http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos?hl=en
Today's topics:
* Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense' - 6
messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/360dc4f4d62b4736?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Consumer Reports: GM's Volt 'doesn't really make a lot of sense'
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/t/360dc4f4d62b4736?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 4 2011 11:24 pm
From: dsi1
On 3/4/2011 3:01 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2011-03-03, dsi1<dsi1@usenet-news.net> wrote:
>> The reality is that something so complex is going to require a lot of
>> maintenance and troubleshooting can be a problem if something goes
>> wrong. For more info on this, just read the posts here.
>
> The six-cylinder engine in my 1975 Hornet is a marvel of simplicity
> and durability. In the 36 years since it was manufactured it has
> required no internal repairs, just service of peripheral systems
> which are inexpensive and simple to deal with. The 3-speed Chrysler
> Torqueflite transmission is still smooth and responsive and has
> likewise never required internal repairs.
How is any of this relevant?
>
> The driveline is about as bulletproof as one could want, much more
> reliable and inexpensive to service overall than an array of batteries
> would have been over the same period of time.
>
>> An all electric car's drive system is gonna be a no brainer.
>
> To fully replace gas and diesel engines with electric motors you
> need BATTERIES (or some more exotic electricity source) that will
> allow the car to drive for hundreds of miles with lights, air
> conditioner, and other accessories running - on the freeway where
> there is virtually no stopping to take advantage of regenerative
> braking. You need to be able to haul trailers and heavy work loads
> while maintaining range. The batteries will need to be fully
> rechargeable within a few minutes. (People are not going to put up
> with waiting hours for battery chargers, especially when refueling on
> a trip.) You're going to need to provide some means to recharge
> them wherever they are, including parking lots of apartment and
> condo complexes. And the batteries should either be inexpensive
> to replace or last the life of the vehicle. (Which from my standpoint
> needs to be at least 20-30 years if not more.)
It's frustrating talking to you guys. It's always the same thing -
everybody knows the major problem is with the batteries. It's the reason
we all ain't driving electric cars. WE GOT THAT, OK?
>
> Until you have batteries that can do all this (and we are a long ways
> from that), your vision of an all-electric vehicle future is nothing
> more than a 1970s pipe dream of what the year 2000 will be like.
>
>> goes, living with an automobile should be a lot easier. People in the
>> future will be surprised at how much we had to put up with in the
>> internal combustion engine.
>
> It is much more likely that people in the near future will still be using
> internal combustion engines. Fifty, a hundred, or a thousand years from now?
> Possibly by then there will be a breakthrough that will permit a truly
> usable, general-purpose electric vehicle. Or perhaps not. Don't know and
> don't care, I won't be around to worry about it; but it is a no-brainer
> that internal combustion will still be around at least as long as I am.
>
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 5 2011 2:46 am
From: "Daniel who wants to know"
"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9k62n6hljgn0edj78t7c8dj9486j85bq4d@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 10:43:57 -0600, "Daniel who wants to know"
> <me@here.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Had that last year on mine, a '97.
> Just pulled the EGR, put a short section of dog cable in a drill, and
> cleaned the port from there.
> I had picked up an EGR gasket at a parts store for a buck or two, but
> could have used the old gasket.
> Hardest thing was finding the dog cable.
> I had read that thick weed whacker cable would work, but only had thin
> stuff. Don't think ANY weed whacker cable would have cleared it, as
> it was almost solidly plugged.
> Then I spotted the old kinked dog cable behind a box in the garage,
> It's stranded, and about 3/16" to 1/4" thick.
> Think about having something like that when you start.
> Even if you pull the throttle body, you need to clean that passage..
>
> --Vic
Thanks for the tip. I had tried using a coathanger wire as mine, also a '97
was so plugged that the idle didn't even change much when I pulled the valve
with it running, it helped for awhile and made the light intermittent but it
has been solidly on since the beginning of winter. Luckily I have access to
a 2 post lift and an OTC 4000 Enhanced scanner with the Pathfinder 96
software and it shows GM specific stuff. Having both always helps.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 5 2011 5:37 am
From: aemeijers
On 3/3/2011 3:43 PM, Clive wrote:
> In message <20110302131420@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
> <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes
>> I can assure you that I will be still doing fillups at gas stations
>> and changing motor oil in 20 years. The installed base is far too large
>> to simply go away in that period of time. (You of course may elect
>> to purchase some stoopid electic pregnant roller skate to run around
>> if you desire. Just don't try to force me into one.)
> At the moment we're paying $9.91 for an imperial gallon. When you start
> paying those prices, you might have a change of heart.
No, if they tried charging prices that high here, we'd have a change of
government. Most of that 9.91 is taxes, not fuel cost.
--
aem sends...
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 5 2011 5:55 am
From: Clive
In message <Y5GdnQ0rD6uDoO_QnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@giganews.com>, aemeijers
<aemeijers@att.net> writes
>No, if they tried charging prices that high here, we'd have a change of
>government. Most of that 9.91 is taxes, not fuel cost.
Agreed about the taxes, but the price I was mentioning was because our
news is full of 73 oil crisis doom at the moment and I just wondered how
it would play over there if fuel went to the prices that we pay. Also
remember that the duty we pay on fuel is fixed so when fuel goes up,
like you we pay more, but much lower increase in proportion.
--
Clive
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 5 2011 5:59 am
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
aemeijers <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:
>
>No, if they tried charging prices that high here, we'd have a change of
>government. Most of that 9.91 is taxes, not fuel cost.
Most of those taxes, though, go for maintaining road infrastructure that
you use when you burn gasoline. Whereas in the US we can't seem to keep
specific-use taxes segregated.
I don't mind high gas prices if it means roads are maintained better. I
only mind paying a gas tax which gets used for something totally unrelated.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 5 2011 7:40 am
From: jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
aemeijers wrote:
>
> On 3/3/2011 3:43 PM, Clive wrote:
> > In message <20110302131420@news.eternal-september.org>, Roger Blake
> > <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes
> >> I can assure you that I will be still doing fillups at gas stations
> >> and changing motor oil in 20 years. The installed base is far too large
> >> to simply go away in that period of time. (You of course may elect
> >> to purchase some stoopid electic pregnant roller skate to run around
> >> if you desire. Just don't try to force me into one.)
> > At the moment we're paying $9.91 for an imperial gallon. When you start
> > paying those prices, you might have a change of heart.
>
> No, if they tried charging prices that high here, we'd have a change of
> government. Most of that 9.91 is taxes, not fuel cost.
Are you aware that the US government is
driving the cost of labor up by taxing
it at the rate they do?
By not taxing workers wages heavily
and by providing national health care
European countries don't add as much to the cost of labor
that means manufacturing jobs tend to not migrate away
This is because of reduced labor costs
and increased transportation costs
The US government drives the cost of fuel down
by not taxing it heavily and using the tax from labor
to finance expensive foreign policy
to keep the price of fuel low
Some of the consequence of this is
that jobs migrate to other countries
and fuel is used wastefully
If instead of that taxation scheme
fuel was heavily taxed for government revenue
and labor was cheaper due to reduction
in payroll taxes and health insurance costs
Then
More of the goods that people buy locally
would be made by workers with local jobs
instead of workers half-way around the world
-jim
>
> --
> aem sends...
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.autos"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.autos+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment