Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Adding acetone to your gas to get better milage

This is topic Adding acetone to your gas to get better milage in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004233

Posted by Stephen Frazza (Member # 2320) on 09-02-2005, 12:55 AM:

After reading the gas prices in your area posts I decided to share this.

Acetone in Gas
Readily-available chemical added to gas tank in small proportion improves the fuel's ability to vaporize completely by reducing the surface tension that inhibits vaporization of some fuel droplets.

Now i've been doing this for about 2 months and I say it definately works.
I live about 30 miles from work, and the amount of gas that it took for to me to just get to work or back was a little less than an eighth of a tank.
Now I can make the round trip using slightly more than it took me for one way before.
I have a 2000 Jeep Cherokee and have done nothing diferently to explain this better gas milage to.

So I suggest trying it out especially with the way gas prices are going up right now.

[ 09-02-2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Stephen Frazza ]

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 09-02-2005, 01:29 AM:

No way a little acetone is going to nearly half fuel consumption. Drive 1000 miles without the stuff, recording accurately fuel added to the tank during the period, then repeat while adding acetone, bet there is no measurable difference.

Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 09-02-2005, 02:48 AM:

I'm not so sure this actually works. I tried it and my gas mileage actually decreased. I think I put too much in though.

Stephen, keep accurate records of your fuel purchases and write down the exact mileage every time you fill up. Use that to calculate your gas mileage instead of watching your fuel gage... Gauges are NOT accurate. They are only intended to give you an estimate of how much fuel you have left. If you do that, then you'll know for sure if you're really getting any improvement from acetone in the tank. If you can crunch the numbers over a couple of tanks, let us know if you're actually seeing an improvement.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-02-2005, 03:08 AM:

I wouldn't do it if I still had any warrenty left on the powertrain of the car. Doing so will void it.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-02-2005, 03:47 AM:

Now, isn't acetone quite a corrosive substance that could eat and corrode just about anything in sight that isn't stable to handle such a substance?

Like cutting your nose off just to spite your face?
(Here is the corrected link below. The earlier link had one too many "http's" in the URL...)

Acetone page

Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 09-02-2005, 03:52 AM:

Uhh... Fuel additives will not void a new vehicle warranty UNLESS:

The additive causes physical damage, or
The additve adversely affects the emissions or the emissions system.

Acetone IS corrosive to many cheap plastics, but it does not harm most common metals such as steel or aluminum... If you dump a few gallons of acetone in the gas tank, then expect physical damage to the fuel injectors or other plastic parts in the fuel system. However, at the extremely low concentrations of acetone present (At one ounce per 10 gallons of fuel, that's 200 parts per million, or a 0.0025% concentration of acetone), the fuel system will not be harmed; ergo, any warranty will not be voided by the use of acetone in this manner. For the most part, if the plastics in your fuel system are designed to handle gasoline, then they will handle the tiny amount of acetone just fine.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-02-2005, 05:59 AM:

Acetone is a very strong solvent, and may adversely affect hoses, sealers, and gaskets. Note the disclaimer at the bottom of the linked page:

quote:
ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-02-2005, 08:51 AM:

How about you give your car a complete tune up?

Air Filter. Oil Change/Filter. Plugs/Wires/Distributor Cap. Fuel Filter. Chassis/Bearing Lube. PCV/Crankcase Breather.

Make sure your tires have as much air in them as is safely allowed. (THIS ONE THING can make a noticible improvement!)

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-02-2005, 10:12 AM:

As fuel prices rise the availablity of ethanol fuels should increase which also has the advantage of less polution as well

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-02-2005, 10:30 AM:

I don't know the details, but my understanding from reading about this from time to time in reputable publications is that ethanol subsidies in the US are something of a scam. Apparently, the amount of energy used to produce a given amount of ethanol is actually greater than the amount of energy that is actually _in_ that amount of ethanol. The stuff mostly exists as a motor fuel because of a demand for farm subsidies and not because it actually provides any substantial economic or environmental benefit.

(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this.)

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 09-02-2005, 10:32 AM:

quote: Robert Burtcher
Uhh... Fuel additives will not void a new vehicle warranty UNLESS:

The additive causes physical damage, or
The additve adversely affects the emissions or the emissions system.
Acetone IS corrosive to many cheap plastics, but it does not harm most common metals such as steel or aluminum... If you dump a few gallons of acetone in the gas tank, then expect physical damage to the fuel injectors or other plastic parts in the fuel system. However, at the extremely low concentrations of acetone present (At one ounce per 10 gallons of fuel, that's 200 parts per million, or a 0.0025% concentration of acetone), the fuel system will not be harmed; ergo, any warranty will not be voided by the use of acetone in this manner. For the most part, if the plastics in your fuel system are designed to handle gasoline, then they will handle the tiny amount of acetone just fine.

I didn't say fuel additive could void your warrenty. Acetone is not a certified fuel additive. You have people out here that will do stupid things if not given the propper method or information about what they are putting in the tank. Put to much, cause a problem, damage occures, and warrenty gone. I believe the risks are to great to take those chances on a valuable warrenty. The costs of repairing your car because of a mistake will be greater than the amount of cost for filling the tank.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 09-02-2005, 10:49 AM:

Scott,

I believe you are correct. The production of "clean, pollution free ethanol" is very petroleum intensive. From the petroleum based fertilizer used to grow it to the petroleum used in the farm equipment to the energy needed to get the ethanol out of the corn.

Until somebody figures out how to convert solar energy into electricity much more efficiently or comes up with a way to use solar energy to get hydrogen out of water extrememly efficiently, the only "clean" fuel that makes any sense is Nuclear power.

Wind power chops up birds, water power can only be produced in very select places and destroys ecosystems when you dam a river. As mentioned the holy grail biofuels use fossil fuels to be produced.

True, nuclear power has the waste problem but somehow France deals with it (they produce 80 something percent of electricity with nuclear power). We should try and produce as much electricity as possible with nuclear power and then use surplus electricity to produce hydrogen fuel for vehicles. This would end our dependence on foreign countries for energy and would stop us emitting greenhouse gasses (of course whether or not CO2 emissions are really causing global warming is another debate).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-02-2005, 11:03 AM:

Lyle, I agree with you. Unfortunately, transportation and proper disposal of spent fuel and risk of terrorist attack are very serious concerns that may not be solvable in our generation. What does France do with spent fuel?

Rochester NY is at the forefront of both hydrogen / fuel cell power, and fusion power research:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050302/BUSINESS/503020324/1001

quote:
GM's Hy-wire fuel cell vehicle is on display at the Greater Rochester International Auto Show today through Sunday at the Riverside Convention Center.

The Hy-wire prototype has been touring the world.

But it's the first time that the vehicle has been to Rochester, even though much of the research and development that went into building the car's skateboard-like chassis was done at GM's Fuel Cell Activities Center in Honeoye Falls.

http://www.ece.uiuc.edu/seminar/98-99/fusion.html

quote:
Controlled thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium) into helium offers the possibility of a virtually unlimited source of energy. There are primarily two experimentally different methods to cause controlled fusion of hydrogen to occur.

A magnetic field can be used to heat and confine hot hydrogen plasma for a time long enough for hydrogen atoms to fuse. Magnetic confinement "machines" such as the Tokamaks, Stellerators, and Magnetic Mirror devices fit into this category. Studies of the magnetic confinement fusion systems began in the 1940's. The current budget trend for magnetic confinement fusion research is downward and several significant programs have been terminated.

A second method of achieving controlled thermonuclear fusion uses laser or ion beams to deliver megajoules of energy in a few nanoseconds to the surface of a spherical mass of hydrogen. The hydrogen is driven radially inward at very high velocities. When the high velocity material stagnates, the temperature and density increase to extremely high values. The hydrogen can be compressed to a density of more than 20 g/cc and to temperatures of more than 100 million Kelvins. At these temperatures, the confinement time of a few nanoseconds owing to the inertial forces, is sufficient to allow the hydrogen atoms to collide often enough, and with sufficient energy, to fuse. Laser driven fusion was proposed by John Nuckolls shortly after the demonstration of a ruby laser by Ted Maiman at Hughes in the early 1960s. However, it was not until the early 1970s that well funded studies of laser driven Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) began. The ICF program is currently alive and well and several large projects at several laboratories are well funded. The major ICF projects in the United States are located at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory (both operated by the University of California), Sandia National Laboratory Albuquerque, the Laser Laboratory for Energetics (operated by the University of Rochester, NY), and the US Naval Research Laboratory. The projects are funded by the US government through the Department of Energy

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 09-02-2005, 12:10 PM:

quote: John Pytlak
What does France do with spent fuel?

That's a good question. I know there is a lot of research on a new type of reactor (I think it's called integral fast reactor or something like that) which uses the fuel more efficiently and can actually use the spent fuel we have now.

As for hydrogen, the biggest issue is how to make enough of it without using fossil fuels as the energy source.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-02-2005, 01:18 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Apparently, the amount of energy used to produce a given amount of ethanol is actually greater than the amount of energy that is actually _in_ that amount of ethanol.

I saw somethin on TV about this very thing. It may have even been a 60 minuited segment. You are correct that to make it takes more fuel than you end up getting.

Mark

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 09-02-2005, 01:31 PM:

I heard that if you put sugar in your gas tank and a banana in your tail pipe, you'll get GREAT gas mileage as well [Big Grin]

I know I'm a smart ass.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-02-2005, 01:44 PM:

True. Cost more to make ethanol that what the effectiveness of the substance can put out being that ethanol has a much lower BTU rating than gasoline.

Back to the acetone thing: I can see if one wants to test this out with older/larger cars, especially with ones that are in the 15 to 22mpg range - like the fellow with the Jeep Cherokee which is not the greatest vehicle on gas economy.

But us with vehicles that can do over 30mpg anywhere, it makes one wonder if this is really necessary to try to eck out more mpg where we are still getting the great gas mileage in the first place - even in the report on the site of the Toyota hybrid vehicle got even more supurb mileage with the additive.

-Monte

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 09-02-2005, 02:59 PM:

Allison, mythbusters showed that the bananas will immediately get blown out the tail pipe from the intense pressure. No matter how many they crammed in there (including a potato) it always instantly got blown clean out of the pipe when they gunned the engine.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-02-2005, 03:27 PM:

Ethanol is a sham. Fuggedaboudit. [thumbsdown]

Acetone in my gas will increase my mileage, eh? I'll try some in my Pathfinder and see what happens. It's out of warranty now anyway. I do have to use premium gas though, so do I need to look for a premium grade of acetone?

[uhoh]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 09-02-2005, 03:28 PM:

The guys I used to fly with told me stories of adding moth balls to kerosene to increase the octane rating up to where cars in those days would run, back in the days of the Great Depression.

At least E85 is cheaper at the pump than gas for now. Too bad there's only one station here pumping the stuff.

The French take care of their nuclear waste the old-fashioned way. They dump it in the ocean in Micronesia, the same place where they do their above-ground nuclear weapons testing.

The US will be doing something similar soon. Right here in good ol' Southern Nevada just up the road 90 miles from Sin City. The DOE guarantees that the site will not radiate us 'Vegans in any harmful way for 10,000 years, and that it will radiate us in only a slightly harmful way for 1,000,000 years after that. Guaranteed by the full force of the federal guvmint. All built by the lowest contract bidder of course. Why am I not impressed?

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 09-02-2005, 03:55 PM:

Has anyone tried a little gin with a splash of dry vermouth?

You never know......

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-02-2005, 07:54 PM:

It still amazes me the lengths people will go through to improve the fuel mileage of gas guzzlers when they COULD have simply bought a car with higher mileage in the first place.

I drive a Mazda 626.

(If you don't want to buy a car with a Japanese name plate you can get a Ford Probe. It's the same damn car but it says "Ford" on the front grille instead of "Mazda". They're practically all made in the same factories, nowadays.)

Anyway, my car is supposed to get 32 MPG on the highway but I get 35 MPG in town. I keep it tuned up and I keep the oil clean and the tires full of air. I don't fill the trunk up with heavy junk and I shift gears conservatively. (It's a 5-speed... Specifically because manual transmissions get better mileage if you drive them correctly.) Furthermore, the car breezes through emissions testing. (The Mazda 626 is an official ULEV.)

I can understand people who use large vehicles for work or for other reasons. My neighbor is a contractor. He needs a truck and a trailer to haul tools, equipment and supplies. I can understand people who use their vehicles on routes or field service. But, what I FAIL to understand is people who think they can drive huge 4-wheelers around town as daily transportation. And, DON'T give me that "safety" arguement! You KNOW that's a batch of crap! The closest thing they will ever get to off-roading is when they pull it up onto the lawn to wash it! It REALLY cheezes me off to hear that people are now whining because the price of gas is too high! TOO FUCKING BAD! You made a STUPID decision! LIVE WITH IT or GET ANOTHER CAR!

If you have a good reason to drive a larger vehicle... Even if it's a flimsy reason... For God's sake! Keep the engine in good running order!

Don't sit around thinking up ways to weasel out of your situation by putting shit into your gasoline! (Unless a gas additive is indicated in your tune-up regimine.)

I said it before: If we could raise the nationwide fuel efficiency of all the cars in the U.S. (Or world, for that matter.) by ONE MEASLY PERCENTAGE POINT we could reduce our dependancy on crude oil by as much as 20%!!! (And, thereby, reduce the pinch on our wallets by 20% or MORE when the price of gasoline drops!)

I'm not talking about raising the mileage. I'm talking about raising the EFFICIENCY. i.e.: The percentage of fuel burned which actually goes into pushing the car. On most modern cars that's as simple as keeping the car tuned up and in good running order! It's something that's so bloody simple to do, even if you feel you must drive a Hummer to the grocery store every day. Yo can STILL keep the damn thing running as efficiently as you can.

How about, instead of pouring crazy shit into your gas tank, you spend $50 at the auto parts store?! (Or even Wal-Mart, if you shop there?!) If you're nice to them, the guys at Auto Zone will even install that air filter for you at no extra charge!

$50 spent today keeping your car in tune will save you MORE THAN $100 in gas!

It's not rocket science!

Posted by Dan Bouvier (Member # 2655) on 09-02-2005, 09:13 PM:

I'm just trading my truck in for a diesel Jetta. Diesel is where it's at.

quote: Lyle Romer
Until somebody figures out how to convert solar energy into electricity much more efficiently or comes up with a way to use solar energy to get hydrogen out of water extrememly efficiently, the only "clean" fuel that makes any sense is Nuclear power.

This article discusses other costs associated with nuclear power:

"It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.

In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming.

...In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste."

And so on, and whatnot. It's a good read.

quote: Lyle Romer
Wind power chops up birds

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-02-2005, 09:22 PM:

quote: Bob Maar
Has anyone tried a little gin with a splash of dry vermouth?

A friend of mine stretched his tank of diesel in his 64 Mercedees once with a bottle of gin so he didn't run out of fuel, worked fine but diesels are not as fussy as gas counterparts......

quote: Dan Bouvier
I'm just trading my truck in for a diesel Jetta. Diesel is where it's at.

Ok if you don't mind paying 50 to 75 cents more per gallon, at least in the U.S...... I doubt that you'd get much better if any better milage than a gas fueled Honda that runs on alot less expensive fuel. Then you also have the much higher maintainance costs for diesel engines to cope with as well. Cheaper.... not really at least in the U.S. it isn't.

quote:
But CFC is also a global warmer

Its an interesting article but some of it is baloney and the above line is one of them. Go back to the 1880's and up into the 1930's.... you'd find that the emmission of greenhouse gasses to be anywhere from ten to 100 times WORSE than it is today. There is no definative proof that CFC's are a major cause of the global warming that DOESN'T even exist.

The best solution for spent neuclear fuel is to store it where it is and leave the costs up to each individual power entity that is running a given reactor. It takes ALOT more than just the plutonium from a power plant to make a nuclear bomb although a dirty bomb is certainly possible if those making the bomb survive the radiation exposure from working with the material and handling it. Plutonium from a power plant reactor is ALOT diffferent than the Plutonium that is used to make a fission bomb with the spent reactor fuel typically being much much much more hot and hence alot more difficult to even onsider handling, or attempting to steal for that matter. In order to steal with exposure they'd have to move it in its cask which amounts to moving some very extreme tonnage.

When they transmutate uranium into plutonium to make fission bombs it is done in a completely different type of reactor and for a much shorter duration( weeks or months) than is the fuel in a power plant reactor(years)..... Some weapons grade plutonium can even be handled with the bare hands... as was all the plutonium that was used to make all the fission bombs of the US arsenal for the first 15 or 20 years. This plutonium only feels just slightly warm to the touch and it also has a short life span as compared to power plant fuel.

Mark

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-02-2005, 09:41 PM:

quote:
I can understand people who use large vehicles for work or for other reasons. My neighbor is a contractor. He needs a truck and a trailer to haul tools, equipment and supplies. I can understand people who use their vehicles on routes or field service. But, what I FAIL to understand is people who think they can drive huge 4-wheelers around town as daily transportation. And, DON'T give me that "safety" arguement! You KNOW that's a batch of crap! The closest thing they will ever get to off-roading is when they pull it up onto the lawn to wash it! It REALLY cheezes me off to hear that people are now whining because the price of gas is too high! TOO FUCKING BAD! You made a STUPID decision! LIVE WITH IT or GET ANOTHER CAR!

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! I see tons of single guys running around in these giant gas-guzzling SUVs. This is just macho bullshit. And gas in STILL far cheaper here than it is in Europe. I drive a 4-cylinder manual Accord that averages a little over 30mpg. It's 165hp (I think) and I don't see why anyone needs more. I had an 89 Acura Integra that was about 130 HP, but it got 40mpg. But over the years, they kept on increasing performance, so the gas mileage went down on newer models.

I'm totally in favor of wind power. If a few seagulls get chopped up, I have no problem. I was in the Netherlands last year and they have these wind farms all over the place. Personally, I think they look fine and unless you get real close to them, they do not make any perceptible noise. I have no problem placing them 10 miles out in the ocean (where they make great artificial reefs) or in relatively unpopulated areas in the midwest or over trash dumps. If we don't get off fossil fuels, we're going to wake up one day and there won't be any more. And even if that wasn't the case, how dependent do we want to be on South America and the Mideast? We are so freaking short-sighted and dumb.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-02-2005, 10:25 PM:

quote: Martin Brooks
I see tons of single guys running around in these giant gas-guzzling SUVs. This is just macho bullshit.

Gosh, how do you know they're single? You're right about it being bullshit... but it pertains to your post.

I would have NO problem with gasoline prices going up to $6.00+ a gallon for PRIVATE vehicles. That would stop some of the unnecessary driving and traffic congestion as well as stop a lot of crime.

I think that the truckers, mass transportation, and business people should be given a lower rate because they are necessary for our economy. Let the private parties pick up the difference via higher rates if they think they HAVE to drive.

All you whiners and so-called do-good'ers that are yapping about the SUVs, get real! If you think they are all in general gas-guzzlers, you are really a fucking jerk and unenlightened. You NEED to do your homework before you spout your rhetoric since your stupidity is showing,. You must be listening to the TV jerk's
news stories that are there for ratings. Stand on your own 2-feet and think for yourself! Most SUV's are very efficient. JFC!

Besides, many people need SUVs for their biz and others to carry kids around. Quit you whining and get enlightened!

How about cutting WAY back on airline travel...or luxury ship cruises? Those consume MORE fuel and waste more fuel than one can imagine. Or maybe keep that thermostat a little higher this winter?

Yous NEED to put your actions where your mouth is... Ummm with some sort of knowledge of what you're yapping about!

Oh yes, and BTW: Let's fuckup our coastlines with MORE crap by putting windmills there! How fucking stupit! The real answer to the energy problem is nuclear power plants and renewable energy sources...

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-02-2005, 10:53 PM:

David said "Ethanol is a sham. Fuggedaboudit"
Funny we have been mixing it with gasoline up here particularly in winter months with no issues just like Bio diesel is gaining ground which I believe is a cut with SoyaOil
In fact I know several people that are running there diesel engines on old fat fryer oil [Smile]

Posted by Dan Bouvier (Member # 2655) on 09-03-2005, 12:33 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Ok if you don't mind paying 50 to 75 cents more per gallon, at least in the U.S.

It's about 10 cents a litre CHEAPER here, not to mention the better mileage. It's more in the US? That's messed up. I thought it was cheaper to refine, and thus cheaper to sell.

But yeah, when gas goes up high enough people will start walking or riding bicycles. Then the obesity epidemic will go away too, and air pollution will go down. It's win-win.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 09-03-2005, 01:02 AM:

Somewhat less diesel/#2 fuel can be extracted from a barrel of oil than gasoline, if the number of diesel autos increases significantly diesel will be more expensive.

Posted by Dan Bouvier (Member # 2655) on 09-03-2005, 03:57 AM:

Wikipedia Diesel

"Diesel is generally simpler to refine than gasoline and often costs less (though price fluctuations often mean that the inverse is true).

Diesel contains approximately 18% more energy per unit of volume than gasoline, which along with the greater efficiency of diesel engines contributes to fuel economy (distance traveled per volume of fuel consumed)."

That's all I'm saying. Besides, I'm drunk.

Posted by John Hegel (Member # 628) on 09-03-2005, 04:07 AM:

quote: Phil Hill
Oh yes, and BTW: Let's fuckup our coastlines with MORE crap by putting windmills there! How fucking stupit! The real answer to the energy problem is nuclear power plants and renewable energy sources...

I think wind energy has its place in the world too. I agree that the coastline should be preserved. We have several wind farms in this area (middle of nowhere) and as far as I know there are no ill effects to the environment.

The noise issues has been blown way out of proportion. I have stood under these generators many times and the noise is nothing compared to the highway/interstate traffic that is in the same area.

Bad picture, but I think it looks cool at night.

This farm has 102 generators.

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 09-03-2005, 05:02 AM:

quote: Wolff King Morrow
Allison, mythbusters showed that the bananas will immediately get blown out the tail pipe from the intense pressure. No matter how many they crammed in there (including a potato) it always instantly got blown clean out of the pipe when they gunned the engine.

Myth Busters also said that a can of soda in a car won't explode. Bull Shit! I had one explode while I was driving, I thought I'd been shot.

Diesel is only about 5 cents more per gallon than regular in my town. I have a friend that drove a Volkswagen Rabbit in high school that got 60 mpg in the city (until his sister ran it without oil and blew the engine).

His maintenance (minus his sister's stupidity) was less than any car I've ever had, but your experience may vary...

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 09-03-2005, 08:27 AM:

I drive a Dodge Durango and I'm single. If that makes me an asshole, then so be it.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-03-2005, 10:11 AM:

quote:
Besides, many people need SUVs for their biz and others to carry kids around. Quit you whining and get enlightened!

Already stipulated in previous post.

quote:
Most SUV's are very efficient. JFC!

Unless you have some very counterintuitive information, I wonder how it can be said that a vehicle which gets 1/2 the mileage out of a gallon of fuel and which has 1/3 the fuel efficiency of other cars is "very efficient".

quote: Phil Hill
I think that the truckers, mass transportation, and business people should be given a lower rate because they are necessary for our economy...

Abs-O-FREAKIN'-lutely!!

I'll do you one better! Each privately owned vehicle should be subject to a yearly excise tax inversely proportional to its fuel economy. The proceeds of which go to research and development of more fuel efficient vehicles and/or to road maintenance.

THAT would keep unnecessary traffic off the roads AND bring down fuel consumption which would, in turn, bring down fuel prices. That would further relieve the burden on commercial transportation. THAT would have the net effect of removing a huge burden on the ENTIRE economy.

They tried a smaller version of this back in the '70s but the auto makers bitched and got the rules changed. Only in the last couple of weeks has the government tried to put those standards back in place... And the auto makers are STILL bitching!

But I STILL maintain that, no matter WHAT kind of vehicle you think you have to drive, you should keep the engine and power train tuned up and in tip-top condition. I do it with my car and I'm getting almost 1% better efficiency and 10% better fuel mileage out of it than the specs say it's supposed to. THAT uses 20% LESS crude oil than this already (reasonably) fuel efficient car is designed to use.

It's one thing that virtually everybody who reads this board is capable of doing themselves by taking a trip to the auto parts store and spending $50 or less. It's one thing that virtually everybody in the country is capable of doing by taking their car to a mehanic and paying $100 or less.

It's the one thing that people avoid doing but instead would rather bitch about how expensive fuel is than spend time thinking up exotic ways to weasel out of the position they have gotten themselves into. If you don't like it, send your sub-10 MPG gas guzzler to the scrap heap and buy a better car!

When the day comes when these people are sitting by the side with empty gas tanks and MY car cruises by I'll be sure to wave to them... With one finger! [fu]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-03-2005, 10:45 AM:

And yet amazingly, I remember a time when kids did not get hauled around in SUVs. For the most part, I find SUVs a stupid vehicle, except for off-roaders...but that is my opinion and I wouldn't want any law to hinder their use...that is a person's choice.

As to fuel prices...nope I don't believe in subsidizing mass transportation...if it is a better method (cheaper/time saving or a good combination) people will use it. When I've been in NYC...I used the subway all the time. When I worked in DC during the 9-5 hours...I used it mostly...when I've worked out of the conventional 9-5 life...you can't depend on DC's Mass transit to get you home. Any mass-transit that doesn't run 24-hours is a sham and I don't desire to put my tax dollars into it.

As a service tech, it is impossible for me to use mass-transit now and I often am driving alone since 2 or more techs are often not needed for most jobs...why should I be penalized for not being more than one person and using a conventional vehicle? HOV lanes are a sham too...all they do is CAUSE congestion...I watched them go up and watch traffic get worse the moment they turned the new lanes into HOV lanes.

As for taxation on property that is already owned...you can stick that too. The tax was paid when purchased (VA is trying to phase out that stupid tax now...aka personal property tax). Tax at the pump should not go into a general fund but should go to improving the roadway systems and go towards R&D for alternative and better fuels. The tax at the pump will penalize the "Gas guzzlers" in that they will being paying for the inefficent vehicle...if they need the vehicle for real or perceived reasons...that will just be the cost of operating the vehicle. Those that choose to use more efficient vehicles...will simply pay less (need to fill up less and consequently pay less tax).

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-03-2005, 12:22 PM:

quote: Dan Bouvier
which along with the greater efficiency of diesel engines contributes to fuel economy

In all likely hood your government is subsidizing some of the fuel production. The Canadian gvernment is famous for subsidizing many things.... inlcuding the film industry up there.....
Indeed diesel fuel may be easier to refine but you also get considerably get less #2 out of a barrel. Hence the higher cost. Just wait till you have to have it repaired the first time... especially a VW..... there goes ANY savings that you had gained.....

Mark

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-03-2005, 12:35 PM:

just remeber subsidies come out of the tax base that we all pay for
The oil industry ecieves almost no credits yet is probably the most taxed outside of smokes and booze [Smile]

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 09-03-2005, 04:13 PM:

quote: Phil Hill
Oh yes, and BTW: Let's fuckup our coastlines with MORE crap by putting windmills there! How fucking stupit! The real answer to the energy problem is nuclear power plants and renewable energy sources..

Nuclear power plant construction projects begin in the BILLIONS, with a B. Moreover, wind power is a renewable resource according to to those in the energy business. But since I like you Phil, I'll wont allow those two slip ups to affect your overall grade my class. [Big Grin]

quote: Randy Stankey
THAT would keep unnecessary traffic off the roads AND bring down fuel consumption which would, in turn, bring down fuel prices. That would further relieve the burden on commercial transportation. THAT would have the net effect of removing a huge burden on the ENTIRE economy.

The truth is nothing will keep unnecessary traffic off the roads. The pundits told us that when gas got to $1.75 people would think twice before going out. Then they told us the same thing at $2.00, $2.50, and now - even at $3.19 - there seems to be no let up in peoples' driving habits. Any tax will be chalked up as just another expense in taking the kids to school, going to the mall, or traveling hundreds of miles from home to visit an old college room mate. My Proof? For starters AAA's report on Labor Day 2005 traffic projections. Numerous other Federal studies show increases like this as well.

And one more point: Who will benefit from the tax? It won't be the end users. If the Feds collect this tax, state governments will feel they are not getting their fair share of revenue from their citizens. States with major refineries would probably be the first to pass and attach their own percentage bills to the over all cost per gallon while claiming its needed to keep the refinery humming or improve the environment (both of which WILL BE BULL SHIT). What might start out as $30.00 or $40.00 tax on an efficient vehicle might become a total cost of $90.00 or $100.00 after the greedy politicos at the state level are finished. Lastly how do you define R & D. I'm at work right now on an industry related website, but not necessarily debating industry related points. Am I still conducting research or am I doing my own thing and wasting company dollars? Its a gray area.

On paper your tax plan looks great, but unfortunately even communism looks great on paper. It just wont work.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-08-2005, 12:45 PM:

[/QUOTE]

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
There is no definative proof that CFC's are a major cause of the global warming

CFC (Chlorofluorocarbon) emissions are implicated in destroying upper atmospheric ozone, not global warming:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/index.html

quote:
The Science of Ozone Depletion

Ozone depletion is the result of a complex set of circumstances and chemistry. This page has links to articles that give overviews or broad information, shorter pieces that focus on specific aspects of ozone depletion, images and animations of ozone levels and ozone depletion, and international organizations that issue regular updates.

http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/defns.html#ods

[QUOTE] Ozone-Depleting Substance(s) (ODS): a compound that contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion
ODS include CFCs, HCFCs, halons, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform. ODS are generally very stable in the troposphere and only degrade under intense ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. When they break down, they release chlorine or bromine atoms, which then deplete ozone. A detailed list of class I and class II substances with their ODPs, GWPs, and CAS numbers are available.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-12-2005, 04:15 AM:

(Sorry to bring this old topic up, but I was telling a friend of mine about this acetone topic.)

Then I saw Randy's comment below that I must add to this due to what I read about in a neigbouring state the other day:

quote:
But, what I FAIL to understand is people who think they can drive huge 4-wheelers around town as daily transportation. And, DON'T give me that "safety" arguement! You KNOW that's a batch of crap!

A SUV (big ol' Ford Excursion POS) ran a stop sign and broadsided a regular mid-size car square in the driver's door. Driver of the car was immediately killed due to the higher bumper of the SUV literally folded the driver in half being that the SUV's bumper hit the soft part of the car-which is the doors.

Driver of the FORD got out of the SUV, unscathed - a woman claimed that wasn't paying attention to her driving since she was blabbing on the cel at the time and fighting with her kids in the back seat, just couldn't fathom on what she had done.

Kids were okey in their seatbelts in as well as the woman since the airbag popped to stop her from going into the windshield.

She then made the classic comment on why a huge vehicle - "I feel safe in such a vehicle." - but did she know that she was driving a huge steel battering ram-almost 3 tons of iron when not in motion, then going 55mph with a full ladder steel frame, whereas cars are mainly unibody construction..?

She faces a charge of vehicular manslaughter now...

-monte
-Monte

[ 10-12-2005, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-12-2005, 04:51 AM:

In the short-term a combination of biofuel, LPG and hybrid vehicles are the way to go, both to combat global warming and to reduce our dependancy on a resource, most of which is either controlled by religious extremists or in politically unstable countries (e.g. Russia). All it would take is for Iran to get the hump over the nuclear business and turn the oil off, or for someone like Zhirinovsky to take power in Russia and do likewise, and we'd all be seriously screwed. We can't solve that problem overnight, but every extra field of biofuel we plant and every more fuel efficient car we build reduces their hold over us that little bit more.

Solar energy on an industrial scale, nuclear fusion and renewable hydrogen production remain the holy grails, but AFAIK they're all several decades away, being realistic about it.

Personally I've got no problem with wind turbines, but their output is unreliable (i.e. no wind = no power) and apparently you'd need to install tens of thousands of them just to match the output of a medium-sized coal fired or nuclear power station: and in Britain, at least, we just don't have the land to do that.

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 10-12-2005, 04:55 AM:

quote: Randy Stankey
I'll do you one better! Each privately owned vehicle should be subject to a yearly excise tax inversely proportional to its fuel economy. The proceeds of which go to research and development of more fuel efficient vehicles and/or to road maintenance.

You know, every year we hear the same things out of various governments... We are rasing such and such a tax for such and such a cause. What happens? Well, the money from the new tax does go to the cause, but general funds that were going to that cause stop. Net result - new "car mileage tax" enriched the general fund and goes to funding some stupid pork project somewhere. Higher fuel costs will have a negative effect on the economy - adding more taxes onto that will only exacernbate the issue.

quote:
Ozone depletion is the result of a complex set of circumstances and chemistry. This page has links to articles that give overviews or broad information, shorter pieces that focus on specific aspects of ozone depletion, images and animations of ozone levels and ozone depletion, and international organizations that issue regular updates.

I have always wondered how CFC's - which are much heavier than air - make it in mass quantities to the ozone layer? I have hard from environmentalits that wids carry it up there, but that brings another question.. Since ozone is a big component of urban smog (and a regulated pollutant by the EPA), wouldn't those wids also carry the ground level ozone up too? How is it that the winds can carry the heavier CFC to the stratospere but not the ozone?

Something else I have always wondered... From what I recall from Chemisty, The ozone layer is created by UV radiation splitting O2 molecules into individual O atoms link up with other O2 molecules making O3 molecules (ozone). So, if we weaken the ozone which would allow more UV in, why would the increased UV not just end up creating more ozone? It seems to me that the antartic ozone hole that pops up in the fall is probably more the result of the near 6 months of darkness during the southern hemispheres winter and less the resulty of heavier than air chemicals that are/were used primarily in the northern hemisphere. I am not a scientist by any means, but onits face that appears to be a more likey senerio.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-12-2005, 09:31 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer

A SUV (big ol' Ford Excursion POS) ran a stop sign and broadsided a regular mid-size car square in the driver's door. Driver of the car was immediately killed due to the higher bumper of the SUV literally folded the driver in half being that the SUV's bumper hit the soft part of the car-which is the doors.

That is merely problem #1 with the SUV safety arguement.

In front or glancing side collisions the occupants of the larger vehicle WILL be safer but, as we have seen, the incidence of injury and death to the occupants of the OTHER cars that SUVs hit is GREATLY increased. As in Monte's example, the driver of the SUV could be liable for vehicular manslaughter if it can be shown that the driver was negligent. That negligence is MULTIPLIED because of the damage SUVs do to the things they hit.

In side collisions, SUVs are often no safer than other cars when you compensate for the size of the vehicle compared to the vehicle or object doing the colliding. Given enough force, an SUV will fold in half just as much as a Ford Escort. It just takes more force.

SUVs are also MUCH more likely to roll over in a (side) collision. In violent rollovers, SUVs are no safer than any other vehicle. The occupants get tossed around inside just the same way. Furthermore, SUVs are just a lot more likely to roll over when going around a sharp turn. Remember that Ford Explorer/Firestone tire recall? We had SUVs blowing tires and flipping over just going down the road! People seem to have conveniently short memories, sometimes!

Finally, the BIG arguement we get around here is that SUVs are better on slippery roads. That is FLAT OUT WRONG! SUVs have more mass and take more energy to get moving or stop. Tires are MORE likely to slip and spin on an icy surface. SUVs are MORE likely to slide off the road on an icy turn. Stopping an SUV on ice?! Forget it!

SUVs are better for going through deep snow, mud and sand. They are better at clearing obstacles. They are better for climbing hills. They are better for hauling and towing things. They are NOT better for driving on slippery roads unless those roads are impassible to other vehicles because of deep snow or obstructions.

I LIKE SUVs but not for daily driving. (The Lamborghine LM-2! It's like a Hummer but with STYLE!) They were meant for hauling and towing. People who use them for daily driving really need to think about what they are doing.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-12-2005, 12:20 PM:

The Ford Excursion actually weighs more than 8000 lbs, considerably more than Ford admits. An aquaintance who has one equipped with the gas engine and nothing in the way of extra equipment a while back had occasion to have it weighed with a 3/4 tank of gas and him in it 8700 pounds.

Spacewise it has a lot less than a fullsize passenger van and rides really badly, softer than a dump truck, but not much.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-12-2005, 02:46 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
Remember that Ford Explorer/Firestone tire recall?

..now who in their correct and right mind would tell their consumers to put 26LBS in a 235x75x16 tire mounted on a TRUCK that weight almost 3 tons then have that vehicle travel 80MPH on the highway..

You didn't see GMC and Chrysler tell their consumers to have tire pressure that low with their SUVS. Common sense would tell you to keep yur pressure between 45 to 60lbs with that much weight sitting on the rubber.

...I saw some "dirt" with this one coming from "The Rouge"

Yea, SUV's are easy to tip over with their high center of gravity. If you smack one right behind the rear wheel on the fender during motion, the damned thing will roll over very easy.

Now, are these vehicles "safe.." I hate riding in one. Like waiting for these damned things to tip over.

Sorry, didn't mean to turn this topic to a "let's bash SUV's around" sort of thing, but when safety is a huge factor on some things that mankind uses and is neglected or covered up by manufacturers in getting you to buy their product, it can "ruffle the feathers" so to say.

-Monte

[ 10-12-2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-12-2005, 05:27 PM:

If the maximum recommended pressure on the tire's sidewall is 35, you don't run it at 60. My Pathfinder's Toyo tires run at 35.

As far as the Explorer tire failure and rollover issue, Firestone had some serious quality control problems at that time. Firestone employees have stated that they were told by Firestone managers to overlook quality issues and just get the damn tires out of the factory, whether they met all the specs or not. So I don't think you can pin all the blame on Ford.

Gosh, I just realized I've driven SUVs since 1993 and I haven't rolled one yet, not once! Nor have my SUVs killed anyone. Typical newspaper headline: "Grandmother Run Down, Killed by SUV". Those crazy, evil SUVs are hunting down grandmothers and killing them for sport! [Eek!]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-12-2005, 06:51 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh
Gosh, I just realized I've driven SUVs since 1993 and I haven't rolled one yet, not once! Nor have my SUVs killed anyone.

..because you're one of the safe and responsible driver out there and understand and know the limits that Nissan has put on that vehicle that you own.

Myself why I don't like the SUV is due to that fact that these vehicles are just TOO big and too much of a vehicle for me to handle.

I do believe that this is half of the problem when you get a small individual handling such a huge mass of metal on four big oversized tires. Are they in control of such a mass of a vehicle?

These units actually wear me out, even though they have all the power goodies to help it along down the road.

And when you have something that big that wallows all over the road, feels so top-heavy due to the high center of gravity, and rides like a dumptruck due to the heaviness of the frame, where does one can and have control of such a cumbersome beast as these with a person of my smallish frame?

Sorry, once again on this - just had a ruffling of a topic of mine that, I guess, that I don't fully understand, yet can't see the objective of such a device.

thx-Monte

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-12-2005, 07:22 PM:

I know lots of people who have rolled SUVs, slid them into ditches and did all kinds of property damage when they smashed them into things. (Okay, I live in Pennsylvania. We do those things for SPORT around here! [Wink]

)

I'm not trying to paint all SUV drivers with the same brush but David and Monte are two points one one end of the spectrum. They both know their abilities and drive within their own personal limits. Then you have the stupid soccer mom on the other end of the spectrum. Not only does she NOT drive within the limits of her ability, she doesn't even KNOW her limits!

I propose that average American SUV driver lies pretty close to the "stupid" end of the spectrum.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-12-2005, 08:07 PM:

The reason I chose a Pathfinder as my first SUV in 1993 and again in 2001 was because they ride and handle more like a car than any of the competitive SUVs I tested. It's smallish (quite a bit shorter than an Explorer for example), and has a lower center of gravity. I'm not saying its rollover characteristics are the same as a typical passenger car, but neither does it wallow or otherwise feel truckish or overweight. It's actually fairly nimble.

I'm about ready to go back to a regular passenger car though, for better gas mileage.

Just to bring this back on-topic (heh), I would never dream of putting acetone in my Pathfinder's gas tank. [Big Grin]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-12-2005, 11:02 PM:

Thx, David and Randy, for putting up with my comments and opinions. - Monte

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-13-2005, 02:56 PM:

Hey! I'm pretty much in the same camp with you, Monte.

As much as I like SUVs for certain things, I think people need to stop using them as grocery getters and daily driving vehicles. SUVs are TRUCKS. Not a family cars! People need to stop driving them around town so much and start using them for what they were designed... WORK.

There are plenty of nice, roomy and featureful family vehicles out there, ranging from minivans to the good old family station wagon. (Station wagons are making a comeback, doncha' know!)

As much as we talk about the oil companies playing with supply and demand and as much as we talk about government's inability to deal with the problem, there is one way to help make the gas crisis easier to handle for ALL of us.

Use less gas!
To that end, drive cars that don't waste so much gas!

Any other behavior is just plain stupid!

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-13-2005, 07:24 PM:

So I should buy, insure and maintain two vehicles? One for 8am-6pm use (and November thru March use) and another for after that. MmmK.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-13-2005, 09:40 PM:

Maybe.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-14-2005, 02:45 AM:

Thx, Randy for your comments and support.

I must add another side to this SUV story is that of their price.

Where you point out on the "supply and demand" thingey with the oil companies, so does this "supply and demand" goes for the manufacturers and the dealers stealing the public blind.

How this is to be is that who in their right mind is going to afford such a vehicle with the prices that they are off the showroom floor.

Sheesh! when I bought my house 20yrs ago, these SUVS nowdays cost more than what my house price was back then. Only difference is that I'm making money on the house with the land value, but SUV's take a horrible beating in the first two years in value being so popular. Is the consumer ahead in that end of the market?

No, he want's his "Toy" and candy also and he'll go after it no matter what.

Okey, so to "balance" all of this is where the lease program comes in. Consumer plops down 2 to 3 grand to enter into a lease for 3 yrs/15k miles/year for 365 bucks/month. Consumer saves 300 bucks/month if he contracted that thing for 5yrs with 3grand down and have a title to the vehicle after 60months-IT's ALL HIS, nobody can touch him. BUT, signing on a lease is like flushing to toilet once a month for 36 months. He goes back at the end of the lease, see if he comes out ahead of the lease to get another vehicle, or have to fork over some extra bucks to balance the value so he can start the frikken cycle over again.

Meanwhile, automakers are seeing this lease trend, so their manufacturer quality take a bit of a nose dive knowing that they'll get their money up front on a sale or lease deal and don't care what happens down the road after the 3yrs of the lease is up.

Then to insure a beast like these is murder, especially when doing full coverage.

Let alone shoveling umteen hundered dollars in the gas tank per month..then your credit cards take the beating as well with those high percentage rates...

Brother! like a pile of dominos - one tips over and you've got a chaotic string happening here......until the consumer begins to get intelligent to get control of himself and face reality, or plunge over the cliff with the rest of the idiotic "lemmings".

Granted, people don't like hearing these things due to is sounds so pessimistic, but reality doesn't have to be pessimistic, but optimistic if one would stop and "look down the road from the other end" and realize what one would see.

(WHEW! - time to stop and come up for air..LOL)

-thx Monte

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-14-2005, 03:23 AM:

If the energy saved by using two task oriented vehicles outweighed the energy used in producing the second vehicle, Randy, I'd encourage people to consider it.

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Meanwhile, automakers are seeing this lease trend, so their manufacturer quality take a bit of a nose dive knowing that they'll get their money up front on a sale or lease deal and don't care what happens down the road after the 3yrs of the lease is up.

From automotive manufacturing industry experience dating back to when I was three years old, I'd have to say that that is pretty much as far from reality as you can get. For starters the product (the vehicle) hasn't even produced it's normal sale value at the end of three years. If the vehicle was no good at that point they'd have a hard time selling it for an additional 50% of the lease value to another consumer.

Many people claim the longevity of vehicles aren't what they used to be, but most any decrease can be traced back to a tradeoff for (often drastically) increased safety (for both the occupants and the public external to the vehicle).

Sure the manufacturers want to see you buy a new vehicle as often as possible. That's the business they are in. However, to claim that quality is moving backwards and not forwards, such a person has to be uninformed.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-14-2005, 05:00 PM:

When I was a kid, my Dad had a pickup truck and my Mom had a smaller car. My Dad drove his truck for work reasons. My Mom used her car for the family "grocery getter". If, for some reason, my Mom needed to use my Dad's truck they would switch vehicles for the day. On the other hand, if Dad only wanted to drive down the street he was likely to grab the car keys instead.

Many people ALREADY have two cars. The difference is that the majority of people don't choose what kind of car their second vehicle is based on economy. They base it purely on style.

If the decision of that second car would be made for more practical reasons, LOTS of fuel could be saved. Remember... If that second car was 1% more fuel efficient, 10% less gasoline would need to be refined into oil. Since it takes approximately 2 gallons of oil to make one gallon of gas our oil use and, subsequently our oil imports, would drop by as much as 20%. Assuming that everybody has two cars (They don't, really. Just assume.) and they bought one fuel efficient car to replace gas guzzler we could STILL see a drop in oil imports as large as 10%.

This doen't take into account whether or not people keep their cars tuned up and running in the most fuel efficient way possible. ANYBODY can do that no matter WHAT kind of car they drive! If everybody would do just this one thing and get their cars tuned up we could drop our oil consumption by no less than 5% OVERNIGHT!

I bet THAT would give the oil companies a shiver! [evil]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-14-2005, 05:37 PM:

I agree (and always have) that two plus driver families with two task oriented vehicles is a good idea in areas where it's sensible to do so. There are some areas where it's simply impossible to go anywhere in the winter in a car due to clearance issues in some snow belt areas like found on the edge of Georgian Bay, part of Lake Huron. For most of those people I don't think having a third vehicle for summer use is an economically sound idea (you'd have to drive it a lot during those summer months to realize the cost savings due to higher efficiency and to balance the energy consumed in manufacturing that third vehicle).

Then again, Canada is, after all, an energy exporter. After the US tanking their dollar and killing my profit margins I don't mind watching them spend lots o' money on oil imports. [Big Grin]