SRT Hellcat Forum banner
  • Hey Everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of this months Ride of the Month Challenge!
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
'23 C8 3LT Convertible Z51
Joined
·
3,629 Posts
Well, Dodge has been saying the Hemi is dead for over a year now. Just people refuse to listen and hold on to hopes and dreams that they'll change their mind. The fake news media and social platform hype machine isn't helping. That's the prime driver behind the 2023 ultra markup, mad ordering frenzy that's about to take place.
 

·
Registered
'23 C8 3LT Convertible Z51
Joined
·
3,629 Posts
The Hellcat and all passenger car V8s for Dodge are done at the end of the 2023 model year. So says Dodge as of press release yesterday.
 

·
Registered
'23 C8 3LT Convertible Z51
Joined
·
3,629 Posts

·
Registered
'23 C8 3LT Convertible Z51
Joined
·
3,629 Posts
That's a link to a website who received an email from an unnamed Dodge Rep. I don't know if I would be calling that a 'press release'. Even that link you provided says we will get some years of co-existence with a v8 and an EV platform. So I think the v8 is not going completely away in 2023 as you say. (even if the v8 is only the 392). How long the EV and 392 co-exist is the real question, which only time will tell depending on who controls the gov't in the next couple years and could go from there. The smartest thing for all car makers to be doing right now behind closed doors is covering all their bases in terms of directions they can head.
I'm not going to discuss this anymore. God has spoken, and God's master has laid down the following rules. Explain to me how a Dodge 392 fits into this. The EPA closed the carbon credit trade starting in 2024:

Font Material property Parallel Pattern Number
 

·
Registered
'23 C8 3LT Convertible Z51
Joined
·
3,629 Posts
So you're saying science is wrong? Wow
When I was in the USAF and for the 6-7 years after I got out, I was an orbital analyst (AFSCN 1C691) that flew NOAA weather satellites amongst a couple other DOD payloads. Let me explain real quick how "science" gets made.

An agency, government, wealthy special interest... but most often the government will offer grant money for research. Now, this research grant will be worded like, "...grant for climate research and the study of the associated effects resulting from increases in mean ocean temperature around (map coordinates or region)." Individual labs and other government agencies, like NASA, NOAA, University research teams, and so on will submit grant proposals.

Now, it's very easy to see how science gets made at this point. Let's hypothesize that 20 grant proposals are written. 16 of them are worded in such a way that suggests the research laboratory is staffed with esteemed researchers and have state-of-the-are equipment or otherwise has access to the same. They word the document that suggests with X amount of dollars, they can further their research into manmade climate change. 4 grant letters are written to the contrary or, at best, are completely ambiguous without attempting to draw any untested conclusions.

Guess who the government gives the grant money to? The ones that align with their political narrative. That's also how you end up having someone like me flying NOAA WEATHERSATs that were monitoring temperature over a known warm spot in the Gulf of Mexico (due to shifts in the Gulf Stream) and ignoring the fact that the mean average sea temperature in the area outside that region was mapping cooler than 20 years prior... but according to the grant criteria, we were only to report on temps in a specific grid in the Gulf, and discard all observations outside of that grid as they were not in-scope for the purpose of the grant. Thus, even though we were seeing mean average cooling, per that specific localized instance, we did track warming. There were dozens and dozens of other micro studies granted in similar fashion to other small little locales in the oceans and politicians then aggregated those data points to show something like, "Oh! Look at all these points on the Earth where we're seeing massive spikes in temperature!"

Scientists aren't dumb. They like nice things and good food just like the rest of us. If the people writing grant checks pay money for data that shows global warming, then that data is produced. If the grant check writers want to see evidence that the polar ice caps will vanish in 17 years, a model will be written that shows it. If political winds change, those same research agencies will start writing grants to show global cooling. Whatever the politicians want, there's a scientist who wants a new Volvo that will give it to them. There's also 100 other scientists that will peer review and corroborate the study and everyone gets a new Volvo. That is, except the scientists who disagree. They get supermarket ramen for dinner.

This is exactly what happened in the 70s-80s. The new ice age is coming, we're all going to die, we need to start making global seed banks. Administration changed and it went from we're going to freeze to death to burn in hell in literally 8 months time.

Yaaaay science. Science will never be "science" until you peel government and its money out of it. I've seen a number of interesting theories tested and reported on, only to have government turn around and produce grants to combat the opposing theory... to a tune of over 100:1 in terms of funding. This is what government does. They pay for only the data they want to see... and sometimes that data is used only to mislead and misdirect. We saw a LOT of this during the Covid crisis in 2021-2022, much revolving around the efficacy of mRNA treatments and mask use. I won't go into the results of those studies, but I will say that while Trump was in office, the government was heavily invested into research on gaining the vaccine. Left leaning think tanks and research conglomerates sunk an enormous amount of money in testing the efficacy of the test vaccines, many concluding they were ineffective or dangerous (you might recall Kamala Harris bringing up the fact that she'd never receive one of those dangerous Trump vaccines as she read the results of the study during the 2016 campaign). After the admins changed, so did the science. Suddenly, all the research switched from how bad the vaccines were to how best to administer them, how often, and how safe they are. Almost no grant money was sent by the government to study adverse effects. They even halted the research partnership the US had with Israel on vaccine efficacy.

This is how "science" is made. It's not science, it's mostly politics. Which technically isn't allowed on these forums, but you can't talk science without government money and politics.
 

·
Registered
'23 C8 3LT Convertible Z51
Joined
·
3,629 Posts
I notice not one comment on why big corporate oil has recorded massive profits ?
I also find those comments hypocritical since we're talking about the price of gas on a high performance car forum.
When confronted with facts, some people resort to name calling, which is a sure sign of intelligence level.

Two things. You have to understand the commodities market and how oil leases work. If you did, then what I'm about to say would sound redundant.

Oil is drilled and stored. Oil is sold when the oil prices rise. It's stored more when they fall. Thus, they do in fact make more profit when oil prices are very high. One related issue you're not prattling on about is the fact that big oil makes only 5 cents profit per gallon of refined gasoline. It's one of the lowest margin industries on the planet. Overall, the profit margin on crude is about 2%. Again, very very small. The oil companies are not driving the cost of gasoline, as their profit margins haven't changed. They're just making more revenue and associated profit due to the commodities market and its increased baseline cost.

I recall an interview with T.Boone Pickens about the Texas oil industry and how, over the years, he had been decried as a thief and a crook for "extorting consumer cash with high oil prices." He went on to say that since the '70s, they had not changed their business models and had been running the same lean profit margins, year over year for decades, with literally no changes made to the core foundation of their business plan regarding oil exploration and drilling. Yet, he found himself constantly rolling his eyes at pundits in the media who just don't know how the basics of how the industry works.

In short, people who know little about the oil market cry foul when they start making a lot of money off of high oil, but they don't do the same thing to sawmills when lumber prices skyrocket.

On oil lease exploration, geological surveys are done on tracts of land that show signs of oil present. These tracts are divided up into parcels. Each parcel is then sold exploration leases. Oil companies lease these parcels and perform detailed exploration surveys. Not all the parcels (see: most) contain accessible oil deposits in abundance to where drilling is economically viable. For example, an oil company may detect accessible oil, but the amount taken from that spot may not pay for the rig and process to get it out of the ground, so they leave it alone. This is why you have thousands of unused leases and oil companies wanting more. It isn't because they're hedging their leases for the future, it's simply because many of the leases either don't have any oil under them or the oil that is there isn't worth exploiting. The only way to find out if a parcel has accessible oil is to lease it, get the exploration and exploitation rights for the parcel, then survey it.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top