More gasoline related B.S.

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: smack Down

Remind me again why there was a shortage of gas on 9/11. I don't recall the WTC as a major gas supplyer. Could it be that jackasses decided to go fill up there gas cans and horded it in there left bunker they built for y2k.

Any respectable paranoid buys for storage when the prices are low not when something happens to panic the public where they rush to the pumps. Gasoline treated with a fuel stabilizer will stay good for a couple years or more.

The pain in the ass part is rotating it. I hate doing that.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: smack Down

Remind me again why there was a shortage of gas on 9/11. I don't recall the WTC as a major gas supplyer. Could it be that jackasses decided to go fill up there gas cans and horded it in there left bunker they built for y2k.

Any respectable paranoid buys for storage when the prices are low not when something happens to panic the public where they rush to the pumps. Gasoline treated with a fuel stabilizer will stay good for a couple years or more.

The pain in the ass part is rotating it. I hate doing that.

I like the surplus 5 gal jerry cans for this. Just take from one end and add to the other.

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: akiraxtc
Heh i wish gas prices would go to $5 or 6 /gal soon. Can't wait. This nation's dependence on oil is because of its cheap gas. If gas prices were up high, i'm pretty sure people will have more effort to conserve gas, carpool, telecommute or whatever. Heck, alternative fuel development might even get serious.

I agree with you; 30 years ago as the US was going throught the 1970's energy crisis:

President Jimmy Carter
We must face the prospect of changing our basic ways of living. This change will either be made on our own initiative in a planned way, or forced on us with chaos and suffering by the inexorable laws of nature.

The "increase" in alternative fuels funding has been a joke under presidents on boths sides of the aisle! Brazil is currently running 75% of their vehicles on sugar-ethanol and Iceland runs EVERYTHING on hydrogen. India uses LNG for most of the public infrastructure (i.e. taxis, buses, et al) and we are still totally dependant on oil...(stay away from politics as much as I can since this isnt P&N)

 

[m2kewl]

can't these people just come up with a less pathetic excuse the 'gas shortage'

i mean come on...

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: akiraxtc
Heh i wish gas prices would go to $5 or 6 /gal soon. Can't wait. This nation's dependence on oil is because of its cheap gas. If gas prices were up high, i'm pretty sure people will have more effort to conserve gas, carpool, telecommute or whatever. Heck, alternative fuel development might even get serious.

I agree with you; 30 years ago as the US was going throught the 1970's energy crisis:

Jimmy Carter
We must face the prospect of changing our basic ways of living. This change will either be made on our own initiative in a planned way, or forced on us with chaos and suffering by the inexorable laws of nature.

The "increase" in alternative fuels funding has been a joke under presidents on boths sides of the aisle! Brazil is currently running 75% of their vehicles on sugar-ethanol and Iceland runs EVERYTHING on hydrogen. India uses LNG for most of the public infrastructure (i.e. taxis, buses, et al) and we are still totally dependant on oil...(stay away from politics as much as I can since this isnt P&N)

Neither country has anything close to our energy requirements.

Not to say that energy self sufficiency is not possible for the US (in fact I regularly point out that it is possible and desirable in P&N), just a lot harder because of the sheer demand we have.

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: K1052

Neither country has anything close to our energy requirements.

Not to say that energy self sufficiency is not possible for the US (in fact I regularly point out that it is possible and desirable in P&N), just a lot harder because of the sheer demand we have.

True...and I totally agree with you, although Inida is getting close...Mumbai makes NYC look almost like a town a fraction of the size.

I hope that we CAN be energy independant in the future...just need to get the gas ceo's heads out from under their vast piles of cash!😉

Edit:With picture now! Chennai Streets

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: Phil

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Lonyo
We get to pay the equivelant of $6.75, so STFU with all your whining bullcrap kthx.

We can whine all we want. If you want cheaper gas, then move or lobby your government to cut the 75% of the price of your gas TAX!!!

If America wants cheaper gas, then maybe America should have stopped building >3.0 litre cars a long time ago.

What's funny to me is that the Ferrari F430 gets worse gas milage than a Chevrolet Z06. It has less displacement and makes less power. There's a LOT more to fuel economy than displacement.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: Phil

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Lonyo
We get to pay the equivelant of $6.75, so STFU with all your whining bullcrap kthx.

We can whine all we want. If you want cheaper gas, then move or lobby your government to cut the 75% of the price of your gas TAX!!!

If America wants cheaper gas, then maybe America should have stopped building >3.0 litre cars a long time ago.

What's funny to me is that the Ferrari F430 gets worse gas milage than a Chevrolet Z06. It has less displacement and makes less power. There's a LOT more to fuel economy than displacement.

But if you go back a few years, the American mentality was (and in some respects, still is) "there is no replacement for displacement". It's only now that America is beginning to open its eyes and realise that huge engines = pollution.
If American manufacturers had stopped making enormous engines years ago in efforts to increase power, and instead had focused on efficiency then they might not be in this predicament.
Heck, here in the UK the most common engine sizes are between 1.6 and 2.0. Sure, we have less ground to cover, but that didn't stop me travelling thousands of miles a year with a previous job in a 1.5 turbodiesel car. It was definitely not the fastest thing out there, not by a long shot, but it was more than enough to cruise at 80mph all day, and returned an average over the year of 62mpg.

 

[Moab]

Where the hell do you keep 30 gallons of spare gas?

That sounds ridiculous for a normal person living anywhere but up in the mountans and very dangerous.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moab
Where the hell do you keep 30 gallons of spare gas?

That sounds ridiculous for a normal person living anywhere but up in the mountans and very dangerous.

In sealed metal gas cans out in our detached garage where we have our lawn equipment.

Most people pull 20+ gallons and an ignition source into their house every night (car/truck).

It isn't dangerous.

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: Phil

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Lonyo
We get to pay the equivelant of $6.75, so STFU with all your whining bullcrap kthx.

I suppose it's easier when the furthest you have to drive on any given day is 30 feet. I commute 300 miles twice a day to my high paying, low stress job.

32miles each way, daily.
In my last job, 350+miles per day was an average day. STFU, kthxbye.

YOu are NOT the average for Europe. Don't even try pulling that b.s.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: Phil

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Lonyo
We get to pay the equivelant of $6.75, so STFU with all your whining bullcrap kthx.

I suppose it's easier when the furthest you have to drive on any given day is 30 feet. I commute 300 miles twice a day to my high paying, low stress job.

32miles each way, daily.
In my last job, 350+miles per day was an average day. STFU, kthxbye.

YOu are NOT the average for Europe. Don't even try pulling that b.s.

Never said I was, sweetheart. I was just pointing out that those of us who do have high-mileage jobs in Europe get a far, FAR worse deal than Americans.

 

[A5]

Originally posted by: Phil

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: Phil

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Lonyo
We get to pay the equivelant of $6.75, so STFU with all your whining bullcrap kthx.

We can whine all we want. If you want cheaper gas, then move or lobby your government to cut the 75% of the price of your gas TAX!!!

If America wants cheaper gas, then maybe America should have stopped building >3.0 litre cars a long time ago.

What's funny to me is that the Ferrari F430 gets worse gas milage than a Chevrolet Z06. It has less displacement and makes less power. There's a LOT more to fuel economy than displacement.

But if you go back a few years, the American mentality was (and in some respects, still is) "there is no replacement for displacement". It's only now that America is beginning to open its eyes and realise that huge engines = pollution.
If American manufacturers had stopped making enormous engines years ago in efforts to increase power, and instead had focused on efficiency then they might not be in this predicament.
Heck, here in the UK the most common engine sizes are between 1.6 and 2.0. Sure, we have less ground to cover, but that didn't stop me travelling thousands of miles a year with a previous job in a 1.5 turbodiesel car. It was definitely not the fastest thing out there, not by a long shot, but it was more than enough to cruise at 80mph all day, and returned an average over the year of 62mpg.

Most of the cars in the US are probably 1.8-2.4 displacement. Most people have a mid-size car with an inline 4. (Now their 2nd car might be a 3.0 V6 SUV, but hey 😛)

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: akiraxtc
Heh i wish gas prices would go to $5 or 6 /gal soon. Can't wait. This nation's dependence on oil is because of its cheap gas. If gas prices were up high, i'm pretty sure people will have more effort to conserve gas, carpool, telecommute or whatever. Heck, alternative fuel development might even get serious.

While I don't share 100% of your cynicism, I do agree with your point. When sh¡t really starts hitting the fan, the system will correct itself like it always has.

I recently attended a lecture by Sir Harry Kroto (the scientist who discovered Bucky balls). He complained that politicians strive all the time to satisfy the infinite wants of the populus, and everybody just assumes that scientists will pick up the slack. That might not always happen.

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: Phil

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: Phil

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Lonyo
We get to pay the equivelant of $6.75, so STFU with all your whining bullcrap kthx.

We can whine all we want. If you want cheaper gas, then move or lobby your government to cut the 75% of the price of your gas TAX!!!

If America wants cheaper gas, then maybe America should have stopped building >3.0 litre cars a long time ago.

What's funny to me is that the Ferrari F430 gets worse gas milage than a Chevrolet Z06. It has less displacement and makes less power. There's a LOT more to fuel economy than displacement.

But if you go back a few years, the American mentality was (and in some respects, still is) "there is no replacement for displacement". It's only now that America is beginning to open its eyes and realise that huge engines = pollution.
If American manufacturers had stopped making enormous engines years ago in efforts to increase power, and instead had focused on efficiency then they might not be in this predicament.
Heck, here in the UK the most common engine sizes are between 1.6 and 2.0. Sure, we have less ground to cover, but that didn't stop me travelling thousands of miles a year with a previous job in a 1.5 turbodiesel car. It was definitely not the fastest thing out there, not by a long shot, but it was more than enough to cruise at 80mph all day, and returned an average over the year of 62mpg.

it's interesting you say that...my friend has a 325i, and he once said, this is about 3 years ago, 'american auto makers haven't caught on to the idea that bigger doesn't neccesarily mean more powerful'

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moab
Where the hell do you keep 30 gallons of spare gas?

That sounds ridiculous for a normal person living anywhere but up in the mountans and very dangerous.

In sealed metal gas cans out in our detached garage where we have our lawn equipment.

Most people pull 20+ gallons and an ignition source into their house every night (car/truck).

It isn't dangerous.

It all depends whether you know what you're doing. Car companies face major liability, so with an army of combustion engineers, they make their gas tanks safe.

Gas is harder to burn than most people think. (Believe me, I was a childhood pyro.) It's the FUMES that burn, so if you keep it well-sealed to the point where you'd have too high of a concentration of gas vapors inside to burn (higher than the UEL), you're good.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: A5

Originally posted by: Phil

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: Phil

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Lonyo
We get to pay the equivelant of $6.75, so STFU with all your whining bullcrap kthx.

We can whine all we want. If you want cheaper gas, then move or lobby your government to cut the 75% of the price of your gas TAX!!!

If America wants cheaper gas, then maybe America should have stopped building >3.0 litre cars a long time ago.

What's funny to me is that the Ferrari F430 gets worse gas milage than a Chevrolet Z06. It has less displacement and makes less power. There's a LOT more to fuel economy than displacement.

But if you go back a few years, the American mentality was (and in some respects, still is) "there is no replacement for displacement". It's only now that America is beginning to open its eyes and realise that huge engines = pollution.
If American manufacturers had stopped making enormous engines years ago in efforts to increase power, and instead had focused on efficiency then they might not be in this predicament.
Heck, here in the UK the most common engine sizes are between 1.6 and 2.0. Sure, we have less ground to cover, but that didn't stop me travelling thousands of miles a year with a previous job in a 1.5 turbodiesel car. It was definitely not the fastest thing out there, not by a long shot, but it was more than enough to cruise at 80mph all day, and returned an average over the year of 62mpg.

Most of the cars in the US are probably 1.8-2.4 displacement. Most people have a mid-size car with an inline 4. (Now their 2nd car might be a 3.0 V6 SUV, but hey 😛)

The Nissan Altima 2.5 is VERY common (and that's just outside of your range). Don't forget about the 4.0L V6 they're putting in the base model Mustangs, never mind the 4.6L V8. I would say the median displacement is low, yes, but the extremeties are more than enough to make the displacement-weighted average quite high.

Displacement means almost nothing when you're talking about gas efficiency. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it's true. What really matters are the energy losses of a heavy and boxy car, which correlate well to high-displacement motors.

If you take a 4.6L Ford motor (tuned like they had it in the Cobras a few years back) and somehow find a way to drop it into a Honda Insight, you'll be shocked at the economy.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Lonyo
We get to pay the equivelant of $6.75, so STFU with all your whining bullcrap kthx.

I suppose it's easier when the furthest you have to drive on any given day is 30 feet. I commute 300 miles twice a day to my high paying, low stress job.

😕 600 miles a day is 10 hours of driving at best. I hope you're joking.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Phil
But if you go back a few years, the American mentality was (and in some respects, still is) "there is no replacement for displacement". It's only now that America is beginning to open its eyes and realise that huge engines = pollution.
If American manufacturers had stopped making enormous engines years ago in efforts to increase power, and instead had focused on efficiency then they might not be in this predicament.
Heck, here in the UK the most common engine sizes are between 1.6 and 2.0. Sure, we have less ground to cover, but that didn't stop me travelling thousands of miles a year with a previous job in a 1.5 turbodiesel car. It was definitely not the fastest thing out there, not by a long shot, but it was more than enough to cruise at 80mph all day, and returned an average over the year of 62mpg.

Large engines don't equal pollution. They tend to equal consumption. In terms of emissions, the 4.6 litre V8 in my mustang pollutes less than a TDI engine from VW. It also gets the same mileage as my 951, which has only 2.5 litres of displacement.

ZV

 

[Sentinel]

Oil oil and some more oil. AH sick of this sh!t.

 

[imported_Phil]

Okay, okay, let me rephrase that. Big engines usually equal a higher consumption of gasoline.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Phil
But if you go back a few years, the American mentality was (and in some respects, still is) "there is no replacement for displacement". It's only now that America is beginning to open its eyes and realise that huge engines = pollution.
If American manufacturers had stopped making enormous engines years ago in efforts to increase power, and instead had focused on efficiency then they might not be in this predicament.
Heck, here in the UK the most common engine sizes are between 1.6 and 2.0. Sure, we have less ground to cover, but that didn't stop me travelling thousands of miles a year with a previous job in a 1.5 turbodiesel car. It was definitely not the fastest thing out there, not by a long shot, but it was more than enough to cruise at 80mph all day, and returned an average over the year of 62mpg.

Large engines don't equal pollution. They tend to equal consumption. In terms of emissions, the 4.6 litre V8 in my mustang pollutes less than a TDI engine from VW. It also gets the same mileage as my 951, which has only 2.5 litres of displacement.

ZV

Your 4.6L puts out a LOT more CO2 than the VW TDI. The only thing it makes less of is particulates, which is what ignorant people think is the real problem.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Moab
Where the hell do you keep 30 gallons of spare gas?

That sounds ridiculous for a normal person living anywhere but up in the mountans and very dangerous.

Sealed gas cans.
I keep 30 gallons because of two reasons. First, its what I need to fill my truck. Essentially I have 1 full tank of gas the garage should I need it.
Secondly, I have a generator. A generator without fuel is worthless.

Its very safe to store as long as you follow basic precautions.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Your 4.6L puts out a LOT more CO2 than the VW TDI. The only thing it makes less of is particulates, which is what ignorant people think is the real problem.

Results from my emissions test on my last 4.6 (in the Lincoln), the Mustang should fare better as it's 11 years newer.

Cruise emissions: HC 14 PPM; CO 0%
Idle emissions: HC 13 PPM; CO 0.06%

CO2 emissions are not measured because CO2 is not an environmental danger. CO is, CO2 is not. Thanks for playing though.

ZV

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Your 4.6L puts out a LOT more CO2 than the VW TDI. The only thing it makes less of is particulates, which is what ignorant people think is the real problem.

Results from my emissions test on my last 4.6 (in the Lincoln), the Mustang should fare better as it's 11 years newer.

Cruise emissions: HC 14 PPM; CO 0%
Idle emissions: HC 13 PPM; CO 0.06%

CO2 emissions are not measured because CO2 is not an environmental danger. CO is, CO2 is not. Thanks for playing though.

ZV

Two things.

1. What sort of MPG are you getting on your 4.6 and your Porsche?

2. CO2 isn't an environmental danger, but it's a problem, surely? Just curious 🙂