Fuel economy compared to what though

Compared to a 5 seater 4wheel drive vehicle with a 5000 pound towing
capacity?

I havent done enough investigations yet into it to see

I know i'mt aking a giant fuel economy hit moving off of my current car
to anything.

Rex B wrote:

Brent Philion wrote:

I love using diesel vehicles and finally found ONE mid power north
american diesel.

the other options are HUGE trucks or small cars like the jetta

the Jeep liberty seems to be the only north american vehicle with a
midsized diesel. 150ish Hp instead of 300 in the trucks and -100 for
the cars


I like the CRD Liberty, drives well. Fuel economy is disappointing. I
presume that is because the CRD is a cheaper fuel injection. Also, the
Liberty is surprisingly heavy,

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:20:06 -0500, "ATP*"
wrote:
snip
But WRT soy-based diesel, there is a large energy expenditure,
although not as bad as ethanol, which by some estimates costs more in
BTUs
to make than it delivers.
snip
This is called entropy or the first law of thermodynamics. You
can't have a perpetual motion machine, i.e. create energy. Thus
this argument [mainly used by people that don't want a solution]
is specious.

It's specious _only_ if the people presenting it _include_ the solar input
which would otherwise go to waste in their calculation of the energy cost.
Do they do this?

No.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:20:06 -0500, "ATP*"
wrote:
snip
But WRT soy-based diesel, there is a large energy expenditure,
although not as bad as ethanol, which by some estimates costs more in BTUs
to make than it delivers.
snip
This is called entropy or the first law of thermodynamics. You
can't have a perpetual motion machine, i.e. create energy. Thus
this argument [mainly used by people that don't want a solution]
is specious.

It is not if the energy input you count is supplied by petroleum. Right now
the whole ethanol industry is just a taxpayer subsidized sham that is doing
nothing toward net energy self-sufficiency, but plenty to line the pockets
of corn growers.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html

F. George McDuffee wrote:


Whose financial house is in better order -- yours or General
Motors? As a percentage of gross income, who had a higher
percentage of "retained earnings" -- you or Ford? Who would you
rather have managing your 401k -- you or the "blue ribbon" board
of directors at Enron?

The stockholders are the owners of the company [at least in
theory] If you read what I said about the Dividend Reinvestment
Program [DRIP] you would see that this allows the individual
owners [stock holders] to decide what to do with *THEIR* money.

The record shows that corporations are becoming increasingly
reckless in their fiduciary duties, with "management"
increasingly regarding any profit generated as theirs, skimming
increasing amounts off the top for grossly excessive salary and
bonuses for [dubious] performance and failing to invest in the
core business.


Unka George
(George McDuffee)


I did read what you said about DRIPS, but the idea still sucks. It
forces the company to give the money to the stock holders and therefore
have income which the government taxes. So if the company makes say
$10 / share and pays out half, then there are taxes paid on that half.
And the taxes come out of the shareholders pocket. Even if every
shareholder participated in the DRIP program, taxes on the dividends
would reduce the amount of money available for the company to use to
grow. So as I see it your plan lets the government decide that the
company should pay taxes on the profits, and then the stockholders
should pay taxes on top of that on at least half of the profits. Good
for the government, tends to suck for the stockholders.

I might not want Enron managing my investments, but I do want Nucor and
Carpenter Tech managing some of my investments. So If I don't want
Enron, I just don't buy Enron stock. Simple, no government involvement
with a one size fits all solution.

Don't like paying excessive salaries, try looking up the Nucor Web Site
and tell me if the salaries are excessive. When you do this go
somewhere like yahoo finance and look at the performance of Nucor
stock. Nucor did not pay dividends for years, instead investing the
profits back into the business. They went from producing no steel in
1960 to being one of the largest american steel companies now.

Dan

On 13 Mar 2006 19:31:08 -0800, "
wrote:
snip
So as I see it your plan lets the government decide that the
company should pay taxes on the profits, and then the stockholders
should pay taxes on top of that on at least half of the profits. Good
for the government, tends to suck for the stockholders.
snip
I suggest you check the current US tax regulations on this. If
you are saving for retirement, properly constructed 401k or
IRA/Keogh should shield any dividend income from taxation until
it is withdrawn and spent.

On the other hand, why should stockholders *NOT* pay taxes on
their income? When they don't pay their taxes, someone else must
make up the shortfall or it adds to the deficit (with compound
interest to the bond holders). We seem to have created a class
of nobility in this country that feels that by right they are
exempt from paying their full share of the cost of government,
while demanding at least their share of governmental services
such as police, fire, courts, patents, customs, etc.

You look at the exceedingly small number of very well run
American corporations with long-term ethical management, I look
at the much larger number of poorly run American corporations
with short-sighted amoral management, and we naturally reach two
very different conclusions.

Changes in corporate policy by changes in the board of directors
is a pipe dream that Wall Street still sells and the suckers
continue to buy. SEC stock proxy rules, staggered director terms
and "poison pill" defenses are specifically designed to prevent
this. The only thing that has ever put any starch in a
director's backbone is the threat of a stockholder class-action
lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty and/or the Sorbains-Oxley
act with some jail time.

I am continually amazed that the mutual funds, that now own a
majority of corporate stocks, allow the corporations to amass and
manage excessive amounts of retained earnings and have done
nothing to stop the profit skimming attributable to excessive
executive compensation.

If you directly or indirectly own stock in a corporation, those
earnings are *YOUR* money.






Unka George
(George McDuffee)

What a country calls its vital economic interests are not
the things which enable its citizens to live, but the things
which enable it to make war. Petrol is more likely than wheat
to be a cause of international conflict.
Simone Weil (1909-43), French philosopher, mystic.
«The Power of Words», in Nouveaux Cahiers (1 and 15 April 1937;
repr. in Selected Essays, ed. by Richard Rees, 1962)

wrote in message
ups.com...
In my part of California, it hardly ever gets below 35 F so what is
your point??

Easy John


The point is that the lack of cold weather tolerance of biodiesel is a very
significant factor when people want to talk about large scale replacement of
conventional diesel. Biodiesel can be a supplement to conventional diesel
but the chance it will replace it completely is zero.

Steve.

Carl Byrns wrote:

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:06:52 -0500, Brent Philion
wrote:

OOPS pressed send too soon

Farm diesel and farm implements need anything but high quality fuels.

Who told you that?
The diesels that most ag equipment are powered by are designed to use
same fuel as trucks and heavy equipment. They require clean fuel with
a cetane rating of 40. Low quality fuel will kill them quick- we see
the results in our shop when someone cheaps out and tries to run a
modern turbodiesel on old, crappy, 'discount diesel'.

-Carl

A lot of folks seem to (incorrectly) think there is some quality
difference between #2 diesel fuel at the pump vs. #2 home heating oil or
#2 off-road diesel. The reality is of course that all three are exactly
the same base fuel with the difference being transportation fuel taxes
and the addition of red dye to the non-taxed fuel.

Pete C.

F. George McDuffee wrote:

On 13 Mar 2006 19:31:08 -0800, "
wrote:
snip
So as I see it your plan lets the government decide that the
company should pay taxes on the profits, and then the stockholders
should pay taxes on top of that on at least half of the profits. Good
for the government, tends to suck for the stockholders.
snip
I suggest you check the current US tax regulations on this. If
you are saving for retirement, properly constructed 401k or
IRA/Keogh should shield any dividend income from taxation until
it is withdrawn and spent.

On the other hand, why should stockholders *NOT* pay taxes on
their income? When they don't pay their taxes, someone else must
make up the shortfall or it adds to the deficit (with compound
interest to the bond holders). We seem to have created a class
of nobility in this country that feels that by right they are
exempt from paying their full share of the cost of government,
while demanding at least their share of governmental services
such as police, fire, courts, patents, customs, etc.

Stockholder pay taxes on dividends when paid, they don't pay taxes on
capital gains until they sell the stock.

As for this "class of nobility", does Bill Gates use more government
services than someone living on a park bench? Does Bill Gates pay more
taxes than a person living on a street corner?

I'm sorry, but you've let your rhetoric go to your head if you think that
people who have significant investments pay less tax than people who cannot
afford to make such investments.

You look at the exceedingly small number of very well run
American corporations with long-term ethical management, I look
at the much larger number of poorly run American corporations
with short-sighted amoral management, and we naturally reach two
very different conclusions.

Changes in corporate policy by changes in the board of directors
is a pipe dream that Wall Street still sells and the suckers
continue to buy. SEC stock proxy rules, staggered director terms
and "poison pill" defenses are specifically designed to prevent
this. The only thing that has ever put any starch in a
director's backbone is the threat of a stockholder class-action
lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty and/or the Sorbains-Oxley
act with some jail time.

So? Stock proxy rules do not prevent any person from voting his own shares.
Staggered terms mean that it just takes longer to replace the board.

I am continually amazed that the mutual funds, that now own a
majority of corporate stocks, allow the corporations to amass and
manage excessive amounts of retained earnings

Why? You think that mutual funds can't make money from capital gains?

and have done
nothing to stop the profit skimming attributable to excessive
executive compensation.

What fraction of the actual income of the company goes into "excessive
executive compensation"?

If you directly or indirectly own stock in a corporation, those
earnings are *YOUR* money.

So why is it your business how I handle MY money? You seem to insist on
substituting your judgment for mine in the matter of how I want that money
handled. If you want dividends then buy stock from companies that
historically pay dividends instead of demanding that companies in which you
invested without doing your homework change their behavior to suit your
desires.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

A lot of folks seem to (incorrectly) think there is some quality
difference between #2 diesel fuel at the pump vs. #2 home heating oil or
#2 off-road diesel. The reality is of course that all three are exactly
the same base fuel with the difference being transportation fuel taxes
and the addition of red dye to the non-taxed fuel.

Pete C.
Not in all areas. Most places use cheaper, (higher sulphur) diesel for off road.


Ron Thompson
On the Beautiful Florida Space Coast, right beside the Kennedy Space Center, USA

http://www.plansandprojects.com
My hobby pages are he
http://www.plansandprojects.com/My%20Machines/

Severe stupidity is self correcting, but mild stupidity is rampant in the land.
-Ron Thompson

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:33:32 -0500, "SteveF"
wrote:
snip
Or because they recognize that the American public is all for doing
something about the environment until they realize it is either going to
cost them money or be an inconvenience. My neighbor runs a local heating
oil company and we have had a number of discussions about biodiesel. He
told me that there is a large scale production plant opening in eastern
North Carolina but that even with the government subsidies, the biodiesel is
quite a bit more expensive than regular heating oil. Tell someone that the
fuel they are using might cause their vehicle to be very hard to start if
the cold weather shows up before the "winter" blend arrives and they will
tell you were you can stick your renewable fuel.
snip
======================
Don't assume that the choice is between cheap fuel and expensive
fuel when the choice is between expensive fuel and no fuel.

Don't assume that bio-diesel and/or SVO *MUST* be used by the
consumer in their light duty vehicles. Again this can (and
should by the Praeto principal) be targeted (at least to start)
for the high volume users such as locomotives and inter-state
truckers (which from a strategic perspective are more important
anyhow), possibly with distribution limited to the milder climate
areas.

Consider the process and results of setting priorities and making
decisions in your life: You can't wait for perfect and complete
information because you would never make a decisions and one will
be made for you; There are always some drawbacks and downsides
because a "solution" that meets every requirement and desire is
not possible.

It is a gross waste to use #2, bio-diesel, or SVO as a direct
replacement in home heating. What needs to be considered is
co-generation in which a small diesel engine powers a generator
with the "waste" heat generated used for heat, and the power
either consumed on site or sold back to the electric company.
Many states now require the electric companies to accept back
into the grid consumer generated power. The benefit of this is
that the colder the weather, the more the diesels are run and the
more power is generated and fed back into the grid when it is
needed.

"Doing nothing", and/or "more of the same only better" never were
options and we are rapidly running out of money to keep buying
foreign oil for energy and feed stocks. Every barrel of oil
*NOT* imported reduces the foreign trade deficit by 65$. Failure
to grasp this simple fact shows how out of touch with reality our
government and policy makers have become.






Unka George
(George McDuffee)

What a country calls its vital economic interests are not
the things which enable its citizens to live, but the things
which enable it to make war. Petrol is more likely than wheat
to be a cause of international conflict.
Simone Weil (1909-43), French philosopher, mystic.
«The Power of Words», in Nouveaux Cahiers (1 and 15 April 1937;
repr. in Selected Essays, ed. by Richard Rees, 1962)

F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:33:32 -0500, "SteveF"
wrote:
snip
Or because they recognize that the American public is all for doing
something about the environment until they realize it is either going to
cost them money or be an inconvenience. My neighbor runs a local heating
oil company and we have had a number of discussions about biodiesel. He
told me that there is a large scale production plant opening in eastern
North Carolina but that even with the government subsidies, the biodiesel
is
quite a bit more expensive than regular heating oil. Tell someone that
the fuel they are using might cause their vehicle to be very hard to start
if the cold weather shows up before the "winter" blend arrives and they
will tell you were you can stick your renewable fuel.
snip
======================
Don't assume that the choice is between cheap fuel and expensive
fuel when the choice is between expensive fuel and no fuel.

That isn't the choice at the moment though.

Don't assume that bio-diesel and/or SVO *MUST* be used by the
consumer in their light duty vehicles. Again this can (and
should by the Praeto principal) be targeted (at least to start)
for the high volume users such as locomotives and inter-state
truckers (which from a strategic perspective are more important
anyhow), possibly with distribution limited to the milder climate
areas.

Consider the process and results of setting priorities and making
decisions in your life: You can't wait for perfect and complete
information because you would never make a decisions and one will
be made for you; There are always some drawbacks and downsides
because a "solution" that meets every requirement and desire is
not possible.

It is a gross waste to use #2, bio-diesel, or SVO as a direct
replacement in home heating. What needs to be considered is
co-generation in which a small diesel engine powers a generator
with the "waste" heat generated used for heat, and the power
either consumed on site or sold back to the electric company.

Now, how is that better than using it directly for heating? You get less
heat out of it and the efficiency of a small internal combustion engine is
quite a bit lower than a large baseload steam turbine power plant so you're
not getting efficient use of the fuel for either purpose. Now, if you use
it to drive an internal combustion engine that drives a heat pump, you
might be on to something--there almost all the energy of the fuel goes into
heat and some is extracted from the environment as well.

There are also the maintenance and noise issues. A diesel is simply not as
cheap to maintain as an oil furnace and you'd have to put quite a bit of
work into it to make it quiet enough that a bunch of them running in a
residental neighborhood would be socially acceptable. And then it's 2 AM
and the temperature is 30 below and half the bloody things in the country
won't start and now what?

Many states now require the electric companies to accept back
into the grid consumer generated power. The benefit of this is
that the colder the weather, the more the diesels are run and the
more power is generated and fed back into the grid when it is
needed.

Uh why is more electric power "needed" in cold weather unless electric heat
is commonplace?

"Doing nothing", and/or "more of the same only better" never were
options and we are rapidly running out of money to keep buying
foreign oil for energy and feed stocks. Every barrel of oil
*NOT* imported reduces the foreign trade deficit by 65$. Failure
to grasp this simple fact shows how out of touch with reality our
government and policy makers have become.

And so you propose that everyone use an inefficient generator to provide
heat instead of an efficient furnace.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:00:31 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Carl Byrns wrote:

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:06:52 -0500, Brent Philion
wrote:

OOPS pressed send too soon

Farm diesel and farm implements need anything but high quality fuels.

Who told you that?
The diesels that most ag equipment are powered by are designed to use
same fuel as trucks and heavy equipment. They require clean fuel with
a cetane rating of 40. Low quality fuel will kill them quick- we see
the results in our shop when someone cheaps out and tries to run a
modern turbodiesel on old, crappy, 'discount diesel'.

-Carl

A lot of folks seem to (incorrectly) think there is some quality
difference between #2 diesel fuel at the pump vs. #2 home heating oil or
#2 off-road diesel. The reality is of course that all three are exactly
the same base fuel with the difference being transportation fuel taxes
and the addition of red dye to the non-taxed fuel.

Pete C.

And all those fuels degrade with time- leftover last years diesel is a
low quality fuel.
My point still stands- The diesels that most ag equipment are powered
by are designed to use same fuel as trucks and heavy equipment. They
require clean fuel with a cetane rating of 40. The OP's statement that
"farm diesel and farm implements need anything but high quality fuels"
is false.

-Carl

F. George McDuffee wrote:
snip
I suggest you check the current US tax regulations on this. If
you are saving for retirement, properly constructed 401k or
IRA/Keogh should shield any dividend income from taxation until
it is withdrawn and spent.

On the other hand, why should stockholders *NOT* pay taxes on
their income? When they don't pay their taxes, someone else must
make up the shortfall or it adds to the deficit (with compound
interest to the bond holders). We seem to have created a class
of nobility in this country that feels that by right they are
exempt from paying their full share of the cost of government,
while demanding at least their share of governmental services
such as police, fire, courts, patents, customs, etc.

You look at the exceedingly small number of very well run
American corporations with long-term ethical management, I look
at the much larger number of poorly run American corporations
with short-sighted amoral management, and we naturally reach two
very different conclusions.

Changes in corporate policy by changes in the board of directors
is a pipe dream that Wall Street still sells and the suckers
continue to buy. SEC stock proxy rules, staggered director terms
and "poison pill" defenses are specifically designed to prevent
this. The only thing that has ever put any starch in a
director's backbone is the threat of a stockholder class-action
lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty and/or the Sorbains-Oxley
act with some jail time.

I am continually amazed that the mutual funds, that now own a
majority of corporate stocks, allow the corporations to amass and
manage excessive amounts of retained earnings and have done
nothing to stop the profit skimming attributable to excessive
executive compensation.

If you directly or indirectly own stock in a corporation, those
earnings are *YOUR* money.

Unka George
(George McDuffee)

Once again you seem to believe I am fresh off the boat. I am very
familar with 401K's, Sep-IRA's, Roth IRA's , but not all that familar
with Keogh plans.

And while helpful I do not have all my money in IRA's or 401K plans.
For one thing I am way too old for your suggestions. Much of my stocks
were bought before there were any 401K or IRA's. And although I fully
funded my IRA's and contributed as much as possible to my 401K plan, I
also bought stocks. Hey it is my money and I get to decide if I buy a
new car and have someone service it, or buy a second hand car and do
the service myself. I did the later and bought stocks instead.

Okay bright guy, tell me why the government should tax corporate
profits and then tax the same money again when the shareholder is paid
some of that after tax money as a dividend. The money has already been
taxed once.

And as far as not paying taxes, I expect that I pay more taxes than
you. Please explain why you think I should pay more than my share of
taxes..........Because I do. Currently I am paying social security
taxes, medicare taxes, and also paying into medicare out of my social
security benefits,and paying taxes on 85% of my social security
benefits. Plus income taxes including income taxes on my mandatory IRA
withdrawals.

Why do you care about those companies that are poorly run and have
short sighted management? I don't see anyone forcing you to buy their
stock. And why do you believe ( I can't use think here ) that most
companies are poorly run?

And Damn Straight those earnings in the companies whose stock I own are
MINE and sure as HELL don't want your help or the governments help in
deciding if I want the company to pay dividends or grow the company.

If you plan of forcing companies to pay out half of their profits in
dividend were implemented, we would see a depression. Companies would
not be making as many capital investments, so those companies that sell
capital equipment would dive, people would be fired, and bam, more than
a recession. It would be a depression.

Dan