his average fuel consumption, all while you drive 7 days a week, using an average of 15-25 gallons in the same time span?

On another note...

If you really want to complain about how gas is in such demand and why its getting to the point that people cannot afford it, then start looking at taxes.

Personally, I am not complaining about gas prices, or gas taxes because i think they are necessary. But i dont feel it would be right for the government to put on any regulations as to what cars we can drive because of fuel consumption and fuel price - especially with the amount of taxes we are paying on it.

If you do some research into what the gas taxes go to, only 60% of the tax goes into road maintenence, while 40% goes to "other unrelated items".


RE: Good Gains
By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2007 5:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "Using your methodology one could justify a tank that gets 7 gallons to the mile if it only goes to church and back."

Although your example is rather ridiculous, let's use it. What's worse for the environment, that tank driven 2 miles/wk to church and back, or a car driven 1,000 miles/wk?

Think hard on that, and get back to us.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 10:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's worse for the environment, that tank driven 2 miles/wk to church and back, or a car driven 1,000 miles/wk?

2 miles versus 1000, and you think you still have a right to say:
quote:
Although your example is rather ridiculous, let's use it.

Doesn't get any more hypocritical or extremists than that.

What a great research scietist you could have been.


RE: Good Gains
By masher2 (blog) on 9/28/2007 12:29:50 PM , Rating: 1
> "Doesn't get any more hypocritical or extremists than that"

This coming from the person who used the example of driving a tank to church? Perhaps you meant "hypothetical" instead of hypocritical? Unless you think I actually do drive a tank to church myself?

There *are* people in the US who drive over 1,000 miles/wk, and there *are* people who drive less than 2 miles/wk. In fact, I know a few people who don't drive any miles/week.

But that's all beside the point. If you're going to start bringing up ridiculous situations like people driving tanks, you have to accept the consequences.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 12:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's more evil, an SUV owner who burns 10 gallons of gas/week, or an Accord owner who burns 20?


And so if we return to this question then the answer is, it depends on what exactly exits the tailpipe, which is still not your conclusion, if you care to accept the consequences.


RE: Good Gains
By Ringold on 9/27/2007 1:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you have a business and need a truck then so be it.


Conservatives, of the original libertarian strain, talk not of "need". Communists and socialists, however, do.

quote:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

-Karl Marx, 1875

For an aforementioned conservative, there is no political middle, liberal or conservative ground on this issue. It's not the pervue or right of the government to discuss or govern such economic decisions, therefore making it a non-issue for you -- if you really were conservative.


RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/2007 2:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
So by your definition a Conservative is for "waste"

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Is there some form of "How to think like a good little conservative" rulebook?

If I follow rules 1-9 but not rule #10 then I'm kicked out of the conservative club?

ROTFL

-JB


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 2:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So by your definition a Conservative is for "waste"

I don't see how you get that from that the OP said. The point is that people are free to achieve the level of wealth they want and are free to use their wealth in a way that makes sense to them. If that means driving an SUV to work, whether they "need" that or not, it is not the job of the government to say they can't do that.

I think you should consider moving to Europe. You're likely to find more like-minded people there than here in the US.


RE: Good Gains
By acer905 on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 3:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point is that people are free to achieve the level of wealth they want and are free to use their wealth in a way that makes sense to them.

And if everybody accomplished that then there would be 300 million Paris Hiltons in this country?


RE: Good Gains
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 3:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt that because the rest of the country actually has to... work to have their money. However, just because you have to work, there is no reason to think that you can't still make a million. All it takes is (the gov to stop stealing all your money and feeding it to people who refuse to work) a little drive and determination. This is still the land of opprotunity afterall (something illegals know quite well but other people seem to have forgotten)


RE: Good Gains
By erple2 on 9/27/2007 5:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. I'd really like to see the statistics to back up that sweeping statement. Everyone receiving Government help refuses to work? Really? EVERY SINGLE ONE? You need to show some credible statistics to back up that statement. I mean actually credible, not some "everyone knows" nonsense that is not backed up by any actual facts. Show me the statistics that say that an overwhelming majority of people receiving government benefits refuse to work.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 10:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd really like to see the statistics to back up that sweeping statement.

You want stats to back up a question?


RE: Good Gains
By Ringold on 9/28/2007 3:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So by your definition a Conservative is for "waste"


How the hell do you get that?

No, conservative means, to be blunt because you're acting a little dense, "none of your damn business" what I do, so long as it doesn't harm you or your property.

Before a liberal jumps me for "burning gas hurts everybody!", the issue in contention was what we drive. The "conservative" solution to fix that would be to internalize the externality caused by releasing CO2 through a method of taxation. But again, thats not the fight liberals, in their knee-jerk reaction, choose to fight. Instead, the issue was wether mob rule can or should function through federal government to dictate personal choices and the conservative stance on that approach.

Oh, and yes, there is a rule book for "good little conservatives". First, it's the constitution. If that doesn't cover it, the Federalist papers. If that still doesn't do it, then whatever Barry Goldwater said. Case closed. :P


RE: Good Gains
By Alexstarfire on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good Gains
By Hoser McMoose on 9/27/2007 6:00:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
SUVs should not be classified as pick ups just so they get more lax emission standards either.

That loophole is FINALLY being closed.

As of 2008 model year, pickup trucks and small and midsized SUVs now have the same emission standards as regular cars under Tier II standards. They were actually mostly the same for the 2007 except for some exemptions to give diesel pickup trucks one more year to clean up their emissions.

The only remaining problem, and this REALLY should be closed to, is classifying VERY large (6,000lbs+) SUVs and pickup trucks as "Heavy Trucks" and getting them the same sort of emission requirements as things like transport trucks. There is absolutely no good reason why this classification is based on weight, but that's what it is. For the time being there's only a small handful of SUVs that fall under this rule. The Chevy Tahoe is not quite there (it's somewhere around 5,500lbs curb weight).


RE: Good Gains
By MrBungle123 on 9/27/2007 6:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We need to be told that we don't need crap. 500HP, that'd never be used. I agree that it's our choice to pick what we want, but our choices should be a little more limited when it comes to cars and such. I'm sure that the people who wouldn't be able to buy a Hummer or Tahoe anymore would get along just fine in something like an Element or some small SUV.


people that buy Hummers and Tahoes would not buy an element as an alternative... they would more likely buy a crew cab truck or luxury / loaded large sedan. There are more factors that people take into account when deciding on a vehicle than just the physical size, sometimes to get the options that they want they are forced to go with larger automobiles because you cant get things like GPS navigation, leather seats, dual climate control, DVD entertainment systems, power adjustable heated seats etc.. on a honda element or ford escape.


RE: Good Gains
By Hoser McMoose on 9/27/2007 5:36:00 PM , Rating: 1
I have no problems with people being able to choose what to drive, however I do believe that in the US people are VASTLY underpaying the true cost of gasoline and it is being hugely subsidized through personal and corporate income taxes, paid for by everyone regardless of what type of car they drive.

There are the obvious subsidies for oil and gas producers designed to encourage development, capital investment and, of course, job creation. But what really worries me are the more hidden subsidies. Some of these subsidies include health care costs associated with air pollution. There are also some big diplomatic and even military costs involved with securing oil supplies from politically volatile regions (mainly the Middle East).

There are some estimates that put the true cost of gasoline at $10/gallon, only $3/gallon of which is paid for at the pumps, the rest being mostly paid for through corporate and personal income taxes. Even if the actual cost is half that it still means we're VASTLY undercharging for gasoline.

I don't mind if the guy down the street wants a Ferrari that gets 11mpg. What I *DO* mind though is paying extra on my income taxes to allow him to put gas in the tank of that Ferrari. If he wants it, he should pay for it.


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 11:15:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So which makes more sense?
1. 40k for a "large" SUV hybrid that gets 20mpg
2. 20k for a "medium" SUV that gets 20mpg
Which is more wastefull?


Your logic makes no sense.

If they both get the same MPG, than neither is more wasteful in terms of fuel economy. The only thing it shows is that you are jealous of the person who can afford something better than you.

The US is not a country where we believe that everyone should have the same exact things so no one feels better about themselves or bitter towards someone else. Its a free country, and each person is free to be as successful as they possibly can.

Thus its called "the land of opportunity".


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 10:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well that's all well and good, but denial won't remove this aspect of life

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

quote:
If they both get the same MPG, than neither is more wasteful in terms of fuel economy.

Did you see anyone raise price as an issue?


RE: Good Gains
By Misty Dingos on 9/27/2007 12:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
I would by an M-1 Abrams tank if I could. But then again it is a diesel (ok jet fuel really). People would think twice about cutting me of on US70 then! Power! More Power!

quote:
Why do we need to drive these beasts?


Well are you driving one? If not please don't include yourself in the group. They are not beasts they are automobiles. Automobiles are inanimate objects. That means they are not alive.

If you emotionally charge the discussion how can you expect anything to change. Do you wish only to engage in an emotional hissy fit or do you want to discuss the relative merits of government fuel standards?

If you are leaning toward the emotional outburst please just go and find some pink leotards and a big sign that says “SUVS ARE KILLING THE PLANET AND YOU DON”T CARE”. Take yourself (by public transportation or better yet walking) to the local GM dealer and protest up and down the street.

If you are leaning toward intelligent discourse, then by all means join us here but do stop sniveling.


RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/2007 12:41:09 PM , Rating: 4
Thank you for proving my point that a good number of people do not care about anything but their own wants.

"I can do anything I want and I do not care how my actions impact others"

Sadly far too many people feel this way :(

-JB


RE: Good Gains
By Misty Dingos on 9/27/2007 1:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
I see that you have made up your mind. Good for you! Knowing where you stand is a good thing. Go for it Don Q.

Your garment.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_...
Your sign.
http://www.teachersparadise.com/c/index.php/cPath/...

I can't tell you where the local GM dealership is but I am sure that a search of the yellow pages in your are will help.

Good luck!
You are going to need it tilting at windmills.


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 2:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can do anything I want and I do not care how my actions impact others

The problem with folks like you that try to peddle this kind of drivel is that you fail to understand the difference between affecting others and not affecting others. A person who decides to drive an SUV to work is not going to affect you, unless you are standing in the middle of the road, that is. You are taking the interdependence argument too far, and when you do that, people like me resent being told what to do by people like you.


RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/2007 3:06:25 PM , Rating: 3
Those large vehicles are driving up the cost of gas and as such affects me very much. If the US used even 10% less gas than it does now the price of gas would be way down.

Why has the average MPG been stuck the same for over 20 years?

-JB


RE: Good Gains
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 3:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
because people... don't... care. Yes, they complain about the cost of gas, and all that. But they just don't care enough to actually do something better. Complain all ya want but as long as ya keep puttin the nozzle in the tank, the prices will rise. Simple economics. As long as people are buying the price will go up.


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 3:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
How did you get to the conclusion that they are driving up the cost of gasoline for you?

MPG average follows the demands of the marketplace - and of its citizens. Anyway, there is nothing inherently good or bad about MPG - it's just a question of cost and whether a particular individual is willing to bear that cost or not.


RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/2007 3:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
Simple supply and demand. If all vehicles on the US had a greater MPG then we would all use less gas.

Less gas used = less demand

Less demand = lower cost.

So if I walk to work or drive a hummer it matters not as long as everyone else drives cars with less MPG.

People always want the other guy to sacrafice. Let the other guy drive a more fuel efficient car as long as I can drive my hummer.

The only way to force people to all share the responsibility is to raise the minimum MPG for everyone and remove the loopholes.

-JB


RE: Good Gains
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 3:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to tell ya but the demand for gas is gonna go up no matter what mileage people get. All over the world new people are driving.

You sound like people are out to get you. Like they all think "hey, lets all buy Hummers just to screw JB over" well ya know what, people just don't care that much. You aren't that important. People drive the cars they can afford. If they can't pay for gas, they will get more fuel efficient vehicles. The world is not out to get you so just stop complaining, drive your tin can that gets 1000 mpg going 10 mph and everyone will be happy


RE: Good Gains
By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2007 4:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "Simple supply and demand. If all vehicles on the US had a greater MPG then we would all use less gas."

There are abundant problems with this analysis. Consider a couple scenarios:

1. Joe buys flashy new Hummer. The increased car payment, insurance, and reduced MPG means he drives much less overall, dropping many weekend and nonessential trips. End result-- his total gas consumption declines.

2. Frank trades in his "all-around" sedan for a larger SUV. The reduced mileage means its no longer practical for him to use it for his daily commute, so he buys a well-used compact just for that purpose. His total gas consumption declines.

Your "supply and demand" argument has other problems. Its true for any commodity people purchase. Whether I buy beefsteak or precious gems, I'm driving up the price for everyone else. Should we then set "fair" limits on what everyone can consume?

> "People always want the other guy to sacrafice. Let the other guy drive a more fuel efficient car..."

I don't want to take away the other guys freedom, just so I can benefit from lower gas prices. What about you?


RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/2007 4:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
I am preaching a middle road here.

It is clear that the US has used new tech to create bigger engines and other countries have moved toward more MPG.

Why can't we do both?

The problem is that "some" people just do not want to compromise. Some people want a huge car with a huge engine and they do not care about anyone but themselves.

"I can pay for it so leave me alone" is how they preach.

Well we can meet halfway but both sides would need to compromise. Those who want us all biking to work will have to accept some artic drilling and those asshats who want to drive hummers to the local store down the street would need to be limited in what new cars they are allowed to buy.

But we have one side "no nuke... no nukes" saying one thing and the other side saying that you are somehow unamerican if you do not promote the "a hummer in every carport" plan.

If everyone would take one step toward the middle then maybe we could get something done instead of continuing to try and paint the other guy as evil.

-JB


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 4:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
As I said in another post, what you describe is a popular view in Europe. Maybe that's called "democratic socialism" or something like that, I'm not sure. But what I'm sure about is that's not a popular view in America.

In America, the prevailing view is like you said, I can pay for it so leave me alone. Americans believe strongly in their personal freedoms and to not be told they can't have something. I personally don't see anything wrong with that, and I don't see anything wrong with being "selfish" as you would probably describe it.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 4:36:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
1. Joe buys flashy new Hummer. The increased car payment, insurance, and reduced MPG means he drives much less overall, dropping many weekend and nonessential trips. End result-- his total gas consumption declines.


I doubt there's any proof anywhere that even remotely suggests that Hummers are driven less than any other vehicle.

So is this anything more than speculation?


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 4:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be dense - it's an example, not a statistic.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 4:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
If it's unrealistic its also worthless.

Is that un-dense enough?


RE: Good Gains
By FastLaneTX on 9/27/2007 1:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we need to pass some real laws that actually limit the allowed HP on vehicles.

No, we don't. We need to increase CAFE levels (which we haven't done in nearly two decades) to account for improvements in technology. Mileage for the same car has gotten better over time, as technology always does, but instead of building the same cars we're using that improvement to make them bigger, faster, etc. We have the lowest standards in the world today, even worse than China and about half of those in Europe and Japan, and that's why we have monstrous SUVs and "light trucks" -- and why we're so dependent on foreign oil.


RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/2007 1:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected.

-JB


RE: Good Gains
By porkpie on 9/27/2007 2:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
Be honest. We're dependent on foreign oil because environmentalists won't let us drill for oil in the US any more.


RE: Good Gains
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 2:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
Its a sad day when we are not allowed to drill for oil in a barren ice field because we might "ruin the view" or something like that. Seriously, there is nothing in the part of Alaska where they want to drill. The governor of Alaska was once talking about the site, and asked if anyone wanted to see a picture of it. When people said yes he held up a blank posterboard and said there ya go... There is still a ton of oil out there, its just not the easy stuff to get.


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 2:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see any harm in not drilling there today/now. We can always just let it sit there and drill it in the future. It's not like it is going to go anywhere on its own. No worries.


RE: Good Gains
By jrb531 on 9/27/2007 3:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
Add to this the same nutjobs who say "no nukes no nukes" but then refuse to say how we will generate electric power.

I guess gas and coal are the way to go :)

The issue is give and take.

The US needs to raise MPG standards "and" allow more drilling as well as using a standard design nuke plant so that every inspection is inspecting the very same plant design as opposed to every plant being a custom spec job.

Why can't "all" sides just give a little?

-JB


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 3:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why can't "all" sides just give a little?

Eight years of living under "The Uniter."


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 4:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
I thought he was "The Decider." LOL.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 3:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Had the US gone crazy?

It's more like denial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdependence

Less of a community, more dog-eat-dog.


RE: Good Gains
By theapparition on 9/27/2007 3:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
Curious, would you love me or hate me?

One of my cars has 800hp (my daily driver), averages over 30mpg on the highway.
Another has 1000hp (yes I drive this too), averages more like 27mpg on the highway.

Those numbers are comparable to a V6 Accord. Does that make me a monster?


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 4:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
So why aren't you a consultant for GM or Ford making $$$$?


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 5:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
How do you know hes not?


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 5:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
Because there's nothing like that offered by anyone.

And he's here.


RE: Good Gains
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 5:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
#1, yes there absolutely are consultants for those companies.

and you are quite the judgemental person.

It really sounds like you are sour and want everyone to be miserable because you are.


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 6:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
Good swipe Don Quixote.


RE: Good Gains
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 5:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because there's nothing like that offered by anyone.

Wrong. First hit with google:

A 30 mpg GM Hummer H2 was Just Released in an Environmentally Friendly Diesel Model ... performance upgrades boasting up to 800 hp and fuel economy upgrades which can top out your economy in the low 30 mpg range.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/11/prweb480427....


RE: Good Gains
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 6:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Predator offers many options such as performance upgrades boasting up to 800 hp and fuel economy upgrades which can top out your economy in the low 30 mpg range.

I stand corrected, even though so far it's nothing more than a company claim. I'll just assume 100% honesty for your sake.


RE: Good Gains
By theapparition on 10/1/2007 9:49:57 AM , Rating: 1
No I do not work for GM. I run my own engineering company. I have done work for GM, Ford and Toyota in the past, although don't have any current contracts with the top tier automotive manufacturer's right now.

Why do you see nothing like this on the road? Several reasons, most are pretty simple.

1. Having that amount of power available on a street car is "insane". But I'm crazy, so it really doesn't matter. I've also gone through several professional driving courses, so I have a bit more experience than most "casual" road drivers. It's a liability issue.

2. Cost. When you increase power, everything has to upgraded, and those upgrades are signifigant. I have 20k invested above the purchase price of my 07 Z06. That includes Paxton Novi supercharger, Wilwood brakes, Pfdat coil-over suspension, alky kit, upgraded fuel pump, injectors, intake, etc. It all adds up and pushes the car out of cost range. I also have about 50k into the 02 Corvette, and about 10k into the TransAm. The only thing I've done to my wifes 08 JSB convertable is get a set of LLoyds matts, LOL.

3. Warranty, when you push power up, component reliability is going to go down, no way around it. I've gone through two engines, 4 transmissions, and 4 differentials on the 02. But with over 1000rwhp, not much is going to last. The 427 LSx, with RPM stage V tranny, and DTE stage 5 rear are holding up well. But seriously, no manufacturer wants to have to support that level of power. And you'd be surprised how many Z06 owners are getting denied warranties because the took the car on a HPDE. The Z06 (and Viper) are high powered street cars, take em on the track and you'll lose all warranty coverage because of the demands of racing.

Seriously, how do I get that level of mpg with that much hp? Simple, the SC'd cars on the highway are not running any boost. Without boost, they perform just like the regular LS series of engines, and it is quite common to average over 30mpg on the highway or a long trip. City driving is going to be closer to 15-20mpg. Once you get into boost, I'll be the first to admit that fuel economy drops right out.

But all those factors (and many others) are the reason you don't see any major (sans exotics) manufacturers providing cars with this level of power, even though during epa testing, they can achieve good mileage, and also pass emmissions.


RE: Good Gains
By Christopher1 on 9/28/2007 2:14:10 AM , Rating: 2
Thinner seats can be just as comfortable as thicker seats. it depends on the kind and amount of padding in most cases, but not with some of the new 'space age' stuff they use. The seats in one car I was looking at recently (just window shopping, since I would never be able to afford it) were less than half the width of the seats in my S10 truck, yet they were surprisingly a little more comfortable.


lol
By phaxmohdem on 9/27/2007 10:02:28 AM , Rating: 5
Every time someone looks at 20MPG and thinks its great mileage, baby Al Gore cries.




RE: lol
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 10:07:27 AM , Rating: 4
And then he gets on his private jet and flies home. Its all political propaganda.


RE: lol
By SiliconAddict on 9/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: lol
By jay401 on 9/27/2007 10:31:51 AM , Rating: 4
Ah, so one can be a blatant hypocrite just so long as they don't run for office. Got it.


RE: lol
By RogueLegend on 9/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: lol
By porkpie on 9/27/2007 11:00:27 AM , Rating: 5
Gore Only Spent $496 On Offsets:

http://digg.com/politics/An_Inconvenient_Truth_was...

That's what he spent for An Inconvenient Truth. He doesn't buy any carbon offsets for his private jet travel, not that those "offsets" do any good anyway.

BTW, Gore only partially switched one of his three homes to renewable energy, and he did that only last year, after it was revealed he wasn't buying renewable energy at all. His $11,000 power bills were all from conventional power.

Thanks for playing.


RE: lol
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 11:09:25 AM , Rating: 2
PWNED :-)


RE: lol
By Polynikes on 9/27/2007 12:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
You beat me to it. :)


RE: lol
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 11:09:19 AM , Rating: 2
...carbon credits...

Nothing more than a take more money from people who have it scheme. Gotta love those. Especially ones like this that are totally useless. Better idea. How bout people... plant things. You know, those nifty little natural CO2 filters called flowers, trees, grass. Put a lawn on every roof of every factory. The grass would *gasp* clean CO2 from the air. *gasp* absorb extra sunight rather than reflecting it. And! *gasp* you could turn the clippings into a bio-fuel too! wow!


RE: lol
By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2007 11:28:56 AM , Rating: 1
> "How bout people... plant things"

Planting trees in temperate areas does not reduce global warming. Planting them in snowy areas actually increases global warming.

> "The grass would *gasp* clean CO2 from the air"

And what do you think happens to that CO2 when the grass dies every year? Any stable plant system is not a carbon sink. When growing, it absorbs; when dying, it releases.


RE: lol
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 11:34:50 AM , Rating: 2
Most of that was a joke, hence the excessve gasping... I was trying to relate the idea of a carbon offset to that. Basically say that both are a silly idea...


RE: lol
By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2007 11:38:04 AM , Rating: 1
My apologies....my sarcasm meter doesn't always function well.


RE: lol
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 11:43:20 AM , Rating: 3
Not a problem. However, on a second sarcastic note... OMG! Trees = Global warming! Burn them all!


RE: lol
By Denigrate on 9/27/2007 11:35:48 AM , Rating: 3
The various causes of the greenies is not about fixing things, its about screaming about something. It will change to a different something over the next couple years. The greenies need to feel like they are saving the world. Never mind that humans are part of the natural ecology of the world.

Good post BTW.


RE: lol
By Ringold on 9/27/2007 11:45:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not that liberals are so much better, but they never impeached Bush for his lies.


Never completed the process of impeachment for Clinton's, either, and got caught in a much more definitive way than Bush. Whether or not Bush lied is, until historians have access to the necessary documents, a matter of your liberal opinion. Clinton, however, lied right on TV and got nailed.

How about this. Liberals stop whining about Bush in Iraq, and conservatives won't bring up Clinton's tragically inept pursuit of al-Qaeda during the 90s despite strong CIA warnings of his danger, missing at least half a dozen or so opportunities to take him -- including an offer from Sudan I believe to give him to us if we'd merely get him out of their hair.

Incompetence, Comrade Rogue, isn't restricted to one party or the other.


RE: lol
By fic2 on 9/27/2007 12:01:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Liberals stop whining about Bush in Iraq


Liberals would stop whining if Bush were the ONLY American in Iraq.

Oh, al-Qaeda isn't a he.


RE: lol
By Ringold on 9/27/2007 1:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
It's a noun, and I used it as such.


RE: lol
By FastLaneTX on 9/27/2007 1:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Never completed the process of impeachment for Clinton's,

Nit: Clinton was impeached; he wasn't convicted. Impeachment is equivalent to indictment, not the trial itself.


RE: lol
By Ringold on 9/27/2007 1:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
I said "never completed" as a way to suggest its logical desireable conclusion: removal from office. I noted the same lacking disctintion in the OPs post and therefore tried to be a little more clear. At least I assume Democrats want Bush removed, not just slapped on the wrist. ;)


RE: lol
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 3:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I said "never completed" as a way to suggest its logical desireable conclusion: removal from office.

Translation: Yes, it was factually incorrect.
quote:
I said "never completed" as a way to suggest its logical desireable conclusion: removal from office.

So people can also use "never completed" for draft dodger Cheney?


RE: lol
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 4:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So people can also use "never completed" for draft dodger Cheney?


Bill Clinton, anyone?


RE: lol
By TheGreek on 10/1/2007 1:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
How many people got killed with that BC lie as compared to the other guy's lies?


RE: lol
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 10:34:59 AM , Rating: 4
Just because he isnt running for president doesnt mean he is not involved in politics.


RE: lol
By FITCamaro on 9/27/2007 10:07:54 AM , Rating: 2
Good.


RE: lol
By jay401 on 9/27/2007 10:30:56 AM , Rating: 5
You can buy the new Algore car that gets 75mpg with a max speed governed at 55 mph. It runs on water and dreams, but in order to drive it you need to purchase and install the CarbonCreditMachine(tm) in your garage, which is available for the low, low price of $75,000 plus tax*.

*Taxes include but are not limited to: Sales tax, carbon tax, tree tax, globalism incentive tax, wildlife tax, social services tax, potential to create roadkill tax, middle class extinction tax, and tax tax.


RE: lol
By StillPimpin on 9/27/2007 12:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...and tax tax


BRILLIANT!!!


RE: lol
By Chernobyl68 on 9/27/2007 12:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
and done before, you must not be familiar with that paticular Bugs Bunny cartoon...


RE: lol
By theapparition on 9/27/2007 3:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
Some of us have grown up :P


RE: lol
By FITCamaro on 9/27/2007 2:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
middle class extinction tax


This is the one I'm worried about. Democrats are doing a lovely job of trying to make us support the majority of the country despite our ever dwindling numbers. Remember, you made something of yourself so there for you are obligated to provide for those who didn't and those who are here illegally.


RE: lol
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 3:14:04 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly right you are FIT.

May as well give the illegals my social security benefits, care for their kids, and give money to people who are too lazy to work.

Im all for helping a single mother take care of her kid if the father leaves her with nothing. But the people who keep having more kids to get a bigger monthly check is ridiculous. Rather than give people money to sit on their asses because they are not working, why not pay them to help the city clean up litter, dig ditches, etc.


RE: lol
By Polynikes on 9/27/2007 12:14:32 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously, what the hell is the point in going hybrid? They're still burning a crapload of gas. The difference in emissions doesn't make it worth bothering. Get a freaking minivan if you need 4-wheel drive and a lot of cargo space.


RE: lol
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 12:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
You are aware that some minivans use the same motors as their SUV counterparts, right? For example the Chevy minivan gets 18/25, not much more than some other SUV's - and no, not comparing to the Yukon. But go compare the Toyota Minivan to the Toyota 4Runner, the Honda Minivan to the Honda Pilot, etc. You'll see theres not much difference in gas mileage.

Its 2007 my friend, the new word for Minivan is SUV.


RE: lol
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 12:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its 2007 my friend, the new word for Minivan is SUV.

I don't think so, SUV and Van/Minivan are relatively distinct categories. For example, check out how Edmunds classifies them: http://www.edmunds.com/ .


RE: lol
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 12:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
I know they are not "technically" the same thing.

What im referring to is now a days, as opposed to the late 80's, and early-mid 90's, the same people who purchase a minivan because they have 2 kids and a dog, are now purchasing SUV's instead because it accomplishes the same goal for them.


RE: lol
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 12:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
Does the same thing... looks a lot better (most of the time) Makes perfect sense to get one to me


RE: lol
By Chernobyl68 on 9/27/2007 12:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
agreed, the mazda5 is rated at 22/27 mpg, which isn't a whole lot. it is however, at least 50% more than the typical full size SUV, which gets about 12-14 mpg. The only magical hybrids getting huge gas milage are tiny. most of thegains they're getting in fuel economy are from their small size. Improving the gas mileage of a big SUV by 50% or more is a big step. My sedan is EPA rated about 21/28 mpg, and I average about 23mpg actual driving. If I could get that from a tahoe, I'd certainly look at one when it comes time to get a new vehicle.

Oh, and I doubt it will cost about $40,000. That's about what a mid-level tahoe goes for now. You can be this hybrid system is going to carry a $10,000 or so premium.


RE: lol
By Polynikes on 9/27/2007 5:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
There you go. Large vehicle with comparable cargo space but gets better gas mileage. Might as well get a minivan. With a hybrid engine, if you care so much about saving gas and/or the environment.

It's like using lethal injection instead of hanging because it's not considered "cruel and unusual punishment." You're still killing someone.


RE: lol
By Polynikes on 9/27/2007 5:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
Here, I'll coin a new oxymoron:

Fuel-efficient SUV.


RE: lol
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 5:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think most SUVs today are "fuel efficient." In other words, their engines are designed and tuned to consume the least amount of fuel to get the job done.


RE: lol
By Polynikes on 9/28/2007 12:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
All the coal plants in the world may be operating at 100% efficiency, but that doesn't mean there aren't better alternatives.

I just don't see the point in using product/resource A when product/resource B is far superior.


RE: lol
By mdogs444 on 9/28/2007 1:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
Resource A (ICE car) is used not only because its still efficient, but because everyone can afford it.

Resource B (hybrid) is not far superior yet. If you read the articles based on it, you do not save any money buying one. You pay a premium for the car, and while you get a bit better gas mileage, the cost of maint and repair on the vehicle are far greater than that of the non-hybrid. The only thing Hybrids are better for right now is people who "want to feel good about helping the environment".


The real energy fix
By ChipDude on 9/27/2007 2:35:31 PM , Rating: 1
Its clear the general population has taken the marketing hook line and sinker here.

The total energy cost of buying a new hybrid SUV in terms of total energy far exceeds the total energy of many other alternatives.

For that shiney new Tahoe you buy don't forget the energy used to manufacture the car itself. What many people forget is the huge energy and enviromental impact of the batteries. The mining of the batteries raw materials, the future disposal of the batteries drive the actual enviromental impact of a hybrid far higher then buying or keeping you're current car and getting a second hand used car.

For those that need big hauler why aren't people keeping their old SUV or buying a used one and getting a ULEV gas vehicle. That strategy is far more enviromental friendly then then going out and getting that fancy new hybrid SUV.

It amazes me how many big SUVs I see being drive by housewives that are shuttling their one kid in a 6000lb car to and from their random activities. I rarely see them driving an older SUV.. always a specify new one. Its the American culture, big, new, shiny and incremental improved MPG to feel good. Just look at your local taco bell and see the long line of cars sitting their idling and polluting because Americans are too lazy to get out of their car and walk to the front of the store. Its simply the American way. We are the biggest wasters of energy in the world, till we trim expect global warming to continue regardless of the price of oil




RE: The real energy fix
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 2:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry you have such feelings of guilt for being living in such a wealthy, successful society. And remember, your definition of "waste" is not the same as everyone else's, and to be sure, people don't appreciate when folks like you call them "wasteful" simply because they do not conform to your views of the world.

Here's my suggestion - take your own advice, and when you look at the man in the mirror, you can feel good about yourself, instead of feeling guilty. And let your fellow man decide on his own whether to do the same, or not.


RE: The real energy fix
By jrb531 on 9/27/2007 3:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
Say what you will but we are lazy :)

In the 30's during the depression people were happy just to have some food on the table.

Today we are basically an unhappy people who use consumer spending to give us the "illusion" that we are happy.

Feeling depressed? Don't like your job? Why go out and buy something. Not sure what you want... well then turn on the old TV and the commericials will tell you what you want :)

We want big cars because the car commericals tell us we want big cars. We want big cars because our neighbors have big cars.

That perfectly running car is 4 years old... well I'm sick of it and need another one!

When was the past time you replaced your over, dishwasher or other household appliance before it wore out?

Why is a vehicle any different? Why because the TV ads tell us we need a new car :)

I LMAO when someone tells me they bought a new car when their old one was only a few years old and was running just fine. Why did you need a new car? I was sick of the old one they tell me.

When a society starts to discard things because they are bored... well this is the beginning of the end :(

BTW I often do the very same so I'm not preaching but rather commenting on our society.

-JB


RE: The real energy fix
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 4:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see any problem with what you are describing. I personally think it is nice that many people have enough wealth and freedom that they can make the kind of decisions you describe.

BTW, I personally don't consume like that. I replace things when they wear out or become too troublesome to continue to repair. But that's my choice, and I don't judge others who consume differently.


RE: The real energy fix
By theapparition on 9/27/2007 4:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is a vehicle any different? Why because the TV ads tell us we need a new car :)

Because a new car can have all kinds of features the old one doesn't. Co you really need someone to expain the difference?

Also, older cars get to a point where a new one make greater finantial sense than maintaining the old one.

As to your original comment, I'm pretty happy. One of my hobbies is racing. Your the one that sounds pretty angry and miserable to me. :(


RE: The real energy fix
By acer905 on 9/28/2007 7:33:14 AM , Rating: 1
Of course he is angry and miserable. He claims to be conservative, but its obvious he really isn't. And everyone knows that its impossible for liberals to be happy. So it all makes perfect sense


RE: The real energy fix
By masher2 (blog) on 9/27/2007 5:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"When was the past time you replaced your oven, dishwasher or other household appliance before it wore out?

Why is a vehicle any different?"
If your oven breaks down, you use the microwave till you get a new one. If your car breaks down, you wind up on the side of the road somewhere, possibly on the interstate in rush hour, or in the middle of a dangerous neighborhood.

Sorry, but I won't let my wife and kids drive cars more than 4-5 years old. While it will probably last much longer than that, I just don't want to take the risk.


RE: The real energy fix
By ChipDude on 9/27/2007 9:44:48 PM , Rating: 1
LOL if you are worried about a for year old car breaking down you must be buying an American engineered car built in Mexico. Even there you must never have changed a single fluid, checked the tire pressure.

Great risk to cost trade off there. I got to ask why are you even driving at all that is pretty dangerous there. Why take the risk?


RE: The real energy fix
By masher2 (blog) on 9/28/2007 12:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "LOL if you are worried about a for year old car breaking down you must be buying an American engineered car built in Mexico"

According to Consumer Reports, the industry average for vehicles only one year old is 19 problems/100 cars. For 3-year old models, that number rises to 55 problems/100 vehicles. Per year. For a vehicle more than 5 years old, the rate is double that again.

Now most of those problems don't equate to a breakdown. But around 15% do. Which means if you keep a new car for 6-7 years straight, you've got almost a 50:50 chance of a roadside breakdown, even if its for something minor. Which is why I'll typically trade in a car when its between 4-5 years old.

Furthermore, even if a car doesn't actually break down, those problems mean trips to the shop, which takes quite a bit of time. It's far more convenient to have a car which just works all the time.


RE: The real energy fix
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 3:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to Consumer Reports, the industry average for vehicles only one year old is 19 problems/100 cars. For 3-year old models, that number rises to 55 problems/100 vehicles. Per year. For a vehicle more than 5 years old, the rate is double that again.

Please poll the average buyer: Are you interested in industry averages or brand averages in regards to reliability and repairs of the vehicle you buy?

You'd know the answer to that question if you had purchased an early 80's GM x-car, or a Cavalier with the original turbo-hydro 250 trans, the one with all the plastic parts inside, or a Dodge Omni.


RE: The real energy fix
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 4:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
Even when you look at reliability figures within a brand, newer cars are more reliable than older ones. It doesn't change the conclusion.


RE: The real energy fix
By TheGreek on 10/1/2007 1:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even when you look at reliability figures within a brand, newer cars are more reliable than older ones.

My point was and is some cars are above average, some are below. If one follows the 5 year method without taking other factors into account then he may be doing the change too soon or too late. And even that isn't enough. Witness the reliability record of the early Mercedes C-280's. There was a time not that long ago MB was #12 on the JD Powers quality lists.

People who have cars that greatly exceed the average lifespan have certain things going for them:

1. They will replace or rebuild parts on a schedule, parts that the average driver would balk at even considering.

2. The owner is more accutely aware of the history of his model, and makes more pre-emptive strikes with replacement parts.

3. The person who makes a lot of replacement repairs in a given year; struts, brakes, exhaust, tires, understands that the car is not "going". That person also understands that all those parts won't become issues again for quite a while. All my Chevies had this "mid-life" crisis in the 50-60K range. Afterward they would behave again. My Toyota had its crisis at 200,000 miles.

4. There are many GM cars in the junk yards near the 100,000 mile mark. They ran really bad. A simple replacement of the timing chain and distributor bushings would have restored practically all drivability issues and returned mileage to near what it was originally. Without knowledge most people decided it was time for a new car.


RE: The real energy fix
By masher2 (blog) on 9/29/2007 6:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
> "Are you interested in industry averages or brand averages in regards to reliability and repairs of the vehicle you buy?"

The specific model, of course. However, the reliability leaders (Toyota/Honda) have a fleet reliability average almost half as high as the industry average. While that reduces the odds of a roadside breakdown by nearly 50%, the odds for a car over 5 years are -- in general -- still too high for me.


RE: The real energy fix
By ChipDude on 9/28/2007 8:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yup make a consumer reports statistic.

That is simply silly. My 10 year old Toyota exceeds your consumer average for "defects." Make all the comments you want. I know enough that none of these defect effect its safety or reliability. Could the belt go tomorrow and I get stranded yeah. But a every 6 month inspection at the toyota dealer isn't cheap, probably equal to two months silly lease for your new car. I haven't been to the shop yet once unscheduled. Like I said you must buy American engineered and design cars made in Mexico

Sorry your guys arguments about being fiscally ahead or mechanically more reliable only shows your stupidity and the fact you aren't an engineeer worth a damm.


RE: The real energy fix
By masher2 (blog) on 9/29/2007 6:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
> "My 10 year old Toyota exceeds your consumer average for "defects." "

Ever hear of the logical fallacy known as "misleading vividness"? You just demonstrated it handily.

> "Like I said you must buy American engineered and design cars made in Mexico"

Actually, my last roadside breakdown was in an E-class Mercedes, 6 years old. Traded it in for a Lexus LS and have gone Japanese since.

> "your guys arguments about being fiscally ahead or mechanically more reliable only shows your stupidity and the fact you aren't an engineeer worth a damm. "

Why are you so personally offended by my buying habits anyway? I never implied that trading in every five years would put you "fiscally ahead". It won't. But it *will* give you a more reliable vehicle, and one that requires less maintenance. This is indisputable. Newer cars break down less.



RE: The real energy fix
By ChipDude on 9/29/2007 12:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
sorry to hear that that 3 star luxury car croaked after so few years. No question the 60+K you spend on the lexus will get you a more reliable car.

I get asked by my buddy who has a brand new x5 and xc90 why I keep driving my old Toyo. I laugh, and tell him it runs fine and gets me where I need to go.

Enjoy your hard earned luxury


RE: The real energy fix
By TheGreek on 10/1/2007 2:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
There was a reason that in the first month of sales Lexus outsold MB and BMW combined.

Even today I don't find BMW or VW quality not to be what it should be. I had a GTI, and like others, we all knew about its appetite for OEM struts every 30K miles. Those that knew of other brands were saved. Most were not.


RE: The real energy fix
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 9:36:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, but I won't let my wife and kids drive cars more than 4-5 years old. While it will probably last much longer than that, I just don't want to take the risk.

As usual, all your "assumptions" make perfect sense, and everyone else's assumptions that don't agree with yours would require some sort of scientific validation, because they would be inherently stupid. But hey, my car has 220,000 miles, is 12 years old, and has no rust despite heavy salt usage all winter, and starts up immediately in sub-zero temps, so what do I know?


RE: The real energy fix
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 10:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
So what does your anecdote prove - that older cars are more reliable than newer cars? For every car like yours that hits 220K miles, there are probably 20 (or whatever number) of the same make/model that died long ago.

Michael's point is that newer cars are statistically more reliable than older cars. I don't think that's something you could reasonably argue against.


RE: The real energy fix
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 3:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what does your anecdote prove - that older cars are more reliable than newer cars?

Had our roles been reversed you still would have sided with MAsher. So why bother answering you now?


RE: The real energy fix
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 4:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
I would side with whomever is right; I'm not some kind of parrot repeating whatever Michael says.

In this case, you were wrong. Maybe next time you'll be right.


RE: The real energy fix
By TheGreek on 10/1/2007 1:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think you folded your hand too soon on the McDs argument on the other thread.


Complexity?
By pauldovi on 9/27/2007 10:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
I am part of the Formula Hybrid (SAE) club at my university. We build a car based off the SAE Formula Hybrid competition, but we are only given a fraction of the fuel that the actual Formula Hybrid competition is aloud to have.

Let me tell you... these hybrid systems are very complex. Dual CVT's just offers room for failure and high maintenance costs. I have to side with the general simplicity of Toyota's hybrid system.

Another thing that these companies should do to improve efficiency is to reduce the weight of their vehicles. Discard the heavy and expensive battery systems with lightweight capacitors. Build more of the vehicle out of carbon fiber.

Simplicity is the way these things need to move... I see this going in the opposite direction.




RE: Complexity?
By MrBungle123 on 9/27/2007 11:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another thing that these companies should do to improve efficiency is to reduce the weight of their vehicles. Discard the heavy and expensive battery systems with lightweight capacitors. Build more of the vehicle out of carbon fiber.


capacitors won't hold a charge for extended periods of time, and carbon fiber is too expensive.


RE: Complexity?
By pauldovi on 9/27/2007 1:08:10 PM , Rating: 3
They don't need to hold the charge for long...

Car breaks for red light -> Capacitors charged
Red light turns green, car accelerates -> Capacitors release.

Capacitors are a much better solution for hybrid systems. They are significantly lighter, cheaper, and they last a lot longer.


RE: Complexity?
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 3:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
4 valve cylinder heads used to be too expensive as well. Things change.


RE: Complexity?
By clovell on 9/27/2007 2:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - that's a lot of moving parts. I wouldn't be able to do much other than change the oil on a vehicle like that.


Questions
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 11:50:08 AM , Rating: 2
Here is a good question i have about hybrids. Is it really all that beneficial to have personal hybrids? Or would it be better if larger things such as busses, semi-trucks, firetrucks, and stuff like that were made hybrids. Cross country in a semi gettin 6 mpg has got to be fun.

I think a cheese powered semi would work. get 500 mice in wheels with a bunch of cheese right in front of em. Tie all the wheels into a gearbox and there ya go.




RE: Questions
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 12:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
Hybrids right now are really not benecifial - unless your sole reason in buying it is to feel good about the environment.

They get a little bit better gas mileage, but after you factor in the increased price in vehicle (just because its a hybrid, vs the regualr vehicle with ICE), and the required maintenence that you do not have with regular SUV's, you really are not saving any money at all until you pass about 110,000 miles. Most people do not keep their cars over 5 years (75,000miles), therefore most who purchase the car are saving nothing.

So, to answer your question - it would be much more beneficial in those commerical applications. However, busses, semis, firetrucks, etc are all so extremely heavy to begin with. Adding an exta 20% in weight for the hybrid to create any extra power would do nothing to increase mileage after the weight gain.


RE: Questions
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
My question would be what's their efficiency in a 2 hour Manhattan traffic jam average speed under 5 mph?


RE: Questions
By Misty Dingos on 9/27/2007 12:27:55 PM , Rating: 3
I think the herd of cats following your semi around would be a distraction. You could make the issue even worse if you were hauling milk.


RE: Questions
By rcsinfo on 9/27/2007 8:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think that you are looking in the right direction. Stop and start delivery vehicles like UPS trucks, postal vans, and trash trucks seem like they would be ideal candidates. You would generate more from the regenerative braking and unlike most personal commuter vehicles these vehicles are used throughout the day. Since this system is supposed to be the same size as a regular automatic, maybe you will see it migrate to light delivery vehicles soon.

I would also think taxis, especially in larger urban areas. Its too bad GM dropped the old Caprice/Impala. It seems like this setup would drop in fairly easily and you would have the huge taxi/police market which already use big rwd vehicles like Ford Crown Vics.


Wow
By porkpie on 9/27/2007 9:49:20 AM , Rating: 2
21MPG city for a Tahoe? I think I've found my next car.




RE: Wow
By Misty Dingos on 9/27/2007 10:07:00 AM , Rating: 2
I must admit I am very impressed with this development. When I firs heard that GM was moving in this direction with the Uber SUVs I just didn’t really think they were going to get anything out the exercise than advertising. Certainly the production costs for these vehicles is going to be greater than the gas only versions. I wonder what the drive off the lot cost for on is going to be in comparison to its gas eating siblings. I am sure that the tax breaks that you get for hybrids should offset much of this cost.

The only thing that troubles me is the aluminum panels. Is this going to be a corrosion issue? Aluminum does not get along well with steel when placed in same assembly. You get galvanic corrosion working on the aluminum. Add to that aluminum is notoriously difficult to paint.


RE: Wow
By acer905 on 9/27/2007 10:57:50 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know much about painting metals, but could it simply be the oxidization layer that aluminum has that is hard to paint? if so an acid bath and a quick paint job might help. Or maybe a slight change of paint formula? just possiblilities


RE: Wow
By TomZ on 9/27/2007 11:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
Industrial painting of aluminum is a non-issue. I'm not a paint expert, but we have our aluminum products painted by industrial painters all the time, and we're small-scale. Completely a non-issue.


RE: Wow
By theapparition on 9/27/2007 4:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Aluminum does not get along well with steel when placed in same assembly. You get galvanic corrosion working on the aluminum. Add to that aluminum is notoriously difficult to paint.

Complete fallacy. While aluminum and steel are apart on the galvanic chart, neither parts come into contact with each other that haven't been plated first. The platings are compatible. It's a non-issue.
Painting aluminum difficult??? After plating, no different than any other metal. Before plating, it just needs primer, the same preferable method for painting steel. Another non-issue.


This is lame
By Magnus Dredd on 9/27/2007 11:05:48 AM , Rating: 5
A teacher that I know was getting nearly 30MPG in a 1984 diesel suburban. He had the differential gears changed to a much higher gear ratio. He couldn't tow with it but he was a scout master and never used it for this purpose anyway.

Seriously, I find these "green" gasoline-based hybrids that get 50% worse economy than existing diesel vehicles to be a pointless exercise in stupidity. Where are the diesel/electric hybrids?




RE: This is lame
By Magnus Dredd on 9/27/2007 11:33:01 AM , Rating: 2
Addendum: I'm own a 1977 suburban that should be able to achieve at least 30MPG as well as being as strong as an ox for towing.

This is a simple exercise requiring nothing new. Simply drop in a Duramax, add an Atlas transfer case (which has separate shifters to determine 2wheel/4wheel drive vs. gear range low/high), add a few performance mods (larger pipes, a mod chip, propane boost, etc), drop in a 6 speed manual transmission with a very high "overdrive" gear, and insanely high axle gears...

A 2006 stock Duramax puts out 650 feet pounds of torque. This can be used for towing, or for pushing you farther down the via via higher gear ratios.

There are readily available Mods that increase MPG, increase torque, cut pollution, and lower the percentage of MPG lost when towing...


WOW!! 6k pounds???
By DeepBlue1975 on 9/27/2007 10:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
That's quite a heft. And 327HP for that weight is not a very impressive power to weight ratio at all, if you ask me.

But my question is... can hybrids be light weight at all, or do we need full blown, all-electric cars to attain that?




RE: WOW!! 6k pounds???
By mdogs444 on 9/27/2007 10:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
How is a hybrid going to be light? Factor is the weight of the actual Tahoe, plus the ICE, then the additional electric motors and all that come with them?

Thats why the manufacturers try to cut spare weight everywhere from thinner seats, to thinner exterior panels.


RE: WOW!! 6k pounds???
By JDub02 on 9/27/2007 10:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
327 hp is pretty good if you ask me. You're missing an important factor - gearing. A set of 3.73 or 4.10 gears and that thing will have plenty of giddy-up. My truck only has 245 hp, but 335 ft-lbs of torque. It'll haul anything I've ever needed without a sweat.


GM vehicle mileage
By Plugers on 10/1/2007 9:16:16 AM , Rating: 2
Thats not much different than my 1995 Chevy caprice, I'm pushing 194,000 miles right now and the can runs great and is in great shape.




RE: GM vehicle mileage
By jlanders646 on 10/1/2007 10:36:17 AM , Rating: 2
I used to work for a major vehicle maker (don't ask). But I'll tell you the biggest difference in these vehicles isn't always the maker, its the owner. My company (don't ask) spent over 2 million dollars trying to figure out the biggest difference between and "Jap" car and an "american" car, the biggest difference was the type of buyer. American cars are easier for us to get into, people with bad credit can almost always walk out with a $600 a month car payment on a $25000 vehicle. Where as "jap" vehicles have harder terms to meet with to get a vehicle but lower payments. So let see, if you've got a $600 a month payment and you have the choice of food or oil change at the end of the month how many people think that oil change is going to happen? Well I'll tell you, 1 out of 3500 will get thier oil changed instead of going out to eat. Now across the board with the 475 monthly payment, you've got money for both at the end of the month. Sorry for the bad grammer, just woke up :) With all that being said, my 1992 Chev Silverado has 233954 miles on it swb v6 and runs like a champ still.


Counter productive hybrid.
By Chudilo on 9/27/2007 10:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
This is just counterproductive.
An electric motor's strength is the high torque at low RPM.

The reason why the Tahoe normally has a huge motor is because it needs a lot of torque, to tow stuff around (yeah that might come as a surprise to all the tiny soccer moms that drive those things around).
A truly electric system would make more sense in this situation. you could stick a small gas engine to generate the needed electricity and the needed horsepower at high RPMs.

CVTs are no good in high torque situations so you still need a convensional transmission. Well how about adding gears at both ends of the CVT cones. Meaning max torque at low rpm and low torque high rpms. (High to Low and Low to High)
Same transmission with blocking gears for both extreme situations. Problem solved.

But instead , we need to overthink everything , let's put two transmissions in there, two motors too, how about building in a third reusable motor for your boat too.
Who comes up with this crap?
Electrics are simple... no oil, no torque converters no complex transmissions. get with the program already.




This is an improvement..?
By Reflex on 9/27/2007 12:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose if one is addicted to gasoline only solutions this is an improvement. But really there are better options today. The Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD has this vehicle slightly beat for several grand less. And its engine will be far cheaper to maintain(Mercedes diesel).

On larger vehicles however the real future is hydraulic hybrids(look it up). Combine those with a diesel power plant and you'd have a real high mileage solution.




Sweet! More heavy metals!
By kileil on 9/27/2007 6:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
Or you could look at the hybrid truck this way:

If you use it for your daily highway commute you get to burn the same amount of gas
AND
get to add a couple hundred lbs of batteries, potentially pb loaded circuits, and resin coated electric motor windings to the landfills.

I'll take two and throw another owl on the BBQ, they're tasty.




So when is this going to matter?
By Dfere on 10/1/2007 12:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
Back in the early 70's GM introudced the Suburban, the first SUV. As it was a truck and not a passenger vehicle, it was not included in GM's fleet ratings or CAFE standards. It did not affect GM's bare minimum, mandated- emissions standard.

I do not think SUV's still are here in the US- I had not heard about any changes. If I am correct...- These ratings are, for the most part, purely marketing. And most arguments based upon environmental and or economic aspects of SUV "evilness", nuetrality etc fail to take into account that rating an SUV on MPG, or arguments based on it, is exactly what GM and the auto industry intended.

But gee, this SUV gets this MPG.... It has a rating, therefore it must be important, right? Forget that the EPA itself has been under scrutiny that its testing was not accurate.....

"The biggest lie the devil told was that he did not exist" (unknown source)

Argue about why SUV's are evil, just don't ask why it was never counted by our government. And don't contact your congressman. Just buy a US made hybrid that has a foreign name on it with big MPG numbers on it and feel better. (And don't ask what the litter stream of your hybrid components has or will do to local landfills)




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














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