Who needs that, I filled my Avalanche up with E85 today and I saved .61 cents a gallon and my truck hauls A__. Waiting for the Gov to do do anything is like sitting in the corner of a bar facing the wall a hoping to get laid.....it ain't gonna happen. I do think that market prices are going to force a shift which will lead companies to develop something demand driven instead of gov subsidies.

On a national level people can do plenty without the help of the fed, by recycling and reading newspapers online instead of the newstand little stuff like that makes a difference. If the gov really wants to do some good offer money for plastic to be recycled.

Given the incentive, I’d buy one of the GM vehicles that gets 48 MPG in town. But we can’t even get that. If you are content to save money, that’s cool. Money is a powerful motivation. But your stated solution is a mask and does nothing to solve any real problems, which i thought was the point of the thread.....

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

My stated solution is a step, calling it a mask would be the equivalent of saying you drive a gas burner because you deserve it. I don't need the government to tell manufactures to build a better mousetrap to start using alternitive materials. I already use composite doors, decks, roofing and am experimenting with foam framing so on a micro level I've accomplished more than the gov has.

Well first I’m happy to hear of any innovation folks do. But putting one kind of fuel in a fuel inefficient vehicle is no different than using another kind. You save some $$ and while that is non-trivial, it does nothing to solve the bigger problems of over consumption.

IMO, what you or me or everyone on this site does under the name of saving $$ may feel good but unless we pursue solutions to reduce consumption on a national level, there will be no gain. Feeling good about a moving the deck chairs around is okay, but if one does that and calls it problem solving they are both short sighted and as a result might be happy but miss the needed target all the same. That's why it's a mask.

I’m off to add wear to my hiking boot soles....

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

Experimental Hybrid Cars Get Up to 250 Mpg

By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer Sat Aug 13, 7:08 PM ET

CORTE MADERA, Calif. - Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.
ADVERTISEMENT
Adblock

It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret — a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel.

Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.

Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb — all for about a quarter.

He's part of a small but growing movement. "Plug-in" hybrids aren't yet cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg.

They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling.

And while the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are beginning to take notice, too.

So far, DaimlerChrysler AG is the only company that has committed to building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. officials who initially frowned on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them.

"They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy."

The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg.

"The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference."

Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power.

Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could mass produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price.

But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost, convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids — and note that consumers haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of recharging them like giant cell phones.

Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message.

Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent hawks like former
CIA director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign oil dependence.

Gaffney, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism.

"The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said.

DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would be available.

Others are modifying hybrids, too.

Monrovia-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said.

University of California, Davis engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban.

Frank has spent $150,000 to $250,000 in research costs on each car, but believes automakers could mass-produce them by adding just $6,000 to each vehicle's price tag.

Instead, Frank said, automakers promise hydrogen-powered vehicles hailed by
President Bush and Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though hydrogen's backers acknowledge the cars won't be widely available for years and would require a vast infrastructure of new fueling stations.

"They'd rather work on something that won't be in their lifetime, and that's this hydrogen economy stuff," Frank said. "They pick this kind of target to get the public off their back, essentially."

___

I'm guessing I need an S-class diesel for the interstate and a Prius for around town. The Ford GT is for..., damned if I know, but I saw one Friday. That is a jaw-dropping monster!

http://www.fordvehicles.com/fordgt/home.asp

Or for the same $$ buy 240,000 $5,000 cars that get 48 MPG in, and use them to replace gov vehicles which are used primarily in and around town. You get about 1/2 the fuel consumption, about 1/4th the cost of vehicles and simple vehicles to maintain.

Or maybe a fleet of small, commuter responsive point to point mass transit.

Or about a billion bicycles.

Which would be a better value: The magic called desire that is hybrids or something that actually works?

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

Good thinking let's not do anything unless the fed makes us all do it. I'd expect that mentality at a nascar race. I waited in line to fill up with E85 because its cheaper than gasoline. The station owner said that if gas prices stay above 2.50 he's going to offer it at all of his stations. Customers have a much louder voice than greenpeace, greenspan or any other national outfit that thinks they can make a difference. Flex fuel is far from a solution but its a conservitive step in the right direction.

The degree to which current fuel prices impact lifestyle has a direct effect on alternative fuels and technologies. When any item is wanted in greater demand than supply is able to provide, the prices will go up. Rising prices make alternative systems and methods less unreasonable.

If $3 fuel is the magic threshold for X number of people, then as $3 is neared, people at that particular threshold will more actively search for alternatives.

I'm betting that the thresholds are continuous and finite. As prices rise more people seek alternatives. I wonder what proportion of society has to be impacted, and by how much, before major changes in perception take place.

Recall that before the energy crises of the 1970's fuel economy was only of concern to fanatic flower children. After the oil embargoes the Japanese slaughtered the market with fuel efficient cars. No government interbvention necessary.

Recall, as I've pointed it out to you in the past, that the government took a proactive role in the increase in fuel consumption. You should be aware of CAFE and the graduated increases that were mandated by the government throughout the early and mid '80s.

To state that no government intervention is necessary is correct. The government can sit there, like this one is fond of doing, with its proverbial head up its ass, until the market drives the use of fuel downward. Or, it could take a proactive stance, on many fronts, and, via the use of tax incentives, and legislation on the manufacturers, reduce fuel consumption dramatically.

Why not force the car manufacturers to achieve an average of 35 mpg? They have the technology. The fact that some moron can't drive his 6,000 lb. $hitbox around the freeways anymore is just too focking bad.

Ya know Paul thats an excellent idea, now here's why. You can call me ignorant but I don't pay the bills around my house but after a financial software conversion I noticed what I was paying for fuel and electricity and nearly fell out of my chair. On a good week @ $2.50 I spend over $200 on fuel and my energy bills were out of site thats what led me to the E85 pump and I replaced all of my old freezers wtih new energy star models. With the energy savings on the freezers I sould pay for the new ones in 2 months. I'll miss my ol' meat locker that'll cool the garage if I leave the door open but something had to give and it was my wallet.

Recall, as I've pointed out to you, that I think CAFE is unwarranted federal interference in a process that will occur without interference, by market pressure.

This saves taxpayers money in the short and long term and doesn't form yet another damnable federal bureaucracy.

B

But isn't the duplicity of government in this area suspect. If cars are fuel inefficient, the government profits mightily from the tax revenue. It is the same story with tobacco. They make so much money off of it falls to their interest to continue promoting and profiteering from a known killer.

Clearly as is evidenced by the GM vehicles which get 48 MPG in town there are viable and inexpensive solutions. But the gov stands in the way of it, because the profit from standing in the way.

I want a government that provides leadership and a means to solve problems. The one I have is only interested in feeding themselves at the ultimate expense and destruction to the tax payers.

Bureaucracy in an of itself isn’t bad. What is bad is when it turns into yet another do nothing but suck entity. That's the government we have.

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/business/16fuel.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=0832df7076c087e4&hp&ex=1124251200&partner=homepage

Fuel Rule Change for Big S.U.V.'s Seen as Unlikely

DETROIT, Aug. 15 - The Bush administration is expected to abandon a proposal to extend fuel economy regulations to include Hummer H2's and other huge sport utility vehicles, auto industry and other officials say.

The proposal was among a number of potential strategies outlined by the administration in 2003 to overhaul mileage requirements for light trucks - sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans. It had been seen by industry officials as likely to be adopted.

But the impact of the tougher requirements would have been borne almost solely by the increasingly troubled domestic auto industry, a concern for the administration.

Its broad plan to overhaul the light-truck mileage rules would change the regulatory system from one using averaged mileage for an automaker's entire annual light-truck output to one that sets up five or six classes, determined by a vehicle's size.

The rules, the first major rewriting of fuel economy standards since they were created in the 1970's, will be released late this month. They are sure to renew vigorous debate about the nation's dependence on foreign oil, a matter underlined by rapidly rising oil and gas prices.

The administration plan is still being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, which has had a role in drafting the plan. Further revisions could be made, including on the question of extending the regulatory system to cover larger vehicles. Until the details are published, its potential effect on the nation's oil consumption will not be fully clear. And the volatility of oil prices could push consumers toward buying more efficient vehicles, a trend that may outstrip regulations in determining fuel consumption in years ahead.

"We have no comment on it until we're ready to release it," said Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a branch of the Transportation Department. "It's still a fluid process at this point. We look forward to significant fuel savings without sacrificing safety or doing harm to the American economy."

Because cars, S.U.V.'s and other light-duty vehicles account for 40 percent of the nation's oil use, changes in the regulatory system are always watched closely, more so in an era of increased concern over foreign oil imports, rising fuel prices and debate on the effects of global warming.

The broad outline of the Bush plan is almost certain to meet objections from environmentalists and those hoping for an aggressive approach to curbing dependence on foreign oil. But domestic automakers are likely to see it as a victory, since the new plan will decrease advantages that some foreign automakers, like Honda, have in the current system because they do not make the heaviest trucks and S.U.V.'s.

Roughly speaking, corporate average fuel economy regulations - known as C.A.F.E. standards in the industry - divide each automaker's annual new vehicle production into two categories: passenger cars and light-duty trucks. New cars must average 27.5 miles a gallon and light trucks 21.2 miles a gallon in 2005 models and 22.2 miles by 2007. The figures represent lab-generated mileage and overstate the numbers that can be achieved on the road. Rules for cars are not being changed.

When the current two-category system was created in the 1970's, cars ruled the American road. Since then, automakers have developed new classes of vehicles that qualify as trucks, including S.U.V.'s, minivans and family-oriented pickup trucks with two rows of seats. As a result, not only is the number of vehicles on the road increasing, but the average new vehicle is getting lower mileage than it did two decades ago because so many more new vehicles are trucks. An increasing emphasis on horsepower is also a major factor.

Larger sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds when loaded, like many Hummers and Ford Excursions, have been exempt from the regulations. When the system was created, vehicles of that weight were generally used for commercial purposes, but now hundreds of thousands sold each year are intended for family use.

Automakers have had powerful incentives to produce such vehicles because they are exempt from fuel regulations, have had rich profit margins, and many consumers can claim tax breaks for them. The administration had suggested including larger S.U.V.'s in fuel economy regulations in a first wave of proposals in December 2003, but domestic automakers objected that such a move would harm their fragile bottom lines.

The proposal was among a number of potential strategies outlined by the administration in 2003 to overhaul mileage requirements for light trucks - sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans. It had been seen by industry officials as likely to be adopted.

But the impact of the tougher requirements would have been borne almost solely by the increasingly troubled domestic auto industry, a concern for the administration.

Its broad plan to overhaul the light-truck mileage rules would change the regulatory system from one using averaged mileage for an automaker's entire annual light-truck output to one that sets up five or six classes, determined by a vehicle's size.

The rules, the first major rewriting of fuel economy standards since they were created in the 1970's, will be released late this month. They are sure to renew vigorous debate about the nation's dependence on foreign oil, a matter underlined by rapidly rising oil and gas prices.

The administration plan is still being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, which has had a role in drafting the plan. Further revisions could be made, including on the question of extending the regulatory system to cover larger vehicles. Until the details are published, its potential effect on the nation's oil consumption will not be fully clear. And the volatility of oil prices could push consumers toward buying more efficient vehicles, a trend that may outstrip regulations in determining fuel consumption in years ahead.

"We have no comment on it until we're ready to release it," said Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a branch of the Transportation Department. "It's still a fluid process at this point. We look forward to significant fuel savings without sacrificing safety or doing harm to the American economy."

Because cars, S.U.V.'s and other light-duty vehicles account for 40 percent of the nation's oil use, changes in the regulatory system are always watched closely, more so in an era of increased concern over foreign oil imports, rising fuel prices and debate on the effects of global warming.

The broad outline of the Bush plan is almost certain to meet objections from environmentalists and those hoping for an aggressive approach to curbing dependence on foreign oil. But domestic automakers are likely to see it as a victory, since the new plan will decrease advantages that some foreign automakers, like Honda, have in the current system because they do not make the heaviest trucks and S.U.V.'s.

Roughly speaking, corporate average fuel economy regulations - known as C.A.F.E. standards in the industry - divide each automaker's annual new vehicle production into two categories: passenger cars and light-duty trucks. New cars must average 27.5 miles a gallon and light trucks 21.2 miles a gallon in 2005 models and 22.2 miles by 2007. The figures represent lab-generated mileage and overstate the numbers that can be achieved on the road. Rules for cars are not being changed.

When the current two-category system was created in the 1970's, cars ruled the American road. Since then, automakers have developed new classes of vehicles that qualify as trucks, including S.U.V.'s, minivans and family-oriented pickup trucks with two rows of seats. As a result, not only is the number of vehicles on the road increasing, but the average new vehicle is getting lower mileage than it did two decades ago because so many more new vehicles are trucks. An increasing emphasis on horsepower is also a major factor.

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

Larger sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds when loaded, like many Hummers and Ford Excursions, have been exempt from the regulations. When the system was created, vehicles of that weight were generally used for commercial purposes, but now hundreds of thousands sold each year are intended for family use.

Automakers have had powerful incentives to produce such vehicles because they are exempt from fuel regulations, have had rich profit margins, and many consumers can claim tax breaks for them. The administration had suggested including larger S.U.V.'s in fuel economy regulations in a first wave of proposals in December 2003, but domestic automakers objected that such a move would harm their fragile bottom lines.

Gasoline prices have become a powerful counterweight to regulatory benefits given the biggest gas guzzlers. Many automakers, seeing the weakness in sales of large S.U.V.'s this year - they have recovered only after heavy discounting - are re-emphasizing plans for smaller, lighter S.U.V.'s in the future.

Under the Bush administration plan, about half a dozen size classes will be determined by the vehicle's length and width. Instead of an overall mileage requirement for the total fleet of light trucks a manufacturer sells in a model year, makers will have to meet some kind of target or average within each size class. As a result of the proliferating categories, it will probably become more difficult to predict fuel economy trends.

"It's an invitation to game the system and increase our oil dependence and the pollution that results," said Dan Becker, a global warming strategist at the Sierra Club. "The Bush administration is failing to use the most powerful weapon in its arsenal to save people money at the pump."

Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a lobbying group for General Motors, Toyota and several other producers, said: "The one thing we haven't heard is what the values will be for the different categories, and that will really tell us what the system means.

"Once the proposal comes out, we will have to take a hard look at it and see what the benefits may be to improving fuel economy."

The administration has taken some steps to increase fuel regulations for light trucks, raising the mileage standard for trucks to 22.2 miles a gallon for 2007 models, from 20.7 miles a gallon in 2004 models. Environmentalists have argued that gains from that move were offset by credits given to automakers for making vehicles that can use ethanol, even though there are few gas stations that carry the required blend.

Under the administration's plan, for 2008 to 2010 models automakers will have a choice of complying with the new size-based system or the current system, though a further increase beyond 22.2 miles a gallon is expected in the current system. After 2010, the current system will be eliminated.

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"