Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-21-2003, 09:08 AM
#1411
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> 1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make up?
>
> 2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the magnitude of
> the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not false.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
its time for emissions inspection.
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>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?
>
>
> 1. What percentage of the current vehicle population do pre-1975 cars make up?
>
> 2. As to how clean they look, it's relative. It has to do with the magnitude of
> the stuff coming out the pipe of a gross polluter. Which is absolutely not false.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
its time for emissions inspection.
10-21-2003, 09:09 AM
#1412
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> Which doesn't change the veracity of my original statement.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
Thats why you have to modify the newer cars to get any power out of them.
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> Which doesn't change the veracity of my original statement.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
Thats why you have to modify the newer cars to get any power out of them.
10-21-2003, 09:09 AM
#1413
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> Which doesn't change the veracity of my original statement.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
Thats why you have to modify the newer cars to get any power out of them.
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> Which doesn't change the veracity of my original statement.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
Thats why you have to modify the newer cars to get any power out of them.
10-21-2003, 09:09 AM
#1414
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> Which doesn't change the veracity of my original statement.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
Thats why you have to modify the newer cars to get any power out of them.
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3F923BE9.FBCF1DBE@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>
>
> Which doesn't change the veracity of my original statement.
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
Thats why you have to modify the newer cars to get any power out of them.
10-21-2003, 09:13 AM
#1415
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:50:48 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote:
>>
>> But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>> SUVs.
>
>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
>Lisa
On an individual basis, maybe.
It's my observation that there are far more morons driving vehicles
smaller than SUVs out there than those driving SUVs.
I don't see SUVs/light trucks zooming in and out of traffic anyway
near as often as I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.
In all honesty, I just don't see that many SUV/light trucks doing
that.
wrote:
>>
>> But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>> SUVs.
>
>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
>Lisa
On an individual basis, maybe.
It's my observation that there are far more morons driving vehicles
smaller than SUVs out there than those driving SUVs.
I don't see SUVs/light trucks zooming in and out of traffic anyway
near as often as I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.
In all honesty, I just don't see that many SUV/light trucks doing
that.
10-21-2003, 09:13 AM
#1416
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:50:48 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote:
>>
>> But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>> SUVs.
>
>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
>Lisa
On an individual basis, maybe.
It's my observation that there are far more morons driving vehicles
smaller than SUVs out there than those driving SUVs.
I don't see SUVs/light trucks zooming in and out of traffic anyway
near as often as I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.
In all honesty, I just don't see that many SUV/light trucks doing
that.
wrote:
>>
>> But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>> SUVs.
>
>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
>Lisa
On an individual basis, maybe.
It's my observation that there are far more morons driving vehicles
smaller than SUVs out there than those driving SUVs.
I don't see SUVs/light trucks zooming in and out of traffic anyway
near as often as I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.
In all honesty, I just don't see that many SUV/light trucks doing
that.
10-21-2003, 09:13 AM
#1417
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:50:48 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote:
>>
>> But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>> SUVs.
>
>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
>Lisa
On an individual basis, maybe.
It's my observation that there are far more morons driving vehicles
smaller than SUVs out there than those driving SUVs.
I don't see SUVs/light trucks zooming in and out of traffic anyway
near as often as I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.
In all honesty, I just don't see that many SUV/light trucks doing
that.
wrote:
>>
>> But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
>> SUVs.
>
>Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
>Lisa
On an individual basis, maybe.
It's my observation that there are far more morons driving vehicles
smaller than SUVs out there than those driving SUVs.
I don't see SUVs/light trucks zooming in and out of traffic anyway
near as often as I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.
In all honesty, I just don't see that many SUV/light trucks doing
that.
10-21-2003, 10:09 AM
#1418
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3f95271e$1$19400$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
Dori Schmetterling <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I gather that the diesel fuel available in the US is still the old-style
>sulfurous stuff, which would preclude many/all modern diesel engines.
It is, for another year or so, but it doesn't matter; we've been
hearing how much better today's diesels are than those of 10 years ago
for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel won't
change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Dori Schmetterling <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I gather that the diesel fuel available in the US is still the old-style
>sulfurous stuff, which would preclude many/all modern diesel engines.
It is, for another year or so, but it doesn't matter; we've been
hearing how much better today's diesels are than those of 10 years ago
for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel won't
change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
10-21-2003, 10:09 AM
#1419
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3f95271e$1$19400$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
Dori Schmetterling <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I gather that the diesel fuel available in the US is still the old-style
>sulfurous stuff, which would preclude many/all modern diesel engines.
It is, for another year or so, but it doesn't matter; we've been
hearing how much better today's diesels are than those of 10 years ago
for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel won't
change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Dori Schmetterling <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I gather that the diesel fuel available in the US is still the old-style
>sulfurous stuff, which would preclude many/all modern diesel engines.
It is, for another year or so, but it doesn't matter; we've been
hearing how much better today's diesels are than those of 10 years ago
for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel won't
change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
10-21-2003, 10:09 AM
#1420
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3f95271e$1$19400$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>,
Dori Schmetterling <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I gather that the diesel fuel available in the US is still the old-style
>sulfurous stuff, which would preclude many/all modern diesel engines.
It is, for another year or so, but it doesn't matter; we've been
hearing how much better today's diesels are than those of 10 years ago
for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel won't
change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Dori Schmetterling <ng@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>I gather that the diesel fuel available in the US is still the old-style
>sulfurous stuff, which would preclude many/all modern diesel engines.
It is, for another year or so, but it doesn't matter; we've been
hearing how much better today's diesels are than those of 10 years ago
for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel won't
change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.