Driving age, good or not old enough?

The United States government is very passionate about trying to change the age that a person may obtain their drivers license from the age of 16 to 18. Their claim for this is that the younger generation of drivers, 16-20 year olds, cause over 50% of the accidents in the U.S. in the past ten years. The government has a bill in the works now that teenagers won’t be able to get their permit until the age of sixteen, and then get their license when they turn eighteen. People are becoming very outraged at the thought of this because the two sides of this argument have been arguing and debating about this for the past couple of years. The neutral party, however, is intent on staying neutral on this manner and not getting involved. I, personally, have mixed feelings on this because I’m nineteen and have had my license for three years, but on the other hand I can see why the government wants to do this because I have done a lot of stupid things as a young driver.
The proponents for changing the age to eighteen have very good facts and statistics and arguments to support their claim. First they have provided facts and stats for the past ten years that out of all the reported traffic accidents, ranging from totaling a car to a minor fender-bender, 50% have been caused or happened because of a teenage driver. They claim that if a few more years of a teenager’s life would come before they received their license then they would be ready to operate a motor vehicle on public streets. Another claim is that a teenager is more susceptible to operating a vehicle under the influence of harmful substances such as alcohol, or different forms of drugs or illegal substances. Also the amount of minor consumptions has substantially increased in recent years which cause more worry for government officials. They are extremely worried about this because since a human body isn’t fully formed until the age of twenty-one there is always the worry of a teenager going to a party, having access to their car because they are old enough to drive, getting in, and driving off to go get food or go to the next party. This is probably the biggest factor in the argument for the proponents of changing the age to eighteen.
Also others argue that the state issued driver’s test is substantially too easy and should be made more difficult and that more hours in the car should be necessary in order for teens to pass the tests and obtain their license. Along with this claim, officials are saying that doing this would not only help out the accident total, as it would probably decreases based on statistics, but more gas would be saved and the environment would benefit from this most importantly. Al Gore was one of the first men to totally back this one hundred percent with actual scales that showed rising the age would give the earth’s ozone layer a better chance of maintaining itself if less gas was produced for cars and less natural resources were burned. Along with this it could cause the U.S. becoming fewer dependants on foreign oil, which has been a big deal for America in recent years based on the current situation in the Middle East and with Iraq, and the other countries in the East.
The opponents to this law being change claim that based on their age they should not be discriminated against. If teenagers can do many things such as going to school full time and getting good grades and if they pass the required tests that are given during the driving exam then they should be able to get their license. People think it is ridiculous that government officials blame teenagers for their lack of driving skills based on their youth, and people have shown proven evidence that states the years of 23-35 are responsible for the most DUI, drunken driving accidents in America over the past twenty years.
The neutral members in this discussion state that they agree that the state wide required test, in every state, should be increased and the hours in the classroom, and driving portion should be more intense and difficult. Also the written test should give more typical driving scenarios and more signs to identify so that they can teach teens the most effectively and if they fail then they have to wait a full year until they can take the test again. But on the other hand they agree that the government cannot place all the blame on just the teens and leave out the instructors or the state for choosing the instructors because it is not always the teenagers fault but sometimes their instructor that makes the difference.
In closing I would like to say that I have opinions for both parties. I agree that the tests and course should be more difficult and strenuous for the teens and that if they fail they should have to wait a year to take their test again. But on the other hand I think the law and age should remain just as it is, at the age of sixteen. I mean if a person wants to wait until they are older or if a parent wants to stop their child from getting their license then that is their prerogative and the teen should respect that. But if a parent wants to take their kid to get their license and then buy them a car or help them buy a car then more power to them. I personally love driving, and I am happy my parents allowed me to get my license at sixteen. I have experienced a lot since I have started driving and I plan on learning more and more based on my driving experience and what I will experience in the future. It will help me in later life because I have gotten a few tickets but in the end it is for the best.

Superchargers VS Turbochargers

Turbochargers and Supercharges are frequently referred to in articles about all types of cars, but are rarely defined or distinguished from the other. Both use Forced Induction, which means they push more air into the cylinders then would normally be there which allows each cylinder to produce more power then it normally would. Thats about where the similarities end. Both have their benefits and downsides, so it is difficult to say which one is "better".

Turbochargers get their power from the exhaust stream that the engine produces. Exhaust propels the turbines inside the Turbo. The Turbocharger compresses the air and pushes it into the cylinders, there by forcing more in then would normally be there. The major downside to turbocharging an engine is something called "turbo lag". Because the turbo is powered by exhaust, the engine must complete a full cycle to produce the exhaust to power the turbo. Cars with turbochargers should be allowed to warm up before driving because if you start it and immediately slam on the gas, you could blow your turbo very easily. The benefit of driving a turbocharged car is once you get past that initial lag, it can be very fast in 3rd or 4th gear. Thats where they trump Superchargers.

Superchargers run off of a belt instead of exhaust. They are directly bolted onto the engine and a belt or chain is hooked up to the compressor which does the same thing as a Turbocharger compressor. They both force more air in then would normally be there. A Superchargers strength is also its weakness. Superchargers produce massive amounts of low end torque. This means that as soon as you slam on the gas, the cars going to move, and fast. The problem is that the torque curve (a graph of where the car produces the most power) is very high through gears 1-3 but goes down rapidly through 4-5. Chances are the nine times out of ten, a supercharged car will beat a turbocharged car off the line because of that turbo lag. However once that torque starts to ease off, your turbocharged competitor's turbos will be spinning at full speed and you might get caught.

There are benefits and downsides to both S uperchargers and Turbochargers, but hopefully the next time you read about them, you will know exactly what the article is talking about.

A new player enters the hybrid game.

Fisker Automotive was a relatively unheard of company until they made the news by entering a plug-in hybrid in the 2009 Detroit Auto Show. The "Fisker Karma" is really the only competition for the fairly well known Tesla Roadster. It incorporates both and electric engine, as well four cylinder, turbocharged engine imported from GM. Release of a finished product has already been pushed back from 2009 to late 2010, but I don't think that will discourage buyers. With an $87,000 price tag it won't be cheap, but it might be and option for someone looking to buy an expensive car instead of a Porsche or BMW. The Karma has two settings, Stealth and Sport. Stealth utilizes only the electric engine and is perfect for city driving. The Sport setting uses both the electric engine as well as the gasoline engine to up the performance. In "Sport", the Fisker Karma can reach speeds of 60 mph in under 6 seconds and has a top speed of over 125 mph. The Karma has "regenerative breaks", which apparently have the "ability to recapture breaking energy" to ensure the car always can stop efficiently. That sounds like a big promise to fulfill, but apparently it's possible. Fisker's automobile also has a climate control system that uses a full length solar roof to keep the car at a certain temperature while parked. A big selling point that the Karma has over other hybrids or fully electric vehicles is that it is a sedan. It has usable backseat space whether you use it for people or stuff. It also has an amazing aerodynamic design that makes it extremely eye catching and interesting to look at. Fisker made good choices designing all aspects of the Karma and I imagine it will pay off for them.

GM jumps on the "sorry train" with Ford.

GM's CEO Rick Wagoner made his pledge to "do better" and decided to drive from Detroit to Washington DC next time. He will be driving a Hybrid Malibu for the majority of the trip, and then for the last leg he will be rolling up in a brand new Chevy Volt prototype. To me this kind of seems like a stunt for publicity more then a cry for help. If Mr Wagoner was really desperate, he would be driving a car that gets more then 30 mpg on the highway. The Malibu Hybrid should be traded for a 1995 Honda Civic so that Mr Wagoner can have the authentic experience of being the "common man". Ford chief Alan Mulally still has my vote for the who is trying harder contest. While the man has millions in the bank, working for a dollar a year is a pretty extreme thing to do. Mr Wagoner could learn a thing or two from Mulally rather then using this crisis to promote his new product.

Ford CEO pledges to work for $1 a year, apparently ok with the dollar menu.

After Congress's tearing up of the three automakers asking for taxpayer money, Ford CEO Alan Mulally promised that if his company is to receive help he will work for $1 a year. Ford also said it would sell its five corporate jets after all three companies were harshly criticized for flying separately from Detroit to DC. All Ford managerial bonuses for 2009 have apparently been canceled in attempt to show Congress that they are willing to change to receive help. Ford also plans to accelerate production on hybrids to get more fuel efficiant cars on the road sooner. Sounds like Ford is kissing as much ass as possible to be bailed out of their financial problems, so don't be surprised if you see Mr Mulally in the drive through for Micky D's.

My first car

My first car was a glorious 1994 Ford Explorer XLT. In its prime, it was a rugged and top of the line SUV worthy of long vacations with lots of luggage to haul. These days all its good for is driving around town and taking trash to the dump. The once pristine and efficient V-6 engine somehow became a gas guzzler... giving me a pathetic 10 miles to the gallon. The only really great part about my truck in this day and age was the 4 wheel drive. It worked like brand new and was perfectly capable of powering through snow, mud, a random field, etc. Compared to SUV's these days, my truck was super slow. It had a 0-60 time of around 9-10 seconds but that was good because it kept me from getting speeding tickets. The other issue with this generation of Explorer is the high tip over rate. This was before Ford figured out how easily their SUV's can roll and right around the era of the Firestone recalls, which of course came standard on the Explorer. I was just waiting for one of my tires to blow and flip me over but it never happened. Unfortunately the Explorer is no long with me, RIP. I decided to sell it when I came to school. It needed a brand new compressor as well as almost an entirely new suspension which totaled around $1,800 in work. I decided to cut my losses and sold it for $1,000 cash. It had 130,000+ miles on it so I felt like it was time to let go. While I never drove the explorer through its glory days, it was good to me and was a great first car.

My First Car

I just got done reading Camaro's post about his first car and it brought back so many memories of when I got my first car which was a 1997 Nissan Altima GXE (and yes this my actual first car). I remember it like it was yesterday. My mom and I were looking through the classifieds trying to find a decent car for me to drive for a couple of years. I would find a decent vehicle, Google it, and then decide if it looked cool or not. Now at this time in my life I actually was not all that interested in cars so I had no idea what type of cars were good and which were not so as long as I got a car, then I was pretty content. My mom ended up finding this Nissan Altima selling for about $3,000 with 124,000 miles on it. She said that it was a pretty good deal and suggested that we take a look at it. So of course I agreed. When we got to the place where it was being sold the guy unlocked it and we took a look around. It was nice for the most part not too many rips, tears, or stains in the upholstery, the dash wasn't torn up, etc. On the outside the usual door dents were apparent but nothing major, no rust, anything like that. Things were looking promising for the car. So I said what the heck, its a car and I have freedom now and that's when I bought my first car.

As I started to drive my car, I became more and more interested in the concept of "tricking your car out." I had never really put into thought what my first mod would be but as I drove all I heard were subs. The BOOOOMMMM BBOOOOOOMMMM is the sound that my ears never got tired of listening too and still don't to this day. So with that I decided to get subs. I researched all over for the best deal and eventually purchased 2 MTX 12in subs with a Kicker amp, a bunch of wires, and a brand new radio from Panasonic (which happens to be my favorite brand because they always produce quality items). I was so excited the day I got them installed and when I first drove off with them I literally thought "How the hell am I supposed to drive home with it so damn loud?" But I quickly grew used to it and loved it.

After having my subs for awhile I decided to do something with the look of my car. Now, I knew what being a ricer meant but I don't think what I did is considered ricer at all except for one thing (which I will explain later). I went to Pep Boys, which is a local car parts store, and bought two of these LED bar lights and installed them up under the dash so that they shined down on my feet when I was driving. In the picture to the right it's kind of hard to see them but if you click on the link above 1997 Nissan Altima GXE then it will be easier to see there. They look so sick at night, especially since I have a blue light in my radio. The thing that might be a little ricerish is the fact that I then replaced my dome light with an LED blue light so when I open my car it's blue instead of the OEM white color.

But that's essentially my first car and the experience that I got along with it. To this day I still own it and it is my main form of transportation, or as we in the car world call it my "daily driver." I will always love that car and remember it for as long as I live.