Posted on 05/18/2007 5:07:34 AM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9
FOX News propounding Big Oil’s propaganda? Who woulda thunk it?
Also note that one of the ways that the F1 cars protect their occupant is by crumpling and shedding parts, requiring a complete rebuild, or even tossing out what ever's left of the car once it stops moving. Like a crash helmet, they're designed to be used only 1 time in a crash.
Mark
I had a diesel car for 18 years that got 41 MPG. I may buy another diesel. I understand diesel hybrids are coming out soon.
Unless, of course, you're in one of the wrecks.
These statistics are junk science.
I have a functioning genuine antique Rabbit diesel that gets about 36 mpg and otherwise is good mostly for fumigating joggers and bucyclists. I drive it about once a month just to keep the seals from getting messed up and the battery charged. I prefer to drive either the 505 hp 427 or the 320hp 346. Just a matter of choice.
Automobile crashes are almost perfectly in-elastic. Thus, the bigger the vehicle, the larger the crush zone, the safer the crash.
My most liberal friend, actually an admitted socialist, blathers on about gas consumption. Went postal on me when I pointed out hybrids are BS.
Both of his kids got new Ford Explorers at 16. He said they weren’t driving small cars, too dangerous.
He also never offered to explain why they each had to get a car at age 16.
Sacrifice=other people’s responsibility
Right on! But trying to get engineer types to use the term "deceleration" is like repeatedly accelerating your head against a brick wall.
That is against FR principles. LMAO
I am only pointing out that there are technologies which can (and will) be used when fuel becomes so expensive that cars will have to be lighter. This will come to pass.
Around Toronto, probably 80 % of commuters drive alone. Maybe a properly made highly efficient but safe car will have a market.
Most of the cost of the race car is related to the speed.
I resent your gratuitous comments since you have no idea what I know.
I like small cars. I also like motorcycles. Not only because they use less fuel and take up less space in my garage but, even more, I like the way they handle. That can be helpful in an emergency, too. If "safe" is the measure, I'll take a car that's nimble enough over one that's "big enough" every time.
I can't imagine ever buying something big in the name of "safety" and paying for it every day while sacrificing both the economy and the fun of driving a smaller, nimbler car.
So, if you don’t want smaller and lighter cars, keep the behemoth you have now for the next 20 years.
It worked for the Yellow Cab company.
Part of it too is the speed of cars and the amount of power ti took. Ten years ago a family car might go 0-60 in 8 or 9 seconds. Now many are in the low 6’s. I do think that at some point we do have to reduce gas usage for the purposes of foreign policy. I don’t like relying on the Middle East and Hugo for a lot of our oil and i’ve never read anything to indicate that our own resources (which we should exploit more) could support us in the longterm at our present usage.
This is junk reporting about junk science. There are many ways to boost mpg, using available 'High and Low Tech,' and achieve higher CAFE ratings. Weight reduction is just one of them.
For example, six-speed automatics, with much 'lower' final drive ratios. Streamlined belly pans, computer improvements,(auto shut down at stop lights) etc. etc. Re-educating consumers about "performance."
I had an '88 legend coupe, with a 2.7 liter V6. It was luvurious and very fast and certainly capable of maintaining a cruising speed on the freeways that was faster than a Piper Cub. (I'll say no more.) It also delivered 30 MPG+ highway.
Subsequent models went to a 3 liter, than a 3.2 because owners were complaining about "poor acceleration." Highway mileaage fell 5mpg or more. Surprise, surprise. Jackrabbiting away from stoplights is still a big deal! It really shouldn't be.
1) 35 million is probably way over the top, but I agree that Bush’s immigration position was to the left of mine. I like enforcing our laws. Unfortunately, enforcement was probably strong before WWI. I don’t like the new plan as much as pure enforcement, but the current system stinks.
2) I agree, Goldwater had it right, abolish farm subsidies. Unfortunately, most GOP Senators and Congressmen come from states with large Agricultural economies. Freedom to Farm was a good idea, but Clinton killed it by buying more ag votes, and the GOP responded with more subsidies. It stinks, but Bush is not the primary guilty party here.
3) As for ethanol, it is largely a temporary solution that does little to solve the problem.
4) NCLB was good before Kennedy got ahold of it. I like Newt’s idea of abolishing the Department of Education.
5) W has been good on fighting terror, despite the poor military planning in Iraq.
All in all, W has cut taxes, reduced needless regulation, fought terrorist, and supported our military. Sure, he did some RINO things like NCLB and the Medicare Drug plan with increase spending, but he doesn’t deserve to be called a liberal. If he is a liberal, then 90% of the country is liberal.
My Porsche Super 90 went 0-60 in 9 seconds. Wow!
Well, that is one "final conclusion", but not at all what I meant by unintended consequences. I'm not as eager as some to fall into the trap of these "doom and gloom" scenarios. A better path is to continue to be active in the Middle East and try to bring the Muslims into the 21st century in terms of market economics and raise their standard of living to match ours. The idea here is to help them by reforming their governance and giving them alternatives to the frustration that breeds terrorists and dictators alike.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.