[OT - US/Canada] E-85

All Things Mopar wrote:

Meanwhile, everyone is rushing headlong to be both yellow and
green at the same time, while you are stuck in a time warp where
all American cars are boats,

Says he who drives a 4000 LB car with the passenger volume of a Honda
Accord and propels it with a gas guzzling 5.7 L Hemi...

--
-- 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:



I'll say it again, the guy who has the most toys when they die,
wins the game. You simply must face the fact that the world is
divided into two groups: those that have it and those who don't
but want it.


And those who have the foresight to understand that the world does not
belong to any one person and their gluttonous and damaging habits.


So what? We also produce the wealth that fuels the economic
engine of the world.

And have the highest debt, deficit, trade deficit and 40 M boomers about
to retire with insufficient savings...

Talk about a trainwreck.

The Canucks have a really big problem the Americans do not: they
don't build their own cars. /All/ cars sold in Canada are built
by companies foreign to Canada. Yes, cars are built in Canada,
but the profits go elsewhere. And, yes, I know Chrysler's profits
go to Germany, but they also go to me in stock dividends.

So what? Canada builds the lions share of regional jets used in the US.
We export high tech electronics and other durable goods to the world and
the US. We export lakes of oil and natural gas every day to the US. For
that matter, Canada exports more goods to the US than any other country
in the world (and vice versa) something that most Amricans are ignorant
about, and most of the rest, indifferent. The key thing is that the
balance of trade is year in and year out in the favour of Canada (and
that remains despite the climbing value of the CAD$).

Believe me, my own (mainly tax sheltered) portfolio benefits every time
you fill your irresponsible car with gas. But I'd rather that people
everywhere used gas as a function of trasnportation, not as toys.

It is not an American problem. It's a worldwide problem. But
there are a lot more Americans than anyone else causing the
problem. When you have the good grace to admit that, then
maybe you can sit down and wonder if you're a better engineer
for liking a gas guzzler like yours or if you'd be a better
engineer to design, make, and drive, efficient vehicles.


So what? YOu've nowhere near made the case for me to change, or
them that wants to drive a big truck of SUV.

Of course not. Blind, greedy and obstinate stupidity cannot be swayed,
but thanks for proving the pint.




Chrsyler/Dodge make me sick with adverts like: " Decadance
without the shame " adverts for 5.7 L vehicles. It's
disgusting. It is _decadent_.


Glad you're nauseous. The ad for my car that I like the best
proudly exclaims - "A Charger HEMI R/T is a hybrid car - it burns
rubber and gas!" Yeah, man, it's is rush almost as good as sex,
and far cleaper. Come see me some time, we'll take a run down the
local road. Yep, I like to street race, also.

Thanks for clarifying your lack of manhood.

If you think there is talent in pressing on an accelerator then you're
dumber than I assumed.



Get this through your thick skull, Alan. Affluence is all about
consumption. It is /never/ about conservation. That's for the po
folk and the nerds. Now, aren't you happy you tried to twang my
bird cage - unsuccessfully? Now, go away, you bore me.

There is no defence for your attitude. Find toys to play with that
don't damage the world.

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.

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

This is total lunacy as it is highly regressive, the tax
falls most heavily on the poor, and a high tax on gas
guzzlers will discourage owners from trading them in for the
tax creditmobile du jour for years. So, where's the
incentive, other than to make poor people poorer?

Feels bad being cornered, doesn't it?

But that's exactly what the American public have done (buying
gas guzzlers) and Detroit has done (pushing them).

You completely ignored the hard lessons of 1973 and you will
be more severely bitten this time as the US economy is on
shaky foundations, the government is deep in debt (and YOU Mr.
Taxpayer, owe that money as YOU are the government ("We the
People")) and economies like China and India continue their
inexorable growth and hunger for oil. To make that a bit
clearer, you will be bidding with ever cheaper dollars for a
resource that will be climbing in price.

I ignored nothing. The 1973 situation was entirely different.
Besides a doubling in price, the issue was lack of availability.
Check the inflation figures, gas at $3 today is actually cheaper
than gas was prior to the 1973 oil embargo.

Personally, I do my best to reduce fuel consumtion.
Personally I'd be ashamed to drive a 5.7 L 4000 Lb monstrosity
automobile

You should drive one of these "montrosities". YOu might find you
like it better than limping around town holding up traffic so you
can eke out a few cents per mile more efficiency. Don't you have
any fun in your life?

that consumes gasoline way out of proportion of the
transportation service it renders.

Who is to say what fitness-of-purpose is for any vehicle?
Certainly no one squeezed your head for the answer and it is none
of your concern.

And indeed when the day comes for you to sell it (as
unafordable (or
illegal)) to run, well, boo-hoo for you.

Personally, I drive for maximum pleasure and don't give a ****
about gas mileage for a car bought for performance and handling.
And, I don't have a problem selling it, it is leased. Not that
that matters and is none of your business.

You should be aware that it will never, never, /never/ be illegal
to run /any/ vehicle in the United States that passed MVSS and
EPA regulations for its year of manufacture. In every case, when
regs have been made more stringent, existing vehicles are
automatically grandfathered. What the hell do you think is
supposed to happen, you can't drive your 1980 car just because
some asshole wants you to buy hybrids? Get real!

(When you first mentioned a 5.7 L engine I assumed it was for
a pickup truck and assumed that you had some good reason for
the pickup truck. But an AUTOMOBILE WITH THE SAME PASSENGER
VOLUME AS A HONDA ACCORD WITH A 5.7 L engine to drive its
bloated 4000LB frame around? YIKES!)

No, it is a car with MDS (Multiple Displacement System) which
seamlessly shuts down 4 cylinders in about 50 milliseconds at
steady state or coasting, then turns them back on at the least
hint of acceleration. CAFE is 17/25 and it can do it. I would've
bought the 6.1L 425 HP SRT8 except that it wasn't available yet
and I can't use my employee discount on any SRT vehicle.

Again, numbnuts, a Charger has /far/ more interior passenger and
trunk space than a rice burner POS Accord, which has barely
better CAFE numbers. And, 4,000 pounds is hardly bloated. What
exactly do you think an 2006 Accord weighs, not that it matters?

One more time: the name of the game is to have fun with the
affluence you've earned through a lifetime of work and effort,
/not/ to conserve for nutbag green idiots. You drive for mileage,
I'll drive for pleasure, OK?

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"The best defense is a good offense" - Winning strategy for
waging wars or debates

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

Chrysler does make some pretty efficient vehicles....their PT
cruiser and Sebring are both 28 or 29 mpg (freeway) vehicles
that cost around $20,000.......I just claim that these
vehicles wouldn't exist were it not for the foreign influence
over the last 30 years.....IOW, the big three had to have
their faces rubbed in it before they finally saw the light.

What light? They had 1973 over 30 years ago. In the meantime
they've held CAFE in check in order to sell gas guzzlers.
Yes, they've made some progress (beaten into it), but there is
no reason to not be champions at efficiency. The market will
reward them for that, they just can't see it.

It's no surprise that within a year or two Toyota will
stabilize as #1 in the US.

No way, Jose. Look at the numbers. And, as to full model line CAFE,
Chrysler is not as good as GM, but has plenty of high-mileage
vehicles. But, across the board, American cars have as high mileage
as any imports or transplants, given equal size and weight
vehicles.

The only reason The Big Three is hawking E-85 is that there is a
/perceived/ demand for it. Anyone actually buying a flex-fuel
vehicle and calculating real savings instantly finds they are
negative. For starters, E-85 yield only 75% of the miles/tank and
only 75% of the performance of a gas-only engine, yet costs only
about a nickle less/gal. Explain how that is a savings.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"The best defense is a good offense" - Winning strategy for waging
wars or debates

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

All Things Mopar wrote:

Meanwhile, everyone is rushing headlong to be both yellow and
green at the same time, while you are stuck in a time warp
where all American cars are boats,

Says he who drives a 4000 LB car with the passenger volume of
a Honda Accord and propels it with a gas guzzling 5.7 L
Hemi...

You're a total imbecile! Get off the idea of equal interior volume.
You really do need to stop jumping to incorrect conclusions based
on no facts and unfounded assumptions.

But, if you want to drive a piece of **** to save a few nickles and
dimes, more power to you. I'll drive what I want, and so will the
rest of the buyers. Your opinion doesn't matter more than a warm
bucket of spit.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"The best defense is a good offense" - Winning strategy for waging
wars or debates

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

I'll say it again, the guy who has the most toys when they
die, wins the game. You simply must face the fact that the
world is divided into two groups: those that have it and
those who don't but want it.

And those who have the foresight to understand that the world
does not belong to any one person and their gluttonous and
damaging habits.

The world belongs to those with the balls to go out and take it.
Get a life.

So what? We also produce the wealth that fuels the economic
engine of the world.

And have the highest debt, deficit, trade deficit and 40 M
boomers about to retire with insufficient savings...

I have no problems with my retirement portfolio.

Talk about a trainwreck.

The Canucks have a really big problem the Americans do not:
they don't build their own cars. /All/ cars sold in Canada
are built by companies foreign to Canada. Yes, cars are built
in Canada, but the profits go elsewhere. And, yes, I know
Chrysler's profits go to Germany, but they also go to me in
stock dividends.

So what? Canada builds the lions share of regional jets used
in the US. We export high tech electronics and other durable
goods to the world and the US. We export lakes of oil and
natural gas every day to the US. For that matter, Canada
exports more goods to the US than any other country in the
world (and vice versa) something that most Amricans are
ignorant about, and most of the rest, indifferent. The key
thing is that the balance of trade is year in and year out in
the favour of Canada (and that remains despite the climbing
value of the CAD$).

We're talking about cars, not airliners. And, if you are not an
American citizen, butt out of the discussion. You have no legal
standing whatsoever and your opinions, wrong though they are,
have no value.

Believe me, my own (mainly tax sheltered) portfolio benefits
every time you fill your irresponsible car with gas. But I'd
rather that people everywhere used gas as a function of
trasnportation, not as toys.

How would you know how your portfolio, family income, and
benefits compare to mine? And, "irresponsible" is just your
opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

Get this through your thick skull: the idea behind accumulating
wealth is to spend it on toys, of all types, including services
as well as commodities. But, you are welcome to spend your money
as you please. It is only when you have the outrageous audacity
and arrogance to attempt to inflict your ideas on me do I even
care at all.

It is not an American problem. It's a worldwide problem.
But there are a lot more Americans than anyone else causing
the problem. When you have the good grace to admit that,
then maybe you can sit down and wonder if you're a better
engineer for liking a gas guzzler like yours or if you'd be a
better engineer to design, make, and drive, efficient
vehicles.


So what? YOu've nowhere near made the case for me to change,
or them that wants to drive a big truck of SUV.

No one is asking you to change. You can drive your rice burner
straight to hell for all I care.

Of course not. Blind, greedy and obstinate stupidity cannot
be swayed, but thanks for proving the pint.

YOur opinion, blowing out your ass as always.

Chrsyler/Dodge make me sick with adverts like: " Decadance
without the shame " adverts for 5.7 L vehicles. It's
disgusting. It is _decadent_.


Glad you're nauseous. The ad for my car that I like the best
proudly exclaims - "A Charger HEMI R/T is a hybrid car - it
burns rubber and gas!" Yeah, man, it's is rush almost as good
as sex, and far cleaper. Come see me some time, we'll take a
run down the local road. Yep, I like to street race, also.

Thanks for clarifying your lack of manhood.

Got all the manhood I need, thank you. You do what you like and
I'll do what I like.

If you think there is talent in pressing on an accelerator
then you're dumber than I assumed.

You're right here - it takes no talent at all. Just mash the loud
pedal to the floor and steer - and look at the idiots in their
itty bitty cars in your rear view mirror. Ditto for high-speed
handling and about any other characteristic of performance vs.
POS "family cars".

Get this through your thick skull, Alan. Affluence is all
about consumption. It is /never/ about conservation. That's
for the po folk and the nerds. Now, aren't you happy you
tried to twang my bird cage - unsuccessfully? Now, go away,
you bore me.

There is no defence for your attitude. Find toys to play with
that don't damage the world.

YOu keep talking about damage to the world. Who the hell are you
to talk about damage that you cannot define and cannot
substantiate? And, I do not need to defend anything. My American
citizenship is all I need as a free person to buy what I choose
and use it as I please, within the law, of course.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"The best defense is a good offense" - Winning strategy for
waging wars or debates

All Things Mopar wrote:

It's no surprise that within a year or two Toyota will
stabilize as #1 in the US.

No way, Jose. Look at the numbers.

Numbers? Read 'em and weep:
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds...ap2787860.html

Overall numbers for May 2006

Ford: Down 2%
GM: Down 12%
Chrysler: Down 11%

Toyota: Up 17% (Car sales up a whopping 25%)
Honda Up 21% (Mainly Fit and new Civic)
Nissan: Down 7% (3% for the year)

There are some bright points for US makers in the article above, so
please read.


The only reason The Big Three is hawking E-85 is that there is a
/perceived/ demand for it. Anyone actually buying a flex-fuel
vehicle and calculating real savings instantly finds they are
negative. For starters, E-85 yield only 75% of the miles/tank and
only 75% of the performance of a gas-only engine, yet costs only
about a nickle less/gal. Explain how that is a savings.

I never claimed it was a savings. It's an alternate fuel that does not
depend on foreign oil sources. It is less energy efficent by volume and
that should be reflected in the price. (And its price has followed the
trend, not the cost). It is officially subsidized more than gasoline
(in the US) but gasoline's real subsidy includes foreign adventures like
Iraq. The Washington Post painted a rosy picture in an article a couple
weeks ago, but failed to mention the lower energy content. The price
(or rather value) is obviously an important part of the story that needs
to be told for people to make their right choice.

Some people, knowing that E-85 is currently over priced by the joule,
are still willing to pay a premium to NOT use gasoline alone. Over
time, E-85 will have to be price cometitive with gasoline... as it is
already in Brazil where over 40% of automobile energy is E-90, simply
because people are getting more km/$. (Réal).

Perceived demand? Illinois E-85 sales alone amounted to 685 M gallons
last year. And it is growing rapidly in the states with high grain
agriculture. GM, Chrylser and Ford have put nearly 6 M E85 compatible
vehicles on the road.

But don't worry, your Foreign-oil 4000 LB 5-passenger 5.7L engined gas
guzzling Chrysler is not one of them.

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.

All Things Mopar wrote:

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


All Things Mopar wrote:


Meanwhile, everyone is rushing headlong to be both yellow and
green at the same time, while you are stuck in a time warp
where all American cars are boats,

Says he who drives a 4000 LB car with the passenger volume of
a Honda Accord and propels it with a gas guzzling 5.7 L
Hemi...


You're a total imbecile! Get off the idea of equal interior volume.
You really do need to stop jumping to incorrect conclusions based
on no facts and unfounded assumptions.

An automobile is transportation, not a toy.

And even if it's a toy, then get a lighter one with less power.
You can get your little boy thrills with a smaller car and engine.
( Hint: F=ma )

But, if you want to drive a piece of **** to save a few nickles and

Yeah, my last Accord, during 8 years had cost me a measly $1000 in
maintenance, boo-hoo. (Includes the exhaust system, but not oil changes
and tires). An American car would have cost 3X that to judge by
everyone I know whom owns one... as soon as the warranty runs out so do
the parts. Everyone I know with an American car buys the extended
warranty. I would never buy that for Honda.

My current Accord, 5+ years has had 0 maintenance dollars put in (other
than oil changes/tires) but has developed a come-to-idle-stalling
condition (in a narrow temperature range that will require the EGR to be
.... cleaned. BFD.

Calling Hondas POS's is a laugh. Toyota and Honda, respectively have
the highest quality ratings of any car lines.

I'd rather pay more for value. I've yet to see an American car that I
trust for the long term. (For that matter I consider VW to be an
expensive reliability joke to judge by everyone I know who has one).

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.

All Things Mopar wrote:

You should drive one of these "montrosities". YOu might find you
like it better than limping around town holding up traffic so you
can eke out a few cents per mile more efficiency. Don't you have
any fun in your life?

Sigh. My car has enough pickup that I don't hold anyone up. OTOH I
don't get a thrill out of the gas pedal. I occasionally delight in a
tight winding two lane road as a toe and heel exercise, but that occurs
less and less (opportunity).

I've driven the odd monstrosity and it leaves me indifferent. Soft
suspensions are weary to me.


that consumes gasoline way out of proportion of the

transportation service it renders.


Who is to say what fitness-of-purpose is for any vehicle?
Certainly no one squeezed your head for the answer and it is none
of your concern.


And indeed when the day comes for you to sell it (as
unafordable (or
illegal)) to run, well, boo-hoo for you.


Personally, I drive for maximum pleasure and don't give a ****
about gas mileage for a car bought for performance and handling.

Yes, go on polluting and wasting, that's clear enough.

And, I don't have a problem selling it, it is leased. Not that
that matters and is none of your business.

Of course it matters. That's a good strategy. Lease it and then turn
it over after 3 or whatever years. I personally get so much more value
out of a more expensive car by paying for it (finance it for 3 but pay
it in 12 - 15 months) that leasing is a truly bad way to employ my money.


You should be aware that it will never, never, /never/ be illegal
to run /any/ vehicle in the United States that passed MVSS and
EPA regulations for its year of manufacture. In every case, when
regs have been made more stringent, existing vehicles are
automatically grandfathered. What the hell do you think is
supposed to happen, you can't drive your 1980 car just because
some asshole wants you to buy hybrids? Get real!

No, but as there are more and more new cars to replace those that were
not lovingly maintained, the fleet will get ever higher MPG. As to the
future, you never know.



(When you first mentioned a 5.7 L engine I assumed it was for
a pickup truck and assumed that you had some good reason for
the pickup truck. But an AUTOMOBILE WITH THE SAME PASSENGER
VOLUME AS A HONDA ACCORD WITH A 5.7 L engine to drive its
bloated 4000LB frame around? YIKES!)


No, it is a car with MDS (Multiple Displacement System) which
seamlessly shuts down 4 cylinders in about 50 milliseconds at
steady state or coasting, then turns them back on at the least
hint of acceleration. CAFE is 17/25 and it can do it.

No vehicle in real world conditions meets the MPG sticker. It's not bad
as a classification, but it's not an accurate estimate of real world
driving. The only time I've met pub'd MPG for the last two cars (for
which I kept accurate records) are on long highway rides.

Again, numbnuts, a Charger has /far/ more interior passenger and
trunk space than a rice burner POS Accord, which has barely

Accord 102 ft^3. Charger: 104 ft^3. How that 2 extra ft^3 (2%)
translates into "far more" is an exercise in justification that I'm sure
you'll enjoy.

Yes, the Charger has tons of trunk space. Hurray. And the same volume
could have been attained at far less vehicle weight.

better CAFE numbers. And, 4,000 pounds is hardly bloated. What
exactly do you think an 2006 Accord weighs, not that it matters?

I put up the numbers in an ealrier post, which, facing the truth, you
ignored (as usual). The "Charger" is a shameful pollution monger.

One more time: the name of the game is to have fun with the
affluence you've earned through a lifetime of work and effort,
/not/ to conserve for nutbag green idiots. You drive for mileage,
I'll drive for pleasure, OK?

If using an automobile for joy, pollution and waste is the height of
your life attainement you are truly an empty husk of a person.

--
-- 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:


I have no problems with my retirement portfolio.

That's the problem. You, an individual are well set (as you claim or
believe). But your American neighbors of your generation are not.

That you can't see the community problem (waste, pollution, economics)
is a huge part of the overall problem. You're married to Chrysler so I
have no illusions about your perceptions, as misfounded as they are.

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.