Wow! How about that new Genesis!

I would look at content if only there were some content.

Matt

 

We don't need any artificial laws. The only real law that should
govern MPG in cars and fuel prices is supply and demand. Let the
markets stay free. That way, the prices will always be fair, and the
vehicles will have bearable fuel economy.

You talk as though the government is responsible for the laws of
physics. Internal combustion engines have been all but tweaked to the
limit. In order to improve mileage significantly, the automobile will
have to undergo serious change. Cars will have to get smaller and a
lot lighter to significantly improve mileage. Some people won't like
the cars that result, so they will be accepted very grudgingly. Car
makers aren't in business to make the government happy. They are in
business to make their customers happy. And that's the way it should
be.
-

Bob

 

I don't want to add confusion on top of doubt, but...

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

I already hate global cooling.
-

Bob

 

Normally I'd agree and strongly support your position. But I'm not so sure
it works in this case.

Let's play "what if". What if the government did not mandated unleaded
fuel? What if the government did not mandate some fuel savings? Would
technology have won or would we be changing plugs at 10,000 miles because
they are lead fouled? Would cars till be 5000 pounds when a much lighter
one performs better?

Agree that the internal combustion engine is pretty close to its limits so
other types must be researched. Twenty years ago people said the internal
combustion engine was at its limit, but the automakers manage to add some
power every couple of years. Just look at the 3800 GM for instance.
Hyundai 3.3 is getting a boost. Evidently it is still possible to squeeze a
bit more.

Just my opinion, but the hybrid is not the way of the future.

I'm also not so sure that the automakers actually want some of the changes
that the government forces them to charge more for and increase profits.
Public posturing aside, they do add those mandated "improvements" into the
cost of the car. "We don't want to increase prices but the government makes
us do it."

 

Jeez, Bob. You'll believe just about anyone, won't you??


To be honest, it has more credibility to me than Al Gore does. Does this
mean we'll have to get the government to regulate that all cars and trucks
ahouls get LESS than 10 MPG and generate more CO2? Oh wait, I see it says
the sun overpowers anything man could ever do to the environment, CO2 wise
that is.

Eric

 

This is the best (IMHO) objective and non-partisan take on the subject I've
found:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
It's worth everyone's time to read it.

I especially like this snippet:

Global warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased
since about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called
"Industrial Revolution,"-- caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse
gases (principally carbon dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere
causing a runaway "Greenhouse Effect."
Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age
with his industrial pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest
unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!

 

only be had by the highest bidder. The bigger picture is that it's not

Bob,

It's good that you see the clear reason why the legislation was
signed. I think you're a bit one-sided in your global outlook though
because you clearly illustrate only the wealthy will be able to afford
to buy gas and it will push the rest of the 99% out. The underlying
argument seems to be that the market drive everything but people in
the US with your mindset think America is the only country that
consumes oil for the production of gas for cars. You are NOT factoring
in the exponential growth occurring in other developing countries.

Blah Blah Blah, here come the big bad government always telling us
what to do and when to do it. The legislation ultimately does not to
tell US what to do, it just sets challenges to what the auto industry
already knows it has to do but will ONLY do if dragged kicking and
screaming. According to your philosophy, if left to their own devices,
the automakers would ditch all large cars and make small cars. Auto
makers have NO incentive to make small cars because they make gobs of
money from their LARGE vehicles. They will continue to focus on the
BIG money maker, not the chump change compact cars. But lately, all I
see are recalls and auto-makers going in the toilet because people
aren't buying the large cars. The large car bubble has burst from what
I can tell. At least until gas comes back down to what it was pre_Iraq
War.

Yes, improving vehicles efficiency is a challenge. Every year, science
proves you CAN do more. You CAN push the limit a bit further. You CAN
improve upon what's already current. I am constantly reading about
grad and Ph. D. students figuring out some tweak to the engine to
improve it a bit more. Some improved engine component is made to
squeeze out a little bit more. I am very aware of the limit of the
carbon atom.

I am just waiting for the whole outside of all cars to be made out of
plastic like bumpers back 10 years ago. The styrofoam beneath was a
nice touch too. That's always made me feel safer. The car makers will
cut any and all corners to meet that magic MPG ratio based on vehicle
size and weight. I noticed at the Chicago auto show the new "smaller"
Hummer sure looks like it's made out of a hell of a lot of plastic.
Gee, wonder why? This is the little game they have to play to
sloooooowly introduce the idea that plastic is safe for more than just
bumpers, wheel well, and quarter panels. All the plastic in the world
cannot save them though, try as they might. But it is to their benefit
you see, plastic IS, after all, a petroleum product. And the circle
goes round and round and round....

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

Normally I'd agree and strongly support your position. But I'm not so sure

Ed,

Yes, this is true. Innovations and technological tweaking continues to
squeeze more out the IC engine. Variable intake seems to be the new
big thing for 2008.

Reinforced by this fact, the 2007/2008 4-cyl Sonata not only has MORE
horsepower than my 2002 6-cyl, it get's better mileage! When my 2002
dies or I sell it off or trade in, I will be looking forward to what
4-cyl model is going to be out.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

Fair enough, but let's not get public health issues mixed up with
economic issues.

Physics dictates how much work a gallon of gasoline can perform. With
the old technology, we weren't too close to that. Newer engines are
actually getting pretty close. To get any *significant* MPG boosts,
we'll have to drop not hundreds, but thousands of pounds from our
current family sedans. If my 3.3L Sonata weighed 2400 instead of 3400
pounds, it could easily get 35 mpg (if geared accordingly). A little
aerodynamics, and sacrifice a little less interior room, and I bet she
gets 45mpg. It's not as much the engine as the car.

Agree! Plug-in hybrids are the way to go... until something better
comes along.

I hear you. They love to stick new charges on the window sticker.
-

Bob

 

TCW,

I love your passion. Never lose it!

But listen here, nobody wants to push anyone out. Everyone in the USA
has the same opportunity to drive a big fat Hummer as me. If one
doesn't like to drive an Urkel Mobile, let them get a better job and
drive exactly what they want.

The way you present things is the tail wagging the dog. The truth is,
most of that 99% of people that don't drive luxury sedans do so of
their own free will, not because anyone is forcing them. Don't insult
people by saying they "can't" drive a luxury car. It's not a God given
right to drive a big car anyway.

Well wait a minute now.

Don't you remember the early 70's when the car makers had to scramble
to downsize their bloated cars? That was because of customer demand.
Gas got too expensive, and the manufacturers had to change.

We agree, we just have different time tables. Short term (TCW Time),
you are right. Car makers will do nothing. That's because gas is only
$3 a gallon. So near term, you'll see a few paltry attempts at
improving fuel economy. We're prosperous right now, and a tank of gas
still costs less than a family meal at Pizza Hut.

Long term, the 15mpg cars and trucks will be abandoned along the
roadsides, because it will cost $500 to fill the tank. Not real soon,
but SOONER THAN YOU THINK.

Tweak, tweak, tweak, phooey! That'll get you a mile or 2 further on a
gallon. That's near-term stuff, and will be a laugh in 10 years and
beyond. By then, we will need some earthshaking, radical changes in
our entire vehicles, from the ground up. We will have to start
sacrificing room, comfort, and safety for fuel economy. We're talking
about 1500 pound cars instead of 3000 pound cars. We're talking about
1000cc engines instead of 3000cc, or pure electric.

Haha... your description hints of Nerf cars. The Government and
insurance companies would love them.

I hope you're young enough to see the technological advances in the
cars of 2025. If we leave the manufacturers alone, I think we will
rise to the challenge. But it will never be quite enough. It's a
moving target, and there's always the next challenge. It's called
living.
-

Bob

 

I love your passion. Never lose it!

I'm sure we're irritating the piss out of the general group who are
discussing Hyundais but whether we agree or not, I like a good debate
and discussion. It's all good.

I'm not sure where you're getting this "luxury" car thing from as I
never injected it into the conversation. I guess our definitions of
luxury cars differ? I can tell from the way you choose to word things
in terms of cars that it's partially an aesthetic choice as opposed to
practical or pragmatic. I feel most people make choices based on their
budget and their overall intended purpose. The average adult is, what,
8K in financial debt (credit or otherwise)? Most people have sense
enough to stick within their economic means.

Now, the 99% I am talking about is the "99%" that was referred to in
the discussion about "the wealthiest 1% of American's have more wealth
than the combined 99% of all Americans." THOSE 99%. Not the 99%, as in
"everybody else." I didn't make that clear. I was still following on
the tail end of the earlier discussions of those wealthy enough to
afford $15 gas prices from a few posts ago that would put gas out of
the reach of the rest of the "99%." That should be more on target with
what I really mean. Clear as mud?

Ok, I got you on this one. A few months back there was heated debate
on this exact same topic on this exact same car. Someone attempted,
and failed, to tell me gas today had never been as high, even adjusted
for inflation. I am old enough to remember the Arab Oil Embargo of the
early 70s (1973 to be exact,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis) and that gas, adjusted
for inflation, topped our highest per-barrel costs in recent months.
The Energy Tax Act came about as a direct result of that
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act).

The car makers scrambling to make smaller cars was, in my
interpretation, a result of the Arab Oil Embargo and the economic
climate of the time. While it did take nearly 6 years for the Energy
Tax Act to be signed into law (1978) after gas prices went nuts in
the late 70s and early 80s, it at least set the precedent that car
makers WERE willing to work with the government to find a
middle-ground solution for both the oil side and the economic side of
the problem. Today, I feel you have to hold a gun to their head.
Sanatayana said it best: "Those who don't learn from history are
doomed to repeat it."

I kind of see the legislation that Bush signed as a bit of prodding
being done against the car makers. Back in the 70s, I don't feel they
needed to be prodded. They saw what needed to be done and stepped up
to the challenge.

Well, it's funny you mention sacrifice. This is exactly what someone
was talking about on NPR as I carpooled with my wife this morning.
Just 1 generation ago, people knew what it meant to sacrifice a little
both for themselves and their country. I don't see that so much now.
At least not in the generation growing up. In terms of sacrifice, can
you imagine if people had to ration rubber and metal like they did
during the early World Wars? Our senior citizens who had to deal with
this type of situation would be laughing at how much a bunch of
Sally's people have become.

Using science to created stronger alloys and make better use of metals
in car could yield some weight reductions. Ultimately it all does fall
on the shoulder of the engine and it's power. We're also seeing a lot
of new technology being put into cars now that wasn't there 10 years
ago: Nav systems, full cabin air bags, multi speaker arrays, DVD
players and screens, etc. That stuff adds to the aggregate weight.
It's starting to become standard on some models. 5 years from now, who
knows.

Hey, I'll take the 2 more miles to the gallon from tweaking if the
technology tweak stays in the design. For someone who might be buying
their first new car and expect it to last them a good 5-10 years with
good maintenance, the 2 mile per gallon savings could sure add up over
the long term and afford them a better vehicle down the road.

Nerf car? Better patent the name before Toyota does! You might retire
on the royalties or something. Yes, it will be interesting to see what
will be on the roads in 2025. The trend to use plastics on bumpers is
probably to increase aero dynamism I would surmise. I can't imagine it
being easy to make a metal cast of the crazy bumper designs we see
today. It MUST be easier to cast it in plastic. I hope the automakers
do rise to the challenge. Hopefully recruit some young minds coming
out of school to put their minds to work on the problem. Cheers.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

Reply to message from Matt Whiting <> (Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:
36:51) about "Re: Wow! How about that new Genesis!":

MW> Funny, it seems that the opinions of the group are running unanimously
MW> against you. So who has the more valid opinion?

Maybe some of us agree with him but don' t have the time to spend online
pushing this particular piece of string..... ;-)

Best Regards
Wayne Moses <> Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:27:26 -0600

=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.3

 

Oh God I am going to -die- laughing at you fellas!

Best Regards
Wayne Moses <> Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:34:43 -0600

=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.3

 

Reply to message from "Eric G." <> (Sun, 10
Feb 2008 17:15:30) about "Re: Wow! How about that new Genesis!":

EG> This debate definitely entertained the heck outta me

Whatever this is it is -not- a debate.

More like a farce. ;-)

Best Regards
Wayne Moses <> Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:38:13 -0600

=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.3

 

Reply to message from "Edwin Pawlowski" <> (Wed, 06 Feb 2008
20:55:27) about "Re: Wow! How about that new Genesis!":


EP> Lost me too.

EP> No, I did not and will not see Gore's film. Considering his lifestyle
EP> and how he wants the rest of us to live, he is just a blowhard
EP> politician hypocrite. He has zero respect and credibility with me.
EP> When he moves into a 2 bedroom ranch home, give me a call and we'll
EP> talk.

Guess those numbskulls who gave him the Nobel Prize are a bunch of idiots
who should have known better and consulted us learned folks on a Hyundai
NNTP newsgroup - us who initially started off discussing a nice car before
flying off at a tangent arguing about redneck philosophy, global warming,
politics, and what not.

I move that we detour yet again and weave religion into the mix, and while
there discuss abortion.

:-D

Best Regards
Wayne Moses <> Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:42:30 -0600

=== Posted with Qusnetsoft NewsReader 3.3

 

We agree on that

 

Yes, the recent history of Nobel prize selections raises many questions
about the committee and its selection process.

Matt

 

You think there's some bias and politics involved? ; )

 

No, that couldn't happen ... could it?