Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Good Job Senate Democrats  
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1397 times:

Hat's off to the Democratically controlled Senate for pushing this through. I agree with the aggressive (40%) increase in fleet fuel economy standards. I'd like to see what the price gouging language is because I feel that it may throw the baby out with the bath water. As for the ethanol production - it's a red herring. If every lb of corn grown in the US was converted to ethanol, only 20% of our petroleum based energy needs would be met (and can you imagine what the price of food would be).

However, since I don't believe there is one single magic bullet to solving the energy problems something is better than nothing. The GOP had been unwilling to confront Detroit on these issues for far too long and the Senate Democrats deserve to take a bow for pushing this through. Let's see if the House can get on board and get this done.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/21/congress.energy.ap/index.html

62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1385 times:

Looking at it again, I really like this part:

"Grants, loan guarantees and other assistance to promote research into fuel efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies. percent ethanol or biodiesel fuels."

I wonder how far the oil gurus will let that go, though.

-R


User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1371 times:

And hats off to you, Pope, for acknowledging a relatively small, but still meaningful, bit of progress by the Democratic Senate.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 1):
I wonder how far the oil gurus will let that go, though.

Having seen so many tech companies go under when they refused to recognize the future (e.g., the Wangs and Polariods of the world), it would only make sense for the petroleum industry to look seriously into alternative energy sources sooner rather than later...


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 2):
And hats off to you, Pope, for acknowledging a relatively small, but still meaningful, bit of progress by the Democratic Senate.

Thanks for the kind words but I actually view this as a very big step in addressing the energy crisis. Until this year CAFE standards hadn't been modified in over 20 years. Now we're calling for a 40% improvement in 13 years. To me that;s a big deal.


User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1345 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):
I actually view this as a very big step in addressing the energy crisis

Well, it seems as though this progress has "flown under the RADAR" to many of us, at least here in Non-Av (myself included); hence my initial use of "relatively small." If it will be significant, then all the better. I suppose it would be nice if more people chimed in here, but that might be expecting too much from some of us...(had to get a shot in, don't you know   ).

[Edited 2007-06-22 18:20:23]

User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1335 times:

Trucks to have a 35mpg requirement by 2020?

There is going to be a huge commercial vehicle problem here.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20624 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1329 times:

The biggest step in this bill I see is there being a fleet-wide fuel economy standard, rather than the current system of one for passenger cars and another for SUVs and small trucks.

I think the scare of what ethanol will do to food prices may be somewhat overrated, since corn isn't the only source from which ethanol can be made. Even wood and grasses will work. Our garbage collection here will allow you one regular garbage can load of yard debris a week. The rest of it you have to bury. I wonder if they can make ethanol refineries small enough, so that yard debris could become a cash crop for garbage systems--haul away as much as they can collect for delivery to local ethanol refineries. God knows we have enough of it here.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1328 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 5):
Trucks to have a 35mpg requirement by 2020?

There is going to be a huge commercial vehicle problem here.

Well, the article states: "an agreement was reached to increase average fuel economy by 40 percent to 35 miles per gallon for cars, SUVs and pickup trucks by 2020."

These fuel economy ratings are standardized, so they probably don't reflect larger loads that commerical pickup trucks may haul during a workday. I don't know for sure, but the fuel economy ratings may be for each vehicle with a nominal load. Since the implication is that, for at least part of the time, a truck or car will be nearly empty, the average rating can still be justified.

So, they have 13 years to get thy sh@t together. If we can put a man on the moon in less than 10 years, I'm bettin' we can do this. That is, if the Republican Senators will stop beefing about what a horrible imposition this is on oil companies:

Also from the article: "Republicans complained that the energy bill is tilted too much toward renewables and fuel efficiency and does nothing to boost domestic oil or natural gas production." and:

"Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to pass a $32 billion package of tax incentives for renewable energy and clean fuels, objecting to increasing taxes on oil companies by $29 billion over 10 years to pay for it."


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1317 times:

Quoting Pope (Thread starter):
Good Job

How can you say "good job" to them? It was actually the Republicans that did the good job by squashing the huge tax on oil companies the dems wanted to add to the bill! Talk about high gas prices, where the hell do the dems think that money would have come from? Do they think the big oil companies would just sit back and pay that out of their profits? HELL NO, they would have made it up by passing that cost along to the consumer! Idiots!

As far as raising the CAFE standards, enjoy celebrating that while you can because it won't happen. First of all, it will be a simple matter for the auto manufacturers will come to Congress in a few years and say that the goal is technically unreachable and get it pushed back. Second, (putting on libertarian hat) why do we even need another stupid law for this? Let the market decide, if people want cars that get better fuel economy, they are out there right now and they'll buy them.


User currently offlineCaptoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1302 times:

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 1):
I wonder how far the oil gurus will let that go, though.

All the way.. They get paid regardless when you buy the ethanol mixed with their gasoline at one of their gas stations. Their profit is still built into the price. It changes nothing except maybe, someday, taking the load off maxed out refineries.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1295 times:

Quoting Pope (Thread starter):
Hat's off to the Democratically controlled Senate for pushing this through. I agree with the aggressive (40%) increase in fleet fuel economy standards.

I agree on the goal, I don't agree about how they are going about getting there. Just mandating the standard and telling the car companies, "go build them" ain't gonna work. If they can afford the gas, they will continue buying their big SUVs and Hummers. Few people actually like driving a car that gets 35 mpg, and they won't do it unless it is absolutely uneconomical to buy anything bigger.

Which means that in order to shape consumer's buying habits, the auto companies are going to have to jack up the price of larger cars that don't get 35 mpg in order to subsidize the fuel-efficient ones. For example, if the price of a Chevy Tahoe (25 mpg) goes from $40,000 to $60,000, they can use the extra $20,000 to subsidize the little Chevy Aveo, and sell two Aveos for only $2,000 or $3,000 each ($10K discount each). One 25 mpg car plus two 40 mpg cars, and there you have your 35 mpg fleet average.

Of course that situation would be completely ridiculous. The market would be extremely volitile as automakers make continuous radical adjustments on the prices and internal subsidies. In short, a disaster.

The better way to do it is to announce that, starting in 2010, there will be a federal fuel tax hike of $0.50 cents per gallon, increasing every year after that by another $0.20 until the average car or truck sold gets 35 mpg. Let people decide, knowing that gas prices are going sharply north, what car they want to buy, and let the market decide.

I am generally a very anti-tax person. But increasing the gas tax over time would be a voluntary tax. You want to pay less? Get a little Hybrid next year instead of the Tahoe. Simple as that. Taxes designed to modify behaviour for the common good is better than just mandating the market to behave in a way it is not designed to do.

Quoting Pope (Thread starter):
As for the ethanol production - it's a red herring. If every lb of corn grown in the US was converted to ethanol, only 20% of our petroleum based energy needs would be met (and can you imagine what the price of food would be).

 checkmark 

Quoting Pope (Thread starter):
However, since I don't believe there is one single magic bullet to solving the energy problems something is better than nothing. The GOP had been unwilling to confront Detroit on these issues for far too long and the Senate Democrats deserve to take a bow for pushing this through.

I agree, but I would like the bill to include more accessible and concrete options, like making high-quality diesel fuel available in the US (like the fuel they sell in Europe - well suited for passenger cars). If half the US auto fleet converted to diesel, like in Europe, the 35 mpg goal would be half-achieved right there.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 5):
Trucks to have a 35mpg requirement by 2020?

There is going to be a huge commercial vehicle problem here.

Pickups and SUVs, not the big-rigs.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
I think the scare of what ethanol will do to food prices may be somewhat overrated, since corn isn't the only source from which ethanol can be made

They already had food riots in Mexico over this. The problem is that corn is about the worst thing to use to convert to ethanol, but that is what is being pushed. Brazil uses a lot of sugar cane for their ethanol, but I don't believe our corn-growing states have the climate to support sugar cane. Plus ethanol only has 75% of the BTUs that gasoline has, so your gas mileage goes down that much by using ethanol.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 1):
battery technologies

I would KILL anyone who suggests using batteries. These are poisonous. There are now regulations that don't allow the disposal of normal batteries in the garbage, and I can imagine what will occur in the future with even more batteries being used. And batteries have a nasty habit of lasting very little, including the rechargable kind.

They should use turbines for engines, instead of the typical car engine now.


User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4022 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1281 times:

Quoting Queso (Reply 8):
First of all, it will be a simple matter for the auto manufacturers will come to Congress in a few years and say that the goal is technically unreachable and get it pushed back.

First of all, it is not technically unreachable (heck, you could do it with today's technology - see below). Second of all, sometimes the only way things get done is when someone orders things to get done (in the 1970's they also said it would be impossible to reduce car emissions the amount that was being proposed. As soon as it was mandated someone came up with catalytic convertors and unleaded fuel).

Quoting Queso (Reply 8):
Let the market decide, if people want cars that get better fuel economy, they are out there right now and they'll buy them.

Yeah right - when was the last time the "free market" actually worked in something related to the environment (or any other regulatory issue for that matter). In a "free market" you would still be applying lead-based paint to the walls of your house.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
But increasing the gas tax over time would be a voluntary tax. You want to pay less? Get a little Hybrid next year instead of the Tahoe. Simple as that.

The problem with that is your are hurting some people with the behaviors of others. I might be driving a Prius but if everyone around me has a Tahoe I get stuffed with that tax as well.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
If half the US auto fleet converted to diesel, like in Europe, the 35 mpg goal would be half-achieved right there.

 checkmark  Heck, most of the diesel vehicles sold in Europe (in number of vehicles sold at least - probably not in terms of number of available models) reach that already.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1281 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 11):
I would KILL anyone who suggests using batteries. These are poisonous. There are now regulations that don't allow the disposal of normal batteries in the garbage, and I can imagine what will occur in the future with even more batteries being used. And batteries have a nasty habit of lasting very little, including the rechargable kind.

Actually, hybrid cars are turning out to be incredibly polluting, mainly because of those batteries. Building a Prius creates more pollution than the building of a Hummer, and when you factor in the fact that the expected road life of a Hummer is 3 or 4 times that of a Prius, it kinda tips the scales.

I love it... All those Hollywood geeks who like to show how they care about the planet by driving hybrids are going to have to sell them off now.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188


User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1267 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
If half the US auto fleet converted to diesel, like in Europe, the 35 mpg goal would be half-achieved right there.

What about our health-based goals for particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) emissions? Thousands of people die each year from from particulate inhalation, and diesel engines are a major contributor to PM emissions.

Reference: http://www.epa.gov/Region5/air/naaqs/pm.htm


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8149 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1263 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 5):
Trucks to have a 35mpg requirement by 2020?

There is going to be a huge commercial vehicle problem here.

In Japan, most commercial vehicles that do long distance highway driving already reach a standard about equivalent to that.

Quoting Queso (Reply 8):
Talk about high gas prices

When gas prices in the US get over $4.50 and compare to those in the rest of the developed world, then you'll be permitted to use the adjective "high".



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1255 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 15):
In Japan, most commercial vehicles that do long distance highway driving already reach a standard about equivalent to that.

When Japan has a road more than 1,000 miles long you will be permitted to use the term "long distance highway driving".


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1252 times:

Quoting Queso (Reply 8):
How can you say "good job" to them? It was actually the Republicans that did the good job by squashing the huge tax on oil companies the dems wanted to add to the bill! Talk about high gas prices, where the hell do the dems think that money would have come from? Do they think the big oil companies would just sit back and pay that out of their profits? HELL NO, they would have made it up by passing that cost along to the consumer! Idiots!



Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
I agree on the goal, I don't agree about how they are going about getting there. Just mandating the standard and telling the car companies, "go build them" ain't gonna work

You guys. First of all the GOP had over 10 years to do something on this regard and didn't get squat done on this matter. Therefore, we've lost the right to criticize when the Democrats work on passing a bill that, though it is not perfect, is a tangible step in the right direction. He who is silent is said to consent. The GOP has been silent on this matter.

As for the "go build it" mentaility - I disagree with you. We put a man on the moon in less than 10 years we can sure as hell make the US car fleet as efficient as the rest of the world's. The car standards are currently 27. The 2020 standard is 35 mpg. That's a 29.6% change in a period of 13 years. This represents a 2% annual compounded increase in efficiency. Are you telling me that technology won't allow this or that we as American's simply don't have the will to accomplish it?


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1252 times:

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 14):
What about our health-based goals for particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) emissions? Thousands of people die each year from from particulate inhalation, and diesel engines are a major contributor to PM emissions.

Modern European-style diesels have particle traps. As far as other emissions, we have to decide what we want. I think the FIRST priority is to reduce dependence on oil, as this has a huge economic and political effect (Al Qaeda won't have money to operate if we stop paying for middle eastern oil). The SECOND priority is to reduce pollution rates.

I suggest you go to a major European city, find a recent model diesel Citroen or Audi, and sniff the back end of it while it's running. Your memories of Olds Cierra Cutlass diesel and the 350 diesel in the 80s, as well as the smells of Peterbilts etc are very much outdated. IF the proper fuel becomes available, that is.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1249 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
Pickups and SUVs, not the big-rigs.

I'm not talking about rigs. I'm talking about the F350 super duty the contractor who is going to fix your foundation shows up in.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 15):
In Japan, most commercial vehicles that do long distance highway driving already reach a standard about equivalent to that.

I assume you refer to the Fuso series trucks? They get 10-11 mpg.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1246 times:

Quoting Queso (Reply 16):
When Japan has a road more than 1,000 miles long you will be permitted to use the term "long distance highway driving".

Oooooo... 3 points!

Quoting Pope (Reply 17):
As for the "go build it" mentaility - I disagree with you. We put a man on the moon in less than 10 years we can sure as hell make the US car fleet as efficient as the rest of the world's. The car standards are currently 27. The 2020 standard is 35 mpg. That's a 29.6% change in a period of 13 years. This represents a 2% annual compounded increase in efficiency. Are you telling me that technology won't allow this or that we as American's simply don't have the will to accomplish it?

The problem is not so much the cars, but the trucks, which now average 22 mpg.

Cars today are heavier and more powerful than they were in 1970, but have still doubled their gas milage. That is because we have had several extremely big improvements in the meantime. Cars are now much, much better aerodynamically. But that's a one-time improvement. It would be virtually impossible to achieve a similar level of improvement again.

Secondly, all cars are fuel-injected, leading to another jump in efficiency compared to the old bowl carburators.

Improvements in fuel management and aerodynamics were revolutionary, but now improvements are more evolutionary. And I have not heard of the next revolutionary change coming down the pike.

Which means that people must downsize their cars (which I am all for). But I'd rather have it done by a system of voluntary taxation and letting the market handle the details.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1233 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 19):
I'm not talking about rigs. I'm talking about the F350 super duty the contractor who is going to fix your foundation shows up in.

Check out the vehicles that contractors use in other countries. Like this one



2-litre diesel, gets about 30-35 mpg, and will carry just about anything the F350 will.

American contractors will just have to get rid of their small-penis complex.


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1226 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
2-litre diesel, gets about 30-35 mpg, and will carry just about anything the F350 will.

At 80mph? I seriously doubt it would get 30-35mpg fully loaded at 80mph. Maybe empty at 35mph.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1226 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
2-litre diesel, gets about 30-35 mpg, and will carry just about anything the F350 will.

And about the half of the width,a quarter of the payload and incredibly top heavy. Completely uncomparable.

There is only so much energy in a gallon of gasoline, and the jack-ass party heading congress passing some law isn't going to change that.

Nobody talks about the miserable milage that hybrids get in winter, or the heavy metals involved with manufacturing or disposing of their batteries.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1213 times:

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 7):
If we can put a man on the moon in less than 10 years, I'm bettin' we can do this.



Quoting Pope (Reply 17):
We put a man on the moon in less than 10 years we can sure as hell make the US car fleet as efficient as the rest of the world's.

There must be a full moon or something!  Wink

Quoting L-188 (Reply 23):
There is only so much energy in a gallon of gasoline, and the jack-ass party heading congress passing some law isn't going to change that.

Your objectivity is just plain stunning. Perhaps you didn't notice I quoted from the article:

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 7):
"Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to pass a $32 billion package of tax incentives for renewable energy and clean fuels, objecting to increasing taxes on oil companies by $29 billion over 10 years to pay for it."

They Democratic lead Senate wasn't trying to intimate that we can get more energy from a gallon of gasoline; rather, that other energy sources are needed and tax incentives should be granted to those who pursue said alternatives.


25 MDorBust : That's a Mitsubishi Fuso Canter. Remember my post? And yes, that is the MPG number for it being operted as a working truck. 15-20 mpg is often quoted
26 Post contains images Falcon84 : Dear God....I'm having a coronary......Pope actually CONGRATULATED the Democrats...and it wasn't in jest....... goodbye, world!!!
27 PPVRA : GE, RR, PWC, all built more fuel efficient engines without any subsidies. A production line is the epitome of economics/resource-saving. Boeing and A
28 Cfalk : Why would a contracter need to go faster than 35 mph? Get a trailer. There is about 30% more energy in a gallon of diesel. My shortcut caught up with
29 Pyrex : The things is, unfortunately they are (not by their own initiative, mind you, but because of the pressure of a small bunch of motivated individuals).
30 GuitrThree : Sorry Pope, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. There should be NO LIMITS on MPG requirements. Damn it, let the system do it's own work. Lis
31 MDorBust : They do tend to need to get to the work site. Ever been in the country come hay baling time? Why do I have to send an e-mail request to Renault to ge
32 L-188 : Trailers don't exactly add to fuel economy either. In fact I am real sure that a 1lb there will have a greater negative effect on MPG compared to on
33 CastleIsland : I totally understand your position of "let the market dictate" and "less governmental regulation," but the rub here is that the reaction of automaker
34 N231YE : My hat off too, since I thought this was just going to be another thread taking a cheap shot at Democrats. Toyota has a strict program in place that
35 L-188 : No, it isn't Unless Toyota, Honda and Ford will never sell a Hybrid but only lease them so they get the cars back. I haven't found a burned out hybri
36 GuitrThree : Because it's been proven over and over again that forcing these things into the market place results in such things that actually hurts the environme
37 N231YE : Yes it is... The car's battery will fail just like any other part in a car, there is no low-life. Actually, I am now reading that the $3000 battery r
38 AndesSMF : No, it's personal experience. I have yet to have any device with a rechargable battery where the battery has not crapped out after some period of tim
39 Superfly : Good point and I agree, however the CAFE requirement is a bit harsh. As Cfalk noted above that will be repealed once the automakers get a chance to h
40 GuitrThree : That's the BEST statement I've read in this entire thread.... especially now that the low sulfur stuff is being used.
41 Superfly : GuitrThree: I've been saying that in these boards for years and few agree and others point out to the market place failures here in the US. All attemp
42 AndesSMF : I think the issue then becomes the $$$$$ required to make the infrastructure changes to dispense more diesel. But overall, IMHO, that would be the ch
43 Post contains images N231YE : Remember, often these devices you provided are charged, then used once in a while...not good for the battery. A hybrid car's batteries are constantly
44 AndesSMF : True, but the disposal of thousands of batteries could become an issue. Agree. Ethanol derived from corn is especially horrible. Bio-diesel can be ma
45 Superfly : In the rest of the world, diesel is available every class of automobile. In Europe, you can get the Chrysler 300C and Dodge Magnum with a diesel moto
46 AndesSMF : AKA 'basic stupidity'
47 N231YE : I see your point. As stated earlier, I think that super-capacitors are some of the biggest keys to hybrid cars in the near future. Batteries are heav
48 PPVRA : Partially agree. In some cases, of course, but also driven by competition and public perception of their companies. For example, the Shell and BP exa
49 L-188 : Which is one of the reasons I won't buy one yet. It doesn't meet the KISS rule (Keep It Simple Stupid). Compared to what you could get even 10 years
50 Post contains images Aaron747 : Touche. Look at that bristling antagonism. Looks like a nerve has been hit. If you were to drive the Chuo highway from Tokyo to Kitakyushu in southwe
51 Post contains links PHLBOS : At present, the separate CAFE standards applies to cars & light trucks (like the Ford F-150). Heavier vehicles like Ford's Super Duty trucks (F-250 &
52 Aaron747 : More dumbkopf thinking from Washington. Who's bright idea was it to include law enforcement vehicles in CAFE? They should have a categorical exemptio
53 PHLBOS : The rationale behind including cop vehicles in the CAFE mix are 2-fold: 1. Every police packaged model is based off amass-produced existing retail mo
54 L-188 : That I agree with, if for no other reason then we need a modern equivelent to Dan Akroyed describing the new "Bluesmobile" to John Belushi........One
55 Post contains images Halls120 : Good for them. While raising the CAFE standards is a good idea, this particular part of the bill was nothing more than the democrats taking money fro
56 Queso : I've got another one for you since you were ignorant of the point I was making: When you drive in Japan enough spending $4.50 to equal what I spend o
57 L-188 : Pretty much, but democrats have this stupid Robin Hood mentality going for them.
58 Post contains links Dougloid : Corn, in particular number 2 yellow, for the most part is an industrial crop. Nobody's taking bags of tortillas out of the hands of poor peasants in
59 Pyrex : With lean burn combustors I was referring to the major investments being made to design clean combustors. A combustor is a very small part of the los
60 Aaron747 : Point half-taken. $4.50 was a convenient benchmark but the price is actually around $5.30 here at today's exchange according to the signboards at the
61 Queso : I understand. And there are many people here that drive more than I do. $3.00 a gallon gas may not be expensive in and of itself, but when the popula
62 Post contains images PPVRA : Fair points, but I have to raise issue with this: That was plain stupidity, not economics. You also have to wonder what's going on with the Japanese J
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Democrats Will Lose 4 Senate Seats This Year posted Thu May 8 2003 01:06:50 by Airworthy
Got Fired From My Job Today, Go ME! posted Wed Jan 3 2001 03:11:25 by Dazed767
Where Did/ Do You Go To School? posted Wed Jun 20 2007 19:38:34 by Zrs70
Joe Girardi Offered O's Job posted Wed Jun 20 2007 07:31:42 by Copaair737
Hollywood A Go Go For Me! posted Mon Jun 18 2007 06:23:14 by Alaskaqantas
Sponsor A Boob Job posted Sun Jun 17 2007 16:16:08 by Nighthawk
What A Crappy Way To Go. posted Wed Jun 13 2007 16:18:57 by Mirrodie
Shortest Time You've Ever Held A Job? posted Tue Jun 12 2007 01:21:34 by ConcordeBoy
Stocks Go Up Or Down? posted Sun Jun 3 2007 21:47:41 by A380US
Airline Job And The U.S. Coast Guard Reserve! posted Fri Jun 1 2007 17:33:40 by FlyUSCG