 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules
Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get our troops killed. http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2006-12-26-gmfueleconomy_x.htm GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules Updated 12/26/2006 3:45 PM ET DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior General Motors (GM) executive said. Bob Lutz, GM's vice chairman and the head of global product development, said the proposed changes to the government's Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards would represent an unfair burden on the traditional Big Three automakers. "For one thing, it puts us, the domestic manufacturers, at odds with the desires of most of our customers, namely larger vehicles," Lutz said in a year-end posting on a website maintained by GM. "That effectively hands the truck and SUV market over to the imports, particularly the Japanese, who have earned years of accumulated credits from their fleets of formerly very small cars." Lutz, a longtime critic of government fuel economy regulations, compared the attempt to force carmakers to sell smaller vehicles to "fighting the nation's obesity problem by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell garments only in small sizes." A group called the Energy Security Leadership Council, which includes more than a dozen prominent U.S. executives and retired military officers, issued a report earlier this month calling on Congress to take steps to reduce the reliance on imported oil. The group called for tougher fuel economy regulation, including a 4% annual increase in CAFE standards, which have been held essentially flat for the past decade. In a related move, the Consumer Federation of America released a study last month showing that nine of 13 major automakers had a fleetwide average fuel economy performance that was lower in 2005 than it had been a decade ago. (snip) Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS said in rec.autos.driving: > Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get > our troops killed. Since when do you give two sh.ts about our troops????  SignatureLBMHB/lb-VH/SADDAM supports the troops: "Like hell. The Morons will just get a couple other jarheads to take the place of these two. " --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, Sept 13, 2006 10:43PM Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y6gbk2 Message ID: dujhg25i1fecsoh791df5qe1fmk7fiu0na@4ax.com > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk > Drivers are MURDERERS said in rec.autos.driving: >> Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get >> our troops killed. > > Since when do you give two sh.ts about our troops???? Of course the troll doesn't care. If fuel economy was a real issue then we would have european style taxes on fuel. Placing the burden on the manufacturers makes Lutz's anaology spot on. The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil overseas. It's more profitable because the US tax payers and those in the military pay the price for the instability of the region. If big oil had to foot the bills of foreign aid, military intervention, etc and so forth, middle east oil would be too expensive to bother with. Oil shale would look dirt cheap. Middle east oil might not even be profitable if all those costs were carried by the oil companies. > The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional > sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil > overseas. Here we go again. Another idiot calling for a multi-trillion $ program to develop unconventional fuels when all we have to do is go to smaller cars and lower speeds. That wouldn't cost a thing. In fact it would save both money and lives. THINK >>The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional >>sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cars and lower speeds. That wouldn't cost a thing. In fact it would > save both money and lives. THINK If you think those are worthy goals than lobby for higher fuel taxes. It's the only way the public is going to do it. Think, indeed. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional >>>sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil >>>overseas. >> Here we go again. Another idiot calling for a multi-trillion $ program >> to develop unconventional fuels when all we have to do is go to smaller [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you think those are worthy goals than lobby for higher fuel taxes. > It's the only way the public is going to do it. Think, indeed. The troll is completely off base as the processes for unconventional oil already exist and are profitable at current oil prices without tax money. The problem is that cheap to extract middle east oil has a huge government subsidy in the forms of military costs and foreign aid. The problem with consumption taxes is that income taxes will not go away to off set them. I would prefer consumption taxes, however government implementation of such will probably include all sorts of tracking and logging. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS the connisseur of gay kid porn in rec.autos.driving spewed this crapola all over the landscape after a "session:" > > The real problem IMO is a lack of will to develop the more unconventional > > sources of oil here in the americas in favor of more profitable oil [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to develop unconventional fuels when all we have to do is go to smaller > cars and lower speeds. You're a f.cking idiot. Have I told you that lately??? No??? Well, consider yourself told! And why don't you take the lead and get the f.ck off the roads. > That wouldn't cost a thing. Except the lives of those troops in Iraq and other foreign oil fields that you were so "concerned," about in your originating post. > In fact it would save both money and lives. Yeah, right, and Saloth Sar was a kind and gentle leader. > THINK Take your own advice, you stupid a.shole. SignatureLBMHB/lb-VH/SADDAM supports the troops: "Like hell. The Morons will just get a couple other jarheads to take the place of these two. " --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, Sept 13, 2006 10:43PM Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y6gbk2 Message ID: dujhg25i1fecsoh791df5qe1fmk7fiu0na@4ax.com > Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get > our troops killed. > > http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/regulation/2006-12-26-gmfueleconomy_x.htm > > GM blasts proposed change in U.S. fuel economy rules So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people want to buy? And of course the politicians will keep buying gas guzzlers for themselves. Or maybe they will be like some of the hypocritical celebs who fly to events in private jets, but arrive at the "red carpet" in a Prius and tell everyone how concerned they are about the environment. If the government wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they should slap a hefty import duty on imported oil. But then, the Saudis might quit buying them off. I agree with the idea of reducing our dependednce on foreighn oil, I just think CAFE-like quotas are not only stupid, in the long run they won't work. If the government implements these stupid rules, then GM. Ford, and Chrysler will be hurt, and people who want large SUVs will just keep their old ones around longer - which will be worse for fuel economy, the government, and the environments, as wel as GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Ed >>Tough titties, GM. Stop selling these gas guzzling SUVs that only get >>our troops killed. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Ed People who buy these gas guzzlers are given 18,000 dollar tax breaks. You don't get those for driving fuel efficient cars, carpooling to work, riding public transportation riding bikes or walking. The market for these vehicles is artificially propped up, by socialism for the rich. I have little sympathy for them. Also the idea that they face more competition from Asia for monster suvs than hybrid vehicles betrays common sense. These are lazy ceos, no wonder they are losing market share. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people > want to buy? That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. General Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few wanted them to keep doing it. Today's SUV is just the successor to last generation's full-size station wagon - a very popular car for families with kids a generation ago. Both are the vehicle families hauled Scout campout stuff or hunting gear in. A Prius won't do that. No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com > > So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people > > want to buy? > > That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. General > Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few > wanted them to keep doing it. Are electic cars really the answer?. As many have pointed out, the nrg to run them has to come from somewhere. The answer is smaller vehicles and lower speeds. Prom solved and at no cost!!!!!!!! >> > So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people >> > want to buy? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to run them has to come from somewhere. The answer is smaller vehicles > and lower speeds. Prom solved and at no cost!!!!!!!! The cars don't have to be that much smaller.. just lighter. Time to throw out all that safety equipment. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Laura Bush murdered her boy friend shows everyone in rec.autos.driving what a stupid f.cking idiot it really is: > > > So the politicians want to blame GM for building vehicles that people > > > want to buy? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Are electic cars really the answer?. Yes, it is, you ignoramus! > As many have pointed out, the nrg to run them has to come from somewhere. Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was scuttled.....), hydro, geothermal, nuclear, coal, natural gas or just about anything else that can turn a shaft..... Hell, if we could harness the hot air that emanates from your mouth, we could probablly power a 1000 electric cars for a year! > The answer is smaller vehicles > and lower speeds. Prom solved and at no cost!!!!!!!! Except for our nation's sovergnty as we are kept on the black crack from the middle east so that cheap pieces of human waste like yourself don't have to be inconvienced in any way. Go to hell, you traitor! SignatureAunt Judy defends a known *drunk driver*: "Almost all vehicle 'accidents' are due to driver recklessness but the Chappaquidick incident is one instance where it may really have been no ones fault except the idiot who built the bridge." --"Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend," 11/10/2005 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9jtjt Msg ID: 1131599968.267321.318380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Laura Bush > murdered her boy friend shows everyone in rec.autos.driving what a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was > scuttled.....), You're a little behind;the Dishonorable Sen.Kennedy failed to block it,it's going ahead,last I read.(couple of days ago) IMO,GM is pissed because the Japs took advantage of the laws and accumulated enough CAFE credits (by selling small cars)to avoid penalties for a very long time,while GM just kept on making guzzlers and no development of smaller,more efficient cars. Again,"Detroit" just declined to compete. I get a huge laugh out of watching people trying to drive those big SUVs and PU trucks as if they were regular autos,especially when they try to park them,or have to slow to a crawl to go around an ordinary 90deg corner. Then I laugh even more at the gas station. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was > scuttled.....), hydro, geothermal, nuclear, coal, natural gas or just > about anything else that can turn a shaft..... Yeah yeah yeah. More expensive technological solutions Just go to smaller cars and lower speeds. . . . . "DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards would force Detroit-based automakers to "hand over" the market for trucks and sport-utility vehicles to Japanese manufacturers, a senior General Motors (GM) executive said." . . . . > > Solar, wind (gee, I wonder why that proposed wind farm off Hyannis was > > scuttled.....), hydro, geothermal, nuclear, coal, natural gas or just > > about anything else that can turn a shaft..... > > Yeah yeah yeah. More expensive technological solutions Just go to > smaller cars and lower speeds. I've always been a fan of CAFE standards. However, I've also always been a fan of trucks with big engines that will pull a big family and a big trailer up a steep mountain road, along with their motorcycles, gas cans and 50 gallons of extra water, etc. Eliminating these trucks with big engines is totally unacceptable in my opinion. An option I would favor, for instance, is to force these gas guzzlers to stay out of the fast lane. These vehicles are designed to haul a big load and shouldn't be used to go like a bat out of hell commuting back and forth to work. >. . . . >"DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >load and shouldn't be used to go like a bat out of hell commuting back >and forth to work. These big trucks ought to be work vehicles, not luxury vehicles. Price controls would be a nice idea. $38,000 for an SUV it's probably costing $20,000 to build? I don't think so. All the luxo stuff that makes the SUVs desireable ought to be prohibited. A work crew ought to have air conditioning, but 6-CD changers, big audio amps, carpeted interiors, sound deadening stuff, fancy "mag" wheels, and all that "nice" stuff that one wouldn't order or pay for if they were buying it to get a work crew to and from the worksite should be prohibited. Dave Head > All the luxo stuff that makes the SUVs desireable ought to be prohibited. A > work crew ought to have air conditioning, but 6-CD changers, big audio amps, > carpeted interiors, sound deadening stuff, fancy "mag" wheels, and all that > "nice" stuff that one wouldn't order or pay for if they were buying it to get a > work crew to and from the worksite should be prohibited. Fit them with 55mph speed limiters to keep the gas consumption under control. Ppl will then stop buying them. The exemption from CAFE was for *trucks* not luxury vehicles AIUI. If Detroit f.cked themselves by building the wrong cars, I can't say I can find any tears to shed for them. Graham >> All the luxo stuff that makes the SUVs desireable ought to be prohibited. A >> work crew ought to have air conditioning, but 6-CD changers, big audio amps, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Fit them with 55mph speed limiters to keep the gas consumption under control. While its a good idea on the surface, I don't want to get the government started into the speed limiter idea. Once a concept is introduced, those with the power seem to go hog-wild. That'd ruin driving for the rest of us. >Ppl will then stop buying them. That's for sure. >The exemption from CAFE was for *trucks* not luxury vehicles AIUI. Yep. >If Detroit f.cked themselves by building the wrong cars, I can't say I can find any >tears to shed for them. Well... they're building what people want to buy - that's all industry ever does, if they know what they're doing. They kinda own this market. If this market goes away, these auto companies might also. I'd hate to see that - its one of our few remaining heavy industries. Dave Head >Graham > > All the luxo stuff that makes the SUVs desireable ought to be prohibited. A > > work crew ought to have air conditioning, but 6-CD changers, big audio amps, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ppl will then stop buying them. -> The exemption from CAFE was for -> *trucks* not luxury vehicles AIUI. That's exactly right. -> If Detroit f.cked themselves by building -> the wrong cars, I can't say I can find any -> tears to shed for them. Right again. > Graham >>>All the luxo stuff that makes the SUVs desireable ought to be prohibited. A >>>work crew ought to have air conditioning, but 6-CD changers, big audio amps, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >>Graham But they built the *right* cars... since a traditional family sedan or station wagon was prohibited by CAFE, people started buying light trucks as family cars instead of buying smaller cars. You cannot fault the mfgrs. for building what the public is willing to buy. You CAN fault the legislators for passing a piece of legislation that did more harm than good. You CAN fault them again for not repealing it when it was clear what was happening. Now we have a whole generation that doesn't remember traditional cars, and have been conditioned by the media etc. to think that SUV's are "cool." Makes me want to freakin' vomit, it does, to see a once-proud off-road TRUCK with 22" bling bling wheels and rubber band tires. It ought to have 33's, tube bumpers, mud and dents, not this foo-foo sh.t. Not to mention vinyl seats and rubber floormats, not leather-trimmed door panels and whatnot. Half these people have probably never seen a transfer case! Yeah, back in my day an SUV rode like sh.t and you could barely hear the radio over the flapping of the top, but that's good, it kept you from driving it to work every day and looking like a MORON. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >>>All the luxo stuff that makes the SUVs desireable ought to be prohibited. A > >>>work crew ought to have air conditioning, but 6-CD changers, big audio amps, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > barely hear the radio over the flapping of the top, but that's good, it > kept you from driving it to work every day and looking like a MORON. You are absolutely right, you can not blame the manufacturers for building cars people want to buy or ones that will maximize their profits. The solution to me is simple, add $1 per gallon gas tax and people will be forced to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. The tax monehy raised should be used to subsidize alternative energy such as solar wind, electric cars, etc. Of course that would be too unpopular with the American people who are very short sighted to ever happen. > nate > > -- > replace "fly" with "com" to reply. > http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>>All the luxo stuff that makes the SUVs desireable ought to be prohibited. A >>>>>work crew ought to have air conditioning, but 6-CD changers, big audio amps, [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Of course that would be too unpopular with the American people who are > very short sighted to ever happen. I agree with you, but re: your last, according to my driver's license, passport, birth certificate, voter registration card, SS card (damn, they really do keep track of you six ways to Sunday) etc. I am indeed a citizen of the USA. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >>>>>All the luxo stuff that makes the SUVs desireable ought to be prohibited. A > >>>>>work crew ought to have air conditioning, but 6-CD changers, big audio amps, [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > they really do keep track of you six ways to Sunday) etc. I am indeed a > citizen of the USA. I too am an American citizen with all the above, however, the point here is that a $1 per gallon gas tax would never fly with the majority of American's as most look solely at their pocketbooks in the short term. This would be a long term solution that would work well with the free market system by making alternative energy sources financially more competetive, encourage conservation of fossil fuels, and provide funding for alternative energy sources that would one day replace the dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil. > nate > > -- > replace "fly" with "com" to reply. > http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > The solution to me is simple, add $1 per gallon gas tax and people will > be forced to drive more fuel efficient vehicles. The tax monehy raised [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Of course that would be too unpopular with the American people who are > very short sighted to ever happen. Fishing and camping are great family activities that often involve towing a boat or a trailer along with a lot of various heavy paraphernalia and this is one activity that poor people can afford if they stretch their budget some. It's also a good way to get the kids away from video games, television and computer chat rooms, etc. Increasing the gas tax might or might not be a good idea to reduce oil consumption, but it's a terrible idea if it's meant for a solution to the problem of people using trucks with big engines as passenger cars instead of as trucks. There has to be a less drastic solution to this problem somewhere. > > All the luxo stuff that makes the SUVs desireable ought to be prohibited. A > > work crew ought to have air conditioning, but 6-CD changers, big audio amps, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Graham I don't like driving slow, so I don't like the 55 MPH at all. But the rest of it, I think you're dead on. Except the story gets better..... They lobbied congress for away around CAFE stantadards AND pollution controll that was required on cars, AND the saftey constructiion that was required in the design of passanger cars. They got exactly what they wanted, a loop hole big enough to drive a truck through (intended). The Japaneese continued to produce cars that met the pre special interest loophole vehicles. Now they're snivelling and whining because their cheating and taking shortcuts to make profiits has caught up with them.. Now they want MORE special legislation. Counting on us to be too stupid to remember that they lobbied for this, because they'd rather take a shortcut, that provided what could only be a short term solutiion to profitability. While the Japanese on the other hand, *invested* in profitability, and didn't go look'n to make a buck by buying off Congress, instead of earning it. Now they're closing factories, and laying wokers off, because some genius Bean Counters thought they found a way to stick a fat hog in the a.s. Some of the investors came out great. They knew the sh.t was going to hit the fan eventually. They took their short term profits and got out. Seems to me, things worked perfectly... according to their plan anyway. The New American Way: reward greed and stupidity. The genius's that came up with the SUV / buy off Congress idea probably were promoted, got bonuse's. UH OOH --- Something's smoking and i gotta post this right NOW. sorry >These big trucks ought to be work vehicles, not luxury vehicles. Price >controls would be a nice idea. $38,000 for an SUV it's probably costing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >"nice" stuff that one wouldn't order or pay for if they were buying it to get a >work crew to and from the worksite should be prohibited. Your commitment to authoritarianism of the left (price controls) and the right (ascetism) is noted. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>These big trucks ought to be work vehicles, not luxury vehicles. Price >>controls would be a nice idea. $38,000 for an SUV it's probably costing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Your commitment to authoritarianism of the left (price controls) and >the right (ascetism) is noted. Well, riding around in huge SUV's just to go to work _doesn't_ make much sense, now does it? How would you change things without some sort of authoritarion, ascetic, or other government interference? Or do you want to just allow it to continue? Prolly the overall best way to change things is to fund enough research to make SUV's get 60 mpg. The hydraulic hybrid has potential for that, supposedly, but so far there's nothing on the market. DPH >>>These big trucks ought to be work vehicles, not luxury vehicles. Price >>>controls would be a nice idea. $38,000 for an SUV it's probably costing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Well, riding around in huge SUV's just to go to work _doesn't_ make much sense, >now does it? Does for some people, or they wouldn't do it, right? >How would you change things without some sort of authoritarion, ascetic, or >other government interference? Or do you want to just allow it to continue? I'd repeal CAFE. We'd end up with a greater variety of vehicles in the big-car classes. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>These big trucks ought to be work vehicles, not luxury vehicles. >>>>Price controls would be a nice idea. $38,000 for an SUV it's [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I'd repeal CAFE. We'd end up with a greater variety of vehicles in > the big-car classes. No,that would just be a return to the old gas hog land barges. And still big empty gas-hog.space-wasting vehicles being driven by a single person 90% of the time. CAFE just needs to be applied evenly across the auto spectrum,no loopholes like for "light trucks" outside of commercial uses. It certainly is within government's concern to encourage people to move to smaller,more fuel-efficient vehicles,for economic and political/security reasons.(less fuel imports) Note that CAFE did not prohibit large,heavy fuel-wasting vehicles,it just raised the costs to buy them,both for the buyer and the automakers;an effort to reduce their numbers,not outlaw them. The loophole is what let thru the SUVs/pickup trucks as passenger vehicles,instead of being primarily for commercial/special purpose vehicles. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> I'd repeal CAFE. We'd end up with a greater variety of vehicles in >> the big-car classes. > >No,that would just be a return to the old gas hog land barges. Which would be better than just gas-hog SUVs. More aerodynamic if nothing else. >And still big empty gas-hog.space-wasting vehicles being driven by a single >person 90% of the time. It doesn't make economic sense to buy a different car for every purpose. Commuting with the same car you sometimes haul lumber or kids or canoes or whatever with does make sense. As long as that's true, you'll see large vehicles being used for commuting. >CAFE just needs to be applied evenly across the auto spectrum,no loopholes >like for "light trucks" outside of commercial uses. Since this doesn't solve the problem the vehicle buyers are solving with SUVs, it'll just create more problems. >It certainly is within government's concern to encourage people to move to >smaller,more fuel-efficient vehicles,for economic and political/security >reasons.(less fuel imports) If paternalistic government is your thing. >Note that CAFE did not prohibit large,heavy fuel-wasting vehicles,it just >raised the costs to buy them,both for the buyer and the automakers;an >effort to reduce their numbers,not outlaw them. The loophole is what let >thru the SUVs/pickup trucks as passenger vehicles,instead of being >primarily for commercial/special purpose vehicles. CAFE made it so that if an automaker wanted to produce large vehicles, they also had to produce (and sell) a number of small vehicles to balance it out. Problem is there wasn't enough demand for such small vehicles to balance out the demand for large vehicles. Perhaps they should produce really high efficiency cars and just throw them away to meet CAFE? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>> I'd repeal CAFE. We'd end up with a greater variety of vehicles in >>> the big-car classes. >> >>No,that would just be a return to the old gas hog land barges. > > Which would be better than just gas-hog SUVs. Not really.Especially when the owner "pimps it out" with 22" rims,jacks it up for tire clearance. > More aerodynamic if > nothing else. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It doesn't make economic sense to buy a different car for every > purpose. BUY,no.Rent,yes. You don't BUY a moving van because you move once a year. Nor do you BUY a limo because you go out on the town several times a year. > Commuting with the same car you sometimes haul lumber or > kids or canoes or whatever with does make sense. Even Home Depot rents flatbed trucks for moving stuff they sell,like lumber,large items.... > As long as that's > true, you'll see large vehicles being used for commuting. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Since this doesn't solve the problem the vehicle buyers are solving > with SUVs, it'll just create more problems. No,it encourages the manufacturers to fill the need;simple market forces. >>It certainly is within government's concern to encourage people to >>move to smaller,more fuel-efficient vehicles,for economic and >>political/security reasons.(less fuel imports) > > If paternalistic government is your thing. Yup,LABELS really make a point.(why not "maternalistic"? sexist??) Our "Government" is merely society enacting laws by voting on them. Setting standards. >>Note that CAFE did not prohibit large,heavy fuel-wasting vehicles,it >>just raised the costs to buy them,both for the buyer and the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > balance it out. Problem is there wasn't enough demand for such small > vehicles to balance out the demand for large vehicles. BS;that's how Honda,Toyota,Nissan all acquired all those CREDITS towards guzzlers,by selling lots of small,good quality autos. (and how they overtook the "US" manufacturers in auto sales.) It's just that "DETROIT" refused to compete,refused to innovate. > Perhaps they > should produce really high efficiency cars and just throw them away to > meet CAFE? Maybe they ("DETROIT")should have not gotten caught with their pants down. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>> I'd repeal CAFE. We'd end up with a greater variety of vehicles in >>>> the big-car classes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Not really.Especially when the owner "pimps it out" with 22" rims,jacks it >up for tire clearance. That set would do it if everyone was stuck with Honda Civics. As a number of poor abused Civics can attest to. >> It doesn't make economic sense to buy a different car for every >> purpose. > >BUY,no.Rent,yes. You don't BUY a moving van because you move once a year. >Nor do you BUY a limo because you go out on the town several times a year. Renting is no panacea. It's expensive, and it adds difficulty to every transaction. It makes more sense to own a vehicle which can handle a majority of the situations for which you need a vehicle. >> Commuting with the same car you sometimes haul lumber or >> kids or canoes or whatever with does make sense. > >Even Home Depot rents flatbed trucks for moving stuff they sell,like >lumber,large items.... Yes, they do. Costs a lot, though, and means you spend a lot more time (including, but not limited to, an extra round-trip to return the rented vehicle). >>>It certainly is within government's concern to encourage people to >>>move to smaller,more fuel-efficient vehicles,for economic and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yup,LABELS really make a point.(why not "maternalistic"? sexist??) Red herring. >Our "Government" is merely society enacting laws by voting on them. ROTFL. Our government is an entity unto itself with its own agendas. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > > Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not really.Especially when the owner "pimps it out" with 22" rims,jacks it > up for tire clearance. So what happens if such mods result in the vehicle no longer meeting the original certification standards ? Graham >> > Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Graham There's no test for that after the vehicle is sold. There are some bumper height laws to be careful of, but if you raise the body 20 inches and then remount the bumper so it is no higher than the limits, you should be OK. Dave Head > >> > Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > height laws to be careful of, but if you raise the body 20 inches and then > remount the bumper so it is no higher than the limits, you should be OK. You can't do that stuff willy nilly here. Something like that would have to be individually inspected for roadwortiness. With the change in body height it would probably fail straight off for instability. Graham >> >> > Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >You can't do that stuff willy nilly here. We have another tradition. Hotrodding. Car modifications are done every day. >Something like that would have to be >individually inspected for roadwortiness. Some states inspect, some don't. Of those that do, I'm not sure how many take note of suspension and body work. >With the change in body height it would >probably fail straight off for instability. Aw, people pretty much maintain control of most anything they build. If they don't, its probably the fault of the driver, anyway. I think inspections are highly overrated as a tool - 99% of the time, its the loose nut behind the wheel that is the cause of problems anyway. Dave Head >Graham >> > Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >So what happens if such mods result in the vehicle no longer meeting the >original certification standards ? Nothing. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> > Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Nothing. Over here it's essentially never seen. But then again no-one here want to drive a pimped-up car. Anything that is outside certification standards will need to be re-examined for roadworthiness. Graham >> >> > Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Over here it's essentially never seen. But then again no-one here want to drive a >pimped-up car. How about hot-rodding? Performance modifications? >Anything that is outside certification standards will need to be re-examined for >roadworthiness. How big a deal is it? Do they just make sure all the bolts are tight, or what do they do? Dave Head >Graham > >> >> > Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote: > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > How about hot-rodding? Performance modifications? Not sure how extreme you mean by hot-rodding. Extremely modified cars would only be used off the public road for racing and display. As for say chipping the ECU for example or fitting a larger exhaust, there's no restriction on that AIUI but your insurance willbe invalid if you don't tell your insurer and they might in extreme cases require upgrading of brakes etc where a higher performance model of the same vehicle had those fitted as standard. Fitting crazilily outsized wheels isn't something you're likely to see here. It would be considered to be in bad taste tbh. Changing the tyre width / profile is OK as long as the rims are suitable for the job. A tyre fitter is likely to refuse to fit anything totally unsuitable. > >Anything that is outside certification standards will need to be re-examined for > >roadworthiness. > > How big a deal is it? Do they just make sure all the bolts are tight, or what > do they do? I don't know the exact specifics but they have to comply with the basic 'Construction and Use' regulations. It's basically safety / roadworthiness oriented AIUI. It'll include stuff like lighting. A vehicle that had excessive ride height might have problems with regard to illumination for example if its lights were considered to be in danger of dazzling other drivers or if they provided degraded visibility for the car's driver.. Graham > . . . . > "DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I've always been a fan of CAFE standards. Then you either don't understand what they've "accomplished," or you're an idiot. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >> . . . . >> "DETROIT - A proposal to increase the U.S. fuel economy standards [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > nate What CAFE has "accomplished"(increase in SUV/PU use) was due to CAFE's *loophole* for SUVs and "light trucks". First,eliminate the CAFE loopholes.(that's where the current beef is) Second,enact an increasing scale for vehicles based on weight.(more weight=higher registration fees,with a large increase above a certain wt.) Third,raise gas taxes.(funds going to roads,not mass transit.) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > First,eliminate the CAFE loopholes.(that's where the current beef is) This does nothing but increase taxes government collects. > Second,enact an increasing scale for vehicles based on weight.(more > weight=higher registration fees,with a large increase above a certain wt.) Just more taxes for government. > Third,raise gas taxes.(funds going to roads,not mass transit.) Again, more taxes, the funds will just go to pet projects and corporate welfare like the current gasoline taxes. If consumption is the problem then income shouldn't be taxed. (income from one's labor shouldn't be taxed anyway but that's another story) With so much tax paid one's labor, on savings interest, on passing down wealth, it's no wonder people consume so much. Increase taxes on consumption alone and people will just stop bothering to work. tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> First,eliminate the CAFE loopholes.(that's where the current beef is) > >This does nothing but increase taxes government collects. No, it levels the playing field and helps consumers to make better economic decisions. If Joe Sixpack wants an SUV badly enough to pay a $1000 gas guzzler tax because that SUV does not meet fuel economy standards, then that's one thing. Giving people thousands of dollars in tax breaks to buy gas guzzlers is counterproductive and needs to stop. SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > rec.autos.driving: > >>> First,eliminate the CAFE loopholes.(that's where the current beef is) >> >>This does nothing but increase taxes government collects. > No, it levels the playing field It does nothing of the sort. It unlevels it even further. A level playing field would get rid of CAFE entirely. > and helps consumers to make better economic decisions. Since when is it the government's business to limit our choices? The government also says you shouldn't be able to choose a corvette. > If Joe Sixpack wants an SUV badly enough to pay a > $1000 gas guzzler tax because that SUV does not meet fuel economy > standards, then that's one thing. You going to pay one on your next vette? > Giving people thousands of dollars > in tax breaks to buy gas guzzlers is counterproductive and needs to > stop. Joe six-pack doesn't meet the conditions of the SUV tax break. Few SUV owners do. Laura Bush murdered her boy friend quoted me: > > That's what liberals don't understand - or don't admit to. General > > Motors tried making and leasing electric cars - but found too few > > wanted them to keep doing it. and replied: > Are electic cars really the answer?. As many have pointed out, the nrg > to run them has to come from somewhere. The energy can come from much-more-available fuels, not from oil from politically-unstable enemies of us - like instead from coal or uranium. Yes, it would be impractical for any substantial share of all vehicles in America to be electric now - as the added generating capacity that would be needed would take a while to build. > The answer is smaller vehicles > and lower speeds. Bullshit. Ever try loading a Boy Scout patrol's worth of camping gear in a Prius? Ever try loading a hunting trip's worth of gear in a subcompact? That's why your parents bought big station wagons - and people now buy SUVs. No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com >> The answer is smaller vehicles >> and lower speeds. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >subcompact? That's why your parents bought big station wagons - and >people now buy SUVs. But "the Greens" don't want you to do those things. You're just supposed to go to work for the common good, and when you're done, go home and stay there until its time to go to work again. Recreation is a waste - you waste precious resources on unnecessary things. Just stay home. Dave Head >No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com >>> The answer is smaller vehicles >>> and lower speeds. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>subcompact? That's why your parents bought big station wagons - and >>people now buy SUVs. Not usually. Most buy big trucks/SUVs because they want to drive something BIG. Lots of old folks,for instance.They grew up driving big "Detroit" cars/trucks,and that's all they will drive,even at greater expense and difficulty of driving. > But "the Greens" don't want you to do those things. You're just > supposed to go to work for the common good, and when you're done, go [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >>No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com Except that *most* SUV/PUtruck buyers (excluding commercial use) are not using those vehicles for camping/hauling except on a very occasional basis. They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something big. It's not much different than buying a motor home for a daily driver because you camp a couple of times a year. Maybe there should be mileage limits on non-commercial vehicles in excess of certain weight levels,with much steeper yearly registration fees if exceeded. That would remove much of them from the "daily driver" category. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>> The answer is smaller vehicles >>>> and lower speeds. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Except that *most* SUV/PUtruck buyers (excluding commercial use) are not >using those vehicles for camping/hauling except on a very occasional basis. Of course, if you need it occasionally, you still need it. And, since you've got money for 1 vehicle, you buy an SUV because you need it... on the 3rd Friday of the month, every other month. >They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something big. No, you can't. Try going hunting in a rental SUV. Rental SUV's have _smooth_ tires - "all season" crap that will get your SUV stuck out on some unmaintained road where you went to chase Bambi, where it (and maybe you) will be found in the spring thaw. And, if somebody _does_ rent suitable SUVs for the purpose, they'll be the only ones and will thus be sold out of them when you want to do what everyone else is doing - going fishing in July, or something. And... sometimes you can't even rent anything to drive it as far as you want to. Lots of rentals have restrictions for keeping the vehicle in nearby states. So, when I drive my Jeep up to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, from Virginia, its 1400 miles each way. My buddy drives his SUV from Albuquerque, which is even farther. Rental companies don't want to hear about such goings-on. But we need 'em to haul all that "stuff". >It's not much different than buying a motor home for a daily driver because >you camp a couple of times a year. Yeah, it is. Motor homes are ridiculously expensive - if you can afford one, you're rich enough to afford a matching car. >Maybe there should be mileage limits on non-commercial vehicles in excess >of certain weight levels,with much steeper yearly registration fees if >exceeded. That would remove much of them from the "daily driver" category. Yep. Sounds real "green" to me. Go to work. Come back home. Stay there 'til its time to go to work again. Recreation is _wasteful_. You don't _need_ to be doing that. Just watch the tube and be happy that you are allowed to serve the state. Comrade. Dave Head > Of course, if you need it occasionally, you still need it. And, since you've > got money for 1 vehicle, you buy an SUV because you need it... on the 3rd > Friday of the month, every other month. I dunno... given how cheap used vehicles are, I can't see why a person couldn't have two vehicles except for the insane licensing and insurance regulations... oh but that's the government at play again. > Yep. Sounds real "green" to me. Go to work. Come back home. Stay there 'til > its time to go to work again. Recreation is _wasteful_. You don't _need_ to > be doing that. Just watch the tube and be happy that you are allowed to serve > the state. Comrade. Don't forget to take your soma. But that is where our lives are heading given the control of the effective single party. Both parties apparently want the population as a managed workforce given their _actions_. >> Of course, if you need it occasionally, you still need it. And, since you've >> got money for 1 vehicle, you buy an SUV because you need it... on the 3rd [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >couldn't have two vehicles except for the insane licensing and insurance >regulations... oh but that's the government at play again. Who wants to ride around in a vehicle that gave someone else so much misery they traded it in? Who wants to be paying $600 for each repair incidence (what it seems to average when I go to get something fixed) on a used car with no mfgrs warranty? >> Yep. Sounds real "green" to me. Go to work. Come back home. Stay there 'til >> its time to go to work again. Recreation is _wasteful_. You don't _need_ to >> be doing that. Just watch the tube and be happy that you are allowed to serve >> the state. Comrade. > >Don't forget to take your soma. Ya voll!!! >But that is where our lives are heading given the control of the >effective single party. Both parties apparently want the population as a >managed workforce given their _actions_. Yep. If we don't get another cycle where unionism is on the rise, we're just going to have a workforce that gets shoved in the sh.t, time after time, until we have only super-rich and poverty level people in this country, and nothing in between. Dave Head >>> Of course, if you need it occasionally, you still need it. And, since you've >>> got money for 1 vehicle, you buy an SUV because you need it... on the 3rd >>> Friday of the month, every other month. >>I dunno... given how cheap used vehicles are, I can't see why a person >>couldn't have two vehicles except for the insane licensing and insurance >>regulations... oh but that's the government at play again. > > Who wants to ride around in a vehicle that gave someone else so much misery > they traded it in? This is a throw away society... people get rid of vehicles simply because they aren't the newest shiny thing anymore. There are even these things called leases for these people who want a new vehicle every other year. > Who wants to be paying $600 for each repair incidence (what > it seems to average when I go to get something fixed) on a used car with no > mfgrs warranty? Who wants to drive a friggin' truck everywhere, every day? Talk about a living hell. It's not like the vehicle you don't use much is going to need much in repairs... plus if you learn to do your own work it's really cheap. >>> Yep. Sounds real "green" to me. Go to work. Come back home. Stay there 'til >>> its time to go to work again. Recreation is _wasteful_. You don't _need_ to >>> be doing that. Just watch the tube and be happy that you are allowed to serve >>> the state. Comrade. >>Don't forget to take your soma. > Ya voll!!! >>But that is where our lives are heading given the control of the >>effective single party. Both parties apparently want the population as a >>managed workforce given their _actions_. > Yep. If we don't get another cycle where unionism is on the rise, we're just > going to have a workforce that gets shoved in the sh.t, time after time, until > we have only super-rich and poverty level people in this country, and nothing > in between. Unions won't do it, they are firmly in the hands of wing of the single effective party called 'democrats'. Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> said in rec.autos.driving: >>> Of course, if you need it occasionally, you still need it. And, since you've >>> got money for 1 vehicle, you buy an SUV because you need it... on the 3rd [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Who wants to ride around in a vehicle that gave someone else so much misery >they traded it in? Not everyone dumps a vehicle because it gave them problems. LOTS of people trade in vehicles simply because they want something new. They follow the fashion, trading in their perfectly good Camry sedan for a trendy Prius (and get raped coming and going). And lots of people give up perfectly good vehicles because they cannot afford the payments. The worst problem you're likely to find on these cars is some scratches on the undercarriage where the repo man hitched it up to the tow truck. SignatureCarl Troller's wife catches a train: http://www.zippyvideos.com/119967005339285/faces_of_death_-_women_gets_hit_by_tr ain_funny/ And his girlfriend catches one, too: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/309176/girl_hit_by_a_train/ >>>>> The answer is smaller vehicles >>>>> and lower speeds. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > you've got money for 1 vehicle, you buy an SUV because you need it... > on the 3rd Friday of the month, every other month. Only SIX times a year,they could RENT and save a lot of money in the process.Instead,they pay a lot more for an oversize vehicle,and then pay more for gas,and end up with a harder to drive and park vehicle,and waste gas that is mostly imported. > >>They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something >>big. > > No, you can't. Try going hunting in a rental SUV. Rental SUV's have > _smooth_ tires - Which MOST SUVs generally have,people not wanting to put up with the noise from knobby tires.And the ones with knobby tires are unsafe on regular roads;those tires don't have traction like road tires.(same for the "jacked-up" "need the ground clearance" nonsense;unsuitable for public roads. Your example of "hunting SUV/truck" is fairly uncommon. There's where a "limited mileage/use" type of license would be practical. OR,if there's a market for such rentals,they would be available for rent. For that matter,you could use a smaller,more efficient Jeep,and have an attached trailer to haul the 6x per year loads,disconnect it for daily driving.Heck,these days,they even make tiny camping trailers that can be towed by small 4cyl.cars. > "all season" crap that will get your SUV stuck out on > some unmaintained road where you went to chase Bambi, where it (and [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > there 'til its time to go to work again. Recreation is _wasteful_. > You don't _need_ to be doing that. I *NEVER* said that;that's YOUR interpretation. Those big monsters SUCK GAS that we have to import,and their wasteful DAILY use as personal transpo needs to be reduced,OR their efficiency increased substantially. There would be beneficial side benefits,too. Maybe mandate E85 for them? > Just watch the tube and be happy > that you are allowed to serve the state. Comrade. > > Dave Head Face facts;SUVs/PU trucks used as personal transpo are responsible for the huge increase in US petrol consumption,and that needs to be addressed. (note that the number of hunters/campers etc. hasn't really changed,it's the people who used to drive no-longer-available big-barge autos that have bought all the big SUVs and caused the huge increase in petrol usage;THEY are the ones spoiling it for you recreational users! And they didn't/don't use those big-barge autos for recreation.) Why should we small auto users be affected because of SUV/PU wasteful practices? Gas is no longer 30c a gal,and US driving practices need to change to reflect that.They haven't. I remember the 1973 gas lines,rationing(10 gal limit).And the Middle East would have less importance and negative political effects on us. I'm all for nuclear power and other methods of reducing petrol comsumption,but autos remains a large part of that usage,which DOES need to be reduced,and the only practical way to do that is to downsize vehicles,beginning with the most inefficient;large SUV/PUs. IOW,because of world conditions,things have to change. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Face facts;SUVs/PU trucks used as personal transpo are responsible for the > huge increase in US petrol consumption,and that needs to be addressed. Which is why CAFE, the legislation that ended up creating them, needs to be completely junked. > (note that the number of hunters/campers etc. hasn't really changed,it's > the people who used to drive no-longer-available big-barge autos that have > bought all the big SUVs and caused the huge increase in petrol usage;THEY > are the ones spoiling it for you recreational users! And they didn't/don't > use those big-barge autos for recreation.) Yep... the light truck market was about 15% of the new vehicle market before the mid 1980s when CAFE extinguished most of the large detroit iron. In the 1990s, it became 45% of the market or more. Those extra people weren't outdoorsmen. When I was growing up only one family on the street, a couple blocks away had what we now call an SUV.... they did a lot of camping, father was involved in the boy scouts, etc and so forth. They had a giant suburban. Another guy had a giant pickup truck... it had a equally huge camper that sat in the bed. It rarely moved except when it was used for its purpose. Passenger cars were just a lot more useful when they were bigger. When they got smaller for CAFE, that's when the SUV thing happened. CAFE is a flawed policy because it's a control freak policy that tries to tell people what they can buy. Get rid of CAFE... people will go back to large passenger cars. Which is being seen as the SUVs evolve into station wagons that cheat the system to be called 'light trucks'. > I'm all for nuclear power and other methods of reducing petrol > comsumption,but autos remains a large part of that usage,which DOES need to > be reduced,and the only practical way to do that is to downsize > vehicles,beginning with the most inefficient;large SUV/PUs. We could also just start exploiting oil that isn't taxpayer supported with foreign policy and use of the military. >>>>>> The answer is smaller vehicles >>>>>> and lower speeds. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >Only SIX times a year,they could RENT and save a lot of money in the >process. No, as explained already, they CAN'T! Rentals are unsuitable for hunting, both for the smooth tires and then there's the issue of maybe decorating the interior, possibly, with deer blood, depending on how things go. All kindza stuff could happen that would be incompatible with someone else owning the vehicle. >Instead,they pay a lot more for an oversize vehicle,and then pay >more for gas,and end up with a harder to drive and park vehicle,and waste >gas that is mostly imported. Hell, _I_ don't have any trouble driving or parking mine. >>>They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something >>>big. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Which MOST SUVs generally have, Not mine. I have ATV-style big-lug tires on it. It _don't_ get stuck! >people not wanting to put up with the noise >from knobby tires. Wimps. >And the ones with knobby tires are unsafe on regular >roads; Bullshit. >those tires don't have traction like road tires. So, you drive it a little different, leave more room, are more cautious on tight turns. But they're WAY better in snow conditions than the smooth tires. >(same for the >"jacked-up" "need the ground clearance" nonsense;unsuitable for public >roads. Your example of "hunting SUV/truck" is fairly uncommon. Come up to the Traverse City area around November 15 and look around at what people are driving, and you'll change your mind. Invasion of the SUVs and 4-wheel drive pickup trucks. >There's >where a "limited mileage/use" type of license would be practical. My hunting destination is 800 miles from my house. Has to do with _who_ I'm hunting _with_, not how good the hunting is. >OR,if there's a market for such rentals,they would be available for rent. There isn't, because everyone has their own, _and_ some people want to hunt 800 - 1000 miles from home. >For that matter,you could use a smaller,more efficient Jeep, Ain't that many Jeeps that are significantly smaller or more efficient than my Cherokee. >and have an >attached trailer to haul the 6x per year loads, I'm not pulling no damn trailer. That's its own sort of hell. >disconnect it for daily >driving. YOU go right ahead. I'm not doing it. >Heck,these days,they even make tiny camping trailers that can be >towed by small 4cyl.cars. Anyone that _wishes_ to choose this sort of travel mode are welcome to it, but nobody should be forced to. >> "all season" crap that will get your SUV stuck out on >> some unmaintained road where you went to chase Bambi, where it (and [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >I *NEVER* said that; Maybe not, but that's where the "You don't _NEEEEEEDDDDD_ the car / SUV / truck you want, so you can't have it 'cuz we're gonna pass a law" will eventually lead. >that's YOUR interpretation. Its fairly obvious that's where this is going. >Those big monsters SUCK GAS that we have to import, Bullshit. We don't _have_ to import a drop. We have the reserves and capability to drill our way right out of importing any oil at all. But thanks to leftist democrat enviro-whiners, we can't drill ANWAR, off-shore, and thousands of places where we _know_ there is oil, oil that is on AMERICAN soil, and can't build refineries to process it either, again because of leftist democrat enviro-whiners. >and their wasteful DAILY >use Sure its wasteful. That trip you want to go on, that is _not_ to work, you don't NEEEEDDDD to be doing that. Just go home, sit in front of the tube, be glad that you are allowed to serve the state. Comrade. > as personal transpo needs to be reduced,OR their efficiency increased >substantially. The efficiency thing is being worked on furiously. But if the government goes ripping all the money out of the American car industry by screwing with gas mileage standards and thus handing all the SUV business to the Japanese, that goal will never be achieved, at least not by the American auto industry. If they do that, we _could_ see the complete demise of the "big 3", and the remainder of our auto industry completely down the tubes. No more Ford, Chrysler, GM. Gone. Fini. It could happen. The American auto industry is _extremely_ fragile right now. Any sort of democrat attack on it could spell the end. >There would be beneficial side benefits,too. Maybe mandate >E85 for them? Watch the fuel station lines extend around the block for fuel that won't be delivered until the 2nd Tuesday of next week, because there's no way we can produce that much alcohol, not for years and years to come. >> Just watch the tube and be happy >> that you are allowed to serve the state. Comrade. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Face facts;SUVs/PU trucks used as personal transpo are responsible for the >huge increase in US petrol consumption,and that needs to be addressed. And the CAFE is responsible for the SUV's / PU's popularity. If the old Ford Country Squire station wagon could still be purchased, the SUV's / PU's _might_ not be so appealing. Then again, lotsa people have gotten _used_ to large, high vehicles where they can see forever. Tough to predict. >(note that the number of hunters/campers etc. hasn't really changed, Oh yes it has. More people are more affluent and can afford such a trip. There's tons and tons of hunters and campers. Camping is more attractive as a way for a lot of people to get the hell away from their telephones and the relatives and work-related calls that they don't want to deal with 24/7/365. >it's >the people who used to drive no-longer-available big-barge autos that have >bought all the big SUVs No, the yesteryear station-wagon buyers are the SUV buyers now. >and caused the huge increase in petrol usage; Yes. If it wasn't for CAFE totally hosing the station wagon market, they'd probably still be buying station wagons. >THEY >are the ones spoiling it for you recreational users! And the bone-head government regulators, acting at the behest of the leftist democrat enviro-whiners, are the ones that have spoiled the market by removing the vehicles that the current SUV-buyers really wanted - big station wagons. >And they didn't/don't >use those big-barge autos for recreation.) >Why should we small auto users be affected because of SUV/PU wasteful >practices? 'Cuz you didn't do enough to oppose the government meddling in the marketplace that gave rise to the desire for SUVs and pickups. >Gas is no longer 30c a gal,and US driving practices need to >change to reflect that.They haven't. Yep. Nobody wants to just go to work, come back, flop down in front of the tube, and stay there 'til its time to go to work again. But that's what all this "conservation" will lead to... >I remember the 1973 gas >lines,rationing(10 gal limit).And the Middle East would have less >importance and negative political effects on us. It would now, if the leftist democrat enviro-whiners would get the hell out of the way and allow drilling wherever there is a drop of known oil, allow refineries to be built, allow nuclear power to be built, quit opposing power line construction, and just stop opposing.... >I'm all for nuclear power and other methods of reducing petrol Then you're one of the rare ones... >comsumption,but autos remains a large part of that usage,which DOES need to >be reduced, Come home, flop down in front of the tube, stay there... >and the only practical way to do that is to downsize >vehicles, Ain't happen'in, at least not without destroying the US auto industry. >beginning with the most inefficient;large SUV/PUs. Hand the market to Japan. Way to go... >IOW,because of world conditions,things have to change. We just need to invent a more efficient engine, http://www.scuderigroup.com/technology/the_technology.html a better hybrid drive, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/technology/420f04019.pdf etc. Dave Head >> They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something big. > No, you can't. Try going hunting in a rental SUV. Rental SUV's have _smooth_ > tires - "all season" crap Then purchase a set of all terrain tires and a set of rims that will fit on your chosen rental SUV. You don't have to pay yearly registration or inspection fees, nor do you need to have liability insurance, nor do you need to pay property taxes on a set of tires and rims. >>> They could rent a big vehicle for the few times they NEED something big. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Then purchase a set of all terrain tires and a set of rims that will fit >on your chosen rental SUV. Doesn't do a damn thing for the fact that you can't drive the car you rent except in the state you rented it in, plus 3 or 4 surrounding states. Most of the rentals are like that. My hunting spot is 800 miles away. My camping spot is 1400 miles away. Plus, you buy wheels the right size for a Ford whatever this year, and next year your rental availability is GM - different bolt circle, different diameter wheel, etc. Its just impractical. >You don't have to pay yearly registration or >inspection fees, nor do you need to have liability insurance, nor do you >need to pay property taxes on a set of tires and rims. Just not worth it. Plus, by owning my SUV, I _have_ it when the sh.t hits the fan. Hurricane knock down a tree out of my only access to my place? I have a 7 hp chainsaw with a 36" bar, that I can throw in the Jeep, and when I've cut a section out of the tree big enough for the Jeep to get thru, I can drag it out of the way with the Jeep. I may or may not even be able to transport the saw with some smaller cars. Dave Head >>> No, you can't. Try going hunting in a rental SUV. Rental SUV's have _smooth_ >>> tires - "all season" crap >> Then purchase a set of all terrain tires and a set of rims that will fit >> on your chosen rental SUV. > Doesn't do a damn thing for the fact that you can't drive the car you rent > except in the state you rented it in, plus 3 or 4 surrounding states. Most of > the rentals are like that. My hunting spot is 800 miles away. My camping spot > is 1400 miles away. Given where you live, I'm sure there are plenty of camping and hunting spots in MD, WV, PA, VA, and possibly NC that are a lot closer than the distances you quoted. > Plus, you buy wheels the right size for a Ford whatever this year, and next > year your rental availability is GM - different bolt circle, different diameter > wheel, etc. Its just impractical. How many sets of rims and tires can one buy before it gets more expensive than the cost of a car, taxes, and fees? > Plus, by owning my SUV, I _have_ it when the sh.t hits the fan. Hurricane > knock down a tree out of my only access to my place? I'm not quite sure how close to the coast you are, but a hurricane is a very rare event in my area. The last tropical storm that came through my location was 15 years ago. > I may or may not even be able to transport the saw with some smaller cars. These contrived scenarios are losing their amusement value. >>>> No, you can't. Try going hunting in a rental SUV. Rental SUV's have _smooth_ >>>> tires - "all season" crap [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >spots in MD, WV, PA, VA, and possibly NC that are a lot closer than the >distances you quoted. Yep, but you probably missed the part about it being _who_ I'm hunting with, and not that there's particularly anything special about N. Michigan. >> Plus, you buy wheels the right size for a Ford whatever this year, and next >> year your rental availability is GM - different bolt circle, different diameter >> wheel, etc. Its just impractical. > >How many sets of rims and tires can one buy before it gets more >expensive than the cost of a car, taxes, and fees? Not many. My old Jeep just doesn't cost me that much any more. My insurance differance probably isn't $30 a month, and the taxes are about $50. >> Plus, by owning my SUV, I _have_ it when the sh.t hits the fan. Hurricane >> knock down a tree out of my only access to my place? > >I'm not quite sure how close to the coast you are, but a hurricane is a >very rare event in my area. The last tropical storm that came through >my location was 15 years ago. Hurricane, torando, big wind, excessive snow, all sorts of stuff that the Jeep handles and the typical rollerskate will not. Hurricane Isabelle took down the power for 2 weeks here, and trees were down all over the place. I was out doing ham radio communications... with the Jeep. Didn't really run across anything I needed the Jeep or the saw for, but had I needed it, I had it. Others _did_ need 'em, and some didn't have 'em. Oh, and BTW, my Jeep has the installation for my low band ham radio - 2 antennas, one on each side, can cover most of the ham bands. It took me a couple days to get that installed, tearing down the headliner, running cables, etc. No way you |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message