Drew Dowdell

What surprised me about the Encore was that with the driver seat set for me, I could sit in the back and have lots of legroom. I didn't think to take a picture at the time, but if it is open in Chicago I'll get one (heck, even if it's not, I'll get someone to open it for me)

How much longer till we actually see Teslas rolling on the ground?

fair competition is equal access to the same markets. Toyota doesn't sell anything here at any special discount.

That was the point I think hyper brought up, wouldn't the 2.5 pistons start smacking off the valves?

They are going to convert Sigma to RHD at this stage of the game? for all of 1,000 CTS-V sales in UK and AU combined? maybe there is more life left in Sigma than we thought.....

Would have but the Zeta is nearing the end of it's life and just live it out with some upgrades till it is gone. From what they said they can't make it much lighter as it is. I believe GM could afford to do this one much better this now with better funding. But who is to say they could not do a larger Alpha coupe as a Chevelle like vehicle or a new Zeta replacement down the road. A flag ship Cadillac has to go on something. That really is the question - what can Alpha do with its flexibility, and what will Omega be? For what I want, Zeta is perfect - I hope that Alpha or Omega can support a car (truck) with the same size and powertrain as Zeta now does. Otherwise, it's really all over for me and future GM cars. Alpha can go up at least as large as the E-class.

tastless

As much as I enjoy driving the new cars from the manufacturers all the time, driving the Toronado gives me much more enjoyment. Out of all of the test vehicles I've driven, only 4 come to mind as something I would consider for a daily driver. CTS-V coupe, Chevy Volt, the New New VW Beetle Turbo, and the Buick Lacrosse eAssist. However, the cost of those vehicles is rather preventative. The least expensive of the lot, the New New Beetle, was still over $30k.

Why should we impose less restrictive trade rules on them than they impose on us?

it makes up for it by having rear intake scoops on a front engine car.

This wasn't an article about replacing all of our coal power generation capability with wind. This is about the coming need for additional power generation capability needed to power the ever increasing number of plug-in electric vehicles. Home wind generation that wasn't particularly affordable producing 3,000 watt-hours a month suddenly becomes a lot more interesting when the same installation at minimally higher cost produces 9,000 watt-hours a month. Additionally, your point about 5mw peak is true, but coal plants and even nuke plants don't run at peak output all the time either and both can take time to ramp up the juice. As for averaging out the power output of the turbine to 25%, one of the points of the article is that with the wind lens, the turbines can operate at much lower wind speeds, so the amount of time the turbine spends generating electricity is increased. I don't know what the new percentage of peak is, but it is much higher than existing technology turbines.... and that is what I am trying to convey here. Baseline wind generation becomes higher with a wind lens. The reason we have been installing the 1.5 - 2.5mw units is because we have the luxury of space in this country. The big 5 - 7 mw units are substantially more costly to construct because they are so much larger. Those are typically European installations. The mid-west from Texas all the way up through Canada is a veritable Saudi Arabia of wind energy. There is a lot of wind and a lot of room to put these installations in. There is a lot of room on the Great Lake to put in water based turbines. As for the view, I don't know what your tastes are, but I find wind turbines much nicer to look at than a coal plant beltching sulfer into the air or nuke plant blowing off steam. With this technology, the math changes for wind power. Currently, not counting subsidies, but including captial costs and fuel costs, the breakdown for power generation is this: Wind - $68/MWh Coal - $67/MWh Gas - $56/MWh (reflecting the recent downturn in natural gas prices) That number for wind power is using today's technology. I don't know the number that would result from a wind lens installation, but you can see the potential for wind to suddenly become competative if it achieved only a 50% boost in output, much less the possible 200% increase.

Well another thing I didn't mention in the article was that these can be built much lee to the ground. All wind turbines today can rotate themselves. They have motors to do it for the exact reason you mention. They are doing a test installation in japan now

Fwd

Actually, they help with directioning. But yes, they would be huge.

Drew Dowdell - January 19, 2012 - CheersandGears.com One of the limitations of current wind turbine technology is the limited amount of power generated per turbine. Large scale installations are required to match the power output of just the smaller coal buring powerplant. The largest wind turbines in the world produce about 5mw of power while the average coal fired power station produces around 500mw. Simple math can tell you that 100 of the largest wind turbines we have would need to be built to equal just one coal power plant. The additional real estate and construction costs v. the fuel costs of coal and natural gas are a substantial hurdle in the adoption of wind power. A new development from Japan shows a promising way to change the math. A scientist at Japan's Kyushu University has developed a simple addition to the wind turbine that can increase the power output between 100 to 200 percent. A curved ring called a "wind lens" installed around the outer edge of the blades disperses air away from the trailing side of the turbine. This has the effect of creating a vacuum behind the turbine that draws additional air through. The wind lens itself is made of fiberglass and is a relatively inexpensive addition to the turbine's construction. Additionally, existing turbines can be retrofitted with the wind lens, potentially tripling the output of existing wind farms. Going back to the math, the number of turbines needed to equal the power output of a coal plant drops from 100 to about 34. The largest onshore wind farm in the world is Roscoe Wind Farm in Roscoe, Texas. Rated at a power output of 781.5 megawatts, if retrofitted with wind lenses, could potentially triple output to 2,344 megawatts or roughly equal to two standard size nuclear power plants. The wind lense has another benefit. It allows the turbine to start and operate efficiently at much lower wind speeds greatly increasing a turbine's baseline power generation. Low wind situtations therefor have a less drastic effect on power output. How does this relate to automobiles? Plug in electric vehicles and plug in hybrid vehicles are still proliferating in the marketplace and their presence is expected to grow. Charging at home can have a noticable impact on a household's financial bottomline. Typical home wind installations cost roughly $8,500 before any tax credits and generate 3,000 watt-hour of power peak. Tripling that output to 9,000 watt-hours cuts a substantial savings into the average household using 11,000 watt-hours a month. This new development in wind technology could mean that the wind would really be blowing your Nissan Leaf down the road. View full article

It could be that these pickups are expected to be the cash cows of the near future with ever-rising gas prices? Look how many people are abandoning the large car segment for mid- and compact-sized cars... could be that it's expected that many full-size pickup purchases may become mid-size (compact) instead... sort of like those going from a LaCrosse to a Regal (or Regal to Verano). This may also open up the market in 5-10 years for the return of the true compact pickup (i.e. S10-Sonoma-LUV pickups). People aren't abandoning the large car market. The models in each respective segment are growing so there is a psychological trick that is being played. People who trade in their '91 Accord on a 2011 Civic didn't go down a size. They stayed the same. People who trade their '94 Taurus in on a Fusion didn't go down a size, they stayed the same. People who trade their Contour in on a Focus didn't go down a size, they stayed the same. People who trade their 98 Avalon in on a Camry haven't gone down a size... well... you get the picture. I agree 100% with your logic, BUT many of the people I know and reference aren't coming out of ancient cars. Most are coming out of 3-6 year old cars (like an '05 Ford 500 owner going to a Focus). How about the people coming out late-model Lucernes, Crown Vics/Marquis/Town Cars, 300s, et al for Regals, Malibus, Fiestas, Focuses, Cruzes, Sonics, and so on? A lot of my neighbors replacing their cars lately are going to smaller cars from their larger ones (and the same with SUVs - from Yukons & Tahoes to Equinoxes and Terrains, from Expeditions to Edges, and so on). People are choosing smaller vehicles from their previous purchase, mainly due to higher gas prices. I'm not arguing with you, just pointing out what I'm seeing in my area. I'm just going with the fact that Taurus sales are way down compared to the Taurus of yore, and Fusion sales seem to have taken over for it. Maxima -> Altima is the same pattern.

It could be that these pickups are expected to be the cash cows of the near future with ever-rising gas prices? Look how many people are abandoning the large car segment for mid- and compact-sized cars... could be that it's expected that many full-size pickup purchases may become mid-size (compact) instead... sort of like those going from a LaCrosse to a Regal (or Regal to Verano). This may also open up the market in 5-10 years for the return of the true compact pickup (i.e. S10-Sonoma-LUV pickups). People aren't abandoning the large car market. The models in each respective segment are growing so there is a psychological trick that is being played. People who trade in their '91 Accord on a 2011 Civic didn't go down a size. They stayed the same. People who trade their '94 Taurus in on a Fusion didn't go down a size, they stayed the same. People who trade their Contour in on a Focus didn't go down a size, they stayed the same. People who trade their 98 Avalon in on a Camry haven't gone down a size... well... you get the picture.

the color is the charm. Cheers.

You know there is an Avantime fanclub out there somewhere.....

I thought FWD was doing to dilute the brand.... at least thats what you say about FWD at Cadillac.

Wow! What a difference. The alternator must have been a problem since I bought the car and then I replaced it with another bad one. headlights are much brighter she starts first time every time now (after the initial recharge of the battery), and quickly too, I was planning on looking at the fuel pump in the spring because she usually took two tries to start. She even seems to idle better, though it could be my imagination.

Because Austrailia is closer to China and closer to the Middle East.

Doing my best to keep it high with my 30 year old car.

Nissan Leaf? 100 mile range. Step 1. Drive 50 miles to work Step 2. Plug in and recharge, even a partial charge on 110v for 8.5 hours (a typical work day) will leave you with well over 50 miles range. Closer to 75 miles range Step 3. Drive 50 miles home. The hills don't matter too much. What goes up must come down and regenerative braking negates 60% to 75% of the extra power needed to get up the hills. A Leaf on perfectly flat land actually has a range of 138 miles. So I guess we can put you down for one?