 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / April 2006Ethanol ?
Hello, What is your guys' opinion of the engine development at Saab (GM) that runs on ethanol-based gasoline? Please, keep all GM-bashing to other threads; here I am just curious to see the technical merits/demerits that people are aware of. I have not been able to locate a single gas station here in Portland, OR, that carries ethanol-based gas (E85). -Dima > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -Dima Dima, Wow, you are in Portland, OR. How do you like it? I am surprised by Portland not have any E85, given that it seems to be the Nation's leader in progressive environmentalism. SG > Hello, > > What is your guys' opinion of the engine development at Saab (GM) that > runs on ethanol-based gasoline? Please, keep all GM-bashing to other > threads; here I am just curious to see the technical merits/demerits > that people are aware of. Well, it's a hydrocarbon. It burns well, and cleanly. And I'd rather pay someone in this country to grow corn, than pay someone elsewhere; some of the folks we buy oil from are downright unfriendly if you think about it. > I have not been able to locate a single gas station here in Portland, > OR, that carries ethanol-based gas (E85). Yeah, I went through that song&dance about 6 months ago in Milwaukee, nothing here either. The co-ops in rural areas are probably the best bet, but the one here is just building the equipment and won't be online until harvest time this year they hope. It's promising. It can use our existing infrastructure and is an actual fuel, as opposed to hydrogen which has to be made and is effectively just a chemical battery, and doesn't work in existing infrastructure. Biodiesel is another promising technology - I'd rather see biodiesel and ethanol, than hydrogen. Dave Hinz >> Hello, >> >> What is your guys' opinion of the engine development at Saab (GM) that >> runs on ethanol-based gasoline? Please, keep all GM-bashing to other >> threads; here I am just curious to see the technical merits/demerits >> that people are aware of. >Well, it's a hydrocarbon. It burns well, and cleanly. And I'd rather >pay someone in this country to grow corn, than pay someone elsewhere; >some of the folks we buy oil from are downright unfriendly if you think >about it. Well it would help if the US government didn't illegally invade some of those countries because it doesn't want to financially and militarily support the particular country's leader anymore. 8-) That doesn't generate much 'cred'. Then again our stupid country went along for the ride too... I haven't seen any cars here that are designed to work with the equivalent of E85 fuel yet, but I'm sure they're on the way. Craig.  SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. > I haven't seen any cars here that are designed to work with the equivalent > of E85 fuel yet, but I'm sure they're on the way. Saab 9-5 Biopower. the aero model makes more power on E85 than on straight petrol SignatureCarl Robson Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com >>Well, it's a hydrocarbon. It burns well, and cleanly. And I'd rather >>pay someone in this country to grow corn, than pay someone elsewhere; >>some of the folks we buy oil from are downright unfriendly if you think >>about it. > Well it would help if the US government didn't illegally invade some of > those countries because it doesn't want to financially and militarily > support the particular country's leader anymore. 8-) That doesn't generate > much 'cred'. Then again our stupid country went along for the ride too... Yeah, maybe we should have allowed him to keep shredding people and stuff. I mean, why should the US be the world's police force? When's the last time someone thanked us? I mean, seriously, it's been 60 years since we bailed someone out and they were openly grateful for it, correct me if I'm wrong. My opinion on that was and is, we should've taken the guy out because he _was_ a credible threat based on the best available information, and then turned it over to them..."Here ya go, we fixed your problem. Make sure the next guy behaves or we'll have to come back and do it again if he starts threatening us and our interests again. Have a nice day." There's probably a reason I've never been called "diplomatic". > I haven't seen any cars here that are designed to work with the equivalent > of E85 fuel yet, but I'm sure they're on the way. What about the ecopower engine of a few years ago from Saab? I thought the whole point was it could burn whateverthehell you put in it? Further, do the boost, timing, and other parameters change dramatically with a different fuel, that you couldn't just add that part of the map to the ECU? Does Trionic need to know, or does it care, that it's burning something other than gasoline (or petrol even?) Dave Hinz > ...seriously, it's been 60 years > since we bailed someone out and they were openly grateful for it, > correct me if I'm wrong. You mean WW-II? OK, the US helped eventually, but they only joined after their own interest i.c. Pearl Harbor was attacked in December 1941 and because Germany declared war on the US. PH was more than 2 years after the start of the war (invasion of Poland in September 1939). Speculation, but if Japan had not attacked PH, the US might never have joined the war because of Roosevelts 'non belligerency' stance (and I would be typing this in German...). So, openly grateful? Yes, but maybe for the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor and drawing the US into the war. SAAB content? None, but you asked to be corrected... SignatureMH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '87 90 '91 900i >> ...seriously, it's been 60 years >> since we bailed someone out and they were openly grateful for it, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > declared war on the US. PH was more than 2 years after the start of the war > (invasion of Poland in September 1939). Well, to be fair, we had our military gutted by short-sighted leftists, and had quite a bit of buildup to take care of before we'd be effective. > Speculation, but if Japan had not attacked PH, the US might never have joined > the war because of Roosevelts 'non belligerency' stance (and I would be typing > this in German...). Dunno. But I'm of the impression that the attack on Pearl Harbor was one of those "we forced 'em to do it" moves. > So, openly grateful? Yes, but maybe for the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor and > drawing the US into the war. > SAAB content? None, but you asked to be corrected... Fair enough. Oh, did I mention that I did find that other ring & pinion for the Sonett, but that they're not in what I'd call usable condition? Big chips on the pinion tooth, no clue how that could happen. > ... I did find that other ring & pinion for the Sonett, but that they're not > in what I'd call usable condition? Ah... too bad... Let me know if you find a usable set. SignatureMH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '87 90 '91 900i >> ... I did find that other ring & pinion for the Sonett, but that they're not >> in what I'd call usable condition? > > Ah... too bad... Let me know if you find a usable set. Well, there's one, but it's in my Sonett, so... >>> Well, it's a hydrocarbon. It burns well, and cleanly. And I'd rather >>> pay someone in this country to grow corn, than pay someone elsewhere; [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > since we bailed someone out and they were openly grateful for it, > correct me if I'm wrong. Absolutely right! So why does the US keep sticking its nose in? No-one has asked the US to do so! Keeping to the point, a lot of it is for energy interests and as you rightly say, the US would do better to use less oil from nations that don't like you (like Venezuela?). I don't think the US should have got involved in either of the wars with Iraq and I don't think anyone else should have got involved. The first time, well, it was like another Falklands* for our leading party with our mates from across the water out on manoeuvres, but the second time, I just hung my head in shame. It was unwarranted, morally wrong and downright illegal. * "The Falklands" (yes, go Google, or Wikipede) was when the Conservative Party were having a little crisis of confidence in the UK. Hey, start a war with someone we've never heard of in a far away land ... Oh, a few square miles at the other side of the world. Remove all our nationals first and send a load of ships to go and get back what was it? Ten square miles and a couple of score of sheep .. And some penguins :) Furthermore, I don't think we should have raised the guy to power and aided him for the years that we did; Hussein or Bush :) At the time, "the mad Ayatollah" proved to be something that needed dealing with and Hussein's politics seemed to be right. Well, guess what ... We got rid of Hussein and we have another "mad Ayatollah" in Iran. Oh, like Afghanistan when the Russians were our (well, your) enemy. You think we'd learn by now. I mean, we've (the British) have had the Irish problem for the last 150 years, so you'd think we'd be used to playing both sides. Western foreign policy does not work. Perhaps the best foreign policy is to keep the (whatever) away from foreigners :) So, there's no WMD! If Hussein does manage to get off war crimes charges as well, which in all fairness, he might ... Does he get his country back? Maybe he could come here and live out his life in the English countryside like other great dictators, such as General Pinochet? > My opinion on that was and is, we should've taken the guy out because he > _was_ a credible threat based on the best available information, and > then turned it over to them..."Here ya go, we fixed your problem. Make > sure the next guy behaves or we'll have to come back and do it again if > he starts threatening us and our interests again. Have a nice day." Apart from the current situation with tribal warfare and rioting is much worse than before and there does not seem to be any kind of exit strategy that does not constitute our soldiers simply walking away. I really can't think what the credible threat was at the time. Long range missiles? Well, you've got them, we've got them, France have got them, Russia have, India do ... So what? Do you really think someone who has been a President of a very volatile country in a very volatile region since the '70s would be dumb enough to shake them at the US? That's so much more for the fanatic than seasoned dictator. > There's probably a reason I've never been called "diplomatic". :) >> I haven't seen any cars here that are designed to work with the equivalent >> of E85 fuel yet, but I'm sure they're on the way. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to the ECU? Does Trionic need to know, or does it care, that it's > burning something other than gasoline (or petrol even?) Nope - that's the beauty of Trionic! Personally, I'm amazed it took so long for SAAB to publicise this technology and formalise it into a retail car. Volvo beat them with their Bi-Fuel cars, but I think the SAAB product is better; certainly a very viable technology for the future and a good reason for someone to buy SAAB from GM when the going gets tough(er). Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> Yeah, maybe we should have allowed him to keep shredding people and >> stuff. I mean, why should the US be the world's police force? When's >> the last time someone thanked us? I mean, seriously, it's been 60 years >> since we bailed someone out and they were openly grateful for it, >> correct me if I'm wrong. > Absolutely right! So why does the US keep sticking its nose in? No-one has > asked the US to do so! Well, to be fair, he _was_ threatening us and our interests. > Keeping to the point, a lot of it is for energy > interests and as you rightly say, the US would do better to use less oil > from nations that don't like you (like Venezuela?). Yeah, that'll happpen real soon. Here, let me hold my breath...on second thought, no. > * "The Falklands" (yes, go Google, or Wikipede) was when the Conservative > Party were having a little crisis of confidence in the UK. Hey, start a war > with someone we've never heard of in a far away land ... Oh, a few square > miles at the other side of the world. Remove all our nationals first and > send a load of ships to go and get back what was it? Ten square miles and a > couple of score of sheep .. And some penguins :) What is it with you people and sheep, anyway? > Furthermore, I don't think we should have raised the guy to power and aided > him for the years that we did; Hussein or Bush :) Well, sometimes you have to pick what appears, at the time and given the available information, to be the less-bad of several really bad options. Hence my theory of "OK, we supported the last guy, he turned on us. He no longer has a job, to say the least. You're in power now, so keep this little sequence of events in mind before you decide to bite the hand that got you that nice chair you're sitting in." > So, there's no WMD! Well, it was damn foolish of Hussein, if he did destroy it, to (a) not document it as he agreed to (to the UN), and (b) pretend it was there. Sure, he was bluffing, maybe. But we gave him _years_ to hide or export it. It'll turn up. > If Hussein does manage to get off war crimes charges as > well, which in all fairness, he might ... Does he get his country back? > Maybe he could come here and live out his life in the English countryside > like other great dictators, such as General Pinochet? I would like to think that if he does walk, that he would be properly taken care of. Hell, let's be blunt. If the court doesn't have him killed, someone else should, and I believe would, do it. >> My opinion on that was and is, we should've taken the guy out because he >> _was_ a credible threat based on the best available information, and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you've got them, we've got them, France have got them, Russia have, India do > ... So what? Well, again, this is just like the gun thing, isn't it? My guns aren't a threat to anyone who isn't trying to do me harm. A criminal's guns, however, are a threat to all of society. Depends on who has the weapon. And his track record with WMDs is clear, just ask the Kurds. Oh wait... > Do you really think someone who has been a President of a very > volatile country in a very volatile region since the '70s would be dumb > enough to shake them at the US? That's so much more for the fanatic than > seasoned dictator. Luckily for the world, most dictators seem to have that whole arrogant disregard of logic thing going for them. If hitler had been more open to listening to his advisors, things could have been quite nasty over there for a very long time. >>> I haven't seen any cars here that are designed to work with the equivalent >>> of E85 fuel yet, but I'm sure they're on the way. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> to the ECU? Does Trionic need to know, or does it care, that it's >> burning something other than gasoline (or petrol even?) > Nope - that's the beauty of Trionic! Personally, I'm amazed it took so long > for SAAB to publicise this technology and formalise it into a retail car. > Volvo beat them with their Bi-Fuel cars, but I think the SAAB product is > better; certainly a very viable technology for the future and a good reason > for someone to buy SAAB from GM when the going gets tough(er). So, once I get my 2.3L T7 9-5 back on the road, am I E85 ready? Dave You have to have a fuel system able to cope... fuel lines and such. Ethanol is rather corrosive. Trionic is amazing! Here's something to consider... in Sweden they are making their ethanol from waste cellulose garbage (eg waste from lumber industry). In Brazil, where the ethanol has really been a big thing, they make it from sugarcane. To be honest, making grain alcohol from corn isn't the most efficient system possible. And also... Saab went to GM do Brasil to investigate what they do making the cars run on pure ethanol. So GM isn't all that bad ;> > You have to have a fuel system able to cope... fuel lines and such. > Ethanol is rather corrosive. I think that was worked out rather a long time ago though? > Here's something to consider... in Sweden they are making their ethanol > from waste cellulose garbage (eg waste from lumber industry). Wouldn't that be methanol then? Or is there some conversion going on that I don't know about? > In > Brazil, where the ethanol has really been a big thing, they make it > from sugarcane. Anything with fermentable sugars can turn into ethanol. > To be honest, making grain alcohol from corn isn't the most efficient > system possible. Could be, but if the economics indicate a different crop, then supply and demand will work out the imbalances. Lots of idle farmland in the US, with people getting paid around 75 dollars per acre per year not to farm it. > And also... Saab went to GM do Brasil to investigate what they do > making the cars run on pure ethanol. So GM isn't all that bad ;> Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. >> To be honest, making grain alcohol from corn isn't the most efficient >> system possible. >Could be, but if the economics indicate a different crop, then supply >and demand will work out the imbalances. Lots of idle farmland in the >US, with people getting paid around 75 dollars per acre per year not to >farm it. Not surprising when, like here in Australia, a lot of farmers cannot make enough money to keep a sustainable farm business going. So US$0.75 per acre is probably not a bad return by comparison. And if the land is idle, it could be doing something useful like natural vegitation regeneration, but I'm betting that doesn't happen most of the time. >> And also... Saab went to GM do Brasil to investigate what they do >> making the cars run on pure ethanol. So GM isn't all that bad ;> >Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. 8-) A stuck blind pig at that! Craig. SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. >>> To be honest, making grain alcohol from corn isn't the most efficient >>> system possible. >>Could be, but if the economics indicate a different crop, then supply >>and demand will work out the imbalances. Lots of idle farmland in the >>US, with people getting paid around 75 dollars per acre per year not to >>farm it. >Not surprising when, like here in Australia, a lot of farmers cannot make >enough money to keep a sustainable farm business going. So US$0.75 per acre >is probably not a bad return by comparison. Oops - misread that - dunno how I got 75 cents from 75 dollars - gee wouldn't the government economists love me now. 8-) Craig. SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. >>> To be honest, making grain alcohol from corn isn't the most efficient >>> system possible. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > enough money to keep a sustainable farm business going. So US$0.75 per acre > is probably not a bad return by comparison. It's $75.00, not $0.75 though. On a good year I could rent the land out for 60 cents an acre, so I'm ahead by keeping it in "land bank". > And if the land is idle, it could be doing something useful like natural > vegitation regeneration, but I'm betting that doesn't happen most of the > time. Actually, I'd be happy to take that bet. Most folks like me who get paid not to farm, have a long-term but not harvested crop growing while being paid not to produce grain. My crop of choice is walnut, maple, and oak. Some guys go for gensing but it's more work and time than I'm willing to invest. >>> And also... Saab went to GM do Brasil to investigate what they do >>> making the cars run on pure ethanol. So GM isn't all that bad ;> > >>Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. > > 8-) A stuck blind pig at that! How many ways can we describe our disdain for said pig? No matter how many, in my opinion, it's not enough. >>> Yeah, maybe we should have allowed him to keep shredding people and >>> stuff. I mean, why should the US be the world's police force? When's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well, to be fair, he _was_ threatening us and our interests. How? Do you mean the first time with the invasion of Kuwait, or the second time which I genuinely cannot remember why, other than Iraq being stubborn over weapons inspections, leaving a perceived threat to the region (such as the ability to strike Israel), rather than a direct threat to the US (or the UK). >> So, there's no WMD! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > taken care of. Hell, let's be blunt. If the court doesn't have him > killed, someone else should, and I believe would, do it. Well, everyone has enemies as well as friends. However, when cleared, people have a right to return to their former lives ... Does he get his country back? I don't think he'll have the fall-back of a job on the board of an oil multi-national. >>> My opinion on that was and is, we should've taken the guy out because he >>> _was_ a credible threat based on the best available information, and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > however, are a threat to all of society. Depends on who has the weapon. > And his track record with WMDs is clear, just ask the Kurds. Oh wait... So the US holding long range weapons is okay? For Israel, it's okay? But when a country, like Iraq, Iran or Pakistan get hold of them, they're criminals (or at least potential criminals) and that's wrong? That really is twisted logic. Suppose the UK devolves further, even to the point of sovereignty to the provinces ... Suppose Yorkshire becomes a nation state. Our population could approach 10% practicing Muslim (Bradford has nearly 20%, Sheffield 15%, for example) who represent a large proportion of the population who either hate the US or will grow up to hate the US. Without any kind of direct threat, only potential (nay, perceived) threat, would that make us enemies of the US? US (the "goodies") weapons are a threat to the _entire_ world, yet a country like Iran (the "baddies") "only has eyes for you" (and us, of course, if we continue to stand by the US). _My_ point about guns is that, yes, an armed criminal is a danger to everyone, but armed backup for unarmed Police who are very well trained in diffusing situations unarmed is the best way to deal with that. If the Police routinely arm, so will the criminals and that makes ..... Not just the one or two criminals who arm themselves, but all criminals who arm themselves. So, rather than a small(er) percentage of criminals being a danger to all society, we end up with all criminals being a danger to all society and the venting of bullets being the only outcome of negotiation. Merry old England is a land of cut-throats and poisoners, anyway, what do we need with guns? :) >> Do you really think someone who has been a President of a very >> volatile country in a very volatile region since the '70s would be dumb [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Luckily for the world, most dictators seem to have that whole arrogant > disregard of logic thing going for them. Like a certain Bush duo? I'm sorry, maybe you don't know this, but your President is largely seen in that way by a large portion of the world. > If hitler had been more open > to listening to his advisors, things could have been quite nasty over > there for a very long time. Well, we can say what we like about that period of history, but it's all speculation. The Russians would have got the Nazis eventually and Europe would have joined the Soviet Union. Was that maybe more the reason for the US joining the allied forces? Failing that, the Soviet Union would have fallen to the Nazis and the UK would have joined the likes of France as a nation of resistance through terrorism. >>>> I haven't seen any cars here that are designed to work with the equivalent >>>> of E85 fuel yet, but I'm sure they're on the way. In the not too distant past, the Governor of New York was quoted as saying that as many as 20,000 cars in New York could run E85 un-modified, now. >>> What about the ecopower engine of a few years ago from Saab? I thought >>> the whole point was it could burn whateverthehell you put in it? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So, once I get my 2.3L T7 9-5 back on the road, am I E85 ready? With a software map, yes :) I've seen evidence of T3 and T5-based cars running it ... Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ > So the US holding long range weapons is okay? For Israel, it's okay? But > when a country, like Iraq, Iran or Pakistan get hold of them, they're > criminals (or at least potential criminals) and that's wrong? Let's see. Which of those countries have used WMD against their _own citizens_? > That really is twisted logic. I think we're done with this topic, I can't see it going anywhere useful. >> Luckily for the world, most dictators seem to have that whole arrogant >> disregard of logic thing going for them. > > Like a certain Bush duo? Yes, we're definately done. > > So the US holding long range weapons is okay? For Israel, it's okay? But > > when a country, like Iraq, Iran or Pakistan get hold of them, they're [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Yes, we're definately done. Hussein gassed the Kurds in 1988. Going "all the way" and removing Hussein during Desert Storm would have been easy, justified. Now going on a never-ending drawn out insurgency conflict like in Iraq, and doing it NOW? >>>> Luckily for the world, most dictators seem to have that whole arrogant >>>> disregard of logic thing going for them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hussein gassed the Kurds in 1988. Gee! That's all right, then ... > Going "all the way" and removing Hussein during Desert Storm would have > been easy, justified. Woo! Yay! Of course Israel do not oppress Muslim ethnics on a near daily basis, either ... I really don't understand this "justification" thing. The moment someone points the finger at the US and criticises them of the same errors and injustices that they do to others, everyone gets uptight. You'd think the US had never made a mistake. Well, they have and we joined in. For shame! Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> So the US holding long range weapons is okay? For Israel, it's okay? But >> when a country, like Iraq, Iran or Pakistan get hold of them, they're >> criminals (or at least potential criminals) and that's wrong? > > Let's see. Which of those countries have used WMD against their _own > citizens_? Wow! Just wow! That really is a naïve statement. Since you obviously don't want an answer (and this stream is largely a you and me discussion), I won't bother pointing out what's wrong with that statement. >> That really is twisted logic. > > I think we're done with this topic, I can't see it going anywhere > useful. A pertinent point, nevertheless ... >>> Luckily for the world, most dictators seem to have that whole arrogant >>> disregard of logic thing going for them. >> >> Like a certain Bush duo? > > Yes, we're definately done. So when I criticise the US and its leadership of the same errors and injustices that the US does of others, there can be no conversation? I thought you were more resolute than that. I am in no way having a go at you. I consider open debate to be good and the thrust of this thread moved towards that. I do hope to continue enjoying SAAB talk with you, since we do have that in common. Opinions of western corporate imperialism, we do not! Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ > I am in no way having a go at you. I consider open debate to be good and the > thrust of this thread moved towards that. I do hope to continue enjoying > SAAB talk with you, since we do have that in common. Opinions of western > corporate imperialism, we do not! So how does categorizing 2 US presidents as arrogant dictators add anything to the debate? Signature-Fred W >>> So the US holding long range weapons is okay? For Israel, it's okay? But >>> when a country, like Iraq, Iran or Pakistan get hold of them, they're [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > want an answer (and this stream is largely a you and me discussion), I won't > bother pointing out what's wrong with that statement. Well, the kurds were his country's citizens. And last I checked, chem weapons are WMDs. >>> That really is twisted logic. >> >> I think we're done with this topic, I can't see it going anywhere >> useful. > > A pertinent point, nevertheless ... It certainly is. >>>> Luckily for the world, most dictators seem to have that whole arrogant >>>> disregard of logic thing going for them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So when I criticise the US and its leadership of the same errors and > injustices that the US does of others, there can be no conversation? No, when you basically equate the Bushes with hitler, it's clear that there's no point in further point/counterpoint. The fact that you apparently also don't know or recall that the best available information before the war was that SH was a credible threat. The leftists here are pretending to have short memories about that too, pretending it was Bush's little misadventure, seemingly forgetting statements as outlined here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp If you're not real up on who is in what party, most or all of the quotes there are from Democrats, who almost as a whole are now pretending that the decision was strictly along partison lines. Such lies turn my stomach, and when I see basically the same thing here, I react strongly. > I > thought you were more resolute than that. Look up "Godwin's Law". Pretty sure your statements triggered it. > I am in no way having a go at you. I consider open debate to be good and the > thrust of this thread moved towards that. I do hope to continue enjoying > SAAB talk with you, since we do have that in common. Opinions of western > corporate imperialism, we do not! Believe it or not, sometimes it's about doing the right thing, or the least-wrong thing, not about money. >>>> So the US holding long range weapons is okay? For Israel, it's okay? But >>>> when a country, like Iraq, Iran or Pakistan get hold of them, they're [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well, the kurds were his country's citizens. And last I checked, chem > weapons are WMDs. I was not denying that ... Look at the rest of the characters involved. >>>> That really is twisted logic. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > No, when you basically equate the Bushes with hitler, it's clear that > there's no point in further point/counterpoint. A very popular opinion. I don't see why it should stop any discussion, since they were the main figures along with Hussein in both of those fiascos. > The fact that you > apparently also don't know or recall that the best available information > before the war was that SH was a credible threat. "Best available information" ... Of course, just look at the receipts ... Both the UK and the US knew what weapons we sold him; us more than you. So, what credible threat was there? He could not fire directly upon the UK or the US, or Europe. He was a credible threat to the region which meant de-stabilising the oil barrel price. > Believe it or not, sometimes it's about doing the right thing, or the > least-wrong thing, not about money. Oh dear ... Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ > Look up "Godwin's Law". Pretty sure your statements triggered it. I really don't follow - that's like causing an accident from behind. So, I mention, what? You talk about how grateful we should be for the US "helping us out" in WW2 and tell me I made you do it? What? Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> Look up "Godwin's Law". Pretty sure your statements triggered it. > > I really don't follow - that's like causing an accident from behind. So, I > mention, what? You talk about how grateful we should be for the US "helping > us out" in WW2 and tell me I made you do it? What? I mentioned that it's a good thing that most dictators, like hitler, had an arrogant disregard for their advisors, which in the grand scheme of things is fortunate for the rest of the world. You then responded with "Like the Bush Presidents" or similar. In other words, you are equating them to hitler. Among the reasons that this is an invalid comparison, is the fact that the best available evidence at the time, his advisors, and his political opponents were in agreement with the decision. So, other than the fact that your equating of hitler to the Bushes is completely wrong on all counts, and offensive besides, no problem. >>> Look up "Godwin's Law". Pretty sure your statements triggered it. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is the fact that the best available evidence at the time, his advisors, > and his political opponents were in agreement with the decision. Here's the quote: " > Luckily for the world, most dictators seem to have that whole arrogant > disregard of logic thing going for them. Like a certain Bush duo? I'm sorry, maybe you don't know this, but your President is largely seen in that way by a large portion of the world. " You cut ... I responded. There is no mention of Hitler there; you spoke of "most dictators" and I spoke of the Bushes - Senior and "W", who also have an arrogant disregard of logic. I would not liken the Bush family to Hitler for a number of reasons, not least the difference that time has brought. > So, other than the fact that your equating of hitler to the Bushes is > completely wrong on all counts, and offensive besides, no problem. Aside from that I didn't ... Seen from outside the US, we do (we really do) see the US President as a dictator. I said before, maybe you don't see that from inside, but that's the way we see it. The US is a threat to the liberties of, well, everyone by virtue of its ability to simply invade, take over and whitewash the trial of anyone they define as a "despot". Thankfully, the failed coup in Veneluela stands as an example of US interest not winning out. You said it yourself, "why should the US be the world's police". Well, please don't and please don't fool yourself or who you talk to into believing that it for some greater good. That's just horseshit! The wars in Iraq were about oil. Humanitarian interests were/are an aside and a smokescreen. I am in two minds about whether it was for US interests or a foreign power acting on behalf of the Saudis (not officially, of course) to strengthen their interests in the region. Afterall, the US imports most of its oil from its neighbours, not the middle-east. So, why are we discussing this? Well, I return to your very well put point which I challenged you on some time ago in another post. Why, indeed, should the US continue to rely on oil from nations that hate you? Produce your own ethanol and start to break the cycle. Point well put! However, your President is also a high ranking figure of an oil conglomerate which has strong ties with the Saudis ... I have no value laden issue there, most "successful" people maintain positions with multi-nationals. I think that is the failing of internal US power production; that your own leader has interests to the contrary. I do hope onlookers don't see this as another "usenet flame war" (I hope you don't); I don't. Open debate is not a flame war. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ > I do hope onlookers don't see this as another "usenet flame war" (I hope you > don't); I don't. Open debate is not a flame war. Sorry I haven't had a chance to follow this thread - I've just read through it now. I think it's really interesting the polar views we seem to have. The opinions that Paul has voiced are shared by me, and the majority of friends/colleagues with whom I've discussed the topic, both in the UK and parts of Europe. SignatureGrunff >> I do hope onlookers don't see this as another "usenet flame war" No, at least I don't. > The opinions that Paul has voiced are shared by me, and .... FWIW, I'm on your side too. SignatureMH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '91 900i >>> I do hope onlookers don't see this as another "usenet flame war" > No, at least I don't. > >> The opinions that Paul has voiced are shared by me, and .... > > FWIW, I'm on your side too. My point was that I was taking extreme exception to (a) selective memory, and (b) equating the Bushes with hitler. > What is your guys' opinion of the engine development at Saab (GM) that > runs on ethanol-based gasoline? I think it's a great development, should have been started years ago, to make us independent of middle east oil. Alternative fuels, or engines even, are a necesity because some day (maybe not not in our lifetime) we'll run out of oil anyway and I would like my (grand)children to be able to use Saab vehicles. SignatureMH '72 97 '77 96 '78 95 '79 96 '87 90 '91 900i >> What is your guys' opinion of the engine development at Saab (GM) that >> runs on ethanol-based gasoline? >I think it's a great development, should have been started years ago, to make us >independent of middle east oil. >Alternative fuels, or engines even, are a necesity because some day (maybe not >not in our lifetime) we'll run out of oil anyway and I would like my >(grand)children to be able to use Saab vehicles. Yep can't agree more. Australia used to be mostly self-sufficient with oil, but now that local production can't keep up with demand, we seem to be following the global trend of sucking up the gloop that Haliburton (oh sorry - Iraq Inc.) pulls out of the ground in places like Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, etc. Craig. SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. > Hello, > > What is your guys' opinion of the engine development at Saab (GM) that > runs on ethanol-based gasoline? Please, keep all GM-bashing to other > threads; here I am just curious to see the technical merits/demerits > that people are aware of. I think it's superb! Way of the future, IMO. For all intents and purposes, it acts like a petrol car without the emissions ... Oh, and it performs better. Can't be bad, eh? Now if the car itself was not sooooo fugly, I could be tempted. I think I'll wait for the technology to drop into the 9-3 range, since that design seems to be "it" for the 9-5 :( I wonder if the upcoming Carlsson 9-3 will run E85? The proposed spec is 185 BHP, up from 150 BHP which sounds like the kind of power hike ethanol made for the Biopower 9-5. > I have not been able to locate a single gas station here in Portland, > OR, that carries ethanol-based gas (E85). One of our supermarket chains in the UK has started to stock it now under the name Harvest Bioethanol. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > BHP, up from 150 BHP which sounds like the kind of power hike ethanol made > for the Biopower 9-5. Concept for the moment, but ... <http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/03/29/saab-unveils-9-3-biopower-concept> What's that _extra_ 666 Nm of torque delivered by the rear wheel engine? Wow! Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -Dima Ethanol is by no means a new technology. Remember "Gasohol" from the mid 70's? Various American sedans (Taurus, Lumina, Cavalier, Impala, Dodge Spirit, Stratus) have had a flexible gasoline / E85 model in their lineup since the early 1990's, mostly for fleet sales to the US government. And GM's has produced flex-fuel pickup trucks for many years, again mostly for the government. Also other alternative fuel vehicles, such as cars running on compressed natural gas (pickups, Cavaliers), and of course the one-off hydrogen and other things... However Saab introduces the first production E85 car that doesn't suck donkey balls on the road performance aspect. There was a Ford show car some years back, a Mustang with a supercharged 5.4 litre V8 running on E85 that made 450 horsepower or something like that. Portland isn't so much "progressive on environment" as "very progressive in the f.cking over of motorists" I'd say ;> > Ethanol is by no means a new technology. Remember "Gasohol" from the > mid 70's? 70's? In Wisconsin (corn-belt USA, baby...) nearly all the pumps are for E10 (10% ethanol, 90% gasoline). The "regular" grade is still non-alcoholic (heh) so you can still use that for 2-stroke engines and others which don't like the alcohol. Not sure if that's intentional but it's good to have the option for the older stuff. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -Dima I can't wait for Saab's ethanol BioPower engine. I was almost thinking of buying an E85 capable Chevy Impala until the Saab arrives. Chevy has a better E85 flex-fuel system now than in previous models, but still no where near as good as what Saab is proposing. I live in northeastern Illinois and there is a selection of E85 stations. According to www.e85fuel.com, the only E85 station in Oregon is in Portland. It is privately owned (Bonneville Power Administration) with no public access. Who knows, by the time the BioPower engine is available in 2008(?) there might be more stations in your area. Walt Kienzle 1991 9000T > I live in northeastern Illinois and there is a selection of E85 stations. > According to www.e85fuel.com, the only E85 station in Oregon is in Portland. > It is privately owned (Bonneville Power Administration) with no public > access. Walt, You might want to call those stations and verify. I think that's the site I looked at last year, which said there were 6 stations in the Milwaukee area. Called 'em all, and all of 'em either had no idea what I was talking about, or didn't carry it anymore (?!?!?!?). Flexibility is good, so you can fuel anywhere, but if there isn't any E85 in the area, ... >> I live in northeastern Illinois and there is a selection of E85 stations. >> According to www.e85fuel.com, the only E85 station in Oregon is in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Flexibility is good, so you can fuel anywhere, but if there isn't any > E85 in the area, ... All the stations on the list which I visited have E85; I have never had a problem with false listings. Last time I bought E85 (in February) it was $1.69 a gallon. Regular was $2.39 at the time. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.