Ethanol in Grand Cherokee
02-15-2006, 09:28 AM
#191
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Ethanol in Grand Cherokee
I'm afraid Bret is right. I used castor "bean" oil in racing motors long before
the synthetics like Mobile and Amsoil became available. Castrol R was just one
of several brands.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote ...
> You won't find a connection between castorbean and Castrol oil:
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > I saw a big Harley hog at the E85 pump the other day .....
the synthetics like Mobile and Amsoil became available. Castrol R was just one
of several brands.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote ...
> You won't find a connection between castorbean and Castrol oil:
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > I saw a big Harley hog at the E85 pump the other day .....
02-15-2006, 09:28 AM
#192
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Ethanol in Grand Cherokee
I'm afraid Bret is right. I used castor "bean" oil in racing motors long before
the synthetics like Mobile and Amsoil became available. Castrol R was just one
of several brands.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote ...
> You won't find a connection between castorbean and Castrol oil:
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > I saw a big Harley hog at the E85 pump the other day .....
the synthetics like Mobile and Amsoil became available. Castrol R was just one
of several brands.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote ...
> You won't find a connection between castorbean and Castrol oil:
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > I saw a big Harley hog at the E85 pump the other day .....
02-15-2006, 09:28 AM
#193
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Ethanol in Grand Cherokee
I'm afraid Bret is right. I used castor "bean" oil in racing motors long before
the synthetics like Mobile and Amsoil became available. Castrol R was just one
of several brands.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote ...
> You won't find a connection between castorbean and Castrol oil:
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > I saw a big Harley hog at the E85 pump the other day .....
the synthetics like Mobile and Amsoil became available. Castrol R was just one
of several brands.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote ...
> You won't find a connection between castorbean and Castrol oil:
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > I saw a big Harley hog at the E85 pump the other day .....
02-15-2006, 10:17 AM
#194
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Ethanol in Grand Cherokee
In article <1139965287.536907.183760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
Bret Ludwig <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote:
# The fact is taxing gasoline and diesel fuel is the single most
#efficient and fair way to finance roads there is.
No. It's not. Take for example the Toyota Prius. It gets really
good mileage. So for the number of miles driven--and the wear and
tear on the roads that it causes, the Prius owner pays a lot less
tax per mile driven than, say, the guy who gets 10 mpg out of his
V-12.
In fact, CA wants to figure out a way to track the mileage of cars
so that they can get more money out of the hybrid owners at the
pump. My guess on this is that they will probably track it at your
smog check and send you a bill for the miles driven--even if they
were not in the state, or they will require tracking transceivers
in all vehicles to log where you are going.
# The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
#weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
#Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
#something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
#truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
#ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
#proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
#more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
#the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.
This is very true. And I am sure money hungry states will be looking
at this as a justification to tax by type of vehicle as well as by the
number of miles driven and the number of gallons of fuel bought...
/herb
Bret Ludwig <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote:
# The fact is taxing gasoline and diesel fuel is the single most
#efficient and fair way to finance roads there is.
No. It's not. Take for example the Toyota Prius. It gets really
good mileage. So for the number of miles driven--and the wear and
tear on the roads that it causes, the Prius owner pays a lot less
tax per mile driven than, say, the guy who gets 10 mpg out of his
V-12.
In fact, CA wants to figure out a way to track the mileage of cars
so that they can get more money out of the hybrid owners at the
pump. My guess on this is that they will probably track it at your
smog check and send you a bill for the miles driven--even if they
were not in the state, or they will require tracking transceivers
in all vehicles to log where you are going.
# The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
#weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
#Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
#something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
#truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
#ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
#proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
#more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
#the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.
This is very true. And I am sure money hungry states will be looking
at this as a justification to tax by type of vehicle as well as by the
number of miles driven and the number of gallons of fuel bought...
/herb
02-15-2006, 10:17 AM
#195
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Ethanol in Grand Cherokee
In article <1139965287.536907.183760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
Bret Ludwig <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote:
# The fact is taxing gasoline and diesel fuel is the single most
#efficient and fair way to finance roads there is.
No. It's not. Take for example the Toyota Prius. It gets really
good mileage. So for the number of miles driven--and the wear and
tear on the roads that it causes, the Prius owner pays a lot less
tax per mile driven than, say, the guy who gets 10 mpg out of his
V-12.
In fact, CA wants to figure out a way to track the mileage of cars
so that they can get more money out of the hybrid owners at the
pump. My guess on this is that they will probably track it at your
smog check and send you a bill for the miles driven--even if they
were not in the state, or they will require tracking transceivers
in all vehicles to log where you are going.
# The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
#weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
#Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
#something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
#truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
#ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
#proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
#more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
#the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.
This is very true. And I am sure money hungry states will be looking
at this as a justification to tax by type of vehicle as well as by the
number of miles driven and the number of gallons of fuel bought...
/herb
Bret Ludwig <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote:
# The fact is taxing gasoline and diesel fuel is the single most
#efficient and fair way to finance roads there is.
No. It's not. Take for example the Toyota Prius. It gets really
good mileage. So for the number of miles driven--and the wear and
tear on the roads that it causes, the Prius owner pays a lot less
tax per mile driven than, say, the guy who gets 10 mpg out of his
V-12.
In fact, CA wants to figure out a way to track the mileage of cars
so that they can get more money out of the hybrid owners at the
pump. My guess on this is that they will probably track it at your
smog check and send you a bill for the miles driven--even if they
were not in the state, or they will require tracking transceivers
in all vehicles to log where you are going.
# The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
#weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
#Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
#something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
#truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
#ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
#proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
#more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
#the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.
This is very true. And I am sure money hungry states will be looking
at this as a justification to tax by type of vehicle as well as by the
number of miles driven and the number of gallons of fuel bought...
/herb
02-15-2006, 10:17 AM
#196
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Ethanol in Grand Cherokee
In article <1139965287.536907.183760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
Bret Ludwig <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote:
# The fact is taxing gasoline and diesel fuel is the single most
#efficient and fair way to finance roads there is.
No. It's not. Take for example the Toyota Prius. It gets really
good mileage. So for the number of miles driven--and the wear and
tear on the roads that it causes, the Prius owner pays a lot less
tax per mile driven than, say, the guy who gets 10 mpg out of his
V-12.
In fact, CA wants to figure out a way to track the mileage of cars
so that they can get more money out of the hybrid owners at the
pump. My guess on this is that they will probably track it at your
smog check and send you a bill for the miles driven--even if they
were not in the state, or they will require tracking transceivers
in all vehicles to log where you are going.
# The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
#weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
#Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
#something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
#truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
#ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
#proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
#more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
#the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.
This is very true. And I am sure money hungry states will be looking
at this as a justification to tax by type of vehicle as well as by the
number of miles driven and the number of gallons of fuel bought...
/herb
Bret Ludwig <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote:
# The fact is taxing gasoline and diesel fuel is the single most
#efficient and fair way to finance roads there is.
No. It's not. Take for example the Toyota Prius. It gets really
good mileage. So for the number of miles driven--and the wear and
tear on the roads that it causes, the Prius owner pays a lot less
tax per mile driven than, say, the guy who gets 10 mpg out of his
V-12.
In fact, CA wants to figure out a way to track the mileage of cars
so that they can get more money out of the hybrid owners at the
pump. My guess on this is that they will probably track it at your
smog check and send you a bill for the miles driven--even if they
were not in the state, or they will require tracking transceivers
in all vehicles to log where you are going.
# The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
#weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
#Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
#something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
#truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
#ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
#proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
#more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
#the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.
This is very true. And I am sure money hungry states will be looking
at this as a justification to tax by type of vehicle as well as by the
number of miles driven and the number of gallons of fuel bought...
/herb
02-15-2006, 10:17 AM
#197
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Ethanol in Grand Cherokee
In article <1139965287.536907.183760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
Bret Ludwig <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote:
# The fact is taxing gasoline and diesel fuel is the single most
#efficient and fair way to finance roads there is.
No. It's not. Take for example the Toyota Prius. It gets really
good mileage. So for the number of miles driven--and the wear and
tear on the roads that it causes, the Prius owner pays a lot less
tax per mile driven than, say, the guy who gets 10 mpg out of his
V-12.
In fact, CA wants to figure out a way to track the mileage of cars
so that they can get more money out of the hybrid owners at the
pump. My guess on this is that they will probably track it at your
smog check and send you a bill for the miles driven--even if they
were not in the state, or they will require tracking transceivers
in all vehicles to log where you are going.
# The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
#weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
#Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
#something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
#truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
#ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
#proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
#more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
#the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.
This is very true. And I am sure money hungry states will be looking
at this as a justification to tax by type of vehicle as well as by the
number of miles driven and the number of gallons of fuel bought...
/herb
Bret Ludwig <bretldwig@yahoo.com> wrote:
# The fact is taxing gasoline and diesel fuel is the single most
#efficient and fair way to finance roads there is.
No. It's not. Take for example the Toyota Prius. It gets really
good mileage. So for the number of miles driven--and the wear and
tear on the roads that it causes, the Prius owner pays a lot less
tax per mile driven than, say, the guy who gets 10 mpg out of his
V-12.
In fact, CA wants to figure out a way to track the mileage of cars
so that they can get more money out of the hybrid owners at the
pump. My guess on this is that they will probably track it at your
smog check and send you a bill for the miles driven--even if they
were not in the state, or they will require tracking transceivers
in all vehicles to log where you are going.
# The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
#weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
#Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
#something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
#truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
#ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
#proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
#more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
#the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.
This is very true. And I am sure money hungry states will be looking
at this as a justification to tax by type of vehicle as well as by the
number of miles driven and the number of gallons of fuel bought...
/herb
02-15-2006, 02:09 PM
#198
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Ethanol in Grand Cherokee
Of course no one likes to have to pay more than someone else. But then
again, no one likes to be subsidizing someone else, either. Your trip
ticket might have been paying part of the share of those with the tag.
Depending on whose ax is being ground and whose ox is being gored, one
big truck causes the same amount of pavement wear in one trip as
somewhere between 5,000 and 20,000 passenger vehicles.
Of course like so many other things, it all depends. In this case it
depends on tire pressure, axle loading, axle spacing, suspension type,
lane wander, cross-section pitch, highway type, highway age and other
things. Surprisingly, GVW doesn't matter as much as axle load. What
matters is how many pounds of weight are where the tire meets the pavement.
<http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/5000/5900/5940/final.pdf> or, as HTML:
<http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:RLtfEHGDJZ8J:ntl.bts.gov/lib/5000/5900/5940/final.pdf+%22cost+allocation+study%22+ESAL&hl=en&g l=us&ct=clnk&cd=1>
Page down to pg 17 and look at "Table ES-3. 2000 Federal Over and
Underpayments by 20 Vehicle Classes". It shows what certain types of
vehicles underpay or overpay their share of highway costs to the US
Federal government. Some commercial vehicles are overpaying.
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Truckers if they don't have the prorated Arizona tag must pay at
> their boarder seventy five bucks each time they go the hundred miles to
> Phoenix. And that just one of the many excise taxes I PAID! So don't
> wrote that ignorant bullsh*t!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>> The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
>>weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
>>Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
>>something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
>>truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
>>ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
>>proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
>>more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
>>the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.
02-15-2006, 02:09 PM
#199
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Ethanol in Grand Cherokee
Of course no one likes to have to pay more than someone else. But then
again, no one likes to be subsidizing someone else, either. Your trip
ticket might have been paying part of the share of those with the tag.
Depending on whose ax is being ground and whose ox is being gored, one
big truck causes the same amount of pavement wear in one trip as
somewhere between 5,000 and 20,000 passenger vehicles.
Of course like so many other things, it all depends. In this case it
depends on tire pressure, axle loading, axle spacing, suspension type,
lane wander, cross-section pitch, highway type, highway age and other
things. Surprisingly, GVW doesn't matter as much as axle load. What
matters is how many pounds of weight are where the tire meets the pavement.
<http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/5000/5900/5940/final.pdf> or, as HTML:
<http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:RLtfEHGDJZ8J:ntl.bts.gov/lib/5000/5900/5940/final.pdf+%22cost+allocation+study%22+ESAL&hl=en&g l=us&ct=clnk&cd=1>
Page down to pg 17 and look at "Table ES-3. 2000 Federal Over and
Underpayments by 20 Vehicle Classes". It shows what certain types of
vehicles underpay or overpay their share of highway costs to the US
Federal government. Some commercial vehicles are overpaying.
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Truckers if they don't have the prorated Arizona tag must pay at
> their boarder seventy five bucks each time they go the hundred miles to
> Phoenix. And that just one of the many excise taxes I PAID! So don't
> wrote that ignorant bullsh*t!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>> The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
>>weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
>>Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
>>something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
>>truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
>>ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
>>proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
>>more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
>>the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.
02-15-2006, 02:09 PM
#200
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Ethanol in Grand Cherokee
Of course no one likes to have to pay more than someone else. But then
again, no one likes to be subsidizing someone else, either. Your trip
ticket might have been paying part of the share of those with the tag.
Depending on whose ax is being ground and whose ox is being gored, one
big truck causes the same amount of pavement wear in one trip as
somewhere between 5,000 and 20,000 passenger vehicles.
Of course like so many other things, it all depends. In this case it
depends on tire pressure, axle loading, axle spacing, suspension type,
lane wander, cross-section pitch, highway type, highway age and other
things. Surprisingly, GVW doesn't matter as much as axle load. What
matters is how many pounds of weight are where the tire meets the pavement.
<http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/5000/5900/5940/final.pdf> or, as HTML:
<http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:RLtfEHGDJZ8J:ntl.bts.gov/lib/5000/5900/5940/final.pdf+%22cost+allocation+study%22+ESAL&hl=en&g l=us&ct=clnk&cd=1>
Page down to pg 17 and look at "Table ES-3. 2000 Federal Over and
Underpayments by 20 Vehicle Classes". It shows what certain types of
vehicles underpay or overpay their share of highway costs to the US
Federal government. Some commercial vehicles are overpaying.
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Truckers if they don't have the prorated Arizona tag must pay at
> their boarder seventy five bucks each time they go the hundred miles to
> Phoenix. And that just one of the many excise taxes I PAID! So don't
> wrote that ignorant bullsh*t!
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>> The other problem is that vehicles wear roads disproportionately as to
>>weight. A 1974 Cadillac Eldorado doesn't wear roads any more than a
>>Toyota Tercel, but a tractor trailer at 80,000 lbs wears them at
>>something like thirty times the rate of the Cadillac. The speed of the
>>truck and the distance between the driver and trailer tandems puts a
>>ripple on the road at a certain pitch or length. If trucks paid their
>>proportional share of road wear and services trucking would be much
>>more expensive. Efficient regional railroads, not the highways, are
>>the cheapest and most efficient way to move heavy freight.
