Caltex

Yes there are many cars that get 40 MPG, but in order to do so, you must sacrifice size, and performance. I'm saying this because everyone is acting like there is no downside to the high MPG cars.

We should all get more efficient cars if possible, but in the process we'll end up with worser performing cars.

In the post you quoted, I was refuting a claim that getting both great performance, and great gas mileage in a standard automobile is possible.

__________________

Troianii

The real problem isn't getting a car to get 200MPG, it's making it affordable. Real green cars usually cost twice as much, and the government gives people tax breaks when they buy them... The only people that can really afford them are wealthy. If we actually want to make a difference we need to make it the sensible choice for people who don't have a ton of cash.

Caltex

Motorcycles are the best, 3.5-4 second 0-60's . Downside of being so unsafe . 0-60 differences are the most noticed. Getting onto the highway, changing lanes, stop and go, etc. is all so much easier with quick acceleration.

__________________

Slartibartfas

I smell a straw man here.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

Slartibartfas

Perhaps you Americans have a weird idea of what a regular size is, but this VW Passat blue motion is neither small, nor ultra light and therefore not ultra expensive. Its a normal limousine in terms of comfort and size.

A car has to perform the job it is faced with at the highway in the city etc. Some mistake its for performing races on public roads. You dont need cars in daily life that can do so. You also dont need cars that are 2 t heavy either.

We need cars that are fit for getting us around, and for this job, most cars have a hopless high overperformance.

Again I dont know what you mean by "great performance". A car does not need "great performance" it needs "appropriate performance" for the task it is used for. Those cars that can bring you 40 MPG far or even further are not grandma cars, though, if thats what you want to say.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

leo

I was being sarcastic about the 2 seconds... And I know all about motorcycles crashes - I work in an Trauma Hospital right off of I-5 in Southern California... My 4WD lifted 4 cylinder truck sucks for pick up (0-60)... but on the plus side - I get 20 miles per gallon - I need to change the gears so it will do a little better :-) But it is not as good as my old 91 Civic that got 30 miles per gallon - I wish I could of kept that car too.

My point is that this shouldn't be a top priority in our country right now - how fast can I go 0 -60.... is that better than taking care of our limited recourses around us and becoming more energy independent... Lets get real !!!

In the end - this may just be another subject that some people may have to, agree to disagree with me...

leo

Some people do get it...

Do I need a pot for my plant that is the size of a swimming pool - or just a pot that will fit my plant... ???

Can we say excessiveness !!!

prrriiide

[quote=Caltex;150108It shows that using crazy expensive technology we can make cool stuff, albeit impractical, unsafe, and just for fun.[/QUOTE]

What crazy expensive technology? Carbon fiber? How is it unsafe? The only reason carbon fiber has been expensive up to this point is that it has always been hand-laid. FiberForge (a spin-off from RMI, the group that designed the HyperCar) has come up with a way to mass-produce it at a cost equal to or less than steel. It absorbs 12X the impact energy of steel.

In less than 10 years, there is an excellent chance you will be driving a car manufactured almost entirely from molded carbon fiber.

In the meantime, here's a thought for you:

__________________
Tax & Spend > Borrow & Spend

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Every feeling you've ever felt can be found in the works of Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler, and Wagner.

metron9

Perhaps you miss the point of the original post and that is perhaps my fault as I could not afford to go to college but I am in the top 5% income bracket so college is not the only way to make it.

The point is simply this: If you mandate a car gets 40mpg and a gasoline engine car that burns 100% gasoline is not possible (assume that for just a moment) then what you are mandating is hybrid cars and that is a socialist thing to do in a capitalist society.

I wold be happy to buy a hybrid car that gets 40mpg but even though I am in the top 5% income catagory I can't afford one because I am paying 100% of the tuition for 3 kids at the moment (not deductable because I make too much) paying huge federal and state taxes and trying to save money to retire on because I don't think I will get any social security. So I drive old cars at the moment unless I go for a cruze in my Mitsubishi VR4 360hp twin turbo but I only put 1500 miles a year on that during the summer. Really, it's an investment for my future retirement.

prrriiide

Well, you might think so. But it really isn't. All it is is a kick in the ass to the car companies to dust off the technology that's been sitting on their shelves for decades.

But why is it socialist to mandate a certain level of performance regardless of engine type, yet it is not socialist to mandate that the engine must be 100% gasoline? Which is more foolish: to encourage and mandate investment in renewable methods of transportation energy, or to keep relying on a substance that is intrinsically threatening to the US's national security and sovereignty?

I said this on another thread. What we are dealing with in discussing petroleum and transportation issues has no resemblance to capitalism at all. We would have been weaned off of oil by the end of the 1970's at the latest had the oil and auto lobbyists not corrupted the free market system by getting legislation favorable to them and discriminatory towards alternatives.

A basic tenet of capitalism is to produce the highest value at the lowest cost, thus maximizing profit. But though ill-thought interference by legislators on behalf of those industries, that has been turned on its head. Oil is a higher-cost lower-value product than half a dozen alternatives.

This is a fact: if private investors in the US were to invest $180 billion dollars to completely re-tool the automotive plants in the US to produce affordable fuel cell vehicles with carbon-fiber structure, the savings in oil spending alone would reap a $70 billion NET a year ROI every year by 2025. And that figure is based on $25/bbl oil cost! We spend $100/bbl on oil right now. The equivalent cost to stop down and switch over to alternative energy modes would be about $15/bbl. The US consumes 20,687,000 barrels a day. At the rate of $100/bbl, we will spend $755 BILLION dollars on oil THIS YEAR. Which is money better spent?

And think about this: your old cars probaly get 20 or so mpg. You probably spend around $500 a month on gas. That's as low as that number is likely to be. It's only going to go up. We will never see $2 a gallon gas again. We will likely never see $2.50 a gallon again. Why would you want to keep spending that month, after month, after month, after month...? And 3 tuitions or not, if you're in the top 5%, you still have a helluva lot more disposable income than me.

But none of that matters. Even if Obama mandates 40 mpg, within 10 years, those cars will be extreme gas-guzzlers. Mandate or not, the gasoline engine's days as the primary method of moving you around are numbered. If anything, mandating 40 mpg will actually slow the rate of adoption of alternative-fuel vehicles. The entrepreneurial forces at work in this sector are unbelievably strong, and they are stampeding away from the gasoline/petroleum engine. Like I said, industrial Darwinism.

__________________
Tax & Spend > Borrow & Spend

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Every feeling you've ever felt can be found in the works of Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler, and Wagner.