Energizing Tournament

htws9c9l

Energy economy was thought to be a significant factor in their pick of a new car by a minimum of 1/3 of buyers in America. Given the preoccupation today with smog, global warming and America's dependence on international sources of oil, it's actually shocking to learn that as long ago as 1992 a car that got 100 miles [url=http://www.shewyne.com/peutereyoutlet.html]peuterey outlet[/url] to the gallon was built by General Motors. There was also a car that looked a lot like [url=http://www.jeremyparendt.com/Hollister-b5.php]hollister france[/url] the Geo Metro and weighed 1000 pounds, which boasted 75 miles per gallon gas mileage. Development of the vehicle, the engine that had 3 cylinders, was dropped because, in order to meet American safety specifications, it had to be reinforced which added 200 pounds to its weight.

This is not the only protype built by GM which ended up on the scrapheap. A few of these were the 1982 [url=http://www.rtnagel.com/airjordan.php]jordan pas cher[/url] GM Lean [url=http://www.gotprintsigns.com/abercrombiepascher/‎]abercrombie pas cher[/url] Machine which performed 80 miles per gallon, and the GM Ultralite which made 100 mpg. Once Honda in 1992 attained 50 mpg with the Civic VX, GM was promoting cars that got 20 mpg, while in the background they had vehicles capable of 100 mpg. Undoubtedly this begs the question as to the reasons these cars that are efficient at 100 mpg are not available to the public.

Why are standard vehicles sold in the US, while at the same time, the same companies are selling different vehicles far away in other countries? Buyers in Japan and Europe have for several years now had the opportunity to get cars that do 70 miles per gallon and more. To illustrate, [url=http://www.moncleroutletosterblade.com]moncler[/url] the Volswagen Lupo has never been distributed in the [url=http://www.rtnagel.com/louboutin.php]louboutin pas cher[/url] united states - this is a car that gets 78 mpg. An automobile referred to as Jazz elsewhere in the world was unveiled in the States in [url=http://www.rtnagel.com/louboutin.php]louboutin[/url] 2007 as the Fit. You can get economy-boosting options with the Jazz in Japan, like [url=http://www.moncleroutletosterblade.com]moncler outlet[/url] a smaller engine and other ways to reduce consumption, but not so with the Fit [url=http://www.teatrodeoro.com/hollisterde.php]hollister deutschland[/url] in the US.

In North America the manufacturers point out they have to build big cars simply because that is what the American public wants. Building a [url=http://www.mnfruit.com/airjordan.php]jordan pas cher[/url] small commuter type vehicle doesn't make the manfacturer big money, unlike with a large SUV. Commercials have convinced the citizens of the US that Tanks on Wheels are an absolute must to have. Fuel-saving alternatives from the large companies are uncommon, so it's pretty easy to deduce where their preferences lay. The top in fuel economy might have been General Motors, but they opt to remain the leader in SUVs instead. All of the other car manufacturers did the same thing by producing fuel-efficient cars, and then denied them to Americans.

Even with global warming and the incredible pollution of the world [url=http://www.jeremyparendt.com/jimmy-choo.php]jimmy choo paris[/url] environment, US car makers have yet to act in response positively and at least give Americans the option of a fuel-efficient car. The question comes up: how many Americans would have welcomed the [url=http://www.jordanpascherofficiele.com]air jordan pas cher[/url] option of getting a car with good gas mileage but weren't ever offered it? It's possible that it is time for you to get those previous plans back out and build a vehicle that has already been built before.
相关的主题文章：

[url=http://www.dtzyxx.com/guestbook.asp]jimmy choo[/url]

[url=http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~moonlight-surf/joyful/joyful.cgi]hollister france Corporate Ch[/url]

[url=http://w-motion.net/joyful/joyful.cgi]abercrombie soldes Fireplace [/url]