[OT - US/Canada] E-85

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:

"All Things Mopar" wrote in message
1...
Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, TMG laid
this on an unsuspecting readership ...

What do you mean by "eliminate deficit spending?" there was
no way in hell he was going to pay off the national
multi-trillion dollar debt, if that's what you mean.....If
you mean that he was going to have a year where the
government's outgo was equal to or less than their tax
dollars in, well, sure. That's possible for selected years
where there is no war,

Maybe the key is to stop spending on war.

Exactly. And, it will have the much more important benefit of
saving the lives of countless hundreds more uniformed men and
women, for which no dollar value can ever be place, especially
since they are dying and being maimed for life for no good
reason.

And how about the 2 million Iraqis that Saddam managed to do in over the
last 30 years?

If you can't defend Bush without lying then you really shouldn't be
trying to defend him at all.

Bush is responsibel for the deaths of over 100,000 innocent Iraqis.
He's just about even with Saddam. AND he's burned through a few
hundred BILLION dolalrs of our tax money to do it.
Clearly then, our argument is stalled on the facts. I have personally
calculated that Saddam Hussein has been responsible for over two million
lifetimes of his people. I have also heard others estimate figures similar
to that. My figures came from my mathematical background and the National
Geographic Atlas of the Middle East published in 2001. If you deny this,
then please tell me why. If a dictator keeps his people living at a
starvation level, which is approximately 1/3 the ME average income, while
sitting on all that oil, then he is responsible for their poor health and 13
year shorter lifetime than the average. If you discount this out of hand,
then I suggest that you are being blinded by your own prejudice against
Republicans to the extent that you are denying the facts. All you can see
are the lives lost since the beginning of the invasion, but not those lost
over the thirty year period that Hussein was in power. Don't you think that
this is a bit disingenuous?

William Graham wrote:

Maybe they are growing more different with each model year....Kind of
Detroit style. - It must be a disease that auto manufacturers get
when they come to the US......:^)

Stange coincidence: As I'm driving home tonight I see a Forester. "Yep,
I'm right, it's higher than an Outback, damn William is BLIND!"

The driver of the car turns out to be my former boss (who left to do his
own thing); just crossed my path as were mutually driving home. He was
in his Forester. I called him on his cell phone (I use a bluetooth ear
gadget, so at least I'm mostly in control).

After the hello's he said, "Did you see the front of my car?"
"er, no, why?"
"Hit a deer the other night at 120 km/hr."

Car runs, but there's work to do, doors on right side are mis-aligned,
hood won't close right, etc... tough car, that Subaru...

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Robert Brace wrote:



I miss no main points, believe me. However, your assertion that I missed
them because I take you to task for your narcissistic view that we all
should blindly accept your "solutions", is naive in the extreme.

Since you haven't proposed anything better you're in no position to
criticize.

So: What do you propose to reduce oil consumption, reduce pollution,
reduce dependance on foregin oil?




is that _we all_ are wasting too much gas.



That is quite possibly the case though, I suspect, your definition of
"waste" & mine could differ markedly.

They could, and either way. But tell me if a well-to-do exec driving 40
km to work, alone, in an SUV is wasteful or not.

Tell me if cars like the 5.7 l, 4000+ Lb monster (with essentially the
same passenger volume as my Honda Accord) that ATM drives is wasteful?

The US consumes 25% of the oil (5% of the world population). There is a
correlation to economic performance,


As well as there is no meaningful correlation of percent of world population
to total world oil consumption. It is truly a "red herring" kind of
comparison which makes everybody go "gee -- no kidding?" and means
nothing.

Of course it means something. The "correlation" is economic activity.

But it's also true to say that he who uses the most has the most
opportunities to reduce waste; indeed the most opportunities for
synergies that dramatically reduce waste. The US, with its
technological prowess, SHOULD be leading the world in reducing wasteful
consumption, not leading the world in wasting oil. (Although China will
soon be "master" of that particular ability.

This thread was started on the subject of E-85. GM, Ford and Chrysler
have put millions of E-85 cars on US roads. Many owners don't know it
(to be fair, they might not live where its largely available). The
incremental cost for most E-85 vehicles is _zero_. The fule economy is
lower than gasoline. So the price should follow. (It is both
subsidized and selling at huge margin; there is a lot of room for the
price to come down).

The US can retain its robust economy while reducing waste and pollution
with little effect on the economy; the reverse is even true: less
consumption means less money leaving the US and entering more useful
areas of the economy than the profit margins of big-oil and the
glitter-palaces of the mid-east.

that the country that can save the most is the US. Anyway you look at it.
You won't suffer any of this. Your children will feel it, your
grandchildren will really feel it. What a legacy: "Had 1973 and forgot
about it."

That, in fact certainly might be your legacy -- it certainly won't be
mine.

If you do not strive to reduce wasteful oil ...

Interrupt
Ooops, forgot my once-per-post phrase: NON-RENEWABLE OIL.
/Interrupt

Sorry about the interruption...

If you do not strive to reduce wasteful NON_RENEWABLE OIL use, then it
is indeed your legacy. That applies to everyone, not just Americans.


Not at all. I'm only frustrated that Honda did the Hybrid in a 6 instead
of a 4. I'd have bought the 4 by now. The 6 was indeed fun to drive, but
that's not what I want. I want continually reducing mileage in a
reasonable car.

A "reasonable" goal. It might not, however, be shared by others who, could
be just as "reasonable" as you consider yourself to be.

My limits are driven by: my physical size (6'2", big boned); reliability
(did I say Honda?) and reasonable acquisition and operating costs.

I'll even give the Honda Civic Hybrid a try, but I'm not optimistic for
"reasonable" comfort.

But a 5.7 l engined 4000 Lb car with the same passenger volume as my
Honda cannot be considered "reasonable".

As long as people argue that there is nothing wrong with the current state
of oil consumption (worldwide, but 1/4 of that for 1/20th of the world
population) I will argue that they are being selfish, greedy or blind to
the facts.



Again that ridiculous assertion relative to the world's population and your
thought that anyone who disagrees with you is of a lower mental capacity
than yourself. That itself could be illustrative of an underlying problem,
but we'll not go there now.

You just went "there" in a gratuitous fashion, but that's okay I don't
expect much more evolved from you.




Don't join a thread you don't like.



There you are, confused again both as to my position on conserving our
resources and my like or dislike of the thread.

So, what do you suggest to reduce consumption (or do you even recognize
there is "a problem"?)




YOU feel his embarrassment -- -- puh-lease give me a break!!

I sure do. How can one drive such a beast and not be embarassed at the
waste and pollution? How do you look at a dead soldier's mother or wife
in the eye and drive a beast like that?

Since you brought the discussion to that point (in desperation I believe), I
would simply mention that since you drive a Honda, I would certainly not be
mentioning the subject of fallen soldiers. I can't believe you did that!!!

Desperation? No. The reason the US is in Iraq is oil and US oil
interests. If the US was worried about tinman dictators they could work
much closer to home. That the US is there and losing soldiers (and many
others) makes every drop of gasoline especially dear.

It is an unneccesary war as proven by the lack of hard evidence showing
that the "sketchy" pre-war evidence for WMD's meant little to nothing.
(And THAT was the PRETEXT) Was Saddam an asshole? Certainly. Was
getting rid of him worth all the lives paid since the beginning of round
II worth it? Absolutely not.

Didn't the US make peace with Japan (after killing a fair number of
_their_ soldiers and civilians)? Didn't the US help them draft their
new constitution (MacArthur). Didn't the US help get the Japanese
economy going again (MacArthur).

BTW: My car (Honda) was built in the US.

There must be some freudian reason for needing a muscle car.


Perhaps the distinction between "want" & "need" is germane here?

No.

I can understand the guy with the huge sound system in his house (but I
hope he doesn't damage his ears) because it does not pollute or waste in
any appreciable way. (Assuming the house is well sound insulated).

I can understand the guy with the biggest sailboat at the club.

I can understand the guy with the best and most expensive camera gear.

I can't understand the guy who puts his "wants" ahead of the common
good. Wasting gasoline pollutes and puts huge stress on an overly
stressed oil supply. (Stress? you ask? Yes, when 20-30% of the price
of a bbl of oil is based on speculation, that is a clear sign of a
stressed supply). Did I mention that it's NON-RENEWABLE?

I personally never understood anything about it other than the noise,
pollution and abuse of non-renewable enrgy reserves.



Then please allow that someone else might well understand it.

They can understand it, but never justify it. (See above)

I guess if the US had the Gov't on side here to the same extent the
Japanese have in their home market, the picture today could be somewhat
different.



Have you ever investigated the homologation hoops necessary to import a NA
auto into the Japanese market? Do that, please, then add the "partially
hidden" hoops such as exorbitant levies, necessary support infrastructure
and the "officially not present" duties & taxes in to the equation. Soon
you find a $30,000NA vehicle selling in the Tokyo market for roughly $80,000
to $100,000. But it's not that that prevents proper competition, it's the
fact that NA vehicles don't "suit" the Japanese buyer. Sure it is!!

References?

The sidebar discussion is mainly about why the US auto industry is
losing ground on its own ground, in the US. The reasons the Japanese
buy few US cars can include taste, performance, national pride, etc. As
the US citizen has so much "free choice" they chose: high reliability
Japanese cars (I'm old enough to remember when it was called "Jap-scrap").

[ Point of irony, a lot of the quality gains that the Japanese made were
helped along by the TQM teachings of Deming in post WW-II Japan (help of
MacArthur again) ]

The US auto makers _did_ have the government on their side when the whiny
US makers tried to keep the Japanese out. Reagan saw them stuffing their
pockets with huge bonuses and perks and said, "Enough protectionism.
Compete!"

Too bad the offshore markets didn't follow suit. More job giveaways.

One of the nice things about US government policy is that for the most
part it tries to maintain the high ground. Not perfect by any measure,
but they try. It does cost.


CAFE was meant to be revised continuously and regualarly to keep driving
MPG up across the sold fleet. Lobbyists have maneuvered the govenment out
of this sensible, long term course. Many of the light trucks sold are not
subject to CAFE, although that is slowly (and belatedly) being redressed.

If you think I'm alone in this opinion then you've been turning a deaf ear
to the thundering crowd.



Again, I repeat, it's not the opinion with which I disagree -- it's your
proposed methods of imposition.

Ah, well that's your right to disagree with it. But until you propose
something that will reverse these trends you're not being proactive.
And to do nothing, accepting the status quo is even worse.

Remove your blindfold and take a critical look at what's going on around
you. Look at Detroit's sales figures and lagging quality.


You will find I have on no blindfold and you would, no doubt, be surprised
at my familiarity with the pertinent data.

So, propose a constructive means forward.

For that matter, while you've been throwing stones and raising
objections you haven't "weighed in" as to whether you even perceive that
there is a problem, or what shape it has in your perspective.



The US auto industry and the US consumer have COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN 1973
and the national urgency to reduce consumption of oil.



No disagreement there from me.




Since then, the 70:30 ratio of cars to light trucks (minivans, SUV's and
light trucks) has gone to 51:49. The number of vehcicles on teh road has
gone up over 30%. While the MPG of "cars" has steadily improved, it has
(as a group) worsened for the "light truck" category.



Ahh, but if you limit your stats to "light trucks" only, you will find that
the GVW's and , most especially, the towing capacities have increased
immensely. You cant build capacity without commensurate power increases.
Or would you argue that the commercial users "don't need" all that capacity
and a "special" category of light trucks should be invented for the true
truck user as opposed to the holidayer who wants to pull his 5th wheel
trailer on a holiday. Yah, we'll screw the holidayer into the ground but
we'll protect the true "trucker".

No. You've grasped the wrong straw.

The minivan has replaced the station wagon.

The SUV has given the blasé minivan owner a "fresh" machine.

The 'ole pickup truck has turned into a monster work horse.

In the end, very few people use these vehicles for what they are
designed to do. For the few times they tow anything substantial they
could rent the vehicle to do it. For the few times they need all that
"all terrain" capability, they could rent.

I don't believe (and never proposed) that these machines need to be
eliminated. OTOH their largely unneeded consumption of non-renewable
oil resources needs to be discouraged. A non-linear gasoline tax for
privately owned vehicles based on MPG is the way to do it. In fact, it
can transfer the "punishement" to the leading edge MPG vehicles by
giving them a rebate per gallon.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Mon, 29 May 2006 15:46:58 -0700, William Graham wrote:

But tremendous amounts of horsepower and its resulting acceleration
wouldn't do much, because there weren't many long straight sections.....
It would have to make up its losses on the few that there were....
They did run some powerful machines, like the Cad-Allards, but
they didn't always show too well.....

Sounds like the Sunbeams that were fitted with small Ford V8s
(289?). Very fast but the engine moved the C.O.G. so far forward
that they didn't handle very well.

William Graham wrote:


What do you mean by "eliminate deficit spending?" there was no way in hell
he was going to pay off the national multi-trillion dollar debt, if that's
what you mean.....If you mean that he was going to have a year where the
government's outgo was equal to or less than their tax dollars in, well,
sure. That's possible for selected years where there is no war, and no
reason to spend a lot of money. But that happens under
republican administrations, too.

How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time. Alas, this is not US policy with respect to gov't
deficits, trade deficits, oil consumption or foreign policy.

As to your other (not quoted here statement) about wishy-washy
Presidents, note that Clinton immediately retaliated against Iraq after
they took potshots at then retired Bush Sr's plane.

Clinton maintained a virtually unending No-Fly-Zone defense in northern
and southern Iraq; regularly attacking ground targets in Iraq in a low
level containment war that occured over most the Clinton's time in power.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

All Things Mopar wrote:


The reason for a 5.7L 340 hp engine is the same as it was when
muscle cars had 425 hp - because it is good fun. If you don't like
that, it is /your/ problem. Drive some econo box if you want to,
and I'll drive a performance car, because I want to.

You are a greedy, uncaring individual. And that last word, in YOUR
context, is an insult.

As to going foreign to get performance, come and see me some time
in your Suburu and we'll see who gets to the 1320 first.

Oh, you're a child. You want a toy. I see.

He who drives a 4000+ Lb monster with a 5.7 L engine because it's FUN,
drives with Osama!

Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Alan Browne
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...

Since you haven't proposed anything better you're in no
position to criticize.

So: What do you propose to reduce oil consumption, reduce
pollution, reduce dependance on foregin oil?

dilithium crystals?

They could, and either way. But tell me if a well-to-do exec
driving 40 km to work, alone, in an SUV is wasteful or not.

Tell me if cars like the 5.7 l, 4000+ Lb monster (with
essentially the same passenger volume as my Honda Accord) that
ATM drives is wasteful?

ATM likes to totally waste people who drive Accords and doesn't
give a **** how much gas it takes, but since you ask, I'll bet I
can keep up with your rice burner whenever my HEMI is on MDS.

This thread was started on the subject of E-85. GM, Ford and
Chrysler have put millions of E-85 cars on US roads. Many
owners don't know it (to be fair, they might not live where
its largely available). The incremental cost for most E-85
vehicles is _zero_. The fule economy is lower than gasoline.
So the price should follow. (It is both subsidized and
selling at huge margin; there is a lot of room for the price
to come down).

The problem with E-85 at the start of this thread is still the
same now, and will be the same years from now: ethanol is
negatively efficient so it doesn't matter how many million cars
can burn it, the net result will be more waste, not less.

The US can retain its robust economy while reducing waste and
pollution with little effect on the economy; the reverse is
even true: less consumption means less money leaving the US
and entering more useful areas of the economy than the profit
margins of big-oil and the glitter-palaces of the mid-east.

Horsepuckey.

But a 5.7 l engined 4000 Lb car with the same passenger volume
as my Honda cannot be considered "reasonable".

Who says your Accord has the same interior volume? Best check the
specs, d00d. And, who the hell cares what is "reasonable", the
eco freaks or the people driving Vipers or Corvette Z-06 cars?
Reasonable is in the mind of the buyer, not the greenpeace
nutbags.

So, what do you suggest to reduce consumption (or do you even
recognize there is "a problem"?)

I already said - dilithium crystals

I can't understand the guy who puts his "wants" ahead of the
common good. Wasting gasoline pollutes and puts huge stress
on an overly stressed oil supply. (Stress? you ask? Yes,
when 20-30% of the price of a bbl of oil is based on
speculation, that is a clear sign of a stressed supply). Did
I mention that it's NON-RENEWABLE?

Bu, I don't care about the "common good" even if I knew what that
meant. I only care about /my/ good, and so does everybody else.
Economics 101 hasn't been repealed by the so-called shortage of
oil or the depletion of the ozone layer or polution of ground
water or the demise of a few dozen obscure species of rodents
standing in the way of new oil exploration. So what?

The minivan has replaced the station wagon.

The SUV has given the blasé minivan owner a "fresh" machine.

Yep, them 8,000 pound SUVs with only one person in them, now
that's a solution if I ever heard one!

The 'ole pickup truck has turned into a monster work horse.

In the end, very few people use these vehicles for what they
are designed to do. For the few times they tow anything
substantial they could rent the vehicle to do it. For the few
times they need all that "all terrain" capability, they could
rent.

Who is to judge what is or is not a correct use for any
commodity, vehicular or otherwise, you or the buyers? The last
time I looked, money still talks and bull**** - yours especially
- still walks.

I don't believe (and never proposed) that these machines need
to be eliminated. OTOH their largely unneeded consumption of
non-renewable oil resources needs to be discouraged. A
non-linear gasoline tax for privately owned vehicles based on
MPG is the way to do it. In fact, it can transfer the
"punishement" to the leading edge MPG vehicles by giving them
a rebate per gallon.

Anything that relates mpg or other measures of fuel economy to
taxes is, by definition, regressive and falls most heavily on
those who can least affort it. As for me, why the hell should I
give a **** what gas costs? I drive less than 8,000 miles per
year and bought a high performance car to have some fun driving
for a change, instead of pinching pennies for a couple of measly
mpg.

In the final analysis, you buy and drive whatever pleases you.
Just don't get in the way of my choice, or the choices of other
buyers whether they are contemplating an American brand or
whomever. America is about freedom and freedom of choice and
you're trying to destroy it. Hmmm. Isn't that the definition of
treason? Yep, sure is!


--
ATM, aka Jerry

"English is a language hard to understand, but easy to
misunderstand" - Unknown or George Bernard Shaw

All Things Mopar wrote:

"Detroit" will never build a car you want, your criteria is
totally messed up and back asswards. Stick with your POS rice
burners and you'll stay happy.

'...in other news, Chrylser stock soared as they laid off another 12,000
workers in Detroit and other cities and reduced medical and retirement
benefits to the remaining workforce. "It's not so bad," said union
leader, B. Mopar as he stepped into his 400 Lb. 5.7 L Hemi Charger G/G
(Gas Guzzler), "we negotiated an attrition based reduction that will see
most of those 12,000 getting pretty close to retirement, about 52 in
most cases. They won't get as much, but it did _save_ a lot of other
jobs. We're happy." This is on the tails of the new "Decadance without
the Guilt 2007 Aspen marketing campaign." We're not sure what guilt
Chrysler is referring to.

And, Toyota stock made more gains today as they announced another
quarter of solid growth in sales in the US. The new Bum****, Arkansas
plant will double production every year for the next three years as
Toyota continues its bid to be the number one seller in the US. Back to
you Jim.'





--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

All Things Mopar wrote:

What is most horrifying about the national debt is that it is
owed to our enemies!

Ah, he hears the alarm. Does he _know_ what it means? Does he have the
balls to do the right thing? er, well. No.

On Mon, 29 May 2006 14:30:32 -0400, "dwight"
wrote:


While automobiles are all but necessary today, there are still millions who
are intimidated by the whole process of driving. Hondas fit the bill.

dwight

I'm not sure what this means.
How has Honda changed the needs of the driver such that a Honda is
less intimidating than, say (to pick a car) a Focus? Or a Lumina? Or a
Corolla?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"