|
General » rec.autos.driving » Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again..
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794426] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 20:02 |
|
On Feb 15, 1:51=A0pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "N8N" <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > I can't imagine something that tall, narrow and short being "pleasant"
> > at least not enough to make me want to give up my current vehicle.
>
> =A0 I suppose that's because you are use to AmeriKKKan made pieces of garb=
age.
Last I checked, Porsches and VWs weren't made in the US. I do have a
Studebaker however, which is a perfectly respectable American car.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794729 ] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 18:51 |
|
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com>
> Last I checked, Porsches and VWs weren't made in the US. I do have a
> Studebaker however, which is a perfectly respectable American car.
Sorry Shit Stick.. There has never been a repectable AmeriKKKan built car.
NEVER.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794795 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 02:15 |
|
On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> >> Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than the
> >> 10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
> >> moment. The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the first
> >> one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. It seems somewhat
> >> biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> >> reasons...
>
> >It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace
> >a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no
> >savings in fuel economy. It is only if you drop down a consumption
> >class that there is any real savings to be had. For example if you
> >trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
> >expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are
> >talking about. Really, there has been shockingly little progress made
> >in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? What about
> the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> I'm not buying it. Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time and
> neither have miles driven.
>
> And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? I get 27mpg highway in a '98
> Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling
> and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
be almost exactly the same. Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml 26 mpg highway for
a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. See what I mean? The only
ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
weight, use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. That's because
the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you
are going to get out of an ICE.
Replacement parts are laughably minimal. Think about it, a car weighs
2000 to 5000 pounds, you *may* replace 20 pounds worth of parts per
year and most of those go back to the factory for reconditioning.
Therefore, if you do not plan on stepping down your vehicle class,
there is *never* an energy payback on getting a new car.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794799 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 02:43 |
|
bill wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>>
>>
>>>>Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than the
>>>>10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
>>>>moment. The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the first
>>>>one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. It seems somewhat
>>>>biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
>>>>reasons...
>>
>>>It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace
>>>a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no
>>>savings in fuel economy. It is only if you drop down a consumption
>>>class that there is any real savings to be had. For example if you
>>>trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
>>>expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are
>>>talking about. Really, there has been shockingly little progress made
>>>in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>>
>>What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? What about
>>the polluting waste products at shops?
>>
>>I'm not buying it. Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time and
>>neither have miles driven.
>>
>>And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? I get 27mpg highway in a '98
>>Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling
>>and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
>
> Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
> be almost exactly the same. Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
> for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml 26 mpg highway for
> a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
> 28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. See what I mean? The only
> ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
> weight, use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. That's because
> the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you
> are going to get out of an ICE.
>
> Replacement parts are laughably minimal. Think about it, a car weighs
> 2000 to 5000 pounds, you *may* replace 20 pounds worth of parts per
> year and most of those go back to the factory for reconditioning.
>
> Therefore, if you do not plan on stepping down your vehicle class,
> there is *never* an energy payback on getting a new car.
replacement parts? those are usually recycled (junkyard,) unless you're
talking about sensors, critical actuators, or exhaust bits. Or you just
like spending more than you have to for your parts.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794802 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 02:55 |
|
On Feb 18, 8:43 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> bill wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> >>>>Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than the
> >>>>10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
> >>>>moment. The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the first
> >>>>one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. It seems somewhat
> >>>>biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> >>>>reasons...
>
> >>>It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace
> >>>a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no
> >>>savings in fuel economy. It is only if you drop down a consumption
> >>>class that there is any real savings to be had. For example if you
> >>>trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
> >>>expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are
> >>>talking about. Really, there has been shockingly little progress made
> >>>in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> >>What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? What about
> >>the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> >>I'm not buying it. Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time and
> >>neither have miles driven.
>
> >>And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? I get 27mpg highway in a '98
> >>Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling
> >>and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
> > Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> > equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
> > be almost exactly the same. Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
> > for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> >http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml 26 mpg highway for
> > a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
> > 28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. See what I mean? The only
> > ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
> > weight, use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. That's because
> > the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you
> > are going to get out of an ICE.
>
> > Replacement parts are laughably minimal. Think about it, a car weighs
> > 2000 to 5000 pounds, you *may* replace 20 pounds worth of parts per
> > year and most of those go back to the factory for reconditioning.
>
> > Therefore, if you do not plan on stepping down your vehicle class,
> > there is *never* an energy payback on getting a new car.
>
> replacement parts? those are usually recycled (junkyard,) unless you're
> talking about sensors, critical actuators, or exhaust bits. Or you just
> like spending more than you have to for your parts.
Well, *some* parts are usually new (ball joints, shocks/strutts,
brakes, etcetera), some are usually remanufactured (alternators,
starters, water pumps), and some can be straight up used (mass air
flow sensors, computers, etc). but hey, that's just logic and facts,
something rarely seen on usenet.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794803 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 03:15 |
|
bill wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:43 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>bill wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>>
>>>>>>Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than the
>>>>>>10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
>>>>>>moment. The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the first
>>>>>>one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. It seems somewhat
>>>>>>biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
>>>>>>reasons...
>>
>>>>>It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace
>>>>>a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no
>>>>>savings in fuel economy. It is only if you drop down a consumption
>>>>>class that there is any real savings to be had. For example if you
>>>>>trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
>>>>>expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are
>>>>>talking about. Really, there has been shockingly little progress made
>>>>>in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>>
>>>>What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? What about
>>>>the polluting waste products at shops?
>>
>>>>I'm not buying it. Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time and
>>>>neither have miles driven.
>>
>>>>And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? I get 27mpg highway in a '98
>>>>Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling
>>>>and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>>
>>>Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
>>>equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
>>>be almost exactly the same. Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
>>>for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>>
>>>http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml 26 mpg highway for
>>>a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>>
>>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
>>>28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. See what I mean? The only
>>>ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
>>>weight, use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. That's because
>>>the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you
>>>are going to get out of an ICE.
>>
>>>Replacement parts are laughably minimal. Think about it, a car weighs
>>>2000 to 5000 pounds, you *may* replace 20 pounds worth of parts per
>>>year and most of those go back to the factory for reconditioning.
>>
>>>Therefore, if you do not plan on stepping down your vehicle class,
>>>there is *never* an energy payback on getting a new car.
>>
>>replacement parts? those are usually recycled (junkyard,) unless you're
>>talking about sensors, critical actuators, or exhaust bits. Or you just
>>like spending more than you have to for your parts.
>
>
> Well, *some* parts are usually new (ball joints, shocks/strutts,
> brakes, etcetera), some are usually remanufactured (alternators,
> starters, water pumps), and some can be straight up used (mass air
> flow sensors, computers, etc). but hey, that's just logic and facts,
> something rarely seen on usenet.
>
True, I forgot about suspension parts, but those are generally small and
inexpensive (except in the case of a Porsche where they are generally
small and expensive.) Likewise with rubber bushings, brake pads, etc.
but those would also be required for a new vehicle as well. I consider
those parts "maintenance" not "repair" anyway... also buying top quality
components (e.g. buying Bilstein or Koni shocks instead of Boge) can
result in an effective lifespan of the replaced parts the same as or
even longer than the OE supplied parts.
I tend to send my starters and alternators to a local shop to be rebuilt
(assuming that they need repair and not just new bearings/brushes)
rather than trust to the luck of the draw at Pep Boys...
I'm ignoring the replacement of major mechanical parts like internal
engine or transmission parts as generally by that point a new car is
economically viable unless you have the skill and desire to rebuild
something yourself.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794837 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 17:35 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> replacement parts? those are usually recycled (junkyard,) unless you're
> talking about sensors, critical actuators, or exhaust bits. Or you just
> like spending more than you have to for your parts.
Some greasy dung eaters live in scrap yards scavanging for parts to keep
their AmeriKKKan built Shit Boxes (that are designed to fail) on the road.
Better to build a vehicle that is designed to last and which uses
standard - swappable parts.
Now some Losers will demand that they be provided with cars that are
designed to fail, because they can't be free without one.
We recognize that their mental disease is progressed far to far to be
cured. Death will be their only release from a life of self imposed
stupidity.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794838 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 17:40 |
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I'm ignoring the replacement of major mechanical parts like internal
> engine or transmission parts as generally by that point a new car is
> economically viable unless you have the skill and desire to rebuild
> something yourself.
Translation - the machine has fulfilled it's goal of falling apart from
underneath the owner's ass.
Just as planned. for the AmeriKKKan Cattle
Time to spend another years wages and get another one.
Just as ordained for the AmeriKKKan Cattle.
Who needs to send their kids to college? The Grease Box is more
important.
Just as God demands for the AmeriKKKan Cattle.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794840 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 13:47 |
|
On Feb 18, 9:15=A0pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> bill wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 8:43 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> >>bill wrote:
>
> >>>On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> >>>>>>Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than t=
he
> >>>>>>10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
> >>>>>>moment. =A0The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the f=
irst
> >>>>>>one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. =A0It seems somewhat
> >>>>>>biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> >>>>>>reasons...
>
> >>>>>It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace=
> >>>>>a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no=
> >>>>>savings in fuel economy. =A0It is only if you drop down a consumption=
> >>>>>class that there is any real savings to be had. =A0For example if you=
> >>>>>trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
> >>>>>expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are=
> >>>>>talking about. =A0Really, there has been shockingly little progress m=
ade
> >>>>>in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> >>>>What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? =A0What about
> >>>>the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> >>>>I'm not buying it. =A0Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time an=
d
> >>>>neither have miles driven.
>
> >>>>And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? =A0I get 27mpg highway in a '98
> >>>>Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling=
> >>>>and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
> >>>Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> >>>equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
> >>>be almost exactly the same. =A0Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
> >>>for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> >>>http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml26 mpg highway for
> >>>a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> >>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
> >>>28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. =A0See what I mean? =A0The onl=
y
> >>>ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
> >>>weight, =A0use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. =A0That's becau=
se
> >>>the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you
> >>>are going to get out of an ICE.
>
> >>>Replacement parts are laughably minimal. =A0Think about it, a car weigh=
s
> >>>2000 to 5000 pounds, you *may* replace 20 pounds worth of parts per
> >>>year and most of those go back to the factory for reconditioning.
>
> >>>Therefore, if you do not plan on stepping down your vehicle class,
> >>>there is *never* an energy payback on getting a new car.
>
> >>replacement parts? =A0those are usually recycled (junkyard,) unless you'=
re
> >>talking about sensors, critical actuators, or exhaust bits. =A0Or you ju=
st
> >>like spending more than you have to for your parts.
>
> > Well, *some* parts are usually new (ball joints, shocks/strutts,
> > brakes, etcetera), some are usually remanufactured (alternators,
> > starters, water pumps), and some can be straight up used (mass air
> > flow sensors, computers, etc). =A0but hey, that's just logic and facts,
> > something rarely seen on usenet.
>
> True, I forgot about suspension parts, but those are generally small and
> inexpensive (except in the case of a Porsche where they are generally
> small and expensive.) =A0Likewise with rubber bushings, brake pads, etc.
> but those would also be required for a new vehicle as well. =A0I consider
> those parts "maintenance" not "repair" anyway... also buying top quality
> components (e.g. buying Bilstein or Koni shocks instead of Boge) can
> result in an effective lifespan of the replaced parts the same as or
> even longer than the OE supplied parts.
>
> I tend to send my starters and alternators to a local shop to be rebuilt
> (assuming that they need repair and not just new bearings/brushes)
> rather than trust to the luck of the draw at Pep Boys...
>
> I'm ignoring the replacement of major mechanical parts like internal
> engine or transmission parts as generally by that point a new car is
> economically viable unless you have the skill and desire to rebuild
> something yourself.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hid=
e quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Depending on the vehicle and your mechanic, often times it still makes
sense to keep an older vehicle. I had the engine (6 cyl) replaced in
my 02 Grand Am in 06 for $1300.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794842 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 14:03 |
|
On Feb 18, 8:15=A0pm, bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> > >> Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than th=
e
> > >> 10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
> > >> moment. =A0The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the fi=
rst
> > >> one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. =A0It seems somewhat
> > >> biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> > >> reasons...
>
> > >It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace
> > >a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no
> > >savings in fuel economy. =A0It is only if you drop down a consumption
> > >class that there is any real savings to be had. =A0For example if you
> > >trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
> > >expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are
> > >talking about. =A0Really, there has been shockingly little progress mad=
e
> > >in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> > What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? =A0What about
> > the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> > I'm not buying it. =A0Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time and
> > neither have miles driven.
>
> > And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? =A0I get 27mpg highway in a '98
> > Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling
> > and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
> Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
> be almost exactly the same. =A0Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
> for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml=A026 mpg highway for
> a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
> 28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. =A0See what I mean? =A0The only
> ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
> weight, =A0use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. =A0That's because
> the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you
> are going to get out of an ICE.
It's also worth consideration/mention that cars do indeed change over
time. An 85 VW Golf 4cyl 5spd will beat out an 06 4cyl 5spd by 2mpg
city and highway, compared from the same cite you used.
<snip>
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794843 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 14:08 |
|
On Feb 19, 11:35=A0am, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > replacement parts? =A0those are usually recycled (junkyard,) unless you'=
re
> > talking about sensors, critical actuators, or exhaust bits. =A0Or you ju=
st
> > like spending more than you have to for your parts.
>
> =A0 Some greasy dung eaters live in scrap yards scavanging for parts to ke=
ep
> their AmeriKKKan built Shit Boxes (that are designed to fail) on the road.=
>
> =A0 Better to build a vehicle that is designed to last and which uses
> standard - swappable parts.
>
> =A0 Now some Losers will demand that they be provided with cars that are
> designed to fail, because they can't be free without one.
>
> =A0 We recognize that their mental disease is progressed far to far to be
> cured. =A0Death will be their only release from a life of self imposed
> stupidity.
Some environmentalist you are, douchebag. Gawd, you're so dumb I'm
surprised you can breathe and type at the same time. (or are you
holding your breath while you're posting? That would actually explain
a lot.)
I can't wait to hear your spin on why it's better for the environment
to produce a new part instead of using one that's already been made
years ago.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794844 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 14:11 |
|
On Feb 19, 11:40=A0am, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
> > I'm ignoring the replacement of major mechanical parts like internal
> > engine or transmission parts as generally by that point a new car is
> > economically viable unless you have the skill and desire to rebuild
> > something yourself.
>
> =A0 Translation - the machine has fulfilled it's goal of falling apart fro=
m
> underneath the owner's ass.
>
> =A0 Just as planned. for the AmeriKKKan Cattle
>
> =A0 Time to spend another years wages and get another one.
>
> =A0 Just as ordained for the AmeriKKKan Cattle.
>
> =A0 Who needs to send their kids to college? =A0The Grease Box is more
> important.
>
> =A0 Just as God demands for the AmeriKKKan Cattle.
yes, it is completely unreasonable to expect to have to replace a
machine every 30-40 years or so. (the vehicles that I own are 14, 19,
and 52 years old as I type this... only the 52 year old one has had
any significant engine work done to it. I plan to get years more use
out of each of them and have no plans to replace any.)
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794845 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 14:14 |
|
On Feb 19, 7:47=A0am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 9:15=A0pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > bill wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 8:43 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > >>bill wrote:
>
> > >>>On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble=
>
> > >>>>>>Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than=
the
> > >>>>>>10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the=
> > >>>>>>moment. =A0The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the=
first
> > >>>>>>one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. =A0It seems somewha=
t
> > >>>>>>biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> > >>>>>>reasons...
>
> > >>>>>It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you repla=
ce
> > >>>>>a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually =
no
> > >>>>>savings in fuel economy. =A0It is only if you drop down a consumpti=
on
> > >>>>>class that there is any real savings to be had. =A0For example if y=
ou
> > >>>>>trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
> > >>>>>expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you a=
re
> > >>>>>talking about. =A0Really, there has been shockingly little progress=
made
> > >>>>>in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> > >>>>What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? =A0What abou=
t
> > >>>>the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> > >>>>I'm not buying it. =A0Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time =
and
> > >>>>neither have miles driven.
>
> > >>>>And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? =A0I get 27mpg highway in a '9=
8
> > >>>>Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handli=
ng
> > >>>>and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
> > >>>Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> > >>>equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would=
> > >>>be almost exactly the same. =A0Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not=
> > >>>for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> > >>>http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml26mpg highway for
> > >>>a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> > >>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
> > >>>28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. =A0See what I mean? =A0The o=
nly
> > >>>ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
> > >>>weight, =A0use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. =A0That's bec=
ause
> > >>>the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what yo=
u
> > >>>are going to get out of an ICE.
>
> > >>>Replacement parts are laughably minimal. =A0Think about it, a car wei=
ghs
> > >>>2000 to 5000 pounds, you *may* replace 20 pounds worth of parts per
> > >>>year and most of those go back to the factory for reconditioning.
>
> > >>>Therefore, if you do not plan on stepping down your vehicle class,
> > >>>there is *never* an energy payback on getting a new car.
>
> > >>replacement parts? =A0those are usually recycled (junkyard,) unless yo=
u're
> > >>talking about sensors, critical actuators, or exhaust bits. =A0Or you =
just
> > >>like spending more than you have to for your parts.
>
> > > Well, *some* parts are usually new (ball joints, shocks/strutts,
> > > brakes, etcetera), some are usually remanufactured (alternators,
> > > starters, water pumps), and some can be straight up used (mass air
> > > flow sensors, computers, etc). =A0but hey, that's just logic and facts=
,
> > > something rarely seen on usenet.
>
> > True, I forgot about suspension parts, but those are generally small and=
> > inexpensive (except in the case of a Porsche where they are generally
> > small and expensive.) =A0Likewise with rubber bushings, brake pads, etc.=
> > but those would also be required for a new vehicle as well. =A0I conside=
r
> > those parts "maintenance" not "repair" anyway... also buying top quality=
> > components (e.g. buying Bilstein or Koni shocks instead of Boge) can
> > result in an effective lifespan of the replaced parts the same as or
> > even longer than the OE supplied parts.
>
> > I tend to send my starters and alternators to a local shop to be rebuilt=
> > (assuming that they need repair and not just new bearings/brushes)
> > rather than trust to the luck of the draw at Pep Boys...
>
> > I'm ignoring the replacement of major mechanical parts like internal
> > engine or transmission parts as generally by that point a new car is
> > economically viable unless you have the skill and desire to rebuild
> > something yourself.
>
> > nate
>
> > --
> > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hi=
de quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Depending on the vehicle and your mechanic, often times it still makes
> sense to keep an older vehicle. =A0I had the engine (6 cyl) replaced in
> my 02 Grand Am in 06 for $1300.
Having ridden in a Grand Am, that sounds like an example of exactly
what I was talking about. I really am trying hard not to be snarky,
but a Grand Am is an awful, awful vehicle. You couldn't pay me enough
to drive one - a friend of mine rented one once and the seats were so
awful she literally had to pull me out of the car after a 2 hour
drive, my back was hurting so badly.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794846 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 14:17 |
|
On Feb 19, 8:03=A0am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:15=A0pm, bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> > > >> Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than =
the
> > > >> 10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
> > > >> moment. =A0The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the =
first
> > > >> one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. =A0It seems somewhat=
> > > >> biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> > > >> reasons...
>
> > > >It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace=
> > > >a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no=
> > > >savings in fuel economy. =A0It is only if you drop down a consumption=
> > > >class that there is any real savings to be had. =A0For example if you=
> > > >trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
> > > >expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are=
> > > >talking about. =A0Really, there has been shockingly little progress m=
ade
> > > >in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> > > What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? =A0What about
> > > the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> > > I'm not buying it. =A0Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time an=
d
> > > neither have miles driven.
>
> > > And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? =A0I get 27mpg highway in a '98
> > > Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling=
> > > and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
> > Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> > equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
> > be almost exactly the same. =A0Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
> > for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> >http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml=A026 mpg highway for
> > a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
> > 28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. =A0See what I mean? =A0The only=
> > ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
> > weight, =A0use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. =A0That's becaus=
e
> > the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you
> > are going to get out of an ICE.
>
> It's also worth consideration/mention that cars do indeed change over
> time. =A0An 85 VW Golf 4cyl 5spd will beat out an 06 4cyl 5spd by 2mpg
> city and highway, compared from the same cite you used.
>
That's probably because an '85 Golf is much smaller and lighter than
an '06. VW seems to be relentlessly driving its nameplates upmarket,
unfortunately without filling in the bottom end of the market.
Funny you should mention that particular example; my mom just retired
her '86 Golf late last year. I believe she sold it to a neighbor who
is using it as his daily driver. Great little cars.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794848 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 14:25 |
|
On Feb 19, 8:14 am, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:47 am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 9:15 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > > bill wrote:
> > > > On Feb 18, 8:43 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>bill wrote:
>
> > > >>>On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> > > >>>>>>Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than the
> > > >>>>>>10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
> > > >>>>>>moment. The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the first
> > > >>>>>>one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. It seems somewhat
> > > >>>>>>biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> > > >>>>>>reasons...
>
> > > >>>>>It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace
> > > >>>>>a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no
> > > >>>>>savings in fuel economy. It is only if you drop down a consumption
> > > >>>>>class that there is any real savings to be had. For example if you
> > > >>>>>trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
> > > >>>>>expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are
> > > >>>>>talking about. Really, there has been shockingly little progress made
> > > >>>>>in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> > > >>>>What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? What about
> > > >>>>the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> > > >>>>I'm not buying it. Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time and
> > > >>>>neither have miles driven.
>
> > > >>>>And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? I get 27mpg highway in a '98
> > > >>>>Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling
> > > >>>>and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
> > > >>>Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> > > >>>equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
> > > >>>be almost exactly the same. Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
> > > >>>for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> > > >>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml26mpghighw ay for
> > > >>>a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> > > >>> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
> > > >>>28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. See what I mean? The only
> > > >>>ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
> > > >>>weight, use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. That's because
> > > >>>the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you
> > > >>>are going to get out of an ICE.
>
> > > >>>Replacement parts are laughably minimal. Think about it, a car weighs
> > > >>>2000 to 5000 pounds, you *may* replace 20 pounds worth of parts per
> > > >>>year and most of those go back to the factory for reconditioning.
>
> > > >>>Therefore, if you do not plan on stepping down your vehicle class,
> > > >>>there is *never* an energy payback on getting a new car.
>
> > > >>replacement parts? those are usually recycled (junkyard,) unless you're
> > > >>talking about sensors, critical actuators, or exhaust bits. Or you just
> > > >>like spending more than you have to for your parts.
>
> > > > Well, *some* parts are usually new (ball joints, shocks/strutts,
> > > > brakes, etcetera), some are usually remanufactured (alternators,
> > > > starters, water pumps), and some can be straight up used (mass air
> > > > flow sensors, computers, etc). but hey, that's just logic and facts,
> > > > something rarely seen on usenet.
>
> > > True, I forgot about suspension parts, but those are generally small and
> > > inexpensive (except in the case of a Porsche where they are generally
> > > small and expensive.) Likewise with rubber bushings, brake pads, etc.
> > > but those would also be required for a new vehicle as well. I consider
> > > those parts "maintenance" not "repair" anyway... also buying top quality
> > > components (e.g. buying Bilstein or Koni shocks instead of Boge) can
> > > result in an effective lifespan of the replaced parts the same as or
> > > even longer than the OE supplied parts.
>
> > > I tend to send my starters and alternators to a local shop to be rebuilt
> > > (assuming that they need repair and not just new bearings/brushes)
> > > rather than trust to the luck of the draw at Pep Boys...
>
> > > I'm ignoring the replacement of major mechanical parts like internal
> > > engine or transmission parts as generally by that point a new car is
> > > economically viable unless you have the skill and desire to rebuild
> > > something yourself.
>
> > > nate
>
> > > --
> > > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Depending on the vehicle and your mechanic, often times it still makes
> > sense to keep an older vehicle. I had the engine (6 cyl) replaced in
> > my 02 Grand Am in 06 for $1300.
>
> Having ridden in a Grand Am, that sounds like an example of exactly
> what I was talking about. I really am trying hard not to be snarky,
> but a Grand Am is an awful, awful vehicle. You couldn't pay me enough
> to drive one - a friend of mine rented one once and the seats were so
> awful she literally had to pull me out of the car after a 2 hour
> drive, my back was hurting so badly.
>
> nate- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I pretty much agree with your analysis. I bought it only because I
was able to pick it up for $1300 with a blown engine. The cost of
it's last service, a month previous, was $1300 and the car had
followed the dealer maintenance visit plan to the letter since new.
Book was around 6K, so 2600 overall seemed like a good deal. I was
moving to a spot where I had a 80 mile per day commute, and needed
something reliable that would get decent gas mileage. I managed to
tough it out for almost a year before I sold it at a profit (and still
well under book) and bought my truck.
The seats were indeed atrocious. One of my downfalls is that I always
write off poor seats as a non-issue, with plans to replace them. Then
I get rid of the vehicle before I get around to replacing them. My
Ranger is another key example of this, I've been meaning to swing by
the boneyard for months now.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794849 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 14:28 |
|
On Feb 19, 8:17 am, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 8:03 am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 8:15 pm, bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> > > > >> Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than the
> > > > >> 10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
> > > > >> moment. The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the first
> > > > >> one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. It seems somewhat
> > > > >> biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> > > > >> reasons...
>
> > > > >It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace
> > > > >a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no
> > > > >savings in fuel economy. It is only if you drop down a consumption
> > > > >class that there is any real savings to be had. For example if you
> > > > >trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
> > > > >expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are
> > > > >talking about. Really, there has been shockingly little progress made
> > > > >in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> > > > What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? What about
> > > > the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> > > > I'm not buying it. Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time and
> > > > neither have miles driven.
>
> > > > And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? I get 27mpg highway in a '98
> > > > Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling
> > > > and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
> > > Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> > > equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
> > > be almost exactly the same. Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
> > > for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> > >http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml 26 mpg highway for
> > > a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> > > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
> > > 28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. See what I mean? The only
> > > ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
> > > weight, use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. That's because
> > > the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you
> > > are going to get out of an ICE.
>
> > It's also worth consideration/mention that cars do indeed change over
> > time. An 85 VW Golf 4cyl 5spd will beat out an 06 4cyl 5spd by 2mpg
> > city and highway, compared from the same cite you used.
>
> That's probably because an '85 Golf is much smaller and lighter than
> an '06. VW seems to be relentlessly driving its nameplates upmarket,
> unfortunately without filling in the bottom end of the market.
That was basically my point - cars do change as years go by, and for a
while now they've been getting heavier and bigger, even with the same
name.
> Funny you should mention that particular example; my mom just retired
> her '86 Golf late last year. I believe she sold it to a neighbor who
> is using it as his daily driver. Great little cars.
I retired mine in 03 or 04, and sold it to someone who last I knew was
still driving it. Awesome car, I often regret selling it.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794879 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 17:57 |
|
On Feb 19, 8:03 am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:15 pm, bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> > > >> Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than the
> > > >> 10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
> > > >> moment. The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the first
> > > >> one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. It seems somewhat
> > > >> biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> > > >> reasons...
>
> > > >It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace
> > > >a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no
> > > >savings in fuel economy. It is only if you drop down a consumption
> > > >class that there is any real savings to be had. For example if you
> > > >trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
> > > >expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are
> > > >talking about. Really, there has been shockingly little progress made
> > > >in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> > > What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? What about
> > > the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> > > I'm not buying it. Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time and
> > > neither have miles driven.
>
> > > And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? I get 27mpg highway in a '98
> > > Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling
> > > and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
> > Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> > equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
> > be almost exactly the same. Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
> > for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> >http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml 26 mpg highway for
> > a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
> > 28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. See what I mean? The only
> > ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
> > weight, use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. That's because
> > the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you
> > are going to get out of an ICE.
>
> It's also worth consideration/mention that cars do indeed change over
> time. An 85 VW Golf 4cyl 5spd will beat out an 06 4cyl 5spd by 2mpg
> city and highway, compared from the same cite you used.
>
> <snip>
2 mpg will take a *long* time paying back 1.4 years worth of
energy invested in replacing the car. Say for example that the
economy of a new car is 10% better than the old one and that 10% of
the energy that it'll use over 15 years is used in manufacture.
That means that the energy of manufacture is equivalent to 1.5 years
of use. At 10% improved use efficiency, that means that it'll take 15
years to repay the energy invested in manufacturing a new car in
energy saved due to the greater efficiency. No percentage there.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794881 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 18:03 |
|
On Feb 19, 11:57=A0am, bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 8:03 am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 8:15 pm, bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble=
>
> > > > >> Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher tha=
n the
> > > > >> 10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at th=
e
> > > > >> moment. =A0The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply th=
e first
> > > > >> one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. =A0It seems somewh=
at
> > > > >> biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> > > > >> reasons...
>
> > > > >It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you repla=
ce
> > > > >a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually =
no
> > > > >savings in fuel economy. =A0It is only if you drop down a consumpti=
on
> > > > >class that there is any real savings to be had. =A0For example if y=
ou
> > > > >trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
> > > > >expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you a=
re
> > > > >talking about. =A0Really, there has been shockingly little progress=
made
> > > > >in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> > > > What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? =A0What abou=
t
> > > > the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> > > > I'm not buying it. =A0Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time =
and
> > > > neither have miles driven.
>
> > > > And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? =A0I get 27mpg highway in a '9=
8
> > > > Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handli=
ng
> > > > and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
> > > Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> > > equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
> > > be almost exactly the same. =A0Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
> > > for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> > >http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml26 mpg highway for
> > > a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> > > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
> > > 28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. =A0See what I mean? =A0The on=
ly
> > > ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
> > > weight, =A0use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. =A0That's beca=
use
> > > the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you=
> > > are going to get out of an ICE.
>
> > It's also worth consideration/mention that cars do indeed change over
> > time. =A0An 85 VW Golf 4cyl 5spd will beat out an 06 4cyl 5spd by 2mpg
> > city and highway, compared from the same cite you used.
>
> > <snip>
>
> =A0 =A0 =A02 mpg will take a *long* time paying back 1.4 years worth of
> energy invested in replacing the car. =A0Say for example that the
> economy of a new car is 10% better than the old one and that 10% of
> the energy that it'll use over 15 years is used in manufacture.
> That means that the energy of manufacture is equivalent to 1.5 years
> of use. =A0At 10% improved use efficiency, that means that it'll take 15
> years to repay the energy invested in manufacturing a new car in
> energy saved due to the greater efficiency. =A0No percentage there.- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Um... the example I cited that you quoted above states that the 1985
gets 2MPG *more* than the 06.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794883 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 22:13 |
|
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> Some environmentalist you are, douchebag. Gawd, you're so dumb I'm
> surprised you can breathe and type at the same time. (or are you
> holding your breath while you're posting? That would actually explain
> a lot.)
> I can't wait to hear your spin on why it's better for the environment
> to produce a new part instead of using one that's already been made
> years ago.
Because of economies of scale in manufacture and recyceling. With current
grease boxes being
a model of the week you have to have lots and lots of greasy bins to hold
the greasy parts from all of your greasy models of greasy shitboxes.
Recyceling thus becomes a matter of dumpster diving into filthy rotting
scrap heaps.
With standard parts not only are you guaranteed for the part to fit, but
once designed there is only a cost to improve the design, not to redesign
the same part again and again and again with the only purpose being to force
consumers to either go dumpster diving for broken warn parts or purchase a
new part at an exorbitant, artificially inflated cost.
You just love having that money vacuumed out of your pockets don't you Nate?
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794886 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 18:25 |
|
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Good one! .... ahahahaha....
>
Pinko Green fanatic "Scott Nudds" aka "VD-for-Vendickarse"
aka VD Scotty, posted in
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/b223ea173 952c9c2 >
that he, Scott Nudds, has NEVER driven and much less owned
any car. But he gave stern enviro-automotive advice .... ahahaha
.... AHAHAHAHA.. ... So much for the Greenies whose Bible says:
>
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot ... for the mass-media today ... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
= "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank.
>
Green Crimes, Green Scams, Green Extortions & Green Lies:
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/14968cc3e e9939d4 >
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372e ccc32ba >
*** Environmentalism "makes the Rich richer & the Poor poorer!" ***
But thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahaha.... ahahahha.....
>
VD Scotty aka "VD-for-Vendicar" <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com>
wrote in message news:I2Auj.21540$612.3442 [at] read1.cgocable.net...
>
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
replacement parts? those are usually recycled (junkyard,) unless you're
talking about sensors, critical actuators, or exhaust bits. Or you just
like spending more than you have to for your parts.
>
VD Scotty wrote:
Some greasy dung eaters live in scrap yards scavanging for parts to keep
their AmeriKKKan built Shit Boxes (that are designed to fail) on the road.
>
Better to build a vehicle that is designed to last and which uses
standard - swappable parts.
>
Now some Losers will demand that they be provided with cars that are
designed to fail, because they can't be free without one.
>
We recognize that their mental disease is progressed far to far to be
cured. Death will be their only release from a life of self imposed
stupidity.
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794887 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 18:28 |
|
On Feb 19, 12:03 pm, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:57 am, bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 8:03 am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 8:15 pm, bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> > > > > >> Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than the
> > > > > >> 10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
> > > > > >> moment. The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the first
> > > > > >> one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. It seems somewhat
> > > > > >> biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> > > > > >> reasons...
>
> > > > > >It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace
> > > > > >a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no
> > > > > >savings in fuel economy. It is only if you drop down a consumption
> > > > > >class that there is any real savings to be had. For example if you
> > > > > >trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
> > > > > >expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are
> > > > > >talking about. Really, there has been shockingly little progress made
> > > > > >in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> > > > > What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? What about
> > > > > the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> > > > > I'm not buying it. Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time and
> > > > > neither have miles driven.
>
> > > > > And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? I get 27mpg highway in a '98
> > > > > Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling
> > > > > and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
> > > > Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> > > > equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage would
> > > > be almost exactly the same. Miles driven have gone up, MPG has not
> > > > for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> > > >http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml26mpg highway for
> > > > a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> > > > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtml
> > > > 28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. See what I mean? The only
> > > > ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehicle
> > > > weight, use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. That's because
> > > > the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what you
> > > > are going to get out of an ICE.
>
> > > It's also worth consideration/mention that cars do indeed change over
> > > time. An 85 VW Golf 4cyl 5spd will beat out an 06 4cyl 5spd by 2mpg
> > > city and highway, compared from the same cite you used.
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > 2 mpg will take a *long* time paying back 1.4 years worth of
> > energy invested in replacing the car. Say for example that the
> > economy of a new car is 10% better than the old one and that 10% of
> > the energy that it'll use over 15 years is used in manufacture.
> > That means that the energy of manufacture is equivalent to 1.5 years
> > of use. At 10% improved use efficiency, that means that it'll take 15
> > years to repay the energy invested in manufacturing a new car in
> > energy saved due to the greater efficiency. No percentage there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Um... the example I cited that you quoted above states that the 1985
> gets 2MPG *more* than the 06.
yeah, I saw that after I had posted. All I can say is oops.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794889 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 18:47 |
|
On Feb 19, 12:28=A0pm, bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:03 pm, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 11:57 am, bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 8:03 am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 18, 8:15 pm, bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 18, 7:36 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > > bill <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to ba=
bble
>
> > > > > > >> Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher=
than the
> > > > > > >> 10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper a=
t the
> > > > > > >> moment. =A0The study that I found (which was, honestly, simpl=
y the first
> > > > > > >> one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. =A0It seems so=
mewhat
> > > > > > >> biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmenta=
l
> > > > > > >> reasons...
>
> > > > > > >It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you r=
eplace
> > > > > > >a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtua=
lly no
> > > > > > >savings in fuel economy. =A0It is only if you drop down a consu=
mption
> > > > > > >class that there is any real savings to be had. =A0For example =
if you
> > > > > > >trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far m=
ore
> > > > > > >expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback y=
ou are
> > > > > > >talking about. =A0Really, there has been shockingly little prog=
ress made
> > > > > > >in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
>
> > > > > > What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? =A0What =
about
> > > > > > the polluting waste products at shops?
>
> > > > > > I'm not buying it. =A0Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over t=
ime and
> > > > > > neither have miles driven.
>
> > > > > > And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? =A0I get 27mpg highway in =
a '98
> > > > > > Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and ha=
ndling
> > > > > > and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
>
> > > > > Irrelevant. My point was that if you were to go buy the current
> > > > > equivalent to that 98 Bonneville in the 08 version, the mileage wo=
uld
> > > > > be almost exactly the same. =A0Miles driven have gone up, MPG has =
not
> > > > > for similar vehicles, propaganda notwithstanding.
>
> > > > > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/9114.shtml26mpghighw ay for
> > > > > a 1992 bonneville 3.8 liter
>
> > > > > http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2008_Pontiac_Grand_Pr ix.shtm=
l
> > > > > 28 mpg for a 2008 grand prix with a 3.8. =A0See what I mean? =A0Th=
e only
> > > > > ways to get better mileage are to either step down the gross vehic=
le
> > > > > weight, =A0use a less powerful engine, or to go hybrid. =A0That's =
because
> > > > > the thermodynamics of heat engines basically set a maximum on what=
you
> > > > > are going to get out of an ICE.
>
> > > > It's also worth consideration/mention that cars do indeed change ove=
r
> > > > time. =A0An 85 VW Golf 4cyl 5spd will beat out an 06 4cyl 5spd by 2m=
pg
> > > > city and highway, compared from the same cite you used.
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > =A0 =A0 =A02 mpg will take a *long* time paying back 1.4 years worth o=
f
> > > energy invested in replacing the car. =A0Say for example that the
> > > economy of a new car is 10% better than the old one and that 10% of
> > > the energy that it'll use over 15 years is used in manufacture.
> > > That means that the energy of manufacture is equivalent to 1.5 years
> > > of use. =A0At 10% improved use efficiency, that means that it'll take =
15
> > > years to repay the energy invested in manufacturing a new car in
> > > energy saved due to the greater efficiency. =A0No percentage there.- H=
ide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Um... =A0the example I cited that you quoted above states that the 1985
> > gets 2MPG *more* than the 06.
>
> yeah, I saw that after I had posted. =A0All I can say is oops.- Hide quote=
d text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No worries, happens to the best of us.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794890 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 23:03 |
|
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> yes, it is completely unreasonable to expect to have to replace a
> machine every 30-40 years or so. (the vehicles that I own are 14, 19,
> and 52 years old as I type this... only the 52 year old one has had
> any significant engine work done to it. I plan to get years more use
> out of each of them and have no plans to replace any.)
Mean age of the U.S. domestic fleet (2000) 7 years
Average life expectancy (2000) 11 years.
Ahahahahahahahahahah
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794895 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 19:14 |
|
In article <57Auj.28587$dA2.12597 [at] read2.cgocable.net>,
V-for-Vendicar <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
>"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>> I'm ignoring the replacement of major mechanical parts like internal
>> engine or transmission parts as generally by that point a new car is
>> economically viable unless you have the skill and desire to rebuild
>> something yourself.
>
> Translation - the machine has fulfilled it's goal of falling apart from
>underneath the owner's ass.
Right. When you've build an electromechanical device that can last
under daily moderate use and minimal maintenance for as long as a modern
automobile can, you can "translate" things that way. Until then,
you're still the village idiot.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794899 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 23:22 |
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> Right. When you've build an electromechanical device that can last
> under daily moderate use and minimal maintenance for as long as a modern
> automobile can, you can "translate" things that way. Until then,
> you're still the village idiot.
The TV in front of me is 30 years old - the monitor 12 years, the fan above
my head 25 years, the furnace heating my home 30 years, the house I live in
60 years, My telephone is 12 years old and it replaced another that was
still working perfectly well that was 40 years old, The encyclopedia year
books sitting beside me here ate back to 1971, and the video tapes on the
other side of the room date back to 1978. The clock sitting on my book
shelf I built when I was 13 - 35 years ago - I see it needs to have it's
battery replaced.
The fleet average age of the U.S automotive fleet is 7 years with a maximum
mean lifetime of 12 years.
And this is after lots and lots of trips to the automobile service depot.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794902 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 19:32 |
|
"DanKMTB [at] gmail.com" <DanKMTB [at] gmail.com> used a stick in the sand to
babble
>> That's probably because an '85 Golf is much smaller and lighter than
>> an '06. VW seems to be relentlessly driving its nameplates upmarket,
>> unfortunately without filling in the bottom end of the market.
>
>That was basically my point - cars do change as years go by, and for a
>while now they've been getting heavier and bigger, even with the same
>name.
Stable fuel prices, that is, less than inflation, stimulated consumers
to want more power and more comfort in their cars. As a result, there
was a global trend towards sacrificing pure MPG for other things
consumers wanted.
My '98 Bonnie is perfect example. It's larger and heavier than my '89
and has the same GM 3800 v6 but has more power and about the same mpg.
Swill
--
THIS is how we have to win the Iraq War
http://www.wheelchairsforiraqikids.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794904 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 23:35 |
|
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> Stable fuel prices, that is, less than inflation, stimulated consumers
> to want more power and more comfort in their cars.
You mean Prison Cells.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794922 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 21:02 |
|
On Feb 19, 5:03=A0pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "N8N" <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > yes, it is completely unreasonable to expect to have to replace a
> > machine every 30-40 years or so. =A0(the vehicles that I own are 14, 19,=
> > and 52 years old as I type this... only the 52 year old one has had
> > any significant engine work done to it. =A0I plan to get years more use
> > out of each of them and have no plans to replace any.)
>
> Mean age of the U.S. domestic fleet (2000) 7 years
> Average life expectancy (2000) =A011 years.
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahah
That may because people *want* a newer car not *need.* I have had no
problems driving cars at least 20 years old daily. I know of one 1969
model car (yes, American) that was in daily service up until about 3-4
years ago.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794927 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 21:18 |
|
On Feb 19, 5:22=A0pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
>
> > Right. =A0When you've build an electromechanical device that can last
> > under daily moderate use and minimal maintenance for as long as a modern=
> > automobile can, you can "translate" things that way. =A0Until then,
> > you're still the village idiot.
>
> =A0The TV in front of me is 30 years old - the monitor 12 years, the fan a=
bove
> my head 25 years, the furnace heating my home 30 years, the house I live i=
n
> 60 years, =A0 =A0My telephone is 12 years old and it replaced another that=
was
> still working perfectly well that was 40 years old, =A0The encyclopedia ye=
ar
> books sitting beside me here ate back to 1971, =A0and the video tapes on t=
he
> other side of the room date back to 1978. =A0The clock sitting on my book
> shelf I built when I was 13 - 35 years ago - I see it needs to have it's
> battery replaced.
>
> The fleet average age of the U.S automotive fleet is 7 years with a maximu=
m
> mean lifetime of 12 years.
>
> And this is after lots and lots of trips to the automobile service depot.
Really. It seems that either i'm an extreme outlier, extremely lucky,
or there's other factors at work besides those you are addressing, as
I seem to average maybe one unscheduled service a year on all my
vehicles, and not one is within 12 years old.
However, the fact that you are apparently getting your information
from a 1971 encyclopedia explains a lot.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794933 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 21:26 |
|
On Feb 19, 4:13=A0pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "N8N" <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Some environmentalist you are, douchebag. =A0Gawd, you're so dumb I'm
> > surprised you can breathe and type at the same time. =A0(or are you
> > holding your breath while you're posting? =A0That would actually explain=
> > a lot.)
> > I can't wait to hear your spin on why it's better for the environment
> > to produce a new part instead of using one that's already been made
> > years ago.
>
> =A0Because of economies of scale in manufacture and recyceling. =A0With cu=
rrent
> grease boxes being
> a model of the week you have to have lots and lots of greasy bins to hold
> the greasy parts from all of your greasy models of greasy shitboxes.
> Recyceling thus becomes a matter of dumpster diving into filthy rotting
> scrap heaps.
That's your warped perception of how a modern junkyard works, not
fact.
> With standard parts not only are you guaranteed for the part to fit, but
> once designed there is only a cost to improve the design, not to redesign
> the same part again and again and again with the only purpose being to for=
ce
> consumers to either go dumpster diving for broken warn parts or purchase a=
> new part at an exorbitant, artificially inflated cost.
>
> You just love having that money vacuumed out of your pockets don't you Nat=
e?
In my experience a used factory part is generally more likely to fit
and function properly than an aftermarket replacement part. *shrugs* I
guess I can't expect you to actually have any experience maintaining
and repairing machinery, since you seem to hate anything practical
with an unnatural passion.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794938 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 21:38 |
|
On Feb 19, 3:18 pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:22 pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
>
>
>
> <Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> > "Matthew T. Russotto" <russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
>
> > > Right. When you've build an electromechanical device that can last
> > > under daily moderate use and minimal maintenance for as long as a modern
> > > automobile can, you can "translate" things that way. Until then,
> > > you're still the village idiot.
>
> > The TV in front of me is 30 years old - the monitor 12 years, the fan above
> > my head 25 years, the furnace heating my home 30 years, the house I live in
> > 60 years, My telephone is 12 years old and it replaced another that was
> > still working perfectly well that was 40 years old, The encyclopedia year
> > books sitting beside me here ate back to 1971, and the video tapes on the
> > other side of the room date back to 1978. The clock sitting on my book
> > shelf I built when I was 13 - 35 years ago - I see it needs to have it's
> > battery replaced.
>
> > The fleet average age of the U.S automotive fleet is 7 years with a maximum
> > mean lifetime of 12 years.
>
> > And this is after lots and lots of trips to the automobile service depot.
>
> Really. It seems that either i'm an extreme outlier, extremely lucky,
> or there's other factors at work besides those you are addressing, as
> I seem to average maybe one unscheduled service a year on all my
> vehicles, and not one is within 12 years old.
*mean* life expectancy includes all the vehicles that are
involved in accidents. Additionally, depending on where you live,
different causes of death may apply. Heavy city drivers will have
more transmission failures, drivers in the northeast have more rust
due to road salt, Long distance highway commuters, well, their cars
just wear out.
What is missing here is the added cost of manufacture to extend
the life expectancy. For example, within a class, the volvo 740 lasts
typically 200,000 miles, whereas the ford taurus wagon lasts 120k.
However, look at the difference in price!
In addition, the longer lived vehicle will almost always *WEIGH
MORE* which means that they will get fewer MPG, which tends to offset
any advantage that may be gained by the longer life expectancy.
Interchangeable parts would be nice though. Volvo is good for
that, a part taken from an 89 volvo 740 generally fits any volvo 4
cylinder from 85-95.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794943 ] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 02:12 |
|
>> Really. It seems that either i'm an extreme outlier, extremely lucky,
>> or there's other factors at work besides those you are addressing, as
>> I seem to average maybe one unscheduled service a year on all my
>> vehicles, and not one is within 12 years old.
"bill" <ford_prefect42 [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> *mean* life expectancy includes all the vehicles that are
> involved in accidents.
Like 5mph collisions which total a vehicle.
"bill" <ford_prefect42 [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> Heavy city drivers will have more transmission failures
Electric vehicles will have no transmissions.
"bill" <ford_prefect42 [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> drivers in the northeast have more rust due to road salt
Because the cars are designed to rust out from under the driver.
Worthless
pieces of scrap they are.
"bill" <ford_prefect42 [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> Long distance highway commuters, well, their cars just wear out.
Long distance highway commuters = Intelligence of Drug Abusers.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794947 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 22:26 |
|
On Feb 19, 8:12=A0pm, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Just... [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> >> Really. =A0It seems that either i'm an extreme outlier, extremely lucky=
,
> >> or there's other factors at work besides those you are addressing, as
> >> I seem to average maybe one unscheduled service a year on all my
> >> vehicles, and not one is within 12 years old.
>
> "bill" <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > =A0 =A0 *mean* life expectancy includes all the vehicles that are
> > involved in accidents.
>
> =A0 Like 5mph collisions which total a vehicle.
Easy solution: don't drive like an a-hole.
Assuming that we get your predicted electric vehicles, this issue will
only get worse, as vehicles will be designed to be as light as
possible to offset the mass of the batteries, so there will be less
room to "overbuild" the structure. not that that is actually
desirable; controlled deformation rather than complete rigidity is
actually safer for the vehicle's occupants.
>
> "bill" <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Heavy city drivers will have more transmission failures
>
> Electric vehicles will have no transmissions.
possibly not.
> "bill" <ford_prefec... [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > drivers in the northeast have more rust due to road salt
>
> =A0 Because the cars are designed to rust out from under the driver.
> Worthless
> pieces of scrap they are.
The "rustbucket" seems to be something of a thing of the past; most
modern vehicles (and by "modern" I'm including the last several
decades) have vastly improved rustproofing over vehicles offered in,
say, the 50's and 60's.
Again, I offer as evidence the contents of my driveway; the Porsche
and the pickup truck are used as real vehicles, parked outside, and
washed on an indifferent schedule and yet show no serious corrosion
after being in service longer than, according to you, they ever should
have.
I'm curious how your proposed electric vehicles will have any
improvements in this regard over the vehicles sold today...
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794951 ] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 02:57 |
|
> Like 5mph collisions which total a vehicle.
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> Easy solution: don't drive like an a-hole.
Translation - Drive a worthless grease box that is on the verge of falling
apart - just be very careful that you don't bump it at walking speed or else
it may be unrepairable.
Any excuse will do.. No matter how big a piece of shit the car is, it's
always perfectly engineered according to a mindless gear head.
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> Assuming that we get your predicted electric vehicles, this issue will
> only get worse, as vehicles will be designed to be as light as
> possible to offset the mass of the batteries, so there will be less
> room to "overbuild" the structure.
Quite possibly. I won't defend that either. Will you continue to do so?
I know, how about legislating bumpers at the same height for all vehicles.
NAAAAAHHHHH Can't have that. It's Un-AmeriKKKan. Translation (too
intelligent)
> not that that is actually desirable; controlled deformation rather than
> complete rigidity is
> actually safer for the vehicle's occupants.
It is, and that's why making cars from tinfoil, egg cartons, styrofoam and
rusting steel- as ameriKKKan cars are - is best.
|
| |
|
