 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / February 2006Hybrid cars
With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of this type of car. My friend owned a Honda Insight, and he has been driving it for over 5 years now. He never complained and he said that everything run perfectly so far. However, when I asked whether it is worth the money, he thinks that from the economical stands point, his car ended up more costly for him. He said that his car insurance itself did not offset what he gained from the fuel economy. He doesn't know what other extra costs for extra maintenance, as his car now reached the 100K zone. Today, I only see almost none of the Honda Insight (except his). I saw just a number of Toyota Prius.I have never since a Ford Escape Hybrid, although they bragged about it since last fall. Does Escape Hybrid actually reach the consumer market? Strangely, I did see a Lexus RX 400h in our rather small city the other day. I read in the news that Honda Civic and Accord have now a hybrid version. The new Toyota Camry hybrid is coming up. GM and Ford promise for hybrid cars (never see on the street yet). The bottom line, do people really care to get a higher price hybrid cars? Does their reception only reflect the "environmentally conscience" approach nowadays, or do people really want to buy a hybrid? Diesel car has never been popular in this part of the world. I wonder if hybrid car is just another one of those items, where people buy to make an environmental statement, or a "fad" of the 20th century. How do hybrid cars really compare with regular cars in terms of: gas consumptions, car insurance cost, maintenance costs, easy access for repair in car garages, solving the world's environmental problems. So far, I still see that hybrid cars receptions are still rather muted or muzzled. I notice that people buy them just to show off, or just to make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would like to hear some opinion and discussion. snip > Today, I only see almost none of the Honda Insight (except his). I saw > just a number of Toyota Prius.I have never since a Ford Escape Hybrid, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > conscience" approach nowadays, or do people really want to buy a > hybrid? Not all hybrids are created equal. Toyota did it VERY well in the Prius. Some of the others are hybrid in name only, having very little effect on milage. I think that is why you see so many Priuses. Many of the new "hybrids" are trying to cash in on the term 'hybrid' without going through the motions. Some are intended only to boost performance without any penalty in fuel usage. I think if there are ones that hit the market that are true hybrids like the Prius, they will be successful. This will depend on the price of fuel, obviously, but with Iran threatening economic punishment (read- withholding oil) for our concerns on their nuke program, I think we are likely to see hybrids become successes. > snip > > Today, I only see almost none of the Honda Insight (except his). I saw [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Prius. Some of the others are hybrid in name only, having very little > effect on milage. I think that is why you see so many Priuses. I believe the Accord Hybrid is one with a smaller effect on fuel economy by an increase in performance. However - the Accord Hybrid doesn't qualify for the California HOV lane exception. There are many ways to make a hybrid powerplant. However - the main effect on highway efficiency is the use of a tiny engine that's inherently fuel efficient. If these dinky 1.3-1.5L engines were used without a supplementary electric motor, they would still get exceptional highway fuel economy. They would also take nearly forever to get up to speed, which is where the electric motor comes in. The electrical motor simply provides acceptable acceleration. An ICE is also going to be less efficient and not as powerful at low revs. At low revs, the electric motor is probably generating more power than the ICE. Regenerative braking recycles what normally would be turned into heat back into the battery. > There are many ways to make a hybrid powerplant. However - the > main effect on highway efficiency is the use of a tiny engine that's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > power than the ICE. Regenerative braking recycles what normally > would be turned into heat back into the battery. Yep. We could look at two kinds of horsepower requirement for a car- average hp required, and peak hp required. A proper hybrid should size the IC engine to the AVERAGE hp required, and the electric motor for the difference between peak required and average required. >>snip >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > forever to get up to speed, which is where the electric motor > comes in. You sure about that? Often motors have a most efficient RPM level. They are not equally as efficient across all RPMs. With an electric motor you can run your gas motor closer to its most efficient speed. Depends on the design I suppose. > The electrical motor simply provides acceptable acceleration. An > ICE is also going to be less efficient and not as powerful at low > revs. At low revs, the electric motor is probably generating more > power than the ICE. Regenerative braking recycles what normally > would be turned into heat back into the battery.  SignatureThank you, CL Gilbert "Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16 > > There are many ways to make a hybrid powerplant. However - the > > main effect on highway efficiency is the use of a tiny engine that's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > They are not equally as efficient across all RPMs. With an electric > motor you can run your gas motor closer to its most efficient speed. I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However - you then run into the real world where the motor is subject to friction and attached to a car. There's increased rolling resistance of the tire (I believe roughly linear) as well as aerodynamic resistance (increases exponentially). Smaller engines are supposedly more efficient because they're being worked harder and closer to their max efficiency. If you're cruising at 70 on I-5 in a Prius, I doubt the electric motor has anything to do with it getting 60+ MPG. > Depends on the design I suppose. Everything depends on design. :-) >> > There are many ways to make a hybrid powerplant. However - the >> > main effect on highway efficiency is the use of a tiny engine that's [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >tire (I believe roughly linear) as well as aerodynamic resistance >(increases exponentially). Otto cycle engines achieve maximum efficiency when they are run at wide open throttle. At wide open throttle, they also have a most efficient rpm, based on the compromises made for the fixed timing. This engine speed ***may*** be the rpm for max power or max torque. An ideal hybrid would use a CVT to keep the engine near, or at, its ideal engine speed, and the charging circuit would be excited so that the mechanical plus electrical loads would be running the engine at wide open throttle. If the two loads cannot exceed the max power of the engine, the ideal situation has the electric motor powerful enough for cruising, and the engine is switched off. Of course, for an ideal hybrid that is only run at wide open throttle, the way is open for engines with very good specific power, low weight, and good fuel economy, but really bad part load efficiency-- gas turbines. All previous automotive gas turbines have failed for bad part load performance and severe turbo lag. A hybrid setup would solve the gas turbine's problems, as it would never run at part load and the electric motor can cover for turbo lag. Gas turbine installations are large, but most of the volume is ducting that has very little weight. Compared to an otto cycle engine, they are very simple and have very few parts. Unlike gas turbines in airline service, a failure will not drop the vehicle from six miles up, nor does anyone really care how heavy they are, so they are actually inexpensive. >Smaller engines are supposedly more efficient because they're >being worked harder and closer to their max efficiency. If you're [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Everything depends on design. :-) > Otto cycle engines achieve maximum efficiency when they are run at wide > open throttle. At wide open throttle, they also have a most efficient > rpm, based on the compromises made for the fixed timing. This engine > speed ***may*** be the rpm for max power or max torque. While ideally this is true, in practice the mixture at full throttle in most car engines acts lean at low rpm because of lack of manifold turbulence, and sudden rise in MAP hurts vaporization. So car engines are programmed with a power enrichment that moves mixture richer than stoic. As a result normal passenger car engines give best fuel efficiency at somewhat less than FULL throttle, but still with more than half throttle, so Richard's conclusions are still valid. However, rpm is not DIRECTLY a function of throttle except under true steady state conditions. It is definitely not true during transients like acceleration. As my car accelerates through a given road speed, the rpm is the same regardless of whether I am giving it full throttle or partial throttle. Only once the system reaches steady-state, as in highway cruise, does throttle opening determine rpm. > I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical > Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However - [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cruising at 70 on I-5 in a Prius, I doubt the electric motor has > anything to do with it getting 60+ MPG. The rolling and aero resistance are not tied directly to engine rpm because the gear ratio being used is indeterminant. Two cars of similar weight at the same highway speed will have similar rolling resistance regardless of engine speed. However, rpm definitely has an effect on engine thermal efficiency (not quite the same as Carnot efficiency, though related). In addition to friction losses at high rpm, the volumetric efficiency losses at higher rpm also contribute to loss of thermal efficiency. While we frequently use the geometric compression ratio when computing engine thermal efficiency and Carnot efficiency, this is a simplification. The efficiency is determined by ratio of ACTUAL pressure in cylinder, and lower volumetric efficiency lowers p max. Second paragraph is entirely true- this is reason small engines get more efficiency, even if car has same power-required at a given operating point. > > I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical > > Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However - [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > weight at the same highway speed will have similar rolling resistance > regardless of engine speed. That wasn't exactly what I was getting at. You would get a maximum fuel economy with an engine that is maxed out for engine efficiency AND where the aerodynamics and rolling resistance don't increase to the point where they overcome any efficiency gains for being maxed out. A smaller engine is efficient at highway speeds because it's being flogged. A larger engine would be theoretically more efficient at higher speeds in a vacuum with no rolling resistance. Of course in the real world, that's where the aerodynamics take away gains in efficiency. >>>I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical >>>Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However - [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > course in the real world, that's where the aerodynamics take away > gains in efficiency. this has all been very interesting. I don't feel so bad about driving my Chevette at engine-screaming speeds when I was a teenager anymore :) SignatureThank you, CL Gilbert "Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16 > That wasn't exactly what I was getting at. You would get a maximum > fuel economy with an engine that is maxed out for engine efficiency [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > course in the real world, that's where the aerodynamics take away > gains in efficiency. The engine with a smaller throttle opening is less efficient even on a dyno. In fact, that is the way specific fuel consumption is measured. So as long as we have the same car with the same hp requirement, and the large engine is not wide open, a smaller engine with a higher percentage throttle opening will be more efficient. Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle. > Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is > designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling > and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle > used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle. How would an air-cooled engine do on a dyno at full-throttle? I'm curious how they would have been tested. >>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is >>designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How would an air-cooled engine do on a dyno at full-throttle? I'm > curious how they would have been tested. With a big-honkin fan blowing hot air out of the dyno room. No big deal. Pratt&Whitney had dyno cells that could take the 4000 plus horsepower of an air-cooled R-4360 back in the 40s and 50s. Roof mounted fans provided cooling air that would have been provided by natural air flow if the engine had been on an airplane wing instead of in the dyno cell. >>>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is >>>designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > cooling air that would have been provided by natural air flow if the > engine had been on an airplane wing instead of in the dyno cell. Even liquid-cooled engines would need a fan to blow air at the radiator. The dyno room was a very loud environment whenever a vehicle was running. The rollers were coated with a non-skid surface so the tires running on those rollers were very loud, we had a fan directed at the radiator, we had the dyno motors and cooling fans for the motors, we had an exhaust duct fan running, and of course, there was the noise from the subject vehicle. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>>>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is >>>>designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Even liquid-cooled engines would need a fan to blow air at the radiator. Most dyno cells are plumbed to bring coolant in from and take it away to a remote radiator. > The dyno room was a very loud environment whenever a vehicle was running. > The rollers were coated with a non-skid surface so the tires running on > those rollers were very loud, we had a fan directed at the radiator, we had > the dyno motors and cooling fans for the motors, we had an exhaust duct fan > running, and of course, there was the noise from the subject vehicle. Oh, you're talking chassis dyno. Different animal. Not nearly as loud (engines on cell dynos don't necessarily have mufflers. Although I did hear a '68 Charger with a 525 Mopar Performance 440-based crate motor do a run on a chassis dyno which drew a standing ovation from everyone in the shop :-) They'd been listening to a turbo Supra for about an hour before that and were sick of vacuum cleaner noises. >>>>>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it >>>>>is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Most dyno cells are plumbed to bring coolant in from and take it away to a > remote radiator. We had a chassis dyno... >> The dyno room was a very loud environment whenever a vehicle was running. >> The rollers were coated with a non-skid surface so the tires running on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > shop :-) They'd been listening to a turbo Supra for about an hour before > that and were sick of vacuum cleaner noises. There is nothing like the roar of a big block engine to get the juices flowing! SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > Even liquid-cooled engines would need a fan to blow air at the radiator. > The dyno room was a very loud environment whenever a vehicle was running. > The rollers were coated with a non-skid surface so the tires running on > those rollers were very loud, we had a fan directed at the radiator, we had > the dyno motors and cooling fans for the motors, we had an exhaust duct fan > running, and of course, there was the noise from the subject vehicle. Or, one could use an engine dyno, and again supply whatever cooling needed. Dyno operators had to be creative and used to doing work to set up for each new engine type they had to face. I suppose there was never such a thing as a quiet dyno room. :-) > I suppose there was never such a thing as a quiet dyno room. :-) Oh, SURE there is. It gets REAL quiet right after something Really Bad happens.... :D >> I suppose there was never such a thing as a quiet dyno room. :-) > > Oh, SURE there is. It gets REAL quiet right after something Really Bad > happens.... :D That's because everyone is in the bathroom changing their underwear! SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is >>designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How would an air-cooled engine do on a dyno at full-throttle? I'm > curious how they would have been tested. I have seen dynos with fans. The VW of course has its own fan, but the output of the fan at the dyno station could supplement it. I don't remember for sure which way the fan blew on the bug- if it picked up air from the hood, that was probably in a low pressure area, and yet still cooled the car okay, so maybe the engine's own fan would be sufficient. Insurance can be a serious problem. The Honda Insight is aluminum bodied, and my son's insurance company in California ruled his car to be an 'exotic'. Cost went up a bunch. He has no complaints with the Insight, and claims 80 mpg on the highway when driving at optimum speed. (About 72 mph, he claims.) I work for the NY Transit Authority in which large numbers of Ford Escapes are being used as patrol cars. They DO NOT get good milage. Every one of the people I've spoken to say that their mileage is no more than 17 miles to the gallon. On the other hand I own a Honda civic hybrid. At least until I put decent tires on it, I got about 44mpg. However, the low rolling resistance (read cheap, lightweight) tires do add significantly to the mpg rating. Once I put on a good set of Michelin all seasons, the mileage averages about 38mpg, which while still respectable is far from what is advertised. I'm hoping at this point that once I've reached 10k miles, things will get a bit better. > With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of > car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would > like to hear some opinion and discussion. > I work for the NY Transit Authority in which large numbers of Ford Escapes > are being used as patrol cars. They DO NOT get good milage. Every one of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > advertised. I'm hoping at this point that once I've reached 10k miles, > things will get a bit better. Same son bought a Civic hybrid for his wife, and she got pretty bad mileage at first. It turned out to be more her driving technique than anything else. I think she gets up to about 54 mpg now. I bought a Honda Civic Hybrid March, 2005 and my experience with its mileage is mixed. Once I reached the 10,000 mile mark, the mileage did improve, but I only get 38 mpg in local driving, and I contribute the low mileage to the fact I must negotiate a lot of hills which must reduce mileage, since I got 51 mpg driving to Florida from home in the Hudson Valley of NY. I really don't think that the increased mileage will pay for the increased cost, but I will get a $2,000 tax rebate back in my tax refund check which I understand will be going up this year. I obtained breakdown warranty insurance, which I advise all new owners obtain for hybrids. At the time the only Hybrid that I could get was one with a standard remission and I would now counsel against obtaining one, as one must push the clutch all the way down with the car in gear for the engine to start up after it has stopped in traffic, which I have found is a real pain to drive,especially when making left turns across heavy traffic, I would recommend only obtaining one with an automatic transmission. I am considering trading my hybrid with standard transmission in 2 years for one with an automatic transmission. >> I work for the NY Transit Authority in which large numbers of Ford >> Escapes [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > else. > I think she gets up to about 54 mpg now. I've tried adjusting my technique by coasting more etc. However, the tires seem to have made the biggest difference. The Michelins have a large grippy contact point, whereas the lightweight tires had little. This was evident in the duration and number of times the antilock brakes came on. At this point they never come on. As a sidebar, I found the same to be true with my other car; an 05 element. When I took off the stock tires for a higher grade, the braking and handling improved whereas the mileage decreased. All told, it wasn't a bad tradeoff. > With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of > car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would > like to hear some opinion and discussion. > The bottom line, do people really care to get a higher price hybrid > cars? Does their reception only reflect the "environmentally > conscience" approach nowadays, or do people really want to buy a > hybrid? It's all about image for most of those buyers. They don't care what it costs for them to have a certain "look" about them as they drive down the road. There's a reason the Toyota Prius has acquired the nickname "Toyota Pious". > It's all about image for most of those buyers. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There's a reason the Toyota Prius has acquired the nickname "Toyota > Pious". That may be true for some. I am not sure of the percentage- I doubt if anyone really is. Hey, I am a gearhead from away back. When I was a teen, anyone who couldn't work on his own car was the nerd, though we didn't use that term then. I love performance cars- I have one in my garage, fortunately it burns alcohol and runs on a race track. But, as a retired, fixed income guy I am concerned with the cost of gasoline. There is no conspiracy involved other than the law of supply and demand. The ONLY way we are going to put a brake on prices is to put a brake on demand. Anything we can do to reduce gasoline consumption will reduce the rate of increase of prices. So looking at the economics of buying any high milage car today should be considering the future cost of gasoline. I will seriously consider replacing my present Neon R/T with a hybrid. It has 100,000 miles on it and is in good shape, but it will not last forever. Much as I love twin cams and four valves per cylinder, I realize that practically speaking it is much better to get my performance kicks at the race track than on the highway. BTW, my I sold my last big V8 the year of the first oil embargo, the early seventies. Still love cars and racing engines, but I don't have to have the biggest, most powerful engine in town (and use only a small percent of its capability in normal driving). > Hey, I am a gearhead from away back. When I was a teen, anyone who > couldn't work on his own car was the nerd, though we didn't use that term > then. That fits me. I have to remind myself there are people who take their cars to garages for service. I first heard about the hybrid car concept about 20 years ago, and the elegance of the concept floored me. There are not yet any serial hybrids - a car where the propulsion is entirely electric and the engine is used to drive a generator to feed the batteries - in production but they are certainly coming. I don't remember how long ago I became disenchanted with the notion of dragging a passenger car around with a 200 hp engine, but I do recall it never made any sense. Hybridization separates acceleration performance from engine power, so the engine can be downsized and even shut down when the power isn't needed without losing responsiveness. Now that makes sense! Public education of the purpose and of the technical aspects of hybridization is way behind. Many people assume hybrids must be underpowered because they use less fuel than conventional cars. Far from it. Although today's designs emphasize economy the benefits extend into performance. Check out the concept cars Honda http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2001/auto/DUALNOTE/ and Toyota http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/future/volta.html are toying with. Both offer 400 hp combined power; Toyota claims more than 30 mpg (your guess is as good as mine what sort of driving that is) and Honda "calculates" 40 mpg. Concept cars don't often contribute a lot to actual production models, but consider: the original Prius is very similar to the G21 concept car Toyota displayed at the 1995 Tokyo Motor Show. "All it requires is the *will* to do so." - Dr. Strangelove It's high time to kiss fossil fuel burners goodbye all together. Not to be dumping the vehicles in favor of so called hybrids, but rather convert them to burn alcohol. The farmer could grow enough grain and veggies to not only make cheap fuel, but have more than enough to supply every vehicle with ample fuel for years. Besides, you can distill your own fuel right in your own home. Instead of fuel tankers running about the countryside, you'd see more grain haulers heading off to the local distillery. A servvice station could have it's own distillery right on the property. Which cuts down on the cost of transportation. You could even have your own little co-op thing for the members. Did you know that OPEC supplies less than 50% of this nation's fuel? So why does the minorty dictate what you pay for it? It's time to fight back and make OPEC suffer awhile. Go wtih alcohol! > It's high time to kiss fossil fuel burners goodbye all together. > Not to be dumping the vehicles in favor of so called hybrids, but > rather convert them to burn alcohol. > The farmer could grow enough grain and veggies to not only make cheap > fuel, but have more than enough to supply every vehicle with ample fuel > for years. That's debatable. USDA funded studies suggest that if all agricultural land that can be dedicated to production of plants for ethanol, we would only be able to get about 2 percent of the country's total energy. There would still be a need for fossil fuels. >> It's high time to kiss fossil fuel burners goodbye all together. >> Not to be dumping the vehicles in favor of so called hybrids, but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > only be able to get about 2 percent of the country's total energy. There > would still be a need for fossil fuels. But can we trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's pockets, there is a real chance the studies are totally bunk. Signaturehttp://www.ronniedobbs.com/ >>> It's high time to kiss fossil fuel burners goodbye all together. >>> Not to be dumping the vehicles in favor of so called hybrids, but [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > current administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's > pockets, there is a real chance the studies are totally bunk. They can't make 100 percent into 2 percent by some slight adjustments in facts. The reality is that alcohol is not much of an answer to the problem with a shortage of fossil fuels. "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can we trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current > administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's pockets, there > is a real chance the studies are totally bunk. Why are you spreading political hog wash about this administration. This administration has done many things to try to lower are demand for foreign oil. They offered a 2000 dollar tax credit for people that buy Hybrids cars, I know because I almost got one and the dealer told this to me many times. Plus offered ground breaking help from the Government for people to use Biofuels. I have a friend that collects hamburger grease to burn in his diesel VW and told me about it plus you may still be able to read about it at the biofuel sites. This is only the ones I know of first hand and am sure there's more so don't spread political trash like that. What's this about being anti-science bent and big oil in there pockets? You sound like another Michael Moore nut. Get real. > "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can we > trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > trash like that. What's this about being anti-science bent and big oil > in there pockets? You sound like another Michael Moore nut. Get real. The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by banning federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, and by demanding religion being taught as science (ID). And the Bush family has been a Big Oil family for decades, look up Arbusto Energy for an example. Signaturehttp://www.ronniedobbs.com/ > > "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can we > > trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > taught as science (ID). And the Bush family has been a Big Oil family for > decades, look up Arbusto Energy for an example. Don't forget that the big agriculture producers are about as Big Business as you can get. And they are home-grown. The idea that the Bush administration would rather see all that money go into the pockets of foreign oil-producing governments like Saudi Arabia, instead of into the pockets of the domestic farmers is preposterous. Saudi Arabia does not make significant political contributions into US reelection campaign funds compared to the farmers. Why the hell do you think the government is still propping up the tobacco farmers with subsidies? Ted > Why the hell do you think the government is still propping up the tobacco > farmers with subsidies? Because the states are having such a good time bleeding tobacco companies to death. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. > > "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can we > > trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > taught as science (ID). And the Bush family has been a Big Oil family for > decades, look up Arbusto Energy for an example. You mean the ban on research like the Korean who was touted as being the leader in the field of stem cell research, that turned out to be FAKE, http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200512/kt2005121523485211780.htm http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200512/kt2005122521314954040.htm http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-12-30/36347.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/23/ustem.xml&sSheet =/portal/2005/12/23/ixportaltop.html Yup we need to spend more money on that..... Oh and could you show me in the constitution where it says I am required to pay for it? or the cancer researcher who also faked his data, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4617372.stm Oh maybe you mean the ID folks who tried to get it instituted as a course, even when Bush stated he thought it was wrong. Even though it is NOT against the constitution to teach it. As for big oil. SO WHAT at least the man has REAL experience in business and how it actually works, as opposed to the former president who NEVER HELD A JOB in his life but just sucked on the governments tit as a public servant. >> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by > banning [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Oh and could you show me in the constitution where it says I am required > to pay for it? Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to post on USENET? That's right, the Constitution doesn't touch on things that weren't invented when it was written. And I don't like spending money on war, but I have no choice. > or the cancer researcher who also faked his data, > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4617372.stm > > Oh maybe you mean the ID folks who tried to get it instituted as a > course, even when Bush stated he thought it was wrong. Even though it is > NOT against the constitution to teach it. It is unconstitutional to teach religion as science. > As for big oil. SO WHAT at least the man has REAL experience in business > and how it actually works, as opposed to the former president who NEVER > HELD A JOB in his life but just sucked on the governments tit as a > public servant. Yeah, every company Dumbya ran went bankrupt or lost money. That's really something to brag about. Signaturehttp://www.ronniedobbs.com/ > >> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by > > banning [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You mean the ban on research like the Korean who was touted as being the > > leader in the field of stem cell research, that turned out to be FAKE, http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200512/kt2005121523485211780.htm http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200512/kt2005122521314954040.htm > > http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-12-30/36347.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/23/ustem.xml&sSheet =/portal/2005/12/23/ixportaltop.html > > Yup we need to spend more money on that..... > > Oh and could you show me in the constitution where it says I am required [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's right, the Constitution doesn't touch on things that weren't invented > when it was written. You may want to READ it. Notice that little item about freedom of speech? It means I have the RIGHT to say whatever I wish the same as you do. > And I don't like spending money on war, but I have no choice. Sure you do Move out of the US. The constitution does provide for spending for the defense of the country and it's interests. > > or the cancer researcher who also faked his data, > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4617372.stm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is unconstitutional to teach religion as science. NOPE, nothing about teaching religion is unconstitutional. It states that Establishment of a state religion is wrong. That means that the government cannot say "ALL persons in the U.S. MUST be Catholic" Or "that all persons MUST be Wicca" However there is NOTHING about religion being taught in shools as being wrong, regardless what the ACLU wants to believe. > > As for big oil. SO WHAT at least the man has REAL experience in business > > and how it actually works, as opposed to the former president who NEVER [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yeah, every company Dumbya ran went bankrupt or lost money. That's really > something to brag about. >> > "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can >we [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >or the cancer researcher who also faked his data, >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4617372.stm So, if we recognize the fraud committed by Kellogg Brown and Root and Custer Battles, I guess we can stop paying for national defense. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/01/1521200 http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11763 http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.whistleblower/ http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?bid=13&pid=2319 There is a way to deal with individuals and companies which defraud the government - send them to prison. >Oh maybe you mean the ID folks who tried to get it instituted as a >course, even when Bush stated he thought it was wrong. Even though it is >NOT against the constitution to teach it. If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same sh.t, different textbook) was unconstitutional. >As for big oil. SO WHAT at least the man has REAL experience in business >and how it actually works, as opposed to the former president who NEVER >HELD A JOB in his life but just sucked on the governments tit as a >public servant. If you think W ever "held a real job" you have to be kidding. Having someone give you an oil company and then someone buy it back after you run it into the ground is not holding a real job. > If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that > it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding > was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same > sh.t, different textbook) was unconstitutional. Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity. If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that >> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just > fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity. Don't kid yourself. ID is creationism in sheep's clothing. > If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh > dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him. ID is being pushed by fundamentalist christians (and ONLY fundamentalist xians) so it's obvious who the "designer" is supposed to be. Anyway, ID is not science. Science is taking data and making sense out of it. ID is throwing your hands in the air and saying "I'm not smart enough to figure it out. Therefore, goddidit." ID is a cop-out, and anti-intellectualism at its most pungent. It is the opposite of science. Signaturehttp://www.ronniedobbs.com/ > Anyway, ID is not science. Science is taking data and making sense out of > it. ID is throwing your hands in the air and saying "I'm not smart enough > to figure it out. Therefore, goddidit." ID is a cop-out, and > anti-intellectualism at its most pungent. It is the opposite of science. On the contrary, you must believe people are morons to believe the universe just popped out of nowhere. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >> Anyway, ID is not science. Science is taking data and making sense out >> of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > universe > just popped out of nowhere. So where did God pop out of? > "clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote... >>> Anyway, ID is not science. Science is taking data and making sense out [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So where did God pop out of? Not smart enough to figure it out? Hands in the air? I'll try an analogy, though I've never encountered a leftist who could understand the difference between analogy and testimony. Picture a baby that dies at the age of two weeks. While he's alive, he doesn't understand how he got there, who created his crib or the mobile above his head, and the intelligence of those who put him on Earth is so far beyond his that no one could explain it to him. His "creators" were there before he was, and they will be there after he dies, and he doesn't know why. Now, I figure that any intelligence(s) who created the universe would be enough above my abilities that it could be there before I or my ancestors got here, could be there after the heat death of the Earth, and could be so far beyond my mental powers that I'd never understand the story if he/she/they explained it to me. Kinda like the baby. The difference between the universe being created by an intelligent designer, and the universe just popping out of nowhere, is pretty big. And nowhere should it say that intelligent design prevents evolution. In fact, if I were designing the universe, I'd put evolution in there. And I figure whoever designed the universe is smarter than I, so I bet he/she/it would figure that out too. Feel free to have the last word. I'm back to autos. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. Don't forget that Catholics did not formally acknowledge a heliocentric solar system until 1992, 350 years after Galileo produced evidence supporting Copernicus's theory (for which Galileo was condemned by the Catholic church): http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html Christians have a tendency to cling to beliefs long after overwhelming evidence refutes them. This is because their beliefs are based on faith, not fact. Science is open to the scrutiny of facts and the addition of new information that may support or refute current theories. While scienctific theories are flexible and can be adjusted due to the introduction of new facts, faith-based religions cannot- it goes against the whole idea of believing the impossible (or highly unlikely) without supporting factual evidence. Science DOES NOT introduce unsubstantiated beliefs in order to explain observable phenomena. There's no need for it; you just accept the fact that you don't have all of the information necessary to sove the puzzle...yet. Ironically, two of the most controversial scientific theories of our time were both introduced by practicing or aspiring clergy- Charles Darwin was *this close* to joining the ministry before accepting a position on the HMS Beagle, and one of the main contributors to the theory which would be later known as the "Big Bang" was a Belgian priest named George Lemaitre. "It is necessary to repeat here what I said above. It is a duty for theologians to keep themselves regularly informed of scientific advances in order to examine if such be necessary, whether or not there are reasons for taking them into account in their reflection or for introducing changes in their teaching."- Pope John Paul II >> Anyway, ID is not science. Science is taking data and making sense out of >> it. ID is throwing your hands in the air and saying "I'm not smart enough [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >On the contrary, you must believe people are morons to believe the universe >just popped out of nowhere. >> Anyway, ID is not science. Science is taking data and making sense out >> of it. ID is throwing your hands in the air and saying "I'm not smart [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > On the contrary, you must believe people are morons to believe the > universe just popped out of nowhere. Nobody "believes" that except for the strawmen you create so you can so bravely knock them down. You're my hero. >>> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that >>> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > enough to figure it out. Therefore, goddidit." ID is a cop-out, and > anti-intellectualism at its most pungent. It is the opposite of science. I disagree that ID is not science, and I disagree with how you have characterized it. I think it is. The problem with ID is that its backers don't believe in ID, they believe in creationism. And so they turned ID into creationism every chance they got, sort of shooting themselves in the foot. Its been really weird to watch the fundamentalists wrestle with ID. If ID would have made it in, the fundamentalists would have suddenly realized that teachers taking a scientific approach would not have involved any notions of God. SignatureThank you, "Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16 > I disagree that ID is not science, and I disagree with how you have > characterized it. I think it is. The problem with ID is that its [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > realized that teachers taking a scientific approach would not have > involved any notions of God. As a physicist and a believer in ID, I still say it is metaphysics. That being said, I think philosphy and metaphysics are not valued as much in twentieth and twenty-first century as they used to be and that is a shame. However, this argument on created universe versus uncreated universe has been a central part of metaphysics for over two millenia. It used to be considered as a question in cosmogeny rather than biology, and is the sense that I believe it. However, evolution is a fallout of ID. ID is NOT in conflict with evolution. Evolution describes how living things change, according to the laws of biology and physics. ID examines the question, "how did laws of nature come about?" >> I disagree that ID is not science, and I disagree with how you have >> characterized it. I think it is. The problem with ID is that its [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >change, according to the laws of biology and physics. ID examines the >question, "how did laws of nature come about?" Uh, no. ID claims that there are biological features which are so complex that if any part of them is removed or altered, the system wouldn't work. Therefore, these irreducibly complex structures and systems could not have evolved from something simpler because nothing simpler would work. "What good is half an eye?" Since they couldn't have evolved, they must have been designed by an intelligent designer. Gee, I wonder who that could be? ID is in conflict with Darwin's theory, but not with evolution per se. Given the indisputable evidence that animals did evolve on Earth, the intellectual leaders of ID claim that evolution was merely the way that Go.. I mean the Intelligent Designer did His designing. This nod to reality is not exactly highlighted by the ID elite to the unwashed masses. If they find out that ID admits that man is related to the other apes, they may not be so excited about it. > ID claims that there are biological features which are so complex that > if any part of them is removed or altered, the system wouldn't work. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > masses. If they find out that ID admits that man is related to the > other apes, they may not be so excited about it. SOME IDers say this. Certainly not all. One problem with ID theory is that there is no central authority to say what the theory really is. My ID ideas come from cosmology. It is based on anthropic principle. Good point about Darwinian evolution vs evolution in general. Creationists take great joy when evolutionary scientists argue against some strictly Darwinian ideas. But that does not disprove evolution in general. >>>> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that >>>> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > turned ID into creationism every chance they got, sort of shooting > themselves in the foot. How is it science? There is not one shred of evidence for ID. Science is all about evidence. ID is anti-scientific. > Its been really weird to watch the fundamentalists wrestle with ID. If > ID would have made it in, the fundamentalists would have suddenly > realized that teachers taking a scientific approach would not have > involved any notions of God. Yeah, they shoot themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths. >> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that >> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just >fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity. did you hear about the early draft of "Of Pandas and People," the premier ID textbook that was introduced into the Dover trial? It was basically the same as the published version except that everywhere the published version says "ID," the draft says "creationism." >If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh >dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him. Either way, it isn't science. >>Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits >>that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > basically the same as the published version except that everywhere the > published version says "ID," the draft says "creationism." I don't speak for the author, and you don't either. I can think of any number of reasons I might make such a change to my own manuscript, none of them having to do with hiding any religious inclination. >>If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh >>dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him. > > Either way, it isn't science. Neither is evolution. It's nothing more than empirical observation extended beyond its reach into a theory, a conclusion used to find evidence that supports it. You want science? Disprove intelligent design. Last word is yours. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >>>Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits >>>that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >number of reasons I might make such a change to my own manuscript, none >of them having to do with hiding any religious inclination. Judge Jones was persuaded by the evidence - and the timing of the change - that ID is just creationism hidden in lab coats. >>>If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh >>>dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >beyond its reach into a theory, a conclusion used to find evidence that >supports it. You want science? Disprove intelligent design. Science doesn't work that way. When Intelligent Design has some evidence available, it will be considered. >Last word is yours. Read Judge Jones's entire opinion in Kitzmiller. Everyone who has been taken in by 'intelligent design' should hang their heads in shame at how bad of a con it was that took them in. >>>If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh >>>dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > extended beyond its reach into a theory, a conclusion used to find > evidence that supports it. No, the evidence that has been collected fully supports evolution. The only humans that don't believe in evolution are crackpots such as yourself, who aren't very evolved anyway. >You want science? Disprove intelligent design. Disprove that a giant purple bunny rabbit didn't poop the universe. You can't. You see, you can't prove a negative. Anyway, the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim. You're claiming ID is true, then prove it. >>>Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits >>>that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just >>>fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity. So IDiots believe there is possibly another entity as powerful (or more) than the God worshipped by Christians and many others? Sounds like false idolism to me... >> did you hear about the early draft of "Of Pandas and People," the >> premier ID textbook that was introduced into the Dover trial? It was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >number of reasons I might make such a change to my own manuscript, none >of them having to do with hiding any religious inclination. Yeah, one of the reasons is all of the flack the author took for using the word "creationism". A rose by any other name... >>>If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh >>>dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him. You're equating the superior being(s) that "created" everything with CHEESE? Sweet... >> Either way, it isn't science. > >Neither is evolution. It's nothing more than empirical observation extended >beyond its reach into a theory, a conclusion used to find evidence that >supports it. You want science? Disprove intelligent design. There are many claims out there that science does not have to disprove. Crop circles caused by aliens, the Virgin Mary in a waffle, Pat Robertson claiming that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's massive stroke was divine punishment for the Gaza withdrawal- just a bunch of folks looking for supernatural explanations for occurences that can easily be explained using observable, repeatable, and measurable methods. >Last word is yours. > There are many claims out there that science does not have to > disprove. Crop circles caused by aliens, the Virgin Mary in a waffle, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > easily be explained using observable, repeatable, and measurable > methods. The amazing part is that the ID people said in public that they did not have to prove ID but that the scientist had to disprove ID. And yet we still have about 80% of the public think the scientist are wrong and the religious fanatics are correct. "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Wt-> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by banning > federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, and by demanding religion being > taught as science (ID). And the Bush family has been a Big Oil family for > decades, look up Arbusto Energy for an example. Your welcome to have your own opinions, but before you bash this administration on stem-cell research, remember this is the first administration to ever open the doors to do any research at all on stem cells. And they only put limits form aborted babies. > "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Wt-> The > Your welcome to have your own opinions, but before you bash this > administration on stem-cell research, remember this is the first > administration to ever open the doors to do any research at all on stem > cells. And they only put limits form aborted babies. Is that the lie that Fox is passing around? The first stem cells were grown at the University of Wisconsin in 1998 with work going on before that. Typically this type work is funded by research organizations in the Federal Government. That means stem cell work was almost certainly being funded by the Clinton administration. There was previous research on stem cells trying to understand them almost certainly funded by the Clinton administration and probably other administrations. Only the Bush administration tried to shut down the research with the belief that life begins at conception. I do not believe that life beginning at conception is in the Bible and Bush is just believing some made up religious theory. It is essentially the as the Muslim bombers believing they will have 72 virgins in heaven just because some body said it. So we have a gullible world leader that can be led around by the nose by anybody that claimed something is religious no matter what is said. > The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by banning > federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, You're spreading the liberals' lie. Stem cell research is encouraged and government grants are available to researchers. The only limitation is that research on embryonic stem cells outside 60 well-known genetically diverse stem cell lines cannot be Federally funded; however, the states can pass laws allowing the states to fund such research, and researchers are welcome to seek grants from other sources. 16 out of 31 states, none of them governed by Bush, with laws regarding funding of stem cell research, also prohibit FUNDING of research on cells taken from aborted fetuses and/or embryos. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. Unfortunately the federally approved stem cell lines are all contaminated. >> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by banning >> federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > funding of stem cell research, also prohibit FUNDING of research on cells > taken from aborted fetuses and/or embryos. >>> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by >>> banning federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Unfortunately the federally approved stem cell lines are all > contaminated. But you can't let a simple thing like facts get in between Bush's a.s cheeks and his worshippers' lips. Signaturehttp://www.ronniedobbs.com/ >> "clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote... >>>> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> Unfortunately the federally approved stem cell lines are all >> contaminated. Then those who insist on using embryonic/fetal stem cells shall have to find private funding. > But you can't let a simple thing like facts get in between Bush's a.s cheeks > and his worshippers' lips. When the facts fail you, get emotional and use ad hominem attacks. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >>> "clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote... >>>>> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Then those who insist on using embryonic/fetal stem cells shall have to > find private funding. So why did Bush go on tv and promise to federally fund useless research. Kind of like his war in Iraq. > "clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote... >>> Unfortunately the federally approved stem cell lines are all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So why did Bush go on tv and promise to federally fund useless research. > Kind of like his war in Iraq. Not useless at all. <http://www.chennaionline.com/colnews/newsitem.asp?NEWSID=%7B729505D0-BB17-4675-A 609-F6010C67FBB3%7D&CATEGORYNAME=Chennai> OR <http://tinyurl.com/8k7eq> <http://www.expresshealthcaremgmt.com/200601/research01.shtml> <http://professional.cancerconsultants.com/oncology_main_news.aspx?id=35897> <http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/42006b.asp> <http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1541560.htm> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051222081946.htm> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/18/ncells18.xml&sSh eet=/news/2005/12/18/ixhome.html> One I can't find but read about recently was about a person whose heart was repaired using his own stem cells, sparing his life. (Googling on "stem cell" gets a few gazillion hits on the Korean scandal). Maybe it was related to <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051224/NOTE24-3 /TPEntertainment/Columnists> So basically, while the chuckleheads are whining about how they can't get free money for what they *want* to do, others are actually rolling up their sleeves and working with what they have to work miracles with stem cells of non-fetal origin. And then, <http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121902.html> SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >>> "clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote... > Then those who insist on using embryonic/fetal stem cells shall have to > find private funding. The venture capitalist won't fund stem cell research until more research is done where it is at the level that those venture cabalist can make investment decisions. The net result is that the companies will start in other countries where the research is being done and has the experienced people that are needed for these start up companies. The net result is that the Bush policy is highly anti-business in the US and provides other countries to become dominant in what will be the biological equivalent of Silicon Valley for medical companies. Those companies will become the economic and power base for the Governments leading to a decline of the US. No matter what Bush and Fox says, the Bush administration is implementing a anti-business, anti-powerful US, an US economic decline. > > The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by banning > > federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stem cell lines cannot be Federally funded; however, the states can pass > laws allowing the states to fund such research, If the federal government isn't discouraging stem cell research, why is it prohibiting federal funding to any institution that uses other genetic lines, even if the latter are privately funded? Also the 60 lines are more like just 12 unique ones, and all have been contaminated with non-human DNA, making them much less useful, practically useless. >"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can we trust >USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >oil. They offered a 2000 dollar tax credit for people that buy Hybrids cars, >I know because I almost got one and the dealer told this to me many times. I'm sure they did. After all, they want to sell those very expensive cars to you, now don't they? However, since the IRS has yet to determine exactly what tax credit is supposed to apply to which hybrid car, and haven't even determined yet what the word "hybrid" actually means, I wouldn't exactly rush out and go buy one right yet. >Plus offered ground breaking help from the Government for people to use >Biofuels. I have a friend that collects hamburger grease to burn in his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >being anti-science bent and big oil in there pockets? You sound like another >Michael Moore nut. Get real. Wow. Perhaps you should look up what companies our current VP has major stockholdings in, and which environmental laws they've deliberately relaxed and which business they most affect. BTW, the hybrids don't get the gas efficiency the dealers put on the windows. Those mileages are determined in a lab under controlled conditions; in actual driving conditions they can be much, much lower, resulting in the buyer never making back his initial (expensive) investment in the vehicle. John Lansford, PE -- John's Shop of Wood http://wood.jlansford.net/ > BTW, the hybrids don't get the gas efficiency the dealers put on the > windows. Those mileages are determined in a lab under controlled > conditions; in actual driving conditions they can be much, much lower, > resulting in the buyer never making back his initial (expensive) > investment in the vehicle. Most vehicles don't get the mileage on the window sticker especially in city driving. One thing that is unrealistic is that the EPA driving cycle starts with a warmed-up engine. A friend of mine who bought a Prius when they first came out thinks that he didn't get the advertised city mileage because the engine starts and runs until it is warmed up. So on a short trip in the winter the engine runs the whole time and mileage is no better than any other car. He traded the Prius in on a hybrid Civic and figures he got the extra money back on the trade-in. If you are the kind of person who buys new cars and trades them after 2 or 3 years you may get your money back. John Mara >> BTW, the hybrids don't get the gas efficiency the dealers put on the >> windows. Those mileages are determined in a lab under controlled [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >city driving. One thing that is unrealistic is that the EPA driving >cycle starts with a warmed-up engine. ABCNews ran an article on those mileage numbers on the stickers; basically no vehicle gets those numbers, and some such as SUV's get nowhere near them. >A friend of mine who bought a Prius when they first came out thinks that >he didn't get the advertised city mileage because the engine starts and >runs until it is warmed up. So on a short trip in the winter the engine >runs the whole time and mileage is no better than any other car. The ones that really make no sense are the SUV's with hybrid propulsion systems. > He >traded the Prius in on a hybrid Civic and figures he got the extra money >back on the trade-in. If you are the kind of person who buys new cars >and trades them after 2 or 3 years you may get your money back. ISTM that the people who get rid of the vehicle after just a few years are the ones that never make back the initial cost on gas savings even for a hybrid. The news article I mentioned above spoke with several hybrid owners who were tried that strategy and it didn't work for them. John Lansford, PE -- John's Shop of Wood http://wood.jlansford.net/ > BTW, the hybrids don't get the gas efficiency the dealers put on the > windows. Those mileages are determined in a lab under controlled [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > John Lansford, PE That's not my personal experience. Our 2002 Prius gets very close to the estimated mileage in mild weather, even though our driving is mostly in town and it sees most of its duty in my wife's commute on the hilly terrain to her job seven miles away. Cold weather takes the expected bite out of the efficiency, but I've never had a car that got closer to the EPA estimates than the Prius is doing. I'm reminded of the classic "mass hysteria" event on the US West Coast in the days of atmospheric nuclear testing. People were reporting their windshields pitted as a fallout cloud moved southward... until somebody pointed out the pitting was also present ahead of the cloud and only affected older cars. People had just noticed what was there all along. If the public would remember the EPA estimates are only a benchmark for regulatory and comparison purposes and take the disclaimer "your mileage may vary" to heart they would be happier. Mike If your talking about Halliburton, the VP sold all that stock long before he ran for VP. I say a political talk show about this subject and they basically said there is no company other than Halliburton that could take on a job as big as Irag, and this is why they get the contracts not because of the VP. I'm a big out doors person, spend every chance I can hiking, fishing, boating, camping and ATV riding so nobody gets upset at seeing trash or pollution as I do, but at the same time I understand that many policies were putting a strangle hold on some of are companies to compete with the world market. If you close down are companies because of some minor things and just move them to another country that has no environmental policies at all then what's the bigger problem you created for the environment plus all the jobs you lost. That's why I like this administration they look for right balance. Stay cool and keep driving high MPG Honda's and maybe Detroit will get the message one day. > Wow. Perhaps you should look up what companies our current VP has > major stockholdings in, and which environmental laws they've [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > John's Shop of Wood > http://wood.jlansford.net/ > If your talking about Halliburton, the VP sold all that stock long >before he ran for VP. I say a political talk show about this subject and >they basically said there is no company other than Halliburton that could >take on a job as big as Irag, and this is why they get the contracts not >because of the VP. The reason for this is that, instead of breaking up the job into a large number of small contracts, they lump it into one HUGE, no-bid contract which (surprise) only one company is big enough to handle. The Government used to have an army of accountants who managed the all the small contracts. They did it well and it was a LOT cheaper than what we are doing now. in fact, they did it too well and the corporations couldn't make much profit. So the Republicans made sure that the accountants were fired and now the big corporations suck the money right out of the treasury. > I'm a big out doors person, spend every chance I can hiking, fishing, >boating, camping and ATV riding so nobody gets upset at seeing trash or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >jobs you lost. That's why I like this administration they look for right >balance. And manufacturing has stopped moving to unregulated countries? So the Republicans made sure > that the accountants were fired and now the big corporations suck the > money right out of the treasury. What on earth are you talking about.......The government has been turning many wastful government jobs over to the private sector for many years now, for the basic reason it will be much more efficient. >> I'm a big out doors person, spend every chance I can hiking, >> fishing, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And manufacturing has stopped moving to unregulated countries? No they haven't, but are government should make it more profitable enviroment to stay here if it can, at the same time find the right balance for the enviroment. > > So the Republicans made sure >> that the accountants were fired and now the big corporations suck the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > many wastful government jobs over to the private sector for many years > now, for the basic reason it will be much more efficient. If you think big companies are effiicient, you have never worked for a big company. >> So the Republicans made sure >>> that the accountants were fired and now the big corporations suck [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you think big companies are effiicient, you have never worked for a > big company. If you think the government is less efficient than big companies, you've never worked for both to compare the two. Beautiful. >> So the Republicans made sure >>> that the accountants were fired and now the big corporations suck the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If you think big companies are effiicient, you have never worked for a big >company. >> If your talking about Halliburton, the VP sold all that stock long >>before he ran for VP. I say a political talk show about this subject and [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > And manufacturing has stopped moving to unregulated countries? >"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can we trust >USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >administration has done many things to try to lower are demand for foreign >oil. They offered a 2000 dollar tax credit for people that buy Hybrids cars, And he gave $100,000 tax deductions to small businesses like real estate agents who buy Hummers. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0121-05.htm The deduction was later repealed. And the hybrid deduction goes away as well after a certain model sells more than a specified number of units. >> That's debatable. USDA funded studies suggest that if all agricultural >> land that can be dedicated to production of plants for ethanol, we would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > current administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's > pockets, there is a real chance the studies are totally bunk. I think the key to that is in the study's assumptions. There are a lot of criteria involved in land that "can be" dedicated. I suspect the study basically looked at current agricultural land. We have been reducing our farmland for years as farming gets more efficient. Secondly, I think ethanol is NOT the most efficient biofuel. They should have looked at other fuels as well as ethanol. > Secondly, I think ethanol is NOT the most efficient biofuel. They should > have looked at other fuels as well as ethanol. I agree with that. Methane has more issues in the deployment end but can be made from a wider variety of waste products and with less processing. Ethanol comes only from diverting food for people or feed for livestock. It just doesn't make sense to burn food to power cars. (Biodiesel has the same problem - it is diverted foodstuff.) Mike > Secondly, I think ethanol is NOT the most efficient biofuel. They > should have looked at other fuels as well as ethanol. Methane, anyone? <http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22944/> Apparently we can get it from the plants without killing the plants. In fact, if these guys are right we can get much more from the live plants; they estimate 62 to 236 teragrams of methane from living plants, but only 1 to 7 teragrams from plant "litter". <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7073/abs/nature04420.html> SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. That study may have been tainted to show that fossil fuel is more appropriate than natural fuels. I'm not speaking of supplying a city's power. That can be done the old fashioned way with water and turbines. Alochol fuel is replenishable and therfor there would be abundance of fuel for vehicles for as long as there is farm land to produce the raw products. If fossil fuel is such a big deal, why don't we have cars that get 100mpg? The technology for doing so is here and has been here since the 60's. The auto manufacturers do not want YOU to have such a vehicle because that would mean selling less fuel. There is also current technology on the road, in experimental form, that is showing how viable fuel cells are. One company is testing a hydrogen/oxygen fuel cell. To replenish your supply of hydrogen, you simply pull up to the pump and insert the nozzle same as you do now with gas. The hydrogen is created from water, which is housed in a container at the pumping site. As a benefit to the atmosphere, your by-product is water. There are alternatives to fossil fuel. Way back in the mid 60's we were told we would be out of fossil fuel by 1990. In the 70's we were told there would be no more in 2000. It all boils down to whom you want to believe in. And when all else fails, create your own fuels. > If fossil fuel is such a big deal, why don't we have cars that get > 100mpg? Because we have dumb turds buying 300+ hp SUV's that cannot get more than 15-17- > The technology for doing so is here and has been here since the 60's. > The auto manufacturers do not want YOU to have such a vehicle because > that would mean selling less fuel. Not really. It is because horsepower is directly related to energy content of the fuel, and you cannot have high powered guzzlers and still get 100 mpg. > To replenish your supply of hydrogen, you simply pull up to the pump > and insert the nozzle same as you do now with gas. > The hydrogen is created from water, which is housed in a container at > the pumping site. > As a benefit to the atmosphere, your by-product is water. And where, pray tell, do you think you are going to get hydrogen... > There are alternatives to fossil fuel. > > Way back in the mid 60's we were told we would be out of fossil fuel by > 1990. > In the 70's we were told there would be no more in 2000. We aren't going to run out completely, at least not yet. But are you ready to pay $15-20 per gallon that it WILL cost, if it is even available, when the supply actually is lower than the global demand. There is NO light on the horizon. It is a matter of when, not if. >> If fossil fuel is such a big deal, why don't we have cars that get >> 100mpg? > > Because we have dumb turds buying 300+ hp SUV's that cannot get > more than 15-17- It's not so much the horsepower, but the weight, gearing, and aerodynamics (or lack therof) that are inherent in truck-based SUV designs. The LS2 engine (400 HP) from GM gets over 25 MPG in a car. A buddy of mine has a Dodge Durango with a 318 V8, I think it puts out about 220 HP, and gets around 15 MPG. >> The technology for doing so is here and has been here since the 60's. >> The auto manufacturers do not want YOU to have such a vehicle because [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > content of the fuel, and you cannot have high powered guzzlers and still > get 100 mpg. Like I pointed out, horsepower is not the main culprit. I drive a Cavalier with a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder engine pumping out a whopping 115 horsepower. I get around 30 MPG on the highway. I know a guy with a mid-90s Chevy Caprice with a 5.0 liter V8 and he gets almost as good as I get. Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get around 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual. Signaturehttp://www.ronniedobbs.com/ > It's not so much the horsepower, but the weight, gearing, and aerodynamics > (or lack therof) that are inherent in truck-based SUV designs. The LS2 > engine (400 HP) from GM gets over 25 MPG in a car. A buddy of mine has a > Dodge Durango with a 318 V8, I think it puts out about 220 HP, and gets > around 15 MPG. I have a FI 318 that gets me 17-18 mpg. But horsepower IS an issue. You cannot get horsepower without burning fuel. You can optimize mileage by not developing full advertised horsepower at the operating speed. I've done the math. There is no free lunch. Weight, gearing and aerodynamics are clearly issues as well. > Like I pointed out, horsepower is not the main culprit. I drive a Cavalier > with a 2.2 liter 4 cylinder engine pumping out a whopping 115 horsepower. I > get around 30 MPG on the highway. I know a guy with a mid-90s Chevy Caprice > with a 5.0 liter V8 and he gets almost as good as I get. > Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get around > 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual. Yes, you pointed it out, but are not quite correct. To get excellent mileage you have to drop actual horsepower, decrease weight, improve aerodynamics, etc. The automatic transmission, which USED to be recognized as a mileage culprit is not that any longer. An automatic, properly set up and functioning, can deliver better mileage than you can get with a similarly geared standard. >> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get >> around 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and functioning, can deliver better mileage than you can get with a > similarly geared standard. How so? An automatic uses a viscous coupling, and there is always going to be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque converters, which help mileage in top gear, but the tranny still slips during acceleration. Signaturehttp://www.ronniedobbs.com/ > >> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get > >> around 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque converters, which help > mileage in top gear, but the tranny still slips during acceleration. Maybe you had better take a look at current autos. ALL of them have lockup converters and 99% have overdrive as well. They are MUCH better than a stick for mileage now. >> How so? An automatic uses a viscous coupling, and there is always >> going to be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lockup converters and 99% have overdrive as well. They are MUCH better > than a stick for mileage now. You might like to look at the EPA test results. Cars with manual transmissions get something like 1 mpg better mileage than the same car with an automatic: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ >>> How so? An automatic uses a viscous coupling, and there is always >>> going to be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > transmissions get something like 1 mpg better mileage than the same car > with an automatic: At least 1 mpg. In some vehicles, the real world difference can be over 5 mpg (depending on the driver). Signaturehttp://www.ronniedobbs.com/ >> >> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably > get [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > lockup converters and 99% have overdrive as well. They are MUCH better > than a stick for mileage now. The lockup torque converter does nothing for mileage except in high gear. And the vast majority (if not all) manual transmissions have at least one overdrive gear. I've never, ever heard of a slushbox that got better mileage than an equivalent manual gearbox. Signaturehttp://www.ronniedobbs.com/ >I've never, ever heard of a slushbox that got better mileage than an >equivalent manual gearbox. Then I would suggest you look at the EPA figures for the 2006 Civic 5 speed Manual: 30 city / 38 Highway 5 speed Automatic: 30 City / 40 Highway SignatureBrett W. Rohlfing >>I've never, ever heard of a slushbox that got better mileage than an >>equivalent manual gearbox. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 5 speed Manual: 30 city / 38 Highway > 5 speed Automatic: 30 City / 40 Highway And we all know how accurate those EPA figures are... >>> I've never, ever heard of a slushbox that got better mileage than an >>> equivalent manual gearbox. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And we all know how accurate those EPA figures are... Doesn't matter. The truth is that modern automatics are *generally* more efficient and result in lower emissions than the average driver with a stick. The computer can keep everything (mixture, timing, and even throttle opening) optimized right through the shift because it controls both the engine and transmission. With a stick, its still slaved to how well (or poorly) the driver executes every shift. >>>> I've never, ever heard of a slushbox that got better mileage than an >>>> equivalent manual gearbox. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > efficient and result in lower emissions than the average driver with a > stick. Untrue. The Civic, if the slushbox gets better mileage than the stick, is the exception rather than the rule. The viscous torque converter causes a loss of efficiency. >The computer can keep everything (mixture, timing, and even > throttle opening) optimized right through the shift because it controls > both the engine and transmission. With a stick, its still slaved to how > well (or poorly) the driver executes every shift. And with the auto, a skilled driver won't get any better mileage than an unskilled driver. >>>>> I've never, ever heard of a slushbox that got better mileage than an >>>>> equivalent manual gearbox. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the exception rather than the rule. The viscous torque converter causes a > loss of efficiency. I believe most, if not all, modern automatics have a locking torque converter, eliminating slippage during cruising. Duiring acceleration, torque multiplication provides an advantage over a solid connection. Also, the gear ratios for automatic and manual transmissions are not the same, so depending on the setup, one may have a performance or economy advantage over the other. >>The computer can keep everything (mixture, timing, and even >> throttle opening) optimized right through the shift because it controls [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And with the auto, a skilled driver won't get any better mileage than an > unskilled driver. No matter what type of transmission, a skilled driver can absolutely get better mileage than an unskilled driver! SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >Duiring acceleration, >torque multiplication provides an advantage over a solid connection. Can someone explain to me what this really means? I have always heard this expression but I have never heard it explained. >> During acceleration, torque multiplication provides an advantage over >> a solid connection. > > Can someone explain to me what this really means? I have always heard > this expression but I have never heard it explained. It's all about the transmission of horsepower, and is somewhat akin to having reduction gears, like in the transmission. In low gears, the transmission increases the torque at the expense of shaft RPM. There is a description here, which might be a bit too complicated to clearly understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_Convertor Here is another approach to describing the effect, which might also be too obtuse to understand: In short, horsepower is what does the work of moving a vehicle. In simplest terms, power is the RPM multiplied by the torque at that RPM. Therefore, if you attach a 2:1 gearbox with perfect efficiency to an engine, the output shaft of the engine will be running at twice the speed of the shaft out of the gearbox, but will only provide 1/2 the torque. That preserves the basic power relationship. When the torque converter is slipping, the engine RPM will be faster than the torque converter output shaft. Therefore, like the case with the manual gearbox, if the output shaft of the engine is running at twice the RPM of the shaft out of the gearbox, and there is no efficiency loss, then the torque has to be twice as high out of the gearbox. > When the torque converter is slipping, the engine RPM will be faster > than the torque converter output shaft. Therefore, like the case with > the manual gearbox, if the output shaft of the engine is running at > twice the RPM of the shaft out of the gearbox, and there is no > efficiency loss, then the torque has to be twice as high out of the > gearbox. That's only haf the story... see my previous post. Torque convertors can actually have more outuput torque than input torque because of the presence of the stator and reaction shaft. That's why the torque convertor was such a leap forward over the "fluid clutch" back circa 1950. >>Duiring acceleration, >>torque multiplication provides an advantage over a solid connection. > > Can someone explain to me what this really means? I have always heard > this expression but I have never heard it explained. The torque convertor has a unique feature in that the torque available at the output shaft can actually be HIGHER than the torque at the input shaft, in addition to the fact that its slippage allows the engine to move up to a higher RPM where it can apply more torque to the input shaft. A clutch (fluid-filled, wet plate, or dry plate- doesn't matter) can only do the latter- let the engine rev up to a higher torque point, but the input and output torque VALUES are the same. The simplest form of torque convertor does its trick by having 3 elements instead of two. The input shaft drives an impeller, which directs fluid to a turbine connected to the output shaft, but first the fluid acts against a stator that is mounted on the "reaction shaft" which is fixed. The stator can rotate one way, but not the other. The result is that as the ratio of inputs shaft RPM to output shaft RPM varies, the stator rotates or locks as needed to maximize the torque multiplication factor. More complex forms exist, and of course the locking TC is just about universal these days. >>> During acceleration, torque multiplication provides an advantage >>> over a solid connection. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > engine to move up to a higher RPM where it can apply more torque to > the input shaft. It's all about power. The torque converter is simply transferring power from one side to the other, less the loss in the converter. The fact that the output shaft is turning more slowly means that its torque has to be higher to keep the torque X RPM product the same. You get the same effect with an electric drive, with less efficiency loss, which is why they are popular on heavy machinery. > A clutch (fluid-filled, wet plate, or dry plate- doesn't matter) can > only do the latter- let the engine rev up to a higher torque point, > but the input and output torque VALUES are the same. That's where the gearbox comes in. >>>>During acceleration, torque multiplication provides an advantage >>>>over a solid connection. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that the output shaft is turning more slowly means that its torque has > to be higher to keep the torque X RPM product the same. There is a net power LOSS thru the converter. The torque increase effect is due to the stator, not just conservation of energy (because energy ISN'T conserved.) >>>>>During acceleration, torque multiplication provides an advantage >>>>>over a solid connection. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >effect is due to the stator, not just conservation of energy (because >energy ISN'T conserved.) But if the power output is less (and it must be, of course) and the output torque is higher, then output rpm must be much lower. Effectively a very low gear which gets higher as rpm increases - is that right? A good trick for launching from a dead stop, but no magic (surprise.) I am thinking of this being kind of a mini-CVT effect. > But if the power output is less (and it must be, of course) and the > output torque is higher, then output rpm must be much lower. > Effectively a very low gear which gets higher as rpm increases - is > that right? A good trick for launching from a dead stop, but no magic > (surprise.) I am thinking of this being kind of a mini-CVT effect. That is correct. The stator mechanism enables it. Think about it- if you have only an input shaft and an output shaft connected to any "black box" clutch mechanism, then by definition the input torque must be IDENTICAL to the output torque, regardless of difference in RPM. That rule applies to a dry-plate clutch (slipping or not) and also applies to a fluid clutch, but not to a torque convertor because of the presence of the stator which can act against a (fixed) reaction shaft. >>Duiring acceleration, >>torque multiplication provides an advantage over a solid connection. > > Can someone explain to me what this really means? I have always heard > this expression but I have never heard it explained. A torque converter is the hydraulic analog of a continuously variable ratio drive, such as two pulleys and a belt, where the pulleys change diameter. When rpms of two parts are different the torque transferred is not 1:1, but variable, greater than 1:1. >>>>> I've never, ever heard of a slushbox that got better mileage than an >>>>> equivalent manual gearbox. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is the exception rather than the rule. The viscous torque converter > causes a loss of efficiency. And the slipping of the clutch during a shift does the same on manual transmissions. Plus modern transmissions keep the TC locked solid most of the time, except during breakaway and during actual gear changes. Go read some window stickers- automatics generally beat manuals (where manuals are still even offered). Frankly, the whole idea of a dry plate clutch is pretty neanderthal and its hard to believe manufcaturers still use the things. >> The computer can keep everything (mixture, timing, and even >> throttle opening) optimized right through the shift because it controls [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And with the auto, a skilled driver won't get any better mileage than an > unskilled driver. Not entirely true, but to a large degree. Back in carburetor days, a driver with a smooth and steady foot on the gas pedal (automatic OR standard trans) could get vastly better mileage than one with a twitchy foot. Today, people can give their passngers a sore neck from all the speed variations, and the computer doesn't waste an accelerator pump shot of fuel every time the pedal moves. They still get slightly worse mileage than good drivers, but not by the margin that used to exist. >>>>>> I've never, ever heard of a slushbox that got better mileage than an >>>>>> equivalent manual gearbox. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > clutch is pretty neanderthal and its hard to believe manufcaturers still > use the things. The clutch doesn't slip much if you know how to drive. And, at least on my car, the torque converter doesn't lockup until around 45 MPH. And the manual transmission might be primitive, but so is the wheel, and we still use it. Simple can be good. > The clutch doesn't slip much if you know how to drive. True. But how many million drivers are there in the world today? And how many of those actually drive well??? > And, at least on > my car, the torque converter doesn't lockup until around 45 MPH. The last car I had that did that was a 1983 model. My wife's old 93 locks up in partially in 2nd gear, fully in both 3rd and 4th. Its a fairly complex algorithm, and the newer cars even moreso. The cars with "throttle by wire" where the computer can close the throttle during shifts don't even have to unlock the convertor during the shift. > And > the manual transmission might be primitive, but so is the wheel, and we > still use it. Simple can be good. Oh, I hear you. I like mixing gears myself, and even when it comes to automatics I prefer a 1969 3-speed Torqueflite over anything on the market today because its un-killable and can take full-throttle upshifts from a 400-horsepower big-block every day of its 200,000+ mile life. But when it comes time to think about what *should* be on the market in today's world to make cars more and more efficient and conserve resources, well I have to put my personal tastes aside to a degree. Things like computer-controlled highly efficient automatics and hybrid drive systems make a lot of sense. And the manual transmission going the way of the Dodo (at least in generic grocery-getters) makes sense too. >> The clutch doesn't slip much if you know how to drive. > > True. But how many million drivers are there in the world today? And > how many of those actually drive well??? Most of the world drives manual transmissions. Automatics are a North American thing. Those who drive manuals regularly do a respectible job. >> And, at least on my car, the torque converter doesn't lockup >> until around 45 MPH. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > during shifts don't even have to unlock the convertor during the > shift. Most lockups still have a minimum speed. There are many other times where they won't lock up on most cars, such as in first or second gear, under heavy acceleration, climbing steep grades, when the engine cooling water is cold, when overdrive is cut out, in "sport" settings, towing heavy loads, etc. In all, the torque converter is not locked up for a good proportion of time. Some also unlock whenever the brakes are applied. >> And the manual transmission might be primitive, but so is the wheel, >> and we still use it. Simple can be good. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > transmission going the way of the Dodo (at least in generic > grocery-getters) makes sense too. Manual transmissions are quite efficient, and of course they are less expensive than automatics, so are popular in the rest of the world. > Manual transmissions are quite efficient, and of course they are less > expensive than automatics, so are popular in the rest of the world. They're still *popular* in the US. I enjoy stirring the gears as much as the next guy, but lets face it- a thread about hybrid vehicles and other ways to reduce emissions and fuel consumption isn't going to appeal to DRIVING ENTHUSIASTS period! But these cars are best suited to the vast majority of drivers who aren't enthusiasts and use cars purely for transportation. I'm all for that, because it takes so much scrutiny OFF of the smaller percentage of cars tailored for us enthusiasts! Many (most, actually) manufacturers have realized that by putting complete control of both the engine AND transmission in the hands of the computer they can easily achieve better emission profiles than with a manual, and can more easily stay ahead of EPA emissions requirements with a given engine technology. Real-world fuel efficiency is often better as well, which is why many, many car lines aren't even offered with a manual transmission any longer. > Oh, I hear you. I like mixing gears myself, and even when it comes to > automatics I prefer a 1969 3-speed Torqueflite over anything on the market [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > make a lot of sense. And the manual transmission going the way of the Dodo > (at least in generic grocery-getters) makes sense too. I'd like to know where in the H___ there was anything made for automobiles in this country in 1969 that lasted 200,000 miles? In my experience 75,000 to 90,000 miles was it. Maybe what you were talking about was foreign? > I'd like to know where in the H___ there was anything made for automobiles > in this country in 1969 that lasted 200,000 miles? Any Ford or Chrysler, in my experience. 200k is easy, and there are plenty of documented half-million mile cars from the 60s. My direct personal experiences: I sold my '68 Ford at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Dodge at 270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Plymouth at 430,000 miles, and my '69 Dodge at 160,000 miles- all running great. Dad sold his '63 Valiant at about 300,000 miles on the original un-opened engine. My grandmother had a '74 Dart that was sold running great at 180k, Mom had a '74 Mercury that was sold running fine at 210k. Digging way back, even Mom's 54 Chrysler was humming along at well over 150k, despite an episode of going 15 miles without coolant until the cylinder heads were glowing at ~120k (those old 331 Hemis were *tough*). Going newer, Dad had an 83 Gran Fury that was sold at 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still hauling loads at 215k, and my wife has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles. >. Maybe what you were talking about was foreign? ROTFL!!! That would be "no." I am ROTFL now. All the American cars I had in the years you mentioned never made it past 80,000 miles without a major repair that made it not financially right to keep the thing. It wasn't until I bought a 1983 Nissan Sentra Wagon that I had a vehicle go over 200,000 miles without a major repair. Since then I've owned Hondas and Toyotas and repairs just isn't in the dictionary anymore. >> I'd like to know where in the H___ there was anything made for >> automobiles in this country in 1969 that lasted 200,000 miles? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > ROTFL!!! That would be "no." > I am ROTFL now. Laugh all you want, but facts are facts. > All the American cars I had in the years you mentioned never > made it past 80,000 miles without a major repair that made it not > financially right to keep the thing. It wasn't until I bought a 1983 Nissan > Sentra Wagon that I had a vehicle go over 200,000 miles without a major > repair. Since then I've owned Hondas and Toyotas and repairs just isn't in > the dictionary anymore. I've never been able to nurse an Asian car past about 150k miles without massive organ failure. They're like little toasters up until then, but when things start to go EVERYTHING goes at once. They have a very planned maximum life and are meant to be crushed into little cubes and recycled when that finite time is up. Not my cup of tea. I currently own 3 '60s and 70s vintage American cars, and the lowest mileage one has 160k. The highest has 430k. The 430k car and the 270k car are driven daily, the "low mileage" 160k car is a collectable vehicle. They may need a little more maintenance along the way to 150k, but the basic structure of the car and engine will last FOREVER if cared for. >>>I'd like to know where in the H___ there was anything made for >>>automobiles in this country in 1969 that lasted 200,000 miles? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >>ROTFL!!! That would be "no." Message from Steve written on 2/2/2006 1:10 PM: >> I'd like to know where in the H___ there was anything made for >> automobiles in this country in 1969 that lasted 200,000 miles? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > ROTFL!!! That would be "no." I worked for a company a few years back that had a fleet of Plymouth Dusters (and a couple of Plymouth Fury's). I believe they were 1972 through 1974 models with the "slant-six" engine. Nearly all of them ran 200K to 300K miles with amazingly few problems. A couple exceeded 300K miles. Extremely reliable vehicles. The funny thing is that when the time came to replace the Dusters, the procurement officer replaced them with Datsun B-210's, hearing that they were a "better" car. Well, they dumped the B-210's within 1-2 years, long before hitting 100K miles. Got tired of having to rent cars to cover those in the shop and paying the tow bills. So, they went to GM next after the "Datsun Fiasco", buying mostly early '80's Cavaliers and a few late 70's Malibu's. The Chevy's didn't do as well as the Plymouth's, but they did work out much better than the Datsun's did! Of course these were heavily used vehicles. Most were used by the inter-departmental couriers. So they were on the road close to 8-hours every day of their life. Lots of stop and go, ignition cycles, etc. > Message from Steve written on 2/2/2006 1:10 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > a few late 70's Malibu's. The Chevy's didn't do as well as the > Plymouth's, but they did work out much better than the Datsun's did! Now THAT is a believable anecdote. When I started working at the university research lab I've been at for 20 years now, there were still some old mid-70s Fury station wagons in the vehicle fleet. Strangely for fleet vehicles, they had 440 engines and were frighteningly fast especially given the poor maintenance attention provided to things like suspension and tires on older fleet cars. I have no doubt a few of them are still out there somewhere, since they were sold (running) at auction rather than scrapped. Every once in a while, the occasional VERY old vehicle will pop out of the university system somewhere and wind up at the auctions and they've typically been used up until shortly before the auction in some remote research station. Not long ago there was a 60s International pickup and a 62 GMC Suburban predecessor at an auction. >Now THAT is a believable anecdote. When I started working at the >university research lab I've been at for 20 years now, there were still [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >auction in some remote research station. Not long ago there was a 60s >International pickup and a 62 GMC Suburban predecessor at an auction. I work for a small government agency, and the vehicle assigned to our branch just got upgraded from a K-car to a new Chevy. The K-car didn't always want to start in the morning, but it just kept going and going for years after anybody still wanted it to go. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > I work for a small government agency, and the vehicle assigned to our > branch just got upgraded from a K-car to a new Chevy. The K-car didn't > always want to start in the morning, but it just kept going and going > for years after anybody still wanted it to go. > --scott Our current motorpool includes a few circa-1990 Celebrity wagons that fall into the "wish they'd go ahead and die" category. > My direct personal experiences: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > had an 83 Gran Fury that was sold at 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still > hauling loads at 215k, and my wife has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles. How did you manage to keep any car from the '70s (foreign or domestic) from turning into a huge pile of rust? John Mara Message from John Mara written on 2/4/2006 3:01 PM: >> My direct personal experiences: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > John Mara The rust problem was mostly a "snow belt" problem. I sold my '68 VW at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Peugeot at 270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Volvo at 430,000 miles, and my '69 Renault at 160,000 miles- all running great. Dad sold his '63 Checker at about 300,000 miles on the original un-opened engine. My grandmother had a '74 Datsun that was sold running great at 180k, Mom had a '74 Toyota that was sold running fine at 210k. Digging way back, even Mom's 54 Mercedes was humming along at well over 150k, despite an episode of going 15 miles without coolant until the cylinder heads were glowing at ~120k. Going newer, Dad had an 83 Honda that was sold at 205k, has a 92 Nissan that's still hauling loads at 215k, and my wife has a 93 Mitsubishi with 230,000 miles. > How did you manage to keep any car from the '70s (foreign or domestic) > from turning into a huge pile of rust? > > John Mara What's rust? Seriously, I don't live in the Salt Belt. Rust isn't a problem except on a very few poorly rust-proofed American vehicles from the 50s, and many 70s Japanese vehicles (mostly Nissans, and mostly Z-cars for some reason- its very hard to find any rust-free 240 or 260Zs.) >> Untrue. The Civic, if the slushbox gets better mileage than the >> stick, is the exception rather than the rule. The viscous torque [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > plate clutch is pretty neanderthal and its hard to believe > manufcaturers still use the things. The truth is that manual transmissions get better mileage than automatics, in most cases. You can see for yourself on the EPA web site: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2006_GasolineVehicles.pdf The difference is typically small, on the order of 1 mpg, but it is there. There are some exceptions, but they often have a different set of gear ratios in recognition that many people who opt for stick shifts want a sportier drive than those with automatics. That makes direct comparison tough. >> Untrue. The Civic, if the slushbox gets better mileage than the stick, >> is the exception rather than the rule. The viscous torque converter >> causes a loss of efficiency. > >And the slipping of the clutch during a shift does the same on manual >transmissions. Slippage of the clutch is negligible except from a start. Even then, a skilled driver will have far less slippage than with an AT. >Plus modern transmissions keep the TC locked solid most >of the time, except during breakaway and during actual gear changes. Go >read some window stickers- automatics generally beat manuals (where >manuals are still even offered). Frankly, the whole idea of a dry plate >clutch is pretty neanderthal and its hard to believe manufcaturers still >use the things. Well, I am a few years behind with my '98 Odyssey, but I can tell you that I would much prefer it to have a dry plate clutch than the soulless slushbox it came with. > Doesn't matter. The truth is that modern automatics are *generally* more > efficient and result in lower emissions than the average driver with a > stick. The computer can keep everything (mixture, timing, and even > throttle opening) optimized right through the shift because it controls > both the engine and transmission. With a stick, its still slaved to how > well (or poorly) the driver executes every shift. Depends a lot on how one defines "average". I can control shift points, keeping rpms low, which increases throttle opening for better milage. On my wife's van with auto, the transmission shifts way too late (higher rpm) when accelerating. >>I've never, ever heard of a slushbox that got better mileage than an >>equivalent manual gearbox. > > Then I would suggest you look at the EPA figures for the 2006 Civic > 5 speed Manual: 30 city / 38 Highway > 5 speed Automatic: 30 City / 40 Highway Anyone know what the rear axle ratio was on these. Ooops, old habit- read that as "final drive ratio" :-) I suspect they are different. >>> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get >>> around 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque converters, which > help mileage in top gear, but the tranny still slips during acceleration. One reason manual transmissions CAN get better gas milage is that one can decide on shift points. Economy driving requires lower rpm and wider throttle openings. Automatics COULD be set up for more fuel economy, but that is not the way they are currently adjusted. Such adjustments reduce performance to a degree, so settings are a compromise. With manual shift you can change the "settings" any time you want. When gas is high, you can short shift, but you can wind it up any time you need a little more oomph. >>>> Another culprit is the automatic transmission. I would probably get >>>> around 35-40 MPG if my car had a manual. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > you want. When gas is high, you can short shift, but you can wind it up > any time you need a little more oomph. True. But my point is the viscous coupling causes less power going from the flywheel to the wheels, resulting in worse performance and gas mileage. Signaturehttp://www.ronniedobbs.com/ > One reason manual transmissions CAN get better gas milage is that one > can decide on shift points. But the main reason--pretty much the ONLY reason--is that the automatic transmission is a fluid drive, with inherent waste in the fluid transfer mechanism. Manual transmissions are mechanical drives, without the same wastes. But don't the shift points matter, too? >> One reason manual transmissions CAN get better gas milage is that one >> can decide on shift points. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Manual transmissions are mechanical drives, without the same wastes. > Automatics COULD be set up for more fuel > economy, but that is not the way they are currently adjusted. Wrong. See the 2006 Honda Civic, where the automatic gets BETTER mileage than the manual trans model. "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message Regarding horsepower, the mathematics follows: 1 horsepower is equivalent to 0.7457 kilojoules per second gasoline typically delivers 50 kilojoules per gram Now, if a car is REALLY delivering 300 hp, that would mean without loss corrections, that you would be burning about 224 kilojoules per second of fuel, or about 4.5 grams of gasoline every second. In an hour, you would be burning over 16000 grams of fuel to maintain that horsepower, or about 35 pounds of fuel. That is approaching 5 gallons per hour. If you are doing 70 mph over that hour, then you cannot get more than 14 mpg theoretical maximum. We both know that high advertised horsepower cars might get that good or even a little better, so what that tells us is that the engine maintenance systems, transmission, etc, limits the horsepower during this period. We are actually NOT generating 300 hp, at least not all the time. So the bottom line is that horsepower -actual horsepower - costs. It is inevitable. To decrease the fuel consumption, actual horsepower generated has to be decreased...And that can be done with weight control, rolling friction (tires), aerodynamics, tranny and its electronic controls, engine controls, air condition usage, electricity usage, etc. Now, assuming your 100 mpg situation, and again assuming you run 70 mph over the test period, you could not be allowed to average more that 0.7 gallons consumption over that hour. That is very roughly 4.9 pounds of fuel, or 2225 grams. This equates to about 40 well managed horsepower... See the discrepancy? > "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > loss corrections, that you would be burning about 224 kilojoules per > second of fuel, or about 4.5 grams of gasoline every second. But all engines aren't equally efficient. Signaturehttp://www.ronniedobbs.com/ >"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >loss corrections, that you would be burning about 224 kilojoules per >second of fuel, or about 4.5 grams of gasoline every second. Since automobile engines are only about 33% efficient, it would more likely be burning three times this much. >In an hour, you would be burning over 16000 grams of fuel to maintain >that horsepower, or about 35 pounds of fuel. That is approaching 5 >gallons per hour. If you are doing 70 mph over that hour, then you cannot >get more than 14 mpg theoretical maximum. The vehicle would have to be absolutely huge to be going only 70mph at 300hp. Even a fully loaded semi would probably be doing over 100mph at that power setting. >We both know that high advertised horsepower cars might get that good >or even a little better, so what that tells us is that the engine >maintenance >systems, transmission, etc, limits the horsepower during this period. We >are >actually NOT generating 300 hp, at least not all the time. The only time an engine generates its maximum power is at wide open throttle and at the specified rpm. >So the bottom line is that horsepower -actual horsepower - costs. >It is inevitable. To decrease the fuel consumption, actual horsepower [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >air condition >usage, electricity usage, etc. Assuming that we are moving at a constant speed, the power being generated would be the same for a given vehicle regardless of what engine is used (within reason.) >Now, assuming your 100 mpg situation, and again assuming you run 70 mph >over the test period, you could not be allowed to average more that 0.7 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >See the discrepancy? Actually, given the 33% efficiency factor, the engine would only be delivering about 13 hp. Only a very small car could achieve that. To give you an idea how small, consider that a go-cart with a 9.5 hp engine tops out at about 50 mph. With 13 hp it might get up to 65. Your 100mpg car will have to be to be smaller and/or more aerodynamic than that. Theoretically, it doesn't matter how much power the engine can generate, it only matters how much you use. In reality, there is added inefficiency running the engine at low power settings and more powerful engines are likely to burn more fuel at idle when you are getting 0 mpg. For those reasons, a more powerful engine will consume more fuel even if it is not driven any faster that the same car with a less powerful engine. In practice, drivers tend to use the power they have available, so the difference is even greater. > It's not so much the horsepower, but the weight, gearing, and > aerodynamics (or lack therof) that are inherent in truck-based SUV > designs. The LS2 engine (400 HP) from GM gets over 25 MPG in a car. A > buddy of mine has a Dodge Durango with a 318 V8, I think it puts out > about 220 HP, and gets around 15 MPG. In a sense it is still a horsepower problem. The problem with a large horsepower engine, especially in a smaller, lighter car is that ordinarily a small fraction of the horsepower capability of the engine is being used. Light throttle openings are not efficient- in fact, they are very inefficient. If it were not for power enrichening, max efficiency is at wide open throttle. Because of such enrichening, max efficiency in a normal auto engine is at about two-thirds throttle. A larger engine than a vehicle needs results in very much reduced throttle opening with a reduction in efficiency. > In a sense it is still a horsepower problem. The problem with a large > horsepower engine, especially in a smaller, lighter car is that ordinarily [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a vehicle needs results in very much reduced throttle opening with a > reduction in efficiency. Exactly so - that nasty Second Law of Thermodynamics (in the form of the Carnot ratio) again. Mike >> It's not so much the horsepower, but the weight, gearing, and >> aerodynamics (or lack therof) that are inherent in truck-based SUV [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > larger engine than a vehicle needs results in very much reduced throttle > opening with a reduction in efficiency. And an engine with low horsepower has to work much harder during hard acceleration or going up steep hills, greatly reducing its efficiency. As I said, horsepower doesn't have nearly as much to do with it as gearing, aerodynamics (at speed) and the individual driver. >>> It's not so much the horsepower, but the weight, gearing, and >>> aerodynamics (or lack therof) that are inherent in truck-based SUV [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >And an engine with low horsepower has to work much harder during hard >acceleration or going up steep hills, greatly reducing its efficiency. No, it is more efficient when working harder, at least up to ~70% power. Unless it is very underpowered or the hill is very steep, it won't be working that hard. As I >said, horsepower doesn't have nearly as much to do with it as gearing, >aerodynamics (at speed) and the individual driver. > > If fossil fuel is such a big deal, why don't we have cars that get > > 100mpg? > > Because we have dumb turds buying 300+ hp SUV's that cannot get > more than 15-17- ...to drive themselves to work and back, 40 miles away. Or to drive the kids to soccer practice. > That study may have been tainted to show that fossil fuel is more > appropriate than natural fuels. > I'm not speaking of supplying a city's power. > That can be done the old fashioned way with water and turbines. There is a limit to the amount of hydroelectric power available. You can't dam up every river in the country. > Alochol fuel is replenishable and therfor there would be abundance of > fuel for vehicles for as long as there is farm land to produce the raw > products. There is great debate about the value of alcohol fuels. Studies by a professor at Cornell University suggest that it takes more energy to grow the corn (fertilizer, plowing, harvesting, etc.) and distill the alcohol than you get out of the alcohol itself. Therefore, you really don't gain anything that would displace fossil fuels. > If fossil fuel is such a big deal, why don't we have cars that get > 100mpg? > The technology for doing so is here and has been here since the 60's. > The auto manufacturers do not want YOU to have such a vehicle because > that would mean selling less fuel. And just what to the manufacturers care about the amount of fuel burned. They don't own Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. > > That study may have been tainted to show that fossil fuel is more > > appropriate than natural fuels. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There is a limit to the amount of hydroelectric power available. You > can't dam up every river in the country. But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical needs. > > Alochol fuel is replenishable and therfor there would be abundance of > > fuel for vehicles for as long as there is farm land to produce the raw [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > alcohol than you get out of the alcohol itself. Therefore, you really > don't gain anything that would displace fossil fuels. That is true for any kind of fuel. Even fossil fuels, if you add in the total energy that it took to grow the plants what you get out of it is much less. What matters with vehicles is having mobile fuel. Liquid, gas, and chemical storage (ie: electric) is are all mobile and are what you got to work with. Solid fuel (coal, etc.) isn't mobile unless your running a reaction engine which is horribly inefficient, or your on rails. Solar isn't feasible, since you need to drive your car in the dark at night. Since just about all energy on Earth comes from the Sun, it must be converted into either a liquid, a gas, or a chemical storage to be used, that conversion is ALWAYS going to take more solar energy input into the system than energy you get out by burning the fuel. If you can let nature do some of that conversion it helps, of course. Ted >> There is a limit to the amount of hydroelectric power available. You >> can't dam up every river in the country. >> > But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical > needs. Perhaps the current electrical needs. I wonder what will happen as fossil fuels become more expensive and scarcer. I suspect that there will be a shift toward electricity as a replacement for things like home heating and industrial applications. The demand for electricity will climb as a result, likely outstripping the supply that could be generated by wind power alone. However, wind generated power would reduce the need for alternatives such as nuclear, and would be provided where it made economic sense. >> There is great debate about the value of alcohol fuels. Studies by a >> professor at Cornell University suggest that it takes more energy to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the total energy that it took to grow the plants what you get out of > it is much less. Yes, but the energy is already there in fossil fuels. The only current cost is the cost of mining or pumping, production and transportation. The alcohol doesn't exist, nor does the energy contained in it. If the energy cost of making alcohol is greater than the amount of energy obtained, as some contend, then it is not a replacement for fossil fuels. I'm not talking about the solar energy to grow the plants, but the energy needed to run the farms, make the tractors, and build and operate the processing plants. The energy for those things alone, exclusive of the solar energy, is greater than the energy you get from the alcohol. In short, you still need about the same amount of fossil fuel to make the alcohol as you would by using the fossil fuels directly in transportation vehicles. > What matters with vehicles is having mobile fuel. Liquid, gas, and > chemical storage (ie: electric) is are all mobile and are what you got > to work with. Solid fuel (coal, etc.) isn't mobile unless your > running a reaction engine which is horribly inefficient, or your on > rails. Solar isn't feasible, since you need to drive your car in the > dark at night. Converting coal into liquid fuels is certainly an alternative. Whether or not it is done on a large scale will depend on the economics. > But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical > needs. Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable of all forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility electricity as we know it is entirely on-demand; we don't have to schedule when we turn lights on and off. In contrast, public grids are a remarkably delicate real-time balance of generation, loss and load. Some "peaking" generation must always be held in reserve to maintain the balance, while "base" generation like coal, nuclear and hydro provide the cheaper electricity to meet the expected minimum demand. As used today, solar and wind do not fit into this at all. If base generation is like public transportation and peaking generation is like private cars, intermittent generation is like hitchhiking. Maybe it will get you where you are going, but you can't count on it. Worse, factors that affect one wind or solar site will likely affect all the neighboring sites in the same way at about the same time. (The following is specific to US regulations, where present-day FERC rules demand energy producers and energy suppliers - the people who send you the bill - must be entirely separate.) Wind farm operators in the US usually sell only a small fraction of their expected capacity because a broken promise in electricity delivery means huge penalties. The energy must be replaced by energy suppliers and the shortfall must be replaced from the expensive "spot market." By careful estimation of just how much they can produce some wind farm operators are able to make a profit. Others are not. In the end, intermittent generation has to be excluded from calculations of capacity margin. That means that the same amount of peaking capacity has to be present. Wind or solar may reduce the consumption of natural gas, the fuel of choice for peaking plants. What it can't do is reduce the ultimate cost of electricity, since the peaking plants have pretty much fixed overhead and the costs are simply shifted to whatever power is ultimately sold... and as long as we aren't scheduling our electricity usage, we need peaking power. The effect is to increase the overall cost of electricity, since the energy consumers - you and I - must pay for the construction and maintenance of the intermittent generation sites in addition to the base and peaking plants. All this makes no more sense in an intuitive way than it does you, and I've worked at an electric utility for two decades. When I started we had our own generation and could at least coordinate intermittent generation into the mix. Now leaking information between production and delivery that might accomplish that means federal prison even for schlubs like me. My #2 son has it right: "There are two types of 'sense.' There's 'common sense' and there's 'business sense.'" Mike > Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable of all > forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility electricity as we [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that affect one wind or solar site will likely affect all the neighboring > sites in the same way at about the same time. Your entire argument would be correct if there was no way to store electricity. That is what makes Ethanol so attractive--you use this otherwise wasted intermittent and off-peak power to produce Ethanol, then use the Ethanol when needed. It isn't that Ethanol is cheaper or more efficient than gasoline, but rather, it allows us to make use of cheaper night time and seasonal hydro power that might otherwise go unused. There are other ways of storing electric power. For example, at the Coolie Dam in Washington, they use unsubscribed power to pump water from the dam up into a former river channel that is at a higher elevation. When they need extra power, they use the force of water falling from this lake to run generators. Plans for similar such electric storage operations have been planned along the Mississippi River. -john- Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== >> Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable >> of all forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > -john- Here in Hurricane country,we often pump DOWN lakes and reservoirs to have capacity for incoming storms.Other areas have water shortages year round. And there's no way to convert electricity into ethanol. Maybe hydrogen,but not ethanol or other hydrocarbon fuels. And for hydrogen conversion,the efficiencies are terrible. You want reliable electric power,nuclear is the way to go. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Your entire argument would be correct if there was no way to store > electricity. That is what makes Ethanol so attractive--you use this [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -john- Definitely true. Water storage is a proven and attractive way to use intermittent generation to provide power on demand, competitive with current peaking sources. The problem is that the intermittent power producers haven't seen fit to do that in the US AFAIK. Mike Water storage for intermittent power genertion. In Virginia, nuclear porwer is used to pump water into Lake Anna. This level loads the nuclear plant. Nuclear and coal plants are easier to operate when the load doesn't change very much. When the demand peaks, water is released and the pumps act as generators. Hydro adapts more easily to load changes. Just modulate the water valve. Almost instantaneous when compared to a steam cycle. the voltage sag is less on hydro than any other generation. Recovery time is also shorter. In California, the dams all produce peaking power. Most California dams have a forebay in addition to the main reservoir. Nuclear power is run level load and the dams provide peaking power. The forebay, or sometimes after bay is used to level out water flow for ecology. On cool days, or at night the nuclear plants still run at the same output, but the load that was shed by the cities is diverted to pumping water. Operation of the California Aqueduct requires manipulation of water release to produce electrical generation as well as water release. Eventually, the electricity is used to pump the water over the Tehachapi mountains. New York City is promoting load management by users to avoid building new generating plants. What does this have to do with hybrid cars? > Water storage for intermittent power genertion. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > cool days, or at night the nuclear plants still run at the same output, > but the load that was shed by the cities is diverted to pumping water. Environmentalists are against dams;they harm fisheries. Dams BAD,BAD,BAD ;-) <humor attempt> > Operation of the California Aqueduct requires manipulation of water > release to produce electrical generation as well as water release. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What does this have to do with hybrid cars? Hybrids run on fossil fuels,and we're trying to reduce usage of fossil fuels,for enviro and political reasons.Electric power is the alternative. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Bagasse: This discussion seems to be going more into energy sources. This is sorta off topic from hybrids. Sugar refiners burn the sugar cane after extracting the sugar. Heat from the burning cane fiber is used to evaporate water from the sugary juice and to generate electricity. Barbados has run into stiff competition in producing sugar. Agriculturists (Jaques Albart-Thenet) there are reverting to earlier varieties of sugar cane which produce more fiber and less sugar. Varieties which also grow off season. The sugar can be used to produce ethanol. The big thing is the energy from the fiber. Tourism is a huge economic engine on Barbados. The cane fields hold the soil together and give the islands that lush tropical look. Presently about 25% of Barbados is planted in cane. Under the plan, this will fall to 18%. The target is to replace 20% of the oil used to generate electricity. The target price is $0.08 per kilowatt-hour. >> Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable of all >> forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility electricity as we [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >use of cheaper night time and seasonal hydro power that might >otherwise go unused. Sadly, economical energy storage causes the intermittents to make even less economical sense, as it causes a race to the bottom in the electricity market. Anything that can economically store energy from renewable sources can store energy from base load plants. If there is enough of this storage available, all electricity is sold at the base load rate, so the only way to lots of money is through economies of scale. All other plants are shut down. Base load operators will love this because they sell more power. Consumers will love this because electricity is cheaper. The utilities will love this as it takes the bite out of the spot market. The only losers are generators that cannot turn a profit at the peak load rate. The environmentalists will also have fits because the only economical methods of generation are coal, nuclear, and (where geography permits) hydro. > Sadly, economical energy storage causes the intermittents to make even less > economical sense, as it causes a race to the bottom in the electricity market. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have fits because the only economical methods of generation are coal, nuclear, > and (where geography permits) hydro. agree. It's the base load that drives train ... but it's the peak load that drives required capacity because unless or until utilities are permitted to not deliver full adequate loads at peak - then they take the economic hit to add capacity ... which is in one way or other.. eventually passed on to consumers .. i.e. no business can be competitive much less operate on a sustainable basis if it takes in less than it costs to produce. but I saw a presentation the other night from Dominion Power and they showed a chart that indicated for the last 4 years almost the entire added capacity is... provided by natural gas and guess what is happening to the price of NG? in a word - up... ergo higher prices for consumers. ... but we all know what happens when something becomes more expensive... it has a tendancy to moderate demand.... .. NEW coal-fired plants have much stricter emission limits - so that power is also going to be more expensive and the guy from Virginia power said that there is already a gap window too wide for new nukes and even new coal-fired... >> But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical >> needs. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >expensive "spot market." By careful estimation of just how much they can >produce some wind farm operators are able to make a profit. Others are not. Of course, that expensive spot market can be supplied by unsold wind power. Admittedly, the somewhat unpredictable nature of wind power is a limitation, but the system already has to deal with uncertainty. How can you buy power for next July if you don't know whether it will be record breaking hot or record breaking cold? Yet the only time we have ever seen it (the power brokering system) fail was when the crooks at Enron were doing Grandma Millie. If the system survived that, it shouldn't have any problem figuring out how to deal with a 20% mix of wind power (if that is even achievable.) If the deregulated private market can't figure it out, there are alternatives. >In the end, intermittent generation has to be excluded from calculations of >capacity margin. That means that the same amount of peaking capacity has to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >it right: "There are two types of 'sense.' There's 'common sense' and >there's 'business sense.'" The problem with business sense is that it only makes sense when you consider that profit/personal greed is the only success criteria. That is why the rules of the game have to be set and enforced so carefully. The Enron California debacle pointed out what happens when the rules (or lack thereof) fail. The California players all knew that Enron was cheating, but they had no choice but to keep playing the game with a man who had a hundred aces up his sleeve. If someone had just pulled out a gun and shot Ken Lay after the first cheat, California would be a few billion dollars richer now. Sometimes, the only way to set up a game that is fair and efficient is to let the government play a bigger role. > Of course, that expensive spot market can be supplied by unsold wind > power. Unfortunately, not to any great extent. The problem is that contracts for peaking are usually made the previous day, on an hourly basis. The market is competitive to the point of being cutthroat, and the closer the time gets to the delivery time the higher the prices are; cheap power has already been bought. That is the problem with intermittent generation - how much can you produce between 1400 and 1500 hours tomorrow? How much can you produce in the coming hour, with much higher penalties if you can't? Allow too much for the vagaries of nature and there is no point being in business. Allow too little and the penalties will cost far more than you could ever make. Don't agree to the penalties and nobody will buy at any price. The proposed FERC rules are intended to reduce the effect of impending delivery, so intermittent generators can compete with the peakers as close as an hour to delivery time. That will necessarily drive the spot market through the roof as peaking producers try to make a living, but that's the tradeoff. In exchange, intermittent producers would have to become good citizens on the grid, doing their part to correct voltage sags and high VARs (bad phase angles.) Personally, I don't understand why the intermittent producers don't invest in water storage. The high up-front cost can be recovered at a more predictable rate than the cost of the generation equipment can. Mike >> Of course, that expensive spot market can be supplied by unsold wind >> power. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >in water storage. The high up-front cost can be recovered at a more >predictable rate than the cost of the generation equipment can. Probably no suitable place to get or put the water. Pumped Storage also has environmental drawbacks. It takes up land and may also have other side effects. In another thread, a North Dakota university is experimenting with using wind energy to produce hydrogen. There also may be other good uses of unreliable source energy where that energy is available most of the time. >Mike > But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical > needs. Has anyone attempted to determine the results of windmill farms? Science tells us that to create energy from the wind, we take that power out of the wind. If we intercept this force enough, what changes are we imposing on nature? Not saying we *shouldn't*, but we've already gone way down the destructive road with other sources, maybe we need to do some research before figuring that wind-generated power is "free".... >> But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical >> needs. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >destructive road with other sources, maybe we need to do some research >before figuring that wind-generated power is "free".... This is ridiculous. The useable part of the atmosphere goes up to about 36,000 feet. How tall is a wind generator again? Are you changing the earth's climate by putting a few *wind farms* down on the ground here and there? I don't think so. Your fear is groundless ( that is a pun ). It is like saying you're going to change the ocean currents if you put the Queen Elizabeth or some other Ocean Liner to Sea. Yah, a little bit. But not enough to detect. Lg >> But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical >> needs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > power out of the wind. If we intercept this force enough, what changes > are we imposing on nature? Wind is merely one of nature's way of equalizing the variations in solar thermal input across land and sea.(Hurricanes are another!) I seriously doubt we humans could interfere enough with winds to cause climatic changes. > Not saying we *shouldn't*, but we've already gone way down the > destructive road with other sources, maybe we need to do some research > before figuring that wind-generated power is "free".... The environmentals are now against windfarms;they kill too many birds. Sen.Ted Kennedy (an environmentalist-supporter)is against them now,seeing as they want to put one off-shore from his Hyannisport compound.(FAR,far off-shore!) B-) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable of all > forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility electricity as we [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that affect one wind or solar site will likely affect all the neighboring > sites in the same way at about the same time. But there ARE ways to store electricity or even to store the energy in some other form and reconvert it to electricity later. One simple scheme is to use turbines to pump water up a hill to a reservoir, let it flow down through the turbines to generate electricity when you need it. You can hydrolize water with it, burn the hydrogen when you need it. You can compress gases with it. Lots of ways to store the energy. >> Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable >> of all forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > it flow down through the turbines to generate electricity when you > need it. IF you have the water(or can spare it),and if you have a reservoir.(or a place to build one) Also water evaporates,or freezes(bummer,that one). > You can hydrolize water with it, burn the hydrogen when you need it. > > You can compress gases with it. > > Lots of ways to store the energy. Lots of very inefficient ways. Then there's nuclear;clean,efficient,safe,and ready when you are. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > > That study may have been tainted to show that fossil fuel is more > > > appropriate than natural fuels. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical > needs. NEVER going to happen. Ask the folks in Mass what happened when they wanted to install windpower out in the bay. Teddy Kennedy and his friends stood up and shouted NO. Same thing happens all over the country. Falls into the NIMBA category. I live less than 25 miles from a wind farm now and there are folks who bitch about it every day. The best ones are folks who are moving into the area and start complaining about it. There is also a planned farm just about 2 miles away that I am in support of, BUT again there are a bunch who are totally against it. Some of those don't even live in the area or own land here. BUT they get a LOT of press. Much better long term is MODERN design nuke power. Yes I said NUKE. No emissions and very safe and stable regardless of the HYPE the anti nuke folks cry. Oh and before folks bring them up - Chernobyl CANNOT happen with modern designs, and only happened there because of the poor design of the plant and even after all is said and done there were still fewer deaths than on 9/11. And Three Mile island? NO deaths, NO radiation leak, and in reality no real danger. > > > Alochol fuel is replenishable and therfor there would be abundance of > > > fuel for vehicles for as long as there is farm land to produce the raw [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Ted > Much better long term is MODERN design nuke power. Yes I said NUKE. No > emissions and very safe and stable regardless of the HYPE the anti nuke [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > deaths than on 9/11. And Three Mile island? NO deaths, NO radiation > leak, and in reality no real danger. Think how smart the average person is. Now consider that 50.0% of the population isn't even that smart. Those are the people who will be running your nuclear reactors. No, thanks. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >> Much better long term is MODERN design nuke power. Yes I said NUKE. No >> emissions and very safe and stable regardless of the HYPE the anti nuke [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No, thanks. You seem to be confusing "average" with "median." You also assume that a person with average or median intelligence will be running nuclear reactors. I am not a nuclear scientist, but my guess is that that due to job requirements, nuclear reactor operators will have above average and median intelligence. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > Think how smart the average person is. > > Now consider that 50.0% of the population isn't even that smart. > > Those are the people who will be running your nuclear reactors. Yeah, I've watched the Simpsons too. But in the real world, why managers who are responsible for billions of dollars worth of tightly regulated equipment would hire stupid people escapes me. Mike > "clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote... >> Those are the people who will be running your nuclear reactors. > > Yeah, I've watched the Simpsons too. But in the real world, why managers who > are responsible for billions of dollars worth of tightly regulated equipment > would hire stupid people escapes me. All they can test candidates for is education level, not the ability to think. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. > NEVER going to happen. Ask the folks in Mass what happened when they > wanted to install windpower out in the bay. Teddy Kennedy and his [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > deaths than on 9/11. And Three Mile island? NO deaths, NO radiation > leak, and in reality no real danger. Drive through northern Iowa or southwestern Minnesota. Farm land is being used for very large wind turbine farms, and the land can continue to be farmed. We are generating large amounts of wind power out here. Now, I don't have any quarrel with nuclear power- I think it is a good answer, but there ARE regions of the country where people are okay with wind power. In those regions that are not, when they find themselves paying far more for energy than regions that use wind power, their attitudes may change. >> NEVER going to happen. Ask the folks in Mass what happened when they >> wanted to install windpower out in the bay. Teddy Kennedy and his [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > paying far more for energy than regions that use wind power, their > attitudes may change. Environmentalists are now against windpower;it kills birds. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > There is great debate about the value of alcohol fuels. Studies by a > professor at Cornell University suggest that it takes more energy to > grow the corn (fertilizer, plowing, harvesting, etc.) and distill the > alcohol than you get out of the alcohol itself. Therefore, you really > don't gain anything that would displace fossil fuels. If the tractor burned alcohol or bio diesel and the fields were fertilized with manure and the distillation plant also burned bio fuel we might be getting somewhere. This would mean putting even more land into fuel production to get the fuel to make fuel. John Mara >> There is great debate about the value of alcohol fuels. Studies by a >> professor at Cornell University suggest that it takes more energy to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > we might be getting somewhere. This would mean putting even more land > into fuel production to get the fuel to make fuel. The tractor burning alcohol doesn't reduce the energy demand in making the fuel, since the alcohol has to come from the production process in the first place. It does not increase the supply of fuel. Alcohol is simply a transporter of energy, not a new energy source. > The tractor burning alcohol doesn't reduce the energy demand in making the > fuel, since the alcohol has to come from the production process in the > first place. It does not increase the supply of fuel. Alcohol is simply a > transporter of energy, not a new energy source. Alcohol is a new energy source. The plants that are grown convert solar energy into carbohydrates by photosynthesis. The problem is that conventional farming uses fertilizers made from natural gas and that farm machinery uses oil and that the distillery uses coal or oil or natural gas. Ideally you want to grow plants that don't need much in the way of fertilizer or cultivation and are easily converted into alcohol or oil. Serious production of alcohol or bio diesel would involve developing new crops for this purpose. The crops grown today were developed to produce food. John Mara >> The tractor burning alcohol doesn't reduce the energy demand in >> making the fuel, since the alcohol has to come from the production [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in the way of fertilizer or cultivation and are easily converted into > alcohol or oil. It will only be a new energy source when those things happen, and even then, if it becomes a source, it will contribute only a small portion of the nation's needs. Even today, all of the alcohol produced from land that can be turned over to energy production will only provide 2 percent of so of the national need, and that is ignoring the energy used for production. > It's high time to kiss fossil fuel burners goodbye all together. > Not to be dumping the vehicles in favor of so called hybrids, but [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It's time to fight back and make OPEC suffer awhile. > Go wtih alcohol! We have to make sure we don't solve on serious problem by worsening another. I am concerned that biofuels, ESPECIALLY alcohol, is far worse for global warming than gasoline. There has to be a better solution. I am all for alternate fuels, but we need to look at the greenhouse emissions of using, and more importantly, producing them. > We have to make sure we don't solve on serious problem by worsening > another. I am concerned that biofuels, ESPECIALLY alcohol, is far worse > for global warming than gasoline. There has to be a better solution. I > am all for alternate fuels, but we need to look at the greenhouse > emissions of using, and more importantly, producing them. The carbon dioxide released by burning alcohol came from the air by way of photosynthesis and is being released back into the air where it will again be converted into carbohydrates by photosynthesis. The problem with fossil fuel is that the carbon dioxide released was taken from the air by photosynthesis millions of years ago and is now being released. John Mara >> We have to make sure we don't solve on serious problem by worsening >> another. I am concerned that biofuels, ESPECIALLY alcohol, is far [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > John Mara But it isn't just the burning of alcohol that generates CO2. The fermentation of grain alcohol liberates lots of it too. I can see where the burning and photosynthesis could balance out. But what about the emissions from the fermentation. > We have to make sure we don't solve on serious problem by worsening > another. I am concerned that biofuels, ESPECIALLY alcohol, is far worse > for global warming than gasoline. There has to be a better solution. I am > all for alternate fuels, but we need to look at the greenhouse emissions > of using, and more importantly, producing them. You touch on an important and volatile point - although the atmospheric CO2 levels are up 37% over medieval levels and about half of that has occurred since the '50s, C14 dilution from the Industrial Effect is holding around 2-3%. The inescapable conclusion is that 90% of the additional carbon is from surface sources, not from fossil fuels. If every molecule of fossil carbon we've released into the atmosphere since 1897 (the base year for the Industrial Effect) were removed, our atmospheric CO2 levels would still be higher than they were when the Kyoto Protocol was drafted. My own guess is that feedlot ranching is responsible for much of the sharp increase, but I am finding historical records of meat production to be too thin to support that guess. Mike Do the math. Initial Cost/Financing/Insurance/Maintenance vs. fuel efficiency. I'll betcha that the hybrid presents little advantage when looking at the big picture... JT > With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of > car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would > like to hear some opinion and discussion. > Do the math. > > Initial Cost/Financing/Insurance/Maintenance vs. fuel efficiency. > > I'll betcha that the hybrid presents little advantage when looking at > the big picture... I also doubt the long term cost advantage. Same son just bought a bicycle. Now THAT is cost efficient, if he uses it. > > Do the math. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I also doubt the long term cost advantage. Same son just bought a bicycle. > Now THAT is cost efficient, if he uses it. Heh... You might hafta provide a little incentive. Just follow the guv'ment's lead! <G> JT >Do the math. > >Initial Cost/Financing/Insurance/Maintenance vs. fuel efficiency. > >I'll betcha that the hybrid presents little advantage when looking at >the big picture... Factor in resale value and depreciation. Of course, a lot of that is guesswork - a good example is what SUV owners thought their vehicles would be worth but didn't anticipate $3 gas. The current crop of hybrids are overpriced when compared to gasoline or diesel alternatives. The Toyota hybrid is much more expensive than a Corolla and the Corolla has far more room for people and luggage. Hybrids have the potential to be even more expensive as sophisticated charging, power and switching circuits go bad and battery packs have to be replaced. I see the hybrid as little more than a fad. > With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of > car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would > like to hear some opinion and discussion. > The Toyota hybrid is much more expensive than a > Corolla and the Corolla has far more room for people and luggage. Having ridden in my folks' '04 Corolla and my uncle's '05 Prius, I have to disagree. The Prius has a bit more interior room than the Corolla, and a quite a bit more cargo capacity since it is a hatchback. You must be thinking of the old Prius which was smaller than the current one. > > The Toyota hybrid is much more expensive than a > > Corolla and the Corolla has far more room for people and luggage. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > quite a bit more cargo capacity since it is a hatchback. You must be > thinking of the old Prius which was smaller than the current one. No, the current one. >> > The Toyota hybrid is much more expensive than a >> > Corolla and the Corolla has far more room for people and luggage. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, the current one. Not according to the measurements; http://tinyurl.com/axydj The 2005 Corolla has 0.2 inch more headroom, 0.5 inch more rear shoulder room and 0.9 inch more front hip room. The 2005 Prius has 0.6 inch more front legroom, 3.2 inches more rear legroom, 2.2 inches more front shoulder room, and 5.4 inches more rear hip room. Altogether the Prius has nearly 6 cubic feet more passenger space. The pre-2004 Prius was nearly identical in measurements to the Corolla. Mike > >> > The Toyota hybrid is much more expensive than a > >> > Corolla and the Corolla has far more room for people and luggage. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Mike Yes, the car did change - I stand corrected. > With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of > car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would > like to hear some opinion and discussion. Another reason people buy the hybrids is so they can drive solo in the HOV lanes. The same people that fight paying a toll a trip at a time, will pay a premium in one lump so they can use the HOV lanes. They must not like EZ-Pass or carrying pocket change? [:-0] Look at the concentration of hybrids and look for a nearby HOV lane. >> With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of >> car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >Look at the concentration of hybrids and look for a nearby HOV lane. Look at how many highly promoted hybrids there are, and their real world (not EPa) economy figures. Then look at small european diesels and their real world MPg figures. see what the difference is. > Look at how many highly promoted hybrids there are, and their real > world (not EPa) economy figures. Then look at small european diesels > and their real world MPg figures. see what the difference is. The difference is that diesels with conventional power trains still don't do well in town, most especially for the short trips that most people make. Our 2002 Prius gets real-world mid-40s mpg in town, even with short trips and cold weather. I am disappointed if it drops below 50 mpg in mild weather - what diesel compares to that? The extreme Lupo with the tiny engine and the manual tranny? The Prius is quiet and powerful, a joy to drive in town. Our 7000 foot elevation doesn't slow it down a whit, and it has the exact same throttle response cold as when warmed up. The "ECVT" (actually a fixed gear system) is perfectly smooth and has almost nothing to fail. Turbo diesels are wondrous things on the highway, but until the turbo gets its mojo working any bicycle can beat them. A turbo diesel providing the motive power in a hybrid power train would be a huge improvement. Mike >> Look at how many highly promoted hybrids there are, and their real >> world (not EPa) economy figures. Then look at small european diesels [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Mike ...as long as you purchased the Prius for it's green advantages and not the mpg you perceive you're saving, I agree. If you purchased the car to save money on gas, you'll need to own the car for 7 years before you realize any savings back. > ...as long as you purchased the Prius for it's green advantages and > not the mpg you perceive you're saving, I agree. If you purchased the > car to save money on gas, you'll need to own the car for 7 years > before you realize any savings back. We purchased it for both fuel savings and the driving experience; it is the second most fun car to drive I've ever had (I still miss my Lotus, though). We traded in my old '84 Nissan 300ZX for it, so we went from 18-20 mpg to 45-50 mpg. That amounts to 1000 gallons of gasoline over the last 50K miles instead of 2500, so at an average of $2 per gallon we are $3000 US better off so far, to the tune of $1000 per year at current gas prices. The Nissan was crumbling at 150K miles, mostly electrical system intermittents, and was abominable in snow. The Prius has ABS and the hybrid system protects itself with a wheel slip limiter that behaves like a primitive traction control in snow - press the accelerator and drive. No car made ever pays for itself - they all depreciate, use fuel and require maintenance and repair. What's the payback period for a turbo, or a premium sound system? How long does it take for a Lexus to pay for itself compared to a Toyota, or a Toyota compared to a Kia? The Prius just bleeds us less than most while delivering solid reliability, and since we typically hold on to cars for 15 years or more (my Volvo is 21 this year) it should be a good choice. Mike > The Prius just bleeds us less > than most while delivering solid reliability, and since we typically hold on > to cars for 15 years or more (my Volvo is 21 this year) it should be a good > choice. There are two potential trouble areas that could be problematic down the road: battery replacement cost (if you have to buy a pack out of warranty) and the extremely complex electrical system to control all the components. I once owned a house with an advanced heat pump that didn't use outside air for exchange, but rather ground water in a big loop of plastic pipe buried in the side yard. We did have lower electrical bills, but the annual repair costs on the heat pump and the big bill for replacing all the underground pipe when it sprang a leak more than negated our savings. >> The Prius just bleeds us less >> than most while delivering solid reliability, and since we typically hold [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the underground pipe when it sprang a leak more than negated our > savings. Inasmuch as the hybrid system is warranted for 100K miles or 8 years (150K and 10 years in California and a few other states) I am not worried. One of the techies in the Yahoo Prius Technical forum bought a battery pack from a wreck for $500 US, barely twice the core value. There is a supply of batteries from totalled Prius cars and no demand. If you drive a car newer than 1980, you have a lot of sophisticated and critical electronics in it, too. ECU, transmission controller, ABS controller, probably power window and power lock controllers (depending on make/model/year). Any of those is as vulnerable as the hybrid system computers in the Prius and many are about as expensive... and are about as available on the used market and as reliable. Electronics in a car are nothing to be scared of these days - the moving parts are still the big problems, and the Prius as fewer of those than probably any conventional car on the market. Buying any car is a risk. Head gaskets in some 2.5L DOHC Subaru engines, throttle position controllers in some years of Volvo (not to mention the transmissions and evaporators in '93 and '94 Volvo 850s), automatic transmissions in some years of Honda/Acura V6s - all of these are real and present frustrations experienced by buyers of conventional cars. The least of those will set the owner back $1000. Some (like the trannies) are three times that much and some unlucky owners have to drink from that well several times. It is interesting to google 'honda transmission fail' and 'prius battery fail' - the first produces nearly half a million hits, mainly dealing with why the transmissions are failing and what to do about them. The second produces nearly 100K hits, mainly wondering if the battery will fail and when that would be. Notice one post that claims to document a hybrid battery failure - if you follow the link http://tinyurl.com/ahc2x it's clear it is bogus. He claims the battery put out sulfur dioxide, while there is no sulfur in the NiMH hybrid battery. I suspect the 12 volt lead-acid aux battery failed instead, unless the post is just a hoax. I canna change the laws of chemistry. In the end, we are not born to live in fear. We pay our money and take our chances. The experiences of people who have a lot more miles (183K miles for the Yahoo Prius forum owner, last I heard) and a few more years on their Prius than I have on mine are very encouraging indeed. Mike > >> The Prius just bleeds us less > >> than most while delivering solid reliability, and since we typically hold [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > wreck for $500 US, barely twice the core value. There is a supply of > batteries from totalled Prius cars and no demand. But that is only now since most Priuses are still under the battery warranty. And those battery packs have a very short shelf life if they are not kept charged up, like any battery. 2 years after the wreck unless the wrecker has been keeping the battery on a trickle charger, it's going to be shot just by sitting there doing nothing, due to natural self-discharge. 10 years from now I think the used battery situation will be quite different. And there is another thing you and all the Prius owners should worry about. Toyota does not seem at all interested in addressing the points that the Prius critics keep bringing up about service and repair of the Prius post-warranty expiration. It is constantly pointed out how expensive a new replacement traction battery is. Toyota's response seems to be that the traction battery never fails so why worry. Toyota should be instead adressing these concerns and working with the aftermarket to bring out alternatives that are cheaper, as well as every year reducing the battery cost, as increasing volume production and economies of scale reduce the cost of those batteries to Toyota. It is also pointed out that the car is more expensive to repair since you can't take it to any other place than special Toyota dealerships that have special hybrid techs available. Toyota seems to be responding that the car never breaks down and so never needs repair. Instead they should be offering very low cost training to any independent mechanic that is interested in working on these cars in his own shop. It is like Toyota's whole attitude about the Prius is that there's this big long warranty on it and the day after the car passes the end of the warranty period, it should be scrapped. I'm surprised that all you Prius owners aren't hammeing Toyota about reducing the list cost on the traction battery. > It is interesting to google 'honda transmission fail' and 'prius battery > fail' - the first produces nearly half a million hits, mainly dealing with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > battery failed instead, unless the post is just a hoax. I canna change the > laws of chemistry. There is a reason for this. The Prius hasn't been out that long. And sophisticated computerized chargers that continually probe battery condition and set the charging optimally will add years to the life of any battery. But batteries are all time-dependent, they will fail You might get 10 years out of them, 15 tops., but that's it. And it has nothing to do with mileage. Ted >> Inasmuch as the hybrid system is warranted for 100K miles or 8 years >> (150K [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > very low cost training to any independent mechanic that is interested > in working on these cars in his own shop. These really aren't rocket science. I am doing my own maintenance, and it is different from conventional cars but not hard to learn. I bought the Toyota manuals and a $200 aftermarket scanner to allow me to interface with the hybrid and battery "ECUs", but I understand the current model uses CAN. If Toyota's hybrids don't make it farther into the mainstream, if Toyota backs out of their commitment to convert the bulk of their fleet to their hybrid system, it may be a problem. Otherwise we will see independents attracted to the market. The advent of EFI in everyday vehicles in the 80s was a bigger challenge, as computers (gasp!) appeared in cars. Today's garages cope with ECUs or fail. tomorrow's will cope with hybrids or fail. > It is like Toyota's whole attitude about the Prius is that there's this > big long warranty on it and the day after the car passes the end > of the warranty period, it should be scrapped. I'm surprised > that all you Prius owners aren't hammeing Toyota about reducing > the list cost on the traction battery. That is the error I hear the most. What makes you think that is the case? It defies the nature of failure patterns because it supposes there is a timer that will cause the battery to fail the very year the warranty expires. Will your car be scrap when the standard warranty expires? Or will your refrigerator only last one year? The reason those things don't happen is that manufacturers know better than to push the envelope on warranty periods; that is the sure way to loss where there should be profit. >> It is interesting to google 'honda transmission fail' and 'prius battery >> fail' - the first produces nearly half a million hits, mainly dealing [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Ted You are still thinking of car batteries. Industrial batteries have been getting 20 year life expectancies for ages: http://www.batterypowersystems.com/products/absolyteIIP.htm says (in part) "Absolyte IIP VRLA batteries range from 105 to 4800AH and have a twenty (20) year life expectancy." Batteries are not all that sensitive to time, but mostly to operating conditions. Put 5% too much voltage on one of those puppies and it will last less than a week, as I too well know :-( Treat it right and it will be at rated capacity when I retire. Toyota only puts their money where their mouth is for 10 years, but a lot of cars don't last that long, either. Every car dies of something. My first new car was a 1970 Mercury Capri that went to salvage at the tender age of 8 years when it needed yet another u-joint... they were integral with the driveshaft, which was then as expensive as the market value of the car. My second new car was a 1984 Dodge that made it to 6 years or so before it needed a timing chain change. Step one: remove engine so the cover could be removed. More than the car was worth. My last Volvo wasn't worth a new carburetor at 25 years. Anyway, I have every expectation that most Prius will end their days with the original battery somewhere around the 15 year mark, which is what Toyota estimates the battery life is. I can't understand the fixation on the battery. If Toyota is confident enough to pick up the bill for the first eight or ten years, what is the likelihood there will be a drastic change in the curve at 11 or 12 or 13 years? What is the chance this major automaker with a reputation for reliability has gone nuts and made a car that will bite them hard on standard warranty on a major item? I think the odds are in my favor. If you want to hold off, I understand. Mike > If you drive a car newer than 1980, you have a lot of sophisticated and > critical electronics in it, too. ECU, transmission controller, ABS > controller, probably power window and power lock controllers (depending on > make/model/year). Any of those is as vulnerable as the hybrid system > computers in the Prius and many are about as expensive... Don't care aboqut the power windows and power locks failing on me on the highway. On the other hand, the computer is MUCH more integral to the simple starting and driving away of the parallel hybrid (Toyota system) than I like. >> If you drive a car newer than 1980, you have a lot of sophisticated and >> critical electronics in it, too. ECU, transmission controller, ABS [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > starting and driving away of the parallel hybrid (Toyota system) than I > like. Have you had a lot of trouble with your ECU or transmission controller failing you on the road? The controllers in the Toyota hybrid system are very much like those devices: crucial, low power and very reliable. You may be hearing of ECU replacements in the pre-2004 Prius cars; those are replaced because the software could not be updated otherwise and was too touchy about the speed with which the combustion engine fired up. As the engine aged it would sometimes get too slow about firing and would set the hybrid warning. The present model just takes flash upgrades. Worry more about power handling devices. There have been a smattering of inverter failures, which have the same effect as the igniter failing in Hondas - call a tow truck. It isn't nearly as common as igniter failures, but will be more expensive when out of warranty... probably $300 or more on the used market. Let's not get started on main relays! What I am trying to say is that the reliability and longevity issues are somewhat different from those in conventional vehicles but are no more worrisome. The car you are driving today, if it was made since 1996, is every bit as complex and high tech as hybrids are. As a practical matter, this Prius has been so far the most reliable car I've had in my 35 years of driving... by a large margin. Mike > If you drive a car newer than 1980, you have a lot of sophisticated and > critical electronics in it, too. ECU, transmission controller, ABS [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nothing to be scared of these days - the moving parts are still the big > problems, The last two cars I got rid of were dumped because they had persistent electrical system problems; mechanically they were still perfect. The moving parts in the engine will outlive anything else in the car. The only weak point in terms of moving parts is the automatic transmission, in my experience. Waiving the right to remain silent, "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> said: > No car made ever pays for itself - they all depreciate,... That depends on the car. In 1976 I bought a new Corvette at the LA dealer auction. Nine years later, I sold it for $800 less than the purchase price. Had I maintained it better, I would have gotten more than I paid. SignatureLarry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "I've come here to enjoy nature. Don't talk to me about the environment!" - 'Denny Crane' >> ...as long as you purchased the Prius for it's green advantages and >> not the mpg you perceive you're saving, I agree. If you purchased [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is the second most fun car to drive I've ever had (I still miss my > Lotus, though). What's the -fun- part of driving it? Knowing you're being frugal with gas? Or that it replaced a 20+ yr old car? SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> We purchased it for both fuel savings and the driving experience; it >> is the second most fun car to drive I've ever had (I still miss my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Knowing you're being frugal with gas? > Or that it replaced a 20+ yr old car? The 2001-2003 Prius is remarkably nimble and manueverable, the features I prized in the Lotus and sorely missed in the Nissan 300ZX. Dunno about the current version. I despise automatic transmissions, so I had reservations about the "ECVT" of the Toyota Hybrid System. Boy, was I surprised! The accelerator calls up power with supernatural smoothness and predictability. I hate the way automatics always seem to be in the wrong gear or downshift when I didn't want them to - never an issue with the THS. I drove it once and fell in love. People are always stereotyping me and ascribing motives according to their preconceptions when they find I not only own a Prius, I love it. I am not a liberal, I am a Reagan Republican. I am also a minor motorhead (I have a brother who is a major motorhead, so I know the difference!) I know what I like, and this is it. Now when I have to drive a conventional vehicle, especially one with an automatic tranny, I wonder, "what is all the 'vroom-clunk, vroom-clunk' about?" The irony is that now my wife has it and I have her Volvo wagon with an automatic... vroom-clunk. :-( Mike >>> We purchased it for both fuel savings and the driving experience; it >>> is the second most fun car to drive I've ever had (I still miss my [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Mike I guess all they need to work on is the styling! 8-) It sure doesn't compare to a Lotus or Z. (IMO,Prius is dog-ugly) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > I guess all they need to work on is the styling! 8-) > It sure doesn't compare to a Lotus or Z. > > (IMO,Prius is dog-ugly) I drive with my eyes closed to deal with that part. <8^P Mike "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in news:dJOdnT0j-- 5__1HeRVn-tw@sedona.net: >> I guess all they need to work on is the styling! 8-) >> It sure doesn't compare to a Lotus or Z. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mike Have you read that article about bettering the Prius fuel economy by adding an additional battery pack,and IIRC,allowing for recharge from home electric power? It was in the news 4-5 months ago. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > The difference is that diesels with conventional power trains still don't do > well in town, most especially for the short trips that most people make. Ummmm.....yes they do. >> The difference is that diesels with conventional power trains still don't >> do >> well in town, most especially for the short trips that most people make. > > Ummmm.....yes they do. What diesel do you have? >With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of >car today. Soaring? I've not seen it above $3/gal. I'd hardlycall that soaring. >>With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of >>car today. > > Soaring? I've not seen it above $3/gal. I'd hardlycall that soaring. Around here, in one year (Jan 2004 to Jan 2005) the price more than doubled. That's soaring. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. > With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of > car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > worth the money, he thinks that from the economical stands point, his > car ended up more costly for him. well.. it's not really about cheap or even better gas mileage to a certain extent for many folks. It's about cleaner exhaust emissions - mainly in city-type driving AND at least in the No Va area - getting on the HOV lanes. For those folks.. it's about TIME saved by using HOV and the extra cost is a no-brainer.... AND they get to claim "green" credentials even though their motivations are purely selfish.... re: energy - ALL energy has extraction costs. You can't extract even green energy like wind and solar without the captial costs for the infrastructure. And, all energy also has operational costs to convert it from it's native form into something that can be... used. Each kind of energy has different costs. Just because they all have to be extracted and converted does NOT mean the costs for doing so are the same. I doubt very seriously that corn can be grown and harvested to, in effect, produce more energy than it took to create it - which then can be sold.... something about this concept seems suspect. What would be useful would be a chart showing where the energy came from - and what it cost to generate it. Finally - I didn't hear anyone mention tides - which are predictable and continuous on a 24hr basis. Hydro power derived from tides certainly ought to be recognized at least as one of the options. If hybrids are so great, then why aren't they used in Japan or European countries where gas is more expensive? Answer: poor return on investment. 1. They cost more. 2. They depreciate quicker (and will as hybrid technologh improves). 3. A high mileage car (like a Honda Civic or a Toyota Corolla or Echo) will get comparable gas mileage with conventional engine technology. So... Calculate the increased cost of buying a hybrid and compare it with the gas savings and see how long it takes to break even. Compare that with the cost savings you'd get by simply buying a good mileage internal combustion engine car. Then decide for yourself. I get a kick outta the SUV hybrids. Add a bunch of girth and then try to compensate by putting a hybrid engine in it. Sort of like buying a Hybrid Humvee. b. > If hybrids are so great, then why aren't they used in Japan or European > countries where gas is more expensive? Answer: poor return on > investment. Actually, hybrids are used in Japan and Europe. > 1. They cost more. It is true that they cost more than a comparable non-hybrid vehicle. > 2. They depreciate quicker (and will as hybrid technologh improves). I don't think this is necessarily true. > 3. A high mileage car (like a Honda Civic or a Toyota Corolla or Echo) > will get comparable gas mileage with conventional engine technology. I do not think that the Corolla's fuel ecoconmy is as good as the Prius, although the Civic and Echo are in the same ballpark. > So... Calculate the increased cost of buying a hybrid and compare it > with the gas savings and see how long it takes to break even. At today's gas prices in the U.S., I believe that break-even is somewhere around 7 to 10 years. > Compare that with the cost savings you'd get by simply buying a good > mileage internal combustion engine car. I do not believe that many people are purchasing hybrids to save money. More likely, they want the gee-wiz factor. > Then decide for yourself. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > b. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > > Compare that with the cost savings you'd get by simply buying a good > > mileage internal combustion engine car. > > I do not believe that many people are purchasing hybrids to save money. > More likely, they want the gee-wiz factor. The term is "early adopters". I bought my first DVD player in 1997 before they really took off. Cost me $1099, although it was for the Pioneer combinational LaserDisc/DVD player. I bought another one later that Fall (from Sony) for $600. These days a machine for under $100 will perform at least as well and have more capabilities that were added as the technology progressed. I used to work in downtown Berkeley, California. I would park at a city owned garage which was used for part of the city's motor pool. City Hall and many city offices were within a block. I think the city's policy used to be to buy American makes. There were a lot of white Ford Tempos, Chevy Cavaliers, and Dodge Ram pickups. Recently though, they've had several Honda Civic Hybrids. >> > Compare that with the cost savings you'd get by simply buying a good >> > mileage internal combustion engine car. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > under $100 will perform at least as well and have more capabilities > that were added as the technology progressed. I enjoyed being an early adopter of automotive tgechnology a lot more when it was part of the job and didn 't cost me anything. I am a little less enthusiastic now that I have to pay for cars :-( > I used to work in downtown Berkeley, California. I would park at > a city owned garage which was used for part of the city's motor [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ram pickups. Recently though, they've had several Honda Civic > Hybrids. I lived in the Bay area from '78 to '83 and noticed that there were a lot more imports on the road in CA than in the Midwest. I suppose that the trend towards imports may even be stronger than it was back then. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > > I used to work in downtown Berkeley, California. I would park at > > a city owned garage which was used for part of the city's motor [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > more imports on the road in CA than in the Midwest. I suppose that the > trend towards imports may even be stronger than it was back then. The city population as a whole leans towards import makes, like Honda, Toyota, Volvo, and BMW. The city itself has varying incomes, and the tendency is towards American makes in some of the lower income parts of town. There's only a single new car dealer in Berkeley that still sells an American make (a VW/Cadillac dealer). There used to be dealers for Olds, Buick, and Chevy until business started waning in the 90's. Reggie Jackson Chevrolet was the last to close. It's now a bookstore. >> I lived in the Bay area from '78 to '83 and noticed that there were a lot >> more imports on the road in CA than in the Midwest. I suppose that the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in the 90's. Reggie Jackson Chevrolet was the last to close. It's > now a bookstore. Is Tim Soluthwick's Toyota of Berkeley still there? SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > If hybrids are so great, then why aren't they used in Japan or European > countries where gas is more expensive? Answer: poor return on investment. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > b. One reason is that performance is not such a big issue, and typical cars there have smaller engines, and already get better milage than typical cars sold in US. Hybrids are way to keep performance AND high milage. yeah, you pay a premium for a car with good milage and performance compared to just small engined car, but US buyers are willing and able to pay such a premium. aniramca@yahoo.com wrote in news:1137338838.245342.223410 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of > car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would > like to hear some opinion and discussion. I don't think it's so much of a fad as it is a resource conservation concern. The government seems to be pushing these cars and encouraging their development and sales. Not necessarily to save you money, but probably to conserve the oil resources and lighten our link to foreign countries. If everyone drove a hybrid our country would be doing better economically in that standing, but as you point out they'd have to be a lot more economical to the user. >aniramca@yahoo.com wrote in news:1137338838.245342.223410 >@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups >----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- >> Diesel car has never been popular in this part of the world. I wonder >> if hybrid car is just another one of those items, where people buy to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >economically in that standing, but as you point out they'd have to be a >lot more economical to the user. Maybe I'm a cynic, but IMO the current government is pushing hybrids, hydrogen, ethanol, etc. to distract the public and shut down discussion of measures which might actually reduce fuel consumption. The subsidy for hybrids is a tiny fraction of the subsidy for real estate agents to buy Hummers. Throwing a little money at fuel cell research is much cheaper and much more over-the-horizon than improving mass transit. Any measures which might decrease fuel consumption by monster SUVs are strictly off the table. Message from Gordon McGrew written on 2/4/2006 11:57 AM: >>> Diesel car has never been popular in this part of the world. I wonder >>> if hybrid car is just another one of those items, where people buy to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > mass transit. Any measures which might decrease fuel consumption by > monster SUVs are strictly off the table. Doesn't GM have a hybrid Silverado truck now? And doesn't both Ford and Toyota have hybrid versions of some of their SUV's. I would think that would make them more fuel efficient (if one can afford to buy them!) >> Maybe I'm a cynic, but IMO the current government is pushing hybrids, >> hydrogen, ethanol, etc. to distract the public and shut down [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Doesn't GM have a hybrid Silverado truck now? Go to the Chevy web site and see how much information you can find on this "hybrid." Then see how much information is available on the "THUNDERING 345-HP VORTEC MAX 6000 V8" http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/ > And doesn't both Ford and >Toyota have hybrid versions of some of their SUV's. I would think that >would make them more fuel efficient (if one can afford to buy them!) The Ford and Toyota might theoretically save some fuel if they replace a vehicle of equivalent size, but I don't wee many out there compared to the number of Avalanches and Tahoes driving around. In any event, my criticism isn't of hybrids, it's of the government policies that throw a few crumbs at a huge problem while refusing to take the most simple steps toward reforming defective regulations. For example, what is the EPA fuel economy of a Hummer H2? Give up? It's a trick question. It doesn't have one because it is not a light truck. It doesn't count against the GM CAFE. Message from Gordon McGrew written on 2/4/2006 6:39 PM: >> And doesn't both Ford and >> Toyota have hybrid versions of some of their SUV's. I would think that >> would make them more fuel efficient (if one can afford to buy them!) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > question. It doesn't have one because it is not a light truck. It > doesn't count against the GM CAFE. If the government got back into this they would just mess it up worse than it already is at best and create even worse "unintended consequences". CAFE is a big contributor to what pushed people to buy these monstrosities. And all because a family sedan or wagon that could tow 5000 pounds and haul 7 people around couldn't be built any longer and still meet CAFE. The American family still had the requirement for vehicles with those capabilities. Enter the scene first was the minivan (as a people mover, not so much a tow vehicle), followed by the SUV that covers both requirements Before you say anything, I drive a mid-sized sedan and never owned an SUV. But when the kids were still around, we simply didn't all fit in a "sedan" and needed at least a minivan. So that is what we had. > The Ford and Toyota might theoretically save some fuel if they replace > a vehicle of equivalent size, but I don't wee many out there compared [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > question. It doesn't have one because it is not a light truck. It > doesn't count against the GM CAFE. Just making it a hybrid does not save gas. It is how it is done- the numbers are important. A properly designed hybrid sizes the IC engine to equal the AVERAGE power requirement, the electric motor to fit the difference between desired PEAK and the AVERAGE. Many of these so-called hybrids have very large IC engines with a small electric motor to provide a slight performance boost. Yeah, they are technically hybrids, but not worth much. A 300 hp IC engine and a 25 horse electric is not going to save you much gas. > Maybe I'm a cynic, but IMO the current government is pushing hybrids, > hydrogen, ethanol, etc. to distract the public and shut down [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mass transit. Any measures which might decrease fuel consumption by > monster SUVs are strictly off the table. I agree. The amount of increased spending the administration is talking about is minimal, and it is going to be directed in some wrong ways. We don't NEED fuel cells to run our cars on hydrogen. The gasoline or diesel engine can be easily adapted to run on hydrogen. We need the research on how to economically OBTAIN hydrogen. |
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
|
©2009 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.