Gas Prices: Who's to Blame?

[lookout123]

Liar. You've lied about your drumming experience. If it were true you would have provided proof already.

[Flint]

No, I was lying like YOU. I was posting as a child posts. You obviously know that, or you wouldn't be claiming to post a denial of what has been lied about by yourself when I posted it. Duh!

[lookout123]

Obviously a misdirection promoted for the sake of not finding Bin Laden. I have caught your lie about not lying when you were lying! haHAA!

[Flint]

You can go suck an egg; but I only say that because it's exactly the type of thing YOU would say.

[lookout123]

This animosity directed towards the most honest and unemotional posters, such as myself, which may be indicated and thus vindicated, and possibly irradicated, but certainly irritated is exactly... huh, what was i saying?

oh yeah, this is what the cellar has become because of UT's footfungus fetish. Prove it isn't true, I dare you. I dare you to prove that you posted proof to the contrary before this thread. You can't do it. Liar. with your lies and your lying lies, stinky liar.

[Flint]

News flash, Einstein: I'm rubber and you're glue. Do the math.

[lookout123]

GM sucks because of people like you. See? that was sharp enough to stick in the rubber... er, nevermind.

[Flint]

You played right into my hands. Welcome to a little thing called OPPOSITE DAY.

[DanaC]

This animosity directed towards the most honest and unemotional posters, such as myself, which may be indicated and thus vindicated, and possibly irradicated, but certainly irritated is exactly... huh, what was i saying?

genius

[Clodfobble]

Just remember: 15% of all problems are directly traceable to shitty employees.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by tw

Sycamore again posts irrelevant numbers because he did not grasp what was posted.

GM developed a 70 Hp/liter engine in the early 1970s. Honda, et al developed their 70 Hp/liter engines about 1992. 30 years later and 15 years after everyone else sells 70 Hp/liter engines, GM still does not sell 70 Hp/liter engines in all vehicles. Sycamore posts 1988 Honda numbers to prove that engine did not exist after 1992? That is proof? Sycamore - read numbers? 1992 is after 1988. Get in the game.

GM products, 13+ years after developing a the 70 HP/liter engine, had 10% LOWER performance, lower gas mileage, higher pollution, more interior noise, higher failure rates, higher production costs, etc. Sycamore also forgot to post the standard number for most 1988 GM products - only 52 Hp/liter - 17% less performance. No wonder GM would teeter on bankruptcy in 1991. Numbers before 1992 demonstrate GM products were worse even before 70 Hp/liter became the world standard. Sycamore – how do I make this any simpler?

I have probably confused Sycamore by claiming 1988 and 1992 are different years. Nine numbers and two paragraphs. Sycamore foolishly praised GM's 2008 J-car that is finally doing mid-1990 gas mileage numbers. GM's J-car was renamed after a long history of bad products. The Vega, Sunbird, Cavalier, and Cadillac Cimarron all were the same J-car platform. Cobalt is a J-car now renamed. Putting lipstick on a pig does not make a thoroughbred.

No wonder GM stock is now worth less today than in 1982. GM stifled technology for 30 years. GM opposed every higher mileage standards. It's still the J-car doing today what the world was doing 10 years ago. Sycamore again forgot to read (grasp) numbers before posting.

Of course, TheMercenary or UG would then call Sycamore a dumb fuck because he acted as one - buying and praising a GM product that is 10 years obsolete. But that is what they do - attack others.

Well, Tommy, you certainly wrote a lot of words...words that mean nothing, because--again--you have provided no support of your statements. Some of what you've posted might be indeed facts, but since only you and 20 other people probably know of it, it would help if you provided sources.

Now, let's get to the meat here. Remember this thread? Let review some of your cute statements:

40 MPG is standard mileasge for Cobalt sized cars even 15 years ago.

I used 1998 numbers from our friends at the EPA, but let's go with some 1993 models, okay?

Cavalier: 26/33
Civic: 35/41
Corolla: 23/31
323: 25/33

So...what standard are you talking about from 1993?

Did you do numbers on that Saturn Astra? It finally has what has been standard all over the world for almost 20 years - the 70 HP/liter engine.

To which I pulled the following information:

1988 Toyota Corolla with 4A-F engine: 59hp/L
1988 Honda Civic with 1500cc engine: 61hp/L
1988 Chevy Cavalier with 2.0L engine: 55hp/L

Almost 20 years? What does that mean? That generally means 19 or 18 to me...not 15 or 16. Who's having problems with numbers now?

But let's go with 1993 models, shall we? Nah, let's go with the first model year of a new generation after the glorious 70hp/L motor became the "world standard":

1996 Honda Civic DX (with the D16Y7 engine): 1.5L, 115hp, 66hp/L
1995 Chevy Cavalier (with the GM 122 engine): 2.2L, 110hp, 50hp/L
1998 Toyota Corolla (with the 1ZZ-FE engine): 1.8L, 120hp, 67hp/L

(All of these are from their respective Wikipedia entries...who the hell would try and doctor some shit like this?)

Close...that's not 70, though. Again, who's having problems with numbers now?

I'm in the game, Tommy. I'm at Citizens Bank Park, waiting for the first pitch at the Phillies game. Meanwhile, you're sitting over at a ball field somewhere in Montgomery County all alone, wondering where the action is.

You hear that whooshing sound, Tommy? Listen closely...

*whoooooooosh*

That's the sound of the last remaining pieces of your credibility slipping away.

[Kingswood]

Americans have it really easy with fuel prices. Here's a comparison:

In Australia we are now paying A$1.70 per litre for unleaded petrol, $1.80 for diesel. A$1 = US$0.95, 3.785L = 1 USG.

1.70 x 0.95 x 3.785 = 6.11 US$ / US gal
1.80 x 0.95 x 3.785 = 6.47 US$ / US gal

[Flint]

I think I know what tw meant. Maybe the more efficient engines were developed as a concept car that was never offered in production.

There's a number of possible different reasons for that: maybe they were unable to offer the product at a marketable price point, maybe there was a lack of interest, and... maybe they were suppressing the technology.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Sycamore

You hear that whooshing sound, Tommy? Listen closely...

*whoooooooosh*

That's the sound of the last remaining pieces of your credibility slipping away.

Sheer brilliance - "Hall of Fame" material.

[Griff]

Clean up aisle three.