High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

Car Forum Talk about your favorite cars, setups, garages (got pics?)!

Anyone altering their driving habits due to outrageous gas prices?

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-24-2007, 08:49 PM   #301  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enmoco View Post
junehhan...I'm sorry...I can't find where you ever mentioned this....I don't believe teacher ever assigned this homework he mentions..
I believe that he thought it was implied since Limbaugh has used that argument in the past. Limbaugh is not where I got that from as I certainly havn't listened to him in a while. LOL, he probably thinks i'm the Rush Limbaugh equivalent of a conservative. I'm seriously conservative in MOST of my views, but at least I never abused prescription meds and never got caught with Viagra without a prescription.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 08:54 PM   #302  
1080p=WhereYaWannaBe
 
enmoco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 795
Default

Quote:
Nope and my boat and truck.............

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

is almost $180
you know...I think I understand that.
enmoco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 08:57 PM   #303  
1080p=WhereYaWannaBe
 
enmoco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 795
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junehhan View Post
I believe that he thought it was implied since Limbaugh has used that argument in the past. Limbaugh is not where I got that from as I certainly havn't listened to him in a while. LOL, he probably thinks i'm the Rush Limbaugh equivalent of a conservative. I'm seriously conservative in MOST of my views, but at least I never abused prescription meds and never got caught with Viagra without a prescription.
I thought he was way out of line on his entire rant against you.....as you could see....
enmoco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2007, 08:58 PM   #304  
1080p=WhereYaWannaBe
 
enmoco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 795
Default

Go to bed and take care of that cold....
enmoco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 05:51 AM   #305  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barrington, Il.
Age: 67
Posts: 2,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junehhan View Post
The SVT Focus should count, as that is a whole lot of fun! I also average 31mpg on the highway during my 3 years of ownership with one.

This is exactly it as this is why it is our hobby. I obviously didn't buy a 400hp SUV that gets 10-12mpg in the city just to go to church with it, yet keep an old Focus around for my daily driving. If gas prices wern't so high, I might not use a Focus for daily driving but the market without any draconian regulation has already demand a lower quantity of petrol due to a high equilibrium price. Since you already did the pulley, what's next?
Hey, my daugher has a bright yellow Euro model SVTF, the car is a blast to drive too.

On the Mustang I just got the standard (for that car) CAI, pulley, catback and tune. Since I drive it daily that's as far as I'm taking it
Emil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 11:29 AM   #306  
Defender of Sanity
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junehhan View Post
I strongly believe that the scientists that are always appearing in the public often have an agenda. I believe that sometimes people want to prove something so bad, that they look for something and exxagerate its importance by also disregarding other evidence out there. Everyone is human and you simply can't get past personal bias. It just seems like the ones that always appear in the public spotlight have an agenda in what they want to prove.
I just completely disagree here. Scientists have no motive do work towards an agenda. The definition of science goes against what you are saying: "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." They observe, experiment, make a hypothesis, and try to disprove it. Science is all about disproving theories, not about proving them. I just think you're wrong here. What you are saying is a major stab to thousands and thousands of PhD scientist wizards. Sure there are some who work with a major agenda, like the scientists working to prove the bible. They study with an agenda. They already have the answer, they just need to find the proof. But thats not the way reputable science institutions work.

Quote:
I am aware of the netcooling effect as atmospheric sulfer is extremely reflective. However, the point remains that a serious amount of CO2 is being dumepd into the atmosphere. I read and interest take on this constant drive to lower sulfer petrol and diesel(especially clean diesel) as while it will reduce the potential for damaging acid rain, this move could actually aide global warming. Mt. Pinatubo was especially an interesting volcano although I don't think I would care to live so close to it.
I just said it, man produces 150 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than the annual estimate of CO2 from volcanoes. Volcanoes are a non-issue.

Quote:
I brought up CO2 as I was arguing with someone over that detail earlier today and it was in my head. I keep saying that i'm going to avoid politics and stay out of it, but I think I get stimulated by it as I can't seem to escape it after I quit being a political activist.
Oh, don't worry, its fun.

Quote:
What I am saying is that you cannot underestimate what humans can do when they work together for the common good. Humans have shown their better side every once in a while in history and things have gotten done. I realize that coastlines would be in trouble, but people really arn't that smart to be building their dream houses on an unsturdy foundation of sand, are they? Now I understand that the loss of coastline will be much more severe than that, but we will manage somehow. If anything, people will simply be forced to adapt to a new way of life. I subscribe to the thought that we are powerless against what may happen(blame much of that on my religious beliefs) as some things are out of our control. If history has shown that climatic shifts have happened in the past, then perhaps it is time for people to spend as much energy preparing for the inevitable outcome. Same deal with those who built their houses on the hillsides in California despite the geological danger associated to the composition of those hillsides that showed their danger not too long ago.
True, we are capable of great things. But this is a totally irrational perspective. Causing the inevideble destruction of the earth, knowing it, knowing how to stop it, but letting it happen anyway. The fact is that we are NOT powerless. We can measure the greenhouse gas fluctuation in the atmosphere. And we can measure the greenhouse gasses that we output. If the two weren't related, they wouldn't have been linked. We can fix this. There are studies out there (namely in "An Inconvenient Truth") showing the affect we can have in a positive way. We can easily remedy this solution, but it requires people to care about it and want it.

History may have shown some climate shifts, but if you look at data over the past few hundred thousand years, (and this is all in "An Inconvenient Truth, which I highly recommend watching) the shift of today is far more drastic than anything measureable in the past. There is a direct relationship between outrageous spikes of all kinds of bad shit, and the rise of industry late 20th century. No coincidence. Our planet is not invincible.

Quote:
I do not believe that we will ever be able to achieve that goal of reducing emissions to a level that will never affect our planet. We disturbed the balance just by our existence on this planet. Steps should be taken, but they have to be economically and fiscally feasible or it will never happen. Notice I said that I am a pseudo-neo-libertarian. I am often at odds with hardcore libertarians as they often border on anarchy. What I believe is that solutions to the problem need to be economically responsible. One can make the argument that the free market already doing a good job of regulating the market as demand for trucks and SUV's are significantly down due to the cost of petrol and diesel. The government didn't even step in, yet people are reacting to the market and making various choices. At the same time, I firmly believe that research into alternative fuels is something that needs to be accelerated. This is where the government steps in as they already have started by offering incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles like hybrids.
I don't agree that it MUST be economically feasible, as I believe we have certain responsibilities as human beings. But I do believe that it won't work unless its economically feasible. And it IS.

There are billions of dollars to be made in green energy sources. Billions. I know people slam Al Gore because he supposedly makes money somehow off of green energy. Some say that Al Gore himself is trying to fool everyone into giving him their money. I say he is just smart. Why aren't oil companies, who make close to 10 billion a year in PROFITS attacking this green energy source thing? The smart company would see that more and more people are looking for green energy, and they would spearhead this movement and get a foothold in the market.

Take the auto industry. Big bad GM sat on their hands and didn't do shit about this green revolution. They have lost billions because of it. Toyota on the other hand, has really taken charge to provide ULEV's and high mileage cars, and guess who is now #1 auto seller in the world? (hint: its not GM anymore) There are hundreds of billions of dollars to be made in this new green energy industry. But big businesses are stubborn. All they see is investment cost. They don't want to do anything about it. Its cheaper for them to trick people into thinking this problem doesn't exist and go on with their normal business.

Quote:
Conservative economics isn't about putting profits before people. It is about efficiency and I will agree that it may not be the most socially equal form. I have the opposite view from you as I believe that it is overregulation that is leading us to a disaster. Being a conservative doesn't go hand in hand with giving buisnesses the green light and blank check to do whatever they need to do. That is why i'm not a traditional libertarian as legislation is sometimes required. Yet, I believe that nothing will happen unless something becomes financially attractive for any consumer. This is where some scientists come in as I believe that the solution may not need to boil down to doing something cold turkey and killing an economy. I believe that people should be allowed to choose what they wish and that since people will always choose what makes fiscal sense to them, things need to be aimed at making solutions that might make fiscal sense to people. This is what a capitalistic economy is based on, which is freedom to choose and vote using your dollars. A balance obviously needs to be struck.
I didn't say that conservative economics were about putting profit before people. I said that the disaster of the unregulated free market was profits come before people. That is the inevitable result of a free market without regulation. Businesses have one goal: profit. Their moral decisions are only based on what will yield the most profit. In many cases, this works fine. But without consumer information, (and lack of consumer information is KEY to a functioning free market) free markets will infringe on democracy, and democracy falls apart.

I don't want over-regulation. What I want is a society where corporations have no rights as individuals. The underlying problem, the one thing that caused the entire downfall of democracy and the failed free market, is the fact that corporations are treated like individuals. Corporations have rights just like individual people do. They can dump millions of dollars into ad campaigns to get someone elected. If this wasn't the case, only then do we have a chance of having a political system that is not affected by people (by people, I mean corporations) with lots of money. With that, we can have better consumer information, and with perfect consumer information, the free market will operate according to consumer needs. It will still be profit oriented, but profits would be determined by producing what the consumer and environmental needs.

I've already discussed how I think going green is a long term smart financial decision. I resent the argument that this will kill the economy. I think it will make it prosper. Companies who make the green shift will win out in the long run. Those who stay the course with the archaic ways will die out. Eventually. Or once enough people start to care about it.

Quote:
I am a huge fan of cutting down on both corporate collusion, and political corruption. This of course will never happen as corruption runs deep with all major and fringe political parties.
And it all leads back to the corporation having political power. It destroys democracy. This all started in the Regan years. And its unfortunate for true conservatives. These bozos in office right now aren't true conservatives. Destroying the constitution? That is a no-no for true conservatives and libertarians especially. So many of the things that have happened in the past 25 years by conservative leaders I don't believe are in line with traditional conservative beliefs. Lots of corruption.

Quote:
I believe the free market can and will work if given the chance. However, I believe far more needs to be done past what has already been reformed with that McCain bill.
Agree with you 100% here. McCain Feingold is a step in the right direction. But its not even close to enough. The playing field has to be level. The fact that large corporations own the media channels means that individual people will never be on a level playing field if corporations have a political voice.

Quote:
With good reason sometimes, as I do not believe there is much that can be done. Some scientists have even stated that even if we stopped manmade CO2 emissions tomarrow, it would not significantly impact global warming and would likely just slow down it's occurance. This has occurred before in the world's history even before humans walked. The other problem here is that some huge nations are going through their industrial revolution and this presents a challenge as they are quickly becoming one of the biggest polluters of greenhouse and other toxic gases into the atmosphere. How do you get them on board? Keep in mind that China is a country that likely doesn't give a care based on their environmental record. I believe that we should take some steps to work on the CO2 problem, but investigate and find ways to deal with other sources of our accelerated climatic shift.
So we make safe energy the norm before other countries hit their industrial revolution.

Speaking of China, their auto industry standards are leaps and bounds ahead of ours. We can't even sell half our vehicles in china, because they don't meet their mileage requirements. The US is responsible for 30% of the world's greenhouse gas contribution. And we are like 5% of the world's population.

Quote:
Arguably it is profit that is the motivator that has caused so much innovation and has made the world it is today. If there was no profit incentive, we would very likely have no innovation. If a firm can find a way to make profit in green technology, then it will happen as that is what a buisness does. I simply believe there are other bigger problems to worry about than CO2 emissions at this time. A big one I believe is the degradation of the water quality of our oceans due to some countries.
Corporations WILL always have a profit motive, and this is only a problem because they have legal rights as citizens, and have political power. That means that they can abuse citizens, abuse the environment, abuse whatever they want to without ANY repercussions or regulations. They do this because they can get people elected.

There's nothing wrong with corporations having a profit only motive. Because in a perfect market with perfect information, consumers (in theory) won't buy products from a corporation that abuses. Problem solved? Not in the US. Corporations can abuse, they control the information (media) channels, and they can influence elections. Its a problem of information. Corporations with money control the information released, and the information is what ultimately decides what people will or will not buy. If a corporation is single handedly puncturing a hole in the ozone layer above los Angeles, but the information is blocked from the consumers, the corporation won't do anything about it. You see where I'm going here?

Quote:
I am a firm believer that we need people of opposing beliefs to make this world work. I have my strong beliefs, but they are a product of personal bias and need to be countered with people of strong beleifs like you to make things work. No single extreme belief will ever be the answer as radicalism never works. We need people of a different opinion to make this world work. You obviously wouldn't want some Earth First bastard to be in charge and yet you wouldn't want Pat Buchanan or even Newt Gingrich to be in charge. What I hope is that people can learn to realize that other viewpoints respectfully exist and use the resulting pool of ideas to form a superior alternative the takes everyone's views into account. This is partially why I don't mind being so conservative because I know that i'll always be held in check by an opposing viewpoint. I may surprise you guys at one point as there are a few views of mine that are extremely liberal. I'll leave you guessing until someone brings up a relevant topic to that interest. I'm just glad that in America, I won't get put into prison and killed for my beliefs(i'm talking to you, Kim Jong Ill you son of a BITCH). Buisness obviously can't have a free pass to do whatever they want in the interest of money, but yet you need someone who looks out for their interests as a buisness will only exist if they can make money.
I'm going to leave you with one final point. I kinda feel like liberalism gets a bad rap for being very radical or way off center. But in all honesty, my lump sum conclusion about liberalism: Liberal viewpoints tend to be more closely aligned with the values of democracy. Freedom and prosperity for everyone, equal _____ for everyone, of the people, by the people, for the people. It seems to me that liberal views provide a more direct path to achieving true democracy, and thats why I support it.
Ntruder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 02:13 PM   #307  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Hey, my daugher has a bright yellow Euro model SVTF, the car is a blast to drive too.

On the Mustang I just got the standard (for that car) CAI, pulley, catback and tune. Since I drive it daily that's as far as I'm taking it
The SVTf will always have a special place in my heart, as I owned a Screaming Yellow Euro for 3 years before trading it in for my TBSS. It wasn't the fastest car, but it had incredible handling abilities. For some reason, it wasn't very fast, but it seemed to have a sweet spot between 60-90 mph. This is where I would pick my races as i'd put it into 3rd gear, and it would accelerate like crazy till 90mph where it hits 7200 rpms and I shift into 4th. Once you hit 4th, the fun is more or less over as you can only do so much with just 170hp
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 02:15 PM   #308  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enmoco View Post
Go to bed and take care of that cold....
It's miserable as i've been hacking up greenish snot all day. It's probably because this cold that started last week has lead to a infection in my respiratory tract and throat. But the important thing is that I havn't lost my ability to taste food, so at least i'll survive. I am pretty sure I know where I got it from. I went to the local Kosher Bagel place as they have the best hot bagels and cream cheese in town. The lady handling my order I noticed was miserable as her nose was running and she was wiping it on the sleeve of her shirt. I should have just walked out...............
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 02:42 PM   #309  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ntruder View Post
I just completely disagree here. Scientists have no motive do work towards an agenda. The definition of science goes against what you are saying: "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." They observe, experiment, make a hypothesis, and try to disprove it. Science is all about disproving theories, not about proving them. I just think you're wrong here. What you are saying is a major stab to thousands and thousands of PhD scientist wizards. Sure there are some who work with a major agenda, like the scientists working to prove the bible. They study with an agenda. They already have the answer, they just need to find the proof. But thats not the way reputable science institutions work.

Maybe that is the case, but no scientist can really claim to not have a personal bias, which is what often leads to having an agenda. They focus on something that becomes a passion, and they start to obsess over it as it becomes the most important thing in the world to them. I guess I lost a lot of respect as I had a professor for environmental sciences that was seriously biased. A friend of mine had taken the course the previous year and had warned me.



I just said it, man produces 150 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than the annual estimate of CO2 from volcanoes. Volcanoes are a non-issue.

Give me some time as I had some numbers a while ago, but i'll take your word for the time being


Oh, don't worry, its fun.



True, we are capable of great things. But this is a totally irrational perspective. Causing the inevideble destruction of the earth, knowing it, knowing how to stop it, but letting it happen anyway. The fact is that we are NOT powerless. We can measure the greenhouse gas fluctuation in the atmosphere. And we can measure the greenhouse gasses that we output. If the two weren't related, they wouldn't have been linked. We can fix this. There are studies out there (namely in "An Inconvenient Truth") showing the affect we can have in a positive way. We can easily remedy this solution, but it requires people to care about it and want it.

Those are the bonus words and why a solution must be economically responsible. As you said below, nothing will ever take off unless it makes financial sense to people.

History may have shown some climate shifts, but if you look at data over the past few hundred thousand years, (and this is all in "An Inconvenient Truth, which I highly recommend watching) the shift of today is far more drastic than anything measureable in the past.

I highly agree with you about the dramatic change. What we disagree is in the significance of this. Humans have come a long way and the proof is that we have some of the most stringent environmental restrictions in the world. The tough part is trying to sell this to the new developing parts of the world that clearly do not really care about environmental issues. America only produces as much CO2 as we do because we have the greatest economy in the world. It's ironic that China may be producing more CO2 emissions than we are within the next decade due to their growth of their manufacturing sector. I believe so heavily in not being economically reckless because of the potential fallout effect that would trickle through the rest of the world if we hurt our economy. Because of the strength of our ability to consume stuff, results would be disastrous for other countries as well since we are the biggest export market for many countries in the developed world. At the same time, any changes we cause in my opinion will result in a new equilibrium being reached. The question of how far we can go is something I don't think anyone knows right now.

There is a direct relationship between outrageous spikes of all kinds of bad shit, and the rise of industry late 20th century. No coincidence. Our planet is not invincible.



I don't agree that it MUST be economically feasible, as I believe we have certain responsibilities as human beings. But I do believe that it won't work unless its economically feasible. And it IS.

There are billions of dollars to be made in green energy sources. Billions. I know people slam Al Gore because he supposedly makes money somehow off of green energy. Some say that Al Gore himself is trying to fool everyone into giving him their money. I say he is just smart. Why aren't oil companies, who make close to 10 billion a year in PROFITS attacking this green energy source thing?

Greed. I agree with you as it will have to fall on other companies to lead the way. However, our oil companies are looking into alternatives but sure seem to be taking their time. This is partially why we need to further crackdown on corruption in politics. Special interest groups like Agriculture, oil, and others hold WAY too much power in American politics. In this day and age, I still don't understand the extent of the subsidies being given to agriculture and cotton industries. That is money that could be better spent. I understand why we want to subsidize agriculture since a nation cannot depend on other nations for their basic food supplies. But is it even that necessary when the market price for products like corn are skyrocketing due to demand? Cotton however is not a necessity and that is a heck of a lot of money. It is a commdity that unlike basic grain, has substitutes should we need to rely on other countries for it.

The smart company would see that more and more people are looking for green energy, and they would spearhead this movement and get a foothold in the market.

Take the auto industry. Big bad GM sat on their hands and didn't do shit about this green revolution.

Neither did Nissan/Infiniti or the Chrysler Corp(now owned by some Canadian private firm. Neither did VW, BMW, or Benz other than the advances they helped make in cleaner diesel technology. Ford doesn't get enough credit as Henry Clay Ford Jr. was someone who deeply cared about environmental issues. That is one of the reasons that he gets a lot of grief as he continue to invest a LOT of company money into emissions technology research even when the company started tanking. Ford was one of the very first companies to tackle emissions as they insured that every 2001 model year car was meeting LEV standards. By 2003 or 2005(can't remember which year), most of their vehicles were meeting ULEV standards under company initiative. They also took the initiative and was the first to create a fully hybrid(not partial hybrid like Toyota) SUV that was and I believe still is the most fuel efficient SUV on the planet. High prices insured that it didn't catch on like they would have hoped, but this was the first hybrid I respected as it finally brought the benefits of hybrid technology to a real vehicle with real utility. If I wasn't such a horsepower junkie, I would have considered it as I happen to love suv's. Ford's CAFE average is only so low because of the fact that they sell more trucks than anyone else, and they sell more heavy duty trucks by a VERY wide margin than anyone else. This is debateable, but Ford arguably builds the best HD trucks on the market because of their capabilities.

They have lost billions because of it. Toyota on the other hand, has really taken charge to provide ULEV's and high mileage cars, and guess who is now #1 auto seller in the world? (hint: its not GM anymore)

GM however does have the most models available as a flexfuel vehicle However, this doesn't mean that GM isn't going to learn from this. After the near failures of the big three in the 80's, I believe that GM was taking a cautious and careful approach. They did have one of the first production EV's on the market which obviously failed due to lack of practicality. Their new Volt concept will be interesting and will be a welcome addition. However, GM joined because people have shouted that they now want more fuel efficient vehicles. In other words, they now see a profit in it.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars to be made in this new green energy industry. But big businesses are stubborn. All they see is investment cost. They don't want to do anything about it. Its cheaper for them to trick people into thinking this problem doesn't exist and go on with their normal business.

I think it also is part of our culture. American's tend to be very conservative in their choices and want to stick with their comfort zone.



I didn't say that conservative economics were about putting profit before people. I said that the disaster of the unregulated free market was profits come before people. That is the inevitable result of a free market without regulation. Businesses have one goal: profit. Their moral decisions are only based on what will yield the most profit. In many cases, this works fine. But without consumer information, (and lack of consumer information is KEY to a functioning free market) free markets will infringe on democracy, and democracy falls apart.

I don't want over-regulation. What I want is a society where corporations have no rights as individuals. The underlying problem, the one thing that caused the entire downfall of democracy and the failed free market, is the fact that corporations are treated like individuals. Corporations have rights just like individual people do. They can dump millions of dollars into ad campaigns to get someone elected. If this wasn't the case, only then do we have a chance of having a political system that is not affected by people (by people, I mean corporations) with lots of money. With that, we can have better consumer information, and with perfect consumer information, the free market will operate according to consumer needs. It will still be profit oriented, but profits would be determined by producing what the consumer and environmental needs.

I've already discussed how I think going green is a long term smart financial decision. I resent the argument that this will kill the economy. I think it will make it prosper. Companies who make the green shift will win out in the long run. Those who stay the course with the archaic ways will die out. Eventually. Or once enough people start to care about it.



And it all leads back to the corporation having political power. It destroys democracy. This all started in the Regan years. And its unfortunate for true conservatives. These bozos in office right now aren't true conservatives. Destroying the constitution? That is a no-no for true conservatives and libertarians especially. So many of the things that have happened in the past 25 years by conservative leaders I don't believe are in line with traditional conservative beliefs. Lots of corruption.



Agree with you 100% here. McCain Feingold is a step in the right direction. But its not even close to enough.

I agree


The playing field has to be level. The fact that large corporations own the media channels means that individual people will never be on a level playing field if corporations have a political voice.



So we make safe energy the norm before other countries hit their industrial revolution.

Speaking of China, their auto industry standards are leaps and bounds ahead of ours. We can't even sell half our vehicles in china, because they don't meet their mileage requirements. The US is responsible for 30% of the world's greenhouse gas contribution. And we are like 5% of the world's population.



Corporations WILL always have a profit motive, and this is only a problem because they have legal rights as citizens, and have political power. That means that they can abuse citizens, abuse the environment, abuse whatever they want to without ANY repercussions or regulations. They do this because they can get people elected.

There's nothing wrong with corporations having a profit only motive. Because in a perfect market with perfect information, consumers (in theory) won't buy products from a corporation that abuses. Problem solved? Not in the US. Corporations can abuse, they control the information (media) channels, and they can influence elections. Its a problem of information. Corporations with money control the information released, and the information is what ultimately decides what people will or will not buy. If a corporation is single handedly puncturing a hole in the ozone layer above los Angeles, but the information is blocked from the consumers, the corporation won't do anything about it. You see where I'm going here?



I'm going to leave you with one final point. I kinda feel like liberalism gets a bad rap for being very radical or way off center. But in all honesty, my lump sum conclusion about liberalism: Liberal viewpoints tend to be more closely aligned with the values of democracy. Freedom and prosperity for everyone, equal _____ for everyone, of the people, by the people, for the people. It seems to me that liberal views provide a more direct path to achieving true democracy, and thats why I support it.
Time to go read Peter Abelard's autobiography............

Now that was a fascinating person!
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 03:06 PM   #310  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barrington, Il.
Age: 67
Posts: 2,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junehhan View Post
The SVTf will always have a special place in my heart, as I owned a Screaming Yellow Euro for 3 years before trading it in for my TBSS. It wasn't the fastest car, but it had incredible handling abilities. For some reason, it wasn't very fast, but it seemed to have a sweet spot between 60-90 mph. This is where I would pick my races as i'd put it into 3rd gear, and it would accelerate like crazy till 90mph where it hits 7200 rpms and I shift into 4th. Once you hit 4th, the fun is more or less over as you can only do so much with just 170hp
The reason it wasn't a 1/4mile racer was because the gearing was tall for road racing where it excels.
Emil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 06:49 PM   #311  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
The reason it wasn't a 1/4mile racer was because the gearing was tall for road racing where it excels.
Yeah, but it sure would have been nice to get some ricer gear ratios with that vehicle. The S2000 for instance was extremely torque challenged, but it had some insane close ratio gearing which helped immensly. It seems like half of the battle will fall on whether you have optimal gear ratios for the situation you are in, or not. I would have loved to get a Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 instead of the TBSS, but the price difference prohibited that. However, gearing is one reason why the GCSRT8 can rape a TBSS from the start. It may have 25 more HP, but it has a very good 5 speed transmission that helps keep the engine closer to it's powerband as it upshfits. Combine that with a hgih stall torque converter from the factory(the reason why they cannot tow anything), and you have a 5000lb SUV that takes off like a raped ape and will tear apart even most sports cars from a launch and keep at it.

The TBSS on the other hand has a normal torque converter, and has a archaic 4 speed transmission that feels like the ratios between the gears are enourmous. 1st gear shifts into 2nd at the 6500rpm redline at 41-42mph and rides 2nd gear till it shifts into 3rd at 82mph. I've been upto 135mph(it is limited at 130, so maybe speedo error?) and it appears to ride 3rd gear until 129mph or so.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 08:06 PM   #312  
Defender of Sanity
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junehhan View Post
Time to go read Peter Abelard's autobiography............

Now that was a fascinating person!
I will read more in depth and give a full response tomorrow. (just got done golfing, and that means I'm near drunk)

I like the fact that, even while having opposite political viewpoints, through peaceful debate, we have been able to get closer and closer to agreement on almost every issue
Ntruder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2007, 11:29 PM   #313  
My plasma is High Def.
 

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7
Default sucks

i relize as soon as i race someone ill be having to fill my tank back up plus my evo takes premium
confined098 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2007, 11:18 AM   #314  
High Definition is the definition of life.
Thread Starter
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 7,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by confined098 View Post
i relize as soon as i race someone ill be having to fill my tank back up plus my evo takes premium
Premium really isn't that big of a deal, especially with a vehicle that has as small of a fuel tank as yours. You figure that it's only an extra $2 every 10 gallons which is a small price to pay for the kind of performance that you get. It's a tradeoff as you really don't buy performance vehicles with economy in mind as the standard Mitsu Lancer fulfills that pupose.
junehhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2007, 12:19 PM   #315  
Defender of Sanity
 

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,232
Default

But, cars with either high compression ratios or running high levels of forced induction, like the Evo, can actually be at risk of predetonation with 87 octane fuels. Higher octane fuels burn longer, and stay burning throughout the entire stroke. Lower octane fuels will detonate just by being compressed (called pre-detonation) which can severely damage your engine if it happens before the downstroke

I know a guy who drove a 93 Rx7 and popped some apex seals from pre-detonation on a single tank of 87 octane.
Ntruder is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


to Anyone altering their driving habits due to outrageous gas prices?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LCD TV Monitor Panel Prices on the Rise eHDMI High Definition News & Informative Articles 1 08-24-2006 03:02 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:22 PM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands