ModernMuscleCars.net - Modern Muscle Cars Archive

Pages: 1

Fuel and cars.. which...
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Grape Ape

bl3wbyu mentioned the Jetta and Legacy in the "out with the truck" thread and it got me thinking about my fuel rant... And also made me think...

Diesel has almost always been the way to go. Too bad there aren't more models available for a decent price. I don't want a Subaru, but I do like the Boxer engine. My dad got a Subie in payment for some repair job and didn't care for it. He was gonna sell it, but the lady asked that he keep it awhile so she could buy it back.... blah blah... Don't know the real story, but that's how it came to me.

So he got this Legacy and it ran well. But it lacked "creature comforts" found in most cars. It had power windows and steering and brakes, but little else. No high end stereo, no cruise control, not even a 4spd transmission(3spd auto) as I remember. In time, the engine continued to run well right till the harmonic balancer flew off. But the rest of the car wasn't doing so well. It wasn't anything new and certainly wasn't as good as todays Legacy, but did have the same basic drivetrain. It was also just FWD. I prefer RWD over the others, unless I'm in dirt or snow.

MILEAGE... That's the key. My mom had a Ford Tempo GL diesel she bought in 1985(I think). It got 47mpg hwy and that's over 20yrs ago. Today there are surely better versions somewhere, but the technology has been pushed for gas burners more than diesels even though diesels are better for actual driving, save an ugly weight issue.

Why don't we already have a massive diesel vehicle program in America? Instead, diesel, which is essentially a byproduct of making gasoline(and therefore basically cost free), costs more tha gasoline itself... Why? Do we have some real reason to NOT use the more efficient engines?

Anyway if a domestic brand car maker comes up with a solid diesel vehicle, one that starts as a diesel, and one that costs within a $1,000 or so what a gas burner costs, I may buy one.

On that note, GM, Ford and Toyota are all supposedly going to offer a 1/2 ton pickup next yr with a diesel option. Ford really hasn't released strong details, making me think it may be a 2010 model, but the others have pretty clearly announced they intend to offer such a vehicle... I'm looking into this if they do come out, but I'm told to only expect about 18mpg in city driving.

Anyone else want a diesel?

Posted by: 65fairlane

I would consider it, but my next car is going to be something small and cheap to drive until I can get something fun as a second car. Being in school doesn't offer many opportunities for buying a new car though.

Posted by: Grape Ape

I wanna find an 85 Tempo GL diesel!

The mileage was awesome, but I figure that model would be in rough condition these days.

Posted by: No Rice Allowed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grape Ape


	bl3wbyu mentioned the Jetta and Legacy in the "out with the truck" thread and it got me thinking about my fuel rant... And also made me think... Diesel has almost always been the way to go. Too bad there aren't more models available for a decent price. I don't want a Subaru, but I do like the Boxer engine. My dad got a Subie in payment for some repair job and didn't care for it. He was gonna sell it, but the lady asked that he keep it awhile so she could buy it back.... blah blah... Don't know the real story, but that's how it came to me. So he got this Legacy and it ran well. But it lacked "creature comforts" found in most cars. It had power windows and steering and brakes, but little else. No high end stereo, no cruise control, not even a 4spd transmission(3spd auto) as I remember. In time, the engine continued to run well right till the harmonic balancer flew off. But the rest of the car wasn't doing so well. It wasn't anything new and certainly wasn't as good as todays Legacy, but did have the same basic drivetrain. It was also just FWD. I prefer RWD over the others, unless I'm in dirt or snow. MILEAGE... That's the key. My mom had a Ford Tempo GL diesel she bought in 1985(I think). It got 47mpg hwy and that's over 20yrs ago. Today there are surely better versions somewhere, but the technology has been pushed for gas burners more than diesels even though diesels are better for actual driving, save an ugly weight issue. Why don't we already have a massive diesel vehicle program in America? Instead, diesel, which is essentially a byproduct of making gasoline(and therefore basically cost free), costs more tha gasoline itself... Why? Do we have some real reason to NOT use the more efficient engines? Anyway if a domestic brand car maker comes up with a solid diesel vehicle, one that starts as a diesel, and one that costs within a $1,000 or so what a gas burner costs, I may buy one. On that note, GM, Ford and Toyota are all supposedly going to offer a 1/2 ton pickup next yr with a diesel option. Ford really hasn't released strong details, making me think it may be a 2010 model, but the others have pretty clearly announced they intend to offer such a vehicle... I'm looking into this if they do come out, but I'm told to only expect about 18mpg in city driving. Anyone else want a diesel?

We don't have massive diesel vehicle programs for the simple fact, Diesel has always been considered very hazardous, health wise...Diesel fumes are way more harmful than that of unleaded fumes...Diesel engines produce more greenhouse emissions....Now, Biodiesel sounds more suitable, as it burns cleaner and has less harmful emissions than traditional diesel fuel....I've always hated that knocking sound Diesel cars make....

Posted by: Grape Ape

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Rice Allowed


	We don't have massive diesel vehicle programs for the simple fact, Diesel has always been considered very hazardous, health wise...Diesel fumes are way more harmful than that of unleaded fumes...Diesel engines produce more greenhouse emissions....Now, Biodiesel sounds more suitable, as it burns cleaner and has less harmful emissions than traditional diesel fuel....I've always hated that knocking sound Diesel cars make....

Diesels of the past are quite noisy and billowed black smoke... But that's changed now. A new diesel is about as clean as a new gasoline car today.

What's more, they've figured out how to create biodiesel from ALGEA!! A fully renewable source... One(1) acre of algea can produce 14,000 gallons of diesel per yr.

But the unleaded fuel thing... You're correct, of course... But why would they go to these extremes with gasoline and leave diesel behind? In the 80's, the point was reached where leaded gasoline was no longer available at most fuel stations... By the 90's you'd seek an airport or race track for regular fuel. But diesel was left back as if never invented. It's been around since the beginning of the automobile. Henry Ford helped George Washington Carver move along the process of biodiesel... Peanut oil. He decided it cost too much at the time BECAUSE... Diesel was already a byproduct of gasoline...

Today, we haven't the luxury of the 1920's or 40's through 60's(and technically 90's)... Now we've got lobbyists(which I like to a degree) pushing a particular agenda and politicians stupid enough to allow those agendas... The entire country is suffering because of lunatics... "GLOBAL WARMING" has become all the concern, even though all evidence as to it's real creation has proven "man as the cause" to be a complete farce. Made up by people like Al Gore, who get rich selling "carbon offsets" which don't even exist... They're collecting money for selling something that literally is non-existent... It's a great "job" if you can get it, I suppose...

We're nearly to the point we should SHOOT those fools and move along smartly.

Seriously though, people should stop listening to the freaks and start listening to common sense.

That means, while using things like nuclear, wind and solar energy, KEEP using that which we know works and cannot simply be replaced at this time. And since we know diesel engines are far more efficient than gasoline burners... Produce more of 'em!!!

Posted by: 65fairlane

I believe in Global warming, but carbon offset smacks of bullshit. I have no idea how it works, I have always assumed that all they did was buy surplus Carbon credits from companies who were selling them so that they went "unused." The main reason I think we should be concerned with global warming is an issue of erring on the side of caution. If we reduce carbon emissions and later find out we didn't need to so what. If we keep producing it without worry and find out it does impact us negatively, we screwed ourselves over. We should be moving away from gasoline, because it will run out. It may not happen for a long time but we cannot move to another transportation economy overnight. In my opinion fossil fuel dependence should be taken care of before it is absolutely necessary to do so as it will make the transition smoother and easier on the country economically.

Posted by: Grape Ape

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65fairlane


	I believe in Global warming, but carbon offset smacks of bullshit. I have no idea how it works, I have always assumed that all they did was buy surplus Carbon credits from companies who were selling them so that they went "unused." The main reason I think we should be concerned with global warming is an issue of erring on the side of caution. If we reduce carbon emissions and later find out we didn't need to so what. If we keep producing it without worry and find out it does impact us negatively, we screwed ourselves over. We should be moving away from gasoline, because it will run out. It may not happen for a long time but we cannot move to another transportation economy overnight. In my opinion fossil fuel dependence should be taken care of before it is absolutely necessary to do so as it will make the transition smoother and easier on the country economically.

Global Warming is real... But it's NOT "man made" like these tools want everyone to believe. Test after countless test has shown that even the industrial revolution isn't the cause. We make it by BREATHING, not by having big powerful engines. And the reality is, the earth goes through cycles of hot and cold. It did this long before any engine was invented.

The whole "carbon credits" thing is BS because there's no such thing as carbon credit. We can't "take back" the carbons we create, they're a naturally produced part of life and have been since Adam!

Reducing carbon emissions has been happening for near 40yrs now... With no effect. Nothing has changed EXCEPT the way Americans get to live their lives. It has affected us more than the rest of the world combined. We're the ones with the toughest of everything. We have rules about what we can own and even build for street use. We have to clean up messes we didn't create. We give moneys to many other countries and they largely do NOTHING toward the supposed goal. There are still countries out there using leaded gasoline, for example. Not to mention the massive diesel technology America is suffering while most other countries have no concern for these "issues" we are trying to somehow fix.

We've been successfully reducing our need for fossil fuels since the 50's. Our common vehicles get as much as 10 times better economy than they did then and they average about 6 times better. Most countries can't say the same. We invented nuclear fission and with it, power. Our Democrats have prevented us from building new facilities almost entirely since 1978... Yet they stand proudly and exclaim we're using too much fossil fuel... Well, YA THINK!!!! They've also prevented many wind power sources and kept the prices of solar power so high initially, most people can't afford to buy such a system.

Back to vehicles... Our expensive "clean air" systems have cost our country hundreds of thousands of jobs... And the Democrats BLAME Republicans... Again, this goes beyond vehicles, but those are the things all of us are forced to deal with. We're prevented from drilling for oil we KNOW is there, but other countries are allowed to take it WITHOUT meeting our stringent rules. Do our Democrats care? CLEARLY NOT! So we're stuck having to deal with high prices to help other countries, who don't care.

Right now, we NEED fossil fuel, period. So preventing the use by us is a problem for us. I'm all for better fuels, as are most Americans. But we're mostly not for our government peventing our using that fuel, and with that, forcing us to pay more than it's worth. They have a goal. Get the price as high as possible so that we'll continue with the lead, making better sources. We're ALREADY making better sources... No need to punish us even more.

Posted by: 65fairlane

One more quick aside then I am done:
Heavy forgings have been ordered through a couple of procurement agreements for new US nuclear reactors. I read an article suggesting a direct current grid for solar and it doesn't seem feasible for a while yet.

Posted by: LS1JAY

I say we go back to horse and buggy's! I really like that concept.

Posted by: Grape Ape

Quote:

Originally Posted by LS1JAY


	I say we go back to horse and buggy's! I really like that concept.

I'm fine with the buggy part... The horse takes too much time to care for!

Posted by: StoneFox

Quote:

Originally Posted by LS1JAY


	I say we go back to horse and buggy's! I really like that concept.

Im afraid of horses.....

Posted by: An11SecRanger

We need to go nuclear for our power plants. That will reduce our fossil fuel consumption immensely.
But most of our cars are built to burn gasoline and, therefore, we need it, too.
The educated estimate of natural gas and fuel oil in this country is enough that some "in the know" folks are saying this is enough to last this country (considering we will use more and more) 60 years. That has nothing to do with any other fuel, period.
The estimate of fuel oil in oil shale in this country (and some in Canada) is 1.4 TRILLION BARRELS. Uh ...

That's a LOT! That's three times the estimate of that in ... Well, every other known source.
Why aren't we using it? There are multiple reasons and none of them are good enough to use them as the excuse.
I'm all for nuke power. And I'm all for our congress doing something ... ANYTHING to help get this country's fuel problem under control in a constructive way. And I don't mean suing other countries!
Maybe a new diesel refinery. Or, two new gasoline refineries. Or, maybe, we could have ONE standard when it come to grades (that would be a big help, price-wise). Or maybe, one standard for additives.
That's sad! *I*, a nobody, has-been, mechanic can figure this chit out, yet we have a group of idiots (who, incidentally, think they are smarter than you and I) sitting around on a hill, acting as if this stuff is difficult to fix.

Posted by: No Rice Allowed

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoneFox


	Im afraid of horses.....

Then you need to trade all your Mustangs in for Camaros....

Posted by: No Rice Allowed

Quote:

Originally Posted by An11SecRanger


	We need to go nuclear for our power plants. That will reduce our fossil fuel consumption immensely. But most of our cars are built to burn gasoline and, therefore, we need it, too. The educated estimate of natural gas and fuel oil in this country is enough that some "in the know" folks are saying this is enough to last this country (considering we will use more and more) 60 years. That has nothing to do with any other fuel, period. The estimate of fuel oil in oil shale in this country (and some in Canada) is 1.4 TRILLION BARRELS. Uh ... That's a LOT! That's three times the estimate of that in ... Well, every other known source. Why aren't we using it? There are multiple reasons and none of them are good enough to use them as the excuse. I'm all for nuke power. And I'm all for our congress doing something ... ANYTHING to help get this country's fuel problem under control in a constructive way. And I don't mean suing other countries! Maybe a new diesel refinery. Or, two new gasoline refineries. Or, maybe, we could have ONE standard when it come to grades (that would be a big help, price-wise). Or maybe, one standard for additives. That's sad! I, a nobody, has-been, mechanic can figure this chit out, yet we have a group of idiots (who, incidentally, think they are smarter than you and I) sitting around on a hill, acting as if this stuff is difficult to fix.

We need to quit Dicking around and start getting serious about solar power.....The Big Burn has been beaming upon us for centuries now and no one looks up and says, "that's the ticket!!"

Posted by: LS1JAY

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Rice Allowed


	Then you need to trade all your Mustangs in for Camaros....

Excellent advice my friend.

Posted by: StoneFox

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Rice Allowed


	Then you need to trade all your Mustangs in for Camaros....

I dont have a Mustang anymore, my next project is gonna be a Ranger anyways.

Posted by: No Rice Allowed

Quote:

Originally Posted by LS1JAY


	Excellent advice my friend.

He said he was scared of horses, meaning Horsepower..So get a Camaro instead..Less Horsepower, so he wont be scared....

Posted by: An11SecRanger

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Rice Allowed


	We need to quit Dicking around and start getting serious about solar power.....The Big Burn has been beaming upon us for centuries now and no one looks up and says, "that's the ticket!!"

Ya see! That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.
1 nobody, has-been, mechanic + 1 ex-mullet wearin' redneck and we're solving this problem!

I didn't even think about solar.
I work with a guy who intends to use solar power at his new dome-house (he's still building) and he was just saying it's a shame there aren't incentives to use solar power and chit. He also said the technology has come a long was and yada, yada, yada. He even had me thinkin' I might do this at my new house ... Until he talked about cost.
The cost is a bit high, as I recall. But, well, that's another story. I think it's a good idea, though.

Posted by: No Rice Allowed

Quote:

Originally Posted by An11SecRanger


	Ya see! That's what I'm talkin' 'bout. 1 nobody, has-been, mechanic + 1 ex-mullet wearin' redneck and we're solving this problem! I didn't even think about solar. I work with a guy who intends to use solar power at his new dome-house (he's still building) and he was just saying it's a shame there aren't incentives to use solar power and chit. He also said the technology has come a long was and yada, yada, yada. He even had me thinkin' I might do this at my new house ... Until he talked about cost. The cost is a bit high, as I recall. But, well, that's another story. I think it's a good idea, though.

Yeah, even if it's for the homes at the beginning, it would cut cost on fuel quite a bit....

Posted by: 65fairlane

Regarding the solar power element to a house:
Has your friend looked into the string-ribbon panels made by ever green solar?
I would likely go for a grid tie inverter especially if net metering is available in your area, it allows excess power generated during peak sunlight hours to be sold back to the utility and takes power from the grid at night. It seems like a better alternative in the long run than inefficient battery backup and storage systems.

Posted by: Grape Ape

Solar is great if you have the space, initial money needed, and basically any strong desire to not rely on the power companies. Money is key, of course. The other parts aren't usually hard to come by unless you live in a metro area and many of us don't.

Nuclear is still one of our(if not the) most efficient and viable options. It takes alot of space, but can power millions of homes and businesses for less money than basically any other source. The danger pales in comparison to the benefits too. Millions of people seem to think it's ultra dangerous, but records indicate otherwise. It would seem, even though we had one "meltdown of sorts" back in the late 1970's, nobody was killed during or because of the event. That one(1) incident prompted fears for the next 2 generations, even though nuclear power continued to be used in America and across much of the world. So much fear, America went more than 30 YEARS without building a new plant, or at least I haven't heard of any new ones. There are 2 plants apparently being built now, and we need them.

Not sure, but I think there are more nuclear power plants in use in France than perhaps all of America. France is smaller than Texas... Has about 30 million more people than California(America's most highly populated state) too... It's got a bit more than double the pop. of Texas. They apparently haven't lost anyone due to any meltdown either. Infact, the only place I think anyone was killed was Chernobyl(sp) and that place was kept up about as well as a pigpen. Still, an estimated 300,000 people were expected to die from that meltdown... Fewer than 4,000 have actually died(only 57 known directly due to the meltdown- another 4,000 possible) and that was how long ago? More than 22 years... And still, they haven't even put a dent in 300,000. Some 30 or more times of nuclear fallout swept across a massive area than had with the intentional bombings of Japan to end WWII.

Solar is still fine with me, as is wind power, but nuclear is currently the most efficient way to go.

Back to the Forums