As someone who bought a TDI when it was the only game in town and quite enjoy it, I am looking forward to even more diesels to choose from.
Thanks for the link, should have known it was the CARB. I'm assuming a bit here, but as I understand it Canada is not nearly as tough on NO2 as CARB and New York state, and having two N/A models I guess was just too much.
Now if they only made the Jetta a little prettier, maybe some competition will help that and I really like the engineering on Honda's too so let's see how all that shapes up. Till then I think the bike is where it's at for good gas milage for me, with my other three vehicals all V8s these days gas milage is *almost* becoming a consideration.
I have a Civic Hybrid. I drive over 100 miles a day commuting to and from work. If I did not drive as far as I do, the price difference in the Hybrid and the regular Civic would not be worth it.
I don't think just making alternative fuel vehicles is the answer until they also are cost effective. I don't own a Hybrid to be green. I own it to save money on my commute. At 47.6 MPG (my latest fill up) I am saving money.
marvmarcy wrote: If my rig with 14 tires, standing 13' tall, 60' long, 8' wide, weighing 36,000lbs can get 9 mpg at 65mph, why can't a car/truck with 4 tires, standing 5' tall, 20' long, 6' wide, weighing 3,600 lbs get much better than 35mpg? My scooter with two adults on board at 40mph gets 80mpg. Just something to think about.
I agree that alternative fuels and hybrids/electrics are much more logical for small personal vehicles rather than forcing the continued use of fossil fuels.
JMHO
Marv
This is exactly what I have been wondering for years.
donn0128 wrote: It is really interesting that one branch of our government says the manufacturers MUST get better economy and another branch tells them that they MUST use alternative fuels. When I burn E85 I see a 10% reduction in fuel economy over regular gasoline. Alternative fuels while nice sounding today are not a viable alternative. Burning Bio fuels has reduced the amount of food available for third world countries. So now we are starving people to make a cleaner environment? When will this sort of madness end?
People in 3rd world countries starve because of their local politics and greed, not because of the relatively small of amount of "food" being used for biofuel. Do a little research on places like Bangledesh and Ethiopia. Then read up on E-85 production and sources, both in the US and other countries. E-85 in this country is poorly produced and is being used in engines designed for an entirely different type of fuel. Not viable today, but the future is interesting.
GM has invested in a company that is making ethonal from garbage. Other companies are experimenting with other new production methods. MIT scientists are playing with engines designed from the ground up to use E-85. Time will tell of course.
Chuck D.
'03 Jayco Kiwi 17a, '03 Chevy Trailblazer EXT, Garmin Nuvi 200 GPS
Photography is my obsession: http://coldwater.smugmug.com/
“Adventure is just bad planning.” - Roald Amundsen
In 2006, 17% of all corn grown in the US was converted to ethanol. That is 1,800 million bushels of corn. I do not think 17% is a relatively low amount of food used for fuel. Using food to produce fuel is reprehensible. Other bio stuffs can be converted to fuel without taking food from a starving child in the third world. One acre of switchgrass can produce 1000 gallons of ethanol. One acre of corn produces 400 gallons of ethanol. You do the math. If we use corn we reduce the earths population through starvation. If we use switchgrass, that does not happen.
RetiredbutWorking wrote: In 2006, 17% of all corn grown in the US was converted to ethanol. That is 1,800 million bushels of corn. I do not think 17% is a relatively low amount of food used for fuel. Using food to produce fuel is reprehensible. Other bio stuffs can be converted to fuel without taking food from a starving child in the third world. One acre of switchgrass can produce 1000 gallons of ethanol. One acre of corn produces 400 gallons of ethanol. You do the math. If we use corn we reduce the earths population through starvation. If we use switchgrass, that does not happen.
Like I said, do your research. What percentage of that 17% would have gone to a 3rd world country? I don't know the exact answer, but I would say none. The corn used in ethanol production is cow corn, not intended or sold to feed people. Not to mention, a lot of our food comes from overseas. Where else do we get fresh produce from in January? I agree, there are better ways to do this (reread my other post). But lets say we do use switchgrass, would fields used for corn be used for this instead? Would that impact the food supply? Maybe. Maybe not. Again, I don't know the answer anymore than you do. All I'm pointing out is that people are too easily led my the media and the propoganda pushed by proponants of both sides of the issue.
As someone who bought a TDI when it was the only game in town and quite enjoy it, I am looking forward to even more diesels to choose from.
Thanks for the link, should have known it was the CARB. I'm assuming a bit here, but as I understand it Canada is not nearly as tough on NO2 as CARB and New York state, and having two N/A models I guess was just too much.
Now if they only made the Jetta a little prettier, maybe some competition will help that and I really like the engineering on Honda's too so let's see how all that shapes up. Till then I think the bike is where it's at for good gas milage for me, with my other three vehicals all V8s these days gas milage is *almost* becoming a consideration.
The politicians now have religion when it comes to this stuff, they no longer have to think it through. According to Transport Canada my 1.9 liter TDI emits 25% less CO2 than the same car with a 2 liter gas engine but my Premier and his advisor's have decided to put a carbon tax on fuels according to their carbon content, meaning diesel is being taxed at a higher rate than gas. I am being penalized for emitting less.
CARB and New York are doing the same thing. By setting arbitrarily low NO2 rates they are disqualifying a class of vehicles which emit substantially less CO2.
You have to wonder what exactly it is that they are trying to do and I don't have a lot of faith in them getting it right. Right now market forces are doing far more to change people's habits than any Mickey Mouse social engineering initiatives they can dream up.
The current Jetta's styling has grown on me. I didn't like it at first. The new wagon looks pretty good. They have done a really nice job of the back end which is the worst feature of the sedan IMO. Looking forward to see what Honda and others will have to offer.
"Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice" WSC
coloradodave wrote: Personally I think the new standards are a joke, 2015 and 2020? C'mon, they should be able to do that now, or at least in the next year or two. ..............snip.........
And how would you propose they do that? (And stay within the EPA regs). I'm sure GM Ford and Chrysler would be all ears to your serious (not snake oil) proposals. What do you think they've been trying to do for the last 25 years with Fuel Injection, cylinder deactivation, aerodynamics, hybrids, 6 speed transmissions etc?
After all they would rather NOT pay the gas-guzzler tax penalties.
From one who's seen the efforts that have gone into improving as mileage at one of the big 3.
Keith J, Retired from GM Engineering
2005 GMC Sierra 2500HD SLE 2WD/CC/SB/DA.
1999 Sunnybrook 27RKFS Fiver
Bilsteins, Line-X, Westin steps, Prodigy, Retrax, 16K Superglide, 5th-Airborne pin-box, Multi-vex mirrors.
(quote ) Like I said, do your research. What percentage of that 17% would have gone to a 3rd world country? I don't know the exact answer, but I would say none. The corn used in ethanol production is cow corn, not intended or sold to feed people. ( quote )
Cows eat corn we eat beef and we drink and eat milk products.So who do you think pays for the corn the farmer feeds the cows?Not counting the fact that your mileage will be lower on ethanol gas fuel so where is the savings of oil.The only thing you are doing is paying more per mile you drive than you would on 100 percent gas.The only thing ethanol will do is help get water out of your fuel tank as in the past you would pore a can of Solox paint thiner in your gas tank when you had water in the tank.
Wink
* This post was
last
edited 04/30/08 02:42pm by winkyb *
View edit history
coloradodave wrote: Personally I think the new standards are a joke, 2015 and 2020? C'mon, they should be able to do that now, or at least in the next year or two. And the credit for using E85, thats a joke, as well. As just about anyone who has used it indicates a reduction in power and mileage. and at what expense, growing crops for fuel instead of food. All thats done is spike the cost of food, and create world wide shortages of food. For no real savings in pollutants.
You make some really good points - One thing I might add and I truly believe is that part of the reason that gas prices are on the rise is because of the ethanol. The big gas companies are not interested in building more refineries because they say that ethanol will replace 10% of the supply demand so what's the sense in building more plants to refine standard gas?
2006 Chevy Silverado 4x4 SB Crew Cab
2004 32DS All American Sport Toy Hauler
Offline
