600 mile range Federal law needed

Page 2 of 6  


high
It's cheaper for us to use the gas stations as convenient job generators for the bottom feeders than for us to run big social programs that create make-work jobs for them. The kids do pump some gas, true, but many people who might otherwise be stuck permanently on welfare have used gas pumping jobs as stepping stones to better jobs.
Considering that Oregon has practically no big corporate headquarters in it left, after all the mergers gutted the economy here, there's not a hell of a lot to the economy other than extracting money from all the multinationals that are operating here. PDX and Eugene have a few corporate headquarters left, but profits for just about every industry, including forest products, largely go out of state. The most profitable economic sectors involve separating transplanted Californians from the money they bring into the state, I'm afraid, and growing Marijuana (which I believe we still lead the nation in) The dope-growing profits all feed into the local economy since those operations are all ma-and-pa ones that are headquartered here, and we don't have the feds extracting their chunks. But just about every other industry you can name, is headquartered elseware, and corporations in those industries all carefully protect the high-paying jobs by keeping them close to their corporate offices (which aren't here)
Of course you won't find this mentioned anywhere in the economic reports! ;-) It took the oil companies a long time to figure out that the people of Oregon understood this, but once they finally did they stopped funding the self-serve initative ballot measures which kept getting defeated.
The other thing is that the majority of voters in OR live in Portland Metro and there's enough traffic to Vancouver WA for people here to be familiar with fuel prices in WA (which has self-serve) We haven't observed any difference in fuel prices in WA than over on this side of the river so the arguments that self-serve will save us money aren't believable.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

According to a skit that Saturday Night Live did a few years ago for Black History Month, Self-Service gasoline pumping was invented by a black kid - in the "historical re-enactment", when a motorist pulled up and honked his horn for gas, the kid yelled "GET IT YO' DAMN SELF!", and history was made. 8^)
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It has been on the ballet 3 separate times the last time within the last year or so, there are just to many lazy people who prefer sitting their car not getting fuel on their hands to get enough votes to resend it!
I still can't get a straight answer about why the hell they ever enacted such an asinine law... Everything from to put otherwise unemployable people to work to some misconceived idea that it may be safer...
BTW the law evidently does not apply to diesel. (weather or not a particular station knows it). I pump my own Diesel at a number of places.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

to
guys
car
people
That's the real reason - you won't find it on record anywhere though. In any case what would you rather have done with the unemployables - do you want to support them on your tax dollar? I certainly don't. For what the state government would bite out of my taxes to support the unemployables, private industry in gas stations can do it at a quarter of the cost.

That's the "official" reason that everyone knows is bullcrap. There are LOTS of official bullcrap reasons that are used all the time. For example, when Iraq needed to be invaded in order to remove a brutal human-right violator and his 2 insane sons from power, the official bullcrap reason given was WMDs which everyone with any intelligence knew at the time was a huge fat lie. Unfortunately the feeble minded that couldn't handle the truth needed some bullcrap to believe in which is why the WMD reason was dredged up to begin with. (of course, the problem now is that they can't come right out and say that the objective has been met and thus it's OK to go home, and they haven't come up with an official bullcrap reason to use to justify getting out of there that won't tear the veil to the feeble-minded and show those people that they knew the WMD reason was a lie at the time)
This is SOP for all governments, why are you upset about it?

particular
Most stations also allow motorcycle riders to fill their own tanks.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
During the hurricanes that hit Florida last year, fuel supply was an issue for several months - as it will be in Louisianna, Alabama and Mississippi. However, mandating a 600-mile range on vehicles with more federal regulation isn't the answer and didn't mean anything when you couldn't get gas in the first place. It does nothing to put in larger fuel tanks if nobody can afford to fill them, and the people who most needed to evacuate seldom had cars to begin with.
Start with something that makes more sense, like mandating that gas stations must have a way to retrieve the fuel from their in-ground tanks when the electricity fails. That makes more sense than a larger gas tank in your car.
There's going to be plenty more beaurocracy and enough federal rules and reccomendations to choke a horse when all this is done - let's concentrate on the important ones and not something that means little and is worth even less. It scares me to think of what people are going to be screaming for all in the name of public safety after this - perhaps federalizing all agencies in state and local governments, conscription, siezing personal property (boats, buses, aircraft, etc.)? Let's not make this harder and more confusingly complex than we have to by overloading it with little unimportant issues. My first prediction is that whatever spending bill to fund disaster preparedness is passed after this is all over will contain more unrelated pork than it will have money that actually gets to the people who need it in order to minimize the potential tragedies of the next major event - and you can take that prediction to the bank!
Jonathan

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

regulation
stations
Not really. Most people pay with credit or debit cards and don't carry $40 around in cash just to buy gasoline (what it costs to fill my tank) and when the power goes, those forms of payment are useless.
In any case, this is a matter better handled by the states. I'm sure that Montana doesen't have to worry much about massive hurricanes coming through and flooding it's major cities for weeks at a time.

Why? Nothing concrete was done after 911 other than invade two foreign countries, well this time there's nothing to invade.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 01:00:25 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"

Like that would stop the American Empire?
Vuarra
Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur. (That which is said in Latin sounds profound.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thank you TED !!
I don't like to see the little guy get screwed anymore than anyone else here.... however.. if there is EVER to be any "work" on alternative energy, dino power has to get up there where the alternative people have a chance to make a buck...( for the record Exxon stockholders voted against sinking money into alternative energy) ... Sorry kiddies but when there's "no change" (in something new) there isn't going to be any change or motivation to change. .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

energy,
to
motivation
That is true, but consider also that once the initial, expensive R&D has been paid for and these alternative energy industries are up and running without the need for government incentives/support/etc, if we don't see an overall, permanent decrease in the cost of energy, then really these alternative energy sources wern't worth developing.
The goal of a "solar powered car" and any other kind of alternative energy program powered car should be to be able to reduce the cost of powering the car. It shouldn't be to just replace one system with another just because someone is enraptured with a different system. Otherwise we really ought to stop bothering with screwing around with vehicle fuel and just concentrate on building plants that convert coal into gasoline, or convert biomass into gasoline, or some such.
Consider that oil AKA hydrocarbons, originally came from solar-powered plant material and solar-powered plankton growth, it should be possible to use genetic engineering to make an organism that you input sunlight and get oil out of.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi, I think it would be great to have a 600 mile range on a gas tank. I have been driving a Taurus for the last 3 years and the range for city driving is only 200 miles. The Taurus is a good car but, the most annoying thing about it is that I need to watch the "trick" gas guage so closely. Full is about a quarter inch past F. Empty, is when the needle is around the quarter mark. The needle on half means there are about 3 gallons left. People have asked me if I am sure about this and I am because even though I have never run out, I have seen the unmistakeable signs of being close to running out including sputters and the like. The issue with being able to calculate a 600 mile range though would be that it would need to rely on accurate MPG figures which are not always the case. MPGs vary based on terrain, weather and other factors.

chance
without
overall,
into
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I once had a fuel gage go out in my old Plymouth (not so) Reliant. I never new how much gas I had but I always kept track of the mileage. I know the way I drive a vehicle and I knew I could go so far before needing to fill up. This went on for almost two years, spring, summer, autumn and winter, WI to CA. Different conditions do mean different MPG but it can be compensated for if one knows his vehicle.
I also think the original poster may have meant that a 600 MPG Rating would have been under certain conditions. Look at any ad in a magazine where they claim such and such MPG. There is always the disclaimer about conditions and how you drive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
R Steenerson wrote:

You're asking for 600 miles city driving? So you want a 33 gallon tank? I don't think you would be happy with that, and when full, your milage would drop dut to the weight.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Interesting point. I think that the goal of having a 600 mile range on a car would not all be in the capacity of the gas tank. The mpg needs to be about 25 mpg and then a 24 or 25 gallon would do it. I think I remember the weight of a gallon of water is 8.3 pounds and the weight of one gallon of gas is 6.5 or 6.7 pounds. So, 6.7 x 25 would be less than 175 pounds. That is the weight of one average man or less. Hope that does not make a difference to a motor vehicle. If it does, I am not sure that I would want a vehicle like that. (30 galllons at 6.7 would be about 200 pounds.)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You're right - I assumed 200 miles on a typical intermediate car gas tank of 11 or 12 gallons, so to get 600 mile range, I tripled the gas tank size. That works out to about 18 mpg - today's car doesn't get much better than that in city driving - but that also was part of your point.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
R Steenerson wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Putney wrote:

And how much more fuel will the nation consume while hauling the extra (He said triple the size)= 24 gallons = 91 liters = 90 Kg = about 200 lb..
Sorry I should have read the previous post! (same point, different numbers)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
R Steenerson wrote:

Of course 175 pounds of weight makes a difference to a vehicle. Every extra pound takes energy to accelerate, decelerate and haul up hills.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, I am writing from Minnesota. We don't have many hills here. But, the 175 lbs is total weight for a 25 gallon gas tank, the incremental difference from say 12 gallons is not 175, but would be about 90 pounds. For better, gas mileage people are encouraged to not carry around a lot of stuff in their trunks and their is value in that but, if 90 pounds or 200 pounds affects mileage more than .3 or .5 miles per gallon I would be disappointed with my car. My basic point, is that I like the idea or having a range of 600 miles for a vehicle. Of course not all vehicles are equal either but, for cars it would be nice if they could get 25 mpg or so. However, it might be impossible to have a V-8 SUV or pickup truck with a lot of towing capacity be able to get 25 or even 20 mpg. Maybe the max there would be 16 mpg in which case the gas tank might need to be 40 gallons. For a 12,000 lb truck with 6 or 7 mpg maybe a 100 gallon tank would be unreasonable and maybe some classes of vehicles would be excluded but, I still like being able to go along way without stopping for gas a lot.

range on

to be

and
would be

Hope
not
be
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Like I already posted to this thread
My 2005 Ford F-450 4x4 Crew Cab (10,000 pounds full of fuel and unloaded) 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel carries 59 gallons of diesel (Just shy of 420 pounds of diesel fuel). (Diesel weighs about 7.1 pounds per US gallon) (Gasoline weighs about 6.2 pounds per US gallon) This truck Gets 14.5 miles per gallon. That equals 855 miles per fill up. :-) At over $3.00 per gallon, that's over $185 to fill up. :-(

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What would really make sense, is making vehicles that don't use gasoline, or at least very little of it. I say we should have cars that get 100 mpg or better. Bush gave billions of your $$$$$$ to the oil companies but should have given it to those who would find alternative fuel sources instead. Then we wouldn't be fighting wars in foreign lands for their oil, and our National Guardsmen would be home to protect our cities during a time of crises like we are seeing on the news channels 24/7.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don wrote:

Oh please!! So where was all that money for alternative energy going before Bush?
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.