Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Slagle who wrote (64053)	5/22/2005 3:29:57 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

That velocity cube thing is nasty. One benefit is it keeps people from drivng 150 mph down two lane roads.... The Buick only gets 30 mpg when running for over an hour between 65 and 70 mph (and not 75) on flat ground with little traffic - like I-5 to Los Angeles. Also air conditioner off. How can it get this mileage and weigh 4000 pounds ? Note, of course that it barely gets 30.1 mpg ;-) It's a Buick Regal, which is not as tall as the bigger Buick LeSabre or Park Avenue. So lower frontal area. Lots of Buick Regals in China, btw. It's pretty clean aerodynamically, flush door handles, smooth curves, sort of a jelly bean/ fish shapes seen on lots of cars. So a low Cd or Coefficent of drag. The V6 3.8 liter engine has been around since the 1960s, and has had a lot of development. It's one of GM s most fuel efficent engines. At cruise speed, there is basically no supercharger boost, and evidently low power loss to the supercharger. The non-supercharged version does get slightly better mileage. There's a knock sensor with input to the electronic engine control, so if you use premium gas, the spark is advanced more, until the edge of knocking. I think it then remembers that advance, and backs off a little, then tries to advance more every so often...guessing here. I have heard this contributes as much as 2 mpg. The 4 speed over drive automatic puts the RPM under 2000 about 1700, reducing frictional loss in the engine. I think the torque converter in the automatic has been designed to be efficent above 1200 rpm. I don't think this is a lock up converter. **** I don't know enough about tires to really comment. I have tried different tires on my cars, after some internet research and talking to the guys at a high end tire store. It does make a difference. For the research, find the forums for your model of car and read critically. Generalized reviews of tires, without reference to specific car model, are only marginally useful. *** Hubbert's Peak - a lot depends on how steep the back side of the curve is. If it's -3% per year, that's a problem. If it's about - 0.5% per year, that will be manageable. I expect energy efficency for motor fuels can be improved about 3% per year on new models, with the fleet average being about 2.5%. Even a 1% decline in oil produciton would leave 1.5% for worldwide growth. Since the growing regions would be buying newer cars, and generally drive less, unit numbers worldwide could actually grow by 4% or more. **** If we listen to Lee Raymond, we would think there was no reason to go to war for oil.....