YaHooka Forums  

Go Back   YaHooka Forums > The Chronic Colloquials > Sports And Autos
Home FAQ Social Groups Links Mark Forums Read

Sports And Autos This forum is for social conversation about sports This is no place for name calling, or bashing.. Please keep it clean and respectable..

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-03-2006, 10:39 AM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,816
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Car Engine Design Breakthrough Reported on CBS News 50+MPG

Car Engine Design Breakthrough Reported on CBS News
http://www.wanttoknow.info/060303carenginebreakthrough
PsyOpKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 12:08 PM   #2 (permalink)
Decade Yahookan
 
DubStyle311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: down the highway
Posts: 7,517
Thanks: 1
Thanked 92 Times in 74 Posts
Quote:
"A car that can go from zero to 60 in four seconds and get more than 50 miles to the gallon would be enough to pique any driver's interest. So who do we have to thank for it. Ford? GM? Toyota? No — just Victor, David, Cheeseborough, Bruce, and Kosi, five kids from the auto shop program at West Philadelphia High School."
yeahhhhhhh nigga...


philly represent
__________________
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
DubStyle311 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 12:24 PM   #3 (permalink)
Keezheekoni
 
Geeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Scam City
Posts: 30,718
Thanks: 4,802
Thanked 10,315 Times in 4,893 Posts
wonder what the auto industry has to say for itself.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury View Post
i've struck the absolute perfect balance between gay and smart

☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ we JACKED, you mad?☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★
Geeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 12:33 PM   #4 (permalink)
Decade Yahookan
 
DubStyle311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: down the highway
Posts: 7,517
Thanks: 1
Thanked 92 Times in 74 Posts
did anyone notice one of the guys name is Cheeseborough?
__________________
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
DubStyle311 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 12:35 PM   #5 (permalink)
Lushous
 
SmokeSomeDoja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Erogenous Zones
Posts: 19,662
Thanks: 237
Thanked 456 Times in 291 Posts
whoa. crazy shit
__________________
fotoz fo yo azz



"I've run over black cats that were luckier than me."


SmokeSomeDoja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 12:51 PM   #6 (permalink)
Beaming live from orbit
 
espiex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Over the hills and far away
Posts: 1,013
Thanks: 5
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubStyle311
did anyone notice one of the guys name is Cheeseborough?
I did. I'm so naming one of my kids Cheeseborough.
__________________
-=|=-
espiex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 04:35 PM   #7 (permalink)
Thcboy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In the near future, there isn't going to be any reason to keep efficiency down. Oil demand will continue to rise as production falls, so 100% of the oil produced will be consumed no matter what. In that case it will actually be beneficial for oil companies to have more fuel efficient models, as they will be able to charch more for their oil.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 06:16 PM   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,271
Thanks: 445
Thanked 149 Times in 76 Posts
Doesn't this article look like crap to you? If there was some kind of breakthrough then where is the news? They don't even say what the breakthrough is! This acticle is shit, I want to know about this engine not some guy's opinion on the auto-industry.
Mull D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 06:31 PM   #9 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,816
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by moldyorangepeel
Doesn't this article look like crap to you? If there was some kind of breakthrough then where is the news? They don't even say what the breakthrough is! This acticle is shit, I want to know about this engine not some guy's opinion on the auto-industry.
did you read the whole article? did you click on the first link in it?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1329941.shtml
PsyOpKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 06:41 PM   #10 (permalink)
Special Delivery
 
Mercury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The States
Posts: 10,627
Thanks: 486
Thanked 968 Times in 639 Posts
I'm under the impression GM and Toyota knew how to do that a long time ago.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by DdC View Post
Oh Mercury eat shit for us again eh, you're a funny lil turd.
Mercury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 06:48 PM   #11 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,816
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Kandy
I'm under the impression GM and Toyota knew how to do that a long time ago.
not with that much tourqe
PsyOpKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 07:21 PM   #12 (permalink)
Decade Yahookan
 
DubStyle311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: down the highway
Posts: 7,517
Thanks: 1
Thanked 92 Times in 74 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thcboy
In the near future, there isn't going to be any reason to keep efficiency down. Oil demand will continue to rise as production falls, so 100% of the oil produced will be consumed no matter what. In that case it will actually be beneficial for oil companies to have more fuel efficient models, as they will be able to charch more for their oil.
crude oil will eventually reach a point where the price becomes so high that oil substitutes will skyrocket in popularity

simple macro economics
__________________
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
DubStyle311 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 08:16 PM   #13 (permalink)
Old School
 
Ass Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 153
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
^Except you can't necessarily switch over cheaply. If the substitutes require people to go buy new cars, there'll be a period when some people are forking over more and more for gas, until they've saved enough to switch.

As for this, it's very cool, true, but soybeans don't yield much oil per acre. You'd need a whole lot of land to grow all the soybeans required. Also, if you're changing to a different fuel, the mpg is going to be different, obviously. We should be looking at the cost per mile and emissions per mile of this compared to gasoline or diesel.
Ass Bandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 08:19 PM   #14 (permalink)
Decade Yahookan
 
DubStyle311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: down the highway
Posts: 7,517
Thanks: 1
Thanked 92 Times in 74 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ass Bandit
^Except you can't necessarily switch over cheaply. If the substitutes require people to go buy new cars, there'll be a period when some people are forking over more and more for gas, until they've saved enough to switch.
well, the law still holds true

anyway, i saw a commerical for a gmc truck that can use "flexfuel" and runs on ethanol
__________________
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
DubStyle311 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 08:24 PM   #15 (permalink)
Thcboy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Another problem is, the real amount of oil or ethanol pre acre of any plant is a lot less then it is using energy intensive farming methods. Right now 10 calories are burned producing fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and running farming equipment, for every calorie of food energy. This is fine for food, but you can see the problem with producing fuel this way. Any figures anyone provides concerning potential ethanol/biodiesel are probably at least twice what the real figures would be, looking at it from a true cost point of view.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 08:48 PM   #16 (permalink)
Lushous
 
SmokeSomeDoja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Erogenous Zones
Posts: 19,662
Thanks: 237
Thanked 456 Times in 291 Posts
how much oil (net) will it take to produce millions of new cars that feature an engine that runs on a non-oil product?
__________________
fotoz fo yo azz



"I've run over black cats that were luckier than me."


SmokeSomeDoja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 09:01 PM   #17 (permalink)
Lushous
 
SmokeSomeDoja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Erogenous Zones
Posts: 19,662
Thanks: 237
Thanked 456 Times in 291 Posts
Arrow

anyone who doubts the dire situation we are currently in regarding the peak production of oil should go to

www.fromthewilderness.com

and read some of the orginal and non-original articles mike ruppert posts there. i also recommend watching some of his speeches if you can find them, hes a good articulate speaker. i know hes one of dubs favorites.




[Although we might disagree with rep. Udall's optimism that there will be enough production increases to meet demand for two more years the rest of what he says is both brilliant and concise. It's looking more and more like we are at Peak now which makes what Tom Udall has to say all the more important. - MCR]


Why Peak Oil Matters to Americans

Source: Tide Pool
Feb 04, 2006
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?sect...e&newsid=10915

http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww...tories.shtml#5


SYNOPSIS: Congressman Tom Udall editorial on why he and Congressman Roscoe Bartlett formed the Peak Oil Caucus.

In 1970, oil production within the United States peaked -- reached its maximum production rate -- at not much more than 10 million barrels of oil per day. That means since 1970, oil production in this country has been declining, and we now import 58 percent of the oil we use. The sheer scale of the American appetite for petroleum is difficult to grasp: Per capita, each of us consumes about 20 pounds of petroleum products each day.

With demand rising and production that we can control falling, our dependence on imported oil has become an economic, diplomatic and security nightmare. We now send $25 million an hour abroad to pay for foreign oil, and some of that money is diverted to the same jihadi terrorists we are spending additional billions to fight. For these and other reasons, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and I founded the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus in October 2005.

A crisis looms if we do not begin preparing for the day when world oil production peaks. And that day is coming, most likely within four to eight years. Peak oil is a fact, not a theory, and the logic is simple. World oil production has been increasing for more than 140 years. But you have to discover oil before you can produce it. Global discoveries peaked 40 years ago, so the production peak will necessarily follow. Oil production in 33 of the 48 largest oil-producing nations in the world has already peaked.

The world now consumes 84 million barrels of oil per day, and it is true that there will be enough oil produced this year and the next to meet global demand. But thereafter, depletion is likely to gain the upper hand as global production flattens and begins to decline.

Peak oil does not mean we are running out of oil. Indeed, at peak, society will recover and refine more oil than ever before. But once oil production begins to decline, prices are likely to rise sharply, with some mainstream experts predicting a doubling or tripling by 2015. What we are running out of is cheap oil -- the $20 per barrel oil around which we have designed our automobiles, our subdivisions, the American way of life. Cheap oil, in conjunction with Yankee ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit, has been the wellspring for our current prosperity.

When world oil production peaks at 88 or 90 or 94 million barrels a day, we will move from the era of cheap oil to an era of more expensive oil. An economy based on the availability of oil, as we've known it, will no longer make sense. Looking ahead, we need 10 to 15 years to develop and implement a new energy policy before the shock of peak oil arrives.

Oil provides 40 percent of the world's energy, and some people argue that market forces will make alternative fuels more competitive. This is wishful thinking. None of the currently available alternative sources of liquid fuels is anywhere near ready to replace oil in the volumes we use it today. Happy talk about hydrogen and other mythical elixirs will not save the day. Solar, wind, and biofuels all have significant potential but still represent far less than 10 percent of our current energy portfolio in the United States.

So what do we do? A few years ago, Vice President Cheney said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." He could not be more wrong. Our future prosperity now depends on a rapid increase in energy conservation. Conserving energy is patriotic; indeed, it's one of the most patriotic things any of us can do.

The storm is gathering. There's a lot of work to do and not much time to do it. We've got to replace 200 million vehicles with far more efficient ones. If we are smart about this, we can rebuild Detroit, now rapidly going broke, in the process. We've got to own up to the fact that transporting goods and people by rail is at least five times more efficient than cars and trucks. Therefore, we must revive and reinvest in our passenger and freight rail systems. We must accelerate our deployment of wind and solar power, while launching a massive, long-term investment in advanced energy research.

President Kennedy challenged the nation to reach the moon in less than a decade, and we did. If we are serious about defending the nation and preserving our prosperity, energy security and energy conservation must be our new watchwords, our new space program.

Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., is a senior member of the House Resources Committee. His web site is tomudall.house.gov.
__________________
fotoz fo yo azz



"I've run over black cats that were luckier than me."


SmokeSomeDoja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 09:07 PM   #18 (permalink)
Thcboy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Personally I think the faster we burn through the oil that's left the better. Remove the oil and you remove the power of the States to do the massive damage, social, economic, and otherwise, that it's doing to the rest of the world. Since the US has never done one positive thing for any non-western country in the world, burning off the oil will have nothing but posivite effects for the poorest of us, stopping the rich from bleeding them dry.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 09:10 PM   #19 (permalink)
Moderated
 
Flamingnun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: roflmao
Posts: 21,410
Thanks: 1,014
Thanked 2,637 Times in 1,187 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thcboy
Personally I think the faster we burn through the oil that's left the better. Remove the oil and you remove the power of the States to do the massive damage, social, economic, and otherwise, that it's doing to the rest of the world. Since the US has never done one positive thing for any non-western country in the world, burning off the oil will have nothing but posivite effects for the poorest of us, stopping the rich from bleeding them dry.

Touché
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Flamingnun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 09:10 PM   #20 (permalink)
Lushous
 
SmokeSomeDoja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Erogenous Zones
Posts: 19,662
Thanks: 237
Thanked 456 Times in 291 Posts
^a modern military sure needs a shitload of oil, thats for sure...
__________________
fotoz fo yo azz



"I've run over black cats that were luckier than me."


SmokeSomeDoja is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Inactive Reminders By Icora Web Design