 | |
CAFE standards controlled by our Government? Can someone explain why?
Ford Vehicles Discussions About Ford Cars (alt.autos.ford)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: CAFE standards controlled by our Government? Can someone explain why? -
04-21-2007
, 08:46 PM
|
I have posted many times on the fallacy of setting dates certain to meet improved government automotive standards, beside I get paid for teaching a class. For a person that tries to speak on every subject, like they know what they are talking about, one would think you would know what I was talking about. Apparently you do not want to do what is necessary to learn the subject matter before commenting on the subject  |
meaning of the first digit.
Quote:
|
mike "Jeff" <news (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:SmuWh.183$1M1.140 (AT) trnddc01 (DOT) .. "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2 (AT) mailcity (DOT) com> wrote in message news:3tmdnRzkrPbK87fbnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d (AT) ptd (DOT) net... Need I say do you own homework? Actually, I was asking for a clarification on your terminology. Too bad you don't want to communicate your ideas more clearly, especially when one asks, very politly, for a clarifcation. You did not take advantage of an oppurtunity to make a case for your arguement. Jeff mike "Jeff" <news (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:GTtWh.176$1M1.112 (AT) trnddc01 (DOT) .. "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2 (AT) mailcity (DOT) com> wrote in message news:Y4mdnRyRe50V9bfbnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d (AT) ptd (DOT) net... It is ALWAYS better to set ATTAINABLE goals than to set date certain demands to be met. The market place will take care of who sells what. Witness the date certain set by the original emission and CAFE standards in the past. As a retire automotive engineer I can assure you in reality if given a goal for the market to meet, rather than date certain demands, we would have the safer, cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles available on the market today, ten to fifteen years sooner. I would like to reiterate that I think the government should set the goals, but not specify the technology. If one car makers wans to use clean diesel engines, natural gas, and hybrids, then let them use whatever technology they want to achieve the goals. However, what is the difference between setting a goal and dating certain demands? Jeff mike "Bob Brown" <.> wrote in message news:gcek23tp2i1eee9jrbihb4t1n22elpfpnr (AT) bbb (DOT) org... I've noticed that CAFE's don't get raised very often, or maybe I don't pay careful attention when they DO raise them? Nevertheless, why can't we raise the CAFE standards on a fixed interval of time? Why can't we make it a goal that we ALWAYS raise the CAFE every 2 years and make the new CAFE announced to be for cars made in the 4th year after the announcement? Obviously the CAFE would exceed the possibilities of a gasoline engine at some point thus forcing car makers to go to hybrids or, my favorite, hydrogen powered cars. Since it is clear that the private sector has no plans to mass produce affordable hydrogen cars, shouldn't we force them? All the current gasoline producers would follow suit and, over time, change the gas stations to a blend of gasoline pumps and hydrogen filling stations. I really don't see why this is so hard or why everyone keeps talking about the "conversion cost" being extreme to the end consumer. The PRIUS as I understand has a superior MPG to standard gasoline-only powered cars. I'm also lead to believe their is a back order on the PRIUS. I'm told to get a PRIUS you have to get in line and get on the waiting list. If this is true then it seems logical that a very high CAFE would force toyota to produce MANY more Prius than now, making the waiting list disappear. I'm sure someone might correct me on the Science or MPG benefits, CO2 emission savings or even correct me on the conversion factor but I would be more than willing to be educated on this topic. I am more than willing to be wrong on this subject. I am also more than willing to have my ass handed to me as long as it is based on the mathematics and economic variables I have overlooked in this post. Let me have it folks. p.s. I suspect I will get either no replies or replies based purely on emotion. Please make me wrong on both points? p.s.s. Yes I know his is a FORD newsgroup but I thought this NG would be proper since MANY of you seem to have your heads on straight as opposed to those "general newsgroups" related to this topic. Many of those NG's are filled with political witch hunts having nothing to do with whether these ideas are workable. p.s.s.s If you can inform me of a more proper NG then please do so. Even if no one replies to this post, at least I got this off my chest. Good day to you all. |
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2 (AT) mailcity (DOT) com> wrote in message news:Y4mdnRyRe50V9bfbnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d (AT) ptd (DOT) net... It is ALWAYS better to set ATTAINABLE goals than to set date certain demands to be met. The market place will take care of who sells what. Witness the date certain set by the original emission and CAFE standards in the past. As a retire automotive engineer I can assure you in reality if given a goal for the market to meet, rather than date certain demands, we would have the safer, cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles available on the market today, ten to fifteen years sooner. I would like to reiterate that I think the government should set the goals, but not specify the technology. If one car makers wans to use clean diesel engines, natural gas, and hybrids, then let them use whatever technology they want to achieve the goals. However, what is the difference between setting a goal and dating certain demands? Jeff mike "Bob Brown" <.> wrote in message news:gcek23tp2i1eee9jrbihb4t1n22elpfpnr (AT) bbb (DOT) org... I've noticed that CAFE's don't get raised very often, or maybe I don't pay careful attention when they DO raise them? Nevertheless, why can't we raise the CAFE standards on a fixed interval of time? Why can't we make it a goal that we ALWAYS raise the CAFE every 2 years and make the new CAFE announced to be for cars made in the 4th year after the announcement? Obviously the CAFE would exceed the possibilities of a gasoline engine at some point thus forcing car makers to go to hybrids or, my favorite, hydrogen powered cars. Since it is clear that the private sector has no plans to mass produce affordable hydrogen cars, shouldn't we force them? All the current gasoline producers would follow suit and, over time, change the gas stations to a blend of gasoline pumps and hydrogen filling stations. I really don't see why this is so hard or why everyone keeps talking about the "conversion cost" being extreme to the end consumer. The PRIUS as I understand has a superior MPG to standard gasoline-only powered cars. I'm also lead to believe their is a back order on the PRIUS. I'm told to get a PRIUS you have to get in line and get on the waiting list. If this is true then it seems logical that a very high CAFE would force toyota to produce MANY more Prius than now, making the waiting list disappear. I'm sure someone might correct me on the Science or MPG benefits, CO2 emission savings or even correct me on the conversion factor but I would be more than willing to be educated on this topic. I am more than willing to be wrong on this subject. I am also more than willing to have my ass handed to me as long as it is based on the mathematics and economic variables I have overlooked in this post. Let me have it folks. p.s. I suspect I will get either no replies or replies based purely on emotion. Please make me wrong on both points? p.s.s. Yes I know his is a FORD newsgroup but I thought this NG would be proper since MANY of you seem to have your heads on straight as opposed to those "general newsgroups" related to this topic. Many of those NG's are filled with political witch hunts having nothing to do with whether these ideas are workable. p.s.s.s If you can inform me of a more proper NG then please do so. Even if no one replies to this post, at least I got this off my chest. Good day to you all. |
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
Might I add that the banning of CFC's was date certain, not technology or business driven. You either did it or paid the fines. I'm NOT saying this would work in all industries but it is one example that did work [except in all other countries who banned CFC's when they decided] |
But DID the above work?
Seems to me that I've read that the replacement refrigerants are
equally harmful and are about to be also banned....
Government often imposes standards that are too much and occur too
fast before the science has been worked out.
Remember the U.S.'s EPA mandating MTBE as a gasoline additive despite
the warnings from scientists?
As for hydrogen as a widepread fuel source.... it will never happen,
at least not without some new technology.
It takes more energy to isolate the hydrogen than is available from
its use. Unless some revolutionary breakthrough process is discovered,
the main way to generate free hydrogen is from the electrolysis of
water breaking it down into free hydrogen and oxygen.
However the energy to perform this separation has to come from
somewhere. WHERE?
Things are rarely as simple or as easy as most folks believe....
Doug
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:05:36 -0400, Bob Brown <.> wrote: Might I add that the banning of CFC's was date certain, not technology or business driven. You either did it or paid the fines. I'm NOT saying this would work in all industries but it is one example that did work [except in all other countries who banned CFC's when they decided] But DID the above work? Seems to me that I've read that the replacement refrigerants are equally harmful and are about to be also banned.... Government often imposes standards that are too much and occur too fast before the science has been worked out. Remember the U.S.'s EPA mandating MTBE as a gasoline additive despite the warnings from scientists? As for hydrogen as a widepread fuel source.... it will never happen, at least not without some new technology. It takes more energy to isolate the hydrogen than is available from its use. Unless some revolutionary breakthrough process is discovered, the main way to generate free hydrogen is from the electrolysis of water breaking it down into free hydrogen and oxygen. However the energy to perform this separation has to come from somewhere. WHERE? as most folks believe.... Doug |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:05:36 -0400, Bob Brown <.> wrote: Might I add that the banning of CFC's was date certain, not technology or business driven. You either did it or paid the fines. I'm NOT saying this would work in all industries but it is one example that did work [except in all other countries who banned CFC's when they decided] But DID the above work? Seems to me that I've read that the replacement refrigerants are equally harmful and are about to be also banned.... Government often imposes standards that are too much and occur too fast before the science has been worked out. Remember the U.S.'s EPA mandating MTBE as a gasoline additive despite the warnings from scientists? As for hydrogen as a widepread fuel source.... it will never happen, at least not without some new technology. It takes more energy to isolate the hydrogen than is available from its use. Unless some revolutionary breakthrough process is discovered, the main way to generate free hydrogen is from the electrolysis of water breaking it down into free hydrogen and oxygen. However the energy to perform this separation has to come from somewhere. WHERE? Things are rarely as simple or as easy as most folks believe.... Doug |
newsgroups and go toe to toe with them on what they consider important
and possible with regard to the "global warming" craze.
I'm so sick of reading and hearing about global warming and how man is
100% responsible and those doom and gloom predictions; ignoring that
the 1970s claim of global cooling NEVER HAPPENED.
I really wish some of you here, since you seem far smarter than those
idiots who worship at global warming, would go to those political
groups...
I've used logic, common sense and it doesn't seem to matter to them.
Al gore said it so therefore it's the truth because after all he won
an oscar [which he didn't]
anyways...
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:24:14 -0400, Doug <sparks06524nospam (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:05:36 -0400, Bob Brown <.> wrote: Might I add that the banning of CFC's was date certain, not technology or business driven. You either did it or paid the fines. I'm NOT saying this would work in all industries but it is one example that did work [except in all other countries who banned CFC's when they decided] But DID the above work? Seems to me that I've read that the replacement refrigerants are equally harmful and are about to be also banned.... Government often imposes standards that are too much and occur too fast before the science has been worked out. Remember the U.S.'s EPA mandating MTBE as a gasoline additive despite the warnings from scientists? As for hydrogen as a widepread fuel source.... it will never happen, at least not without some new technology. It takes more energy to isolate the hydrogen than is available from its use. Unless some revolutionary breakthrough process is discovered, the main way to generate free hydrogen is from the electrolysis of water breaking it down into free hydrogen and oxygen. However the energy to perform this separation has to come from somewhere. WHERE? Things are rarely as simple or as easy as most folks believe.... Doug I wish you guys in this newsgroup would visit some of the political newsgroups and go toe to toe with them on what they consider important and possible with regard to the "global warming" craze. I'm so sick of reading and hearing about global warming and how man is 100% responsible and those doom and gloom predictions; ignoring that the 1970s claim of global cooling NEVER HAPPENED. I really wish some of you here, since you seem far smarter than those idiots who worship at global warming, would go to those political groups... I've used logic, common sense and it doesn't seem to matter to them. |
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
The PRIUS as I understand has a superior MPG to standard gasoline-only powered cars. I'm also lead to believe their is a back order on the PRIUS. I'm told to get a PRIUS you have to get in line and get on the waiting list. If this is true then it seems logical that a very high CAFE would force toyota to produce MANY more Prius than now, making the waiting list disappear |
incentives on the Prius. And Prius sales are way up. However, the main
advantage of the Prius is stop and go driving. For open road driving,
there are non-hybrid choices that are just as good that don't involve
battery packs, electric motors and complicated control systems.
Ed
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Bob Brown" <.> wrote in message news:gcek23tp2i1eee9jrbihb4t1n22elpfpnr (AT) bbb (DOT) org... The PRIUS as I understand has a superior MPG to standard gasoline-only powered cars. I'm also lead to believe their is a back order on the PRIUS. I'm told to get a PRIUS you have to get in line and get on the waiting list. If this is true then it seems logical that a very high CAFE would force toyota to produce MANY more Prius than now, making the waiting list disappear The waiting list have disappeared and Toyota is even offering incentives on the Prius. And Prius sales are way up. However, the main advantage of the Prius is stop and go driving. For open road driving, there are non-hybrid choices that are just as good that don't involve battery packs, electric motors and complicated control systems. Ed |
(city/highway) while the Camry hybrid gets 40/38, or 4 mpg better on the
highway. The Civic gets 30/40 while the Civic Hybrid gets 49/51, or 11 mpg
better on the highway. The hybrids benefit from the technology used to get
better fuel mileage, even at highway speeds.
So while the main advantage of hybrids is in stop and go or city driving,
they also improve highway mileage. Whether or not hybrids or non-hybrids are
a better choice depends on the mix of highway and stop and go traffic
(which, around LA and NYC, are the same thing sometimes) and the other cars
being considered. If your concern is for the environment, also note that the
hybrid systems also require special batteries that have environmental costs
when they are made, just like everything else.
Jeff
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Bob Brown" <.> wrote in message news:gcek23tp2i1eee9jrbihb4t1n22elpfpnr (AT) bbb (DOT) org... The PRIUS as I understand has a superior MPG to standard gasoline-only powered cars. I'm also lead to believe their is a back order on the PRIUS. I'm told to get a PRIUS you have to get in line and get on the waiting list. If this is true then it seems logical that a very high CAFE would force toyota to produce MANY more Prius than now, making the waiting list disappear The waiting list have disappeared and Toyota is even offering incentives on the Prius. And Prius sales are way up. However, the main advantage of the Prius is stop and go driving. For open road driving, there are non-hybrid choices that are just as good that don't involve battery packs, electric motors and complicated control systems. Ed |
war-protester types who cry about global warming all the time while
they drive less than 10 miles to a box every day to work under the AC.
Those people don't know it's 90F outside unless the AC breaks down and
then they all complain, like it's abnormal for it to EVER be 90F
outside.
I'm just saying, I am not fooled by the "type" of person who is 90% of
the target market for the Prius.
If anyone thinks this isn't true then can you disagree that Cadillac's
are targeted toward OLD PEOPLE? Or at least "older" people??
I remember a news story that rated cars as how likely the owner was
gay. They said the Suburu outback was #1 lesbian car and at the
precise moment I read that my mind reflected on all the lesbians I
knew who drove that exact car.
I forgot what the gay-guy car was but it was one of those
small-cracker-jack-coffin sized cars, the 0.009 Liter engine ones.
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
I disagree with Ed a little bit. The Toyota Camry 4.cyl gets 24/34 mpg (city/highway) while the Camry hybrid gets 40/38, or 4 mpg better on the highway. The Civic gets 30/40 while the Civic Hybrid gets 49/51, or 11 mpg better on the highway. The hybrids benefit from the technology used to get better fuel mileage, even at highway speeds. |
On a MPG/Cost of car, ratio, how do those cars rank?
1
2
3
etc
I ask because I can find a 15 yr old 200K miles car in the newspaper
for $900 and it would get no more than 12MPG. So my MPG/Cost of car
ratio would kick some ass.
With a new car around $20K, and my imaginary car costing $900, do you
realize how many gallons of gas I could buy with $19,100 ? How many
miles could I get @ my 12MPG? In the long run, even 5 years or longer,
I would win in money saved. I don't see how this could even be
disagreed on.
Get the calc.exe handy please.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.