On top of their rapid economic growth, many producers subsidize oil to their population, resulting in huge domestic consumption growth. Our $4+/gallon gas will be subsidizing their $0.40/gallon gas!
Yes, you have Venezuela selling gas for 12 cents a gallon. I think it is a vote getting ploy. On the other end you have a Kingdom like Norway that exports their oil surplus, then sticks it to the people with $6.99 per gallon USD. Maybe the people all live in the lap of luxury from the proceeds of the oil they sell in Norway.
Shifty, gagrice, snakeweasel: I wasn't thinking ICE-only, but more like something new, or at least a real, working, street-ready 100 mpg plug-in hybrid.
Think outside the box! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
For those that feel we should have higher gas taxes. You might think about immigrating to Norway. They are close to the top on that tax. $7 for gas is bad enough. But $12 for a beer would set me to revolting against the King.
OSLO: Norway, the world's third-largest oil exporter, is home to perhaps the world's most expensive gasoline.
But drivers here greet high pump prices of almost 11 kroner a liter, or $6.60 a gallon, with little more than a shrug.
Norway, has been made wealthy by oil, trailing only Saudi Arabia and Russia in exports. Last year alone, oil exports jumped 19 percent to $38.4 billion. But no other major oil exporter has attempted to reel in its own fuel consumption with as much zeal as Norway. These policies have resulted in one of the lowest car-ownership rates in Europe and fuel-efficient Volkswagens and Peugeots far outnumber big sport utility vehicles on its roads.
Gasoline, of course, is not the only expensive commodity in Norway, a traditionally frugal and highly taxed nation. At a pub in Oslo, for instance, a pint of beer might cost the equivalent of $12 and an individual frozen pizza $16. But expensive gasoline is rare among large oil-producing countries that often subsidize fuel for their citizens. Gasoline prices in Norway have climbed 30 percent since 1998, outpacing a 15 percent increase in the consumer price index over that period, the national statistics bureau said.
Having extremely high gasoline prices is just one anti-greenhouse gas strategy in this redoubt of welfare capitalism and strict environmental laws. Norwegians pay automobile taxes as high as $395 a year for each vehicle, and in Oslo there is even a "studded-tire" fee of about $160 for vehicles with all-terrain tires in the winter that tear up asphalt more quickly.
The sad part is they probably do not worry about emissions at all in those countries. If we had sub $1 gas the roads would be at a stand still I am afraid. I find it interesting that we are right about the middle of the spectrum. That seems like a good price range for US. China has relatively cheap gas also. I wonder how much they import?
$7 for gas is bad enough. But $12 for a beer would set me to revolting against the King.
I'll say, especially since I'm used to getting a 30-pack of Ice House at the local liquor store for $13.99! If it's any consolation though, going out to a club, if it's not happy hour, a 12-oz beer will often set you back $4-5+ tip, but that's still a far cry from $12+ tip for 16 oz.
In Norway you cannot afford to Drink or Drive. The King probably lives it up for all the little people. It's good to be King.... Is that a 1965 Lincoln the king is riding in. That is frugal.
"Norwegians pay automobile taxes as high as $395 a year for each vehicle"
Ha! They should visit California some time. Buy a new Camry and you can expect to pay that much for reg fees for the first couple of years. Buy a new Yukon, and you can expect reg to be well in excess of that...
But I am pretty sure they do have strict emissions standards in that country, as they are in the EU, aren't they? All EU countries have to meet a pretty strict smog-emissions standard.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Question: "What will you do when gas price rises above $4 a gallon?"
ANSWER: It's called, buy a $100 bicycle. It's advantages:
With no car insurance or fuel costs to deal with, this portable, easy to use, easy and cheap to maintain piece of transportation can get you from here to there. Go to a bike store and a car parts store. Buy some car brakes for all 4 wheels, then buy bike brakes and see how much they cost. $170 for car brakes but $17.00 for bikes. You can see the savings already.
Plus, this machine is THE most current, fuel efficient machine that has been widely available. Since it is powered by a human being who consumes food, not gas, someone calculated that a human being is capable of completing work or achieving tasks to the equivalent of 130 to 140 miles to the gallon. The only rivals to this are Electric Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrids.
Another advantage to this is instead of requiring a LOT of ACRES for parking garages for 1,000 cars, the entire ground level of 1 parking garage can be used for 1,000 bicycles and still have plenty space on the upper levels for cars. If you arrive at work by bike, you get the luxury of parking closer to the doors since they know you've been pedaling for some time and need a quicker way to your office. People who drive must go down steps, take elevators, and then get to work. Then go through the same hub bub just to get to their cars where people on bikes just walk into the bike storage, grab the bike, and go.
This system is in place and mostly being used in the Netherlands and some other countries as a way to for people who use cars to reduce maintenance and fuel costs if being used on occasion AND making it a cheaper form of transport for people who drive long distances since less fuel is being consumed by the country.
And, people must wait for their car to warm up or they're sitting in traffic, burning up fuel. With a bike, just get on and go. Although you have to obey traffic rules like cars, you're smaller, more quicker, and can dodge through traffic easier.
Finally, the health benefits are astonishing. Aside from great form of daily excercise, this help curbs people fom buying large amounts of food at grocery stores (since overeating is a leading cause in health deterioration and obesity), helps burn off fat and improves cardio and leg muscles.
The only downsides: 1) Lack of ability to be used in inclement weather like snow. 2) Lack of room for other passengers or cargo. 3) Lack of safety features that are available in cars. 4) Easier to steal than a car.
If the EU had emissions standards as high as the CARB states they would not be selling over 50% diesel cars. I do not think they have as much emissions equipment as the cars sent to the US from VW or MB.
Yeah, but those Norwegian women are so beautiful, you don't need to consume a 30-pack of Ice House first! I guess Norway doesn't have much of a problem with alcoholism either?
I will agree that a bike is a fine form of transportation for those in bike riding distance from work. You left out the biggest downside. It is those that have to come in contact with the bike rider at work. Unless the company provides a shower for the bike riders. Personal hygiene kind of goes by the wayside when you sweat your way to work on a bicycle. I know, we worked with a guy in Anchorage that rode his bike most of the year to the office. Whew he was ripe most of the time. The bad snow days he bummed a ride from one of us vehicle driving workers.
Norway is consistently voted as one of the best places on earth to live, in terms of health, education, crime rates, pollution, employment (for them) and economic prosperity. I guess they leave climate out of the equation--heh, heh. I'd move there in a minute if it was in the middle of Italy.
Obviously moving somewhere because the gas is cheaper is probably not such a smart idea.
RE: "Oil Wars" --- all modern wars are economic in nature, at the bottom of them.
I totally agree with the last statement. There is a reason why we are in Iraq and not Darfur when sub-sarahan africa is clearly a bigger humanitarian disaster.
Yes initially Toyota did tell us internally ( the sales guy was right for the info he was given ) that the 'cost' of the first Prius' was about $35000 while they were selling them for ~$20000.
However this was based on loading up the vehicle with R&D amortizations and basing the production cost on a very small volume ( 5000 the first year if I'm not mistaken ).
Taking a step back looking at the whole picture ( estimates certainly ) ....
R&D to develop a new auto from scratch ....$1-$2 Billion R&D to develop the new hybrid system...... $1 Billion
Outside of these there is the cost of production... The Prius is situated between the Corolla and Camry about the same as the Matrix. The Prius has additional parts like the battery pack, 2 motors, inverter/converter, the PSD and additional wiring. It doesn't have a traditional transmission. The 'additional' variable costs of these parts was probably in the $3000-$4000 range initially.
Using the Matrix as a barometer since it too was a new vehicle in the same time frame and is about the same size has an MSRP of about $19000-$20000 +/-. The Prius then should have an MSRP of about $22000-$24000 including the additional hybrid parts. But the Prius also has to amortize the R&D costs of the hybrid system development which the Matrix does not.
However, the hybrid system also can be put into other vehicles that Toyota builds, not just the Prius. As of the end of last year Toyota reached 1 million hybrids of which about 70% were just the Prius.
$1 Billion R&D / 1 Million units = $1000 / unit charge for the hybrid development. This is very likely. At this point the hybrid system R&D costs have been recouped and this $1000 charge per unit is pure profit. However Toyota took a step to increase sales by foregoing that small profit by dropping the Prius prices $600-$2000 and offering a lower-priced Camry hybrid. This is foresight.
Does Toyota need an additional $1000 profit on 100,000 units. It's a big number but maybe they gave up $100 Million in profit in order to generate a larger volume this year and next. The vehicle is 5 yrs old afterall and reaching the end of this model's cycle.
They could easily beat that car if not for safety requirements. The Yaris and Fit would get 45 MPG if they did not have to be heavier, safer cars than the 1987 CRX.
IF is a big word. If the Fit were as comfortable for the driver as the CRX it would be a decent car. I don't like my head touching the headliner. I really wonder if the 15 MPG given up by the Fit over the Civic HF was worth the added safety. For me it would not be. I could carry your argument a bit further and say that my Sequoia is worth the 31 MPG I am giving up over the CRX HF, for the added safety. I would rather be in the Sequoia than the Fit if we had a collision. It is all degrees of safety I guess. For the guy in the H1 Hummer that added weight and steel are defense against the horde of little cars coming from Japan. Well worth the extra few bucks in gas.
ANSWER: It's called, buy a $100 bicycle. It's advantages:
Yes, I've been preaching that sermon on here for weeks, although $100 won't even get you a Walmart Huffy nowadays.
Face it, we aren't going to get people out of their cars and riding pollution-free, gas saving vehicles like bicycles as long as people continue to drive 1/2 mile to the local health club so they can pay to exercise.
I do enjoy getting the closest parking spot at work.
I hope not too many folks here want a fuel efficient low emissions car to contribute to a change in global warming. Here are the facts from a very candid Fortune interview with the CEO of Chevron:
The question, then, is how to reduce carbon emissions - a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, or something else?
Just to give you an example of how challenging this is, if you took every vehicle off the roads of the world today - all the trucks, all the cars, all the airplanes, all the trains - you would reduce carbon emissions by 14%.
If you took all the power generation off the face of the earth, all the commercial activity, all the residential heating and cooling off the face of the earth and went back to an agrarian society, you still wouldn't cut it by more than 60% or 70%.
He also said: To significantly change the energy mix is a big challenge, and I don't think it's likely to occur anytime soon. Very long term, a century out, maybe 50 years out, with new technology and changes in the capital structure - maybe some changes will occur. But in the next 25 years, it's unlikely there will be significant change.
If he truly believes that... if he doesn't know that "significant change" will be forced upon the world by a shortfall of supply vs growing demand, then I have to wonder about his other assertions. :sick:
I assume you are referring to Peak Oil Production. We will not know it is upon us until the producers are unable to meet the demand. So far they have met the demand. There are other ways to get the gas and diesel we depend on. The cutbacks by OPEC have had the desired affect to raise prices. It will also encourage more exploration and development of known reserves that are not as easy to get at. I don't think you will see any legitimate oil shortfalls in your lifetime or mine. Temporary shortages due to disasters and poor planning are not legitimate.
Why should I ride around in an econobox, so some fat cat in China or India can ride in a Mercedes? When we are offered decent vehicles in this country that get good mileage I will buy one. Until they are offered here, I guess I am stuck guzzling gas.
We would like to be energy independent. The biggest roadblock is NIMBY... This is a good snapshot of our lack of desire to use our own oil instead of some one else's.
My concern is that policymakers in the U.S. seek to hogtie us. They are increasing taxes and limiting what we can do, when they ought to be encouraging us to invest. For example, 85% of our coastlines are off-limits to exploration. Britain allows exploration around its coast, Denmark allows coastal exploration, Norway, Australia - what's wrong with our country?
Why not open our coast up? It can be done in an environmentally sound way. The government puts it off-limits and at the same time calls for energy independence. What sense does that make?
With no car insurance or fuel costs to deal with, this portable, easy to use, easy and cheap to maintain piece of transportation can get you from here to there.
Yep as long as there is only a few miles away, its always nice out and you don't have to take roads with cars zooming by at 45 MPH. Also its nice if you have the extra time to get where your going and don't mind taking a bath in your companies bathroom sink (or if you don't mind offending your co-workers).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"I agree. If any car maker came up with an ICE only car that would get double what the competition was offering they could make a killing. It just defies the laws of physics. We still have not beat the 20 year old Civic CRX using gasoline. Without adding the hybrid stuff."
While doubling the CRX's mileage with pure ICE is probably not be possible, it could be improved on. The last 20 years have seen higher performance and static CAFE figures. That sounds like improved engine and drive train efficiency to me. If you used the same technology in a smaller engine wouldn't you get late 1980's performance with improved gas mileage? It seems more a problem of will than technology, in that nobody want to go back to 1980's performance.
I'd say it's relatively easy for cars to get 100mpg. The problem isn't getting that kind of fuel economy the problem is making it affordable. I've read articles on some hybrids that are getting 150mpg I think it was a french company making a hybrid with a diesel and electric wheel (Hub) motors. The problem is you'd need lightweight aluminum chassis, carbon fiber body shell unpainted as paint weighs a lot etc... So you'd be building an incredibly expensive car but you'd get the fuel economy and of course even with all that it wouldn't win any races. Cars like this are too expensive to ever see production. Lots of high mpg prototypes out there winning contests tho.
The old CRX weighed 1,700 lbs. The new Civic Hybrid weighs 2,900 lbs. That's how the old cars of the 1980s could get such good mileage.
"i will walk, ride a bike, take the bus. i will do what ever it takes, but i wont pay $4 a gallon."
That's a noble sentiment, but when it's pouring rain outside, or freezing cold, how far will you get? Anyway, you used to pay $1/gallon, now you're paying $3/gallon. What's the big problem with $4? I mean, why didn't you draw your line in the sand at $2/gallon?
Besides the weather, the main reason that walking or biking places is completely unrealistic is that our friends in gov't keep constructing cities in ways that demand the use of a car. In the suburbs, the distance between residential and commercial areas is too great to walk or bike. Add to that the fact that you're risking your life when you ride a bike in traffic, and you see the impracticality of the gas-free lifestyle.
The human-powered concept first demands that the gov't construct sidewalks and bike paths to facilitate it. And that will never happen as long as the government collects taxes on gasoline. The gas tax puts them in bed with the oil companies.
All levels of government that collect gas taxes want us to burn as much gasoline as possible. The more gas we buy, the more money they make.
Think about that the next time you question why traffic lights aren't synchronized, which forces everyone to do the stop/start routine at every intersection. Think about it the next time you wonder why rush hour stop and go traffic never gets better. Think about it next time you wonder why cars today weigh 50% more than the same models did 15 years ago.
And think about it the next time some politician complains about how much money Exxon/Mobil made last year. If it was $40 billion, that means the federal gov't collect $16 billion in corporate taxes, PLUS all the taxes the fed/state/local gov'ts collected in gasoline taxes. Funny how they conveniently forget that part of the equation.
They're all making money off of us. They all work in collusion to maintain the same inefficient transportation system that existed long before we were born. Why else would we still be using 100-year-old internal combustion technology for personal transportation?
Yep, acquaintence of mine crashed his scooter on one of Dallas' busiest freeways (don't ask me why he even went there), but luckily he survived. Two wheels for me is a bike on a dedicated bike path. Period.
The last 20 years have seen higher performance and static CAFE figures. That sounds like improved engine and drive train efficiency to me
Most of these improvements in engine performance have been on the horsepower side. It's fairly commonplace for an engine today to be able to generate 70+ hp per liter. That was unheard of 20 years ago. The norm back then was probably more like 40-50 hp per liter. However for a naturally aspirated engine torque is still pretty much limited by an engine's displacement. In 1991 I had a Nissan Sentra SE-R with a 2.0L that generated 132 ft-lbs of torque. I don't see any 2.0L engines that can do much better than that today. So as cars have gotten heavier they've needed more torque resulting in a need for greater displacement. And there's no way you could build cars as light today as 20 years ago and still pass crash tests without using very expensive materials.
Weight is definitely the enemy. Latest CandD compares the 'small' sports sedans, and even the 328i only got 16 mpg, I think, and the CTS got 13! I know they drive hard, but the 3er always used to surprise me with its good mpgs.
In 1990 I had a Nissan Sentra SE-R with a 2.0L that generated 140 ft-lbs of torque. I don't see any 2.0L engines that can beat that today.
Naah, peak torque for the SR20DE was around 125 ft-lb. Horsepower was 140. The use of variable valve timing (which the SR never had) does broaden the torque curve, which helps a bit.
Naah, peak torque for the SR20DE was around 125 ft-lb. Horsepower was 140.
I posted that number from memory. I went back and checked. It was 132 ft-lbs. Still that's 66 ft-lbs per liter. Find me a naturally aspirated engine today that can beat that by much.
Having ridden every form of two-wheeler extensively, I would offer the opinion that scooters and mopeds are easily the most dangerous, much more so than motorcycles or bicycles. Why? They have the SPEED to do damage but not the stability, brakes or handling. A motocycle is totally competent in all these areas, with LARGE wheels and great steering geometry (unless you drive one of those silly hi-bar things), and a bicycle, while vulnerable to cars, usually doesn't go more than 15 mph.
There's no difference being thrown off a moped or scooter than being thrown off a bicycle, except that you are going 2 to 3 times as fast; ergo, more damage.
Motorcycles are also more substantial. A good heavy bike can take a very nice bite out of a small car, and can carry crash bars, faring, and you can easily wear full leathers.
I'll never EVER ride a moped or scooter again. I think they are not good designs.
If I lived where the climate, geography, roads, and traffic conditions made motorcycle riding worthwhile, I'd probably still have one, but Dallas is not that place I now question my aquaintance's sanity, riding a scooter on Central Expressway.
When I was a kid in Portland Oregon my dad rode a Cushman scooter to work. It was almost faster stopping it by dragging your feet. I don't remember it going over about 35 MPH. That was the early 1950s, and he rode it rain or shine. Trying to save on gas, wear and tear to our old 1940 Pontiac coupe.
I gave up motorcycles when I moved from Colorado (GREAT place to ride) to the SF Bay Area. Riding in SF proper wasn't bad, but the freeways around there are cold (they run near the bay) , pot-holed, badly-lit and filled with the recently escaped from psychiatric hold-down.
At least with a bicycle I can take side streets, alleyways, jump curbs, cut inside barriers, ride on sidewalks in a pinch, etc.
I agree, a scooter on a major freeway is totally nuts.
The old CRX weighed 1,700 lbs. The new Civic Hybrid weighs 2,900 lbs. That's how the old cars of the 1980s could get such good mileage.
Another thing people tend to forget was that there were several versions of the CRX back in those days. There was the regular version that could be had with a 1.5/5-speed, 1.5/automatic, or 1.6/5-speed, and the HF version, which had a de-tuned 1.5 and a 5-speed that had taller ratios for gears 2-5 and a taller axle ratio.
The HF got EPA highway ratings of around 56-60 depending on the year, but the regular CRX was lucky if it broke 40 mpg. And 40 mpg highway is about what the current Civic is rated (or was, before they dumbed down the EPA ratings for 2008).
As for acceleration, the HF was good for 0-60 in about 12 seconds, versus 10.1 for the regular model with the 1.5/5-speed, or 8.5 for the 1.6/5-speed. Most people would probably whine about 0-60 in 12 seconds today, even though that's perfectly adequate for most driving situations.
But then, if you're taking an HF from 0-60 in 12 seconds on a regular basis, you're pushing that car to its limit and it's a fairly safe bet you're not quite making the EPA estimates. ;-)
BTW, did the HF have air conditioning? Or is that one of the things they jettisoned in favor of fuel economy?
Two wheels for me is a bike on a dedicated bike path. Period.
Yeah, that is ashame. Bad urban planning, bad driver education, just generally very very sad.
In Santa Barbara, I commuted 12 miles each way from Goleta to the community college by bicycle (I also rode to high school and junior high, work, and UCSB when I had classes there). Santa Barbara has bike lanes on every major street, some dedicated bike paths, bike lockers at destinations so you can lock your bike and gear in a dedicated enclosure, and they have a little icon of a bicycle in left turn lanes - positioning your bicycle over that icon triggers the left turn light.
I rode rain or shine, because the underpasses flood every time it rains making it very difficult to get around by car via 101. It was just easier by bicycle. The commute took about 40 minutes, which is less time than it took to drive and find a parking space on campus.
Michigan sucks for commuting by bicycle, I think the drivers are poor here, and there are no bike lanes or infrastructure to support it. Its very sad and has a lot to do with why I hope my time here is temporary (hopefully I get out before I get fat like the rest of the state).
Naah, air conditioning was still a dealer-installed option on Hondas in those days.
So I wonder then, which cars the EPA used for their testing procedures back in those days? If they tested one car with a/c and the other without it, there could be some difference. Even without the a/c running, the extra belt and pulleys is going to put some drag on the engine, and it seems to me that the smaller the engine, the bigger the strain.
I wonder how much of a drag a power steering pump would have put on one of those little engines? Seems to me a CRX might be light enough to be okay with manual steering, but I'd imagine that the HF version might not have offered it, whereas it was probably available, if not standard, on the DX and Si models?
Comments
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/byprice.exclude.html
Think outside the box! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
High/Low Gas Prices March 2007
You can see how producers are subsidizing the price. This has to encourage waste.
OSLO: Norway, the world's third-largest oil exporter, is home to perhaps the world's most expensive gasoline.
But drivers here greet high pump prices of almost 11 kroner a liter, or $6.60 a gallon, with little more than a shrug.
Norway, has been made wealthy by oil, trailing only Saudi Arabia and Russia in exports. Last year alone, oil exports jumped 19 percent to $38.4 billion. But no other major oil exporter has attempted to reel in its own fuel consumption with as much zeal as Norway. These policies have resulted in one of the lowest car-ownership rates in Europe and fuel-efficient Volkswagens and Peugeots far outnumber big sport utility vehicles on its roads.
Gasoline, of course, is not the only expensive commodity in Norway, a traditionally frugal and highly taxed nation. At a pub in Oslo, for instance, a pint of beer might cost the equivalent of $12 and an individual frozen pizza $16. But expensive gasoline is rare among large oil-producing countries that often subsidize fuel for their citizens. Gasoline prices in Norway have climbed 30 percent since 1998, outpacing a 15 percent increase in the consumer price index over that period, the national statistics bureau said.
Having extremely high gasoline prices is just one anti-greenhouse gas strategy in this redoubt of welfare capitalism and strict environmental laws. Norwegians pay automobile taxes as high as $395 a year for each vehicle, and in Oslo there is even a "studded-tire" fee of about $160 for vehicles with all-terrain tires in the winter that tear up asphalt more quickly.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/29/business/norway.php?page=1
I'll say, especially since I'm used to getting a 30-pack of Ice House at the local liquor store for $13.99! If it's any consolation though, going out to a club, if it's not happy hour, a 12-oz beer will often set you back $4-5+ tip, but that's still a far cry from $12+ tip for 16 oz.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1054595.ece
Ha! They should visit California some time. Buy a new Camry and you can expect to pay that much for reg fees for the first couple of years. Buy a new Yukon, and you can expect reg to be well in excess of that...
But I am pretty sure they do have strict emissions standards in that country, as they are in the EU, aren't they? All EU countries have to meet a pretty strict smog-emissions standard.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
ANSWER: It's called, buy a $100 bicycle. It's advantages:
With no car insurance or fuel costs to deal with, this portable, easy to use, easy and cheap to maintain piece of transportation can get you from here to there. Go to a bike store and a car parts store. Buy some car brakes for all 4 wheels, then buy bike brakes and see how much they cost. $170 for car brakes but $17.00 for bikes. You can see the savings already.
Plus, this machine is THE most current, fuel efficient machine that has been widely available. Since it is powered by a human being who consumes food, not gas, someone calculated that a human being is capable of completing work or achieving tasks to the equivalent of 130 to 140 miles to the gallon. The only rivals to this are Electric Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrids.
Another advantage to this is instead of requiring a LOT of ACRES for parking garages for 1,000 cars, the entire ground level of 1 parking garage can be used for 1,000 bicycles and still have plenty space on the upper levels for cars. If you arrive at work by bike, you get the luxury of parking closer to the doors since they know you've been pedaling for some time and need a quicker way to your office. People who drive must go down steps, take elevators, and then get to work. Then go through the same hub bub just to get to their cars where people on bikes just walk into the bike storage, grab the bike, and go.
This system is in place and mostly being used in the Netherlands and some other countries as a way to for people who use cars to reduce maintenance and fuel costs if being used on occasion AND making it a cheaper form of transport for people who drive long distances since less fuel is being consumed by the country.
And, people must wait for their car to warm up or they're sitting in traffic, burning up fuel. With a bike, just get on and go. Although you have to obey traffic rules like cars, you're smaller, more quicker, and can dodge through traffic easier.
Finally, the health benefits are astonishing. Aside from great form of daily excercise, this help curbs people fom buying large amounts of food at grocery stores (since overeating is a leading cause in health deterioration and obesity), helps burn off fat and improves cardio and leg muscles.
The only downsides: 1) Lack of ability to be used in inclement weather like snow. 2) Lack of room for other passengers or cargo. 3) Lack of safety features that are available in cars. 4) Easier to steal than a car.
Obviously moving somewhere because the gas is cheaper is probably not such a smart idea.
RE: "Oil Wars" --- all modern wars are economic in nature, at the bottom of them.
Why do you suppose Hitler sent Rommel to take northern Africa? It's not because he was a great admirer of the Pyramids! :P
james
Same goes for running a car company, setting up an energy policy, or winning a war.
True you need determination and grit and all that, but you really need the Total View.... The Entire Landscape.
In terms of cars, I think the Japanese are better Big Picture automakers than we are at the moment, now that Henry Ford is long gone.
Yes initially Toyota did tell us internally ( the sales guy was right for the info he was given ) that the 'cost' of the first Prius' was about $35000 while they were selling them for ~$20000.
However this was based on loading up the vehicle with R&D amortizations and basing the production cost on a very small volume ( 5000 the first year if I'm not mistaken ).
Taking a step back looking at the whole picture ( estimates certainly ) ....
R&D to develop a new auto from scratch ....$1-$2 Billion
R&D to develop the new hybrid system...... $1 Billion
Outside of these there is the cost of production...
The Prius is situated between the Corolla and Camry about the same as the Matrix.
The Prius has additional parts like the battery pack, 2 motors, inverter/converter, the PSD and additional wiring. It doesn't have a traditional transmission. The 'additional' variable costs of these parts was probably in the $3000-$4000 range initially.
Using the Matrix as a barometer since it too was a new vehicle in the same time frame and is about the same size has an MSRP of about $19000-$20000 +/-. The Prius then should have an MSRP of about $22000-$24000 including the additional hybrid parts. But the Prius also has to amortize the R&D costs of the hybrid system development which the Matrix does not.
However, the hybrid system also can be put into other vehicles that Toyota builds, not just the Prius. As of the end of last year Toyota reached 1 million hybrids of which about 70% were just the Prius.
$1 Billion R&D / 1 Million units = $1000 / unit charge for the hybrid development. This is very likely. At this point the hybrid system R&D costs have been recouped and this $1000 charge per unit is pure profit. However Toyota took a step to increase sales by foregoing that small profit by dropping the Prius prices $600-$2000 and offering a lower-priced Camry hybrid. This is foresight.
Does Toyota need an additional $1000 profit on 100,000 units. It's a big number but maybe they gave up $100 Million in profit in order to generate a larger volume this year and next. The vehicle is 5 yrs old afterall and reaching the end of this model's cycle.
Yes, I've been preaching that sermon on here for weeks, although $100 won't even get you a Walmart Huffy nowadays.
Face it, we aren't going to get people out of their cars and riding pollution-free, gas saving vehicles like bicycles as long as people continue to drive 1/2 mile to the local health club so they can pay to exercise.
I do enjoy getting the closest parking spot at work.
The question, then, is how to reduce carbon emissions - a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, or something else?
Just to give you an example of how challenging this is, if you took every vehicle off the roads of the world today - all the trucks, all the cars, all the airplanes, all the trains - you would reduce carbon emissions by 14%.
If you took all the power generation off the face of the earth, all the commercial activity, all the residential heating and cooling off the face of the earth and went back to an agrarian society, you still wouldn't cut it by more than 60% or 70%.
FORTUNE
If he truly believes that... if he doesn't know that "significant change" will be forced upon the world by a shortfall of supply vs growing demand, then I have to wonder about his other assertions. :sick:
james
Why should I ride around in an econobox, so some fat cat in China or India can ride in a Mercedes? When we are offered decent vehicles in this country that get good mileage I will buy one. Until they are offered here, I guess I am stuck guzzling gas.
My concern is that policymakers in the U.S. seek to hogtie us. They are increasing taxes and limiting what we can do, when they ought to be encouraging us to invest. For example, 85% of our coastlines are off-limits to exploration. Britain allows exploration around its coast, Denmark allows coastal exploration, Norway, Australia - what's wrong with our country?
Why not open our coast up? It can be done in an environmentally sound way. The government puts it off-limits and at the same time calls for energy independence. What sense does that make?
Thats why I like going to the post, a 12 ozer from the tap will run you a buck. :shades:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Yep as long as there is only a few miles away, its always nice out and you don't have to take roads with cars zooming by at 45 MPH. Also its nice if you have the extra time to get where your going and don't mind taking a bath in your companies bathroom sink (or if you don't mind offending your co-workers).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
All wars modern or not have economic motives at the very bottom. Chi-You attacked the Huaxia tribes over land.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
He wasn't after oil, he was supporting Italy.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
i will do what ever it takes, but i wont pay $4 a gallon.
While doubling the CRX's mileage with pure ICE is probably not be possible, it could be improved on. The last 20 years have seen higher performance and static CAFE figures. That sounds like improved engine and drive train efficiency to me. If you used the same technology in a smaller engine wouldn't you get late 1980's performance with improved gas mileage? It seems more a problem of will than technology, in that nobody want to go back to 1980's performance.
The problem is you'd need lightweight aluminum chassis, carbon fiber body shell unpainted as paint weighs a lot etc...
So you'd be building an incredibly expensive car but you'd get the fuel economy and of course even with all that it wouldn't win any races.
Cars like this are too expensive to ever see production. Lots of high mpg prototypes out there winning contests tho.
The old CRX weighed 1,700 lbs. The new Civic Hybrid weighs 2,900 lbs. That's how the old cars of the 1980s could get such good mileage.
"i will walk, ride a bike, take the bus.
i will do what ever it takes, but i wont pay $4 a gallon."
That's a noble sentiment, but when it's pouring rain outside, or freezing cold, how far will you get? Anyway, you used to pay $1/gallon, now you're paying $3/gallon. What's the big problem with $4? I mean, why didn't you draw your line in the sand at $2/gallon?
Besides the weather, the main reason that walking or biking places is completely unrealistic is that our friends in gov't keep constructing cities in ways that demand the use of a car. In the suburbs, the distance between residential and commercial areas is too great to walk or bike. Add to that the fact that you're risking your life when you ride a bike in traffic, and you see the impracticality of the gas-free lifestyle.
The human-powered concept first demands that the gov't construct sidewalks and bike paths to facilitate it. And that will never happen as long as the government collects taxes on gasoline. The gas tax puts them in bed with the oil companies.
All levels of government that collect gas taxes want us to burn as much gasoline as possible. The more gas we buy, the more money they make.
Think about that the next time you question why traffic lights aren't synchronized, which forces everyone to do the stop/start routine at every intersection. Think about it the next time you wonder why rush hour stop and go traffic never gets better. Think about it next time you wonder why cars today weigh 50% more than the same models did 15 years ago.
And think about it the next time some politician complains about how much money Exxon/Mobil made last year. If it was $40 billion, that means the federal gov't collect $16 billion in corporate taxes, PLUS all the taxes the fed/state/local gov'ts collected in gasoline taxes. Funny how they conveniently forget that part of the equation.
They're all making money off of us. They all work in collusion to maintain the same inefficient transportation system that existed long before we were born. Why else would we still be using 100-year-old internal combustion technology for personal transportation?
Think about it.
.
.
http://hamptonroads.com/2007/12/man-dies-after-moped-collides-tractor-trailer-ch- esapeake
Most of these improvements in engine performance have been on the horsepower side. It's fairly commonplace for an engine today to be able to generate 70+ hp per liter. That was unheard of 20 years ago. The norm back then was probably more like 40-50 hp per liter. However for a naturally aspirated engine torque is still pretty much limited by an engine's displacement. In 1991 I had a Nissan Sentra SE-R with a 2.0L that generated 132 ft-lbs of torque. I don't see any 2.0L engines that can do much better than that today. So as cars have gotten heavier they've needed more torque resulting in a need for greater displacement. And there's no way you could build cars as light today as 20 years ago and still pass crash tests without using very expensive materials.
Naah, peak torque for the SR20DE was around 125 ft-lb. Horsepower was 140. The use of variable valve timing (which the SR never had) does broaden the torque curve, which helps a bit.
I posted that number from memory. I went back and checked. It was 132 ft-lbs. Still that's 66 ft-lbs per liter. Find me a naturally aspirated engine today that can beat that by much.
There's no difference being thrown off a moped or scooter than being thrown off a bicycle, except that you are going 2 to 3 times as fast; ergo, more damage.
Motorcycles are also more substantial. A good heavy bike can take a very nice bite out of a small car, and can carry crash bars, faring, and you can easily wear full leathers.
I'll never EVER ride a moped or scooter again. I think they are not good designs.
At least with a bicycle I can take side streets, alleyways, jump curbs, cut inside barriers, ride on sidewalks in a pinch, etc.
I agree, a scooter on a major freeway is totally nuts.
Another thing people tend to forget was that there were several versions of the CRX back in those days. There was the regular version that could be had with a 1.5/5-speed, 1.5/automatic, or 1.6/5-speed, and the HF version, which had a de-tuned 1.5 and a 5-speed that had taller ratios for gears 2-5 and a taller axle ratio.
The HF got EPA highway ratings of around 56-60 depending on the year, but the regular CRX was lucky if it broke 40 mpg. And 40 mpg highway is about what the current Civic is rated (or was, before they dumbed down the EPA ratings for 2008).
As for acceleration, the HF was good for 0-60 in about 12 seconds, versus 10.1 for the regular model with the 1.5/5-speed, or 8.5 for the 1.6/5-speed. Most people would probably whine about 0-60 in 12 seconds today, even though that's perfectly adequate for most driving situations.
But then, if you're taking an HF from 0-60 in 12 seconds on a regular basis, you're pushing that car to its limit and it's a fairly safe bet you're not quite making the EPA estimates. ;-)
BTW, did the HF have air conditioning? Or is that one of the things they jettisoned in favor of fuel economy?
Yeah, that is ashame. Bad urban planning, bad driver education, just generally very very sad.
In Santa Barbara, I commuted 12 miles each way from Goleta to the community college by bicycle (I also rode to high school and junior high, work, and UCSB when I had classes there). Santa Barbara has bike lanes on every major street, some dedicated bike paths, bike lockers at destinations so you can lock your bike and gear in a dedicated enclosure, and they have a little icon of a bicycle in left turn lanes - positioning your bicycle over that icon triggers the left turn light.
I rode rain or shine, because the underpasses flood every time it rains making it very difficult to get around by car via 101. It was just easier by bicycle. The commute took about 40 minutes, which is less time than it took to drive and find a parking space on campus.
Michigan sucks for commuting by bicycle, I think the drivers are poor here, and there are no bike lanes or infrastructure to support it. Its very sad and has a lot to do with why I hope my time here is temporary (hopefully I get out before I get fat like the rest of the state).
So I wonder then, which cars the EPA used for their testing procedures back in those days? If they tested one car with a/c and the other without it, there could be some difference. Even without the a/c running, the extra belt and pulleys is going to put some drag on the engine, and it seems to me that the smaller the engine, the bigger the strain.
I wonder how much of a drag a power steering pump would have put on one of those little engines? Seems to me a CRX might be light enough to be okay with manual steering, but I'd imagine that the HF version might not have offered it, whereas it was probably available, if not standard, on the DX and Si models?