Originally Posted by
norachelhere
repped for an amazing post, even though they are all going to jump in here and tell you, you are wrong because.... well... you just are...
You called it lol
Originally Posted by
omgwtfbbq!
E10 doesn't reduce your fuel mileage at all, show me one test where one car was run on straight gasoline, its mileage recorded over time, then run again with E10 with reduced fuel mileage. E10 is nowhere near concentrated enough to wear any fuel system. E85 will eat fuel systems AFTER a significant time period, but not E10.
I have experienced it in my own vehicles, as well as several others documenting it. Some have recorded a drop as high as 20% especially in the corvette community, most are reporting 10% even the feds say it will reduce mileage by 2-4%.
None of those cars get 80mpg, its more like 60, on a good day. And none of those meet emissions standards for America, and won't meet them until Honda puts into production its new DTEC system, Mercedes starts importing its BlueTec diesels, or Subaru decides to produce its diesel boxer. None of those get anywhere near 80mpg anyway.
and 60 is bad? Since your a Honda fan, the accord diesel gets 52.3MPG, whats the hybrid get? While killing the environment?
Excursions aren't diesel.....just saying.
yes they are
Search results for Ford Excursion
But no argument. If everyone knows, then why are they still in production?
Nuclear power? Really? So you think Nickel Hydride batteries damage the environment but nuclear waste is just fine? Interesting. I really hope your not referring to nuclear powered cars. I don't know your background, but I'm an aerospace engineering student(at the top rated aerospace engineering school in the country for 9 years straight), my focus is propulsion and my minor is high performance vehicles, I am a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers, and a member of my schools Formula Hybrid racing team (First in the nation since the competition began 2 years ago). I've met with the heads of GM and Mercedes-Benz, both formally and informally, and trust me when I say, the future of transportation is oil. End of story. The most promising alternative at this time is small diesel hybrids, but that's still fossil fuel. Not that it matters much anyway, cars consume over 60% of the crude oil in the country, but only account for 15% of carbon emissions. Why is that? because we've gotten to the point where a major breakthrough in lowering emissions means they're lowered .001%! We can not push the technology any further, and no other technology is efficient enough to replace it in the foreseeable future. So get off your soapbox about how terrible Ethanol is, because you frankly have no idea what you're talking about, and you won't change anything anyway.
Of course I'm not suggesting a nuclear powered car lol. Nuclear waste (AKA Spent Fuel Rods) are indeed safe, from they way they are transported to the way they are stored is safe to the planet. I don't have information as to how long fuel rods last in a nuclear power plant, but they last 30 years on an aircraft carrier.
And in your last spout there you contradicted yourself pretty well, if the future is oil, then why this push for ethanol?
And yes, cars are not the leading producers of carbon, hence why I brought up nuclear power plants.