On 3/6/2012 9:06 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 3/5/2012 7:20 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In b.com,
says...

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:37:06 -0500, wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote:

The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The
problem is
that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet.

The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive
downsized
with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from
breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric
needs
needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer
period
of time and distance.

===

I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to
disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a
loaf.

Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes.
The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road
starts to
get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging
stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative
energy
like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out
to
the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome
where
you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and
vice
versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs
would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The
problem
is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is
economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized
across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price
was
right. It would be great for running short errands and the like,
running on gas for the occasional longer trip.


You are 100% correct, but it just gives the far right wing the
ability
to say SEE, new technology is BAD....


Got your Cheby Volt yet? Didn't think so. Me, being moderate and
slightly right leaning, prefers to wait till the elec car matures and
shakes out most of the bugs. Buyers who must be on the bleeding edge
will pay dearly for the privilage of owning a product that ain't
quite there yet.

By the way, you are far too polarîzed. A common trait among democrats.

What makes you think I'm a democrat, to start with? Also, Scotty and BAR
claim that there will never be an electric car that works!

I never said that there will never be an electric car. I have said that
the technology is not available at this time to make them useful. Lion
technology has a heat problem that they haven't been able to solve. You
are lucky that you can take your cellphone and computer on airplanes.
Most bulk shipments of Lion batteries have to be specially packaged or
shipped via surface carrier.

Power density and recycling are the biggest problems with electric cars
at this time. These issues will be resolved in time but, until then
someone else can be on the bleeding edge of this technology.

Plume always lies about what "we" said... It's the only way he can get
attention...

Who said "the electric car is dead"???

Scotty picked up on what some unknown blogger said. He should have
checked the facts. Is it safe to say the volt has a terminal case of
shortcomings?

--
O M G

On 3/6/2012 9:07 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

In b.com,
says...

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 09:47:44 -0500, wrote:
In b.com,
says...

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:37:06 -0500, wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote:

The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The
problem is
that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet.

The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric
locomotive
downsized
with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated
from
breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all
electric
needs
needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a
longer
period
of time and distance.

===

I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we
seem to
disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a
loaf.

Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say
yes.
The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road
starts to
get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like
charging
stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative
energy
like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this
out
to
the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg
syndrome
where
you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg
and
vice
versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation
needs
would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The
problem
is price of course, and prices will not come down until there
is
economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs
amortized
across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the
price
was
right. It would be great for running short errands and the
like,
running on gas for the occasional longer trip.


You are 100% correct, but it just gives the far right wing the
ability
to say SEE, new technology is BAD....


Got your Cheby Volt yet? Didn't think so. Me, being moderate and
slightly right leaning, prefers to wait till the elec car matures
and
shakes out most of the bugs. Buyers who must be on the bleeding
edge
will pay dearly for the privilage of owning a product that ain't
quite there yet.

By the way, you are far too polarîzed. A common trait among
democrats.


What makes you think I'm a democrat, to start with? Also, Scotty
and BAR
claim that there will never be an electric car that works!

Never say never.
I'll bet you are a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.:-)

Most Democrats are fiscally conservative when it comes to their own
money, however, when it comes to your money they are as fiscally liberal
as they can be.

Typical unhinged far right winger, telling everybody else what they
think and what they do.

But it's ok when your boyfriend harry does it. Snerk

--
O M G

On 3/6/2012 9:09 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 17:20:57 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote:

The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is
that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet.

The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized
with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from
breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs
needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period
of time and distance.

===

I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to
disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf.

Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes.
The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to
get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging
stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy
like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to
the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where
you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice
versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs
would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem
is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is
economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized
across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was
right. It would be great for running short errands and the like,
running on gas for the occasional longer trip.

Yes. This is the lesson unlearned in the 70's. Can we really afford to
let this go again?

The lesson from the 70's was, drill here, drill now.

Bull****.

If we had drilled here and drilled now in the 70's we would not have had
to worry about the middle east at all. They could have ****ed all over
each other and it would not have mattered to us in the US because we
would have had our own oil being pumped from our own yards.

They didn't have the technology back then to find it, to start with. I
know because I actually worked for a summer on an exploration crew in
the northeast trying to do just that, find oil. Using sonar.

Liar

--
O M G

On 3/6/2012 9:09 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In , says...

On 3/4/2012 5:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 13:35:14 -0500, wrote:

The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is
that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet.

The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized
with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from
breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs
needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period
of time and distance.

===

I think we both agree on most of those points. Where we seem to
disagree is whether or not it makes sense to roll out half a loaf.

Knowing full well the limitations of half a loaf, I still say yes.
The reason being that getting some electric cars on the road starts to
get people thinking about the infrastucture issues (like charging
stations and better batteries). Same thing with alternative energy
like wind and solar. If you don't start rolling some of this out to
the public you end up with a perpetual chicken and egg syndrome where
you can't have the chicken because you don't yet have an egg and vice
versa. There are also a lot of people whose transportation needs
would be well served right now by a car like the Volt. The problem
is price of course, and prices will not come down until there is
economy of scale, with the engineering and tooling costs amortized
across a wider base. I could use a Volt right now if the price was
right. It would be great for running short errands and the like,
running on gas for the occasional longer trip.


The problem Wayne, is the administration is trying to make these cars
feasible by raising the cost of the alternatives so they have talking
points... Right now it takes almost ten years to recover the price of
the car, when they get the gas up to 8 dollars a gallon, they can say
"look, you recover your investment in three years!"... They said they
were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by the price
of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are spending is
killing us....

New technology bad.... FOX tell me.

Never install version 1.0 software.

Never purchase the first versions of anything.

Let someone else work out the bugs.

New technology bad, FOX tell me.

Do you read or listen to Fox?

--
O M G

On 3/6/2012 9:13 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In , says...

On 3/4/2012 1:35 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 09:35:24 -0500, wrote:

In , says...

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/


Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the
world with an open mind...

Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE who doesn't pay taxes, will have to find
another vehicle to force his people who have company cars to purchase
and drive.

http://gas2.org/2012/02/20/ge-forcin...o-chevy-volts/

===

With all due respect Bert, that sounds like a regurgitation from a
Rush Limbaugh rant. The republican party needs to put a muzzle on
that dude before he alienates every swing voter in the country.

With all due respect Wayne, the Republican party doesn't control Rush
Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh doesn't control the Republican party. Rush
will rise or fall based upon his audience and advertisers. The
Republican party leadership has lost its way and holds no sway over the
grass roots.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to be muzzled due to her alienating swing
voters. Every time she speaks she lies.

The street has people on both sides ****ing off people on the other side
of the street.

I think the jury is still out on electric cars but any program at all
which encourages energy independence is a good thing in my opinion.

The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is
that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet.

The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized
with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from
breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs
needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period
of time and distance.

I say as long as batteries are what they are, the jury is indeed out,
and electric cars are dead...

Want to wager a LOT of money?

Provide proof as to who you are beyond all doubt and I may make a wager.

Oh, there you go, you, Scotty and Don, trying to out everybody once
again. I DO hope you realize, there are many electric cars in the world
humming along quite nicely.

And they seem to have gotten a jump on GM's day late and dollar short Volt.
Speaking of Hummer. That was another dumb**** ungreen move by GM.

--
O M G

On 3/6/2012 9:15 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

In , says...

On 3/5/2012 7:31 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

In , says...

On 3/4/2012 1:35 PM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 09:35:24 -0500, wrote:

In , says...

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/


Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the
world with an open mind...

Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE who doesn't pay taxes, will have to find
another vehicle to force his people who have company cars to purchase
and drive.

http://gas2.org/2012/02/20/ge-forcin...o-chevy-volts/

===

With all due respect Bert, that sounds like a regurgitation from a
Rush Limbaugh rant. The republican party needs to put a muzzle on
that dude before he alienates every swing voter in the country.

With all due respect Wayne, the Republican party doesn't control Rush
Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh doesn't control the Republican party. Rush
will rise or fall based upon his audience and advertisers. The
Republican party leadership has lost its way and holds no sway over the
grass roots.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to be muzzled due to her alienating swing
voters. Every time she speaks she lies.

The street has people on both sides ****ing off people on the other side
of the street.

I think the jury is still out on electric cars but any program at all
which encourages energy independence is a good thing in my opinion.

The jury is in on electric cars. They are the future. The problem is
that there hasn't been enough R&D to make them feasible yet.

The hybrid, gas-electric, is just a diesel-electric locomotive downsized
with the added benefit of pulling the electricity generated from
breaking and coasting to charge the batteries. The all electric needs
needs work with storing enough power to be useful over a longer period
of time and distance.

I say as long as batteries are what they are, the jury is indeed out,
and electric cars are dead...

Want to wager a LOT of money?

Provide proof as to who you are beyond all doubt and I may make a wager.


Oh brother, Plume is reverting to the "wanna' bet" defense again...

I have decided to call it out. I will bet it if it provides me with
incontrovertible proof as to who it really is.

It will have to figure out how to get the information about itself to me
because I have put it back in the box for a while.

Yep, little kid's minds, need to out someone in a newsgroup because you
know you are just afraid of technology because FOX tells you to be.

Repetition is another of your tells, plume. You need to reinvent
yourself from the ground up.

--
O M G

On 3/6/2012 9:24 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:18:13 -0500, wrote:

On 3/5/2012 1:58 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 13:33:35 -0500, wrote:

On 3/5/2012 11:03 AM, Happy John wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:51:10 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:19:14 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:
On 3/5/12 9:12 AM, Happy John wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:33:12 -0500,
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:20:52 -0500, Happy

wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 21:57:19 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:


On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 18:48:21 -0500,

wrote:

They said they
were gonna' do it. I know most of you here aren't bothered by
the
price
of gas, but that nearly 75 extra dollars a week we are
spending
is
killing us....

===

I think everyone is affected by the price of gas to one extent
or
another. My suggestion to people who do a lot of driving is
to
get a
more fuel efficient vehicle if at all possible. My truck is
getting
expensive at $80+ per fill up. I find it very strange that we
don't
have the large variety of small, fuel efficient diesels like
they
do
in Europe. My gut feel is that it is yet another
head-in-the-sand
Detroit issue. Last year we drove a full size Volkswagon
diesel
van
through the mountains of France, Switzerland and northern
Italy.
It
had plenty of power, seating for 6 adults, and a huge amount
of
luggage space. Average fuel economy was better than 20 mpg.


Good point. If the VW diesel van had not been withdrawn from
the US
market, that's probably what
we'd have been doing our camping in. Of course, the Mercedes
Sprinter is available, but they ain't
cheap.

What you just bought is way more beterer :-)

Well, it's definitely roomierer!




Lots of room to store a spare 500-gallon fuel tank? :)
Seriously, what sort of mileage do you anticipate? I hope you get
at
least 10 mpg.

I'd be tickled pink if my barge got even close to 10 MPG.

I expect to get about 12-14 with the trailer. I'm considering one of these, but don't know if
they're worthwhile: http://www.bullydog.com/product.php?ID=2 I think I'll start a separate thread to
see if anyone knows anything about them.

And, BTW, I don't think Harry can ask something serious, which is why I responded to you.

If that thing can get your engine to open it's mouth wider it might be
worth the 600 bucks. Otherwise dunno what you can do.

A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get
specific enough.

You'll void any warranty you have doing that.

IIRC, it's a federal rap too.... Maybe that's just if a garage does it...

Kevin's warranty comment lead me to get out the warranty book again. I'd thought the warranty was
for three years or 36000. But, the Duramax is for five years or 100,000 miles.

Now all thoughts of any engine mods are out the window for a couple years!

Hey, John, just a warning. Keep calling me who I'm not, I'm sure it's
****ing Kevin off. In order to play your game, asshole, I'll post your
phone number, and your address. Go ahead, ****head. Try me.

You have just proven yourself to be a worse slimeball than Harry. Plume,
you have reached a new low.

--
O M G

In article , says...

On 3/6/2012 8:44 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 3/5/2012 5:12 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:14:47 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get
specific enough.


You mean, break the law?


"Take the smog crap off" worked in the 70s when emission control was a
clumsy add on to a conventional engine. These days the computer is
your smog control. You can certainly tune the computer for more power
and less for economy but the most efficient burn will usually also
give you the least emissions. I bet a new NASCAR racer would pass the
1975 emission controls at anything but idle speed. Fuel consumption is
important to them too.

No way... It's important but there is no way they get that good of a
burn without a catalytic converter...

They sure will! They've been completely engineered to operate as
efficiently as possible from conception on up, without a need for a
catalytic converter.

Need or not, they wouldn't run a cat... These are race cars. I still
don't buy them passing emissions now. I know how fuel moves through an
engine, I don't care how many computers you have. Heads are heads,
valves are valves, and pistons are still pistons...

What you are not understanding is that the OP said that the NASCAR
engines would pass *1975* era emissions requirements, and I'll bet
that's true.

In article , says...

On 3/6/2012 8:45 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says...

On 3/5/2012 9:33 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:33:50 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/5/2012 5:12 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:14:47 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

A few of the camping forum guys recommend getting the smog crap off the engine. But, they don't get
specific enough.


You mean, break the law?


"Take the smog crap off" worked in the 70s when emission control was a
clumsy add on to a conventional engine. These days the computer is
your smog control. You can certainly tune the computer for more power
and less for economy but the most efficient burn will usually also
give you the least emissions. I bet a new NASCAR racer would pass the
1975 emission controls at anything but idle speed. Fuel consumption is
important to them too.

No way... It's important but there is no way they get that good of a
burn without a catalytic converter...

If the engine was designed with a catalytic converter, you will have
problems if you take it off.

I'm pretty sure NASCAR doesn't run Cats, and he said NASCAR.. I wasn't
trying to be an ass, but I don't see NASCAR passing Emissions here in CT
anyway. Too much unburned gasoline at any RPM. And yes, I actually
posted this knowing it was Greg and if I am wrong, I will see a cite
fairly quickly

The OP said 1975 emissions.

1975 emissions? Didn't even know there were regs on tail pipe emissions
then..

Yep, there were.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/12-miles.pdf

In article m,
says...

On 3/6/2012 9:04 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

In ,
says...

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:20:57 -0500,
wrote:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...lectric-lemon/


Told you, and you laughed...snerk Sometimes it pays to look at the
world with an open mind...

Maybe if all of the whiny-ass neo-cons would quit badmouthing the car,
people would buy it. Maybe you WANT to continue supporting Arab Oil.

Why would we stop bad mouthing a car that is a useless pile of junk? I
have already proved that you can buy a car for $10,000 new and drive it
for hundreds of thousands of miles before you reach the acquisition cost
of a Volt.

I don't want to support Arab Oil, I want to support US Oil. Drill here,
drill now.

Oil is a finite resource. Let alone old technology.

Oil is a new technology. It is only about 170 years old.

Now that's the typical Republican response to technology!


You said the Volt was dead, obviously, you are entirely wrong again. A
five week suspension in production is hardly a death.

We will see if they restart production. They have dealers who refuse to
order Volt's and who refuse to have Volts pushed onto them. There must
be a reason that the Chevy's own dealers don't want the cars on their
lots.

Cite?

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...ers-rejection-
volt-allocation/

http://www.dailytech.com/Some+Chevro...g+on+Volt+EVs+
After+Fire+Concerns+Dwindling+Customer+Interest/article23852.htm

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/polit...-green-%E2%80%
9Cfield-dreams%E2%80%9D


And NONE of those are peer reviewed studies, so it's just hearsay and
speculation, right?

I never said they were peer reviewed studies. You wanted cites to
support my argument that Chevy dealers did not want Volt's on their lots
because they were hard to sell.

But using your standards, they have to be peer reviewed studies to be
taken seriously.

The medical profession has higher standards than the news profession, if
you can call it a profession.

So, you can use hearsay if it's not the medical profession, but if it is
the medical profession, everything has to be peer reviewed? Oh, wait, I
get it, if someone posts something that YOU don't' believe, it has to be
peer reviewed (which I did but you've still not shown me a peer reviewed
study that says second hand smoke is NOT harmful), but if you need to
prove something, then hearsay is just fine.

Incoherent raving. Same as plume.

Incoherent? You didn't understand what I said? Need someone to help you?
You seem to be the only one here who doesn't understand.