Re: 600 mile range Federal law needed

ya but at what point do you stop paying to transport gas around. 1st rule of fuel economy drive light on the peddle and make sure the car is
light. I can't recall how much 1 gallon of gas weighs in at. nor can I recall how many lbs of weight removal = increase of available horsepower. point being is driving around with nearly 2 times the amount of fuel = 2 times the amount of weight there for fuel economy would suffer. and would ppl pay $60 to fill a dodge neon. nope better off driving with 1/2 tank just like it is now.

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

It's not finding the sources that's the problem, go outside and look up and there it is. It's developing the alternative ones that have an ongoing cost of operation that's cheaper than just digging oil up out of the ground.
Consdier also that if the US ever seriously did that, that the Mid East oil producers could easily drop the price of a barrel of oil down to $5 a barrel or some such - they might have to give up a few solid gold bathroom fixtures to do it - for long enough to make sure that such alternative sources would be throughly quashed.
Oil production is like diamond production. It's rediculously cheap and a massive conspiracy called OPEC exists to make sure it stays expensive, in order to bleed as much money as possible out of consumers.
Last I checked raw sunlight is free - in fact in most homes we spend a lot of money getting rid of what we call "waste heat" via air conditioning that is generated by that sunlight falling on those homes. It is simply a matter of converting all that free energy into a more usable and storable form. Once someone invents a photovoltiac solar cell that has an efficiency on the order of 80% instead of the miserable 15-20% today, we already have zinc-air battery technology available that could make use of that.
There's some promising research on 50% efficient solar cells here:
http://trnmag.com/Stories/2002/121102/Material_soaks_up_the_sun_121102.html
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

No - our politicians (and apparently those in Europe) would just tax it more.
Remember that Beatles song "The Taxman" that I quoted a few weeks ago: "...Take a walk and I'll tax your feet..."
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

They can go ahead and tax my feet. Just so long as I'm not working my life away to pay for some Arab.
We need independence from foreign oil.
Don't be so pig-headed and admit that your boy bush is a mistake.
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.