Its about time

He keeps making sense, that is refreshing;

Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet (AP)

FILE - In this June 2, 2008 file photo, electric hybrid cars are plugged-in to charge during a demonstration of the vehicles in Seattle. AFS Trinity says it has the only working plug-in hybrid vehicles with a 40-mile 'all-electric' range. President Barack Obama outlined Tuesday, May 19, 2009, the nation's first comprehensive effort to curb vehicle emissions while cutting dependence on imported oil, calling the plan an historic turning point toward a 'clean-energy economy.' (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, file)AP - Some soccer moms will have to give up hulking SUVs. Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more. Nearly everybody else will drive smaller cars, and more of them will run on electricity. The higher mileage and emissions standards set by the Obama administration on Tuesday, which begin to take effect in 2012 and are to be achieved by 2016, will transform the American car and truck fleet.

I wonder though, are people ready to make the hard choices that make sense?

Hope so, if more people drove smaller cars the roads might be a nicer place

Have a good weekend, Rick

I hope you have fun driving your Fiat type smart car getting 38 mpg because you won't live very long if I hit you driving my pickup!

Cool, when can I expect delivery, I could use a new car

So you have a death wish? I would think there are better ways to get to the other side!

Quote
wodcutr
So you have a death wish?

Rick rides motorcycles. That death wish thing goes without saying.

Any "Fiat type smart car getting 38 mpg" is going to provide superior occupant safety compared to a motorcycle, if you're planning on hitting him with your pickup truck.

Besides, small vehicles like smart cars and motorcycles are way more nimble than your truck. You'd have to catch him first. And while you're chasing him he can go on evading you for days, whereas you'll be stopping frequently to refuel your truck.

Yes, I'm quite nimble when someone is after me, and I always keep it topped up B)

I didn't say that I would try to hit him intentionally, but accidents do happen you know!

I guess for safety's sake, then, we should all drive around in M1 Abrams tanks, eh?

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT

Only if China decides to try and collect on our debt and invades the mainland!

Quote
Cab Treadway
I guess for safety's sake, then, we should all drive around in M1 Abrams tanks, eh?

Only if I'm allowed to put a fancy loud exhaust on my M1 to make it really sound fast.

Just paint it yellow. Then it'll be the fastest tank around.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT

If two of those collide head on, your body will act as the crumple zone.

I read all about the obama admins stuff and CAFE is already their. I cant stand hybrids because the people think they are saving the world when the carbon foot print is larger from a prius then the f250 power stroke I drive. This is when you account for a total build of both cars because of the mining for the nickel for the batteries. What we need are the tdis that the rest of the world has the 330d and the e320 mbz hell Honda makes tdi that get better mpg then most hybrids. But California has blocked these.

Jack

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

This makes about as much sense as saying bicycles produce more pollution than Harley Davidson ElectraGlides because when people pedal they fart too much and all that methane is worse than the tiny amount of hydrocarbons the Harley emits.

The batteries are made of nickel, the nickel is mined in Canada, nickel mining is a really nasty thing it causes acid rain. It is loaded up on boat and shipped to Spain I believe where it is made into the gel from there it is shipped to China to be turned in to foam, then to Japan to be placed in the car. Finally its shipped back across the Pacific in to California, then transported to the rest of the states. After the useful life of the battery they are not recycled just dumped so you have dumped a really nasty battery that will eventually leak. Thats why the carbon foot print is so much larger, and those batteries don't last that long I think 60000ish.

[www.youtube.com]

My tdi jetta gets 45 hwy thats up their with the hybrid, their less adverses side effects.

The truck is made in Kentucky. It gets about 15 pre chip, post chip 25ish highway.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2009 09:27AM by jl1371.

So much misinformation here

Might be a better subject to stay away from but those prius batteries scare me too. Wonder what the third generation Prius is all about- Four driving modes?

Not the edition I was looking for I think...

I don't want people to get the idea that I live in the south and feel the need to drive a big truck to over compensate, I do construction and the truck is for working. Mostly I am pro new technologies just not when it comes with a new worse cost. So often I feel that we are having the wool pulled over our eyes by the big three soon the big 2. We have prove technologies here and keep allowing blocking them from this country. Peoples wrong negative perception of these technologies does not help. I just took a friend to pick up his TDI 4Runner that also runs WVO. He has the same speces of the 6er with twice the fuel economy, and this car would have to be imported special or have a complex swap done.

Here in Europe several countries are encouraging buying a new car, as it would save in CO2 output. Have they ever thought how much CO2 is blasted in the air when a car is being created? From mining and recycling to assembly? You'd drop dead if you knew, it's way better to keep driving your older car!

I wonder how many Prius cars will head for the wrecking yard when the batteries go and the owner can't afford the new battery pack? That could very well define the duty cycle of that car.

alan

Quote
alanrw
I wonder how many Prius cars will head for the wrecking yard when the batteries go and the owner can't afford the new battery pack? That could very well define the duty cycle of that car.

alan

When these cars need new batteries, the next generation of Lithium Ion batteries will be the replacements.

Peter,have you seen any cost estimate on that? My understanding is it is a pretty hefty number. Granted, the cars are much cleaner, but I think if you amortize the cost of the batteries over the 7-8 year duty cycle, I think you break even on "fuel costs" compared to a normal internal combustion engine.

alan

Quote
alanrw
Peter,have you seen any cost estimate on that? My understanding is it is a pretty hefty number. Granted, the cars are much cleaner, but I think if you amortize the cost of the batteries over the 7-8 year duty cycle, I think you break even on "fuel costs" compared to a normal internal combustion engine.

alan

All the comparative cost estimates are based on initial cost amortized over the 8 to 10 year period. I've seen no estimates about how that would work out if the batteries are replaced...not sure any of the cars are old enough to need that yet and the few original Prius are long gone.

If cost is pollution; then hybrids are possible worse than conventional cars

The other thing that never gets thrown into the arguement is that by the time most of thee cars need new batteries, the technology will be different and the costs should be way down from current levels. It is also never mentioned that after 10 years of use; especially as taxis; these cars will not be worth replacing the batteries...they will be scrapped just like 10 year old North American products.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2009 07:35AM by Archeo-peteriX.

All good points except the 10 life cycle. Many Asian econoboxes with conventional engines last far longer than 10 years.
We see a lot of them here in Southern California. It would seem that shortening the life cycle of a car due to the economics of battery replacement is not a "very green" ideal?

alan

Quote
alanrw
All good points except the 10 life cycle. Many Asian econoboxes with conventional engines last far longer than 10 years.
We see a lot of them here in Southern California. It would seem that shortening the life cycle of a car due to the economics of battery replacement is not a "very green" ideal?

alan

True but unfortunately most car owners will be tired of a car after 10 years and will use any rationalization to dump it for something new even though it almost never makes monetary sense. This is a big part of why the automobile is such a big polluter...not just the vehicle but all the industry surrounding it's manufacturing.
If the average car owner kept his vehicle for 10 years instead of the national average of 3 years, it would drastically reduce the combined pollution of adding new cars to the roads along with the pollution created in their manufacture.

In stead, our governments pour billions and billions of dollars into keeping the defunct, inefficient car manufacturers in business so they can produce more pollution!
What is green about that?

Well, again, all true but you can extend the same argument for manufacture of anything else. Imagine what the steel industry puts into the environment. I would think the illogical extension of this would be to ban any and all manufacturing on a global basis but surely that is an extemist view.

From an economic point of view, a shorter life cycle is beneficial to the economy, shorter life cycle=more product turnover=increased consumption.

The other consideration is on the idea of globalization. As China comes online as the new manufacturing nexus, at what point will the world at large demand that they start instituting anti-pollution measures which are largely absent at this point, They pretty much dump their wastes out the back door into the nearest river. Remember the smog issue in Beijing last summer with the Olympics?

alan

Quote
Archeo-peteriX
True but unfortunately most car owners will be tired of a car after 10 years and will use any rationalization to dump it for something new even though it almost never makes monetary sense. This is a big part of why the automobile is such a big polluter...not just the vehicle but all the industry surrounding it's manufacturing.
If the average car owner kept his vehicle for 10 years instead of the national average of 3 years, it would drastically reduce the combined pollution of adding new cars to the roads along with the pollution created in their manufacture.

In stead, our governments pour billions and billions of dollars into keeping the defunct, inefficient car manufacturers in business so they can produce more pollution!
What is green about that?

It's not just the new car owner that is relevant, though. If the car itself is capable of a longer life cycle, it can and will continue to be driven by used car owners. There are plenty of people out there ready to buy 3 y/o cars because the big depreciation has already hit and it's a low-cost vehicle that will last for many more years. If, OTOH, the car in question is a few year-old hybrid that is due for a very expensive battery replacement, the secondary market won't be so willing to jump on it.

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT

Quote
alanrw
Well, again, all true but you can extend the same argument for manufacture of anything else. Imagine what the steel industry puts into the environment. I would think the illogical extension of this would be to ban any and all manufacturing on a global basis but surely that is an extemist view.

From an economic point of view, a shorter life cycle is beneficial to the economy, shorter life cycle=more product turnover=increased consumption.

The other consideration is on the idea of globalization. As China comes online as the new manufacturing nexus, at what point will the world at large demand that they start instituting anti-pollution measures which are largely absent at this point, They pretty much dump their wastes out the back door into the nearest river. Remember the smog issue in Beijing last summer with the Olympics?

alan

Good point, and the electronic waste industry (all the old computers and such sent over there), that's appalling. All countries have to be accountable especially these days of overpopulation.

Quote
Cab Treadway

Quote
Archeo-peteriX
True but unfortunately most car owners will be tired of a car after 10 years and will use any rationalization to dump it for something new even though it almost never makes monetary sense. This is a big part of why the automobile is such a big polluter...not just the vehicle but all the industry surrounding it's manufacturing.
If the average car owner kept his vehicle for 10 years instead of the national average of 3 years, it would drastically reduce the combined pollution of adding new cars to the roads along with the pollution created in their manufacture.

In stead, our governments pour billions and billions of dollars into keeping the defunct, inefficient car manufacturers in business so they can produce more pollution!
What is green about that?

It's not just the new car owner that is relevant, though. If the car itself is capable of a longer life cycle, it can and will continue to be driven by used car owners. There are plenty of people out there ready to buy 3 y/o cars because the big depreciation has already hit and it's a low-cost vehicle that will last for many more years. If, OTOH, the car in question is a few year-old hybrid that is due for a very expensive battery replacement, the secondary market won't be so willing to jump on it.

Its sad, you'd think by now car manufactures would think a little in to the future about how cars are made and how well they last. Peters right in that supporting failed companies just perpetuate the mess instead of thinning out the heard/deadwood.

There are cars nowadays being made better, but its a little late for the most part

Its one of the reasons I love the Thirty's so much; it's a car worth keeping up, and using

Quote
rkj
Its sad, you'd think by now car manufactures would think a little in to the future about how cars are made and how well they last. Peters right in that supporting failed companies just perpetuate the mess instead of thinning out the heard/deadwood.

I guess I don't think it's sad, because I don't expect that from them. Manufacturers are companies whose goal is to make money. They will make and sell what people are interested in buying. And in fact, the companies make more money when people go out and buy new cars every three years. So it's not surprising to me that the manufacturers are trying to make money. That's what all companies do. Nobody forced millions of customers to buy large trucks and SUVs, they were sold because that's what the market wanted. If the majority of consumers wanted small, lightweight, fuel efficient cars, they would buy them, and the companies that didn't offer those types of options would be in trouble. Oh, wait... that's one of the reasons the "Big 3" are in trouble. But I don't believe the manufacturers are to blame for making and selling cars that people have wanted to buy. The people who continued to buy those cars without looking towards the future are far more to blame, IMO. If people really want a cleaner environment and cars that last for 10+ yrs, those cars are out there, so let the marketplace determine which companies prosper.

Quote

There are cars nowadays being made better, but its a little late for the most part

In general, you're absolutely right. Even the "bad" cars of today are far better than most of the cars that were available 20-30 years ago. The companies that made cars that really sucked have either been forced to improve their product or are no longer in business.

Quote

Its one of the reasons I love the Thirty's so much; it's a car worth keeping up, and using

Amen to that, brother! I am looking forward to being done with school and hopefully having a bit more time so I can really start working on mine!

Cab
1990 325i(s)
2004 325XiT



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/12/2009 04:13AM by Cab Treadway.