Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   The Podium (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Do Conservatives Hate High Gas Mileage? (http://slickdeals.net/f/5905070-do-conservatives-hate-high-gas-mileage)

Rebound 03-13-2013 09:08 AM

Do Conservatives Hate High Gas Mileage?
 
I've noticed that, since the Bush administration, Republicans have taken the general position that Americans should have as much gasoline as they want, and there is nothing wrong with using as much as you want.

Nobody wants gas rationing, but if the Republican philosophy is "personal responsibility," why do they seem to be opposed to fuel conservation on a personal level? I read a lot of internet posts about people who hate the Prius, and they love gas-hogging SUV's, and they simply have no belief that we should try to deprive the Mideast dictators of their oil revenues and the environmental costs that come with it.

Why is gas guzzling good?

bonkman 03-13-2013 09:10 AM

Because high mileage cars are part of the green initiative. The green initiative is for liberals only. Conservatives have to hate anything that liberals like.

Those are the rules. :nod:



One broad statement deserves a broad response, I suppose.

Tony_Danza 03-13-2013 09:14 AM

Because the all mighty free market will push fuel efficient vehicles if that is it's will and any government regulation or intervention is the devil.

Krazen1211 03-13-2013 09:21 AM

The Prius is a mediocre car. That's why.

Kolto 03-13-2013 09:26 AM

because driving a prius in the snow causes road congestion and/or accidents.

I love when it starts snowing and the plows haven't gotten to the roads yet seeing people in their little prius and other non 4x4 SUVs attempt to navigate the roads.

Radeck 03-13-2013 09:37 AM

because it's yet another nanny-state initiative forcing people to do what government bureaucrats and pencil pushers want, adding more power and control to an already power-hungry central government. I have no problem with leaving it to the consumers...if people want to buy high mileage cars, good for them....those who need more powerful engines for whatever purpose, good for them too. I draw the line when the government FORCES people to buy what they are not interested in or does not meet their needs by outlawing the alternative.

once again, it's NOT about gas mileage, it's about freedom and the nanny-state regulating and controlling literally EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of our daily lives.

ShengD 03-13-2013 09:38 AM

Because it is a good example of where government regulation succeeded. For those who ascribe to classical laissez-faire economics, this is herresy. And like any absolutist philosophy, contradictory evidence must be mocked, discredited, or buried.

nobama 03-13-2013 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58192256)
because it's yet another nanny-state initiative forcing people to do what government bureaucrats and pencil pushers want, adding more power and control to an already power-hungry central government. I have no problem with leaving it to the consumers...if people want to buy high mileage cars, good for them....those who need more powerful engines for whatever purpose, good for them too. I draw the line when the government FORCES people to buy what they are not interested in or does not meet their needs by outlawing the alternative.

once again, it's NOT about gas mileage, it's about freedom and the nanny-state regulating and controlling literally EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of our daily lives.

Bingo

Lilian 03-13-2013 09:41 AM

Because it puts less money into the pockets of oil companies?

LivninSC 03-13-2013 09:47 AM

I'm a conservative, and I have a Prius in the family. It's absolutely kick ass for what it is. The amount of people and cargo it can carry while getting 45+ mpg is friggin amazing.

If I'm actually doing the driving my mpg is usually 52+ it's just that someone has to have the A/C on even if it's 50 degrees outside!

So far 180,000 miles and it keeps on going *knocks on wood* I dunno if it will ever pay for itself over another economical car to be honest but it got the wife out of her gas guzzling 14mpg Jeep Grand Cherokee that was breaking down every 2 months so in that sense it's more than paid for itself!

Moose85 03-13-2013 09:47 AM

I consider myself as a conservative and I drive a Yaris. I achieve 34-38 MPG and am happy when it comes to paying at the pump.

paperboy05 03-13-2013 09:48 AM

Can someone provide a specific example of what the OP is referring to in relation to the claims that there is nothing wrong with using as much as a person wants?

ShengD 03-13-2013 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperboy05 (Post 58192562)
Can someone provide a specific example of what the OP is referring to in relation to the claims that there is nothing wrong with using as much as a person wants?

It's not his claim. It's the claim of the "Drill baby, drill!" crowd.

paperboy05 03-13-2013 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShengD (Post 58192786)
It's not his claim. It's the claim of the "Drill baby, drill!" crowd.

That's not that specific. Do you have something better?

riptide_slick 03-13-2013 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58192256)
because it's yet another nanny-state initiative forcing people to do what government bureaucrats and pencil pushers want, adding more power and control to an already power-hungry central government. I have no problem with leaving it to the consumers...if people want to buy high mileage cars, good for them....those who need more powerful engines for whatever purpose, good for them too. I draw the line when the government FORCES people to buy what they are not interested in or does not meet their needs by outlawing the alternative.

once again, it's NOT about gas mileage, it's about freedom and the nanny-state regulating and controlling literally EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of our daily lives.

When did the big bad gubbmint ban "more powerful engines?" I thought they were just pushing efficiency standards. Maybe I should listen to Glenn Beck more.

paperboy05 03-13-2013 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riptide_slick (Post 58192826)
When did the big bad gubbmint ban "more powerful engines?"

The same time Republicans have said that everyone should have as much gas as they want and that there is nothing wrong with using as much as they want.

Rebound 03-13-2013 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58192256)
because it's yet another nanny-state initiative

it's NOT about gas mileage, it's about freedom and the nanny-state regulating and controlling literally EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of our daily lives.

What about the perspective of national defense?

OhNoItsDEVO 03-13-2013 10:12 AM

I prefer to spend as little as possible on gas, so I'm all for increased MPG.
However, every time I see a Prius around here, they always seem to have an Obama sticker or a Coexist sticker. The bumper sticker crowd tends to annoy me.
And the fact that every Prius owner I've personally known, always seems to ride a very high horse...

ShengD 03-13-2013 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperboy05 (Post 58192792)
That's not that specific. Do you have something better?

I wasn't clear about what you were asking for: whether the claim had merit, or whether anyone has dismissed the problems with using as much gas as one wants. It is pretty clear that the policial right has disregarded this issue outright. The only concerns they associate with consumption are related to personal expense which they view as a 'personal rights issue'. Fair enough. But any time environmental or societal are brought up, their only concern is 'debunking'.


Think about the issues that have come up related to oil companies, global warming, pipelines, fraking, the gulf spill, or anything else related to petroleum. When has the political right ever been concerned with societal/global problems of too much petroleum use? The closest issue I can think of is energy independence, which is ultimately concerned about the costs and availability of gas rather than use of it. With the "Drill, baby, drill" mantra, they officially became cheerleaders.

Danman114 03-13-2013 10:14 AM

I for one love high mileage vehicles, I just don't like government regulations that push the industry in one direction or another.

As a family, we drive less than 12k a year (1 car) and recently changed from a Mazda3 to a Jeep Compass (MPG hit, but man do we have more space!

If/when we drive more, I think I'll start looking at diesel cars. Living in NE, I don't think the cold weather works as well with a battery. Plus, it just seems like 'hybrids' are over priced.

riptide_slick 03-13-2013 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58192986)
six of one or half a dozen of the other....mandating standards that mean manufacturers can't make powerful (and yes gas guzzling) engines is effectively a ban...just like the new light bulb standards are effectively a ban of the 100W incandescent bulb.

I actually agree with you about the lightbulb ban; it's stupid. But I disagree that mandating efficiency standards means that more powerful engines are banned. Engines today are much more powerful and efficient than their predecessors were. The aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58192986)
don't play your lib word games with me...

I'm not the one saying anything was "banned." I simply asked you a question about your "word games".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58192986)
that's the same idiotic argument pushed by that idiot Bloomberg that he is not banning large sugary drinks, it's just "portion control"...

I'm not making that argument, and I disagree. The soda ban can be somewhat accurately described as "portion control" but can also somewhat accurately be described as a "ban". I happen to disagree with that too. But don't let a silly thing like my agreement with your disagreement stop you from mocking me. Glenn probably wouldn't approve of you agreeing with a liberal like me on anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58192986)
only morons with an IQ of their shoe size buy the argument that regulating something out of existence is NOT a ban.

Brilliant logic there; anyone that disagrees with you is a moron with an IQ of their shoe size. Sucks for you that I agree with you when it comes to the soda ban and the lightbulb ban. Kinda puts a damper on the attempt at an insult when I actually agree, doesn't it?

Seriously, how about trying to be a little less hostile? I know I'm not the first person to ask you this. You may be pleasantly surprised to find that not everyone fits into the boxes you've created for them and that there might even be some overlap between our opinions and those of people you so like to mock and deride. Heck, you might even live a little longer; the last time I checked, high blood pressure isn't generally considered a good thing.

LivninSC 03-13-2013 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58192986)
six of one or half a dozen of the other....mandating standards that mean manufacturers can't make powerful (and yes gas guzzling) engines is effectively a ban...just like the new light bulb standards are effectively a ban of the 100W incandescent bulb.

don't play your lib word games with me...that's the same idiotic argument pushed by that idiot Bloomberg that he is not banning large sugary drinks, it's just "portion control"...only morons with an IQ of their shoe size buy the argument that regulating something out of existence is NOT a ban.

Except that they're not banning them... You can still get a hugely powerful twin turbo V8 or a W12 so why all the outrage?

I'm personally all for the higher standards. Why not? If anything it's actually helped us out. You may pay a little more for a turbo 4-cyl over a standard 6 but you recoup the cost in savings. I suppose that you're also for not mandating air quality standards?

As a child who grew up in LA I can see the huge improvement emissions control and increased efficiency has given us and as you can have a more powerful car today than at anytime in history why are peoples drawers in a bunch? Seems like a win win!

Radeck 03-13-2013 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riptide_slick (Post 58193202)
I actually agree with you about the lightbulb ban; it's stupid. But I disagree that mandating efficiency standards means that more powerful engines are banned. Engines today are much more powerful and efficient than their predecessors were. The aren't mutually exclusive ideas.

not true..muscle cars of the 60's and 70's had much more power then even the most powerful production cars today

Quote:

I'm not making that argument, and I disagree. The soda ban can be somewhat accurately described as "portion control" but can also somewhat accurately be described as a "ban". I happen to disagree with that too. But don't let a silly thing like my agreement with your disagreement stop you from mocking me.
I wasn't mocking you, I was mocking the argument about regulating out of existence is not a ban...that argument deserves to be mocked.
Quote:

Glenn probably wouldn't approve of you agreeing with a liberal like me on anything.
Now who's mocking? That's the second time you bring Beck up...what does that red herring have to do with this topic?

Quote:

Brilliant logic there; anyone that disagrees with you is a moron with an IQ of their shoe size.
If it works and is good enough for Obama, where he endlessly claims his policies are "common-sense" and "balanced" thus implying the lie that all opposing views are non-sensical and extreme, then it's good enough for me.
Quote:

Sucks for you that I agree with you when it comes to the soda ban and the lightbulb ban. Kinda puts a damper on the attempt at an insult when I actually agree, doesn't it?

Seriously, how about trying to be a little less hostile? I know I'm not the first person to ask you this. You may be pleasantly surprised to find that not everyone fits into the boxes you've created for them and that there might even be some overlap between our opinions and those of people you so like to mock and deride. Heck, you might even live a little longer; the last time I checked, high blood pressure isn't generally considered a good thing.
If I came across as hostile to you personally , I did not mean that and I apologize...I AM hostile towards certain arguments that insult a 5-year-old's intelligence, such as that regulating out of existence is not a ban, and they tick me off...I am tired of elitist politicians treating the me and public as if they are morons (such as Obama stating that only his policies are common-sense and balanced), and that attitude does fire up my blood pressure, you are correct.

I am glad that we agree on two of the arguments...I realize that there are areas of overlap that people can agree upon, and again I apologize for blowing up on you.

Tony_Danza 03-13-2013 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58193808)
not true..muscle cars of the 60's and 70's had much more power then even the most powerful production cars today

Wrong. So very wrong.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-review...-time.html

Radeck 03-13-2013 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58193114)
What about the perspective of national defense?

since we have over 100 year's worth of oil right here in the USA, and several hundred years worth of natural gas, I see no problem with national defense....we are a slave to foreign oil providers only because we MADE OURSELVES THAT WAY with ludicrous over-regulation and limitation of access to our own natural resources....we just have to develop the resources we have right here, but there is not the political will to do it by those who are beholden to eco-pressure groups.

Radeck 03-13-2013 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony_Danza (Post 58193924)

99% of those are very high end, very expensive cars that only the fabled 1% can afford....comparing them to muscle cars of the past that were within reach of most middle class average folks and even high school students is not a valid comparison.

Tony_Danza 03-13-2013 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58194002)
99% of those are very high end, very expensive cars that only the fabled 1% can afford....comparing them to muscle cars of the past that were within reach of most middle class average folks and even high school students is not a valid comparison.

Please name the car from the 60's and 70's that you would like to use as an example so we can avoid future goal post moving.

BigBananaMess 03-13-2013 10:46 AM

Personally, I put very few miles on my cars. I don't need or want the government telling me that I can't own a particular vehicle because it doesn't meet some standards set by enviro-weenie bureaucrats. Or regulations adding $5000 to the price of the car of which reduced fuel cost will recoup a small percentage.

Plus Prius'es, Mini's, Fiat 500's and the like look silly and clownish.

Radeck 03-13-2013 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBananaMess (Post 58194050)
Plus Prius'es, Mini's, Fiat 500's and the like look silly and clownish.

not to mention less safe, and impractical for US lifestyles....their tiny trunks might be good enough for europeans living in 800SF apartments who don't have much of anything, are single, have no kids, no pets, and live in highly dense urban environments. But they are totally inadequate to amarican families who have more kids, have more pets, have larger homes that require larger cargo capacity, and live in more wide-spread areas doing a lot more long-distance high-way driving and commutes.

riptide_slick 03-13-2013 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBananaMess (Post 58194050)
Personally, I put very few miles on my cars. I don't need or want the government telling me that I can't own a particular vehicle because it doesn't meet some standards set by enviro-weenie bureaucrats. Or regulations adding $5000 to the price of the car of which reduced fuel cost will recoup a small percentage.

Plus Prius'es, Mini's, Fiat 500's and the like look silly and clownish.

Do you think government (at whatever level) ever has an interest in feeding economies of scale?

paperboy05 03-13-2013 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShengD (Post 58193156)
I wasn't clear about what you were asking for: whether the claim had merit, or whether anyone has dismissed the problems with using as much gas as one wants.

Both, considering no one has called Rebound to substantiate the claim.

Quote:

It is pretty clear that the policial right has disregarded this issue outright. The only concerns they associate with consumption are related to personal expense which they view as a 'personal rights issue'. Fair enough. But any time environmental or societal are brought up, their only concern is 'debunking'.
Which is a separate issue from the claims Rebound brought forth.

Quote:

Think about the issues that have come up related to oil companies, global warming, pipelines, fraking, the gulf spill, or anything else related to petroleum. When has the political right ever been concerned with societal/global problems of too much petroleum use? The closest issue I can think of is energy independence, which is ultimately concerned about the costs and availability of gas rather than use of it.
So because politically they don't push those mantra's, personally they believe what Rebound has claimed? :shake:

One can be against the political pressures of gas mileage, while still personally wishing people would drive more efficient cars; hence the flawed nature of this inflammatory thread.

BigBananaMess 03-13-2013 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58194324)
not to mention less safe, and impractical for US lifestyles....their tiny trunks might be good enough for europeans living in 800SF apartments who don't have much of anything, are single, have no kids, no pets, and live in highly dense urban environments. But they are totally inadequate to amarican families who have more kids, have more pets, have larger homes that require larger cargo capacity, and live in more wide-spread areas doing a lot more long-distance high-way driving and commutes.

Plus when you try to tow your boat or camper with them this happens. [youtube.com] :rofl2:

DJPlayer 03-13-2013 11:00 AM

I'm confused I thought some states were scrambling to find a way to get more revenue out of people who have fuel efficient vehicles (because they didn't collect enough from gas taxes). Essentially since they got far better gas mileage than the average car, they weren't paying "their fair share" to drive on state roads. This also causes an issue for government because of the tax they collect in federal taxes..

http://moneymorning.com/2013/01/1...toll-road/

Quote:

If you thought all the talk about taxing the rich meant the government would not be reaching deeper into the pockets of most Americans, then you haven't heard about the pay-per-mile tax.

It hasn't happened yet. But Congress is considering a new way of taxing American drivers that would charge them per mile instead of the current 18.4 cent-per-gallon gasoline tax they pay now.

A new study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) says that such a pay-per-mile tax, also known as a vehicle-miles-traveled tax (VMT tax), would cost the average American motorist at least $100 more per year than the current gasoline tax.

The problem the federal government faces is that the annual gasoline tax revenue of $34 billion has fallen far below the $78 billion required to maintain the country's highway system.

For a pay-per-mile tax to generate that kind of revenue, drivers would need to pay an average of 2.2 cents per mile. According to the GAO, that would represent a 153% increase over what motorists pay now.

The increase for each motorist would vary widely, depending on whether you drive a gas guzzler or a hybrid, and how many miles you drive each day. Hybrid owners with long commutes would get hit the hardest.
so if something like this were to go through.. you're gasoline saving would lessen compared to the gas guzzler. So maybe you'll pay more.. but you'll have that warm fuzzy feeling knowing you're concerning some of our natural resources.. oh wait.. that feeling is actually the government taking you're wallet.. crap..

Kolto 03-13-2013 11:16 AM

basically the govt is trying to get us to pay a congestion charge
:whee:

oh and NYC has the plan to get more revenue: raise tolls on bridges, and put more red light cameras up!

darkfrog 03-13-2013 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 58194516)
I'm confused I thought some states were scrambling to find a way to get more revenue out of people who have fuel efficient vehicles (because they didn't collect enough from gas taxes). Essentially since they got far better gas mileage than the average car, they weren't paying "their fair share" to drive on state roads. This also causes an issue for government because of the tax they collect in federal taxes..

http://moneymorning.com/2013/01/1...toll-road/



so if something like this were to go through.. you're gasoline saving would lessen compared to the gas guzzler. So maybe you'll pay more.. but you'll have that warm fuzzy feeling knowing you're concerning some of our natural resources.. oh wait.. that feeling is actually the government taking you're wallet.. crap..

Paradoxically, a higher gas tax (or just higher gas prices in general) would be far better at increasing efficiency standards than the mandated CAFE. The free market would do its thing, people would avoid paying the high price of gas by purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles which would spur manufacturers to provide more of them.
As the NYT points out, fuel efficiency standards do not have an affect on driving behavior but gas prices do making the standards far more costly in the long run than merely hiking gas taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12...wanted=all

The libertarian in me is also much more comfortable with these types of taxes, more transparent and able to be avoided if one desires. It is more akin to a user fee that is used to pay for the specific product that one is utilizing.

LivninSC 03-13-2013 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58193808)
not true..muscle cars of the 60's and 70's had much more power then even the most powerful production cars today

Why lie when you have Google...

http://www.edmunds.com/car-review...-time.html

There isn't a car on there from the 60s or the 70s...

Not to mention this list. How many production cars were going nearly 270mph in the 60s or 70s? Hell, the most powerful was probably the Cobra SS and that only had what, half the power as the GT-R below. Note that both aren't exactly "production" cars.

http://www.topcarrating.com/power.php

Personally, bang for the buck I'd pick this bad boy - http://www.topcarrating.com/2011-...pha-12.php

These badboys don't come close - http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-...10523.html

Radeck 03-13-2013 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58195562)
Why lie when you have Google...

http://www.edmunds.com/car-review...-time.html

There isn't a car on there from the 60s or the 70s...

already addressed in post 29

Tony_Danza 03-13-2013 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58195644)
already addressed in post 29

No, you moved the goal posts and then refused to site this mythical car for comparison to avoid being proved wrong again.

LivninSC 03-13-2013 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBananaMess (Post 58194458)
Plus when you try to tow your boat or camper with them this happens. [youtube.com] :rofl2:


Why in the world would you ever tape your buddy fixing a flat bike tire? What a douche albeit a funny result.

Radeck 03-13-2013 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travathian (Post 58195706)
people are some how better at managing their money and purchases than the government. Yeah, history has sure proved that one right eh? lol

certainly more so than elitists in DC thousands of miles away...it is called FREEDOM....people are FREE to decide whether to be wasteful or prudent with their money...that is the ENTIRE PREMISE of freedom: you are free to make mistakes and learn from them, or if you don't learn, you keep failing...and freedom to succeed and profit from your freedom should you so choose.

at least people don't waste $1.5 million in OTHER PEOPLE's money on studying why lesbians are fat [breitbart.com], and spending almost $300,000 to have a professional calligrapher in the WH [wusa9.com]to write obama's notes to his cronies, when a $100 laser printer could do it just as well, just to name two of the latest examples, of which there are billions more [cagw.org] pointed out by private groups as well as senators and the GAO [foxnews.com].

LivninSC 03-13-2013 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58195644)
already addressed in post 29

No you didn't, you changed the definition. You, and I quote said "not true..muscle cars of the 60's and 70's had much more power then even the most powerful production cars today"

The simple fact is that not one of the cars from the 60s or 70s is on a top 100 list today for the simple reason being that they aren't as powerful. The cars they produce today are far superior in both power and efficiency.

DJPlayer 03-13-2013 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travathian (Post 58195706)
Typical lazy, stupid, greedy, wasteful, self-centered American attitude. Want to know why the American economy is going in the shitter, here it is. People like this are so incredibly wasteful and self-centered.

I'm a moron, so I buy the biggest house I can afford. Hey look how dumb I am now paying a ridiculous gas/electric bill to heat/cool my place and ridiculous property taxes and upkeep on my huge house. Oh, now I have to own a huge vehicle to fill my huge house. Look at my dumb ass paying $120 to fill the tank in my oversized SUV, so I can drive 40 miles to work one way. Then I gotta rant online about the evil government taxing me too much, and limiting my ability to be wasteful and stupid!

The mainstay idea of Republicants is that people are some how better at managing their money and purchases than the government. Yeah, history has sure proved that one right eh? lol

I highlighted your downfall in this rant. You mentioned being able to afford. Democrats will do very similar things.. except they'll do what they can't afford. They won't pay those taxes, bills etc.. then they'll complain online about the rich taking advantage of them and stopping the government from helping them. What is a more efficient way of managing money.. spend exactly what you make over and over.. or spend more than you make over and over? How about not make, and let someone else make it for you.. and still need more than that? History has proven us correctly.. look at Europe as their economies continue to crumble.

Radeck 03-13-2013 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58196020)
No you didn't, you changed the definition. You, and I quote you said "not true..muscle cars of the 60's and 70's had much more power then even the most powerful production cars today"

The simple fact is that not one of the cars from the 60s or 70s is on a top 100 list today...

fine...then i mis-used the word "production" as "being available to the average person", which was my intent. Note several of those cars listed hardly qualify as "production", such as the Bentley and Bugatti, and arguably even the Ferrari and Lamborghini which are custom manufactured to order and hardly considered mass-produced.

the essence of my argument still stands, albeit admittedly badly worded originally, in spite of your nitpicking: powerful muscle cars today are not available to the mass public as they were in the past. Comparing cars affordable only for the evil 1% is not comparable to those available to the average person 40 or 50 years ago.

LivninSC 03-13-2013 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58196264)
fine...then i mis-used the word "production" as "being available to the average person", which was my intent. Note several of those cars listed hardly qualify as "production", such as the Bentley and Bugatti, and arguably even the Ferrari and Lamborghini which are custom manufactured to order and hardly considered mass-produced.

the essence of my argument still stands, albeit admittedly badly worded originally, in spite of your nitpicking: powerful muscle cars today are not available to the mass public as they were in the past. Comparing cars affordable only for the evil 1% is not comparable to those available to the average person 40 or 50 years ago.


Dude, you need to stop because you're full of shit in this instance.

I consider a car that you can purchase for $30k that comes with 420 hp and 390 lb/ft to be not only mass produced but also being available to the mass.

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/

The GT500 is also within reach for a lot of people and comes with 662/631... Compare that to the '70 Shelby GT500 with a piddly 335/440.

Let's see, there is also the Camaro, Charger, etc.. Oddly enough those cars I just listed were around back in the 60s/70s as well. Hmmmmmmmm............... So what you're saying is that these cars aren't as powerful as their counterparts from the 60s/70s or aren't available to the masses? It's a simple and well known fact. The cars today are more powerful and more efficient than their counterparts from 40-50 years ago while at the same time there are plenty of muscle cars readily available to the masses...

Rebound 03-13-2013 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58193808)
not true..muscle cars of the 60's and 70's had much more power then even the most powerful production cars today

In their 50th anniversary issue, Motor Trend compared the test results of the fastest Porsche of the 1950's against the Honda Odyssey minivan.

The Honda Odyssey won every test except the skidpad.

Here's another example: The 1969 Boss Mustang [motortrend.com]. A bad-ass American supercar of the '60's, isn't it?
The Boss 302:
Performance 0-60 mph: 8.1 sec, quarter mile: 15.8 sec @ 90 mph, 60-0 mph: 112 ft (Motor Trend), April 1970

The Boss 351:
Performance 0-60 mph: 5.8 sec, quarter mile: 13.8 sec @ 104 mph, 60-0 mph: 116.5 ft (Motor Trend, January 1971)

2010 Prius: 0-60 mph: 9.7 sec
2010 Chevy Volt: 0-60: 9.0 sec
2013 Ford Focus ST: 0-60 5.6 sec., quarter mile: 14.1 sec @99.9 mph

Take a while to take this in: Today's slowest cars are about the same speed as the standard 1969 Boss Mustang, and a slightly tweaked, 2.0-liter economy car beats Ford's fastest muscle car of the 1960's. Dang.

This is pretty much standard. Car technology has gotten WAY better. Fuel injection, electronic engine management, and new metallurgy for high-revving engines allow far more power and acceleration than the huge V8's of the 1950's through 1970's.

Rebound 03-13-2013 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 58196096)
Democrats will do very similar things.. except they'll do what they can't afford. They won't pay those taxes, bills etc.. then they'll complain online about the rich taking advantage of them

Oddly, the same conservatives I know who steadfastly believe that the government needs to cut spending, and that individuals must be personally responsible for themselves -- they are really angry that they and their friends are losing their jobs because of defense cuts resulting from the sequester.

LivninSC 03-13-2013 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58196384)
In their 50th anniversary issue, Motor Trend compared the test results of the fastest Porsche of the 1950's against the Honda Odyssey minivan.

The Honda Odyssey won every test except the skidpad.

Here's another example: The 1969 Boss Mustang [motortrend.com]. A bad-ass American supercar of the '60's, isn't it?
The Boss 302:
Performance 0-60 mph: 8.1 sec, quarter mile: 15.8 sec @ 90 mph, 60-0 mph: 112 ft (Motor Trend), April 1970

The Boss 351:
Performance 0-60 mph: 5.8 sec, quarter mile: 13.8 sec @ 104 mph, 60-0 mph: 116.5 ft (Motor Trend, January 1971)

2010 Prius: 0-60 mph: 9.7 sec
2010 Chevy Volt: 0-60: 9.0 sec
2013 Ford Focus ST: 0-60 5.6 sec., quarter mile: 14.1 sec @99.9 mph

Take a while to take this in: Today's slowest cars are about the same speed as the standard 1969 Boss Mustang, and a slightly tweaked, 2.0-liter economy car beats Ford's fastest muscle car of the 1960's. Dang.

This is pretty much standard. Car technology has gotten WAY better. Fuel injection, electronic engine management, and new metallurgy for high-revving engines allow far more power and acceleration than the huge V8's of the 1950's through 1970's.

Ya, but that's probably not what he meant either. What he probably meant is that there aren't cars these days being mass produced to the public that burn leaded gas, don't have emissions control on them, and have extremely loud exhausts. :shake:

124nic8 03-13-2013 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 58193132)
And the fact that every Prius owner I've personally known, always seems to ride a very high horse...

You're just jealous cause your horse is so short. :P

BigBananaMess 03-13-2013 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58195562)
Hell, the most powerful was probably the Cobra SS and that only had what, half the power as the GT-R below.

Funny you should mention the GT-R. As I was typing my previous post about the government telling us what we can and cannot drive, I was mentally ranting about not being able to import a Skyline R33 for my driving pleasure.

OhNoItsDEVO 03-13-2013 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 58196864)
You're just jealous cause your horse is so short. :P

Don't you talk about my horse like that.

BigBananaMess 03-13-2013 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58195960)
Why in the world would you ever tape your buddy fixing a flat bike tire?

Maybe watching his buddy use the handpump turns him on.

DJPlayer 03-13-2013 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58196574)
Oddly, the same conservatives I know who steadfastly believe that the government needs to cut spending, and that individuals must be personally responsible for themselves -- they are really angry that they and their friends are losing their jobs because of defense cuts resulting from the sequester.

I think most of us here think the sequester in general is pretty stupid. Would it have been far more efficient and intelligent to pick and choose where to cut the fat? Or course. Problem is the liberals would call defense fat and conservatives would call entitlements fat. Neither would then agree yet again.

Keep in mind though that Obama did not want to pick and choose where to cut.. even as intelligent as that decision may have been, I suppose it would've politically hurt him by picking what areas to cut. (which reminds me more of a follower than a leader).

Rebound 03-13-2013 12:35 PM

Why don't we just bring defense spending down to the level of 1997, plus an adjustment for inflation? That would cut spending by over $150 billion. And we were spending plenty of cash on defense back then.

Tony_Danza 03-13-2013 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58196264)
the essence of my argument still stands, albeit admittedly badly worded originally, in spite of your nitpicking: powerful muscle cars today are not available to the mass public as they were in the past. Comparing cars affordable only for the evil 1% is not comparable to those available to the average person 40 or 50 years ago.

No the essence of your argument is that you are completely wrong on all counts and can't admit it.

politicaljunkie 03-13-2013 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBananaMess (Post 58194050)
Plus Prius'es, Mini's, Fiat 500's and the like look silly and clownish.

I agree. But you should look at other hybrids out there. The Ford Fusion Hybrid is REALLY nice. I've been looking for an amercian car i'd be willing to buy for quite some time. The Fusion is fantastic. The plug-in hybrid can get 100+ mpg.

LivninSC 03-13-2013 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony_Danza (Post 58197530)
No the essence of your argument is that you are completely wrong on all counts and can't admit it.

They really need to make a :ding ding we have a winner: smiley :D

Xygonn 03-13-2013 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58193808)
not true..muscle cars of the 60's and 70's had much more power then even the most powerful production cars today

I know you are getting hammered on this, I'm just putting in another.

2013 Camaro = 323 HP
2013 Camaro SS = 426 HP
2013 Camaro ZL1 = 580 HP
2013 Mustang = 305 HP
2013 Mustang GT = 420 HP
2013 Mustang GT500=650 HP

1970 Camaro =155 HP
1970 Camaro Z28 = 360 HP
1970 Camaro LS6 = 450 HP

http://www.nastyz28.com/camaro/camaro70.php

1970 Mustang = 155 HP
1970 Mustang 351 = 300 HP
1970 Mustang 429 Boss = 375 HP

http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/70.shtml

Radeck 03-13-2013 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony_Danza (Post 58197530)
No the essence of your argument is that you are completely wrong on all counts and can't admit it.

oh well...win some lose some :)

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58198118)
oh well...win some lose some :)

You'd have won the battle about 5-15 years ago though. ;) The recent run-up in horsepower in the last ~8 years is rather ridiculous if you think about it. In the mid-90s, you were lucky to get 350hp in a Camaro or Mustang. I remember when people were salivating in the 90s over a Cobra with a ridiculous 330hp. :omg:

The awesome part is that we now have easily-drivable cars that get 300-500 hp and STILL pull mid-20s mpg on the highway! :D:D:D:D

LivninSC 03-13-2013 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58198416)
You'd have won the battle about 5-15 years ago though. ;) The recent run-up in horsepower in the last ~8 years is rather ridiculous if you think about it. In the mid-90s, you were lucky to get 350hp in a Camaro or Mustang. I remember when people were salivating in the 90s over a Cobra with a ridiculous 330hp. :omg:

The awesome part is that we now have easily-drivable cars that get 300-500 hp and STILL pull mid-20s mpg on the highway! :D:D:D:D

That's the whole point of this. Who is to thank for that? I'd say a lot of it has to do with the federal gov't as without mandated increased fuel efficiency the car manufacturers would still be putting out the cheapest car possible instead of the cheapest while also being considerably more efficient car. Also, a huge reason (if not really the sole reason) for the decrease in hp/torque isn't the increased mpg requirements but rather the increased emission controls which I'm pretty sure every sane person would agree is a good thing.

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 58197890)
I know you are getting hammered on this, I'm just putting in another.

2013 Camaro = 323 HP
2013 Camaro SS = 426 HP
2013 Camaro ZL1 = 580 HP
2013 Mustang = 305 HP
2013 Mustang GT = 420 HP
2013 Mustang GT500=650 HP

1970 Camaro =155 HP
1970 Camaro Z28 = 360 HP
1970 Camaro LS6 = 450 HP

http://www.nastyz28.com/camaro/camaro70.php

1970 Mustang = 155 HP
1970 Mustang 351 = 300 HP
1970 Mustang 429 Boss = 375 HP

http://www.mustangspecs.com/years/70.shtml

There's a huge difference in driving dynamics and streetability though.

A 300 hp car on a modern suspension is cake. However 300 hp on the suspensions and tires back then might as well have been a suicide wish. :eek:

We forget how dangerous (and thrilling) driving was back then. :lmao:

Xygonn 03-13-2013 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58198416)
You'd have won the battle about 5-15 years ago though. ;) The recent run-up in horsepower in the last ~8 years is rather ridiculous if you think about it. In the mid-90s, you were lucky to get 350hp in a Camaro or Mustang. I remember when people were salivating in the 90s over a Cobra with a ridiculous 330hp. :omg:

The awesome part is that we now have easily-drivable cars that get 300-500 hp and STILL pull mid-20s mpg on the highway! :D:D:D:D

Both the new V6 Camaro and Mustang are over 300 HP and get 30 and 31 MPG highway respectively.

ETA: They are much better handling and braking than their predecessors as well (as you mentioned).

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58198506)
That's the whole point of this. Who is to thank for that? I'd say a lot of it has to do with the federal gov't as without mandated increased fuel efficiency the car manufacturers would still be putting out the cheapest car possible instead of the cheapest while also being considerably more efficient car.

The market created fuel injection, and later on EFI, which is responsible for most of the improvements in power and efficiency. It was introduced in cars about ~20 years before the govt dreamed up fuel mileage regulations.

nobama 03-13-2013 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58194324)
not to mention less safe, and impractical for US lifestyles....their tiny trunks might be good enough for europeans living in 800SF apartments who don't have much of anything, are single, have no kids, no pets, and live in highly dense urban environments. But they are totally inadequate to amarican families who have more kids, have more pets, have larger homes that require larger cargo capacity, and live in more wide-spread areas doing a lot more long-distance high-way driving and commutes.

Patience, one thing at a time.... Baby steps....

They'll get around to regulating your number of kids, pets, size of your home the area that you live and the distance that you are allowed to drive soon enough....

Radeck 03-13-2013 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58198690)
The market created fuel injection, and later on EFI, which is responsible for most of the improvements in power and efficiency. It was introduced in cars about ~20 years before the govt dreamed up fuel mileage regulations.

in fact, gasoline fuel injection was invented by Jonas Hesselman in 1925 [wikipedia.org], by which time diesel fuel injection was already wide spread.

Krazen1211 03-13-2013 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58197110)
Why don't we just bring defense spending down to the level of 1997, plus an adjustment for inflation? That would cut spending by over $150 billion. And we were spending plenty of cash on defense back then.


Why don't we just bring per pupil education spending down to the level of 1997, plus an adjustment for inflation?

Radeck 03-13-2013 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nobama (Post 58198832)
Patience, one thing at a time.... Baby steps....

They'll get around to regulating your number of kids, pets, size of your home the area that you live and the distance that you are allowed to drive soon enough....

they're working on it...it's the UN's Agenda 21 program, which is already making stealth inroads at many local and municipal levels, under the guise of various names and creative marketing, but it's all essentially the same thing. It is so radical and Orwellian, that even some democrats are coming out against it. [democratsagainstunagenda21.com]

Radeck 03-13-2013 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58197110)
Why don't we just bring defense spending down to the level of 1997, plus an adjustment for inflation? That would cut spending by over $150 billion. And we were spending plenty of cash on defense back then.

how about ALL spending, why just defense?

BobDeal 03-13-2013 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShengD (Post 58192288)
Because it is a good example of where government regulation succeeded. For those who ascribe to classical laissez-faire economics, this is herresy. And like any absolutist philosophy, contradictory evidence must be mocked, discredited, or buried.

Whatever you do, DON'T mention energy efficient lightbulbs. That's a sure fire way to provoke tea party outrage, being an effective policy solution for saving energy and all.

Rebound 03-13-2013 02:18 PM

I think I'll go get a Greenpeace sticker for my Prius.

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58199532)
And, whatever you do, DON'T mention high efficiency toilets. People who are as full of poop as the Tea Partiers can't flush it all down with just 1.6 gallons.

Yeah buddy, lets concentrate bodily waste into ever smaller amounts of water, which then require treatment plants to use ever-harsher and more damaging chemicals to clean the more-concentrated water into clean water. :rolleyes: No wonder our drinking water is getting more and more concentrated with more chemicals and pharmaceuticals nowadays. :vomit:

Dilution is key to treating any kind of waste. :nod:

P.S. Who thought 16oz flush and "waterless" urinals were a good idea? Might as well just pee on the wall and floor, it'll probably smell better. :lol:

bonkman 03-13-2013 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58199840)
Yeah buddy, lets concentrate bodily waste into ever smaller amounts of water, which then require treatment plants to use ever-harsher and more damaging chemicals to clean the more-concentrated water into clean water. :rolleyes: No wonder our drinking water is getting more and more concentrated with more chemicals and pharmaceuticals nowadays. :vomit:

Dilution is key to treating any kind of waste. :nod:

P.S. Who thought 16oz flush and "waterless" urinals were a good idea? Might as well just pee on the wall and floor, it'll probably smell better. :lol:

cite?

Tony_Danza 03-13-2013 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58199840)
Yeah buddy, lets concentrate bodily waste into ever smaller amounts of water, which then require treatment plants to use ever-harsher and more damaging chemicals to clean the more-concentrated water into clean water. :rolleyes: No wonder our drinking water is getting more and more concentrated with more chemicals and pharmaceuticals nowadays. :vomit:

Dilution is key to treating any kind of waste. :nod:

P.S. Who thought 16oz flush and "waterless" urinals were a good idea? Might as well just pee on the wall and floor, it'll probably smell better. :lol:

Yeah, that's not how it works.

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roughnready (Post 58199366)
Whatever you do, DON'T mention energy efficient lightbulbs. That's a sure fire way to provoke tea party outrage, being an effective policy solution for saving energy and all.

I made sure to stock up on those wasteful lightbulbs, that way I can turn one on in addition to my CFLs in order to have enough light. :nod:

And screw the people who's eyes get tired by the CFL flickering, and the poor people who can only afford 100 watts an hour to stay warm. :(

vaultaddict 03-13-2013 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58199964)
I made sure to stock up on those wasteful lightbulbs, that way I can turn one on in addition to my CFLs in order to have enough light. :nod:

And screw the people who's eyes get tired by the CFL flickering, and the poor people who can only afford 100 watts an hour to stay warm. :(

staying warm with light bulbs?

Jeepers

Radeck 03-13-2013 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vaultaddict (Post 58199996)
staying warm with light bulbs?

Jeepers

actually, if you have outdoor plants, chickens, etc, covering them with a blanket and wiring in a 100W bulb is exactly what you are supposed to do to keep them from freezing to death.

Xygonn 03-13-2013 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roughnready (Post 58199366)
Whatever you do, DON'T mention energy efficient lightbulbs. That's a sure fire way to provoke tea party outrage, being an effective policy solution for saving energy and all.

CFLs and LEDs still make terrible dimming lights. Even the high quality ones are prone to flickering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58199532)
And, whatever you do, DON'T mention high efficiency toilets. People who are as full of poop as the Tea Partiers can't flush it all down with just 1.6 gallons.

1.6 gallon flushes are the bane of my existence. I would happily trade a 1.6 gallon flush every time for a dual flush option that was some small amount for liquid and ~3 gallons for solid waste. I'm strongly considering a trip to Canada to buy better toilets for my house.

bonkman 03-13-2013 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 58195544)
Paradoxically, a higher gas tax (or just higher gas prices in general) would be far better at increasing efficiency standards than the mandated CAFE. The free market would do its thing, people would avoid paying the high price of gas by purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles which would spur manufacturers to provide more of them.
As the NYT points out, fuel efficiency standards do not have an affect on driving behavior but gas prices do making the standards far more costly in the long run than merely hiking gas taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12...wanted=all

The libertarian in me is also much more comfortable with these types of taxes, more transparent and able to be avoided if one desires. It is more akin to a user fee that is used to pay for the specific product that one is utilizing.

How is CAFE a government regulation but imposing a higher tax rate not?

From an effectiveness standard, I'm sure it'd be better in the short term. Back when gas was $4.50 a gallon it was amazing how few people were going over 70 on the highway. But forcing manufacturers to only produce vehicles that achieve a certain MPG ensures efficiency in the future.

vaultaddict 03-13-2013 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58200028)
actually, if you have outdoor plants, chickens, etc, covering them with a blanket and wiring in a 100W bulb is exactly what you are supposed to do to keep them from freezing to death.

now the poor are living in chicken coops???


egads!

bonkman 03-13-2013 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 58200042)
CFLs and LEDs still make terrible dimming lights. Even the high quality ones are prone to flickering.

1.6 gallon flushes are the bane of my existence. I would happily trade a 1.6 gallon flush every time for a dual flush option that was some small amount for liquid and ~3 gallons for solid waste. I'm strongly considering a trip to Canada to buy better toilets for my house.

CFLs yes. LEDs, no. Buy an LED dimmer.

Mine are fine dimming even without an LED dimmer. So the bulbs are out there.

Also, who really dims lights, anyway? At least past 50%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58200028)
actually, if you have outdoor plants, chickens, etc, covering them with a blanket and wiring in a 100W bulb is exactly what you are supposed to do to keep them from freezing to death.

that's exactly why they should be banned from household use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58199964)
I made sure to stock up on those wasteful lightbulbs, that way I can turn one on in addition to my CFLs in order to have enough light. :nod:

And screw the people who's eyes get tired by the CFL flickering, and the poor people who can only afford 100 watts an hour to stay warm. :(

Buy a CFL with higher lumens. Or a better brand that doesn't flicker. They're out there. Replace your 60W incans with 75W equivalent CFLs. Presto -- more light!

And if a person is staying warm with a 100W lightbulb, they are probably eligible for govt assistance with heat.

Radeck 03-13-2013 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 58200042)
1.6 gallon flushes are the bane of my existence. I would happily trade a 1.6 gallon flush every time for a dual flush option that was some small amount for liquid and ~3 gallons for solid waste. I'm strongly considering a trip to Canada to buy better toilets for my house.

just do what most people do, flush it twice, thus ending up using MORE water than if the tree-huggers didnt get the fascists in government into your bathroom to micromanage your...er..business...

never mind that CFL's take more energy to manufacture and dispose of, require the us eof mercury that then pollutes the environment even more...and never mind that they cost about 10 times more than a standard bulb, and their life ratings are for use in the upright position (as with a table lamp) with long on-times, not in horizontal or upside-down position, not in recess lighting, and not in places where they get switched on and off a lot, all of which decrease the life of the bulbs.

but let's not worry about these things...let's all just FEEEEELLLL good that the fascists in DC are done something, anything...even if the net result is the same, or worse, and with increased costs to boot.

bonkman 03-13-2013 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58200214)
just do what most people do, flush it twice, thus ending up using MORE water than if the tree-huggers didnt get the fascists in government into your bathroom to micromanage your...er..business...

never mind that CFL's take more energy to manufacture and dispose of, require the us eof mercury that then pollutes the environment even more...and never mind that they cost about 10 times more than a standard bulb, and their life ratings are for use in the upright position (as with a table lamp) with long on-times, not in horizontal or upside-down position, not in recess lighting, and not in places where they get switched on and off a lot, all of which decrease the life of the bulbs.

but let's not worry about these things...let's all just FEEEEELLLL good that the fascists in DC are done something, anything...even if the net result is the same, or worse, and with increased costs to boot.

double-flushing the toilet twice once (or twice) a day doesn't mean you use less water overall. With a 3gal tank you are wasting a bunch of water every time you take a leak.

Double flush is the best. I can't imagine anyone will argue that.

CFL prices are plummeting. Cite on the energy of manufacturing comparisons? The amount of mercury in those bulbs are less than what's running off into salmon.

All bulbs lose life with on-off cycles. A quick change from cold to hot makes the filament expand quickly which weakens it. There's a reason why incan bulbs usually die when you turn the light on or off and not while it's running. And my CFLs have been running in all sorts of orientations for about 5 years now. HomeDepot EcoSmart brand. Check them out -- they're great. Dollar store CFLs are terrible.

IOW, you're boxing a strawman.

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58199954)
cite?

San Franciso sewers are getting stopped up with waste since there isnt enough water to flush them naturally, and then they need to dump bleach in to clean it out.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03...francisco/

Known a few people who worked for waste water treatment plants also. The new concentrated blackwater takes a good bit more work to purify than it used to take.

Tony_Danza 03-13-2013 03:04 PM

Two flushes of a low flow 1.6 gallon toilet is still less than a single flush of the old 3.5 gallon toilet. And they were originally terribly designed.

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58200214)

but let's not worry about these things...let's all just FEEEEELLLL good that the fascists in DC are done something, anything...even if the net result is the same, or worse, and with increased costs to boot.

Soon enough, there will be sensors in your toilet to determine if flushing is allowable by law.

Govt mandated "If its yellow, let it mellow. If its brown, flush it down". :vomit: :lmao:

Tony_Danza 03-13-2013 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58200426)
San Franciso sewers are getting stopped up with waste since there isnt enough water to flush them naturally, and then they need to dump bleach in to clean it out.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03...francisco/

Known a few people who worked for waste water treatment plants also. The new concentrated blackwater takes a good bit more work to purify than it used to take.

This isn't the real problem. The pipes were sized for a flow rate range. The substantial drop in flow cause velocities in the now oversized pipe to drop below deposition velocity. Crap gets stagnant and goes septic causing the smell. It doesn't require more chemical. The pipes just need to be sized correctly.

I don't know a single wastewater chemical that dosage is proportional to loading poundage but inversely proportional to flow.

riznick 03-13-2013 03:09 PM

The question is a bit loaded.
It's like asking "Why do liberals hate babies?"

darkfrog 03-13-2013 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58200070)
How is CAFE a government regulation but imposing a higher tax rate not?

Not sure what you're asking. I did not say higher taxes are not government regulation. I merely pointed out the difference between mandating manufacture standards on one side vs. imposing a user-fee style tax on the other.
Quote:

From an effectiveness standard, I'm sure it'd be better in the short term. Back when gas was $4.50 a gallon it was amazing how few people were going over 70 on the highway. But forcing manufacturers to only produce vehicles that achieve a certain MPG ensures efficiency in the future.
My point, and that of the article is that higher efficiency will come about as a response to consumer demand. You get higher efficiency AND the revenue to take care of the roads, all at the same time you get the immediate effect of individual behavior self-rationing, which lowers the demand. One tax, takes care of three of the issues, more quickly and more efficiently than mandated standards at some future date.

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58200028)
actually, if you have outdoor plants, chickens, etc, covering them with a blanket and wiring in a 100W bulb is exactly what you are supposed to do to keep them from freezing to death.

Liberals: We care deeply about plants, animals, and freezing poor people. Seriously, we really do!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman
that's exactly why they should be banned from household use.

Errr, oh wait, nevemind, we dont actually.

LivninSC 03-13-2013 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58200550)
Sorry, not all of us are skinny hippies who survive on sunshine and tofu. :shake:

I had a big pot o'gumbo last night and my toilet did it fine with 1 flush :P

Seriously, stop pulling off 20 pieces of TP and one flush should be enough. Or are you saying that you need the 20 pieces to adequately cover the real estate you've got going on back there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony_Danza (Post 58200514)
This isn't the real problem. The pipes were sized for a flow rate range. The substantial drop in flow cause velocities in the now oversized pipe to drop below deposition velocity. Crap gets stagnant and goes septic causing the smell. It doesn't require more chemical. The pipes just need to be sized correctly.

I don't know a single wastewater chemical that dosage is proportional to loading poundage but inversely proportional to flow.

I'm not sure if it's been said or not but it sounds like you know your shit :thumbup:

Tony_Danza 03-13-2013 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58200672)
I'm not sure if it's been said or not but it sounds like you know your shit :thumbup:

I'm a shit engineer :( , well mostly a clean water engineer, but I dabble in the doo on occasion.

I had to roll my eyes at this article:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/cit...age/nKsW4/

12% Hypo is concentrated? God lord. They are dosing on mg/l basis. So if they used 6% they would have to pump in twice as much and the chemical would cost the city a ton more as you would be paying for the same amount of chemical but you would need twice as many deliveries. Of course they are going this way because the other option would be to resize the entire sewer system. Oh yeah and if you had population growth now your sewer is undersized.

Also lol at hydrogen peroxide.

Dr. J 03-13-2013 03:22 PM

Hey I have a MINI and bought it for performance with MPG and not being a tin can that's going to bop around the highway like a pinball. I didn't have faith in the longevity of hybrid technology at the time or else something like a Prius would have been attractive.

I love high MPG as it means more $$ in my pocket and less sensitivity to the wild machinations that the price of oil seems to go through...

however.... when mandates make all cars more expensive and limit consumer choices, regardless of how apparently noble the reason, the line ends. I'd bet that all the safety mandates have done more to impede MPG development than anything else - all that safety shit weighs a lot! I recall seeing an interview with a Ford exec once that said they had engineers dedicated to reducing the weight of parts (using comparable, lighter-weight substitutes or re-engineering design, etc) - not to bring up MPGs but to have mass to "spend" on adding safety features.

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58200672)
I had a big pot o'gumbo last night and my toilet did it fine with 1 flush :P

Doesnt it take a full day to travel through? My biology is a little rusty. You might hate your life tomorrow. :D

Go have some asian today and report back, or dont!

bonkman 03-13-2013 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 58200586)
Not sure what you're asking. I did not say higher taxes are not government regulation. I merely pointed out the difference between mandating manufacture standards on one side vs. imposing a user-fee style tax on the other.

My point, and that of the article is that higher efficiency will come about as a response to consumer demand. You get higher efficiency AND the revenue to take care of the roads, all at the same time you get the immediate effect of individual behavior self-rationing, which lowers the demand. One tax, takes care of three of the issues, more quickly and more efficiently than mandated standards at some future date.

I quoted your post but it's more of a tangential question related to this thread. Is a higher tax rate not equivalent to government regulation? If so, won't people complain just as much? Especially republicans, who have spent the last couple of years making it well known how they feel about taxes.

I don't disagree, BTW. I've felt that gas is too cheap for years. (It's still only about the price of milk, of course.) But it's not the only way. Hell, if you want to increase revenue, just enforce speed limits on highways! That'll improve MPG as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58200628)
Liberals: We care deeply about plants, animals, and freezing poor people. Seriously, we really do!



Errr, oh wait, nevemind, we dont actually.

Uh, what?

empiretc 03-13-2013 03:28 PM

the title of this thread is hilarious.

u.s. auto makers produce some very affordable, incredibly fuel efficient vehicles in other parts of the world. thanks to the heavily liberal supported EPA, we can never have them here.

the title of this thread should read, "Why Do Liberals Hate Fuel Efficient Vehicles ?"

LivninSC 03-13-2013 03:29 PM

One thing that I don't get is why more cars aren't made more out of aluminum. I get that aluminum is more expensive than steel but as it's basically 100% recycled you'd recoup the cost in the end, not to mention it's maybe only twice as expensive when you realize you need far less of it (weight wise) to build a car than steel.

Talk about an easy way to bump up MPG by 8-10%+ not to mention the performance improvement if you could shed 10-15%+ of the cars weight!

Interesting article actually - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1...69392.html

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 58200816)
however.... when mandates make all cars more expensive and limit consumer choices, regardless of how apparently noble the reason, the line ends. I'd bet that all the safety mandates have done more to impede MPG development than anything else - all that safety shit weighs a lot! I recall seeing an interview with a Ford exec once that said they had engineers dedicated to reducing the weight of parts (using comparable, lighter-weight substitutes or re-engineering design, etc) - not to bring up MPGs but to have mass to "spend" on adding safety features.

Yup. If you compare any car to its predecessor 20 years ago, the differences in size and weight are usually quite stunning.

Sure, we have a lot more comforts and safety nowadays, but all that extra steel in the body, thicker seat cushions, additional soundproofing tar (its the cheapest deadener), electrical equipment, bigger wheels and tires, and bigger lights, all add up to a bunch of extra weight.

Its also why many luxury cars for a long time have been significantly heavier than the same-sized normal cars. My BMW 540i is a good bit heavier than my Impala, but comfort and safety are also a few miles apart.

Tony_Danza 03-13-2013 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58200968)
One thing that I don't get is why more cars aren't made more out of aluminum. I get that aluminum is more expensive than steel but as it's basically 100% recycled you'd recoup the cost in the end, not to mention it's maybe only twice as expensive when you realize you need far less of it (weight wise) to build a car than steel.

Talk about an easy way to bump up MPG by 8-10%+ not to mention the performance improvement if you could shed 10-15%+ of the cars weight!

Interesting article actually - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1...69392.html

This may be relevant to your interests.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013...inted-car/

Xygonn 03-13-2013 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58200120)
CFLs yes. LEDs, no. Buy an LED dimmer.

Mine are fine dimming even without an LED dimmer. So the bulbs are out there.

Also, who really dims lights, anyway? At least past 50%.

LED dimmable bulbs flicker in my experience, especially when there is a voltage change like running the microwave. I dim below 50% often because I'm a romantic guy. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58200412)
double-flushing the toilet twice once (or twice) a day doesn't mean you use less water overall. With a 3gal tank you are wasting a bunch of water every time you take a leak.

I said a dual flush toilet. I might rig it up myself. I have previously hotrodded 1.6 GPF toilets to about 1.8 by extending the tube at the top and adjusting the floater.

Quote:

Double flush is the best. I can't imagine anyone will argue that.
I find a double flush of 1.6 doesn't deliver the force necessary to fold a particularly large single turd through the outlet. Often it takes several flushes, or getting the plunger out to break up the turd and assist the toilet in getting it down. I guess I could get a pressure assist toilet, but the water pressure at my house is terrible.

Maybe even a triple option toilet. Something like 3 liters, 6 liters, and 12 liters.

Xygonn 03-13-2013 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58200968)
One thing that I don't get is why more cars aren't made more out of aluminum. I get that aluminum is more expensive than steel but as it's basically 100% recycled you'd recoup the cost in the end, not to mention it's maybe only twice as expensive when you realize you need far less of it (weight wise) to build a car than steel.

Talk about an easy way to bump up MPG by 8-10%+ not to mention the performance improvement if you could shed 10-15%+ of the cars weight!

Interesting article actually - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1...69392.html

Steel has a fatigue limit. Aluminum does not. You are welcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit

LivninSC 03-13-2013 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 58201642)
Steel has a fatigue limit. Aluminum does not. You are welcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit

0.0000001

Uhm, thanks?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 58201580)
adjusting the floater..

Exactly, just clench here and there and voilia, you're golden. Problem solved.

kharvel 03-13-2013 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58192256)
because it's yet another nanny-state initiative forcing people to do what government bureaucrats and pencil pushers want, adding more power and control to an already power-hungry central government. I have no problem with leaving it to the consumers...if people want to buy high mileage cars, good for them....those who need more powerful engines for whatever purpose, good for them too. I draw the line when the government FORCES people to buy what they are not interested in or does not meet their needs by outlawing the alternative.

once again, it's NOT about gas mileage, it's about freedom and the nanny-state regulating and controlling literally EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of our daily lives.

So do you agree that higher consumption of gasoline and oil means higher personal support for the governments of oil producers such as Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Angola, Nigeria, etc.?

Xygonn 03-13-2013 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58201682)
0.0000001

Uhm, thanks?



Exactly, just clench here and there and voilia, you're golden. Problem solved.

I'm not sure what you mean by 10^-7 (maybe you are referring to the 10^7 cycle fatigue strength). But in actual applications aluminum will lead to cracking and failure before steel. For cars, fatigue is a huge problem for aluminum. I don't know how much total weight you are going to save on a dynamic structure like a car with tons of welds.

Speaking of which, all the car factories would have to retool to weld aluminum.

That said, you can make the body of aluminum, but you can also make the body out of plastic which is even lighter.

Radeck 03-13-2013 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58201736)
So do you agree that higher consumption of gasoline and oil means higher personal support for the governments of oil producers such as Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Angola, Nigeria, etc.?

No, because the US has enough oil for something like 100 years, and natural gas for several hundred more....and dependency on foreign energy sources is purely artificial and self-inflicted due to the idiotic polices of the tree-huggers and the politicians they managed to bamboozle

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58200968)
One thing that I don't get is why more cars aren't made more out of aluminum. I get that aluminum is more expensive than steel but as it's basically 100% recycled you'd recoup the cost in the end, not to mention it's maybe only twice as expensive when you realize you need far less of it (weight wise) to build a car than steel.

Talk about an easy way to bump up MPG by 8-10%+ not to mention the performance improvement if you could shed 10-15%+ of the cars weight!

Interesting article actually - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1...69392.html

1. Steel is much more recycled than aluminum. A lot of cans go into the trash, but virtually all cars, trucks, and buildings are melted and reused.

2. I just checked some prices, and aluminum is about 4 times more expensive. Its also not as strong as steel, thus you have to use more of it, especially in crucial parts of the safety cage.

3. Aluminum car bodies are infinitely more complicated to fix than steel bodies. Takes a lot of training, equipment, and even a clean room, in order to repair. Steel takes a lot more abuse, can be bent back into shape while still retaining strength, and is easy to fix.

So unless we want cars that cost 8 times more, and are totalled by anything more than a minor accident, steel is here to stay. :nod:

vaultaddict 03-13-2013 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58200628)
Liberals: We care deeply about plants, animals, and freezing poor people. Seriously, we really do!



Errr, oh wait, nevemind, we dont actually.

why did you create a post with my name on it that I didn't write?

edit... too weird.. the bottom quoted portion showed my name the first time

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vaultaddict (Post 58202148)
why did you create a post with my name on it that I didn't write?

Sorry, mixed up your post and bonkman's, I fixed my original post.

bonkman 03-13-2013 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 58201580)
LED dimmable bulbs flicker in my experience, especially when there is a voltage change like running the microwave. I dim below 50% often because I'm a romantic guy. ;)

Candles. Just sayin' ;)

Anyway, can't speak about the flickering with microwave, as my LEDs are in the basement (for now). Mine are fine even dimmed, though. It always entertains me to dim it to the point where I can see the individual LEDs.

Yes, I'm easily entertained.

Quote:

I find a double flush of 1.6 doesn't deliver the force necessary to fold a particularly large single turd through the outlet. Often it takes several flushes, or getting the plunger out to break up the turd and assist the toilet in getting it down. I guess I could get a pressure assist toilet, but the water pressure at my house is terrible.

Maybe even a triple option toilet. Something like 3 liters, 6 liters, and 12 liters.
Might be easier to change your diet :lol:

bonkman 03-13-2013 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 58200940)
the title of this thread is hilarious.

u.s. auto makers produce some very affordable, incredibly fuel efficient vehicles in other parts of the world. thanks to the heavily liberal supported EPA, we can never have them here.

the title of this thread should read, "Why Do Liberals Hate Fuel Efficient Vehicles ?"

uh, what?

andyfico 03-13-2013 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krazen1211 (Post 58191872)
The Prius is a mediocre car. That's why.

Not to mention hideous. I'm all for a high mileage car that saves me money. I just don't want someone to force that on me.

empiretc 03-13-2013 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58202242)
uh, what?


google it... f**d has cars that get 60+

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58202242)
uh, what?

Many of the most economic cars in the world have Diesel engines. Some are also not the safest because they are small and lightweight.

The EPA hates Diesel engines. NHTSA hates unsafe cars.

Therefore, the EPA and NHTSA are making the most economic, albeit slightly less safe, cars un-available over here.

A diesel in a car gets twice the gas mileage, and is better on most levels of pollutants, with the exception of soot.

darkfrog 03-13-2013 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58200870)
I quoted your post but it's more of a tangential question related to this thread. Is a higher tax rate not equivalent to government regulation? If so, won't people complain just as much? Especially republicans, who have spent the last couple of years making it well known how they feel about taxes.

Not all taxes are equal. We have gone over this before when some posters have brought up the strawman that libertarians don't like taxation. Maybe you have never participated in those threads so I will summarize some of it. Punitive taxation is bad. Taxation for necessary revenue should be the only goal. The income tax has some characteristics of both. It certainly is used to generate revenue but at the expense of going after production. Excise taxes, sales taxes, tariffs, duties, user fees, are preferable in many ways to a direct tax on income. There is also the push-back against more and more taxes because that is the mantra we continue to hear from Washington while never admitting that we don't have a revenue problem but a spending problem.
If a tax can be rationally justified, such as higher gas tax IN PLACE OF mandates for manufacturers, while explaining the positives we should see from it, then I don't see too much push back from conservatives or many libertarians. The problem is not taxation, but just moar taxes to pay for entitlements that many people disagree with.


Quote:

I don't disagree, BTW. I've felt that gas is too cheap for years. (It's still only about the price of milk, of course.) But it's not the only way. Hell, if you want to increase revenue, just enforce speed limits on highways! That'll improve MPG as well.
I thought that the 55mph was demonstrated to not be more fuel efficient than other speeds and that it depended more on individual cars and driving behavior. Enforcing speed limits doesn't help the federal highway budget either.

andyfico 03-13-2013 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperboy05 (Post 58194454)
Both, considering no one has called Rebound to substantiate the claim.


Which is a separate issue from the claims Rebound brought forth.


So because politically they don't push those mantra's, personally they believe what Rebound has claimed? :shake:

One can be against the political pressures of gas mileage, while still personally wishing people would drive more efficient cars; hence the flawed nature of this inflammatory thread.

I'm only 2 pages and 2 posts into this thread and already the OP's claim has been thoroughly debunked.

BigBananaMess 03-13-2013 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 58197666)
I agree. But you should look at other hybrids out there. The Ford Fusion Hybrid is REALLY nice. I've been looking for an amercian car i'd be willing to buy for quite some time. The Fusion is fantastic. The plug-in hybrid can get 100+ mpg.

Ford makes a lot of really nice looking cars. I have no specific aversion to hybrids, other than the extra cost of all that technology. If I want great mileage, I ride my Ducati. Fuel savings for the couple thousand miles a year I put on my SUV will never come close to paying the hybrid premium. For others the numbers may crunch very differently. I prefer to make the choice than have the government require I spend a lot more for fuel efficiency.

bonkman 03-13-2013 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 58202514)
google it... f**d has cars that get 60+

not the part i bolded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58202556)
Many of the most economic cars in the world have Diesel engines. Some are also not the safest because they are small and lightweight.

The EPA hates Diesel engines. NHTSA hates unsafe cars.

Therefore, the EPA and NHTSA are making the most economic, albeit slightly less safe, cars un-available over here.

A diesel in a car gets twice the gas mileage, and is better on most levels of pollutants, with the exception of soot.

plenty of diesel engines on the road.

MISHNAH 03-13-2013 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58203024)
plenty of diesel engines on the road.

Let me know when something like 70% of the cars on our roads are Diesel. :rolleyes:

bonkman 03-13-2013 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58203080)
Let me know when something like 70% of the cars on our roads are Diesel. :rolleyes:

a pretty high percentage of trucks are ;)

kharvel 03-13-2013 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58202108)
No, because the US has enough oil for something like 100 years, and natural gas for several hundred more

Then you don't know much about economics and free markets. It doesn't matter if the U.S. has oil or not. Any oil you buy, whatever the source, will prop up regimes in Venezuela, Middle East, Nigeria, Russia, etc. because they all sell into the same market as the US. If the U.S. does increase production to the extent that oil prices fall in half, then you might have a case there.

politicaljunkie 03-13-2013 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBananaMess (Post 58202786)
Ford makes a lot of really nice looking cars. I have no specific aversion to hybrids, other than the extra cost of all that technology. If I want great mileage, I ride my Ducati. Fuel savings for the couple thousand miles a year I put on my SUV will never come close to paying the hybrid premium.

I have a 4runner and only get 21 mpg--which isn't really that bad for an SUV. But riding a motorcycle isn't an option. I enjoy being alive.

Quote:

For others the numbers may crunch very differently. I prefer to make the choice than have the government require I spend a lot more for fuel efficiency.
There is an overal societal benefit of better fuel efficiency. Our country loses billions of dollars over oil. Moving to NG or Electricity (besides that which is generated by oil plants) has a huge benefit for our country as a whole. Besides not handing $$ over to other countries (some of whom are enemies), we'd be better suited to keep those dollars within our own economy. It keeps our environment cleaner, which improves our health and decreases healthcare and other costs caused by a more-polluted environment. And before you say "what about the batteries", almost every part of a battery is recyclable.

While you may want to buy a cheap gas guzzler because it is better for you on an individual basis--it isn't good for our country. We can't always focus on the individual and ignore the impact on our country as a whole. Especially considering the substantial benefits of higher efficiencies

bonkman 03-13-2013 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBananaMess (Post 58202786)
Ford makes a lot of really nice looking cars. I have no specific aversion to hybrids, other than the extra cost of all that technology. If I want great mileage, I ride my Ducati. Fuel savings for the couple thousand miles a year I put on my SUV will never come close to paying the hybrid premium. For others the numbers may crunch very differently. I prefer to make the choice than have the government require I spend a lot more for fuel efficiency.

This may be the first thing I've ever agreed with you on. IMO, the cost of hybrids are prohibitively expensive. Buy a high MPG regular car like an Elantra or Civic instead :nod: You have to hold onto the car for some crazy high mileage in order to make the small additional mpg gain pay off.

empiretc 03-13-2013 06:40 PM

VW tdi.....

Dumpsterdiver 03-13-2013 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 58203296)
While you may want to buy a cheap gas guzzler because it is better for you on an individual basis--it isn't good for our country. We can't always focus on the individual and ignore the impact on our country as a whole. Especially considering the substantial benefits of higher efficiencies

Worked for these guys...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-1939).svg.png

Doctor_Wu 03-13-2013 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58192986)
six of one or half a dozen of the other....mandating standards that mean manufacturers can't make powerful (and yes gas guzzling) engines is effectively a ban...just like the new light bulb standards are effectively a ban of the 100W incandescent bulb.

don't play your lib word games with me...that's the same idiotic argument pushed by that idiot Bloomberg that he is not banning large sugary drinks, it's just "portion control"...only morons with an IQ of their shoe size buy the argument that regulating something out of existence is NOT a ban.

Quote:

Originally Posted by riptide_slick (Post 58193202)
Seriously, how about trying to be a little less hostile? I know I'm not the first person to ask you this. You may be pleasantly surprised to find that not everyone fits into the boxes you've created for them and that there might even be some overlap between our opinions and those of people you so like to mock and deride. Heck, you might even live a little longer; the last time I checked, high blood pressure isn't generally considered a good thing.

True words.

Conservatives ought to appreciate the appeal of measured speech, and practice it. When they do not, they reveal themselves as what they truly are, frustrated progressives.

Doctor_Wu 03-13-2013 10:21 PM

Conservatives properly understood find efficient cars appealing, and buy them with some frequency. As has been mentioned, there are regional differences in lifestyle that compel people to buy different types of vehicles.

Hybrid SUVs are very popular, so much so that I have heard of dealers calling people with older models to see if they can buy them off them to resell.


OP as written was a great troll question though. Glad to see your many years of exchange here with the 'other side' has not broadened your perspective, OP... nor your tact.

Dr. J 03-14-2013 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58202556)
Many of the most economic cars in the world have Diesel engines. Some are also not the safest because they are small and lightweight.

The EPA hates Diesel engines. NHTSA hates unsafe cars.

Therefore, the EPA and NHTSA are making the most economic, albeit slightly less safe, cars un-available over here.

A diesel in a car gets twice the gas mileage, and is better on most levels of pollutants, with the exception of soot.


I can get 50mpg in my MINI if I drive it right but 40mpg is more common. The diesel version of it (again only available in EU) gets about 65mpg regularly.

politicaljunkie 03-14-2013 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 58207768)

:facepalm2:

Rebound 03-14-2013 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 58210588)
I can get 50mpg in my MINI if I drive it right but 40mpg is more common. The diesel version of it (again only available in EU) gets about 65mpg regularly.

EU gas mileage isn't the same as US has mileage. The British gallon is larger than the US gallon, so their mileage figures are always better.

politicaljunkie 03-14-2013 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58212668)
EU gas mileage isn't the same as US has mileage. The British gallon is larger than the US gallon, so their mileage figures are always better.

I didn't know that! Just looked it up to confirm: Indeed, 1 British gallon equals 1.2 US gallons.

Rebound 03-14-2013 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58204110)
IMO, the cost of hybrids are prohibitively expensive. Buy a high MPG regular car like an Elantra or Civic instead

Prius costs about $23,000 out the door. That isn't "prohibitively expensive." It's affordable enough to be the best-selling car in California. One reason is that it's also incredibly reliable. The hybrid system puts far less strain on the engine and brakes. Many owners drive 100,000 miles before a brake pad change is needed.
Consumer Reports was very impressed by its long-term reliability:
http://m.autos.aol.com/article/to...liability/

Rebound 03-14-2013 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor_Wu (Post 58208382)
OP as written was a great troll question though. Glad to see your many years of exchange here with the 'other side' has not broadened your perspective, OP... nor your tact.

Or perhaps our Moderators aren't exactly "fair and balanced."
If you trouble yourself to read the OP, it refers to the stated policy position of the Republican Party. While I agree with you that anyone should feel insulted to be associated with any position of the Republican Party, it is not "trolling" to state their policy positions.

Setting that aside, it confuses me that, despite fighting wars and having our soldiers die because of oil, and seeing Arab oil embargoes create recessions, why would any American think that increasing oil consumption is good?

Tony_Danza 03-14-2013 08:01 AM

Yeah, the "mod persecution complex" keeps a number of posters from recognizing flaws in their posting style and making changes.

andyfico 03-14-2013 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58213552)
Or perhaps our Moderators aren't exactly "fair and balanced."
If you trouble yourself to read the OP, it refers to the stated policy position of the Republican Party. While I agree with you that anyone should feel insulted to be associated with any position of the Republican Party, it is not "trolling" to state their policy positions.

This is gonna be good. :)

Rebound 03-14-2013 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony_Danza (Post 58214390)
Yeah, the "mod persecution complex" keeps a number of posters from recognizing flaws in their posting style and making changes.

It keeps a number of posts from appearing. What on earth is wrong with questioning a party's policy? The "Moderation" here is juvenile:
"Why do conservatives hate high gas mileage?"
Must change to
"Do conservatives hate high gas mileage?"
And the conservatives here will verbally masturbate over whether they "hate" high gas mileage or merely "oppose" it, as if that makes all the difference in the world.

Our soldiers have died for oil. Our skies have been darkened by it. Our children got asthma from it. So you'd think that reducing oil consumption would be a government policy and the patriotic imperative of decent Americans.

But alas, it's "Hate is such a strong word. Put me down as "Violently opposed," not "Hate." And I'll pretend to be offended because you said I hate those ducking hippy smug Prius drivers with their Obama Greenpeace bumper stickers."

Kolto 03-14-2013 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58213404)
Prius costs about $23,000 out the door. That isn't "prohibitively expensive." It's affordable enough to be the best-selling car in California. One reason is that it's also incredibly reliable. The hybrid system puts far less strain on the engine and brakes. Many owners drive 100,000 miles before a brake pad change is needed.
Consumer Reports was very impressed by its long-term reliability:
http://m.autos.aol.com/article/to...liability/

um MSRP on a Prius starts at $24,200...
http://www.toyota.com/prius/#!/Welcome

how you're getting $23,000 out the door after taxes for a new Prius?

Rebound 03-14-2013 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPT (Post 58214914)
um MSRP on a Prius starts at $24,200...
http://www.toyota.com/prius/#!/Welcome

how you're getting $23,000 out the door after taxes for a new Prius?

I forgot, everybody on SlickDeals always pays full MSRP for cars.

Kolto 03-14-2013 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58214938)
I forgot, everybody on SlickDeals always pays full MSRP for cars.

no, but you're telling me you can pay close to 4 grand below sticker on a prius??
When barebone MSRP Prius (ones without options) are basically non-existent?
I'd like you to come with me on my next car purchase

Xygonn 03-14-2013 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPT (Post 58214914)
um MSRP on a Prius starts at $24,200...
http://www.toyota.com/prius/#!/Welcome

how you're getting $23,000 out the door after taxes for a new Prius?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58214938)
I forgot, everybody on SlickDeals always pays full MSRP for cars.

I paid 15300 OTD on a Cruze LS with connectivity package. I would imagine Rebound's OTD number isn't far off.

Pro-tip: accidentally injure yourself on the lot :P

paperboy05 03-14-2013 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 58214502)
This is gonna be good. :)

:popcorn:

Rebound 03-14-2013 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPT (Post 58214996)
no, but you're telling me you can pay close to 4 grand below sticker on a prius??
When barebone MSRP Prius (ones without options) are basically non-existent?
I'd like you to come with me on my next car purchase

Yes, check out PriusChat to see what people are paying. Toyota's financing Prius at 1.9% right now. Leases at $500 down and $251/month in California.

Lest we forget, the point is: Yes, hybrids are affordable and reliable. I'm running 68 MPG in mine:
http://badges.fuelly.com/images/sig-us/121525.png [fuelly.com]

Kolto 03-14-2013 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58216022)
Yes, check out PriusChat to see what people are paying. Toyota's financing Prius at 1.9% right now. Leases at $500 down and $251/month in California.

Lest we forget, the point is: Yes, hybrids are affordable and reliable. I'm running 68 MPG in mine:
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/rebo...ius-plugin

well like i said in the thread already, in the northeast they're not a viable car during the winter months.

Radeck 03-14-2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58214680)
Our soldiers have died for oil. Our skies have been darkened by it. Our children got asthma from it. So you'd think that reducing oil consumption would be a government policy and the patriotic imperative of decent Americans.

First, if you can get over your blind hatred for oil for a minute, maybe you can understand how it made today's world possible. Any wealth, prosperity, and civilization advancement since WW1 has been due to oil creating trillions of dollars of wealth and providing the energy to fuel the world's economies. The geometric rise in technology, wealth, knowledge, and standard of living since 1900 eclipses everything since the dawn of history, ALL made possible almost singularly due to oil and the energy and wealth it provided to modern civilization. Just like anything else, there are pros and cons to everything, including oil...nothing is 100% benefit with 0% shortcomings. If it wasn't for oil and all its derivatives (including huge advancements in chemicals and fertilizers), we would still be wallowing in pre-industrial rural life and subsistence farming, with billions of starving people due to lack of food, to say the least. So it would help your sanity and credibility to at least consider the benefits when you rant about dark skies and asthma.

Second, for the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with your bogieman republicans/conservatives "hating high mileage and wanting to use more oil" as you keep falsely harping about...it is about letting people make their own decisions instead of having nanny wanna-be dictators in DC deciding and limiting choice for everything in every aspect of our lives...
freedom is by definition to allow people to make their own choices, even if they are bad...limiting a free people's options to a set of pre-determined pre-selected options by benevolent dictators is NOT freedom, it is slavery under guise of freedom. It is a rat cage where an all-knowing self-appointed grand-experimenter puts us rats in a maze and says you have "freedom" to choose go left or go right. That is NOT freedom, that is tyranny.

You might want to live like that because you feel "safe" having someone else telling you what's good for you and what's not...there are hundreds of millions of other people who do not want to live like that, and neither you, nor Obama, nor anyone else has the right to control other people's lives and tell them they are "free" to choose, as long as the available options are limited to ones that are pre-approved and pre-selected by you and your elitist friends.

empiretc 03-14-2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor_Wu (Post 58208382)
OP as written was a great troll question though. Glad to see your many years of exchange here with the 'other side' has not broadened your perspective, OP... nor your tact.


Very true.

Rebound 03-14-2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPT (Post 58216174)
well like i said in the thread already, in the northeast they're not a viable car during the winter months.

I have a friend who drives one in Alaska. I grew up in the NE and you don't "need" a 4WD car to live there, unless you live in a rural area, where most ordinary vehicles fail.

Xygonn 03-14-2013 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58216022)
Yes, check out PriusChat to see what people are paying. Toyota's financing Prius at 1.9% right now. Leases at $500 down and $251/month in California.

Lest we forget, the point is: Yes, hybrids are affordable and reliable. I'm running 68 MPG in mine:
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/rebo...ius-plugin

That's a pretty good lease deal... What's the mileage limit and duration?

Kolto 03-14-2013 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58216286)
I have a friend who drives one in Alaska. I grew up in the NE and you don't "need" a 4WD car to live there.

you do when the roads aren't plowed and you have to drive around.
Or do you think people leaving their cars abandoned in the middle of the highway/offramps/roads because they can't go uphill in the snow isn't a problem.

Besides, would it make you feel better to know my next car'll be a turbo diesel that'll get over 50 mpg?

andyfico 03-14-2013 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPT (Post 58216368)
Besides, would it make you feel better to know my next car'll be a turbo diesel that'll get over 50 mpg?

Hippy! :)

Rebound 03-14-2013 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 58216352)
That's a pretty good lease deal... What's the mileage limit and duration?

Ask Dianne. http://priuschat.com/threads/dian...vs.123061/

I'm a semiconductor guy, not a car salesman, Jim!

Xygonn 03-14-2013 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58216622)
Ask Dianne. http://priuschat.com/threads/dian...vs.123061/

I'm a semiconductor guy, not a car salesman, Jim!

It's pretty close to the same as a zero down Cruze lease, which is why I found it surprising. The march deal for a Cruze is 209$/mo 0$ down.

To make up the 47 dollars per month (The add says 256/month) plus extra 500 down would requiring driving over the lease mile limit. Still, they are surprisingly close to the same at 1000 miles per month.

Rebound 03-14-2013 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPT (Post 58216368)
Besides, would it make you feel better to know my next car'll be a turbo diesel that'll get over 50 mpg?

Totally! 50 mpg rocks!

Rebound 03-14-2013 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58216274)
Any wealth, prosperity, and civilization advancement since WW1 has been due to oil creating trillions of dollars of wealth and providing the energy to fuel the world's economies.

The people in the coal industry would beg to differ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58216274)
Nothing is 100% benefit with 0% shortcomings. If it wasn't for oil and all its derivatives (including huge advancements in chemicals and fertilizers), we would still be wallowing in pre-industrial rural life and subsistence farming, with billions of starving people due to lack of food, to say the least.

Nowhere did I say that oil is bad. Maybe you missed the part where I mentioned that I drive a car. Maybe you missed the part where I brought up conservation, not elimination, of petroleum use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58216274)
So it would help your sanity and credibility to at least consider the benefits when you rant about dark skies and asthma.

It would help your sanity to consider what will happen the next time we have an oil shortage when you rant about "personal choice" being a solution to oil shortages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58216274)
Second, for the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with your bogieman republicans/conservatives "hating high mileage and wanting to use more oil" as you keep trolling about...

Does the phrase, "Drill, baby, drill!" not connote the notion that oil conservation is unnecessary?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 58216274)
it is about letting people make their own decisions instead of having nanny wanna-be dictators in DC deciding and limiting choice for everything in every aspect of our lives... it is slavery under guise of freedom.

Now, that is sheer nonsense. What I asked is why conservatives hate high gas mileage, as evidenced by national campaign slogans such as, "Drill, baby drill." I did not propose that standards should be put in place. If conservatives believed that gasoline efficiency were good, and enough of us did the right thing, we wouldn't be having this discussion and there wouldn't be people in Washington thinking that high efficiency standards are necessary... although, it isn't Washington doing that, it's California, the only state in the US which is permitted to set its own vehicle emissions regulations.

Deusxmachina 03-14-2013 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58191438)
I've noticed that, since the Bush administration, Republicans have taken the general position that Americans should have as much gasoline as they want, and there is nothing wrong with using as much as you want.

Nobody wants gas rationing, but if the Republican philosophy is "personal responsibility," why do they seem to be opposed to fuel conservation on a personal level?

Gas rationing and personal responsibility are by-products of a free market. Everyone can own 5mpg cars if they want, but that doesn't mean they'll have the money to drive them as much as they'd like.

And that right there is a big problem with forcing people to own certain vehicles. If I have a 5mpg vehicle, you have a 40mpg vehicle, and you drive nine times more miles a year than I do, which one of us is using more gas and polluting the planet more?

Look at things like big V10 Dodge Vipers, (that actually get halfway-decent mpg, but we'll pretend it doesn't for now). People buy those big gas-guzzlers and then only put 20k miles on them in 10 years.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58196574)
Oddly, the same conservatives I know who steadfastly believe that the government needs to cut spending, and that individuals must be personally responsible for themselves -- they are really angry that they and their friends are losing their jobs because of defense cuts resulting from the sequester.

Maybe those people you label "conservatives" aren't.
Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58198506)
That's the whole point of this. Who is to thank for that? I'd say a lot of it has to do with the federal gov't as without mandated increased fuel efficiency the car manufacturers would still be putting out the cheapest car possible instead of the cheapest while also being considerably more efficient car.

The free market changed the automobile landscape when foreign companies made better cars and forced American companies to step up their game.

Competition is good. That's why government Fs so many things up when it stifles competition and tries to make everyone and everything equally mediocre.
Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58202556)
Many of the most economic cars in the world have Diesel engines. Some are also not the safest because they are small and lightweight.

The EPA hates Diesel engines. NHTSA hates unsafe cars.

I remember that argument from long ago...

"The EPA wants new cars made that get x mpg."
"We already have those... they're called diesels!"

Deusxmachina 03-14-2013 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 58202602)
I thought that the 55mph was demonstrated to not be more fuel efficient than other speeds and that it depended more on individual cars and driving behavior. Enforcing speed limits doesn't help the federal highway budget either.

It does depend. 55mph might maybe have been good for mpg at the time, but people can do their own tests nowadays if they have a trip computer in their car. Also, even back on some older cars I knew some people who did mpg tests on long trips, and they got the best mpg at like 65-70mph.

Wind resistance, gearing, the engine's power curve, etc, all play a part.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor_Wu (Post 58208382)
Conservatives properly understood find efficient cars appealing, and buy them with some frequency. As has been mentioned, there are regional differences in lifestyle that compel people to buy different types of vehicles.

Exactly. How am I supposed to tow my gas-guzzling boat and haul my high-powered firearms in a little car that gets 40mpg? Some times you simply need a bigger boat. Er, vehicle.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor_Wu (Post 58208382)
OP as written was a great troll question though. Glad to see your many years of exchange here with the 'other side' has not broadened your perspective, OP... nor your tact.

Oh snap!
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58216286)
I have a friend who drives one in Alaska. I grew up in the NE and you don't "need" a 4WD car to live there, unless you live in a rural area, where most ordinary vehicles fail.

You don't "need" 4WD in the northeast, either, but it sure can be a heck of a lot safer. That actually applies to any part of the country, actually. A 4WD/AWD in the rain is safer than a FWD/RWD. For instance, take a highway curve too fast in the rain in a FWD/RWD and then jump off the gas, bad things can happen. Do it in a 4WD/AWD, and it's much more controllable. You can drive really stupidly in a 4WD/AWD. They are simply more manageable and safe.
Quote:

Originally Posted by paperboy05 (Post 58194454)
One can be against the political pressures of gas mileage, while still personally wishing people would drive more efficient cars; hence the flawed nature of this inflammatory thread.

Sums it up.

bonkman 03-14-2013 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58213404)
Prius costs about $23,000 out the door. That isn't "prohibitively expensive." It's affordable enough to be the best-selling car in California. One reason is that it's also incredibly reliable. The hybrid system puts far less strain on the engine and brakes. Many owners drive 100,000 miles before a brake pad change is needed.
Consumer Reports was very impressed by its long-term reliability:
http://m.autos.aol.com/article/to...liability/

perhaps for a base model?

When I was pricing them out during car research earlier in the year, I was getting about 5-7k more than a similarly equipped (or better equipped) elantra.

Note that I don't mean prohibitively expensive in the "nobody can afford it" sense. I mean in the sense that you're paying an additional 5-7k over a similar vehicle (in terms of size, features, etc) that lacks the hybrid. When those vehicles are also getting 35+ mpg, you have to put on heavy mileage to make up the difference in price at the pump.

bonkman 03-14-2013 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58214938)
I forgot, everybody on SlickDeals always pays full MSRP for cars.

Logic, man. If you don't pay sticker on a Prius, you don't pay sticker on an Elantra or Civic, either.

Dumpsterdiver 03-14-2013 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58218554)
Logic, man. If you don't pay sticker on a Prius, you don't pay sticker on an Elantra or Civic, either.

Could never get to numbers to work on the Prius. Not to mention the whole battery situation. But really, being designed for little people made the decision pretty simple.

Xygonn 03-14-2013 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 58218144)
It does depend. 55mph might maybe have been good for mpg at the time, but people can do their own tests nowadays if they have a trip computer in their car. Also, even back on some older cars I knew some people who did mpg tests on long trips, and they got the best mpg at like 65-70mph.

I don't buy it. MPG vs. speed graphs have been made for many cars. They usually peak at or before 40 MPH (though they may go above that by a little bit). Wind resistance takes over real fast.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtes...omparison/
http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadte...peed-chart.jpg

There is the EPA graph which peaks at 55, but all the real world curves I have seen are much lower than that.

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/4967751_f520.jpg

http://ecomodder.com/imgs/graph-speed-mpg-corvette.gif
http://ecomodder.com/forum/images/gr...-ridgeline.gif

kharvel 03-14-2013 11:16 AM

How come everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room:

Buying low-mpg vehicles = buying more gas = buying more crude oil = putting more money in the pockets of rulers of countries such as Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.?

Someone brought up the point about the USA producing oil but that person failed to realize that in a free market, it doesn't matter who is producing the oil as long as it is being sold into the free market at high prices which prop up the regimes mentioned above.

So again:
If you don't care for fuel economy, does it mean that you don't care that your dollars are filling the pockets of the Iran mullahs, Chavez loyalists, Russian Commies, and Muslim terrorists?

bonkman 03-14-2013 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 58218738)
Could never get to numbers to work on the Prius. Not to mention the whole battery situation. But really, being designed for little people made the decision pretty simple.

agree on the numbers, not on the other points. Battery recycling reduces waste hugely. Claims against that -- and the idea that Prius's are worse for the envt than SUVs -- are urban legends. I'm average size and I was comfortable in the Prius, but I can understand how it might make some people feel cramped. I'm just constantly amazed at how big cars have gotten in the past 20 years, though. I remember my dad's old Accord coupe ('88 I think) being the size of a Hyundai Accent sub-compact today. :lol: My wife's elantra has as much rear legroom as my 2002 Accord. Maybe more.

bonkman 03-14-2013 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 58218144)
It does depend. 55mph might maybe have been good for mpg at the time, but people can do their own tests nowadays if they have a trip computer in their car. Also, even back on some older cars I knew some people who did mpg tests on long trips, and they got the best mpg at like 65-70mph.

Doubtful. Most people don't know how to do a controlled experiment. But air resistance goes up appx with the square of velocity, so doubling speed kicks up air resistance 4x. Even if you maxed at 70 (unlikely), most people I see on the highway are routinely going 75+. I understand this is location dependent, but even in IL where most highways are 55, I see a huge number of people cruising at the 75 mark.

General rule of thumb? You get the best gas mileage at the lowest speed your car will shift into its highest gear.
Quote:

You don't "need" 4WD in the northeast, either, but it sure can be a heck of a lot safer. That actually applies to any part of the country, actually. A 4WD/AWD in the rain is safer than a FWD/RWD. For instance, take a highway curve too fast in the rain in a FWD/RWD and then jump off the gas, bad things can happen. Do it in a 4WD/AWD, and it's much more controllable. You can drive really stupidly in a 4WD/AWD. They are simply more manageable and safe.
I read somewhere that more accidents are caused in bad weather by 4WD/AWD than 2WD. Why? Perhaps there are more people out there in that weather with those cars. Or perhaps people think they can drive like assholes with those vehicles and they can't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58219274)
How come everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room:

Buying low-mpg vehicles = buying more gas = buying more crude oil = putting more money in the pockets of rulers of countries such as Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.?

Someone brought up the point about the USA producing oil but that person failed to realize that in a free market, it doesn't matter who is producing the oil as long as it is being sold into the free market at high prices which prop up the regimes mentioned above.

So again:
If you don't care for fuel economy, does it mean that you don't care that your dollars are filling the pockets of the Iran mullahs, Chavez loyalists, Russian Commies, and Muslim terrorists?

Because most of our oil comes from Canada.

Xygonn 03-14-2013 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58219290)
agree on the numbers, not on the other points. Battery recycling reduces waste hugely. Claims against that -- and the idea that Prius's are worse for the envt than SUVs -- are urban legends. I'm average size and I was comfortable in the Prius, but I can understand how it might make some people feel cramped. I'm just constantly amazed at how big cars have gotten in the past 20 years, though. I remember my dad's old Accord coupe ('88 I think) being the size of a Hyundai Accent sub-compact today. :lol: My wife's elantra has as much rear legroom as my 2002 Accord. Maybe more.

Agreed. Today's compacts are at least as big as midsize cars of the early 2000s on the interior. The Versa is almost an engineering marvel in terms of passenger space vs. apparent vehicle size.

bonkman 03-14-2013 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 58218850)
I don't buy it. MPG vs. speed graphs have been made for many cars. They usually peak at or before 40 MPH (though they may go above that by a little bit). Wind resistance takes over real fast.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtes...omparison/
http://image.motortrend.com/f/roadte...peed-chart.jpg

There is the EPA graph which peaks at 55, but all the real world curves I have seen are much lower than that.

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/4967751_f520.jpg

http://ecomodder.com/imgs/graph-speed-mpg-corvette.gif
http://ecomodder.com/forum/images/gr...-ridgeline.gif

Who's putting their vette in 6th going 30? I haven't driven that car but is it really hitting 2k on 5th that low? Or did they jam it up there like Indian taxi drivers, who supposedly shift to sixth at 15mph or less -- it saves them enough fuel to pay for the new transmissions :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 58219498)
Agreed. Today's compacts are at least as big as midsize cars of the early 2000s on the interior. The Versa is almost an engineering marvel in terms of passenger space vs. apparent vehicle size.

My parents wanted to buy a Maxima but it wouldn't fit in the garage. :lol:

Ever ride in an elantra GT? You can practically do leg lifts in the back seat. It's bizarre.

Rebound 03-14-2013 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58219392)
Because most of our oil comes from Canada.

So if we consume less gasoline, AND if we block construction of a pipeline from Canada to a saltwater shipping port, then the price of gas in the United States will go....?

kharvel 03-14-2013 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58219392)
Because most of our oil comes from Canada.


And. . . . . ?

Let me repeat what I said earlier and I'm bolding/underlining the critical part for your careful study:
Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel
Someone brought up the point about the USA producing oil but that person failed to realize that in a free market, it doesn't matter who is producing the oil as long as it is being sold into the free market at high prices which prop up the regimes mentioned above.


Dumpsterdiver 03-14-2013 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58219290)
agree on the numbers, not on the other points. Battery recycling reduces waste hugely. Claims against that -- and the idea that Prius's are worse for the envt than SUVs -- are urban legends. I'm average size and I was comfortable in the Prius, but I can understand how it might make some people feel cramped. I'm just constantly amazed at how big cars have gotten in the past 20 years, though. I remember my dad's old Accord coupe ('88 I think) being the size of a Hyundai Accent sub-compact today. :lol: My wife's elantra has as much rear legroom as my 2002 Accord. Maybe more.

Yeah, I love the look on the dealer's face when I say "I'm trying on cars". Reach in, slide the driver's seat all the way back, then climb in the back.

But the battery issue isn't just recycling (which since they're not lead-acid is a huge deal in and of itself). We looked at a used prius and priced out the battery pack. You're going to have to sell it at some point and have to deal with the issue. No thanks.

Rebound 03-14-2013 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 58220214)
You're going to have to sell it at some point and have to deal with the issue. No thanks.

There isn't an issue. The Prius battery packs are extremely reliable. In California and the CARB states, they carry a 10 year, 150,000 mile warranty. They can be inexpensively replaced with rebuilt units if necessary, but it's an uncommon repair. The Prius is the mandated taxi of San Francisco and many cities, where they are permitted to be driven as taxis for 200,000 miles. These taxis have proven to be highly reliable, and battery problems are very uncommon.

The issue you're really bringing up is reliabilty, right? A vehicle's reliability boils down to its average cost of repair over its lifetime. Many car models are famous for having expensive failures between 80,000 and 140,000 miles. Prius is not.

bonkman 03-14-2013 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58220202)
And. . . . . ?

Let me repeat what I said earlier and I'm bolding/underlining the critical part for your careful study:

like when I buy nintendo games and sony makes money. :nod:

A seller requires a buyer.

Xygonn 03-14-2013 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 58220540)
Maybe. Should we ban 4WD/AWD since some people use them improperly? Maybe such thinking only applies to firearms and soda.

Should we ban 4WD/AWD, Rebound?

I wasn't talking ridiculous speeds like 40mph. More like 55-85.

Since you mentioned the EPA's 55mph not jiving with real-world numbers of 40mph or so, that is interesting since that would mean 1) the EPA is wrong and incompetent, and/or 2) the 55mph limit should have been 40mph or lower if people were/are so concerned about saving gas.

All tree huggers who drive over 40mph must hate the planet.

Time is the greatest destroyer of life. Speeding saves time. Thus, speeding saves lives.

If it can save even one life... we should do it.

Btw, a C5 Corvette with a big-ass V8 in it can get over 30mpg at 75mph.

Maybe the EPA did their tests with speed limits rather than individual vehicles in a controlled condition. Depending on how people follow other cars, there is going to be a drafting effect (even if they aren't drafting tightly) on the speed vs. mpg graph. This may push the numbers up.

I had a C5 corvette and I agree that the flat ground MPG at 75mph was around 30mpg on the highway when I was following another car. I did not get that number on my own. More like 27 mpg.

Xygonn 03-14-2013 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58222020)
did you see my earlier post? Is it realistic to assume that most people are driving at 35mph in 6th? Or do those charts not reflect real world conditions, esp with an auto? I know my auto doesn't shift to high until 50ish under normal conditions.


he responded, I responded. His move.

Couldn't tell if troll or sarcasm. Certainly not logic.

Ahhhh, I see what you are saying now. I would put my vette in 6th at 40 mph (though not usually 35 mph). I drive my Cruze in 6th as low as 30 mph. All sorts of reasonable people that try to maximize MPG do this. In an automatic sometimes you can get it to upshift at 50 then take it down to 40 without a downshift, or you can take "semi-automatic"/sportomatic style control in many newer cars to upshift. To get good gas mileage you should always use the highest gear that doesn't lug your engine.

Rebound 03-14-2013 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 58220540)
Should we ban 4WD/AWD, Rebound?

The DOT continually updates its automotive safety standards. If they are able to determine that 4WD/AWD actually does lead to accidents, they would then determine the root cause, and quite likely mandate a remediation, if one is available.

LivninSC 03-14-2013 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58196384)
Here's another example: The 1969 Boss Mustang [motortrend.com]. A bad-ass American supercar of the '60's, isn't it?
The Boss 302:
Performance 0-60 mph: 8.1 sec, quarter mile: 15.8 sec @ 90 mph, 60-0 mph: 112 ft (Motor Trend), April 1970

2010 Prius: 0-60 mph: 9.7 sec
2010 Chevy Volt: 0-60: 9.0 sec
2013 Ford Focus ST: 0-60 5.6 sec., quarter mile: 14.1 sec @99.9 mph

i just had to include this because I saw it and laughed my ass off, well almost.

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Niss...Times.html

Nissan Leaf - 0-60 mph 7.9

So what I see is a battery powered Leaf is quicker off the line to 60 than a Boss 302. Man, that's just plain sad :( I propose it's a good thing that cars having that piss poor performance like the Boss 302 are no longer around :D I mean, my gosh a Hyundai Elantra can blow the 302s doors off :lmao:

Or even better how about the Kia Soul
2012 Kia Soul+ (2.0L) 0-60 mph 7.0 Quarter Mile 15.4

Friggin hamsters can beat a Boss 302, and thump while doing it!

MISHNAH 03-14-2013 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 58218850)
I don't buy it. MPG vs. speed graphs have been made for many cars. They usually peak at or before 40 MPH (though they may go above that by a little bit). Wind resistance takes over real fast.

It depends on gearing, wind resistance, and where the engine makes the most torque and therefore isnt struggling to move the car.

We had a 98 Ford Winstar, it would get around 20-22 mpg at normal freeway speeds, BUT at 80 mph, it would get 25 mpg! :D It did have a very torquey engine though.

I had a Murano for a while, it would do low-20s no matter how you drove it. One time I had to excort a tractor-trailer with a turbine from Dallas to Houston and all we could do is 55 mph to keep the load stable. I was getting 35 mpg!!! Unfortunately, both me and the truck driver were about to fall asleep at that speed. :mad:

While almost doubling the gas mileage was sweet, it would really only save me about $15 over my usual 400 mile trips while adding 2 extra hours of driving and increasing the danger of falling asleep at the wheel.

Driving fast might burn a bit more gas, but it also saves a ton of lives by not being on the highway as long and keeping people more alert. :nod:

Rebound 03-14-2013 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58224134)
Driving fast might burn a bit more gas, but it also saves a ton of lives by not being on the highway as long and keeping people more alert.

Some things just can't be fixed.

Xygonn 03-14-2013 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58223754)
i just had to include this because I saw it and laughed my ass off, well almost.

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Niss...Times.html

Nissan Leaf - 0-60 mph 7.9

So what I see is a battery powered Leaf is quicker off the line to 60 than a Boss 302. Man, that's just plain sad :( I propose it's a good thing that cars having that piss poor performance like the Boss 302 are no longer around :D I mean, my gosh a Hyundai Elantra can blow the 302s doors off :lmao:

Or even better how about the Kia Soul
2012 Kia Soul+ (2.0L) 0-60 mph 7.0 Quarter Mile 15.4

Friggin hamsters can beat a Boss 302, and thump while doing it!

I bet the 302 on better than stock 1970 tires (that is, with modern tires) would pull out a ~7.0. Not that that says much compared to a 2013 Boss 302 busting off a 4.0 that would blow the doors off a C5 Z06 Vette.

MISHNAH 03-14-2013 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LivninSC (Post 58223754)
i just had to include this because I saw it and laughed my ass off, well almost.

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Niss...Times.html

Nissan Leaf - 0-60 mph 7.9

You cant really compare electric motors to engines. Electric motors make all of their torque available starting at ONE rpm!

If you want power off the line, steam engines are actually the most powerful powerplants, they do produce some monstrous torque. :D They also produce almost all of their torque starting at one rpm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58224206)
Some things just can't be fixed.

And that is?

kharvel 03-14-2013 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 58221332)
like when I buy nintendo games and sony makes money. :nod:

ECONOMICS FAIL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The more specific meaning of the term commodity is applied to goods only. It is used to describe a class of goods for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. A commodity has full or partial fungibility; that is, the market treats its instances as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them. "From the taste of wheat it is not possible to tell who produced it, a Russian serf, a French peasant or an English capitalist."[4] Petroleum and copper are other examples of such commodities,[5] their supply and demand being a part of one universal market. Items such as stereo systems, on the other hand, have many aspects of product differentiation, such as the brand, the user interface, the perceived quality, etc. And, the demand for one type of stereo may be much larger than demand on the other.

Quote:

A seller requires a buyer.
And . . . . . ?

Please try to answer without any economics fail.

Xygonn 03-14-2013 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58224558)
ECONOMICS FAIL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity




And . . . . . ?

Please try to answer without any economics fail.

Luckily when communists use oil, they are helping support the US oil industry. Whew.

Dr. J 03-14-2013 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58224206)
Some things just can't be fixed.

?

Higher speed limits are not correlated with more crashes. More fatalities, yes, but not more crashes.

Elmer 03-14-2013 04:49 PM

It's good to see one of these fun troll title threads not get deleted, as many of them seem to.

kharvel 03-14-2013 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 58225710)
Luckily when communists use oil, they are helping support the US oil industry. Whew.

Meaning?

Rebound 03-14-2013 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmer (Post 58226860)
It's good to see one of these fun troll title threads not get deleted, as many of them seem to.

FWIW, I was honestly curious. I didn't think people would be offended by it, I thought that most conservatives are anti- environmental.

If you want clean air, how do you get it without government regulation? On an individual level, it's cheaper to pollute. The free market will always make the air dirtier. But I'm not asking that. I remember the Arab oil embargo, and the long gas lines. I remember odd/even gas rationing. I remember we fought a war to keep Saddam from getting Kuwait's oil. I don't want the government to tell me how much gas I can use -- but I think it's in everyone's interest to just use less.

What I want to know is, why do conservatives, at least, some conservatives, think its cool to consume lots of gas? They appear to be pro-gas consumption, and I don't really understand it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go plug my car in.

MISHNAH 03-14-2013 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58228086)
FWIW, I was honestly curious. I didn't think people would be offended by it, I thought that most conservatives are anti- environmental.

If you want clean air, how do you get it without government regulation? On an individual level, it's cheaper to pollute. The free market will always make the air dirtier. But I'm not asking that. I remember the Arab oil embargo, and the long gas lines. I remember odd/even gas rationing. I remember we fought a war to keep Saddam from getting Kuwait's oil. I don't want the government to tell me how much gas I can use.

What I want to know is, why do conservatives, at least, some conservatives, think its cool to consume lots of gas? They appear to be pro-gas consumption, and I don't really understand it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go plug my car in.

Most of us are conservationists. ;) There's a difference between people who want to conserve and take care of resources, versus those who almost worship those same resources or are scared to use them at all.

We do have to strike a balance between living and our livelihoods, and protecting our resources. If we didnt use some oil, then more people would die without those petroleum-based medicines. If we didnt hunt deer, more of them would starve do death or be hit by cars. Etc. Etc.

My family is planting a big enough garden to absorb the coal smoke from you charging your car. :wave::hug:

DJPlayer 03-14-2013 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58228500)
Most of us are conservationists. ;) There's a difference between people who want to conserve and take care of resources, versus those who almost worship those same resources or are scared to use them at all.

actually that's an interesting point. We are on all a website called SlickDeals. Obviously we're being more intelligent with our money, get the best deal etc.. I doubt anyone here out buying tons of gasoline and setting it on fire for fun. To control the use of gas there's a price tag on it. You have to find the happy middle ground defining what you're willing to spend in mpg to drive comfortably.

If you go back about 2 decades we could probably draw the same claims for those that didn't drive a Geo Metro XFI.. but did people want to drive in a car that had issues getting up hills? How about a car w/o power steering or air conditioning? If you want to make cars "fuel efficient" it's time to completely rethink the way we're even currently building them. Toss the A/C, toss the sound dampening material, toss the power steering, shrink down the Underdive pulley, only build sticks, make it wedge shaped to reduce Coefficient Drag.. and you're probably looking at another good 15+mpg. But apparently the same people who argue for green cars will not sacrifice comfort for fuel efficiency.

MISHNAH 03-14-2013 06:55 PM

For many people, the savings in gas per year by driving an economy or mid/full-size car versus an SUV or truck comes down to $1,000-2,000 a year. For the extra comfort, safety, and carrying capacity, many people agree that it is a worthwhile cost in extra fuel usage and the cost of the vehicle.

The inconvenience factor of going to rent a truck or van when you need to buy something for your house, or paying for delivery, is another cost that many people would like to avoid.

So in the end, that big honking SUV for a family that owns a house costs only a few hundred bucks a year more than having a much-smaller car.

And yet, back in Europe, we could pile 7 people in a compact car on a road trip and just dealt with it! :lmao:

empiretc 03-14-2013 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 58228762)
But apparently the same people who argue for green cars will not sacrifice comfort for fuel efficiency.


al gore set a fine example, didn't he?

Dumpsterdiver 03-14-2013 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58228086)
FWIW, I was honestly curious. I didn't think people would be offended by it, I thought that most conservatives are anti- environmental.

Nice backhanded complement! :lmao:

Rebound 03-14-2013 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 58228500)
My family is planting a big enough garden to absorb the coal smoke from you charging your car. :wave::hug:

Done. My city's power comes from geothermal and hydro.

I don't think zero oil consumption is anyone's position. If you think it seems that way... It's not.

My boss and I both have pretty long commutes. He drives a gas guzzler... But since he carpools with another guy from the office, his mileage is really no different than mine.

Solandri 03-15-2013 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58228086)
FWIW, I was honestly curious. I didn't think people would be offended by it, I thought that most conservatives are anti- environmental.

Well to start with, no most conservatives aren't anti-environment. The problem is the environmental movement has redefined environmentalism to exclude conservatives. The original environmentalists (conservationists) were conservatives. The National Park system was begun by Teddy Roosevelt, Republican who so enjoyed hiking, riding, and hunting in the American wilderness that he was determined to preserve it for future generations. Ducks Unlimited (a hunting group founded in 1937) has bought and removed more acres of wetlands from development than all the environmental groups combined.

Conservative environmentalism = setting aside and sustaining natural land/resources for future generations to enjoy. Hunting, fishing, logging, tourism, etc is all ok, as long as you do it sustainably and preserve the land or resource for future generations.

Modern environmentalism (I'd even call it radical environmentalism) = setting aside and isolating natural land/resources from human contact. Maybe you're allowed to hike in it, but it's better if you just stay at home and view photos of it.

When I was in college, there was a ballot initiative to ban commercial gillnetting in California. I (registered Republican at the time) helped gather signatures for it. All the environmental groups were behind it, all the recreational fishing groups were behind it, most of the commercial fishing groups were behind it too (only a very small percentage used gillnets, because they're indiscriminate and create huge amounts of wasteful bycatch). During the first meeting held by the initiative authors, the representatives from the fishing groups went to talk to the representatives of the environmental groups about coordinating their efforts to get this ban passed - TV ads, mailers, passing out flyers, etc.

The environmental reps refused to even talk to the fishing reps.

Quote:

What I want to know is, why do conservatives, at least, some conservatives, think its cool to consume lots of gas? They appear to be pro-gas consumption, and I don't really understand it.
Let me flip that around on you. Why do environmentalists, at least some environmentalists, think humans shouldn't interact with the natural world? That we shouldn't use natural resources, can't harvest animals for food, shouldn't even set foot in the old growth forests we've set aside for conservation? It's like they think the world would be better off if humans didn't exist.

I understand perfectly the rationale behind government regulation of pollution. Pollution is one of those unusual tragedy of the commons situations, where the market doesn't work. If each individual picks the choice most advantageous to him, you arrive at the worst possible outcome for society overall. In these cases, regulation is needed to steer individual behavior to what will result in a better outcome for society overall. If I explain it that way to my conservative friends, they for the most part have no problem with it and agree the government needs to regulate pollution.

But that's not most environmentalists' reasoning. Their reasoning is pollution is unnatural, so we shouldn't do it. Drill for oil for energy to power our modern technological society? No, because oil causes pollution and is bad. Fertilizer to increase crop yields thus freeing up more land for other uses? Bad because excess phosphorus in runoff water upsets the ecosystem. Can I even catch some fish to feed my family? No, because the fish aren't mine and I have shouldn't be killing them period. Preserving wetlands so future generations can hunt ducks? It doesn't count as a good deed because you're doing it for the purpose of killing wild animals. There's no compromise, no room for debate with them. They have to have it exactly their way. Even if you have the same goals as them, if your reason for having that goal differs from theirs, they reject you.

When you act that unreasonably towards people with a differing opinion, they write you off as an extremist or a nutcase. They stop listening to what you have to say because nothing they do short of complete capitulation to the way you want the world to be will make you happy. That's what's happened to environmentalists in conservatives' minds. If you're not going to listen to conservatives, why in the world would you ever expect them to listen to you? This has had the unfortunate side effect of creating a great deal of suspicion and skepticism when the environmental movement gets something right (global warming).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58191438)
Why is gas guzzling good?

Because it's the only choice environmental groups have given us. The environmentalists dream of a wind and solar powered utopia is completely unrealistic from an engineering standpoint with current technology. Both are intermittent power sources so cannot power society without huge amounts of energy storage, primarily batteries. But as you're seeing with EVs, battery tech still needs decades of research before its ready to even begin storing that much power. Solar is too sparse at current efficiencies - to collect enough energy to power a street lamp through the night, you'd need a couple square meters of panels on top of each street lamp - completely impractical both from a reliability and cost-effectiveness standpoint. But that doesn't matter to environmentalists - their dream of street lamps powered by nothing but the sun is more important than any engineering explanation I can give them. Therefore they are "right" and I am "wrong."

You go down the long list of power sources, and the environmentalists say no to every single one except theirs. They've stonewalled nuclear for 40 years, despite it being the safest power source man has ever invented. They freak out over a nuclear accident caused by a once-in-a-millenia earthquake which resulted in zero radiation fatalities (estimated 50-300 long-term cancer fatalities) and evacuated 200,000. But are completely oblivious to a once-in-a-millenia hydroelectric dam accident which killed nearly 200,000, displaced 11 million, and destroyed 6 million buildings (google Banqiao). None of this matters to them because they've already made up their minds that hydro = good, nuclear = bad. Evidence, statistics, and anecdotes will not shake them from that belief. (In general of course - there are exceptions. One of the founders of Greenpeace finally realized that there are no perfect solutions, and that nuclear despite its drawbacks was the best solution we have at present. And he was promptly ostracized by the environmental groups for it.)

So we're left with their way, or the current way (coal and oil). Most conservatives would love to move to cleaner technologies (nuclear, biodiesel, geothermal, of which nuclear is the most realistic at present), but it's rejected outright by environmentalists. They block any alternative power source other than the trinity that they've blessed - hydro, wind, solar (and hydro is falling out of favor for killing fish). They've created this false dichotomy between fossil fuels or hydro/wind/solar. Then they act surprised and outraged when people reject their false choice and pick the only alternative that's left - oil and coal. Why is it ok for environmentalists to reject conservatives' alternative energy choices, but it's not ok for conservatives to reject environmentalists' alternative energy choices?

Don't get me wrong - I completely support research into improving solar and wind power. Long-term they're going to be the best power source. But those technologies are too immature right now to force their widescale adoption. They need to be researched further before that can happen. In the interim we need to be moving away from oil and coal, towards energy solutions which environmentalists have rejected but which represent the best choice at present.

If you disagree, here's an example more relevant to the topic. This silly obsession with high-mileage vehicles is wrong. 50 mpg hybrids don't help reduce gas consumption as much as people think. And people trying to make 100+ mpg vehicles are wasting their time.

You see, MPG isn't a measure of fuel consumption. It's the inverse of fuel consumption. That means when MPG is big, its effect is small. And when MPG is small, its effect is big. The real number you want to compare is GPM - gallons per x miles. If you drive 15,000 miles in a year, how much gas do you consume in different vehicles?

10 MPG Suburban = 1500 gallons
15 MPG SUV = 1000 gallons
25 MPG sedan = 600 gallons
50 MPG hybrid = 300 gallons
100 MPG research vehicle = 150 gallons
300 MPG hypothetical vehicle = 50 gallons
  • Switching from a Suburban to an SUV increases your mileage by "only" 5 MPG, but saves you 500 gallons.
  • Switching from an SUV to sedan "only" increases your mileage by 10 MPG, but saves you 400 gallons.
  • Switching from a sedan to a hybrid increases your mileage by a "whopping" 25 MPG, but only saves you 300 gallons.
  • The 100 MPG vehicle (50 MPG higher) only saves you 150 gallons over the hybrid, 450 gallons over the sedan. Yup, the 10 MPG increase for switching from a SUV to sedan saves almost as much gas the 75 MPG increase for switching from the sedan to a 100 MPG vehicle.
  • The 300 MPG vehicle (an impressive 200 MPG higher), only saves you an extra 100 gallons.

Because MPG is the inverse of fuel consumption, the highest MPG matters the least - it gives the smallest fuel savings. We shouldn't be giving government incentives for people to buy hybrids. We should be giving incentives for people to trade in their SUVs for sedans. We should be pouring research dollars into improving the efficiency of commercial trucks (or better yet, rebuilding our rail system), not creating 100 MPG vehicles.

But improving commercial trucks and paying off SUV drivers to switch doesn't reward environmentalists. For the most part they're not in the commercial trucking industry (despite nearly everything they buy being transported that way), and they never bought into the SUV craze because they were gas guzzlers. They don't think about what numbers like MPG actually mean, they just accept it without thought because it appears to support their viewpoint. So they reject these measures that would $ for $ save us more fuel, and insist on funding less effective environmentalist-friendly programs like $3000 tax breaks for buying a hybrid.

Radeck 03-15-2013 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solandri (Post 58234064)
..great stuff...

great post...thank you for that :worship:

Radeck 03-15-2013 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58228086)
FWIW, I was honestly curious. I didn't think people would be offended by it, I thought that most conservatives are anti- environmental.

well, you thought wrong, as is typical with ideologues who braod-bursh everyone with their own misconceptions and bias.

as mentioned above by others, environmentalism in its current form has devolved into a hardline, fanatic religion devoid of balance and the ability to negotiate, and has been documented to have been in the past 40 years or so infiltrated by socialists and anti-capitalists who saw it as their way to achieve their agendas...basically "green is the new red"...you dont have to take my words for it, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore said it himself after he left Green Peace after the environmentalist movement, including Green Peace itself, was hijacked by communists

Quote:

(After the Cold War 'ended')"suddenly, the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.

"A lot of those in the peace movement were anti-American and, to an extent, pro-Soviet. By virtue of their anti-Americanism, they tended to sometimes favor the communist approach. A lot of those people, a lot of those social activists, moved into the environmental movement once the peace movement was no longer relevant." Social activists, he suggests, "are now using the rhetoric of environmentalism to promote other collectivist agendas, such as class struggle -- which I personally believe is a legitimate area, but I don't believe it's legitimate to mix it up with environmentalism."
I have yet to meet ANY conservative who says 'yeehaw, lets just burn fuel and kill animals and destroy trees indiscriminate for no reason just because we want to"...that is the myth, legend and strawman / bogieman that the far-left environmentalists have built for themselves to demonize their opposition, but is completely bereft of any semblance of reality. Almost everyone respects and wants to conserve nature as much as possible, but we do not wish to do so at the cost of human advancement, health, and economic reality.

Conservationism is alive and well among the conservatives...that is NOT the same as modern day "environmentalism" which has become a chimera of socialism, eco-Marxism, and fanatic earth-worshiping religion.

Xygonn 03-15-2013 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 58226900)
Meaning?

Well if US oil is on the commodity market, then buying oil anywhere from anyone helps push up the price of US oil which helps the US oil industry. It's the exact same argument you were making that buying any oil anywhere helps prop up Middle East regimes and Venezuela.

Deusxmachina 03-15-2013 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58228086)
What I want to know is, why do conservatives, at least, some conservatives, think its cool to consume lots of gas? They appear to be pro-gas consumption, and I don't really understand it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go plug my car in.

Most of them probably only act that way but don't actually do, in order to tick off tree-hugger hippies who preach while half of them drive coal-powered cars.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Solandri (Post 58234064)
Well to start with, no most conservatives aren't anti-environment. The problem is the environmental movement has redefined environmentalism to exclude conservatives. The original environmentalists (conservationists) were conservatives. The National Park system was begun by Teddy Roosevelt, Republican who so enjoyed hiking, riding, and hunting in the American wilderness that he was determined to preserve it for future generations. Ducks Unlimited (a hunting group founded in 1937) has bought and removed more acres of wetlands from development than all the environmental groups combined.

Conservative environmentalism = setting aside and sustaining natural land/resources for future generations to enjoy. Hunting, fishing, logging, tourism, etc is all ok, as long as you do it sustainably and preserve the land or resource for future generations.

Modern environmentalism (I'd even call it radical environmentalism) = setting aside and isolating natural land/resources from human contact. Maybe you're allowed to hike in it, but it's better if you just stay at home and view photos of it.

To be a good liberal, you have to believe global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the Earth's climate and more affected by SUVs.

To be a good liberal, you have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but some activists who've never been away from sidewalks do.

If the extremist environmental groups that think humans should look but not touch are legit in their beliefs, then I assume they also believe humans should not do anything about preventing and stopping natural forest fires or whatever else.

Deusxmachina 03-15-2013 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 58240008)
We all remember a Vice Presidential candidate who repeatedly shouted, "Drill, baby, drill!" to throngs of ardent supporters. THAT is not a mis-characterization of what "conservative" is. But, as the poster pointed out, communists have taken over Greenpeace and they do not represent mainstream Democratic policies.

What's the big deal? The sooner we use up all the oil, the sooner we can all switch to "alternative energy" that so many people are pushing for and wasting tax dollars on because there isn't a compelling need for it yet. When the oil's gone, all of society will switch to something else, and everyone will be on the same page and it will cost less than trying to do it now.

Speaking of cost, if tree huggers love solar panels, and China makes cheaper solar panels than the U.S., we should be seeing those people push to buy more solar panels from China. But instead, what I see is a bunch of cronies who care more about taxpayer-funded "green" jobs than they do about actually using alternative energy.

124nic8 03-15-2013 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 58240060)
What's the big deal? The sooner we use up all the oil, the sooner we can all switch to "alternative energy" that so many people are pushing for and wasting tax dollars on because there isn't a compelling need for it yet. When the oil's gone, all of society will switch to something else, and everyone will be on the same page and it will cost less than trying to do it now.

The problem with your scenario is that scarce oil supplies will drive the cost way up and cause unnecessary economic hardship and recession/depression. It would be far better to prepare in advance than to be pushed by very high prices.

Quote:

Speaking of cost, if tree huggers love solar panels, and China makes cheaper solar panels than the U.S., we should be seeing those people push to buy more solar panels from China. But instead, what I see is a bunch of cronies who care more about taxpayer-funded "green" jobs than they do about actually using alternative energy.
Ever think that maybe China was pushed into discounting their panels by competition from US government backed corporations?

124nic8 03-15-2013 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solandri (Post 58234064)
Well to start with, no most conservatives aren't anti-environment. The problem is the environmental movement has redefined environmentalism to exclude conservatives. The original environmentalists (conservationists) were conservatives. The National Park system was begun by Teddy Roosevelt, Republican who so enjoyed hiking, riding, and hunting in the American wilderness that he was determined to preserve it for future generations.

Actually, Roosevelt, while a Republican when POTUS, was the founder of the modern progressive movement, the Progressive Party, [wikipedia.org] and would be considered to be a liberal today.

Quote:

The main work of the convention was the platform, which set forth the new party's appeal to the voters. It included a broad range of social and political reforms advocated by progressives.[9][11]





16-page campaign booklet with party platform of the Progressive Party
In the social sphere the platform called for
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited injunctions in strikes
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax

The political reforms proposed included
Women's suffrage
Direct election of Senators
Primary elections for state and federal nominations

The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy", including:
The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)

However, the main theme of the platform was an attack on the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled both established parties. The platform asserted that
To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.[12]
To that end, the platform called for
Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
The rest of your post is similarly erroneous in that you compare the most radical environmentalists with moderate conservatives. There are radical conservatives who disagree with most of your progressive points.

Cite as to mainstream environmentalists who want to keep people out of National Parks?

Deusxmachina 03-15-2013 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 58240484)
The problem with your scenario is that scarce oil supplies will drive the cost way up and cause unnecessary economic hardship and recession/depression. It would be far better to prepare in advance than to be pushed by very high prices.

Waitaminute... you're worried about the cost of oil products causing unnecessary economic hardship and recessions/depression? If I look through your past posts, I'm not going to find any agreements with Al Gore and Steven Chu about how we need to increase taxes on and increase the overall cost of oil to force people to use less of it, am I?

There are so many greenies who pray for higher taxes and higher costs on oil and gas, and they apparently don't care whom those higher prices hurt.

You're worried about higher prices causing unnecessary economic hardship, yet it sounds like you are against "drill baby drill." ?
Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 58240484)
Ever think that maybe China was pushed into discounting their panels by competition from US government backed corporations?

China fears useless companies like Solyndra? Interesting theory. Either way, I still didn't see tree huggers saying let's buy all our solar panels from China while they're cheaper. Or I suppose I should say I didn't see crony tree huggers say that. They were too busy trying to get a spot at the taxpayer-funded trough.

Dumpsterdiver 03-15-2013 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 58241216)
China fears useless companies like Solyndra? Interesting theory. Either way, I still didn't see tree huggers saying let's buy all our solar panels from China while they're cheaper. Or I suppose I should say I didn't see crony tree huggers say that. They were too busy trying to get a spot at the taxpayer-funded trough.

China is free market? :lmao:

124nic8 03-15-2013 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 58241216)
Waitaminute... you're worried about the cost of oil products causing unnecessary economic hardship and recessions/depression? If I look through your past posts, I'm not going to find any agreements with Al Gore and Steven Chu about how we need to increase taxes on and increase the overall cost of oil to force people to use less of it, am I?

No, you won't.

Quote:

There are so many greenies who pray for higher taxes and higher costs on oil and gas, and they apparently don't care whom those higher prices hurt.
It is the sudden spikes in prices that hurt the most. A long term gradual rise gives the population a chance to adjust.

Quote:

You're worried about higher prices causing unnecessary economic hardship, yet it sounds like you are against "drill baby drill." ?
I am for increased domestic supplies in combination with subsidies to get us off fossil fuels ASAP. And eventually an end to the pollution subsidy enjoyed by fossil fuels.

Quote:

China fears useless companies like Solyndra? Interesting theory.
It was China's export policies which made Solyndra "useless," so yeah, that's why they did it.

Quote:

Either way, I still didn't see tree huggers saying let's buy all our solar panels from China while they're cheaper. Or I suppose I should say I didn't see crony tree huggers say that. They were too busy trying to get a spot at the taxpayer-funded trough.
In order of preferability:

1. Domestic green production
2. Foreign green production
3. Domestic fossil fuel production
4. Foreign fossil fuel production

But I guess you see no disadvantage to foreign domination of next gen green energy production, too.

Rebound 03-15-2013 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solandri (Post 58234064)
Conservative environmentalism = setting aside and sustaining natural land/resources for future generations to enjoy. Hunting, fishing, logging, tourism, etc is all ok, as long as you do it sustainably and preserve the land or resource for future generations.

Modern environmentalism (I'd even call it radical environmentalism) = setting aside and isolating natural land/resources from human contact. Maybe you're allowed to hike in it, but it's better if you just stay at home and view photos of it.

You talk a good talk, but it is a dishonest talk.

For the past ten years, Republicans from the President on down have wanted to permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and Democrats have opposed this.

But you don't have a definition for this. If I were to believe you, I would believe that the Republican Party wants to preserve the ANWR for hunting/fishing/logging and tourism, while the Democratic Party does not want anyone to ever walk in the ANWR. But neither characterization is true.

So while there are people with the positions you describe, those positions do not reflect the GOP vs Democrat positions.

Slvrshot 03-15-2013 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony_Danza (Post 58191638)
Because the all mighty free market will push fuel efficient vehicles if that is it's will and any government regulation or intervention is the devil.

The Free Market is a Coward. It will never do what is necessary until it is completely unavoidable, and by then it is too late.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:46 PM.


1999-2014