History repeating itself (NAC)

[George Selby]

At 09:34 AM 3/15/02, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "George Selby" <gselby4x4 at earthlink.net>
> > If, on the other hand, you ask, "Would you like better fuel economy in
>your
> > next car, considering it will have to be a combination of slower, smaller,
> > and less crash-worthy,
>
>See, this is exactly the type of ignorance that has put the US out of the
>fuel efficient car market. Nothing against you personally, George, but you
>are reflecting a general consensus among American auto owners, which is not
>true. Have you ever heard of a "less crash-worthy" Mercedes-Benz E300 which
>is slower, running a CDI?

How much does that Mercedes 300E CDI cost, I bet it's a lot more than a 
Chevy Impala.  You did bring up one good point, you can make a more fuel 
efficient vehicle as fast and as safe, but it is (significantly) more 
expensive.



>- Oh, that brings us to the rest of your point...:
>
> > or burn a fuel other than gasoline (diesel is
> > usually more expensive than premium gas now, there isn't an infrastructure
> > for any other type of fuel.)"
>
>And what is wrong with burning "something other than gasoline"? Diesel today
>is every bit as clean, and if not equal to - then very close to be *as*
>efficient, and there is still a loooong ways to go on the Diesel technology
>to catch up to the level of research for performance that we are at today on
>gasoline engines.


Nothing is wrong with diesel, but it does contain less energy per gallon 
than gasoline (which I believe contains the most BTU/gal of any presently 
readily available fuel source, and the stuff is cheaper than bottled water.)

A typical diesel engine option (on a Ford truck, say) cost over $4000. The 
optional V-10 with comparable power and towing capability costs only $500. 
Most people would rather get power windows and A/C (and save $3000) than 
pay extra to burn diesel.  A car example: the VW Jetta.  Here the diesel 
costs only $1295 extra (7.5% of the base vehicle of $17,400.) It gets much 
better mileage 42/49 instead of 24/31, however it has only 90 HP instead of 
122 HP (Less than 75%.)  So that's the trade off in that situation: 
significantly less power.  Part of the problem is the poor track record of 
the diesels American car manufacturers produced during the last 'gas 
crisis.'  These converted gas engines were terrible for reliability, and 
consumers just got fed up with them.  Plus people don't like having to wait 
for the glow plugs to warm up on cold mornings (or worse yet, having to 
plug in the engine overnight,)  the cloud of black smoke, or the 'diesel 
clatter.'  Some of the above mentioned problems may have been addressed in 
newer diesels, but I haven't seen any advertisement stating that, so I 
guess they haven't fixed those problems.  If they have, maybe they need to 
advertise, so I could find out about it.  Another problem is service.  At 
the present moment, most American mechanics are familiar with gasoline 
engines.  Although they could all get more familiar with diesels, they 
would have to be trained, and that would drive up the price of 
repairs.  Another repair aspect:  fluid changes are more expensive in 
diesels, and most hard parts are too, as they have to endure a much higher 
compression ratio.


>And why is it that Diesel is more expensive - it's much cheaper to produce
>!?!

  As to the cost, it is regulated by anticipated supply and demand, not 
cost of production.  I saw today diesel was just a few cents more then 
regular unleaded.  People seem to think that if it is cheaper to make, they 
will see the benefit of that cheapness.  More often, the producer will 
pocket the additional profit, unless he hopes to eliminate a competitor by 
undercutting price, only to raise it again once competition is eliminated.



>And what about cars that run on hydrogen? The only bi-product of the
>combustion is water vapor! The only reason noone has fully developed the
>hydrogen engine is the deep pockets of the gas companies, and the esistance
>by automakers to foot the development bill!



Why should the auto manufacturers foot the bill?  They have a product that 
consumers want to buy right now, with no addition development work 
necessary (except styling changes, keeping up with the Joneses, and the 
requirement to meet ever increasing government regulations.  A Mcdonalds 
hamburger costs what it did in the late 80's, a computer of comparable 
power is about 1/10th the price, but a comparable car costs twice what it 
did back then, a lot of that is due to new government regulations.)  If the 
demand is sufficient for a 'better' vehicle, someone will step up to the 
plate, and put the present auto manufacturers out of business, just like 
the car manufacturers put the buggy companies (of horse and buggy fame) out 
of business.  Why did steam ships drive sailing ships out of business (even 
though the sailing ships are obviously better for the environment, no 
engine at all.)  It's because it makes more profit for the shipping 
companies to ship via steam than via sail.

The hydrogen idea is a very poor one, in my opinion (a tiny amount makes a 
pretty big boom, I remember from Chemistry.)  Just what we want is a bunch 
of vehicles containing a tank of highly explosive gas (you have seen the 
pictures of the Hindenberg explosion?)


> >  In this case (and this is the present case)
> > Americans are answering (with their checkbooks,) NO!
> >
> > Remember, the best poll of all is the free-market capitalist economy.
>
>Sure! Where can I find one such?

As to the free market economy, I never said we had one.  I merely stated 
the best poll would be one. You can make a poll state anything you want to, 
you just have to ask the right question to the right people, which is the 
basic gist of my initial statement that started this whole mess, and why I 
basically don't believe any poll. (that's what I got out of Statistics 
class, anyway.)  I feel that presently, the United States auto market comes 
the closest to approximating one (of auto markets, and in spite of much 
government interferance.)

I relate my feelings toward fuel economy and long distance phone bills:  I 
ain't busting my butt to save money in either area. As you can see I drive 
a truck with a 6.6L engine that gets about 15 mpg at best.  I'm happy with 
what I'm paying now, and don't like the trade-offs involved with change.  I 
can buy a WHOLE LOT of gas for the price of a new truck that MIGHT get 25% 
better mileage, but will be a lot less heavy duty.  If I want to drive 
somewhere and spend less in gas, I drive my 300ZX (it gets over 30 mpg 
highway) or the Audi.  I drive only 6k miles a year in the truck, so the 
potential fuel savings is $150/year (I'll be dead before I pay for a new 
truck with that, it would take 23 years just to pay for the option, not to 
mention the truck that goes around it.)  I drive about 50k miles a year 
total (As you can see, my fuel bill is much higher than most people's fuel 
bill.  If I increase my average car mileage from 25 mpg to 40 mpg, I would 
save $825 a year, most people would save 1/4 of that.)  In spite of that, I 
take the trade off of driving a older, faster, larger vehicle rather than a 
newer, slower, smaller car that gets 40 mpg. (The ride comfort and space 
alone makes it worth it, I'm 6'4", not to mention it would take 20 years to 
pay for a new car on the fuel savings.)  It's much cheaper for me to insure 
4 older cars than 1 newer one (Plus there is no 1 vehicle that meets my 
needs, I would require 2,) and I'm willing to eat the price if I wreck one 
(thus no comprehensive that would be required for a financed vehicle.)  So 
the additional fuel expense is a trade off that I (and apparently other 
Americans do, as well,) make for other features and savings in other areas 
of vehicle ownership.


>A "free market" does not levy taxes against gasoline and Diesel, to make one
>of these artificially inflated in cost. Since we live in a society where
>this indeed is done, this can not be considered a "free-market capitalist
>economy", upon which to base this "best poll"'s results.

Although gas is taxed, so is everything else, and we aren't paying $4.00 a 
gal like in other places in the world.



>Michael Riebs
>Grand Rapids, MI
>'90 V8Q
>'98 A6QA
>
>www.1stchoicegranite.com

In conclusion, if you (or anyone else, for that matter,) feel there is a 
vast, unfulfilled desire amongst the American public to have a more fuel 
efficient vehicle, why don't you start soliciting investors for funds to 
come up with the product that will drive our economy for the next 100 
years, and rounding up the necessary scientists and engineers to make it 
work.  You would be the next Henry Ford, and RICH.  If it's economically 
viable, and meets my transportation needs, I will at least consider owning one.

>George Selby
>78 F-150 4x4 400 4 spd
>83 Audi Coupe GT
>86 Nissan 300ZX
>92 Subaru Legacy Wagon AWD

gselby4x4 at earthlink.net