Disgusting. Obama Officially Using BP Oil Spill As The Catalyst To Shove Cap & Trade Down Our Throats

[mawilson 2,133]

Not really - there was a number of $4.60 floated as to how much a gallon of gas should really cost.

Not if you include the cost of keeping our troops in the Middle East, tax subsidies to the oil

industry, protection costs involved in oil shipment, environmental, health and other hidden costs.

When added to the retail price of gasoline, these costs result in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Quite true. It's also why I don't use cheap azz fuel in my car. On top of burning more efficiently, the higher quality fuels have extra additives to keep your engine clean.

It's the same deals with oil. A synthetic oil is much better for your engine that some bottom of the barrel oil.

I've heard that this is a myth.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Ok, just looked it up and its a semi myth. The compression ratio of the engine determines efficiency. Higher ratio = more efficiency which requires higher octane. So sticking 95 octane in most standard engines is meaningless.

[Texanadian 10]

In the UK - you can get gas mileage up to about 75 miles a gallon. Of course the gallons are ridiculously expensive - but when you've gotten used to a "good" car getting about 35mpg, it's quite a surprise.

It's not just the differences between UK and US gallons (4.54 litres for the UK vs 3.78 litres for a US gallon). It's the way that fuel economy tests are run. The 2008 EPA fuel test guidelines have changed to make cars more realistic in their actual mpg rating. For example, the old fuel economy test for the highway was to drive 60 mph max speed, with a 0-60 time of 18 seconds. No air conditioning being used. Wouldn't you know it? People weren't getting their EPA rated highway mileage. As a result of this change, a Prius went from 60 mpg to 45 mpg. Same car. Just a different and more realistic way of estimating fuel usage. I feely admit to having no idea how UK fuel economy tests are done.

The ethanol problem brings up another "creative" way of measuring fuel economy. Ever wonder why there are so many Flexfuel vehicles on the road even though hardly anybody buys E-85?

The answer is the mandatory Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Federal law requires that the cars an automaker offers for sale average 27.5 mpg; light trucks must achieve 22.2 mpg. Failure to do so can result in substantial fines. However, relief is available to manufacturers that build E85 vehicles to encourage their production.

The irony here is that although E85 in fact gets poorer fuel economy than gasoline, for CAFE purposes, the government counts only the 15-percent gasoline content of E85. Not counting the ethanol, which is the other 85 percent, produces a seven-fold increase in E85 mpg. The official CAFE number for an E85 vehicle results from averaging the gas and the inflated E85 fuel-economy stats.

Calculating backward from our test Tahoe's window-sticker figures (which are lower than but derived from the unpublished CAFE numbers), we figure the E85 Tahoe's CAFE rating jumped from 20.1 mpg to 33.3 mpg, blowing through the 22.2-mpg mandate and raising GM's average. What's that worth? Well, spread over the roughly 4.5-million vehicles GM sold in 2005, the maximum 0.9-mpg benefit allowed by the E85 loophole could have saved GM more than $200 million in fines. That's not chump change, even for the auto giant.

Ethanol is such a waste. We have government subsidizing farmers to grow a fuel that gets worse gas mileage than gasoline. The argument that it's better for greenhouse gases is blown away since simply planting trees on the land used to grow ethanol would do more for greenhouse gas reduction (not to mention be simpler to do).

Germany taxes you based on the size of your engine. I think this is wrong. Consider a Corvette with it's 6.2L engine gets better gas mileage than a Porsche 911 with it's 3.6L engine. A Corvette Z06 with it's 7.0L engine gets better gas mileage than a Porsche 911 Turbo. Yet in both instances, a Corvette owner would pay more in car taxes in Germany than the Porsche owner would.

Government safety rules have made cars much too heavy these days. A 1973 Honda Civic weighed 1500 lbs and got 40 mpg. A new Honda Civic weighs 2700 lbs and gets about 35 mpg. The engine technology is obviously better than it was 37 years ago. But when you're battling near twice the weight, the fuel usage is going to suffer.

The developed world is also now heavily into diesel cars that achieve fuel efficiencies greater than hybrids, yet for some reason not in the US.

That's because Diesel fuel is too polluting to be used in the USA. Gas engines run best with an air/fuel ratio around 14.5/1.....Diesels run ultra lean with air/fuel ratios running around 20/1. But the ultra lean while it lowers one area of pollution increases the other. California and 4 other states for example banned new Volkswagon Jetta Diesels from being sold for a number of years in the earlier part of the decade because they wouldn't pass California emissions standards. The gas powered Jettas had no problems.

I'll admit that newer diesel technology is better. But Americans by and large never liked the rattling bucket of bolts sound that diesels offered in the past. The stench of old diesels was never liked either. (I can't stand the smell of diesel) And diesels are a royal pain to deal with in the wintertime when it's below freezing.

Milton Friedman, the godfather of Libertarianism, was the one who first proposed the idea of Cap and Trade as an alternative to Federal regulations imposing restrictions on industry emissions.

The keyword is alternative. What Obama wants is both. It doesn't really matter how you make your product clean as long as it IS clean. That's what annoys me with vehicle emissions tests here in Texas. They don't just put a probe in your tailpipe and measure the pollutants. They do a visual examination under the hood and will fail you on the visual for missing emission parts even if your exhaust pipe emissions pass. Oddly enough, they only do the tailpipe probe on pre 1996 vehicles. Newer vehicles are tested with the under dash plug and checked for engine codes. This makes it extremely simple to tune out the problem and cheat the test. Hence why people can come in with heads and cam cars with no cats that are running so rich your eyes burn. But the under dash OBDII sensor reads everything as "pass" because the oxygen sensors have been replaced with "simulators."

Speaking of learning from the Gulf Oil Spill, by the logic of this, we should get off of our demand for seafood as well. Since the oil spill has shown how dependent fishing jobs are to our economy and eating habits.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Quite true. It's also why I don't use cheap azz fuel in my car. On top of burning more efficiently, the higher quality fuels have extra additives to keep your engine clean.

I've heard that this is a myth.

it depends on the brand really. some oil companies do use a bit more and or different detergents in different octane level products. some companies use better & more than others do. you'd really need to research the brands available in your area to decide which has the higher quality (better cleaning) product.

Ok, just looked it up and its a semi myth. The compression ratio of the engine determines efficiency. Higher ratio = more efficiency which requires higher octane. So sticking 95 octane in most standard engines is meaningless.

your right on the octane-compression part, thats semi accurate on the meaningless part. in a new engine that is suppose to run on 87 or higher, yes its pretty much useless. if that engine has 50k miles on it, it has some wear. i personally have not seen an engine with 50k or more that did not knock (pre-ignition or pre-detenation) at WOT (wide open throttle...getting on the highway for example) using 87 octane. 95 octane is a bit more than i'd use. but, a jump to 91-93 would take that knock right out for you. slightly increasing your horsepower & fuel economy by curing the pre-detenation & extending the life of the engine just a little bit in the process too.

[Heracles 417]

That's because Diesel fuel is too polluting to be used in the USA. Gas engines run best with an air/fuel ratio around 14.5/1.....Diesels run ultra lean with air/fuel ratios running around 20/1. But the ultra lean while it lowers one area of pollution increases the other. California and 4 other states for example banned new Volkswagon Jetta Diesels from being sold for a number of years in the earlier part of the decade because they wouldn't pass California emissions standards. The gas powered Jettas had no problems.

I'll admit that newer diesel technology is better. But Americans by and large never liked the rattling bucket of bolts sound that diesels offered in the past. The stench of old diesels was never liked either. (I can't stand the smell of diesel) And diesels are a royal pain to deal with in the wintertime when it's below freezing.

California is one state, now compare it to the rest. Texas and emissions [or any regulation] do not exactly go hand in hand. Europe is also a leader and has been a leader in emissions reductions for years. Not to mention they publish Co2 on their car's fuel economy labela.

What it comes down to is that the average American consumer does not want it. These often middle America folks prefer inefficient 12 MPG trucks. Trucks often worth half the price of their house, yet fail to grasp why they are dirt poor; which is a whole other discussion but anyway.

What I and the rest of the world find interesting is that Americans have not liked the noisy diesels yet prefer the luxurious, well handling, safe, ultra quiet and smooth riding V8 trucks.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Booyah!

[mawilson 2,133]

As a result of this change, a Prius went from 60 mpg to 45 mpg. Same car. Just a different and more realistic way of estimating fuel usage. I feely admit to having no idea how UK fuel economy tests are done.

I drove a Prius in the UK and I don't think I ever got 60 mpg, even in heavy traffic - more like 40-45 mpg average (miles per *British gallon*).

[Obama 2012 1,714]

California is one state, now compare it to the rest. Texas and emissions [or any regulation] do not exactly go hand in hand. Europe is also a leader and has been a leader in emissions reductions for years. Not to mention they publish Co2 on their car's fuel economy labela.

What it comes down to is that the average American consumer does not want it. These often middle America folks prefer inefficient 12 MPG trucks. Trucks often worth half the price of their house, yet fail to grasp why they are dirt poor; which is a whole other discussion but anyway.

What I and the rest of the world find interesting is that Americans have not liked the noisy diesels yet prefer the luxurious, well handling, safe, ultra quiet and smooth riding V8 trucks.

please do not speak of that which you do not know.

[Heracles 417]

please do not speak of that which you do not know.

So now they are heavily regulated? Strange since you cheered on Texas in so many threads for having negligible regulation.

Sounds like you mean based on your libertarian stance, they are regulated.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Booyah!

[The_Dude 1,142]

I drove a Prius

Dirty fvcking hippy.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Working in Cambridge, MA with millionaires, I find that these millionaires drives mostly the economy cars. Whereas, those with with incomes between 0-60k, most drives hummer, V8 pick ups, etc...

Strange how the richer these people are, the smaller cars they drive. Whereas, the poorer the people over here are, the more bigger their cars. Quite funny.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Working in Cambridge, MA with millionaires, I find that these millionaires drives mostly the economy cars. Whereas, those with with incomes between 0-60k, most drives hummer, V8 pick ups, etc...

Strange how the richer these people are, the smaller cars they drive. Whereas, the poorer the people over here are, the more bigger their cars. Quite funny.

Wealthy people have nothing to prove.

The city of Dallas has a nickname to those who live around here. It's called "The Home Of the $30,000 Millionaire" - It's all about been "seen" or having a "status" when you really don't have a damn thing... Quite pathetic really.

Wealthy people are also wealthy for a reason... They don't get wealthy by spending all of their money all the time.

[Niels Bohr 72]

No wonder you're not an analyst.

Wealthy people have nothing to prove.

The city of Dallas has a nickname to those who live around here. It's called "The Home Of the $30,000 Millionaire" - It's all about been "seen" or having a "status" when you really don't have a damn thing... Quite pathetic really.

Wealthy people are also wealthy for a reason... They don't get wealthy by spending all of their money all the time.

[Texanadian 10]

I dunno. I see Lamborghinis and Ferraris all the time. I doubt they're being driven by people earning 30K. Same deal with new BMW's and Mercedes Benzs. They're more common than a Chevy Cobalt. Again. not cheap cars.

On the other hand, I see cars with those wire wheels with the knock off spinner in the center. The wheels stick waaaaaaaay out from the tire. They're about $4,000 for a set. I recently found out that many people will rent the wheels for $250/month. These are the people who live in the projects but drive a bling bling car.

I don't see what the point of labeling CO2 on a car's sticker will do. A car with perfect combustion will emit only CO2 and water out the tailpipe. CO2 is the desired result of clean engines.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Working in Cambridge, MA with millionaires, I find that these millionaires drives mostly the economy cars. Whereas, those with with incomes between 0-60k, most drives hummer, V8 pick ups, etc...

Strange how the richer these people are, the smaller cars they drive. Whereas, the poorer the people over here are, the more bigger their cars. Quite funny.

Do they buy car insurance?