Everybody’s Business

[lamebums]

Here's a followup--consider the Chery QQ for example.

http://www.cheryglobal.com/modelssho...1&childIndex=3

With the 1.1L engine and a five speed manual transmission, it's FE is 5.2L/100km at 90km/h (55mph).

That's 45 MPG highway if my calculation is correct. Can you imagine what a hypermiler could get with that?

[warthog1984]

Originally Posted by lamebums

Here's a followup--consider the Chery QQ for example.

Yeah, GM's overseas division makes some great vehicles don't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chery_QQ

Lamebums,
for the sake of my blood pressure, please never diss an American company while praising the pirated Chinese copy of its products.

2005 out of 2008 components on the QQ are interchangeable between the QQ and the Chevy Spark/DaeWoo Maitz and the Chinese have the nerve to claim its not pirated.

I don't like the Big 3 but I hate the blatant theft of many Chinese companies more.

[lamebums]

Originally Posted by warthog1984

Lamebums,
for the sake of my blood pressure, please never diss an American company while praising the pirated Chinese copy of its products.

2005 out of 2008 components on the QQ are interchangeable between the QQ and the Chevy Spark/DaeWoo Maitz and the Chinese have the nerve to claim its not pirated.

I don't like the Big 3 but I hate the blatant theft of many Chinese companies more.

Well, I don't have much choice but to pile it on when the Big 3 don't even offer us a decent alternative for gas mileage. Chevy is pimping out their cars and saying they're champions of mileage when the four-cylinder Malibu gets 30 MPG highway.

Tahoe Hybrid?

I almost want Chery to be able to import those cars and steal it right from under GM's nose since they've proven they don't even want to sell a fuel-efficient model here. Maybe then the Big 3 will finally sell a non-FSP in the States when the realize their loss

[pdk]

The biggest question, I believe, with regards to any specific alternative fuel development is, "Will the cure be worse than the disease?"

Most of the things I've read about liquid coal suggest that, at best, GHG and smog emissions are on par with gasoline, and at worst, far worse than gas. The same seems to hold with biofuels (at least in their current forms) and hydrogen (current well-to-station emissions at least).

With oil shale and deep well drilling, it is a non-trivial possibility that contamination would occur (much like the gulf coast dead zone from fertilizer runoff). That would affect fishing very directly and probably a few other industries (basically anything that depends on large amounts of water...paper, possibly farming if that water makes its way to irrigation systems).

Humanity and the landscape are intertwined, to be sure, and a lot of our livelihood depends on a healthy landscape. You can't separate the two, and the future is not going to be a simple choice of either the economy or the environment. Framing the debate in those terms does no justice to the serious issues at hand. The most important thing during upcoming alternative fuel development is to make sure that we don't have tunnel vision. In order to be truly effective, whatever energy policy and fuel(s) we come up with will need to be both economically and environmentally sustainable. We're a creative people, I'm sure we can have our cake and eat it too.

[pumaman]

Originally Posted by donee

Hi Lamebums,

We have a socalled "gas guzzler" license fee here in Illinois. Because heavier vehicles cause more road damage, primarily. That fee could be boosted easily.

I think the automotive property tax is more of the slipery slope. They have that in Connecticut, and its level varies from community to community. I travel there on occaision, and people buy cars that depretiate fast just to lessen the burden. So the Yugo is the ideal car there, if it can be kept running. Or surplus police cruisers. Or ten year old pickup trucks. Technology cost money to develop, yet the regressive tax in Connecticut diminishes what can be charged for a vehicle. This is kinda an AMT situation. I imagine it was originally meant to ding the rich but now you cannot buy a car which you will pay more in property tax for it each year, than the gas it uses. Or it was that way till this year.

No need to look all the way to the East Coast Dondee, just across the River to Missouri where we also have personnal property tax on our cars. I've lived here over 20 years, and although people bitch about it, I've never heard anyone say they've bought a less expensive car because of it.

And please, could everyone stop quoting books they've never read or understood? In the book, the Ugly American is the GOOD GUY!

Ah, so when someone calls me an Ugly American, they're complimenting me. Gotcha.

[Xringer]

Originally Posted by pdk

The biggest question, I believe, with regards to any specific alternative fuel development is, "Will the cure be worse than the disease?"

Most of the things I've read about liquid coal suggest that, at best, GHG and smog emissions are on par with gasoline, and at worst, far worse than gas. The same seems to hold with biofuels (at least in their current forms) and hydrogen (current well-to-station emissions at least).

With oil shale and deep well drilling, it is a non-trivial possibility that contamination would occur (much like the gulf coast dead zone from fertilizer runoff). That would affect fishing very directly and probably a few other industries (basically anything that depends on large amounts of water...paper, possibly farming if that water makes its way to irrigation systems).

Humanity and the landscape are intertwined, to be sure, and a lot of our livelihood depends on a healthy landscape. You can't separate the two, and the future is not going to be a simple choice of either the economy or the environment. Framing the debate in those terms does no justice to the serious issues at hand. The most important thing during upcoming alternative fuel development is to make sure that we don't have tunnel vision. In order to be truly effective, whatever energy policy and fuel(s) we come up with will need to be both economically and environmentally sustainable. We're a creative people, I'm sure we can have our cake and eat it too.

Not a cure. Anyone that looks at our problems and thinks about them for a while will end up thinking
of alternate sources of oil or oil from coal etc is only a band-aid to get us over this rough spot.
Looking back at what we have already accomplished environmentally since the 1950s,
everyone has to know that we can't go back to the good old days for very long
and not suffer major repercussions.

Around the NE, cars rust away pretty fast. It's hard to find cars on the road from the 1980s. With gas prices shooting up, my guess is, we will have about 50% less gas hogs on the road within 3 to 5 years.