"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NWWkb.321159$mp.260368@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att. net...
> In article <o1d8pv8jv6rfrdhdlkpno562ibok77emfa@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:34:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>In article <bmuf8j02h0d@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> >> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >>>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs
that
> >>>SELL
> >>>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they
don't
> >>>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
> >>>
> >>>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you
think?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
> >
> > Ah, yes.
> > The standard Liberal resposte: "That can't be so, becasue it doesn't
> > adhere to my ideas."
>
> Don't you find it odd that Dr. Parker drives a MB, yet favors CAFE?
> What is MB's CAFE rating these days anyway?

I find everything about Lloyd odd. I'd killfile him if I didn't like
watching him squirm so much.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn0v7b$pdq$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vp5a8h8mqk63df@corp.supernews.com>,
> "CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >
> >"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
> >news:g4fkb.1747$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.
>
>

No, because they are still trucks, and trucks that are used for commercial
applications and trucks that are used to ferry kids around town look exactly
the same, except the trucks that haul kids seldom have paint, cement,
wallpaper spackle, or other such splashes of the job all over the outside.

I think people with your agenda to abolish large passenger cars simply
failed to understand that the buyers were still out there even after the
products they wanted were not, and you failed to understand the automakers
would respond to the demand for large cars by giving us passenger trucks.
What you repeatedly fail to recognize is that people, families, want large
cars for whatever reason. You need to get these buyers into a vehicle that
is acceptable to them first, and acceptable to you second. If you don't like
the truck-based vehicles that consumers are going after today, then you need
to get them into the car-based vehicles of yesteryear. Or, you need to shut
up and leave people alone, and stop imposing your value system upon the rest
of society.




> >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.

I don't have any idea of what the guy or gal in the next lane was doing
before they got into the next lane, or after they get out of it.

I would agree that if I used an SUV the way I see many of them get used,
they don't make much sense. But, what if the time I see them is when they
are being used for the Exception Runs, instead of the Regular Use that the
buyer had in mind when they bought the SUV?

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn0v7b$pdq$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vp5a8h8mqk63df@corp.supernews.com>,
> "CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >
> >"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
> >news:g4fkb.1747$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.
>
>

No, because they are still trucks, and trucks that are used for commercial
applications and trucks that are used to ferry kids around town look exactly
the same, except the trucks that haul kids seldom have paint, cement,
wallpaper spackle, or other such splashes of the job all over the outside.

I think people with your agenda to abolish large passenger cars simply
failed to understand that the buyers were still out there even after the
products they wanted were not, and you failed to understand the automakers
would respond to the demand for large cars by giving us passenger trucks.
What you repeatedly fail to recognize is that people, families, want large
cars for whatever reason. You need to get these buyers into a vehicle that
is acceptable to them first, and acceptable to you second. If you don't like
the truck-based vehicles that consumers are going after today, then you need
to get them into the car-based vehicles of yesteryear. Or, you need to shut
up and leave people alone, and stop imposing your value system upon the rest
of society.




> >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.

I don't have any idea of what the guy or gal in the next lane was doing
before they got into the next lane, or after they get out of it.

I would agree that if I used an SUV the way I see many of them get used,
they don't make much sense. But, what if the time I see them is when they
are being used for the Exception Runs, instead of the Regular Use that the
buyer had in mind when they bought the SUV?

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn0v7b$pdq$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vp5a8h8mqk63df@corp.supernews.com>,
> "CRWLR" <CRWLRJEFF@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >
> >"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
> >news:g4fkb.1747$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.
>
>

No, because they are still trucks, and trucks that are used for commercial
applications and trucks that are used to ferry kids around town look exactly
the same, except the trucks that haul kids seldom have paint, cement,
wallpaper spackle, or other such splashes of the job all over the outside.

I think people with your agenda to abolish large passenger cars simply
failed to understand that the buyers were still out there even after the
products they wanted were not, and you failed to understand the automakers
would respond to the demand for large cars by giving us passenger trucks.
What you repeatedly fail to recognize is that people, families, want large
cars for whatever reason. You need to get these buyers into a vehicle that
is acceptable to them first, and acceptable to you second. If you don't like
the truck-based vehicles that consumers are going after today, then you need
to get them into the car-based vehicles of yesteryear. Or, you need to shut
up and leave people alone, and stop imposing your value system upon the rest
of society.




> >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.

I don't have any idea of what the guy or gal in the next lane was doing
before they got into the next lane, or after they get out of it.

I would agree that if I used an SUV the way I see many of them get used,
they don't make much sense. But, what if the time I see them is when they
are being used for the Exception Runs, instead of the Regular Use that the
buyer had in mind when they bought the SUV?

 

Aardwolf wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair.
>
>
> All right, poor choice of words. But a whole lot more equitable than what we have
> now, that I'll stand behind.
>
>
>
>>Taxing gas is unfair to
>>people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
>>average.
>
>
> So is charging for gas, by that measure.

No, because people in the city tend to pay for other things instead of
transportation costs. If you tax only gasoline, you are unfairly
penalizing rural folks. If you also tax rides on mass transit, in
taxis, etc., then you might get closer to equitable, but you will never
be completely fair ... just too many variables involved.


Matt

 

Aardwolf wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair.
>
>
> All right, poor choice of words. But a whole lot more equitable than what we have
> now, that I'll stand behind.
>
>
>
>>Taxing gas is unfair to
>>people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
>>average.
>
>
> So is charging for gas, by that measure.

No, because people in the city tend to pay for other things instead of
transportation costs. If you tax only gasoline, you are unfairly
penalizing rural folks. If you also tax rides on mass transit, in
taxis, etc., then you might get closer to equitable, but you will never
be completely fair ... just too many variables involved.


Matt

 

Aardwolf wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair.
>
>
> All right, poor choice of words. But a whole lot more equitable than what we have
> now, that I'll stand behind.
>
>
>
>>Taxing gas is unfair to
>>people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
>>average.
>
>
> So is charging for gas, by that measure.

No, because people in the city tend to pay for other things instead of
transportation costs. If you tax only gasoline, you are unfairly
penalizing rural folks. If you also tax rides on mass transit, in
taxis, etc., then you might get closer to equitable, but you will never
be completely fair ... just too many variables involved.


Matt

 

Dave C. wrote:
>>They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
>>Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
>>and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
>>Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
>>estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>>
>
>
>
> That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
> the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
> I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
> the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
>
>

My Jeep Comanche consistently matched or exceeded the EPA estimate (it
got 24 mPG) and my Chevy K1500 doesn't quite match the EPA estimate (it
gets 16 and I think the EPA highway rating was 17 or maybe 18), but it
is off by only 10% or so. And most of that is because I've added a lot
of weight to it - fiberglass cap, receiver hitch, snowplow, running
boards, etc. It got close to the EPA highway rating when it was new and
before I added all the stuff.


Matt

 

Dave C. wrote:
>>They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
>>Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
>>and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
>>Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
>>estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>>
>
>
>
> That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
> the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
> I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
> the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
>
>

My Jeep Comanche consistently matched or exceeded the EPA estimate (it
got 24 mPG) and my Chevy K1500 doesn't quite match the EPA estimate (it
gets 16 and I think the EPA highway rating was 17 or maybe 18), but it
is off by only 10% or so. And most of that is because I've added a lot
of weight to it - fiberglass cap, receiver hitch, snowplow, running
boards, etc. It got close to the EPA highway rating when it was new and
before I added all the stuff.


Matt

 

Dave C. wrote:
>>They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
>>Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
>>and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
>>Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
>>estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>>
>
>
>
> That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
> the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
> I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
> the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
>
>

My Jeep Comanche consistently matched or exceeded the EPA estimate (it
got 24 mPG) and my Chevy K1500 doesn't quite match the EPA estimate (it
gets 16 and I think the EPA highway rating was 17 or maybe 18), but it
is off by only 10% or so. And most of that is because I've added a lot
of weight to it - fiberglass cap, receiver hitch, snowplow, running
boards, etc. It got close to the EPA highway rating when it was new and
before I added all the stuff.


Matt