This is the best (IMHO) objective and non-partisan take on the subject I've found:
formatting link
's worth everyone's time to read it. I especially like this snippet:
Global warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased since about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called "Industrial Revolution,"-- caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere causing a runaway "Greenhouse Effect." Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!
It's good that you see the clear reason why the legislation was signed. I think you're a bit one-sided in your global outlook though because you clearly illustrate only the wealthy will be able to afford to buy gas and it will push the rest of the 99% out. The underlying argument seems to be that the market drive everything but people in the US with your mindset think America is the only country that consumes oil for the production of gas for cars. You are NOT factoring in the exponential growth occurring in other developing countries.
Blah Blah Blah, here come the big bad government always telling us what to do and when to do it. The legislation ultimately does not to tell US what to do, it just sets challenges to what the auto industry already knows it has to do but will ONLY do if dragged kicking and screaming. According to your philosophy, if left to their own devices, the automakers would ditch all large cars and make small cars. Auto makers have NO incentive to make small cars because they make gobs of money from their LARGE vehicles. They will continue to focus on the BIG money maker, not the chump change compact cars. But lately, all I see are recalls and auto-makers going in the toilet because people aren't buying the large cars. The large car bubble has burst from what I can tell. At least until gas comes back down to what it was pre_Iraq War.
Yes, improving vehicles efficiency is a challenge. Every year, science proves you CAN do more. You CAN push the limit a bit further. You CAN improve upon what's already current. I am constantly reading about grad and Ph. D. students figuring out some tweak to the engine to improve it a bit more. Some improved engine component is made to squeeze out a little bit more. I am very aware of the limit of the carbon atom.
I am just waiting for the whole outside of all cars to be made out of plastic like bumpers back 10 years ago. The styrofoam beneath was a nice touch too. That's always made me feel safer. The car makers will cut any and all corners to meet that magic MPG ratio based on vehicle size and weight. I noticed at the Chicago auto show the new "smaller" Hummer sure looks like it's made out of a hell of a lot of plastic. Gee, wonder why? This is the little game they have to play to sloooooowly introduce the idea that plastic is safe for more than just bumpers, wheel well, and quarter panels. All the plastic in the world cannot save them though, try as they might. But it is to their benefit you see, plastic IS, after all, a petroleum product. And the circle goes round and round and round....
Yes, this is true. Innovations and technological tweaking continues to squeeze more out the IC engine. Variable intake seems to be the new big thing for 2008.
Reinforced by this fact, the 2007/2008 4-cyl Sonata not only has MORE horsepower than my 2002 6-cyl, it get's better mileage! When my 2002 dies or I sell it off or trade in, I will be looking forward to what
Fair enough, but let's not get public health issues mixed up with economic issues.
Physics dictates how much work a gallon of gasoline can perform. With the old technology, we weren't too close to that. Newer engines are actually getting pretty close. To get any *significant* MPG boosts, we'll have to drop not hundreds, but thousands of pounds from our current family sedans. If my 3.3L Sonata weighed 2400 instead of 3400 pounds, it could easily get 35 mpg (if geared accordingly). A little aerodynamics, and sacrifice a little less interior room, and I bet she gets 45mpg. It's not as much the engine as the car.
Agree! Plug-in hybrids are the way to go... until something better comes along.
I hear you. They love to stick new charges on the window sticker. :) -
I'm sure we're irritating the piss out of the general group who are discussing Hyundais but whether we agree or not, I like a good debate and discussion. It's all good.
I'm not sure where you're getting this "luxury" car thing from as I never injected it into the conversation. I guess our definitions of luxury cars differ? I can tell from the way you choose to word things in terms of cars that it's partially an aesthetic choice as opposed to practical or pragmatic. I feel most people make choices based on their budget and their overall intended purpose. The average adult is, what,
8K in financial debt (credit or otherwise)? Most people have sense enough to stick within their economic means.
Now, the 99% I am talking about is the "99%" that was referred to in the discussion about "the wealthiest 1% of American's have more wealth than the combined 99% of all Americans." THOSE 99%. Not the 99%, as in "everybody else." I didn't make that clear. I was still following on the tail end of the earlier discussions of those wealthy enough to afford $15 gas prices from a few posts ago that would put gas out of the reach of the rest of the "99%." That should be more on target with what I really mean. Clear as mud?
Ok, I got you on this one. A few months back there was heated debate on this exact same topic on this exact same car. Someone attempted, and failed, to tell me gas today had never been as high, even adjusted for inflation. I am old enough to remember the Arab Oil Embargo of the early 70s (1973 to be exact,
formatting link
and that gas, adjustedfor inflation, topped our highest per-barrel costs in recent months.The Energy Tax Act came about as a direct result of that
formatting link
The car makers scrambling to make smaller cars was, in my interpretation, a result of the Arab Oil Embargo and the economic climate of the time. While it did take nearly 6 years for the Energy Tax Act to be signed into law (1978) after gas prices went nuts in the late 70s and early 80s, it at least set the precedent that car makers WERE willing to work with the government to find a middle-ground solution for both the oil side and the economic side of the problem. Today, I feel you have to hold a gun to their head. Sanatayana said it best: "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
I kind of see the legislation that Bush signed as a bit of prodding being done against the car makers. Back in the 70s, I don't feel they needed to be prodded. They saw what needed to be done and stepped up to the challenge.
Well, it's funny you mention sacrifice. This is exactly what someone was talking about on NPR as I carpooled with my wife this morning. Just 1 generation ago, people knew what it meant to sacrifice a little both for themselves and their country. I don't see that so much now. At least not in the generation growing up. In terms of sacrifice, can you imagine if people had to ration rubber and metal like they did during the early World Wars? Our senior citizens who had to deal with this type of situation would be laughing at how much a bunch of Sally's people have become.
Using science to created stronger alloys and make better use of metals in car could yield some weight reductions. Ultimately it all does fall on the shoulder of the engine and it's power. We're also seeing a lot of new technology being put into cars now that wasn't there 10 years ago: Nav systems, full cabin air bags, multi speaker arrays, DVD players and screens, etc. That stuff adds to the aggregate weight. It's starting to become standard on some models. 5 years from now, who knows.
Hey, I'll take the 2 more miles to the gallon from tweaking if the technology tweak stays in the design. For someone who might be buying their first new car and expect it to last them a good 5-10 years with good maintenance, the 2 mile per gallon savings could sure add up over the long term and afford them a better vehicle down the road.
Nerf car? Better patent the name before Toyota does! You might retire on the royalties or something. Yes, it will be interesting to see what will be on the roads in 2025. The trend to use plastics on bumpers is probably to increase aero dynamism I would surmise. I can't imagine it being easy to make a metal cast of the crazy bumper designs we see today. It MUST be easier to cast it in plastic. I hope the automakers do rise to the challenge. Hopefully recruit some young minds coming out of school to put their minds to work on the problem. Cheers.
Reply to message from "Edwin Pawlowski" (Wed, 06 Feb 2008
20:55:27) about "Re: Wow! How about that new Genesis!":
EP> Lost me too.
EP> No, I did not and will not see Gore's film. Considering his lifestyle EP> and how he wants the rest of us to live, he is just a blowhard EP> politician hypocrite. He has zero respect and credibility with me. EP> When he moves into a 2 bedroom ranch home, give me a call and we'll EP> talk.
Guess those numbskulls who gave him the Nobel Prize are a bunch of idiots who should have known better and consulted us learned folks on a Hyundai NNTP newsgroup - us who initially started off discussing a nice car before flying off at a tangent arguing about redneck philosophy, global warming, politics, and what not.
I move that we detour yet again and weave religion into the mix, and while there discuss abortion.
:-D
Best Regards Wayne Moses Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:42:30 -0600
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.