Keith and Phil at AussieSeek.com Political Messageboards wrote:
at


http://www.aussieseek.com


Pete Said


Any Views?


--------------------------


Reality check for gas guzzlers
« Reply #1 on Today at 12:28am »


---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----

My V8 - an LS1 5.7 litre 6 speed manual is used almost exclusively for
regular interstate trips with four on-boad and
a trunk-load of heavy gear.


Without trying, according to the trip computer it regularly returns 8.9

litres per 100 Kms on ULP on these trips, a figure many 4 cylinder cars

with 2-up can't match. The best I have seen is 8.1litres/100 kms but
that was all downhill.


I would probably get even better figues if I didn't have to come off
cruise control and then reset because some dawdling dimwit in a
rice-burner is hogging the right (passing) - lane and won't move over
until he sees the whites of your eyes.


Makin, if LPG ever becomes an acceptable alternative in huge numbers,
it too will become expensive.


Or Ethanol? Look at BRAZIL. Cars are running there on Ethanol only. VW

has a model out


The Government in not about to see it's share of petrol products
revenue diminish, so whatever is used in viable numbers as an
alternative to petroleum will suffer the same profiteering fat



As titillating as it might be to hammer and rail about government
complicity in corporate profiteering, Ethanol comes with it's own set of
problems. Being a lower yield fuel per gram, a greater volume of it
needs to be produced to replace each gallon of petroleum based fuel use
in the population. Since Ethanol is produced by processes originating
with organic materials, usually corn or other high sugar/starch
producing crops, the demand for farm products will skyrocket. As they
have with soy diesel. And that's a good thing.

Until another scorching drought, like the two or three we've had over
the last 15 years, at least one of which wiped out the corn crop,
impacting not only ethanol prices (which in limited consumption STILL
spiked dramatically in price) as well as food prices. With growers
operating at a substantial percentage of capacity, if Ethanol were to
replace petroleum just in the US, production irregularities and
shortfalls would be as common as they are in petroleum, today.

The smart thing, but who in goverment, or activism, ever does the
smart thing. is to produce flexible fuel engines that can run on a
variety of fuels. Well, those Heathen Devil Evil Corporations are
already doing it.

Without government input.

GM, Ford and Chrysler having fielded a substantial percentage of
flex-fuel engines of their corporate fleets already. And having been
doing so for the last 5 years in some cases.

Chrysler has in each line of engines, at least one model, usually the
midrange power model, that is exclusively flex-fuel.

Damn, them evil *******s.

Flex-fuels will permit petro/ethanol blends to be run in virtually
any proportion, in response to the vagaries of production, demand, or
natural catastrophe no matter where the shortfall happens. Further, flex
fuels takes the pressures of both ethanol AND petroleum production, they
burn cleaner, and have been demonstrated to reduce maintenance and
repair costs on vehicles when they're tried. Solving a host of problems,
on all fronts, simultaneously.

Damn, them evil corporate monsters.

So, why do we not see flex fuel-pumps at every Exxon or Amoco station?

Good question. Because ExxonMobil and Amoco are champing at the bit
to put in flex-fuel pumps.

Seems that government regulations are getting in the way. Even here
in Illinois. And it's not about profits, or even taxes. Alcohol is taxed
just like petrol. And with more fuel avaialable to be sold, there would
be more per gallon tax raised for federal, state and local governments.
But that doesn't seem to matter.

Thank God we've got activism driven governmental agencies to protect
us from those evil corporate *******s.