Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Topic: Someone lost their mind on this one!! (Read 4761 times) previous topic - next topic

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #30 – September 08, 2012, 06:46:49 AM

Quote from: TheFoeYouKnow;397709

I think we've reached the point where somebody should point out that the rules prohibit political discussion on this board. Just sayin'.

You are most likely correct but tell me all about it when you are rebuilding your entire fuel system because of the increase of ethinol that will be mandated!!!!:beatyoass:

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #31 – September 08, 2012, 07:40:43 AM

If you're building a c that's old enough to have issues with 10% ethanol, I'd reckon the fuel system needs some work regardless..
Tom Renzo...you can run up to 25-30% ethanol on most cars made in the last 15-20 years with no issues.

Fact.

As far as the politics, I don't give a shiznit. It's all about who has a bigger check book and can tell the best and least painful lies.

And...ethanol is probably a cleaner fuel than most of the alternatives...also, it has more energy than gasoline.

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #32 – September 08, 2012, 08:40:59 AM

But you have to run it richer, which can make up for it's energy density. I don't want ethanol, not really, I see the good, but I can't look past the bad. If we get 15% (doubtful as congress just put that idea down) and I need to make fuel system changes, I'll make fuel system changes and not cry, because I'm a big boy and I do what has to be done.

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #33 – September 08, 2012, 10:34:16 AM

Well, I attributed it's use as a left wing move as they are the ones who cry about the environment and the use of evil oil the loudest. That was my mistake. While republicans push the legislature through (somebody must be making money) the environment and oil dependance are largely left handed issues. It's no suprise that California was the first to ban MBTA and switch to ethanol.

In 2005 #43, George Bush Signed into legislature Energy Policy Act of 2005. The act originally called for 4 billion gallons of Biofuel (Ethanol) be mixed with gasoline by 2006 and 7.5B by 2012. Two years later, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires that by 2022 36B be mixed with gasoline. This is why Ethanol is in your fuel.

Feel free to defend it and explain why it's good policy. I do not see it. (in regards to ethanol use and subsidies).

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #34 – September 08, 2012, 10:49:42 AM

Quote from: Crazy88;397710

Yeah, I think you may be right, but I would like to point out two things: First, everything we see and do has something to do with politics. If you discusss any subject long enough, that is exactly where you are going to end up. Secondly, does it strike anyone else as a bit odd that it was shame302 that used the phrase "liberal scam" in the first place as quoted below... emphasis mine.

naw,, scroll back to post 18.

I hope they get this fuel thing right, i would like to have better air , who wouldnt. When its cost prohibitive to a price point that makes no banking sense, thats when i have a problem.
we have all discussed alternative energies here and one thing they all have in common is "hotter" burning stuff lets off less polution.
I dont think the engine world is moving towards a hotter burning motor though.
Example of using a oil burning stove with forced air using nothing but old motor oil. It burns so hot the polution is very little generating nearly whitish blue flames.
not sure the public would embrase the heat ranges required to produce true efficiency under thier hoods when they find out thier "normal" temp range is over 600 to 1000degF under thier hoods.
Sounds like "hot" is good for the earth.

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #35 – September 08, 2012, 01:18:20 PM

Quote from: TheFoeYouKnow;397717

But you have to run it richer, which can make up for it's energy density. I don't want ethanol, not really, I see the good, but I can't look past the bad. If we get 15% (doubtful as congress just put that idea down) and I need to make fuel system changes, I'll make fuel system changes and not cry, because I'm a big boy and I do what has to be done.

That might be true till the big boys ban old cars by selection. You know decrease the numbers to pass state and or federal emissions!! My state decreases the numbers in HALF. So if for some reason you think you can build around the laws think again. The feds have an anti tampering law well in place for automobiles. So pray tell me how many on this site run CATS. Lets do this lets have a POLL of how many people have tampered cars. I will start

I have tampered cars. Many!!! Now it is your turn???

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #36 – September 08, 2012, 07:26:56 PM

I will tell you this, it is quite a pain the ass to get a vehicle to pass safety inspection here without cats. I had a fiasco with the Mountaineer, had to have some of my sweet-assed exhaust cut off and a cat welded in to pass. But I needed it legal ASAP.

And we don't even have a sniffer out here, but the cats do have to be there since they were factory...

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #37 – September 08, 2012, 07:32:25 PM

High flow cats don't hurt anything at all on the street. Racing, on the other hand, is a different matter.

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #38 – September 08, 2012, 10:50:29 PM

Both are true. As 302 points out he has visual inspection and that is a big one. This is my point. 88 is correct as running a cat normally increases HP to an extent. Mostly all modern Cats at 200-300 Cells do not harm performance one bit. They actually increase HP to a slight degree. Car companies are now running cat only exhausts from the factory!! Either way with a stroke of a pen and bypassing congress as what was just dun . The writing is on the wall if the big boys want our cars GONE. It is simply a stroke of the pen AWAY.

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #39 – September 08, 2012, 11:14:52 PM

I can understand and accept mass transit in a a place such as downtown LA, or NYC, in fact, in the really crowded places, it's either cab, bus, sub, or hoof it to where ya gotta get to.

But what about the truckers? Take those semis off the road, and we will starve. Well, the folks who can't kill game, bake bread, and live off the land will go hungry, anyway.

Things are and will continue to change, but if you legislate out the semi trucks, the big farm tractors, and the like, we may as well all go jump in a lake with bricks strapped to our boots, because this country won't survive without the trucking industry OR the farmers.

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #40 – September 09, 2012, 12:34:37 AM

Quote

But what about the truckers?

Semi and diesel have never been held to the strict standards gasoline autos have. Government knows how sensitive that issue is.

FWIW, on any street car, cats are a non issue other than cost and desires sound output. No reason not to have them.

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #41 – September 09, 2012, 06:44:46 AM

NOT TRUE SHAME!!! They already took care of that with PHASE 4 DIESEL EMISSIONS. Cat is no longer building over the road engines along with others. You see they ran out of emission points 3 years ago. NO ENGINES NO TRUCKS!!!! And most towns and states are implementing clean diesel technology for off road and construction equipment when signing contracts. Either you have PHASE 4 clean diesel equipment and trucks or you do not get to bid the contract. This is well in place in many states already. And it will get worse as time goes on. So be it as it may the BS is already happening. So when someone claims they will build around the laws they are fooling themselves. SIMPLE you cant drive without license plates!!! Or INSURANCE!!! The TRUCKERS are steamed over high Diesel prices and now add in the cost of UREA. Come NOV better think hard and wise !!!

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #42 – September 09, 2012, 10:39:58 AM

Whatever the outcome in November is, don't believe for a second that the emissions standards will get easier. To buy that is is just silly.

The EPA probably has more to do with that than anything.

For what it's worth (not much, I'll admit) my dad's 2012 Freightshaker has a Cat...his company leased it in April this year. It's the ACERT II version...

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #43 – September 09, 2012, 07:13:51 PM

Of course they want them gone. It does Detroit no good if we're not replacing them every five years. And of course if it's not a Prius then it needs to be crushed to save Mother Gaia. And if our paint has oxidized then it's an eyesore to people who like to lease new vehicles every two years and want the rest of the world to be as pretty as their new car. And then there are people who think we are strange for not being up to our eyeballs in debt ("What kind of American are you?" I have actually been asked this).

Someone lost their mind on this one!!

Reply #44 – September 09, 2012, 07:37:44 PM

Quote from: Quietleaf;397855

And then there are people who think we are strange for not being up to our eyeballs in debt ("What kind of American are you?" I have actually been asked this).

I am the kind of American that doesn't feel it necessary to stay in debt or operate in crisis mode. You know, the kind that pays their bills with cash rather than a credit card? The kind that helps their neighbor or friends when they need it, cause we want to, and not because someone tries to compel us to. You know, the kind of American that our forefather were... if you can't say the same, you gotta ask yourself, are you who you really want to be?