The point is, it all depends on the conditions the vehicle is driven in.
I was averaging around 9.1l/100km when I worked in a different location, that's now dropped to 8.2l/100km purely due to a location change. I'm now driving a longer distance with less hills and freer flowing traffic. The speed limit is still the same (50 to 60km/h in suburbia.)
Other people have posted shocking economy figures due to heavy traffic/ hills/ low average speeds etc.
Electric car sales...
I agree that driving conditions are most relevant in fuel economy figures, but I've noticed that it's the members with CVT models that observe below-expected fuel economy while guys like Woodie, you, and I who drive the manual models that see or even exceed stated fuel economy figures.murcod wrote:The point is, it all depends on the conditions the vehicle is driven in.
I was averaging around 9.1l/100km when I worked in a different location, that's now dropped to 8.2l/100km purely due to a location change. I'm now driving a longer distance with less hills and freer flowing traffic. The speed limit is still the same (50 to 60km/h in suburbia.)
Other people have posted shocking economy figures due to heavy traffic/ hills/ low average speeds etc.
I sit in some of the worst traffic in America on a regular basis. Around rush hour, I sometimes completely avoid the jammed freeways and take surface streets home. In either case, I don't see fuel economy drop to below estimated figures for "city". I typically see about 25 MPG (9.41 L/100km) with a good mix of highway and city driving conditions.
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
-
sx4rocious
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:31 pm
In the first week of owning our Kizashi, we hit the road and drove from central Indiana to southern Oklahoma. It was about 800 Miles one-way. I was expecting and would have been happy with anything over 28 mpg and was surprised to see almost 35mpg on mostly flat highway pushing 85mph. I also have a manual and have ofter wondered why everyone was complaining about mileage. My SX4 is smaller (but AWD) and turns MAYBE 25mph all highway at 60mph. I'm very happy with the mileage.
I wouldn't really consider a EV until I move. The city I live in is 36 miles from where I work for starters. Not much short of the Tesla boasts a battery range long enough to get me to work and back without sweating profusely the last 10 miles or so. Even if it did get me there and back with power to spare, I work 12 hour shifts and most EV's take 12 hours to recharge. This means I would never have enough time to recharge fully before having to leave for work the next day and that is very damaging to batteries. The city I live in is also in the middle of nowhere. Granted its a fairly large city in midwest central America terms with a metropolitan population of 115,000 or so, but it's literally 75 miles in any direction to another city over 50,000 people. If we wanted to get out of town for a weekend, we would have to turn to petrol anyway.
Needless to say, EV technology isn't where I would need it to be if I were to buy one. I do know EV technology is the way of the future (I don't see hydrogen getting there for quite a while, and as interesting as compressed air technology is, as with hydrogen, too many people are afraid of sitting on top of thousands of pounds of compressed gas.) so I try and keep up on most of the technology in an effort to be modern. The trained firefighter in me keeps me from going hybrid (as does the race car driver in me) because of the inherit dangers of high voltage wiring ran through A, B, and C pillars. (although I think they may have changed that) I liked the idea of the performance hybrid from Honda, even though it's as ugly as a Juke and Fiat 500L love-child.
I would love to see Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Nissan, and Mitsubishi really improve on Honda's CRZ idea. I've owned "performance" cars before and I would only look to buying a hybrid if A.) I knew the wiring was moved out of the A-pillar, so no fireman were injured should I ever need extricated from the vehicle in an accident, B.) the car was better looking than the CRZ, YUK!, and C.) it had enough performance to actually be labeled a "performance car". Granted I rarely break the speed limit, but there's no limit on how fast I can get to it!
I think there is a strong market for performance-based hybrid or electric cars. I really think the CRZ would have been a better seller if it looked more like the Civic Si or even the Fit. Anything besides that horrible "trying-to-be-futuristic-but-went-way-overboard" atrosity they created.
What happened to the hot rod Prius? Weren't they building one? I swear I say advertisements mentioning one that was similar to the City model, but more performance oriented. IIR, it was a coupe? Anyway, I think the market is definately there for this type of car. I just wish the designers would stop trying to push these ridiculous futuristic crap-wagons down our throats and simply take an existing design like a FR-S, Genesis Coupe, Forte Coupe, Lancer, or 370Z and give us hybrid technology like Ferrari and Porsche. (only cheaper of course!)
Maybe it'll get there, maybe it won't. Either way, EV or even PIEV tech isn't practical for me and probably won't be for a long time to come. I might be crazy, but I do like the I-MIEV in all it's quirky, simplistic uglyness and I wish it were more embraced before it falls through the cracks like the XFL, trampoline basketball, the Walkman, and so many other great ideas...
I wouldn't really consider a EV until I move. The city I live in is 36 miles from where I work for starters. Not much short of the Tesla boasts a battery range long enough to get me to work and back without sweating profusely the last 10 miles or so. Even if it did get me there and back with power to spare, I work 12 hour shifts and most EV's take 12 hours to recharge. This means I would never have enough time to recharge fully before having to leave for work the next day and that is very damaging to batteries. The city I live in is also in the middle of nowhere. Granted its a fairly large city in midwest central America terms with a metropolitan population of 115,000 or so, but it's literally 75 miles in any direction to another city over 50,000 people. If we wanted to get out of town for a weekend, we would have to turn to petrol anyway.
Needless to say, EV technology isn't where I would need it to be if I were to buy one. I do know EV technology is the way of the future (I don't see hydrogen getting there for quite a while, and as interesting as compressed air technology is, as with hydrogen, too many people are afraid of sitting on top of thousands of pounds of compressed gas.) so I try and keep up on most of the technology in an effort to be modern. The trained firefighter in me keeps me from going hybrid (as does the race car driver in me) because of the inherit dangers of high voltage wiring ran through A, B, and C pillars. (although I think they may have changed that) I liked the idea of the performance hybrid from Honda, even though it's as ugly as a Juke and Fiat 500L love-child.
I would love to see Toyota, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, Nissan, and Mitsubishi really improve on Honda's CRZ idea. I've owned "performance" cars before and I would only look to buying a hybrid if A.) I knew the wiring was moved out of the A-pillar, so no fireman were injured should I ever need extricated from the vehicle in an accident, B.) the car was better looking than the CRZ, YUK!, and C.) it had enough performance to actually be labeled a "performance car". Granted I rarely break the speed limit, but there's no limit on how fast I can get to it!
I think there is a strong market for performance-based hybrid or electric cars. I really think the CRZ would have been a better seller if it looked more like the Civic Si or even the Fit. Anything besides that horrible "trying-to-be-futuristic-but-went-way-overboard" atrosity they created.What happened to the hot rod Prius? Weren't they building one? I swear I say advertisements mentioning one that was similar to the City model, but more performance oriented. IIR, it was a coupe? Anyway, I think the market is definately there for this type of car. I just wish the designers would stop trying to push these ridiculous futuristic crap-wagons down our throats and simply take an existing design like a FR-S, Genesis Coupe, Forte Coupe, Lancer, or 370Z and give us hybrid technology like Ferrari and Porsche. (only cheaper of course!
)Maybe it'll get there, maybe it won't. Either way, EV or even PIEV tech isn't practical for me and probably won't be for a long time to come. I might be crazy, but I do like the I-MIEV in all it's quirky, simplistic uglyness and I wish it were more embraced before it falls through the cracks like the XFL, trampoline basketball, the Walkman, and so many other great ideas...
I agree with you that EV technology is still very premature. I'd rather go with a PHEV for practical purposes though very few offer a good level of performance. For example, just compare the specs of a Tesla Model S P85+ (a pure EV) vs. a Fisker Karma (a PHEV). They both cost about the same but the Tesla is 2 seconds faster to 60.
The Honda CR-Z was a disappointment to most car enthusiasts. It was trumpeted during R&D as the neo-renaissance CR-X which was a small, lightweight car that was beloved. However, when the hybrid CR-Z came out, it was pretty much neither sporty to drive nor a fuel efficient hybrid. It basically fell short at both.
Personally, I actually like the styling and think it's definitely one of the better Hondas in terms of looks. I also dig the interior. I see one regularly as one of my co-workers owns one. That being said, it was a flop in terms of what fans hoped for and sales have been low.
In fact, Honda seems to be rethinking hybrids and instead of copying iconic hybrids like the Prius, is looking make more of their standard cars hybridized... a move Toyota led years ago following the boom of the Prius. Nearly all cars Toyota makes in Japan is offered in a hybrid, including minivans.
You can see this shift with the new Honda Accord Hybrid. It's apparently Honda's main hybrid given the Insight will be discontinued in the US due to dismal sales.
As of now, for there to be a "Performance Hybrid", you'd have to spend at least 44K. About the only cars I can think of that aren't hypercars that can claim "Performance Hybrid" is the Infiniti Q50 Hybrid and the Q70 Hybrid. In fact, Infiniti offered a hybrid years ago even before the "Q" name change with the M35h (now Q70 Hybrid). Maybe you've seen this video:
[youtube][/youtube]
Hypercars like the McLaren P1 and the Porsche 918 Spyder are also hybrids, but they cost more than a very nice house. That being said, they are hybrids for the performance as an electric motor offers unrivaled torque off the line. In fact, McLaren engineers have implemented the electric boost to compensate for turbo lag. The P1 can also run on full electricity mode for several miles. With its hybrid system, this insane hypercar can return 28 MPG while having 916 HP on tap. Sadly, it starts at 1.35 Million USD with average purchases costing 1.6 Million USD.
The problem with cars like Sports Compacts and Hot Hatches in terms of hybrid components is that they will add too much weight. It's one of the biggest drawbacks to EVs, PHEVs, and hybrids as of the current technology.
Even with the Outlander PHEV in the video a few posts above, the PHEV components added a considerable amount of weight to the car and drivers can feel the difference. I've watched numerous reviews on the Outlander PHEV and nearly everyone who drove both the normal Outlander and the PHEV version say that you can feel the weight taking a toll on performance and handling. While that may be acceptable in a vehicle like a midsize SUV, it's not going to fly with performance-oriented vehicles who don't have ICE to easily overcome the heft.
I think for hybrid technology to really take off, advances in battery technology is imperative. Batteries need to be smaller, lighter, and hold more charge. This is evident even in high performance vehicles like the Tesla Model S which despite its performance, suffers from its heft. The vehicle has a curb (empty) weight of an astonishing 4,600 lbs. This weight was causing it to not be so great on demanding tracks like the Nurburgring while lighter Porsches, which may be slower to 60, can outperform it.
As of right now, PHEV technology is great for efficiency and low-cost commuting but performance is not really there right now. Some companies are avoiding EVs, PHEVs, and hybrids altogether and implementing more low-key technologies for efficiency such as Mazda with their i-Eloop system. It's basically a capacitor-based system that powers electronic components to take the stress off the engine. In this way, it saves some fuel without compromising the performance of the vehicle.
The Honda CR-Z was a disappointment to most car enthusiasts. It was trumpeted during R&D as the neo-renaissance CR-X which was a small, lightweight car that was beloved. However, when the hybrid CR-Z came out, it was pretty much neither sporty to drive nor a fuel efficient hybrid. It basically fell short at both.
Personally, I actually like the styling and think it's definitely one of the better Hondas in terms of looks. I also dig the interior. I see one regularly as one of my co-workers owns one. That being said, it was a flop in terms of what fans hoped for and sales have been low.
In fact, Honda seems to be rethinking hybrids and instead of copying iconic hybrids like the Prius, is looking make more of their standard cars hybridized... a move Toyota led years ago following the boom of the Prius. Nearly all cars Toyota makes in Japan is offered in a hybrid, including minivans.
You can see this shift with the new Honda Accord Hybrid. It's apparently Honda's main hybrid given the Insight will be discontinued in the US due to dismal sales.
As of now, for there to be a "Performance Hybrid", you'd have to spend at least 44K. About the only cars I can think of that aren't hypercars that can claim "Performance Hybrid" is the Infiniti Q50 Hybrid and the Q70 Hybrid. In fact, Infiniti offered a hybrid years ago even before the "Q" name change with the M35h (now Q70 Hybrid). Maybe you've seen this video:
[youtube][/youtube]
Hypercars like the McLaren P1 and the Porsche 918 Spyder are also hybrids, but they cost more than a very nice house. That being said, they are hybrids for the performance as an electric motor offers unrivaled torque off the line. In fact, McLaren engineers have implemented the electric boost to compensate for turbo lag. The P1 can also run on full electricity mode for several miles. With its hybrid system, this insane hypercar can return 28 MPG while having 916 HP on tap. Sadly, it starts at 1.35 Million USD with average purchases costing 1.6 Million USD.
The problem with cars like Sports Compacts and Hot Hatches in terms of hybrid components is that they will add too much weight. It's one of the biggest drawbacks to EVs, PHEVs, and hybrids as of the current technology.
Even with the Outlander PHEV in the video a few posts above, the PHEV components added a considerable amount of weight to the car and drivers can feel the difference. I've watched numerous reviews on the Outlander PHEV and nearly everyone who drove both the normal Outlander and the PHEV version say that you can feel the weight taking a toll on performance and handling. While that may be acceptable in a vehicle like a midsize SUV, it's not going to fly with performance-oriented vehicles who don't have ICE to easily overcome the heft.
I think for hybrid technology to really take off, advances in battery technology is imperative. Batteries need to be smaller, lighter, and hold more charge. This is evident even in high performance vehicles like the Tesla Model S which despite its performance, suffers from its heft. The vehicle has a curb (empty) weight of an astonishing 4,600 lbs. This weight was causing it to not be so great on demanding tracks like the Nurburgring while lighter Porsches, which may be slower to 60, can outperform it.
As of right now, PHEV technology is great for efficiency and low-cost commuting but performance is not really there right now. Some companies are avoiding EVs, PHEVs, and hybrids altogether and implementing more low-key technologies for efficiency such as Mazda with their i-Eloop system. It's basically a capacitor-based system that powers electronic components to take the stress off the engine. In this way, it saves some fuel without compromising the performance of the vehicle.
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
-
sx4rocious
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:31 pm
I haven't heard of the i-Eloop thing. I'll have to check it out.
I've often wondered why battery tech hasn't really changed much in the past few years. The radios we use for work are a perfect example. Discharg\recharge\discharge 24\7 really takes it's toll and has destroyed batteries faster than Obama placing the blame on Bush. I'd also like to see more "eclectic" technologies surface. I wish I could find the article I read regarding compressed air cars. It stated the cars were run basically by slowly discharging compressed air in a manner much like pnuematic air tools. One would just need to purchase a high capacity air compressor for their garage. The cars themselves were incredibly light given a majority of the drivetrain was nothing more than compressed air. There were very few actual moving parts to wear out making the car reliable and even the heating and air condition was produced by the compression and expansion of the air in the tanks. If you needed more range, you simply added another tank. The article I read stated the cars already were seeing an estimated range of 70+ miles at respectable highway speeds. Safety was an issue tho, given you're actually sitting on essentially larger SCUBA tanks made of CF. Direct impacts to the tanks could be rather... uncomfortable...
I'd also like to see some serious R&D put into technologies like solar and hydrogen. We have solar planes, so why not cars? I'm not saying sompletely solar, but if a majority of the car's electronics were solar and the remainder CA or hydrogen, maybe range could be improved? What about the gas turbine cars of the sixties? Jaguar has a prototype now that boasted over 1,000 hp and the mileage was something like 45-50mpg. I'm guessing a scaled down civilian version could see 75+ mpg and some pretty impressive performance numbers to boot. Biodesiel and ethanol vehicles SHOULD be on the forefront of ANY auto manufacturer with a conscience. I thought E85 would revolutionize the auto industry a few years ago. If it ever took off (I know full well the mileage difference) I think it would have been a HUGE help in retarding the recession and imprioving the US economy. The removal of the Federal subsidy on E85 was a mistake in my oppinion as it completely ruined the growth and research companies were putting into makin E85 more efficient.
I've often wondered why battery tech hasn't really changed much in the past few years. The radios we use for work are a perfect example. Discharg\recharge\discharge 24\7 really takes it's toll and has destroyed batteries faster than Obama placing the blame on Bush. I'd also like to see more "eclectic" technologies surface. I wish I could find the article I read regarding compressed air cars. It stated the cars were run basically by slowly discharging compressed air in a manner much like pnuematic air tools. One would just need to purchase a high capacity air compressor for their garage. The cars themselves were incredibly light given a majority of the drivetrain was nothing more than compressed air. There were very few actual moving parts to wear out making the car reliable and even the heating and air condition was produced by the compression and expansion of the air in the tanks. If you needed more range, you simply added another tank. The article I read stated the cars already were seeing an estimated range of 70+ miles at respectable highway speeds. Safety was an issue tho, given you're actually sitting on essentially larger SCUBA tanks made of CF. Direct impacts to the tanks could be rather... uncomfortable...
I'd also like to see some serious R&D put into technologies like solar and hydrogen. We have solar planes, so why not cars? I'm not saying sompletely solar, but if a majority of the car's electronics were solar and the remainder CA or hydrogen, maybe range could be improved? What about the gas turbine cars of the sixties? Jaguar has a prototype now that boasted over 1,000 hp and the mileage was something like 45-50mpg. I'm guessing a scaled down civilian version could see 75+ mpg and some pretty impressive performance numbers to boot. Biodesiel and ethanol vehicles SHOULD be on the forefront of ANY auto manufacturer with a conscience. I thought E85 would revolutionize the auto industry a few years ago. If it ever took off (I know full well the mileage difference) I think it would have been a HUGE help in retarding the recession and imprioving the US economy. The removal of the Federal subsidy on E85 was a mistake in my oppinion as it completely ruined the growth and research companies were putting into makin E85 more efficient.
Battery technology should be improving soon. I occasionally read about some promising research being done to extend the charge capacity of batteries.
Also keep in mind that even with lithium ion batteries, the charge cycle lifetime is usually around 500 cycles. This applies to most phone batteries, rechargeable camera batteries, and the like. Assuming that your radios have lithium ion batteries, they'd be close to needing replacement after just 1.5 years given the constant use and daily charging as needed by Correctional Officers in a prison. After all, CO's are always working 24/7 and so are their radios. If the radios had other inferior tech batteries, their lifespans would be even shorter.
I agree that other forms of propulsion would be interesting to pursue but oil corporations and their lobbyists are among the most powerful entities in the world. They aren't going to make fossil fuels obsolete any time soon. In fact, historically, oil companies have been involved in schemes to rid the US of public transportation for the sake of their own profits. The reason why Los Angeles is chocked full of cars with relatively low public transportation can be largely attributed on the work of Standard Oil (a gasoline company and predecessor of Chevron), Firestone (a tire company), and GM (a car company). They bought out electric streetcars and pretty much trashed them in order to force people buy cars and drive themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo ... conspiracy
If there is an alternative propulsion source that's going to power vehicles, oil companies will want to control that. It's also why there are so many lobbyists, politicians, and companies who hate Tesla. Tesla is changing everything from the way cars are powered to the way they are sold. They are a game-changer to the market and don't care about the status quo given they weren't ever a part of it. As a consequence, lobbyists from dealership networks tied to politicians are trying to stop Tesla from selling their cars. You can imagine the kind of moves oil companies will make once they see Tesla as a real threat to profits.
As of now, I think the use of fossil fuels is still going to be the reality for most people now and in the near future. The difference is a matter of how much is used. I believe this is where technologies such as hybrid and PHEV components come into play to augment the Internal Combustion Engine for the sake of fuel efficiency. Given everything from the incontrovertible fact of global warming, the unstable price of fuel, to the desire of consumers to spend less, cars will have to get more efficient to be profitable and compliant with regulations.
Lastly, I try to refrain from political comments, but your remark about Obama blaming Bush needs a response for the sake of fairness. Obama isn't the greatest president and many Democrats will admit that. However, his presidency has been largely judged by how he handled the monumental mess Bush left him. Two wars (one completely avoidable) and the worst economic crisis in world history since the Great Depression is what occurred before Obama was even sworn in. Obama is like the janitor walking in to clean a stall after a bumbling drunk named Bush shit all over the floor and of course, stepped in it.
Also keep in mind that even with lithium ion batteries, the charge cycle lifetime is usually around 500 cycles. This applies to most phone batteries, rechargeable camera batteries, and the like. Assuming that your radios have lithium ion batteries, they'd be close to needing replacement after just 1.5 years given the constant use and daily charging as needed by Correctional Officers in a prison. After all, CO's are always working 24/7 and so are their radios. If the radios had other inferior tech batteries, their lifespans would be even shorter.
I agree that other forms of propulsion would be interesting to pursue but oil corporations and their lobbyists are among the most powerful entities in the world. They aren't going to make fossil fuels obsolete any time soon. In fact, historically, oil companies have been involved in schemes to rid the US of public transportation for the sake of their own profits. The reason why Los Angeles is chocked full of cars with relatively low public transportation can be largely attributed on the work of Standard Oil (a gasoline company and predecessor of Chevron), Firestone (a tire company), and GM (a car company). They bought out electric streetcars and pretty much trashed them in order to force people buy cars and drive themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo ... conspiracy
If there is an alternative propulsion source that's going to power vehicles, oil companies will want to control that. It's also why there are so many lobbyists, politicians, and companies who hate Tesla. Tesla is changing everything from the way cars are powered to the way they are sold. They are a game-changer to the market and don't care about the status quo given they weren't ever a part of it. As a consequence, lobbyists from dealership networks tied to politicians are trying to stop Tesla from selling their cars. You can imagine the kind of moves oil companies will make once they see Tesla as a real threat to profits.
As of now, I think the use of fossil fuels is still going to be the reality for most people now and in the near future. The difference is a matter of how much is used. I believe this is where technologies such as hybrid and PHEV components come into play to augment the Internal Combustion Engine for the sake of fuel efficiency. Given everything from the incontrovertible fact of global warming, the unstable price of fuel, to the desire of consumers to spend less, cars will have to get more efficient to be profitable and compliant with regulations.
Lastly, I try to refrain from political comments, but your remark about Obama blaming Bush needs a response for the sake of fairness. Obama isn't the greatest president and many Democrats will admit that. However, his presidency has been largely judged by how he handled the monumental mess Bush left him. Two wars (one completely avoidable) and the worst economic crisis in world history since the Great Depression is what occurred before Obama was even sworn in. Obama is like the janitor walking in to clean a stall after a bumbling drunk named Bush shit all over the floor and of course, stepped in it.
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
-
bmw&kizzyownr
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:11 am
Good info on alternate propulsion systems. Your perspective is interesting and articulate (as usual) & I believe right on target. And after numerous comments on a prior thread about 'fuel additives'....I made a promise to myself that I would keep a low profile. I will try again after this post.
However: I "believe" your opinions/analogy regarding former President Bush are way off base. You prefaced your remarks with 'for the sake of fairness" but the other poster made a simple reference (one you disagreed with) to the two gentlemen and one blaming the other for everything...hardly fitting of comments like "bumbling drunk" and "shit all over the floor". Last time I checked, the president of the US doesn't run Major Corporations, Banks, Wall Street, or Mortgage companies. Additionally, the chairman of the Fed is an independent position. Why do I reference these facts...because most economic experts (or so claimed) put the blame on CEOs/Bank Presidents/The Fed Chair/Wall Street/Mortgage & Refinance Co.'s, etc. They (except Democratic strategists) don't put major blame on the position of the President ... although "MOST experts" would agree that he could have provided "MUCH" more guidance and oversight on the situation. Perhaps he was a little preoccupied with the so declared enemies of this country and their intent to destroy all we hold sacred.
America (and I would argue.... the free world) was attacked in what many would say was the most heinous, premeditated, and cowardly manner since Pearl Harbor (with apologies to my Japanese friends). The Pentagon, along with the Twin Towers, was hit and many friends of mine (not that my experience is important) lost people they know, loved, and respected in this tragedy. Former President Bush ran on the idea of 'ending nation building'. One I believe he would have honored had the 9/11 attacks not occurred. Additionally, almost all intelligence agencies (from multiple countries) said that IRAQ had chemical and biological weapons and was preparing to use them on their neighbors, as they had done with the Kurds earlier. That didn't originate with President Bush....but was the so called 'facts' security experts told him. That doesn't even include the weapons of mass destruction (nuclear?) they told him could/might be launched or smuggled into the USA. I think my knickers would have turned brown if I was in his position and heard their testimony.
With that said, Obama ran on the "Bush is responsible for everything bad" platform. I refuse to insult or demean our current President. However, maybe he can give it a rest now he's been in office almost 6 years. Or, maybe we should refrain from attacks on either President because clearly we have all formulated our own opinions, won't agree on the issue, and have chosen the wrong forum to opine on the subject. So, I promise not to mention political issues in this forum and hope everyone else will also. I'm also sorry my comments weren't in "proportion" to those earlier stated...but my former job gave me a perspective on this issue that I can't/don't want to suppress as this is a subject very close and dear to my heart. Thanks.
However: I "believe" your opinions/analogy regarding former President Bush are way off base. You prefaced your remarks with 'for the sake of fairness" but the other poster made a simple reference (one you disagreed with) to the two gentlemen and one blaming the other for everything...hardly fitting of comments like "bumbling drunk" and "shit all over the floor". Last time I checked, the president of the US doesn't run Major Corporations, Banks, Wall Street, or Mortgage companies. Additionally, the chairman of the Fed is an independent position. Why do I reference these facts...because most economic experts (or so claimed) put the blame on CEOs/Bank Presidents/The Fed Chair/Wall Street/Mortgage & Refinance Co.'s, etc. They (except Democratic strategists) don't put major blame on the position of the President ... although "MOST experts" would agree that he could have provided "MUCH" more guidance and oversight on the situation. Perhaps he was a little preoccupied with the so declared enemies of this country and their intent to destroy all we hold sacred.
America (and I would argue.... the free world) was attacked in what many would say was the most heinous, premeditated, and cowardly manner since Pearl Harbor (with apologies to my Japanese friends). The Pentagon, along with the Twin Towers, was hit and many friends of mine (not that my experience is important) lost people they know, loved, and respected in this tragedy. Former President Bush ran on the idea of 'ending nation building'. One I believe he would have honored had the 9/11 attacks not occurred. Additionally, almost all intelligence agencies (from multiple countries) said that IRAQ had chemical and biological weapons and was preparing to use them on their neighbors, as they had done with the Kurds earlier. That didn't originate with President Bush....but was the so called 'facts' security experts told him. That doesn't even include the weapons of mass destruction (nuclear?) they told him could/might be launched or smuggled into the USA. I think my knickers would have turned brown if I was in his position and heard their testimony.
With that said, Obama ran on the "Bush is responsible for everything bad" platform. I refuse to insult or demean our current President. However, maybe he can give it a rest now he's been in office almost 6 years. Or, maybe we should refrain from attacks on either President because clearly we have all formulated our own opinions, won't agree on the issue, and have chosen the wrong forum to opine on the subject. So, I promise not to mention political issues in this forum and hope everyone else will also. I'm also sorry my comments weren't in "proportion" to those earlier stated...but my former job gave me a perspective on this issue that I can't/don't want to suppress as this is a subject very close and dear to my heart. Thanks.
I can easily counter all the points you wrote to further the debate, however, it would be inappropriate in this thread dedicated to the topic of electric cars and I know Murcod would sooner or later delete or move posts unrelated to the topic. Hence, I'll refrain from posting a reply on your political points.
We obviously have different opinions on fuel additives and politics, but that's totally fine.
We obviously have different opinions on fuel additives and politics, but that's totally fine.
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
-
sx4rocious
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:31 pm
I will make one and only one political statement on this thread, and only because I think it actually pertains to the subject matter.
I am a hardcore conservative. I underestand the mess that Bush's "hands-off" policy and regulations put us in and I, too was rather frustrated at his lack of action and counter measures. That is, until I see the alternative. Obama has been given free reign to regulate our freedoms and liberties to the point they are now. He himself took the credit for stopping the war in Iraq MANY times, then blamed stated it wasn't his choice when asked why we were going back in. Stand up and take responsibility for your actions! You are the cammander-in-chief!
Being a hard-core conservative means I hate it when the government intrudes on my ability to make decisions based on what's best for me. If I want to purchase a Sherman Tank to drive back and forth to work that takes 5 gallons of diesel to drive mile, it's my choice, and I should be the one to make it. Lobbyists are what's ruining America, and we need a president that won't bow to their every whim. Obamacare is a direct result (IMHO) of our government not only bowing to Lobbyists, but doing the actual Lobbying. The VAST majority of voters not only were against it, but don't need it in the first place. When asked why it cost so much to pass, no response. When asked why back-door meetings and late night negotiations were taking place without the consent and knowledge of the people they represent, again, no response was given. In fact, most people that voted Obamacare into fruition totally admit they haven't even read the bill in the first place! The same thing is happening with alternative fuel technologies and it really makes me sick.
I have no doubt we have the technology to make fossil fuels a thing of the past. I really think compressed air vehicles are worth looking at. Hydrogen makes water; how can that be a bad thing? Late night negotistiond and back door policies passed with the consent of the citizens they are sworn to represent, keeps these technologies out of our grasp. I have always stated I will most likely never drive an electric car. It just doesn't "feel" right to me. The sounds, vibrations, and even the smell of gasoline runs through my veins. I do, however, absolutely love Tesla Motors, and every single thing they stand for. They don't care what the government and lobbyist think or do. They are a true underdog story, and who doesn't love a good underdog? I hope they can get things right with their reliability and battery tech, because I would sure love to see them close the doors of the big Detriot 3 in 25 years. You will never know the joy I felt when I read that they are already half the size of GM!
Anyway, all political beliefs aside, I'm hoping for some serious change in 2016. I am sworn to vote for what's right for America, and in turn, what's right for me...
I am a hardcore conservative. I underestand the mess that Bush's "hands-off" policy and regulations put us in and I, too was rather frustrated at his lack of action and counter measures. That is, until I see the alternative. Obama has been given free reign to regulate our freedoms and liberties to the point they are now. He himself took the credit for stopping the war in Iraq MANY times, then blamed stated it wasn't his choice when asked why we were going back in. Stand up and take responsibility for your actions! You are the cammander-in-chief!
Being a hard-core conservative means I hate it when the government intrudes on my ability to make decisions based on what's best for me. If I want to purchase a Sherman Tank to drive back and forth to work that takes 5 gallons of diesel to drive mile, it's my choice, and I should be the one to make it. Lobbyists are what's ruining America, and we need a president that won't bow to their every whim. Obamacare is a direct result (IMHO) of our government not only bowing to Lobbyists, but doing the actual Lobbying. The VAST majority of voters not only were against it, but don't need it in the first place. When asked why it cost so much to pass, no response. When asked why back-door meetings and late night negotiations were taking place without the consent and knowledge of the people they represent, again, no response was given. In fact, most people that voted Obamacare into fruition totally admit they haven't even read the bill in the first place! The same thing is happening with alternative fuel technologies and it really makes me sick.
I have no doubt we have the technology to make fossil fuels a thing of the past. I really think compressed air vehicles are worth looking at. Hydrogen makes water; how can that be a bad thing? Late night negotistiond and back door policies passed with the consent of the citizens they are sworn to represent, keeps these technologies out of our grasp. I have always stated I will most likely never drive an electric car. It just doesn't "feel" right to me. The sounds, vibrations, and even the smell of gasoline runs through my veins. I do, however, absolutely love Tesla Motors, and every single thing they stand for. They don't care what the government and lobbyist think or do. They are a true underdog story, and who doesn't love a good underdog? I hope they can get things right with their reliability and battery tech, because I would sure love to see them close the doors of the big Detriot 3 in 25 years. You will never know the joy I felt when I read that they are already half the size of GM!
Anyway, all political beliefs aside, I'm hoping for some serious change in 2016. I am sworn to vote for what's right for America, and in turn, what's right for me...
Tesla is miraculously a company both conservatives and liberals seem to praise. Some conservatives have countered them such as the governors of Texas and New Jersey, but they have also received praise from some famous conservatives like Bill O'Reilly.
I'm a big fan of Tesla though I don't see their cars priced nor featured for everyone at this point. I just really like the idea that they are spearheading alternative draintrains in a world dominated by industrial giants who want to move slowly for they are vested in ICE.
Back to the topic of the Honda CR-Z.
Recently, Autoblog featured an article on a factory supercharger kit for the vehicle. It boosts figures to 197 horsepower and 176 pound-feet of torque and comes with other features such as an air-to-air intercooler, high-flow fuel injectors, a recalibrated ECU, and a new air filter. That being said, it's a $5500 package before installation. It's also only for manual transmission models of MY 2013 and 2014.
I'd say it's too much $ and too late into the game, but if you really wanted a compact "performance hybrid", I guess this is as close at it gets.
Personally, I'd rather go for a Ford Fiesta ST. In fact, I really dig the Fiesta ST. I sat in one in an auto show and that car just fit me good.
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/08/21/hond ... -official/
I'm a big fan of Tesla though I don't see their cars priced nor featured for everyone at this point. I just really like the idea that they are spearheading alternative draintrains in a world dominated by industrial giants who want to move slowly for they are vested in ICE.
Back to the topic of the Honda CR-Z.
Recently, Autoblog featured an article on a factory supercharger kit for the vehicle. It boosts figures to 197 horsepower and 176 pound-feet of torque and comes with other features such as an air-to-air intercooler, high-flow fuel injectors, a recalibrated ECU, and a new air filter. That being said, it's a $5500 package before installation. It's also only for manual transmission models of MY 2013 and 2014.
I'd say it's too much $ and too late into the game, but if you really wanted a compact "performance hybrid", I guess this is as close at it gets.
Personally, I'd rather go for a Ford Fiesta ST. In fact, I really dig the Fiesta ST. I sat in one in an auto show and that car just fit me good.
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/08/21/hond ... -official/
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)