New “Car” Gets 3,145 MPG
September 28th, 2006 | by Brian Carr |A team of engineers from the University of British Columbia have developed a vehicle that has the ability to travel roughly 3,145 miles on a single gallon of gas - roughly the distance from Boston, MA to San Diego, CA.
The team of engineers designed the vehicle for the annual Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Supermileage Competition which draws teams from the United States, Canada and India. Last year the UBC team won the competition with a vehicle that was able to travel 1,800 miles on a gallon of gas.
According to the referenced article, the team was able to create a vehicle that achieved the record gas mileage by “optimizing many aspects of the vehicle design including: aerodynamics, light weight construction, a small displacement engine and conservative driving habits.”
Does any of this sound familiar?
Anyway, it doesn’t appear that the “car” will end up being anything other than a scientific wonder as it seats only the driver, who actually has to lie down while driving. It’s tough to see people giving up their spacious cars and trucks for something that would cause most people to become claustrophobic.
Hopefully some of this same technology will make its way to production cars so we can finally start to see 100 mpg cars readily available.
| Related Posts
|
41 Responses to “New “Car” Gets 3,145 MPG”
By Sclams on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
We’ll never see 100mpg cars! The Oil Cartell will put an end to it like it did that guy who made his car run on water! We need to revolt and strike back NOW!
By Matthew on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Prof Steven Dutch has written a well thought out and scientifically sound article on why we will never see 200 MPG, or 100 MPG cars. It’s not a matter of oil cartels, it’s a matter of physics. The best we could hope for on the short term would be a hybrid with a Sterling cycle engine (more thermodynaically efficient than the ICE), but that will require development of safe external combustion techniques for automobiles. Rather than complaining of conspiracies, some of us are actually working on solutions.
By Damian on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Okay, so make the seats upright and add room for at least one passenger. If doing those two things causes them to drop the MPG by even HALF, we’re still WAAAY ahead of the game.
But you’re right Sdams. We’ll never see this hit the market. Big oil will bury it just like they did the electric car.
By Phil Pell on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
There already is a 94 MPG car. It’s the Volkswagen Lupo. It’s not sold in America for the flimsy-sounding reason of “We won’t sell enough of them to justify crash testing them.” But the car is already out there. Check it out at http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mareview/mauto497.htm
By Trey on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
That Lupo looks like a huge piece of shit. Screw gas economy!! Just ride your bikes you fat lazy SOB’s
(I should know I am one!)
Anyhow, This whole fuel obsession driven by people that eat organic foods and smoke pot like it’s still a rebelion need to wake up and try biking or god fordib, walking.
-Peace
By Will on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Of course the oil companies will bury it, it’s just logic. They will lose money if a behicle such as the above mentioned sells. They have the means to keep that from happening. Does anyone think they’re going to sit back and allow it? Anyone who thinks so is grossly overestimating (or should I say “misoverestimating,” in allusion to another famous oil tycoon)the good faith and charity of uber-wealthy Big Corporate Oil.
By Dave on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
a) A combustion engine cannot and will never will run on water. Water cannot combust … it is already the product of combustion of hydrogen. What you can do is inject water into a running, hot combustion engine and it will turn to steam which will rapidly expand giving you more horespower. There are limits on how much water you can inject before it becomes a losing propostion and blasting high pressure steam around steel engine parts is a good way to corrode them fast. Water injection was used in German figher planes way back in WW2 … it is not remotely new.
b) About the 94 mpg Volkswagon: maybe there is a reason they are afraid to crash test it … it may not be safe. Just speculation on my part but it is designed to be so light weight what are the chances it is going to survive a crash with a Hummer?
c) Not only did big oil kill the electric car but they successfully replaced it is as the “car of the future” with the Fuel Cell car. This was a brilliant stroke genious as fuel cells are eternally “10 to 15 years off” … they’ve been that way for the last 20 years!
d) And finally, about the 3,145 mpg car of the article: This will never make it to market because it was never intended to make it to market. It is an experiment to prove concepts about fuel economy … not an attempt to make a marketable product. If car companies are serious about improving milage then they will try to incorporate these concepts into their designs and make a few gains.
By Quik on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Not Necessarily, if you can go further on less fuel, People will drive more. We’ll use roughly to same amount of gas. Not to mention the person per vehicle capacity. If you are in a four person family, and all four of you have one of these vehicles getting 100 mpg and go on a trip, each member pays the same for the gas. You are actually getting gas at the same rate as you would if all four of you were in a vehicle that had 25 mpg.
By Shane on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Oil companies will stop it? Are you idiots that insane? Please…….
The oil companies are having a tough time keeping up as it is. It wouldn’t make a big difference, not for a long time.
All Ford/GM/Honda would have to do is make one of these cars and they will make Billions, if not Trillions. Do you not think they are working on it? Don’t be a fool. Do you really think these big car manufacturers are hiding under their desk because some Saudi prince doesn’t want to see a 100mpg car. It doesn’t look feasable now, but it will be.
And don’t bring up the idiot with the car that runs on water. Read snopes.com or something. That’s BS, and yet you idiots believe it. Dumasses.
By Cappy on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Actually Dave, the engine in question electrolysed the hydrogen out of water and used IT as fuel. So I imagine the engine itself ran quite similarly to a fuel cell engine.
By Shane on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Dave:
The oil companies DID NOT stop the electric car. Where did you hear that? A friend? Think you read it ’somewhere’? They did not. Heck, where do you think electricity comes from…. coal, nuclear, and yes… OIL.
There are many reasons why the electric car failed some years ago. In fact, one of the biggest reasons was environmental law. Really. It was only part of the problem, but it was a major one, CARB.
Check out this: http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
Sure, the oil companies were a bit nervous, but they did not kill it. They DON’T HAVE THE POWER!!!! Sheesh!
What’s with this overriding need for a conspiracy?
By DBacon on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
I would think that the greatest hurdle to these types of innovations are the consumers themselves. You have to realize the price of gasoline has to become even more expensive before most Americans will drive an econobox… Its just not in their mindset or belief system. That is why they keep voting for people like BUSH.
Its all about the pocketbook when you hit it hard, it’ll force the neccesary changes.
By Anonymous on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
The Lupo looks like the Sprint/Firefly/Metro/Swift class car brought up to a more modern standards. It is not surprising that it gets 94mpg as the above mentioned vehicles were getting 40 mpg in the early 80s. They could likely sell huge numbers of the Lupo just not in the 17,000 dollar price range.
By John Waiveris on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Sadly, we did have a car in the US that got/gets 75 mpg. It’s the Honda Insight Hybrid - the first one to hit our market (2000-2007). It’s a lightweight two seater that is remarkably sporty - though you’ll never win a drag race in one.
Unfortunately, it had abysmal sales figures (under 18,000 over 7 years) so Honda stopped making them last March.
Americans don’t want fuel efficient cars. They want big heavy fast cars, and they want to complain about gas/gas prices.
-John
PS: The mpg figures are real. I drive one and love it. You can actually get around 80-90 mpg if you really try but that’s not practical for the real world.
By John Waiveris on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
PS: As for fuel cells. They will double the fuel efficiency of whatever car they are driving. (Twice the thermal efficiency of a regular engine.) Thus your 2017 SUV will get 40 mpg.
By fag bag on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Did you say people want big, fast, heavy cars? Well that doesn’t make much sense. I would prefer a light weight fast car. Not a heavy fast car, like a stupid old shitty muscle car that can’t turn.
By H1 Owner on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
John Waiveris and DBacon: Screw you. You America hating democrat hippie bastards. Try mass transit if you have a problem with fuel prices and other motorists.
By Andy on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Shane: The oil companies DID NOT stop the electric car… fact, one of the biggest reasons was environmental law.
Environmental Law - controlled by the Government
Government - controlled by Lobbyists
Lobbyists - Big Oil???
Seems like there could be a connection…
By CMD on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Big freakin’ deal! Why not develop something we all can use! Like we are really going to trade in our SUV’s for car made out of paper and balsa wood. This is nothing but scientist wasting grant money.
By Euroboy on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Dave: “About the 94 mpg Volkswagon: maybe there is a reason they are afraid to crash test it … it may not be safe.”
Are you dumb or what, you ignorant American? The Lupo is a Volkswagen, sold all over Europe and has passed every safety test there is. We do have tests here. Don’t forget we invented the car (and TV, radio, the telephone, and the tank). Of course it will come second in a crash with a Hummer, it’s about two tons lighter.
By Slammo on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Hey, H1 owner. You are clearly a very intelligent individual. Not only are all people who desire better fuel economy dems, but they obviously hate America, and must be hippies. Everyone knows that. Only democrats and hippies hate America enough to seek productive ways to lower our country’s dependence on foreign fuel so that we don’t have to kneel at the feet of Middle Eastern tyrants. Are you proud to be a republican? Proud to vote for a party that has allowed oil companies to reap record profits (how surprising that record gas prices coincided with these profits)? That being said, try actually reading what those people you defamed wrote, instead of assuming that their complaints focused on fuel prices. Their comments made no actual complaint about fuel prices, merely stating that until the majority of Americans find fuel prices prohibitively expensive, there will be no meaningful strides toward alternative fuels or more efficient engines. Further, if I had to guess, I’d say their cars are far more fuel efficient than yours, and it is you who ought to make use of public transportation, rather than driving a completely unnecessary monstrocity of a vehicle likely compensating for your own physical shortcomings.
To close: I’d rather be a democrat, hippie, and bastard than a selfish needle-dicked idiot with the IQ of our president. While driving your guzzler(which I actually doubt you do, because someone of your demonstrated intelligence shouldn’t have the money to buy an H1. I guess daddy got it for you, or maybe you sold your house and now live in the Hummer), please pay close attention to the road, because I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume your poor reading of those peoples’ posts is a result of poor eyesight, rather than a typically republican desire to distort a good argument in order to retort with an off-topic and incorrect insult.
By chaositect on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
This car is extremely impractical. That’s why it’s a SAE competition vehicle. If you make it a sit up car, devide efficiency by *at least* 2.5 (weight and wind resistance). Make it two seater? Devide by 2.5 again (weight and wind resistance). This car probably has an acceleration and top speed that are abysmal. Bring it up to yugo power and devide by 2 .5 again. Now we need to make it safe for our roads. That’s at least another devision by 2 (weight and wind resistance)… starting to look and sound just like these other 100 mpg cars that have failed in America because they get crappy sales?
The bottom line is that Joe likes to show Ted how well off he is by getting the biggest shiniest and loudest thing that will tow his gas guzzling boat to the marina. I know we’re not all like that, but the average american, unfortunately, is more concerned with his comfort and image than any ecological issues.
Big oil didn’t have to kill the electric car. we did. And we need to start blaming ourselves for the shit we do.
By Roguer on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Wow, this got political. While I agree with you, Slammo, that H1’s point was worthless and idiotic, you hardly sound more intelligent when you start spouting off the rhetoric of the other side.
1) Clinton allowed the US oil supply to dwindle DRAMATICALLY during his presidency. Because, of course, we wouldn’t need that oil later, or anything.
2) A huge part of the cost of oil these days involved the costs of REFINING that oil. As a major center of American oil refining was in southern Louisiana…which got slammed by a hurricane…do the math. Yes, the oil companies are making record profits, and it’s crappy. But last I checked, there aren’t any DEMOCRATS in Congress saying we need to put a ceiling on oil prices, either. NO ONE in Congress gives a crap about the profits, or they would speak up. Period. Don’t make this a partisan issue when it’s really a corruption issue.
3) Republicans have tried MANY times to allow more domestic oil production (e.g. Alaska) - an act that would dramatically reduce our dependence upon foreign oil. Democrats block those actions, citing concern for the environment. While that is a worthwhile concern, you CANNOT say that your major hope is to lower our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, while at the same time blocking efforts to accomplish just that. It is hypocrisy from any standpoint.
You want to protect the environment? Fine. But don’t turn on the right and claim that it is the Republicans’ fault that we are dependent on foreign oil. It is AMERICANS’ fault. The best thing both politcal parties are accomplished at is blaming the OTHER political party for a common failure. It’s pathetic.
Which also goes for your crap “rather than a typically republican desire to distort a good argument in order to retort with an off-topic and incorrect insult.” comment. If the Democrats had the ability to do anything BUT what you just mentioned, they might actually win an election. However, instead of actually promoting their views or attempting to make a point, all they can do is point the finger. If asked what he would do differently about Iraq, John Kerry can only give details that are EXACTLY the same as what the President is doing. Yet, Bush is wrong for doing it, and Kerry would somehow be right.
Grow up. Stop pointing fingers and playing the blame game. Go out and actually make a difference.
By Griz on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Its not that people want to drive gas guzzlers. Its not even that people want a big car (most people). Its just that most hybrids that are worth their salt are too small to fit everything we need them for. The Insight? Come on man. The vast majority of people that own one of those have it as a secondary car because its only a two seater. Yeah it gets good gas mileage, but only for two people So, 75mpg X 2/5 (5 people fit in a Honda Civic) = 30mpg. My regular old Honda Civic gets an average of 38mpg. So, why would I want to pay more money for a car that gets less miles per gallon per person AND I can’t take all my friends with me? That makes no sense. Oh, and the Insight, etc. They say you can make back the extra cost of buying one by the gas you save over a seven year period. That’s true, you can make back the difference in the sticker price of an insight and corolla in gas over a seven year period. However, very few people outright buy a car - they finance it. So, over those 5 years you finance the car, you’re paying interest on that extra money you paid for the care. So, its not the same. And you have to figure in the cost of buying a new set of hybrid batteries in about 7 years too. Hybrid = not worth it.
By Jason on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Try to remember, people, that even scientists can be wrong, and often are. Things presented to you as “fact” are really just the best guesses of the people in our society who understand the most (scientists) about the way our universe works. But leading edge theorists and physicists will tell you that every day we are finding out that the universe works very differently than we ever thought. So just because a physicist reasons out that something is ‘impossible’ doesn’t mean someone else is an idiot for thinking it’s possible.
And to the guy who went on about how an internal combustion engine can’t combust water, you just look silly. No one ever suggested that it combusted water. The way the inventor claimed it worked was that it broke the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then injected hydrogen into the cylinders, which it burned. Whether that was actually true is debatable. Most Physicists will tell you the idea was ‘impossible’ because it takes more energy to break water down into it’s elemental molecules than you get out of it when you combust the hydrogen, but this guys whole point was that hydrogen could be made from water more efficiently than other people thought using certain peculiar properties of electronic resonance. He had a patent for his method of extracting hydrogen, which he had to prove worked to the patent office by traveling there with his invention, and scaring them to death with the amount of highly flammable hydrogen it produced.
Over and over again throughout history, people have laughed at brilliant men who believed something was possible when the established scientific community believed it was not. Those brilliant men had the last laugh. Try to remember that when you get that feeling of distaste in your mouth because someone else says something that you think is impossible.
By yandros on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Slammo, you’re a typical effete, democratic snob dripping with an unearned superiority complex. If you’re so damn smart why don’t you invent something that people will buy? It’s apparent though that you’re against capitalism, since you deride the oil companies for making (OMG RECORD) profits. Well get a freaking clue dude, you know have many 401k’s are invested in BIG OIL?
Since you can’t win at the elections you resort to calling everyone who doesn’t think like you an idiot, thereby proving your own simple-mindedness. Don’t hate us for being capitalist pigs, we’re what made this country great. Good for him he owns an H1. I will be there someday too, and when and if you pull your goddamn prius or whatever your driving into the fastlane you better hope I see that little piece of crap because if I don’t I’m sure I’ll go OVER you, and thus weed out one more socialist moron.
By wisconsin mechanic on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Where to start.
I used to do crash testing for NHTSA. So yes to lighten a car up will cause it to do worse in crash tests. The main factor for a crash test is how long it take the occupent to stop or get up to speed in a side impact test. You can cheat around the weight issue by making the car so light that it jump out of the way of the impact. (I had to run the numbers twice and check all my instrumentation after one test, and it was correct) or you can increase the lenght of the time of the crash. Having a heavier weight vehicle does that. You can make the crush surfaces longer also.
Electric, gas, steam cars were all around in the beginning. The reason steam and electric ended up left behind was easy of use and efficentcy. The is alot of energy in a gallon of gas.
One vehicle that I am watching is a German car that is supposed to be out in 2009.
I think the spelling is Loremo (I have a link to the site at work not home so I cant check). It supposed to get 162 mpg. I is fairly light weight and has a innovative body design that will help keep the passengers safe.
I would not worry to much about big oils profits. If the gas is avaiable we will use it. 100 mpg or more car really does not make a difference.
By pbjosh on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Your missing alot of details.
In those competitions, the students are given a small single cylinder motor, and they have a limit if how fast or slow they can go. Between 15-45mph, and they drive around the track.
So the modify the motor, and have a very slick body, that is super light weight, and then accelereate to 45mph, and coast.
Oh, Oil didn’t kill the E-car. Nobody buys them. If they did, somebody would by them. If people want them, they can buy an E-car, there are several now, or a kit, or even a kit to modify their existing car.
Somebody doesn’t know how to use google. And nobody taught them about economics in a capitalist system. Sad.
Josh
By BossHog on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
Hey Euroboy, Shut the hell up. Where you from, France? To bad with all that invention you couldn’t do shit with it. You will never be as good or even comparable to the almighty United States. Take your faggoty ass back to which ever one of those
By Environmental Consultant on Sep 29, 2006 | Reply
There is enough oil underground in the United States to fuel the world at current usage for over 500 years.. Besides the cost for a barrel of oil is grossly inflated thanks to the “powers that be”. Certain administrators, with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar i.e. stock in major oil companies, should be drug out in the street and shot! We should be shot too for allowing this lube-absent rape to go on.. So, the big scare right now, just like the 70’s, about how we are “running out of oil” is another passing fad that should honestly be ignored.. Sure maybe starting now to more intelligently spend our natural resources would be a good idea, but the whole rush of moving to hybrid and the (don’t get me started) on alternate fuels is totally unmitigated male bovine excrement.. So too is our dependence on foreign oil from the (new jihad for every minute) towelies.. We all need to pull our head from our collective asses and make intelligent changes and not foolish (Godzilla is coming) ones..
By ElVinagre on Sep 30, 2006 | Reply
Part of the solution is simpler than you think: Electric-assist bicycles with next generation batteries. The average fat-ass American could travel 10 miles relatively easily with one of these, as they multiply your power. Amsterdam is a good example of how bicycles can replace cars. They have traffic lights for bikes, etc. We will have to do some redesigning of roads, etc, but this one device has the potential to reduce our fuel consumption by 20%.
By William Wilgus on Jul 9, 2007 | Reply
Light weight does not necessarily mean unsafe. Just look at the photos / video of Formula 1 driver Robert Kubica’s 180 mph head-on crash in his BMW Sauber during this year’s Canadian Grand Prix.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/11/video-kubica-crashes-canadian-gp/
The only injury he sustained was a sprained foot!
Formula 1 cars have a minimum weight—including the driver—of 1,334.8 pounds; all of them use ballast to get the cars up to that weight.
By Frank Lee on Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
All I can say is “wow”, and shake my head. I haven’t seen this much collective stupidity since high school.
By Keith on Oct 16, 2007 | Reply
walk jeez people why doesn’t anyone walk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????
By BigBandJohn on Feb 21, 2008 | Reply
I think there’s a balance of price, functionality, safety, and fun that needs to be considered with economy, A car that does 0-60 in 10 or more seconds is frowned upon generally.
Personally, I find that there are a couple signs of hope for fuel efficient cars. Given a larger fuel tank, the Venture One would be a great fun car for commuting or just cruising for 1 or 2 people. If Bricklin actually pulls the $35k car he’s touting for 2010, that car would have the potential to be popular. The Fisker Karma would be extremely popular if it wasn’t for the $80k price tag.
Also, it’s incredible what a facelift on design can do. Take a standard truck, put a more aerodynamic spin on it, and get 20%-50% better fuel economy. Same with cars.
Look at NASCAR (or racing in general). They regularly have bad accidents, yet people walk away with at most minor injuries from most of them. That’s because it’s the cage in a frame concept. THe driver is in a cocoon that protects them, and the body is merely a plastic shell. Apply that concept to street vehicles going at 1/3rd the speed, and you can probably cut the weight of most street vehicles by 30-50%. Same look, lighter body, increased safety if done right.
The technologies are there for high performance high fuel economy cars. I think until the infrastructure is in place that hybrids will be the way to go, though eventually fuel companies will become Electric Charging stations as well. That’s when pure electric cars will become commonplace. An electric with 300-500 mile range and equal “fueling” opportunities as petrol is what it will take.
One last note. If anyone saw Futurecars, one episode showed the fluid dynamics design for a truck cab that increased fuel efficiency by 20%. Combine that with another episode where they ran a truck on a 3L diesel hybrid with, as they claimed, “better performance than the original 13L engine”, and imagine the savings.
By rnubs on May 2, 2008 | Reply
people have been developing fuel economic solutions for cars that really work for years, and they are not even in the car buisness…what gives… i will only vote for a candidate that is willing to have the guts to stand up to big oil… after all it is 2008 and we still run cars the same way that henry ford did…
By Sri on May 29, 2008 | Reply
Do you notice an unhealthy obsession with safety and the prevalent notion “bigger car = safer cars” . I agree it is intuitive .. but also note that that this fear is excessively exploited by
1) car companies to push trucks/SUV that are more profitable
2) Crash testing approval ( much more stringent than Europe) which will keep out lighter and more fuel efficient cars … I do see the hand of Big Oil here
You can argue for safety — but it is similar to arguing that guns make you safer. The fact is - guns make “YOU” safer - but when you sell millions of firearms , there are emergent characteristics that are not all favorable to the society at large. The forces that be, understand this very well while the common folk are happy with the microscopic view and the logic that makes sense to their tiny little universe. I bet the overall traffic casualties in Europe will reveal that American driver/passenger is no safer than his European counterpart.
My basic thesis is that we should tone down crash test safety requirements that will allow more fuel efficient cars into America — Hey! I can now use a favorite line that the Conservatives love to parrot– IT INCREASES CONSUMER CHOICE
By Harry on Jun 13, 2008 | Reply
You are all sheep and just know how to follow the herd … most of you are so full of greed you forgot how to think for yourselves … you want to buy cheep things so you go to Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart (just ONE example so some moron doesn’t think I am Wal-Mart bashing) goes to China …you wonder why you don’t have a job! The rich will always push the limits of the poor and uneducated. It is time for common sense to enter the picture and REALLY LOOK at the people your voting for. Granted we don’t have crap to choose from … why do you think that is so strange!!! Wait until you get sick and beg for help … they’ll send for the cheapest African witch doctor to assist you and you’ll deserve it. Play your stupid video games, don’t spend time with your children, let CA. liberal deemi-Gods run this country, don’t protect our boarders, ignore our Constitution, allow gay marriages and porno = USA today.
You are so blinded and desensitized to everything as long as you can go to sleep in your cushy bed and send your kids off to school in the morning NOT TO EVEN THINK about the poor soldier dying, the mother crying, people starving all over the world, drugs given to our children as you suck on you drink!!! Of course don’t smoke LOL
As to the topic of gas MPG we have it and it doesn’t have to be small like your brain. They just haven’t sucked all our blood out yet!
I hope this makes you outraged; maybe, just maybe, you’ll not stand for it anymore. Let the banks have your home and buy a real downsized home for cash and own it!!! Never have another credit card! Throw out the video games and go out on a picnic! Look for getting off the grid> Cable, electric, heat / cooling. “In God we Trust” used to be our policy … now he is all but banned. I am ashamed of our country and probably just as bad as you all, but I try to do better every day .. Help save the USA, have SOME morals and reconnect with commonsense!
Thank you —-harry