 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / May 2006Higher mileage may not conserve oil!
The Nation's leaders are under the belief that more miles-per-gallon will lead to conservation of oil resources. This may be a false belief. As mpg goes up, people will drive more and as a result, consumption will normalize to present levels. Likewise, if prices go down at the pump, mileage will go up and again equalize. Many people have cut back on pleasure trips; if they had thrifty cars, they would take those Sunday drives. No matter what schemes are instituted, our consumption will remain high and our dependence on imported oil will be unabated. There is some talk going 'round to bring back the 55 speed limit, believe it or not. I'll vote for that when Air Force One, the World's biggest and baddest SUV, has to throttle back to 55. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. <<There is some talk going 'round to bring back the 55 speed limit, believe it or not. I'll vote for that when Air Force One, the World's biggest and baddest SUV, has to throttle back to 55. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. >> Why do obsessively bring the damn presidential airplane into this debate? The president, whoever it is, has to fly in a sophisticated big airplane, the end. And they have to ride around in big armored limos that get 2 mpg (if that) Why don't you tell us our presidents should try to survive on flies and maggots because people are starving in Africa? > Why do obsessively bring the damn presidential airplane into > this debate? Maybe because of how often he and Cheney use it to fly to nothing more than photo-op events? > > Why do obsessively bring the damn presidential airplane into > > this debate? Because having the President on a 747 domestically is ridiculous. A Gulfstream or at most a 737 sized aircraft would be entirely suitable. I would add that my driving doesn't vary much no matter the price of gas because gasoline is the cheapest thing you put into a vehicle. When a female friend who had lived in NYC for five years came back out here to the Midwest, i advised her to find a good used Town Car (sorry mopeople), preferably the last year or two of pushrod engine ones, with 40-60K miles for the least she could find one for that had not been hit hard or had someone die in it. She could pay cash for it and even figuring gas at $4 a gallon it would be cheaper to drive than anything but the cheapest possible new car. She did the math and we found a good one for $5300 that has given her 70,000 miles with nothing but gas, tires, oil and a brake job. OTOH I know a guy that is doing the biodiesel thing with burger grease. He has three diesel vehicles, a Rabbit, a 300SD Benz and an early 60s Chevy pickup with a 3-53 Detroit. He just put $1600 into the Benz's transmission, and the Detroit wound up costing him about six thousand in parts, machine work and fabrication not counting the truck itself. He spent over a grand making that first batch of fuel, and it takes him three hours to make forty to fifty gallons each batch plus the stench and the bother of the cnemicals involved. >>>Why do obsessively bring the damn presidential airplane into >>>this debate? > > Because having the President on a 747 domestically is ridiculous. A > Gulfstream or at most a 737 sized aircraft would be entirely suitable. Hmmm... does it make sense to just use the existing world-capable planes to fly the president, his staff, and the press entourage everywhere, or should we the tax payers foot the bill for a SECOND fleet of smaller planes, all of which would require multi-million dollar modifications like the two 747s have had, and all of which would require maintenance, spares, and the associated logistics trails because they're fundamentally different from the 747s.... and do all that so that we can send 3 or 4 of them across country to do the job that ONE of the 747s that we already have in the fleet could do? Scuse me if I don't mind the president (whoever he might be...) sticking with what we have. I don't like wasting money on stupid ideas because aviation ign'ernt fools think that a 747 is "too big." Hell, the 707s we had before were smaller... lets just go back to them! Nevermind that their fuel efficiency is far LOWER. >>>> Why do obsessively bring the damn presidential airplane into >>>> this debate? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > had before were smaller... lets just go back to them! Nevermind that > their fuel efficiency is far LOWER. Don't confuse 'em with facts. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >>Why do obsessively bring the damn presidential airplane into >>this debate? > > Maybe because of how often he and Cheney use it to fly to nothing more > than photo-op events? Riiiiight.... Easy to pick on the ex oil executive, isn't it? How about a reality check: http://www.hernandotoday.com/MGBBVNR5LME.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.