Higher mileage may not conserve oil!

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Nomen Nescio, Apr 30, 2006.

  1. Nomen Nescio

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    The Nation's leaders are under the belief that more miles-per-gallon will
    lead to conservation of oil resources. This may be a false belief.

    As mpg goes up, people will drive more and as a result, consumption will
    normalize to present levels. Likewise, if prices go down at the pump,
    mileage will go up and again equalize.

    Many people have cut back on pleasure trips; if they had thrifty cars, they
    would take those Sunday drives. No matter what schemes are instituted, our
    consumption will remain high and our dependence on imported oil will be
    unabated.

    There is some talk going 'round to bring back the 55 speed limit, believe
    it or not. I'll vote for that when Air Force One, the World's biggest and
    baddest SUV, has to throttle back to 55. What's good for the goose is
    good for the gander.
     
    Nomen Nescio, Apr 30, 2006
    #1
  2. Nomen Nescio

    frenchy Guest

    <<There is some talk going 'round to bring back the 55 speed limit,
    believe
    it or not. I'll vote for that when Air Force One, the World's biggest
    and
    baddest SUV, has to throttle back to 55. What's good for the goose is

    good for the gander. >>

    Why do obsessively bring the damn presidential airplane into this
    debate? The president, whoever it is, has to fly in a sophisticated
    big airplane, the end. And they have to ride around in big armored
    limos that get 2 mpg (if that) Why don't you tell us our presidents
    should try to survive on flies and maggots because people are starving
    in Africa?
     
    frenchy, May 2, 2006
    #2
  3. Nomen Nescio

    MoPar Man Guest

    Maybe because of how often he and Cheney use it to fly to nothing more
    than photo-op events?
     
    MoPar Man, May 2, 2006
    #3
  4. Nomen Nescio

    Bret Ludwig Guest

    Because having the President on a 747 domestically is ridiculous. A
    Gulfstream or at most a 737 sized aircraft would be entirely suitable.
     
    Bret Ludwig, May 2, 2006
    #4
  5. Nomen Nescio

    Bret Ludwig Guest

    I would add that my driving doesn't vary much no matter the price of
    gas because gasoline is the cheapest thing you put into a vehicle.

    When a female friend who had lived in NYC for five years came back out
    here to the Midwest, i advised her to find a good used Town Car (sorry
    mopeople), preferably the last year or two of pushrod engine ones, with
    40-60K miles for the least she could find one for that had not been hit
    hard or had someone die in it. She could pay cash for it and even
    figuring gas at $4 a gallon it would be cheaper to drive than anything
    but the cheapest possible new car. She did the math and we found a good
    one for $5300 that has given her 70,000 miles with nothing but gas,
    tires, oil and a brake job.

    OTOH I know a guy that is doing the biodiesel thing with burger
    grease. He has three diesel vehicles, a Rabbit, a 300SD Benz and an
    early 60s Chevy pickup with a 3-53 Detroit. He just put $1600 into the
    Benz's transmission, and the Detroit wound up costing him about six
    thousand in parts, machine work and fabrication not counting the truck
    itself. He spent over a grand making that first batch of fuel, and it
    takes him three hours to make forty to fifty gallons each batch plus
    the stench and the bother of the cnemicals involved.
     
    Bret Ludwig, May 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Nomen Nescio

    Steve Guest

    Riiiiight.... Easy to pick on the ex oil executive, isn't it?

    How about a reality check:

    http://www.hernandotoday.com/MGBBVNR5LME.html
     
    Steve, May 2, 2006
    #6
  7. Nomen Nescio

    Steve Guest

    Hmmm... does it make sense to just use the existing world-capable planes
    to fly the president, his staff, and the press entourage everywhere,
    or should we the tax payers foot the bill for a SECOND fleet of smaller
    planes, all of which would require multi-million dollar modifications
    like the two 747s have had, and all of which would require maintenance,
    spares, and the associated logistics trails because they're
    fundamentally different from the 747s.... and do all that so that we
    can send 3 or 4 of them across country to do the job that ONE of the
    747s that we already have in the fleet could do?

    Scuse me if I don't mind the president (whoever he might be...) sticking
    with what we have. I don't like wasting money on stupid ideas because
    aviation ign'ernt fools think that a 747 is "too big." Hell, the 707s we
    had before were smaller... lets just go back to them! Nevermind that
    their fuel efficiency is far LOWER.
     
    Steve, May 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Nomen Nescio

    Bill Putney Guest

    Don't confuse 'em with facts.

    Bill Putney
    (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
    address with the letter 'x')
     
    Bill Putney, May 3, 2006
    #8
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.