Or we could simply restrict the use of cars that can exceed reasonable speeds to those that can demonstrate the ability to drive them.
IE - have differing levels of driver's licenses. One level authorizes you to drive an ordinary car. A more difficult test would net you a license to drive a sports car.
And another, very difficult test road test would net you the right to drive the exotic, superfast cars.
And without the proper license, a driver would not be allowed to drive a car of said type.
Then, abolish speed limits. Those that cannot handle driving fast will not have a car that can drive fast, as they would not be able to get the necessary license to drive it.
Clearly Seattle only has about 50% the solar energy potential that Phoenix has. These are the two extremes but it is still enough to be useable. Also you aren't that far from northern Nevada, which has some of the best solar potential. On top of that solar panels are being developed that tap into different parts of the spectrum, making direct sunlight less important. The northwest is a very green place. If plants are growing then there is solar energy.
Many of the (well thought out) alternatives here for replenishing and expanding our resources have undesireable side effects- and opening up wildlife refuges, diverting food supplies to energy production, opening up new refineries (smelly and dangerous places to be sure), creating big windfarms, etc- all have their drawbacks.
But I still maintain that we wouldn't necessarily be "punishing" ourselves if we started using "somewhat" less energy. And that doesn't mean the Tahoe driver buys an Aveo, but maybe an Acadia, or the Taurus V6 buyer gets a 4 cylinder Fusion (or heavens, maybe a Focus!) next time. I have traveled to lots of different countries, and I see that richer countries that have adjusted to high energy costs still have a good standard of living (Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden for example). Do you really "need" a 300 HP large vehicle weighing 5000 pounds to move your 200 pound body around? Or "need" a 3600 square foot house on 1/2 acre of land? "Want" or "Think I can afford/deserve" is different than really "need".
I am downsizing on my next vehicle purchase (may not be so soon, my Volvo S-70 with 126K is still running strong!). But whatever I get, I know it will take me from Point A to Point B very well. But it will also have a lower fuel consumption, and heck, I am in heavy traffic half my driving anyway.
I think it is too early to jump on the PV bandwagon. There are some really great ideas being developed that will not take up your whole yard or be an eyesore to your neighbors. I like the new PVs that look like roofing shingles. Interestingly they were developed by the same Ovonics that gave us the NiMH batteries.
If the return on investment takes 5 years in the SouthWestern US I would imagine it would be a least 10 years in the NW.
The downside is CA law limits the golf carts to roads posted 35 MPH or less. Many surface streets in my area are 40-45 MPH. I cannot leave the subdivision with a golf cart, or I would have bought one years ago for short trips shopping.
How fast can a golf cart go, anyway? I always thought it would be neat to have one, although I realistically couldn't do much with it, except play around in the yard with it. I dunno what Maryland law has to say about taking them out on the road.
Most are limited to 25 MPH. I see a couple of the GEMs running around our area. They seem to be getting away with it. I don't imagine the average cop in our area realize they are breaking the law. They are usually in the right lane of the 6 lane streets. Not blocking traffic anymore than some older drivers.
I would think the use of a larger ATV (300cc and up) would be great on roads 45 mph and less. Most at that size have turn signals, brake lights, headlights, and reverse.
I betcha they'd be hell on the highway...their steering geometry as presently set is too quick for high speed and they are grossly understeering vehicles as I recall. I sure wouldn't want to do a high speed off-ramp/on-ramp in one! I thin you'd push right into a rail very easily.
But I guess you could re-configure them to behave better, but they might lose their ATV capabilities to a large degree.
Drill in Alaska, in the Gulf of Mexico, off the California coast, expand the Alberta tar sand operation, expand current oil field operations, not to mention oil fields in Russia, Central Asia, the Spratly Islands, sub-Saharan Africa, etc, etc, etc.
Except for Alaska, we're already doing all those that are economically feasible.
...coal gasification plants.
Sounds wonderful until you realize how much GW gases those things will generate. Mortaging our future does not sounds like a great alternative.
...thermal depolymerization...
Great...except the input (like turkey) is linda limited, and the smells produced have shut down the test plants repeatedly.
...the price increase for gasoline is currently driven by our lack of refining capacity...
Sure, in the short term....but the long term rise of the price of oil had to do with global demand and our proximity to the peak production of oil.
If you don't want a refinery, then you don't want it's product...
And that's bad because....????
Hey, anything that drives us to consider alternatives is probably a good thing.
But all this is too much for most. ANWR = 2 months of US oil consumption is all most can handle.
Well, actually, when the question of whether drilling in ANWR would be an appropriate response to rising oil prices, it's kinda reasonable to limit the context to ANWR.
As for "handling" the rest, the notion that we can "produce" our way out of the oil supply/demand problem is not reasonable, at least beyond the fairly short term.
As if we'd suddenly stop using all other oil except ANWR.
We will, eventually.
I agree with the "spirit" of your post (I think) in the sense that we need to come up with reasonable alternative energy sources. I just don't think that finding alternatives that producie oil are the answer.
I'm a motorcycle freak but I'm not fond of scooters at all.
Why?
Because of the small wheels and the steering geometry. Scooters are, IMO, far more dangerous than motorcycles in terms of being able to control them at speed. I think driving a scooter over 35 mph is kind of a death wish, at least in the traditional configuration of tiny wheels, nearly straight up and down steering tube and chair-like sitting.
And when you add a newbie driver to a scooter, that's a recipe for trouble. I hope people don't go this way to save gas. I would encourage them to buy small cc motorcycles instead.
Agree 100% on the older Vespa types, but the newer ones, like this Honda, appear to have a better set up, and enough motor (250 cc here, others up to 500cc) to keep up with modern traffic. As for why not a Honda diesel, sure, but this one's about $5,500.
Like coal gasification plants. America has some of the world's largest reserves of coal. And we can turn coal into diesel, which can then be refined into gasoline.
Why not just keep it as more fuel efficient diesel rather than convert it into gas?
I had a nice motorcycle way back when (Honda CB-350, had a redline at 10,500 RPM= serious acceleration and fun!). But then I did some volunteering at a local hospital in the emergency room, and seeing some of the grotesque injuries that came in as a result of motorcycles colliding with big vehicles (or losing control and falling off, hitting trees, etc) was shocking- enough for me to sell the Honda pretty quickly.
And as long as I live on the East Coast with the threat of inclement weather, and as long as I still want to carry more than a hankerchief with me, I prefer a car. Maybe a Honda Fit size something or other, but still a car.
Honda doesn't make a diesel Accord and has not announced plans to do so. The diesel "Accord" sold in Europe is really the Acura TSX and Honda has not announced plans to bring that to the US. All Honda is saying is that they have plans to bring a 4 cylinder diesel to the US in 2009. So where are you getting your information?
Maybe a Honda Fit size something or other, but still a car.
I don't quite understand cars like the Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris. They are smaller, lighter, have smaller less powerful engines but don't get much better mileage than the Civic or Corolla respectively. Someone posted that is because they are boxy and have poor aerodynamics. These vehicles have cd's of .31 and .30, which is pretty good. In comparison The Honda Civic and Corolla cd's are both .30. So that's obviously not the reason for their rather unimpressive mpg ratings.
Those smaller engines might have to rev faster to keep their power up, which is going to hurt fuel economy. For example, what rpm would an xA or FIT be pulling at 75 mph? My uncle's '03 Corolla might pull about 2600-2700 rpm, which is actually pretty loafy at those speeds. My Intrepid does around 2500, for comparison, while my '79 New Yorker is probably around 2300 (mathematical estimate, as it doesn't have a tach)
If the return on investment takes 5 years in the SouthWestern US I would imagine it would be a least 10 years in the NW.
Without any tax breaks it's probably a little longer than that.
One thing people don't take into consideration when figuring the time to recoup their investment is the impact it has on the resale value of your home. They simply look at how long it will take for the energy savings to equal this initial investment. Today's PV panels are supposed to last 30+ years. If I'm a prospective homebuyer looking at two homes which are identical in every way except one has a PV system installed that saves $100/month in energy bills how much extra will I pay for that? I don't know the answer but it's possible that you could get enough extra on the sales price to make up what the energy savings hadn't yet paid for.
The motivation to go solar is not financial at the present time. But if you crunch the numbers it is also not that much of an expense. So for now it's just one of those things that people will do out of a sense of environmental awareness, like recycling.
I agree with your points on motorcycles and scooters. I'd love to own 1, but I'm not increasing my risk substantially for that. And yes when people can only afford 1 vehicle they want a vehicle that's weatherproof and can haul something or someone.
I'm not into minimalism when it comes to safety or potential threats. In an ideal world of no cost and mpg concerns, I'd be driving a tank. In the real world, I compromise, but I won't trade too much safety for high mpg. Having saved some fuel in your life is a poor return, if as a result you're killed or paralyzed in an accident.
I think you're probably right. Which is why these types of cars do pretty good in the city but don't seem to have an advantage on the highway.
I rented a Geo Metro about 8 years ago and couldn't even get 30 mpg on the highway. Granted I was going 75 mph with the air conditioner on but my 6 cyl Honda Accord would have gotten 31 mpg under the same conditions. BTW, the Geo couldn't even maintain that speed up any kind of grade and the engine sounded like it was about to fly apart. But it was a rental so I didn't care. In fact it was such a miserable experience I felt like if I could destroy this car it would save someone else from having to feel this pain.
if you go to india, you see entire families being transported via scooter or motorcycle. in many cases no helmets. women in traditional dress... not protected in a fall. sandals, perhaps no sandals.
amazingly, even with the dogs, carts, cows, bicycles, scooters, motorcycles, taxis (3-wheelers and conventional cars), buses, lack of traffic enforcement, dirt roads... most people seem to make it to their destination on a regular basis.
but they do so exposed to the elements including considerable dust, often at very slow speeds, and at some degree of risk.
it's a site to see.
i think what it might be like if in the US we had people driving scooters, motorcycles, bicycles to work... i'm not sure people would put up with that here.
I rented a Geo Metro about 8 years ago and couldn't even get 30 mpg on the highway. Granted I was going 75 mph with the air conditioner on but my 6 cyl Honda Accord would have gotten 31 mpg under the same conditions. BTW, the Geo couldn't even maintain that speed up any kind of grade and the engine sounded like it was about to fly apart. But it was a rental so I didn't care. In fact it was such a miserable experience I felt like if I could destroy this car it would save someone else from having to feel this pain.
Ooh, the Geo is probably about the worst example of an economy car out there! In stripper guise, with a stick and the 3-cylinder, they were rated at 41/47. If you wanted a/c though, I think that mandated the 1.3. And if you got the heavier sedan body style, you were also forced to go with the 1.3. And if you wanted an automatic, you needed a 1.3. The 1.3 was rated at 39/43 with a stick, which still ain't bad, I guess.
But with the automatic, which was a 3-speed unit, suddenly you were dealing with 30/34. If you did a lot of highway driving, you would've almost been better off with an Impala or LeSabre! They were rated around 29-32 on the highway, depending on engine, and in "real world" situations (running the a/c, going faster than the EPA test cycle, etc) economy with those bigger engines was probably better!
One of my friends had a Metro rental awhile back, when his Grand Marquis was in the shop, and he let me drive it. It was kinda fun, in a skateboard type of way. Driving it for 5 minutes was a fun novelty. Driving it for 6 would've been enough to induce vomiting!
if you go to india, you see entire families being transported via scooter or motorcycle. in many cases no helmets. women in traditional dress... not protected in a fall. sandals, perhaps no sandals.
amazingly, even with the dogs, carts, cows, bicycles, scooters, motorcycles, taxis (3-wheelers and conventional cars), buses, lack of traffic enforcement, dirt roads... most people seem to make it to their destination on a regular basis.
I'd like to see the fatality rates in India, compared to the United States, when it comes to vehicle-related accidents (including pedestrians, scooters, etc). Yeah, most people make it to their destination alive, but I'm sure the death rates are higher.
Most people in India don't die of snake bites either, just as in the United States. But looking at actual numbers, something like 50,000 people die annually in India from snakebites. Compared to what in the United States? Maybe 50-100?
Both the Fit and Yaris are taller than the Civic and Corolla but they are also both narrower and have smaller tires. My guess is that there isn't much difference in frontal area.
Aw, c'mon, stop with the Geo Metro--that was a despicable piece of junk. Comparing that thing to modern subcompact cars is like comparing a modern washing machine with a creek and some flat rocks to pound your clothes on. :P
No I'm not kidding. What Honda sells as an Accord in Europe is not what we consider an Accord in the US. When someone in the US talks about an Accord I assume they are referring to the American version of the Accord.
In 2002, the Accord underwent another major redesign. This time, Honda decided to create two different cars that would bear the Accord name in different markets. The car known as the Accord in the US, Brazilian and Asian markets is based on the JDM Honda Inspire. Meanwhile the Japanese and European markets received a smaller, sportier Accord. This car was later released in the US as the Acura TSX.
As far as rumors that a diesel Accord will be here in 2010, I won't dispute a rumor. It may very well happen.
Hey! I liked my Geo Metro. Cute little car, 1L 3cyl, with 5-speed stick. It even had a radio and A/C. Thats all I could afford at the time (was $7,200 in 1992), and it gave me great gas mileage. Of course, at the time the speed limit was 55 on most highways. That was my equation - drive an hour, cover 55 miles, spend $1 on gas. Drove it trouble free for 90Kmiles. You'd be amazed how many places that Metro went (Miami, San Francisco, Chicago, Niagara Falls, Phoenix (twice). True, it is not for climbing uphill gradients or speeds over 65mph. It just served its purpose very well.
Speaking of 2 wheelers, one thing I dont like is the throttle control with your wrist. Turning it all the time is a pain by itself, and when you have to hold it at the same position for extended time, it gets even worse. Any idea why they cannot make a foot pedal for accelerator?
About that C2 picture (above), I don't like it. I like the wind screen, but thats all. If there's a roof, I'd like protection from the elements on all sides. So I'd like to see 2 doors (for rain, wind, etc) and 2 big holes in the floor so my feet can touch the ground when stopped. You can never have *everything* you want! But, without the holes, and with 2 extra wheels, that was what my metro was.
My first motorcycle was a 1968 BSA 441cc single cylinder Victor Special on/off road motorcycle. I could go up hills that were close to 45 degrees. I found out that going down the same hill was a lot more dangerous. That BSA would go 95 top end. It was only kick start. I got about 45 MPG with it. My second motorcycle was a 1974 Honda 750cc. It had 4 cylinders, 4 carbs, and 4 exhaust pipes and 2 sets of points. The outer 2 cylinders and the inner 2 cylinders each had a set of points. It was like a 2 engine motorcycle. The red line was at 10,500 rpm. It would squeal the rear tire and not do a wheelie. I had that up to 145 MPH. It had an electric start and a reserve kick starter. It got about 40 mpg. The last motorcycle I had was a 1983 Suzuki 450 cc. I could keep the front wheel in the air up to about 60 MPH. I would not recommend anything much smaller than 450 cc if you expect to keep up with 60+ mph traffic. That Suzuki topped out 135 MPH. It only had an electric start. It got about 50 mpg. On all my motorcycles, I had a rear seat back for a passenger and a rack behind with bungee chords to hold my rain suit and anything else I might want to carry. I rode in the rain and cold weather. The rain was bad because it messed up the vision through my visor. Wiping my visor with my leather gauntlet got tiring. I had Arctic over- mittens that I wore over my gauntlets in really cold weather. After about 50 mph it didn't get any colder. I used to grab my engine to warm my hands at stop lights. I would not have anything to do with a motor scooter. They were notorious for breaking ankles, pinching them under the low wide sides. There was a lot less traffic back when I rode. People were better drivers back then IMO. I would not recommend any motorcycle commuting in bad weather or in dense traffic. Besides what you spend in tires, more than eats up any gas savings. But, I sure had some fun.
King crab is $10 a pound for the "normal" size legs around here.
That has a lot to do with the fact that it is a hard and dangerous job getting those things. Just watch "The Deadliest Catch" sometimes (then never complain about your job again).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Comments
IE - have differing levels of driver's licenses. One level authorizes you to drive an ordinary car. A more difficult test would net you a license to drive a sports car.
And another, very difficult test road test would net you the right to drive the exotic, superfast cars.
And without the proper license, a driver would not be allowed to drive a car of said type.
Then, abolish speed limits. Those that cannot handle driving fast will not have a car that can drive fast, as they would not be able to get the necessary license to drive it.
That's a misconception.
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg
Clearly Seattle only has about 50% the solar energy potential that Phoenix has. These are the two extremes but it is still enough to be useable. Also you aren't that far from northern Nevada, which has some of the best solar potential. On top of that solar panels are being developed that tap into different parts of the spectrum, making direct sunlight less important. The northwest is a very green place. If plants are growing then there is solar energy.
But I still maintain that we wouldn't necessarily be "punishing" ourselves if we started using "somewhat" less energy. And that doesn't mean the Tahoe driver buys an Aveo, but maybe an Acadia, or the Taurus V6 buyer gets a 4 cylinder Fusion (or heavens, maybe a Focus!) next time. I have traveled to lots of different countries, and I see that richer countries that have adjusted to high energy costs still have a good standard of living (Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden for example). Do you really "need" a 300 HP large vehicle weighing 5000 pounds to move your 200 pound body around? Or "need" a 3600 square foot house on 1/2 acre of land? "Want" or "Think I can afford/deserve" is different than really "need".
I am downsizing on my next vehicle purchase (may not be so soon, my Volvo S-70 with 126K is still running strong!). But whatever I get, I know it will take me from Point A to Point B very well. But it will also have a lower fuel consumption, and heck, I am in heavy traffic half my driving anyway.
:P
Less cars on the road, less pollution, less gasoline burnt, geez, the benefits are nigh limitless.
:shades:
If the return on investment takes 5 years in the SouthWestern US I would imagine it would be a least 10 years in the NW.
http://www.egemcars.com/index.php
But I guess you could re-configure them to behave better, but they might lose their ATV capabilities to a large degree.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Drill in Alaska, in the Gulf of Mexico, off the California coast, expand the Alberta tar sand operation, expand current oil field operations, not to mention oil fields in Russia, Central Asia, the Spratly Islands, sub-Saharan Africa, etc, etc, etc.
Except for Alaska, we're already doing all those that are economically feasible.
...coal gasification plants.
Sounds wonderful until you realize how much GW gases those things will generate. Mortaging our future does not sounds like a great alternative.
...thermal depolymerization...
Great...except the input (like turkey) is linda limited, and the smells produced have shut down the test plants repeatedly.
...the price increase for gasoline is currently driven by our lack of refining capacity...
Sure, in the short term....but the long term rise of the price of oil had to do with global demand and our proximity to the peak production of oil.
If you don't want a refinery, then you don't want it's product...
And that's bad because....????
Hey, anything that drives us to consider alternatives is probably a good thing.
But all this is too much for most. ANWR = 2 months of US oil consumption is all most can handle.
Well, actually, when the question of whether drilling in ANWR would be an appropriate response to rising oil prices, it's kinda reasonable to limit the context to ANWR.
As for "handling" the rest, the notion that we can "produce" our way out of the oil supply/demand problem is not reasonable, at least beyond the fairly short term.
As if we'd suddenly stop using all other oil except ANWR.
We will, eventually.
I agree with the "spirit" of your post (I think) in the sense that we need to come up with reasonable alternative energy sources. I just don't think that finding alternatives that producie oil are the answer.
Why?
Because of the small wheels and the steering geometry. Scooters are, IMO, far more dangerous than motorcycles in terms of being able to control them at speed. I think driving a scooter over 35 mph is kind of a death wish, at least in the traditional configuration of tiny wheels, nearly straight up and down steering tube and chair-like sitting.
And when you add a newbie driver to a scooter, that's a recipe for trouble. I hope people don't go this way to save gas. I would encourage them to buy small cc motorcycles instead.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Why not just keep it as more fuel efficient diesel rather than convert it into gas?
And as long as I live on the East Coast with the threat of inclement weather, and as long as I still want to carry more than a hankerchief with me, I prefer a car. Maybe a Honda Fit size something or other, but still a car.
I don't quite understand cars like the Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris. They are smaller, lighter, have smaller less powerful engines but don't get much better mileage than the Civic or Corolla respectively. Someone posted that is because they are boxy and have poor aerodynamics. These vehicles have cd's of .31 and .30, which is pretty good. In comparison The Honda Civic and Corolla cd's are both .30. So that's obviously not the reason for their rather unimpressive mpg ratings.
In addition to the "roll cage" it has seat belts. No airbags afaik.
Without any tax breaks it's probably a little longer than that.
One thing people don't take into consideration when figuring the time to recoup their investment is the impact it has on the resale value of your home. They simply look at how long it will take for the energy savings to equal this initial investment. Today's PV panels are supposed to last 30+ years. If I'm a prospective homebuyer looking at two homes which are identical in every way except one has a PV system installed that saves $100/month in energy bills how much extra will I pay for that? I don't know the answer but it's possible that you could get enough extra on the sales price to make up what the energy savings hadn't yet paid for.
The motivation to go solar is not financial at the present time. But if you crunch the numbers it is also not that much of an expense. So for now it's just one of those things that people will do out of a sense of environmental awareness, like recycling.
I'm not into minimalism when it comes to safety or potential threats. In an ideal world of no cost and mpg concerns, I'd be driving a tank. In the real world, I compromise, but I won't trade too much safety for high mpg. Having saved some fuel in your life is a poor return, if as a result you're killed or paralyzed in an accident.
2009 Accord diesel
I rented a Geo Metro about 8 years ago and couldn't even get 30 mpg on the highway. Granted I was going 75 mph with the air conditioner on but my 6 cyl Honda Accord would have gotten 31 mpg under the same conditions. BTW, the Geo couldn't even maintain that speed up any kind of grade and the engine sounded like it was about to fly apart. But it was a rental so I didn't care. In fact it was such a miserable experience I felt like if I could destroy this car it would save someone else from having to feel this pain.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/05/autos/honda_dropping_hybrid/index.htm
Honda has not said whether the Accord would get the diesel engine
amazingly, even with the dogs, carts, cows, bicycles, scooters, motorcycles, taxis (3-wheelers and conventional cars), buses, lack of traffic enforcement, dirt roads... most people seem to make it to their destination on a regular basis.
but they do so exposed to the elements including considerable dust, often at very slow speeds, and at some degree of risk.
it's a site to see.
i think what it might be like if in the US we had people driving scooters, motorcycles, bicycles to work... i'm not sure people would put up with that here.
Ooh, the Geo is probably about the worst example of an economy car out there! In stripper guise, with a stick and the 3-cylinder, they were rated at 41/47. If you wanted a/c though, I think that mandated the 1.3. And if you got the heavier sedan body style, you were also forced to go with the 1.3. And if you wanted an automatic, you needed a 1.3. The 1.3 was rated at 39/43 with a stick, which still ain't bad, I guess.
But with the automatic, which was a 3-speed unit, suddenly you were dealing with 30/34. If you did a lot of highway driving, you would've almost been better off with an Impala or LeSabre! They were rated around 29-32 on the highway, depending on engine, and in "real world" situations (running the a/c, going faster than the EPA test cycle, etc) economy with those bigger engines was probably better!
One of my friends had a Metro rental awhile back, when his Grand Marquis was in the shop, and he let me drive it. It was kinda fun, in a skateboard type of way. Driving it for 5 minutes was a fun novelty. Driving it for 6 would've been enough to induce vomiting!
amazingly, even with the dogs, carts, cows, bicycles, scooters, motorcycles, taxis (3-wheelers and conventional cars), buses, lack of traffic enforcement, dirt roads... most people seem to make it to their destination on a regular basis.
I'd like to see the fatality rates in India, compared to the United States, when it comes to vehicle-related accidents (including pedestrians, scooters, etc). Yeah, most people make it to their destination alive, but I'm sure the death rates are higher.
Most people in India don't die of snake bites either, just as in the United States. But looking at actual numbers, something like 50,000 people die annually in India from snakebites. Compared to what in the United States? Maybe 50-100?
My only response is that straightline news story is inconsistent with a quote from a Honda spokesperson, which was in a headline today.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/AUTOS/06/05/honda_dropping_hybrid/index.html
Honda of course makes and sells a Euro diesel version of the Accord.
And they are rumored to be bringing a diesel Accord to the USA as a 2010 model.
No I'm not kidding. What Honda sells as an Accord in Europe is not what we consider an Accord in the US. When someone in the US talks about an Accord I assume they are referring to the American version of the Accord.
http://www.answers.com/topic/honda-accord
In 2002, the Accord underwent another major redesign. This time, Honda decided to create two different cars that would bear the Accord name in different markets. The car known as the Accord in the US, Brazilian and Asian markets is based on the JDM Honda Inspire. Meanwhile the Japanese and European markets received a smaller, sportier Accord. This car was later released in the US as the Acura TSX.
As far as rumors that a diesel Accord will be here in 2010, I won't dispute a rumor. It may very well happen.
Speaking of 2 wheelers, one thing I dont like is the throttle control with your wrist. Turning it all the time is a pain by itself, and when you have to hold it at the same position for extended time, it gets even worse. Any idea why they cannot make a foot pedal for accelerator?
About that C2 picture (above), I don't like it. I like the wind screen, but thats all. If there's a roof, I'd like protection from the elements on all sides. So I'd like to see 2 doors (for rain, wind, etc) and 2 big holes in the floor so my feet can touch the ground when stopped. You can never have *everything* you want! But, without the holes, and with 2 extra wheels, that was what my metro was.
Cheers, - MS.
Hmmm. I'd always thought that if you wanted a/c, you had to get the 1.3? Guess my memory's getting fuzzy there.
My second motorcycle was a 1974 Honda 750cc. It had 4 cylinders, 4 carbs, and 4 exhaust pipes and 2 sets of points. The outer 2 cylinders and the inner 2 cylinders each had a set of points. It was like a 2 engine motorcycle. The red line was at 10,500 rpm. It would squeal the rear tire and not do a wheelie. I had that up to 145 MPH. It had an electric start and a reserve kick starter. It got about 40 mpg.
The last motorcycle I had was a 1983 Suzuki 450 cc. I could keep the front wheel in the air up to about 60 MPH.
I would not recommend anything much smaller than 450 cc if you expect to keep up with 60+ mph traffic. That Suzuki topped out 135 MPH. It only had an electric start. It got about 50 mpg.
On all my motorcycles, I had a rear seat back for a passenger and a rack behind with bungee chords to hold my rain suit and anything else I might want to carry.
I rode in the rain and cold weather. The rain was bad because it messed up the vision through my visor. Wiping my visor with my leather gauntlet got tiring.
I had Arctic over- mittens that I wore over my gauntlets in really cold weather. After about 50 mph it didn't get any colder. I used to grab my engine to warm my hands at stop lights.
I would not have anything to do with a motor scooter. They were notorious for breaking ankles, pinching them under the low wide sides.
There was a lot less traffic back when I rode. People were better drivers back then IMO.
I would not recommend any motorcycle commuting in bad weather or in dense traffic.
Besides what you spend in tires, more than eats up any gas savings. But, I sure had some fun.
That has a lot to do with the fact that it is a hard and dangerous job getting those things. Just watch "The Deadliest Catch" sometimes (then never complain about your job again).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Gas prices seem to be falling (except in the midwest?) per the news today:
Gas prices ease in Oregon, nationwide
Meanwhile, Alberta is taking a revenue hit because of the soaring Canadian dollar, tempering their energy windfall. link