• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Wauseon plant to open Monday for 110-mpg car engines

scott91575;1481076; said:
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.

You're coming up with inferences not made. I said government incentivizes the use of cars by building roads... yes, those roads may also increase commerce, i.e. commercial vehicle useage, but they also promote travel which puts the idea in the mind of the public that they can live further away from their job and still drive in to work, (just as the gov can incentivize car pools by creating HOV lanes). Those same dollars could be used to INCENTIVIZE other forms of transortation. And, because the price of oil has been kept low due to our state/defense policies/presence in the oil regions we have incentivized SUVs and trucks at the expense of more fuel efficient sedans. Car companies spent the 80s - 2007 marketing SUVs and trucks, creating the mind set that such vehicles were what the public wanted, just as they are now marketing the idea that they have fuel efficient cars to sell you. I don't for one second believe that car companies market only what the public wants. Marketing is set up and designed to create market acceptance.

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.
Other countries de-incentivize car use and car size through taxes. $8 gas creates a different mind set within the Euro public just as $4 gas killed SUV sales in the US last summer.

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.
BUT IT DID, that's the fucking point... it incentivized the purchase of 4 wheel drive vehicles by a bunch of people who never went off road. And gee, what a coincidence that SUVs just happened to be a vehicle Detroit was prepared to make and market and could pack with all kinds of goodies that added to the profit margin per vehicle, i.e. the Big 3 had an incentive to market a big gas guzzler to you.
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.
Seriously, how can you not get that the government created an incentive and it wasn't until the eco freaks pointed it out that the government was obliged to remove the incentive.

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.
If the government didn't want people to buy gas hogs they could do a hell of a lot more than they've done. The GOP votes with the car companies and the road contractors. The Dems vote with the UAW and the trade unions members. Is it any surprise that they have favored the use of cars? It's both parties voting to support an unsustainable system because it's convienent.

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).
Incentives - Disencentives. European governments have created more disencentives for the use of automoblies and more incentives for use of public transportation. the US has done the opposite -- I'd also add something about the elephant in the room that we can't talk about -- public transportation, like public schools, conjures up racial issues in the US. You should have seen the letters to the editor in the Enquirer a few years back when a light rail proposal was on the ballot in Cincinnati. Much of it centered on the use of public transportation by "those people," and how a light rail system would bring "those people" into areas where "they don't belong."

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.
You really don't seem to understand the concept of incentivize. Policies, and the lack thereof, are BOTH actions to incentivize or disincentivize public behavior. The decision to regulate is no more active and no less active than the decision to not regulate. Either one causes the public to behave in certain ways.

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.
See above.

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)
Oh please, an incentive is an incentive. Whether it goes awry, or begins to be an incentive for the wrong thing is irrelevant. It was used as an incentive and many people took advantage of it and it had an impact on the overall fuel eficiency of all vehicles manufactured in the US.
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.
And yes I blame McDonald's when coffee was kept at super high temperatures even after they'd been dragged into court on several other cases and told to lower the temp. That was not the first and only case of people being burned by Mickey D coffee, just the one that cost them a shit pot full of money, but for the most part we agree on this. People have the power to chose what to buy and with that goes the right to buy something that is not in the best interest of the person or the nation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
cincibuck;1481259; said:
You're coming up with inferences not made. I said government incentivizes the use of cars by building roads... yes, those roads may also increase commerce, i.e. commercial vehicle useage, but they also promote travel which puts the idea in the mind of the public that they can live further away from their job and still drive in to work, (just as the gov can incentivize car pools by creating HOV lanes). Those same dollars could be used to INCENTIVIZE other forms of transortation. And, because the price of oil has been kept low due to our state/defense policies/presence in the oil regions we have incentivized SUVs and trucks at the expense of more fuel efficient sedans. Car companies spent the 80s - 2007 marketing SUVs and trucks, creating the mind set that such vehicles were what the public wanted, just as they are now marketing the idea that they have fuel efficient cars to sell you. I don't for one second believe that car companies market only what the public wants. Marketing is set up and designed to create market acceptance.

Other countries de-incentivize car use and car size through taxes. $8 gas creates a different mind set within the Euro public just as $4 gas killed SUV sales in the US last summer.

BUT IT DID, that's the [censored]ing point... it incentivized the purchase of 4 wheel drive vehicles by a bunch of people who never went off road. And gee, what a coincidence that SUVs just happened to be a vehicle Detroit was prepared to make and market and could pack with all kinds of goodies that added to the profit margin per vehicle, i.e. the Big 3 had an incentive to market a big gas guzzler to you.
Seriously, how can you not get that the government created an incentive and it wasn't until the eco freaks pointed it out that the government was obliged to remove the incentive.

If the government didn't want people to buy gas hogs they could do a hell of a lot more than they've done. The GOP votes with the car companies and the road contractors. The Dems vote with the UAW and the trade unions members. Is it any surprise that they have favored the use of cars? It's both parties voting to support an unsustainable system because it's convienent.

Incentives - Disencentives. European governments have created more disencentives for the use of automoblies and more incentives for use of public transportation. the US has done the opposite -- I'd also add something about the elephant in the room that we can't talk about -- public transportation, like public schools, conjures up racial issues in the US. You should have seen the letters to the editor in the Enquirer a few years back when a light rail proposal was on the ballot in Cincinnati. Much of it centered on the use of public transportation by "those people," and how a light rail system would bring "those people" into areas where "they don't belong."

You really don't seem to understand the concept of incentivize. Policies, and the lack thereof, are BOTH actions to incentivize or disincentivize public behavior. The decision to regulate is no more active and no less active than the decision to not regulate. Either one causes the public to behave in certain ways.

See above.


Oh please, an incentive is an incentive. Whether it goes awry, or begins to be an incentive for the wrong thing is irrelevant. It was used as an incentive and many people took advantage of it and it had an impact on the overall fuel eficiency of all vehicles manufactured in the US.
And yes I blame McDonald's when coffee was kept at super high temperatures even after they'd been dragged into court on several other cases and told to lower the temp. That was not the first and only case of people being burned by Mickey D coffee, just the one that cost them a [censored] pot full of money, but for the most part we agree on this. People have the power to chose what to buy and with that goes the right to buy something that is not in the best interest of the person or the nation.

The SUV thing we could go back and forth on. I see it as something that had unintended results. The government was not trying to push larger vehicles on the consumer. When the unintended results were brought to light the loophole was closed. You can call it policy, but my contention is intent. The government did not create it to allow for SUV proliferation.

I think we are getting mixed up on what we are fighting about. I am talking about creating an atmosphere for less fuel efficient vehicles vs. more fuel efficient vehicles . Highways have nothing to do with what a consumer chooses for fuel economy (that is proliferation of the automobile debate, not fuel economy). The only thing you could say that was government policy is the attempt to keep oil prices low. Yet I think you can see that is something the government has little to no control over. Therefore, no matter how hard they tried they did not artificially change demand.

Of course your contention will be no matter what the government does (action or inaction) they affect demand. I disagree. I feel inaction is allowing for the natural marketplace where the consumer chooses (again, you can debate the whole oil price thing). It is not the governments policies that made people buy big SUV's, it was consumer tastes.

Of course we all know the real problem is the collusion between the thousands of companies in the oil and auto business keeping technology away from the people. You should see how freaking well organized it is. It's tough eliminating patent records, buying out all these home grown geniuses who despite minimal resources create super vehicles, but they get it done and not a single company strays from the huge conspiracy. I would say more, but I can hear footsteps. They are coming for me! I must run! Tell everyone what you heard here!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
scott91575;1481304; said:
The SUV thing we could go back and forth on. I see it as something that had unintended results. The government was not trying to push larger vehicles on the consumer. When the unintended results were brought to light the loophole was closed. You can call it policy, but my contention is intent. The government did not create it to allow for SUV proliferation.

I think we are getting mixed up on what we are fighting about. I am talking about creating an atmosphere for less fuel efficient vehicles vs. more fuel efficient vehicles . Highways have nothing to do with what a consumer chooses for fuel economy (that is proliferation of the automobile debate, not fuel economy). The only thing you could say that was government policy is the attempt to keep oil prices low. Yet I think you can see that is something the government has little to no control over. Therefore, no matter how hard they tried they did not artificially change demand.

Of course your contention will be no matter what the government does (action or inaction) they affect demand. I disagree. I feel inaction is allowing for the natural marketplace where the consumer chooses (again, you can debate the whole oil price thing). It is not the governments policies that made people buy big SUV's, it was consumer tastes.

Of course we all know the real problem is the collusion between the thousands of companies in the oil and auto business keeping technology away from the people. You should see how freaking well organized it is. It's tough eliminating patent records, buying out all these home grown geniuses who despite minimal resources create super vehicles, but they get it done and not a single company strays from the huge conspiracy. I would say more, but I can hear footsteps. They are coming for me! I must run! Tell everyone what you heard here!

Once we got the semantics worked out I think we reached similar conclusions. The difference is that you see public/consumer demand/taste as something independent, something that can't be manipulated, and I see the public as maleable.

I would argue that, though possessed of free will, the public can be, and hasw been, manipulated through marketing.

The Big 3 pushed the SUV first as an urban assault vehicle. In 1991 Olds ran an ad with a woman climbing into an Olds Bravada, a mini tank with a luxury interior sitting on a Jimmy truck frame, and navigating through inner city streets on a dark and stormy night while her child dozed off in the back seat. The meaning, beginning with the Bravada nameplate, could not have been more obvious and the targeted audiance responded.

Later all three pushed it as an escape vehicle, Chevy even ran an ad where a kyhaker drops down a falls inside his SUV(!) and Hummer wanted you to believe you could go anywhere on earth, even deep sea diving (in your car!) or crossing the Artic circle in a Hummer.

My argument would remain that the government did nothing to stop the move to SUVs and the absence of action allowed the marketing to create a mind set of 'SUV good, econo car bad.' Through inaction the government tacitly supported use of highly inefficient vehicles, vehicles that would have been low mileage beasts in the first place, but then had an extra -- what, 1,000 pounds? -- added on in the form of 4 wheel drive, reducing their efficiency even more. The size of the vehicle allowed the manufacturers to add on ever expanding option packages, cup holders, storage compartments, stereo, TV and DVD, secondary heaters and AC. Contemplating an 18 hour drive to the Florida beach, who wouldn't chose an SUV? Only the real mileage didn't come from long vacation trips, but from day to day work and grocery shopping trips, trips the SUV was never designed for.

In 1979 NPR did an extended report on the ailing American auto industry. European and Japanese car manufacturers had made a huge dent in the American market, helped in no small measure by the oil crises of 1972 and 1979, (things got so bad that California went to odd/even license plate #s to buy gas, driving on Sundays was verbotten) and already there were rumblings that the Big 3 were in trouble. GM had brought in Peter Drucker and William Diemling(???) as consultants to discuss how GM could benefit from Japanese management techniques (and then promptly shit canned the reports).

NPR tried to identify the problems, discuss them and ask what the Big 3 could do to reverse the trends. At one point the reporter brought in the President of Volkswagen and asked him point blank who he feared in the auto world: his fellow Germans, the rest of Europe, Japan?

Without any hesitation he stated, "The Americans. If they want to they can stop us anytime. They have the manufacturing base. They have an excellent labor pool to draw from. They have the testing, research and development facilities, they have the engineers and the engineering schools and universities, they have the marketing skills, they have the dealership and maintainence network. If they ever make up their minds that they want to make high quality cars at lower costs they can do it and push us right out of the market. Right now they don't seem to want to do so."

That was 1979 and ayone who lived through that era can tell you about the really crappy products the Big 3 were foisting off on the public, (the Chevy Nova, the GM V-8 Diesel, any number of pre- K-car Chrysler products) assuring a spot in the American market for Germany and Japan.

Those two countries were ready with fuel efficient, reliable vehicles. The reliable may be the more important of the two qualities. The small car was marketed successfully, but as the fuel emergencies of 1972 and 1979 faded from memory the need for fuel efficiency faded too. The foreign cars grew to American size preferences, yet retained their MPG ratings through more efficient engines.

The small car can be marketed again. A good sized portion of the public can be manipulated and the goverment can greatly add to the effectiveness by aggressively supporting public transportation systems and adding incentives to the use of same.

As we've gone back and forth I've sensed that you believe that the market is driven by its own desires -- and as stated, on a long trip with a couple of rug rats in the back, who wouldn't chose an SUV? -- but with the right mix of disincentives, like toll roads, gas tax money going to rail travel, lower speed limits and the addition of inexpensive rail travel and tax incentives to rent cars at destination instead of driving them there, the publics perception and use of rail could be reversed.

ramble, ramble, ramble, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada, talk, talk, talk, ramble, ramble.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
110-MPG Wonder Engine Quits the X Prize

Article said:
An Ohio entrepreneur who claims to have developed a 400-horsepower wonder engine that gets 110 mpg has withdrawn from the Progressive X Prize competition just days after opening a factory to produce the super motor.

Doug Pelmear, president and CEO of HP2G, said it is ?no longer in the company?s best interests to compete in or be associated with the Progressive Automotive X Prize competition.?
And why not?

Well, for one thing, the prize has been cut from $7.5 million to $5 million, he says in a statement posted Thursday. And then there?s the fact that the competition has been moved from this summer to next summer, which doesn?t fit ?into the business plan and business timeline? of his company because he wants to be selling engines by that time. He also accuses the X Prize of ?a problematic conflict of interest? because it allowed one of the teams to have a say in crafting the rules.

We?ve been looking forward to seeing HP2G compete in the X Prize, if only because Pelmear might finally explain how he?s getting triple-digit fuel economy doing 70 mph in an ?87 Mustang (pictured) powered by a 400-horsepower V8 engine that burns E-85. There?s a lot of skepticism about his performance claims, but Pelmear is forging ahead. He opened a factory in Wauseon, Ohio, on Monday and says he?ll build 500 engines this year.

?Ohio has a lot of people with qualified experience working in the automotive industry. It?s also where we?re currently based and is therefore a natural fit,? Pelmear told Wired.com. ?We plan to take this revolutionary technology abroad, but I want production to stay in and benefit the US.?

Pelmear has been peddling the E-85 super engine in his Mustang for awhile now, driving it long distances to prove its fuel economy and bringing it to the Detroit auto show to get some exposure. But so far he hasn?t offered much of an explanation about how the engine works or how he?s getting such great fuel economy. That didn?t keep local politicians from doing the grip-and-grin with Pelmear on Monday.

?I just want to add my voice to what I?m sure the other officials are saying,? Ohio state Sen. Steve Buehrer said, according to the Van Wert Times Bulletin. ?We have a business starting on a day when at times we want to be overwhelmed with the bleak news of the economy and certainly the auto industry. This is an exciting opportunity for I think all of northwest Ohio.?
revenge-verde1-300x149.jpg
Pelmear claims his engine is based on a design his grandfather came up with in the 1940s, but he didn?t bother displaying one at the factory opening, the Bulletin reported.

All he?ll say is the engine, which he?s spent a decade developing, decreases heat to increase efficiency to a point where there is no need to use a catalytic converter. He claims to have run the engine on an EPA dynamometer and recorded rock-bottom emissions ratings that are less than half those of current cars.

But wait. There?s more. Pelmear says his engine will cost about the same as the one you?re using now.

?My engine does away with a lot parts used in present-day engines, like the catalytic converter,? he told us. ?This therefore offsets any substantial price increase created by the development of new technology.?
The company plans to sell its engine globally, but it is still in the process of seeking an international patent. Pelmear says several foreign automakers are interested in the engine, but of course didn?t identify any of them.

Still, he?s caught the attention of Revenge Designs, an Indiana firm that wants to use the HP2G engine in the Verde luxury sports sedan (pictured) it plans to bring to the Los Angeles Auto Show.

?Years back, I met Doug Pelmear at an auto show,? Peter Collofari, the company?s president and CEO, told Wired.com. ?He informed me of the development of his new engine and then for some years after that I tried to assist him with his project in whatever way I could. On account of our long standing relationship, I think we both can agree that this is a good marriage.?

We?ll wait until we?ve seen the first child of that marriage before agreeing with that.
Photo: HP2G. Rendering: Revenge Designs.
Scott, what are your thoughts regarding his claims concerning reduced heat and elimination of traditional engine parts (catalytic converter)? How significant can a more efficient reduction of heat actually be for improving mileage?
 
Upvote 0
The Wankel engine is a great engine with very few parts. (I had a 83 RX7 20-25mpg) The problem was it's oil usage and relatively poor fuel mileage at the time. Mazda cured the oil usage. So far they haven't figured out the mileage thing. Point is there are designs out there and the technology has caught up to most mileage issues......if there is the will to implement them!
The government really has to take a stand and lead the way in energy conservation. The American people are ......sheepeople! They must be led for their own good.
wankel_cycle_anim_en.gif

What a blast to drive!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Apples to oranges. A Fusion is a mid-size. A Honda Insight is a compact.
If you need a family size car you won't buy a Prius or Insight.
Point is American car builders can give us high mileage cars for a family.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1481536; said:
a midsize is not a family size car.
i drove the car (fusion hybrid) for a week. im 6-7 and id consider buying one. the car had i think 155hp (not a ton but it had some kick in the pants). i actually enjoyed driving it, i would consider purchasing such a vehicle. good mileage (i got high/upper 30s), not redic priced, decent amount of room. ive drive the prius and its small, tight, underpowered and i wouldnt buy one of those.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1481536; said:
a midsize is not a family size car.
I concur, at least for a family of 5 or larger. My oldest is almost 10 and my other 2 kids aren't getting any smaller. Anything shy of a full size sedan would not be workable for my situation. Especially when you have to also consider that my almost-2 year old is in a car seat and a law was just enacted in April so that my 7 year old is now required to ride in a booster seat again. The additional size of the required seat apparatuses take up space, leaving less space for my daughter or other would-be passengers.
 
Upvote 0
I concur, at least for a family of 5 or larger. My oldest is almost 10 and my other 2 kids aren't getting any smaller. Anything shy of a full size sedan would not be workable for my situation. Especially when you have to also consider that my almost-2 year old is in a car seat and a law was just enacted in April so that my 7 year old is now required to ride in a booster seat again. The additional size of the required seat apparatuses take up space, leaving less space for my daughter or other would-be passengers.
folantor said this earlier
Which all brings us back to the point that there needs to behavior modification by the Government. It has to happen.

looks like youll have to decide which kid you least like...

(joke).

my detroit friend always mention the new safety regs and advances which have grossly increased vehicle weights in the past two decades. airbags (two fronts, side, rear), abs breaks, stability controls, sensors for backing up, cameras on the back, etc. they are heavy.
 
Upvote 0
joking aside the fusion is comparable or bigger than the accrods/camrys of 15 years ago. (92-96). the new cafe standards set out by the obama admin (cars must average 39mpg) means one of two things. 1-either we need a vast increase in techonology (driven by RD, which costs $) or 2-cars will get smaller (smaller typically means lighter, lighter means better mpg)
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top