A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 27th 06, 03:25 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,773
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

necromancer > wrote in
th.net:

> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Laura Bush
> murdered her boy friend shows everyone in rec.autos.driving what a
> stupid ****ing idiot it really is:
>
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Ed White wrote:
>> > > So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that
>> > > people want to buy?
>> >
>> > That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to.
>> > General
>> > Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few
>> > wanted them to keep doing it.
>> >

>>
>> Are electic cars really the answer?.

>
> Yes, it is, you ignoramus!
>
>> As many have pointed out, the nrg to run them has to come from
>> somewhere.

>
> Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was
> scuttled.....),


You're a little behind;the Dishonorable Sen.Kennedy failed to block it,it's
going ahead,last I read.(couple of days ago)


IMO,GM is ****ed because the Japs took advantage of the laws and
accumulated enough CAFE credits (by selling small cars)to avoid penalties
for a very long time,while GM just kept on making guzzlers and no
development of smaller,more efficient cars.

Again,"Detroit" just declined to compete.


I get a huge laugh out of watching people trying to drive those big SUVs
and PU trucks as if they were regular autos,especially when they try to
park them,or have to slow to a crawl to go around an ordinary 90deg corner.
Then I laugh even more at the gas station.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Ads
  #22  
Old December 27th 06, 04:27 PM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,rec.autos.driving
David Hartung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

Dave Head wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:10:12 GMT, David Hartung > wrote:
>
>> Dave Head wrote:
>>> On 27 Dec 2006 02:34:04 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>>>> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
>>>>> our troops killed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
>>>>>
>>>>> Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET
>>>>>
>>>>> DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
>>>>> would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
>>>>> trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
>>>>> General Motors (GM) executive said.
>>>> All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and
>>>> people could drive as big vehicles as they want.
>>> From all I've read, we don't have enough land to produce enough of those things
>>> to power our economy. It'd be a small supplement, but not a replacement.
>>>
>>>> Problem solved
>>> Nope. Guess again.
>>>
>>>> - and
>>>> US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas to
>>>> pay for that oil.
>>> That'd sure be nice. We need a solution, tho, that somehow makes cars
>>> effectively get 100 mpg in such a way that they're not boring and not too small
>>> and don't involve sharing space with other people or be at the mercy of someone
>>> else's driving the vehicle you're riding in, etc.
>>>
>>>> Some US drivers have already switched.
>>> A very tiny percentage. And if everybody did it, there wouldn't be enough
>>> biodiesel and alcohol to keep everyone moving like they do now.

>> http://www.changingworldtech.com/

>
> These people seem to have answers for far too many problems to be believable.
> I'm guessing they're scamming for research $$$. If they knew how to do all
> that stuff, they would, and probably wind up being richer than Gates.


http://www.res-energy.com/
  #23  
Old December 27th 06, 05:32 PM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,rec.autos.driving
Dave Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,144
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:27:45 GMT, David Hartung > wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:10:12 GMT, David Hartung > wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Head wrote:
>>>> On 27 Dec 2006 02:34:04 -0800, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>>>>> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
>>>>>> our troops killed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
>>>>>> would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
>>>>>> trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
>>>>>> General Motors (GM) executive said.
>>>>> All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and
>>>>> people could drive as big vehicles as they want.
>>>> From all I've read, we don't have enough land to produce enough of those things
>>>> to power our economy. It'd be a small supplement, but not a replacement.
>>>>
>>>>> Problem solved
>>>> Nope. Guess again.
>>>>
>>>>> - and
>>>>> US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas to
>>>>> pay for that oil.
>>>> That'd sure be nice. We need a solution, tho, that somehow makes cars
>>>> effectively get 100 mpg in such a way that they're not boring and not too small
>>>> and don't involve sharing space with other people or be at the mercy of someone
>>>> else's driving the vehicle you're riding in, etc.
>>>>
>>>>> Some US drivers have already switched.
>>>> A very tiny percentage. And if everybody did it, there wouldn't be enough
>>>> biodiesel and alcohol to keep everyone moving like they do now.
>>> http://www.changingworldtech.com/

>>
>> These people seem to have answers for far too many problems to be believable.
>> I'm guessing they're scamming for research $$$. If they knew how to do all
>> that stuff, they would, and probably wind up being richer than Gates.

>
>http://www.res-energy.com/


Looks great. Hope they get down to business and produce lotsa biodiesel. And
gasoline. We need gasoline.

Hopefully this can be used to empty the landfills and convert their contents to
something useful. Landfills seem to me to be one of the dumbest ideas of the
20th century.

Dave Head
  #24  
Old December 27th 06, 06:01 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,773
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

Dave Head > wrote in
:



> Landfills seem to me to be one of the
> dumbest ideas of the 20th century.
>
> Dave Head
>


100% agreement on that.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #25  
Old December 27th 06, 06:20 PM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,rec.autos.driving
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 655
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules


necromancer wrote:

>
>
> Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was
> scuttled.....), hydro, geothermal, nuclear, coal, natural gas or just
> about anything else that can turn a shaft.....


Yeah yeah yeah. More expensive technological solutions Just go to
smaller cars and lower speeds.

  #26  
Old December 27th 06, 06:25 PM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,rec.autos.driving
John[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules



On Dec 26, 9:20 pm, "Ed White" > wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
> > Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
> > our troops killed.

>
> >http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...-12-26-gmfuele...

>
> > GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules


>So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people
> want to buy?


The problem is that GM is NOT building the cars that people want to
buy. If they were (along with Ford and Chrysler) they wouldn't be in
such financial trouble. Look at Toyota and Honda. They are building
the cars that people want to buy and most of their cars get better
mileage than the comparable GM/Ford/Chrysler offering.

JohnED.

>And of course the politicians will keep buying gas
> guzzlers for themselves. Or maybe they will be like some of the
> hypocritical celebs who fly to events in private jets, but arrive at
> the "red carpet" in a Prius and tell everyone how concerned they are
> about the environment.
>
> If the government wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they
> should slap a hefty import duty on imported oil. But then, the Saudis
> might quit buying them off.
>
> I agree with the idea of reducing our dependednce on foreighn oil, I
> just think CAFE-like quotas are not only stupid, in the long run they
> won't work. If the government implements these stupid rules, then GM.
> Ford, and Chrysler will be hurt, and people who want large SUVs will
> just keep their old ones around longer - which will be worse for fuel
> economy, the government, and the environments, as wel as GM, Ford, and
> Chrysler.
>
> Ed


  #27  
Old December 27th 06, 06:41 PM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,rec.autos.driving
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

>>http://www.changingworldtech.com/

>
> These people seem to have answers for far too many problems to be believable.
> I'm guessing they're scamming for research $$$. If they knew how to do all
> that stuff, they would, and probably wind up being richer than Gates.


It's been done, it works. Problem is it costs more per barrel to make
than current market prices due to a host of problems in sorting out the
process for each 'batch' of feedstock and that they actually have to pay
for the waste they make the oil out of rather than getting it for free.


  #28  
Old December 27th 06, 06:42 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Brent P[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,639
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules

In article et>, necromancer wrote:

> From my understanding, just about any car in the USA right now can run
> on E-10 with no modifications. Replace 10% (or even 5%) of our gas
> consumption with ethanol sounds


Was done about 10 years ago in IL

  #29  
Old December 27th 06, 07:47 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,477
Default OT TAN: Landfill Alternatives


Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Jim Yanik > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
> >Dave Head > wrote
> >
> >> Landfills seem to me to be one of the
> >> dumbest ideas of the 20th century.

> >
> >100% agreement on that.

>
> OK, so where would you put all of that garbage that currently goes
> into landfills? Dump it into rivers, lakes, and oceans?


Quite a bit of it could be either composted or recycled.

Which reminds me, I have a composter for kitchen waste that still needs
to be assembled...

nate

  #30  
Old December 27th 06, 07:53 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,477
Default GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules


necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), said in
> rec.autos.driving:
> >
> > Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> > > Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get
> > > our troops killed.
> > >
> > > http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...leconomy_x.htm
> > >
> > > GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
> > >
> > > Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET
> > >
> > > DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards
> > > would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for
> > > trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior
> > > General Motors (GM) executive said.

> >
> > All it takes is a shift to US produced ethanol and bio-diesel and
> > people could drive as big vehicles as they want. Problem solved - and
> > US customer money also stays in the US - and not shipped overseas to
> > pay for that oil.

>
> From my understanding, just about any car in the USA right now can run
> on E-10 with no modifications. Replace 10% (or even 5%) of our gas
> consumption with ethanol sounds like a good start to me. But it would
> only be a temporary measure while we develop something else and shake
> the addiction to the black crack (oil) all together.


Not exactly. Older fuel system rubber components are not compatible
with any amount of ethanol, so all hoses would need to be replaced.
Also a carbureted vehicle will not run well on E10 no matter what. And
you will have lower fuel economy with E10 than with straight gasoline.

Obviously we have already made the decision to switch to E10 across the
board, so it's a done deal, but to say "no modifications" is not true.
Neglecting to replace the hoses on an older vehicle is a serious safety
issue. In fact, I would encourage anyone driving an older vehicle to
go ahead and replace all the rubber in the fuel system with new even if
it looks OK on the outside because modern fuel can cause some rubbers
to decompose into a tarry goo that doesn't do a very good job of
holding pressurized fuel.

I actually know of a kid that had an old Lark that he fixed up for a
driver; it burned to the ground when one of his fuel hoses sprung a
leak. He'd actually been proactive and replaced the few small sections
of rubber line, but when he looked at the leftovers it had an old date
code. It apparently had been sitting on the shelf in the parts store
for a while Don't let this happen to you...

FWIW it seems that auto parts stores have become aware of this issue
and if you go into a parts store today likely you won't even see the
old style fuel line anymore. All they are selling now is the heavier,
higher-pressure "fuel injection" hose, and they appear to generally
have very current date codes as well.

nate

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
L98: starts, but won't keep running. Dave Gee Corvette 15 October 22nd 05 08:43 PM
Can 02 Mustang show which cylinder misfires on scanner? John Shepardson Ford Mustang 3 August 29th 05 03:40 AM
High Gas Prices Fuel an Octane Rebellion MrPepper11 Driving 434 August 18th 05 12:25 AM
DaimlerChrysler Commits Over $70 Million to Fuel Cell Shrike Dodge 0 March 30th 05 09:03 PM
Change in fuel economy with roof racks on A4 Avant? Robert Audi 7 August 7th 04 11:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.