Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-20-2003, 07:26 AM
#1091
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>
>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
problem--probably
>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply
do
>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
>--Aardwolf
>
>
Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>
>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
problem--probably
>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply
do
>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
>--Aardwolf
>
>
Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
10-20-2003, 07:26 AM
#1092
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>
>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
problem--probably
>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply
do
>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
>--Aardwolf
>
>
Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>
>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
problem--probably
>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply
do
>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
>--Aardwolf
>
>
Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
10-20-2003, 07:26 AM
#1093
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>
>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
problem--probably
>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply
do
>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
>--Aardwolf
>
>
Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>
>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
>> year
>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>> one
>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>
>
>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
problem--probably
>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old simply
do
>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily drivers
>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand new
>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>
>--Aardwolf
>
>
Totally false. Why do you think auto makers went to catalytic converters?
10-20-2003, 07:27 AM
#1094
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
no
>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
produced.
>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
Australia.
>Unfortunately it won't fly.
OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
value, as is done now in a lot of states.
>
>So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of
existance
>(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
>raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg,
they
>should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient
large
>cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers
would
>still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity
have
>to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those
that
>aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
>manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying
huge
>fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models
here--but
>they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
>added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
>
>What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
>change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is
to
>mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it
comes
>on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this
should
>make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
>horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures,
with
>no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
>rise _significantly_.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
no
>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
produced.
>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
Australia.
>Unfortunately it won't fly.
OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
value, as is done now in a lot of states.
>
>So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of
existance
>(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
>raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg,
they
>should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient
large
>cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers
would
>still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity
have
>to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those
that
>aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
>manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying
huge
>fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models
here--but
>they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
>added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
>
>What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
>change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is
to
>mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it
comes
>on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this
should
>make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
>horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures,
with
>no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
>rise _significantly_.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
10-20-2003, 07:27 AM
#1095
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
no
>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
produced.
>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
Australia.
>Unfortunately it won't fly.
OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
value, as is done now in a lot of states.
>
>So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of
existance
>(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
>raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg,
they
>should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient
large
>cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers
would
>still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity
have
>to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those
that
>aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
>manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying
huge
>fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models
here--but
>they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
>added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
>
>What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
>change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is
to
>mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it
comes
>on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this
should
>make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
>horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures,
with
>no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
>rise _significantly_.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
no
>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
produced.
>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
Australia.
>Unfortunately it won't fly.
OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
value, as is done now in a lot of states.
>
>So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of
existance
>(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
>raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg,
they
>should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient
large
>cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers
would
>still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity
have
>to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those
that
>aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
>manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying
huge
>fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models
here--but
>they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
>added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
>
>What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
>change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is
to
>mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it
comes
>on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this
should
>make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
>horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures,
with
>no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
>rise _significantly_.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
10-20-2003, 07:27 AM
#1096
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F923A5A.863A80EE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
no
>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
produced.
>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
Australia.
>Unfortunately it won't fly.
OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
value, as is done now in a lot of states.
>
>So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of
existance
>(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
>raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg,
they
>should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient
large
>cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers
would
>still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity
have
>to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those
that
>aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
>manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying
huge
>fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models
here--but
>they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
>added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
>
>What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
>change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is
to
>mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it
comes
>on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this
should
>make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
>horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures,
with
>no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
>rise _significantly_.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
>> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use,
no
>arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be
produced.
>Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
>day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
>double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in
Australia.
>Unfortunately it won't fly.
OK. You could also base car registration fees on gas mileage instead of
value, as is done now in a lot of states.
>
>So instead of legislating comfortable, solid, useful vehicles out of
existance
>(even a V6 Ford Contour won't pass CAFE standards as they stand), much less
>raising them, especially to ludicrously unrealistic standards like 45 mpg,
they
>should all be lowered to current truck standards to let much more efficient
large
>cars back into the market. Or eliminated entirely--domestic manufacturers
would
>still have to compete with European and Japanese imports, which of necessity
have
>to be designed to be economical enough to sell in their home markets. Those
that
>aren't specifically designed for U.S. export that is--the high end German
>manufacturers are some of the "worst" violators of U.S. CAFE laws, paying
huge
>fines relative to sales figures, for peddling their big-engined models
here--but
>they're only providing what the customer wants, the only problem is that the
>added cost incurred won't fly in the $25,000 Chevy market.
>
>What should be and more to the point _could_ be done to make a large positive
>change very quickly, in terms of both fuel efficiency and vehicle choice is
to
>mandate the use of variable cylinder displacement technology as soon as it
comes
>on line (Chrysler and GM at least are already about to intoduce it), this
should
>make it possible to get highway milage figures of 40+ mpg out of a 400
>horsepower, 5.7 liter V8, and similar (proportional) city mileage figures,
with
>no loss in maximum available power. The fleet fuel efficiency averages would
>rise _significantly_.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
10-20-2003, 07:28 AM
#1097
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>>
>> Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>> > running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
drivers
>> > anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
new
>> > car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>> > pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>> You are generally correct.... but...
>> '68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
>> '68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
>> same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
>> of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
>> was in 1995 or 96.
>
>I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just
_comparing_ it to
>them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a
gross
>polluter.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
>
>
>Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>>
>> Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>> > running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
drivers
>> > anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
new
>> > car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>> > pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>> You are generally correct.... but...
>> '68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
>> '68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
>> same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
>> of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
>> was in 1995 or 96.
>
>I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just
_comparing_ it to
>them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a
gross
>polluter.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
10-20-2003, 07:28 AM
#1098
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>>
>> Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>> > running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
drivers
>> > anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
new
>> > car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>> > pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>> You are generally correct.... but...
>> '68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
>> '68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
>> same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
>> of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
>> was in 1995 or 96.
>
>I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just
_comparing_ it to
>them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a
gross
>polluter.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
>
>
>Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>>
>> Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>> > running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
drivers
>> > anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
new
>> > car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>> > pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>> You are generally correct.... but...
>> '68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
>> '68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
>> same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
>> of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
>> was in 1995 or 96.
>
>I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just
_comparing_ it to
>them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a
gross
>polluter.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
10-20-2003, 07:28 AM
#1099
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>>
>> Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>> > running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
drivers
>> > anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
new
>> > car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>> > pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>> You are generally correct.... but...
>> '68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
>> '68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
>> same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
>> of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
>> was in 1995 or 96.
>
>I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just
_comparing_ it to
>them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a
gross
>polluter.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
>
>
>Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com>, Aardwolf wrote:
>>
>> Even a 1968 Hemi Charger,
>> > running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
drivers
>> > anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
new
>> > car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>> > pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>> You are generally correct.... but...
>> '68 is a little too far back, it would be impossible to get a stock
>> '68 to current new car levels. But it would probably be about the
>> same as an SUV on cold day. Back when IL had the same test for cars
>> of all years, my '73 had test results similiar to a '94 S10. this
>> was in 1995 or 96.
>
>I wasn't referring to it actually _meeting_ new car standards, just
_comparing_ it to
>them and then contrasting that with whatever is coming out of the pipe of a
gross
>polluter.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
Today's cars put out less than 1% of the emissions that 68 did.
10-20-2003, 07:33 AM
#1100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <vp5a8h8mqk63df@corp.supernews.com>,
"CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>> >
>> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>> each
>> > year
>> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>> > one
>> > thing are balanced by the other.
>> >
>> > Ted
>>
>> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
>less
>> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
>CAFE,
>> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>> replaced them.
>>
>> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
>AND
>> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>> ymore. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>You are entirely correct, except perhaps the cause and effect is slightly
>different, or maybe I have another byproduct of CAFE to add.
>
>CAFE has taken buyers of cars and turned them into buyers of trucks. I
>specifically remember the arguments of the early to mid '70s where families
>that wanted to drive around in Crown Victoria Stationwagons with 427 ci
>engines were frowned upon to the point that Detroit stopped building them.
>It seemed to me at the time that the idea of people like Lloyd was that if
>we could get rid of the Crown Vic stationwagons, then we wouldn't have
>problems associated with these kinds of cars. What people like Lloyd seem ot
>forget is that families need the space ot haul children and groceries, and
>getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
>were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
>point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they were
>no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.
>
>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>not play.
And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
are used.
>And certainly not for hauling families around town, let alone the
>countryside. We didn't want or need to impose the same kinds of standards on
>truck as we developed for cars because the things that make cars safer make
>trucks weaker and more costly. Since truck buyers were working class
>consumers, we didn't want to impose costly standards on them that didn't do
>anything to help the work they were doing.
>
>Obviously, truck buyers today are not the same as they were in the '70s and
>early '80s. But, a large part of this is because of people with an agenda
>like Lloyd has. Since we have managed to push a huge segment of car buyers
>into the truck marketplace by eliminating the cars that people need and
>want, then we have created a consumer that is forced to forgo safety and
>economy for size. There have been significant improvements in engine
>technology, and that 427 ci carburated engine of the '70s has gone from
>giving 7 ~ 10 mpg to being capable of delivering 15 ~ 20 mpg. While still
>short of the 40 ~ 60 mpg that Lloyd thinks is a reasonable figure, it is
>double what we could get in years past.
>
>Another thing that Lloyd will never admit is the concept of Passenger Miles
>Per Gallon. If a car that can carry 2 passengers gets 30 mpg, then we
>realize a PMPG of 60. That is, two people that go 30 miles on the same
>gallon of gass go 60 PMPG. An SUV that gets 15 mpg, and is carrying 7 people
>is getting 105 PMPG. This is a pretty good bargain, if you ask me. If a car
>that gets 30 mpg can carry 4 people, then it will deliver 120 PMPG, but it
>takes two of them to get the seven passengers where they need to go.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
But most SUVs are used for solo commuting (note how few of them can drive in
an HOV lane), or running errands. Buying an 8-mpg behemoth for the one time a
year you may need to carry 8 people, as I said earlier, is like buying a Cray
supercomputer for your desktop just in case you need to decrypt a message from
Andromeda.
"CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
>"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>news:g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> > > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
>has
>> > > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>> >
>> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
>vehicles
>> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>> each
>> > year
>> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
>by
>> > one
>> > thing are balanced by the other.
>> >
>> > Ted
>>
>> You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
>less
>> fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
>CAFE,
>> those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>> allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>> AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>> replaced them.
>>
>> In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
>AND
>> by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>> trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>> ymore. -Dave
>>
>>
>
>You are entirely correct, except perhaps the cause and effect is slightly
>different, or maybe I have another byproduct of CAFE to add.
>
>CAFE has taken buyers of cars and turned them into buyers of trucks. I
>specifically remember the arguments of the early to mid '70s where families
>that wanted to drive around in Crown Victoria Stationwagons with 427 ci
>engines were frowned upon to the point that Detroit stopped building them.
>It seemed to me at the time that the idea of people like Lloyd was that if
>we could get rid of the Crown Vic stationwagons, then we wouldn't have
>problems associated with these kinds of cars. What people like Lloyd seem ot
>forget is that families need the space ot haul children and groceries, and
>getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
>were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
>point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they were
>no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.
>
>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>not play.
And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
are used.
>And certainly not for hauling families around town, let alone the
>countryside. We didn't want or need to impose the same kinds of standards on
>truck as we developed for cars because the things that make cars safer make
>trucks weaker and more costly. Since truck buyers were working class
>consumers, we didn't want to impose costly standards on them that didn't do
>anything to help the work they were doing.
>
>Obviously, truck buyers today are not the same as they were in the '70s and
>early '80s. But, a large part of this is because of people with an agenda
>like Lloyd has. Since we have managed to push a huge segment of car buyers
>into the truck marketplace by eliminating the cars that people need and
>want, then we have created a consumer that is forced to forgo safety and
>economy for size. There have been significant improvements in engine
>technology, and that 427 ci carburated engine of the '70s has gone from
>giving 7 ~ 10 mpg to being capable of delivering 15 ~ 20 mpg. While still
>short of the 40 ~ 60 mpg that Lloyd thinks is a reasonable figure, it is
>double what we could get in years past.
>
>Another thing that Lloyd will never admit is the concept of Passenger Miles
>Per Gallon. If a car that can carry 2 passengers gets 30 mpg, then we
>realize a PMPG of 60. That is, two people that go 30 miles on the same
>gallon of gass go 60 PMPG. An SUV that gets 15 mpg, and is carrying 7 people
>is getting 105 PMPG. This is a pretty good bargain, if you ask me. If a car
>that gets 30 mpg can carry 4 people, then it will deliver 120 PMPG, but it
>takes two of them to get the seven passengers where they need to go.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
But most SUVs are used for solo commuting (note how few of them can drive in
an HOV lane), or running errands. Buying an 8-mpg behemoth for the one time a
year you may need to carry 8 people, as I said earlier, is like buying a Cray
supercomputer for your desktop just in case you need to decrypt a message from
Andromeda.
