dwightlooi

Actually, interior or exterior noise levels of cars have very little to do with the configuration of the valve train. The valve train for the most parts do not make the engine louder or softer in radiated noise. It does affect the displacement needed for a given power level and that affects felt vibrations more than noise. If the intent is to use engines with the smallest reciprocating elements such as to achieve minimum vibration levels, we'll be gravitating away from "big" fours like the 2.4 and 2.5s and we'll avoid big sixes like the 3.6 and 3.7s. Maximum refinement calls for 1.6~1.8 liter fours, 2.4~2.7 liter sixes and 3.6~4.2 liter eights. However, we are actually seeing wholesale migration to large fours and large sixes. Why? Because fewer cylinders for a given displacement equal lower frictional loses and better consumption performance. We have gone down that road before -- remember the Mazda K-series 1.8 V6? Very smooth, but not particularly efficient. Compare a 2.5 liter I4 from Nissan or Ford to a 2.5 liter Duratec V6 or Mazda K-series 2.5 V6. Same conclusions -- smoother, but less efficient. The same analogy can be applied to the Pushrod vs DOHC discussion. You are trading a little vibrational harshness for lower frictional loses. Today, if you look at Pushrod V8s vs DOHC V8s of the same output (the pushrods will be of a larger displacement) you do not see a fuel economy advantage in DOHC V8s. In fact, the reverse is true. You see that DOHC V8s use more fuel. The Ford 5.0 DOHC does not have a fuel economy advantage over the GM 6.2. The GM 6.2 turns in 16/25 on an automatic Camaro. The Ford 5.0 DOHC turns in 18/25 in the Mustang. However, the Mustang GT is 350 pounds lighter than the Camaro SS. Don't you think that having the equivalent of two additional adult passengers in the car hurts your mileage a little in the city? That there is no difference in highway mileage is actually impressive. Neither engine has Direct Injection. I think we need to stop using the 3800 as an example. That is neither representative of today's Pushrod engines, nor particularly high on technological content. Technological content for the most parts have nothing to do with the valve train layout. For instance, you can have DI with or without DOHC. You can have cylinder deactivation with or without pushrods. You can have Variable timing either way too.

The GXP does not have the latest iteration of the small block and may have an unfavorable final drive. A 6.2 Pushrod without Direct Injection gets 16/25 in an Automatic Camaro SS. The manual version gets 16/24 in the same car. That's a relatively big, ~3900 lbs car. It is not unreasonable to expect that the next 6.2 does 0.5~1.0 MPG better with the expected 1 point bump in compression ratio that comes with DI. In fact, there isn't one DOHC V8 German or Japanese car of a similar weight with better mileage. This is despite most having more speeds in the tranny and smaller displacement with less power --e. Not one. M3? 13/20 MPG ; BMW 550? 15/22 MPG ; Lexus IS-F? 16/23 ; Lexus LS460? 16/24 MPG ; M-B E550? 16/23 MPG ; Infiniti M56? 16/25 What makes you think that push rod engines make more noise than DOHC engines? For the most parts it doesn't. The main difference comes from the fact that you are using about 20~25% more displacement to get the same power. Bigger slugs, more reciprocating mass = a little more vibrations. However, this is not any worse than a DOHC engine of the same capacity, and it is actually more fuel efficient in most instances. I don't think the average car buyer -- luxury or not -- knows what DOHC stands for or what a pushrod is. By average, I mean 80% of the car buying public. Enthusiasts and drivers do, but enthusiasts and drivers are also savvy enough to look at the horsepower, torque, MPG and other performance numbers. The average buyer will be satisfied if the engine "feels" strong, is smooth and runs quiet. The enthusiast and the gear head will look at 470hp, 17/25 MPG and 0-60 in 4.2 seconds and be satisfied. 8L55... well... it was put on hold like the 4.5 Duramax 72-deg DOHC Turbodiesel.

Of course you can turbocharge a 60-deg engine, but if the primary application is to be turbocharged I'll prefer a 90 deg or 72 deg engine -- if only because you can use one turbo nestled in the Vee and reverse flow heads, instead of two turbos with one hanging off each side. The disadvantage of a 60 deg V8 vs a 60 deg V6 in turbo applications is that the V8 needs twin scroll turbos for optimal efficiency, the V6 doesn't. This is a slight cost adder, but it doesn't really take up any more or less space. The intake design on the 3.0 and 3.6 HF V6 are already more than good enough. They flow enough air for 86~90hp/liter. A 4.0 or 4.8 V8 will be similarly performing. By any measure, that is good enough. Even if you can improve on the flow capacity of the intakes, you'll need to rev the engine above 7000 rpm to take advantage of it. Currently, GM automatic trannies don't support shift speeds above 7000 rpm so you can't go there unless you want to revamp the transmission lineup as well, or limit the deployment to manual cars.

Personally, I don't think they absolutely need both a DOHC V8 and a Pushrod V8. I think they'll do equally fine with just the pushrod family, or both a pushrod and a DOHC, but not the other way around. One is not better than the other, even though they'll have somewhat different characters. If they want to do a DOHC, I am biased towards a 3.6HF V6 derived 60--deg V8 as opposed to a ground up 90 deg or 72 deg engine. In all likelihood though, GM will probably put a pushrod V8 in all of the above. And, if it is a good one I am perfectly OK with it. The push rod configuration has many advantages such as smaller packaging, higher power density and low fuel consumptions (for a given output). There is nothing wrong with a 450~470hp 6.2 liter V8 pulling at a least ~17/25 mpg in a 4000 lb car. This is better than a DOHC V8 can muster with the same output level at the same vehicular weight. Heck, this is almost as good as a 3.6 HF V6. And, nobody ever complained about a Bentley pushrod 6.75L V8 being unrefined. If they want to do a DOHC design, a 60 deg engine has sufficient advantageous to offset the need for a balance shaft and slightly inferior balance. It is narrower and it can be made on the same tooling as the V6. In fact, you can have it share the same rods and pistons too if you want. The combustion chamber design is mature and a pretty good -- a 4.8 liter unit will make about 400~416hp @ 6300~6500 rpm and about 360~371 lb-ft @ 3400~5000 rpm, all on 87 octane fuel. On 91 octane you can expect 2~3% better numbers on both counts. These are substantially better numbers than BMW's outgoing N62-B-48 4.8 V8 (367hp/369lb-ft). This also happens to marry well with the 6L80 transmission.

It is rev happy and low on vibrations for three reasons:- It is a 60 deg engine without the 90 deg engine's heavy crank counter weights (the same can be said of flat plane 90 deg engines) It is has a very short 79.5 mm stroke (vibrations are largerly a function of stroke length more than anything else) It is balance shafted A 4.8 liter 60-deg eight wouldn't be quite as smooth and placid. But it won't be bad. FYI, the 4.0 will have a 80.3 mm stroke whereas the 4.8 would be 85.6 mm -- both are pretty short. I don't think you'll see a significant difference between the 4.0 and the SHO (Yamaha) 3.4 in terms of vibrations. The SHO V8's basic architecture lives on today in Volvo's 4.4 liter V8 (also a 60 degree design). That engines is perfectly livable. Transmission wise, the current GM lineup imposes the following limitations on "high reving" engines:- RWD (longitudal) 6L45 - 7000 rpm / 258 lb-ft (max) 6L50 - 7000 rpm / 332 lb-ft (max) 6L80 - 6500 rpm / 439 lb-ft (max) 6L90 - 6200 rpm / 555 lb-ft (max) FWD (transverse) 6T40 - 7000 rpm / 177 lb-ft (max) 6T70 - 7000 rpm / 280 lb-ft (max) Basically you can't have high rpm engines that are too high on torque. And, you cannot have engines hitting over 7000 rpms period.

Using an intermediate idler to drive the DOHC sprockets on the heads would not be an efficient or convenient way to do it. If not anything because the high placement of the IBC cam sprocket puts it at a very shallow angle to the OHC sprockets making it necessary to introduce two more idlers just to get the chain to wrap around the OHC sprockets enough. Chances are, you'll drive the overhead cams directly from the crank. At least one of the two cams that is, the other can be driven via helical gear or another chain from the first cam. The IBC accommodations can be used to house a counter-rotating balance shaft if you want to go overboard. A 90 deg V8 is very well balanced with crank weights alone. But, it is not perfectly balanced. There is a bit of residual wobble in the Cg. You can add a counter rotating shaft to further cancel that out for a really serene engine. It'll cost you a bit of complexity and a bit of fuel economy from the extra friction, but the resulting engine may rival an I6 in smoothness.

The reason the 90-deg bank angle is preferred on a V8 is that it allows the engine to use oversized crank counter weights. Naturally, a 90 deg V8 has about 1.4 times that of a 4-cylinder with a similar per cylinder displacement (eg. a 4.0 liter 90 deg V8 is about as bad as a 2.8 liter I4 in vibrations). However, it has a trick up its sleeve. In most engines (other than V8s) the crank weights are only heavy enough to balance the crankshaft itself and about 1/3 the mass of the rods. The counter weights do not balance most of the rod and the piston. This is because the pistons and rods go up and down, whereas the weights go around in circles. Geometrically it is impossible to cancel the moments of one with the other. If you try to use a heavier weight to counter the piston and the rod's, all you'll succeed in doing is trade up-down shakes for left-right shakes. In a 90 deg V8, a special circumstance is created because the piston and rod from the opposite bank happens to cancel out the side to side forces generated by oversized counter weights that balance out the rods and pistons. The balance is still not perfect -- the circular motions of weights can never perfectly match the reciprocating motions of the rods and pistons -- but it is very good. Good, enough to allow much larger cylinders before civility becomes objectionable. A 6.2 liter V8 has 775cc cylinders; a 4-cylinder with that size of cylinders will displace 3.1 liter and be quite rough. The down side is that the crank weights also make the engine significantly slow reving -- if you drive a V8 powered car and a V6 back to back, you'll notice that the engine rev significantly more slowly during downshifts than V6es. A 60-deg bank angle on a V8 is not naturally balanced and it also does not allow balancing using heavy counter weights. However, it is narrower which makes a DOHC 60-deg V8 about the same dimensions as a pushrod 90 deg V8. In addition, the absence of heavy counter weights also make it capable of reving much more quickly which puts smiles on the faces of enthusiastic drivers. At 4.0 or 4.8 liters -- 500~600cc per cylinder -- vibrations are not horrible if you don't balance it. But, if you are after maximum civility, you can add a counter rotating balance shaft and achieve about 80% as good a level of balance as a 90 deg V8. Given the 4.0~4.8 liter displacement of a HF V6 derived V8, it means that the engines will be as smooth as a 90 deg 5.0~6.0 liter 90 deg engine. One word -- good enough. At the end of the day, a direct injected 4.0 liter HF V6 derived 60-deg V8 will make about 360hp. A 4.8 liter version based on the 3.6 V6 will make about 400 hp. This is roughly equivalent to a direct injected pushrod of 4.8 to 5.4 liters. Civility and rev response will favor the DOHC V8. Costs, fuel economy, engine weight and compactness will favor a pushrod engine. One is not better than the other -- which is preferable really depends on what you are after.

Well... if you really care about fuel economy more than anything else, you'll want to:- Reduce the number of cylinders to the minimum Increase the displacement to the maximum that the number of cylinders you have Increase the compression ratio to the maximum Reduce the number of cams Reduce the number of valves

Actually, it shouldn't matter if GM is going to build a DOHC V8, SOHC V8 or Pushrod V8. What matters is whether GM will build a V8 that produces the amount of power the next generation of vehicles demand, and that this V8 does it while being smaller, lighter, more refined and more fuel economical than the competitions' offerings. The valve train configuration and other design choices should matter. For any given horsepower we can say the following:- Engine Size -- Advantage Pushrod Engine Weight -- Advantage Pushrod Fuel Economy -- Advantage Pushrod Refinement -- Advantage DOHC Displacement -- Advantage DOHC

A few things... (1) We don't know if the new small block (Gen V) will be 5.5. The reacing engine is 5.5 because the rules dictate the maximum displacement, the production engine is anyone's guess. If past practices hold true it'll probably be made a variety of displacements off odf the same basic block. (2) My personal guess is that the C7 engine retain the Pushrods and 2-valves per cylinder, while adding Variable Timing, Direct Injection and Cylinder Deactivation. Power for such an engine ought to be about 450~470hp @ 6.2 liters, 400~420hp @ 5.5 liters or 350~370hp @ 4.8 liters. My guess is they'll go with the biggest internal displacement since engine size and weight doesn't change much between these. (3) I seriously doubt that GM will build a DOHC engine off the 5th generation small block. It'll make more sense if they simply stretch the HF V6 by two cylinders. This will give an interesting 4.0 or 4.8 liter engine. The 60 deg angle also makes for very compact dimensions. A 360hp 4.0 60-deg V8 or 420hp 4.8 liter 60-deg V8 may be interesting for luxury car applications. Again, the chances of this is very small. Chances are the advanced pushrod will find its way into everything from trucks to vettes to Caddies.

There has been much confusion and misunderstanding as to what twin scroll turbos do and why they are used. First of all let's get a few things out of the way. Having two scrolls in the turbine housing:- Does not make the turbocharger itself more efficient or more responsive Having two scrolls have nothing to do with optmizing one for low speed and one for high speed flow In fact, having two scrolls introduce additional passage restrictions to the turbocharger and reduces its turbine efficiency slightly. Twin scroll turbos do not benefit all engine configurations So why are twin scroll turbos used? Well, they are used to solve an exhaust problem that may exist on some engines upstream of the turbo itself. Let me try to explain this... (1) Most engines have some amount of exhaust and intake valve overlap. That is the intake valves open before the exhaust valves are closed. This is necessary for good breathing and more complete aspiration. The ingress of intake air help push the last remaining exhaust gases out. (2) In some engine types, a piston end up at the bottom of the stroke when another is at the top of the stroke. If another piston happens to be at the bottom of its power stroke and opens its exhaust valves at the very moment when the aforementioned overlap period occurring, what do you think happens? Well, as the high pressure exhaust gases from the just opened exhaust valves enters the exhaust manifold and encounters resistance from the turbocharger's turbine, some of it makes its way back into the cylinder in overlap which -- being at the end of its exhaust stroke and the beginning of its intake stroke -- is at a much lower pressure than the new exhaust pulse. Instead of the intake charge purging the remnants of the exhaust charge, you end up having exhaust going back through the exhaust valves into the cylinder and sometimes into the intake tract. (3) There are two solutions to this. The traditional solution is that turbocharged engines experiencing this problem simply use very little overlap -- either opening the intake valves late or closing the exhaust valves early or both. This minimizes the back flow problem. However, it also renders off boost aspiration incomplete and inefficient. Result? Higher emissions, inferior cruise economy and slower turbo compounding response. The other solution is to keep the exhaust between the cylinders 180 degrees apart separate until it reaches the turbo and use a dual scroll turbo which continues to keep the flows separate right until it hits the turbine. This eliminates the overwhelming majority of the feedback pulse and allows proper overlap to be used. The downside is that segregated manifolds and turbos are more complex, more expensive and actually more restrictive. I3 does not have this problem I4 has this problem H4 has this problem I5 does not have this problem V6 (60 deg) has this problem V6 (90 deg) does not have this problem I6 does not have this problem H6 does not have this problem V8 has this problem V10 does not have this problem V12 does not have this problem To answer the question of whether an engine benefits from a dual scroll turbo, all you have to ask yourself is whether the engine has pistons at the top and at the bottom of their travel at the same time. Because this is when the problem of exhaust back feeding manifests itself.

To start with, a lot of things government impose upon the people does not make sense. But they often impose it anyway out of ignorance, out of arrogance or to be in line with some political agenda. In this particular case, it sort of makes sense. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is an oxide of Nitrogen and is considered an air pollutant. Of course, in a nitrous oxide system installed in a car, the N20 breaks down under heat inside the cylinder into Nitrogen and Oxygen (2 x N2O --> 2 x N2 + 1 x O2). The oxygen is then used to burn additional fuel injected either in the intake manifold (a wet system) or by lengthening the fuel injector cycle (a dry system). Ideally, complete combustion of the additional fuel occurs and the engine is no dirtier than before. N2O is used instead of oxygen or high test hydrogen peroxide because it is safer (way safer) and is incapable of causing explosions. However, if the uncombusted Nitrous Oxide gas is let out into the atmosphere for whatever reason it is a pollutant. If in the process of using Nitrous injection, the vehicle runs lean (too much nitrous, too little fuel) you end up with vastly increased NOx emissions. If it runs rich (often done intentionally for a margin of detonation safety) the car spews additional unburnt hydrocarbons and pollutes more than it normally would. Like removing catalytic converters it is deemed as a modification that is detrimental to the emissions of the vehicle. Nitrous is generally illegal (officially) for use on public roads. But since the system can be turned on or off -- unlike a missing cat converter -- it is practically impossible to prove usage on public roads. The owner can always claim that he never turn it on except on the drag strip and the cop cannot usually prove otherwise. Hence, there is practically no enforcement.

Since we are talking fiction, this is how I'll do it:- Aveo SS -- 1.4T VVT (170 hp @ 5300 rpm, 175 lb-ft @ 2200~5200 rpm, 6300 rpm rev limit, 91 Oct Recommended) Cruze SS -- 2.0T DI-VVT (270 hp @ 6100 rpm, 234 lb-ft @ 2000~6000 rpm, 6300 rpm rev limit, 91 Oct Recommended) Regal SS -- 2.8T VVT (325 hp @ 5250 rpm, 325 lb-ft @ 2250~5250 rpm, 6300 rpm rev limit, 91 Oct Required) Malibu SS -- 2.8T VVT (325 hp @ 5250 rpm, 325 lb-ft @ 2250~5250 rpm, 6300 rpm rev limit, 91 Oct Required) Equinox SS -- 2.8T VVT (325 hp @ 5250 rpm, 325 lb-ft @ 2250~5250 rpm, 6300 rpm rev limit, 91 Oct Required) Traverse SS -- 2.8T VVT (325 hp @ 5250 rpm, 325 lb-ft @ 2250~5250 rpm, 6300 rpm rev limit, 91 Oct Required) The key here is that all the above engines are currently in production within GM's global portfolio. The 1.4T is simply an 138hp Cruze engine with the boost turned up (OK a bigger turbo is ideal, but not exactly required) The 2.0T is the Cobalt SS. I prefer a tune with a lower maximum torque stretched over a wider plateau for FWD cars (but that's just boost mapping & tuning) The 2.8T is the engine GM currently sells in Europe on the Opel Insignia OPC with exactly those ratings (Insignia = Regal; same car) When what you already have is good enough, work with it. I'll rather see the 2.8T (no DI) in the SS versions of the Epsilon cars than GM going off and developing a DI 3.0T with 20 more hp, 2 years delay and a $3000 premium. At some point, good enough is good enough.

BTW, the 3.6 is "actually" 312hp as is. This is the new rating for the 2011 Camaro V6, but there is absolutely no difference between it and the 304hp engine in the 2010 car. No change, zero, nada, zilch. The 304hp rating was an estimate and wasn't officially SAE certified. When GM actually did the performance certification on the engine it came back 8hp.stronger than they estimated. So they decided to advertise the certified rating for 2011. There is no way GM will offer a Nitrous Oxide option. It is illegal (for road use anyway); it'll be like GM offering a removable catalytic converter. Technically, it is legal if you only remove it on the sand dunes or whatever, but no automaker is going to offer that!

No, the 2.4 liter (LAF) engine in the Buicks is 182 HP @ 6700 rpm, 172 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm. On the 2.0 T, 3.0 or 3.6 they use the 6T70 transmission which can handle up to 280 lb-ft.

http://archives.media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2010/gmna/10car_us.htm Look under Hydramatic 6T40 (it's a .xls file, so if you don't have microsoft Excel you are out of luck).

Well... a 1.4 liter Turbo four uprated to 170hp/175 lb-ft may be an nice power plant for the Aveo SS. Upgrading the turbo to a unit similar to the Garrett GT15-48 and going to premium fuel will do just that without changing the engine's internals. This also happens to fit right under the torque limit of the 6T40 automatic (177 lb-ft). 0~60 will be in the 6.0~6.3 sec range, not exactly Supercar fast, but definitely segment leading. A 2600 lbs Aveo will also probably out handle a VW GTI, which for all intents and purposes is good enough. We can also expect mileage numbers at least similar to the heavier Cruze 1.4T's 28/40 mpg. Again, more than good enough.

(1) Chrysler doesn't own the patents to it. It was actually developed by an independent company. (2) GM has stipulated that it will have DI and VVT on the Gen V small block, if that VVT is dual independent this my be what they are using anyway to achieve that. (3) However, this can also be used to replace DOHC heads with heads with the friction and packaging advantageous of an SOHC design, without giving up 4-valve induction and dual independent VVT. In essence its the best of both worlds. Well, it probably won't support more than 7000~7500 rpm or so, but for most production 4-valve engines that is "enough" rev capability.

Actually, I am thinking that it can be used to give the Ecotecs and HF V6es a more (fuel) efficient SOHC like head.

For almost a decade and a half, the Dual Over Head Cams (DOHC) configuration dominated engine designs from foreign and domestic manufacturers. However, the DOHC layout is not without its flaws. Let's examine its advantageous and disadvantageous. Advantageous of DOHC DOHC heads allow independent Intake and Exhaust Cam Phasing DOHC heads allow centrally located spark plug DOHC heads support cross-flow, 4-valve configurations DOHC heads support minimum actuated valve train mass Disadvantageous of DOHC DOHC heads are very wide, this produces heavy and bulky engines (especially with V6 and V8 configurations) DOHC heads have more cam sprockets, more cam bearings and more frictional drag than SOHC or IBC configurations Enter the Twin Concentric Cam (TCC). This was first seen in a production vehicle on the Dodge Viper 8.4 VVT V10. http://www.mechadyne-int.com/vva-products/concentric-camshafts Basically, it is one camshaft within another. The cam sprocket drives the hollow intake cam via a cam phaser. The exhuast cam resides inside the intake cam and is driven by a second cam phaser connecting the intake to the exhaust cam. The exhaust cam lobes slip over the intake camshaft and is connected to the inner exhaust cam by steel pins going through slots in the outer cam. This design allows the Dodge to implement dual cam independent VVT on what was a traditional pushrod SIBC engine. However, the TCC layout can also be used in overhead cam engines. In this case, the engine will resemble an SOHC engine, except that the "SOHC" is actually two concentric camshafts occupying the same space as a single overhead cam would. This allows the engine to enjoy the traditional benefits of an SOHC layout such as compactness and lower frictional drag, while also enjoying the one thing SOHC designs traditionally cannot support -- Independent Dual Cam Phasing. Advantageous of TCC TCC heads allow independent Intake and Exhaust Cam Phasing TCC heads allow centrally located spark plug TCC heads support cross-flow, 4-valve configurations TCC heads are as narrow as SOHC heads TCC heads have the same low friction characteristics of SOHC heads TCC can also be used in a Pushrod IBC configuration Disadvantageous of TCC Actuated Valve Train mass is similar to SOHC designs and slightly heavier than with DOHC designs (not a problem up to 7000 rpm) In short, TCC heads can be used across the board to replace DOHC heads in Inline-4s and V6es. It can also be used to replace the single in block cam in Pushrod engines. The arrangement is particularly neat in that one cam phaser can be on the front of the engine while the other is on the back of the engine. This promotes excellent packaging. In overhead cam applications, the engines enjoy lower frictional loses, better efficiency and slimmer heads compared to DOHC designs. In Pushrod applications, the engines enjoy dual independent VVT.

If the economy cannot support $4 a gallon of gasoline, what makes you think it can support a more expensive alternative? Without subsidies, the production cost of ethanol is ~1.8x that of gasoline. What it means is that without subsidies, ethanol is about $7.30 gallon when gasoline is $4.00 a gallon. What's more, when the price of oil goes up by 1 monetary unit, the cost of ethanol production goes up by 0.7~0.8 monetary units. This is because the majority of the costs in ethanol production is energy costs and nobody uses ethanol to produce ethanol because fossil fuel is cheaper. To compound that, Ethanol only has about 70% the calorific value of gasoline. Therefore, fuel mileage must necessarily suffer and one gallon of ethanol will only go about 70% the distance as one gallon of gasoline. The question then becomes, if the economy cannot digest $4/gallon of gasoline, why will it digest $10.29 worth of unsubsidized ethanol to go the same distance? If we subsidize it, the question then becomes if the economy is stuttering due to high energy costs, why will it not stutter even more if you replace expensive gas with a $6.29 subsidy to bring people $4/gallon ethanol, paid for by more than a $6.29 increase taxes and/or public borrowing (due to government wastes in between)? Again, I am not saying don't produce alternative energy. What I am saying is we should not encourage or discourage alternative energy. We let the market tell the producers if and when it makes sense to produce and market them. We save the money, lower the taxes and stop having the government try to meddle with market economics or impose its flawed visions. Somewhere along the way, alternatives will make economic sense and when they do they will be produced and sold. When that happens we need to make sure that we don't put in regulations to get in the way of its production and distribution. In other words, the less government does the better.

We don't do what this clown is proprosing...

First of all, the reasons subsidies exist wasn't to make oil cheaper to US consumers. In fact, it doesn't make oil cheaper. It is simply to support domestic production as opposed to imports. Some of it is not a subsidy at all but rather a royalty reduction. It costs more money to produce oil domestically, partly because of labor, partly because of all kinds of regulations (some ridiculously unnecessary) and partly because restrictions on exploration has forced expensive production of unproductive in fields. Instead of revising the regulations to make more sense, the US government is content with forcing expensive operations on producers. Producers will prefer to produce where they have the lowest cost and best profits. Other countries are simply offering better terms -- lower royalties, lower taxes and less expensive regulatory environment. The subsidies are mostly tax subsidies. And a lot of it is simply tax credits against royalty taxes for oil produced to bring it more in line with the international market place. It is like saying I am going to take 20% of your profits then giving you a 8% subsidy credit so you are actually paying 12% because other places are asking for 11% and if I don't offer a reduction you are going to go elsewhere. Is that really a subsidy? Or is that simply relinquishing on an arbitrary demand that I made initially that wasn't inline with the global market's going rate? Ending subsidies will not make oil cheaper to US consumer. What will happen is that the US will import more oil at prices that are already lower than domestic production currently is at to begin with. Domestic production will dwindle even more, and oil dependency will increase. Prices will probably stay about the same, will government expenditures go down. I ignored it because algae and kelp in the vicinity of an electrical plant is an insignificant source of sugar producing biomass in the context of producing enough alcohol to replace gasoline. It is like Biodiesel. Yes, it is practically free and it is great to reuse of fryer fat. But you cannot run an economy on biodiesel because we'll need to make restaurants use 1000 times more vegetable oil and eat 1000 times more french fries -- we can't and don't want to. No doubt. But oil is still cheap. Even at $12 a gallon is it a viable fuel in comparison to the alternatives. The market will tell us when to switch to alternatives. It is when alternatives are naturally more economical. No, we continue to build better cars but refrain from going overboard with alternative energy sources and usage which does not make economic sense until they make economic sense. In the meantime, we spend 50 years building more and more electrical distribution capacity in preparation for the day when most cars are plug in electrics or hybrids. We also spend the next 50 years transitioning from coal, gas and oil powerplants to thermonuclear powerplants. As to when people switch from gasoline engines to hybrids or plug ins, we let the market work it out without subsidies and without tax credits. In short, we pursue a policy of providing the nation with cheap and plentiful energy. We do not try to force dubiously green and undoubtedly exborbitant energy down the people's throats. We let the invisble hand do its work. We don't do what this clown is proprosing...

(1) That is why you build halo cars like the Volt. No, it is not economically viable. But it is an image car. You lose money on it for image appeal and also to stay current on the alternative propulsion technologies in preparation for the day when they make economic sense. (2) Global Warming, IMHO, is completely bogus. It doesn't stop half the world from believing in it and the EU from crafting self-hurting legislation on its fraudulent claims. That there are many who believe in something should not ever make it more or less believable to us. We should always consider the facts, the numbers, the science and the logic behind it. (3) GM didn't get into bankruptcy because it didn't build the best hybrid or the most hybrids. There is no statistical basis for saying that. GM got into bankruptcy because it build bad looking, low quality, underperforming and unreliable products for 20~ years throughout 80s and 90s. It also fragmented its portfolio into too many brands with no focused identity, diluting marketing resources and customer attention. Finally, it got forced under a pile of unsustainable union contracts, labor rates and benefit obligations over the years that weren't in line with the market dynamics but rather because it was demanded by an entrenched UAW racket. GM starting doing many things right under Wagoner, but it was too late. My advice? Listen to the market. Listen to the engineers. Listen to the designers. Don't listen to this communist clown (Obama's manufacturing Tsar, Ron Bloom) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27cXXirAIw4

My view on Ethanol is that it is not currently a more economical alternative to fossil fuel exploration and extraction. And in the long term is not the most favorable alternative amongst the alternatives. Corn Ethanol is a complete waste of time and is in fact a waste of energy because you are using more energy in its production than you are yielding in total ethanol calorific value. Alternative biomasses are better. Sugarcane for instance is energy positive and only slightly more expensive than imported gasoline in Brazil. However, the US lacks the climate to cultivate it in the required scale. Even if you do the land mass and agricultural opportunity costs associated with alcohol production for the purpose of replacing fossil fuel is staggering. On top of that, even though I do not believe in the validity of the Global Warming hypothesis at all, ethanol will not even satisfy the carbon emission critics because burning ethanol is not carbon neutral. In a world where there is no longer any non-exorbitant reserves of oil, gas and coal to tap I can see alcohols as an inferior but acceptable substitute "portable" fuel. We'll need that a hundred or two years from now for aircraft or other forms of usage where electrical power is not viable because of its low storage density. However, my bias on the shape of the future energy economy lies with large scale thermo-nuclear power generation combined with distribution via the electrical grid and portability through batteries. It is the only foreseeable means of delivering the energy capacity we need without unacceptable compromises to land use and/or lifestyle modifications. I'll completely end the subsidies on wind and solar because while they may have a small roll to play they are temporal and limited sources with no hope of meeting more than 10~15% of the total energy demand. I'll also forget about Hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source period. You cannot grow or mine hydrogen -- you need to produce it by electrolysis or hydrocracking fossil fuel. Hydrogen is at best an energy storage medium very much like a battery, a flywheel or a spring. The problem is that it is a horrible storage medium because it has horrible density as a gas (even pressurized) and has be kept ridiculously cold (-423 deg F) as a liquid. It also doesn't have any legacy distribution infrastructure at all, so building a hydrogen infrastructure is worse that build a beefed up electric infrastructure. I am all for energy independence and developing alternative energy sources for the future. However, I don't want to see taxpayer money wasted on more wind, solar, hydrogen and/or ethanol. I want vastly expanded domestic oil/gas/coal exploration and extraction in the near term, combined with a long term strategy to put bring 2000 new nuclear power plants online by 2060.