are these changes better for all of us?

there is lately a lot of talk about these hybrid engines and fuel cells and all types of crap like that. i understand the advantages of low-or-zero-emissions and efficiency and stuff but i also see disadvantages. one disadvantage is the fact that we already know gas engines back to front, and there is the large group of people who enjoy modifying those engines for more power or whatever. it will be harder or impossible to do so with electric or fuel cell cars. and, these engines are weak to begin with, semingly by nature (for example, i found this thing called clever car sold in canada; it gets 111mpg but only has a top speed of 60mph!). the whole idea of a sports car will be thrown out like last week's trash, leaving us with nothing but boring, slow cars to drive, and we cant do anything to make them much faster like we can with today's engines. and what about all the really nice cars that are around today nobody has any intentions of getting rid of, such as restored muscle cars or someone's $10,000 tuner car. and a lot of people like stick shifts, but these new CVTs are going to take over allof them. those will become utterly useless and undriveable, either because there wont be any gas stations left or it will be illegal to drive a fossil fuel cars.

am i the only one who thinks these changes are too dramatic and that at the very least they should still leave us the option to drive our gasoline cars and continue to make some, so we at least have a choice and those of us who like what we have and what we can do dont have to give it up???

:2cents: :mad:

I think youre making it out to be way more extreme than it will ever be. Enough people love driving fast cars that there is a demand. No matter what the platform is, there will be sports cars built upon it.

And besides, with all the to do about E85 you can expect some fast fucking cars once it becomes widely available and there's a 'tuner' market for it. Until then you'll have to be on your own and know what youre doing to get the most out of it, which isn't a bad thing.

I think your view is a bit over the top, but whatever, the only place I can maabye see that happening is California. But everyone knows California sucks and if you're offended by me saying that...well...too bad ;)

Playing devil's advocate:
60mph is perhaps a tad slow but honesty, do you need to go faster than 70-90mph?
Restoring a classic car is not the same as tuning so don't put them in the same group.
CVT is not a neccessity for higher mpg.
Also, one thing you miss is that mpg isn't what it's all about. More importantly is how much CO2 is produced.
Then there's the whole thing about alternative fuels (bio ethanol?)

Take a look at the air you're breathing... yes, its ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. If you don't think it is, fly into Los Angeles right now and you'll see what looks to be a brown lake covering the valleys from Palm Springs all the way to L.A.

Here's my problem without getting too existential or dolphin-hugging, but this is undenyably true. We're taking hyrdrocarbons from a mile below the earth's surface, pulling it up leaving a cavern, burning that stuff turning it into acidic gasses, CO2, and all kinds of other junk. Then we wonder why we're all suffering with this terrible air quality. Then we cut down most of the forest which is responsible for cleaning that junk out of the air and we wonder why the earth is getting warmer.

Most of the solutions like biodiesel, e85 (or e100 for that matter), fuel cells, hydrogen cars, whatever... use EXISTING things in the atmosphere as fuel. Let's say we went back to Oil City, PA in the 1800s and they didn't discover oil. Let's say we still didn't know that oil existed under ground and we had been burning alcohol and biodiesel all these years. I guarantee we wouldn't have a problem.

Now I'm gonna get weird, but its scientifically undenyable. It IS the circle of life. It IS the law of conservation of matter. Corn takes CO2 from the atmosphere, energy from light, water from the ground, and makes stuff; sugar, fats, trace amounts of protein. The harvested crop makes corn oil which gets used at McDonalds. Then I go get the oil from McDonalds and turn it into biodiesel and burn it. I return that CO2 and other stuff back to the atmosphere, and I CAN'T MAKE ANY MORE until more corn is grown which will remove that CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

That's the problem I have with fossil fuels. We're taking oil from the earth and putting it in SUVs and burning it into gasses for the atmosphere. That's not a cycle. That's a landfill. Why not take gasses from the atmosphere, burn them in SUVs and return them to the atmosphere? Makes a bunch more sense to me.

E85 is a very viable alternative fuel. It has much fewer BTUs than gasoline (about 2/3) and it takes a lot more to be stoichiometric so MPGs will suffer, but with some changes in the engines, the same power can be realized very easily. Car craft just took a 400-hp 350 and converted it with 12.5:1 compression, different timing, custom jetting in the carb, and it made 406 hp, while consuming approximately 30% more fuel. I look for E100 to be a very viable fuel in the near future with gasoline-like performance. Just a different set of knowledge.

I've always thought diesel was the best fuel we currently have. People buy hp but drive torque and diesels excel at making torque. Biodiesel is a direct conversion. The BTUs are almost identical and with the exception of changing some fuel lines, its super simple. You can mix and match bio, regular diesel, and even heated vegetable oil in any combination. The only reason you have to make veggie oil into biodiesel is because of its viscosity, but I know of several mercedes diesels that have two tanks; one for biodiesels (which runs the same as regular diesel) and a heated tank of straight veggie oil. You start on the bio then switch to the veggie once its hot enough. No change, no worries, no nothin. Need an extra gallon or two? Stop at the supermarket and dump two gallons of Wesson in the veggie tank. I get a kick out of people who still resist diesel because it smells and its noisy. Well, if you drove a VW TDI burning bio good luck with that argument. The engine is nearly as quiet as a gas engine, and the exhaust literally smells like McDonalds french fries. Then (as you get 50 mpg) you can laugh as you pass that stupid, complicated, expensive prius burning fossil fuels and only getting 38 mpg. Can you tell I hate hybrids?

I have to laugh that hybrids and CNG cars are granted clean-air access to the HOV lanes but bio-fuel cars aren't. I don't care how little they pollute, CNG and hybrid cars still burn fossil fuels putting stuff in the atmosphere that wasn't there before. bio fuel cars are only returning what we borrowed.

Talking about diesel engines, you really should go and test drive the diesel honda accord. Apart from some tell tale clatter on start up, you will not know it is a diesel.
And if outright performance is your concern, the twin turbo diesel used in the BMW535 is a beast of an engine and faster than most cars on the road.
Lotus have also recently been testing/running an Exige on Bio ethanol and so far, it produces more power than regular petrol.

still worried about performance?

i dont think restoring a classic and tuning an import are the same thing buit they similar in the way that they are vehicles we wont want to give up but may eventually have to due to this new "revolution" in what cars powered by. if you put 20 grand into the restoration of, say, a 1968 Pontiac or the tricking out of an import, would you want to have to junk that car (or at least not be able to drive it anymore) several years later, after all the work and money put in it, because of this??

and also, what about jobs?? people who are, today, being certified as mechanics on current vehicles, will need to be completely re-certified to work on cars as they will be in a few years, making their current knowledge obsolete, therefor their current ability to do the job, fix cars, obsolete. my best friend is training as an auto mechanic now, and i will be in a few months if i dont go into computers instead (my other hobby). where will he be in twenty years when everything he is certified for today is useless?? out of a job and having to go through another year-or-two long training program so he can make an income?? this seems to go for all current mechanics, also.

You are correct in saying we know gasoline engines basically front and back. How did we get there? By experience. We spent time using them and learning them. At this point in technology and manufacturing capacity, we will learn all these other types of engines and fuels much faster than gasoline engines. We will know them well enough to produce whatever power we want by the time anything sees mass production. Additionally, people will learn how to modify it very quickly. Look at cars - once the popularity of fast and sporty cars really grew and took hold, it only took a couple years before people were making crazy street rods.

Also, you will not see a black and white change. It takes many years for this stuff to trickle down, and it will trickle slow enough that everyone will be able to adjust in time. Example: when Exxon Mobil makes a change to production or manufacturing, they are not making this change for a couple months from now. They are expecting to see the effects of the change 5-10 years down the road.

In addition to agreeing with the other posters (esp Curtis' views) I have this to add:

Electric motors have torque that can absolutely slaughter petrol engines. It's available from 0rpm too.

is it possible to convert current motors to run on E85?? in a way like how old cars are/were converted to run on unleaded gasoline??

or will it require completely revamped engine design that is impossible to incorporate into existing motors??

Yes it is very possible, and reasonably easy, to convert current motors to E85. There are actually a fair number of vehicles on the market that are considered flexible fuel vehicles. The can run on either pump gas or E85. I'm sure you can easily find a list online somewhere.

and also, what about jobs?? people who are, today, being certified as mechanics on current vehicles, will need to be completely re-certified to work on cars as they will be in a few years, making their current knowledge obsolete, therefor their current ability to do the job, fix cars, obsolete. my best friend is training as an auto mechanic now, and i will be in a few months if i dont go into computers instead (my other hobby). where will he be in twenty years when everything he is certified for today is useless?? out of a job and having to go through another year-or-two long training program so he can make an income?? this seems to go for all current mechanics, also.

Well, its not a one day gasoline, tomorrow hybrid kinda thing. Its a very gradual process. Another VERY important thing about E85 and biodiesel is that its very evolutionary, not revolutionary. You could take a biodiesel vehicle to any diesel mechanic and they could work on it without even knowing what fuel is in the tank. Its literally no different than taking your car in for service with 87 octane in it or 93 octane in it. Biodiesel is that similar that the technology is the same.

E85 is nearly identical to gasoline, but given its different BTU content and the fact that its an alcohol engine means there are a few concessions that need to be made, but building an E85 engine is the same as building a gas engine, but you just have to know that it requires more compression, synthetic fuel lines, a different catalyst, etc... its not going to turn the world on its ear, just shake it up a tiny bit.

Honestly, once your friend completes training and goes to work for BMW or whoever, they will be continually educating him on new techniques and technology every month anyway. When BMW comes out with their first E100 vehicle, its not like he'll be a worthless employee. Rather its more like he'll be sent to a 3-day seminar at the BMW USA headquarters and he'll be caught up.

Not to mention, all of the procedures for repair are completely computerized in manuals. You could repair a Hybrid without even knowing what it was. You plug in the VIN, what job needs to be done and it even tells you what size wrench to use.

i was sitting in my engineering lecture class today and heard the scariest thing i have ever heard.
the class was a mechanical engineering class, and we were talking about automotive technology.
the professor mentioned how automotive technology was advancing so fast that in 30-40 years, cars as we now know them would be obscelete...
the idea is "Smart Cars" that drive on computerized highways, and run on automated GPS guided information. these cars would be safe. nearly ELIMINATING all traffic colisions and fatalities due to these collisions.
these cars would be electric, and have a nuclear battery pack located in a "Trunk-like" area. you wouldnt need to drive the car, just get in and say the name of the place you want to go. there would be no humans driving. just a bunch of automated vehicles driving around. worst prt of it is, when the technology is widespread, it will be impossible for a human driver to drive on these "Smart" roads. the computers will likely trim following distances to mere feet. there may not be turn signals, or headlights, or brake lights. it would be illegal to "drive" your car manualy due to the enormous risk.

this must not happen.
it would be bad enough to have an electric or hydrogen car, but i could live with it if i knew that it is still possible for me to push the clutch, jam the e-brake, floor the throttle, and sidestep the clutch while my car does donuts in the wal-mart parking lot.
as long as i can go to the autoparts store and buy extra capacity batteries and larger electric motors to put in my electric car, i'm OK.
but when cars become a means of simply getting from A - B, and are no longer an american passion, i dont know what i will do.

i was sitting in my engineering lecture class today and heard the scariest thing i have ever heard.
the class was a mechanical engineering class, and we were talking about automotive technology.
the professor mentioned how automotive technology was advancing so fast that in 30-40 years, cars as we now know them would be obscelete...
the idea is "Smart Cars" that drive on computerized highways, and run on automated GPS guided information. these cars would be safe. nearly ELIMINATING all traffic colisions and fatalities due to these collisions.
these cars would be electric, and have a nuclear battery pack located in a "Trunk-like" area. you wouldnt need to drive the car, just get in and say the name of the place you want to go. there would be no humans driving. just a bunch of automated vehicles driving around. worst prt of it is, when the technology is widespread, it will be impossible for a human driver to drive on these "Smart" roads. the computers will likely trim following distances to mere feet. there may not be turn signals, or headlights, or brake lights. it would be illegal to "drive" your car manualy due to the enormous risk.

this must not happen.
it would be bad enough to have an electric or hydrogen car, but i could live with it if i knew that it is still possible for me to push the clutch, jam the e-brake, floor the throttle, and sidestep the clutch while my car does donuts in the wal-mart parking lot.
as long as i can go to the autoparts store and buy extra capacity batteries and larger electric motors to put in my electric car, i'm OK.
but when cars become a means of simply getting from A - B, and are no longer an american passion, i dont know what i will do.


Not to be a complete ass... well ok I might as well be, I'm pretty good at it afterall.

What you said is one of the most ignorant things I'v ever read- reminds me an old man, removing the oxygen from the hole in his neck to take a puff on a cigarette. Roads are for transportation, not your pure enjoyment. There are plenty of tracks, be it drag strip, road coarses, ect or your enjoyment- that not only are better for the purpose, but also are safer. I'm all for driving, but if you look at the number of people killed every year in accidents that could be avoided, the amount of polution that comes from cars, the amount of time you spend stuck in traphic every day... does this stuff still seem like such a bad idea?

well, i must say it silent chamber, but you are an ass.
a total ass, and your head is stuck way up in that ass.

i dont race around on the streets like a madman, i dont drag race, and i rarely excede the speed limit by more that 5 mph.
thats not the point.
point is, the idea of a car was invented 200 years ago as a way to get around. first it was a horse drawn carraige, then a model A ford. now it is a S2000, or a miata, or a Exige, or a Lancer EVO, a toyota tercel for christs sake. thing is, as soon as the horse drawn carriage was invented, it became more than a simple mode of transportation. it served a social function as well. people were taking rides in the countryside, and going on trips to places that were completely out of their way, and un nessicary for them, except that it was enjoyable.
100 years ago, when henry ford brought cars to the masses, everybody could indulge in their little fantasy, and take rides to far off places that they had never been before. the automobile is as much a part of the american dream, as is the house in the suburbs, 2.3 kids, and a dog and two cats.
the automobile is a form of expression, a way to release tension, a way for the average man to, while behind the wheel, fulfill his dreams.

do you remember when you were a little kid, and you wanted to be a grownup so that you could drive?
you must remember.
you had hotwheels cars that you drove around on the floor of your room late at night. you had posters up on the wall of your favorite cars, and your favorite cars, no matter what they were, were faster than ANYBODY elses favorite cars. every teenager i know cant wait to be sixteen so that they can get their drivers liscence, and learn the finesse required to shift gears smoothly on the POS that will be their first car. you must remember the freedom that you felt the first time you drove all on your own.

this will all be lost if we go to an automatic GPS nav, driverless piece of CRAP.
cars will no longer be a form of expression, but a simple lifeless thing. an appliance if you will. chosing a car will be about as exciting as choosing your next washing machine, or garbage disposal. there will be no need for different makes, so the american car market will shrivel up and die. cars will be uniform and most likely made of japanese design in a poor country like korea, or ethiopia.

is this what you want?
is this how you want your kids to grow up?
what will kids play with late at night when their parents are asleep?
what noises will grown men make when the sounds of revving a cars engine are meaningless?

maybe i am a senile old shit that is sucking on his last cigarette before he dies, but it is a DAMN good cigarette, and ill be damned if i dont suck the very last bit of life out of it before i kick the dust.

A form of expression can be found in anything, I dont like the idea either, but if you weigh the good and the bad, the choice is rather obvious from a pure scientific standpoint. It wont ever happen in my life time, maby not yours either, and if people are still alive for that next generation, maby they'll see it, and by that time they will have other means of happyness and joy that was lost when the car went shit up.

dont speak to me anymore.

I dont believe I'v ever spoken to you anyway, this is a forum, if you dont want to get called on your views an opinions, dont post them.

you know, there is a saying.
it goes along these lines.
"give up whatever you must to keep the peace, but dont give up your guns"
meaning that once a free nation gives up its freedom to bear arms, the govt has won. cars are much the same.
once we give up the ability to pilot our own vehicles, it is a slippery slope down to complete automation of everything in our lives.
we talked about other things in this class i was in.
among them was the NFL.
i kno, ur thinking, what does the NFL have to do with automatic cars
atheletes are currently the highest paid in history, and their salaries keep going up up up. if this trend continues, soon, pro football players may price themselves out of the game.
wouldnt it suck to have a football game played by robots. robots programmed to do certain things and interact with other "players" on the field.
there would be no injuries, but there would also be no excitment. NFL would go the way of NASCAR, in that it would be restricted to within an INCH of its life.
obviously this would never happen, but it makes you think.
are these changes really better for all of us?
I dont think so.
the only peole that would benifit from automated cars is the company that had a monopoly on producing them.

p.s.
did you even read my post (the one where i called you an ass) or did you just make ignorant replies?
i find it hard to believe that someone who has posted over 6,000 times in an automotive forum would so willingly let the automobile go.
cars are my passion, and it would kill me to see them reduced to simple appliances.
tell me you dont agree?

I completely agree that cars are a form of expression, an artform, a passion, stress reliever, ect. But it doesnt take many close friends being lost in wrecks that were completely avoidable to understand the rationalization behind such movement. Do I think it will ever happen? no, not in the least bit- but I believe there will be many steps tward safer highway comutes in the future (as well as alternative fuels, which is what this thread is really about).

I can see it both ways. I enjoy driving, but if there is a way to improve quality of life by avoiding accidents, its a bonus.

Be nice gentlemen, you're both pretty.

Cars are like guns.....

A well-designed gun (even the most powerful gun on the planet) is only as dangerous as the finger on the trigger. And throughout the development of the gun, there have been other ideas that branched off and became their own. Tasers, for instance. Beanbag rounds, rubber bullets...but we still have GUNS. Big scary guns. Because as useful as all those other derivative tools are, sometimes you need A BIG SCARY GUN.

Even if "they" can convince the voiceless masses to sit in driverless cars to "commute" on driverless highways, (because they're safer!! ha ha) I hope that cars (as in VROOM, VROOM, SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!!!!!!) will remain so long as there are those who will buy and maintain them. You don't need an M16 to hunt rabbits, but they still serve their purpose, and thus remain.

I believe that all these "derivative" forms of automobilia are good healthy development. They may well replace the "zoom zoom va-rooom machine" for most, but I don't forsee the bleak future laid out in the opening post (and in subsequent references)

i was sitting in my engineering lecture class today and heard the scariest thing i have ever heard.
the class was a mechanical engineering class, and we were talking about automotive technology.
the professor mentioned how automotive technology was advancing so fast that in 30-40 years, cars as we now know them would be obscelete...

Are cars from 30-40 years ago obsolete?
Far from it.

I doubt your professors visions will come (the nuclear part is ridiculous). But I hope it encourages his students to think outside the box.

i was sitting in my engineering lecture class today and heard the scariest thing i have ever heard.
the class was a mechanical engineering class, and we were talking about automotive technology.
the professor mentioned how automotive technology was advancing so fast that in 30-40 years, cars as we now know them would be obscelete...
the idea is "Smart Cars" that drive on computerized highways, and run on automated GPS guided information. these cars would be safe. nearly ELIMINATING all traffic colisions and fatalities due to these collisions.
these cars would be electric, and have a nuclear battery pack located in a "Trunk-like" area. you wouldnt need to drive the car, just get in and say the name of the place you want to go. there would be no humans driving. just a bunch of automated vehicles driving around. worst prt of it is, when the technology is widespread, it will be impossible for a human driver to drive on these "Smart" roads. the computers will likely trim following distances to mere feet. there may not be turn signals, or headlights, or brake lights. it would be illegal to "drive" your car manualy due to the enormous risk.

this must not happen.
it would be bad enough to have an electric or hydrogen car, but i could live with it if i knew that it is still possible for me to push the clutch, jam the e-brake, floor the throttle, and sidestep the clutch while my car does donuts in the wal-mart parking lot.
as long as i can go to the autoparts store and buy extra capacity batteries and larger electric motors to put in my electric car, i'm OK.
but when cars become a means of simply getting from A - B, and are no longer an american passion, i dont know what i will do.


Watch the anime Ex-Driver if you're into this idea. The problem in the future is that computerized cars have their ai failures and run amok and that's why there's ex-driver. a good show, even if all of the main racers are kids.

its an interesting question.

Lets take it from this point of view, if you took a modern hybrid car from today and plunked it down in the middle of a speed shop 20 years ago, what would they have done?

Ran away squealing like little girls. They would have recognised hardly anything on the car, and definitely wouldn't have had a clue how to modify it.

For the longest time, EFI was "bad" in the high performance business. If you wanted real power, you removed the EFI and put a carb on it. Many old timers still believe this is a fact.

Now, many of the forums I hang out in, all they talk about is ways of tweeking EFI to adapt to modifications made. Many of these....kids (did I just say that??) don't even know what a carberator is, other than some antique method of fueling that is sometimes dug up lodged in with dynosaur bones.

The industry is definitely moving. The more high tech it gets, the more controlled it gets. The new CVT trannies are very specific to the power plant they are designed for, for example. Changing the power output of the motor would cause havoc with the CVT. Same goes for variable cam timing, and looking into the future, solenoid actuated valves maybe?

I think eventually engines/drivetrains will be so highly specialized, there will be little to modify without changing huge portions of the system to compensate for the modifications.

But....performance will always be there, no doubt. Was just reading an article on an electric car made from 4000 laptop computer rechargable batteries, that had a 200 mile range and had a 0-60 in 4.0 seconds. You gotta respect that for some smart ass that threw a bunch of batteries in a car to see what it would do.

But the days of slapping a roots blower on a car that you dug out of junk yard for $50 are definitely coming to an end.

i agree that the professors time scale was off, but it could happen.
say we used up enough oil that the remnants would be cost in-effective to get. like $8+ a gallon.
only jay leno would be paying for gas at that price.

have you ever watched an old black and white movie, like annie or whatever?
dont you hate it when they colorize those movies?
it looks so fake and disney like. not to mention that they ruined a perfectly good thing by trying to make it better...
this is what i see happening with cars in the future.
they wil be ruined by the simple act of trying to improve them.
driving is dangerous. its a simple fact. the most dangerous thing most people do is drive. you cant change that unless you take the driver out of the equation, but then it really isnt driving, is it?
i hope it never comes to the point where manual operated cars are banned due to safety.
not saying i dont care about those lives lost in colisions, but personally, i am willing to take the risk of driving. some people arent. its their call.

Well, as someone who grew up in the 70s and started driving in the 80s... trust me, I'm looking forward to whatever they offer. I used to think my friend's 84 Corvette was FAST.

Let's compare. The year I was born (73), the most power you could get in a GM product was 245 in a Camaro. They offered a 400 V8 that had 6.5:1 compression and made a wheezy 150 hp. By 1981, the most powerful engine you could get in a corvette was 190 hp. My friend's 84 vette had the "cross fire" 350 with a whopping 205 hp. My first car was an 83 chevy celebrity. At least it had the V6, so it was smacking down a pretty respectable 125 hp to the wrong wheels. My second car was a 91 Beretta GT with the 3.1. By the standards then, the 140 hp it put down was pathetic. My third car was 1966 Pontiac Bonneville. Sure, the 325 gross hp was nice, but the car weighs 5000 lbs. Then I had an 87 Olds Cutlass with the 307. A V8 with 140 hp... moving in the wrong direction.

In 1971 you could buy an LT-1 camaro. It idled rough, needed premium fuel, required frequent valve adjustments, wouldn't operate power brakes, and made about 250 net hp. But today, you can walk into a Chevy dealership (I did say Chevy, who's name is synonymous with "lowered expectations") and plop down a large chunk of cash for a showroom-stock car that makes nearly 500 hp, idles smoothly, pulls close to 1 lateral g, and gets 30 mpg.

I'd say this is a pretty exciting time. Combine that with the fact that E85 and biodiesel can accomplish the same feats renewably without devoiding the earth of any breathable air, and that makes me really want to jump up and down.

right, but if the cars we drive were to suddenly operate without us, and we became passengers, there would be no need to travel more than 65 mph, accelerate quickly, or have engines that made over 150 hp.
our daily ride to work would be like riding in the back of a limo. smooth and steady, nothing to upset the passengers comfort.
i'd love to see cars that are economical, have 4 doors, and make 500hp too.

right, but if the cars we drive were to suddenly operate without us, and we became passengers, there would be no need to travel more than 65 mph, accelerate quickly, or have engines that made over 150 hp.
our daily ride to work would be like riding in the back of a limo. smooth and steady, nothing to upset the passengers comfort.
i'd love to see cars that are economical, have 4 doors, and make 500hp too.


bit of an assumption don't you think?
and one that is flawed as well.

it could just as easily mean that if it was a 100% safe automated system, it could mean that we can all travel safely at 150mph to our destination.

it could but you and i both know that the law would never allow a bunch of automated cars to be whizzing around at 150 mph.
not for a long time at least IMO

why and how do you come to that conclusion?

if some governments are allowing trains to go 100mph under the control of a person, why not a fully automatic system IF it has 0% failure rates?

because the wind resistance at 120 mph is a whole lot more than that at 60 mph. in fact it is squared.
if the govt were trying to be eco-friendly and go as far as to get rid of internal combustion engines, why let people drive around at 150 and waste all that energy?

you seemed to have missed the previous discussion about the higher power gained from E85 in current development tests.

why waste energy when you dont have to?

because people need to travel?
if the government has a 100% reliable system that goes as fast if not faster than people used to do in personal cars, they will still have, if not more so, an even bigger rreason/right to tax travelling.

a 100% safe and fast/efficient system would net any govt. a hell of a lot of money.

because people need to travel?
if the government has a 100% reliable system that goes as fast if not faster than people used to do in personal cars, they will still have, if not more so, an even bigger rreason/right to tax travelling.

a 100% safe and fast/efficient system would net any govt. a hell of a lot of money.

You sure are an optimistic one, monkey. Grey had a point when he mentioned wind resistance...imagine high speed traffic intersections, and on a windy day...doesn't that bother you?

Also, the only cars that are capable of driving themselves (mass produced) are the mercedes S-class.

Directly about the thread, I understand why carbs evolved into EFI (which is still in development/improvement) and they were a major improvement, but hybrids are a lot more complicated. An engine can have an interchangeable carb or FI system, but you talk about converting an engine to a hybrid and you need a whole new engine!! It's incorporation is fundamentally flawed! It's like the arab oil embargo all over again!!

there is nothing inherently different about a hybrid engine. Just a question of how big the alternator is. I use the word "alternator" loosely, of course.

If you take a look at some of the "fake" hybrids, as I call them, such as the ford Escape, they did as little as they could to justify the marketing name plate. Its a rather pathetic attempt IMO

Ybut you talk about converting an engine to a hybrid and you need a whole new engine!! It's incorporation is fundamentally flawed! It's like the arab oil embargo all over again!!

Not at all.

A group of auto makers (can't remember which ones) have developed a transmission which incorporates all the hybrid drives (motor and generator).

Drop that into a car, drop in a battery pack, plug it into the relevant sensors (acc, brake pedal) and bingo.

You sure are an optimistic one

it isn't about optimism.
he put forward an overly pessimistic version where everything goes at 65mph ignoring all other possible outcomes.
whether likely or not, they are still just as likely.
in case you missed it, that 150mph i gave as an example is called a hyperbole; an extreme example to point out just that, the furthest extreme.
and even if it was "just" 65mph. if it was fully automated, then there wouldn't be any discrepancies between drivers as you get now. No differences in response times or actions; no driver variables or errors, the thing that makes accidents happen and causes traffic to slow down. If every thing moves in the same way at 65 mph on the long journies i do, i'm willing to be that it would still be quicker than what i do now.

the other problem here is that you are still focussing only on personal cars are forms of transport.
if it gets to the stage that there is a 100% safe and quick public transport system that serves all your commuting needs, then cars can be purely for fun.

and it isn't all about hybrids.
again, did you miss curtis's post regarding E85 and E100 as viable alternative (renewable) fuels?
from "ground" to exhaust, it is roughly 60%-70% lower in emmissions and actually produces more power than the current petrol options at the loss of a few mpg. Why are so many people hung up on mpg as being the ONLY thing in sustainabilty and environmental issues when it comes to cars?

I blame our government for not informing us, while they raised gas prices to an extreme (well they're down now) but for a while there were people seriously panicking and thinking about when we would run out of gasoline. It's a total trend and if you ask me, hybrid designers capitalized on this situation and now there's people toting they make 50+ mpg and every other car sucks.

beyond the conspiracy theories, the government doesn't have much control on the price of gas. That is a free market issue.

Demand is outstripping supply, along with all the middle east problems, you're going to have high crude oil prices.

Get used to it. I'm betting that we'll be seeing gas over $5/gallon within 2 years.

I just bought a bike that gets 65mpg...and I'm going to turbo it :D

beyond the conspiracy theories, the government doesn't have much control on the price of gas.

*cough* Foreign Policy *cough*.:grinyes:

Why are so many people hung up on mpg as being the ONLY thing in sustainabilty and environmental issues when it comes to cars?

Because MPG is the only way most people can visualise efficiency and energy use.

The reality is, we are burning energy at an unsustainable rate (a car at cruise putting out 20kW is burning 80-100kw worth of fuel).

I don't see the price of energy going down in the future. Fossil fuels are the traditional cheap source, the long term price trend for them is steeply upwards.
Alternative energy sources (solar etc) all rely on fossil fuels for manufacture, site construction and support and will all be impacted.

*cough* Foreign Policy *cough*.:grinyes:

rubbing elbows with the oil-rich countries won't change the supply/demand issue. Again....free market.

I say death to the polar bears, tap alaska like a cheep whore.

the alaskan drilling "debate" is such a waste. Its a tiny reserve that would barely make a dent in the US yearly consumption, it might lower gas prices 5 cents per gallon. All it would do is make some billionairs richer and reduce the countries avaible reserves.

Would seem intelligent to keep the ace up the sleeve, and thats without even considering the wild habitat side of the issues.

if it gets to the stage that there is a 100% safe and quick public transport system that serves all your commuting needs, then cars can be purely for fun.
because 100% is unattainable. all systems need maintenance. the more complex the system, the more frequent and specialized the maintenace.

The reality is, we are burning energy at an unsustainable rate (a car at cruise putting out 20kW is burning 80-100kw worth of fuel).
so why drive 150? (a hyperbole, apparently, although i'd be willing to bet that 125 or 100 isnt)
internal combustion is inefficient. the only way to have a system that is sustainable is to complete the circle.
right now we are sucking stuff that is billions of years old out of the ground, burning it, and putting it into the atmosphere, where it stays, and causes problems.
the only way 150mph (yes i know, a hyperbole) is possible is if we were to somehow develop a way to take something out of the air, burn it, and put it back n the air... impossible. electricity is the closest we can get, with solar and nuclear being the way of generating it.

rubbing elbows with the oil-rich countries won't change the supply/demand issue. Again....free market.

Invading oil producing areas has a negative effect on the supply chain.

Invading oil producing areas has a negative effect on the supply chain.

yes it does....but in the long run, its not even a blip on the radar. You could argue that its better this way, because we (as a nation) are turning our thoughts more towards alternatives and reducing our consumption. Something that should have been done ages ago IMO.

Also keep in mind, if oil isn't being harvested from an area due to its instability....its still there for later consumption....so the market will still get the oil, just at a later date. So all is good in the race to burn up all crude on the planet. Goodie! :screwy:

yes it does....but in the long run, its not even a blip on the radar.

I agree with that. But in the short term it is a major influence in the market.
Short term prices are also heavily dependent on political factors and events like Hurricane Katrina. Anything which affects (or threatens to affect) extraction, storage or transportation.

.... we (as a nation) are turning our thoughts more towards alternatives and reducing our consumption. Something that should have been done ages ago IMO.

I'm not so sure about this, everyone complains about gas prices, and protest "we need more ecomonimal and environmentally friendly vehicals"... but every time I get out on the road I'm dwarfed by a never ending sea of SUV's carrying one person around town.

I'm not so sure about this, everyone complains about gas prices, and protest "we need more ecomonimal and environmentally friendly vehicals"... but every time I get out on the road I'm dwarfed by a never ending sea of SUV's carrying one person around town.

nothing will happen overnight. But the fact that people buying new vehicles are (for once) really considering mpg as part of the purchase dicision, is a huge difference from what it was even 5 years ago. There's been a few polls about this, and the priority lists for vehicle buyers are changing drastically in that catagory

As for large vehicles blocking your view. Try riding a 300 pound bike on the road :D

I heard something recently (I couldn't verify it as reliable, but the numbers seem perfectly sane) concerning the alaskan resources. President W had the opportunity to sign a new CAFE raise of 1 mpg. He did not do it. If he HAD done it, we could have saved as much fuel in one year after its inception as we would be getting from that alaskan reserve.

Not too happy about that BS.

there are a lot of interesting data points on consumption vs conservation.

I read somewhere (and I won't make any attempt to say its fact, but it sounds believable) if the average car got 35mpg, the US wouldn't have to import a single gallon of oil.

Wonder if we'd be in Iraq then, eh?

Thats a pretty noteworthy fact, considering that roughly 66% of our crude consumption is electricity generation. So the other side of the coin....if we actually invest in more alternative energy generation, we could make a huge impact.

I heard something recently (I couldn't verify it as reliable, but the numbers seem perfectly sane) concerning the alaskan resources. President W had the opportunity to sign a new CAFE raise of 1 mpg. He did not do it. If he HAD done it, we could have saved as much fuel in one year after its inception as we would be getting from that alaskan reserve.

Not too happy about that BS.
To put another spin on it.

If everyone drove (maybe) 5% less, you'd get the same savings.

Moving closer to work (or working closer to home) has the potential to eclipse your car choice as a factor in fuel consumption.

To put another spin on it.

If everyone drove (maybe) 5% less, you'd get the same savings.

Moving closer to work (or working closer to home) has the potential to eclipse your car choice as a factor in fuel consumption.

man! Since we're brain storming all these great ideas, I have a good suggestion.

Lower all speed limits to 25mph. That way, it would take so long to go anywhere of any decent distance, no one would drive there.

30K lives a year would be saved, due to the reduction is fatalities in higher speed accidents.

MPG would be improved with engines being designed and optimized for the low speeds.

Oh, and to save the equivilant amount of gas that is in the alaskan site, all forms of motorized sports are canceled. Not only would that make a healthy dent in consumption, but think about the emissions improvement with that move alone! Race vehicles are horrible polluters.

I think I'm going to call up my congressman right now!

sorry to bring this topic back, but i just saw a comercial for a lincon ls that can parallel park its self. just line it up and WHAMMO.

personally, i like to have manual control over my vehicle.
parallel parking is an art that i prefer to master on my own.
i believe that the driverless car is on the way.
pardon me but i like to drive my own car thank you.

and i'm not trying to sound like some unenducated ignoramus, but i wont drive a car that "knows" better than i do what i want it to do.
thats what i am there for. to make the decisions.
not the computer.
it is there to keep the air fuel mixture at a perfectly stoichiometric ratio, to make the radio play when i push the button, and to make the horn beep when i press the button to lock the doors twice in a row.

my point is, if it aint broke, dont go fixing it.
LEAVE IT ALONE.

Ok - here's my take. While I guess it is possible that somewhere down the road we may have an automated transportation system, 30-40 years from now is no where within the realm of possibility. One reason: INFRASTRUCTURE. Depending on the technology, there would be different huge setbacks. If the cars responded to the roads (similar to railroad, but using some type of system inside the car that would interact with the road), EVERY single road (and driveway) in the US (let plus, lets think of Canada and Mexico, and anywhere else for that matter. Can we expect our cars and trucks to be unable to operate in those countries, or refuse vehicles from those countries? No way) would have to be converted to these Smart roads. Trillions of dollars involved. If the cars were to autonomously recongize the roads, all of a sudden everyone would have to buy new cars so that everyone could conform. Again, not going to happen. In addition to this, anything that could even resemble a road would have to be removed for fear of causing an accident.

There is wayyyyy too many concerns involved for even our grandchildren to really have a chance at seeing a system like this.

Actually, you may be surprised...

Germany has several companies working on the system and over 8400 miles of roads have been retrofitted with the signaling devices. Its really a simple operation; the protocols are all in the car. The roads are easily outfitted with the sensors. Its as simple as closing a lane for the night and cutting into the pavement. Its like adding a stoplight loop.

In today's day and age of sharing and corporate handshaking, most companies are in bed with every other company. Take a look here and you'll see that almost everyone is in bed with everyone else. http://www.globalauto.org/global.htm . Then look here and see how the trucks are lumped in with many companies : http://www.globalauto.org/truck.htm

Sterling is a branch of the Ford comany, recently bought out, but they have either Mercedes or Cummins engines which are in bed with Daimler Chrysler. Then you have the ever-changing White/GMC/volvo which is now owned by Renault/Nissan who also own Freightliner. Its like playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon, but you only have to go two steps before you include every possible car manufacturer from Skoda to Scania. Word gets around.

What I'm saying is... every company is in bed with whoever develops the technology. Its just a matter of time. There is also no benefit to keep the protocol proprietary. They would only benefit from sharing it with their sister companies

Lexus LS you mean. Sick. Dumb down driving even more for people.

And Lexus LS >> Lincoln LS. By a LOT.