BoneSnapper.com
 
It is currently November 28th, 2014, 11:53 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 307 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 25th, 2012, 12:33 pm 
Daddy's Home
User avatar

Joined: February 13th, 2011, 9:28 pm
Posts: 1445
Location: Long Beach, CALI
SGM3K wrote:
The problem with rejecting Electric cars is that you really don't have much of a choice, they are en route just as fast as we're running out of oil.

Daimler sold his first car in 1892. 120 years ago. 120 years from now, we aren't going to have any oil left- and in the time between here and there, the cost of gas is going to continue to go up and eventually become prohibitively expensive.



I agree. It's going to be electric or bio diesel, which I've seen a bunch down south. Smells like french fries at the intersections....


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 25th, 2012, 12:40 pm 
Tony C.
User avatar

Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:00 am
Posts: 651
Location: Fucking Maine Almighty
It would be kind of funny if the day came where people were getting Big Macs and having their fuel tanks filled while they are eating.

_________________
Some people just need a high five. In the face. With a chair.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 25th, 2012, 12:42 pm 
Daddy's Home
User avatar

Joined: February 13th, 2011, 9:28 pm
Posts: 1445
Location: Long Beach, CALI
SGM3K wrote:
It would be kind of funny if the day came where people were getting Big Macs and having their fuel tanks filled while they are eating.



When thinking of fat suburbia in the future, does it really seem that far off of an idea?

"2 Big Macs, Large Fries, Diet Coke, oh and...fill er up"


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 25th, 2012, 2:47 pm 
Jackelpedia
User avatar

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 4:06 pm
Posts: 996
SGM3K wrote:
It seems kind of short sighted to expect deep sea oil to solve the problem, just so people can continue using a product that overall has a negative impact on the environment of the planet. We're burning dead shit in our engines and putting it into the air.


First off, I said we have enough for my lifetime even WITHOUT deep sea oil.
Second off, Electric cars have a far more negative impact on the environment currently than petrol/diesel cars.

Quote:
And Jackel, whomever told you we are still going to have oil even 60 years from now- probably works for an oil company.


I've had to take some environmental science courses in college, both run by rabid-"ecomentalists", plus you can read the numbers yourself. The US is not going to run out of gasoline in my lifetime, or yours, and most likely not our kids either. The 40%-ish of US oil that isn't used towards one of the transportation in the US (Diesel, Petrol, Jet) is shrinking, allowing more oil to be used for transportation. That along with the astonishing amount of domestic oil available already, plus the known untapped oil that WILL BE DRILLED FOR in our lifetime, and the increasing likelihood of US oil not being exported.... it just won't happen. The point of getting off of oil is two-fold, neither of which is a fear of running out of oil anytime soon.

1. Cheaper transportation because of increased cost of oil importation.
2. Environmental health.
Bonus #3. more efficient energy source.

Also remember that we have (without any new mining ventures) at least 200 years worth of coal. Top that off with advancements in Coal-To-Oil technology over the last 5 years or so further shrinking that 40%.....

Oh and if the increase in diesel engines in normal vehicles continues at the rate it has been... we will wind up decreasing the amount of oil used for transportation by something like 30% within 15-20 years.

Quote:
If the threat of running out of oil weren't real, companies like Exxon and BP wouldn't be investing billions in alternative energy research. They aren't doing that for the betterment of the world, they are doing that so they'll still have an industry to be a part of when we DO run out of oil.


They are doing that to make more money, mostly in the US. The US buys its oil at some of the cheapest rates in the world, so they'd rather be selling it at a much higher price, and the easiest way to do that is to get the US onto non-oil energy use. Also there is a premium on "green" technology right now and they want to take advantage of it. And to top it all off, oil companies focus on long-term goals, and do want to continue being a powerhouse in the future, but you are talking decades down the line that they are preparing for.


Regardless....

Do you honestly think that in our lifetime there will be any electric car that is as exciting to drive as say a 370z? Elise? just about any Ferrari?


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 26th, 2012, 8:17 am 
Shit Kicker
User avatar

Joined: October 18th, 2011, 10:10 am
Posts: 255
Location: Hating on fronters
Jackel585 wrote:
Not including Hot Hatches or Trucks, what are you favorite cars for about 30k or less? Doesn't need to be new.



OK, I'll try one last time, but I swear to god if you start talking about exchange rates again I'll reach through this screen and pull your intestines out through your mouth!! :P

A year ago, before the baby when I had no dependents to provide for I'd have gone for 2nd hand R34 Skyline GT-R for around 30k. There would've been a few other options I'd consider, like the EVO VIII FQ400, Merc SL55 AMG or even a Merc C63 AMG. But I'd probably have followed my heart and got another Skyline.

Nowadays I'd probably go for an 09-10 Mercedes C350 diesel for around 20k, and stick the remaining 10k in a trust fund for the kid.

Personally I would NEVER buy a brand new car, not even if I was proper minted. I'm just too fuckin tight to kiss good bye to 20-30% of what I just paid the moment I drive off the forecourt.

I read that you're interested in an Exige? It's a nice car for sure, and they hold their value like not many others, but you need to drive one. They're road legal track cars that are not comfortable by any stretch of the imagination, there is no room for either of your dogs, luggage, or anything really. Most owners have these as a track day/2nd/weekend car only, you wouldn't wanna have it as your daily drive.

This may offend some, but as you already know I dont lose sleep over things like that, I think trucks are for people over compensating for their small penis'. 80% of people that own them never use them for the purpose they were designed, I would NEVER buy one. I hate them. Hot hatches are fun and practical, I've owned a few, but if I was buying a car not intended for carting the family about in, I'd get a stripped out 2 seater with as much BHP as the chasis could handle.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 26th, 2012, 9:17 am 
Jackelpedia
User avatar

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 4:06 pm
Posts: 996
SPMack wrote:
A year ago, before the baby when I had no dependents to provide for I'd have gone for 2nd hand R34 Skyline GT-R for around 30k. There would've been a few other options I'd consider, like the EVO VIII FQ400, Merc SL55 AMG or even a Merc C63 AMG. But I'd probably have followed my heart and got another Skyline.


I was just telling Jess about an hour ago I would love to have a GT-R, but they aren't easy to find out here. The cheapest one without problems I've found is an 09' for 60k.

Quote:
Personally I would NEVER buy a brand new car, not even if I was proper minted. I'm just too fuckin tight to kiss good bye to 20-30% of what I just paid the moment I drive off the forecourt.


Unless you are a Ferrari collector, I also don't see a reason to buy new cars.

Quote:
I read that you're interested in an Exige? It's a nice car for sure, and they hold their value like not many others, but you need to drive one. They're road legal track cars that are not comfortable by any stretch of the imagination, there is no room for either of your dogs, luggage, or anything really. Most owners have these as a track day/2nd/weekend car only, you wouldn't wanna have it as your daily drive.


I think I am going to wait awhile before I actually pull the trigger on getting an Exige. It is a car I'd eventually like to own, but not at the moment.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 26th, 2012, 6:18 pm 
Daddy's Home
User avatar

Joined: February 13th, 2011, 9:28 pm
Posts: 1445
Location: Long Beach, CALI
Sucks when you can't afford to drive a truck. Sure is nice, so roomy.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 26th, 2012, 6:49 pm 
Jackelpedia
User avatar

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 4:06 pm
Posts: 996
Shift 2 is free for Plus users on the PS3 right now.... Gonna get behind the wheel of a Porsche GT3 :)


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 27th, 2012, 3:24 pm 
Banned
User avatar

Joined: October 23rd, 2011, 11:45 am
Posts: 516
I have not read any of this thread but i have a question. Does the grade of fuel you use in your vehicle have any effect on Performance? Gas Mileage? Wear and Tear?

I have had a lot of people telling me recently that the lower octane fuels are bad on your engine (on account of the ethanol).

I don't know shit about cars (other then how to drive them). I have always ran Regular in all of my vehicles, but with all the shit i have been hearing lately it has got me thinking about making the switch.

I have a 92 Honda accord that i got for real cheap. It needed alot of work when i got it. And as i said i don't know shit about cars so i have been self teaching and have it running pretty good now. It is the people that have been helping me learn to work on this thing that say that the higher grade fuels are better.

But at the same time i have had people say that if you car was not built to run higher grade fuel you can damage you engine.

So wtf should i believe? I just filled up with Plus at a shell station yesterday ( it was 90 or 89 Oct i don't remember which). I haven't really driven it much since then about 4 miles, so i haven't had time to see if there is a difference in how it drives.

It seems like it accelerates a little better but this is most likely a placebo affect.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 27th, 2012, 3:51 pm 
Jackelpedia
User avatar

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 4:06 pm
Posts: 996
vegeta420z wrote:
I have not read any of this thread but i have a question. Does the grade of fuel you use in your vehicle have any effect on Performance? Gas Mileage? Wear and Tear?

I have had a lot of people telling me recently that the lower octane fuels are bad on your engine (on account of the ethanol).

I don't know shit about cars (other then how to drive them). I have always ran Regular in all of my vehicles, but with all the shit i have been hearing lately it has got me thinking about making the switch.

I have a 92 Honda accord that i got for real cheap. It needed alot of work when i got it. And as i said i don't know shit about cars so i have been self teaching and have it running pretty good now. It is the people that have been helping me learn to work on this thing that say that the higher grade fuels are better.

But at the same time i have had people say that if you car was not built to run higher grade fuel you can damage you engine.

So wtf should i believe? I just filled up with Plus at a shell station yesterday ( it was 90 or 89 Oct i don't remember which). I haven't really driven it much since then about 4 miles, so i haven't had time to see if there is a difference in how it drives.

It seems like it accelerates a little better but this is most likely a placebo affect.


Placebo affect if you are driving a 92' Accord. No point in anything above Regular in that car. Higher Octane is meant for high-compression engines. Putting high-octane gasoline in your car will not give you more speed, acceleration, miles per gallon, longer lifer or any of that. Also, Ethanol content doesn't change between the different octanes. A good search can show you the % of mileage loss per % of Ethanol in the gas (I think it was about 1.8% mpg loss per % of Ethanol). The Northwest generally have a higher Ethanol content in their petrol which is why if you visit the east coast from there you'll notice better mileage.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 28th, 2012, 9:37 am 
Tony C.
User avatar

Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:00 am
Posts: 651
Location: Fucking Maine Almighty
Disagree with Jackel.

My old '99 Eclipse was not meant to run the premium, but the difference between low test (87 oct) and the high end (90 oct) was tremendously noticeable when accelerating. And it wasn't just placebo effect. It cut a whole second off my 1/4 mile time. Literally. A whole second, exactly.

As far as damaging the engine, I think that depends. The Eclipse was built to tach high, so the higher octane didn't seem to do any damage to it at all. Thing had 140,000 miles on it when I got rid of it, and it is still my cousin's daily driver right now.

A 92 Accord might not notice the same results, but with an older engine- cleaner burning fuel can't be a bad thing given all the build up that is likely in your engine bloc. As far as damaging it goes, I doubt you have much to worry about. You'll be replacing parts other than the motor long before you'd experience any damage due to running the high test.

Jackel is right about the ethanol content, but, higher octane is higher octane and it does burn cleaner, no matter what year the engine is from. Performance gains might be minimal, but they'll be there.

_________________
Some people just need a high five. In the face. With a chair.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 28th, 2012, 9:47 am 
Jackelpedia
User avatar

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 4:06 pm
Posts: 996
SGM3K wrote:
Disagree with Jackel.

My old '99 Eclipse was not meant to run the premium, but the difference between low test (87 oct) and the high end (90 oct) was tremendously noticeable when accelerating. And it wasn't just placebo effect. It cut a whole second off my 1/4 mile time. Literally. A whole second, exactly.

As far as damaging the engine, I think that depends. The Eclipse was built to tach high, so the higher octane didn't seem to do any damage to it at all. Thing had 140,000 miles on it when I got rid of it, and it is still my cousin's daily driver right now.

A 92 Accord might not notice the same results, but with an older engine- cleaner burning fuel can't be a bad thing given all the build up that is likely in your engine bloc. As far as damaging it goes, I doubt you have much to worry about. You'll be replacing parts other than the motor long before you'd experience any damage due to running the high test.

Jackel is right about the ethanol content, but, higher octane is higher octane and it does burn cleaner, no matter what year the engine is from. Performance gains might be minimal, but they'll be there.


You disagree, yet use an Eclipse which is a higher-compression engine as an example? ok.....

Also it isn't "cleaner burning" that is a myth. The amount of detergents are the same because of government regulations. In fact some say that you can make your engine dirtier with high-octane in an engine that isn't meant for it since it burns slower than low-octane.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 28th, 2012, 10:01 am 
Tony C.
User avatar

Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:00 am
Posts: 651
Location: Fucking Maine Almighty
RE: Running out of oil.

Did your environmentalist professors take into account the number of new drivers on the road every year in the U.S. alone? I recall reading projections from oil companies that didn't account for the fact that we license at least 200,000 new drivers every year. Supply and demand. Simple thing. That doesn't even begin to factor in China.

Just look at Europe.

As far as deep sea drilling goes- See: Gulf Of Mexico.
They don't have a grip on the extraction process, and as they try to push further into the ocean- things like the BP spill are more likely to happen. This will add to the cost of gas.

The fact is that our demand on oil goes up on a daily basis, and it is not a renewable resource. I'm sorry Jackel, but I've looked into this subject quite a bit as well, and the only people saying we aren't going to run out of oil are the ones who have a vested interest in us not running out of oil.

As more drivers get on the road, and as our supply decreases, gas prices are going to continue to climb.

Sure, we might not "run out of oil" in our life time. But as that supply decreases, the cost is going to increase. It will make gasoline prohibitively expensive long before we "run out". It's why Exxon has their bullshit advertisements about how "Fracking is Safe", and why BP is one of the biggest purchasers of photovoltaic tech in the world. They still want to be the people we pay to keep our automobiles running when a gallon of gas costs as much as a 3 karat diamond.

Due to the threat of gasoline becoming prohibitively expensive (due to us approaching the point where we run out), there are already companies developing personal charging stations for electric cars, complete with solar panels to power them.

I guess, based on what I've read from Jackel- there are going to be some folks out there who really think the only reason gas costs 8 bucks a gallon is because the oil companies are greedy.

My main point about electric engines becoming the norm in our lifetime is that as the supply decreases, the only people who are going to be able to afford gasoline are the extremely rich. As the Cletus types of the world keep making more and more babies, the demand will continue to increase as the supply continues to decrease. Cost rises, and the internal combustion engine becomes a luxury item.

While on the other side, photovoltaic tech continues to improve.

If there was no reason to add the additional weight that additional electric engines create to cars like the next NSX, they wouldn't be doing it. They'd keep right on doing things as they did them in the 90's, blindly running along while proclaiming that we're "never going to run out of oil". Our oil supply is finite.

We won't run out of sun power for billions of years. Not 120.

_________________
Some people just need a high five. In the face. With a chair.


Last edited by SGM3K on April 28th, 2012, 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 28th, 2012, 10:07 am 
Tony C.
User avatar

Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:00 am
Posts: 651
Location: Fucking Maine Almighty
Jackel585 wrote:

You disagree, yet use an Eclipse which is a higher-compression engine as an example? ok.....

Also it isn't "cleaner burning" that is a myth. The amount of detergents are the same because of government regulations. In fact some say that you can make your engine dirtier with high-octane in an engine that isn't meant for it since it burns slower than low-octane.



When I say "cleaner burning" I mean it does provide more kick. Even my frigging lawnmower runs better with higher octane gas in it.

_________________
Some people just need a high five. In the face. With a chair.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 28th, 2012, 10:28 am 
Jackelpedia
User avatar

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 4:06 pm
Posts: 996
SGM3K wrote:
RE: Running out of oil.

Did your environmentalist professors take into account the number of new drivers on the road every year in the U.S. alone? I recall reading projections from oil companies that didn't account for the fact that we license at least 200,000 new drivers every year. Supply and demand. Simple thing. That doesn't even begin to factor in China.


Actually they did. The projection numbers for production:use accounted not only for the projected increase in oil-using products (mostly being the increase in the number of cars being driven) but also the projections on the trend of decreases of oil-reliant products (of which I suspect is even greater now).

Quote:
As far as deep sea drilling goes- See: Gulf Of Mexico.
They don't have a grip on the extraction process, and as they try to push further into the ocean- things like the BP spill are more likely to happen.


I don't mean the deep sea stuff we see now. I mean the technology is allowing us to explore deeper reaches of the sea with more accurate mapping and testing. Even if spills were to increase, the amount of oil available is going to drastically increase as the technology that allows people to find it is developed.

Quote:
The fact is that our demand on oil goes up on a daily basis, and it is not a renewable resource. I'm sorry Jackel, but I've looked into this subject quite a bit as well, and the only people saying we aren't going to run out of oil are the ones who have a vested interest in us not running out of oil.

As more drivers get on the road, and as our supply decreases, gas prices are going to continue to climb.


We are going to run out of oil eventually, but the ones that say it will happen in our lifetime (without the assumption of some sort of post-Apocalypse scenario where we don't' have the tech/people to make use of it anymore) are fearmongers, people who don't understand how many of oil-reliant products have a replacement already and just aren't efficient so they haven't changed over yet because there is no need to, or have a vested interest in oil-wars and/or "green" tech.

The #1 factor in increasing petrol cost in the US is corn prices.

Quote:
Due to the threat of gasoline becoming prohibitively expensive (due to us approaching the point where we run out), there are already companies developing personal charging stations for electric cars, complete with solar panels to power them.


Sadly while there are more individual places adding charging stations, the overall number is decreasing because of a rise in franchised locations getting rid of charging stations now. WTF is up with that?

SGM3K wrote:
When I say "cleaner burning" I mean it does provide more kick. Even my frigging lawnmower runs better with higher octane gas in it.

You do realize that there is almost no extra energy in higher octane gas? It just burns slower @ a higher temperature so a high-compression engine won't waste energy. And I'm not trying to say your lawnmower isn't meant to use higher-octane, just trying to point out that the energy difference is about non-existent.

edit: After I posted, I took a quick look online to see if I could find the actual energy differences and came across this pretty good... response...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... egular-gas


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 30th, 2012, 9:28 am 
Tony C.
User avatar

Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:00 am
Posts: 651
Location: Fucking Maine Almighty
Image

BMW i8

220hp, 3 cylinder rear mounted internal combustion engine
129hp electric motor mounted to the front axle.

Estimated fuel economy: 80mpg.
So Ha Ha Toyota. Your Prius can suck it.

_________________
Some people just need a high five. In the face. With a chair.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 30th, 2012, 10:48 am 
Daddy's Home
User avatar

Joined: February 13th, 2011, 9:28 pm
Posts: 1445
Location: Long Beach, CALI
I have a buddy that just bought a Prius...I think he said that shit was like 40k. He was stoked about the money he was going to save on gas?

??? Dude doesn't do THAT much driving.

EDIT: Nevermind, I remember now. Dude needed a tax write-off. It's his "work car".


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 30th, 2012, 10:53 am 
Jackelpedia
User avatar

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 4:06 pm
Posts: 996
SGM3K wrote:
Image

BMW i8

220hp, 3 cylinder rear mounted internal combustion engine
129hp electric motor mounted to the front axle.

Estimated fuel economy: 80mpg.
So Ha Ha Toyota. Your Prius can suck it.


I actually slightly prefer the darker blue trimmed version I saw pictures of. I love the fact that "BMW i" or whatever they are calling themselves are now their own division actually competing with their own BMW and MINI cars.

I will say though, as good as 80mpg is... a 20 mile range on the electric engine, and a top speed of roughly 160 are a bit disappointing. The fact that they are developing it for the much superior 220v charger (which currently only Tesla takes advantage of in the US), but limiting it to low-amp means it could run into some serious sales problems in the US. I think they should aim to use the 220/70 tech so the car could charge in about 20 minutes instead of 2 hours


Last edited by Jackel585 on April 30th, 2012, 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 30th, 2012, 3:41 pm 
Tony C.
User avatar

Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:00 am
Posts: 651
Location: Fucking Maine Almighty
A) All of those stats are based on the concept car and could be different.
B) 160 mph is what it is electronically limited at by BMW.

I just read about it in the latest Motor Trend, and the car itself is going to run $120k, meaning few will purchase it for fuel savings. I just think it looks cool, and furthers the point that people are going to have to get used to electric cars. Gas is going buh-bye. Even Ferrari and Lambo are working on hybrids.

_________________
Some people just need a high five. In the face. With a chair.


Top
   
 
 Post subject: Re: The Car Thread
PostPosted: April 30th, 2012, 4:29 pm 
Jackelpedia
User avatar

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 4:06 pm
Posts: 996
SGM3K wrote:
A) All of those stats are based on the concept car and could be different.
B) 160 mph is what it is electronically limited at by BMW.

I just read about it in the latest Motor Trend, and the car itself is going to run $120k, meaning few will purchase it for fuel savings. I just think it looks cool, and furthers the point that people are going to have to get used to electric cars. Gas is going buh-bye. Even Ferrari and Lambo are working on hybrids.


It better be electronically limited or that would blow. With that much HP though it is probably limited to around 165-170ish anyways.

As for furthering the point about electric cars, it just sets them back further....

1. They are using antiquated technology for the electric engine.
2. The range is still utter shit for the electric.
3. And they are still hybrids with a focus on the non-electric side of things, and are in fact pushing the focus even more onto the petrol/diesel engine than other hybrids.


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 307 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group