Govts throughout the world subsidize their car making industries, we're certainly not the only ones.
why? Is it just do as everyone else does? Is it essential that we retain the skills to build our own cars? what else?
Taxing imports rather than subsidising local production would provide revenue to the govt but would probably lead to more expensive cars. which is better? one costs the govt, one provides revenue to the govt.
Govts throughout the world subsidize their car making industries, we're certainly not the only ones.
why? Is it just do as everyone else does? Is it essential that we retain the skills to build our own cars? what else?
Taxing imports rather than subsidising local production would provide revenue to the govt but would probably lead to more expensive cars. which is better? one costs the govt, one provides revenue to the govt.
It was tongue in cheek after seeing that question in a few other threads. There are worse ways the government is spending our money.
I put trolls and time wasters on my ignore list so if I don't respond to you, you are probably on it ....
I'll keep my 290kw, 530Nm please....and raise you decent fuel efficiency in a 4 seat car (real world 11L/100km in Brisbane) due to low weight and a turbo charged engine (built in 1997!).
Low weight? Cars have only become heavier.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
WHO killed aussie auto industry ... all of you driving japanese or german or other european cars, complaining that the australian cars have issue! yes i am, talking to YOU!
The Aussie auto industry? Bwahahahahaha!
You mean the tax dodge for an American and Japanese multinational companies don't you?
Much like our mining industry- with a few oi oi oi workers employed, but even thats changing!
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE! Share a cot with Milton?
I have found apes to be very poor high speed drivers. Don't ask me how I know !
That's because they're usually morons with no dexterity both physical and mental, like Frank. Hence the bad image of Ford and Holden.
100kw is a bit light Count de Monet. I had that in my old hatchback. Heaps of fun. I'll raise it to 150kw.
stinkbug omosessuale Frank Castle is a liar and a criminal. He will often deliberately take people out of context and use straw man arguments. Frank finally and unintentionally gives it up and admits he got where he is, primarily via dumb luck! See here Property will be 50-70% off by 2016.
1970's 3.3l was 100kw and the 4.1l was 130 kw. The typical V8 was about 180kw.
That's all you need, the road is there for business, not to play games. Those who think it is there for games can have their licenses removed.
With a conservative power output a modern engine would be highly fuel efficient. Might save some of that 500,000 bpd of oil we are importing.
Yet in the 1970's the road toll was double what it is today with half as many drivers. Perhaps power output is an extremely poor descriptor of relative safety and whether a person has a license or not?
Higher power actually means cars are SAFER ! You should plot the engine output vs crash safety. For a start you would see that more power means you can carry more mass (crumple zones, aircon, carpets, stereo, sound insulation, sound insulation, sound insulation). Personally I would love to see a lot of sound insulation removed. This would be a primary way to increase safety. Currently cars are deliberately designed to fool your sensors to make you feel safe while flying around at 100km/h amongst other tin cans.
PS. You are dreaming if you think the average V8 in the 70s had 180kw (that is a high performance V8 for sure!). They may have dropped a touch with emission standards but the 1979 VB commodore 308 was ~118kw (with the dual exhaust option!)
At 1390kg my car is light by modern standards.
100kw would be dangerous in a current model Falcon or Commodore. You'd have to take out a few hundred kg. The Ecoboost engine in the FG would have to be rev limited to 2800rpm !
1970's 3.3l was 100kw and the 4.1l was 130 kw. The typical V8 was about 180kw.
That's all you need, the road is there for business, not to play games. Those who think it is there for games can have their licenses removed.
With a conservative power output a modern engine would be highly fuel efficient. Might save some of that 500,000 bpd of oil we are importing.
Power output has a very low correlation to fuel economy. You sound quite knowledgeable about the motoring world, but I can tell you are wrong on this one.
Order of importance for fuel economy: 1. Driving style 2. Driving style 3. Weight 4. Gearbox (remove torque converter, increase number of gears, intelligence, final drive ratio) 5. Engine design (addition of direct injection, turbo, higher operating temps, variable cam timing, low viscosity oil) 6. Power output
PS. You are dreaming if you think the average V8 in the 70s had 180kw (that is a high performance V8 for sure!). They may have dropped a touch with emission standards but the 1979 VB commodore 308 was ~118kw (with the dual exhaust option!)
I remember large billboard ads in 1996 boasting about its 185kw V8 in the Falcon. This suggests to me that 185kw was a lot for a V8 in 1997 so I have my doubts the average V8 had 180kw in the 1970s
Power output has a very low correlation to fuel economy. You sound quite knowledgeable about the motoring world, but I can tell you are wrong on this one.
Order of importance for fuel economy: 1. Driving style 2. Driving style 3. Weight 4. Gearbox (remove torque converter, increase number of gears, intelligence, final drive ratio) 5. Engine design (addition of direct injection, turbo, higher operating temps, variable cam timing, low viscosity oil) 6. Power output
I know bugger all about cars.
But the simply fact a lower KW engine built today can deliver way better fuel savings than a high out put. If 130 kw was good for a 4l in the 70's it's good enough today.
Quote:
Higher power actually means cars are SAFER ! You should plot the engine output vs crash safety. For a start you would see that more power means you can carry more mass (crumple zones, aircon, carpets, stereo, sound insulation, sound insulation, sound insulation).
3. Weight 70's sedan was 1400 kg.....FG 1700 kg. But you don't need kw's to push weight, the important element is torque.
The only thing KW's are good for is speed. What we don't need, because the state roads are not racing tracks.
I don't agree with doctored engines, I'm talking about engine from the ground up to be lower KW's.
I'm already talking to my political friends on the issue. We need laws to restrict power to weight ratio.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy