Bucyrus wrote: I heard that if you remove all the subsidies from ethanol, and remove all the taxes from gasoline, ethanol would be over $3.00 per gallon, and gasoline would be under $1.00 per gallon. Add to that, the fact that ethanol has less B.T.U.s per gallon than gasoline, so ethanol yields considerably less miles per gallon than gasoline.
I heard that if you remove all the subsidies from ethanol, and remove all the taxes from gasoline, ethanol would be over $3.00 per gallon, and gasoline would be under $1.00 per gallon.
Add to that, the fact that ethanol has less B.T.U.s per gallon than gasoline, so ethanol yields considerably less miles per gallon than gasoline.
Okay, let me put some perspective on this. E-85 is running $1.69 per gallon, while Unleaded with 10% ethanol is $1.99 per gallon. Same tax rates for both.
Second point, the University of Minnesota in 2002 did a study on ethanol plant profitability, with and without the tax credit (as written in the 1970's law). In both cases, a plant can be viable. That was based on the smaller 40 mmg/y output. Plants today are in the 100 mmg/y capacity, and are far more viable.
Lastly, the price of ethanol is not dictated by the plants, but marketers based on the Chicago Board of Trade's pricing. The CBOT bases it on supply and demand.
futuremodal wrote: Where railroads come into play, wasn't it something like they are losing 2.5 hopper load equivalents for every 1 tanker car they gain if indeed that difference is being subtracted from the export corn markets? Since most ethanol plants are being located amidst corn growing areas, it seems most inputs will come by truck on the shorthaul.Anyone have the stats on export grain deliveries this past year?
Where railroads come into play, wasn't it something like they are losing 2.5 hopper load equivalents for every 1 tanker car they gain if indeed that difference is being subtracted from the export corn markets? Since most ethanol plants are being located amidst corn growing areas, it seems most inputs will come by truck on the shorthaul.
Anyone have the stats on export grain deliveries this past year?
Export from North Iowa was quite strong to Mexico and Gulf ports. Funny thing, most tortillas are made from white corn, while out here we raise mostly yellow.
Now some numbers. In 2006, corn acres were down 400,000 acres versus 2005. Yield was 210 million bushels less than 2005. Year end stocks for 2006 were at an 11 year low which represents only 7% of the projected marketing year consumption of 11.76 billion bushels. The USDA increased it's forecast of U.S. corn exports by 53 million bushels to a 17-year high of 2.250 million bushels in 2006-07. (this lowers the carryover by 53 million bushels). This demand is due in part to weather in Argentina, and cancellation of export sales from China.
Corn prices overall have not changed export sales, world supply has.
RRKen wrote: Lastly, the price of ethanol is not dictated by the plants, but marketers based on the Chicago Board of Trade's pricing. The CBOT bases it on supply and demand.
Just to clarify -
The CBOT (soon to be merged with CME) does not set the prices of commodities. It establishes standardized contracts and is a trading clearinghouse. Traders and market makers establish the price of a commodity.
spokyone wrote: Andrew Falconer wrote: Poultry is the only livestock that can properly digest corn.Mammals do not need so much corn in their diets.AndrewGosh Andrew. I don't know how I am going to break this news to my neighbor's cows and pigs.
Andrew Falconer wrote: Poultry is the only livestock that can properly digest corn.Mammals do not need so much corn in their diets.Andrew
Poultry is the only livestock that can properly digest corn.
Mammals do not need so much corn in their diets.
Andrew
Gosh Andrew. I don't know how I am going to break this news to my neighbor's cows and pigs.
Numbers. Beef trade is the largest user of feed corn in the US, followed by poultry, pork, and dairy. That said, the major byproduct of ethanol production is DDGs (distillers dried grain with solubles). Cattle and dairy are the biggest consumers of DDGs, to a lesser degree so far, poultry can use it, while pork does not use it as feed. Instead they rely on soy bean meal as a source of crude protein and fiber. DDGs contains 30 to 35% protein versus 40-445% for soy bean meal. But the price difference between the two is why DDGs is gaining market share as an animal feed.
So in reality for a large portion of the market, we are replacing whole grain corn with DDGs, so in actuality there is no loss.
More numbers from the USDA. In marketing year 2005-06 livestock feed was the major user of corn, followed by export and ethanol. In fact, livestock use of corn was more than the combined consumption by export and ethanol. Human consumption of corn was quite low in comparison, the largest being for high fructose corn syrup. The cost to the producer of feed staples shows that corn accounts for less than an eighth of the total feed costs for chickens. Pork still depends upon corn and it's cost directly impacts of production cost.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
Datafever wrote: RRKen wrote: Lastly, the price of ethanol is not dictated by the plants, but marketers based on the Chicago Board of Trade's pricing. The CBOT bases it on supply and demand. Just to clarify -The CBOT (soon to be merged with CME) does not set the prices of commodities. It establishes standardized contracts and is a trading clearinghouse. Traders and market makers establish the price of a commodity.
Thanks, I should have explained it better.
BNSFrailfan wrote:Ethanol sucks big time. It may be cleaner but it does nothing for gas milage. I burn 10 times more gas with this ethanol junk than Regular gas.
Gee, it's made in your back yard, provides jobs for your neighbors, pays taxes, adds value to the corn your rural neighbors produce. Several things you can do to improve milage. Cleaning the injectors oxygen sensor make the biggest impact. Your average loss due to the smaller BTU numbers should be about 5-10%.
Here is some food for thought-no pun intended grass versus corn for ethanol production. Also railroad use of biodiesel...
"Minnesota Prairie Line Railway's engines will start running on a B2 blend, becoming the first railroad in Minnesota-if not the country-to do so, according to General Manager Mark Wegner. Wegner said the Redwood County Commissioner and the American JOBS Creation Act of 2004 helped persuade the company to use the renewable fuel, which will come from the Farmers Union Marketing and Processing Association biodiesel plant in Redwood Falls, Minn. Wegner said the company will most likely increase to B5 next year. It uses a half million gallons of diesel fuel annually."
On Prarie Grass...and rangeland
"There are 63 million hectares(155 million acres) of rangeland in the Northern Plains States of KS, NE, SD, ND, CO, WY, and MT of which 14% has multiple problems, 23% has accelerated wind and erosion problems, and 9% has brush or weed problems (NRCS, 2000). In this region and adjacent Midwest states of MO, IA, and MN there are over 20 million hectares (49 million acres)of cropland which has an erodibility index of 8 or higher indicating high erosion potential (NRCS, 2000). This situation exists even though over 7 million acres of highly erodible land already is in the Conservation Reserve Program in these states. The reduced productivity from degraded grasslands and the continuing soil loss from highly erodible crop land is affecting the economic viability of agriculture in the region. Improved plant cultivars and management practices are needed to convert eroded cropland to grasslands and to renovate pastures and rangeland in the mid-continental USA. The replanted grasslands need to be productive and economically viable when used in integrated grassland/livestock/cropland production systems.
Over half of the petroleum used in the USA is imported, much from regions with potential political instability. The farm economy of the United States has required massive federal subsidies to keep farmers solvent and no solution to the problem is in sight even though over 35 million acres of land are kept out of production in the Conservation Reserve Program. Due to the world-wide reliance on fossil fuels for liquid fuels and electrical power, the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is steadily increasing, which may result in world-wide climatic changes. Perennial energy crops and an associated bioenergy industry can address and provide solutions to these three problems simultaneously. Converting excess cropland to the production of biomass energy crops would allow over 40 million acres of land to be converted to non-food uses and would revitalize rural communities. Farm income could increase by over $5 billion/year and the conversion plants that would need to be built and operated would revitalize numerous small towns throughout the USA."
RRKen wrote: BNSFrailfan wrote:Ethanol sucks big time. It may be cleaner but it does nothing for gas milage. I burn 10 times more gas with this ethanol junk than Regular gas. Gee, it's made in your back yard, provides jobs for your neighbors, pays taxes, adds value to the corn your rural neighbors produce. Several things you can do to improve milage. Cleaning the injectors oxygen sensor make the biggest impact. Your average loss due to the smaller BTU numbers should be about 5-10%.
Have fun with your trains
vsmith wrote: About this time last year or so, weren't we being fed some panancia line about how hydrogen would solve all our gas woes in the next couple years? Oh I forget, that was just election year BS...and what ever happened to all that talk about Canadian oil shale deposits, yada yada yada...the basic problem is if most fat lazy slobs stopped driving thier 3 ton SUV/F350/Suburban/Hummer johnson extenders and instead drove a car that got 30mpg or better, most of our "fuel crisis" would be greatly diminished. We did it for 15 years, from '73 to the mid 80's we all drove smaller more economical cars, and guess what? we all got along just fine without the big fat a$$ Detroit pigmobiles. Till lower gas prices in the mid 80's and a unevolving Detroit resurected the bis a$$ car/SUV managed to destroy all efforts towards greater fuel economy. Dont like paying over $2.00 a gallon, to bad, you reap what you sow and for the last 20 years we as a country have been the blind leading the blind, Get ready sweathearts, summer is around the corner, and gas prices will go up again, everyone will whine and cry and gripe, but then fork over the green,and pump that $60+ to fill their "I'm-a-stupid-American" Hummer. -
If I choose to drive a Jeep or Dakota pick up, that is my choice, and I accept the consequences. Same goes for folks who can afford to buy large vehicles. And thanks for lumping so many people into the catagory of lazy and fat. I want to see you be as productive as the folks I know who drive their F350's or Dakota's in order to make a living. How many hay bales can you fit on a rice burner? I thought so. Same goes with lumber, tools, trash for the dump, working in the fields, and so much more. Yep, they are all fat, lazy slobs, every last one of them.
Hydrogen was not an election year promise, but a suggestion. No one backed it with dollars for infrastructure, and it would take many years to convert to it. Canadian oil sands project is coming along, but not to the capacity to supply much to the US. Investment is taking place, albeit at a slow rate into F-T fuels with several test plants on-line, and a production plant being built in IL.
vsmith wrote: if most fat lazy slobs stopped driving thier 3 ton SUV/F350/Suburban/Hummer johnson extenders and instead drove a car that got 30mpg or better, most of our "fuel crisis" would be greatly diminished.
Most of our "fuel crisis" is manufactured. Some people drive those big vehicles because they like the safety, and the fact that they don't break down all the time if you hit a pothole. Some of those people with big vehicles drive so little that they use less gasoline in a year than all those peope with their fashionalble hybrids. So which is more comtemptable?
There is a direct correlation between vehicle size and safety risk. I am not referring to a size disparity between vehcles posing a greater risk to the smaller vehicle, which is often cited as a reason to outlaw large vehicles. What I mean is that if all vehicles were identical, the risk of injury or death would increase the smaller those identical vehicles were.
vsmith wrote: About this time last year or so, weren't we being fed some panancia line about how hydrogen would solve all our gas woes in the next couple years? Oh I forget, that was just election year BS...and what ever happened to all that talk about Canadian oil shale deposits, yada yada yada...the basic problem is if most fat lazy slobs stopped driving thier 3 ton SUV/F350/Suburban/Hummer johnson extenders and instead drove a car that got 30mpg or better, most of our "fuel crisis" would be greatly diminished. We did it for 15 years, from '73 to the mid 80's we all drove smaller more economical cars, and guess what? we all got along just fine without the big fat a$$ Detroit pigmobiles. Till lower gas prices in the mid 80's and a unevolving Detroit resurected the bis a$$ car/SUV managed to destroy all efforts towards greater fuel economy. Dont like paying over $2.00 a gallon, to bad, you reap what you sow and for the last 20 years we as a country have been the blind leading the blind, Get ready sweathearts, summer is around the corner, and gas prices will go up again, everyone will whine and cry and gripe, but then fork over the green,and pump that $60+ to fill their "I'm-a-stupid-American" Hummer. -I say solar powered light rail and more bicycles!
Wow. You obviously don't get out much, do you? Do you think that just because someone drives a truck they are a fat lazy slob? Do you actually have to work for a living or do you survive off telling poeple how great you really are? News flash buddy: Some people need vehicles like that because of the line of work they are in. You're gonna tell a farmer he is fat and lazy because he drives a truck around? You ever see a Prius haul around a hay wagon? What about someone who has to haul a load of tools for work (like me)? I tried working out of a car once-it was a failure after day one. Construction sites require that you have a vehicle capable of rough terrain. The car I had bottomed out immediately (ruining the alignment and damaging the suspension). It got great mileage, but when you have to replace it every 3 years are you really saving any money? Not only that, there aren't snow days in construction up here - if you don't work you don't get paid. I have yet to see a Prius braving 12 inches of snow trying to get to work with tools and a ladder hanging out the back....If I did I would hire that guy in a heartbeat-he's awfully dedicated if not crazy.
Glad to see that you are so open-minded and understanding. I wouldn't trust you with being in charge of a litter box.
Vsmith put yourself in my boat I am 6-6 wife is 6-1 we have 1 child 3 baby due in April. Now try to put a baby carriage 2 car seats play pen diaper bag assorted toys luggage and anything else we would need for a trip anywere to go see a family member and you will see why we have a large vechile. I have a minivan that gets better mileage than alot of the so called family cars out there reason for that is called welol maintained and also no extra stuff hanging on the roof or sides. In fact it gets better mileage than my brothers PT cruiser his gets 23 MPG highway. I routinely get 26-28MPG. Yes we could do more to releive the energy crunch however it is a fact of life ethanol will help my next van will be flex-fuel because I am ordering it that way. As for you saying get small cars my wife had a Ford Focus NEVER AGAIN I was kissing my knees with the seat all the way back and my son had no room behind us.
vsmith wrote: I think you missed the sarcastic tone of humor in my original post-Theirs a new word for a new century: Sar-chasm, the gulf between the author of ironic wit and the reader who 'doesnt get it'.
Well, I guess I'm one of the many stupids here who "didn't get it.".
Sorry, but it is the AUTHOR'S fault if the "ironic wit" isn't communicated properly to the reader.
There is a new school for a new century -- the school of "It's Your Fault, Stupid, For Not Understanding My Clever Writing" -- overseen by Professor AG.
By the way, I own two American-made SUVs and don't complain about the cost of gasoline. They're what I want to drive and I'm willing to pay for them. I also pay hundreds of dollars a year to support public transportation I never use. My vehicles also have to pass regular emission tests (or be repaired) to operate on the road.
Owning my choice of a vehicle is a right some people would like to take away from me. I think those people should mind their own business. I don't need anyone to micro-manage my life. If you want to clean up the Earth, why not start with "smoggy LA?"
Zit, I never complained about gas on my truck, I knew what 19mpg ment, and accepted that. And as for Smoggy LA, I do my part, carpooling to work, using the trollys, etc. However I can only do so much when the Bling Bling machine of choice here is a Hummer H2, even our city transit chief, the guy who's suppose to be promoting public transit, drives an H2, Get it, I'm surrounded by Idiots here!
AS I SAID...If you choose to drive a large vehicle, do so, enjoy, just don't whine about it if prices rise to $3.50 a gallon...or more again this summer. I guess I'll never be able to explain to all you online about the people here who buy these big-but vehicles then get into a literal pissy fits when it costs them $70, $80 or $90 a week just to fill it. Its really amazing, not just last summer but even today, what part of 15mpg Hwy did they miss? Gas here goes down 2 cents and it makes the evening news! No kidding!
...and if you actually USE your vehicle for more than a single driver commuting machine or a taxi for your kid, good for you, your one of the few doing so, based on the endless procession of single driver SUVs I see here on the freeway everyday on my carpool to work.
There is no choice , I need LEADED GAS for my vehicle. );-(
If you are going to get a small car get something Japanese or European like VW or Toyota. The Ford Focus is junk, Americans can't make small cars, they can make big ones but not small ones. I suppose though that is because small cars are too sophisticated.
I drive large pickups at work ((I'm not fat but I do consider myself lazy, I try to get the job done with least amount of effort)), but you won't see me own one, it would make me feel like I'm at work again.
Anyways the future lies in small deisel vehicles.
greyhounds wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat. Just wanted to make sure this one wasn't deleted.
MichaelSol wrote: Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat.
Andrew Falconer wrote: Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.
Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.
Corn is a grass. The type of corn used for livestock feed is planted densely, generates few ears -- less than one per plant -- and is generally harvested prior to the ears even ripening. No one raises corn to feed livestock because of the corn kernels. It is a C-4 grass that generates substantial carbohydrate biomass compared to other temperate zone grasses or, in particular, alfalfa. Makes a good silage which cows and hogs like to eat.
Just wanted to make sure this one wasn't deleted.
I was just making a broad generalization.
Just like everbody else.
It was a broad-leaf generalization.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Andrew Falconer wrote: The proper way to use corn is for Bio-fuels and for poultry feed. Shift the use of corn from being just a food filler to being a more valuable product. Corn must no longer be a filler ingredient for cat food and dog food. Cats and dogs are always much healthier eating food with vegetables like sweet potatoes and peas. Poultry should be among the main ingredients in cat and dog foods, not corn.Poultry is the only livestock that can properly digest corn.Four legged herbivores have a much healthier digestive system when they eat grasses and green vegetables. The corn allows bacteria that are harmful to humans to build up in their digestive system. The cattle need to ingest grasses to clear the harmful bacteria, like e-coli.Fast food producers can also reduce their reliance on corn products. Corn syrup variations do not need to be in so many food products. People can survive without a deluge of High Fructose Corn Syrup in their bodies. People who have developed conditions like diabetes can not have all that Corn Syrup in their system.The price the for corn is increasing as more is being used for Ethanol and Bio-diesel production. The land where crops have been grown is now being developed or is proposed for development. Corn supplies are limited by many factors and having less land does not help increase the supply.Mammals do not need so much corn in their diets.Bio-fuels made from corn are needed for autos and trucks. The demands of new transportation fuels must be met with decisive action.Andrew
The proper way to use corn is for Bio-fuels and for poultry feed. Shift the use of corn from being just a food filler to being a more valuable product.
Corn must no longer be a filler ingredient for cat food and dog food. Cats and dogs are always much healthier eating food with vegetables like sweet potatoes and peas. Poultry should be among the main ingredients in cat and dog foods, not corn.
Fast food producers can also reduce their reliance on corn products. Corn syrup variations do not need to be in so many food products. People can survive without a deluge of High Fructose Corn Syrup in their bodies. People who have developed conditions like diabetes can not have all that Corn Syrup in their system.
The price the for corn is increasing as more is being used for Ethanol and Bio-diesel production.
The land where crops have been grown is now being developed or is proposed for development. Corn supplies are limited by many factors and having less land does not help increase the supply.
Bio-fuels made from corn are needed for autos and trucks.
The demands of new transportation fuels must be met with decisive action.
It is so well edited that it makes sense based on the tight editing.
The riots would be caused by protests over the prices we would be paying for the food! Not the lack of it. Remember: Capitalism has worked everywhere it has been tried. All of the alternatives have had fatal flaws that manifest themselves sooner or later.
Memo to US government re: Ethanol. BUG OFF!
Poppa_Zit wrote: vsmith wrote: I think you missed the sarcastic tone of humor in my original post-Theirs a new word for a new century: Sar-chasm, the gulf between the author of ironic wit and the reader who 'doesnt get it'.Well, I guess I'm one of the many stupids here who "didn't get it.".Sorry, but it is the AUTHOR'S fault if the "ironic wit" isn't communicated properly to the reader.There is a new school for a new century -- the school of "It's Your Fault, Stupid, For Not Understanding My Clever Writing" -- overseen by Professor AG.By the way, I own two American-made SUVs and don't complain about the cost of gasoline. They're what I want to drive and I'm willing to pay for them. I also pay hundreds of dollars a year to support public transportation I never use. My vehicles also have to pass regular emission tests (or be repaired) to operate on the road. Owning my choice of a vehicle is a right some people would like to take away from me. I think those people should mind their own business. I don't need anyone to micro-manage my life. If you want to clean up the Earth, why not start with "smoggy LA?"
Except I own one SUV and a Mustang.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
pmsteamman wrote:Global food riots? Gosh folks its legal MOONSHINE!!!!!!
I know of at least one judge who thinks that people have a Constitutional right to make moonshine. That's southwest Virginia for you!
Bucyrus wrote: There is a direct correlation between vehicle size and safety risk. I am not referring to a size disparity between vehcles posing a greater risk to the smaller vehicle, which is often cited as a reason to outlaw large vehicles. What I mean is that if all vehicles were identical, the risk of injury or death would increase the smaller those identical vehicles were.
That is not true at all - some of the largest vehicles on the road had way worse safety records - the Ford Explorer comes to mind. Larger vehicles often have higher centers of gravity which increases the risk of rollovers. And if that was true, how come those behemouth vehicles from the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s had such appalling safety records? Single vehicle accidents often are riskier in large vehicles because they have worse handling - in fact, studies by the automotive industry show that while your risk of injury or death in a multivehicle accident are lower in an SUV - it is more than offset by the much higher risk of death or injury in a multivehicle accident - the worst accidents for injuries and deaths are rollover accidents.
Additionally, your risk of being in an accident is way lower with a car that handles better - and lighter, smaller cars handle better. Europeans and many car designers and executives laugh at Americans driving huge vehicles thinking that they are safe when they realize that the best way to survive an accident is not to be in the accident in the first place. A good handling car - and smaller, lighter vehicles tend to have the best handling will avoid accidents in the first place. So, if all vehicles were the same size, the safest vehicles will be smaller and lighter (and they'd get better mileage as well). Weight is the enemy of good handling. They'd also get better gas mileage.
The technology is there for a dramatic increase in gas mileage without much sacrifice of vehicle size and functionality - hybrid engines are nice, but the real gains come from high tech materials. There are many lighter materials which can make a car way lighter and improve its mileage, handling, and performance. Many of these materials come from petroleum products - in fact, one of the reasons why people are seeking alternative fuels to gasoline is that they know that gasoline is extremely wasteful - there are way more valuable uses to a gallon of oil than powering your car. That is also why oil companies like BP have invested heavily in alternative fuels - they are positioning themselves for distribution of the new fuels and in the petrochemical market which they know is still going to be valuable even after alternative fuels come on-line. Ironically, the best way to not use oil will be to use oil for lighter, stronger materials to make lighter cars.
What aggravates me are the people who, for whatever reason, seem to believe they have a right and duty to protect me from myself, along with the attitude that their opinion/choices are the right ones, and the only ones worth listening too or following.
Bluntly put, if someone can afford a H2, the gas, insurance and taxes, (I mean state inspection fee!) then good for them.
I happen to think it is one of the ugliest things American auto makers ever let loose, but that is only my opinion.
But to assume that any car that is not small, foreign made, or imported is a gas hog, or shoddily built is false.
I own a Dodge Magnum....a station wagon with a 5.7 liter Hemi /MDS system.
It drops 4 cylinders when the power demand falls into a given set of values, and it gets great mileage.
EPA estimates on the window sticker were 17mpg city, 27 highway.
Real life figures from today on my way home, 19.3 mpg city and 29.7 highway, with the highway speed at 60 mph.
Drove to Nebraska...Houston to Lincoln, 31 mpg on the way up there, 32 mpg on the return trip, and part of the return was at 90 mph...the car weighs 4400 lbs.
Dodge was so confident of the quality that it came with a 7 year warranty, with 5 years on the engine and drive train.
The idea that a party, or group, through the political process has the right to decide what I have to drive is silly, and dangerous.
If we allow any one group to choose our cars for us, what's to stop them from deciding which religion we follow?
How about what food we eat, and where we live?
Sounds silly on the face of it, but having the right to choose to drive a H2, or a hybrid, or a 32 T bucket is one of the things we, as Americans, have over the rest of the world.
It sets us apart by the simple fact that our government is designed to follow our wishes, not the other way around.
If Americans wants SUV, why shouldn't we have them?
If Europeans feel like they must drive econo boxes, good for them...if they choose to live in a country where the government limits what they can buy, drive, or where they live...then their loss from my point of view...or their gain, from theirs.
If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it.
No other country has the right to tell us we must feed them, that too is a choice on our part, and part of our foreign policy, but only in exchange for other considerations.
If we value those considerations, then we continue to feed them...if we value our current way of life, and our personal mobility more than the benefits we receive from other countries, then...
And to add to this...on ABC World News Tonight,
Charlie Gibson reports that GM makes more models of automoblies that get 30 mpg or better than Honda and Toyota combined, and have the same, if not better quality ratings.
But they are battling an image problem, the American public thinks "imported" or foreign cars, even if those Hondas built here, are better.
23 17 46 11
The problem with the choice argument is that it is a false argument due to increasing technology. If fuel economy standards were raised, people would still have automotive choice - in fact, the automobiles of today are superior to the automobiles of 20 years ago in almost every respect. Rather than stiffling creativity, government regulation can increase creativity - and the automobile industry is a perfect example - within the CAFE standards they have created more powerful, larger automobiles with the same mileage as the small, weak cars of 20 years ago. The industry would adapt no matter what - and you'd still get to drive what you'd want - and the regulations have historically spurred technological developments. Plus, you can always buy a used car - its a better deal economically anyway
edblysard wrote:How about what food we eat, and where we live?
But they are making laws about those things too. For instance, NYC banned trans-fat foods. CA legislators have proposed a bill to make spanking illegal. The list goes on, and gets more personal every year.
edblysard wrote:If we choose to lessen our dependence on oil as a fuel for our cars, and substitute ethanol for parts of that fuel, then that's our choice to make...and if it means other countries have to find a better way to feed them selves,...then so be it.
Maybe we could trade corn for carbon credits?
Dont recall the government forcing Dodge to create or use the MDS system...seems to be a choice on Dodges part, one which sells cars and trucks rather well in fact.
Choices do drive the market.
I chose the Dodge over all others, for very personal reasons.
You choose to drive what you drive for equally personal reasons, in that you like the model, gas mileage, or feel that your choice contributes to helping the world in some manner.
At some point in time, the majority will vote with its pocket book, and the makers will answer with waht they market demands.
Offer something they dont want to drive, and they wont drive it...that simple.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.