backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 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.