Recommended Posts
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteHow much of that are you subsidizing with your two vehicles and five boats?
The VW TDI that gets 50 +MPG? I don't know... since most of it is bio diesel.. you tell me
Another FAIL from another fringe rightie.. OH MY
OMG, to bad that you know so little about this. We could have 50-60 mpg on diesels right now if it wasn't for the greenies out there. the diesel polutants in the form of nox (causing smog) is the the reason why we don't have the fuel mileage right now. the only way to rid nox and get 50-60 mpg is to put $10,000 exhaust systems on those cars. many diesel are going to these exhaust systems but it is making them unaffordable.
wmw999 2,447
Do you think we should ignore smog?
Wendy P.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
QuoteDo you think we should ignore smog?
Wendy P.
well you need to pick what is important smog or good fuel mileage. you cannot ave both and afford it. everyday I see people that cannot pass the emission test because they cannot afford the repairs to the cars. The gas powered cars cost hundreds and sometimes thousands to repair, how can you afford 5000 to 10000 in repairs on the new diesels?
wmw999 2,447
I can. If you shouldn't worry about someone who's worked all his life in a high tech industry because he can't find a job right now, why should I care about people who don't look ahead enough to see that they're spewing shit around for other people to breathe?Quoteyou cannot ave both and afford it
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
rushmc 23
Quote[Reply]I DO want pure science to decide
Dammit. I'm getting a bit fed up with this. What will science decide, rush? It won't decide anything. This is the alarmist issue that is being now taken by the denier side.
Science does not decide where to go. It is only politics that makes these decisions. "Science says we need to spend $50 trillion by 2025 to combat global warming. There is no choice." No. Science does not say that.
Politicians say that. Political minds say that.
What we have is a circumstance where "science" is being used as an adjunct to policy. The scientists is not being asked to provide the ups and downs. No. The scientist is now demanding that things be done a certain way. That's not science - that's policy.
This is why AGW is so hotly contested - because the arguments are about policy. "Well, my climate models show that we need to pump trillions into windmills." And the person who puts his windmills on his farm saysa, "science tells me I am doing a wonderful thing for humanity." And the humanity around him says, "I'm humanity and I say the science sucks if this is good."
This is why global warming has such a political split. One side says the other side is "anti-science" for opposing windmills. No. It's not anti-science but pragmatic. And pragmatism comes into policy.
Science will never decide what is best because "best" is subjective. Science tries to be objective.
Science and policy should be kept separate - at the very least in discussions. Want to talk science? Then talk it. Want to talk policy? Then talk it. But let's quit calling policy "science."
Ahhhh
Ok?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuote
Those are strange particulates
Not related though
Related to post #46
"I wonder how many people living downwind of a wind turbine have DIED of emphysema. How many miners have died obtaining the fuel?"
The part of the post that you conveniently ignored.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>OMG, to bad that you know so little about this. We could have 50-60 mpg on diesels
>right now if it wasn't for the greenies out there.
We DO have 50-60mpg diesels BECAUSE of the greenies out there.
===================
Clean-Diesel, 70-mpg Polo May Head Stateside: Test Drive
By Ben Hewitt
July 31, 2007 12:00 AM
Last week I flew to the U.S. Environment and Engineering headquarters of Volkswagen in Auburn Hills, Mich. My mission? To drive diesel cars that are confirmed for the U.S. market (the Jetta, in 2008) and, perhaps with more intrigue, those that are sold only in Europe—for now.
PM has previously reported on the 2008 clean-diesel Jetta (click here for video), so I won't linger on it except to say that it's a wonderful car—quick and quiet and really fun, even as it gets Prius-baiting fuel mileage in the 45-mpg range.
It's also not the car that most impressed me. Nope, that honor goes to the Euro-only Polo, a Rabbit-like hatchback—only smaller—with plenty of room for four adults, a modest hatch that could swallow a weekend's worth of gear, and a 1.4-liter, turbocharged diesel under the hood. Oh yeah, and a five-speed manual transmission.
Here's the kicker: The Polo gets 60 to 70-plus mpg.
=======================================
Chevrolet Aims for 50 MPG with Upcoming Cruze Diesel
By Jim Sharifi
04:00PM Aug 17, 2011
2012 Chevrolet Cruze
Last month, we told you that a diesel version of the Chevrolet Cruze has been announced for the U.S., and although the oil-burning affordable small car probably won’t come to market until 2013, details are slowly starting to surface.
With the Cruze Eco already on sale, some members of the press surmise that the upcoming diesel Cruze will have to offer performance, as well as good fuel economy. “General Motors thinks a sizable segment of U.S. car buyers want more than just fuel economy from a diesel engine, making the business case for an oil-burner in the Chevrolet Cruze when the nameplate already has the high-mileage Eco variant in the market,” writes Ward’s Auto. “But just in case, plans call for the Cruze diesel coming in 2013 to achieve fuel economy in the range of 50 mpg.”
A 50 mpg highway estimate for the upcoming Cruze diesel certainly out-guns the Cruze Eco, which gets an EPA-estimated 28 mpg in the city and 42 mpg on the highway with a manual transmission, but the diesel variant may also offer a significant boost in power. “GM has unofficially confirmed that it will indeed be based on the 2.0-liter diesel that's found under the hood of the Holden Cruze CDX,” says Autoblog. “In the Holden, the 2.0-liter mill pumps out 160 horsepower and 265 pound-feet of torque.”
==========================================
>the diesel polutants in the form of nox (causing smog) is the the reason why
>we don't have the fuel mileage right now.
What's a greenie to do? Come up with a system that eliminates NOx emissions via a catalytic converter - which has been done. While the deniers are claiming that the EPA wants to destroy America, the environmentalist have been quietly solving the problem.
So you can continue to complain if you like. The only request that environmentalists would have is to get out of the way while they solve the problems you're complaining about.
>the only way to rid nox and get 50-60 mpg is to put $10,000 exhaust systems
>on those cars . . .
Yep. Car companies said the same thing about fuel injectors, catalytic converters and ECU's. Just try to find a car today without those things.
>right now if it wasn't for the greenies out there.
We DO have 50-60mpg diesels BECAUSE of the greenies out there.
===================
Clean-Diesel, 70-mpg Polo May Head Stateside: Test Drive
By Ben Hewitt
July 31, 2007 12:00 AM
Last week I flew to the U.S. Environment and Engineering headquarters of Volkswagen in Auburn Hills, Mich. My mission? To drive diesel cars that are confirmed for the U.S. market (the Jetta, in 2008) and, perhaps with more intrigue, those that are sold only in Europe—for now.
PM has previously reported on the 2008 clean-diesel Jetta (click here for video), so I won't linger on it except to say that it's a wonderful car—quick and quiet and really fun, even as it gets Prius-baiting fuel mileage in the 45-mpg range.
It's also not the car that most impressed me. Nope, that honor goes to the Euro-only Polo, a Rabbit-like hatchback—only smaller—with plenty of room for four adults, a modest hatch that could swallow a weekend's worth of gear, and a 1.4-liter, turbocharged diesel under the hood. Oh yeah, and a five-speed manual transmission.
Here's the kicker: The Polo gets 60 to 70-plus mpg.
=======================================
Chevrolet Aims for 50 MPG with Upcoming Cruze Diesel
By Jim Sharifi
04:00PM Aug 17, 2011
2012 Chevrolet Cruze
Last month, we told you that a diesel version of the Chevrolet Cruze has been announced for the U.S., and although the oil-burning affordable small car probably won’t come to market until 2013, details are slowly starting to surface.
With the Cruze Eco already on sale, some members of the press surmise that the upcoming diesel Cruze will have to offer performance, as well as good fuel economy. “General Motors thinks a sizable segment of U.S. car buyers want more than just fuel economy from a diesel engine, making the business case for an oil-burner in the Chevrolet Cruze when the nameplate already has the high-mileage Eco variant in the market,” writes Ward’s Auto. “But just in case, plans call for the Cruze diesel coming in 2013 to achieve fuel economy in the range of 50 mpg.”
A 50 mpg highway estimate for the upcoming Cruze diesel certainly out-guns the Cruze Eco, which gets an EPA-estimated 28 mpg in the city and 42 mpg on the highway with a manual transmission, but the diesel variant may also offer a significant boost in power. “GM has unofficially confirmed that it will indeed be based on the 2.0-liter diesel that's found under the hood of the Holden Cruze CDX,” says Autoblog. “In the Holden, the 2.0-liter mill pumps out 160 horsepower and 265 pound-feet of torque.”
==========================================
>the diesel polutants in the form of nox (causing smog) is the the reason why
>we don't have the fuel mileage right now.
What's a greenie to do? Come up with a system that eliminates NOx emissions via a catalytic converter - which has been done. While the deniers are claiming that the EPA wants to destroy America, the environmentalist have been quietly solving the problem.
So you can continue to complain if you like. The only request that environmentalists would have is to get out of the way while they solve the problems you're complaining about.
>the only way to rid nox and get 50-60 mpg is to put $10,000 exhaust systems
>on those cars . . .
Yep. Car companies said the same thing about fuel injectors, catalytic converters and ECU's. Just try to find a car today without those things.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuote
Those are strange particulates
Not related though
Related to post #46
"I wonder how many people living downwind of a wind turbine have DIED of emphysema. How many miners have died obtaining the fuel?"
The part of the post that you conveniently snipped and ignored.
I did not snip or ignore anything
nice try though
I am still waiting for the obit however
I wonder how many minwrs have died getting the mineals for the turbines?
I like how when you are loosing the debate you try and change the topic or direction
Next
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote>OMG, to bad that you know so little about this. We could have 50-60 mpg on diesels
>right now if it wasn't for the greenies out there.
We DO have 50-60mpg diesels BECAUSE of the greenies out there.
===================
Clean-Diesel, 70-mpg Polo May Head Stateside: Test Drive
By Ben Hewitt
July 31, 2007 12:00 AM
Last week I flew to the U.S. Environment and Engineering headquarters of Volkswagen in Auburn Hills, Mich. My mission? To drive diesel cars that are confirmed for the U.S. market (the Jetta, in 2008) and, perhaps with more intrigue, those that are sold only in Europe—for now.
PM has previously reported on the 2008 clean-diesel Jetta (click here for video), so I won't linger on it except to say that it's a wonderful car—quick and quiet and really fun, even as it gets Prius-baiting fuel mileage in the 45-mpg range.
It's also not the car that most impressed me. Nope, that honor goes to the Euro-only Polo, a Rabbit-like hatchback—only smaller—with plenty of room for four adults, a modest hatch that could swallow a weekend's worth of gear, and a 1.4-liter, turbocharged diesel under the hood. Oh yeah, and a five-speed manual transmission.
Here's the kicker: The Polo gets 60 to 70-plus mpg.
=======================================
Chevrolet Aims for 50 MPG with Upcoming Cruze Diesel
By Jim Sharifi
04:00PM Aug 17, 2011
2012 Chevrolet Cruze
Last month, we told you that a diesel version of the Chevrolet Cruze has been announced for the U.S., and although the oil-burning affordable small car probably won’t come to market until 2013, details are slowly starting to surface.
With the Cruze Eco already on sale, some members of the press surmise that the upcoming diesel Cruze will have to offer performance, as well as good fuel economy. “General Motors thinks a sizable segment of U.S. car buyers want more than just fuel economy from a diesel engine, making the business case for an oil-burner in the Chevrolet Cruze when the nameplate already has the high-mileage Eco variant in the market,” writes Ward’s Auto. “But just in case, plans call for the Cruze diesel coming in 2013 to achieve fuel economy in the range of 50 mpg.”
A 50 mpg highway estimate for the upcoming Cruze diesel certainly out-guns the Cruze Eco, which gets an EPA-estimated 28 mpg in the city and 42 mpg on the highway with a manual transmission, but the diesel variant may also offer a significant boost in power. “GM has unofficially confirmed that it will indeed be based on the 2.0-liter diesel that's found under the hood of the Holden Cruze CDX,” says Autoblog. “In the Holden, the 2.0-liter mill pumps out 160 horsepower and 265 pound-feet of torque.”
==========================================
>the diesel polutants in the form of nox (causing smog) is the the reason why
>we don't have the fuel mileage right now.
What's a greenie to do? Come up with a system that eliminates NOx emissions via a catalytic converter - which has been done. While the deniers are claiming that the EPA wants to destroy America, the environmentalist have been quietly solving the problem.
So you can continue to complain if you like. The only request that environmentalists would have is to get out of the way while they solve the problems you're complaining about.
>the only way to rid nox and get 50-60 mpg is to put $10,000 exhaust systems
>on those cars . . .
Yep. Car companies said the same thing about fuel injectors, catalytic converters and ECU's. Just try to find a car today without those things.
the problem is that the exhaust systems are actually $5000 to $10000 and not affordable for someone to repair.
So we have a consensus that there is no "best" source of energy.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,991
>the problem is that the exhaust systems are actually $5000 to $10000 and
>not affordable for someone to repair.
And again EXACTLY the same things were said about catalytic converters, fuel injection, ECU's and oxygen sensors.
Yet today repair shops deal almost exclusively with cars that have all that stuff. If you claimed "repair places can't handle pricey catalytic converters with their complex precious metal innards" you'd be laughed at.
Diesel exhaust systems aren't $10,000. They cost a few thousand to car manufacturers (primarily due to the new catalysts) and are coming down fast as economies of scale kick in. The Golf diesel costs about $4000 more than its gasoline twin, and about half of that is exhaust system. The Audi A3 diesel costs about $1500 more, and the BMW 335 diesel costs $1600 more.
>not affordable for someone to repair.
And again EXACTLY the same things were said about catalytic converters, fuel injection, ECU's and oxygen sensors.
Yet today repair shops deal almost exclusively with cars that have all that stuff. If you claimed "repair places can't handle pricey catalytic converters with their complex precious metal innards" you'd be laughed at.
Diesel exhaust systems aren't $10,000. They cost a few thousand to car manufacturers (primarily due to the new catalysts) and are coming down fast as economies of scale kick in. The Golf diesel costs about $4000 more than its gasoline twin, and about half of that is exhaust system. The Audi A3 diesel costs about $1500 more, and the BMW 335 diesel costs $1600 more.
rushmc 23
QuoteSo we have a consensus that there is no "best" source of energy.
Don’t know that I ever said there was
I also did not say anything about policy or science
I agree with your post
I don’t know where I would have indicated differently
I did say pure science should be the driver
I have never stated policy is science or visa versa.
I have stated that I do not think over all, this topic, or any similar topics, are about mother earth and pollution.
It is about those who feel the life style they believe in is somehow morally superior to those who disagree with them
They use alarmism to push their agenda
And then, there are those, like the Algore, who use those who feel a moral superiority, that use alarmism, to push agendas that make them rich
Not much more to it IMO
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
All that escaping H2S gas, there has to be some side effect.
Chuck
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites