History repeating itself (NAC)

[Michael Riebs]

Oh dear, George:

> 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.

If Mercedes can make the Diesel engine efficient, powerful, and reliable,
the point here is that then so can others! Yes, the MB costs more - because
it's a luxury car!

Have you seen the new "Freightliner" Sprinter? It's a re-badged Mercedes
Sprinter van - comparable in size to, say, a Dodge or Chevy van, with a
5-cyl CDI (Diesel). This aerodynamically deficient behemoth gets 24MpG!
Remind me again what a chevy van gets? What's that? 10MpG? 14 max? Now,
there's an equal comparison for you. The sprinter starts at around $25K, and
being a Mercedes, it'll easily do 400K+ Miles! How long does the Chevy van
last?

> 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.)

Less "energy per gallon"? I must laugh! No, it just takes a bit more doing
to release that energy.

> 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.

I am not familiar with the VW Diesel lineup. Where do you get these figures
from? The Jetta is imported to the US in a Diesel version?

> Part of the problem is the poor track record of
> the diesels American car manufacturers produced during the last 'gas
> crisis.'

Exactly my point! Thank's for making it for me. The ineficient Diesels that
were produced by automakers who were really only trying to prove how bad the
Diesel concept really is.

> 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?)

The Hindenburg was filled with HELIUM - not Hydrogen - which is what led to
her demise! Helium is flammable, and explosive - Hydrogen is safe! VERY
SAFE!

> As to the free market economy, I never said we had one.  I merely stated
> the best poll would be one.

Agreed.

> You can make a poll state anything you want to,
> you just have to ask the right question to the right people,

Also agreed!

>  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 guess that's still up for debate...

> I relate my feelings toward fuel economy and long distance phone bills:

Try switching to IDT (www.idt.net)

> 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.)

What if you suddenly could get 85Mpg?

> 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.)

I can't argue there at all! I'd MUCH rather have my 12yo Audi V8 than ANY
newer car - save a new Audi, and then there's the payments again, so even
that is out!

> 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.

I'm not suggesting you, or anyone else rush out to replace the old. Merely,
if there were more options / choices, that we generally would begin to see
more and more fuel efficient vehicles on the streets, and that then 10 years
from now, I could drive an A8 with the W12 Diesel twin turbo (or whatever
they come up with) _at_that_time_! When I'm ready to swithc - to *another*
older car.

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

Thank God! That's one of the reasons I left Denmark in the dust!

> 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.

For 2 reasons:
1) Mercedes and BMW and VW and Citroen and Peugeot anf probably others have
already done that. That was the whole pint of my reply to the original mail,
which stated something about "why haven't the European auto makers stepped
up to the plate"
2) Can you say "Tucker".

Michael Riebs
Grand Rapids, MI
'90 V8Q
'98 A6QA

www.1stchoicegranite.com