You Go Boy, Drop That Pump

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Because the manufacturing was already in place for it, the H3 has a smaller carbon footprint, per mile, than any hybrid SUV.
Read that little fact in an article in here.

That's a weird way to compare them. Manufacturing costs should be amortized over the life of the factory. They don't count just for the first generation of vehicles to come out of the factory. Using that standard, you could just as easily say that the first vehicle out of the plant cost billions and the second was just the cost of materials and labor.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Because the manufacturing was already in place for it, the H3 has a smaller carbon footprint, per mile, than any hybrid SUV.

I don't see your link, but I hope it isn't to that faulty CNW "research" everyone always talks about.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Because the manufacturing was already in place for it, the H3 has a smaller carbon footprint, per mile, than any hybrid SUV.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about people driving gas hogs and whining about the price of gas, while good folks die in the sand. You must be having a different argument.

newguy- Everybody has their reasons, I have a gas sucking 4x4 pickup for farm stuff and a life endangering Echo for town driving. I just can't see whining about the price of gas when the only squeeze you (not you in particular) feel is because you chose poorly at the car lot. Folks need to align their vehicle choice with their reality. If rage can't afford a status only vehicle like a hummer he should park it. If we continue to subsidize gas, we are putting innovation on the back burner.

[theotherguy]

Griff - I certainly agree with you there.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about people driving gas hogs and whining about the price of gas, while good folks die in the sand. You must be having a different argument.

newguy- Everybody has their reasons, I have a gas sucking 4x4 pickup for farm stuff and a life endangering Echo for town driving. I just can't see whining about the price of gas when the only squeeze you (not you in particular) feel is because you chose poorly at the car lot. Folks need to align their vehicle choice with their reality. If rage can't afford a status only vehicle like a hummer he should park it. If we continue to subsidize gas, we are putting innovation on the back burner.

Status only? You have no idea why we have the vehicle. Speak of what you know.
It still gets better mileage than our truck, the truck before, our van and the SUV we used to have and our neighbor's SUV... speak of what you know.
Again, people who bitch about Hummers are clueless and good to laugh at.

[HungLikeJesus]

UT's cartoon made me wonder, so here's some thread drift:

Beef Production myths. And it's from an unbiased source*.

Myth: Sixteen pounds of grain and soybeans are needed to produce 1 pound of beef.
This estimate is based on the false assumption that beef cattle are fed grain diets from birth to market weight. According to the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) 1999 Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply Report, an average of 2.6 pounds of grain is used to produce a pound of beef in developed countries and 0.3 lb. in developing countries. Animals don’t steal grains destined for the world’s hungry; instead they consume large amounts of feedstuffs not suitable for human consumption. This includes forage from marginal land that can’t be cultivated for human foods and food processors’ byproducts such as citrus pulp brewers’ grains, almond hulls and tomato pomace. The soybean product fed to cattle is a meal made of the bean flakes, which remain after the soy oil is extracted for human consumption. In addition, corn fed to cattle is feed corn grown specifically for use as livestock feed and of lower quality than corn grown for human consumption.

Tonight I'll eat a double bacon cheeseburger.

[theotherguy]

The Hummer is an easy target because the original ones were huge and simply a status symbol with little or no real need. Now, it is a different story. I would hope people are only using it as a type. If not, they should visit a site with the consumption numbers and use something more relevant.

Personally, I think they are ugly. That is not a crime against the environment. Only my eyes. But, there are many who think the same of my Camry.

Originally Posted by HLJ

UT's cartoon made me wonder, so here's some thread drift:

Beef Production myths. And it's from an unbiased source*.

Tonight I'll eat a double bacon cheeseburger.

We feed ours all kinds of stuff, none of which humans eat, a lot of industrial leftovers, pulp from orange juicing and beer mash, stuff like that.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Status only? You have no idea why we have the vehicle. Speak of what you know.

Again sorry, didn't realize you were fighting jihadists in sunny Florida. I want to make it clear that people can drive what they want, just quit it with the waaa waaa when Exxon bends you over the hood of your eyesore.

The one one whining is you about other people's vehicles.
Shame you can't read, our gas mileage improved over the last vehicles we replaced with it and our current ones. You might try hooked on phonics.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That's a weird way to compare them. Manufacturing costs should be amortized over the life of the factory. They don't count just for the first generation of vehicles to come out of the factory. Using that standard, you could just as easily say that the first vehicle out of the plant cost billions and the second was just the cost of materials and labor.

Not exactly, the factory can be amortized over the life of the factory, but the tooling for each specific model is amortized for that model. I think the tooling costs far exceed the factory cost.

When I say tooling, I'm including all the costs to design, refine and test the model prior to production as well as the specific tooling to manufacture it. The factory is just a box to keep the weather off the expensive shit.

[xoxoxoBruce]

UT's observation about needing two types of vehicles and often wishing you had worn the other one on that day, has led to the popularity of the short bed, 4 door, pickups. If you can't afford two vehicles that do their alloted tasks well, get one that does neither well.

Don't overlook the value of a utility trailer for occasional hauling, although most people would have to learn how to use it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Not exactly, the factory can be amortized over the life of the factory, but the tooling for each specific model is amortized for that model. I think the tooling costs far exceed the factory cost.

When I say tooling, I'm including all the costs to design, refine and test the model prior to production as well as the specific tooling to manufacture it. The factory is just a box to keep the weather off the expensive shit.

Yes, but just as you can reuse some of the tooling from a previous version of the Hummer, you can reuse some of the tooling you come up with for the new hybrid in future hybrids. And there is plenty of new stuff in the H3 that isn't carried over from older versions, just as there will be in future hybrids.

What I was saying is that it's silly to penalize hybrids for being at the beginning of their amortization terms. Using that logic, we should still be in Model-Ts, to avoid the costs of retooling the factories.

Whether the cost is measured in dollars or carbon, it's expensive to bring in a new technology.

[Griff]

awesome mileage

You are a joy to bait rage. Anyway your other vehicles must've been pretty poor performers if the .gov numbers are reliable.

Fuel Type Regular
MPG (city) 14
MPG (highway) 18
MPG (combined) 16

Please just take one thing from this exchange. We are laying claim to someone else's production every time we fill our gas tanks. We are not making a free exchange, we are taking, by force, the results of their labor.