Gas Prices

Eagle1855 · June 4, 2008

As much as you preach "real world numbers", you can't take the top of the line 109k car and use the math. You can get an electric/hybrid car for 25k now. Hopefully in the near future (after the first run of Telsa's) they will make a real commuter car for the everyday Joe.

I read an article about it in Fast Company last year... that's their plan. Unveil the high end sports cars showing it is a viable form of transportation and energy, generate interest (ergo demand) in the general public, then start producing other more-affordable lines.

yyz28 · June 4, 2008

I don't think the speed was proof of efficiency. It was proof of a valid concept of a car.. not the ugly ass aerodynamic civic or prius. It can be a real deal everyday car.
As much as you preach "real world numbers", you can't take the top of the line 109k car and use the math. You can get an electric/hybrid car for 25k now. Hopefully in the near future (after the first run of Telsa's) they will make a real commuter car for the everyday Joe.
I don't see 200 mile range as a problem for a daily driver.. You can get to OKC or Austin, have a meeting (plugging in your car for 3.5 hours), then head home.
Also (if you believe the mish mash), you should do the impact on earth math. How much is it worth your dime to not be putting carbon in the air? How does that personally factor in your decision when spending on a car? For me, it may be work 8k.. then it seems unreasonable. Other people have more tolerance, others have none.
Give me the option of my G35 for 35k that will always need fueled or my G35 that runs on pure electric for 43k. I think I would have made the 43k purchase. We made that decision when buying our diesel Jetta: (extra sticker price of diesel / The cost of diesel over regular + the miles driven ).. didn't *really* balance out, it was close. So close that we just went ahead and got it.. and we love going 630 miles on one tank when we drive to Denver. I am paying for that feeling.. and I am positive that I would get that feeling when driving around in an electric sports car.

Oh, I totally agree with you here... I'm not saying that a premium on a hybrid or electric doesn't make economic sence, but until they get them in the reach of the every day consumer, Hybrids is as close as we're going to get.

...once you start talking about cars in the 20's to 40's that have a few thousand dollar premiums, the "extra milage saves me X over Y number of years" vs "upfront increased cost" becomes a real proposition - ESPECIALLY as gas prices continue to rise.

...and you are right bout the Mish Mash - that matters to some and not to others... and then to the ones it matters to, there are varying degrees of willingness to increase costs in order to have a lower "Carbon Footprint". Everyone has different thresholds of pain.

Censored by Laurie · June 4, 2008

How did this get back on track?

Does anyone think that the Flan has made a huge come back

Eagle1855 · June 4, 2008

Does anyone think that the Flan has made a huge come back

has or should?

Either way, I fully support it. Viva El Flan.

UNTflyer · June 4, 2008

First new oil refinery in 32 YEARS approved Edited June 4, 2008 by UNTflyer

Green Mean · June 4, 2008

Forgot Flan...I am more of a Tres Leches guy.

UNTLifer · June 4, 2008

World's Largest Biodiesel Plant Opens on Houston Ship Channel

June 4, 2008

First new oil refinery in 32 YEARS approved

Some of you peoples act like it is the government that has stopped poor OIL industry from building refineries.

"By a solid 58 percent to 42 percent margin, county voters approved Hyperion's request to rezone 3,292 acres of farm land for a new classification, Energy Center Planned Development."

In this case it was brought before county voters.. I don't see big government stopping them.

In all honesty, since I don't know, how many oil refineries have been attempted to be made?

Coffee and TV · June 4, 2008

In all honesty, since I don't know, how many oil refineries have been attempted to be made?

I'm not sure, but the whole 'environmentalists keeping oil refineries from opening' is total horseshit to begin with. Opening new refineries when oil was $10-$15 a barrel for the last 20 years would have been pointless. Its the same reasons the oil sands in Alberta were never an option until recently as well.

KingDL1 · June 4, 2008

I'm not sure, but the whole 'environmentalists keeping oil refineries from opening' is total horseshit to begin with. Opening new refineries when oil was $10-$15 a barrel for the last 20 years would have been pointless. Its the same reasons the oil sands in Alberta were never an option until recently as well.

Several new refineries were tried in the nineties and right after turn of the century especially near the coast. The trend was to buy small existing ones and to seriously expand them to get around some of the problems. This worked best near a port type of situation. Small refineries in the middle of no-where were not as viable so this process did not happen everywhere. But yes this problem was because of the environmental nut jobs and the EPA. The price of oil has little effect on refineries, they work on a profit margin anyways, unless of course the prices get so high that no body uses petroleum products anymore.

Edited June 5, 2008 by KingDL1

FirefightnRick · June 5, 2008

I've got a Camaro that will run past all three of those cars - I'm not sure what that proves? It certainly isn't fuel efficiant.
You'll also note that neither the Ferrari or Porche pilot could hook up in that video - spinning the tires through the 60' mark in both races.
Low 11's is impressive for an electric car, no doubt, but as I said with the Tesla - real world numbers is what matters.
The Electric Atom is Tiny, little more than a frame, so is wholly impractical. You'd have to get into doing the "how much gas can I buy for my 20-30K car before I spend 100K plus to get an electric?" math.

Maybe, but you aint got a camaro that will embarrass them like that unless it's a top fuel dragster or something. And that car isn't even for sale, but a test car, only. They show and test it to show people the performance capabilty and the technology that exists, today.

And by the way, don't count out availability of electric's and advanced hybrids.

Here's the website of the guy from Kennedale Texas who was on Channel 8 the other night showing his 1993 Eagle Talon that he converted recently.

http://galaxy22.dyndns.org/ev-talon/

Car of the Future:300 mpg?

Rick

KingDL1 · June 5, 2008

This Thread won't die, or swing off topic for long, how silly.

Don't you know it now has a life of its own.

Eagle1855 · June 5, 2008

the Amero is real. And it is coming.

UNTflyer · June 5, 2008

I met El Chupacabra for coffee the other day.

KingDL1 · June 5, 2008

the Amero is real. And it is coming.

I doubt that this will ever happen, at least in our lifetimes, there is no benefit at all to this happening for the United States, none.

The Dollar would have to slam into the gutter for this to every be an option.

But I like pure gasoline! Don't junk it up with some crappy alcohol.

Green P1 · June 5, 2008

Maybe, but you aint got a camaro that will embarrass them like that unless it's a top fuel dragster or something. And that car isn't even for sale, but a test car, only. They show and test it to show people the performance capabilty and the technology that exists, today.
Rick

Actually, as cool as the Ferrari looks it only runs high 12s in the 1/4 mile. The Carrera GT runs mid 11s. It wouldn't take a top fuel dragster to embarrass those numbers. Growing up my dad and I had a Nova II that ran 9's on pump gas. From the looks of it that little go-kart probably runs 10's and weighs about 1/4 of the other two cars. I don't see a production model putting up that kind of performance while passing any sort of safety standards.

yyz28 · June 5, 2008

Maybe, but you aint got a camaro that will embarrass them like that unless it's a top fuel dragster or something. And that car isn't even for sale, but a test car, only. They show and test it to show people the performance capabilty and the technology that exists, today.

Trust me - If a $450,000 car gets beat by a street driven Camaro (or frankly even if the Camaro keeps up...)- it's been embarassed, I don't care if the Camaro wins by half a fender. There are PLENTY of Camaro's/Birds/Mustangs running around that could hand that thing it's ass and they aren't all drag-cars or trailer queens.

Rumpity-Rumpity...

Eagle1855 · June 5, 2008

Trust me - If a $450,000 car gets beat by a street driven Camaro (or frankly even if the Camaro keeps up...)- it's been embarassed, I don't care if the Camaro wins by half a fender. There are PLENTY of Camaro's/Birds/Mustangs running around that could hand that thing it's ass and they aren't all drag-cars or trailer queens.
Rumpity-Rumpity...

it actually isnt all that difficult or expensive to get a 94-02 F-body into the low 12s, high 11s...especially with some street slicks. Newer mustangs are a bit of a challenge, but the old 5.0s could really haul ass on pump gas wth a big cam and some tall gears. Just saying.

I forget what we were talking about. NT Daily or helmet stickets?

FirefightnRick · June 6, 2008

it actually isnt all that difficult or expensive to get a 94-02 F-body into the low 12s, high 11s...especially with some street slicks. Newer mustangs are a bit of a challenge, but the old 5.0s could really haul ass on pump gas wth a big cam and some tall gears. Just saying.
I forget what we were talking about. NT Daily or helmet stickets?

I drove an '85, the last year of the carburated GT for over 10 years, and it hauled ass alright. But as you said, it didn't take much, AT ALL to make those Fox bodies scary as hell. That's what made them and the Camaro's so much fun to own. yyz28 and I are still living it, I suppose? Hard to get rid of them.

But....the X1 embarrasses in a way you just don't expect. The torque on the electric motor is instant. It only runs in the 11's in the 1/4 mile at like 116 mph, but it's the first 60 yards or so is where it jumps out and leaves them. I've love watching those videos because it's so funny to hear the reactions of people who watch it for the first time. That technology is out there and is available and there's zero reason it can't be made available to the rest of us.

Rick

Edited June 6, 2008 by FirefightnRick

Green P1 · June 6, 2008

But....the X1 embarrasses in a way you just don't expect. The torque on the electric motor is instant. It only runs in the 11's in the 1/4 mile at like 116 mph, but it's the first 60 yards or so is where it jumps out and leaves them. I've love watching those videos because it's so funny to hear the reactions of people who watch it for the first time. That technology is out there and is available and there's zero reason it can't be made available to the rest of us.
Rick

It accelerates because it only weighs 1536lb thats about 1000lbs less than a new civic coupe. Weigh it down with crash safety features and its performance is gone. BTW haven't you said many times on here that you would never trade the safety of a big truck for the economics of a little car?

meangreendork · June 6, 2008

It accelerates because it only weighs 1536lb thats about 1000lbs less than a new civic coupe. Weigh it down with crash safety features and its performance is gone. BTW haven't you said many times on here that you would never trade the safety of a big truck for the economics of a little car?

I don't think that's the whole point here- I think it's that you don't always need a gasoline-driven motor to produce power to push a car and get good performance out of it. That's probably the bigger idea at work.

KingDL1 · June 6, 2008

Electric motors are much more efficient then gas, instant torque, crazy fast acceleration.

If they get the batteries figured out they could make a car the could beat anything, top fuel dragsters, funny cars, anything.

yyz28 · June 6, 2008

it actually isnt all that difficult or expensive to get a 94-02 F-body into the low 12s, high 11s...especially with some street slicks.

93-97's are a little tricker. LT1 takes more than an LS1 to get into that type of time. 98-02 is pretty easy. Especially if you go with the giggle juice. I don't - I'm an all motor guy, but you can take a stock LS1 Camaro, put a 100-150 shot of N2O and whip any of these cars, including the electric. I've got a Forged LS1 with a great set of heads and a big a$$ cam. Couple that with a good torqueconverter, the essential bolt ons (better intake, and a good set of headers) and a well thought out suspension, and low 11's high 10's on motor in a 3500LB car isn't a problem (even with my fat-a$$ in the driver's seat...)

Newer mustangs are a bit of a challenge,

They have the potenital, but they are very costly - parts are expensive and OHC designs are much harder to work on than pushrod motors are.

but the old 5.0s could really haul ass on pump gas wth a big cam and some tall gears. Just saying.

The 5.0 by itself is limited, but heads for that motor are cheap and the car is light - almost 250-300LBS lighter than the Camaro (both 3rd Gen and 4th Gen Camaros) I know guys with GT40 Heads, an E cam and a set of headers running mid to low 12's on motor. The Fox body and the 5.0 REALLY shines when put under boost though. One of the best Supercharger platforms you can start with, as the stock pistons are forged and the motor has a relatively low 9.0:1 compression ratio from the factory. Stroker kits to take the motor to 331 or 347 are also cheap and a common path. Plus - you can get into these REALLY cheap today. Great

It accelerates because it only weighs 1536lb thats about 1000lbs less than a new civic coupe. Weigh it down with crash safety features and its performance is gone. BTW haven't you said many times on here that you would never trade the safety of a big truck for the economics of a little car?

It is more than just a question of weight. Electirc motors are superior to gasoline powered engines in many ways. Assuming you can get them big enough and power them for long enough, they will be a viable performance option in the future - Electric motors produce less than 10% of the friction of a gasoline motor, so it can spin to max RPM and thus be in the power band nearly instantaniously. Hence the slingshot like behaivior you see in the 60' in that video. You don't have to have huge horsepower numbers if the torquecurve keeps you in the powerband immediatley and all the way down the track. Scale it up to a big car with a bigger motor and the results would be similar.

I drove an '85, the last year of the carburated GT for over 10 years, and it hauled ass alright. But as you said, it didn't take much, AT ALL to make those Fox bodies scary as hell. That's what made them and the Camaro's so much fun to own. yyz28 and I are still living it, I suppose? Hard to get rid of them.

LOL! So true. My 2000 Z28 is the fast car, but my daily driver is a restored '91 RS w/ a Carb'ed 383. It'll run high 12's but isn't nearly as strong as the 2000. 13 MPG and it's gotta have 93 octane. Darn right I'm still living it. I'll never give up my muscle cars. I might eventually be forced to drive some econo-beater to the office, but I'm still going to have my toys in the garage. ...got a depoit on a 2010 Camaro already.

I loved the '85 vintage 'Foxes.

Edited June 6, 2008 by yyz28

UNTflyer · June 6, 2008

Here it is folks... the pricetag to stop "global warming" is:

$45 trillion

TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.

Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

KingDL1 · June 6, 2008

Here it is folks... the pricetag to stop "global warming" is:
$45 trillion
TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.
Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment — about $27 trillion — would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

What a waste of money.

Global Warming Goes Round And Round

Cooling Underway: Global Temperature Continues to Drop in May

Edited June 6, 2008 by KingDL1