"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote:

As I have said several times it all comes down to whether the car
buying public wants to reduce emissions or not.

That's a very simple process.

$10/gallon gasoline would get a whole lot of attention.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote:

As I have said several times it all comes down to whether the car
buying public wants to reduce emissions or not.

That's a very simple process.

$10/gallon gasoline would get a whole lot of attention.

Lew



I suspect that's coming soon enough, Lew.

And the price of resin will go sky high too.

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:29:16 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:

wrote:

SNIPPED - to demonstrate the technology...


That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger
vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your
imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair
across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get
better mileage is reduce weight.


Unfortunately, reducing weight goes hand in hand with increased trauma
in accidents.


The weight advantage in accidents is highly over-rated. It's sometimes
a factor, but not the main factor.

WHY do you thing people have kept buying heavy vehicles?
It's not for the mileage!

Sales of big heavy vehicles have plummeted. Even Lincolns and Caddys
are now about the size of a Dodge Dart.

Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an
efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that
the car buying public doesn't want one.

I think most people (except for complete idiots) would prefer a more
efficient vehicle but the car companies aren't force by the Gov't to
increase efficiency so they don't.
I was at a neighbors BBQ right about the time gas had reached $3/gal. We
were talking about fuel mileage (of course) and another neighbor quipped
that the hybrid vehicles were something, getting 35 mpg. My thought was that
the car companies had the hybrid technology sitting on the shelf waiting for
the oil people to give us the shaft, which made the new cars pretty
attractive.
This guy is about 10 years younger than my 49 and so doesn't remember the
Datsun B210 or the similar model Toyota getting mid to high 30s in the 70s
fuel crunch.
What other reason could there be for fuel efficiency not to have improved?
After that time in the 70s it actually went backwards. I know emmision
controls rob some power but we have computer controlled fuel injection now.
Was this created just so that we would have to take our cars to the shop
instead of working on them ourselves?
When people scream conspiracy, I think they're at least half right. The rest
is just crap goverment.

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:41:34 -0400, "mmc" wrote:



Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an
efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that
the car buying public doesn't want one.

I think most people (except for complete idiots) would prefer a more
efficient vehicle but the car companies aren't force by the Gov't to
increase efficiency so they don't.
I was at a neighbors BBQ right about the time gas had reached $3/gal. We
were talking about fuel mileage (of course) and another neighbor quipped
that the hybrid vehicles were something, getting 35 mpg. My thought was that
the car companies had the hybrid technology sitting on the shelf waiting for
the oil people to give us the shaft, which made the new cars pretty
attractive.
This guy is about 10 years younger than my 49 and so doesn't remember the
Datsun B210 or the similar model Toyota getting mid to high 30s in the 70s
fuel crunch.
What other reason could there be for fuel efficiency not to have improved?
After that time in the 70s it actually went backwards. I know emmision
controls rob some power but we have computer controlled fuel injection now.
Was this created just so that we would have to take our cars to the shop
instead of working on them ourselves?
When people scream conspiracy, I think they're at least half right. The rest
is just crap goverment.


But they do manufacture cars that will get decent fuel economy.

My wife has a Honda Jazz, maybe called a Fit, or something similar, in
America. It has a 1.4 Ltr. engine (the non VTEC engine), carries three
adults and two kids, or four adults with ease, and gets 45 miles per
gallon. Rock, stock, right off the showroom floor.

Honda also makes a 1.2 Ltr version. It isn't sold in Thailand, but I
believe it gets over 50 miles per gallon.

My Isuzu pickup, 6 years old, still gets about 30 miles/gallon and the
more recent electronic injected models get better. 2.5 Ltr engine.

Nope. the vehicles are there, in common use, if you want them, and
they aren't some kind of one off either. I believe that there have
been more Honda Jazz sold in Thailand then any other car. and they
have been available for some time, - my wife's Honda is three years
old.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:08:46 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

A more long-term solution would be
to create calcium carbonate by pumping it through lime slurry, or use it

Bull****. That lime is produced by removing the carbon dioxide from
calcium carbonate, and dumping it into the atmosphere. You turn
limestone into limestone, and you dump a lot more carbon powering the
useless process. Net loss, by the ammount of heat required to bake the
carbonate to the oxide.

Casady

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:43:40 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote:

Surely higher fuel costs come automatically if you buy something like a big
SUV?

You can get about 14.5 with a Lincoln Navigator. It has a 330 cu in
DOHC 32 valve 300 hp engine. A four cam truck who would have ever
thought it. The engine possibly looks cool, but it is so buried that
you can't even see it. Takes two hours to change the plugs. A flathead
takes two minutes. Book said to change them at 100 000 miles, but they
were still good.

Casady

"Richard Casady" wrote:

You can get about 14.5 with a Lincoln Navigator.

That's the best you get with that pig.

Bring on $10/gal.

Lew

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:03:37 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

You can get about 14.5 with a Lincoln Navigator.

That's the best you get with that pig.

Bring on $10/gal.

By all means, clear the road of the rif-raf who can't afford it. When
paperbacks and magazines, as well as cigs, were a quarter, so was gas.
Quarters were harder to come by then, than ten bucks is now.
Relatively speaking, gas is cheaper now than it was when it cost a
quarter. Ninty years ago an oz of gold would by you a hundred gallons.
Gold is now a grand, and you can get some 400 gal for an oz.

When tens of millions of idiots stay off the waterways, so much the
better.

Two things about the " Pig ".

It will tow the one ton Starcraft, or for that matter the John Deere.

Deer, or, God forbid, bikers or jaywalkers, will end up in the grill
and not your face. We live just outside of town, and see deer every
day. Bambi has already totaled one of my vehicles. Iowa lets the
victim keep the deer, but it ran away.

Another advantage is that you can see over the tiny ****boxes that get
such marvelous mileage. Simple high school physics tells you what
happens when a ****box hits you. They lose, but they saved money.
Their bad luck I suppose. If it is all they can afford, it is.

By coincidence, a Model T Ford got about the same mileage as the Pig.

Casady