What to do about the vehicle manufacturing industry

[waspp]

Getting back to the original subject of what to do about the vehicle manufacturing industry, I heard what I think is a brilliant idea.

 

Have the Big Oil companies bail them out. Who has benefitted more than Big Oil from the gas hogs that came out of Detroit? Only seems fair to lend a helping hand!

 

Dennis

 

Since "big" oil company profits are around 8% I think big banks should bail out the auto companies their profits are at about 18%.. or maybe big software around 10%. Thats fair!

 

http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2006/04/...her-industries/

[mznyc]

Michael Moore had a ,what I thought to be,a very sensible idea,check it out here, http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/...Date=2008-12-03.

Giving these idiots at the Big 3 billions of dollars is not the answer,because they are a big part of the problem.

[gstallons]

And this is 5% of what the US govt. gave the c**ksuckers at Fannie Mae,Freddie Mae and AIG (with NO strings attched) to squander away. I think someone stated the govt. could give EVERY taxpayer $1m each and come out cheaper.

[dlaing]

Hybrid technology is getting better and better but the cost of hybrid vehicles doen't make economic sense. The prius for example will cost you way more dollars in the long run than similar sized gasoline or diesel powered vehicle. Its also been said the Toyota Prius is more damaging to the environment than a Hummer H2 when you take into account longevity and cost (both financial and environmentally) when you have to replace those expensive (toxic) batteries.

Like any car, a hybrd does not make sense for everybody.

A hybrid will save people money in the long run if they drive safely, many stop and go miles per year, paying lots of money for fuel.

It is especially good in urban environments where pollution/smog is a problem.

Driving steady highway speeds, paying $1 per gallon, and driving less than 1000 miles per year, you will be better off with something else.

Those that said a hummer is less damaging to the environment were Rush Limbaugh and friends.

They based this assertion on a sensationalistic article that made some highly biased assumptions, such as assuming the you would need three Priuses to last as long as one Hummer.

It might be true if the Hummers keep squashing Priuses.

[waspp]

Certainly if you love to spend money on toys and things hybrids are great but right now they are more expensive to drive than internal combustion powered vehicles. I'm not knocking hybrids I think they will eventually get the technology down and be cost effective but right now they are more of a gimmick.

 

http://www.impactlab.com/2007/03/14/prius-...nmental-damage/

[John in Leeds]

Certainly if you love to spend money on toys and things hybrids are great but right now they are more expensive to drive than internal combustion powered vehicles. I'm not knocking hybrids I think they will eventually get the technology down and be cost effective but right now they are more of a gimmick.

 

http://www.impactlab.com/2007/03/14/prius-...nmental-damage/

 

Could be a fair comment but the study is by CNW Marketing - always a little wary about that.

 

I would certainly agree that the success of the Prius is a triumph of Toyota marketing and not a genuinely environmentally friendly car.

 

 

FYI information I run a Toyota Ago (1 litre petrol eco car), averages round 50 mpg imperial driven a good highway speeds. No where near the claimed 60+.

However my experience of Toyota is they do not break down, rarely in the shop except for routine servicing.

[pasotibbs]

Did anyone else notice how engine sizes went up when Catalytic convertors became law in the EU ?

for example small Fords here went from 1.3 to 1.4 also the V6's went from 2.3 to 2.4 and 2.8 to 2.9 (to restore lost power ?)

I never understood why Cats were made the legal requirement and not exhaust emissions ?

 

I seem to remember Toyota wanted emissions testing as they had developed lean burn engines that gave really good mpg and low emissions but these could not work with a Cat so could not be legally sold in the EU or North America ? (does anyone else think major corruption here !!)

 

Considering that Cat's can take several minutes(I've heard 15-20 quoted) to get to working temp and most EU commutes may only be twice that (mine is 20-30min) making engines larger and use more fuel seems a backwards step unless you make fuel or get tax from fuel that is....

Add the pollution caused by the mining,processing transportation etc of the materials for Cats and it makes even less sense.

 

I always thought that Cats were added it US cars because of city smogs and the fact that most cars being big V8's made this the only viable quick fix rather than the best solution ?

[gstallons]

Catylic convertors were made to completely burn any unburned gases. These things require a warm-up time to start working effeciently. This is just about the time you normally get where you are going.

A "closed loop" system which uses an O2 sensor is the most effecient type of fuel injection because it monitors the burned gas process to see if it is lean or rich. Unfortunately the O2 sensor has to be hot before it starts working. This is why some O2 sensors use a 4 wire sensor that has a heater built in to start the sensor working quicker.

".

[pasotibbs]

Catylic convertors were made to completely burn any unburned gases. These things require a warm-up time to start working effeciently. This is just about the time you normally get where you are going.

A "closed loop" system which uses an O2 sensor is the most effecient type of fuel injection because it monitors the burned gas process to see if it is lean or rich. Unfortunately the O2 sensor has to be hot before it starts working. This is why some O2 sensors use a 4 wire sensor that has a heater built in to start the sensor working quicker.

".

So like I said why were car makers forced to use Cats (with all the pollution produced making them) rather than encouraged to produce cleaner more efficient engines ?

 

Internal combustion engines are flawed (deeply!) but I feel that blanket laws like "all must have a Catalytic convertor" must have done more harm than good,certainly here in Europe with our smaller engines and lighter cars that could have allowed other solutions to be tried ?

[GuzziMoto]

Cats do more then burn any unburned fuel in the exhaust. They also convert toxic emmissions to less toxic emmissions. They do tend to hurt power output. Mainly, I believe, due to the restriction in the exhaust. Newer cats hurt power less then older cats. Some systems use multiple cats to get around the restriction issue. I doubt cats hurt power anymore then any other emmissions requirements. As a rule, emmissions regs hurt power. That is just a fact of life nowadays. Cats have other downsides as well. There isn't much in life that doesn't have pros and cons. I imagine the pros outweigh the cons. I don't care one way or the other. I just accept them as part of a car now.

[pasotibbs]

Cats do more then burn any unburned fuel in the exhaust. They also convert toxic emmissions to less toxic emmissions. They do tend to hurt power output. Mainly, I believe, due to the restriction in the exhaust. Newer cats hurt power less then older cats. Some systems use multiple cats to get around the restriction issue. I doubt cats hurt power anymore then any other emmissions requirements. As a rule, emmissions regs hurt power. That is just a fact of life nowadays. Cats have other downsides as well. There isn't much in life that doesn't have pros and cons. I imagine the pros outweigh the cons. I don't care one way or the other. I just accept them as part of a car now.

 

I understand why cats were put on US cars, a quick fix was needed to the city smogs(and getting rid of the V8 was not an option) , but when cats arrived here (early 90's ?) I remember Toyota and others protesting as they claimed to have got fantastic results from lean burn engines but as these could not work with a cat they were made illegal to sell so never saw production.

It may be that lean burn would not have solved all the problems but with all the downsides to cats surely other options could have been tried ?

Making all new cars pass an emissions test could have encouraged inventive solutions to the problem rather than the makers being forced to fit a device that may have made many of these impossible ?

 

like everyone else I accept that cats are here but I can't help but wonder what if....and why !

I guess we'll never know

[gstallons]

I guess somebody in the EPA had family members that owned a catalytic convertor factory?

[John in Leeds]

I guess somebody in the EPA had family members that owned a catalytic convertor factory?

 

 

And I thought I was cynical

[gstallons]

That's not cynical that's (and observant) realistic.

[Guzzi2Go]

That's not cynical that's (and observant) realistic.

Exactly.

 

EU recently passed a law mandating companies to have a defibrillator handy. The stuff they keep on zapping people with in ER. Yes, there is a remote possibility that someone will suffer a heart attack at work, and even more remote one, that the punk operating the thing will bring the poor "heart attackee" back to life. Nevertheless, the law is there and with it all associated costs and profits...