Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1561
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent,
Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Joe
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Lloyd,
> >>Are you a Lliberal?
> >
> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
>
> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
> get your panties in a bunch:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>
> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>
> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
> republican.....
>
>
>
Do not confront a liberal with facts... it confuses them.
Joe
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Utjlb.606952$cF.273281@rwcrnsc53...
> In article <bn3gb2$ipg$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > In article <hf0lb.7706$W16.412@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> > "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>Lloyd,
> >>Are you a Lliberal?
> >
> > Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding
fathers.
>
> I don't think so. You'd call pratically everything on this page
> "right-wing-something-or-the-other" I am sure:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...es/wisdom.html
> I think the first one speaks against a great number of things from the
> democrat party in the last oh 70 years:
>
> "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will
> herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> And if not that, I am sure these founding father quotes would really
> get your panties in a bunch:
>
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...otes/arms.html
>
> Having read your writings over the years, as well as learned a fair
> amount about the "founding fathers" I see no agreement.
>
> Oh, and as far as JFK is concerned, funny how if you listen to JFK's
> speeches (recorded) keeping current views in mind, his talking about using
> tax cuts to stimulate the economy, etc etc you'd think he was a
> republican.....
>
>
>
#1562
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"global warming is as established fact"
Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
fact from the other (correct) side...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >
> >Than what? Your MB?
>
> Than pretty much any CAR.
>
> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >
> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>
> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>
> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >
> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>
> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
in
> the Persian Gulf?
>
> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >
> >Where?
> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >
> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >>and increases global warming.
> >
> >That's truly laughable.
> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >many mammoths?
> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >fault completely ignore the past?
>
> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >
> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >
Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
fact from the other (correct) side...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >
> >Than what? Your MB?
>
> Than pretty much any CAR.
>
> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >
> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>
> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>
> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >
> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>
> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
in
> the Persian Gulf?
>
> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >
> >Where?
> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >
> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >>and increases global warming.
> >
> >That's truly laughable.
> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >many mammoths?
> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >fault completely ignore the past?
>
> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >
> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >
#1563
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"global warming is as established fact"
Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
fact from the other (correct) side...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >
> >Than what? Your MB?
>
> Than pretty much any CAR.
>
> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >
> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>
> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>
> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >
> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>
> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
in
> the Persian Gulf?
>
> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >
> >Where?
> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >
> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >>and increases global warming.
> >
> >That's truly laughable.
> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >many mammoths?
> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >fault completely ignore the past?
>
> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >
> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >
Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
fact from the other (correct) side...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >
> >Than what? Your MB?
>
> Than pretty much any CAR.
>
> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >
> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>
> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>
> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >
> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>
> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
in
> the Persian Gulf?
>
> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >
> >Where?
> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >
> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >>and increases global warming.
> >
> >That's truly laughable.
> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >many mammoths?
> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >fault completely ignore the past?
>
> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >
> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >
#1564
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"global warming is as established fact"
Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
fact from the other (correct) side...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >
> >Than what? Your MB?
>
> Than pretty much any CAR.
>
> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >
> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>
> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>
> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >
> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>
> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
in
> the Persian Gulf?
>
> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >
> >Where?
> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >
> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >>and increases global warming.
> >
> >That's truly laughable.
> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >many mammoths?
> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >fault completely ignore the past?
>
> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >
> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >
Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
fact from the other (correct) side...
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bn45qs$beo$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <3fjapvs1d2qrejkbqd74rkua3k15pfpfvg@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Oct 03 10:41:33 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Your SUV uses more natural resources,
> >
> >Than what? Your MB?
>
> Than pretty much any CAR.
>
> >>increases our dependence on foreign oil,
> >
> >We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
>
> Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?
>
> >We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
> >cheaper to buy than using our own.
>
> And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?
>
> >Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
> >ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.
> >>forces us to spend more on defending those countries,
> >
> >Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
>
> Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships
in
> the Persian Gulf?
>
> >Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
> >their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
> >their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.
> >>forces us to risk lives defending those countries,
> >
> >Where?
> >>hurts our balance of payments,
> >
> >Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
> >those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
> >our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
> >Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
> >countries if it means our children are safe.
> >>and increases global warming.
> >
> >That's truly laughable.
> >What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
> >many mammoths?
> >Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
> >fault completely ignore the past?
>
> I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
> evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.
>
> >>It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
> >>around with American flags on their SUVs.
> >
> >It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
> >own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
> >who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
> >For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
> >they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.
> >
#1565
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
rnf2 wrote:
> Built in Australia, sold in Australia and New Zealand and a few other RHD
> countries.
> Smallest engine in one is 3.8L V6, and goes up to a 5.7L V8. and even the
> 3.8 can tow 2000Kg, or 4000+ pounds, V8 is up to 3500Kg or so, 7000+ pounds.
> www.holden.com.au and www.ford.com.au
> They're big cargo haulers, and very popular with farmers, very reliable and
> can take some pretty harsh terrain and climate without flinching.
> very popular with farmers, and can carry 8 people in the station wagons.
> with a big boot (trunk) still.
>
> Commador is the entry level car, then the higher specced Berlina and the
> luxary Calais.
> then comes the SS, and HSV performance cars.
>
> rhys
Also sold in mid east countries as Chevrolets with left hand drive--in any case
they use totally U.S. drivetrains (engines/transmissions) and can easily pass
U.S. safety requirements as well. The new Pontiac GTO is a Holden Monaro coupe
with different badges. Thanks in large part to union interference GM-U.S. keeps
refusing to import any more mainline sedan models, but they'd doubtless eat all
of the domestic competition as it is now. They'd be 350-horsepower family
sedans for as little as $20K U.S.
The Commodore line and variants come with Corvette engines of up to 350
horsepower (or just over 400 for the HSV-modified versions) and can still touch
30mpg (U.S.) on the highway with a 6-speed overdrive--or they can be had with
smaller V6 powerplants. The long-wheelbase Statesman (mid east "Chevrolet
Caprice") would be a superb replacement for the last U.S. models of that name,
almost exactly the same size and layout, but incrementally improved (newer, even
more powerful engines, independent rear suspension, etc.).
I believe the top-line HSV GTS is already sold in the U.K. as a counter to the
BMW E5, and rumors keep popping up that one of the higher line Commodore models
(Calais most likely) might be introduced there as a replacement for the last
rear drive Opel Omegas.
--Aardwolf.
#1566
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
rnf2 wrote:
> Built in Australia, sold in Australia and New Zealand and a few other RHD
> countries.
> Smallest engine in one is 3.8L V6, and goes up to a 5.7L V8. and even the
> 3.8 can tow 2000Kg, or 4000+ pounds, V8 is up to 3500Kg or so, 7000+ pounds.
> www.holden.com.au and www.ford.com.au
> They're big cargo haulers, and very popular with farmers, very reliable and
> can take some pretty harsh terrain and climate without flinching.
> very popular with farmers, and can carry 8 people in the station wagons.
> with a big boot (trunk) still.
>
> Commador is the entry level car, then the higher specced Berlina and the
> luxary Calais.
> then comes the SS, and HSV performance cars.
>
> rhys
Also sold in mid east countries as Chevrolets with left hand drive--in any case
they use totally U.S. drivetrains (engines/transmissions) and can easily pass
U.S. safety requirements as well. The new Pontiac GTO is a Holden Monaro coupe
with different badges. Thanks in large part to union interference GM-U.S. keeps
refusing to import any more mainline sedan models, but they'd doubtless eat all
of the domestic competition as it is now. They'd be 350-horsepower family
sedans for as little as $20K U.S.
The Commodore line and variants come with Corvette engines of up to 350
horsepower (or just over 400 for the HSV-modified versions) and can still touch
30mpg (U.S.) on the highway with a 6-speed overdrive--or they can be had with
smaller V6 powerplants. The long-wheelbase Statesman (mid east "Chevrolet
Caprice") would be a superb replacement for the last U.S. models of that name,
almost exactly the same size and layout, but incrementally improved (newer, even
more powerful engines, independent rear suspension, etc.).
I believe the top-line HSV GTS is already sold in the U.K. as a counter to the
BMW E5, and rumors keep popping up that one of the higher line Commodore models
(Calais most likely) might be introduced there as a replacement for the last
rear drive Opel Omegas.
--Aardwolf.
#1567
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
rnf2 wrote:
> Built in Australia, sold in Australia and New Zealand and a few other RHD
> countries.
> Smallest engine in one is 3.8L V6, and goes up to a 5.7L V8. and even the
> 3.8 can tow 2000Kg, or 4000+ pounds, V8 is up to 3500Kg or so, 7000+ pounds.
> www.holden.com.au and www.ford.com.au
> They're big cargo haulers, and very popular with farmers, very reliable and
> can take some pretty harsh terrain and climate without flinching.
> very popular with farmers, and can carry 8 people in the station wagons.
> with a big boot (trunk) still.
>
> Commador is the entry level car, then the higher specced Berlina and the
> luxary Calais.
> then comes the SS, and HSV performance cars.
>
> rhys
Also sold in mid east countries as Chevrolets with left hand drive--in any case
they use totally U.S. drivetrains (engines/transmissions) and can easily pass
U.S. safety requirements as well. The new Pontiac GTO is a Holden Monaro coupe
with different badges. Thanks in large part to union interference GM-U.S. keeps
refusing to import any more mainline sedan models, but they'd doubtless eat all
of the domestic competition as it is now. They'd be 350-horsepower family
sedans for as little as $20K U.S.
The Commodore line and variants come with Corvette engines of up to 350
horsepower (or just over 400 for the HSV-modified versions) and can still touch
30mpg (U.S.) on the highway with a 6-speed overdrive--or they can be had with
smaller V6 powerplants. The long-wheelbase Statesman (mid east "Chevrolet
Caprice") would be a superb replacement for the last U.S. models of that name,
almost exactly the same size and layout, but incrementally improved (newer, even
more powerful engines, independent rear suspension, etc.).
I believe the top-line HSV GTS is already sold in the U.K. as a counter to the
BMW E5, and rumors keep popping up that one of the higher line Commodore models
(Calais most likely) might be introduced there as a replacement for the last
rear drive Opel Omegas.
--Aardwolf.
#1568
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
> news:3F92C91D.1010909@computer.org...
>
> >
> > Not if the polution standards are based on grams per mile, which I
> > believe they are. The tailpipe sniffer doesn't care how much gas you
> > put in, only how much pollution per mile you put out. These are
> > independent issues.
> >
>
> Last time I took my Datsun 210 through emissions they did not dyno it,
> only used a tailpipe sniffer and tachometer. This may have changed by
> now, that was a couple years ago. They did dyno the 84 Chevy, though.
> No doubt testing methodology is different in different states, but I had
> thought that the EPA only mandates the state do emissions testing
> for certain areas, and leaves a lot of the methodology up to the states.
> Fore sure, in Oregon if your registered in certain counties you are not
> required to pass emissions inspection.
>
> Ted
But every design and powertrain combination has to pass federal emissions
regulations testing before it is allowed to be sold. So all cars for that
year when new should meet that standard, and any of that year's models of
any age will when running within specifications. And it is measured in
grams per mile.
State emissions testing is not uniform--if extant at all--and also not as
rigorous as the initial new-model certification requirements.
--Aardwolf.
#1569
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
> news:3F92C91D.1010909@computer.org...
>
> >
> > Not if the polution standards are based on grams per mile, which I
> > believe they are. The tailpipe sniffer doesn't care how much gas you
> > put in, only how much pollution per mile you put out. These are
> > independent issues.
> >
>
> Last time I took my Datsun 210 through emissions they did not dyno it,
> only used a tailpipe sniffer and tachometer. This may have changed by
> now, that was a couple years ago. They did dyno the 84 Chevy, though.
> No doubt testing methodology is different in different states, but I had
> thought that the EPA only mandates the state do emissions testing
> for certain areas, and leaves a lot of the methodology up to the states.
> Fore sure, in Oregon if your registered in certain counties you are not
> required to pass emissions inspection.
>
> Ted
But every design and powertrain combination has to pass federal emissions
regulations testing before it is allowed to be sold. So all cars for that
year when new should meet that standard, and any of that year's models of
any age will when running within specifications. And it is measured in
grams per mile.
State emissions testing is not uniform--if extant at all--and also not as
rigorous as the initial new-model certification requirements.
--Aardwolf.
#1570
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
> news:3F92C91D.1010909@computer.org...
>
> >
> > Not if the polution standards are based on grams per mile, which I
> > believe they are. The tailpipe sniffer doesn't care how much gas you
> > put in, only how much pollution per mile you put out. These are
> > independent issues.
> >
>
> Last time I took my Datsun 210 through emissions they did not dyno it,
> only used a tailpipe sniffer and tachometer. This may have changed by
> now, that was a couple years ago. They did dyno the 84 Chevy, though.
> No doubt testing methodology is different in different states, but I had
> thought that the EPA only mandates the state do emissions testing
> for certain areas, and leaves a lot of the methodology up to the states.
> Fore sure, in Oregon if your registered in certain counties you are not
> required to pass emissions inspection.
>
> Ted
But every design and powertrain combination has to pass federal emissions
regulations testing before it is allowed to be sold. So all cars for that
year when new should meet that standard, and any of that year's models of
any age will when running within specifications. And it is measured in
grams per mile.
State emissions testing is not uniform--if extant at all--and also not as
rigorous as the initial new-model certification requirements.
--Aardwolf.