M1QJ, one could argue that there isn't so much of a fossil fuel shortage as there are restrictions placed on developing existing resources, largely due to liberal green policies. Technology to extract oil has greatly improved over the past few decades, but many oil fields are off limits due to "environmental concerns."

Sure, I'll be tickled pink when we have efficient hybrid cars. That work. In subzero weather. For longer than a few short hours. That don't substitute storage space for battery space. That don't cost considerably more than a conventional car. Until then, I'll just be content with my fossil fuel slurpin' environoxious truck.

Quite ironic, actually, that our local paper just ran a story on the latest generation hybid (is it the Prius?). The geek/er (sorry[:D]) environmentally aware person who has one is also our most outspoken local antigun advocate, a quack MD member of PAR (Physicians advocating social responsibility, or some such foolishness). Hell, they can't even get the acronym right.

SP10-

yeah, we don't have a lot of options currently, but there will be more within our lifetimes, I think.  In my particular Hybrid, the Insight, people in Canada (read sub zero winters) don't seem to have many problems.  Problems DO exist with batteries/ electric power sources in extremely cold temperatures, but problems also exist with gasoline engines as well (thus the need for block heaters).  Pure electric cars that are not self sustaining don't last long before needing a charge, but Hybrids like mine are completely self sustaining.  I can get more than 600 miles out of a tank of gas. (10.6 gallons)  I don't have to plug it in at all, or do anything special.  Just gas it up every three or four weeks and I'm good to go.
Cars like mine show that the technology is feasible, but needs refinement.  ;)

 For a while, the technology will be a compromise, but I think one day, it will not be a compromise at all.  

And about the writer you mentioned, YES, sure most environmental 'tree huggers' and hippies are quite liberal.  I happen to be quite the opposite.  I'm more attracted to hybrid technology because of the techno-geek factor, and that I can brag about averaging 57mpg, and the uniqueness factor.  I live in Austin, and have only seen 4 other Insights.  

[/quote]
Why then to CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards keep getting raised?
[/quote]


The only wonderful folks I see harping on CAFE standards in NY are our 2 beloved NYS Senators, Hildabeast Rotten Klinton, and Chuckie Schumer. Hmmmm. I wonder what their political leanings are??????????

I loathe those people as much as everyone else here.  Does them being the assholes and socialist bastards that they are, make everything they support BAD?  What would you say if, say, Heston, or Ted Nugent came out saying CAFE standards needed to be raised?

Ya see, the people that support something don't neccessarily make that something bad. ;)

 

SUV's are now getting LEV and ULEV ratings also.  There is no particular reason why a large engine should give off more pollutants per gallon than a small engine.



There goes your appeal to fairness.  Why mustn't people who primairly value safety be willing to pay for it.  The safest passenger cars on the road arguably are BMW, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz.  These cars are all pretty expensive.  Most cost more than $30,000.



This is a strawman arguement.  Nobody is arguing that we should burn up our reserves as fast as we can.  200 years should give the free market plenty of time to develop a REAL alternative to fossil fuels.



No, another strawman.  Current driver preferences are not causing an increase in pollution.  CAFE standards are not being raised all the time.  The latest attempt to raise CAFE standards was killed.  In it contained provisions that would have banned SUV's.



This is an emotional appeal.  If cars were banned outright, it wouldn't make more than a 1% difference in "greenhouse gasses".  Why bother worrying about the 1%, when even the 99% isn't doing any harm?



It's called freedom.  While you say you don't want to control what people drive, you are making the arguements of people who DO want to control what we drive.  Please drop the junk science, and educate yourself by someone other than the environmental movement.

They are simply Communists that have undergone a makeover.

I would say they had been incorporated into the Borg.

Not likely that you will see a true conservative asking for more government mandated regulation. But hey, you ain't a liberal, you should know that[:D]

I am well aware of that.  I also require that the cost be nearly the same.  Check the price of your Prius or Insight.  I bet that unless your car is being subsidised by the Federal Govt., the technology under the hood is pretty expensive.

Torf,

Again, you're welcome to your opinions.

You are right that in time, we will come up with alternatives to fossil fuels.  As far as why I'm more conservative on the matter, I tend to side with caution.  I do hope that there are no crises like in the 70's, and I do hope that air quality continues to go up, regardless of what we do.

As far as how I feel about safety on the road, like I mentioned, there have to be rules.  You don't see any 'bigfoot' style trucks on the road, do you?  Socialist?  I guess it is.  But I can live with that.  When my life is in your hands, or the other way around, don't you think we need rules?  Pay for safety?  Then it's simply the rich killing the poor because they can't afford better.  Socialism?  On the roads, I can deal with that.  Again, you and I, and everyone else on the road directly affect one another.

We live in a free society, that is true.  Freedom IS NOT absolute.  I have NO FREEDOM to put you in danger.  I have NO FREEDOM to hurt anyone else.  In any civilized, free society, there are rules.

If I needed a third vehicle, and had $25,000 to spend.  I would get a Harley anyway.  Not some rollerskate with a lego motor.  Who knows how long those things will last anyway.  What if they require $10,000 in maintenance every 50,000 miles?  It is too new.

I agree, it is cool.  Like I said before, I like efficient things, but I want my cars to be able to work as hard as I do.  I'll save effeciency for my geothermal heat pump.

It is, and it would stay expensive if it's not mainstream.  As more car manufacturers build hybrid cars, the technology will be less expensive.  We've seen this phenomenon time and time again.  
As it is, Honda does subsidize their Hybrid cars, or at least had to when they first came out.  Honda stepped up because they beleive in being proactive.  They had LEV cars out before Kalifornistan mandated them.  With the Civic Hybrid, I think Honda will sell many of them, since the Civic is the best selling car in the US.  I'll also like owning a hybrid when I get the tax breaks I'll get.  Heck, a couple years of that will PAY for any overhead from the Hybrid technology.  

Reliable is good.  That's why there's an 80,000 mile warranty on all of the hybrid powertrain parts.  I also have a 75,000 mile warranty on everything else.  I have owned Hondas before, and have no doubts about the quality they put into the work they do.  

and the Insight is quite more than a 'rollerskate with lego wheels'.  It's very much like the old CRX.  The only small car that had better crash ratings was one of the Saturn models.  It's not a race car, but it's not a slug either.  It will get up and go.  It's a 2 seater, so that alone would make it a niche vehicle anyway.  The 2 seater is fine, as 99% of my driving is alone, commuting from here to there anyway.

It's a high performance vehicle. Most people think of 'high performance' as 'goes real fast'. Well, performance is relative. Like guns, they each have good uses! For what I need from a vehicle, and what I have to put into it, I get a LOT out of the Insight.

I don't think there should be government mandated regulation.  Traffic laws?  Yes.  Things like emissions?  I think they should be voluntary.

I'm glad we agree about a few things, and I appreciate your civility.

However, I have big problems with what you have stated.

I do see large pickups on the road, often with 6in or more in lift, wearing 36inch super swamper tires.  That is fine with me.  There are rules on what is street legal.  Most of these I have no problem with.  But here is somthing that you have to remember:

Street legal is defined by each individual state, and not the Federal Government.

As long as the vehicle fits into a lane in traffic, can see using mirrors or windows, and can keep up with the pace of traffic, and doesn't fall apart, I don't see a need to get draconian with these laws.  BTW - ever hear of Semi's???

Why would socialism work out on the road when it doesn't work out anywhere else?

"...rich killing the poor because they cant afford better..."

Now that is both an emotional appeal, AND a strawman argument.  Nobody, least of all me, wants to kill anybody.  Don't ANTI-SUV folks want everyone to be fair?  Why don't they propose that everyone drive SUV's then?  Why do they try to spread the danger and misery equally by forcing everyone into smaller cars?

Besides you cant ignore Semi's.  They are as big and heavy as ever, pollute more, and aren't going anywhere.

OK.  The proper way for such technology to become mainstrean, is to utilize the market, and not a government mandate.  Let people decide that they want these things, and thus demand for them to be created.
Demend goes up, supply will follow, and the price will be whatever the market will bear.

I just don't want any Govt. types forcing this process.  I am arguing with you, because THEY use the same reasoning.

It's good to have a civil discussion, huh?  :)

Semi's can't be ignored, that's true.  They get poor gas mileage and pollute a lot.  But they serve a purpose.  For what they do, they perform well.  I think they could be better, and in the future, maybe hybrid technology will spread to large Semi's.  The alternative to them is either air freight, or trains.  

As far as socialism working, think about sports.  There are rules, they exist for safety and for fairness.  On the roads, there are rules for both.  They might not be federal rules, but each state's rules are similar.

We know COMPLETE socialism, that is SOCIALISM in EVERY facet of life, just doesn't work.  However, even in a FREE and CIVILIZED society, there are rules, and there have to be.  Freedom can and does exist with order.  [;)]

But the Govt isn't mandating anything, or at least is not mandating hybrid technology.  CAFE standards might be seen as government mandate, but are the standards set to unattainable levels?  Hardly.  We all know the oil industry and the auto industry have their hands down each other's pants, whacking eachother off.  If there were no regulation or standards, we'd still be driving cars that get 10 miles per gallon, and we'd pay out the butt for it so those industries can become richer.  

You know about the whole microsoft monopoly thing, right?  In a free society, they'd be able to do anything. Small upstart companies would get crushed and put out of business.  You'd work for Microsoft, or you'd be unemployed.  They would control the market, not consumer.  The same would happen with the oil/auto industry

I'm sure Semi's as well as passenger vehicles will advance in the future.  You are ignoring the fact that most SUV's do serve their purpose well.  Whether it be hauling kids, hauling tools, getting through snow, getting up mountains, pulling trailers, traveling long distances in comfort, they do these WELL!  Most people use their SUV's for these things fairly often.  



Sports are not socialism.  They are purely competitive.  Granted there are some standards set up in order to organize the game, but that is the nature of sports.  If there is not a fair competition, then it isn't a sport.



Obviously complete socialism doesn't work, and rules don't mean the same thing as socialism.
You keep building these strawman arguements, but they are getting more and more obvious.

Rules are fine.  We have speed limits, weight limits, and limits on everything.  Many of these go too far, whereas some are common sense.
I am not trying to argue that Stop lights are socialism, but I am arguing that mandated smaller cars/banning SUV's is socialist and wrong.

I don't think anyone, certainly not I, are asking or calling for SUVs to be banned.  It is my [i]opinion[/i]  that they could and should be more efficient.  It is also my opinion that it is possible to do so, if not now, technology should progress to that point.  

SUVs do serve a purpose, they're great for hauling 15 kids to soccor practice, they're great for small crews that do surveying and need to carry/tow equipment, they're great for hauling a boat.  It is my opinion again, that most SUVs are an overkill if all you use it for, is to drive yourself to the office.  This whole thread started when Fullclip asked about a vehicle for the sole purpose of driving himself to work.  A vehicle like mine would do it fine.  An SUV would do it too, just not as efficiently.

I disagree with everything you wrote.  It is utterly ridiculous.  No laws forced American carmakers to build smaller cars in the 80's.  That was done though competition with Japan.  The (private) insurance industry forced carmakers to stop making affordable muscle cars.  Sure the Oil embargo had an impact too.  That is called [b]"A FREE MARKET!"[/b]  No Government regulation is needed!

As for Big Auto and Big Oil being in each other's pocket (I thought I'd tone down the crassness a bit), that is a common Ralph Nader saying.  It is [b]False![/b].
Carmakers could care less about what their cars run on, and how much.  Their primary concern is:
Profit

Where do they get profit?
Consumers

What do consumers want?
Great, Cheap, Fun, Useful cars

Where would any carmaker stand to increase their bottom line by sucking up to Big Oil?
They don't.  As a matter of fact, Car companies vigorously fight CAFE, but Big Oil doesn't, at least very much.

As for the Microsoft thing, you are greatly exaggerating the harm being done, and ignoring the benefits to the consumer.

I am starting to doubt your conservatism...

You keep spouting off things that would make Ralph Nader very proud of you.  Your positions are typical of the Greens.  They only like guns, because they feel like they will have to fight the religious right someday.  [rolleyes]

Oh, but they are!  Many many people are calling for their ban.  They are being denigrated daily in the press.  Their benefits are being totally ignored, and drivers are constantly being made feel guilty for driving one.  I'm sorry that you don't see it.



I'm sure they will become more efficient.  I'd just prefer that we allow the market to dictate the schedule, and not Greenpeace.



Well, that is what most of us use them for.  I don't know anyone who has one that has absolutely no need for one.  Most people who have the means, have 1 for family stuff/work related stuff.  Weather, you can't forget that we all don't live in Texas.

I agree, in some circumstances an SUV might be overkill, but shouldn't that be up to the buyer?

Spaceman, tell me how you REALLY feel[:D]
Really, I am not offended by your opinion, but I like my suv and I am dead set on another. Currently I drive a '85 chevy pickup, hot rod, and will keep it. Pulls me to the lake with my boat and travel trailer. You can drive all the tiny econo you want, and more power to you, but I love the ride of the blazer,  and with the shape of my knees, they are(the econos) just too hard to get out of.
As for where I work, i drive just a couple of miles to work each day, but all ready this week I have put in over 1,000 miles in my diesel  tamdem truck hauling.
Honestly, thank for your concern for the environment, as I also have concern for it and do what I can, but I will be happy, comfortable and safe in my new (for me) suv. fullclip  

[img]http://www.havenofrags.de/skammy/axiom1.jpg[/img]

now that all that is out of the way, how do you choose, miles over age over cost? Econo box or tank, what is your method?...fullclip

The 4 Runner would be an excellent choice.

The best "here and now" alternative energy source is #1 diesel fuel. Diesel fuel has 10% more BTU/gallon than gasoline, and the average diesel engine burns 30% less fuel than a gas engine of comparable power.

Air/fuel ratios in a diesel engine typically range from as high a 80:1 at idle to 20:1 under a load, and when under a load approximately 80-85% of the diesel fuel is being burned - add propane injection and nearly 100% of the fuel burns.

Diesels produce fewer emissions than gasoline engines, with the exception of particulates - and those don't harm the environment like the nitrates and sulfates do (particulate emissions do bother people with respiratory problems, though.)

If we had highly-refined diesel fuel here (cetane ratings above 60) like they do in Europe, diesels would perform comparably to gasoline engines and pollute even less.

Am I saying that diesel engines are perfect? No, they're far from it. Are we ever going to achieve perfection? No, not with electric cars, not with hybrids, and not with internal-combustion engines.

What do you do when an electric car gets in a wreck? I'm not sure I trust those batteries not to leak acid, vent hydrogen and explode from a spark, or simply break their bracing and crush the passengers to a pulp. How about the cost to dispose of all that lead when you get rid of the car? These obviously aren't as big a deal in a hybrid car, but there's still a lot of battery there to cause injuries or environmental damage.

I do know that I'm using fewer valuable resources with my diesel pickup (85 Chevy 1/2 ton 4x4) than I would be if it had a gasoline engine - my 6.2L diesel is built with 1960s technology, has 270K miles on it, my most recent fuel mileage test came up with 19mpg over 1300 miles, including about 200 miles of mxed towing and hauling (anywhere from 800lbs in the bed to 6500lbs of car and trailer), and I have a heavy foot! Without the towing I average 20-22mpg, depending on how much of my time is spent on the interstate. If I had an overdrive tranny I'd be surprised if my highway mileage was less than 25mpg.

Would I like to get better mileage? Of course, but only if I don't experience a drop in performance or power. I'm getting better mileage than probably ALL comparably-sized V8 gas engines, and a lot of V6s won't beat me either. Maybe someday I'll be able to do like my friend Al and swap a 3.9L Cummins into an 84 3/4 ton GMC without overdrive and get 25+mpg around town!

How many of you guys have Jetskis/waverunners?  I read somewhere(can't remember where) that a jetski produces more pollutants in 1 hour of operation than an average car does for 100,000 miles.  I thought this was hard to believe, but they are nasty as hell if you see one idling in the water.(Smoke/oil sheen on the water)

Actually I have spent many hours reading reviews at that site and there are a ton of positive comments.  After researching for weeks there before I bought my vehicle, I thought it was prudent that I leave a positive review of the used vehicle that I eventually bought.(I left the review one year later so I had some seat time)  I am not saying all Blazers are crap, just that there are a lot of common problems with the newer models.  Even the post on here that was defending his, said that he replaced the tranny at 60,000 miles for $1200.(Not under warranty) I also have guys that  I work with that haven't had many probs with their Blazers.  But I work with guys that have had a ton of them also, too.  Later.