Automotive Archive

0

An Example of Why They Are All Bad

This is a perfect example of why the republicans are just as bad as the democrats.  I often think about if PA got any worse (instituting something like NY’s SAFE Act for example), where would we move to find a state that better embraces freedom and this leaves NC with a negative mark in my book.  (From my research there is no such thing as a truly “free state” in the USSA).

Regardless of your thoughts/opinions on Tesla and electric cars in general; this is pure protectionism and crony capitalism.  People in NC might be willing buyers and Tesla might be a willing seller but the tyrannical thugocracy has decreed that sales can only be done in a franchised auto dealer.  This type of bill is similar to the internet sales tax being proposed by Walma…I mean Congress to “even the playing field” between online retailers and bricks and mortar retailers. 

Why is it when politicians work to make things more “fair” people’s freedom gets diminished and our wallets get assaulted?

 

Auto dealers push law blocking Tesla sales in North Carolina

Tesla Motors has become the belle of Wall Street over the past week after revealing its first quarterly profit and receiving the top score ever from Consumer Reports for the Tesla Model S electric luxury sedan. But those accomplishments haven’t played well yet in North Carolina, where the state Senate unanimously passed a bill Monday night that would block Tesla’s plan for selling its cars directly to consumers — forcing it to either steer clear of the entire state or use a franchised auto dealer like all other automakers.The Republican-sponsored bill, which has the backing of the North Carolina Auto Dealers Association, mirrors fights in several other states by dealers who worry about the precedent set by Tesla — even though Tesla’s own projected output of 20,000 vehicles a year is a rounding error on the 15 million new vehicles sold by U.S. dealers annually. Dealers in New York and Massachusetts have gone to court in attempts to block Tesla; in Texas, the automaker has been pushing its own bill that would loosen restrictions which limit its sales pitches to phone conversations.Dealers contend automakers, especially a start-up like Tesla, aren’t inclined to handle warranty repairs, service and other tasks that customers need close to home. For its part, Tesla has been lobbying North Carolina lawmakers for an exemption by arguing that blocking the company’s plans hurts the state economy; it says it has sold nearly 100 Model S cars to state residents with deposits for 60 more, and plans more service centers beyond the one opened in Raleigh.

What’s noteworthy about the North Carolina bill is that in addition to stopping Tesla, it would force minor changes on the agreements dealers have with established automakers — including an odd proposal barring automakers from ordering dealers to remove sports memorabilia from their stores. (This may have something to do with NASCAR owners who run one model of car on Sundays but sell a variety of them through their name-brand dealership every other day of the week.) Automakers and dealers have fought for years in statehouses over who controls what, and in general, the dealers have held the upper hand. For Tesla, it’s just another sign that Silicon Valley’s only automaker has joined the major leagues.

Original HERE.

0

The Season Of Construction Is At Hand…

In Pennsylvania there are really only 2 seasons, Winter and Construction.  Rte 83 in Harrisburg has been under some form of repair/construction for about 3 years now.  The latest project is a redesign of the 581/83 bridge that runs between Carlisle/Camp Hill and Harrisburg.  This section of highway is ridiculous, it can’t handle 1/3 of the traffic it sees and the construction was long overdue.  I am so glad I no longer fight work near there and have to engage in vehicular combat with the state drones twice a day.  I am sure the union slackers will get it done under-budget and ahead of schedule (lol).

constructin season

Well, there has been a “snag”, a truck transporting diesel fuel rolled over on the one of the interchanges between 22/322 and rte 81.  This is in northern section of H-burg.  When I tell you the trailer burned to the ground, I mean it (see the pic below).  Further details are in the article at the bottom.

interstate-81-truck-fire--ef5b999e0f260acb

The fire damaged the overpass so much that pieces of 322 are falling into the lanes of 81 below.  I am sure this development will do wonders for the locals commutes.  This project will likely need to be done quickly so I expect the costs to high.  I would not be surprised if the costs of the repairs ends up being paid for with a small state-wide gas tax increase.  After all it wouldn’t be fair for the trucker and his trucking company to have to pay the bill, aren’t we all part of the same “village”?

 

Road repairs could take at least two months after tanker fire on Interstate 81

Emily Previti | epreviti@pennlive.com By Emily Previti | epreviti@pennlive.comThe Patriot-News Email the author | Follow on Twitter on May 09, 2013 at  4:19 PM, updated May 10, 2013 at  7:00 AM

Tanker Fire
A tanker truck loaded with diesel fuel overturned about 6:10 a.m on the I-81 northbound ramp to Route 322 west on May 9, 2013. The tanker truck accident closed down Route 22/322 and I-81 in the vicinity of I-81 Exit 67 as PennDOT evaluates the structural damage to the bridges.  Christine Baker | cbaker@pennlive.com

UPDATE: Northbound interchanges of Interstate 81 on west shore reopened this morning

Damage from a fuel tanker explosion near the interchange of Interstate 81 and Route 22/322 will cost tens of millions and shut down a small section of road for two months or more, state officials said Thursday afternoon.

Earlier Thursday morning, a fuel tanker exploded and rolled over on the highway, causing what Gov. Tom Corbett believes is the worst damage to a Pennsylvania highway since a tire fire off I-95 near Philadelphia in 1996.

Both directions of I-81 from Route 581 in Cumberland County to I-81/83 split in Dauphin County are closed. Officials said they expect it to reopen in time for the Monday morning commute.

The ramp from northbound I-81 to westbound Route 22/322 remains closed. Eastbound Route 22 through the interchange toward the City of Harrisburg remains closed.

Earlier this afternoon, PennDOT re-opened the ramp from westbound Route 22 to southbound Interstate 81 in the I-81 Exit 67 interchange.

Tanker Fire
At about 6:10 a.m. Thursday, May 9, 2013, a tanker truck that was fully loaded with diesel fuel overturned on the I-81 northbound ramp to Route 322 west in Susquehanna Township and exploded.  The tanker truck accident closed down Route 22/322 and I-81 in the vicinity of I-81 Exit 67 as PennDOT evaluates the structural damage to the bridges.  Christine Baker | cbaker@pennlive.co

Westbound traffic on Route 22 approaching the I-81 Exit 67 interchange can now continue through the interchange to go west toward Dauphin and State College, north onto northbound I-81, and south onto southbound I-81.

To help ease traffic, Pennsylvania Turnpike tolls are being waived between the Harrisburg East and Carlisle exits. The turnpike said in a news release that tolls will be waived until at least Sunday or Monday.

State officials hope to reopen one lane in each direction to traffic on the outbound side in time for the Monday morning commute, but the inbound side needs to be removed along with the bridge overhead the spot on 81 where the explosion occurred.

Detour signs will be posted on roadways. Officials also encourage motorists to check the

Tanker Fire
At about 6:10 a.m. Thursday, May 9, 2013, a tanker truck that was fully loaded with diesel fuel overturned on the I-81 northbound ramp to Route 322 west in Susquehanna Township and exploded. The tanker truck accident closed down Route 22/322 and I-81 in the vicinity of I-81 Exit 67 as PennDOT evaluates the structural damage to the bridges. Christine Baker | cbaker@pennlive.com

511pa.com traffic web site.

About 2,000 gallons of fuel also spilled into Paxton Creek and Wildwood Lake. Environmental crews are on site cleaning up now and will continue to monitor for at least a couple months.

The explosion and roads closures also caused a gridlock on roads throughout the Harrisburg region that delayed school buses and business openings and will cause delays indefinitely.

State police have not yet released details about the cause of the explosion, the name of the driver, nor the company that owns the truck. He was burned only “mildly”, according to initial reports, despite fuel fire temperatures that can reach as high as 1,400 degrees, PennDOT officials said.

State police expect to release updates to the investigation by Friday.

Corbett is seeking federal approval for an emergency declaration, but said state workers will have a typical schedule Friday. He advised them – and everyone else commuting Friday in the Harrisburg area – to allow extra time to travel.

Original HERE.

0

Less Freedom Ahead; All In The Name of “Safety”

Eric Peters with a great article that shows what our owners have in store for us by further destroying our right to unobstructed travel.  One of the most famous previous examples is the “claymore in your steering wheel” (great term by Eric) they call an airbag.

Now they bascially want to mandate we use our cell phones as a secondary key to start and operate our cars?  Where is the limit?

So there is the potential that every car has one of these installed; well that only works under the assumption that every person has a cell phone, which not all people who drive have.  I assume there will be a beauracratic process of getting a form approved by some ass-clown to get an exemption.

And what if you simply don’t want to bring your cellphone with you?  In theory this will force you to bring your cell phone/GPS tracking device with you whenever you drive.  Your owners need to know where you are going and what you are doing at all times.

What if you are out and lose the phone.  Not only do you not have your phone but now you can’t drive your car.  Absolutely idiotic.

Even with this system, what will stop someone like me who has an old iPhone that no longer has a cell-phone package but still works as an iPod from being plugged in and negating the entire system?  There could be a small industry created that would build fake cell phones that look real but whose only function is to bypass this POS technological infringement of freedom.

Now, to be clear; I hate it when I see people are talking on their phone or texting while driving.  But if they do this and cause no harm I don’t see why it is a problem.  This is just another example of how TPTB think they can manage everyone’s life by destroying freedom to achieve safety.

The irony of all this is that the government will mandate a $400 device/cost onto the people whether they want it or not and more than likely a $5-10 piece of electronics will negate it anyway.

The only thing missing (so far) from our lil’ hitlers in charge, is a mention of how this will “protect the children.”

its for safety

Sail Fawn Big Brother

May 3, 2013

By

I probably won’t be able to write new car reviews come next year – or the year after. Because I probably won’t be able to drive the damn things anymore. Maybe you won’t be able to, either.origo one

The jihad against sail fawn gabbling – and worst of all, texting – is about to bear fruit in the form of the ORIGOSafe (see here). It is a dock – an interlock – built into your car (perhaps your next new car) that will prevent the engine from being started unless you first insert your sail fawn into said dock.

For safety’s sake, of course.

“April is Distracted Driving Month,” lectures ORIGOSafe Founder Clay Skelton. “No matter how much people talk about the dangers of hand-held texting, especially among teens, driving isn’t getting any safer… .” He drones on for awhile more along the same lines before coming to the denouement: His device – installed in every new car. You can almost see the double dollar signs in his pupils.

Now, he doesn’t actually say the word. You know the word. Mandate. But where else is this headed?  The concept is far too profitable to be lefty to the vagaries of the (semi) free market, to (what’s left of) consumer choice. Because – no doubt – very few consumers would freely choose to have their cars mauled with ORIGOSafe.

After all, would you?

“For only (italics added) $279″ – plus another $125 to install the filthy bugger – “you can have peace of mind knowing your driver is focused on the road, with the phone safely docked in the ORIGO,” trumpets the company web site.

Yep, “only” another $400 or so out the window – on top of the air bags ($1,500 per car according to most estimates) the back-up cameras ($200 per car) the tire pressure monitors (another hundred, maybe) all the rest of it.

But, you’ll be safer!

That’s the magic word. The word that justifies anything – cost no object. And which renders individual choice irrelevant. No, anathema.

If it’s “safe” then it’s a must do. Just what the doctor ordered.

And that’s what worries me most – the ordered part. My Spider Sense is tingling. I just know – with depressing certitude – that ORIGOSafe will  tread the same path already well-worn by other safety items, once optional (failed) now “successful” (because mandatory).

Air bags, for instance. These claymores in the steering wheel would not be in every new car absent the order they be installed.

Same goes for the back-up cameras recently mandated.

Most people, left to their own devices, would elect not to purchase this gear. Not an opinion – a fact. Seat belts were available as optional equipment before they became mandatory equipment. Most people – when they still could – skipped them. Same with air bags when they first appeared in the early ’70s. Same with back-up cameras – which have been around for more than ten years but which many people didn’t buy because they couldn’t justify the additional cost and didn’t feel the need.

Unsafe! Intolerable! It cannot be permitted!

Mandates, for all! origo 2

Did you know that several automakers already have in-car Breathalyzers in the works? Yes, indeed. The same interlocks currently fitted to cars owned by convicted “drunk” drivers are almost certainly going to be incorporated into the cars of non-convicts (that’s us) in order to  . . . keep us safe. After all, it’s unendurable to imagine that anyone might drive drunk. Therefore, everyone must submit to being handled as presumptively drunk until proved not-drunk.

That premise has already been accepted by the courts – and much more unfortunately, by many people too. So, there will be little objection to mandatory in-car Breathalyzers, when those get rolled out. After all, if it’s okay to stop people at random and compel them to prove they aren’t drunk – well, why not insist they have Breathalyzers installed in their cars? You don’t support drunk driving . . . do you?

These same people will not only embrace – no, demand – that sail fawn interlocks be installed in all new cars. Just as they have insisted that all new cars be fitted with air bags, back-up cameras and tire pressure monitors. Because other people (not them, of course) cannot be trusted to act responsibly and competently. They need – in the insufferably oleaginous phraseology of one of their leaders – to be “nudged” in the right direction.

Well, among other things, I don’t even own a sail fawn – and hope to god I never will. What happens when they drop off a brand-new 2016 car for me to test drive . . .  and I can’t even get the damned thing to start because I don’t have a sail fawn to insert into the ORIGOSafe?

sunstein

I guess it’ll be my cue to exit, stage left. They’ve already sucked most of the joy out of driving anyhow – by taking the driver out of the equation. The latest new cars pre-empt the driver in a multitude of ways – transforming him, with each new model year, into a passenger. If one squints a little and looks hard into the distance, one can see the driverless car coming. Just another couple of years now, at most.

Meanwhile, we’ll all be so much safer (albeit $400 poorer) with our sail fawns securely docked into our ORIGOS.

Next up: Hannibal Lecter-style mouth guards to keep us from talking while driving.

Safety first!

Throw it in the Woods?

Original HERE.

 

0

GYMKHANA 5

Ken Block showing off his precision driving in SanFran as a closed circuit.  My pops forwarded it to me and I was writing a reply to him about how this is the sort of thing Travis Pastrana would do, and then he shows up on a dirtbike for a cameo.  Nothing against McQueen, but he couldn’t do the maneuvers that were done in this video, but he did Bullit on the road with regular traffic.

Well, watch and enjoy…

original here.

0

The FR-S Review by EP

I have been looking forward to Eric Peters reviewing the Scion FR-S/Subaru BRZ for a little while now.  I owned one of the RWD Toyota Corollas from the 1980′s (AE86), a ’91 turbocharged MR2 and currently own an ’89 Supercharged MR2.  I don’t like Miatas, the look of them and the fact that I am 6’2″ means I fit in them very poorly.  But I like lightweight RWD sportscars that are affordable and focus on overall performance as opposed to straightline performance.    Used to have a saying back in the day

Straight lines are for fast cars, the curves are for fast drivers driving fast cars.

The idea of the FR-S is in the spirit of the AE86.  For those that are bitching that it is really a Subaru should remember that much of the 4AG was developed by Yamaha so collaboration is SOP for Toyota.  Look at it more if an open-mind. 

It is no featherweight at 2700+ lbs but compared to what is out there, it kinda is.  Thank Uncle Sam’s ridiculous meddling for that.  At 200hp it isn’t a beast but it appears that it more than can get out of its own way and I don’ tthink the aftermarket will allow 6 months to go by without a turbo or supercharger kit bringing the hp’s over 250 for an affordable price.

Here is EP’s review, I am looking forward to the spring when more of these cars are available at dealerships and I can roll up in my black SC MR2 and give it a true test drive myself.  When I do, I will share my thoughts.

 

2013 “Sciobaru” BRZ/FR-S

December 10, 2012

By

It has taken almost 25 years but – finally – someone has figured out how to build a better Miata.

Well, someones.

Subaru – and Toyota.

The union has resulted in brilliant and most unusual (for their respective parents) offspring: the Subaru BRZ (subject of this review) and its fraternal twin, the Scion FR-S.

It’s the first rear-drive car Toyota has put out in years. And it’s the first non-AWD car Subaru has put out in decades.

They both do everything the much-beloved Miata does – only better. And they give you several things the Miata can’t – such as back seats.

And a boxer engine.

Well, there is one thing the twins can’t do for you: Muss your hair. Because – for now – the BRZ and FR-S are only offered in hardtop coupe form. A convertible version is probably inevitable, though. Because once word gets out about the endless goodness of this car – well, these cars – demand will make it so.

Miata, move over.

It may be all over.

WHAT IT IS

The BRZ (and FR-S) are sports cars. 190 proof, no-nonsense, no BS, real-deal sports cars. Like Miata – only so much better. Low-mounted flat-four boxer engine and 200 hp. Driving dynamics you have to experience to appreciate – after which you will be sorely tempted to sell your oldest daughter to a Saudi sheik – if that’s what it takes to get the $25k or so it takes to acquire one of these things. The best automatic transmission on the market. Yes, a six-speed manual is standard – as it ought to be – but the automatic in this car – anticipatory (and rev-matched) double downshifts, spot-on upshifts – is just as good. Maybe better.

God, I could go on and on.

Prices start at $25,495 for the base (but very nicely equipped)  BRZ Premium with six-speed manual. The same car with the optional six-speed automatic starts at $26,595. There’s a step-up Limited trim with more luxury and technology equipment, including high-end leather/suede interior, dual-zone climate control and heated seats. It starts at $27,495 for the manual version, $28,595 with the automatic.

The BRZ is priced just a notch above the functionally identical Scion FR-S, which starts at $24,200 and tops out at $25,300.

Though neither car is available – yet – in roadster form, the obvious target is Mazda’s Miata ($23,720-$30,350) which has been the hegemonic ruler of the affordable sports car world since its introduction back in 1989.

The BRZ and FR-S are also likely to deeply cut into sales of higher-end sport roadsters such as BMW’s Z4 – $47,350 to start – for which you could almost a BRZ and an FR-S.

WHAT’S NEW

The works. The BRZ (and FR-S) are brand-new models.

WHAT’S GOOD

What’s not?

If handling and fun to drive were translated into IQ, this car would rate genius.

No, super genius.

Superbly good six-speed automatic – if you swing that way.

More interior space than Miata.

34 MPG on the highway – with the optional automatic.

No “chick car” issues.

WHAT’S NOT SO GOOD

No convertible – yet.

30 MPG on the highway with the standard manual.

A bit beefy (2,762 lbs. vs. 2,480 for the convertible Miata).

Probable dealer mark-up.

UNDER THE HOOD

From the Subaru side of this collaboration comes the 2.0 liter flat-four “boxer” engine that’s standard equipment in both the BRZ and the Scion-badged FR-S. This engine produces 200 hp – 33 hp more than Miata’s also 2.0 liter four cylinder engine. But far more important than how much more hp the BRZ and FRS offer is how the hp is produced.

The Mazda’s engine is a conventional in-line four, with its cylinders all lined up in a row and upright. The Sciobaru’s engine has pairs of cylinders laid on their sides (horizontally) opposed and mounted low. This puts the weight of the engine lower in the chassis – and also spreads it out more evenly – both of which confer advantages when it comes to handling. (Ask any Porsche driver.) It also permits a very low hoodline – a visibility and aerodynamic advantage.

So far, so good.

Ditto the BRZ/FR-S’s gearboxes – both the standard six speed and the optional six-speed automatic – which (in Sport mode) does anticipatory throttle blip double downshifts, among other tricks.

Everyone who’s read about the Sciobaru drivetrain knows how good it is. Brilliant, actually. Especially in a car with a $24k price floor.

But, there’s a catch – 282 of them, actually. That’s the difference in curb weight between the “twins” and the Miata: 2,762 lbs. vs. 2,480 lbs. The Miata is appropriately weighted – the Sciobaru isn’t. It’s nearly 2,800 lbs. empty – and with a 200 pound driver in board it’s over 3,000 lbs. That is heavy for such a little car – for a sports car.

It’s the reason why, despite its significant power advantage over the Miata, it’s a dead heat between the two as far as acceleration. Both cars get to 60 in just under 7 seconds (with manual transmission; the automatic versions of either car are a few tenths slower).

If the Sciobaru weighed the same as the Miata, it would smoke the Miata. And the fact is, the Sciobaru ought to weigh less than the Miata – because it (the Sciobaru) is a hardtop coupe and hardtops usually weigh less than convertibles – because they don’t need the extra body reinforcement to make up for the loss of roof structure.

Mazda’s ace in the hole, despite the Miata being an older design (and arguably, a less sexy design) is that it’s – somehow, miraculously – not a fatty.

So how come the Sciobaru is (for what it is)? My guess is it was designed to anticipate the next round of government crashworthiness standards – which usually means more mass (and so, more weight).

The current Miata may only be a lightweight for now. It will be interesting to see whether the next Miata porks out, too.

One other thing. The manual BRZ (and FR-S) is not a little bit less fuel efficient than the same car with the optional automatic: 22 city, 30 highway vs. 25 city, 34 highway. Of course, you pay about $1,000 more to get the extra 4 MPG on top.

One other thing: Subaru (and Scion) urge premium fuel only. Regardless of transmission. The Mazda Miata is ok sipping regular.

One more thing: Check out the location of the oil filter. It’s right there in top of the engine – making oil filter changes an almost no-tools-required job.

ON THE ROAD

Every once in a blue moon, a car comes along that does for jaded car journalists – who routinely get to drive all sorts of new cars, including exotics – what going for a ride in an F-18 probably does for other people.

The BRZ is such a car.

I did not want to surrender the keys. I have toyed with buying one. That almost never happens. It happened this time.

I’ve driven every sports car – just about – that’s been sold during the past 20-something years. Everything from kit car Lotus 7s to the BMW Z8 Alpina. In between there have been S2000s and NSXs, MR2s, Exiges and Caymans. Z4s – and many Miatas. All of them in their own ways, outstanding cars.

But all of them, in their own ways, limited in one way or another. Sometimes, more than one way.

Some – like the Alpina and Z4 and Cayman – are rich men’s toy’s. Which is great if you’re rich but not so much if you’re not.

Some – like the S2000 – are terrible at anything less than full scream.

There is a reason why they’ve all failed. Only the Miata has endured.

And the BRZ is better than the Miata.

The boxer engine, for starters. It’s something you don’t encounter in the run-of-the-mill. In-line fours, you do. Nothing wrong with the Miata’s engine. It is peppy enough to be fun – and it has proved itself to be all but unkillable. But it is also nothing special. The Sciobaru’s boxer engine is. Listen to it growl. The sound is like nothing else. So also the fruits of the layout: Crouched low – spread out – vs. a centrally mounted lump of metal. The resultant balance that’s achieved has to be experienced to be believed. This is a car that will challenge you – even if you happen to have an SCCA license in your wallet. But at the same time, it is not a difficult or intimidating car for the person who hasn’t got an SCCA license in his wallet. In this respect, the BRZ is very much like the Miata – and very much unlike a car such as the old Honda S2000, which was brilliant at speed, in the right hands – but frustrating and not much fun otherwise.

Like the Miata, the BRZ could be a daily driver. Its engine – though a sweet little thing when you call upon it – is just as happy at 2,000 RPM as it is at 7,400 RPM.

It’s not unreasonably thirsty – and it’s not unreasonably pricey, either.

It can also be teamed up with what I will state for the record – as someone who has driven just about everything – is perhaps the best automatic transmission on the market. And more than that – an automatic that’s suitable for a sports car. Everything about this transmission is sporty – starting with the shifter, which looks and even operates as close to a manual stick as it’s probably possible to get. The gate moves left-right (and up-down) very much like it would move if you were selecting one of six manual gears. Just behind the shifter lever are the important buttons: Trac off, Sport (or Snow) and – most important, VSC Sport. Press to engage – and disengage most of the electronic intervention. And engage anticipatory (and rev-matching) double downshifts, as when decelerating hard just before entering a turn. Whatever your right hand and left foot would do in a given situation given a clutch and driver control of gear changes, this unit will do for you better – and quicker. There is no slop, ever. No lag time in between shifts. No premature (or late) shifts, either.

Just perfect (and perfectly timed) shifts. Every time.

You can control the action manually if you like via the steering wheel mounted paddle controls, but – trust me – this transmission is smarter than you are. It is also beyond merely “better” than the optional automatic in Miata. That car must be ordered with the stick – or else you’ve ruined the car. With the BRZ and FR-S, you can go either way – and not be disappointed.

This is not only unusual. It is unprecedented. At least, at this price point. The Porsche Cayman’s “PDK” dual-clutch automated manual is superb. As it should be in a car that starts at almost $52k.

At this price point – or within $15k of it – there’s nothing that can touch it.

Now, some reviewers have bitched about the 7 second-ish 0-60 times. That a new Mustang V-6 is much quicker – which it is. In a straight line. But the BRZ driver will have his say when the road is no longer straight. God help the Mustang jockey trying to keep up. That goes for the V-8 Mustang, too. It’s a big, beefy, brawny car that handles very well… for a big, beefy brawny car. Even though I personally wish the BRZ were 300 pounds lighter, a new Mustang (the V-6 Mustang)  is almost 700 pounds heavier. It also almost two feet longer (188.1 inches vs. 166.7) , nearly four inches wider through the hips (73.9 inches vs. 69.9) and five inches taller (55.6 inches vs. 50.6). It – and cars like it (Camaro, Challenger – even the Hyundai Genesis coupe ) are huge cars in comparison. And, they feel it.

It’s not that they’re oafish. Just big. Heavy. A handful.

The BRZ isn’t.

The same’s true of the Miata, of course – which accounts for much of its perennial appeal.

But now we come to the fork in the road.

AT THE CURB

Anyone’s who has driven the Miata probably likes the Miata. It is a very likable car. But it has two problems – or at least, problems relative to the BRZ and FR-S.

The first is the much-discussed “chick car” thing. Like it or not – and fair or not – the Miata is harder for a guy (especially a big guy) to drive. He looks a little silly, first of all. It’s not as bad as driving a white VW Rabbit cabriolet. But it’s something like that.

And some guys care about that.

No such worries with either the BRZ or the FR-S (which has somewhat different exterior cosmetics but the same general shape).

There are some derivative styling affectations I would have left off had it been up to me – such as the Aston Martin-ish side vents (trim plates, really – because they’re not functional). But they don’t look silly – and that’s what’s important. Meanwhile, the subtle double speed humps along the roof look very good. The three-piece rear airfoil, too. It’s not over-the-top (WRX Sti) but – to my eye – just right. And the car’s overall squat is perfect.

No chick car issues here.

And even if the chick car thing (as regards Miata) isn’t something you care much about, you probably will care about the Sciobaru’s superior interior.

Obviously, the back seats are useless. For carrying passengers. But you’ve got interior cargo capacity for stuff that you don’t have in the two-seater-only Miata. Plus a bigger trunk on top of that: 6.9 cubic feet vs. 5.3 in the Miata.

The Miata does post more front seat legroom (43.1 inches vs. 41.9 for the BRZ/FR-S) but the measurement that matters more – if you’re not-small – is shoulder room. The Sciobaru has 54.5 inches vs. 53.2 for the Mazda. This is very noticeable if you’re a fairly big guy, as I am. The Miata’s not claustrophobic. But it is a bit tight.

THE REST

I mentioned the major flaw with this car – as I see it: It’s a few hundred pounds too heavy. But inspect the thing and you’ll discover they tried to keep off the beef. The hood, for instance. It is literally almost paper thin. You could bend it in half by hand. You – not Arnold Schwarzennegger. This car will get hurt badly if it ever hits anything other than the slipstream at 100 MPH. Or rather, your wallet will. This is a fairly common problem with all late-model cars: Extremely thin and dent not-resistant panels – designed to fold and so absorb the energy input during “first contact.” But, wow – this one’s papier-mache thin, almost.

Be very careful raising – and closing – the hood.

More power is needed. Or, less weight (somehow). A true sports car’s primary qualification isn’t how quickly it gets to 60. But the BRZ/FR-S ought to be quicker than Miata, given an almost 40 hp advantage.

One way to possibly fix this might be to offer a “delete option” for AC – and make the fixed front quarter glass moveable. That alone might take 100-150 pounds off.

Finally, there’s the roof issue. Or rather, its lack of absence. One of the Miata’s chief draws is its drop-top. People just like a roadster. Something about warm summer days, the wind in your hair.

I expect this will be addressed soon. Probably, Subaru-Toyota wanted to wait and see what the reaction to the Sciobaru would be before going whole-hog and committing to a convertible.

This car – these cars – are going to be such monster hits as it is that I have no doubt a drop-top is already being prototyped. Give it a year.

Maybe, less.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Triple aces. Home run. Top of the heap. The Duke of New York and A Number One.

It’s hard to see how it could get any better – though 230 hp and a convertible top would be great place to start.

Throw it in the Woods?

 original here.

0

Got Govt ID?

Right on Tim from Spootyville (I highly recommend his blog)!

The only thing we are free to do is be coerced to comply with the rules or be fined/imprisoned/killed.  That’s not my defintion of freedom either, mine is the same as Tim’s.

We Don’t Live In A Free Country

by: Tim

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Definition of “free”: not bound or confined by force
We grew up believing that we lived in free countries.  Being free left people alone to do great things. Most of us prefer not being told what to do, and don’t want our governments telling us what to do.
There is a striking picture that shows the difference between a relatively “free” country and a country that has an all-powerful government.  A look at Korea’s lights at nightshows us the difference in prosperity between free and not.
China, North Korea, and South Korea at night

The countries of the West are moving towards the darkness that is North Korea.  We keep passing laws that give us rules and regulations that cover every aspect of our lives.  The U.S. Code, if printed on paper, is more than 300,000 pages long.

Would a country “not bound or confined by force” need 300,00 pages of rules and regulations telling us what we can and cannot do, and when, where, how, and how much of it we can do?

A recent experience in my life (described below) brings up the issue of government interference with our cars. There are a multitude of laws covering every aspect of the creation, design, sales, and use of all cars in the United States, and in other “free countries.”  Here is an example laws in which it requires a certain part, a catalytic converter, must be installed on all cars in the U.S.  That is just one example.  There are laws about seat belts. There are laws about airbags.  There are laws about headlights.  There are laws about wheels.  There are laws about gas consumption. etc. etc. etc. Imagine that you are trying to build your own cars for sale.

It would take forever just to read all of the thousands, if not more, rules about what you can and cannot, and when, and where…    …you can make cars.  This is a significant deterrent from becoming a car manufacturer.  And it is not the way that a truly “free” country would operate.

*** Last Thursday I was on my way deer hunting.  A government thug police officer asshole pulled me over for not having a license plate on the front of my car. Let me quote, I believe word for word, part of our exchange:

Me: “This car is 10 years old, It has 120,000 miles on it.  Why is today the first time that I have been pulled over for this?”

Asshole: “Other cops don’t care.  But I’m an asshole.”

You see, here in this “free country” I am required (definition:to impose a compulsion or command on) to have a government issued number on the front of my car. Potentially I could commit a crime and having that government issued ID tag on the front and back of my car would make it easier for the government thugs police officers assholes to find me.  It will also make putting cameras on streets more effective because I could be identified by a picture. Incidentally, two guys I know have gotten tickets in the mail because a traffic camera found them making a “right on red.”  WTF! I like the look of my car.  It looks like this:

Nissan 350z

Every day I go out to my car, I think to myself, “I get to drive this!  How cool is that?” Now that this asshole has decided that I must deface it, what I’m going to see once I follow the rules like a good little sheep peasant government revenue creatorcitizen, is this:

Are you going to feel safer once I have my government issued ID number on the front, as well as the back, of my car? Since having ID numbers on the front of things makes us safer, or at least makes the government thugs’ police officers’ assholes’ jobs easier when they are looking to solve crimes (They won’t have to bother looking for the numbers on the back of the items, so they will save some effort.), why not add government issued identification numbers to front of other things as well?

Paintings could be stolen.  And making a government thug police officer asshole look for the identification number at the back would be soooo much more work.

Gov’t Approved Mona Lisa
Gov’t Approved Starry Night

Wouldn’t you feel so much safer? Think of all of the crimes that we could solve if everything had a required government issued identification number on it! If it saves only one life, then its worth it! Support government issued identification numbers on everything, for the children!

*** You might say that having a front license plate is no big deal, everyone else has one.  But this is just one example of the government interfering with our lives; by requiring me to deface my car or “binding my actions by force”.  (What was the definition of “freedom”?)

If I don’t take time out of my life to comply with this infringement upon my freedom, then after my ten day allowance I will be issued a fine.  If I do not pay that fine, then I will have a warrant for my arrest.  If I resist arrest, then I could be killed by the government thugs police. Tell me again about how we live in a “free” country. A country where a victimless crime can result in government thugs murdering civilians.  If you step out of line on any one of a number of trivialities then the government can legally kill you.

How “free” are we?

*** You can argue that we are better off because all of our laws protect us from harm (you’d be wrong, and I’d despise you), but you cannot claim, in the presence of laws like these that we live in a “free country.”

original here.
0

50 MPG’s Really Isn’t A Big Deal If…

it weren’t for Uncle Sam, nanny state extraordinaire.

Eric Peters with another good article.  When one thinks of a small 50 mpg capable car the Geo Metro immediately comes to mind. 

I owned a Suzuki Swift for 3 years.  It was nothing more than a re-badged Metro.  Mine had the beast motor, the 1.3L 4 cylinder.  It had the 3 speed automatic transmission and no matter how hard I drove it, it got high 30′s-low 40′s.

Personally I can’t say for sure I would ever buy a car like that again after I had the accident in my Corolla with an 18-wheeler a year and a half ago (I was extremely lucky).  But I absolutely despise the fact that a bunch of Nanny State f#%kwads take away that choice from me.

 

50 MPG Then – and Now

October 30, 2012

By

Getting 50 MPG out of a gallon of gas has gotten a lot more expensive over the past 20-something years.

Back in 1990, it only cost $5,995 – $10,614 in corrected-for-2012 Fed Funny Money. That sum would buy you a new Geo Metro XFi hatchback, a car capable of 53 city, 58 highway (43 city/52 highway using the EPA”s latest “adjusted” standards).

See here, if you don’t believe me.

Today, the only new car that can match that mileage is a Toyota Prius hybrid – the least expensive version of which – the 2013 Prius C – has a sticker price of $18,950 in current Fed Funny Money. So, you’ll pay nearly twice as much to go about as far on a gallon of gas. (Actually, more than that, because it takes about three times the quantity of Fed Funny Money to buy a gallon today vs. back in 1990.)

If Uncle really gave a damn about us – as opposed to increasing his power over us -  don’t you think he’d encourage more cars like the Metro? Wouldn’t they “reduce our dependence on foreign oil”? Wouldn’t they contribute less to “global warming” by dint of converting less gasoline into carbon dioxide?

Well?

In fact, Uncle has done everything conceivable to take such cars off the road. To make them an impossibility. He has  legislated – and regulated – them out of existence. There is nothing comparable to the Metro available new today, nor has there been for at least a decade. Why? Did affordable economical cars (as distinct from today’s hybrid cars) suddenly become unsaleable? Or did government make them impossible to sell?

Consider:

For the entire history of the automobile, from the Model T to the modern era, there were always cheap little cars that got great gas mileage (in relative and real terms). In the deco era of the roaring ’20s, Blue Light Special Model Ts mingled with Cords and Auburns. In the ’50s, Power Pack dual quad 283 Bel Airs and monstrous Cadillacs shared the road with Nash Metropolitans. In the ’60s, there were agile little Corvairs among the mighty muscle cars – and by the ’70s, Beetles (and Datsun B210s and Civic CVCCs) were literally everywhere.

As recently as the ’90s, cars like the Metro abounded. There was the Honda Civic CRX – capable of 52 MPG on the highway (47 MPG, adjusted by the EPA to reflect current measuring methods). The 43 MPG Ford Festiva. The 45 MPG Mercury Lynx. There were literally dozens of them, all makes and models.

Now, they’re all gone.

And the only way to save money on gas is to spend a lot of it on a new hybrid.

A hybrid is expensive because it has to be. You’re paying for two powertrains instead of just the one. A normal gas engine to keep the batteries topped off, plus electric motors and all the stuff associated with their operation. Of course this results in a car that is also heavy as well as expensive. The Prius C – lightest of all current hybrids – weighs 2,500 lbs. The 1990 Geo Metro weighed 1,620 lbs. It’s an inescapable law of physics that you need more and more power to move more and more mass. Thus, the “efficient” Prius C is propelled by a 1.5 liter four cylinder engine – while the almost 1,000 lbs. lighter Metro was able to get around (and get around just as quickly) with a three cylinder, 1.0 liter engine.

Now you know why a car built more than 20 years ago – with late 1980s-era technology – was able to deliver fuel economy almost as good as a “state of the art” new hybrid – and do it for about half the cost.

That’s pretty damning. But what’ll really get your juices flowing is to consider what a car like the ’90 Metro could do if it had the benefit of equipment that’s commonly available today – such as a six-speed manual (or better yet, for gas mileage purposes) continuously variable (CVT) transmission. That old Metro approached the MPGs of a new Prius C with a three-speed automatic. When equipped with the five-speed manual, it matched or exceeded the Prius’ numbers.

The implication – the fact – is that it would be simple to build and sell a low-cost compact or subcompact car capable of averaging 50 MPG – and probably tickling 70 on the highway.

If it weren’t for Uncle.

Because Uncle has decreed that cars like the Metro are “unsafe.” Too light to pass muster with Uncle’s crashworthiness tests. An insufficiency of steel – and of air bags. And so, verboten.

 

That’s why they’re all gone – and why we’re paying through the nose for “efficient” cars that take six years of $400 a month payments to pay off.

Thanks, Uncle.

Throw it in the Woods?

original here.

2

POS Car

I was reading TBP and Jim Quinn mentioned the first new car he ever bought was a Chevy Beretta. No offense to Jim, but talk about a car that was a piece of sh!t even when it was new. It made me think, I have owned many vehicles, but never bought one brand new (and don’t plan on it), I don’t see the point in it. I am not scared of having someone else’s farts embedded into the seat cushion, I sit on it, I don’t eat off of it. In 15 years I have owned 11 different vehicles (wife thinks I have problem). The newest vehicle I have ever bought was my truck which was 3 years old when I got it; it’s also the only vehicle of the 11 I have ever financed. Almost everyone I know personally who has ever actually been responsible for themselves and their finances (and not dependant on mommy or daddy into their 20′s and 30′s) has owned a POS car at least once. It gives you character; I have always driven them with pride because I knew I was saving money or keeping miles off the cars I enjoyed and cared about, like my MR2.

Probably the best (or worst depending on your perspective) POS car I owned was a 97 Suzuki Swift with 150k on it, it was a white hatchback so a co-worker dubbed it “the egg.”  The Swift was basically a rebadged Geo Metro, its pizza cutter wheels were great in the snow. The cloth headliner sagged and constantly made contact with my hair but I fixed that over a lunch break with a stapler. It had no A/C but the heater kicked ass. The best part was that I bought it for $800 off of a mechanic who kept it well-maintained mechanically. I drove it for almost 3 years without anything more than oil changes being required. I never worried about leaving it at BWI airport when traveling for work (no one would still something so cheap) and it cost $3/month to add to my insurance coverage.

A few years ago, as a gift to ourselves, my wife and I bought a big screen tv but I didn’t want to pay to have it delivered. Then my buddy sold his pickup right before it arrived in the store so I had to find a way to get it home on my own. I took a few measurements, removed the passenger seat and hauled a brand new $1,000 tv home in an $800 car, hahaha, I love telling that story.

Eventually electrical gremlins made it prohibitive to fix so I donated it.  Hopefully it was able to help someone else out as a parts car.

Adam Sandler used to be really funny, Ode To My Car is my favorite song on what I think is his best comedy album: What The Hell Happened to Me?

If you want share you own POS Car “love” stories…

Enjoy.

2

Cardboard Bicycle

I bet this guy was the type to get an expensive toy as a child and only play with the box. I like it, but why does every inventor say “this could change the world”? Its a cool and innovative idea, but changing the world is a tall order.

Cardboard bicycle can change the world, says Israeli inventor

 

MOSHAV AHITUV, Israel (Reuters) – A bicycle made almost entirely of cardboard has the potential to change transportation habits from the world’s most congested cities to the poorest reaches of Africa, its Israeli inventor says.

Izhar Gafni, 50, is an expert in designing automated mass-production lines. He is an amateur cycling enthusiast who for years toyed with an idea of making a bicycle from cardboard.

He told Reuters during a recent demonstration that after much trial and error, his latest prototype has now proven itself and mass production will begin in a few months.

“I was always fascinated by applying unconventional technologies to materials and I did this on several occasions. But this was the culmination of a few things that came together. I worked for four years to cancel out the corrugated cardboard’s weak structural points,” Gafni said.

“Making a cardboard box is easy and it can be very strong and durable, but to make a bicycle was extremely difficult and I had to find the right way to fold the cardboard in several different directions. It took a year and a half, with lots of testing and failure until I got it right,” he said.

Cardboard, made of wood pulp, was invented in the 19th century as sturdy packaging for carrying other more valuable objects, it has rarely been considered as raw material for things usually made of much stronger materials, such as metal.

Once the shape has been formed and cut, the cardboard is treated with a secret concoction made of organic materials to give it its waterproof and fireproof qualities. In the final stage, it is coated with lacquer paint for appearance.

In testing the durability of the treated cardboard, Gafni said he immersed a cross-section in a water tank for several months and it retained all its hardened characteristics.

Once ready for production, the bicycle will include no metal parts, even the brake mechanism and the wheel and pedal bearings will be made of recycled substances, although Gafni said he could not yet reveal those details due to pending patent issues.

“I’m repeatedly surprised at just how strong this material is, it is amazing. Once we are ready to go to production, the bike will have no metal parts at all,” Gafni said.

Gafni’s workshop, a ramshackle garden shed, is typically the sort of place where legendary inventions are born. It is crammed with tools and bicycle parts and cardboard is strewn everywhere.

One of his first models was a push bike he made as a toy for his young daughter which she is still using months later.

Gafni owns several top-of-the-range bicycles which he said are worth thousands of dollars each, but when his own creation reaches mass production, it should cost no more than about $20 to buy. The cost of materials used are estimated at $9 per unit.

“When we started, a year and a half or two years ago, people laughed at us, but now we are getting at least a dozen e-mails every day asking where they can buy such a bicycle, so this really makes me hopeful that we will succeed,” he said.

A ride of the prototype was quite stiff, but generally no different to other ordinary basic bikes.

“GAME CHANGER”

Nimrod Elmish, Gafni’s business partner, said cardboard and other recycled materials could bring a major change in current production norms because grants and rebates would only be given for local production and there would be no financial benefits by making bicycles in cheap labor markets.

“This is a real game-changer. It changes … the way products are manufactured and shipped, it causes factories to be built everywhere instead of moving production to cheaper labor markets, everything that we have known in the production world can change,” he said.

Elmish said the cardboard bikes would be made on largely automated production lines and would be supplemented by a workforce comprising pensioners and the disabled.

He said that apart from the social benefits this would provide for all concerned, it would also garner government grants for the manufacturers.

Elmish said the business model they had created meant that rebates for using “green” materials would entirely cancel out production costs and this could allow for bicycles to be given away for free in poor countries.

Producers would reap financial rewards from advertisements such as from multinational companies who would pay for their logo to be part of the frame, he explained.

“Because you get a lot of government grants, it brings down the production costs to zero, so the bicycles can be given away for free. We are copying a business model from the high-tech world where software is distributed free because it includes embedded advertising,” Elmish explained.

“It could be sold for around $20, because (retailers) have to make a profit … and we think they should not cost any more than that. We will make our money from advertising,” he added.

Elmish said initial production was set to begin in Israel in months on three bicycle models and a wheelchair and they will be available to purchase within a year.

“In six months we will have completed planning the first production lines for an urban bike which will be assisted by an electric motor, a youth bike which will be a 2/3 size model for children in Africa, a balance bike for youngsters learning to ride, and a wheelchair that a non-profit organization wants to build with our technology for Africa,” he said.

CHEAP AND LIGHT

The bicycles are not only very cheap to make, they are very light and do not need to be adjusted or repaired, the solid tires that are made of reconstituted rubber from old car tires will never get a puncture, Elmish said.

“These bikes need no maintenance and no adjustment, a car timing belt is used instead of a chain, and the tires do not need inflating and can last for 10 years,” he said.

A full-size cardboard bicycle will weigh around 9 kg (about 20 lbs) compared to an average metal bicycle, which weight around 14 kg.

The urban bicycle, similar to London’s “Boris bikes” and others worldwide, will have a mounting for a personal electric motor. Commuters would buy one and use it for their journey and then take it home or to work where it could be recharged.

He said that as bicycles would be so cheap, it hardly mattered how long they lasted.

“So you buy one, use it for a year and then you can buy another one, and if it breaks, you can take it back to the factory and recycle it,” he said.

Gafni predicted that in the future, cardboard might even be used in cars and even aircraft “but that is still a way down the road.”

“We are just at the beginning and from here my vision is to see cardboard replacing metals … and countries that right now don’t have the money, will be able to benefit from so many uses for this material,” he said.

(Writing by Ori Lewis, editing by Paul Casciato)

0

It’s A Grift

My pops sent me this so I thought it would be good to post.  I already know corn-based ethanol is sh!t.  Whenever I can get the chance I drive to a gas station near where I work and pay the extra money to put 100% pure gasoline in my ’89 MR2.  Not sure how much longer I will be allowed to do that.  Just keep telling yourself we are “free.”

This is one of those topics/issues that will cause both of the so-called candidates to pander to the farm/corn lobby.   Ethanol as a fuel has no value whatsoever, the only reason it is used is because it is mandated.  There is a monopoly of control that needs to be roughted out and destroyed.  And it can’t be destroyed by voting for Mitt “Not-Obama” Romney  There needs to be real change.

By using corn as fuel:

  1. We contribute to starvation particularly in times of drought in the US and Russia
  2. Increase the prices of corn directly
  3. Increase the prices of other crops/grains indirectly because too much land is being used to grow fuel
  4. Shortages of corn lead to shortages of food for poultry and cattle which increases meat prices
  5. Ethanol as a fuel is significantly more corrosive than pure gasoline, putting even a 10% blend of ethanol into a car that is over 20 years old, particularly a carbeurated one, is destructive to it’s fuel system and reduces performance and fuel mileage.
  6. The net energy return on energy invested into the complete corn based ethanol production process stream barely breaks even.  And given that much of the numbers out there are govt provided it is fair to assume they are goosed and it is actually a net loser with honest data.

None of this matters becaues the goal isn’t to create a renewable fuel or to better your life, it is to separate you from your money.  It is nothing more than a grift.  And anyone who tells  you otherwise is getting fatter pockets because of it.

Food for fuel: The price of ethanol

www.necsi.edu
New England Complex Systems Institute
238 Main Street Suite 319, Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-547-4100 Fax: 617-661-7711

 Cite as: D.K. Albino, K.Z. Bertrand, Y. Bar-Yam, Food for fuel: The price of ethanol. NECSI Report 2012-10-01 (10/04/2012).

Abstract

Conversion of food to ethanol in the US since 2005 is a major cause of global food price increases during that time and has been shown to be ineffective in achieving US energy independence and reducing environmental impact. We make three key statements to enhance understanding and communication about ethanol production’s impact on the food and fuel markets: (1) The amount of corn used to produce the ethanol in a gallon of regular gas would feed a person for a day, (2) The production of ethanol requires so much fossil fuel energy that its energy benefit is only about 20%, and (3) The cost of gas made with ethanol is actually higher per mile because ethanol reduces gasoline’s energy per gallon.

Introduction

The US used over 45% of its 2011 corn crop to produce ethanol, up from under 15% before 2005 [1], a rise dictated by federal mandate and promoted by federal subsidies. The drought in 2012 is leading to questions about whether using corn for fuel is reasonable while people go hungry due to a world food shortage. Here we provide a context for this discussion by addressing the following three questions: How much food goes into ethanol production? What is the net gain in energy from ethanol production after accounting for the fossil fuel energy used in the process? How does the use of ethanol affect gasoline prices?

Food used to make ethanol

How many people could be fed with the corn used for ethanol? In the US, the primary ethanol production input is field corn. While not typically eaten on the cob, field corn is used to make other food including breakfast cereal, corn flour or meal, corn sweetener, and corn oil. It feeds both people and livestock including poultry, pork, and beef subsequently consumed by people.

A bushel of field corn can be used to produce about 2.77 gallons of ethanol [2-6]. A bushel of field corn weighs 56 pounds, each pound containing about 1,550 Calories [7, 8]. Therefore, it takes about 31,300 Calories of field corn to produce one gallon of ethanol. Regular gasoline (E10) typically contains 10% ethanol by volume (averaging 9.6% nationally in 2011 [9]). Therefore, about 3,000 Calories of corn energy is used to produce each gallon of regular gas.

The suggested daily food energy intake is 2,100 Calories per person [10]. A single gallon of regular gas contains more than enough food energy to feed a person for one day. More precisely, every gallon would feed 1.4 people for a day or one person for 1.4 days.

It is often pointed out that a portion of the corn energy does not end up in the ethanol, but instead in by-products subsequently fed to animals, called distillers grains, which may account for up to 31% of the corn by weight [11]. The actual amount is often less than 31% and in 2011 was 23% overall [12]. The by-products are not used for food, and their nutritional content limit their use for feed [13]. Removing 23%, or even 31% of the energy, the food energy in a gallon of regular gas is still more than enough to feed a person for a day.

What is the equivalent amount of sweet (“on the cob”) corn in regular gas? The energy in sweet corn is 485 Calories per pound [14, 15], and there are about 0.2-0.25 edible pounds on each ear of corn [14]. In a gallon of regular gas there is food energy equivalent to 28 ears of sweet corn, and 19 ears of sweet corn would satisfy a person’s daily energy requirement. An average 16 gallon tank of gas has ethanol from enough corn to feed 22 people for a day, or one person for over three weeks.

The total amount of ethanol produced in the US in 2011 was 13.95 billion gallons [9], enough to feed 570 million people that year.

Energy balance of corn ethanol

When weighing the costs and benefits of corn ethanol, it is important to consider the net energy yield: how much more energy we get from a gallon of ethanol than is used to make that gallon. Fossil fuel energy is required to produce and transport fertilizers and pesticides, irrigate farmland, and plant and harvest the corn (not including the solar energy involved). Additional energy is required to transport the corn from the field to the ethanol plants and power the conversion process.

The most optimistic assessments claim around 1.3 units of energy are produced for each unit of energy input [16]. However, this estimate uses data from the best corn-growing conditions (requiring relatively low costs to grow), and considers the best processing conditions (including the highest possible distiller grain outputs as well). The average of the net energy yield across all corn-growing regions has been found to be 1.01 [17]. This means that the same amount of fossil fuel energy goes into making a gallon of ethanol as can be obtained by using that ethanol in a car.

Gasoline also requires energy to make. However, the ratio of output to processing energy for petroleum is about 5 to 1 [16]. This means that an extra 20% fossil fuel is used for each gallon of gasoline that is burned in a car [18-20].

Thus we need 1.0 fossil fuel BTUs on average to produce 1.0 ethanol BTUs of fuel energy. We need 1.2 fossil fuel BTUs to produce 1.0 fossil fuel BTUs of fuel energy. We save about 0.2 fossil fuel BTUs for each BTU used. This is the only gain from ethanol after loss of its food value. The amount of fossil fuel saved by using ethanol is only about 0.2% of the US energy requirements [21, 22].

Gasoline price impact of corn ethanol

While it has been claimed that ethanol has reduced the price of gasoline [23, 24], what is reported is the cost per gallon, but what is relevant is the cost per mile driven. Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline. A gallon of gasoline contains about 125,000 BTUs and ethanol contains about 84,300 BTUs [25], or about 67% that of gasoline. When the price of ethanol is between 67% and 100% of the price of gasoline, which it often is, ethanol is cheaper by volume but more expensive by energy. The cost per gallon of gasoline with ethanol is lower, but it is as if the gasoline is watered down – the cost per mile driven is higher.

This means that in addition to the government subsidy of $20 billion from 2005 – 2011 [26], every gallon of gasoline with ethanol bought is an extra subsidy from consumers to the ethanol producers.

References

1. US domestic corn use, USDA Economic Research Service (2012 http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/866543/cornusetable.html).

2. S. D. Donner, C. J. Kucharik, Corn-based ethanol production compromises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi River, PNAS 105, 4513 (2008 http://www.pnas.org/content/105/11/4513.full.pdf).

3. R. Korves, The potential role for corn ethanol in meeting the energy needs of the United States in 2016-2030, Illinois Corn Marketing Board (2008 http://www.ilcorn.org/uploads/useruploads/files/ethanol/potential_role_for_corn_ethanol.pdf).

4. J. Inman, Iowa ethanol corn and co-products processing values, USDA Market News Service (2012 http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/nw_gr212.txt).

5. Biofuel conversion factors, Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, University of Missouri (2006 http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreach/publications/2006/biofuelconversions.pdf).

6. S. R. Eckhoff, Choosing a fractionation process, Maize Processing Innovators, Inc. (2007 http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/11wp523.pdf).

7. N. Dale, Relationship between bushel weight, metabolizable energy, and protein content of corn from an adverse growing season, Journal of Applied Poultry Research 3, 83 (1994 http://japr.fass.org/content/3/1/83.full.pdf).

8. G. L. Cromwell, Benefits of high oil corn for swine, University of Kentucky College of Agriculture (2006 http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AnimalSciences/pubs/highoilcornbenefitsforswine.pdf).

9. Short term energy outlook, U.S. Energy Information Administration (2012 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/archives/aug12.pdf).

10. What is hunger?, World Food Programme (2012 http://www.wfp.org/hunger/what-is).

11. Corn background, USDA Economic Research Service (2012 http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/background.aspx).

12. World Agricultural Outlook Board, World agricultural supply and demand estimates, USDA (2012 http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf).

13. A. DiCostanzo,Feeding distillers grains to beef cattle, University of Minnesota Extension Beef Center(2005 http://www.extension.umn.edu/beef/components/releases/02-28-05-DiCostanzo.htm).

14. Nutrition facts: Corn, sweet, yellow, cooked, boiled, drained, without salt, Self Nutrition Data (2012 http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2416/0).

15. Nutrition facts: Corn, sweet, yellow, cooked, boiled, drained, without salt, CalorieLab.com (2012 http://calorielab.com/foods/corn/corn-sweet-yellow-cooked-boiled-drained-without-salt/148/11168/4).

16. Ethanol myths and facts, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Biomass Program (2011 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/printable_versions/ethanol_myths_facts.html).

17. D. J. Murphy, C. A. S. Hall, B. Powers, New perspectives on the energy return on (energy) investment (EROI) of corn ethanol, Environment, Development, and Sustainability 13, 179 (2010 http://www.springerlink.com/content/j458318434015735/fulltext.pdf).

18. R. Rapier, The energy balance of ethanol versus gasoline, The Oil Drum (2006 http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/25/221617/881).

19. D. Hofstrand, Efficiency and environmental improvements of corn ethanol production, Agricultural Marketing Resource Center Renewable Energy Newsletter (2009 http://www.agmrc.org/renewable_energy/ethanol/efficiency-and-environmental-improvements-of-corn-ethanol-production/).

20. Argonne National Laboratory ethanol study: Key points, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (2005 http://www.ethanolmt.org/images/argonnestudy.pdf).

21. US Energy Information Administration, Annual energy review table 10.3: Fuel ethanol overview, 1981-2010 (10/19/11 http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb1003).

22. US Energy Information Administration, Energy overview: Total energy flow, 2010 (2010 http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/diagram1.cfm).

23. X. Du, D. J. Hayes, The impact of ethanol production on US and regional gasoline markets: An update to May 2009, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University 11-WP 523 (2011 http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/11wp523.pdf).

24. X. Du, D. J. Hayes, The impact of ethanol production on U.S. and regional gasoline markets: An update to 2012, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University 12-WP 528 (2012 http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/dbs/pdffiles/12wp528.pdf).

25. Biofuels in the U.S. transportation sector, U.S. Energy Information Administration (2007 http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html).

26. Congress ends era of ethanol subsidies, National Public Radio (NPR) Morning Edition (1/3/2012). http://www.npr.org/2012/01/03/144605485/congress-ends-era-of-ethanol-subsidiesm

original here.

This site is protected by Comment SPAM Wiper.