Comments for CM intoduces the car of the future. »
Posted By pc25 11 months, 2 weeks ago in HumorCongressional Motors introduces the 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition, the zero emission, zero carbon footprint automobile, so advanced it took $100 billion and an entire Congress to design it.
Read Full Story at youtube.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 26 of 27 Comments
-
67%
birdsabound11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Chevy VOLT is an ELECTRIC car with a battery that will carry it FORTY miles. After that a GASOLINE ENGINE kicks in. But that motor is NOT coupled mechanically to the wheels (which are powered only ELECTRICALLY). Instead it DRIVES A GENERATOR that powers the motors, just like in the good old DIESEL-ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE!
Reply
Statistics show that 75% of all auto usage is “short haul” runs that would fit within the 40-mile range of the battery, SO MOST OF THE TIME THE GASOLINE ENGINE WOULD NEVER RUN! The battery would be charged from the power grid --- or better yet, eventually your PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY or WIND-POWERED-GENERATOR LOW-VOLTAGE AUXILIARY SYSTEM) when the vehicle is not in use. (Using ELECTRICAL power could render it PRACTICAL to DIRECTLY harness the abundant but intermittent / highly variable FREE energy that rains down on us PERPETUALLY FROM THE SUN!) Absent FREE power, about 80 cents worth of "grid" power would “fill the tank”. Beyond that, fuel consumption would depend on how the car is used. For ordinary use the internal combustion engine WOULD BE ONLY MINIMALLY ACTIVE. (Now THERE is FOREIGN OIL INDEPENDENCE for you!)
It would be appropriate for "Government" to fund GM --- at BARELY above "subsistence levels"! --- to sustain ONLY those "life functions" of the moribund "patient" that TRULY, QUICKLY COMPEL evolutionary progress AWAY from the currently FAILING "business model"! That support needs to be very SPECIFIC, being directed PURPOSEFULLY toward ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION, BRINGING INTO PRODUCTION, and more generally PUBLIC POPULARIZATION (through EDUCATION, and indirect tax-forbearance SUBSIDIZATION!), of such initiatives as the VOLT --and ALSO, more broadly, such OTHER "outside-the-box" alternatives as the Toyota / Hyundai / Ford pioneering of REGENERATIVE-BRAKING automotive ENERGY CONSERVATION technology!
Moreover, it ALSO needs to begin to dawn on us all that it will be advantageous to MARRY THE “REGENERATIVE-BRAKING” AND "ELECTRIC CAR" TECHNOLOGIES: doing so would about DOUBLE the RANGE of any battery-powered system, just as it doubles the efficiency and range of the all-gasoline-powered Toyota Prius (which has a 22.5 miles-per-gallon engine that ends up achieving around 45 mpg!). Maybe THAT initiative is what CHRYSLER should be "funded" to focus upon! (A little good-old-fashioned COMPETITION could be a VERY GOOD THING!)
SUCH are the sorts of initiatives needed to ACTUALLY IGNITE the "GREEN-COLLAR ECONOMIC REVOLUTION" which, if generally embraced, could INTELLIGENTLY, CONSTRUCTIVELY restore the economic health of this society (and would SURELY be preferable to any cockamamie WAR like the one whereby "we" "escaped" the so-called "Great" Depression!).
Now if my ideas come across as "HERETICAL", then so be it. But you DON'T successfully treat a patient who is DYING OF LUNG CANCER by BUYING HIM OR HER MORE CIGARETTES! (I SURE hope the OBAMA crowd is smart enough to "get" that! EVIDENTLY THEIR PREDECESSORS WERE NOT!)-
63%
pc2511 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
100%
pc2511 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't think so J..........this is about congress and what is going on right now with the bailout money........this is about paybacks to the unions for the support of Obama during the election. This is about what happens when Congress gets involved in something they know nothing about. The Big 3 already want more bailout money. This is about the bailout of the Big 3 without any conditions what so ever and this about GM pinning its hops on a technology that according to analysts will have a problem finding a place in the market. As usual GM is off the mark and is going to face stiff competition. The estimated base price for the Volt is expected to be over 40,000 up 10,0o0 in the last year alone. By the time it is introduced who knows what the base price will be.
Reply
Despite its alleged game-changing technology, the Volt will face a growing number of “clean-tech” vehicles selling for the same or less money, including not just hybrids but also diesel-engine models. In particular, it will compete with a redesigned version of the Toyota Prius that’s expected in January 2009 as an early 2010 entry. Sources say the third-generation Prius will be somewhat larger yet lighter than today’s version, will offer better performance with higher fuel economy, and will boast a longer electric-only driving range despite retaining NiMH batteries and Toyota’s basic Hybrid Synergy Drive system. Moreover, word is the Prius will switch to LI batteries around 2010, then add plug-in capability as early as 2011. With all this, buyers will want to weigh all the “green car” options with regard to initial cost versus “time to payback” and perhaps net environmental impact. On those counts, one analyst has concluded the Volt would fare much worse than conventional hybrids even in best-case driving scenarios, taking decades instead of several years to recoup its purchase price in fuel costs and reduced emissions. It’s something to think about.
2011 Chevrolet Volt Prices: GM first projected the Volt’s base price at around $30,000, but has since upped the estimate to $35,000. And some sources believe the final tab will be more like $40,000, rather steep for a compact Chevrolet. Why so much? Apparently because GM underestimated the cost of the high-tech batteries and other Volt-specific components. The wild card is whether the company might be willing to take a loss by subsidizing the price down to the original $30K target--and if so, for how long.
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2011-ch...-
33%
jovial11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi def TV's cost a lot to make at first too. After companies start making them the price will eventually come down. Too bad your biased opinion of Obama and change will never come down as well. I thought this was a humor story, you seem rather ticked. ; p
Reply
-
-
-
57%
birdsabound11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NO, I GET your point. I am simply making ANOTHER point --- which is that at THIS point what is needed is NOT mere negative criticism of Pelosi et al, but (rather) at least rough actual, FACTUAL understanding of what some of the technological alternative possibilities are for ACTUALLY dealing with the REAL problem, instead of going off on a "political" tangent debating IDEOLOGICAL IDIOCIES of ANY "stripe". I took your initiative as an opening to perhaps “get through” to some folks who are “caught up” IN “Politics”, when they REALLY need to get “caught up” WITH Technology!
Reply-
-
100%
jovial11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Boy you invited everyone here for a humor story and then go off on a political rant. You lost. Move on. Get over it.
Reply
Here's a good car joke, let's see if this will make you smile..
Henry Ford dies and goes to heaven. At the Gates, St. Peter greets and tells him, "Well, you've been such a good guy, and your invention...the assembly line for the automobile ... changed the world !!!!
"As a reward, you can hang out with anyone in Heaven you want."
Ford thinks about it, and says ... "I want to hang out with God Himself." So, the befuddled St. Peter takes Ford to the Throne Room, and introduces him to God.
Ford then asks God, "When you invented Woman, what were You thinking?"
God asks, "What do you mean?"
"Well," says Ford, "You have some major design flaws in your invention:
1. There's too much front end protrusion.
2. It chatters way too much at high speeds.
3. Maintenance is extremely high.
4. It constantly needs repainting and refinishing.
5. It is out of commission at least 5 or 6 of every 28 days.
6. The rear end wobbles too much.
7. The intake is placed too close to the exhaust.
8. The headlights are usually too small.
9. Fuel consumption is outrageous. Just to name a few."
"Hmmm...," replies God, "Hold on a minute."
God goes over to the Celestial Supercomputer, types in a few keystrokes, and waits for the results. In no time the computer prints out a report, and God reads it.
God then turns to Ford, and says, "It may be that my invention is flawed, but according to these statistics, more men are riding my invention than yours.-
amazedComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
25%
birdsabound11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NO, I GET your point. I am simply making ANOTHER point --- which is that at THIS point what is needed is NOT mere negative criticism of Pelosi et al, but (rather) at least rough actual, FACTUAL understanding of what some of the technological alternative possibilities are for ACTUALLY dealing with the REAL problem, instead of going off on a "political" tangent debating IDEOLOGICAL IDIOCIES of ANY "stripe". I took your initiative as an opening to perhaps “get through” to some folks who are “caught up” IN “Politics”, when they REALLY need to get “caught up” WITH Technology!
Reply -
25%
birdsabound11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NO, I GET your point. I am simply making ANOTHER point --- which is that at THIS point what is needed is NOT mere negative criticism of Pelosi et al, but (rather) at least rough actual, FACTUAL understanding of what some of the technological alternative possibilities are for ACTUALLY dealing with the REAL problem, instead of going of fon a "political" tangent debating IDEOLOGICAL IDIOCIES of ANY "stripe". I took your initiative as an opening to perhaps “get through” to some folks who are “caught up” IN “Politics”, when they REALLY need to get “caught up” WITH Technology!
Reply -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
25%
birdsabound11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NO, I GET your point. I am simply making ANOTHER point --- which is that at THIS point what is needed is NOT mere negative criticism of Pelosi et al, but (rather) at least rough actual, FACTUAL understanding of what some of the technological alternative possibilities are for ACTUALLY dealing with the REAL problem, instead of going of fon a "political" tangent debating IDEOLOGICAL IDIOCIES of ANY "stripe". I took your initiative as an opening to perhaps “get through” to some folks who are “caught up” IN “Politics”, when they REALLY need to get “caught up” WITH Technology!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
64%
Pecossam11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HELP! The Obameter is broken on my CM prototype Pelosi, and I can't tell how many promises have been broken so far. Also, when they were touting CHANGE, I didn't realize they meant KENNEDY BRIDGE-GRIPPER SQUARE RADICAL Tires, which NEVER go Flat; what a set of RUBBERS!
Reply-
100%
nostalgia11 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know PC
Reply
I might call it the Schwarzenegger
He wants to increase fuel efficiency from 27 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon in cars and light trucks. The California measure is a way to regulate emissions from cars — and thereby set fuel economy standards — because the easiest way to lower emissions is to build cars that get more mileage.
The California mileage requirement applies to the “average” of all vehicles sold (as does the CAFÉ standard), raising it will not necessarily eliminate trucks, SUVs or luxury sedans in California altogether, but it will cause their prices to be increased. That will be necessary because the automakers will have to discourage sales of low-mileage vehicles and encourage sales of high-mileage vehicles, in order to satisfy the average mpg standard
So what happens in June if an auto maker realizes they are not selling enough of the "fuel efficient" cars to meet the average fuel efficiency required? They will have to stop selling the trucks, SUVs and large family cars in CA
If you live in CA will you be able to go to AZ and buy the vehicle you want and take it back to CA - no that will be illegal
Of course CA in exempting "small" car manufacturers from the requirement. Who are those "small" car manufacturers? Bentley Ferrari and Jaguar have been mentioned so far - can't anger those Hollywood types
We are indeed having an Atlas Shrugged time in our history
Perhaps US auto makers should respond as Hank Rearden did in the book - Rearden confronts the government bureaucrats with "Why don't you take over my mills and be done with it"
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive1 Reply
-
-
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
-
-
67%
BillieMaxer11 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How did this stupid post get to the top, I for one have had enough of these republican posts that do nothing buy whine , bitch and cry foul. Spew nothing but negativity for all their own crowd to gather and chuckle with one another.Its not that , that bothers me, its why these biased,negative, one sided posts that do nothing positive to help in the countries woes, get to the front page quicker , faster and all the time, whether its a good story or not? I will be not reading from AOL any more, tired of the stupidity in here and monopoly some big headed AOL negative representatives have in here. Why is it folks like PC25 who do all the yapping and whining are the least likely to do anything positive to help.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.