Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by lsvtec, Feb 7, 2003.
From the article:
Actually... this doesn't surprise me that the Sierra club is twisting things around to their own meaning... progress takes time, and environmental radicals will always try to screw things up without offering any of their own solutions. Hell, look at PETA. If any one of them throws paint on my leather jacket, I'm going to make them take that same paint and drink it. Negative political activists like this really piss me off.
man, i would beat someones ass if they threw paint on my leather jacket!!
Damn straight... but that's what PETA does to people wearing animal skin, sometimes worse- it's just plain abusive and illegal. This is the same kind of stuff that the Sierra club likes to do to anything/anyone that pollutes in any way, shape, or form.
Did you get a chance to read the whole article? I don't agree with the negative politics either, but it raises some interesting concerns. Honda and Toyota have both developed Gas/Electric Hybird vehicles, where is Detroit's? Honda is close to releasing a fuel cell vehicle, where is Detroit's? Every vehicle produced by Honda Motor Co. is at least a LEV, many of them (including the high performance models like the S2000) are ULEV. Again, Detroit doesn't even come close. I would bet that most if not all of the Toyota, Nissan, and Mazda lineups follow the same pattern. Yes negative politics suck and they are the worng way to do things. But I would certainly be interested in seeing how Detroit stacks up against Japanese automobiles where the environment is concerned.
There is abosolutely no excuse for the way that PETA treats people that disagree with them. Yes they are allowed to their own opinions, but forcing them on other people is wrong.
seriously, if someone threw paint on my jacket... i'd kill their hippy ass. unless it was a well built hippie, then i'd run him over.
I wrote a huge report on this about 3 weeks ago. Here is one quote that really stuned me
Detroit naged and naged when the political groups made them produce 5% electric cars by 1996. Of course this did not happen, the big three found a way to force them to lift that demand, right before GM releace the nasty EV1. If the "tree huging hippies" would stick to there guns, progress would be made. Domestics never car about safty or polution until they are force to.
I agree that the improved emissions needs to happen, but the way it's being pursued is just wrong- and I don't fault the big 3 for resisting against change, especially against groups like this. I wish they could all just sit down and work something out in a friendly way. I don't think that Detroit is averse to making cleaner cars, but when they're being forced to do it with abusive legislation, it makes them bitter and not very friendly in response. It's natural...
but look at honda. Even before there was any real emmision standards, hondas first car in 1962, the s500 got better than average exhaust filtering and still had good performance. In early 70's honda released civics with CVCC that made it meet and exceed cali's emmissions standards without the use of a cat and most of this was volentary by honda. You never see ford or chevy release cars that have stuff that is much better than the standards. It is normally just the bare menimum.
Calesta: the thing is, the big 3 got billions of dollars to make 1 *prototype* hybrid car within an amount of time. Now Honda and Toyota have them on the market, but they just made the prototype and didn't do shitwith it. And NOW they're getting MORE money to make more prototypes and not really produce shit again. That's what pisses me off. (Keep in mind, I didn't read the article; but this is what is really going on and needs to be addressed)
Also honda has already released a fuel cell car in europe (think only in england) and they have already "registered" to realease on in the US latter this year. The thing is smaller than the insight and looks like a small si but honda did it, still the big three has yet to produce a hybrid, hydrogen car, hell even a car that gets 50 mpg (the crx hf did that in the mid 80's)
i was at the grocery store and i was reading some magazine (i think it was motor trend or pop mechanics, i dunno) and they said the "fuel economic" cars are actually more expensive to run, but i didnt read the whole article, i just glanced at it, ill check that out as soon as possible.
True it does cost a tad more and the big 3 is unwilling to do spend the extra few hundred dollars. For all the extra emissions stuff on cali cars, it only cost them 300 extra/per car. Hybrid technoligy cost about 2000 more per car. (batterys and electric motor) You will not see ford, GM or chrysler produce a hybrid car until legislation says they have to. Look at GM back in the 70's or 80's with those old trucks that blew up when they were rear end (GMC Suberban?) GM knew about the problem and could have done a recall at a price of like $20 a car. GM decided not to recal them and thought that it would be less just to pay when lawsuits happen instead of recalling. In the mid 90's this notion really blew up in their face when there was that 5 billion dollar lawsuit (not sure if GM actually paid it, Last i heard they were trying to reverse the verdict) The big thee will cut costs anyway they can for a profit, they dont care about safty, gas milage, emissions, any of that.
The way I see it is,they aren't going to give up a multi billion dollar industry PERIOD.Why would they?Between the politics of it,and the money,it's going to take more than a organization like the Seirra Club.
I have a couple friends,insanely mechanically inclined.One when he was sixteen rebuilt his carburator and his Buick was getting like 80 mpg.Another works at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio,he designed the the new fuel injection system in one of the ninties 'vettes.He has designed and patented two viable alterative fuel engines,both of them were bought by Mobil,I think.Why,so he didn't sell them to someone else,to keep their hands on other technologies.
And the thing about the PETA people isn't anything compared to the right wing psycho's,that shoot doctors for performing abortions.If anyone comes close to my person or possesion's with the intent to destroy either they are in a WORLD of hurt.
SWRI... nice. I was thinking about applying for a job there.
Lots of replies since I posted last, but one reason the domestic guys are so slow to do anything is because of the old-school mentality inherent in old American companies, and because of all the beauracracy they've built up over the years. They're too scared to restructure to develop faster, think faster, evolve faster... I run up against this in my own company- but things are changing. Who knows if the same thing is happening in the Big 3.
It's good to have friends in Congress...
Yup. Well think of it this way- the government is subsidizing the American based companies so that they can get off their asses and stay in business! If they lose some of the largest companies in this country, then they lose a lot of the cash flow that normally stays in the US- it'll all go outside, and that's not a good thing. Capitalism controlling government... or government manipulating the capitalist system- take your pick. They're doing what they can to give the Big 3 as much breathing room as possible- hopefully they catch up one of these days.
I think what the Big 3 really need is a good scare. They know that the government needs them around so they know that they can continue with this style of milking the government for money. What they need is for the government to pull funding for real, not just threaten, until they get their act together. I don't have a problem with the government subsidizing (sp?) these companies if they show results. I have a problem with the government giving them tax payer money to do essentially nothing.
Separate names with a comma.