If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
necromancer > wrote in
th.net: > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Laura Bush > murdered her boy friend shows everyone in rec.autos.driving what a > stupid ****ing idiot it really is: > >> >> wrote: >> > Ed White wrote: >> > > So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that >> > > people want to buy? >> > >> > That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. >> > General >> > Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few >> > wanted them to keep doing it. >> > >> >> Are electic cars really the answer?. > > Yes, it is, you ignoramus! > >> As many have pointed out, the nrg to run them has to come from >> somewhere. > > Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was > scuttled.....), You're a little behind;the Dishonorable Sen.Kennedy failed to block it,it's going ahead,last I read.(couple of days ago) IMO,GM is ****ed because the Japs took advantage of the laws and accumulated enough CAFE credits (by selling small cars)to avoid penalties for a very long time,while GM just kept on making guzzlers and no development of smaller,more efficient cars. Again,"Detroit" just declined to compete. I get a huge laugh out of watching people trying to drive those big SUVs and PU trucks as if they were regular autos,especially when they try to park them,or have to slow to a crawl to go around an ordinary 90deg corner. Then I laugh even more at the gas station. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
Dave Head wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:10:12 GMT, David Hartung > wrote: > >> Dave Head wrote: >>> On 27 Dec 2006 02:34:04 -0800, wrote: >>> >>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote: >>>>> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get >>>>> our troops killed. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm >>>>> >>>>> GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules >>>>> >>>>> Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET >>>>> >>>>> DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards >>>>> would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for >>>>> trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior >>>>> General Motors (GM) executive said. >>>> All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and >>>> people could drive as big vehicles as they want. >>> From all I've read, we don't have enough land to produce enough of those things >>> to power our economy. It'd be a small supplement, but not a replacement. >>> >>>> Problem solved >>> Nope. Guess again. >>> >>>> - and >>>> US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas to >>>> pay for that oil. >>> That'd sure be nice. We need a solution, tho, that somehow makes cars >>> effectively get 100 mpg in such a way that they're not boring and not too small >>> and don't involve sharing space with other people or be at the mercy of someone >>> else's driving the vehicle you're riding in, etc. >>> >>>> Some US drivers have already switched. >>> A very tiny percentage. And if everybody did it, there wouldn't be enough >>> biodiesel and alcohol to keep everyone moving like they do now. >> http://www.changingworldtech.com/ > > These people seem to have answers for far too many problems to be believable. > I'm guessing they're scamming for research $$$. If they knew how to do all > that stuff, they would, and probably wind up being richer than Gates. http://www.res-energy.com/ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:27:45 GMT, David Hartung > wrote:
>Dave Head wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:10:12 GMT, David Hartung > wrote: >> >>> Dave Head wrote: >>>> On 27 Dec 2006 02:34:04 -0800, wrote: >>>> >>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote: >>>>>> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get >>>>>> our troops killed. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules >>>>>> >>>>>> Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET >>>>>> >>>>>> DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards >>>>>> would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for >>>>>> trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior >>>>>> General Motors (GM) executive said. >>>>> All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and >>>>> people could drive as big vehicles as they want. >>>> From all I've read, we don't have enough land to produce enough of those things >>>> to power our economy. It'd be a small supplement, but not a replacement. >>>> >>>>> Problem solved >>>> Nope. Guess again. >>>> >>>>> - and >>>>> US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas to >>>>> pay for that oil. >>>> That'd sure be nice. We need a solution, tho, that somehow makes cars >>>> effectively get 100 mpg in such a way that they're not boring and not too small >>>> and don't involve sharing space with other people or be at the mercy of someone >>>> else's driving the vehicle you're riding in, etc. >>>> >>>>> Some US drivers have already switched. >>>> A very tiny percentage. And if everybody did it, there wouldn't be enough >>>> biodiesel and alcohol to keep everyone moving like they do now. >>> http://www.changingworldtech.com/ >> >> These people seem to have answers for far too many problems to be believable. >> I'm guessing they're scamming for research $$$. If they knew how to do all >> that stuff, they would, and probably wind up being richer than Gates. > >http://www.res-energy.com/ Looks great. Hope they get down to business and produce lotsa biodiesel. And gasoline. We need gasoline. Hopefully this can be used to empty the landfills and convert their contents to something useful. Landfills seem to me to be one of the dumbest ideas of the 20th century. Dave Head |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
Dave Head > wrote in
: > Landfills seem to me to be one of the > dumbest ideas of the 20th century. > > Dave Head > 100% agreement on that. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
necromancer wrote: > > > Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was > scuttled.....), hydro, geothermal, nuclear, coal, natural gas or just > about anything else that can turn a shaft..... Yeah yeah yeah. More expensive technological solutions Just go to smaller cars and lower speeds. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
On Dec 26, 9:20 pm, "Ed White" > wrote: > Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote: > > > Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get > > our troops killed. > > >http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...-12-26-gmfuele... > > > GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules >So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people > want to buy? The problem is that GM is NOT building the cars that people want to buy. If they were (along with Ford and Chrysler) they wouldn't be in such financial trouble. Look at Toyota and Honda. They are building the cars that people want to buy and most of their cars get better mileage than the comparable GM/Ford/Chrysler offering. JohnED. >And of course the politicians will keep buying gas > guzzlers for themselves. Or maybe they will be like some of the > hypocritical celebs who fly to events in private jets, but arrive at > the "red carpet" in a Prius and tell everyone how concerned they are > about the environment. > > If the government wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they > should slap a hefty import duty on imported oil. But then, the Saudis > might quit buying them off. > > I agree with the idea of reducing our dependednce on foreighn oil, I > just think CAFE-like quotas are not only stupid, in the long run they > won't work. If the government implements these stupid rules, then GM. > Ford, and Chrysler will be hurt, and people who want large SUVs will > just keep their old ones around longer - which will be worse for fuel > economy, the government, and the environments, as wel as GM, Ford, and > Chrysler. > > Ed |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>>http://www.changingworldtech.com/ > > These people seem to have answers for far too many problems to be believable. > I'm guessing they're scamming for research $$$. If they knew how to do all > that stuff, they would, and probably wind up being richer than Gates. It's been done, it works. Problem is it costs more per barrel to make than current market prices due to a host of problems in sorting out the process for each 'batch' of feedstock and that they actually have to pay for the waste they make the oil out of rather than getting it for free. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
In article et>, necromancer wrote:
> From my understanding, just about any car in the USA right now can run > on E-10 with no modifications. Replace 10% (or even 5%) of our gas > consumption with ethanol sounds Was done about 10 years ago in IL |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
OT TAN: Landfill Alternatives
Scott en Aztlán wrote: > Jim Yanik > said in rec.autos.driving: > > >Dave Head > wrote > > > >> Landfills seem to me to be one of the > >> dumbest ideas of the 20th century. > > > >100% agreement on that. > > OK, so where would you put all of that garbage that currently goes > into landfills? Dump it into rivers, lakes, and oceans? Quite a bit of it could be either composted or recycled. Which reminds me, I have a composter for kitchen waste that still needs to be assembled... nate |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
necromancer wrote: > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), said in > rec.autos.driving: > > > > Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote: > > > Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get > > > our troops killed. > > > > > > http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm > > > > > > GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules > > > > > > Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET > > > > > > DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards > > > would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for > > > trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior > > > General Motors (GM) executive said. > > > > All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and > > people could drive as big vehicles as they want. Problem solved - and > > US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas to > > pay for that oil. > > From my understanding, just about any car in the USA right now can run > on E-10 with no modifications. Replace 10% (or even 5%) of our gas > consumption with ethanol sounds like a good start to me. But it would > only be a temporary measure while we develop something else and shake > the addiction to the black crack (oil) all together. Not exactly. Older fuel system rubber components are not compatible with any amount of ethanol, so all hoses would need to be replaced. Also a carbureted vehicle will not run well on E10 no matter what. And you will have lower fuel economy with E10 than with straight gasoline. Obviously we have already made the decision to switch to E10 across the board, so it's a done deal, but to say "no modifications" is not true. Neglecting to replace the hoses on an older vehicle is a serious safety issue. In fact, I would encourage anyone driving an older vehicle to go ahead and replace all the rubber in the fuel system with new even if it looks OK on the outside because modern fuel can cause some rubbers to decompose into a tarry goo that doesn't do a very good job of holding pressurized fuel. I actually know of a kid that had an old Lark that he fixed up for a driver; it burned to the ground when one of his fuel hoses sprung a leak. He'd actually been proactive and replaced the few small sections of rubber line, but when he looked at the leftovers it had an old date code. It apparently had been sitting on the shelf in the parts store for a while Don't let this happen to you... FWIW it seems that auto parts stores have become aware of this issue and if you go into a parts store today likely you won't even see the old style fuel line anymore. All they are selling now is the heavier, higher-pressure "fuel injection" hose, and they appear to generally have very current date codes as well. nate |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
L98: starts, but won't keep running. | Dave Gee | Corvette | 15 | October 22nd 05 08:43 PM |
Can 02 Mustang show which cylinder misfires on scanner? | John Shepardson | Ford Mustang | 3 | August 29th 05 03:40 AM |
High Gas Prices Fuel an Octane Rebellion | MrPepper11 | Driving | 434 | August 18th 05 12:25 AM |
DaimlerChrysler Commits Over $70 Million to Fuel Cell | Shrike | Dodge | 0 | March 30th 05 09:03 PM |
Change in fuel economy with roof racks on A4 Avant? | Robert | Audi | 7 | August 7th 04 11:52 AM |