Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

How Will Global Warming Concerns Change The Vehicles We Drive?

12467

Comments

  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    OK...you get the Golden Pun award.

    That is if I'm any "guage" of these things :P
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    Ahhh, now I think you strike at the heart of the conservation matter. I think people in general are much more comfortable sloughing the responsibility of their own collective restraint on an "outside" entity, than to take it on as individuals.

    For whatever reasons, most of us won't choose the option of greater conservation individually, unless as you point out we are forced economically to do so. But we will get together as a group and restrict ourselves provided we can do it through a somewhat anonymous, convenient and somteimes easily vilified party. We shift the onus from ourselves, and put it on the profit center!

    Guilty as charged. My RWD, compact wagon with its old iron block I-6 gets maybe 17mpg in town, maybe, and mid-twenties on the freeway. Now, as an individual voting with my wallet today, I don't think I would replace it with a hybrid; matter of fact, I know I wouldn't. If anything, my desires run toward another compact wagon, this time with a newer 4.2L V8, and probably a 15/20 consumption split. I don't want to deny my self that pleasure, A) if I can reasonably afford it, and B) if nobody else is being denied that pleasure - why should I go without if everybody else gets to have fun? :blush:

    OTOH, if that 4.2L V8 is no longer offered for sale because it doesn't meet some emissions requirement, well hey, nobody else is gonna get it either, are they? So if the biggest plant available is the 3.2L V6, then nobody else's can be bigger'n mine, eh?

    And I'm pretty much OK with that, because the offspring downstream will be new opportunities, technologies and profit centers. Horrendous, ain't I?

    I don't think mfr legal challenges will stand, especially with other states going the same way. This is not unlike emissions controls mandated back in, what was it, 1963? Mfrs screamed "foul" and insisted it would add horrendous costs and/or bankrupt them then too. Didn't turn out that way...
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    Putting the onus on the profit center that smacks of dishonesty to me. As a result, we get people saying that they want better fuel economy while rushing to buy V-8 Tahoes. It also leads to the idea that GM, Ford, Toyota and the rest of the automakers have this secret technology - the hoary 100-mpg carburetor myth - that they are hiding because they are in cahoots with the oil companies.

    It tells people that they don't have to change - much like the gastric bypass surgery approach to weight control, as opposed to the old fashioned, often unpleasant method of eating less and exercising regularly.

    It's easy to beat up GM or Ford, much like it's easy to blame McDonald's for obesity. It's harder to tell people that they may have to reconsider their vehicular choices because gas costs $4 a gallon, just as it's hard to tell overweight people that taking off the feedbag once in a blue moon and exercise are the ultimate cures for obesity.

    If curbing fossil-fuel use is this important, then tax it and be done with it. Reduce income taxes - we shouldn't be taxing income anyway, as, the last time I checked, we WANT people to make more money. If people still want a Tahoe, then they can buy it.

    And I don't want to hear anyone talk about curbing fossil fuel because of global warming use until he or she has come out in support of nuclear power. They can do this while burning a copy of the film, No Nukes, with anti-nuclear activist Jackson Browne (remember him?) providing the background music.

    As for the success of the lawsuit - the difference between this lawsuit and concerns over the original emissions control attempts is that since 1963, the federal government passed CAFE, which specifically reserves the right to regulate fuel economy for the federal government. If California's new regulation is interpreted as a backdoor attempt to regulate fuel economy, it runs into the federal law.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    Well, I understand your sentiments, even if I don't agree with all of it. Yeah, it's basically dodging personal responsibility, and artificially forcing the result you want. Let's be fair, the vast majority of CA monster-hauler owners probably (almost definitely) aren't supporting this. The people they elected are.

    I disagree that it forces no change. If my neighbor who uses his Suburban as a commute vehicle five days a weeks, and on the very odd weekend takes his wife and two small kids to the lake, wants a new on and no longer has the option of a 6-liter, he can take the 5.3L and live just fine, or he can move to a Tahoe (probably with the 4.8L and not the 5.3), or perhaps something even better suited to his needs, rather than his desires. This seems somewhat along the lines of the diet and exercise v. super-sizing at Mickey D's analogy to me. Either way, the change is made and yet choices are still available.

    As far as an automotive magic dingus goes, I agree they aren't there to be pulled out of thin air, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts development is more than just possible. Think of what you've seen come to automotive fruition in just your adult life, especially with the help of the ECU. Think of the "i" solutions, like VVTi, that have opened new worlds of performance as well as economy. Sometimes a hurdle is what's required to create a whole road, or in other words, necessity is a mother. But at the start at least, I think it's probably going to be about hybrids and/or smaller displacements.

    With the law and its wording, it's very carefully crafted to specify emissions only, and leaves the field wide open as to the mfrs choosing their own solutions to meet the requirements. Based on that, to find it an economy regulation attempt in strict legal terms would require a great deal of interpretation. We'll see on that one.

    I'm all for nuclear enegry. As soon as someone figures out how to find, reclaim, process, transport and dipose of the fuel for fission (no holes in the ground or tunneled mountains please) without raping the planet on the way, and the thermal by-product issue (which actually I think they do now have nailed ), regardless of sabotage/attack security concerns, I'm on board. Fusion would be better.

    A "Mr. Fusion" for my DeLorean would be best...
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I don't quite grasp the rational behind the federal government having sole authority for regulating fuel economy. I can understand them setting a floor like with minimum wage but if a state wants to exceed this, why would the feds object? Plus the EPA already uses CO2 emissions for assigning cars a green rating. That implies that they consider it to be a pollutant, which the states can regulate. With that said I don't believe in the effectiveness of this type of regulation. I agree that taxation would be far more effective and history has proven the relationship between fuel prices and fuel consumption. States definitely have the authority to set their own fuel taxes.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    We're here to discuss possible changes in the vehicles we drive. Let's not go off on tangents that have nothing to do with that.

    I'm removing the off topic posts to help avoid the temptation! ;)
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    that the comment about seeing all the huge SUVs in California made me think is that people generally don't think about all the little (and in some cases, big) ways their everyday decisions affect the larger society or environment.

    Even as more and more people begin to be aware of global warming and it becomes a regular topic in the news, what will spur them to connect their own choices of vehicle and driving habits/patterns to the problem?

    I am also for this latest CA legislation mandating a reduction in CO2 emissions from cars, because it might force people to add two and two. That is, if big spikes in gas prices don't do it for them first...paying $2.79/gallon as of today at my local station here in northern CA...

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    CA residents are actually considerably below the average in per capita fuel consumption.

    http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_per_capita.html
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    Unless I'm much mistaken, I believe I read that we have the highest percentage of hybrid ownership in the country here in CA.

    Maybe the numbers balance out the shmoes in my nape of the timber who commute in You-Cons?
    ;)

    Simple historical fact of human automotive nature, though, is that if a offered a choice between a powerplant that achieves driveability and one that offers giddyup, most cutomers prefer giddyup. So, shy of near-catasrophic economic reversal, behavior isn't going to change much regardless of intentions.

    My favorites are the ones who price-panic themselves into economic stupidity. One co-worker with a one-year old Escalade traded it in on a new RX400h at first availability. Took all the upside-down from the 48 months left on the 60-month note on the Caddy and let Toyota finance that for her, plus, of course, the absurd ADM on the RX.

    Guess she's sho nuff saving on gas though. I figger she could break even in, like, 2025 or so, or roughly fourteen years after she will already have dumped it. :sick:

    Wish I was in the battery business sometimes...
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    No joke! The battery business will be a very good one to be in for the foreseeable future...

    Perhaps the first manifestations of a change in thinking will come not in the guise of your co-worker going from a gas guzzler to a hybrid against all financial good sense, but rather people sliding back towards what they actually NEED, vs what they WANT, in a vehicle at purchase time as the knowledge of global warming grows in the public consciousness...

    I think with the early hybrid adopters we got all the reactive folks on board, those out to make a point with the vehicle they drive, and I am all for that, but there's more than one way to do it (simple down-sizing being another way). Plus, the group with that mindset isn't a very big one. We need Joe Average, point-A-to-point-B guy (and gal) to change their choices too. I absolutely do NOT want to relaunch the IDLSWDY debate in here, but if most people buying "You-Cons" were to consider what size vehicle they REALLY need, and then edge towards that by 10%, perhaps 20%, maybe increasing over time, we would see a gradual shift. That may happen, but again, it will come down to people putting two and two together to realize that not only do their decisions matter in the overall picture, but they may have to sacrifice a little for a common cause.

    Will people do that? I figure the odds aren't better than 50/50 without a prod from governments, financial pressures, or automakers, and in fact the odds are probably a lot worse than that.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    "IDLSWDY"

    Oh Lordy!

    I much preferred the "YSOYLM, WSMTOR?"*, but then I again, I started it...

    *Your SUV Or Your Lawn Mower, Which Spends More Time Off Road?

    Ahh, the smell of goats in the morning...
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    the Boyz at Benz:
    Thomas Weber explains DCX's efforts to reduce vehicle mass.

    "In the auto industry, the weight in the various segments has grown between one-half of 1 percent and 1 percent per year. And the growth in vehicle length from one model generation to another is between 5 and 10 centimeters (or 2 to 4 inches), just from people getting bigger. We want to arrest this trend and, in the process, contribute to further reductions in fuel consumption..."

    Right on! Reducing mass is something I think we could all benefit from, on all fronts, frankly, especially Catholics. Ba dum bum. Me likey muchly. Now, if only DCX would sell a car here that I actually want. C35AMG wagon would be a huge step in the right direction...
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    on another website (libertarian too), a link to a Washington Post chat on GW.

    Enjoy.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Wow, that's a great discussion you linked from the Washington Post.

    One way vehicles need to improve DRASTICALLY is weight reduction. They could consume less energy simply by going on a diet (thereby affording the use of more efficient powertrains and making it that much easier to power them by alternative means). I note that with the advent of the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave, the threshold of 2-1/2 tons has been crossed among CAR-BASED vehicles. That's completely out of control.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I'd rather have a heavier more solid vehicle myself. ;)

    Rocky
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    That is a very traditional way of thinking in the industry and among consumers, which has led to the 5000-pound Lambda triplets (among many other culprits - the Edge is almost there, and most of the minivans are only a few hundred pounds off).

    I hear what you are saying, but what I am talking about is a SHIFT in thinking that will be desirable, even necessary if we wait too long, in the future.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    Really, Rocky?

    There are prices to be paid for that, and I'm far from convinced that the return is all that substantial...
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Well can we manufactor aluminum body's instead of steel for around the same money ?

    Audi, does it right ?

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Well why are they so heavy ? I think sound deading material begins to add weight but if they don't do it you guys will jump them for not having that quality touch. ;)

    Rocky
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    Well, aside from displacements and such, the structures themselves are getting bigger (reference the article on Benz). The market push hasn't just been for larger format vehicles, but the offerings within classes have grown substantially too.

    With bigger framing comes most everything else bigger to boot. Some are things I would want anyway, like bigger rotors, pads, calipers and rubber, but I'd much prefer them to come without a boost in size, personally.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Now you know that improvements like major weight loss are never easy or cheap, right? ;-)

    We could plow a ton of aluminum, magnesium, and even carbon fiber (now we're getting into the exotic) into new vehicles to reduce weight, but that wouldn't be as cost-effective as using this super-high-strength steel they are making nowadays - same torsional characteristics with half as much metal, which is a good start.

    But howzabout other more innovative approaches to the problem? Plain simple air-filled SPACE inserted between the car's outer shell and the interior aids in sound reduction, as do laminated windows like GM's new whatchamacallit (Rocky, help me out - what does GM call that new sound-deadening technology they're using in their glass and firewalls, especially in the Buicks?). There must be other things we can do too to reduce noise getting into the car, that don't require stuffing more STUFF into the car, and may not even cost that much for all I know (inserting more SPACE is free after all - the air is free!).

    I wish I could have more faith that manufacturers are working towards goals like these. All the new models Toyota is introducing this year produce worse CO2 emissions than their forebears, the LS600H (a $70K car? Or is it more?) being the sole exception I believe. I don't like that trend. Meanwhile, almost eight years into their North American hybrid program, we still have only three models (four including the upcoming LS600H, five if you include the RX400H/Highlander hybrid twins separately) with available hybrid powertrains.

    And Toyota doesn't seem to be doing all that much about its diesel program. Honda does, and that is an encouraging sign, but I wonder if Honda will perhaps drop its hybrid program as soon as it ready to have diesels AND CNG AND fuel cells of some type on dealer lots or in test fleets. The Accord hybrid is a goner, so is the Insight, leaving only the Civic hybrid, which has moderate sales but is eclipsed in sales numbers by the Prius.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    the aluminum thing. I think only the Audi A8 is aluminum, Rocky. Somebody can correct if I'm wrong. Somebody probably will even if I'm not... ;)

    That space is far from free, Nippon; you have to have enough structure to have the space to devote to gapping and still have useable space inside.

    There is some sort of liquid polymer compound or somesuch I saw on TLC that weighs almost nothing, yet has a high surface strength (no engineering degree here, you can tell), so you can basically blow bubbles with it for insulation, among other things, with about 1/20th the weight of typical foam insulation. I have no idea what the cost is. High at first and less as you refine the process I'm sure...
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    On the topic of reduced mass. Something to keep in mind is while mass is the enemy of acceleration it is the friend of regenerative braking. With batteries being developed that can recapture more of this energy I think you will see large vehicles really start to benefit. And if we start to transition to EVs the larger, more powerful electric motors are actually more efficient. I'm personally not a big fan of large vehicles. IMO, they aren't as fun to drive, they are hard to see around, they make the roads less safe for drivers of smaller cars, their large tires like to throw stones at my windshield, etc., etc.. But I do believe that with the advances in technology these vehicles will become less vilified from an energy usage perspective.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    Hmmm...

    Well maybe there's some sort of flywheel application or something for electrics and hybrids.

    I'm not fond of large at all, and I'm certainly not fond of heavy. There's a good two hundred pounds of weight added to my car just in insulation and glass alone to make its noise levels drop to "Lexus" from "Toyota". I'd be just as happy without the extra weight and the extra muffle (something those LS, GS, ES and RX drivers just don't get).

    It's not so much the linear acceleration piece with which I'm concerned at all, but rather the lateral piece. The lateral is the heart of all driving joy says I... :shades:
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    wale_bate1: I disagree that it forces no change. If my neighbor who uses his Suburban as a commute vehicle five days a weeks, and on the very odd weekend takes his wife and two small kids to the lake, wants a new on and no longer has the option of a 6-liter, he can take the 5.3L and live just fine, or he can move to a Tahoe (probably with the 4.8L and not the 5.3), or perhaps something even better suited to his needs, rather than his desires.

    But that is his decision to make. You said that you were a former member of the GOP, and most people who left the GOP usually claim it was because of the increasing busybody attitude of the far right. Sorry, but my automotive purchases are my business, with me weighing the trade-offs and benefits...unless someone shows me that they know more about the subject at hand than I do.

    Which, so far, they haven't.

    The two worst laws to come out of the original fuel "crisis" (which was really a "government-meddling-in-oil-prices" crisis, a hangover of the Nixon-mandated price controls of 1971) were CAFE and the 55-mph speed limit (the dumbest and most deservedly ignored law since Prohibition).

    People got around CAFE by buying light trucks, just as they gave the stupid 55- and 65-mph speed limits the raspberry by buying CB radios and radar detectors.

    wale_bate1: As far as an automotive magic dingus goes, I agree they aren't there to be pulled out of thin air, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts development is more than just possible. Think of what you've seen come to automotive fruition in just your adult life, especially with the help of the ECU. Think of the "i" solutions, like VVTi, that have opened new worlds of performance as well as economy. Sometimes a hurdle is what's required to create a whole road, or in other words, necessity is a mother. But at the start at least, I think it's probably going to be about hybrids and/or smaller displacements

    But when I go to Europe, which is supposedly much more environentally minded than the U.S., I don't see comparably sized vehicles getting that much more fuel economy than their U.S. counterparts, unless they are equipped with diesels, which bring about their own problems (particulate emissions).

    This problem is why the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been anti-diesel for several years now, and has only recently reconsidered its position. It's also one reason why the air in European cities is not cleaner than the air in American cities.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    tpe: I don't quite grasp the rational behind the federal government having sole authority for regulating fuel economy. I can understand them setting a floor like with minimum wage but if a state wants to exceed this, why would the feds object?

    American policy, since the end of the Civil War, when the industrial North defeated the agrarian slave-based economy of the South, has been to encourage national markets for products, along with the development of a national identity, as opposed to several regional ones.

    It goes back to the discussion about railroads. Why was the federal government using its power to encourage the completion of transcontinental railroad routes? Because it wanted to bind the country into one unit (literally "taming" the Wild West).

    Or, an activist government (which we tend to think of as being "liberal") used its power to achieve what, today, we consider a "conservative" end (the shaping of a uniform American identity from the Atlantic to the Pacific).

    The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 was the same idea. Just substitute "interstate highways" for railroads.

    The federal government has also used its power - including its Constitutional power to preempt states in regulatory matters - to create NATIONAL markets for products.

    GM wants to sell vehicles in all 50 states. The federal goverment wants GM to sell vehicles in all 50 states. The UAW wants GM to sell vehicles in all 50 states.

    This has been the goal of both parties - and the left and the right - through the decades.

    Having different regulations in different states complicates this process.

    When amendments to the federal Clean Air Act were passed, an exception was made for California, because of the serious air pollution problems in the Los Angeles basin.

    The minimum wage is an entirely different animal, as large corporations (even the much-reviled Walmart) already pay more than the minimum wage in most cases. They aren't as affected by varying wage rates. That burden falls most heavily on small businesses, but they usually don't have branches in more than one state, and they are somewhat insulated by the lack of direct competition. If the little diner down the street has to raise its prices to cover a higher minimum wage, most people aren't going to drive to another state for their eggs and coffee to save a dollar or two.

    tpe: Plus the EPA already uses CO2 emissions for assigning cars a green rating. That implies that they consider it to be a pollutant, which the states can regulate.

    The problem is that carbon dioxide is not just emitted by vehicles or factories, and is a part of the respiratory process for not only animals, but also plants.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    A lot of the weight gain has come from increases in crashworthiness, along with increased suppression of noise, vibration and harshness. The improvement noise, vibration and harshness has been quite substantial, especially in the smaller vehicles.

    This could lead to MORE fuel savings. A 2007 Civic is a luxury car compared to a 1997 Civic (I had a Civic from that generation). This could encourage people to stay with the smaller car instead of trading up to gain more comfort and safety.

    I'm actually considering trading DOWN from an Accord to a Civic for my next car, as the new Civic EX sedan is so nice, for less money. If the car were made noisier or less crashworthy to save weight, I would not consider it.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Oh you are talking about "QUIETTUNING" which helps reduce, block, and absorb noise. ;) I know they use thinsulate material and of course other process's to reduce noise. Some of it is as simple as re-engineering the shape of a part. ;)

    Rocky
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    there, Mr. B!

    Truer than true, national markets for all goods first, and later services, were and are the aim. But that this is somehow a conspiritorial effort hatched on the part of a leeching government seems awfully misguided. That entity is made up of us, installed by us, and perpetuated by us. That drive to homogenize the rules and delivery systems is the manifestation of a majority will, and that will is promoted by a desire to achieve the most output with the least input, or what we know as capitalism.

    I can't imagine trying to do business today on any large scale without most of the level of homogeneity we currently have. Being in the business of designing and planning stores, I can tell you without hesitation that there are certainly areas of practice in which I could easily do with a bit more blanket and a lot less patchwork across states and even municipalities, to make my practice less stressful and more productive. But I do believe in balance, and also, to varying extents, state and local self determination.

    BTW, where are we going with that part of this?

    Diesels and EU: Diesels have been de rigeur in the EU for the obvious reason of economy, and that based on their tax schedule for vehicle purchase plus their fuel taxes. Other thing to remember is that our diesel here has had a much higher sulphur content, I believe, than the "clean" diesel available in Europe. So it's not apples and oranges, but maybe Fujis and Granny Smiths. Interesting article last year in Autoweek on FSI and other emerging tech that basically highlighted efforts to reduce the percentage of diesels in Europe for precisely the emissions problem, and that increased economy from gasoline engines using new technologies (like FSI, per the article) will begin to make a shift away from diesels possible. Most European urban areas have major issues with particulates from what I've read (and witnessed a bit), and apparently a number have now sought ways to minimize vehicle traffic in urban centers based on that and congestion. Evil municipal governance, that.

    The only diesel I'm a fan of is bio. I'd be willing to go for a modest trade-off on some particulate for the possiblity of removing a percentage of petroleum from the equation. Other than that, I don't see diesel, even clean, as a long-term solution for anything. I think the real long-term solutions bypass petroleum-based fuels.

    Carbon dioxide: the issue isn't carbon dioxide as a part of normal life processes, even if we look at human population expansion, but rather just how much our industrial and lifestyle practices have impacted levels. What was it? 35% increase since before the turn of the 19th century? I don't think that's all cows and such.

    Weight gain from safety features is one thing. I don't like the weight, but in many cases, the function is of such value as to mitigate the loss of lightness. NVH strides can be good, but the search is constant for newer and lighter ways to achieve it. Some methods require very little weight gain, but more manufacturing steps or a move to multiple components in an assembly replacing a single structure. Subframe isolation comes to mind, along with things like better bushings and more attachment points using them for vibrating components.

    Part of the problem per the article is size creep for each vehicle (a trend I personally loathe). Average increase of 5-10 cm per model iteration. What you're seeing as a potential downsizing, to my mind, is smoke and mirrors. The Civic, which was a very reasonably-sized automobile when we bought one back in '90-something, is now roughly the size of a Buick, so if it's become appealing at this point, there's not much of a down-sizing going on here! ;)

    I was goaded into scratching below the surface on the Great Northern and its history, BTW. Very interesting stuff. Talk about revisionist history. I'll have to share some time...
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I think that we both agree on CAFE being a very ineffective and flawed tool for accomplishing any objective.

    Does CA have the legal right to set fuel taxes at whatever limit they see fit? If so then they essentially have the authority to mandate overall efficiency standards, abeit in an indirect way. Its just a matter of whether the CA residents would go for this. Probably not.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    I think that's the point, tpe.

    People don't willingly tax themselves, regardless of their aims. Grudgingly perhaps,yes, and in certain cases with recognition of immediate need.

    This is why an end-around that appears to tax someone else is more saleable.

    I don't disagree with anyone on the hypocrisy, but it is self-inflicted by the electorate, and I'm good with the intent, personally.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I like the way you phrased it as "appears to tax someone else". Because this proposal would have to ultimately increase the price of gas for the consumer.

    CA likes referendums. If they had one regarding whether or not fuel taxes should be raised I'm pretty confident it would fail. But I'll bet it would be a lot closer than some would have thought and definitely closer than it would have been 5 years ago. My point is that the idea might not be ripe yet but we're heading in that direction.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    "I'm actually considering trading DOWN from an Accord to a Civic for my next car, as the new Civic EX sedan is so nice, for less money. If the car were made noisier or less crashworthy to save weight, I would not consider it."

    I share your thoughts on the issue of whether the new Civic might be a reasonable substitution for the Accord. However, if you haven't driven the new Civic yet, you may want to compare road noise between the two models. I mention this to you because, after I accompanied my daughter on test drives of both the '06 Civic and Accord, we both noticed that the Accord's ride was quieter than the Civic's in terms of road noise. Of course, the Civic's other attributes may offset this relative disadvantage, but the Accord's greater sound insulation made it seem more luxurious, to us.

    As you know, a new generation Accord will be introduced this Fall, which adds complexity - and fun - to the car buying decision.

    A bit off subject, but I read that the '08 Focus will have improved sound insulation.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    had a fascinating show on tonight, called FutureCar, talking about the all the alt-fuel powertrains under development. Quite eye-opening. I cannot help but think all this R&D work that so many people are doing all over the planet will not come to naught. Many of these designs will come to the market, and I think they will find buyers too.

    I had no idea that at the last Paris auto show there was a fully functional solar powered city car that can go 30 mph and carry 3 passengers solely on solar power. They have 200 orders already - they are building them.

    They have prototype cars that run solely on compressed air, produce less emissions than what is in the ambient air, and cool the air before it comes out the tailpipe. Neat stuff.

    And then of course there's all the more conventional stuff -biodiesel, E85, etc. Safeway (a huge supermarket chain here in the west) opened its first biodiesel pump at one of its stores in Seattle today. It is a test program, but if it proves popular and sustainable marketwise, they plan to expand it to all their stores that sell gas.

    For some, global warming will seem serious enough that they will go for some of the more "far out" technologies described in the show. But even for the ones that don't, there will be very attractive choices along the way (I am sure biodiesel will be one) that don't exact a penalty in terms of cost or performance - those buyers can be globally conscious without giving anything up. :-)

    And then there will be those for whom nothing less than a 300-hp V-8 gas will do. For a decade or so, we can work towards eliminating that end of the market without disturbing those people much. After that, who knows...

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I saw that show last night and I agree, it was very good/interesting. They did make a statement regarding bio-diesel that wasn't correct. They said that there were zero CO2 emmisions. Another somewhat ridiculous statement was when they were talking about solar cars and how their power didn't stack up too well compared to the average car that "uses" 300 hp. Well as we all know the average car does not have 300 hp and even those that do rarely use it.

    I missed the part on cars that run on compressed air. Where does the power come from to compress this air?
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    How funny, you and I made note of the same two incorrect items! When he came out with his comment about how the average car has 300 hp today, I almost choked.

    Unfortunately, I had a call come in right at the moment that they began to explain the mechanics of the compressed-air vehicle, so I didn't get to hear about the power source for the compressor. But when the call was over they were saying something about how the powertrain provides enough flexibility that you could have a compressor in there, which makes me wonder the same thing as you, unless I misheard it.

    They already have taxi fleets using small numbers of the compressed-air cars. Many of these alt-powertrains provide absolutely fantastic savings in terms of fuel costs.

    An article in the paper this morning has a piece about Bio Oasis, the biodiesel fueling station in Berkeley. Apparently they have gone from 200 regulars to 1800 regulars monthly vs just one year ago. I do hope biodiesel takes off, and that the new diesel tech from the Germans, GM, and Honda makes diesel vehicles popular again. That's a great way to save gas and GHG emissions right away, with minimal "strangeness" for consumers to become accustomed to, and a fueling infrastructure that is well established for petroleum-based fuel, and is rapidly growing for biodiesel.

    In the other camp, Toyota is said to be working on the 100-mpg Prius (with plug-in technology, of course). It would be nice to see them expand their hybrid offerings to more models before 2010, and to get rid of some of the least fuel-efficient engines in their line-up.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I like bio-diesel too. I seem to remember them stating in that show that bio-diesel has the potential to supply 15% of our fuel needs. IMO, a nice chunk and probably more realistic compared to what people think ethanol will accomplish.

    Do you know whether or not bio-diesel has been tried in a jet engine? Even if we someday transition to EVs we will still need fuel for our aircraft.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    again, but an article in the Contra Costa Times this AM reports that Lennar Homes is outfitting new developments in CA with solar roof panel systems. Two developments are in progress now. Estimated cost of the systems is between $12K-15K which, due to bulk purchasing, is below the roughly $20K it would cost to install individually.

    A little start-up funding from the electorate's tax pocket, and eventually the market takes over. It's good to be American. Better to be Californian... :shades:
    :blush:
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    A little start-up funding from the electorate's tax pocket, and eventually the market takes over

    I think the CA initiative to expand solar is primarily being funded by the utility companies. The rational is that they can avoid building new powerplants. Also, this solar energy will obviously be generated during the day, coinciding with peak consumption. This provides a degree of load leveling allowing the utilities to produce more efficiently, another cost savings from their perspective.

    I was reading about this initiative when it was first proposed. Apparently it got shot down in the state legislature because the electricians union wanted some provision that this work had to be done by them. Another example of a special interest trying to manipulate government. Arnold decided to take this proposal directly to the utilities, which allowed him to bypass part of the legislative process and bypass the electricians union. If that is in fact how it happened then good for him.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Member Posts: 1,982
    True enough.

    I was thinking more about 2001 tax funding and 2000-02 grant monies. I can't remember if '96 included tax monies or not, but I seem to remember it did.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    SANTA ROSA, Calif. — A major downside to electric vehicles is that they need to be charged up, a process that takes several hours. But electric-car maker Zap has introduced new charging technology that it says reduces the time from "hours to minutes" and significantly extends daily driving range.

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=120017

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Zap Releases Sketch of Attractive New 644-HP Electric Crossover SUV

    SANTA ROSA, Calif. — Take that, Chevy Volt and Tesla roadster. The wild and crazy guys at Zap, the California electric-car maker, issued a sketch on Monday of their idea of the perfect flagship electric vehicle — one that is engineered by Lotus.

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=120032

    Rocky
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    If you'd like to discuss electric vehicles, head over to the Electric Vehicle Pos & Cons discussion
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    A jet engine should run on Biodiesel. Jet "A" is kerosene or number one diesel. Gelling would be the biggest problem as it is very cold at 30k plus feet in the air. I read a recent article that stated a cross country flight in a jet puts out about 5 tons of CO2 per seat. So every time you fly cross country you dump as much CO2 into the upper atmosphere as a Honda Civic will dump in a year.

    San Diego is making an effort to get the Marines to move their operations to the desert from Miramar Air Station. Two reasons: The new jet fighters coming online put out 4 times the NoX of the older ones and they would like to move San Diego International airport out of downtown San Diego.

    Biodiesel is still tough to find in San Diego. You can get Bio WIllie B20 at Pearson Ford. It was $3.39 last Monday when we were by there. I don't think you will see many stations until they open up the market for diesel cars to be sold.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    Will stringent new environmental standards for cars cause driveability problems and loss of performance reminiscent of the '70s?
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    GM is now saying it will put the Chevy Volt into production
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Yep, thus they will have the first plug-in hybrid. ;)

    -Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Automakers face biggest challenge in 16 years as Senate weighs whopping hike in efficiency rules.

    http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070509/AUTO01/705090399/1148-

    -Rocky
  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 22,559
    Just watch, those boobs will have us all driving electric cars with 0-60 times rated in days. Then they'll close down the power plants and make us push our cars up and down the street so we won't be obese.

    Invest in horses my friend, invest in horses.

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

This discussion has been closed.