New car emission pact to cost drivers $5000-$10000 more for cars

On Apr 2, 2:56*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-04-02, Harold Gleason > wrote:
>
> > I'm sure that the manufacturers said that such things would drive the
> > cost of an automobile out of range in those days.
>
> No. They said they wouldn't sell and the reason was because ford (and
> others) tried to sell seat belts and other safety items as options.
> People wouldn't buy them back then.

Man! When my daddy (who flew bombers for the RCAF in WW2) drove my
mom to the hospital to pump me out in '58.

There were no car seat belts! No padded dashboard! There was no
baby seat!

When dad picked us up, mom was in the front seat with me in her
arms. No seat belts. ****, she was probably smoking!

But that's not how it should be. We all grow up and evolve!


If we lived in a nation of Republicans, that's the way it still would
be!


Republicans would be bitching about "the government is ****ing with my
rights".

My dad was an engineer, and felt so. So I know the drill!

Rich, you need to get out more... clean air (like home garbage pick up)
comes with a price... we pay it and breath.

You could save hundreds... **** - thousands of dollars a year if, instead of
having a couple of guys drive past your house each week, you kept your empty
pizza boxes and frozen food wrappers in your bedroom - if you don't mind the
smell. We could save a bundle if we didn't have emissions controls on our
cars... if we don't mind the smell.

Rich is young so I really can't blame him (disadvantaged kids need all the
support we can offer). He is too young to remember the air quality issues
that lead up to the early 70s and the introduction of sweeping changes in
engine design.

I've been involved in auto repair for something like 40 years... ALL of my
daily drivers are bone stock, have all emissions control devices connected
and working and offer gas mileage close to what I remember from the high
compression, tetra-ethyl lead days. With the added bonus that, here in the
frigid north at least, these engines last longer than they ever used to.

$27 TRILLION? Are you sure Canada HAS that much money?

You sir, are a cross posting little wiener... move out of your mommas
basement and get a real life.

On Apr 1, 7:43*pm, Joe > wrote:
> "New car emission pact to cost drivers $5000-$10000 more for cars"
>
> "The rules will cost consumers an estimated $434 extra per vehicle in
> the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016, the government said.
> But the heads of the Transportation Department and Environmental
> Protection Agency said car owners would save more than $3,000 over the
> lives of their vehicles through better gas mileage."

If you figure that the average car has a lifetime of over 100,000
miles, and you get the milage to go from 20 miles per gallon to 31
miles per gallon, how many gallons are saved?
100,000/20 is 5,000 gallons of gas. 100,000/32 is 3125 gallons, A
savings of 1875 gallons, at a price of $2.50/gallon, that would be
4687.50 total.

Keep in mind that we were able to almost double the gas milage of
vehicles simply by switching from carberators to fuel injectors, and
putting in computerized electronic ignition and fuel injection
control. Switching to vapor injection, flex-fuels, and fuel mixtures
could double the milage again. Eliminating obsolete regulations and
focusing on innovation to lower emissions could further increase
mileage by eleminating PVC, catalytic converter, and permitting
mechanically coupled superchargers.

Back in the early 1960s, several states, most notably California,
outlawed mechanically coupled supercharges and nitrogen enriched fuels
because they didn't want consumers to have cars that could outrun the
police cars. Putting these technologies into a 1 litre engine could
increase the horsepower of the smaller engine, lowere the fuel to air
ratio, and give higher torque, which means that the engines could run
at lower RPM and work well with the transmission such that they could
get to 60 MPH while the engine runs and 600 RPM.

> New Mileage Rules: Pay More for Cars, Less at Pump

This is probably more a ploy for companies like GM to raise prices in
the wake of falling unit volumes. Ironically, many of the
technologies that would lead to hyper-effecient cars would actually
lower the production costs, much the same way that computers and
electronic ignitions reduced the number of wear points and improved
performance.


> By KEN THOMAS Associated Press Writer
> WASHINGTON April 1, 2010 (AP)

> http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10257074

On 2010-04-02, Ron Wood Jr. > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2:56*am, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2010-04-02, Harold Gleason > wrote:
>>
>> > I'm sure that the manufacturers said that such things would drive the
>> > cost of an automobile out of range in those days.
>>
>> No. They said they wouldn't sell and the reason was because ford (and
>> others) tried to sell seat belts and other safety items as options.
>> People wouldn't buy them back then.
>
> Man! When my daddy (who flew bombers for the RCAF in WW2) drove my
> mom to the hospital to pump me out in '58.
>
> There were no car seat belts! No padded dashboard! There was no
> baby seat!
>
> When dad picked us up, mom was in the front seat with me in her
> arms. No seat belts. ****, she was probably smoking!
>
> But that's not how it should be. We all grow up and evolve!

Seat belts existed for decades before 1958. By 1958 most cars could be
ordered with them. People didn't order them.

> If we lived in a nation of Republicans, that's the way it still would
> be!

> Republicans would be bitching about "the government is ****ing with my
> rights".
>
> My dad was an engineer, and felt so. So I know the drill!

So you want a nanny state? forever a child of the ruling elite. Or
maybe you just want to use force to make everyone else make the
choices you feel are best for them?

On Apr 2, 3:26*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-04-02, Ron Wood Jr. > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 2:56*am, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2010-04-02, Harold Gleason > wrote:
>
> >> > I'm sure that the manufacturers said that such things would drive the
> >> > cost of an automobile out of range in those days.
>
> >> No. They said they wouldn't sell and the reason was because ford (and
> >> others) tried to sell seat belts and other safety items as options.
> >> People wouldn't buy them back then.
>
> > Man! *When my daddy (who flew bombers for the RCAF in WW2) drove my
> > mom to the hospital to pump me out in '58.
>
> > There were no car seat belts! * No padded dashboard! *There was no
> > baby seat!
>
> > When dad picked us up, mom was in the front seat with me in her
> > arms. * No seat belts. * ****, she was probably smoking!
>
> > But that's not how it should be. * We all grow up and evolve!
>
> Seat belts existed for decades before 1958. By 1958 most cars could be
> ordered with them. People didn't order them.
>
> > If we lived in a nation of Republicans, that's the way it still would
> > be!
> > Republicans would be bitching about "the government is ****ing with my
> > rights".
>
> > My dad was an engineer, and felt so. *So I know the drill!
>
> So you want a nanny state? forever a child of the ruling elite. Or
> maybe you just want to use force to make everyone else make the
> choices you feel are best for them?

Brent, sorry. But it is you who is putting words in my mouth. And
all that rubbish about "the elite".

I said no such thing.


I like discussion, not some dweeb saying what I think, and then using
his ideas to argue with me.

If you want to argue with what you say, please seek a mirror.

If you want a discussion, you are welcome to engage.

On Apr 2, 3:23*am, "Jim Warman" > wrote:
> Rich, you need to get out more... clean air (like home garbage pick up)
> comes with a price... we pay it and breath.
>
> You could save hundreds... **** - thousands of dollars a year if, instead of
> having a couple of guys drive past your house each week, you kept your empty
> pizza boxes and frozen food wrappers in your bedroom - if you don't mind the
> smell. We could save a bundle if we didn't have emissions controls on our
> cars... if we don't mind the smell.
>
> Rich is young so I really can't blame him (disadvantaged kids need all the
> support we can offer). He is too young to remember the air quality issues
> that lead up to the early 70s and the introduction of sweeping changes in
> engine design.
>
> I've been involved in auto repair for something like 40 years... ALL of my
> daily drivers are bone stock, have all emissions control devices connected
> and working and offer gas mileage close to what I remember from the high
> compression, tetra-ethyl lead days. With the added bonus that, here in the
> frigid north at least, these engines last longer than they ever used to.
>
> $27 TRILLION? Are you sure Canada HAS that much money?
>
> You sir, are a cross posting little wiener... move out of your mommas
> basement and get a real life.

Hello Jim, a mechanic.

It appears that you see my point. And $27 Trillion wouldn't know a
bloody Briggs & Stratton from what powers some of the cars in the
American Lemans series.

On Apr 2, 2:33*am, "Rob Dekker" > wrote:
> The article does not mention anything about $5000-$10,000 increase in cost
> for cars.
> Google does not show anything either on the subject of this post, other than
> a publication on carbon creditshttp://www.carboncreditcapital.com/resources/Climate%20Change%20Intro...
>
> So it's petty clear that *you pulled that number out of your hat (or a less
> appropriate place).
>
> Others already showed the source of the article, which shows that the actual
> number is $434 extra per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle
> by 2016, and car owners would save more than $3,000 over the lives of their
> vehicles through better gas mileage.
>
> Rob

There is a viable idea to do with powering internal combustion engines
lately with amazing fuel economy.

Here is one, but I want it to be tested at Lemans. I attend Lemans on
a frequent basis.

http://www.mechadyne-int.com/

On 2010-04-02, Ron Wood Jr. > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 3:26*am, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2010-04-02, Ron Wood Jr. > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 2, 2:56*am, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2010-04-02, Harold Gleason > wrote:
>>
>> >> > I'm sure that the manufacturers said that such things would drive the
>> >> > cost of an automobile out of range in those days.
>>
>> >> No. They said they wouldn't sell and the reason was because ford (and
>> >> others) tried to sell seat belts and other safety items as options.
>> >> People wouldn't buy them back then.
>>
>> > Man! *When my daddy (who flew bombers for the RCAF in WW2) drove my
>> > mom to the hospital to pump me out in '58.
>>
>> > There were no car seat belts! * No padded dashboard! *There was no
>> > baby seat!
>>
>> > When dad picked us up, mom was in the front seat with me in her
>> > arms. * No seat belts. * ****, she was probably smoking!
>>
>> > But that's not how it should be. * We all grow up and evolve!
>>
>> Seat belts existed for decades before 1958. By 1958 most cars could be
>> ordered with them. People didn't order them.
>>
>> > If we lived in a nation of Republicans, that's the way it still would
>> > be!
>> > Republicans would be bitching about "the government is ****ing with my
>> > rights".
>>
>> > My dad was an engineer, and felt so. *So I know the drill!
>>
>> So you want a nanny state? forever a child of the ruling elite. Or
>> maybe you just want to use force to make everyone else make the
>> choices you feel are best for them?
>
> Brent, sorry. But it is you who is putting words in my mouth. And
> all that rubbish about "the elite".
>
> I said no such thing.

I asked you questions. You brought up the topic. About 'republicans' and
other commentary. The obvious interpetation is that you believe that our
wonderful total government saves us from ourselves by forcing us to buy
those items.

> I like discussion, not some dweeb saying what I think, and then using
> his ideas to argue with me.
>
> If you want to argue with what you say, please seek a mirror.
>
> If you want a discussion, you are welcome to engage.

You're the one who decided to go political when I corrected you on a
simple fact of automotive history.

On Apr 2, 3:56*am, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-04-02, Ron Wood Jr. > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 3:26*am, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2010-04-02, Ron Wood Jr. > wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 2, 2:56*am, Brent > wrote:
> >> >> On 2010-04-02, Harold Gleason > wrote:
>
> >> >> > I'm sure that the manufacturers said that such things would drive the
> >> >> > cost of an automobile out of range in those days.
>
> >> >> No. They said they wouldn't sell and the reason was because ford (and
> >> >> others) tried to sell seat belts and other safety items as options.
> >> >> People wouldn't buy them back then.
>
> >> > Man! *When my daddy (who flew bombers for the RCAF in WW2) drove my
> >> > mom to the hospital to pump me out in '58.
>
> >> > There were no car seat belts! * No padded dashboard! *There was no
> >> > baby seat!
>
> >> > When dad picked us up, mom was in the front seat with me in her
> >> > arms. * No seat belts. * ****, she was probably smoking!
>
> >> > But that's not how it should be. * We all grow up and evolve!
>
> >> Seat belts existed for decades before 1958. By 1958 most cars could be
> >> ordered with them. People didn't order them.
>
> >> > If we lived in a nation of Republicans, that's the way it still would
> >> > be!
> >> > Republicans would be bitching about "the government is ****ing with my
> >> > rights".
>
> >> > My dad was an engineer, and felt so. *So I know the drill!
>
> >> So you want a nanny state? forever a child of the ruling elite. Or
> >> maybe you just want to use force to make everyone else make the
> >> choices you feel are best for them?
>
> > Brent, sorry. *But it is you who *is putting words in my mouth. *And
> > all that rubbish about "the elite".
>
> > I said no such thing.
>
> I asked you questions. You brought up the topic. About 'republicans' and
> other commentary. The obvious interpetation is that you believe that our
> wonderful total government saves us from ourselves by forcing us to buy
> those items.
>
> > I like discussion, not some dweeb saying what I think, and then using
> > his ideas to argue with me.
>
> > If you want to argue with what you say, please seek a mirror.
>
> > If you want a discussion, you are welcome to engage.
>
> You're the one who decided to go political when I corrected you on a
> simple fact of automotive history.

Yeah, but you're the one who put words in my mouth with question
marks, not asking me good questions about my ideas or why.


That's no way to argue or debate.

So I see now why I see those posts saying "**** Off Brent"

No offense, but I see no reason to continue. It's a waste of my
time. I don't care about your time.


Brent, for all I know, we may see eye-to-eye on issues. But you
screwed up.


Stop wasting my time.

On 2010-04-02, Ron Wood Jr. > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 3:56*am, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2010-04-02, Ron Wood Jr. > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 2, 3:26*am, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2010-04-02, Ron Wood Jr. > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 2, 2:56*am, Brent > wrote:
>> >> >> On 2010-04-02, Harold Gleason > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > I'm sure that the manufacturers said that such things would drive the
>> >> >> > cost of an automobile out of range in those days.
>>
>> >> >> No. They said they wouldn't sell and the reason was because ford (and
>> >> >> others) tried to sell seat belts and other safety items as options.
>> >> >> People wouldn't buy them back then.
>>
>> >> > Man! *When my daddy (who flew bombers for the RCAF in WW2) drove my
>> >> > mom to the hospital to pump me out in '58.
>>
>> >> > There were no car seat belts! * No padded dashboard! *There was no
>> >> > baby seat!
>>
>> >> > When dad picked us up, mom was in the front seat with me in her
>> >> > arms. * No seat belts. * ****, she was probably smoking!
>>
>> >> > But that's not how it should be. * We all grow up and evolve!
>>
>> >> Seat belts existed for decades before 1958. By 1958 most cars could be
>> >> ordered with them. People didn't order them.
>>
>> >> > If we lived in a nation of Republicans, that's the way it still would
>> >> > be!
>> >> > Republicans would be bitching about "the government is ****ing with my
>> >> > rights".
>>
>> >> > My dad was an engineer, and felt so. *So I know the drill!
>>
>> >> So you want a nanny state? forever a child of the ruling elite. Or
>> >> maybe you just want to use force to make everyone else make the
>> >> choices you feel are best for them?
>>
>> > Brent, sorry. *But it is you who *is putting words in my mouth. *And
>> > all that rubbish about "the elite".
>>
>> > I said no such thing.
>>
>> I asked you questions. You brought up the topic. About 'republicans' and
>> other commentary. The obvious interpetation is that you believe that our
>> wonderful total government saves us from ourselves by forcing us to buy
>> those items.
>>
>> > I like discussion, not some dweeb saying what I think, and then using
>> > his ideas to argue with me.
>>
>> > If you want to argue with what you say, please seek a mirror.
>>
>> > If you want a discussion, you are welcome to engage.
>>
>> You're the one who decided to go political when I corrected you on a
>> simple fact of automotive history.
>
> Yeah, but you're the one who put words in my mouth with question
> marks, not asking me good questions about my ideas or why.

welcome to usenet. been here long? You're the one who decided to cast
me with that 'republican' crap for correcting you on a simple fact of
automotive history. You got just a tiny bit back with slightly loaded
questions of what you dished out and now you whine about it. You clearly
don't like it, but you had no trouble with your labeling.

> That's no way to argue or debate.

You clearly wrote that "We all grow up and evolve!" in your support of
government mandates and requirements. That's no way to argue or debate.

> So I see now why I see those posts saying "**** Off Brent"

LOL. You dish it out but you can't take just a small fraction back at
you.

> No offense, but I see no reason to continue. It's a waste of my
> time. I don't care about your time.

You're clearly a waste of my time. I should have realized that when a
fact of automotive history turned into a mini rant about "republicans".

> Brent, for all I know, we may see eye-to-eye on issues. But you
> screwed up.

You screwed up. I corrected you on automotive history and you decided to
label me as not evolving and republican in response. You started it and
when just a little came back at you, you whine about it. If you can't
take it, don't start it.

> Stop wasting my time.

You're wasting mine. I corrected you on automotive history and you went
off about "evolving" and "republicans", casting me as 'primitive' and
'republican' because I dared to correct you. **** OFF. Whine to someone
who gives a ****.