Wauseon plant to open Monday for 110-mpg car engines

[MaxBuck]

Americans need to do what we have always done best...invent!
Become the world leader in green technologies.

Actually, we pretty much are.

 

[Folanator]

Americans need to do what we have always done best...invent!
Become the world leader in green technologies. And in doing so it will completely change our political dynamic in the world.
If we don't we will be just a fading power like the UK and France. And we doom thousands of fine young American women and men to fighting oil wars.

Well said.

Someone has to be the first to jump 27 feet, I say let it be us.

 

[scott91575]

And our government hasn't? Who keeps up spending for highways? Who created tax incentives to buy SUVs? Whose foreign/military policy has attempted to assure low price oil? Who decided to favor air and auto over rail? Who created most of our towns and cities in such a way as to make it all but impossible to get around without a car?

Our government has marketed the automobile and spent trillions to help boost a car driven society and economy by subsidizing all that automobile travel needs to be successful.

Spending on highways is bad? What do you want, dirt roads? Interstate commerce through a highway WAS NOT created to in some government plan to sell more fuel inefficient cars to people (BTW...many European countries spend more on highways than the US...guess they don't know what they are going). Let's not forget nonstop travel actually reduces fuel consumption.
Tax incentives on SUV's were a loophole that was closed, not an intentional law to help people buy SUV's. It was meant for small business owners in the 70's, not some scheme to get people to buy SUV's (intent is very important here).
How has war EVER lowered oil prices? If it is blood for oil, it's because the people have the need created by their own decisions. It's not like the US went into WWII thinking "how we gonna sell all these cars? I know, go to war." If true, it's reactionary to an already created marketplace, not in an effort to create one.
The consumer favored auto over air and rail. It's more lack of action than purposeful action.
Towns and cities were created because the consumer wanted to move there, and chose to.

In Europe, the government purposely creates laws to create a marketplace. In the US, the only laws or actions by the government are reactionary to a marketplace the consumer has already created. The purposeful laws are the CAFE standards which were enacted, which changes supply. So I guess the government was manipulating supply in one direction and demand in the other on purpose. That is pretty crazy.

Thank you for proving my point about pointing a finger at someone else. It's the governments fault! Damn them and their evil plans to fool us consumers into buying gas guzzling vehicles.

 

[Folanator]

Spending on highways is bad? What do you want, dirt roads? Interstate commerce through a highway WAS NOT created to in some government plan to sell more fuel inefficient cars to people (BTW...many European countries spend more on highways than the US...guess they don't know what they are going). Let's not forget nonstop travel actually reduces fuel consumption.
Tax incentives on SUV's were a loophole that was closed, not an intentional law to help people buy SUV's. It was meant for small business owners in the 70's, not some scheme to get people to buy SUV's (intent is very important here).
How has war EVER lowered oil prices? If it is blood for oil, it's because the people have the need created by their own decisions. It's not like the US went into WWII thinking "how we gonna sell all these cars? I know, go to war." If true, it's reactionary to an already created marketplace, not in an effort to create one.
The consumer favored auto over air and rail. It's more lack of action than purposeful action.
Towns and cities were created because the consumer wanted to move there, and chose to.

In Europe, the government purposely creates laws to create a marketplace. In the US, the only laws or actions by the government are reactionary to a marketplace the consumer has already created. The purposeful laws are the CAFE standards which were enacted, which changes supply. So I guess the government was manipulating supply in one direction and demand in the other on purpose. That is pretty crazy.

Thank you for proving my point about pointing a finger at someone else. It's the governments fault! Damn them and their evil plans to fool us consumers into buying gas guzzling vehicles.

All true, but even truer is that people are morons that think they can drive their F10's forever. It's the American way damn it! Screw that. Build 'em small and fuel efficient and save the oil for the business that need it to produce product.

Bottom line, you have to change the current behavior of the US consumer or nothing will change. Most of America just want to drive their car home in time to watch Wheel of Fortune and could not think past the edge of their fat ass on a recliner.

 

[cincibuck]

Spending on highways is bad? What do you want, dirt roads? Interstate commerce through a highway WAS NOT created to in some government plan to sell more fuel inefficient cars to people (BTW...many European countries spend more on highways than the US...guess they don't know what they are going). Let's not forget nonstop travel actually reduces fuel consumption.

Diety H. Diety. I didn't say roads were bad. I said we spent money on them. And what bubble world are you talking about where capital and industry don't seek favor from government(s)?

Tax incentives on SUV's were a loophole that was closed, not an intentional law to help people buy SUV's.

Not intentional? "Hey, we'll give you a tax rebate if you'll buy an SUV," is not an intentional incentive?

It was meant for small business owners in the 70's, not some scheme to get people to buy SUV's (intent is very important here).

So, because it was a break aimed at small businesses, it's not an incentive? I'm finding it hard to grasp your logic here.

How has war EVER lowered oil prices? If it is blood for oil, it's because the people have the need created by their own decisions. It's not like the US went into WWII thinking "how we gonna sell all these cars? I know, go to war." If true, it's reactionary to an already created marketplace, not in an effort to create one.

a) I never mentioned war. I said policy, both from Department of State (foreign policy) and DoD (military policy) b) Are you telling me that the 6th and 5th Fleets have not been on permanent station in and around the Middle East Oil routes? Are you denying that one of the major roles of Central Command is to be able to stabilize the world's oil supply? The prices paid for oil go up and down daily in relationship to the success of US foreign and military policy to control the area and the supply line.

The consumer favored auto over air and rail. It's more lack of action than purposeful action.
Towns and cities were created because the consumer wanted to move there, and chose to.

I see. And giving mail contracts to airlines had nothing to do with lowering the cost of flying? Building airports with tax money did nothing to incentivize air traffic. Look, we both know that government can spend it's money in many ways to cause people to do something. In the 1930s my parents could take the inter-urban -- what was basically a street car -- from their home on Dayton's east side and pull up next to Crosley Field, Fountain Square, the Zoo or Coney Island and do it in less than an hour and a half. Just about the same time it takes you to drive the same distance in a car today. In those pre-freeway days it took a good two to three hours to drive to Cincinnati. Tax money built the free way and the free way made the car viable. I'm not making a judgement as to whether that's good or bad, I'm just saying it incentivized a particular behavior, namely get in your car and drive to whereever. The government could just as easily reincentivize public transportation by underwriting the cost of building rail nets, creating suburban transportation nets, by making airlines pay a bigger portion of the cost for airport construction and maintainence.

In Europe, the government purposely creates laws to create a marketplace. In the US, the only laws or actions by the government are reactionary to a marketplace the consumer has already created. The purposeful laws are the CAFE standards which were enacted, which changes supply. So I guess the government was manipulating supply in one direction and demand in the other on purpose. That is pretty crazy.

All governments do the same thing. This is not a US v. Europe issue.

 

[scott91575]

Diety H. Diety. I didn't say roads were bad. I said we spent money on them. And what bubble world are you talking about where capital and industry don't seek favor from government(s)?

Not intentional? "Hey, we'll give you a tax rebate if you'll buy an SUV," is not an intentional incentive?
So, because it was a break aimed at small businesses, it's not an incentive? I'm finding it hard to grasp your logic here.

a) I never mentioned war. I said policy, both from Department of State (foreign policy) and DoD (military policy) b) Are you telling me that the 6th and 5th Fleets have not been on permanent station in and around the Middle East Oil routes? Are you denying that one of the major roles of Central Command is to be able to stabilize the world's oil supply? The prices paid for oil go up and down daily in relationship to the success of US foreign and military policy to control the area and the supply line.

I see. And giving mail contracts to airlines had nothing to do with lowering the cost of flying? Building airports with tax money did nothing to incentivize air traffic. Look, we both know that government can spend it's money in many ways to cause people to do something. In the 1930s my parents could take the inter-urban -- what was basically a street car -- from their home on Dayton's east side and pull up next to Crosley Field, Fountain Square, the Zoo or Coney Island and do it in less than an hour and a half. Just about the same time it takes you to drive the same distance in a car today. In those pre-freeway days it took a good two to three hours to drive to Cincinnati. Tax money built the free way and the free way made the car viable. I'm not making a judgement as to whether that's good or bad, I'm just saying it incentivized a particular behavior, namely get in your car and drive to whereever. The government could just as easily reincentivize public transportation by underwriting the cost of building rail nets, creating suburban transportation nets, by making airlines pay a bigger portion of the cost for airport construction and maintainence.

All governments do the same thing. This is not a US v. Europe issue.

Here is the deal. The government is not creating policy for the sheer purpose of getting people to buy gas guzzling car, while European countries specifically made policy to change the demand in the auto industry.

I will try and explain a few things....

The highway issue....of course government has to spend money on highways. I have no idea what you are getting at here. This is done to improve interstate commerce, not get people to buy cars that get bad gas mileage. Other countries have interstates, roads, etc. How the [censored] does any of that matter? This is about fuel economy, not the increased usage of vehicles.

The tax breaks...in the 70's, when it was created, there were not SUV's for general consumers. Farmers and small businesses were given a break on heavy machinery and delivery vehicles (things they needed to buy). Later on SUV's fell into this category. It was not, and never was meant to give breaks for people to buy SUV's. Seriously, how can you not get that or defend your stance on that one? As soon as it was shown people were buying large vehicles instead of small ones because of this break (something not foreseen in the 70's because vehicles in that weight class back then were not passenger vehicles) the loophole was closed. Should the government closed the loophole sooner...sure. Yet that policy never was created to get consumers to buy less efficient vehicles.

The policy for protecting oil interests is because the consumer put the government in this position. It's also because oil is a valuable resource. It has nothing to do with the government trying to manipulate the market so people buy less efficient vehicles. The government wants cheap oil, yet not because they want people to buy gas guzzling vehicles. It's because they want to keep commodity prices low because people demand it. The government again is doing what people want. Again, you only have yourself to blame.

As far as public transit, that is often a huge failure because of pubic demand. Again though....WTF does this have to do with efficient vehicles? As a matter of fact, less efficient vehicles should cause more use of public transport. The reason it is popular in Europe is because of policies that inflate gas prices. Creating supply when there is not demand is a huge failure (which you seem to want to do).

You really don't seem to understand. The European policy was created strictly with one purpose...manipulate the demand of the consumer in the auto industry. The US has very few policies that do this (there are some....gas guzzler taxes, tax breaks on hybrids...yet they are not very far reaching). Anything else you talk about is a side effect of other policies.

Yes, goverments manipulate demand in other industries. Yet we are talking about fuel economy, diesels, etc. in the auto industry. You go on a tangent and create your own straw man arguments. As far as the auto industry is concerned, the US has created very few direct policies that effect demand. The US policy has always been, as far as the auto industries are concerned, is effecting supply (with CAFE). There also has never been a single policy with the specific reason to get consumers to buy less efficient vehicles. On the other hand, European countries have specific policies that manipulate demand.

With every post you keep on reinforcing my point. All of the stuff you talk about (except the SUV tax break which you are totally wrong) is an example of the government allowing people to choose. Then when the consumer creates a marketplace and conditions change, instead of looking at themselves for the choices they made, they blame random policy (policy that did not force them into a choice, but allowed them a choice) and the auto manufacturers for giving them what they wanted. Stop [censored]ing bitching at auto companies and the government for choices you made! Honestly, if you shoot yourself in the foot do you complain that the government allows guns? Do you blame the maker of the coffee when you spill it on yourself and get burnt. Oh wait, people do that too. Just another example of how our society has zero personal accountability.

edit: You is a generalization here. In many cases I should use us, but definitely use you (as a generalization to the bitchers and moaners) in other areas since I don't bitch about what auto manufacturers and the government does to allow consumers to choose less efficient vehicles.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Oh, let me add....if you really think car companies are keeping fuel economy away from the consumer on purpose, time for a lobotomy.

It's big oil who is keeping high-efficiency engines out of the public eye. The auto companies don't want the expense of having to retool their entire engine manufacturing process.

Read two prior posts of mine about how a past "breakthrough" engine never saw the light of day:

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/867731-post37.html

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/246987-post300.html

 

[scott91575]

It's big oil who is keeping high-efficiency engines out of the public eye. The auto companies don't want the expense of having to retool their entire engine manufacturing process.

Read two prior posts of mine about how a past "breakthrough" engine never saw the light of day:

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/867731-post37.html

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/246987-post300.html

Umm, wrong. Car manufacturers retool plants all the time. I have personally been involved in complete overhauls and brand new plants. I also worked briefly on a similar engine. Never saw the light of day. Why? Because it is impossible to get 2 stroke engines to meet emissions. Where emissions are not a concern you see 2 strokes all over the place....see weed whackers. Heck, just look at snowmobiles and jet skis. All used to be 2 stroke before the government emissions kicked in. 2 strokes are nothing new, and sorry to break it to you, his supposed "clean" engine did not meet emissions standards.

and thank you for once again showing the ignorant American public eats up stupid little "tech advance" segments and thinks there is some conspiracy.

When will you people realize the auto industry is at odds with the oil industry. The auto industry does not want to be handcuffed by oil prices where it's fluctuations effect demand. They have spent billions if not trillions of dollars on researching this stuff. There is a reason you don't hear anymore about that engine....it doesn't [censored]ing work. I will repeat since some are pretty thick....it doesn't [censored]ing work. All those things disappear for that reason. There is not a conspiracy.

 

[Folanator]

Umm, wrong. Car manufacturers retool plants all the time. I have personally been involved in complete overhauls and brand new plants. I also worked briefly on a similar engine. Never saw the light of day. Why? Because it is impossible to get 2 stroke engines to meet emissions. Where emissions are not a concern you see 2 strokes all over the place....see weed whackers. Heck, just look at snowmobiles and jet skis. All used to be 2 stroke before the government emissions kicked in. 2 strokes are nothing new, and sorry to break it to you, his supposed "clean" engine did not meet emissions standards.

and thank you for once again showing the ignorant American public eats up stupid little "tech advance" segments and thinks there is some conspiracy.

When will you people realize the auto industry is at odds with the oil industry. The auto industry does not want to be handcuffed by oil prices where it's fluctuations effect demand. They have spent billions if not trillions of dollars on researching this stuff. There is a reason you don't hear anymore about that engine....it doesn't [censored]ing work. I will repeat since some are pretty thick....it doesn't [censored]ing work. All those things disappear for that reason. There is not a conspiracy.

Which all brings us back to the point that there needs to behavior modification by the Government. It has to happen.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Umm, wrong. Car manufacturers retool plants all the time. I have personally been involved in complete overhauls and brand new plants. I also worked briefly on a similar engine. Never saw the light of day. Why? Because it is impossible to get 2 stroke engines to meet emissions. Where emissions are not a concern you see 2 strokes all over the place....see weed whackers. Heck, just look at snowmobiles and jet skis. All used to be 2 stroke before the government emissions kicked in. 2 strokes are nothing new, and sorry to break it to you, his supposed "clean" engine did not meet emissions standards.

Uh, wrong. How do you know it didn't meet emission standards? You don't, because you didn't see the segment and therefore didn't see the measurements he made. The exhaust was totally smokeless. Just because you couldn't get a 2-stroke to meet emissions doesn't mean he didn't. I suppose they guy was also bullshitting when he said he didn't need to add oil directly to the gas like most/all other 2-cycles.

As for snowmobiles and jetskis switching to four-cycles, that's because they didn't want to mess with the expense of R&Ding improved two-cycles.

Here's an older article from Popular Mechanics showing a design for a "clean" two-cycle engine...

 

[scott91575]

Uh, wrong. How do you know it didn't meet emission standards? You don't, because you didn't see the segment and therefore didn't see the measurements he made. The exhaust was totally smokeless. Just because you couldn't get a 2-stroke to meet emissions doesn't mean he didn't. I suppose they guy was also bull[censored]ting when he said he didn't need to add oil directly to the gas like most/all other 2-cycles.

As for snowmobiles and jetskis switching to four-cycles, that's because they didn't want to mess with the expense of R&Ding improved two-cycles.

You make up your own crap and believe what you want.

Just answer me one question....why would companies have to spend R&D when this guy already has it, and even if patented it's been long enough for them to copy it? Your logic is so flawed I don't even have time to go into it all.

Finally, 2 stroke engines are no where near as efficient as that guy claims. It's all a load of bull[censored]. There is a reason none of this comes out even after any patent would expire...it does not work as claimed. No one is buying this tech and burying it. People may buy it, but then make it practical and already on the market place.

 

[scott91575]

Here's an older article from Popular Mechanics showing a design for a "clean" two-cycle engine...

So 6 years ago they have this tech, yet it's laziness that prevents it from market, right. What does "clean" mean. No claims it meets current emissions. I see no numbers on NOx or hydrocarbons (it's not about burning oil, it's about hydrocarbons and NOx). No claims on efficiency. I guess those bastards got to him too! They are crafty.

BTW...his clean claim is for burning of oil. BFD. That is not going to impact his hydrocarbon or NOx emissions. I can guarantee his hydrocarbons are through the roof. You can add direct injection to eliminate some of those issues, but direct injection has it's own emissions problems. Direct injection was difficult to implement to meet current hydrocarbon emmissions in the US for 4 stroke gas engines, and has the same problem on 2 stroke. Perhaps with some of these advances 2 stroke could become feasible. Yet they have not at any point in the last 30+ years met emission standards. There is not some conspiracy to keep these from you, plain and simple.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

You make up your own crap and believe what you want.

So, I really didn't see this on a TV show, and I'm just "making up my own crap". Great retort.

Just answer me one question....why would companies have to spend R&D when this guy already has it, and even if patented it's been long enough for them to copy it? Your logic is so flawed I don't even have time to go into it all.

Uh, maybe because their engineers weren't smart enough to figure it out? So, just because companies can't figure out how to make shit work better, individual inventors can't. Talk about flawed logic. I suppose the Wright Brothers really didn't invent the airplane or Jonas Salk didn't come up with the polio vaccine.

Finally, 2 stroke engines are no where near as efficient as that guy claims. It's all a load of bull[censored]. There is a reason none of this comes out even after any patent would expire...it does not work as claimed. No one is buying this tech and burying it. People may buy it, but then make it practical and already on the market place.

Why would big oil go through the trouble of buying off the patent from the inventor just to release the info once the patent expires? It's because they don't. They pay the inventor a shitload of cash for ownership of the invention, and the patent if one has already been granted, make the fucker sign a confidentiality agreement, and then make sure the invention and patent never see the light of day. Getting 60+ MPG (or whatever his exact claim was) was three times what most cars were getting back in the mid-90s. Think about the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of gallons in gas sales they'd loose over the years if his engine were allowed to be mass-produced.

If you really think that the engines in current mass-produced vehicles are the absolute very best that can be drawn up today, you are more naive than I thought. And if you think there is no sort of collusion between the auto-makers and big oil, well, I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[scott91575]

So, I really didn't see this on a TV show, and I'm just "making up my own crap". Great retort.

No, you made up crap about companies not wanting to spend money on R&D and retooling. Totally made up.


Uh, maybe because their engineers weren't smart enough to figure it out? So, just because companies can't figure out how to make [censored] work better, individual inventors can't. Talk about flawed logic. I suppose the Wright Brothers really didn't invent the airplane or Jonas Salk didn't come up with the polio vaccine.

We are talking about something invented 15 years ago. They can look it up. They don't need to be smart. Patent files do not disappear.


Why would big oil go through the trouble of buying off the patent from the inventor just to release the info once the patent expires? It's because they don't. They pay the inventor a [censored]load of cash for ownership of the invention, and the patent if one has already been granted, make the [censored]er sign a confidentiality agreement, and then make sure the invention and patent never see the light of day. Getting 60+ MPG (or whatever his exact claim was) was three times what most cars were getting back in the mid-90s. Think about the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of gallons in gas sales they'd loose over the years if his engine were allowed to be mass-produced.

First of all, please provide the link of big oil buying up the patent. Patents stay on file then expire. Anyone can go look it up now and copy it. This is your own fairy tale. You cannot get a patent without filing it. Once it is filed, it's public domain. Your ignorance is mind boggling.

If you really think that the engines in current mass-produced vehicles are the absolute very best that can be drawn up today, you are more naive than I thought. And if you think there is no sort of collusion between the auto-makers and big oil, well, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Of course they can make better. Yet I already discussed the cost factor earlier in this thread.

You are the most ignorant son of a bitch I have ever discussed anything with. I worked in the damn auto industry. This is the stuff I am talking about you making up. It's complete bull[censored]. Auto companies are failing left and right (much of it caused by rising oil prices), while oil companies flourish. On top of that you need every company to sign up for this vast conspiracy. I guess hybrid makers and all car companies scrambling to make more fuel efficient vehicles for the US market didn't get the memo. Once again, your ignorance is on a level I have never encountered in my entire life. It is downright shocking.

see bold.

edit: deciding to go with the ignore choice instead of avoiding this thread. Conspiracy theorists are the biggest waste of space on the planet and I will not waste even a minute reading anymore crazy ideas.

 

[Taosman]

The Japanese have been making fuel efficient engines for years and have the best hybrids right now.(new Honda Insight can get 70mpg)
American manufacturers tried to (remember the Vega?) and made crap cars for years. We have always had the ability to innovate, we just didn't have the will. And politicians have always buckled to Detroit and the oil companies(big money contributors).
What is different now? Hurtful fuel prices, an economic meltdown and a government with balls. We hope they get it "right" this time. It could save the life of your sons and daughters.