The GM./Segway PUMA

Inkara1 said:
I drive a lot more than 50 miles in one day pretty often. I bought my current car a year ago and have put 21,000 miles on it in that one year. That's an average of nearly 58 miles per day over the course of the year. The Volt would be a lot more practical for me than the EV1 because in the event I do have to drive beyond the electric-only range of the car, I can burn gasoline and continue on to my destination, instead of having to stop and plug in my car for eight hours (not to mention little things like having a trunk and more than two seats). Also, the EV1 was never meant to be something sold to the public at large. It was leased to people as a research project, because a few hundred of them in the hands of real drivers will come up on a lot of everyday situations that GM's engineers could probably not anticipate. Honda is doing the same research leasing thing with its hydrogen-fueled FCX Clarity car now. Things GM learned with the EV1 have probably made their way into the Volt.
Click to expand...

well the EV1 would be practical for most, maybe not for onemillion mile trips back and forth per day, but for people who live less than 20 miles away from their job, and have some errans. plus you could just charge the car at work. if the car would have become alot more popular, then i would assume that some jobplaces would have a charger there.
 
catocom said:
http://www.pickensplan.com/index.php
Click to expand...
...America is blessed with the world’s greatest wind power corridor and abundant reserves of clean natural gas.
Click to expand...
Yeah... he lost me there with that phrase. You gotta learn to read between the lines, and that has "LET'S DRILL, BABY!" All over it.

I see this "clean natural gas" burned off all over Texas. If we really put value in natural gas we'd be capturing it already, but the oil companies are too anxious to get to the Texas Tea. This has nothing to do with clean energy and everything to do with getting free reign to drill for oil wherever the oil investors want.

I am just too skeptical.
 
They have enough already, according to the numbers.
We have Massive output, but they market has been turned away.

What? you aren't on board with one of obama's go plans?:swing:
 
Inkara1 said:
Smog regulations starting in the late 1960s and increasing in the early 1970s, along with the first fuel crisis, led to shitboxes like the Vega and Chevette, as well as embarrassments like 302-cubic-inch V8s that made 105 horsepower.
Click to expand...

Is that for real or are you just exaggerating?

I don't think a car capped like that would pollute less than one that burns the fuel properly and gives as much output as possible. Less burnt fuel = less pollution, unless I'm missing something. :confuse3:
 
/checks on stuff

My bad... the 302 V8 in the 1977 Ford Granada made 128 horsepower. I guess I misremembered.

But the V8s of that time had low compression ratios among other things.
 
I had the 250 six. According to this these cars were between 85-144 hp. So it was probably on the low end at 85. All I remember is that it had a 3 speed automatic, and with good tires, I couldn't peel out. But damn it took off quick with the pedal floored. I think the speedometer went to 85 and I never had any trouble keeping up with interstate traffic.

Edit: Mine was white with red interior. The engine ran smooth. And I miss it. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top