Whats in it for you?
Do you know the rest of the western world has cars that do minimum 40 miles per gallon and quite often 60?
Whats in it for you?
Do you know the rest of the western world has cars that do minimum 40 miles per gallon and quite often 60?
Because those countries have artificially increased the price of fuel. If the US taxed the product to European levels, you would see a shift in behavior. (I am NOT advocating that).
We also live in relatively modern cities so we do not need small cars to navigate the roads.
I also hypothesize that many Americans have a bigger is better mentality. Certainly surrounding yourself with more metal has a safety advantage. The downside is when a small car and large car come into contact at high speed. You want to be in the larger vehicle.
because i don't care. so what if i drive a car with a flathead V8. you probably don't know what that is though, b/c you're so stuck in the "if it's more than 5 years old and isn't bio-degradable, then it's hurting the earth" crowd.
screw off you PC globalist.
The states & feds can help by issuing free plates, free parking, no sales tax, etc. to NO-Emissions Electric Vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf.
oh dear wrote:
Whats in it for you?
Do you know the rest of the western world has cars that do minimum 40 miles per gallon and quite often 60?
Try driving one of those cars through a South Dakota winter and then get back to me.
The only cars that can survive the Siberian winters are Honda and Toyota. The other cars are coffins.
oh dear wrote:
Whats in it for you?
Do you know the rest of the western world has cars that do minimum 40 miles per gallon and quite often 60?
I doubt anyone in those other countries talk about *miles* per *gallon* . . . .
Obama owns GM which effed up the Chevy Volt royal. It only gets 40 miles on battery, which means much less since you have to halt you trip to back home for a recharge. The Nissan Leaf gets 100 miles. Obama wants you to buy gasoline cars to pay off his welfare to GM.
maybe if they didn't make these green cars so retarded-looking, more people would get them.
i mean seriously, how hard is it to only replace the engine of these cars instead of also turning the body into a little futuristic princess car
keep the body, change the engine.
Like the high end luxury cars you find in Europe such as Mercedes and BMW? Or those ultra fast Italian sports cars? Do those things really get 40 mph? Probably not even 40 kph.
A pretty sophisticated analysis of the auto bailout here. Might want to enroll in a few history and finance classes.
Government Motors wrote:
Obama owns GM which effed up the Chevy Volt royal. It only gets 40 miles on battery, which means much less since you have to halt you trip to back home for a recharge. The Nissan Leaf gets 100 miles. Obama wants you to buy gasoline cars to pay off his welfare to GM.
joho wrote:
Like the high end luxury cars you find in Europe such as Mercedes and BMW? Or those ultra fast Italian sports cars? Do those things really get 40 mph? Probably not even 40 kph.
I think all those cars get 40 mph, especially the "ultra fast" ones.
what's the hardest part about buying a smart car?
telling your parents that you're gay.
not my opinion, but that is what a lot of americans think of those cars.
Because people who want to buy those car want to be noticed as being "superior" to you.
The Honda Civic Hybrid was a flop - it looked just like the Honda Civic but did have a "Hybrid" placard/logo.
I think it's good to conserve old metal. I've never owned a used car. I've got two vehicles: a 1992 Honda Accord with 340,000 miles on it; and a 1972 Chevy Cheyenne that gets at least 5 gallons per mile and is worth every gram of HCO2:
I agree with the tree-huggers: we should conserve. I conserve old metal. I don't care whether it's Japanese metal or American metal; I'm an internationalist.
I do care, though, that it have a loud, deep exhaust note. Very important.
Correction: I've never owned a NEW car. I have, however, owned a big margarita this evening, and my grammatology is suffering as a resultance.
CAUSE BIG TRUCKS ARE F***IN AWESOME!!!!!!!
yeh, i wish obama and the govt run car industry would get with the program. they're killing our planet! but noooo, he goes on vacation instead!
in the meantime Shiite warlords solidify control of Baghdad and obey the word of the Ayatollahs in Iran.
kudzurunner wrote:
I agree with the tree-huggers: we should conserve. I conserve old metal. I don't care whether it's Japanese metal or American metal; I'm an internationalist.
There is a saying in the green real estate and development industry (at least among those members of the industry who know what they're talking about): "The greenest building is the one that's already standing." People are constantly knocking down serviceable structures that they deem to be environmentally unfriendly to make room for new green buildings. Of course, the trucks that haul away the demolished building create more pollution in a day than the building itself would have generated in many years. Add in all the other trucks and equipment required for the demolition of the old structure and the construction of the new "green" building and you've just created more pollution than your non-green building would have created in a hundred years.
Same idea applies to cars, I suppose. Junking a serviceable gas guzzler to "go green" might seem like an environmentally friendly move, but it's probably really just the opposite. You're causing a car to be built. I don't know that emissions reduction that result from driving a cleaner vehicle offset all of the pollution associated with producing a new car and transporting the thing to your location.
On a different note, can we stop calling electric cars "no-emission" or "zero-emission" vehicles? An electric car is only zero-emission if the power source it is plugged into is zero-emission (nuke, hydro, etc). Otherwise, the car is most likely running on coal. All said, an electric car plugged into any source is probably cleaner than an internal combustion car, but it is not zero-emission.