Aardwolf

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
> easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
> truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
> an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
> on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.

So you advertise them. People will buy what they're told they want. Those
that actually _need_ to haul big pieces of plywood around, might then still
buy trucks, but what's wrong with that?

--Aardwolf.

Dave Milne

of course you aren't the average driver - you are above average .... just
like everybody else.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:HYmkb.2273$np1.35@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
: >
: > Tell me Dave, out of those several (3?), which two rolled over and what
: > one crashed head on into another SUV? Oh and how did you survive such a
: > horrendous experience against all odds?
:
: Well I'm not the average driver, so I was able to keep the SUVs on the
road
: and (amazingly) upright. Go figure. :) -Dave
:
:

Dave Milne

of course you aren't the average driver - you are above average .... just
like everybody else.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:HYmkb.2273$np1.35@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
: >
: > Tell me Dave, out of those several (3?), which two rolled over and what
: > one crashed head on into another SUV? Oh and how did you survive such a
: > horrendous experience against all odds?
:
: Well I'm not the average driver, so I was able to keep the SUVs on the
road
: and (amazingly) upright. Go figure. :) -Dave
:
:

Dave Milne

of course you aren't the average driver - you are above average .... just
like everybody else.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
news:HYmkb.2273$np1.35@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
: >
: > Tell me Dave, out of those several (3?), which two rolled over and what
: > one crashed head on into another SUV? Oh and how did you survive such a
: > horrendous experience against all odds?
:
: Well I'm not the average driver, so I was able to keep the SUVs on the
road
: and (amazingly) upright. Go figure. :) -Dave
:
:

Bill Funk

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:18:02 -0500, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:

>> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
>> directly
>> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
>
>I'm not aware of any that did.

I had a '68 Camaro 327/350 that was built to CARB specs.
It had an EGR setup.

Bill Funk

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:18:02 -0500, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:

>> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
>> directly
>> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
>
>I'm not aware of any that did.

I had a '68 Camaro 327/350 that was built to CARB specs.
It had an EGR setup.

Bill Funk

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:18:02 -0500, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com>
wrote:

>> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
>> directly
>> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
>
>I'm not aware of any that did.

I had a '68 Camaro 327/350 that was built to CARB specs.
It had an EGR setup.

Bill Funk

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
>> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
>> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
>> the same thing others do.
>> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
>> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
>> ignores reality.
>
>No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
>with driving a car.

No offense, but I was referring to reality.
You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
that driver uses wheile on the road.
Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?

>
>However, keep in mind that everyone breathes the exhaust of everyone
>else's vehicle, and we all held hostage to OPEC, and I have to move
>my fat *** out of your way on the freeway to give you some room, and
>vis-versa.
>
>In short, the concept of limited resources applies to vehicles.

Yes. That's reality.
>
>Therefore, why is it fair that just because Billy Bob has a need of
>hauling a big 50 foot crackerbox trailer down the road that he gets
>to suck up tons of gas (thus driving up the price, see law of supply
>and demand) spew out tons of pollution, and occupy tons of
>space, do lots of road damage due to his vehicle weight, and so on,
>whereas someone else who has an econobox
>that they drive a total of 5 miles a week, doesen't get 3 car lengths
>of room around his car when he gets on the freeway (the same amount of
>space Billy Bob gets) is required to fix the emissions stuff on his
>car that breaks even when broken he's still polluting less than
>Billy Bob, pays the same federal taxes even though he's not
>doing the same damage to the freeway Billy Bob is,
>and doesen't get a price break on fuel because
>he's not sucking up all the fuel supply?

But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.
Damage to the roads? Billy Bob's pickup and travel trailer (I have to
assume you're not thinking Billy Bob is driving a semi, because you
know semis pay far more in use taxes than light trucks) don't
materially harm the roads more than the fleas do.
And Billy Bob's truck has the same pollution control the fleas do.
Same Federal taxes? Maybe, maybe not. You can't say that the flea's
driver is paying the same, more, or less Federal tax than Billy Bob
based on vehicle choice. Billy Bob, in your scenario, IS paying more
gas tax.
>
>If you can devise a system that hit the wallets of all drivers in
>proportion to the amount of money they cost the rest of us,
>then by all means, let everyone drive whatever the hell they want.

If I could do that, I'd have a job in government, and be set for life!
:-)
>
>But until that time, the people that drive gas-guzzling, heavy
>trucks and SUV's and do it all day long, they are driving up
>road repair, fuel, insurance, and a host of other associated
>costs for the drivers that aren't doing this. So we all have to
>pay for their "needs"

Rad repair? The roads are built to handle semis.
Fuel? Possibly.
Insurance? I'm sure insurance premiums are based on the risk
presented, so that's already done.
Other costs?
>
>> it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
>> it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
>> vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
>
>Rubbish. Light trucks and SUV's are still a minority of vehicle traffic
>on the road, they are not "so popular"

That's sort of strange thinking, to me.
While a minority, they are still popular. They don't need to be a
majority to be popular.
Remember, the Ford F-series is the biggest seller in the US. I'd say
that's a pretty good insdication that they are popular, wouldn't you?
>The reason they are popular
>at all is because they have additional utility than just moving people
>around.

So they *are* popular? Didn't you just say they weren't?
>
>Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
>easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
>truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
>an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
>on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.

Wait a minute...
Why are so many complaining that light trucks/SUVs are bought just out
of vanity, if, according to you, they are being bought for their
utility?
Are you saying that all (or even most) light trucks/SUVs are bought
for their utility?
>
>Ted
>

Bill Funk

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
>> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
>> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
>> the same thing others do.
>> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
>> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
>> ignores reality.
>
>No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
>with driving a car.

No offense, but I was referring to reality.
You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
that driver uses wheile on the road.
Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?

>
>However, keep in mind that everyone breathes the exhaust of everyone
>else's vehicle, and we all held hostage to OPEC, and I have to move
>my fat *** out of your way on the freeway to give you some room, and
>vis-versa.
>
>In short, the concept of limited resources applies to vehicles.

Yes. That's reality.
>
>Therefore, why is it fair that just because Billy Bob has a need of
>hauling a big 50 foot crackerbox trailer down the road that he gets
>to suck up tons of gas (thus driving up the price, see law of supply
>and demand) spew out tons of pollution, and occupy tons of
>space, do lots of road damage due to his vehicle weight, and so on,
>whereas someone else who has an econobox
>that they drive a total of 5 miles a week, doesen't get 3 car lengths
>of room around his car when he gets on the freeway (the same amount of
>space Billy Bob gets) is required to fix the emissions stuff on his
>car that breaks even when broken he's still polluting less than
>Billy Bob, pays the same federal taxes even though he's not
>doing the same damage to the freeway Billy Bob is,
>and doesen't get a price break on fuel because
>he's not sucking up all the fuel supply?

But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.
Damage to the roads? Billy Bob's pickup and travel trailer (I have to
assume you're not thinking Billy Bob is driving a semi, because you
know semis pay far more in use taxes than light trucks) don't
materially harm the roads more than the fleas do.
And Billy Bob's truck has the same pollution control the fleas do.
Same Federal taxes? Maybe, maybe not. You can't say that the flea's
driver is paying the same, more, or less Federal tax than Billy Bob
based on vehicle choice. Billy Bob, in your scenario, IS paying more
gas tax.
>
>If you can devise a system that hit the wallets of all drivers in
>proportion to the amount of money they cost the rest of us,
>then by all means, let everyone drive whatever the hell they want.

If I could do that, I'd have a job in government, and be set for life!
:-)
>
>But until that time, the people that drive gas-guzzling, heavy
>trucks and SUV's and do it all day long, they are driving up
>road repair, fuel, insurance, and a host of other associated
>costs for the drivers that aren't doing this. So we all have to
>pay for their "needs"

Rad repair? The roads are built to handle semis.
Fuel? Possibly.
Insurance? I'm sure insurance premiums are based on the risk
presented, so that's already done.
Other costs?
>
>> it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
>> it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
>> vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
>
>Rubbish. Light trucks and SUV's are still a minority of vehicle traffic
>on the road, they are not "so popular"

That's sort of strange thinking, to me.
While a minority, they are still popular. They don't need to be a
majority to be popular.
Remember, the Ford F-series is the biggest seller in the US. I'd say
that's a pretty good insdication that they are popular, wouldn't you?
>The reason they are popular
>at all is because they have additional utility than just moving people
>around.

So they *are* popular? Didn't you just say they weren't?
>
>Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
>easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
>truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
>an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
>on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.

Wait a minute...
Why are so many complaining that light trucks/SUVs are bought just out
of vanity, if, according to you, they are being bought for their
utility?
Are you saying that all (or even most) light trucks/SUVs are bought
for their utility?
>
>Ted
>

Bill Funk

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
>> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
>> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
>> the same thing others do.
>> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
>> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
>> ignores reality.
>
>No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
>with driving a car.

No offense, but I was referring to reality.
You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
that driver uses wheile on the road.
Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?

>
>However, keep in mind that everyone breathes the exhaust of everyone
>else's vehicle, and we all held hostage to OPEC, and I have to move
>my fat *** out of your way on the freeway to give you some room, and
>vis-versa.
>
>In short, the concept of limited resources applies to vehicles.

Yes. That's reality.
>
>Therefore, why is it fair that just because Billy Bob has a need of
>hauling a big 50 foot crackerbox trailer down the road that he gets
>to suck up tons of gas (thus driving up the price, see law of supply
>and demand) spew out tons of pollution, and occupy tons of
>space, do lots of road damage due to his vehicle weight, and so on,
>whereas someone else who has an econobox
>that they drive a total of 5 miles a week, doesen't get 3 car lengths
>of room around his car when he gets on the freeway (the same amount of
>space Billy Bob gets) is required to fix the emissions stuff on his
>car that breaks even when broken he's still polluting less than
>Billy Bob, pays the same federal taxes even though he's not
>doing the same damage to the freeway Billy Bob is,
>and doesen't get a price break on fuel because
>he's not sucking up all the fuel supply?

But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.
Damage to the roads? Billy Bob's pickup and travel trailer (I have to
assume you're not thinking Billy Bob is driving a semi, because you
know semis pay far more in use taxes than light trucks) don't
materially harm the roads more than the fleas do.
And Billy Bob's truck has the same pollution control the fleas do.
Same Federal taxes? Maybe, maybe not. You can't say that the flea's
driver is paying the same, more, or less Federal tax than Billy Bob
based on vehicle choice. Billy Bob, in your scenario, IS paying more
gas tax.
>
>If you can devise a system that hit the wallets of all drivers in
>proportion to the amount of money they cost the rest of us,
>then by all means, let everyone drive whatever the hell they want.

If I could do that, I'd have a job in government, and be set for life!
:-)
>
>But until that time, the people that drive gas-guzzling, heavy
>trucks and SUV's and do it all day long, they are driving up
>road repair, fuel, insurance, and a host of other associated
>costs for the drivers that aren't doing this. So we all have to
>pay for their "needs"

Rad repair? The roads are built to handle semis.
Fuel? Possibly.
Insurance? I'm sure insurance premiums are based on the risk
presented, so that's already done.
Other costs?
>
>> it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
>> it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
>> vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
>
>Rubbish. Light trucks and SUV's are still a minority of vehicle traffic
>on the road, they are not "so popular"

That's sort of strange thinking, to me.
While a minority, they are still popular. They don't need to be a
majority to be popular.
Remember, the Ford F-series is the biggest seller in the US. I'd say
that's a pretty good insdication that they are popular, wouldn't you?
>The reason they are popular
>at all is because they have additional utility than just moving people
>around.

So they *are* popular? Didn't you just say they weren't?
>
>Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
>easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
>truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
>an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
>on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.

Wait a minute...
Why are so many complaining that light trucks/SUVs are bought just out
of vanity, if, according to you, they are being bought for their
utility?
Are you saying that all (or even most) light trucks/SUVs are bought
for their utility?
>
>Ted
>