Isn't this fscking backwards?

Posted by: MacBozo

Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/05/08 07:57 AM

Shouldn't high markups and premiums be placed on the gas guzzlers and make the hybrids more affordable?<br><br>Hybrid SUVs Are Missing in Action<br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/05/08 09:32 AM

If you want the hybrids to be more affordable, how about some tax incentives?<br>The most popular of all hybrids is the Toyota Prius.<br>Did you know that there are no tax incentives for the Prius? The tax incentive ran out about a year ago.<br>The Toyota Highlander Hybrid costs $5000 more than the standard Hybrid.<br>How many people want to spend the extra $5000? I'll admit that if gas keeps going up $5000 extra will start looking good.<br><br>My personal answer to your question is no. I am running around in a Lexus GX470. <br>I'm 61, I've got the vehicle of my dreams and I'm going to keep it.<br>I'm like a politician. I can talk the game but I'll run around in my gas guzzler.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/05/08 12:11 PM

[censored] outta the guzzlers.<br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/05/08 01:55 PM

You don't have to give up your dream car. The auto makers are marketing vehicles they are not willing to produce in order to meet the demand. They should be making the hybrids affordable/more plentiful and placing a premium on the gas guzzlers, not the way they're doing it now.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/05/08 02:48 PM

Aye;<br><br>not fscking roit<br>but fuscking typical<br><br>2 Clark<br><br>doan beatyerself up mate<br>there's hardly a none of us <br>that can afford to do wotz roit<br>george duhbya has seen to that <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Shooshie

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/05/08 04:05 PM

The US government has done everything in its power to kill electric cars and high-mileage gasoline engines. Several companies actually made electric cars and leased them in California. Some were actually even sold. After government restrictions on mpg emissions were lifted the companies recalled the cars and scrapped them, despite a waiting list to get one. They tried to get them all, but a few people managed to keep them. One video shows an electric car drag racing some other well-powered gasoline cars. It wins by a huge margin. A guy put a solar cell rig on top of his car, and he basically travels for free. <br><br>We've passed up some amazing technology. People who tried to defy the oil-monopoly were ridiculed, defamed, and found that they could get no manufacturing partners or financial partners. Some who refused to stop their research or sell it to the oil companies were killed. <br><br>In 1980 I bought a Datsun 310 GX. It got 40 mpg on the highway. I drove it to Canada 3 times, drove it over the tallest mountain passes, drove it all over the US and Canadian Rockies, across deserts, and basically everywhere. Travel was cheap. I figured we were on the brink of major improvements, and that soon every car would be getting good mileage. I was wrong. Those cars were forgotten. <br><br>Now, "great mileage" means 30 mpg. "Good mileage" means 24 to 26 mph. Average is more like 18 to 22. There is no excuse for that. But the most amazing thing of all is the hybrids. People tout hybrids as the answer to the problems. The best hybrids get around 36 mpg. That was my Datsun 310 on a bad day in the city. I got as much as 44 mpg on my trips. <br><br>Bush killed the high-mileage car program (it was a government sponsored contest) almost the day he walked into office back in 2001. Our entire nation -- if not the world -- seems enslaved to these oil giants. I used to think that it was just conspiracy talk when I heard about the oil companies buying up patents and killing off competition. Now I know it to be true. Take for instance that great electric car I mentioned up above. There's one problem to building one now: they require a certain kind of battery usually found in laptop computers. A huge oil company owns the patent to those batteries (bought it) and they have forbidden its use in vehicles. It cannot be used in electric cars anymore. <br><br>And that's just one case. There are thousands. <br><br>We are slaves to big-oil. There is simply no other way to describe it.<br><br>Shooshie<br><br><br><br><br>[color:green]Pictures and things</font color=green>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/05/08 04:56 PM

<br>mmmm did you catch the thread about the REAL ID Act?<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/05/08 06:27 PM

Electric cars aren't any cleaner than a gas engine, in fact if your local power station is coal powered they're worse for the environment than your typical small car gas engine. While there's no junk coming out of a tailpipe on an electric car, you need to take into account the source of the electricity that you're using. Truth is most people get their electricity from coal and gas.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/05/08 07:50 PM

You have been found wanting, therefore<br> there's no point in trying to do better?<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: Shooshie

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/05/08 07:54 PM

Natural gas is far cleaner than gasoline.<br><br>[color:green]Pictures and things</font color=green>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/06/08 03:55 AM

granted, and if you live in California where a sizable percentage of your power comes from natural gas then yes you are partly reducing pollution by driving electric. However, take a state like Michigan where 60% of the power is from coal (just under 30% from nuclear), that coal is far worse than your gas engine.<br><br>Not saying it's not worth looking at alternate vehicle choices, just that for a lot of people that choice isn't as clean as some would have you believe. If you have your own charging station run by solar or wind - good on you. But if you're plugging directly to the mains supply, you're really only distributing your pollution somewhere else.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/06/08 04:06 AM

I think part of the problem is that while there is a gas guzzler tax it only applies to cars. The effect it has is to push people out of the town car/station wagon market and up into the SUV/truck market.<br><br>In europe where gas prices have been stupid for years, most migrated to diesel engined vehicles. The diesel fuel and engine technology is far ahead of US markets. You get 30-40% better mileage than from a gas engine. However the diesel engine does cost a few 1000 more than equivalent gas engines. Over the course of 2 years (24K miles) that cost is recovered in lower fuel costs and lower maintenance costs (fewer moving parts than a gas engine).<br><br>Hybrids suffer in the US because there isn't enough of a saving is mileage costs because gas doesn't cost the consumer $7+ per gallon. However much as people are complaining about gas approaching $4/gallon, this price move will push people into more economical vehicles. Just this last year new truck/SUV sales have tanked for the industry as people see these vehicles as expensive luxuaries that they really can't afford. As fuel costs rise (or the dollar collapses more) the consumer will demand cheaper alternatives, and/or more efficient vehicles.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/06/08 04:20 AM

There is always a point in trying to do better. But lapping up propaganda is not doing better. Sure electric engines are clean, as are fuel cell engines - but if your electric source or method of generating hydrogen involves coal then you're not strictly speaking "going green", you're just relocating your pollution to someone elses backyard.<br><br>When I lived alone I used public transport, or motocycle - until some blind prat of a teenager wrecked my shoulder and took the motorcycle option away from me. Then I bought a family car that got 50+ mpg. Then I moved to the US where there really wasn't anything available that got more than 35mpg, and there wasn't convenient public transport available. And whenever someone suggested building railroads or bus routes it was classified by some jerk as racist, so never got built.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: eckhard

Diesel .... - 04/06/08 05:34 AM

<br>.. as Llewellyn pointed out elsewhere, Diesel cars in Europe commonly get 35-40mpg without any fancy and costly technology.<br>Americans seem somehow stuck in a technology wharp as far as Diesel is concerned.<br><br>Sure, 18-wheelers and those godawful GM Diesels of the 70s aren't what Mom wants to drive, but we've come a loooong way since then. Today's Diesel cars don't smoke and don'T sound as though a bunch of marbles is loose in there and the torque - the actual power, in other words - comes on at relatively low RPMs, making the Diesel ideal for city stop-and-go traffic.<br><br>But many Americans seem enamored by fancy future technologies, which may not even play a significant role in a few years. The Prius, for example, may be an interesting test vehicle, but for anyone doing any amount of highway driving, it doesn't save anywhere near as much as a conventional Diesel, and who in his right mind would buy an electrical car with a 60 mile range?<br>So, sadly, people are confused by what may someday be possible and in the process don't see the forest for the trees. <br><br>Ah well,....... ;)<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

I use LPG myself - 04/06/08 06:07 AM

<br>... a byproduct of petroleum refining, the stuff still "flared off" into the environment in many parts of the world.<br><br>It is 20% cleaner than petrol, costs €0,65 per liter instead of €1,39 ($8.00 /US Gal) and with over 1400 service stations in Germany and many thousands more throughout continental Europe, I have never had a problem filling up. (besides, I still have the old petrol tank anyway.) In France, Belgium and the Netherlands, LPG costs 1/3 of Petrol, so it is, relatively speaking, an even better deal.<br><br>My 1994 Mercedes C-class only gets 27mpg (on the Autobahn), but it just passed the technical examination with flying colours and has all the comfort and features I like. I can see this being the last car ever built for me .... so, considering how much energy would go into even a tiny fuel efficient replacement, I think the ecological balance is clearly in my favour this was.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: electricron

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/06/08 06:11 AM

Back in 1980s, the speed limit was 55 mph nationally.<br>If you drove your car today at 55 mph, you'll get better milage.<br><br>Also, more anti-pollution devices rob power from your engine, more safety regulations add weight to cars too, reducing gas milage today compared to yesterday.<br><br>Alternative energy sources also pollute. <br><br>I've written this before, here it comes again. The number of cars and trucks on our highways increase 4-5% per year. If gas milage doubled today, we'll be burning just as much gas in 20 years. Math = 20 x 5% = 100%.<br><br>At some point, we're going to have to look at freezing the number of cars and trucks on our highwasys.<br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/06/08 07:02 AM

"At some point, we're going to have to look at freezing the number of cars and trucks on our highways."<br><br>doesn't that infringe on your Constitutional right to bear cars ? <br><br>I've always said they need to put more trailers (semi) on trains if it's over 300 mi. (unless it's time essential product like vegetables or meat _ I don't think big screen TVs and computers qualify !) <br><br>David (OFI)<br><br>PS I also agree with you the Fed has to do more... gas/oil/energy is a National security as well as an economic issue... look what they did during WWII... rationed gas. I'm not advocating that but reduce the HWY speed to 60 or 65... make sure states enforce it - Georgia doesn't !!<br>Give tax credits for gas efficient cars or to companies that reduce their consumption... apply fees on those that are gas hogs... anything less than 20 mpg.. <br><br>The Problem really is the American mind-set... "I want to drive MY car, any time, any where, as fast as I want - 90 mph -alone AND I want a big luxury car with all the amenities. FSCK anything else (environment, our dependence on foreign oil, our economic well being, etc)" That's basically it ! so fine - you want to keep your mind-set - you pay for it.... won't happen... but it should.<br><br>I hope the new Administration does something "active"...
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: I use LPG myself - 04/06/08 07:37 AM

i remember back in late 90's in UK, GM had a duel burn LPG/diesel engine vehicle. You could use LPG around town - distribution was not great in the countryside (only 1 of the 8 local gas stations was set up for LPG in my area). But as you say LPG is cheaper, though worse milage than you get from diesel. However had I not moved to US, I'd probably be driving an LPG/diesel car.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/06/08 07:40 AM

Just run a comparison between a European and US model of the same car. European gas cars get about 10% better mileage than US cars - I think I'm doing the math right. Also European cars have more engine options at the lower end - where the US car may have a 2.0l engine, in Europe the same manufacturer offers maybe a 1.7l or 1.8l engine also.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: eckhard

we must be talking about different things here ... - 04/06/08 09:48 AM

<br>[color:blue]i remember back in late 90's in UK, GM had a duel burn LPG/diesel engine vehicle.</font color=blue><br><br>Actually, nobody has built a Diesel/LPG vehicle yet, since Diesel engines use high compression (self-ignition), while LPG (Propane and Butane mix) behaves like petrol, i.e. gets vaporized and then ignited in the normal manner.<br>That's why it is possible, to switch from petrol to gas at any moment.<br>In fact, the engine always starts up on petrol and switches over once it is warm.<br>The fact that LPG burns cleaner than petrol also saves on maintenance, which offsets the slight consumption penalty, which in the case of my Benz amounts to less than 10%.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/06/08 09:59 AM

<br>The higher prices will help, I'm sure.<br><br>There ought to be more education as well, however. Even I, after living in NA for 35 years, had a hard time believing that a tiny 1,2 or 1,4liter engine wouldn't blow up on me while doing 90mph on the Autobahn.<br>Well, they don't. You have to get used to the somewhat different feel and sound, but there is really no need for the huge burbling engines youz guyz have come to consider essential. ;)<br><br>Price, I'm convinced, will be the only motivation, for people, to come to their senses. $4 is by far not enough. After all, people pay more for designer water than that.<br><br>Now, once the price moves toward 6 or 7$, things will change, among them also the desire to live way out in the sticks. <br>There's yet another real-estate crisis in the making.<br><br><br> <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/06/08 10:35 AM

Hehehehe<br><br>Environmentalists** have been saying that all along<br><br><br><br>**last environmentalist that brought it up/ <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: eckhard

elementary, dear Watson - 04/06/08 10:54 AM

<br>Well, of course, being sensible about the environment is anathema to the American Dream.<br><br>But even if it weren't for the waste of energy, the waste of water will become equally as pressing an issue.<br>In fact, water might be harder to deal with than energy ..... there are no alternative sources.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/07/08 05:45 AM

I'm afraid your 100% correct Eckhard... <br><br>price of gas and maybe a few luxury/ fuel use taxes.<br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/07/08 10:15 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In 1980 I bought a Datsun 310 GX. It got 40 mpg on the highway.<p><hr></blockquote><p>The problem with quoting gas mileage on a 4 banger built nearly 30 years ago is that today's cars weigh thousands of pounds more due to safety requirements like door bracing for side impacts. The engine in that car probably wouldn't be able to pull the weight the vehicle would need to be today. I know that datsun of which you speak, I've even driven one. It was a tin can.<br><br>There are quite a few cars rated at or near 40 MPG or above today. But, we should be at 80.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Take for instance that great electric car I mentioned up above. There's one problem to building one now: they require a certain kind of battery usually found in laptop computers. A huge oil company owns the patent to those batteries (bought it) and they have forbidden its use in vehicles.<p><hr></blockquote><p>What kind of battery? Lithium Ion? There is an electric vehicle using just such batteries. Where are you hearing such things?<br><br>The problem I have with both hybrid and electric vehicles is the batteries themseves. We just aren't advanced enough with battery technology. The benefits of reducing gas usage are probably outstripped by the negative impact of manufacturing these batteries, esp when you consider they must be replaced every few years.<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/07/08 01:20 PM

Not to mention the toxic waste of the replaced battery that you now have to deal with.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/07/08 02:33 PM

Well conventional lead acid batteries aren't so bad, I believe they're about 95% reused when turned in for recycling.<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: Celandine

Re: elementary, dear Watson - 04/07/08 03:15 PM

Water is LIFE.<br>Energy is necessary to get back & forth to earn wages to pay for life's necessities in this corner <br>we've painted ourselves into We've lost the skills to grow own food and produce our own clothing <br>and shelters, and we now inhabit places that's impossible to survive in without fossil fuels...<br>...but without fresh, or at least desalinated water the jig will be up in short order.<br><br>It's too bad that people think this will all end with the change of administration. That must be very<br>comforting for those that don't realize that even the president is only the front man for those truly<br>steering this floundering ship.<br><br>Yes, water....and the other staple FOOD. "Better Living Through Chemistry" will be our undoing.<br>Just as someone tried to archive the world's seed-bank, he was suddenly dead. The bees are dying.<br>Yet we're all wasting the last precious commodity. TIME. We waste time chasing our own tail.<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: macbeemer

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/07/08 03:40 PM

"If you drove your car today at 55 mph, you'll get better milage."<br><br>Not always true. I do much better @ 80 (+/-33) than at 55(abt 25), and better with the high output switched on for the turbo.<br><br><br><br><br>The Bill of Rights doesn't grant us our rights, it merely enumerates them.
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/07/08 04:11 PM

You get best mileage for engine cruise rate in top gear. If you're driving a US car with 3 automatic gear, then that could very well be 55mph. If you're driving something like a BMW that could be somewhere around 65-75mph.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/07/08 04:20 PM

The market will dictate the price. If the price is being driven up, huge margins. Than more hybrids will be made to take advantage of the favorable margins. As the vehicles become more available a demand continues to grow, pricing will start to be more competitive. <br><br>Btw. I support a minimum of $2 dollar a gallon gasoline tax on top of what we are currently paying. Maybe even $three. As long as we give an equal amount of revenue back in an income tax cut. We are only going to get off the oil teet if one of two things happen. We run out, We artificially price it to make true economy a market force.<br><br>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: Diesel .... - 04/07/08 04:24 PM

Sorry. Diesel won't cut our emissions standards in most markets. Which I would absolutely love to have as an option. Both automative and marine uses, the power and longevity of a diesel is worth it.<br><br>
Posted by: macbeemer

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/07/08 04:38 PM

"You get best mileage for engine cruise rate in top gear. If you're driving a US car with 3 automatic gear, then that could very well be 55mph. If you're driving something like a BMW that could be somewhere around 65-75mph."<br><br>Right - <br><br>a Big SAAB Aero, in 6th gear. Never had it above 132. honestly officer...<br><br><br>The Bill of Rights doesn't grant us our rights, it merely enumerates them.
Posted by: eckhard

Re: Diesel .... - 04/07/08 11:59 PM

<br>That hasn't been true (with the emission standards) for quite some time.<br>VW and MB both meet and exceed even the most stringent standards here and there ... including micro particle emissions.<br><br>Stateside, Diesel has had a bad rap also because the quality of the fuel (mainly consistency) didn't measure up to what refineries in Europe have been producing for ages. Partly, because the demand has been so low .... vicious cycle thing.<br><br>But with growing concerns about fuel efficiency, as well as with Diesel's power curve, which generates far more useable grunt at the lower engine speeds where it is needed, both companies have plans to give it one more try. <br><br>Compared with hybrids, which do extract a penalty in driving fun, current A oder B-Class Mercedes (small minivan design) and VW Golf/Jetta are routinely running on 4-5l/100km (45mpg). That's without any fancy or costly technology in place and going with the flow on the Autobahn. The new BlueTec versions will reduce that to 50-60mpg.<br><br>One particular advantage of Diesel engines is that their consumption is more load dependent than that of gas engines .. one reason one sees so many trucks just idling at the rest stops. Clearly, this is idea for urban situations, where one often stands as much as one drives.<br><br>So, until some real alternative is found, Diesel represents the most sensible option.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/08/08 08:45 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If you're driving a US car with 3 automatic gear, then that could very well be 55mph.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>What is this, 1980? ;)<br><br>FWIW, my Altima gets it's best mileage at about 82. With the cruise engaged it picks up another 1-2 mpg. These results are from many scientific tests on the jersey turnpike. ;)<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: eckhard

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/08/08 09:32 AM

<br>[color:blue]my Altima gets it's best mileage at about 82</font color=blue><br><br>.... better than at 55?<br>Science, shmience ..... that one I would love to see. ;)<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/08/08 09:55 AM

My Saab 9-3 gets 34+ at around 75mph on cruise (28 hauling a 1000lb trailer). My wifes Grand Prix logs about 32 at 65mph. But I have a few extra gears over her car.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/08/08 10:04 AM

I don't know, I don't think I've ever driven 55. ;)<br><br>But yes, on trips up north I'd average about 32mpg when doing ~80. At 65 I would get only about 29.<br><br>At 55 I'd probably still be in 4th gear. :P<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: DLC

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/08/08 10:11 AM

Sarge and Eckhard... I do believe some cars do get better gas mileage at a faster speed ... but there is always a limit.<br><br>ie not all cars get the best at 55.... aerodynamic cars might get better at a slightly better speed, and the boxy ones worse !<br><br>no data on this... but I'm skeptic one speed fits all.<br>I realize for public policy they have to adopt one speed limit, but I think scientifically the most efficient speed depends on many things. With some of the boxy ones, 0 mph might be the best ! <br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/08/08 12:57 PM

Basically what we're saying is that you want to cruise in top gear. For example in my car I can get same gallon per hour use at 35 & 48, but I'm in 3rd gear at 30 and 4th gear at 40 (same engine revs on level road). However at that rev point the engine is working, push up by about 15% and the engine is more comfortable (in the torque range) so consumption/hour decreases.<br><br>But each car has different point of cruise and different # gears. Incidently since diesels have a greater range (flatter) torque band they can pull comfortably at lower engine speeds, also helping their better mileage figures.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/08/08 01:58 PM

exactly!<br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/08/08 02:28 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>ie not all cars get the best at 55.... aerodynamic cars might get better at a slightly better speed, and the boxy ones worse <p><hr></blockquote><p><br>I don't think any car gets its best mileage at 55. For one, the speed limit hasn't been 55 for ages. But I'd be willing to bet most cars built since 2000 have better gas mileage at 65-70 than they do at 55. <br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: electricron

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/09/08 06:18 AM

You're confusing rpms vs horsepower.<br><br>Read this article:<br>http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question4771.htm<br><br>The more horsepower you need from the engine to reach a certain speed, the more gas it consumes. <br>Here's the basic equation: road load power = av + bvsquare + cvcube<br>where v is speed, a is the rolling resistance of the tires, and friction in the car's components, like drag from the brake pads, or friction in the wheel bearings, b is friction in components, and from the rolling resistance in the tires. But it also comes from the power used by the various pumps in the car., c is things that affect aerodynamic drag like the frontal area, drag coefficient and density of the air.<br><br>Example: <br>Speed > Equation = Result<br>3 mph > 3 +3 square +3 cube = 39<br>2 mph > 2 +2 square +2 cube = 14<br>Power Increase 25<br>51 mph > 51 +51 square +51 cube = 135,303<br>50 mph > 50 +50 square +50 cube = 127,550<br>Power Increase = 7,753<br><br>I will not argue a light, small, aerodynamic car gets better gas milage at a higher speed than a pick up truck. Just that the light, small, aerodynamic car still uses more power (gas) at higher speeds.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/09/08 08:20 AM

But gearing helps. Driving at 55mph in 3rd gear is less efficient than in 4th. However you also have to take into account the work the engine needs to do. I can drive at 40mph in 4th on level terrain, but a small hill causes the engine to be overworked (will slow down if the hill is steep enough) so I have to change down to 3rd to pull the hill. <br><br>Vehicle weight will also have a bearing. My sisters small car could drive uphill from my parents home in 3rd easily, but with both parents and me in the car the engine couldn't do it and she had to select 2nd.<br>I also remember back in the early 80's, UK Ford offered a vehicle with 1.3l, 1.6l and 2.0l engines. The 1.3l gave same mileage as the 2.0l engine, because the car was too heavy for the engine power - Imagine putting a 2.0l 4cyl engine in a 3500HD truck and trying to haul a goose neck horse trailer <br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: electricron

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/09/08 01:34 PM

True, gearing helps. But it still takes more power to go faster.<br><br>Ride a muti-gear bicycle. Higher gears make it easy to ride the bicycle uphill, it take less force on the pedals. But you're spinning the pedals faster, and are really doing as much work.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/09/08 02:52 PM

My 1969 MGB-GT (1.8 L dual aspirated) got it's best per gallon mileage at sustained speeds above 80 (4th gear with overdrive engaged). It used significantly more fuel at 55.<br><br>
Posted by: electricron

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/10/08 05:13 AM

And you couldn't put your MG into 4th gear and overdrive at 55 mph?<br><br><br>As I wrote before, horsepower used effects milage more than rpms.<br><br>Think of gears like a pulley. The more mechanical advantage you get from using pulleys, the easier it is to lift an object. But you must pull the chain much longer, and eventually use the same amount of work, power, horsepower.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: macbeemer

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/10/08 05:55 AM

I don't pretend to be degreed in physics, or engineering, but regarding speed v. efficiency - isn't there a bow wave principle for cars, as there is for water craft/ I know that boats will suck down the fuel until they climb up to their planing speed where the consumption decreases tremendously. Isn't there a harmonically optimal speed for a given shape, which will work in concert with engine config, gearing, road surface, tire inflation and all that stuff? i am absolutely sure that my 4500 lb. SAAB does better at 85 than at 55. I travel frequently to visit my son, who is 225 miles from here. i have plenty of opportunity to seek the best speed range, route, gas type combo. I'm telling ya - when the foot goes down, the gas needle slows down. If I maintain a constant, high speed on the commute, and don't ride around once I get there, i can make a round trip on a tank. <br><br><br>The Bill of Rights doesn't grant us our rights, it merely enumerates them.
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/10/08 06:09 AM

Part of the problem with a gas engine is the optimum torque of the engine and the work you're requiring from it. Below 1500RPM my engine can't pull worth a darn - I have to feed way more gas into the engine to maintain momentum than I do at say 2000RPM. For example - with just me in my car, I can drive level ground at 38mph in 4th gear, but hit a hill and the speed bleeds off until the engine stalls (or in my case the transmission computer downshifts to 3rd). However at around 48mph, in 4th, the engine output is sufficient to maintain 48mph for far longer before the slowdown really sets in. To maintain 38 I have to floor the gas in 4th, at 48 I need just a nudge extra to maintain the climb.<br><br>So in laboratory conditions, an engine at idle will use less gas than one running at 2000rpm with no additional load. Engage the gears and stick it on a rolling road, the most efficient (virtual) speed will be at sufficient power to overcome friction in highest gear (in my car maybe 53mph in 5th).<br><br>But when you go into the real world, said car has to overcome more friction, plus gravity. You get a higher mileage going downhill, with the gas feeding at almost idle rate. But uphills, depending upon steepness, the typical driver will get better mileage at the point where the engine is capable of performing more work (as related to the torque graph) ie at 1500rpm on 7% slope the engine cannot overcome the additional burden of gravity, where at 2200rpm on the same slope it can.<br><br>Since all reported mileage is averaged over the trip distance, you have to use real world conditions rather than laboratory conditions. My car can get an instant read of 50mpg going downhill at 80mph, with the gas at idle (possibly more), but that is not a realistic report of mpg. Over the course of a trip of 1000 miles from TX to MI I achieved 34mpg at 85% driving time 75mph (on cruise control), at 65mph I only get around 32mpg sustained, mainly because of the hills climbs and descents involved in the trip.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: electricron

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/10/08 02:21 PM

Another news article with a "real" world test.<br>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/19/MNG3NFAOF11.DTL<br><br>But as a gas-saving device, 55 mph still works. The Malibu got 35 mpg on the way down to Kettleman City; coming back from the Kings County settlement of fast-food restaurants and gas stations at the flow of traffic, a bit over 70 mph, the mileage dropped sharply -- to 25 mpg.<br>For every mile per hour faster than 55 mph, fuel economy drops by about 1 percent, said Jason Mark, clean vehicles program director for the Union of Concerned Scientists. The drop-off increases at a greater rate after 65 mph. The faster you go, the faster the fuel goes.<br>That makes sense to Mark, who said the savings can add up by slowing down even on short trips. He figures that a commuter making a 30-mile drive to work at 65 mph instead of 75 mph would save about 30 cents in fuel costs per day -- or $150 a year -- and spend just 3 1/2 minutes more daily on the road.<br><br>With gas prices soaring and people searching for ways to reduce their energy costs, Chronicle reporter Michael Cabanatuan explored an old solution -- slowing down. He drove from Emeryville to Kettleman City at 55 mph, then drove back at 70 mph and compared his gas mileage on the two trips.<br>Emeryville to Kettleman City<br>55.6 mph, 35 mpg<br>Gas consumed: 5.7 gallons<br>Travel time: 3 hours 36 minutes<br>Cost of gas: $17.04 ($2.99/gallon)<br>Number of vehicles that passed driver: 830<br>Kettleman City back to Emeryville<br>70.8 mph, 25 mpg<br>Gas consumed: 7.8 gallons<br>Travel time: 2 hours 47 minutes<br>Cost of gas: $22.23 ($2.85/gallon)<br>Number of vehicles that passed driver: 94<br><br><br>And from http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/best-gas-mileage-drive-55-461130<br>At 65 mph you're burning 10% more fuel than at 55, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. At 70 you lose 17% of your fuel economy, and at 75 it’s 25%. The numbers get worse from there.<br>Even though you may thrive off living in the fast lane, if the national speed limit were reset to 55, it would save 1 billion barrels of oil per year — more than the U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf.<br><br>And another "real" world test<br>http://www.delphifaq.com/faq/auto/f994.shtml<br><br><br>And from http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/104752/Slow-Down-a-Lttle-Save-a-Lot-of-Gas<br><br>In a typical family sedan, every 10 miles per hour you drive over 60 is like the price of gasoline going up about 54 cents a gallon. That figure will be even higher for less fuel-efficient vehicles that go fewer miles on a gallon to start with.<br><br>The reason is as clear as the air around you.<br><br>When cruising on the highway, your car will be in its highest gear with the engine humming along at relatively low rpm's. All your car needs to do is maintain its speed by overcoming the combined friction of its own moving parts, the tires on the road surface and, most of all, the air flowing around, over and under it.<br><br>Pushing air around actually takes up about 40% of a car's energy at highway speeds, according to Roger Clark, a fuel economy engineer for General Motors.<br><br>Traveling faster makes the job even harder. More air builds up in front of the vehicle, and the low pressure "hole" trailing behind gets bigger, too. Together, these create an increasing suction that tends to pull back harder and harder the faster you drive. The increase is actually exponential, meaning wind resistance rises much more steeply between 70 and 80 mph than it does between 50 and 60.<br><br>Every 10 mph faster reduces fuel economy by about 4 mpg, a figure that remains fairly constant regardless of vehicle size, Clark said. (It might seem that a larger vehicle, with more aerodynamic drag, would see more of an impact. But larger vehicles also tend to have larger, more powerful engines that can more easily cope with the added load.)<br><br>You're not going to find many links on the internet suggesting otherwise.<br><br><br><br><br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by electricron on 04/10/08 05:44 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/10/08 03:19 PM

55, 4th gear and overdrive used more fuel. The faster that car went, the more efficient it became.<br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/11/08 06:08 AM

Ron you can argue till you're blue in the face. What you post might be fine if I drove a Chevy Malibu, but I don't. I drive a 5 speed 3.5 Altima with an entirely different engine, gearing and aerodynamics.<br><br>At 55 I'm right on the edge of staying in 4th gear, and switching to 5th. The car is terribly inefficient at this speed. It's better at 60, but the car hits it's sweet spot between 75-85 in high gear.<br><br>My business trips to NYC (okay, NJ actually) and back (roughly 460 miles round trip), and the car's fuel calculator also bear this out. Between 75-80 is when I'm getting the best mileage in 5th gear. I can fill up before I leave, set cruise between 75-80 and get there and back with a ~1/4 tank of gas left (14-15 gallons used). If I do 60 the whole way, I always need to refill before I make it home (about 18 gallons used). Likewise, if I do 90 I need to refill.<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/11/08 06:51 AM

Question: by fuel calculator do you mean a readout that is realtime? Does it get real time fuel consumption and mph and give you a read out?<br><br>Back in 1978 I wrote a whole paper on how it would be cool to have one of these in every car so people would drive more sensibly. If drivers saw that jack rabbit starts and fast acceleration was pegged at one mile per gallon they might be a little more gentle on the gas pedal. Increase and decrease of speed is where all the gas goes.<br><br>I would agree on 55 not being the sweet spot on some of these high torque high rpm engines. My wife's six speed Acura RX-S is just entering 5th gear at 55 mph. The first time I brought it out on the highway I went through the gears, looked down at the speedometer and had to hit the brakes. Below 65 mph and the engine is way below the power spot and a bit below the sweetspot, the engine is almost lugging. It wants to go 76 mph and it isn't punching a big hole in the air to boot.<br><br>Had a friend in high school during the first oil embargo and he was convinced that getting the car into 4th ASAP was saving gas. The fact that he was stomping on the gas pedal as his poor car tried to get past 20 mph as the engine lugged in pain with raw gas pouring out of the exhaust pipe did not compute.<br><br>nb: But most cars, Ron's calculations are likely correct. A car weighing close to two tons with a mid sized to SUV hole being punched in the air would save gas staying at 55 or below.<br><br>As you said, people were getting good gas mileage back in the 70s and 80s because they were pushing 4 wheels, a frame and some tin about. Cars today are so loaded with cage and safety crushing zones we pay for that safety in gasoline. My 1963 Austin Healey had great gas mileage. A 1500 cc engine only had to get 1,100 pounds of car up to speed. It drove very differently when I had a passenger and a full tank of gas. Made a big difference. I was also as safe as being on a motorcycle if involved in a crash. A friend of mine found the engine in his lap after he tried to uproot a tree with his.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/11/08 07:59 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Question: by fuel calculator do you mean a readout that is realtime? Does it get real time fuel consumption and mph and give you a read out?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, it updates every 30 seconds and gives you the average since the last time you reset. While it's not 100% accurate, it is pretty good for getting averages over a trip. I've found it to usually be within 1mpg of my calculations when I count the gas I've used.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Increase and decrease of speed is where all the gas goes.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yeah, isn't that the truth. Still some cars are better than others. My current car is a land rocket. If I zip around like a madman, I'll get 18-19 or less. Drive sensibly, I'm getting 28 or so. <br><br>However when I had a Miata, no matter how I drove the car it never seemed to go below 29-30. Clutch drops and spinning tires all week long, 29mpg. Drive like a granny, 30 mpg.<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/11/08 08:49 AM

The fuel calculator I wanted to invent would taking a read off the axle and a flowmeter on the gas line. Didn't have to actually be a precise mpg but that it would give you a dancing readout which instantly showed you how much gas you were wasting as you came off the line and shifted. <br><br>After years of driving and watching the tach and my foot pressure and car speed one can sense how much gas is getting sucked in but a needle would be more fun. Every once and a while on a long trip I try to break my record of miles out of one tank. (Wife an kids hate this game as I drive on empty.) When I play that game I pretend that there is a fresh egg stuck on the gas pedal which I cannot crack. Push too hard, omelet. With my tires pumped to 38 psi on a warm day flat run down the east coast I can get past 420 miles on a tank with my heavy SUV (4Runner 3.4L V6) (18.5 g tank but can never get it past 17)<br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/11/08 09:13 AM

Father in Law's last Cadillac had just such a readout. Actually, I think they've had them for 15 years or so.<br><br>Most I've ever gone on a tank in the Altima is 540 miles. The sucker has a 20 gallon tank on it. Usually when the gas light comes on, I've still got 4 gallons left.<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/11/08 10:25 AM

Back in the UK, my boss' Peugeot 405 had an instant/average toggle. Instant could get rather scary. Also the car sucked in town, since it was an automatic, and the 2nd-3rd shift was right around 30mph. I ended up driving it in [2] all the time.<br><br>Another thing I've noted that can heavily affect fuel usage is carbon deposits. Back in the UK I could average 45-50mpg on my motorcycle, but once every 3-6months, that would drop to around 35mpg. Was a good excuse to go to the gas station, fill the tank, then run it at high revs until empty (good weekend run). That would clean the engine and get my fuel figures back to pleasant levels.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/11/08 11:48 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Was a good excuse to go to the gas station, fill the tank, then run it at high revs until empty (good weekend run). That would clean the engine and get my fuel figures back to pleasant levels.<p><hr></blockquote><p> I have used this as an excuse for excessive speed twice. "I'm cleaning the carbon off officer." One time it worked. The second time he clocked me correctly at 138 mph. He was nice enough to knock the ticket down to 98 mph so I did not have to hand over my first born to the judge.<br>(I don't do such things anymore now that I have a first and second born.) <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/11/08 12:28 PM

Ah. I used to hit the back lanes in the UK, nice winding roads (well barely roads) with a 60mph limit. Plus I was on a BMW, lower redline than your Japanese crotch rockets, and handles (in the words of UK motorcycle press) like a pregnant hippo!! Basically you had to plan your corner approach/braking well in advance of leaning into the corner.<br><br>Though I did have opportunity to follow a couple of the local constabulary one day. I went with the theory that I was riding the same thing they were, so I should be able to take the corners at the same speed. Was a fun ride - until they realised I wasn't one of their other two colleagues and pulled over to wait for their colleagues to catch up. I was sorely tempted to pull over also and ask if we could keep going... but decided to blast past them at the speed limit.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: electricron

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/11/08 02:21 PM

Then your Nissan is geared WRONG if you can't cruise at 55 mph in high gear (overdrive). Cause if it could, it would save you a ton in gas.<br><br>Wind resistance doesn't change all that much by how well your car is streamlined. And it does increase as speed increases, at 4 mpg for every 10 mph over 55 mph. If you're averaging 30 mpg at 65 mph, you should be getting 34 mpg at 55 mph.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/12/08 12:04 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Then your Nissan is geared WRONG if you can't cruise at 55 mph in high gear (overdrive). <p><hr></blockquote><p>That's an incredibly stupid statement. The car is geared for it's engine. Which, BTW the Nissan VQ engine happens to be in the top 2 of Car & Drivers top ten engines for something like 15 years running, and after owning one I wholeheartedly concur. It has more power and torque than just about any American V8. Sh!t it's even faster than my brothers vintage '68 Camaro with the rare 302 engine, and uses half the fuel. I'd drag him for pinks with this car if I didn't think it'd piss him off to lose.<br><br>The speed limit in Maryland where I live isn't 55. <br><br>The speed limit in the United States isn't 55.<br><br>Get out of 1970 dude. Even the lowly minivan is built to do 75 with minimal effort today. As Poly stated, which happens to be the absolute truth, is that most of your gas gets used during acceleration. As we've all noted, every single car is different. As I stated in an earlier post, the Miata I used to own never got below 29 mpg no matter how fast I drove. The numbers for 55 were created to show just that... when 55 was the speed limit. Of course if you want to be honest, you even need to calculate the air temperature, as that has effect on resistance, and HP generated by the engine.<br><br>I can certainly drive in 5th gear at 55. But, the speed limit here is 65, and I get better gas mileage at 80, whether you like it or not. I don't drive a huge gas sucking SUV, or a crappy American sedan (even though it's built in America, unlike most Fords or Chevys). <br><br>The Malibu probably does get it's best mileage around 55. It's got a weak engine.<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/12/08 12:14 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>He was nice enough to knock the ticket down to 98 mph so I did not have to hand over my first born to the judge.<p><hr></blockquote><p>True story. <br><br>My brother has a '68 Camaro Rally Sport with a 302 engine (which if you know cars, you know this car was built only 2 years because Chevy never made a 302 any other years). '<br><br>Anyway, he took the 302 out and replaced it with a 327 crate motor because he didn't want to risk blowing the 302. <br><br>Anyway, we were out running the car after the swap and got pulled over doing around 90 in a 40 zone.<br><br>The cop asked if he knew the speed limit, and no crap he says "Well, the sign just back there said 140".<br><br>The cop gives him a sh!t grin and says "That's the road's route number sir."<br><br>My brother laughs and says "Damn, then I'm glad you pulled us over before we got to 695!"<br><br>:D<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: electricron

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/12/08 07:07 AM

"Which, BTW the Nissan VQ engine happens to be in the top 2 of Car & Drivers top ten engines for something like 15 years running, and after owning one I wholeheartedly concur."<br><br>Well, I disagree. Obviously it doesn't have the power for you to use overdirive at 55 mph.<br><br>And you are using more power to travel faster;. <br>You can't beat the physics behind wind losses.<br>.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/12/08 09:37 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Well, I disagree. Obviously it doesn't have the power for you to use overdirive at 55 mph.<p><hr></blockquote><p>A corvette can't use it's top gear at 55 either.<br><br>BTW, if I was doing 55 on the interstate, I would actually be pulled over and ticketed for going too slow. The car shouldn't be geared to get it's best mileage at 55, it should be geared for 65-70 because that's what the speed limit is.<br><br>Like I said, get out of 1970!<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: FSM

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/12/08 10:36 AM

i'd like a tax like that as well, but you'd have to not apply it to working vehicles (e.g., semis, farm tractors) or else consumer prices across the board are going up as well including groceries.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/12/08 12:13 PM

But Ford said that they will not produce enough to meet the demand. They are choking off the market for their hybrids.<br><br>
Posted by: GingerBreadMan

Re: Isn't this fscking backwards? - 04/13/08 02:46 AM

In case anyone is interested, I found this<br><br>http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/sample_results.html<br><br>What's interesting is the green house emissions for each kind of vehicle - bottom graph. Two types of emissions - PTW - pump to wheels or what the car is putting out and WTP - well to pump the emissions that are put out when making the energy.<br><br><br><br>No surprise that a battery operated vehicle using renewable (wind power, hydro electric) puts out zero emissions. However most electricity isn't produced that way.<br><br>Probably the most surprising is Fuel Cell vehicles which look like they pollute about as much as a gasoline vehicle.<br><br>Gasoline Hybrid Electrics seem to have best results across all graphs (and only diesel hybrids do better). Better fuel consumption, green house gas emission and practicality.<br><br>--------------<br><br>Btw, where's the politics in this thread? I really don't find this thread all that political and was surprised to find it here. <br><br>[color:blue]"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue>